Do games really encourage violence?

[Jakub324]

I think they might, but only in really addicted and impressionable people BUT don't worry, I'm not part of the anti-fun brigade. I was thinking earlier about that guy who said he games encourage violence because they reward it.
This made me think: who are we attacking? The most popular FPS on console, Call of Duty has you kill international terrorists, soldiers invading places without proper justification, zombies, Nazis, war criminals and the like, so surely we're being taught to harm those who are morally objectionable? Other popular games, like Killzone, have you kill people (well, Helghast) who want every human dead. In Halo and Gears of War, the player strives to prevent the genocide of our species. Because of this, are we not becoming better people, willing to fight for what we know is best for humanity? Is that a bad thing?
Maybe I'm missing something. I'm hardly the first person to say this, but I had to put the idea out there.

 

[gallaetha_matt]

I avoid pavements, I pay my prostitutes the money I owe them without resorting to a baseball bat and I try not to shoot at anybody that isn't shooting at me. I feel bad when I kill somebody accidentally.

This works just as well in games like GTA as it does in real life. Sometimes better.

 

[KiloFox]

most gamers are intelligent enough to be able to discern their reality form fantasy. this is why games like GTA have the *M* rating! impressionable kids who CAN get the idea of "this looks like fun! lemme raid my dad's gun cabinet and play Niko!" SHOULDN'T have access to such games that're for mature adults who CAN distinguish their reality and fantasy. at that level, if fault on the fault of the parents not parenting their spawn. i know several legitimately crazy people. including a schizophrenic (and they are a BLAST to hang around. BEST FRIENDS EVER!) and when i asked them a similar question they replied with that they knew the difference between what they can do in a game and what they can do in real life. and they escape into the game world to DO those things that they can't do without serious consequences... such as a murder spree. they can't do that in real life, so they do it in game and release the tension and suddenly they're calm and happy again and the world is made of rainbows and sunshine.

so in short, do video games make you violent? no. they do the exact opposite by allowing you to relieve the violent urges out on a bunch of unfeeling 1's and 0's.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

I love how in Fallout 3, the "Bloody Mess" perk makes your opponents vaporise into gooey chunks after pulling off a well placed shot. THEN says that there is 5% of extra damage as an after thought.

Of course, I always want the my money back when I get a quickie from a hooker. She always drops more money than I gave her, too.

I love the GTA economy.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

If someone is so fucking psychologically brittle that they feel motivated to go on a killing spree because of a book, song, game, film, painting or piece of work from any other medium, then they shouldn't be entrusted with plastic carrier bags, let alone be allowed to play these games in the first place. It's the individual not the game that is the problem, clearly they already have some kind of pre-existing form of psychosis or just deep-rooted issues that have led them to recreate what they see.

 

[teisjm]

I think they might, but only in really addicted and impressionable people BUT don't worry, I'm not part of the anti-fun brigade. I was thinking earlier about that guy who said he games encourage violence because they reward it.
This made me think: who are we attacking? The most popular FPS on console, Call of Duty has you kill international terrorists, soldiers invading places without proper justification, zombies, Nazis, war criminals and the like, so surely we're being taught to harm those who are morally objectionable? Other popular games, like Killzone, have you kill people (well, Helghast) who want every human dead. In Halo and Gears of War, the player strives to prevent the genocide of our species. Because of this, are we not becoming better people, willing to fight for what we know is best for humanity? Is that a bad thing?
Maybe I'm missing something. I'm hardly the first person to say this, but I had to put the idea out there.

By that logic, that the games actually teach us moral values we carry over in real life, which i disagree with, games like GTA and Saints Row, Thief, Manhunt etc. would in fact teach us bad stuff.

I don't think anyone sane has problems with differentiating between what they do in video games, and what they do in real life, and if someone insane kills someone cause he saw it in a video-game, i'd probbably call his insanity the cause of the problem, and not the videogame.

 

[pubbing]

Yes games most defiantly encourage violence. You get rewarded for violent acts and that is pretty much the definition of encouragement.

Now does this have an effect in real life? From what i understand the effect is almost 0.

Fantasy is fantasy and pretend is just pretend and i think most humans understand that.

 

[KiloFox]

most gamers are intelligent enough to be able to discern their reality form fantasy. this is why games like GTA have the *M* rating! impressionable kids who CAN get the idea of "this looks like fun! lemme raid my dad's gun cabinet and play Niko!" SHOULDN'T have access to such games that're for mature adults who CAN distinguish their reality and fantasy. at that level, if fault on the fault of the parents not parenting their spawn...

so in short, do video games make you violent? no. they do the exact opposite by allowing you to relieve the violent urges out on a bunch of unfeeling 1's and 0's.

That sounds less like 'no they don't' and more like 'yes they do, which is why they're rated'.

You can't really claim that games don't cause violence and simultaneously say that's why they're rated because then you're defending a rating system for doing a job you say doesn't exist.

see you cut out the entire second half of what i said. Kids ARE impressionable. if they watch moneys long enough they'll start to act like them. this is NOT a behavior that is solely brought out by video games. the years where we learn the most is our early years, and ratings are there in place to prevent someone's impressionable years to be filled with the violent games which CAN make an impressionable CHILD, who shouldn't even be playing such games, do things. if a CHILD who has no idea on how the world works, or what is right and wrong, is brought up around GTA and learns that stealing cars and killing people is the "Norm" then of course they'll act on it. but someone whom the game in INTENDED for, will not have that same effect. the blame rests on the parents, not the games. alternatively, if a child is raised around say, wolves all it's life, and learns that as the norm, then guess what they'll start acting like.

 

[Dango]

I studied this for a research paper quite a bit...

The most valid studies state that people who are already prone to aggression and violence can be affected to a small extent, and with everyone else the effect is nearly non-existent.

Video game addiction on the other hand is probably more dangerous.

 

[Riddle78]

They do. No bones about it,any depiction of violence that either goes unpunished,net favourable results,is met with more violence (as a solution),or otherwise not very obviously painted as a very bad and reprehensible thing does,to some degree,promote violence.

However,it's up to the observer to act on these messages. Only someone who lacks the capacity to fully understand if it's right or wrong will act violently,solely because they played Borderlands or Bulletstorm. If you're influenced,and you're 12 and up...Then you need your head checked.

 

[ResonanceSD]

I think they might, but only in really addicted and impressionable people BUT don't worry, I'm not part of the anti-fun brigade. I was thinking earlier about that guy who said he games encourage violence because they reward it.
This made me think: who are we attacking? The most popular FPS on console, Call of Duty has you kill international terrorists, soldiers invading places without proper justification, zombies, Nazis, war criminals and the like, so surely we're being taught to harm those who are morally objectionable? Other popular games, like Killzone, have you kill people (well, Helghast) who want every human dead. In Halo and Gears of War, the player strives to prevent the genocide of our species. Because of this, are we not becoming better people, willing to fight for what we know is best for humanity? Is that a bad thing?
Maybe I'm missing something. I'm hardly the first person to say this, but I had to put the idea out there.

Probably in the same way that any adrenal activity will encourage the same ~_~

 

[Blue2]

Everyone is violent in some degree. In our past man had bloody wars and entertainment when before video games existed. I look at Video games as a violent outlet, It's better to shoot at a fake person then a real person. Sure video games might be a nail but bad parenting and fail to explain your child there is a line between reality and fantasy is the hammer hitting the nail into the coffin.

 

[IkeGreil29]

FPS's are easier to defend. Unbound games like Prototype, GTA, etc. that have no good/bad meter and are just left to do whatever the hell you want without consequence (or almost any consequence) are not as easy to defend. What I say is that if you're gonna play a game like that, I'd assume your parents can judge how mature you are and buy it for you or not. If you're no longer living with your parents, I'd assume you're 18 or more, so I'd say that whoever "inspired by" CoD or some other violent game to kill people, a la the Finland killer reported about in recent events, you're obviously off your rocker somehow.

 

[Phlakes]

Yes games most defiantly encourage violence.

Definitely. Unless you mean that the games are being defiant.

OT: A lot of them encourage violence in the game, but never to go out and actually kill people.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

In the hands of a balanced individual playing a game appropriate for their age: No

Virtual violence, no matter how 'realistic' it is supposed to be, is never even going to come close to scenes and experiences of REAL violence when it comes to how it can effect a person's psyche. In fact, there was a study done on this not too long ago where a group of frequent gamers who were all into violent games were asked to fire some real rifles at a shooting range. Afterwards they were asked if the sensation felt in any way familiar of natural to them. The answer was a resounding 'no'. When asked if they wanted to do it again, the vast majority didn't. Some even broke down in tears because they found the experience so shocking and they hadn't been expecting it to be so different. So I'd say that is fairly conclusive proof that just because you like to play violent video games, it does not mean you become desensitised to the concept of real violence.

If the individual in question is not balanced or they are playing a game that is rated as far too old for them, then you can't really blame that on the game can you?

TL;DR: Video Games don't encourage violence. Violence encourages violence.

 

[OverweightWhale]

Maybe they do in a minuscule way, but not enough to make every person who plays GTA want to go on a rampage. Personally, when I play games like GTA 4 they tend to relax me since I just mess around and wreak havoc on those unsuspecting citizens

 

[TheFlyingMango]

For the most part no. I do not think games encourage violence, to me it seems that games are just the scapegoat. I read one article about a child who was murdered by his uncle whilst playing xbox. They then blamed it on the game for the senseless murder when the true fact was that the man was just off his rocker.