Games Causing Violence

In Simon Penny’s article “Representation, Enaction, and the Ethics of Simulation”, he writes about how interactive entertainment has caused violence to increase, especially with younger kids who play these games. These games, he states, which are also used for simulation training, create body training from “repetitive physical actions”. These actions are, in the games he mention, about violence: killing and shooting. When kids play these games, they are performing rapid and reflexive movements, which causes them to repeat these movements unconsciously. When the kids are then placed in situations that reflect the game, these same movements are then used since they have been “trained” to do so.

There is one example that Penny states that I believe is proof that video games can cause violence in kids. He writes about adolescent shootings. The shooter’s goal is to kill a certain person, but when they have killed that person, they keep on killing others that are in front of them until a limiting factor appears. This behavior is mirrored in violent video games; the player is supposed to kill any character that comes in their path. By repeating these actions, the adolescents then take that behavior into the real world and perform the same actions unconsciously.

I believe that violent video games do not cause all adolescent violence, but I do believe it has a part in some instances. I also think that the games in which a representation of a weapon is used as a controller (instead of just pressing buttons) has a bigger influence in violence coming from video games. Do you think it has any amount of influencing violent behavior in people? Is it just a cause for kids, or for adults also?

This entry was posted in First Readers. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Games Causing Violence

  1. cole says:

    As much as I try to, I simply cannot read articles like Simon Penny’s without taking it a little personally. Their claims almost always imply that I am somehow capable of going out tomorrow and shooting people, because video games have ‘trained’ me to do so. Last time I checked 99.99% of video gamers have lived completely peaceful and productive lives.

    I think it is reasonable to assume that a minimum of 1% of a given population will be crazy, so when I see these articles analyzing that 1% in order to make generalization about the other 99% it just seems wrong somehow.

    I don’t think I’ve ever actually heard of some in depth analysis that discovered that someone went on a rampage BECAUSE of video games. Columbine was the result of bullying, absent parents, and the use of anti-depressant drug by one of the kids that sometimes has the side effects of violent and suicidal thoughts/behavior. Tech was alienation, depression, and possibly rejection (I don’t remember as much about it). Other shootings that I remember almost all involved either people being bullied, people with depression issues, and extremely isolated individuals.

    Video games train skills, they don’t train you how to emotionally handle actually killing someone else. The military tries to train both of these things, but its unclear in the article (other then a single quote from one general) how video games are training people emotionally. Using more realistic controllers might teach soldiers how to aim better, but it is totally unclear that it makes it easier for them to deal with the trauma of a combat situation.

  2. Jason Ko says:

    Building an Cole’s comment, I am rather good at using a sniper rifle in video games, but I can barely even shoot a bb gun correctly, much less an actual firearm. These skills do not have a one-to-one correlation like some “experts” would have you believe. This training is not sufficiently close to the real activity. Even in martial arts, training and sparring are two very different things. We saw how hard it was to fire the gun correctly in the JFK game, and those are relatively ideal conditions. It becomes much harder to act in dangerous situations where it is possible that you could incur real bodily harm to yourself, as opposed to the separate space of the game world.

    Speaking to the Tech shooting in particular, Seung-Hui Cho did not play violent video games at all. If I recall correctly, his roommates said that he appalled them.

    I would even refute this idea in light gun games, the kind you see in arcades where the controller is shaped like a gun. If they were really so dangerous, why would these sorts of games be so prevalent at arcades, where they are easily accessible to audiences of widely varying ages?

    It could be that these sorts of video games have not been around long enough to fully discuss and analyze their effects, but I believe a view into the underlying psychology of shooters may be helpful here. Some have suggested that people play shooters not to shoot others, but to be shot at. In this theory, the player feels empowered by the fact that characters in the game find him or her important enough to merit killing.

  3. kstrylow says:

    Expanding on the earlier comments, I take issue with Penny’s claims because I think humans are a lot smarted than he assumes. People are incredibly skilled at recognizing how situation defines acceptable behavior. Although toddlers may have trouble understanding why a bathing suit is not appropriate wedding attire, we seem to recognize and conform to the standards drilled into us through our childhood. As Koster discusses, games are special because they allow us to test actions and participate in behavior outside of (many of) these cultural constraints and consequences. (For instance, men can play women in RPGs, children can test out strategies in Risk.) Thus, gunning down hundreds of enemies can be culturally acceptable in a game even though violent behavior is absolutely forbidden in real life.

    I would argue that the real issue is when the lines between reality and games are blurred. While video games can work like simulations, they only perfect an instinctual response. As Cole pointed out, these games are not motivating children to pick up guns and start shooting people. Perhaps video game immersed children are be unable to stop shooting once they start, but the starting is the big thing, and it’s obvious that playing video games doesn’t instigate mass murder.

  4. kstrylow says:

    Upon further consideration, I think you could actually argue that violent video games can discourage violent behavior. In a previous honors class, we discussed a feminist theory of male aggression. Basically, the theory suggests that everyone has a basic need to experience death and violence, and while women satisfy this urge through the violence of childbirth, men must resort to war to fulfill their need. If you accept this, video games could actually become men’s escape from physical violence. Instead of reeking havoc between civilizations and punishing innocent bystanders, men can now vent their aggression in a virtual battlefield without any of the horrific real-life results.
    Obviously, this is an extremely sexist theory that makes many assumptions, but I would be interested to hear how you guys respond. Do men need to be violent? Are videogames a viable substitute to physical aggression? Do you feel that videogames increase or decrease your likelihood to engage in physical conflict?

    • I think there’s plenty of research from cultural anthropology that could challenge the notion that men are inherently violent, or need war in order to channel their aggressive tendencies. I do think our society values male aggression, or, at the very least, rewards it more positively than it rewards female aggression. Which actually leads me to a follow-up question…this discussion thread is focusing on violence in games, but what if we shift the discussion to aggression in games. How does that broaden or challenge the assumptions that Penny and others make?

  5. rcummins says:

    I’m going to have to agree with Cole, I too get offended by articles like the one by Penny. To argue that games train children to kill everything in front of you is absurd. Where does the game say, replicate this in real life? In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find a “violent video game” that is marketed towards anyone under the age of 17 nowadays. Video games make someone good at shooting just as much as playing Madden or Fifa or NBA Live makes one good at sports. If you were to find any of the top 10 Fifa players, I would feel confident saying none of them would be good at playing soccer. Pressing a button is nothing like the real thing. Even in shooting games where they use a simulated gun, this is nothing like shooting a real gun. A real gun is heavier and has kick to it. Theres no holding a shotgun with one hand, unless of course you want a face full of shotgun.

    While the military may find simulations useful I’d say it would have to do with not only the game itself being used as a simulation but also with the mindset they enter the simulation with: that it is 100% real. Without this mindset, the simulation means nothing. Now, I’m speaking from experience here, so I can’t attest that this is how everyone plays video games, but when I play I don’t go in with the mindset that it is real. I know the game I’m playing is fake and I don’t pretend its anything but fake. I have killed a countless number of fake people in video games and I can honestly say I’ve never once had the impulse to kill another living being with a gun, let alone shoot a gun.

Comments are closed.