Violence In Video Games: Does It Have An Impact?

Introduction

In 2007, Halo 3 was the top selling game in the US, having sold 4.82 million units. In third place was Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, with 3.04 million units having been sold (?). Both games are first-person shooters, meaning that they put the player in the perspective of the character holding the gun. First-person shooters are currently one of the most popular genres in the video game market and they are also one of the most violent. Do violent video games such as Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4 actually have an effect on the players who engage with them? Many studies show that violence in video games can cause desensitization and an increase in aggressive behaviours, but I think that the issue is not as clean-cut as many would believe.

Literary Review

Video games, like movies, music, and television, have long been criticized for having a negative effect on children and adolescents, especially in regards to violence. Many fear that committing violent acts within a game can lead to the committing of violent acts outside of a game. This theory came into prominence when people discovered that perpetrators in school shooting incidents, such as the one in Littleton, Colorado, had engaged with violent video games. Since then, many studies have been done on how violence in games can affect people.

Analysis

One of the reasons that many feel that video games are harmful is because of the desensitization that is caused from exposure to violent content. Studies have shown that video games can affect people in the same way that other forms of media can, but “the active nature of video games makes them unique among the screen-based media” (Funk). Due to the nature of an interactive medium, the player has more choice in which violent actions to perform. It is easy enough to be desensitized while watching people get gunned down in a film, but it is a different story when a person is the one doing the shooting, even if no one is actually being harmed. Jeanne B. Funk argues that “[r]epeated violent choices result in a continuous cycle of reward. Violence is presented as justified, without negative consequences, and fun”. This could be a factor in the increase of violent tendencies in adolescents who play violent games. Craig A. Anderson’s study states that violent video games result in “increases in aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, and cardiovascular arousal, and to decreases in helping behaviour”. It is hard to argue that games do not affect the player at all when studies say the opposite. Anderson does clarify further though, conceding that “if youths spent only a little time playing violent video games [...], or if only a few youths spent a lot of time playing such games [...], then the overall cost to society would likely be fairly small”. This is where I think these studies are flawed. I personally believe that while violent acts in video games can affect the player, the games themselves should not be used as scapegoats. If an adolescent gamer happens to shoot up a school, video games are only one factor among many. Shooting an AI-controlled opponent in a game is much different than shooting another human in cold blood. I feel that any violent behaviour amplified by video games already existed, in some shape or form. It is the responsibility of a parent or guardian to be aware of what their children are playing and to ensure that their child is not experiencing any negative effects. More regulation from parents, guardians, and retailers can go a long way in ensuring that violent video games have no lasting effects on adolescents.

Conclusion

While it is true that violence in video games can lead to desensitization and an increase in certain violent behaviours, I still feel that it is up to the people who play the games, or those who are responsible for them, to regulate which games are played and how often. If brought up properly and taught the difference, teenagers should be able to discern between the real world and the virtual one.