why video games should be banned essay

Home — Essay Samples — Entertainment — Video Games — Video Games Should Be Banned

Video Games Should Be Banned

Categories: Video Games

About this sample

Words: 759 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 759 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

Expert in: Entertainment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1116 words

1 pages / 464 words

4 pages / 2022 words

5 pages / 2604 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Should Video Games Be Banned?

Share on Facebook
Share on LinkedIn

Are you looking to showcase your brand in front of the gaming industry’s top leaders? Learn more about GamesBeat Summit sponsorship opportunities here .

Over the last 40 years from their inception video games have been very popular among children and young people. More recently the market has vastly grown becoming a major media industry with new releases poised to create as much revenue as the Hollywood blockbuster films. The UK is the fourth largest developer of video games in the world with the industry employing over 22,000 people. Despite these success stories many people are uncomfortable with video games believing them to be harmful to our societies. Both sides of the argumenthave valid points which merit consideration.

Video games are often condemned because many feel they contain excessive amounts of violence and how this can affect the player. This debate is controversial and the most persistent question when discussing video games. Advocates say games such as the 18-rated Grand Theft Auto series with its high level of violent game play and graphic portrayal of it are unacceptable and should not be sold as it could be damaging to children’s development if they play it. Others try to remind them that this type of game is highly regulated and purchasing is restricted to those over the age of 18. If children play it, that is their parents decision based on their child’s level of maturity and personality. There is a barrier in place to protect younger gamers; it is a matter of parents following the rules.Those against banning the games also cite how other forms of media such as comic books, films and even books were prejudiced against. It is a rite of passage which all forms of media have to go through in order to be generally accepted in society. In the 1940s and 1950s comic books were looked upon as immoral and as causing terrible damage to children. Eventually these thoughts were quelled and now comic books are widely enjoyed around the world. Rap and R&B music is also criticised with some people claiming it incites black youths to take up arms and join gangs while in fact studies have shown the main purchaser of this type of music is white people.

Many people believe video games can be extremely artistic and beautiful. An example of these artistic games is Shadow of the Colossus . The game world is a desolate world in which the player travels battling huge beings known as Colossi to save a young girls life. In many sections of the game the player travels alone. The art helps portray a feeling of loneliness and despair while the orchestral music playing while battling the Colossi depicts a sense of heroism and grandeur. Every component of this game complements each other creating a cohesive experience which is known to bring gamers to tears while playing. This is used as a prime example as a reason why video games shouldn’t be banned and in fact should be embraced by society.

Shadow of the Colossus is seen as a landmark interactive experience

Excessive use of video games has been covered greatly in the last five years by themedia. Cases of technological addiction are often children not knowing when enough is enough but others such as Lee Seung Seop’s have went to the extremes. His case shows how some people are affected by certain video games addictive quality to the extent of playing to death. In 2005 Seop visited an internet cafe in Taegu, South Korea and played Starcraft continuously for fifty hours before suffering cardiac arrest. It was reported that six weeks prior he had broken up with his girlfriend over the issue and had been fired from his job due to “repeated tardiness”. People against video games will say that this case clearly shows the need for them to be banned as they can destroy lives. On the pro-video game side they believe this is an isolated incident involving a severely disturbed individual. Many people believe that people who become addicted to games and become reclusive say those people weren’t very social to begin with video games just filled a gap. People who are social to begin with won’t let games affect their social lives.

200px-Starcraft_SC1_Cover1.jpg (200×200)

Very Addicting

Video games are commonly used in a medical capacity around the world. A study carried out by the American Physical Therapy Association showed that the Nintendo Wii with its motion sensing capabilities could be beneficial in the treatment of teenagers with cerebral palsy. Games are also used in many children’s wards as something to help children feel more comfortable while in hospital. Many medical professionals now believe games to be key to a quick recovery for children. Charities such as Child’s Play donate video game related equipment to hospitals making a difference in sick children’s lives. Professionals such as Jen Usinger at The Children’s Hospital at Legacy Emanuel in Oregon, USA say video games give the patients in the hospital an escape from all the medicine, allowing them to feel like a normal child. Surgeons also use video games with specialised equipment to improve technique and learn new procedures in non life threatening situations. These simulators are specially built and the vast majority of surgeons believe they allow for better patient care. Personally during my work experience at the Royal Alexandra Hospital I practiced on an endoscopic simulator and within an hour from going with no experience at all I could successfully complete an operation. If video games were banned advances in this type of technology, while not completely halted, would’ve been considerably hindered.

RapeLay is a Japanese developed game which has been heavily criticised since its release in 2006. In this you play as a man who stalks a mother and two daughters with the intent to rape them. The game features an in-depth sex simulator in which later in the game the player can tie the three women up and have forced intercourse. Many people were horrified when this game was released and called for its banning, deeming it immoral and extremely offensive to women. Online stores such as Amazon.com have since banned this game and an independent Japanese rating board have restricted the sale and production of RapeLay making it impossible to buy. Some people however have defended the game saying rape is a lesser crime than murder so why should RapeLay be banned while thousands of other legal adult games feature large amounts of killing. Others have also referred to this kind of content being in books and films and they aren’t banned. The reaction to this is video games are interactive while films are passively used.

The Byron Report on video games and internet use with children was released in March, 2008 by the British clinical psychologist Tanya Byron. In relation to video games the report shows that parents are often unclear about classification systems such as PEGI (Pan European Game Information) and how to restrict their child’s access to inappropriate digital media. It also talks about the benefits of video games to youths in the form of learning new skills. Research has shown skills such as reaction times, strategic planning and special perception are greatly improved compared to non-gamers. It also helps improve their planning skills and their willingness to try new methods instead of being afraid to try a different hypothesis. This is due to the player having to process new information quickly and react fast. The report also talks about how video games can help relax the player and how gaming has evolved from a solitary activity into a form of entertainment the whole family can enjoy together. This helps social development and creates stronger bonds with parents and siblings than an activity such as watching television would form. The Byron report also affirms doctor’s theories that video games can help with recovery after a painful treatment. Their study showed that those playing video games needed fewer painkillers. It is suggested in the report that video games take up the attention in the brain which would previously have been used focusing on the pain.

Family Friendly Gaming

Overall both sides of the argument have convincing points. Personally I feel video games do a lot more good than bad in modern society. I think it is an overreaction to the problem to ban all games, even those such as Tiger Wood’s Golf and Football Manager which are non-violent and family friendly There are suitable regulations in place to protect younger generations and to police what kind of content is available. One of the biggest issues is parents not being aware of these systems and not knowing what is suitable for their children although I feel these problems will go away over the next 20 years as those who grew up playing games start to have their own children and can protect them from inappropriate content

Stay in the know! Get the latest news in your inbox daily

By subscribing, you agree to VentureBeat's Terms of Service.

Thanks for subscribing. Check out more VB newsletters here .

An error occured.

What do you think? Leave a respectful comment.

There is no evidence to support these claims that violent media and real-world violence are connected. Photo by kerkezz/Ad...

Christopher J. Ferguson, The Conversation Christopher J. Ferguson, The Conversation

Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/analysis-why-its-time-to-stop-blaming-video-games-for-real-world-violence

Analysis: Why it’s time to stop blaming video games for real-world violence

In the wake of the El Paso shooting on Aug. 3 that left 21 dead and dozens injured, a familiar trope has reemerged: Often, when a young man is the shooter, people try to blame the tragedy on violent video games and other forms of media.

This time around, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick placed some of the blame on a video game industry that “ teaches young people to kill .” Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California went on to condemn video games that “dehumanize individuals” as a “problem for future generations.” And President Trump pointed to society’s “glorification of violence,” including “ gruesome and grisly video games .”

These are the same connections a Florida lawmaker made after the Parkland shooting in February 2018, suggesting that the gunman in that case “was prepared to pick off students like it’s a video game .”

Kevin McCarthy, the GOP House minority leader, also tells Fox News that video games are the problem following the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. pic.twitter.com/w7DmlJ9O1K — John Whitehouse (@existentialfish) August 4, 2019

But, speaking as a researcher who has studied violent video games for almost 15 years, I can state that there is no evidence to support these claims that violent media and real-world violence are connected. As far back as 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that research did not find a clear connection between violent video games and aggressive behavior.

Criminologists who study mass shootings specifically refer to those sorts of connections as a “ myth .” And in 2017, the Media Psychology and Technology division of the American Psychological Association released a statement I helped craft, suggesting reporters and policymakers cease linking mass shootings to violent media, given the lack of evidence for a link.

A history of a moral panic

So why are so many policymakers inclined to blame violent video games for violence? There are two main reasons.

The first is the psychological research community’s efforts to market itself as strictly scientific. This led to a replication crisis instead, with researchers often unable to repeat the results of their studies. Now, psychology researchers are reassessing their analyses of a wide range of issues – not just violent video games, but implicit racism , power poses and more.

The other part of the answer lies in the troubled history of violent video game research specifically.

An attendee dressed as a Fortnite character poses for a picture in a costume at Comic Con International in San Diego, California, U.S., July 19, 2019. Photo by REUTERS/Mike Blake

Beginning in the early 2000s, some scholars, anti-media advocates and professional groups like the APA began working to connect a methodologically messy and often contradictory set of results to public health concerns about violence. This echoed historical patterns of moral panic, such as 1950s concerns about comic books and Tipper Gore’s efforts to blame pop and rock music in the 1980s for violence, sex and satanism.

Particularly in the early 2000s, dubious evidence regarding violent video games was uncritically promoted . But over the years, confidence among scholars that violent video games influence aggression or violence has crumbled .

Reviewing all the scholarly literature

My own research has examined the degree to which violent video games can – or can’t – predict youth aggression and violence. In a 2015 meta-analysis , I examined 101 studies on the subject and found that violent video games had little impact on kids’ aggression, mood, helping behavior or grades.

Two years later, I found evidence that scholarly journals’ editorial biases had distorted the scientific record on violent video games. Experimental studies that found effects were more likely to be published than studies that had found none. This was consistent with others’ findings . As the Supreme Court noted, any impacts due to video games are nearly impossible to distinguish from the effects of other media, like cartoons and movies.

Any claims that there is consistent evidence that violent video games encourage aggression are simply false.

Spikes in violent video games’ popularity are well-known to correlate with substantial declines in youth violence – not increases. These correlations are very strong, stronger than most seen in behavioral research. More recent research suggests that the releases of highly popular violent video games are associated with immediate declines in violent crime, hinting that the releases may cause the drop-off.

The role of professional groups

With so little evidence, why are people like Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin still trying to blame violent video games for mass shootings by young men? Can groups like the National Rifle Association seriously blame imaginary guns for gun violence?

A key element of that problem is the willingness of professional guild organizations such as the APA to promote false beliefs about violent video games. (I’m a fellow of the APA.) These groups mainly exist to promote a profession among news media, the public and policymakers, influencing licensing and insurance laws . They also make it easier to get grants and newspaper headlines. Psychologists and psychology researchers like myself pay them yearly dues to increase the public profile of psychology. But there is a risk the general public may mistake promotional positions for objective science.

In 2005 the APA released its first policy statement linking violent video games to aggression. However, my recent analysis of internal APA documents with criminologist Allen Copenhaver found that the APA ignored inconsistencies and methodological problems in the research data.

The APA updated its statement in 2015, but that sparked controversy immediately: More than 230 scholars wrote to the group asking it to stop releasing policy statements altogether. I and others objected to perceived conflicts of interest and lack of transparency tainting the process.

It’s bad enough that these statements misrepresent the actual scholarly research and misinform the public. But it’s worse when those falsehoods give advocacy groups like the NRA cover to shift blame for violence onto non-issues like video games. The resulting misunderstanding hinders efforts to address mental illness and other issues, such as the need for gun control, that are actually related to gun violence.

This article was originally published in The Conversation. Read the original article . This story was updated from an earlier version to reflect the events surrounding the El Paso and Dayton shootings.

Christopher J. Ferguson is a professor of psychology at Stetson University. He's coauthor of " Moral Combat: Why the War on Violent Video Games is Wrong ."

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

El Paso shooting is domestic terrorism, investigators say

Nation Aug 04

To Play or Not to Play: The Great Debate About Video Games

Two recent studies shed light on whether video games are good or bad for kids.

With more than 90 percent of American kids playing video games for an average of two hours a day, whether that's a good idea is a valid question for parents to ask. Video games, violent ones especially, have caused such concern that the issue of whether the sale or rental of such games to children should be prohibited was brought before the Supreme Court.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that video games, like plays, movies and books, qualify for First Amendment protection. “Video games,” the court declared, “communicate ideas – and even social messages.” But that didn’t stop the debate. Real-life tragedies continue to bring attention to the subject, like the revelation that the Sandy Hook Elementary School gunman was an avid video game player . Parents seeking an easy answer to whether video games are good or bad won’t find one, and two recent studies illustrate why.

While many studies have made a connection between violent video games and aggression in adolescents, research published in August in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that teens who played mature-rated violent video games were also more likely to engage in drug and alcohol use, dangerous driving and risky sexual behavior.

[Read: Read More, Play More: Simple Steps to Success for Today’s Children .]

Researchers evaluated more than 5,000 male and female teenagers between ages 13 and 18 over the course of four years and discovered that those who played violent video games were more rebellious and eager to take risks. The effect was greatest among those who played the most as well as those who played games with antisocial main characters.

But a study published in August in Pediatrics of nearly 5,000 girls and boys ages 10 to 15 revealed that children who played video games for less than an hour a day were better adjusted than children who either played no video games or played for three or more hours a day. These children were found to have fewer emotional problems and less hyperactivity, and they were more sociable overall. Video games, the study suggests, play a very small part in children’s lives when compared to such influences as a child’s family, school relationships and economic background.

So are video games harmful to children? “It depends on the content of the game and the outcome of interest,” says Marina Krcmar, an associate professor of communication at Wake Forest University. “Violent games have been found to be associated with aggressive outcomes, increases in hostility and aggressive cognitions.” There are several factors that may explain this.

[Read: 7 Facts About Child Life Specialists .]

First, there are no negative consequences for bad behavior. Players are rewarded for violence with points, reaching a higher level or obtaining more weapons. And, Krcmar adds, players actively commit violence rather than passively watch it, as they may do through other mediums such as movies and television.

“Another issue is that our daily behaviors and interactions actually change our brains – that’s why we encourage kids to study and read," Krcmar says. Research presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America in 2011 examined the neurological activity of a group of men who did not typically play violent video games but did so for the study over the course of one week, while a control group played none. MRI scans revealed that those who played the violent video games had less activity in the brain areas involved in controlling emotion and aggressive behavior. The control group showed no brain changes at all. “Keep in mind that these were players randomly assigned to play the games, not players who actively chose to do so,” Krcmar says. “We can’t argue here that people who seek out violent games are more aggressive to begin with.”

The disadvantage of video games, other experts point out, is the simple fact that time spent playing them is time not spent doing such activities as reading a book, playing outside or engaging with friends. But that’s not to say all video games are bad. There are positives to consider, too.

“Video game play is associated with improvements in hand-eye coordination, faster reaction times, improved visuospatial skill and peripheral awareness, while some educational games can also improve math, spelling and reading skills,” Krcmar says.

[Read: How Your TV Is Making You Sick .]

A report published in the January issue of American Psychologist points out that shooter games, where split-second decision-making and attention to rapid change is necessary, can improve cognitive performance, while all genres of video games enhance problem-solving skills. And despite the belief that it’s a socially isolating activity, one survey found that more than 70 percent of people who play video games do so with a friend, either cooperatively or competitively.

“Video games are a wonderful teaching tool,” says Brad Bushman, professor of communication and psychology at The Ohio State University. Computer scientists from the University of California–San Diego recently revealed that children ages 8 to 12 who played a video game they developed that teaches how to code – for either four hours over four weeks or 10 hours over seven days – were successfully able to write code by hand in Java.

So what should parents do? Monitor content and the amount of time spent on video games, Krcmar advises. And Bushman warns that you shouldn't let your children play age-inappropriate video games. “Video games rated M for 'mature audience 17 and older' should not be played by children under 17," he says. And remember: “The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no more than two hours of entertainment screen time per day for children 2 to 17, and no screen time for children under 2," Bushman says. This applies to video games as well.

Tags: video games , television , children's health , parenting

Most Popular

health disclaimer »

Disclaimer and a note about your health ».

Your Health

A guide to nutrition and wellness from the health team at U.S. News & World Report.

Best Anti-Cancer Foods

Ruben Castaneda and Heidi Godman March 22, 2024

Brain Health Benefits of Seafood

Kelly LeBlanc March 21, 2024

Colon Cancer Diet

Ruben Castaneda and Shanley Chien March 20, 2024

Tylenol, Advil or Aleve: Which Is Best?

Vanessa Caceres March 18, 2024

Health Benefits and Recipes for Beans

Janet Helm March 15, 2024

Best Workouts for Women Over 50

Cedric X. Bryant March 14, 2024

Stress-Relieving Exercises

Stacey Colino March 12, 2024

What Is Bed Rotting?

Claire Wolters March 12, 2024

Worst Foods for Gut Health

Ruben Castaneda and Elaine K. Howley March 12, 2024

A man is surrounded by six screens showing the video game Call of Duty.

Filed under:

The frustrating, enduring debate over video games, violence, and guns

We asked players, parents, developers, and experts to weigh in on how to change the conversation around gaming.

Share this story

Share this on Facebook
Share this on Twitter
Share this on Reddit
Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: The frustrating, enduring debate over video games, violence, and guns

In the wake of two mass shootings earlier this month in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, the societal role of video games grabbed a familiar media spotlight. The El Paso shooter briefly referenced Call of Duty , a wildly popular game in which players assume the roles of soldiers during historical and fictional wartime, in his “manifesto.” And just this small mention of the video game seemed to have prompted President Donald Trump to return to a theme he’s emphasized before when looking to assign greater blame for violent incidents.

“We must stop the glorification of violence in our society,” he said in an August 5 press conference. “This includes the gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace. It is too easy today for troubled youth to surround themselves with a culture that celebrates violence.”

Trump’s statement suggesting a link between video games and real-world violence echoed sentiments shared by other lawmakers following the back-to-back mass shootings. It’s a response that major media outlets and retailers have also adopted of late; ESPN recently chose to delay broadcasting an esports tournament because of the shootings — a decision that seems to imply the network believes in a link between gaming and real-world violence. And Walmart made a controversial decision to temporarily remove all video game displays from its stores, even as it continues to openly sell guns.

But many members of the public, as well as researchers and some politicians, have counterargued that blaming video games sidesteps the real issue at the root of America’s mass shooting problem: a need for stronger gun control . The frenzied debate over video games within the larger conversation around gun violence underscores both how intense the fight over gun control has become and how easily games can become mired in political rhetoric.

But this isn’t a new development; blaming video games for real-world violence — any kind of real-world violence — is a longstanding cultural and political habit whose origins date back to the 1970s. It’s also arguably part of a larger recurring wave of concern over any pop culture that’s been perceived as morally deviant, from rock ’n’ roll to the occult , depending on the era. But as mass shootings continue to occur nationwide and attempts to stop them by enacting gun control legislature remain divisive, video games have again become an easy target.

The most recent clamor arose from a clash among several familiar foes. In one corner: politicians like Trump who cite video games as evidence of immoral and violent media’s negative societal impact. In another: people who play video games and resist this reading, while also trying to lodge separate critiques of violence within gaming. In another: scientists at odds over whether there are factual and causal links between video games and real-world violence. And in still another: members of the general public who, upon receiving alarmist messages about games from politicians and the news media, react with yet more alarm.

Subscribe to Today, Explained

Looking for a quick way to keep up with the never-ending news cycle? Host Sean Rameswaram will guide you through the most important stories at the end of each day.

Subscribe on Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Ove r cast , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

What is new, however, is that recent criticism of the narrative that video games lead to real-world violence seems particularly intensified, and it’s coming not just from gamers but also from scientists , some media outlets , even mass shooting survivors: David Hogg, who became a gun control advocate after surviving the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, unveiled a new March for Our Lives gun control initiative in August, pointedly stating in his announcement on Twitter, “We know video games aren’t to blame.”

And on all sides is a sense that frustration is growing because so little has changed since the last time we had this debate — and since the time before that and the time before that.

There’s no science proving a link between video games and real-world violence. But that hasn’t quelled a debate that’s raged for decades.

Historically, video games have played a verifiable role in a handful of mass shootings, but the science linking video games to gun violence is murky . A vast body of psychology research, most of it conducted before 2015, argues strenuously that video games can contribute to increases in aggression . Yet much of this research has been contested by newer, contradictory findings from both psychologists and scholars in different academic fields. For example, Nickie Phillips , a criminologist whose research deals with violence in popular media, told me that “most criminologists are dismissive of a causal link between media and crime,” and that they’re instead interested in questions of violence as a social construct and how that contributes to political discourse.

That type of research, she stressed, is likely to be less flashy and headline-grabbing than psychology studies, which are more focused on pointing to direct behaviors and their causes. “Social meanings of crime are in transition,” Phillips said. “There’s not a single variable. As a public, we want a single concrete explanation as to why people commit atrocities, when the answers can be very complex.”

The debate over the science is easy to wade into, but it obscures just how preoccupied America is with dangerous media. The oldest moral panic over a video game may be the controversy over a 1976 game called Death Race , which awarded players points for driving over fleeing pedestrians dubbed “gremlins.” The game became mired in controversy, even sparking a segment on 60 Minutes . Interestingly, other games of the era that framed their mechanics through wartime violence, like the 1974 military game Tank , failed to cause as much public concern.

In his 2017 book Moral Combat: Why the War on Violent Video Games Is Wrong , psychologist Patrick Markey points out that before concerned citizens fixated on video games, many of them were worried about arcades — not because of the games they contained, but because they were licentious hangouts for teens. (Insert “ Ya Got Trouble ” here.) By the 1980s, “Arcades were being shut down across the nation by activist parents intent on protecting their children from the dangerous influences lurking within these neon-drenched dungeons,” Markey writes.

Then came the franchise that evolved arcade panic into gameplay panic: Midway Games’ Mortal Kombat , infamous for its gory “fatality” moves . With its 1992 arcade debut, Mortal Kombat sparked hysteria among concerned adults that led to a 1993 congressional hearing and the creation of the Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB . The fighting game franchise still incites debate with every new release.

“Like people were really going to go out and rip people’s spines out,” Cypheroftyr , a gaming critic who typically goes by her internet handle, told me over the phone regarding the mainstream anxiety around Mortal Kombat in the 1990s. Cypheroftyr is an avid player of shooter games and other action games and the founder of the nonprofit I Need Diverse Games .

“I’m old enough to remember the whole Jack Thompson era of trying to say video games are violent and they should be banned,” she said, referencing the infamous disbarred obscenity lawyer known for a strident crusade against games and other media that has spanned decades .

Cypheroftyr pointed out that after the Columbine shooting in April 1999, politicians “were trying to blame both video games and Marilyn Manson. It just feels like this is too easy a scapegoat.”

Politicians have long seized on the idea that recreational fantasy and fictional media have an influence on real-world evil. In 2007, for example, Sen. Mitt Romney (R–UT) blamed “music and movies and TV and video games” for being full of “pornography and violence,” which he argued had influenced the Columbine shooters and, later, the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter.

Video games seem especially prone to garnering political attention in the wake of a tragedy — especially first-person shooters like Call of Duty. A stereotype of a mass shooter, isolated and perpetually consuming graphic violent content, seems to linger in the public’s consciousness. A neighbor of the 2018 Parkland shooter, for instance, told the Miami Herald that the shooter would play video games for up to 12 to 15 hours a day — and although that anecdotal report was unverified, it was still widely circulated.

A 2015 Pew study of 2,000 US adults found that even though 49 percent of adult Americans play video games, 40 percent of Americans also believe in a link between games and violence — specifically, that “people who play violent video games are more likely to be violent themselves.” Additionally, 32 percent of the people who told Pew they play video games also said they believe gaming contributes to an increase in aggression, even though their own experience as, presumably, nonviolent gamers would offer at least some evidence to the contrary.

One person who sees a correlation between violent games and a propensity for real-world violence is Tim Winter . Winter is the president of the Parents Television Council , a nonpartisan advocacy group that lobbies the entertainment industry against marketing graphic violence to children. He spent several years overseeing MGM’s former video game publishing division, MGM Interactive, and moved into advocacy when he became a parent. Growing up, his children played all kinds of video games, except for those he considered too graphic or violent.

In a phone interview, Winter told me his view aligns with the research supporting links between games and aggression.

“Anyone who uses the term ‘moral panic’ in my view is trying to diminish a bona fide conversation that needs to take place,” Winter said. “It’s a simple PR move to refute something that might actually have some value in the broader conversation.”

During our conversation, he compared the connection between violent media and harmful real-world effects to that between cigarettes and lung cancer. If you consume in moderation, he argues, you’ll probably be fine; but, over time, exposure to violent media can have “a cumulative negative effect.” (In fact, studies of infrequent smokers have shown that their risk of coronary disease is roughly equal to that of frequent smokers, and their risk of cancer is still significantly higher than that of nonsmokers.)

“What I believe to be true is that the media we consume has a very powerful impact on shaping our belief structure, our cognitive development, our values, and our opinions,” he said.

He added that it would be foolish to point to any one act of violence and say it was caused by any one video game — that, he argued, “would be like saying lung cancer was caused by that one specific cigarette I smoked.”

“But if you are likely to smoke packs a day over the course of many years, it has a cumulative negative effect on your health,” he continued. “I believe based on the research on both sides that that’s the prevailing truth.”

The debate endures because gun control isn’t being addressed — and games are an easy target

Like many people I spoke with for this story, Winter believes that the debate about gun violence has remained largely at a standstill since Columbine, while the number of mass shootings nationwide has continued to increase.

“If you look at the broader issue of gun violence in America, you have a number of organizations and constituencies pointing at different causes,” he said. “When you look back at what those arguments are, it’s the same arguments that have been made going back to Columbine. Whether it’s gun control, whether it’s mental illness, whether it’s violence in media culture — whatever the debate is about those three root causes, very little progress has been made on any of them.”

The glorification of violence is so culturally embedded in American media through TV, film, games, books, and practically every other available medium that there seems to be very little impetus to change anything about America’s gun culture. We can define “ gun culture ” here as the addition of an embrace of gun ownership and a nationwide oversupply of guns to what Phillips described as “ a culture of violence ” — one in which violence “becomes our go-to way of solving problems — whether that’s individual violence, police violence, state violence.”

“There’s a commodification of violence,” she said, “and we have to understand what that means.”

Naomi Clark , an independent game developer and co-chair of New York University’s Game Center program, agreed. “I find it more plausible that America’s long-standing culture of gun violence has affected video games, as a form of culture, than the other way around,” she told me in an email. “After all, this nation’s cultural traditions and attachments around guns are far older than video games.”

In light of incidents like Walmart’s removal of video game displays after the recent mass shootings while continuing to advertise guns, the connection between the shootings and America’s continued valorization of guns feels extremely stark. “We could ban video games tomorrow and mass shootings would still happen,” Cypheroftyr told me.

“What’s new about the current debate is that the scapegoat of videogaming has never been more nakedly exposed for what it is,” gaming sociologist Katherine Cross wrote in an email, “with Republicans and conservatives manifestly fearful of blaming systematic white supremacism, Trump’s rhetoric, or our nation’s permissive and freewheeling gun culture for the recent rash of terrorism.”

Because of the sensitivity around the issue of gun control, it’s easy for politicians to score points with constituents by focusing a conversation on games and sidestepping other action. “Politicians often blame video games because they are a safe target,” Moral Combat author Markey told me in an email. “There isn’t a giant video game lobby like other potential causes of mass shootings (like the NRA [National Rifle Association]). So [by targeting games], a politician can make it appear they are doing something without risking losing any votes.”

And the general public is often susceptible to this rhetoric, both because it’s emotional and because it may feed what they think they already know about games — even if that’s not a lot. “The narrative that violence in video games contributes to the gun violence in America is, I think, a good example of a bad idea that seems right to people who don’t look too closely at the facts,” Zak Garriss , a video game writer and designer who’s worked on a wide range of games, told me in an email.

“Video games are a global industry, dwarfing other entertainment industries in revenue in markets comprised of gamers from the UK, Germany, France, Japan, the US, and basically anywhere there’s electricity. Yet the spree shooting phenomenon seems to be seriously and uniquely a US issue right now. It’s also worth noting that the ratings systems across these countries vary, and in the case of Europe, are often more liberal in many regards than the US system,” Garriss said.

He also pointed out that this conversation frequently overshadows the important, innovative work that many games are engaged in. “Games like Stardew Valley , Minecraft , or Journey craft experiences that help people relax, detox after a day, bond with friends,” he said. “Games like Papers, Please , That Dragon Cancer , or Life Is Strange interrogate the harder and the darker elements of the human experience like love, grief, loneliness, and death.”

In other words, a conversation that focuses on games and guns alone dismisses the vital cultural role that video games play as art. “Play video games and you can jump on giant mushrooms, shoot a wizard on the moon, grow a farm, fall in love, experience nearly infinite worlds really,” Garriss told me. “If games have a unifying organizing principle, I’d say it’s to delight. The pursuit of fun.”

He continued: “To me, the tragedy, if there is one, in the current discourse around video games and violence, lies in failing to see the magic happening in the play. As devs, it’s a magic we’re chasing with every game. And as players, I think it’s a magic that has not just the potential but the actual power to bring people together, to aid mental health, to make us think, to help us heal. And to experience delight.”

But for some members of the public, games’ recreational, relaxational, and artistic values might be another thing that make them suspect. “If they don’t play games or ‘aged out of it,’ they might see them as frivolous or a waste of time,” Cypheroftyr says. “It’s easy to go, ‘Oh, you’re still playing video games? Why are you wasting your life?’”

That idea — that video games are a waste of time — is another longstanding element of cultural assumptions around games of all kinds, Clark, the game developer, told me. “Games have been an easy target in every era because there’s something inherently unproductive or even anti-productive about them, and so there’s also a long history of game designers trying to rehabilitate games and make them ‘do work’ or provide instruction.”

All of this makes it incredibly easy to fixate on video games instead of addressing difficult but more relevant targets, like NRA funding and easy access to guns. And that, in turn, makes it a complicated proposition to extricate video games from conversations about gun violence, let alone limit the conversation around violent games to people who might actually be in a position to create change, like the people who make the games in the first place.

Yet what’s striking when you drill down into the community around gaming is how many gamers agree with many of the arguments politicians are making. As a fan of shooter games, Cypheroftyr told me she routinely plays violent games like Call of Duty and the military action role-playing game (RPG) The Division . “I’m not out here trying to murder people,” she stressed. But like the Parents Television Council’s Winter, Cypheroftyr and many of the other people I spoke with agree that the gaming industry needs to do a lot more to examine the at times shocking imagery it perpetuates.

Many members of the gaming community are already discussing game violence

Multiple people I spoke with expressed frustration that the conversation about video games’ role in mass shootings is obscuring another, very important conversation to be had within the gaming community about violent games.

Clark told me that the public’s lack of nuance and an insistence on a binary reading of the issue is part of the problem. “Most people are capable of understanding that causes are complex,” she said, “that you can’t just point to one thing and say, ‘This is mostly or entirely to blame!’”

But she also cautioned that the gaming community’s reactionary defensiveness to this lack of nuance also prevents many video game fans from acknowledging that games do play a role within a violent culture. “That complexity cuts both ways,” she told me. “Even though it’s silly to say that ‘games cause violence,’ it’s also just as silly to say that games have nothing to do with a culture that has a violence problem.”

That culture is endemic to the gaming industry, added Justin Carter, a freelance journalist whose work focuses on video games and culture.

“The industry does have a fetishization of guns and violence,” Carter said. “You look at games like Borderlands or Destiny and one of the selling points is how many guns there are.” The upcoming first-person shooter game Borderlands 3 , he pointed out, boasts “over a billion” different guns from its 12 fictional weapons manufacturers , all of which tout special perks to get players to try their guns. These perks serve as marketing both inside and outside the game; the game’s publisher, 2K Games, invites players to exult in violence using language that speaks for itself :

Deliver devastating critical hits to enemies’ soft-and-sensitives, then joy-puke as your bullets ricochet towards other targets. ... Step 1: Hit your enemies with tracker tags. Step 2: Unleash a hail of Smart Bullets that track towards your targets. Step 3: Loot! Deal guaranteed elemental damage with your finger glued to the trigger ...

“There are very few [action/adventure] games that give you options other than murdering people,” Cypheroftyr said. “Games don’t do enough to show the other side of it. You shoot someone, you die, they die, you reset, you reload, and nothing happens.”

“I know that if I shoot people in a game it’s not real,” she added. “99.9 percent of people don’t need to be told that. I’m not playing out a power fantasy or anything, but I’ve become more aware of how most games [that] use violence [do so] to solve problems.”

An insistence from game developers on blithely ignoring the potential political messages of their games is another frustration for her. “All these game makers are like, there’s no politics in the game. There’s no message. And I’m like ... did you just send me through a war museum and you’re telling me this?!”

The game Cypheroftyr is referencing is The Division 2 , which features a section where players can engage in enemy combat during a walkthrough of a Vietnam War memorial museum. While she loves the game, she told me the fact that players use weapons from the Vietnam War era while in a war museum belies game developers’ frequent arguments that such games are apolitical.

Another game Cypheroftyr has found disturbing in its attempt to background politics without any real self-reflection is the popular adventure game Detroit Become Human , which displays pacifist Martin Luther King Jr. quotes alongside gameplay that allows players to choose extreme violence as an option. “You can take a more pacifistic approach, but you may not get the ending you want,” she explained.

She noted, too, that the military uses video games for training as part of what’s been dubbed the “ military-entertainment complex ,” with tactics involving shooter games that some ex-soldiers have referred to as “more like brainwashing than anything.” The US Army began exploring virtual training in 1999 and began developing its first tactics game a year later. The result, Full Spectrum Command , was a military-only version of 2003’s Full Spectrum Warrior . Since then, the military has used video games to teach soldiers everything from how to deal with combat scenarios to how to interact with Iraqi civilians .

The close connection between games and sanctioned real-world violence, i.e., war, is hard to deny with any plausibility. “When someone insists that these two parts of culture have absolutely nothing to do with each other,” Clark said, “it smacks of denial, and many game developers are asking themselves, ‘Do I want to be part of this landscape?’ even if they have zero belief that video games are causing violence.”

For all the gaming industry’s faults when it comes to frankly addressing gaming’s role in a violent culture, however, many people are quick to point out that critiques of in-game violence can also come from the video games themselves. In Batman: Arkham Asylum , for example, researchers Christina Fawcett and Steven Kohm recently found that the game “directly implicate[s] the player in violence enacted upon the bodies of criminals and patients alike.” Other games shift the focus away from the perpetrators to the victims — for example, This War of Mine is a survival game inspired by the Bosnian War that focuses not on soldiers but on civilians dealing with the costs of wartime violence.

But acknowledging that critiques of violent games are coming from within the gaming community doesn’t play well as part of the gun control debate. “It’s far too easy to scapegoat video games as low-hanging fruit instead of addressing the real issues,” Cypheroftyr said, “like the ease with which we can get weapons in this country, and why we don’t do more to punish the perpetrators [of gun violence].” She also cites the cultural tendency to excuse masculine aggression early on with a “b“boys will be boys” mentality — which can breed the kind of entitlement that leads to more violence later on.

All these factors combine to make the conversation around violent video games inherently political and part of a larger ongoing debate that ultimately centers on which media messages are the most responsible for fueling real-world violence.

The conversation surrounding violent games implicates violent gaming culture itself — which, in turn, implicates politicians who rail against games

Games journalist Carter told me he feels the gaming community needs to, in essence, reject the whole debate entirely because at this point in its life cycle, it’s disingenuous.

“We’ve been through enough shootings that you know the playbook, and it’s annoying that gamers and people in the industry will take this as a position that needs defending,” he told me. “It’s not a conversation worth having anymore solely on post-traumatic terms.”

Discussions about video game violence need to be held mainly within the games community, Carter said, and held “with people who are actually interested in figuring out a solution instead of politicians looking to pass off the blame for their ineptitude and greed.”

But some gamers told me they don’t trust the gaming community to frame the conversation with appropriate nuance. All of them cited Gamergate’ s violent male entitlement and the effect that its subsequent bleed into the larger alt-right movement’s misogyny and white supremacy have had on mainstream culture at large.

“The framing of that rhetoric that began in Gamergate as part of the ‘low’ culture of niche internet forums became part of the mainstream political discourse,” criminologist Phillips pointed out. “The expression of their misogyny and the notion of being pushed out of their white male-dominated space was a microcosm of what was to come. We’re talking about 8chan now, but [the growth of the alt-right] was fueled by gaming culture.” She points to Gamergate as an example of the complicated interplay between gaming culture, online communities full of toxic, violent rhetoric, and the rise of online extremism that’s increasingly moving offline.

Gaming sociologist Cross agreed. “At this moment, there is urgent need to shine a light on video game culture , the fan spaces that have been infiltrated by white supremacists looking to recruit that minority of gamers who rage against ‘political correctness,’” she told me.

“We treat video games as unreal, as unserious play, and that creates a shadow over gaming forums and fan communities that has allowed toxicity to take root. It’s also allowed neo-Nazis to operate mostly unseen. That is what needs to change.”

The resulting shadow over gaming has spread far and wide — and found violent echoes in the rhetoric of Trump himself . “Look at what the person in the very highest office of the US is cultivating,” Cypheroftyr said. “Toxic masculinity, this idea that men, especially white men, have been fed that they’re losing ‘their’ country.”

“While video games do not influence us in a monkey-see-monkey-do manner, they do, like all media, shape how we see the world,” Cross argues. “Republicans, in broaching that possibility, open themselves up to the critique that their leader, who makes frequent use of both old media and social media, might also be influential in a toxic way.”

And this, ultimately, may be why the current debate around video games and violence feels particularly intense: The extremes of toxic gaming culture are fueling the attitudes of toxic alt-right culture , which in turn fuels the rhetoric of President Trump and many other right-wing politicians — the same rhetoric that many white supremacist mass shooters are using to justify their atrocities.

So when Trump rails against violence in video games, as he’s now done multiple times , he’s protesting a fictionalized version of the real-life violence that his own rhetoric seems to tacitly encourage. If we are to accept the argument that media violence as represented by games is capable of bringing about real-world violence, then surely no media influence is more powerful or full of dangerous potential than that wielded by the president of the United States.

In 2018, Vice’s gaming vertical Waypoint devoted a week to “ guns and games ”; in a moving piece outlining the intent of the project, editor Austin Walker observed that unlike real-world violence, “in big-budget action games, and especially games that give the player guns and plentiful ammunition, violence is cheap and endlessly repeatable.”

Yet now, barely a year later, mass shootings and other incidents of real-world violence have also begun to seem endlessly repeatable. Perhaps that is why, at last, the urgency of shifting our cultural focus from fixing violence in games to fixing violence in the real world feels like it is finally outstripping the incessant debate.

Will you help keep Vox free for all?

At Vox, we believe that clarity is power, and that power shouldn’t only be available to those who can afford to pay. That’s why we keep our work free. Millions rely on Vox’s clear, high-quality journalism to understand the forces shaping today’s world. Support our mission and help keep Vox free for all by making a financial contribution to Vox today.

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

We’re long overdue for an Asian lead on The Bachelor franchise

The story of kate middleton’s disappearance is haunted by meghan markle, the disappearance of kate middleton, explained, sign up for the newsletter today, explained, thanks for signing up.

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

The evidence that video game violence leads to real-world aggression

A 2018 meta-analysis found that there is a small increase in real-world physical aggression among adolescents and pre-teens who play violent video games. Led by Jay Hull, a social psychologist at Dartmouth College, the study team pooled data from 24 previous studies in an attempt to avoid some of the problems that have made the question of a connection between gaming and aggression controversial.

Many previous studies, according to a story in Scientific American, have been criticized by “a small but vocal cadre of researchers [who] have argued much of the work implicating video games has serious flaws in that, among other things, it measures the frequency of aggressive thoughts or language rather than physically aggressive behaviors like hitting or pushing, which have more real-world relevance.”

Hull and team limited their analysis to studies that “measured the relationship between violent video game use and overt physical aggression,” according to the Scientific American article .

The Dartmouth analysis drew on 24 studies involving more than 17,000 participants and found that “playing violent video games is associated with increases in physical aggression over time in children and teens,” according to a Dartmouth press release describing the study , which was published Oct. 1, 2018, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .

The studies the Dartmouth team analyzed “tracked physical aggression among users of violent video games for periods ranging from three months to four years. Examples of physical aggression included incidents such as hitting someone or being sent to the school principal’s office for fighting, and were based on reports from children, parents, teachers, and peers,” according to the press release.

The study was almost immediately called in to question. In an editorial in Psychology Today , a pair of professors claim the results of the meta-analysis are not statistically significant. Hull and team wrote in the PNAS paper that, while small, the results are indeed significant. The Psychology Today editorial makes an appeal to a 2017 statement by the American Psychological Association’s media psychology and technology division “cautioning policy makers and news media to stop linking violent games to serious real-world aggression as the data is just not there to support such beliefs.”

It should be noted, however, that the 2017 statement questions the connection between “serious” aggression while the APA Resolution of 2015 , based on a review of its 2005 resolution by its own experts, found that “the link between violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior is one of the most studied and best established. Since the earlier meta-analyses, this link continues to be a reliable finding and shows good multi-method consistency across various representations of both violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior.”

While the effect sizes are small, they’ve been similar across many studies, according to the APA resolution. The problem has been the interpretation of aggression, with some writers claiming an unfounded connection between homicides, mass shootings, and other extremes of violence. The violence the APA resolution documents is more mundane and involves the kind of bullying that, while often having dire long-term consequences, is less immediately dangerous: “insults, threats, hitting, pushing, hair pulling, biting and other forms of verbal and physical aggression.”

Minor and micro-aggressions, though, do have significant health risks, especially for mental health. People of color, LGBTQ people , and women everywhere experience higher levels of depression and anger, as well as stress-related disorders, including heart disease, asthma, obesity, accelerated aging, and premature death. The costs of even minor aggression are laid at the feet of the individuals who suffer, their friends and families, and society at large as the cost of healthcare skyrockets.

Finally, it should be noted that studies looking for a connection between game violence and physical aggression are not looking at the wider context of the way we enculturate children, especially boys. As WSU’s Stacey Hust and Kathleen Rodgers have shown, you don’t have to prove a causative effect to know that immersing kids in games filled with violence and sexist tropes leads to undesirable consequences, particularly the perpetuation of interpersonal violence in intimate relationships.

No wonder, then, that when feminist media critic Anita Saarkesian launched her YouTube series, “ Tropes vs. Women in Video Games ,” she was the target of vitriol and violence. Years later she’d joke about “her first bomb threat,” but that was only after her life had been upended by the boys club that didn’t like “this woman” showing them the “grim evidence of industry-wide sexism.”

Read more about WSU research and study on video games in “ What’s missing in video games .”

Free AI Essay Writer
AI Outline Generator
AI Paragraph Generator
Paragraph Expander
Essay Expander
Literature Review Generator
Research Paper Generator
Thesis Generator
Paraphrasing tool
AI Rewording Tool
AI Sentence Rewriter
AI Rephraser
AI Paragraph Rewriter
Summarizing Tool
AI Content Shortener
Plagiarism Checker
AI Detector
AI Essay Checker
Citation Generator
Reference Finder
Book Citation Generator
Legal Citation Generator
Journal Citation Generator
Reference Citation Generator
Scientific Citation Generator
Source Citation Generator
Website Citation Generator
URL Citation Generator
AI Writing Guides
AI Detection Guides
Citation Guides
Grammar Guides
Paraphrasing Guides
Plagiarism Guides
Summary Writing Guides
STEM Guides
Humanities Guides
Language Learning Guides
Coding Guides
Top Lists and Recommendations
AI Detectors
AI Writing Services
Coding Homework Help
Citation Generators
Editing Websites
Essay Writing Websites
Language Learning Websites
Math Solvers
Paraphrasers
Plagiarism Checkers
Reference Finders
Spell Checkers
Summarizers
Tutoring Websites

Most Popular

10 days ago

Cognition’s New AI Tool Devin Is Set To Revolutionize Coding Industry

Heated discussions erupt on reddit over chatgpt’s entry in scholarly publication, do you use quotation marks when paraphrasing, typely review, how to rewrite the sentence in active voice, why teens should not be allowed to play violent video games essay sample, example.

Times when children would spend their entire free time playing with peers in the streets have mostly gone. Modern children and teenagers prefer calmer forms of entertainment, such as watching television, or in a large degree, playing video games. Although video games can contribute to a child’s development, many of them, unfortunately, are extremely violent. Moreover, games propagating murder and violence, such as Mortal Kombat, Outlast, Grand Theft Auto, and so on, are popular and are being advertised everywhere, making teenagers willing to play them; the fact that they are marked by the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) does not help much. However, considering the nature of such games, they should not be allowed for teens to play.

For the human brain, there is no big difference between a real-life situation, and an imaginary one; this is why we get upset even if we think about something unpleasant. For children and teens, who usually have a rich imagination, everything is even more intense. Virtual experiences for them may feel as real as daily life; this happens due to advanced technologies, making computer graphics look extremely close to reality, and also because players take a first-person role in the killing process (often with the view “from a character’s eyes”). If they would passively watch a violent game, it would make less harm than acting as a character who makes progress through a plot by murdering people and destroying what is in the character’s path. This situation is negative, as a child’s or teen’s brain forms new connections every day—they actually learn and memorize what is going on in their favorite games ( HuffingtonPost ).

Moreover, violent games directly reward violent behavior; many modern games do not simply make make players kill virtual reality characters of other players online, but also grant them with scores (experience) or points for successful acts of violence. These points are usually spent on making a player’s character even more efficient in killing, unlocking new cruel ways of murdering, and so on. Sometimes, players will be even praised directly, verbally; for example, in many online shooters, after conducting a killing, players hear phrases like “Nice shot!” encouraging further violence. This is much worse than watching TV, as TV programs do not offer a reward directly tied to the viewer’s behavior, and do not praise viewers for doing something anti-social ( ITHP ).

According the American Psychological Association, violent video games increase children’s aggression. Dr. Phil McGraw explains, “The number one negative effect is they tend to inappropriately resolve anxiety by externalizing it. So when kids have anxiety, which they do, instead of soothing themselves, calming themselves, talking about it, expressing it to someone, or even expressing it emotionally by crying, they tend to externalize it. They can attack something, they can kick a wall, they can be mean to a dog or a pet.” Additionally, there’s an increased frequency of violent responses from children who play these kinds of video games ( Roanna Cooper ).

Unfortunately, many modern games incorporate violence. Having youth play these video games are dangerous, as teenagers and children usually take a first person role in the killing process, and even get rewarded or praised for doing so. According to numerous studies, this leads to an increase of aggression in them.

John, Laura St. “8 Ways Violent Games Are Bad for Your Kids.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.

“The Effects of Violent Video Games. Do They Affect Our Behavior?” ITHP. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.

“Children and Violent Video Games.” Dr. Phil.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.

Comments (0)

Welcome to A*Help comments!

We’re all about debate and discussion at A*Help.

We value the diverse opinions of users, so you may find points of view that you don’t agree with. And that’s cool. However, there are certain things we’re not OK with: attempts to manipulate our data in any way, for example, or the posting of discriminative, offensive, hateful, or disparaging material.

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

More from Best Persuasive Essay Examples

May 28 2023

How does outdoor exercises impact our health and well-being? Essay Sample, Example

Should Screen Time Be Limited? Essay Sample, Example

Why Video Games are Good for the Brain. Essay Sample, Example

Related writing guides, writing a persuasive essay.

Remember Me

Is English your native language ? Yes No

What is your profession ? Student Teacher Writer Other

Forgotten Password?

Username or Email

Violent video games: content, attitudes, and norms

Original Paper
Open access
Published: 16 October 2023
Volume 25 , article number 52 , ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Alexander Andersson ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4911-3853 1 &
Per-Erik Milam 1

3218 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Violent video games (VVGs) are a source of serious and continuing controversy. They are not unique in this respect, though. Other entertainment products have been criticized on moral grounds, from pornography to heavy metal, horror films, and Harry Potter books. Some of these controversies have fizzled out over time and have come to be viewed as cases of moral panic. Others, including moral objections to VVGs, have persisted. The aim of this paper is to determine which, if any, of the concerns raised about VVGs are legitimate. We argue that common moral objections to VVGs are unsuccessful, but that a plausible critique can be developed that captures the insights of these objections while avoiding their pitfalls. Our view suggests that the moral badness of a game depends on how well its internal logic expresses or encourages the players’ objectionable attitudes. This allows us to recognize that some games are morally worse than others—and that it can be morally wrong to design and play some VVGs—but that the moral badness of these games is not necessarily dependent on how violent they are.

Psychological Reactance to Anti-Piracy Messages explained by Gender and Attitudes

Kate Whitman, Zahra Murad & Joe Cox

Speaking to the Other: Digital Intimate Publics and Gamergate

Virtual experience, real consequences: the potential negative emotional consequences of virtual reality gameplay

Raymond Lavoie, Kelley Main, … Danielle King

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Moral objections to VVGs have three main components, which can be understood as answers to the following three questions:

Moral Question: Why are VVGs morally bad or wrong?

Comparison Question: Why are they worse than other forms of violent entertainment?

Regulation Question: What should be done about them?

For example, one might argue that VVGs desensitize players to violence thereby making them more likely to act violently themselves, that VVGs do this more effectively than violent films or books, and that VVGs should therefore be prohibited or strongly regulated.

In this paper, we evaluate the most common answers to the moral and comparison questions, but set aside the regulation question. Not only does regulation raise a number of other ethical considerations—including free speech, paternalism, and policy design and enforcement—it also requires that we first understand the comparative badness of VVGs.

The paper is structured as follows. Section “ Background and preliminaries ” gives a brief overview of the controversies surrounding VVGs and explains how we will structure and focus our evaluation. Section “ The causation argument ” considers the claim that it is wrong to design and play VVGs in virtue of their bad consequences and concludes that the empirical evidence that playing VVGs causes bad outcomes is inconclusive, and that even if we grant that they have bad effects, VVGs are not distinctively bad in this respect. Section “ The violence argument ” considers the claim that VVGs are bad in virtue of features like realism that are independent of their consequences, but we conclude that existing accounts of these features fail to adequately explain why some VVGs should be considered morally objectionable. Having rejected these accounts of the comparative badness of VVGs, Sect. “ The internal logic of violent video games ” offers an alternative explanation.

Background and preliminaries

There is a history of blaming VVGs for violent acts such as school shootings, mass shootings, and murder in the United States. Footnote 2 Games such as Mortal Kombat, Doom , and Manhunt have all caused controversy in the past. They depict gory, brutal, and gratuitous violence as entertainment. For the uninitiated it may be inexplicable why anyone would enjoy what is happening on screen. Hence, the popular sentiment seems to be that there must be something morally bad about these games.

Since VVGs have been picked out as especially bad, we want to investigate whether it is justified to single them out for criticism. We will argue that most, but not all, common criticisms of VVGs are unjustified. Moreover, any justified criticism will also apply to other forms of entertainment. Thus, for any particular VVG, we must conclude either that it is morally permissible to design and play it or that it is morally wrong to create and consume other relevantly similar entertainment products. Which conclusion is warranted will depend on the details of the case.

However, there are multiple ongoing debates about the comparative badness of VVGs, so, before making any substantive claims, let us first explain how we will structure and focus our investigation.

Targets . While concerns about VVGs appear to be about the video games themselves, games are not natural evils like an earthquake or a volcanic eruption. They are designed and played—not to mentioned commissioned and distributed—by moral agents. We therefore focus on the two most plausible targets of these criticisms: players and developers. Insofar as a game is criticized on moral grounds, we take this to be a criticism either of those who created its content or those who created the particular instances of violence by playing the game. Some may object that critics should direct their objections and blame at the companies that commission the games and the governments that fail to regulate them properly. Maybe so. But such criticisms presuppose that there is something objectionable about the games themselves or about playing them.

Topics . Even limiting our attention to developers and players leaves many issues to consider. Multiplayer online gaming has given rise to concerns about toxic environments and interactions, which may be influenced by the violent content of many of these games. This is a serious problem and one where reforms are possible and can make a real difference to the well-being and experience of gamers, but we will not address it here. Nor will we consider the moral status of violent assault on another player’s avatar—e.g. robbing them for items, killing them out of spite, or ‘griefing’ them. These kinds of behaviors also deserve attention, but they introduce potentially confounding variables into an analysis because they involve moral agents who can be harmed through the treatment of their avatars. We therefore limit our focus to single-player VVGs Footnote 3 —i.e., video games that include violence or violent themes—including those singled out in debates about the ethics of VVGs, like Doom, Grand Theft Auto V, Last of Us II.

It should also be noted that while we use the term “VVG” to denote a specific category of games, what we are essentially interested in is moral agency in games in general. However, since most discussions relating to this topic focuses on violence and VVGs, that is where our main focus will be as well. Having restricted our task in these ways, let us now consider why it might be morally wrong to develop or play VVGs.

The causation argument

Probably the most common objection to VVGs is that they have (or risk) bad effects. According to the Causation Argument, video game violence is morally bad because it causes players to be more aggressive and violent, which is bad both for the players themselves and for those who are therefore more likely to be victims of their aggression and violence (e.g. classmates, family members, coworkers). This claim—that VVGs influence players’ behavior outside of the game—is sometimes called the ‘contamination thesis’ (Goerger, 2017 : p. 97). Peter Singer puts the point succinctly: “The risks are great and outweigh whatever benefits violent video games may have. The evidence may not be conclusive, but it is too strong to be ignored any longer” (Singer, 2007 ).

Because this moral argument relies on empirical premises, it is important to spell out what would constitute a strong empirical case against VVGs. We identify four criteria:

The violent content of VVGs must cause the bad effects.

The bad effects must be worse than other tolerable forms of violent entertainment.

The bad effects must counterbalance whatever good effects these games have.

There must be sufficient consensus among researchers about (i), (ii), and (iii). Footnote 4

Let us be clear about these requirements. One need not show that VVGs are entirely, or even overall, bad in order to condemn them on moral grounds. Societies rightly criticize and regulate many products that are overall bad even while acknowledging that they are good in some respects (e.g. cigarettes). Societies sometimes even criticize products that are good overall on the grounds that they should be better (e.g. unsafe cars or energy inefficient appliances). Insofar as the Causation Argument is concerned with the effects of VVGs, our suggestion is simply that we think like consequentialists when assessing them. We should be concerned with all the effects and with everyone who is affected; we should be concerned with the magnitudes of the effects, their likelihood , and our confidence in the empirical evidence of their risks and consequences; and we should assess these effects relative to all available alternatives .

We can start with the empirical case against VVGs. The large empirical literature suggests four ways that players might be affected. First, players may become more aggressive after playing VVGs (Anderson et al., 2010 ; Lin, 2013 ; Kepes et al., 2017 ; Farrar et al., 2017 ; Shao & Wang, 2019 ). Measures of aggression range from self-reports of engaging in aggressive behavior to indictors like “how long a participant blows an air horn at an opponent after playing a violent game” (Goerger, 2017 : p. 98). Second, VVGs may desensitize players to violence (Deselms & Altman, 2003 ; Funk et al., 2004 ; Carnagey et al., 2007 ; Bushman & Anderson, 2009 ; Engelhardt et al., 2011 ). Desensitization is also measured in different ways, including how long it takes for participants to help others in (simulated) need or how lenient a sentence they give an imagined criminal. Third, it has been suggested that VVGs train players how to kill (Grossman & DeGaetano, 1999 ; Leonard, 2007 ; Bushman, 2018 ). For instance, Bushman showed that players firing a real gun at a human-shaped mannequin were more likely to aim at the mannequin’s head after having played a violent first-person shooter (FPS) game. Footnote 5 Fourth, Wonderly and others suggest that playing VVGs, especially given their increasingly realistic depictions of violence, may diminish one’s capacity for empathy (Wonderly, 2008 ; Funk et al., 2004 ; Bartholow et al., 2005 ). If any of these four causal hypotheses is correct, then condition (i) would seem to be satisfied.

However, there is significant disagreement about these findings and their significance. First, none of the existing research claims that playing VVGs has directly caused anyone to commit actual acts of violence in the real world. This is not surprising, but it is a notable point of contrast with other products and behaviors that we might wish to regulate or ban (e.g. dangerous toys or incitements to violence). Second, there is disagreement about how to interpret the results of the studies cited above. Some have questioned the practical significance of increased aggressive behavior measured in a lab environment (Ferguson and Kilburn 2010 ; Goerger, 2017 ; Hall et al., 2011 ). Others have argued that the field suffers from a publication bias that favors finding an effect of VVGs on aggression (Ferguson, 2007 ; Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009 ; Hilgard et al., 2017 ). Footnote 6 Third, and perhaps most interesting, some have argued that it is the form of a game, rather than its content, that causes aggression. One study suggests that playing games that thwart a player’s fundamental need for competence led to increased aggression (Przybylski et al., 2014 ). Another showed that competition rather than violence causes aggression (Dowsett & Jackson, 2019 ). These studies suggest that features other than violence are of equal or greater concern. Thus, while there is provocative evidence about the bad effects of playing VVGs, there is insufficient scientific consensus. Footnote 7

Suppose that empirical studies had decisively demonstrated that VVGs cause increased aggression and violence. Do we have reason to believe that the bad effects of VVGs are worse than the bad effects of other violent entertainment that we presently tolerate? Some research suggests that VVGs cause more aggressive behavior than watching violent movies or violent gameplay because they are interactive (Lin, 2013 ). However, Lin points out that, “very little prior research has directly addressed the issue of media interactivity with regard to violent effects” ( 2013 : p. 535). Thus, while there is some support for condition (ii), there is far too little evidence to reasonably conclude that VVGs have worse effects than other violent entertainment (e.g. movies, television, books, or board games).

Even if the evidence supporting the Causation Argument satisfied conditions (i) and (ii), we could not yet condemn VVGs. We must also consider the benefits of playing these games. Studies suggest that some non-violent games enhance prosocial behavior among gamers (Sestir & Bartholow, 2010 ), that cooperative games decrease aggression (Gentile et al., 2009 ; Schmierbach, 2010 ), and that video games strengthen our ability to engage in ethical decision making (Madigan, 2016 ). We should be as critical of these studies as we are of those that condemn VVGs, but our point is simply that potential harms should be weighed against potential benefits. One compelling point in favor of VVGs is their incredible popularity. While it is difficult to find concrete and specific information, the following data give a rough picture of gamers’ revealed preferences: as of 2019 more than 2.5 billion people play video games, the average gamer plays more than 6 h per week, roughly half of that play is on consoles and computers (the rest is on tablets or phones), 9% of games are rated M for Mature (the category that contains most controversial VVGs), but those games are among the most popular in terms of sales. For example, Grand Theft Auto V is the third highest selling video game, and the highest grossing entertainment product, of all time (Narula, 2019 ; Limelight, 2020 ). Another compelling point is the suggestion that VVGs, like all games, are experiments in agency. For designers they are an art form whose medium is the agency of the player. And for players they are an opportunity to experiment with the alternative forms of agency created by designers (Nguyen, 2019 : p. 423).

The strength of the Causation Argument depends on various empirical claims. We have shown that none of the relevant claims has been established to a sufficient level of confidence. Furthermore, even if they had been, an outcome-focused argument must assess VVGs in the same light as other risky phenomena and it is not obvious why we should view VVGs as overall worse than many products and activities we accept (or tolerate). Nonetheless, if VVGs are harmful to the players, even relatively weak empirical evidence might be sufficient to ground a moral imperative to develop and play non-violent games rather than VVGs.

The violence argument

Perhaps it is not the effects of VVGs that make them morally objectionable but rather some feature of the games themselves. A second kind of argument, call it the Violence Argument, pursues this line of thought, arguing that VVGs are bad because they represent violence for the purpose of entertainment and that it is therefore (at least pro tanto ) wrong to develop and play such games. Footnote 8

Of course, many types of media represent violence, whether for educational purposes (e.g. non-fiction and journalism) or for entertainment (e.g. poetry, novels, comics, film, and television). Thus, if we are justified in appreciating or tolerating violence in these genres, then the Violence Argument must show that the ways VVGs represent violence are distinctively bad. The most common suggestions are that they are distinctively bad because they are much more realistic, interactive, and immersive.

The depiction of violence in video games has become more realistic as technology has improved. While Mortal Kombat and Doom’s 16-bit violence provoked American parents in the 1990s, they could scarcely have imagined the high-fidelity violence of games such as The Last of Us II. Nothing is left to the imagination as headshots leave a spray of blood and brains, heads are smashed to pieces with baseball bats, all while the victims plead for mercy or shriek in agony. These kinds of advances led Waddington to worry that, as video game violence becomes more realistic, it will be increasingly difficult to differentiate real from simulated transgressions ( 2007 : p. 127).

However, in order to support the Violence Argument, it must be the case that VVGs represent violence in a way that is more realistic than other media and that more realistic representations of violence are morally worse than less realistic representations.

On the first point, video game violence does not seem more realistic than violence in other media. Consider two related forms of realism: content realism and context realism. Footnote 9 A representation is content realistic to the degree that it depicts what would happen in real life. For example, a game might accurately depict how bones break or what happens when a bullet strikes a torso. In this respect, VVGs can be surprisingly realistic, but less so than many films (e.g., Saving Private Ryan ) and much less so than many real videos that people watch for amusement (e.g., the watermelon catapult). Moreover, their content realism is mostly limited to the visual modality. A written representation of violence might have similar content realism, but no visual component (outside of imagination). A representation is context realistic to the degree that it represents a situation that could plausibly occur. This is somewhat relative. A war setting is surely more realistic than, say, battling demons on another planet, but is World War II a realistic context for a millennial gamer? Here too, most VVGs seem less realistic than other media, which often depict disturbing forms of violence for dramatic purposes (e.g., intimate partner violence or police brutality).

On the second point, representing violence may sometimes be worse if it is more realistic—even ignoring any harmful effects on the player like stress or nightmares. Some realistic contexts seem obviously morally worse than others. Public reactions to games seem to match this intuition, as when many objected to The Slaying of Sandy Hook , whose setting was the location of a tragic school shooting. However, this worry does not necessarily transfer to those VVGs that are common targets of criticism, like the Grand Theft Auto series.

The game (GTA) not only depicts drug and gang related violence, but it presents that violence in a largely consequence free environment. Further, this crime is ‘real’ in the sense that similar crimes and criminal enterprises currently control broad swaths of metropolitan areas like Los Angeles … Players are, essentially, being entertained by the misery of others and are thus disrespecting the object of value (Goerger, 2017 : p. 102).

While there is plenty to criticize about GTA , Georger’s comments are mistaken. First, he seriously misrepresents (or misunderstands) the degree to which GTA accurately depicts the level of crime in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles. There are no “broad swaths” of American cities that are controlled by criminal enterprises. Second, while such games do make light of real violence, these representations are neither more realistic nor more violent than many films and television series. Thus, even if we accept that representing violence can be morally bad, it is not the case that most VVGs, including common targets of criticism, are worse in this respect than other tolerated forms of media.

Interaction

Another salient feature of VVGs is that they are interactive in a way that some other media are not. While a movie audience may hope that Woody Harrelson decides to stop at a supermarket and kill some zombies in order to get a Twinkie, a player of Redneck Rampage can make that happen. The player’s experience is interactive insofar as their actions, “make a significant difference to what happens in the environment” (Chalmers, 2017 : p. 312). Some therefore press a version of the Violence Argument according to which being a passive consumer of violent films or books is less bad than “performing” violent acts in a video game (Tillson, 2018 ). Footnote 10

Our view is that violent interaction itself, ignoring the realism and immersive experience of the interaction, is not morally bad. Moreover, even if it were, it would not be worse than other forms of entertainment. A writer interacts with her fictional characters with a similar degree of agency as a gamer does with the non-playable characters (NPCs) she encounters. The writer’s interaction is unrealistically one-sided, but she can nonetheless choose to kill them off and to do so in a brutal fashion [e.g., (redacted to avoid spoilers)]. This does not seem bad at all. Or consider games of make-believe. Kids playing war with toy guns is just as interactive as video gaming. In order for there to be a war, the kids must perform some actions, just as a player must control her avatar in order for there to be in-game violence. Traditional roleplaying games and board games—whose content can be just as violent as VVGs—requires a similar degree of interaction. In order to claim that VVGs are worse than other violent entertainment, one would have to show that video game interactions are different in kind from the forms of make-believe involved in writing fiction, roleplaying, and other violent entertainment. If anything, the fact that enemies are programmed and that experience is mediated by controllers and other devices would seem to make video games less interactive than your average game of Cops and Robbers or Dungeons and Dragons. We therefore conclude that VVGs are not worse than other violent entertainment in virtue of being interactive.

Finally, VVGs might seem morally bad, and worse than other media, because players can more easily become immersed in the violence of the game. This is bad because, regardless of whether a game is visually realistic, it is bad to experience that violence as real. If part of the value of games is that they allow us to inhabit a ‘temporary practical agency’ (Nguyen, 2019 : p. 438) within which we can “occupy alter-ego points of view and practice new strategies by accessing possible spaces of action and affective responses” (Schellenberg, 2013 : p. 509), then the value of such experiments presumably depends on the design of those practical agencies and the contexts in which players inhabit them, including whether they are suffused with violence that is experienced by the player as real.

Immersion occurs when a player experiences the game as if it is real or as if she herself were experiencing the events of the game in the shoes of her character. One dimension of immersion is ‘presence,’ or “the sense of being present at that perspective” (Chalmers, 2017 : p. 312). The immersiveness of a game depends, in part, on its realism. Content and context realism can make immersion more likely, but perspectival fidelity is also important (Ramirez, 2019 ). A representation has perspectival fidelity to the degree that the structure of the experience is realistic. For example, a video game has lower perspectival fidelity if the player uses a controller rather than a VR set up, if the representation includes non-diegetic sound (e.g., music) or a heads-up display (e.g., location, health, remaining ammo), and if the point of view is third- rather than first-person. Importantly, VVGs are unlikely to have greater perspectival fidelity than other media, except insofar as they are more likely to have a first-person perspective. Footnote 11 However, even in this respect the experience they provide has lower fidelity than, say, children playing war, teens playing paintball, or adults performing historical recreations of famous battles.

A more general problem with the argument that VVGs are bad because players are more likely to have an immersive experience of violence is that it is simply not clear whether being immersed in a VVG is worse than being immersed in another violent or disturbing source of entertainment. For example, films and novels are generally praised when they effectively draw in a viewer. Such praise may reflect their aesthetic value, which is compatible with being morally bad, but the same could be said about VVGs. Footnote 12

An objection

At this point, defenders of the Violence Argument might object that, by addressing these factors in isolation, we have made a strawman of their position. Movies can be realistic but not interactive; novels can be immersive but not interactive; tabletop roleplaying games can be immersive but are not usually realistic; and kids playing war can be interactive but lacks a certain kind of realism. The problem with VVGs—and what makes them distinctive among violent forms of entertainment—is precisely that they are realistic, interactive, and immersive.

If the problem is the combination, then VVGs might be distinctively morally bad even if possessing just one of these features is tolerable. Just as a gun is composed of innocuous pieces which, once assembled, constitute a dangerous weapon, so the combination of realism, interactivity, and immersiveness may render video game violence morally objectionable.

However, the problem with this line of argument can be seen by reflecting further on the analogy. The problem with an assembled gun is not that all of its components are in one place. The problem is that a functioning handgun affords certain actions that its unassembled pieces do not. Footnote 13 This is not true of VVGs—or, at least, the evidence for this claim remains inconclusive. In order for the combination of realism, interactivity, and immersion to render video game violence distinctively bad, opponents of VVGs must show either that developing such games makes them dangerous (the Causation Argument) or that this combination is itself distinctively bad (the Violence Argument).

This latter point seems to be what Ali ( 2023 ) alludes to in relation to virtual reality experiences: “VR pushes the virtual closer to the nonvirtual, making, e.g., VR experiences as valuable (in reproductions), or closer in value (as simulations), to their nonvirtual counterparts” (Ali, 2023 : p. 241). It seems plausible that realism, interactivity, and immersion can enhance one’s experience of some piece of entertainment—as actors in films and plays can attest. However, Ali’s ( 2023 , 2015 ) account falls short when it comes to explaining what makes a VVG morally objectionable. According to his view, badness varies with realism. This may be true for reproductions and simulations, which, by definition, vary with realism. Yet, it is not obviously true for video games, where the badness appears to be dependent on other factors. Ali ( 2015 ) highlights one aspect that appears to be the decisive factor for why this is the case. VR simulations, unlike VVGs, lack context and story. Footnote 14 Thus, in order to make the case that virtual violence can be morally bad even in games where the violence is situated within a narrative and performed in pursuit of a goal (i.e., VVGs), we must look for explanations elsewhere. In the next section, we consider alternative critiques of video games and offer an account of our own.

The internal logic of violent video games

We have argued that the level of concern about the outcomes of developing and playing VVGs and about the fact that VVGs are realistic, interactive, and immersive is unjustified. However, there may nonetheless be something morally objectionable about developing or playing VVGs. In this final section, we try to capture the kernel of truth at the heart of the widespread and persistent objections to video game violence by identifying what we take to be a reasonable concern. Our account steers a middle course between moral panic and facile defenses of VVGs by embracing the similarities and continuities between violent and non-violent video games, as well as between video games and other forms of entertainment. In doing so, we build on other recent arguments that have illuminated legitimate ethical concerns about video games, while suggesting that these arguments indict video game violence in ways that they fail to recognize.

We suggest that the most plausible moral objection to VVGs is that some of them generate or perpetuate morally objectionable norms of appropriate violence—i.e., norms of when violence is an appropriate response to a situation. This objection suggests that violence is indeed problematic, but also that it is one dimension of a more general moral concern.

One way to assess VVGs is to imagine uncontroversially immoral games and isolate their objectionable features. It would be reasonable to condemn both the developers and the players of racist or misogynistic games in which the aim is to, say, exterminate Jews or sexually assault women. For many, such concerns depend neither on the kind of effects identified by the Causation Argument nor on their realism, interactivity, or immersion (Patridge, 2011 ). A natural explanation of what precisely makes such games objectionable is that it is wrong to be or act in racist or misogynistic ways and the developers and players of such games are (usually) acting in these ways simply by developing or playing the game. For example, we might say that a misogynistic game either subordinates women or depicts their subordination, and that players participate in that subordination—or at least demonstrates a failure of sensitivity to and sympathy for women (Patridge, 2011 : p. 310)—by playing the games, even if the women depicted are not real.

If one accepts this kind of explanation, one might further argue that non-racist and non-misogynistic VVGs could have content that is similar in morally relevant ways. Footnote 15 If a misogynistic game can subordinate women, then a game where the player aims to kill enemies can subordinate whichever group is depicted as the enemy. Just as misogynistic games depict female characters as fitting targets of assault or abuse, violent games depict certain characters as fitting targets of physical violence. And if sexual violence is bad, in part, because it is violence, then removing the sexual dimension cannot render the game morally innocuous—though it would certainly make it less bad. Call this the Analogy Argument .

This argument has a certain plausibility, but does not succeed as stated. To see why, consider two ways in which the defender of VVGs might reply. First, they could reply that what is morally objectionable is not the content of a game, but how one plays it. One who revels in killing innocent bystanders is acting wrongly in a way that a person who plays the same game in order to complete it as quickly and bloodlessly as possible is not. Call this the Sadism Reply . On this way of thinking, it is the mental state of the player, not the content of the game that explains its badness.

The inadequacy of the Sadism Reply is fairly obvious. Sadism—understood as taking pleasure in the wrongful treatment of others (i.e., in moral evil)—is not the only attitude we find morally objectionable. Schadenfreude—understood as taking pleasure in the non-moral suffering of others (i.e., natural evil)—is another, and there are more, from racism and sexism to simple indifference to others’ well-being. If sadism in VVGs is problematic, then so are these others attitudes. Moreover, non-violent games can be played in sadistic ways—e.g., choosing, in The Sims , to drown your neighbors in your swimming pool—and are therefore open to the same critiques, which seems implausible. Finally, it is unclear how we can condemn a player’s sadistic pleasure in doing virtual violence when we cannot condemn virtual violence itself. The wrongness of taking sadistic pleasure in another’s suffering arguably presumes the wrongness of causing that suffering, but the Sadism Reply attempts to deny the latter while shifting criticism to the former.

Second, the defender of VVGs could point out that misogyny is morally objectionable because its targets—women—are an oppressed group in society. Call this the Power Reply . On this way of thinking, an otherwise identical gender-reversed game, where women victimize men, would not be objectionable in the same way. And, they might say, what we find in most VVGs is precisely that, violence that is admittedly gratuitous but nonetheless morally acceptable—or at least tolerable—because it is not gendered. (Similar points could be made about other dimensions of oppression.) Patridge argues that the content of some video games has “incorrigible social meaning” that targets women and marginalized groups ( 2011 : p. 308). For example, the meaning of a black character eating watermelon is explained by particular social realities (e.g., the persistence of demeaning racial stereotypes) and is incorrigible in the sense that it is difficult to interpret in any other way because of those realities (i.e., there is no plausible interpretation of that image that does not reference those stereotypes). However, Patridge suggests that violent content often either lacks social meaning or has social meaning that is reasonably interpretable in a way that does not implicate some reprehensible feature of our shared moral reality, like racism, misogyny, or homophobia ( 2011 : p. 310).

Even if Patridge is right that most video game violence itself is unlikely to have the incorrigible social meaning of games like Custer’s Revenge , it does not follow that it does not implicate reprehensible features of our shared moral reality. Whether it does is an open question. Content with incorrigible social meaning implicates our shared moral reality by forcing us to recognize that some words, images, or ideas are inextricably linked to hateful and prejudicial ideologies. If video game violence can itself implicate other reprehensible features, what might those features be and how would they be implicated? Our answer is that power norms—i.e. norms of domination and subordination—are just one type of objectionable norm that can be built into the ‘logic’ of a game. Footnote 16 Another type is norms of appropriate violence, which, while often bound up with power norms, are separable. We would rightly criticize a society whose logic of appropriate physical violence included, say, occasions when one is frustrated with a coworker—and this is true independently of the coworkers’ respective social status. But if this is right, then why is a game whose logic of appropriate violence includes anyone who gets in the way of your mission not objectionable on similar grounds? Thus, while both replies warrant revisions and qualifications of the Analogy Argument, we can begin to see how a revised version of the argument might be successful.

Call this revision of the Analogy Argument the Internal Logic Argument (ILA). The ‘logic’ of a video game is the structure, incentives, and constraints that guide player behavior. It is a matter of what the player can do and what they are encouraged to do in the game. In other words, it is the set of ideas (mission/quest, combat, survival) and practices (enacting those ideas via the means provided and avoiding obstacles to doing so) that allow the player to have a successful playthrough—e.g., to progress in the game, to be enjoyable, and be an opportunity to engage in the ‘art of agency’ (Nguyen, 2019 ). Footnote 17 Understood in this way, the logic of a game includes what Nguyen calls its “value clarity,” in that it stipulates a clear structure and conditions for success ( 2020 : 20). However, whereas Nguyen is most concerned about players applying the simplified logic of a video game to contexts where values are more opaque and complex, we are concerned with the content of a game’s internal logic. Our suggestion is that the logic of a game can express, encourage, and legitimate objectionable attitudes and norms of appropriate violence.

As noted above, games such as Custer’s Revenge can express attitudes of hatred and prejudice by targeting specific groups in its gameplay. When it comes to VVGs, Postal 2 , whose tongue-in-cheek comments are prompted when excessive and degrading violence is exerted on innocent bystanders, expresses a lax attitude towards violent behavior. The logic of the game, manifested in minor rewards, treats civilians as fair game when the player’s character is on his way to pick up milk from the store.

A game’s logic and gameplay mechanics can also encourage problematic player behavior. The internal logic of some games is straightforward and explicit. A game may have an obvious theme that directly guides gameplay (e.g., Duck Hunt or Super Columbine Massacre ), or it may incentivize particular ways of playing by awarding points, experience, and trophies for particular results. But a game’s explicit themes, rewards, and punishments do not exhaust its logic. Just like real life, games are full of subtle incentives and nudges that shape how one behaves. Examples include whether a particular NPC can be killed, how players’ treatment of NPCs affects their success, and how the design of a level or quest privileges particular strategies for completing it. Footnote 18 A game embodies norms of appropriate violence based on how violence is afforded by the structure of the game (whether enemies can be avoided, how they can be dealt with, what kinds of items one can acquire and how frequently, etc.). Christopher Bartel gives a relevant example from Grand Theft Auto IV , in which the player is forced to shoot their way out of a bank robbery scenario by attacking the police ( 2015 : p. 290). It is not possible to try to evade the police or succeed in the scenario in any other way.

Miguel Sicart has argued that developers set the ethical boundaries of a game through the formal structure of the game (e.g., game rules) and the actions afforded to the player (e.g., game mechanics). As a result, games are “always ethically relevant systems, since they constrain the agency of an ethical being” (Sicart, 2009 : p. 6). We extend this idea, holding that if a game can constrain players’ behavior, then it can also funnel their behavior in particular directions—though the influence the game exerts may not reflect any intention on the part of the designer. For example, in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City the player can have sex with a prostitute in order to temporarily increase their maximum health. This is not a necessary feature, since the success of a playthrough in Vice City is not dependent on the player’s ability to buy sex. However, it represents a decision by the game designers which codes this act as ‘good’ by increasing the player’s max health.

If a game can express and encourage certain morally problematic attitudes and behaviors, it can also legitimate those attitudes and behaviors. Just as “games threaten us with a fantasy of moral clarity” (Nguyen, 2020 : p. 21), some ways of playing VVGs and the attitudes expressed by doing so may extend beyond the game. In one of the main missions of GTA V , titled “By the book”, the player is forced to torture an NPC in order to progress in the main story. The player can only achieve a “gold rank” on the mission if they waterboard, electrocute, and pull out the teeth of the NPC without killing him. Not only does the logic of this specific mission express and encourage certain attitudes towards torture. It may also legitimate the practice by presenting it as a viable means to an end or a “necessary evil”.

One might share our concern about how the internal logic of video games may legitimate certain attitudes and norms, but deny that violent content is a serious problem. Nguyen agrees that games can exert a subtle and malign influence on our values, but claims to be “more worried about games breeding Wall Street profiteers than…about their breeding serial killers” ( 2020 : p. 190). Footnote 19 He gives two reasons for this. First, he finds plausible Young’s suggestion that fictional game events tend not to be exported to players’ real lives. This would presumably include a game’s norms of appropriate violence. Second, he is more concerned that some games—especially those that result from gamifying activities like exercise, academic performance, etc.—will seduce players with a misleading but attractive “value clarity” ( 2020 : Chap. 9). In brief, Nguyen argues that part of the attraction of games is their clear and simple values—complete the quest, get the high score, kill your enemies—but that, unlike fictional game events, this simplicity can infiltrate players’ real world thinking in a problematic way. In particular, it can cause them (a) to view the real world through the lens of simplified values, (b) to be drawn to simplified values over the more complex values that are needed to navigate our messy moral lives, and (c) to “lose facility and readiness with … subtler value concepts” ( 2020 : p. 214). On this view, it’s unlikely that we’ll come to value violence of the sort we experience in games, and more likely that we’ll embrace simplified and gamified versions of our ordinary values, whether moral or non-moral.

However, we think Nguyen, like Patridge, fails to recognize how his reasoning might ground a legitimate worry about video game violence. The ILA suggests that violent content might be problematic precisely in the ways he thinks values might be undermined. Admittedly, lots of video game violence is unlikely to influence our values or norms simply because it is easily set aside when one stops playing. There is little chance that my in-game goal of winning a martial arts tournament while brutalizing and humiliating my opponents will influence my actual behavior or even instrumentalize my attitudes toward martial arts competition. However, the ILA is concerned precisely about in-game norms that appear innocuous and are accepted without reflection. There is no reason to think that violence norms are not subject to the same seductions of clarity as other values. Moreover, even if some violence norms are unlikely to be applied in the real world, an internal logic that expresses or legitimates those norms is still morally objectionable (e.g., Postal 2 or “By the Book” in GTA V ).

Let us address some potential worries about the ILA. First, one might reply that the logic of a VVG need only fit its content. If one is playing a war game and one’s avatar is a soldier, it makes sense that most of the NPCs one encounters are fitting targets of violence. This would undermine the criticisms of games such as Sniper Elite or Wolfenstein . Moreover, protecting oneself from enemy combatants is plausibly a matter of self-defense, which can permit lethal violence. This would render games like Doom or Fallout 4 unobjectionable. Similar points could be made about other genres of VVGs. Thus, it may be that the violence norms of many VVGs are roughly consistent with common sense morality. The ILA can accommodate this intuition, while still allowing that some VVGs are morally objectionable and, in those cases, explaining why.

Second, one might think that, while developers ought to design games whose logics meet some moral criteria, those criteria do not include eliminating or even minimizing violence. Some would claim, for example, that developers aren’t required to create a morally optimific logic that encourages players to, say, maximize the total well-being of other characters. Indeed, many would insist that the logic of a VVG can permissibly be much worse than the actual logic of our society, just as action films implicitly permit much more destruction of public and private property for the sake of catching criminals than is permitted by actual societies (see, e.g., Bad Boys or any movie in the Marvel Comics Universe). Footnote 20 This isn’t obviously right, though, and we would suggest that a game’s logic of appropriate violence should not be excessively cruel or indifferent to human suffering and that, sometimes, it should even improve on the logic of appropriate violence prevalent in our actual society. Footnote 21

One might object that the ILA does not pick out VVGs as distinctively bad or worse than other innocuous or tolerable video games or other media. This, however, is only partially true. It’s true that the ILA does not distinguish between games that have similar logics. As such, it would not necessarily be better to play Chex Quest than Doom , since zorching flemoids and shooting demons is motivated by a concern for one’s own survival in both cases. This also helps explain why games like Postal 2 and GTA are more appropriate targets of criticism than, say, Last of Us II (Goerger, 2017 : p. 101). While Last of Us II is much more graphic and gorier in its violent depictions, that violence is fitting in a way that the violence of Postal 2 is not. Footnote 22 Nor would it be worse to play violent video games than to watch action movies in which innocent bystanders are viewed as acceptable collateral damage. The ILA identifies a property found in some VVGs (and some movies, board games, etc.) and explains why it is inappropriate.

For all of these reasons, we think the ILA provides a plausible framework for critiquing VVGs. What emerges from the above discussion is a substantive and unified account of video game ethics. It explains how violent games can be open to similar criticisms as racist and misogynistic games. At the same time, it acknowledges that one might worry, not just about the violent content of such games, but about how gamers play them—i.e., the attitudes they manifest in doing so. The ILA unifies these concerns into a single critique that captures the kernel of truth running through traditional objections to VVGs, avoids the problems we raised for the Violence Argument, and extends the insights of two other illuminating critiques of video games, namely, those developed by Patridge ( 2011 ) and Nguyen ( 2020 ).

The core of our critique consists of four claims. First, a game’s content can be morally objectionable and violence is one, but not the only, kind of objectionable content. This is the lesson we learned from assessing real and imagined games with racist or misogynistic content and extending the reasoning underlying critiques of such games to a critique of violence. Second, the attitudes that a gamer expresses or enacts in playing a game can be morally objectionable. Sadism is one, but not the only, such attitude. Just as misogyny is not limited to the explicit, endorsed hatred of women as a group (Manne, 2017 ), sadism does not exhaust the objectionable attitudes one can have toward violence and the suffering of others. However, condemning such attitudes toward violence presupposes an objection to the violence itself. Third, while objectionable attitudes can arise on their own, games can express or encourage morally objectionable attitudes and gameplay in the same way that they shape other aspects of play. This does not mean that all players of VVGs will manifest the attitudes and behaviors encouraged by a game’s norms of appropriate violence, but it is a reasonable worry in light of the influence that the logic of a game exerts. Footnote 23 This is the lesson of the ILA. The most obvious examples of this are games in which the plot of the game requires actions that express or encourage objectionable attitudes (e.g. Custer’s Revenge or Battle Raper ). However, other games may encourage or shape players’ attitudes in more subtle ways—e.g. by normalizing violence, exploitation, and racism. Fourth, if these three points are correct, then our critique is not limited to VVGs, or even to video games. Gamers can manifest their sadistic, misogynistic, racist, and other attitudes in non-violent video games (e.g., The Sims or Civilization ), board games (e.g., Puerto Rico or Andean Abyss ) and tabletop RPGs (e.g. Dungeons and Dragons ), or any other kind of game. Moreover, any entertainment medium can, through its internal logic, express or encourage such attitudes. This means that our critique can embrace its generalizability in a way that was unavailable to the Violence Argument. On our account, the source of concern is neither violence per se nor its potential realism, interactivity, or immersiveness, but rather the logic of the game. Non-violent games and games that are minimally realistic, interactive, and immersive can have objectionable internal logics—e.g., by legitimating or glorifying imperialism, exploitation, or indifference toward the suffering of others. Moreover, the ILA explains why a game might warrant moral praise. For example, we might praise a game which logic expresses acceptance of a wrongly vilified group, encourages reflection on the complexity of a moral dilemma, or simply requires that one work through a problem real people might face. Footnote 24

Together these claims constitute a unified but limited critique of VVGs that avoids the implausible implications of some existing objections (e.g., that VVGs are distinctively bad) while explaining, substantiating, and extending the plausible claims of other critics. Our view suggests that how bad a game is depends on the attitudes, behaviors, and norms that its internal logic expresses, encourages, and legitimates. A game developer can be criticized for the internal logic of their game and a gamer can be criticized both for the attitude they bring to a game and for their acceptance, whether implicit or explicit, of a game’s internal logic. This account also plausibly implies that some games are morally worse than others and that their badness does not necessarily correlate with how violent they are or how realistic that violence is.

Before concluding, let us emphasize that its internal logic is one, but not the only, aspect of a game open to evaluation and criticism. Games are also, and perhaps foremost, aesthetic objects that can be beautiful, compelling, funny, disgusting, overwhelming, or just boring. The internal logic is that part of a game that tells the player how to progress and succeed within the game world. Indeed, this is what makes this kind of art object a game rather than a passive aesthetic experience (perhaps the “walking simulator” genre falls somewhere in between these categories). But it does not determine, by itself, a game’s value.

We have argued that common moral objections to VVGs are unsuccessful, but that a plausible critique can be developed that captures the insights of these objections while avoiding their pitfalls. The upshot of our account is that it can be morally wrong to design and play some VVGs, but that violence per se—no matter how realistic or immersive—is less likely to be problematic than the internal logic of a game and the attitudes it expresses and encourages.

In making our argument, we have not said which are the worst offenders, how bad they are, or what kind of response to their moral failings is warranted. These are tasks for another paper, but also for gamers, activists, regulators, and policy makers who want to know which games to play, which to educate the public about, and which to restrict access to. Some philosophers have developed frameworks that may provide guidance in answering these questions (Liberman, 2019 ), but there is much more to be said.

The most zealous campaigns against VVGs have been in the United States. We will not try to explain why that is the case, but we note that the industry’s implementation of a rating system following US Congressional hearings about video game violence 1993 may have forestalled similar controversies elsewhere as similar ratings systems were applied outside the US.

For an overview of the history of VVGs and their alleged relation to acts of violence see Campbell ( 2018 ).

Our arguments also apply to multiplayer games that can be played in single player mode, such as Mortal Kombat or Unreal Tournament .

What level of consensus is sufficient will depend on the magnitude of the risk/harm.

None of the studies critical of VVGs claim that they directly cause real world violence, though commentators sometimes make or imply such claims. Young emphasizes that “any attempt to posit a direct causal link between video game content and violent (real-world) behaviour should be regarded as overly simplistic, largely uncorroborated, and ultimately contentious” ( 2015 : p. 315).

See Anderson et al. ( 2010 ) for a reply to this objection.

There is room for improving the experimental design of VVGs, including eliminating confounds by studying the same games and controlling for variables like difficulty, competitiveness, and level of violence. Moreover, studies that find evidence that VVGs cause increased aggression should measure and compare the magnitude of that effect to other phenomena known to increase aggression—e.g., being insulted.

While some argue that realistic, interactive, and immersive violence are bad in themselves, others claim that it is these features of contemporary VVGs that cause violence or aggression in players. However, the latter is just a version of the Causation Argument, so we focus on those who take violence to be significant independently of its consequences.

Some might consider ‘perspectival fidelity’ to be a form of realism, but we consider this variable more relevant to a game’s immersiveness than to its realism (Ramirez, 2019 ).

Notice that, if video game violence is bad because it is interactive, designers are, at worst, guilty of facilitating violent interactions. The player is the primary wrongdoer. This asymmetry is reversed for those who worry about realism. Designers create realistic violence (e.g. fatalities in Mortal Kombat ), while players simply activate it.

Even this claim ignores the actors who do actually simulate the violence that the audience sees. They have a first-person point of view on the violence in a play or film. Of course, they know that they are not actually hurting their costars, but VVG gamers know this, too.

It is also worth noting that for many, the concern about immersion is a concern about the player’s experience and the effects of having such an experience (Waddington, 2007 : p. 127). However, this is ultimately a causation question and one that can be answered either by asking gamers about their immersive experiences or by measuring the effects of those experiences.

This is why gun control advocates often emphasize that the presence of a gun allows an altercation that might have resulted in a painful fist fight to instead result in a fatal shooting.

As is evident from the following passage: “[S] imulation games do not provide their own narrative, they simply allow the gamer’s context to define the in-game context. So, when a gamer enacts murder or pedophilia in these games, the act is one of virtual murder or virtual pedophilia because the gamer defines it in this way.” (Ali, 2015 : p. 273).

Some criticisms of games like Super Columbine Massacre , The Slaying of Sandy Hook , or Active Shooter/Standoff seem to make precisely this point.

This is not at all to imply that the sets of norms that sustain hateful and prejudicial attitudes and behavior toward members of oppressed groups are not especially important or deserving of particular attention and opposition.

Hence, the logic is in most cases intentional, meaning that certain player behavior is incentivized and rewarded in the game. But it could also be unintentional, such as when players find and exploit bugs that incentivize them to play in a way the developer did not intend nor expect.

Game designers have long recognized this and some have chosen, seemingly for moral reasons as well as aesthetic ones, to make the logic of a game virtuous. Richard Garriott has said this about his design choices for Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar .

Nguyen’s topic is games in general, but his claims are meant to apply as much to video games as other types.

At the same time, some criticisms of the criminal justice ‘logic’ of action films seems both reasonable and overdue. Hollywood’s cavalier depiction of police brutality is receiving more scrutiny as protests against actual police violence received widespread attention and support. Depictions of rape in film have received similar critiques, with critics arguing that these scenes are often gratuitous or voyeuristic (Wilson, 2017 ).

Notice that the ILA does not merely imply that the most gratuitous violence is the most objectionable. The gratuitousness of a violent act may diverge from how strongly the act supports an objectionable norm. For example, a film in which casual physical violence is normalized can seem much more insidious than a gory slasher flick. A parallel point on objectionable comedy will help further elucidate this idea. Comedy should not indulge in facile jokes about sexual violence in prisons any more than it should indulge in facile jokes about rape generally. Many prison rape jokes legitimate the idea—seemingly widely held—that prisoners deserve whatever might happen to them in prison.

Last of Us II also depicts its violence in very ambiguous ways. It is not obviously portrayed as morally justified, just as humanly intelligible.

Jennifer Saul makes a similar point about the attitudes of those who watch pornography ( 2006 : p. 58).

A good example of this is This War of Mine where the player controls a group of civilians that are trapped in a war-torn country. The player is constantly prompted to make choices between the survival of the group and helping other civilians in need, forcing the player to reflect on the effects and ethics of war.

Ali, R. (2015). A new solution to the gamer’s dilemma. Ethics and Information Technology , 17 , 267–274.

Article Google Scholar

Ali, R. (2023). The values of the virtual. Journal of Applied Philosophy , 40 (2), 231–245.

Anderson, C. A., et al. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western cultures: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136 (2), 151–173.

Bartel, C. (2015). Free will and moral responsibility in video games. Ethics and Information Technology , 17 , 285–293.

Article MathSciNet Google Scholar

Bartholow, B., Sestir, M. A., & Davis, E. B. (2005). Correlates and consequences of exposure to video game violence: Hostile personality, empathy, and aggressive behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 31 (11), 1573–1586.

Bushman, B. J. (2018). Boom, headshot! Violent first-person shooter (FPS) video games that reward headshots train individuals to aim for the head when shooting a realistic firearm. Aggressive Behavior , 45 (1), 33–41.

Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2009). Comfortably numb: Desensitizing effects of violent media on helping others. Psychological Science , 20 (3), 273–277.

Campbell, C. (2018). A brief history of blaming video games for mass murder. Polygon . Retrieved March 10, 2018, from https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/10/17101232/a-brief-history-of-video-game-violence-blame .

Carnagey, N. L., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 43 (3), 489–496.

Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. (2017). The virtual and the real. Disputatio , 9 (46), 309–352.

Deselms, J. L., & Altman, J. D. (2003). Immediate and prolonged effects of videogame violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 33 (8), 1553–1563.

Dowsett, A., & Jackson, M. (2019). The effect of violence and competition within video games on aggression. Computers in Human Behavior , 99 , 22–27.

Engelhardt, C. R., et al. (2011). This is your brain on violent video games: Neural desensitization to violence predicts increased aggression following video game exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 47 (5), 1033–1036.

Farrar, K. M., et al. (2017). Ready, aim, fire! Violent video game play and gun controller use: Effects on behavioral aggression and social norms concerning violence. Communication Studies , 68 (4), 369–384.

Ferguson, C. J. (2007). The good, the bad and the ugly: A meta-analytic review of positive and negative effects of violent video games. Psychiatric Quarterly , 78 (4), 309–316.

Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2009). The public health risks of media violence: A meta-analytic review. The Journal of Pediatrics , 154 (5), 759–763.

Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2010). Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in eastern and western nations: Comments on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136 (2), 174–178.

Funk, J. B., et al. (2004). Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies, and the internet: Is there desensitization? Journal of Adolescence , 27 (1), 23–39.

Gentile, D. A., et al. (2009). The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors: International evidence from correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 35 (6), 752–763.

Goerger, M. (2017). Value, violence, and the ethics of gaming. Ethics and Information Technology , 19 (2), 95–105.

Grossman, D., & DeGaetano, G. (1999). Stop teaching our kids to kill: A call to action against TV, movie & video game violence . Crown.

Hall, R. C., Day, T., & Hall, R. C. W. (2011). A plea for caution: Violent video games, the supreme court and the role of science. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 86 (4), 315–321.

Hilgard, J., Engelhardt, C. R., & Rouder, J. N. (2017). Overstated evidence for short-term effects of violent games on affect and behavior: A reanalysis of Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 143 (7), 757–774.

Kepes, S., Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2017). Violent video game effects remain a societal concern: Reply to Hilgard, Engelhardt and Rouder. Psychological Bulletin , 143 (7), 775–782.

Leonard, D. (2007). Unsettling the military entertainment complex: Video games and pedagogy of peace. SIMILE: Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education , 4 (4), 1–8.

Liberman, A. (2019). But I voted for him for other reasons! moral responsibility and the doctrine of double endorsement. Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, 9 , 138.

Limelight (2020). The state of online gaming–2020. Limelight Networks Technical report. https://www.limelight.com/resources/white-paper/state-of-online-gaming-2020/ .

Lin, J. H. (2013). Do video games exert stronger effects on aggression than film? The role of media interactivity and identification on the association of violent content and aggressive outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior , 29 , 535–543.

Madigan, J. (2016). Getting gamers: The psychology of video games and their impact on the people who play them . Rowman & Littlefield.

Manne, K. (2017). Down Girl: The logic of Misogyny . Oxford UP.

Book Google Scholar

Narula, H. (2019). A billion new players are set to transform the video game industry. Wired . Retrieved December 29, 2019, from https://www.wired.co.uk/article/worldwide-gamers-billion-players .

Nguyen, C. T. (2019). Games and the art of agency. Philosophical Review, 128 (4), 423–462.

Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Games: Agency as Art . Oxford UP.

Patridge, S. L. (2011). The incorrigible social meaning of video game imagery. Ethics and Information Technology , 13 (4), 303–312.

Przybylski, A. K., et al. (2014). Competence impeding electronic games and players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 106 (3), 441–457.

Ramirez, E. J. (2019). Ecological and ethical issues in virtual reality research: A call for increased scrutiny. Philosophical Psychology , 32 (2), 211–233.

Saul, J. (2006). On treating things as people: Objectification, pornography, and the history of the vibrator. Hypatia , 21 (2), 45–61.

Schellenberg, S. (2013). Belief and desire in imagination and immersion. Journal of Philosophy , 110 (9), 497–517.

Schmierbach, M. (2010). Killing spree: Exploring the connection between competitive game play and aggressive cognition. Communication Research , 37 (2), 256–274.

Sestir, M. A., & Bartholow, B. D. (2010). Violent and nonviolent video games produce opposing effects on aggressive and prosocial outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 46 (6), 934–942.

Shao, R., & Wang, Y. (2019). The relation of violent video game to adolescent aggression: An examination of moderated mediation effect. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 384.

Sicart, M. (2009). Beyond choices: A typology of ethical computer game designs. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulation , 1 (3), 1–13.

Singer, P. (2007). Video crime peril vs. virtual pedophilia. Japan Times . Retrieved July 22, 2007, from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2007/07/22/commentary/world-commentary/video-crime-peril-vs-virtual-pedophilia/ .

Tillson, J. (2018). Is it distinctively wrong to simulate doing wrong? Ethics and Information Technology , 20 (3), 205–217.

Waddington, D. I. (2007). Locating the wrongness in ultra-violent video games. Ethics and Information Technology , 9 (2), 121–128.

Wilson, L. (2017). The Long, Problematic History of Rape Scenes in Film. The Playlist . Retrieved October 26, 2017, from https://theplaylist.net/problematic-history-rape-scenes-film-20171026/ .

Wonderly, M. (2008). A Humean approach to assessing the moral significance of ultra-violent video games. Ethics and Information Technology , 10 (1), 1–10.

Young, G. (2015). Violent video games and morality: A meta-ethical approach. Ethics and Information Technology , 17 (4), 311–321.

Download references

Open access funding provided by University of Gothenburg.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

Alexander Andersson & Per-Erik Milam

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Andersson .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Andersson, A., Milam, PE. Violent video games: content, attitudes, and norms. Ethics Inf Technol 25 , 52 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09726-6

Download citation

Published : 16 October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09726-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Video games
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Should Violent Video-Games Be Banned?

With the recent spurt of highly publicised killings, the debate about violence and video games has again taken the spotlight. Many stakeholders and institutions believe that playing violent video games is morally and ethically objectionable as it leads to contribution and promotion of violence. In this essay I would be looking at the general objections being raised by such stakeholders and also subject these criticisms to the test of various juridprudential tests. I would be focussing on the deontological and utilitarian approach to understand these objections as raised. Furthermore, I have tried to study the structure of modern day video games looking at the root question of whether such a link between violence and video games exist or not? The last question being presented is whether such video games should merely be regulated or banned, and would it curtail freedom of speech. Methodology The methodology followed by the researcher is a doctrinal one, in which the researcher relies...

Related Papers

Shaun Rattue

Video Games

Jacqui Taylor

Erica Neely

Many people have discussed ethics and video games. Thus far the focus has been on two elements: the actions players take within a game and whether certain kinds of games are wrong to create, such as extremely violent video games. Taking Miguel Sicart’s work as a key starting place, I emphasize the moral importance of choice with respect to video games. This has several components. Focusing on single-player games, I consider gameplay choices that players make, such as how to complete a particular mission in a game and how the game evaluates and adapts to player choices in a way that attempts to impose and/or encourage a particular moral stance. Much literature focuses specifically on gameplay as the interactive component that makes video games a unique medium. However, I stress that we must also consider the choices designers make when they program a game; these choices can frequently go unnoticed and unquestioned by players. As such, while I agree with those who emphasize that players are capable of moral reflection, I question how often they actually engage in moral reflection. This suggests that there is room for pragmatic concern about how actual players – not ideal players – are affected by video games.

Philosophy Compass

C. Thi Nguyen

What is a game? What are we doing when we play a game? What is the value of playing games? Several different philosophical sub disciplines have attempted to answer these questions using very distinctive frameworks. Some have approached games as something like a text, deploying theoretical frameworks from the study of narrative, fiction, and rhetoric to interrogate games for their representational content. Others have approached games as artworks and asked questions about the authorship of games, about the ontology of the work and its performance. Yet others, from the philosophy of sport, have focused on normative issues of fairness, rule application, and competition. The primary purpose of this article is to provide an overview of several different philosophical approaches to games and, hopefully, demonstrate the relevance and value of the different approaches to each other. Early academic attempts to cope with games tried to treat games as a subtype of narrative and to interpret games exactly as one might interpret a static, linear narrative. A faction of game studies, self‐described as “ludologists,” argued that games were a substantially novel form and could not be treated with traditional tools for narrative analysis. In traditional narrative, an audience is told and interprets the story, where in a game, the player enacts and creates the story. Since that early debate, theorists have attempted to offer more nuanced accounts of how games might achieve similar ends to more traditional texts. For example, games might be seen as a novel type of fiction, which uses interactive techniques to achieve immersion in a fictional world. Alternately, games might be seen as a new way to represent causal systems, and so a new way to criticize social and political entities. Work from contemporary analytic philosophy of art has, on the other hand, asked questions whether games could be artworks and, if so, what kind. Much of this debate has concerned the precise nature of the artwork, and the relationship between the artist and the audience. Some have claimed that the audience is a cocreator of the artwork, and so games are a uniquely unfinished and cooperative art form. Others have claimed that, instead, the audience does not help create the artwork; rather, interacting with the artwork is how an audience member appreciates the artist's finished production. Other streams of work have focused less on the game as a text or work, and more on game play as a kind of activity. One common view is that game play occurs in a “magic circle.” Inside the magic circle, players take on new roles, follow different rules, and actions have different meanings. Actions inside the magic circle do not have their usual consequences for the rest of life. Enemies of the magic circle view have claimed that the view ignores the deep integration of game life from ordinary life and point to gambling, gold farming, and the status effects of sports. Philosophers of sport, on the other hand, have approached games with an entirely different framework. This has lead into investigations about the normative nature of games—what guides the applications of rules and how those rules might be applied, interpreted, or even changed. Furthermore, they have investigated games as social practices and as forms of life.

Ethics and Information Technology

Matt McCormick

Many people have a strong intuition that there is something morallyobjectionable about playing violent video games, particularly withincreases in the number of people who are playing them and the games'alleged contribution to some highly publicized crimes. In this paper,I use the framework of utilitarian, deontological, and virtue ethicaltheories to analyze the possibility that there might be some philosophicalfoundation for these intuitions. I raise the broader question of whetheror not participating in authentic simulations of immoral acts in generalis wrong. I argue that neither the utilitarian, nor the Kantian hassubstantial objections to violent game playing, although they offersome important insights into playing games in general and what it ismorally to be a ``good sport.'' The Aristotelian, however, has a plausibleand intuitive way to protest participation in authentic simulations ofviolent acts in terms of character: engaging in simulated immoral actserodes one's character and makes it more difficult for one to live afulfilled eudaimonic life.

Shawn Doherty

Reasoning .07 .06 Emotional Stability .18 .11 Rule Consciousness -.27* -.21 Utilitarian versus Personal Focus -.10 -.05

Stephanie Patridge

In this paper, I consider a particular amoralist challenge against those who would morally criticize our single-player video play, viz., “come on, it’s only a game!” The amoralist challenge with which I engage gains strength from two facts: the activities to which the amoralist lays claim are only those that do not involve interactions with other rational or sentient creatures, and the amoralist concedes that there may be extrinsic, consequentialist considerations that support legitimate moral criticisms. I argue that the amoralist is mistaken and that there are non-consequentialist resources for morally evaluating our single-player game play. On my view, some video games contain details that anyone who has a proper understanding of and is properly sensitive to features of a shared moral reality will see as having an incorrigible social meaning that targets groups of individuals, e.g., women and minorities. I offer arguments to support the claim that there are such incorrigible social meanings and that they constrain the imaginative world so that challenges like “it’s only a game” lose their credibility. I also argue that our responses to such meanings bear on evaluations of our character, and in light of this fact video game designers have a duty to understand and work against the meanings of such imagery.

David Waddington

Jeffrey Earp , Francesca Pozzi

This paper reports on a literature review investigating the main ethically-related themes appearing in the academic literature on digital games, and considers their connections with games and learning, identity development, and the construction of personal beliefs. The themes explored include how videogames can shape players' attitudes or encourage the development of ethical (or unethical) behaviours (like aggression, to mention just one example), the treatment of personal and social identity, positive and negative effects concerning interaction processes in digital gaming circles, and the use of exploitative game mechanics intended to increase player engagement. These questions are explored by drawing on and updating a broadly based literature review that was carried out within the H2020 project Gaming Horizons. As well as reporting on those themes from an academic viewpoint, this paper offers some indications of both a theoretical and practical nature that may prove useful to a variety of game-world stakeholders, including game developers and marketers, researchers, educators and teachers, policy makers, and gaming enthusiasts of various kinds.

Games and Culture

Mahli-Ann Butt

The presence of women within videogames has progressed to a state where narratives about the empowerment of women are becoming popular; however, such games still invite a number of gendered stereotypes. Housed in the genre of adventure games, The Walking Dead: Season Two and Life Is Strange appear to follow in the spirit of this emerging women’s revolution but inevitably reestablish traditional presentations of sexism in the treatment of their endings. In particular, the presentation of the infamous Trolley Problem and its inherent utilitarian framework is an incendiary moment wherein these games mark rebellious women as necessary sacrifices for the greater good and the continuation of the community. This article explores these two specific moments of sacrifice at the conclusions of Life Is Strange and The Walking Dead: Season Two and engages with tensions between the status quo and the resistances that challenges these norms.

RELATED PAPERS

Helen Ryland

Lucy Sparrow , Martin Gibbs , Michael Arnold

Philosophical Inquiry in Education

Simon Ferrari

Monique Wonderly

Tieja Thomas

Tae Wan Kim

Declan Humphreys

Mark Coeckelbergh

Emil Hammar

Computers in Human Behavior

Monica Whitty

Nicholas Bowman

Doctoral thesis

Cultural Studies of Science Education (Print), v. 7, p. 909-943

Charbel N El-Hani

2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Lucy Sparrow

ISBN: 978-1-84888-438-0 First published in the United Kingdom in eBook format in 2016. First Edition

Alexia Bhéreur-Lagounaris , Brittany Kuhn , Declan Humphreys , Vince Vader , René Schallegger , Some Douche , Attila Szantner , Bradley McAvoy-James

Sarah Thorne

Giuseppe Riva

Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds

James W Malazita

The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies (Media Studies Futures is volume 6)

Mia Consalvo

Victoria L Rubin

Kat Schrier

america hernandez america hernandez

Robert Fleet

Laureline Chiapello

Rethinking History - Challenge the past

Jan-Hendrik Heinrichs

Bruno Mendes da Silva

Jennifer R. Whitson

Rob Gallagher

Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities

Tero Pasanen

Paul Formosa

Yuehua Wu , Vivian Hsueh Hua Chen

Communication Yearbook 37

Bruno Mendes da Silva , Beatriz Isca

Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies

Allissa V Richardson

Video game bans are unconstitutional, and they won’t prevent violent crimes

In the wake of multiple recent mass shootings, some elected officials and advocates have begun asking the question: should violent video games be banned?

The search for rational explanations in the wake of terrible tragedies is understandable. When people do horrible things, the natural reaction is to ask why. Unfortunately, that same impulse can lead to rushed judgment and misplaced blame.

The argument that video games cause violence is not backed up by research . According to the Society for Media Psychology and Technology , the “research evidence available to date indicates that violent video games have minimal impact on violent activity in society.” Also, according to one study , discovering that a person committing a crime plays violent video games “is no more illustrative than discovering that he or she happened to wear sneakers or used to watch Sesame Street .” Other studies have suggested that video games help reduce stress and in some instances may even reduce crime . Furthermore, video games are played by a diverse cross-section of the American public.

Given the data, it’s clear censoring video games would not prevent mass shootings.

Censoring video games also raises a Constitutional problem. In 2011, the Supreme Court recognized that video games are protected by the First Amendment ( Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association ). The court emphasized that video games frequently communicate ideas by telling interactive stories and allowing players to interact with a virtual world. Therefore, video games are protected just as any other form of speech and expression.

If anything, the Supreme Court undervalued video games’ artistic importance. In recent decades, video games have developed into a highly nuanced art form with storytelling as powerful and compelling as cinema was in the last century.

For instance, the 2018 indie platforming game Celeste grappled with themes involving depression and self-doubt in a masterful fashion. Games such as the Bioshock series have also engaged with complex political and social issues; these games envision dystopian societies based on objectivism and socialism. They challenge players to think more deeply and imaginatively about the world we live in.

True, many video games are violent. Some use violence to illustrate larger themes; other games allow you to just blow things up. In other words, video games exhibit the same artistic variety that one finds browsing Netflix.

In its 2011 Brown decision, the Supreme Court struck down a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors. The court found that studies showing a link between violence and video games were methodologically flawed and unpersuasive. The court explained that the government does not have “a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.”

If that’s true for children, it’s even more so for adults.

While it’s understandable why people would ask the question “should violent video games be banned?” The answer requires more nuance. We don’t assume that R-rated movies, paintball, or UFC are making people more violent. Stereotyping millions of Americans—and violating a Constitutional right—because of the vile actions of a deranged killer is wrong and distracts us from real solutions to a very serious problem.

Related Cases

No Related Cases

A First Amendment win: Supreme Court rules the government can’t control private speech

June 17, 2019 | by daniel ortner.

Scar tattoos are a First Amendment right too

June 03, 2019 | by daniel ortner.

The Hill: The slippery slope of trying to curb ‘extremist’ speech

May 20, 2019 | by daniel ortner.

Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay

Introduction: banning violent video games, violent video games should not be banned, violent video games should be banned, conclusion: why video games should not be banned.

The essay is an argumentative one; violent games should not be banned. Recently there has been an endless and fierce debate on whether or not to banned violent video games. For instance, the countries that constitute the European Union are planning to ban some of the European games. However, it is the view of the majority of video games, just like any other games, are there to educate and entertain.

Although there are strong reasons brought forth by those who want violent video games to be banned, here are reasons why we should not; increases self-esteem, reduction of pain, encourages teamwork, sharpening players’ wit, among others (Sterngold, 2006).

With regards to those in support of banning the game, they hold the view that the games continuously poison the minds of the viewers, especially young individuals.

It is worth noting that there are indeed strong points that need to be given a second thought before we rush in banning violent video games. It has been argued and even proved that when kids play such games, especially when the multiplayer type of game is available, then the children get to learn at a very early age to work as a teammate, which requires teamwork. Arguably, this is advantageous as it helps in keeping children together in times of need (Lebrilla, 2010).

For this matter, when they grow up, such individuals will be in a better position to be good team players. This concept has been currently deemed very vital in ensuring the success of an organization. Throughout the game, it is indeed tough to beat the opponent.

However, through concentration, acquisition of skills, and knowledge on how to win, which has been learned from each other, children are capable of the emerging winner. With this, they grow, knowing that to win, there is a need to have a team behind them.

As suggested by Bissell, 2008 violent video games have been thought to help, especially those with very high tempers, to release their anger by not hurting anybody. When very angry and one feels like inflicting pain on another human being or even killing others, it has been thought appropriate to transfer such anger to violent video games. When one engages in a shoot-out with an enemy in a video game, he/she might feel that the mission is accomplished.

Aside from assisting young individuals in sharpening their wits and problem-solving skills, violent video game plays a significant role in helping young individuals, even a few older members of society, to learn how to persevere. On the same line of thought, these games have made it possible for people to have well-coordinated hand and eye movements (Craig et al. 2007).

This has helped in making sure that reflex action/response is normal. The advantage of this is that it will play a significant role in keeping progressive illnesses at bay.

Another major point that is in support of violent video games is that it helps in sustaining the country’s economy. It is apparent that the industry of violent video games has played a significant role in the economic growth of the country. The export of the same product to other nations generates foreign income for the country.

Additionally, a good number of Americans derive their daily bread from the same industry(Konijn et al., 2007). For this reason, banning of violent video games will mean that the unemployment rate will go up, and the money generated from the industry will be lost. The industry generates close to 21 billion dollars annually (Jones & Ponton, 2003).

Additionally, doctors have proved that despite violent games being useful; in releasing anger, it is also helpful in helping a patient reduce pain. The current efforts hospitals show this making to install such games. More importantly, the games help entertain the plays as well as the viewers.

Just like when people feel entertained by watching a football match, violent game provide the same to the affected party. Considering the fact that slightly over 70.0% of American teens play these games, if it is banned, then they will indulge in even more risky activities in their quest to be entertained, for instance, drug abuse (Goldstein, 1998).

It would not be rational if the argument that supports the banning of violent games were not brought to light. It has been brought into the violent limelight game that pollutes the minds of American children.

When young individual engages too much in these games, they are addicted. The result is that they will grow up and may put into practice what they saw. A recent incident where a student walked into an institution of learning and started shooting at others, killing them on the spot, has been linked to violent video games (Anderson & Dill, 2000).

Similarly, just like any other thing that can bring addiction, violent video games, when making a young individual addicted, can be detrimental to their quest to learn. This is because most of the time, whenever they are free will, they spend time playing such games (Ferguson, 2008).

Although it has been argued that the game fosters socialization skills, it is evident that when one plays in non-multiplayer support, they grow up being persons with poor skills to socialize.

From the review of the issue of violent games, even though the game is intense, banning it will bring more harm than good. For those who advocate for the banning, it would be rational to critically analyze the benefits of the game to individuals and even society at large. For instance, it enhances teamwork, helps reduce pain, aids in releasing anger, and improves wit and hand-eye coordination, among others.

However, the disadvantages include polluting or poisoning young individuals, and addiction eats their time hence cannot engage actively in other vital activities. This thus warrants careful consideration from relevant stakeholders such as parents and the government.

Anderson, C. & Dill, K. (2000). “Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings and Behavior in the Laboratory and In Life.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78(4):722.

Ferguson, C. (2008). “Blazing Angels or Resident Evil? Can Violent Video Games Be a Force for Good?”, Review of General Psychology, 14(1): 68-81.

Konijn, E. et al. (2007). “I Wish I Were a Warrior: The Role of Wishful Identification in the Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression in Adolescent Boys.” Developmental Psychology, 43(1): 1-12.

Craig, A. et al. (2007). Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy . Oxford University: Oxford University Press.

Bissell, T. (2008). Extra Lives: Why Video Games Matter . New York: Macmillan Publishers.

Sterngold, A. (2006). “Violent video games.” Web.

Jones, G. & Ponton, L. (2003). Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence . New York: Basic Books. P. 172.

Goldstein, J. (1998). Why We Watch; The Attraction of Violent Entertainment . Oxford University Oxford University Press. P. 188.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 28). Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/violent-video-games-should-not-be-banned/

"Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay." IvyPanda , 28 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/violent-video-games-should-not-be-banned/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay'. 28 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay." October 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/violent-video-games-should-not-be-banned/.

1. IvyPanda . "Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay." October 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/violent-video-games-should-not-be-banned/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay." October 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/violent-video-games-should-not-be-banned/.

Multiplayer Online Battle Arena Video Games and Technologies
Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games
Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay
Argumentative Essay Writing
London Olympic Games: Banning Reasons
Choosing The Best Sharpener for Kitchen
Political Philosophy: Liberalism and Libertarianism
Has the Internet Positively or Negatively Impacted Human Society? Argumentative Essay
Pros and Cons of Abortion to the Society Argumentative Essay
Division of Labor and Capital Accumulation as Sources of the Wealth of Nations
Importance of Adopting Children
Stereotypes of American Citizens
Social Care in Ireland
Evaluating the debate between proponents of qualitative and quantitative inquiries
The Effects of Social Networking Sites on an Individual's Life

Sample details

Social Issues

Video Game Violence

Violent Video Games Should Be Banned

Almost every child enjoys playing video games as it acts as a source of entertainment. However, as time passed by vicious contents are now being portrayed through gaming that dehumanizes children and encourages in promoting violent behavior. Parents may sometimes struggle in handling severe aggression of their children as it often makes a situation worse. According to some people gaming is a normal fun activity with no harmful impacts but with time this has effected children’s behavior and affected their personalities. Often during teenage period, children are quick to adopt learned behavior as their body and mind are undergoing numerous changes. Violent video games make players internalize anxiety, increase aggressive attitude, imitate their most liked character and cause severe physical impairments.

Video game are extensively played in majority’s childhood and has influenced behavior of children by reconstructing their thoughts, actions, preferences depending on the intensity of video games played by them. Gaming is a high rated obsession of every individual as it is a good source of time pass. Back then, it was played for fun purpose but unfortunately with the passage of time children started to adopt negative behaviors from these and implemented them in normal life. Violent video games are causing many people to develop aggressive attitude against others, losing the feeling of helping others or showing empathy.

ready to help you now

Without paying upfront

Exposure to violent video games negatively affects teenagers; it increases aggressive behavior and related thoughts or feeling. Violent games in which characters are abused, murdered brutally, physically harmed should be prohibited as such games will escalate violent behavior and have a negative impact on their moral development. According to the journal of medical association, games have a strong negative impact on children and adolescent’s developing minds. More brutality and hostility were generated by these gaming activities. When a child in the video games is constantly witnessing violence, blood and murders, it leaves a certain mark on his psyche. Such a child would be more likely to take aggressive action against his family or friends and get involved on arguments without logic that harms their peers.

Teenagers learn to imitate characters and associate violent behaviors with pleasure of achieving rewards by harming others; this may erode moral codes of conduct. Some researches referred to this term as “Game transfer phenomena” where gamers adopt visual imagery contents and associate it with real life, this later results in non responsive behavior of children with family and surroundings. Under simulated conditions, emotions are triggered by violent attitude and encourage teenagers to harm others for their own satisfaction. According to researcher Matthew de grood, a 9 year old boy who frequently played ‘Halo zombies’ game, killed five college students stating that he thought they were zombies. Thus, video games can be habit forming as it gives immediate reward for learning and adopting negative behavior of characters.

Children becoming highly addicted with video games suffer from physical impairments. This is when they spend excessive amount of time on gaming that delays physical development of body as a result leading to serious and permanent psychological mental effects. The author of “Reset your child’s brain” Dr. Victoria Dunkley reports that when children play games their nervous system is in flight or fight stage, it releases dopamine and adrenaline in your body that can be dangerous as it can increase risk of heart attacks in future. Another therapist reported that there has been an increase in medical prescriptions for unfit or obese children who refuse to participate in outdoor activities. These can deteriorate health and result in chronic adrenal fatigue and auto immune diseases due to lack of performance in health activities, not only does it results in disorders but also depression, stress, diet and sleep imbalance as the gamers hardly have any social or healthy lifestyle because of their addiction towards video gaming.

There have been unwitting claims made by media about video games that are violent and involves abusive language; they consider shooting to have a link with murder and aggression in real life for the love of video gaming. In contrary, according to some researchers playing violent video games is a form stress relief. It also improves your memory, communication skills, built team work and spatial – solving skills. Though it had been a hard time drawing the line between cause and effect but violent video games are not the only reason for negative personality of children, there are many other factors around that influence behavior and also it depends on the level of intensity of video games.

In conclusion, violent games should be banned as it results in concomitant rise in violence and aggression and reduces pro social attitude. Children associate violence with enjoyment and normalize this behavior in the environment. These gaming activities have more negative effects than positive ones. Immense numbers of children playing video games are becoming addicted and spending majority of their time in gaming that not only ruins their social life but also has a bad influence on them and affects their health. Moreover, the parents need to understand that they should supervise their children, adopt a good behavior towards them by teaching them moral values and engaging them more in other alternatives such as travelling, family quality time, movies, reading, arts and sports.

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/violent-video-games-should-be-banned/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

Check more samples on your topics

Violent video games contribute to youth violence.

Video Games

Nowadays, video games have become a vital part of most children. They tend to spend more time in front of consoles and computers than reading books, playing or studying. However, when something becomes popular in somehow, there must be someone who disagrees and condemns it. The issue is that violent video games contribute to youth

Effect of Violent Video Games

Positive Effects of Violent Video Games Contrary to popular belief, violent video game actually has a lot of positive effects. According to studies done about the relationship of violent of video games and violent crime, this form of popular media has reduced the amount of violent crime. As stated in the journal written by Benjamin

Playing Violent Video Games: Good or Bad?

The Supreme Court is weighing arguments for and against a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. The dispute is over whether it is a violation of free speech to ban them. But the issue is really about public health--the health of those who play and the health of everyone they

Violent Video Games and their Positive Effects

How many times a day do our children ask us for something and we so quickly reply, “No” without second guessing it or even listening to the whole question? A million and one times, right? Most children play video games, and regardless of how we parent there usually will come a time when our child

Violent Video Games Leading to Criminal Behavior

Violent video games and its effect on gamers has been a debatable topic for decades. Although scientists have not came up with an official answer, many people have different opinions on where they stand in the argument. Many people believe violent video games can lead to a person committing a serious crime. There are video

Are Violent Video Games Appropriate Entertainment For Teenagers

Consider this scenario: A teenage boy just returned from his friend’s place after a playdate. When the boy’s parents ask him did they have a good time and what did they do together, the teenager smiles with a mischievous glint in his eyes and replies, “Yeah! Josh and I survived a zombie apocalypse, raided a

Are Violent Video Games Really That Bad for You

A lot of people play video games these days. You can look at people of many and different ages, religions, backgrounds, race, and economic scale. New apps and video games are being created each and every day. This generation meaning millennials and Gen Z are all about new advances and technology. A popular video game

Do Video Games Make You More Violent

“I know, it’s hard to wrap your head around such a fact of after years of listening to ‘don’t sit too close to the TV, you’ll ruin your eyes,’ or ‘stop wasting your time playing video games—go outside!(https://www.idtech.com/blog/video-games-are-good-for-you)’” Everyone that plays video games has heard these sayings sometime during their life. Most parents are hard

Should Violent Media Be Banned

Should violent media be banned? Many teenagers are now being introduced into playing or watching violent media at very young ages and society are wondering if they should be concerned about it; they are wondering whether it can cause aggressive behaviour within the children/teenagers. Violent video games and violent action films normally have age restriction

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

The Grim Reality of Banning TikTok

T he U.S. government, once again, wants to ban TikTok. The app has become an incontrovertible force on American phones since it launched in 2016, defining the sounds and sights of pandemic-era culture. TikTok’s burst on the scene also represented a first for American consumers, and officials—a popular social media app that wasn’t started on Silicon Valley soil, but in China.

On March 13, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to force TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to sell TikTok or else the app will be banned on American phones. The government will fine the two major mobile app stores and any cloud hosting companies to ensure that Americans cannot access the app.

While fashioned as a forced divestiture on national security grounds, let’s be real: This is a ban. The intent has always been to ban TikTok, to punish it and its users without solving any of the underlying data privacy issues lawmakers claim to care about. Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw said it outright : “No one is trying to disguise anything… We want to ban TikTok.”

But, as such, a ban of TikTok would eliminate an important place for Americans to speak and be heard. It would be a travesty for the free speech rights of hundreds of millions of Americans who depend on the app to communicate, express themselves, and even make a living. And perhaps more importantly, it would further balkanize the global internet and disconnect us from the world.

Read more: What to Know About the Bill That Could Get TikTok Banned in the U.S.

This isn’t the first time the government has tried to ban TikTok: In 2021, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order that was halted in federal court when a Trump-appointed judge found it was “arbitrary and capricious” because it failed to consider other means of dealing with the problem. Another judge found that the national security threat posted by TikTok was “phrased in the hypothetical.” When the state of Montana tried to ban the app in 2023, a federal judge found it “oversteps state power and infringes on the constitutional rights of users,” with a “pervasive undertone of anti-Chinese sentiment.”

Trump also opened a national security review with the power to force a divestment, something Biden has continued to this day with no resolution; and last year, lawmakers looked poised to pass a bill banning TikTok, but lost steam after a high-profile grilling of its top executive. (Trump has done an about-face on the issue and recently warned that banning TikTok will only help its U.S. rivals like Meta.)

TikTok stands accused of being a conduit for the Chinese Communist Party, guzzling up sensitive user data and sending it to China. There’s not much evidence to suggest that’s true, except that their parent company ByteDance is a Chinese company, and China’s government has its so-called private sector in a chokehold. In order to stay compliant, you have to play nice.

In all of this, it’s important to remember that America is not China. America doesn't have a Great Firewall with our very own internet free from outside influences. America allows all sorts of websites that the government likes, dislikes, and fears onto our computers. So there’s an irony in allowing Chinese internet giants onto America’s internet when, of course, American companies like Google and Meta’s services aren’t allowed on Chinese computers.

And because of America’s robust speech protections under the First Amendment, the U.S. finds itself playing a different ballgame than the Chinese government in this moment. These rights protect Americans against the U.S. government, not from corporations like TikTok, Meta, YouTube, or Twitter, despite the fact that they do have outsized influence over modern communication. No, the First Amendment says that the government cannot stop you from speaking without a damned good reason. In other words, you’re protected against Congress—not TikTok.

The clearest problem with a TikTok ban is it would immediately wipe out a platform where 170 million Americans broadcast their views and receive information—sometimes about political happenings. In an era of mass polarization, shutting off the app would mean shutting down the ways in which millions of people—even those with unpopular views—speak out on issues they care about. The other problem is that Americans have the constitutional right to access all sorts of information—even if it’s deemed to be foreign propaganda. There’s been little evidence to suggest that ByteDance is influencing the flow of content at the behest of the Chinese government, though there’s some reports that are indeed worrying, including reports that TikTok censored videos related to the Tiananmen Square massacre, Tibetan independence, and the banned group Falun Gong.

Still, the Supreme Court ruled in 1964 that Americans have the right to receive what the government deems to be foreign propaganda. In Lamont v. Postmaster General , for instance, the Court ruled that the government couldn’t halt the flow of Soviet propaganda through the mail. The Court essentially said that the act of the government stepping in and banning propaganda would be akin to censorship, and the American people need to be free to evaluate these transgressive ideas for themselves.

Further, the government has repeatedly failed to pass any federal data privacy protections that would address the supposed underlying problem of TikTok gobbling up troves of U.S. user data and handing it to a Chinese parent company. Biden only made moves in February 2024 to prevent data brokers from selling U.S. user data to foreign adversaries like China, arguably a problem much bigger than one app. But the reality is that the government has long been more interested in banning a media company than dealing with a real public policy issue.

There is legitimate concern in Washington and elsewhere that it’s not the government that controls so much of America’s speech, but private companies like those bred in Silicon Valley. But the disappearance of TikTok would further empower media monopolists like Google and Meta, who already control about half of all U.S. digital ad dollars, and give them a tighter choke hold over our communication. There’s already a paucity of platforms where people speak; removing TikTok would eliminate one of the most important alternatives we have.

Since it launched in 2016, TikTok has been the most influential social media app in the world, not because it affects public policy or necessarily creates monoculture—neither are particularly true, in fact—but because it has given people a totally different way to spend time online. In doing so, it disrupted the monopolies of American tech companies like Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, and forced every rival to in some way mimic its signature style. There’s Facebook and Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, Snapchat Spotlight, and every other app seems to be an infinitely-scrolling video these days.

Still, Americans choose to use TikTok and their conversations will not easily port over to another platform in the event of it being banned. Instead, cutting through the connective tissue of the app will sever important ways that Americans—especially young Americans—are speaking at a time when those conversations are as rich as ever.

The reality is that if Congress wanted to solve our data privacy problems, they would solve our data privacy problems. But instead, they want to ban TikTok, so they’ve found a way to try and do so. The bill will proceed to the Senate floor, then to the president’s desk, and then it will land in the U.S. court system. At that point, our First Amendment will once again be put to the test—a free speech case that’s very much not in the abstract, but one whose results will affect 170 million Americans who just want to use an app and have their voices be heard.

More Must-Reads From TIME

Biden’s Campaign Is In Trouble. Will the Turnaround Plan Work?
Why We're Spending So Much Money Now
The Financial Influencers Women Actually Want to Listen To
Breaker Sunny Choi Is Heading to Paris
The UAE Is on a Mission to Become an AI Power
Why TV Can’t Stop Making Silly Shows About Lady Journalists
The Case for Wearing Shoes in the House
Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

'Games made by soulless machines': Tech sparks debate over AI stories in video games

Vincent Acovino

Christopher Intagliata

A screenshot from Nvidia and Convai's recent demonstration video of AI in video games. Screenshot by NPR hide caption

A screenshot from Nvidia and Convai's recent demonstration video of AI in video games.

Is the future of artificial intelligence in video games playing out in a cyberpunk ramen bar? Tech companies would like you to think so, but game writers aren't so sure.

In a recent demo from the tech company Nvidia, a human player talked to two video game characters using a microphone — and the characters responded in real time using generative AI.

Nvidia is promising a new kind of storytelling made possible by Generative AI technology.

In a press release, Nvidia said the technology offered the chance to turn "generic non-playable characters (NPCs)" into "dynamic, interactive characters capable of striking up a conversation, or providing game knowledge to aid players in their quests."

Nvidia had partnered with the tech start-up Convai for the demo, but they aren't the only ones pushing the new technology. At this year's Game Developers Conference in San Francisco on March 18-22, new video games powered by generative AI technology are expected to be announced.

A growing number of gamers are LGBTQ+, so why is representation still lacking?

And the companies at the forefront of AI are not just promising to do the work that human writers are already doing; they are promising to completely change the way video game stories are told.

It's a claim that, across the industry, is being met with skepticism and hesitation.

Pushing the boundaries

In truth, the change is already happening.

The tech is already being used widely in game development. In a survey of more than 3,000 developers conducted by the Game Developers Conference, nearly a third say they already use AI in their workplace. Employees in business and marketing were most likely to use it, while those in narrative were among the least likely.

But it's in storytelling that the promise and perils are being most closely watched.

Games often have hundreds of characters who, together, help build a bigger story and more immersive experience. Until now, their dialogue has always been written by humans.

Video Game Reviews

Nintendo amps up an old feud in 'mario vs. donkey kong'.

Yet Kylan Gibbs, who develops AI at his company Inworld AI, says the generative technology can create a new relationship between author and creator.

"It means that every person ends up with something that — while still beheld to the story and narrative allure of the world — they're able to look at from different angles," he said.

Not everyone is so sure. Or, at least, not so willing to begin using AI in their own games.

Josh Sawyer is the studio design director at Obsidian Entertainment, which made narratively acclaimed games like Pentiment , and Fallout: New Vegas, and he isn't sold by the recent run of AI.

"A lot of the demos, I'm not going to lie, they seem impressive for a chat bot ," he said, adding it was not something he would use in his games.

Fallout: New Vegas is a science-fiction role playing game beloved for its story and characters.

In a game like Fallout: New Vegas , which follows the remaining denizens of Earth living in the wake of a nuclear apocalypse, it's the smaller interactions with the world's many characters — and their carefully crafted responses — that make for a good story.

"The appeal for our players is the characters feel very specific," Sawyer said. "I'm not looking to make a lot of generic dialogue."

Xalavier Nelson Jr., who leads the independent studio Strange Scaffold, has similar concerns. He says everything in a game needs to be filtered through a layer of intent.

"When I hear about building NPCs that make for better or equivalent game experiences while being driven by AI responses, the first thing I have to ask is ... how much does that create a cohesive experience for the player?"

"Even if an NPC interacts in a million different ways ... if it doesn't add up to a wider message, you end up with what we call in games 'oatmeal' — a sludge which functionally means or performs nothing outside of a sheer amount of stuff that's put into the world."

A question of ethics

Joon Sung Park, an AI researcher at Stanford, doesn't think generative AI will take the place of human writers who come up with high-concept, compelling storylines.

Instead, he sees AI making a game's many small characters more complex, more dynamic, and more spontaneous.

'Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth' review: Savor the story, skim the open world

"Where these agents are good at is creating believable micro-moments," he said. "But they're likely not going to be able to create individual, really fun stories."

Still, today it's human writers who craft a lot of the one-liners and small talk that side characters say in a video game. If AI does that instead, it might put some writers out of work, according to Nelson Jr.

"When we eliminate positions for juniors, that means they don't become mid level. Which means they don't become seniors. Which means they don't become the vibrant creative voices and directors of tomorrow," he said.

Gaming Culture

Hit your 2024 exercise goals with these vr fitness apps and games.

Despite the fact that generative AI is already being used across the industry, 87% of game developers surveyed by the Game Developers Conference say they are at least somewhat concerned with how this tech will impact the game industry.

That's why for many it's not a question of whether AI can write a good story — it's whether it should .

"Ten years from now, the AI might become so good at what it does that it's indistinguishable from the best human writers," says Eric Barone, who wrote and designed the hit game Stardew Valley entirely by himself.

"I feel like we have to turn to a spiritual element here. I want to play games by human beings, not games made by soulless machines."

It's an ethical question writers are confronting now. But players will face it soon, and they'll have to decide whether games written by artificial intelligence are the games they want to play.

artificial intelligence
video games

Share full article

Supported by

Enraged Over Spending Bill, Greene Threatens to Oust Johnson

The hard-right Georgia Republican called the $1.2 trillion legislation an “atrocious attack on the American people” and said the speaker had betrayed his G.O.P. colleagues.

Greene Threatens to Oust Johnson Over Spending Bill

Representative marjorie taylor greene of georgia began the process of calling for a vote to oust speaker mike johnson after he pushed through a $1.2 trillion bipartisan spending bill..

Today I filed a motion to vacate after Speaker Johnson has betrayed our conference and broken our rules. We were promised regular order. That’s what our conference had started out as, with rules and promises to the American people that we would bring regular order back to Congress. The bill that we were forced to vote on forced Republicans to choose between funding to pay our soldiers, and in doing so, funding late-term abortion. This bill was basically a dream and a wish list for Democrats and for the White House. I filed the motion to vacate today, but it’s more of a warning and a pink slip. I respect our conference. I’ve paid all my dues to my conference. I’m a member in good standing, and I do not wish to inflict pain on our conference and to throw the House in chaos. But this is basically a warning, and it’s time for us to go through, through the process, take our time and find a new speaker of the House that will stand with Republicans and our Republican majority instead of standing with the Democrats.

By Robert Jimison and Catie Edmondson

Reporting from Capitol Hill

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, on Friday took the first step toward ousting House Speaker Mike Johnson, filing a resolution calling for his removal after he pushed through a $1.2 trillion bipartisan spending bill that enraged the hard right.

“Today I filed a motion to vacate after Speaker Johnson has betrayed our conference and broken our rules,” Ms. Greene said shortly after passage of the package, which was needed to avert a partial government shutdown after midnight.

While Ms. Greene said she would not seek an immediate vote to oust Mr. Johnson, her move was an extraordinary challenge to his leadership and the second time in less than six months that divided House Republicans have weighed firing their own speaker.

“It’s more of a warning than a pink slip,” Ms. Greene told reporters on the steps of the Capitol. “We need a new speaker.”

Ms. Greene’s resolution, filed while voting was still underway on the spending bill, set up a major test for Mr. Johnson and was yet another tumultuous moment in the rancorous year the House has experienced under a fractured Republican majority.

Ms. Greene declined to say on Friday whether she would seek to invoke a privilege available to any member of the House to force a snap vote on removing Mr. Johnson, leaving lawmakers with a number of questions and uncertainty as they depart for a planned two-week recess. No other Republican has said publicly that they would support the move, and Democrats have signaled in recent weeks that they might be inclined to help protect Mr. Johnson should he face a G.O.P. threat.

But her resolution at least held out the possibility that Mr. Johnson could become the second Republican speaker to face an ouster by his colleagues, less than six months after G.O.P. rebels jettisoned Kevin McCarthy, making him the first ever to be booted from the post. It came as yet another Republican, Representative Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, announced on Friday that he would leave Congress early, narrowing the party’s already bare majority to just one vote next month.

Before voting began on Friday, Ms. Greene rose on the House floor to attack the spending bill, calling it a win for Democrats and assailing measures that she said funded progressive policies.

“This is not a Republican bill; this is a Chuck Schumer, Democrat-controlled bill,” Ms. Greene said on the House floor on Friday morning.

And after its passage, she expressed outrage that Mr. Johnson had violated an unwritten but sacrosanct rule among Republicans against bringing up any legislation that does not have support from the majority of their members. Less than half of Republicans backed the bill, after a parade of them spoke out against it, complaining that it did not cut spending deeply enough or contain the conservative policy requirements they pushed for, including severe immigration restrictions.

Ms. Greene’s move was the culmination of months of dissatisfaction among right-wing lawmakers with the leadership of Mr. Johnson, an ultraconservative Republican who won unanimous backing to become the speaker in October but has infuriated his right flank by cutting a number of deals with Democrats to keep the government funded.

Mr. Johnson defended the legislation in a lengthy statement after the vote on Friday, saying that, “House Republicans achieved conservative policy wins, rejected extreme Democrat proposals, and imposed substantial cuts while significantly strengthening national defense.”

He said the process had been “an important step in breaking the omnibus muscle memory,” referring to the practice that has become routine in recent years of cramming 12 bills’ worth of federal spending into one giant legislative package and passing it with little scrutiny. And he said it “represents the best achievable outcome in a divided government,” alluding to the limits of Republican power with Democrats in control of the Senate and White House.

But Republican critics noted that the process of funding the government had not changed much — Mr. Johnson pushed through two giant bills instead of a single one — and said their speaker should have fought harder for their priorities.

On Friday morning before the vote, Ms. Greene told Stephen K. Bannon, a former adviser to the Trump administration, during his “War Room” program that she was weighing whether or not to call for Mr. Johnson’s ouster on a “minute-by-minute basis.”

“Our majority has been completely handed over to Democrats,” Ms. Greene said on the floor shortly before filing her motion, echoing complaints by fellow far-right members of her party that the spending packages Mr. Johnson had agreed to constituted a failure of their majority.

“This was our power. This was our leverage. This was our chance to secure the border and he didn’t do it,” Ms. Greene told reporters before leaving the Capitol on Friday. “It is a betrayal.”

If brought to a vote, Ms. Greene’s resolution would prompt the second instance in more than 100 years that a lawmaker has used a tool that has more often been deployed as a threat by disgruntled lawmakers against their speaker than a genuine effort to oust them.

Should she move to force the issue, Ms. Greene could face a steep challenge in mustering a majority to remove Mr. Johnson. House Republicans are wary of throwing the chamber into another period of chaos, like the one that paralyzed the House for weeks after Mr. McCarthy’s ouster.

Representative Matt Gaetz, the Republican of Florida who led the charge for Mr. McCarthy’s removal, told reporters on Thursday that he would not seek the same fate for Mr. Johnson because it would run the risk of allowing a Democrat to be elected speaker.

And while Democrats unanimously backed the move to oust Mr. McCarthy last fall, they have recently signaled they would be inclined to rescue Mr. Johnson if he faced a similar threat. Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, told The New York Times that he believes “a reasonable number” of his fellow Democrats would protect the Republican speaker from removal if he faced a G.O.P. revolt for allowing a vote on a foreign aid bill that includes money for Ukraine.

Asked on Friday about the prospect of Democrats joining a coalition to rescue the Republican speaker, Mr. Jeffries said his previous comments had been “an observation, not a declaration,” adding that he would need to talk to his members “about the best way to proceed.”

Carl Hulse and Luke Broadwater contributed reporting.

Catie Edmondson covers Congress for The Times. More about Catie Edmondson

A Divided Congress: Latest News and Analysis

Spending Bill: The House passed a $1.2 trillion measure to fund the government through September and avert a partial shutdown at the end of the week, setting off a Republican mutiny that threatened Speaker Mike Johnson’s grasp on the gavel .

An Invite for Netanyahu: Johnson said that he planned to invite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to address Congress, moving to welcome a leader who has become a flashpoint for partisan disagreement in American politics over the war in Gaza.

Aid to Haiti: Congressional Republicans are blocking $40 million in aid that the Biden administration has requested to help stabilize Haiti amid an increase in gang violence there.

32-Hour Workweek Proposal: Senator Bernie Sanders unveiled legislation to reduce the standard workweek in the United States from 40 hours to 32 without a reduction in pay.

TikTok Ban: The House passed a bill with broad bipartisan support that would force the video app’s Chinese owner to sell the platform or be banned in the United States.

IMAGES

Should Video Games Be Banned Persuasive Essay Example
⇉Violent Video Games Should Be Banned Essay Example
Video Games Essay
Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned
Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned
Why Video Games Should Be Banned

VIDEO

Rant: Will Internet Drama Ruin The Gaming Industry?
Gaming Has Gone Too Far
10 Video Games That Were Cancelled (Despite Being Almost Finished)
Games Banned in Other Countries
Why do Game Journalists have such Bad Takes?
This game was BANNED in multiple countries for being too violent #gaming

COMMENTS

Video Games Should Be Banned: [Essay Example], 759 words
This essay will explore the arguments for why video games should be banned, focusing on their potential harm to individuals and society as a whole. By examining the latest research and evidence, this essay will demonstrate the negative effects of excessive gaming on cognitive development, physical health, and interpersonal relationships.
Pro and Con: Violent Video Games
To access extended pro and con arguments, sources, and discussion questions about whether violent video games contribute to youth violence, go to ProCon.org. Around 73% of American kids age 2-17 played video games in 2019, a 6% increase over 2018. Video games accounted for 17% of kids' entertainment time and 11% of their entertainment spending.
Should Video Games Be Banned?
If video games were banned advances in this type of technology, while not completely halted, would've been considerably hindered. RapeLay is a Japanese developed game which has been heavily ...
Analysis: Why it's time to stop blaming video games for real-world
Analysis: Why it's time to stop blaming video games for real-world violence. In the wake of the El Paso shooting on Aug. 3 that left 21 dead and dozens injured, a familiar trope has reemerged ...
Do Video Games Cause Violence? 9 Pros and Cons
The global video game industry was worth contributing $159.3 billion in 2020, a 9.3% increase of 9.3% from 2019. Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children ...
To Play or Not to Play: The Great Debate About Video Games
Oct. 7, 2014, at 9:15 a.m. To Play or Not to Play: The Great Debate About Video Games. With more than 90 percent of American kids playing video games for an average of two hours a day, whether ...
Violent video games and young people
The Pew Research Center reported in 2008 that 97% of youths ages 12 to 17 played some type of video game, and that two-thirds of them played action and adventure games that tend to contain violent content. (Other research suggests that boys are more likely to use violent video games, and play them more frequently, than girls.)
Video games, violence, and guns: the frustrating, enduring debate
The frustrating, enduring debate over video games, violence, and guns. We asked players, parents, developers, and experts to weigh in on how to change the conversation around gaming. By Aja Romano ...
The evidence that video game violence leads to real-world aggression
It should be noted, however, that the 2017 statement questions the connection between "serious" aggression while the APA Resolution of 2015, based on a review of its 2005 resolution by its own experts, found that "the link between violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior is one of the most studied and best established. Since ...
Violent Video Games: Persuasive Essay
According the American Psychological Association, violent video games increase children's aggression. Dr. Phil McGraw explains, "The number one negative effect is they tend to inappropriately resolve anxiety by externalizing it. So when kids have anxiety, which they do, instead of soothing themselves, calming themselves, talking about it ...
Essay On Video Games Should Be Banned
761 Words4 Pages. Many of individuals trust that violent video games should be banned by stating that video games can affect people in a negative way. A few even claim that the violence within the game can make individuals carry out violent acts. People should come to an understanding that video games take place in an alternate universe ...
Violent video games: content, attitudes, and norms
Violent video games (VVGs) are a source of serious and continuing controversy. They are not unique in this respect, though. Other entertainment products have been criticized on moral grounds, from pornography to heavy metal, horror films, and Harry Potter books. Some of these controversies have fizzled out over time and have come to be viewed as cases of moral panic. Others, including moral ...
(PDF) Should Violent Video-Games Be Banned?
Pranshu Paul1 Abstract With the recent spurt of highly publicised killings, the debate about violence and video games has again taken the spotlight. Many stakeholders and institutions believe that playing violent video games is morally and ethically objectionable as it leads to contribution and promotion of violence.
Banning of Violent Video Games
In other words, video games exhibit the same artistic variety that one finds browsing Netflix. In its 2011 Brown decision, the Supreme Court struck down a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors. The court found that studies showing a link between violence and video games were methodologically flawed and unpersuasive.
Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned
Learn More. Although there are strong reasons brought forth by those who want violent video games to be banned, here are reasons why we should not; increases self-esteem, reduction of pain, encourages teamwork, sharpening players' wit, among others (Sterngold, 2006). With regards to those in support of banning the game, they hold the view ...
The Debate Around Potential Ban of Violent Video Games
This essay has been submitted by a student. According to Ferguson et al. (2015), video games are outlined as games complete through associate electronic system like computer, console or digital phone as a kind of immersive media have long been inspected for his or her ability effect on potential violent or aggressive action in teenagers and kids.
⇉Violent Video Games Should Be Banned Essay Example
In conclusion, violent games should be banned as it results in concomitant rise in violence and aggression and reduces pro social attitude. Children associate violence with enjoyment and normalize this behavior in the environment. These gaming activities have more negative effects than positive ones. Immense numbers of children playing video ...
Should Violent Video Game Be Banned
The correlation between violent content in video games and depression is possible in the light of research showing that the exposure of children to real-life abuse, either as victims or witnesses, is associated with poor mental health outcomes including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (Fowler et al, 2009).
Violent Video Games Should Be Banned Essay
Another reason to support violent video game should be banned is it brings a lot of dangerous to the individuals. Firstly, playing video games which involving violence, may boost children's learning. Include health and social skills. Basically,violent video game particularly improve a player's thinking skills and arouse.
Violent Video Games Should Be Banned for Minors
This essay will argue that violent video games should be restricted material to people aged over 18, access should be banned from minors and appropriate classification levels and training should be regulated within stores of sale. Some individuals object to this as they believe it will promote and improve a child's understanding of computer ...
Violent video games should be banned
In this essay, I will argue that violent video games should be banned. Firstly, research has shown that exposure to violent video games can lead to an increase in aggression. Studies have found that individuals who play violent video games exhibit more aggressive behavior, including verbal aggression, physical aggression, and hostility, than ...
The Grim Reality of Banning TikTok
Nover is a freelance writer covering media and technology. He is a contributing writer at Slate and was previously a reporter at Quartz and Adweek The U.S. government, once again, wants to ban ...
AI in video games sparks debate over who should write the stories : NPR
In a press release, Nvidia said the technology offered the chance to turn "generic non-playable characters (NPCs)" into "dynamic, interactive characters capable of striking up a conversation, or ...
Enraged Over Spending Bill, Greene Threatens to Oust Johnson
The hard-right Georgia Republican called the $1.2 trillion legislation an "atrocious attack on the American people" and said the speaker had betrayed his G.O.P. colleagues.

Video Games Should Be Banned

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Video Games

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Should Video Games Be Banned?

What do you think? Leave a respectful comment.

Analysis: Why it’s time to stop blaming video games for real-world violence

A history of a moral panic

Reviewing all the scholarly literature

The role of professional groups

Educate your inbox

El Paso shooting is domestic terrorism, investigators say

Most Popular

health disclaimer »

Your Health

You May Also Like

Best Anti-Cancer Foods

Brain Health Benefits of Seafood

Colon Cancer Diet

Tylenol, Advil or Aleve: Which Is Best?

Health Benefits and Recipes for Beans

Best Workouts for Women Over 50

Stress-Relieving Exercises

What Is Bed Rotting?

Worst Foods for Gut Health

The frustrating, enduring debate over video games, violence, and guns

Share this story

Share All sharing options for: The frustrating, enduring debate over video games, violence, and guns

Subscribe to Today, Explained

There’s no science proving a link between video games and real-world violence. But that hasn’t quelled a debate that’s raged for decades.

The debate endures because gun control isn’t being addressed — and games are an easy target

Many members of the gaming community are already discussing game violence

The conversation surrounding violent games implicates violent gaming culture itself — which, in turn, implicates politicians who rail against games

We’re long overdue for an Asian lead on The Bachelor franchise

The evidence that video game violence leads to real-world aggression

Most Popular

Cognition’s New AI Tool Devin Is Set To Revolutionize Coding Industry

Comments (0)

Cancel reply

More from Best Persuasive Essay Examples

How does outdoor exercises impact our health and well-being? Essay Sample, Example

Should Screen Time Be Limited? Essay Sample, Example

Why Video Games are Good for the Brain. Essay Sample, Example

Forgotten Password?

Violent video games: content, attitudes, and norms

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Psychological Reactance to Anti-Piracy Messages explained by Gender and Attitudes

Speaking to the Other: Digital Intimate Publics and Gamergate

Virtual experience, real consequences: the potential negative emotional consequences of virtual reality gameplay

Introduction

Background and preliminaries

The causation argument

The violence argument

Interaction

An objection

The internal logic of violent video games

Author information

Corresponding author

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Should Violent Video-Games Be Banned?

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Video game bans are unconstitutional, and they won’t prevent violent crimes

Related Cases

Related Articles

A First Amendment win: Supreme Court rules the government can’t control private speech

Scar tattoos are a First Amendment right too

The Hill: The slippery slope of trying to curb ‘extremist’ speech

Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay

Sample details

Related Topics

Violent Video Games Should Be Banned