Boom, headshot! The Impact of Violence in Video Games

[Spillanya]

Boom, headshot!

The Impact of Violence in Video Games

An editorial brought to you by Spillanya

"This is not rocket science. When a kid who has never killed anyone in his life goes on a rampage and looks like the Terminator, he's a video gamer," Jack Thompson, a prominent anti-video-game lobbyist, told MSNBC in an interview responding to the Virginia Tech Massacre in 2007. The former Florida attorney is but one of the video game industry's many critics who refer to some of today's most popular gaming franchises as "murder simulators," accusing them of training adolescents in a wide range of armed weaponry, teaching them to use violence as a form of stress relief, inspiring them to commit mass murder, and instilling within them the idea that their actions will go free of consequence.

The ongoing debate surrounding the censorship of violent video games stems from the so-called ease of adolescent exposure to graphic content; anti-video-game activists often blame developers and distributors for gearing sales of controversial franchises (IE: Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty) toward the youth demographic. However, since 1994, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) has been responsible for reviewing every American video game on the market and works to ensure that consumers, especially parents, are aware of a game's content prior to purchase. Still, despite the ESRB's standardized rating system, the public strives to censor violence in video games because of their perceived affect on the still-developing minds of adolescent players. However, further investigation of the subject reveals that these are isolated incidents that do not realistically represent a link between video games and youth-related crime and aggression.

TL;DR Popular opinion suggests that there is a direct correlation between adolescent violence and video games. I'm here to prove them wrong.

Let's break the argument down, beat by beat.

Hang on, slow down. How did video games even earn this awful reputation?
Great question. When did violence in video games get put under such harsh scrutiny? Stylized violence has been a part of American culture and media since the early 1990s. Only within the last decade, when it was suspected of being one of the driving forces behind a school shooting, has violent content in video games become an issue.

On April 20, 1999, 18-year-old Eric Harris and 17-year-old Dylan Klebold walked into Columbine High School and killed thirteen students and one teacher. They also injured twenty-four others before committing suicide during what is considered one of the deadliest school shootings to date. Although all forms of media, including movies and music, were addressed in the debate about Harris' and Kebold's motivation, the Columbine High School massacre marked the first instance of the possible link between video games and crime of this caliber.

To make things worse? The two killers were reportedly obsessed with the controversial first person shooter Doom.

Because FBI and Secret Service reports conducted a year after the tragedy could not provide a simple explanation for the violence, the public took it upon themselves to link the event to the shooters' interest in video games, using them as an explanation for what was otherwise unexplainable.

Well, if you think about it, someone can easily learn how to aim a gun and shoot it after playing an FPS for an extended period of time, right?
Wrong. These days, video games come in slim, shrink-wrapped cases that, upon tearing open, reveal an instruction manual and a disc. They do not come with a Magnum, or a sniper rifle, or any other form of armed weaponry. Thus, it's quite surprising that such a large number of critics are convinced that video games alone can teach someone how to shoot a gun.

Of course, that's exactly what happened in February 2005, when Devin Moore, 17 at the time, shot and killed three officers at a police station in Alabama. The famously violent Grand Theft Auto series, which Moore claimed to have played all day and all night for months, was blamed for inspiring his rampage. Our good friend, Jack Thompson, fervently opposed to the GTA series, accused the "murder simulator" of providing all of the necessary training Moore needed to kill the three officers.

"The video game industry gave him a cranial menu that popped up in the blink of an eye, in that police station [and] that menu offered him the split-second decision to kill the officers, shoot them in the head, [and] flee in a police car, just as the game itself trained him to do."

-- Jack Thompson, CBS

Wow.

While Moore did tell the police that he was inspired by GTA, Thompson's argument that the video game was responsible for training him to commit murder is flawed in a number of ways:

1. There exists a very far reach from playing a video game to picking up a gun. Shooting an on-screen target using a controller is in no way similar to shooting someone with an actual firearm. It's impossible for a controller to simulate a gun's recoil or weight, and the real-life hand-eye coordination essential to aiming is more or less absent in video games, which usually provide the players with an auto-target mechanic.
   
2. Actual guns fire much slower than their virtual counterparts due to the heating of the weapon's barrel. For example, rapid fire with a real pistol is much more difficult to accomplish than it is with a video game pistol. In order to successfully pull off the consecutive murders of three armed officers, not only would Moore need to have had access to actual firearms, but he'd also have needed real-life training in order to properly use them.
   
3. GTA is not inherently a "cop-killing game," despite what anyone would like to claim. While the player is given the in-game freedom to kill whoever he or she wants, murdering innocent people does not go unpunished. Rockstar games (GTA, Red Dead Redemption, etc.) are oftentimes mislabeled as "consequence free." However, as we all know, the games actually include an in-game morality system known as a "Wanted raint" which significantly alters gameplay. For example, if a player were to shoot a cop in GTA IV, not only would they be "Wanted," but they would also be faced with almost certain death as other police officers in the district home in on his or her location, guns drawn. These games are anything but "consequence free". In fact, it's safe to say that gameplay gets more difficult the more the player misbehaves.

Okay, I get it. Video games don't teach kids how to shoot guns. Still, there are a lot of underaged gamers out there exposed to graphic violence. Shouldn't the video game industry take some responsibility for that, at least?
In my personal opinion, no. Not at all.

Thompson and other avid oppositioners take pleasure in laying full responsibility on industry developers alone for putting GTA and Call of Duty, both of which are geared toward older demographics, into the hands of younger audiences. This responsibility, however, is wrongly placed as the gaming industry, much like the film industry, is required to undergo the ESRB's review process before a game is ever released to the public.

Afterward, each game is not only labeled with an ESRB rating symbol, which suggests its content's age appropriateness, but also with content descriptors indicative of certain in-game elements that may have generated a particular rating or may be of noteworthy interest. The ratings are as follows:

Pretty straight-forward, if you ask me.

Then who's to blame?
Well, after a game is rated and shipped to retailers, the job of censoring its content from the eyes of impressionable youth belongs to their parents. Furthermore, store policy at mainstream outlets like GameStop, Target, and Best Buy restrict individuals under the age of 18 to purchase M-rated games. Thus, one cannot fairly blame game publishers for the affect GTA's violent content has on an adolescent. Responsibility should be placed on the shoulders of the child's parent, who not only purchased the game, but was also aware of its M-rating for "blood and gore, intense violence, strong language, strong sexual content, and use of drugs."

It's curious how quickly the public is to blame video games and their publishers for misguiding its young children and instilling violent behavior in its teenagers. With the help of the ESRB, the video game industry truly does all it can to market specific titles to the appropriate demographics. The industry simply cannot be held accountable for every video game-related incident that goes awry.

I sense another anecdote approaching...
You sensed correctly!

In January 2009, after missing the morning bus, a six-year-old boy in Virginia climbed into his parents' Ford Taurus and proceeded to drive himself to school while his mother slept through her alarm. The boy drove for almost 10 miles, swerving to and fro through oncoming traffic until he slammed into a utility pole. Miraculously, the boy survived the crash without a single injury. When officers asked him how he managed to operate the Taurus by himself, the boy told him he had been training by driving cars in GTA.

Issues pertaining to the boy's knowledge of how to operate a vehicle based on what he learned by pushing buttons on an Xbox controller, as well as confusion regarding his ability to reach the car's gas and brake pedals aside, this particular occurrence only furthers my point: not all video game-related incidents can be blamed solely on the impact of a game's content -- even if that game is GTA. On the contrary, the accident was a direct result of poor parenting on two levels:

1. Severe negligence in allowing a six-year-old to play a game that contains such strong graphic content.
2. Felony-level child endangerment.

His parents were arrested and charged thusly.

So, what you're saying is...
What I'm saying is this:

Throughout the past decade, video games have been under high amounts of scrutiny, especially in the realm of censorship. Since its alleged link to the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, the video game industry has been targeted countless times for having a continuing influence on aggression and violence in American adolescents regardless of the fact that numerous studies have been unable to conclude that a relationship between the two exists.

Still, many anti-video-game activists lobby against the gaming industry, denouncing it for exposing younger audiences to graphic violence and petitioning for laws that regulate the sale of certain video games to minors. Many fail to see that stricter censorship, however, is not a necessity as the ESRB rating system in conjunction with parental awareness and control is an adequate safeguard in keeping violent video games out of the hands of the nation's impressionable youth.

With that, I now step off my soapbox and turn the mic over to you, the reader, who has, hopefully, stuck with me throughout this editorial's entirety. Discuss.

Sources available upon request.

[SneakyCheese]

they didn't check if the school murderers had proplems at home or if they were bullied as a kid or something? I didn't think so, it is way more easy to pick a video game and blame everything on it.

[Stoltzy]

Very well written Spill.

And I think most of school shootings were caused by people on anti-depressants.

[JugularRain]

Enjoyed, but this reminded me of an article in our local paper about someone doing a study on people who play games that kill people and who dont. Plus the reaction time of people who do play games and who dont.

I have no idea who wrote it, I just know it was in the Edmonton Journal a long time ago. They tested stress levels of people who played video games that killed people, and those who dont. The people who played the games, had less stress levels due to releasing it by killing people virtually. Also people who played games had faster reaction time in video games (less on topic, but it was part of the article).

Its also all the parents fault for not following the posted and stated rating for the game, which you posted and explained.

Anywhoo, good writeup spilly

[Nightrise]

I agree whole heartadley with what you say Spill. It is the parents responsibility. Also if like you say video games do not train people then why are there no lobbies against violent movies affecting the youth. The point is, video games are equally likely to affect someone as is a movie or any other form of media. Which is not a lot.

[Start a Riot]

Great editorial, Spill. And by great I mean completely awesome and incredibly informative.

I think it is a little ridiculous to put all of the blame on video game industries. Games have a rating for a reason. If you're going to let your kids play games rated M well then you're the one allowing them to be exposed to that kind of violence. Now, I know kids sneak and can probably get the game without parental consent, but if they have a video game console their parents should probably be checking on them once and a while to see what they are playing. My brother and I were not allowed to play GTA when we were younger because of that. We rented it for a weekend and when my parents came by the room and saw what was going on in the game, they didn't let us play it till we got older. So basically I'm going to sum it up with something I said earlier. Games have a rating for a reason...

[all else failed]

Good read. Although were asking and answering your own questions? lol Funny if you read it that way.

Lonely people play lots of video games. Lonely people often have fits of rage and mental illness. Thats the only connection I can make. And no where is the game the source or the problem.

[KillerOfCereal]

Now this is something I wish everyone could read!

People who murder others obviously have something wrong in their head. Even if that person didn't play video games, more than likely he would've done it anyway. When I become a parent, I'm not going to let my 6 year old daughter/son play a video game that is Rated M. When they reach the ages of 12-15 then I'll use my judgment on whether I should allow them to play GTA 23. I have always believed that people who play video games that involve killing, need to have a psychological/maturity test done prior to playing.

[all else failed]

Now this is something I wish everyone could read!

People who murder others obviously have something wrong in their head. Even if that person didn't play video games, more than likely he would've done it anyway. When I become a parent, I'm not going to let my 6 year old daughter/son play a video game that is Rated M. When they reach the ages of 12-15 then I'll use my judgment on whether I should allow them to play GTA 23. I have always believed that people who play video games that involve killing, need to have a psychological/maturity test done prior to playing.

This coming from a killer of C(s)ere(i)al!

[RUL Spectre]

i admit i may not be of age to be playing some videogames, i do not beleive the games make me a more violent person, if anything videogames have made it easier for me to meet friends because we have something in common. certain games i don't play like GTA because i don't agree with the moral of the game, but things like assassins creed, i want to play but cannot because of my parents, although i understand where they come from, they say the game seems evil with the stabbing people in the face, and i will respect their wishes, but with no access to say an hidden blade i beleive i would be unable to commit the badness the game has.

i will comment more when the thoughts come to me.