I don't think violent video games MAKE you violent but an abundant of realistic violent imagery might desensitize you to actual violence, making apathetic to the plights of real people. and those images are shown everywhere in media, not just video games, in tv shows, movies, books, the lyrics in songs and in the news, where they show actual violence and horrific scenes almost constantly.
i've had this debate with friends, more so their parents and the thing they don't like is violent imagery and video games is the evil most other media hate, when violence is shown in every medium so to stop the possible exposure of kids to violent acts would need an entire halt on world wide communication. and we're a violent species anyway, needed to be to survive so it's in our nature.
I don't believe that violent games make people violent. If a person plays a games where you kill people/civilians/etc and they go out and commit murder, then I think there are some problems that were there long before they played the game. I have seen/played many violent games/movies/television shows and I do not have a violent bone in my body.
It is an issue of each person. Some are more inclined to violent behavior than others, and they would be violent with or without these games. It is not the fault of the games. It never has been and it never will be.
No I don't think that it makes you violent. Honestly it just seems like a excuse for the lack of parenting. When a child does something horrible like severely injure someone or worse, the parents would find it hard to face the fact that they could have caused this to happen and instantly start trying to find things to blame it on and the most common thing to blame it on seems to be video games.
I have a four year old cousin he is completly adicted to video games whos fault the parents instead of telling him to go out and play no they let him stay inside his room playing call of duty or halo and even gears of war all day the kid cries like crazy kicks yells even breaks stuff when they turn it off they introduced video games to him when he was two years old he woudnt play but just sit down an watch and he is very violent but this is differnt older people don't do what they see
that is still a child throwing tantrums, my parents frequently tell me i was like that for pokemon cards and my N64, my brother is like that with the netbook he's allowed on at the weekends when the time is up. i'd question the content the parents are allowing a 4 year old to see but the outbursts go to a lack of discipline and parenting but mostly kids being kids
Video games don't make a person violent. If somebody plays a shoot 'em up game like GTA and goes out in the real world and opens fire on random strangers in the streets, they had some mental issues way before playing that game. Also, as previously stated, there's a reason that the games are rated. If a child that is below the intended age threshold is emulating their favorite first person shooter, that's on the parents for buying the game. I know when I was younger and wanted to just look at a certain game, the employee took the rating very seriously and said that only my dad could look at it. That may have just been the employee only, but he understood why the rating is there.
Furthermore, I would say that not only is there no positive correlation between violence in videogames v. violence in people, I would say that violent videogames are an outlet for those who want to blow off some steam. I know sometimes when I get pissed off at someone, I pop in Halo or Arkham City and just beat up on people in the game. By the time I'm done playing, I forget that I was even mad in the first place.
Oh, and as some debate advice, if you can find a recent poll of this question from a credible source, you should be fine. Hope you win the debate, because you're on the right side of the argument.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with what parents tell their kids. The parents don't fuck up by letting the young child play violent videogames, but they fuck up by not explaining what's real and fictitious, and what's right and wrong. If parents can successfully explain that to where the kid listens and takes the information into account, I don't care if the kid is playing Deadspace.
My first point is about age rating. If an underage child plays a violent video game, whose fault is that? Is it the fault of the game developer for putting the violence in there? Or is it the fault of the parents who bought the game, allowing their child to play it, even though the box clearly states that the child too young for the content? You can’t blame the company if you let your 10 year old child play an 18 rated game. Games go under large amounts of scrutiny and if something if found to be too violent or controversial it will be changed or removed. I think that the main topic of this debate comes down to the responsibility of the parent. In 2007 Rockstar studios gave Manhunt 2 to the BBFC for classification under the Video Recordings Act 1984. Subsequently the BBFC rejected a classification for this title, while four years earlier giving Manhunt an ‘18’ rating. The BBFC Board stated their decision as such: “(Manhunt)…was already at the very top end of what the Board judged to be acceptable at that category” and that Manhunt 2 was notably different, mentioning its “unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer, together with the different overall narrative context”. (SBBFC, 2008) As I stated before the classification board will remove violence or outright ban a game that is deemed unacceptable for public use. Moving on to my second point of the research of Guy Cumberbatch, PhD. He states: As with other research on media violence, some of the strongest claims are made on the most flimsy of evidence... The real puzzle is that anyone looking at the research evidence in this field could draw any conclusions about the pattern, let alone argue with such confidence and even passion that it demonstrates the harm of violence on television, in film and in video games….they seem to have been used more often in this field as instruments of torture... I think this clearly shows that however many times you tell us these ‘facts’ you have no real hard evidence to prove what you are saying. A recent crusade against video game violence was proven to be untrue, unjustified and unfair. The Virginia Tech massacre was a school shooting that took place on April 16, 2007, on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, United States. Seung-Hu Cho shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others. Video games were quickly being portrayed as the cause of the massacre, only hours after the shooting began, critics began to lay the blame at the doorstep of videogames. An Florida attourney quickly blamed the game counter Strike, a popular multiplayer shooter. It was later discovered Seueng-Hu Cho did not in fact play this game. Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the school shootings and the finger-pointing that followed, game players and industry advocates say they're outraged that the brutal acts of a deeply disturbed and depressed loner with a history of mental illness would be blamed so quickly on video and computer games. They say this is perhaps the most flagrant case of anti-game crusaders using a tragedy to promote their own personal causes. It is clear from what I have said to day, that however many times you make your points, you have no real evidence to back it up, and is based on stereotypes and speculation.
Violent games making you violent... It depends on if I'm playing with my friends while they're beating me. And if they're in close proximity to me... Like if I can reach them with my fist...
In all seriousness I would say no, but if you're talking about younger audiences then that's a different story. If an 8 year old plays something like Assassin's Creed or Halo, that's just hours upon hours of good ideas to them.
I think that violent videogames actually make you less violent. You see, as a common teenager I find myself dealing with a lot of stress because of school, the house and other things in my life, and to avoid having a psychotic attack what I do is take my frustration out on videogames like Halo and Crysis, that way I harm polygons instead of harming a human being, an animal or even myself, if that makes any sense.
Myself I sometimes get angry playing games like if i'm on a really frustrating part and I just can't get passed it, but then I normally switch it off and leave the anger with he game. Sometime I can just release anger into a game but i firmly believe in age ratings and following them. they were put there for a reason
But thats what i am saying, they become violent because the game is influencing them at a young age, because they should not be playing it.
I have played violent video games since I was around 6 years old. Was in middle school when Doom came out, and that got me hooked on the more violent computer games (compared to consoles of the era). Never once tried to repeat that violent in the real world, quite the opposite I find violence in the real world disgusting.
There are people whom can separate fantasy from reality and there are people whom can not. Take away violent video games from the latter and they'll just find some other source of violence to emulate. It's not solving a problem at all, it's failing to even identify the source of the problem.