While playing violent games can, probably, desensitize a person and increase the chance they might go out into the real world to commit a crime, the fact remains they're ultimately responsible for their actions. One thing I can see evidence of, however, is that spending so much time on the computer playing games can cause the user to lose what little communication skills they may once have had, as evidenced by the title of this thread.

actually you might have gained people skills or comunications skills by playing multiplayer games if that is what you are playing. i will have to agree with the other side though sometimes you get that one guy that plays a game and afterwards is a little on edge and wants to go off on somebody. usually because they lost though. but like others have said video games are like a stress reliever for some people. but it is ultamitly the person resposibility to not let the game influence them to recreate some of the brutal actions on the game. you cannot blame a company or a product for you buying there product and not being able to handle it. especially if it has a violence rating on it. i don't think that we will have to worry about us loosing video games because of their content though, it is too big of an industry for that.

its not that bad but you shouldnt allways play them for alot of reasons like, you will get bored of it, your mind might become corrupt and they cost alot

Playing violent games won't turn you violent. Noone is that stupid to think just because it happened in a game and its OK doesnt mean it'll happen in real life and be A-Ok.

People that blame it on video games are just trying to cover up for it. It's all lies.

LIES AND SLANDER!!!

This debate has been going on since Mortal Kombat made its debut in which Kano rips a person's heart out, and Sub-Zero decapitated people. The reality is violence is what makes most video games popular because there are some things "normal" people wouldn't do in the real world; nonetheless, you have kids who grow up playing just violent video games haul off and bust a grand theft auto on someone. I would categorize myself as a 1st-2nd generation gamer since I have played almost every system that has come out on the market since the atari and the arcades.

Kids have to know when to turn that part of the mind off when they are playing a video game thats is based on a fantasy, and in some cases reality. There is a difference between a game over in a video game and a "game over" in life, and if kids don't realize that nor their parents teach them this, then something could happen and when the first mention of a violent video game is out there. All these adults who no nothing about video games start calling for bans and laws and junk like that. The ERSB rating was the best thing to be put in place back in the 90s, and yes I was totally against back in my youth because I couldn't by the awesome game, but after many years of maturing its the best thing we as adults can do for kids and making sure they are mature enough to understand the violent content not only in video games but movies, and tv.

Of course there are many other factors into why people become violent, just like pit bulls video games get a bad rap for what most of them are about. Although I think by the time people are my age it would be time to put down the controller and become a responsible adult, I don't play as many games as I use to any more due to prices and other stuff, and when I watch my niece sometimes I don't play any violent games, and neither does my brother because we don't want her to act that stuff out. Although I would have to agree that sometimes games really do take it to far with violence, don't get me wrong I don't made seeing a guy getting blowing up but if thats the main focus through the whole game I try to finish it as fast as I can and play something else. Look at Nintendo they are the few successful companies were violence is non existing in most of their games because they prefer quality and game play instead of boring old violence.

To finish up though its the parents responsibility to make sure kids understand the difference between reality and fantasy, and making sure they don't go and start eating mushrooms and thinking they will get big as Mario or something.

I think that each game have their rating, if everyone accept the rating it wouldn't have affect the player at all. But it may affect the underage player! For example silent hill is a type a horror, violent game is rate "M" which is 17 year or older will be able to play it. But if a child like 10 years old play it somehow it will affect in their mind or they will act like the charactor in the game this is call immitate!

Actually I believe violent video games may be a good way of releasing stress and venting anger. Once you vent your anger by bashing up and killing virtual people, your anger dissipates, or you simply have no energy to get angry. Playing video games is after all mentally and physically straining.

However, young children should not play violent video games because they are too young to establish right and wrong and may feel compelled to commit violence so they can be like their virtual hero.

Personally, I don't believe that violent video games turn people violent. Most "evidence" that is presented to try to prove that there is a connection resembles somthing like a line graph showing an increase in violent video game play next to an increase in violent crime. While this may at first seem substantial and plausible, basic Psychology tells us that correlation does not imply causation. An example that is given in my Psych textbook talks about how if you graph the length of a marriage vs. hair loss, as one increases so will the other. Does this mean that a long marriage causes hair loss (or vice versa)? No, it simply means that there is a correlation, but that neither is a cause or effect of the other. In this case there is a third factor -- aging. Age increases as the length of a relationship increases, and an hair loss usually starts or becomes more apparent as a person ages. The same is with video games. While people who commit violent crimes play may play violent video games, it in no way implies that it is the games who lead them to commit such acts (or the acts lead them to play the games).

On that note, one has to doubt the data presented that shows a correlation between violent crime and violent video game play in the first place. This is because there is much data that contradicts the claim that a correlation exists in the first place. Example (2005):




Kimheng, while this at first seems like a good philosophy to go by, the problem is that the rating system itself is flawed to begin with. I remember reading somewhere that a video game rating of T(een) is closer to the movie rating of PG than it is to PG-13. Then you have M(ature) which is closer to the movie rating of R than anything else. Therefore, there really is no PG-13 equivalent rating. This is problematic because you have games like Halo and Manhunt have the same rating while there obviously is a HUGE difference in the content of both games.

This post has been edited by suberatu: Sep 25 2007, 02:30 AM