Game On

Cressman 1 From Pac-Man to Mortal Combat, from Donkey Kong to Halo, video games have evolved over the years and in many cases have become more violent. With ever improving technology, it is possible to create more realistic and more involved games such as the first-person, PC shooters Doom and Quake, which allegedly have played a substantial role in the Columbine Massacre at Littleton High in the late 90s. These accusations are based on the fact that the juvenile killers had played violent video games and supposedly had honed their ability to kill (Alexander 18A). Technology lecturer and author Don Tapscott states in an article by Steve Alexander that, though the Columbine murderers had played Doom and Quake, “It would be more surprising if they did not play those games, because most kids do” (qtd. in Alexander 18A). If violent games do indeed cause violent behavior, then surely there would be an increase of violent crimes in the U.S., which is home to literally millions of gamers, but contrarily the crime rate has decreased. During the 90s, arrest rates for violent offences, such as rape, murder, and aggravated assault, among 15 to 17-year-olds have decreased steadily as did they for teens age 14 and under, while arrest rates for adults have increased (Sternheimer 64). Karen Sternheimer author of It’s Not the Media - The Truth About Pop Culture’s Influences on Children pointed out, “We seldom hear public outcry about declining morals of adults - this complaint is reserved for the youth.” In addition, baseless allegations about the morality of violent games and their manufacturers stem from the anxieties of the parent-child generation gap. “Video games,” says Sternheimer, “are representatives of technological changes many older adults don’t understand” (116). Violent video games do not cause violent behavior in gamers for a few key reasons. The vast majority of gamers, who tend to be older teens and young adults, can understand the difference between reality and fantasy, no scientific studies have shown a direct cause and effect relationship between video games and violence, and parents can easily monitor and control what their children are playing. Perhaps the only way to truly understand the difference between a violent video game and a violent experience is to be a first-hand witness of a violent crime. Researchers at the Social Sciences Research Institute at the University of Southern California have interviewed fifty-six males between the

Cressman 2 ages of 12 and 18, who have been victims or offenders of violent crimes (Dep. of Justice). “Over and over the boys described how fear in their lives comes not from seeing blood on or off screen but from the uncertainty about when violence will next occur” (Sternheimer 75). This uncertainty is the major aspect of a virtual reality that cannot be simulated by a violent video game and plainly sets fantasy apart from reality. A 23-year-old gamer tells the Los Angeles Times, “In an intense game your heart is racing, you’re sweating, but you’re never scared” and “You get to see what combat’s like without risking your life” (Gaslin E5). Gamers seek thrills and entertainment in the safety of their own home, which happens to be the same reason why books are such a hit. Sternheimer remarks, “There is a pleasure in breaking the rules without really breaking the rules,” which is another benefit of a more intense, realistic video game (114). Philosophy professor Crispin Sartwell gathers that violent video games enable gamers to play “with the idea of doing harmful things in a harmless context” (14A). Sternheimer elaborates on this concept by comparing violent video games to dreams in the sense that people can act out “antisocial fantasies” without harming anybody (114). Everybody has a dark side, and a simulated environment is the perfect place to unleash the pent up frustration of everyday life. Contrary to media hype, there is no way to accurately measure feelings of aggression or even to link them to violent behavior at all because as Sternheimer conjectures, “It is what we do with our hostility that is important” (119). Studies linking violent behavior to video games are weak and inconclusive at best. “Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and Life”, a 2000 study by psychologists Craig Anderson and Karen Dill is a fitting example of a “scientific study” that is has been riddled with misconceptions and blatant missteps in logic as made apparent in Sternheimer’s book. Anderson and Dill are hardly objective sources, having written either articles or books predicating that video games do lead to aggression (Sternheimer 118). The results of Anderson and Dill’s tests are based on two studies performed on their 227 Intro to Psychology students (Anderson and Dill 776).

Cressman 3 The first part of their study deals with whether or not past video game playing is associated with delinquency, but as Sternheimer comments, “…the most serious delinquent youth rarely make it to college, let alone show up for an appointment to participate in a study” (119). Furthermore, the study tests 149 female students and 78 males, despite the fact that most gamers are overwhelmingly male. In the first part of the study, students are asked to fill out a questionnaire about video games that they have played as children, how violent these games are, and their history of delinquency. The test reveals that more students with delinquency problems are prone to playing video games of a violent nature (Anderson and Dill 776). This conclusion as Sternheimer remarks, “…is a clear leap in logic. Because correlation measures association, not cause and effect, it is equally possible that those with ‘aggressive personalities’ are more likely to enjoy aggressive video game playing” (119). Despite the “conceptual and methodological problems,” the results of Anderson and Dill’s conclusions have been reported in magazines, newspapers, and even in professional journals as “definitive evidence that video games can increase aggressive thoughts” (Sternheimer, 118). Anderson and Dill’s second study has to do with aggressive thoughts generated by actually playing video games. The same students, who have been given the questionnaire, are asked to play a video game for 15 minutes; about half the students play a violent game, Wolfenstein 3-D, while the other half plays an educational, non-violent game Myst. After they finish students are asked to read “aggressive words” such as “murder” from a computer monitor and are timed to see how quickly they say the words (Anderson and Dill 784). The students, who have played the violent games, are able to say the words faster and are deemed to have “aggressive thoughts” and to be more prone to violence (Anderson and Dill 773). Sternheimer noted that the conclusion is “another leap in logic and questionable interpretation, as the words they read on the screen are not indeed their own thoughts, nor are aggressive thoughts necessarily dangerous” (119). Sternheimer also observes that “even a short time spent playing computer generated games appears to quicken visual reflexes…. It seems we’re less interested in learning more about actual effects of video games than tying to justify our anxieties” (119-

Cressman 4 120). Though the media as well as bias authors want parents to be scared of those big, bad video games, they do not have to be. Violent or otherwise suggestive video games can impair a child’s sense of reality, however; violent video games are not intended for young children, who are still learning the difference between reality and make-believe. Violent video game manufacturers are not targeting the youth of America, and in fact are targeting an older crowd nowadays with games such as Halo. Halo is a first-person shooter in which teams battle each other with the aid of a network of sophisticated servers, allowing gamers to communicate audibly with one another, while playing the game. These new game characteristics make video gaming more of a social event than an isolated activity. At any rate, young children are still learning the consequences of their actions through trial and example, which is why parental discretion is absolutely necessary when deciding which games are right for their children. Moreover, government ratings systems such as the Electronic Software Rating Board, the ESRB, are implemented, so that parents are not left in the dark about the content of the games they are purchasing. The ESRB’s rating scale is as follows: “E” for everyone, “EC” for early childhood, “T” for teens, “M” for mature, and “AO” for adults only. Not only does the ESRB give a general rating to a video game, but also “content descriptors” such as “blood,” “nudity,” “suggestive themes,” etc. (ESRB.org). Parents are more than capable of understanding the maturity of their children, and whether or not their children can differentiate reality from fantasy, but if "The Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act” is approved, selling or renting “M” rated games to minors will become a federal offense (CNN.com). This drastic attempt to keep video games out of the hands of minors, which “practically beg[s] to be overturned in court”, will only make the problem worse (Koffler). Outraged gamers can easily make illegal copies of popular video games and expand the already existent video game black market, which is “likely to add more to the outlaw mystique that playing violent video games often provides,” predicts Sternheimer (122). Maybe politicians should leave parental control where it belongs, in the hands of the parents.

Cressman 5 In summary, violent video games cannot solely cause violent behavior in anyone mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions. The Columbine gunmen had not been forced to kill the innocent; they deliberately planned and chose to do so. Society’s resentment toward video game based violence is nothing more than unsubstantiated anxiety about the method in which the youth of America is maturing and the values they are learning. Scientific studies, flawed by one-sided authors, fuel the media-born, anti-video game frenzy and foster false fears in an otherwise rational community of parents. Furthermore, the media chooses to publicize fear instead of the benefits of gaming, which are substantial and numerous. Perhaps Sternheimer is right when she proposes, “We choose to fear games because that allows us to focus our attention away from problems we’d rather not think about, and are therefore unlikely to solve.”(124)

Cressman 6 Works Cited Alexander, Steve. “Video Games Don't Cause Violence in Normal Teens.” Star Tribune 14 May 1999: 18A 22 Dec. 2007 . Anderson, Craig A., and Karen E. Dill. “Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and Life.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 78, No. 4 (2000): pgs.772-790. On-line. Internet. 30 Dec. 2007 Available PDF: . ESRB.org. 2006. Electronic Software Rating Board. 1 Jan. 2008 . Gaslin, Glenn. “Lessons Born of Virtual Violence.” Los Angeles Times 3 Oct. 2001: E5 . Koffler, Daniel. “Grand Theft Scapegoat - The Ridiculous Jihad against Video Games.” Reason Magazine Oct. 2005: n. pag. ReasonOnline. 19 Dec. 2007 . Morris, Chris. “Mr. Nukem goes to Washington.” CNN.com. January 24, 2003: n.pag. On-line. Internet. 29 Dec. 2007 . Sartwell, Crispin. “Violence and Culture: Breaking the Rules OK in Video Games.” Atlanta JournalConstitution 9 Jan. 2002: 14A. Sternheimer, Karen. It's Not the Media: The Truth About Pop Culture's Influence on Children. USA: WestView Press, 2003. United States. US. Department of Justice. Juvenile Violence in Los Angeles. Washington: GPO, (1999): 14 On-line. Internet. 27 Dec. 2007 .

Cressman 7