The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hello everyone. Years ago I wrote a discurrsive essay on whether or not video games promote gun violence. I have however been given another discurrsive essay to do on whether or not video games promote violent behaviour. I obviously couldn't hand in the same essay twice because my first one was on a slightly different topic and is not at quite as high a standard. I have however not put it to waste. I have taken the same basic essay and changed most of it in an attempt to make it acceptable. However I don't believe I have done a very good job and any help/ opinions would be greatly appreciated. Well with out further a do here is my essay, don't laugh! -
--------------------------
Games Consoles – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour?
The question “Games Consoles – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour?” arises every few years normally triggered by a gun tragedy or when an extremely violent video game is released such as Postal 2. Whether or not they are actually responsible for the rise of gun crimes and other forms of violent behaviour however is a matter of serious debate. Recent figures show that crime as a whole has risen over the past few years and that gun crimes have doubled since they were banned! Britain may be the most unlikely country in Europe for you to be shot in but as long as that risk is there we have to deal with such violent behaviour in the best way we can. Should video games be targeted as the reason for these figures though? Or are we just using them as a scapegoat?
In America it is not uncommon for 10-year-old boys and girls to play up to 6 hours of video games per week and spend at least 1 hour a week at an arcade. Is it really a surprise that many of this time-spent gaming is gaming on games, which involve a great deal of violence, swearing and worse? Arguably one of the most controversial games of all time is Grand Theft Auto III and many people would argue that games likes these have become so realistic that it is hard for some people to draw the line between fiction and the reality.
Games such as these have been attacked on several occasions buy disgruntled parents and so on who believe that these games give impressionable youths a gaming experience with little morals that could quite easily be reality. To a certain extent this is true however technology will progress and games will become more realistic. It is not the fault of the games industry if easily influenced people take these works of fiction into reality. Children are obviously more likely to take what they see as fact with out question and showing them something as realistic as a video game may give them a distorted outlook on reality. As 13-year-old Lawrence Jones says in New York “It is as close as you can get to killing someone without being arrested or really killing someone.” And arguably if a young teenager finds a game so realistic that the next step towards reality is to murder someone it is understandable that people think that video games are a bit too realistic for store shelves.
Although there are a few “wholesome” family games out on the market such as Rayman, there are a much larger variety of games that have violence within them. This may anger parents and so on but they do sell a lot more copies. These story lines are there fore regarded, as a cause for increasing violence such as street crime. The fact that in many video games you not only HAVE to kill someone to progress to the next stage but you gain extra points for shooting people puts a positive spin on murder which is not wanted by many parents who buy these games for their children. In Grand Theft Auto III for example you earn yourself extra points by first sleeping with a prostitute and then shooting her to get your money back. This game and many of it’s sequels / prequels however were in such great demand for Christmas that they sold out in shops all over the UK! For so many people to be playing such a violent game it’s violent content can become second nature to people and even an addiction. This is why many parents and other people who are morally against violent video games find it hard to accept that they are “just a video game”.
Arguably the most demonstrable reason why people think that video games are responsible for gun violence is celebrity influence. Going to the cinema is used by many people as a form of escapism and when movie stars come to the gaming market the games double in more than just price. They double in credibility. Whenever a blockbuster film is released it is a safe bet that a video game based on it will appear sooner or later and when you are playing a fictional super hero portrayed by a world famous actor you can very easily be influenced by the video game. Some games such as first person shooters involve you controlling what a character on the screen does in every way and some people would argue that if you are learning how to fire real weapons used by your favourite actors then you are very likely to take notice of what is being done and you are more likely to act upon what you have learned. If this is proven true then this will effectively prove that there is a link between video games and the rise of violent behaviour such as street crime.
I will now progress to why I think that video games aren’t responsible for gun violence. Obviously murdering someone is not something many people do at all but we have to ask ourselves why not? If you argue that video games influence people to shoot one another you must ask why everyone who plays a violent video game doesn’t go out and shoot someone? The answer to this is; video games aren’t the cause of violent behaviour. The people who take it upon themselves to fire a gun are entirely responsible. The fact that most of these people already have mental problems or have had something traumatic happen in their life is what influences them not the creative works of others. It is not the video games that are to blame; it is the people who play them and I will attempt to prove it in the following parts of my essay.
Firstly we must acknowledge the fact that video games are only a small part of the media and can’t be totally to blame. Music, News, TV and Movies. All of these are just as or more violent than video games yet they are often deemed acceptable by society. If one form of media is the cause of violent behaviour then surely all these other forms of media must incite violence as well? However if other forms of media are just as violent as a video game or more violent than a video game then logically they are either all to blame or all acceptable and as the majority are accepted by society they must all be acceptable.
As well as looking at the path that lies before us which is the inevitable advancements of realism in video games we must also look at the path behind us. Violence has been around for millions of years and we can see that it is nothing new to society. If we go back in time as long ago as the time of the Roman Empire we will find out that people actually engaged in savage fights on a regular basis! Some times to the death. In many ways we have evolved from that and some would argue that video games are actually a safe way to release all our violent tensions in a safe environment. I agree with this argument one hundred percent and like most other people I am not a violent person.
In conclusion the answer to “Video Consoles – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour?” is no. I have reviewed the evidence and I believe that if you banned all video games tomorrow it would not stop violent behaviour. Video games such a Grand Theft Auto III have been banned in countries before and as 13-year-old Robert Crawford says “ I just think it makes it more exciting ‘cause you’re not supposed to have it” this is undeniable evidence that if you banned violent video games that people would just want them more. It happened when guns were banned and it will happen again if you do it to video games. When you actually consider all the possibilities the root of the problem is something very different and quite unrelated to video games. They do not promote violent behaviour they simply incorporate it.
By Stephen ******
AKA
Cubist
----------------------------
Well what did you all think? Any help/opinions would be great remember:D
--------------------------
Games Consoles – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour?
The question “Games Consoles – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour?” arises every few years normally triggered by a gun tragedy or when an extremely violent video game is released such as Postal 2. Whether or not they are actually responsible for the rise of gun crimes and other forms of violent behaviour however is a matter of serious debate. Recent figures show that crime as a whole has risen over the past few years and that gun crimes have doubled since they were banned! Britain may be the most unlikely country in Europe for you to be shot in but as long as that risk is there we have to deal with such violent behaviour in the best way we can. Should video games be targeted as the reason for these figures though? Or are we just using them as a scapegoat?
In America it is not uncommon for 10-year-old boys and girls to play up to 6 hours of video games per week and spend at least 1 hour a week at an arcade. Is it really a surprise that many of this time-spent gaming is gaming on games, which involve a great deal of violence, swearing and worse? Arguably one of the most controversial games of all time is Grand Theft Auto III and many people would argue that games likes these have become so realistic that it is hard for some people to draw the line between fiction and the reality.
Games such as these have been attacked on several occasions buy disgruntled parents and so on who believe that these games give impressionable youths a gaming experience with little morals that could quite easily be reality. To a certain extent this is true however technology will progress and games will become more realistic. It is not the fault of the games industry if easily influenced people take these works of fiction into reality. Children are obviously more likely to take what they see as fact with out question and showing them something as realistic as a video game may give them a distorted outlook on reality. As 13-year-old Lawrence Jones says in New York “It is as close as you can get to killing someone without being arrested or really killing someone.” And arguably if a young teenager finds a game so realistic that the next step towards reality is to murder someone it is understandable that people think that video games are a bit too realistic for store shelves.
Although there are a few “wholesome” family games out on the market such as Rayman, there are a much larger variety of games that have violence within them. This may anger parents and so on but they do sell a lot more copies. These story lines are there fore regarded, as a cause for increasing violence such as street crime. The fact that in many video games you not only HAVE to kill someone to progress to the next stage but you gain extra points for shooting people puts a positive spin on murder which is not wanted by many parents who buy these games for their children. In Grand Theft Auto III for example you earn yourself extra points by first sleeping with a prostitute and then shooting her to get your money back. This game and many of it’s sequels / prequels however were in such great demand for Christmas that they sold out in shops all over the UK! For so many people to be playing such a violent game it’s violent content can become second nature to people and even an addiction. This is why many parents and other people who are morally against violent video games find it hard to accept that they are “just a video game”.
Arguably the most demonstrable reason why people think that video games are responsible for gun violence is celebrity influence. Going to the cinema is used by many people as a form of escapism and when movie stars come to the gaming market the games double in more than just price. They double in credibility. Whenever a blockbuster film is released it is a safe bet that a video game based on it will appear sooner or later and when you are playing a fictional super hero portrayed by a world famous actor you can very easily be influenced by the video game. Some games such as first person shooters involve you controlling what a character on the screen does in every way and some people would argue that if you are learning how to fire real weapons used by your favourite actors then you are very likely to take notice of what is being done and you are more likely to act upon what you have learned. If this is proven true then this will effectively prove that there is a link between video games and the rise of violent behaviour such as street crime.
I will now progress to why I think that video games aren’t responsible for gun violence. Obviously murdering someone is not something many people do at all but we have to ask ourselves why not? If you argue that video games influence people to shoot one another you must ask why everyone who plays a violent video game doesn’t go out and shoot someone? The answer to this is; video games aren’t the cause of violent behaviour. The people who take it upon themselves to fire a gun are entirely responsible. The fact that most of these people already have mental problems or have had something traumatic happen in their life is what influences them not the creative works of others. It is not the video games that are to blame; it is the people who play them and I will attempt to prove it in the following parts of my essay.
Firstly we must acknowledge the fact that video games are only a small part of the media and can’t be totally to blame. Music, News, TV and Movies. All of these are just as or more violent than video games yet they are often deemed acceptable by society. If one form of media is the cause of violent behaviour then surely all these other forms of media must incite violence as well? However if other forms of media are just as violent as a video game or more violent than a video game then logically they are either all to blame or all acceptable and as the majority are accepted by society they must all be acceptable.
As well as looking at the path that lies before us which is the inevitable advancements of realism in video games we must also look at the path behind us. Violence has been around for millions of years and we can see that it is nothing new to society. If we go back in time as long ago as the time of the Roman Empire we will find out that people actually engaged in savage fights on a regular basis! Some times to the death. In many ways we have evolved from that and some would argue that video games are actually a safe way to release all our violent tensions in a safe environment. I agree with this argument one hundred percent and like most other people I am not a violent person.
In conclusion the answer to “Video Consoles – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour?” is no. I have reviewed the evidence and I believe that if you banned all video games tomorrow it would not stop violent behaviour. Video games such a Grand Theft Auto III have been banned in countries before and as 13-year-old Robert Crawford says “ I just think it makes it more exciting ‘cause you’re not supposed to have it” this is undeniable evidence that if you banned violent video games that people would just want them more. It happened when guns were banned and it will happen again if you do it to video games. When you actually consider all the possibilities the root of the problem is something very different and quite unrelated to video games. They do not promote violent behaviour they simply incorporate it.
By Stephen ******
AKA
Cubist
----------------------------
Well what did you all think? Any help/opinions would be great remember:D
Page:
Cubist wrote:
> Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> Is all this material copy righted? Thought not.
>
>
> *yoink!*
>
> Actually I take Information Systems at my school and we are covering
> copyright right now and it turns out that if you post something on an
> internet forum it is copyrighted to the person who posted it as you
> have allready registered all your details and so on so huh huh! It is
> Copyrighted. :D Interesting fact aint it?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Ah well. There are pleanty other intellectual materials I can steal...
> Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> Is all this material copy righted? Thought not.
>
>
> *yoink!*
>
> Actually I take Information Systems at my school and we are covering
> copyright right now and it turns out that if you post something on an
> internet forum it is copyrighted to the person who posted it as you
> have allready registered all your details and so on so huh huh! It is
> Copyrighted. :D Interesting fact aint it?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Ah well. There are pleanty other intellectual materials I can steal...
Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> Is all this material copy righted? Thought not.
>
>
> *yoink!*
Actually I take Information Systems at my school and we are covering copyright right now and it turns out that if you post something on an internet forum it is copyrighted to the person who posted it as you have allready registered all your details and so on so huh huh! It is Copyrighted. :D Interesting fact aint it?
> Is all this material copy righted? Thought not.
>
>
> *yoink!*
Actually I take Information Systems at my school and we are covering copyright right now and it turns out that if you post something on an internet forum it is copyrighted to the person who posted it as you have allready registered all your details and so on so huh huh! It is Copyrighted. :D Interesting fact aint it?
Something else that came up in my head.
Think of all the people who play games, violent games as well.
Then think of all the gun related incidents that have been blamed on games.
Surely if games made people violent then there would be a lot lot lot lot more incidents.
Think of all the people who play games, violent games as well.
Then think of all the gun related incidents that have been blamed on games.
Surely if games made people violent then there would be a lot lot lot lot more incidents.
Is all this material copy righted? Thought not.
*yoink!*
*yoink!*
Ok this is my latest draft of my essay. I have made quite a few changes but still need to omit some more text as I am still at 1,136 words and need to get it down to 800. Any help with editing greatly appreciated.
--------------------
Video Games – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour Within Our Society?
The question “Video Games – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour Within Our Society?” arises every few years normally triggered by a gun tragedy or when an extremely violent video game is released such as Postal 2 (an extremely violent game). Whether or not they are actually responsible for the rise of violent behaviour however is a matter of serious debate. Recent figures show that crime as a whole has risen over the past few years and that gun crimes have doubled since they were banned! Should video games be targeted as the reason for these figures though? Or are we just using them as a scapegoat? I think it is the latter but the evidence must be studied.
In America it is not uncommon for 10-year-old boys and girls to play up to 6 hours of video games per week and spend at least 1 hour a week at an arcade. Is it really a surprise that much of this time is gaming on games which involve a great deal of violence, swearing and worse? Arguably one of the most controversial games of all time is Grand Theft Auto III and many people would argue that games likes these have become so realistic that it is hard for some people to draw the line between fiction and the reality.
Games such as these have been attacked on several occasions by disgruntled parents who believe that these games give impressionable youths a gaming experience with little moral values that could quite easily be reality. Children are more likely to take what they see as fact and showing them something as realistic as a video game may give them a distorted outlook on reality. As 13-year-old Lawrence Jones says in New York “It is as close as you can get to killing someone without being arrested or really killing someone.”* This clearly shows that many people say a direct link between violent behaviour and video games.
Although there are a few “wholesome” family games out on the market such as Rayman, there are a much larger variety of games that have violence within them. These story lines are there fore regarded, as a cause for increasing violence such as street crime due to the fact that in many video games you not only HAVE to kill someone to progress to the next stage but you gain extra points for shooting people puts a positive spin on murder. Many parents who buy these games for their children do not want this. In Grand Theft Auto III for example you earn yourself extra points by first sleeping with a prostitute and then shooting her to get your money back. This game was still however highly demanded as a Christmas present with many shops being sold out in a matter of days. This really show’s how famous games can get for entirely the wrong reasons.
Arguably the most demonstrable reason why people think that video games are responsible for violence is celebrity influence. Some games such as first person shooters involve you controlling what a character on the screen does (such as a famous actor) and some people would argue that if you are learning how to fire real weapons used by your favourite actors then you are very likely to take notice of what is being done and you are more likely to act upon what you have learned. If this is proven true then this will effectively prove that there is a link between video games and the rise of violent behaviour such as street crime.
However attacking someone is not something many people do at all but we have to ask ourselves why not? If you argue that video games influence people to shoot one another and act violently then you must ask why everyone who plays a violent video game doesn’t go out and attack someone? The answer to this is; video games aren’t the cause of violent behaviour. The people who take it upon themselves to fire a gun are entirely responsible. The fact that most of these people already have mental problems or have had something traumatic happen in their life is what influences them not the creative works of others and I will attempt to prove this in the following part of my essay.
Firstly we must acknowledge the fact that video games are only a small part of the media and can’t be totally to blame. Music, News, TV and Movies. All of these are just as or more violent than video games yet they are often deemed acceptable by society. If one form of media is the cause of violent behaviour then surely all these other forms of media must incite violence as well? However if other forms of media are just as violent as a video game or more then logically they are either all to blame or all acceptable and as the majority are accepted by society they should all be acceptable.
However we must look at the path that lies before us which is the inevitable advancements of realism in video games and then look at the path behind us. Violence has been around for millions of years and we can see that it is nothing new to society. If we go back in time as long ago as the time of the Roman Empire we will find out that people actually engaged in savage fights on a regular basis! Some times to the death! In many ways we have evolved from that and some would argue that video games are actually a safe way to release all our violent tensions in a safe environment. I agree with this argument one hundred percent because like most people I play violent video games but am not a violent person.
In conclusion the answer to “Video Games – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour Within Our Society?” is no. I have reviewed the evidence and I believe that if you banned all video games tomorrow it would not stop violent behaviour. Video games such a Grand Theft Auto III have been banned in countries before and as 13-year-old Robert Crawford says “ I just think it makes it more exciting ‘cause you’re not supposed to have it”** this is undeniable evidence that if you banned violent video games that people would just want them more. It happened when guns were banned and it will happen again if you do it to video games. When you actually consider all the possibilities the root of the problem is something very different and quite unrelated to video games. They do not promote violent behaviour they simply incorporate it.
By Stephen ********
AKA
Cubist
*Quote from an American Journalist’s report on the subject.
**Quote from the same report as before.
--------------------
Video Games – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour Within Our Society?
The question “Video Games – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour Within Our Society?” arises every few years normally triggered by a gun tragedy or when an extremely violent video game is released such as Postal 2 (an extremely violent game). Whether or not they are actually responsible for the rise of violent behaviour however is a matter of serious debate. Recent figures show that crime as a whole has risen over the past few years and that gun crimes have doubled since they were banned! Should video games be targeted as the reason for these figures though? Or are we just using them as a scapegoat? I think it is the latter but the evidence must be studied.
In America it is not uncommon for 10-year-old boys and girls to play up to 6 hours of video games per week and spend at least 1 hour a week at an arcade. Is it really a surprise that much of this time is gaming on games which involve a great deal of violence, swearing and worse? Arguably one of the most controversial games of all time is Grand Theft Auto III and many people would argue that games likes these have become so realistic that it is hard for some people to draw the line between fiction and the reality.
Games such as these have been attacked on several occasions by disgruntled parents who believe that these games give impressionable youths a gaming experience with little moral values that could quite easily be reality. Children are more likely to take what they see as fact and showing them something as realistic as a video game may give them a distorted outlook on reality. As 13-year-old Lawrence Jones says in New York “It is as close as you can get to killing someone without being arrested or really killing someone.”* This clearly shows that many people say a direct link between violent behaviour and video games.
Although there are a few “wholesome” family games out on the market such as Rayman, there are a much larger variety of games that have violence within them. These story lines are there fore regarded, as a cause for increasing violence such as street crime due to the fact that in many video games you not only HAVE to kill someone to progress to the next stage but you gain extra points for shooting people puts a positive spin on murder. Many parents who buy these games for their children do not want this. In Grand Theft Auto III for example you earn yourself extra points by first sleeping with a prostitute and then shooting her to get your money back. This game was still however highly demanded as a Christmas present with many shops being sold out in a matter of days. This really show’s how famous games can get for entirely the wrong reasons.
Arguably the most demonstrable reason why people think that video games are responsible for violence is celebrity influence. Some games such as first person shooters involve you controlling what a character on the screen does (such as a famous actor) and some people would argue that if you are learning how to fire real weapons used by your favourite actors then you are very likely to take notice of what is being done and you are more likely to act upon what you have learned. If this is proven true then this will effectively prove that there is a link between video games and the rise of violent behaviour such as street crime.
However attacking someone is not something many people do at all but we have to ask ourselves why not? If you argue that video games influence people to shoot one another and act violently then you must ask why everyone who plays a violent video game doesn’t go out and attack someone? The answer to this is; video games aren’t the cause of violent behaviour. The people who take it upon themselves to fire a gun are entirely responsible. The fact that most of these people already have mental problems or have had something traumatic happen in their life is what influences them not the creative works of others and I will attempt to prove this in the following part of my essay.
Firstly we must acknowledge the fact that video games are only a small part of the media and can’t be totally to blame. Music, News, TV and Movies. All of these are just as or more violent than video games yet they are often deemed acceptable by society. If one form of media is the cause of violent behaviour then surely all these other forms of media must incite violence as well? However if other forms of media are just as violent as a video game or more then logically they are either all to blame or all acceptable and as the majority are accepted by society they should all be acceptable.
However we must look at the path that lies before us which is the inevitable advancements of realism in video games and then look at the path behind us. Violence has been around for millions of years and we can see that it is nothing new to society. If we go back in time as long ago as the time of the Roman Empire we will find out that people actually engaged in savage fights on a regular basis! Some times to the death! In many ways we have evolved from that and some would argue that video games are actually a safe way to release all our violent tensions in a safe environment. I agree with this argument one hundred percent because like most people I play violent video games but am not a violent person.
In conclusion the answer to “Video Games – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour Within Our Society?” is no. I have reviewed the evidence and I believe that if you banned all video games tomorrow it would not stop violent behaviour. Video games such a Grand Theft Auto III have been banned in countries before and as 13-year-old Robert Crawford says “ I just think it makes it more exciting ‘cause you’re not supposed to have it”** this is undeniable evidence that if you banned violent video games that people would just want them more. It happened when guns were banned and it will happen again if you do it to video games. When you actually consider all the possibilities the root of the problem is something very different and quite unrelated to video games. They do not promote violent behaviour they simply incorporate it.
By Stephen ********
AKA
Cubist
*Quote from an American Journalist’s report on the subject.
**Quote from the same report as before.
Thanks for all your help everyone although I just found out that my essay can only be 800 words long!!:S The one I originally posted was 1,300+ words and so far I've only got it down to 1,100+. Man I need help with editting.
*decides to try be helpful for a change*
Cubist wrote: >
> Games Consoles – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour?
>
> The question “Games Consoles – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour?”
> arises every few years normally triggered by a gun tragedy or when an
> extremely violent video game is released such as Postal 2.
True - try use a few examples such as Columbine a few years ago, maybe Dunblaine (whilst not videogame related it was serious gun crime), also I'd change the game example to, or add, a Grand Theft Auto games.
Bare in mind that whoever marks it may not have a clue about games, hence you need to try and put your arguments in the context of something they are most likely to have heard of.
> Whether or
> not they are actually responsible for the rise of gun crimes and
> other forms of violent behaviour however is a matter of serious
> debate.
True, again try and give it context by saying who it is serious debate for - i.e MP's, US Senators, the BBFC, Elspa - examples earn marks. Also try and find the exact percentages for the rise from the Home Office site - it shows ytou've researched it and are not making blind assumptions. I know you're not, but again the marker may not.
>Recent figures show that crime as a whole has risen over the
> past few years and that gun crimes have doubled since they were
> banned! Britain may be the most unlikely country in Europe for you to
> be shot in but as long as that risk is there we have to deal with
> such violent behaviour in the best way we can.
One point to make here is that the reasons for part of the increase in gun crime is to do with the banning itself, what was once legal for some people became illegal but they continued to do it.
>Should video games be targeted as the reason for these figures though? Or >are we just using them as a scapegoat?
Change that to videogames being partly the reason for the figures, any marker will think you're insane to even consider trying to suggest rising gun crime is solely down to games, nor has anyone ever made that accusation. People have said videogames may play a part. Another thing to point out is you're getting hooked up on gun crime, try and expand to all violent behaviour.
> In America it is not uncommon for 10-year-old boys and girls to play
> up to 6 hours of video games per week and spend at least 1 hour a
> week at an arcade.
Not sure about the arcade thing, but it'll get past the marker, plus it may be a mistake to suggest boys and girls do it equally, they don't.
>Is it really a surprise that many of this
> time-spent gaming is gaming on games, which involve a great deal of
> violence, swearing and worse?
Point out that it should be the parents responsibility to ensure they don't play such games, in just the same way that parents should not let kids watch inappropriate programs on TV.
>Arguably one of the most controversial
> games of all time is Grand Theft Auto III and many people would argue
> that games likes these have become so realistic that it is hard for
> some people to draw the line between fiction and the reality.
Point out it's BBFC and similar USA rating that age restricted it.
> Games such as these have been attacked on several occasions buy
> disgruntled parents and so on who believe that these games give
> impressionable youths a gaming experience with little morals that
> could quite easily be reality.
Again, point to parental responsbility and that all games are now age rated or have BBFC certificates where necessary. The only way a kid plays an inappropriate game is if allowed to by parents or if a store breaks the law and sells a game to an underage kid.
>To a certain extent this is true
> however technology will progress and games will become more
> realistic. It is not the fault of the games industry if easily
> influenced people take these works of fiction into reality. Children
> are obviously more likely to take what they see as fact with out
> question and showing them something as realistic as a video game may
> give them a distorted outlook on reality. As 13-year-old Lawrence
> Jones says in New York “It is as close as you can get to killing
> someone without being arrested or really killing someone.”
It could be argued that children would find it harder to distinguish between fantasy and reality, having said that studies have shown that children are most affected by violence on the news and not violence in the fictional media because they recognise it is not real. Here is a link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3128990.stm
With regards to the quote, how does a 13 year old know really what killing someone is like ? The quote undermines your argument because it shows the kid thinks that actions in videogames are done with fear of a negative consequence, hence the danger that view could become translated to real life.
>And
> arguably if a young teenager finds a game so realistic that the next
> step towards reality is to murder someone it is understandable that
> people think that video games are a bit too realistic for store
> shelves.
Point out that the realism is only an imagined realism, that is itself imagined through what the child has watched, and been allowed to watch by his parents.
> Although there are a few “wholesome” family games out on the market
> such as Rayman, there are a much larger variety of games that have
> violence within them. This may anger parents and so on but they do
> sell a lot more copies. These story lines are there fore regarded, as
> a cause for increasing violence such as street crime. The fact that
> in many video games you not only HAVE to kill someone to progress to
> the next stage but you gain extra points for shooting people puts a
> positive spin on murder which is not wanted by many parents who buy
> these games for their children.
Nothing wrong with that.
>In Grand Theft Auto III for example
> you earn yourself extra points by first sleeping with a prostitute
> and then shooting her to get your money back. This game and many of
> it’s sequels / prequels however were in such great demand for
> Christmas that they sold out in shops all over the UK! For so many
> people to be playing such a violent game it’s violent content can
> become second nature to people and even an addiction. This is why
> many parents and other people who are morally against violent video
> games find it hard to accept that they are “just a video game”.
Point out though that the over the top nature of the game, the adverts in the game on the radio, even the characters, were supposed to be a satire on modern American life in cities, not a realistic game. Plus any crime comitted raised your wanted level and after so many crimes, short of a car respray, there was no way to avoid being caught/killed by the police/FBI/ Swat etc. hence the game reinforced the consequences of crime more realisitically than most films like Out Of Sight where crime pays.
> Arguably the most demonstrable reason why people think that video
> games are responsible for gun violence is celebrity influence. Going
> to the cinema is used by many people as a form of escapism and when
> movie stars come to the gaming market the games double in more than
> just price. They double in credibility.
Okay
>Whenever a blockbuster film
> is released it is a safe bet that a video game based on it will
> appear sooner or later and when you are playing a fictional super
> hero portrayed by a world famous actor you can very easily be
> influenced by the video game. Some games such as first person
> shooters involve you controlling what a character on the screen does
> in every way and some people would argue that if you are learning how
> to fire real weapons used by your favourite actors then you are very
> likely to take notice of what is being done and you are more likely
> to act upon what you have learned. If this is proven true then this
> will effectively prove that there is a link between video games and
> the rise of violent behaviour such as street crime.
Except you're not learning how to fire real weapons and the usual objective of such games is to repeat what the actor did in the film. If it was proven true then all it proves is that some people are stupid enough to do what they see on screen, and in most cases it's impossible for the scene to be recreated.
> I will now progress to why I think that video games aren’t
> responsible for gun violence. Obviously murdering someone is not
> something many people do at all but we have to ask ourselves why not?
> If you argue that video games influence people to shoot one another
> you must ask why everyone who plays a violent video game doesn’t go
> out and shoot someone? The answer to this is; video games aren’t the
> cause of violent behaviour. The people who take it upon themselves to
> fire a gun are entirely responsible. The fact that most of these
> people already have mental problems or have had something traumatic
> happen in their life is what influences them not the creative works
> of others. It is not the video games that are to blame; it is the
> people who play them and I will attempt to prove it in the following
> parts of my essay.
Okay to a point, existing research shows that a portion of the population in a society can react aggressively after seeing acts of aggression. No one started to blame games until around Doom, which incidentally was one of the first of it's type to use semi real graphics in it. Until that point games were too abstract to be considered barely related to the real world. You can't 100% rule out games because the research has barely been done.
> Firstly we must acknowledge the fact that video games are only a
> small part of the media and can’t be totally to blame. Music, News,
> TV and Movies. All of these are just as or more violent than video
> games yet they are often deemed acceptable by society. If one form of
> media is the cause of violent behaviour then surely all these other
> forms of media must incite violence as well? However if other forms
> of media are just as violent as a video game or more violent than a
> video game then logically they are either all to blame or all
> acceptable and as the majority are accepted by society they must all
> be acceptable.
Firstly not a good idea to group the news in with that lot, it shows what is "real" as opposed to the others which show largely imagined things, plus by mentioning music you're suddenly talking about audio stimulus and not just visual. People do not all spend equal time on all media, hence the logic of "blame all or none" is flawed. What you want to address is that a small population of people play games, within that population of people are a minority which play them more than seeing other media. Also within that population will be people who WILL use what they see and do to justify their actions - the games don't have to be scientifically proven to be the cause, it's the people who commit the crime blaming them that is enough. It's the same with any media, a certain minority will use it to justify their actions - hence kids buying fake guns to be like US rappers "to be kool" and so on. Other people ( who commit no crime but comment on the crime) will themselves compare those crimes to what they have seen on the media - it doesn't link the media to the crime, it's just a frame of reference - hence things like the Bulger Killing being linked to Child's Play 2 when both suspects had testified to never seeing the film at all - outside commentators linked what they saw as an evil movie with child killing in it, to a real child killing.
> As well as looking at the path that lies before us which is the
> inevitable advancements of realism in video games we must also look
> at the path behind us.
Yep
> Violence has been around for millions of years
> and we can see that it is nothing new to society. If we go back in
> time as long ago as the time of the Roman Empire we will find out
> that people actually engaged in savage fights on a regular basis!
> Some times to the death.
Sorry, but this bit sounds a little dumb, violence existed right back to the first humans anyway - saying sometimes to the death makes it sound like you think you're the only one who knows this...
>In many ways we have evolved from that and
> some would argue that video games are actually a safe way to release
> all our violent tensions in a safe environment. I agree with this
> argument one hundred percent and like most other people I am not a
> violent person.
Possible contradication, on the one hand you say games are being more realistic but that games don't make people violent, on the other hand you're saying here that people can use them to release agression, which is acknowledging that people react violently in games.
> In conclusion the answer to “Video Consoles – Do They Promote Violent
> Behaviour?” is no. I have reviewed the evidence and I believe that if
> you banned all video games tomorrow it would not stop violent
> behaviour. Video games such a Grand Theft Auto III have been banned
> in countries before and as 13-year-old Robert Crawford says “ I just
> think it makes it more exciting ‘cause you’re not supposed to have
> it” this is undeniable evidence that if you banned violent video
> games that people would just want them more. It happened when guns
> were banned and it will happen again if you do it to video games.
> When you actually consider all the possibilities the root of the
> problem is something very different and quite unrelated to video
> games. They do not promote violent behaviour they simply incorporate
> it.
Again, I'd be a little less sure and say that more work needs to be done, point out the role of parents and that the industry has responsibly classifeid games for parents. Point out some people will always blame things for their actions to justify them. Point out this does not scientifically link the two but it does show a relationship. Point out that it would be stupid to ban violent games because of a minority and say it would be like banning football matches because of hooligans, or pubs because of violent drunks etc
Hopefully some of this will be of help, I'm probably massively over critical, but you said you wanted suggestions :P
Cubist wrote: >
> Games Consoles – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour?
>
> The question “Games Consoles – Do They Promote Violent Behaviour?”
> arises every few years normally triggered by a gun tragedy or when an
> extremely violent video game is released such as Postal 2.
True - try use a few examples such as Columbine a few years ago, maybe Dunblaine (whilst not videogame related it was serious gun crime), also I'd change the game example to, or add, a Grand Theft Auto games.
Bare in mind that whoever marks it may not have a clue about games, hence you need to try and put your arguments in the context of something they are most likely to have heard of.
> Whether or
> not they are actually responsible for the rise of gun crimes and
> other forms of violent behaviour however is a matter of serious
> debate.
True, again try and give it context by saying who it is serious debate for - i.e MP's, US Senators, the BBFC, Elspa - examples earn marks. Also try and find the exact percentages for the rise from the Home Office site - it shows ytou've researched it and are not making blind assumptions. I know you're not, but again the marker may not.
>Recent figures show that crime as a whole has risen over the
> past few years and that gun crimes have doubled since they were
> banned! Britain may be the most unlikely country in Europe for you to
> be shot in but as long as that risk is there we have to deal with
> such violent behaviour in the best way we can.
One point to make here is that the reasons for part of the increase in gun crime is to do with the banning itself, what was once legal for some people became illegal but they continued to do it.
>Should video games be targeted as the reason for these figures though? Or >are we just using them as a scapegoat?
Change that to videogames being partly the reason for the figures, any marker will think you're insane to even consider trying to suggest rising gun crime is solely down to games, nor has anyone ever made that accusation. People have said videogames may play a part. Another thing to point out is you're getting hooked up on gun crime, try and expand to all violent behaviour.
> In America it is not uncommon for 10-year-old boys and girls to play
> up to 6 hours of video games per week and spend at least 1 hour a
> week at an arcade.
Not sure about the arcade thing, but it'll get past the marker, plus it may be a mistake to suggest boys and girls do it equally, they don't.
>Is it really a surprise that many of this
> time-spent gaming is gaming on games, which involve a great deal of
> violence, swearing and worse?
Point out that it should be the parents responsibility to ensure they don't play such games, in just the same way that parents should not let kids watch inappropriate programs on TV.
>Arguably one of the most controversial
> games of all time is Grand Theft Auto III and many people would argue
> that games likes these have become so realistic that it is hard for
> some people to draw the line between fiction and the reality.
Point out it's BBFC and similar USA rating that age restricted it.
> Games such as these have been attacked on several occasions buy
> disgruntled parents and so on who believe that these games give
> impressionable youths a gaming experience with little morals that
> could quite easily be reality.
Again, point to parental responsbility and that all games are now age rated or have BBFC certificates where necessary. The only way a kid plays an inappropriate game is if allowed to by parents or if a store breaks the law and sells a game to an underage kid.
>To a certain extent this is true
> however technology will progress and games will become more
> realistic. It is not the fault of the games industry if easily
> influenced people take these works of fiction into reality. Children
> are obviously more likely to take what they see as fact with out
> question and showing them something as realistic as a video game may
> give them a distorted outlook on reality. As 13-year-old Lawrence
> Jones says in New York “It is as close as you can get to killing
> someone without being arrested or really killing someone.”
It could be argued that children would find it harder to distinguish between fantasy and reality, having said that studies have shown that children are most affected by violence on the news and not violence in the fictional media because they recognise it is not real. Here is a link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3128990.stm
With regards to the quote, how does a 13 year old know really what killing someone is like ? The quote undermines your argument because it shows the kid thinks that actions in videogames are done with fear of a negative consequence, hence the danger that view could become translated to real life.
>And
> arguably if a young teenager finds a game so realistic that the next
> step towards reality is to murder someone it is understandable that
> people think that video games are a bit too realistic for store
> shelves.
Point out that the realism is only an imagined realism, that is itself imagined through what the child has watched, and been allowed to watch by his parents.
> Although there are a few “wholesome” family games out on the market
> such as Rayman, there are a much larger variety of games that have
> violence within them. This may anger parents and so on but they do
> sell a lot more copies. These story lines are there fore regarded, as
> a cause for increasing violence such as street crime. The fact that
> in many video games you not only HAVE to kill someone to progress to
> the next stage but you gain extra points for shooting people puts a
> positive spin on murder which is not wanted by many parents who buy
> these games for their children.
Nothing wrong with that.
>In Grand Theft Auto III for example
> you earn yourself extra points by first sleeping with a prostitute
> and then shooting her to get your money back. This game and many of
> it’s sequels / prequels however were in such great demand for
> Christmas that they sold out in shops all over the UK! For so many
> people to be playing such a violent game it’s violent content can
> become second nature to people and even an addiction. This is why
> many parents and other people who are morally against violent video
> games find it hard to accept that they are “just a video game”.
Point out though that the over the top nature of the game, the adverts in the game on the radio, even the characters, were supposed to be a satire on modern American life in cities, not a realistic game. Plus any crime comitted raised your wanted level and after so many crimes, short of a car respray, there was no way to avoid being caught/killed by the police/FBI/ Swat etc. hence the game reinforced the consequences of crime more realisitically than most films like Out Of Sight where crime pays.
> Arguably the most demonstrable reason why people think that video
> games are responsible for gun violence is celebrity influence. Going
> to the cinema is used by many people as a form of escapism and when
> movie stars come to the gaming market the games double in more than
> just price. They double in credibility.
Okay
>Whenever a blockbuster film
> is released it is a safe bet that a video game based on it will
> appear sooner or later and when you are playing a fictional super
> hero portrayed by a world famous actor you can very easily be
> influenced by the video game. Some games such as first person
> shooters involve you controlling what a character on the screen does
> in every way and some people would argue that if you are learning how
> to fire real weapons used by your favourite actors then you are very
> likely to take notice of what is being done and you are more likely
> to act upon what you have learned. If this is proven true then this
> will effectively prove that there is a link between video games and
> the rise of violent behaviour such as street crime.
Except you're not learning how to fire real weapons and the usual objective of such games is to repeat what the actor did in the film. If it was proven true then all it proves is that some people are stupid enough to do what they see on screen, and in most cases it's impossible for the scene to be recreated.
> I will now progress to why I think that video games aren’t
> responsible for gun violence. Obviously murdering someone is not
> something many people do at all but we have to ask ourselves why not?
> If you argue that video games influence people to shoot one another
> you must ask why everyone who plays a violent video game doesn’t go
> out and shoot someone? The answer to this is; video games aren’t the
> cause of violent behaviour. The people who take it upon themselves to
> fire a gun are entirely responsible. The fact that most of these
> people already have mental problems or have had something traumatic
> happen in their life is what influences them not the creative works
> of others. It is not the video games that are to blame; it is the
> people who play them and I will attempt to prove it in the following
> parts of my essay.
Okay to a point, existing research shows that a portion of the population in a society can react aggressively after seeing acts of aggression. No one started to blame games until around Doom, which incidentally was one of the first of it's type to use semi real graphics in it. Until that point games were too abstract to be considered barely related to the real world. You can't 100% rule out games because the research has barely been done.
> Firstly we must acknowledge the fact that video games are only a
> small part of the media and can’t be totally to blame. Music, News,
> TV and Movies. All of these are just as or more violent than video
> games yet they are often deemed acceptable by society. If one form of
> media is the cause of violent behaviour then surely all these other
> forms of media must incite violence as well? However if other forms
> of media are just as violent as a video game or more violent than a
> video game then logically they are either all to blame or all
> acceptable and as the majority are accepted by society they must all
> be acceptable.
Firstly not a good idea to group the news in with that lot, it shows what is "real" as opposed to the others which show largely imagined things, plus by mentioning music you're suddenly talking about audio stimulus and not just visual. People do not all spend equal time on all media, hence the logic of "blame all or none" is flawed. What you want to address is that a small population of people play games, within that population of people are a minority which play them more than seeing other media. Also within that population will be people who WILL use what they see and do to justify their actions - the games don't have to be scientifically proven to be the cause, it's the people who commit the crime blaming them that is enough. It's the same with any media, a certain minority will use it to justify their actions - hence kids buying fake guns to be like US rappers "to be kool" and so on. Other people ( who commit no crime but comment on the crime) will themselves compare those crimes to what they have seen on the media - it doesn't link the media to the crime, it's just a frame of reference - hence things like the Bulger Killing being linked to Child's Play 2 when both suspects had testified to never seeing the film at all - outside commentators linked what they saw as an evil movie with child killing in it, to a real child killing.
> As well as looking at the path that lies before us which is the
> inevitable advancements of realism in video games we must also look
> at the path behind us.
Yep
> Violence has been around for millions of years
> and we can see that it is nothing new to society. If we go back in
> time as long ago as the time of the Roman Empire we will find out
> that people actually engaged in savage fights on a regular basis!
> Some times to the death.
Sorry, but this bit sounds a little dumb, violence existed right back to the first humans anyway - saying sometimes to the death makes it sound like you think you're the only one who knows this...
>In many ways we have evolved from that and
> some would argue that video games are actually a safe way to release
> all our violent tensions in a safe environment. I agree with this
> argument one hundred percent and like most other people I am not a
> violent person.
Possible contradication, on the one hand you say games are being more realistic but that games don't make people violent, on the other hand you're saying here that people can use them to release agression, which is acknowledging that people react violently in games.
> In conclusion the answer to “Video Consoles – Do They Promote Violent
> Behaviour?” is no. I have reviewed the evidence and I believe that if
> you banned all video games tomorrow it would not stop violent
> behaviour. Video games such a Grand Theft Auto III have been banned
> in countries before and as 13-year-old Robert Crawford says “ I just
> think it makes it more exciting ‘cause you’re not supposed to have
> it” this is undeniable evidence that if you banned violent video
> games that people would just want them more. It happened when guns
> were banned and it will happen again if you do it to video games.
> When you actually consider all the possibilities the root of the
> problem is something very different and quite unrelated to video
> games. They do not promote violent behaviour they simply incorporate
> it.
Again, I'd be a little less sure and say that more work needs to be done, point out the role of parents and that the industry has responsibly classifeid games for parents. Point out some people will always blame things for their actions to justify them. Point out this does not scientifically link the two but it does show a relationship. Point out that it would be stupid to ban violent games because of a minority and say it would be like banning football matches because of hooligans, or pubs because of violent drunks etc
Hopefully some of this will be of help, I'm probably massively over critical, but you said you wanted suggestions :P
**quickly inserts alternate ending** Hurrah I'm saved! Heh Nah I said it was nowt to do with video games in the end.
I haven't read it but I hope you conclude that they don't cause violence, or I'll come round and break in my new baseball bat on your noggin ;D
Thanks AliBoy, I hope not too.
Page: