Grand Theft Auto IV was recently released. According to press releases, it was solely responsible for $400 million in sales in its first week out. If you're not familiar with the Grand Theft Auto franchise, it's essentially the classic cops 'n robbers storyline with a little twist -- you're the robber.

Of course, besides just stealing, you kill -- a lot -- prostitutes, police officers, random civilians. You get around (as the title suggests) by stealing cars.

The game features graphic violence and general mayhem, strong language, etc.

Some object to titles such as this because of the perceived effect they may have on the children playing them. Some studies suggest that young people who play these games are more prone to violence than those who don't -- others dispute that claim as being baseless or based upon "junk science."

What are your views OKC? Are our children doomed?

Not that my opinion should really matter, I tend to view such studies as junk science and pandering to conservatives. They seem to show correlation rather than causality in the few that I've seen. An admittedly strawman argument that seems rather persuasive to me is that fantasy games, books etc. do not cloud the grasp of reality among those who participate, yet we suggest that GTA users will shape their moral compass on the basis of a video game.

I think many ppeople's views on the matter are colored by the fear that, if true, we do the world great harm. But that does not on its own show causation.

It probably makes people a little more prone to violence. By the way, OKC Metro may not be the most appropriate forum for this conversation. I'd consider relocating it to "current events" or "faith & values"

Yes - here is a review worth reading.

Gentile, D.A., & Anderson, C.A. (2006). Violent Video Games: Effects on Youth and Public Policy Implications. Chapter in N. Dowd, D. G. Singer, & R. F. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of Children, Culture, and Violence (pp. 225-246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2005-2009/05GA2.pdf)

"The apparent lack of parental concern about media violence is particularly perplexing given the clear research on the negative effects of such violence and the strong critique of such violence by pediatricians. The most recent comprehensive review of the literature on media violence effects— coauthored by eight leading media violence researchers—documents the “unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts” (Anderson et al., 2003, p. 81). In a 2004 survey of pediatricians, over 98% believe that the media affect childhood aggression (Gentile et al., 2004). Somehow, this message has failed to be delivered successfully to the average American parent.
Although there is a large and impressive body of research on the effects of violent television and film on aggressive behavior, there is less research on the effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior. The research that does exist, however, suggests an equally strong connection to negative effects on children."

I tend to view such studies as junk science and pandering to conservatives. They seem to show correlation rather than causality in the few that I've seen.

The review that I mention above discusses correlational, experimental, longitudinal and meta-analytic studies. It would be hard to call all of these studies junk science or pure pandering.

This has been a concern of mine since I had children. I was incredibly diligent with my first son, he went to a small sheltered Christian pre-school and then to a small Christian private school for years. We sheltered him very much until about age 10 or so and then slowly started letting him watch things that we hadn't before and playing games that we hadn't allowed before.

We transitioned with no problems and so far, he's still the mellow, easy going kid he always was.

One thing to keep in mind is the spacing of your children. Mine are five years apart so it's really hard not to let the youngest one do things the older one does. He was raised a little differently, public schools etc, etc.. saw and played games I never would have let my first. Still, he's a great kid too, smart, easy going, mellow... I got really incredibly lucky with these boys.. knock on wood, they are such good kids.

Some of my friends didn't let their kids watch anything, no video games, controlled every aspect, constant church.... so very sad to me that once these kids got one iota of freedom, they revolted, rebelled, and went crazy.. pot smoking, swearing, getting horrible grades.. on and on. I honestly cannot even believe how far they have turned from how they were raised.

So, long story short, everything in moderation.. don't make things so unattainable that it is all the kids want to have (since they can't)... don't forbid everything, don't over control.. pick your battles, etc etc. Teach them right from wrong through example ... they'll take that over what they see on a video game.

And yeah, we have Grand Theft Auto IV.

Of course our children are doomed -- but not because of Grand Theft Auto. Seriously, I played that once for three hours and then when I got behind the wheel of a real-life automobile, I was looking for wary pedestrians to run down.

tee hee, I do that without playing the game.. if I see one more mom not using her turn signal in our school parking lot, I'm opening a can of whoop *&( !

Thank God, my kids are too young to drive yet!

I read the original Anderson study. It was actually junk science. At the time, Anderson was a professor at Iowa State University. The methodology used was to allow individuals to play violent video games, then present them with hypothetical situations and gauge the violence of their responses. On two levels, the study looked flawed -- first, the test was only administered on college students at ISU taking intro to psychology classes, so you have a poor sample there. Second, the test only measured violence in response to hypothetical situations -- i.e., situations not unlike those which the subjects had just been exposed to in the violent video games they had been playing prior to the questioning. That crap study is still the only experimental study mentioned in the article.

I wasn't too impressed with the correlational studies or longitudinal studies either. The article fails to discuss those flaws or any counterarguments (as a good article generally would).

What I see here is someone who had a conclusion and then went out looking for experiments to prove his hypothesis correct.

Here's a correlational stat for you: The sales of violent video games are at record levels. Since the early 90's when we first saw true video game violence, i.e. Double Dragon or Mortal Kombat, we have seen two figures with inversely proportional relationships -- while the number of violent video games sold over the years has skyrocketed, the rate of violence has decreased rapidly. In fact, if you want to look at murder rates since 1992, we're currently at nearly half that rate.

Video games are now more widespread and realistic than ever and yet every year, the crime rate, i.e., the violence rate has decreased. How can that be true if these video games are supposed to spur violent behavior?

I'm actually playing that game now on my PS3. I'm 17 days from being 16, so I think I'm a good candidate for this conversation.

I think all this media about violent games causing evil little children to have extreme temper tantrums, lol, has been blown way out of control. If you are worried about your kid playing video games and then going to kill some prostitutes, then you need to do something with your child because obviously something is wrong with them. FYI it is a 17+ game but kids still get a hold of it...why? Adults...salespersons, other kids parents, older siblings, and parents themselves. It really is ridiculous. This game has no affect on me or my friends but I suppose thats because we know whats right and whats stupid and we know that killing someone because you did it on a game = mental problems.

Thats my opinion, I'm just defending this game which is actually probably the best game I have ever played. I think it just comes down to...Is your kid sane enough to notice the difference between reality and virtual reality. And even if they can't, they really shouldn't be playing this game anyways unless the parent knows exactly what game they are giving their child.

I think the games like World of Warcraft that people play 60 hrs a week are more harmful

Yeah, but those folks aren't really dangerous, they're just absent.

I agree WoW is a scourge and it needs to be stopped :)

Well, people play games like that SO SO much. And there are so many other things they could do to contribute to society...I guess. I dunno, maybe they'd just be watching tv if it weren't for those games. I'm just a financial adviser not a sociologist or Mickey Hepner LOL!!!!

Here's my humble reply:

These games follow the same idea television should. If you don't want your child to play the game, don't buy it for them. Don't allow them to own it. Don't have it in your house. Same for TV, if you don't want them watching a show, don't let them....how about doing some parenting? We have so many parents that want to blame their kid's problems on anything but their lack of parenting. It drives me absolutely bonkers. If those crazy folks would spend half their effort parenting instead of going on missions against these "evil" corporations, maybe their kids wouldn't have issues.

GTA 4 is a game. It's not reality, and if you're old enough to play the game, then you're only enough to know the difference. Yes there are always going to be weirdos that get ideas to do some really stupid things from it, but hey guess what, NEWS FLASH - people have been doing that for all time. Just because they are playing a game instead of reading it in a book, does that make it worse? I don't think so. Music, TV, Books, Games, whatever....it's all the same. You as a parent decide what your child is allowed to have. You know whether or not your child SHOULD have the items...not just if they want them. Make an adult decision and then make rules about it. If you get the game, then tell them they can only play it for so much time in a day. Make them get off their duff and do some physical activity as well.

Yes, I continually see myself becoming more violent, just like the video games I play:

- I break bricks by smashing them into my head, resulting in monetary gain.
- I eat mushrooms that make me bigger and flowers that allow me to shoot fire.
- I shoot shells at highway traffic, allowing me to get home sooner.
- I randomly scream "It's a me, MARIO! " at the grocery store.

Look, the real problem here is that video games are used as baby sitters. Parents need to find time to play with their children. Games like GTA are not for the young. Like others have said, if you don't like it, don't buy it or allow it in your home. Get off your ass and go play catch.

Here is my two cents on the subject. Being that I am 24 and have grown up with video games.

You have to start comparing video games to movies now. In terms of how in debth they can be with the story and emotion.

THESE VIDEO GAMES HAVE RATINGS FOR A REASON. This is where it gets me. The same parents who are throwing hissy fits over these games are the same ones who are buying them thinkings "oh it's just a video game."

A Mature Ranking = Rated R. I know places like gamestop and walmart will not sell it to you if you are under 17. So how are these children getting it?

I have played all the Grand Theft Auto games and I have never been inclines to go steal or commit violence.

Parents need to pay more attention and get more involved. Thats all I have. Thoughts?

I almost think that some games can help relieve stress and aggressive feelings .. for example, I play Halo 2 Team Swat Live a lot... and it helps me release feelings of aggression I might feel in the real world, on the other team - in a virtual setting.

No harm, no foul.

And I play with the kids too. so we get in family time - not your typical Scrabble game but I have two boys.. they like video games, I like video games, what's not to love?

They're not simple minded idiots, they understand very clearly the difference between a video game and reality.. and what they can and can't do, should or shouldn't, and if they didn't, they'd wouldn't be playing video games.

And I agree, moderation with everything.

We all adhere to the idea that games are fun but we have to get out of the house, swim, play frisbee, do yardwork, exercise etc.

How do you explain violence in a society lacking video games? Where 12 year olds carry real uzis.

Does art imitate life or does life imitate art? It is a little of both. Art takes the fringes of our society and makes it mainstream. However, once the moral fiber of the society is gone the fringes are no longer the fringe and things are mainstreamed faster.

i'd say bad parenting is the culpret to most bad kids.

you have to be 17 to buy it anyway. too embarrassing to see politicians pander to this so-called "videogame violence" to potential voters. it's been going on for some time.

I actually think that romantic comedies do much more harm on society that any violent video games. There is probably no doubt in most players minds that these games and movies like them are pure fantasy. However, there are lot of people who watch romantic comedies as if they are some sort of attainable reality. Then they live their life every day thinking that they will not only end up in this perfect relationship, but that it will happen in an amusing way in a beautiful setting. Then it's these people who actually go crazy and then drive the rest of us crazy. At which point all of these people need games like GTA, so they don't actually go out and kill prostitutes to resolve the anger and depression caused by John Cusacks and Hugh Grant movies.

you have to be 17 to buy it anyway.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's just a voluntary thing some stores do. I sort of recall some law about that being struck down as unconstitutional.

There are places that would have no qualms selling GTA IV to a 6-year-old if he had the cash.

I almost think that some games can help relieve stress and aggressive feelings .. it helps me release feelings of aggression I might feel in the real world, on the other team - in a virtual setting. No harm, no foul.


Where have I heard that argument before? Oh yeah -- pedophiles claiming child porn relieves their sexual desires. At least we now know (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16866601) that kind of argument is a load of horse hockey. If anything, violent games will tend to increase the chance that you will result to violence in say for example, parking lots.



if I see one more mom not using her turn signal in our school parking lot, I'm opening a can of whoop *&( !

the study looked flawed -- first, the test was only administered on college students at ISU taking intro to psychology classes - so you have a poor sample there.


Yeah, sure, not a relevant population at all - college students never play violent video games (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078424/) in real life - never play counter-strike all night in dorm LAN parties (http://wildcat.arizona.edu/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=11ee756e-7f55-4f78-a5a1-29f4ce0da466) - never make college selection based the number of warcraft players (http://www.online2college.com/online-college/choose-college-based-on-who-play-most-warcraft.html), or ever go on to commit violent acts in school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre).



the test only measured violence in response to hypothetical situations


A little thing known as ethics gets in the way of experimentally studying violence in actual situations. I guess that is something that Dr. Anderson understands and is reflected in his 'junk science'.



What I see here is someone who had a conclusion and then went out looking for experiments to prove his hypothesis correct.


You weren't wearing rose-colored glasses by chance were you when you read the article? :)



Video games are now more widespread and realistic than ever and yet every year, the crime rate, i.e., the violence rate has decreased. How can that be true if these video games are supposed to spur violent behavior?


Violent crimes have decreased because
1) US population is aging (baby boomers are getting older and older people commit fewer crimes)
2) there has been efforts to stiffen sentencing, especially for repeat violent offenders
3) there has been increased police enforcement and effectiveness (just watch CSI sometime- they always catch the bad guy)
NOT because of the increase in video game sales :)

BTW, How can you criticize correlational approaches and then turn around and bite from the serpent's apple?

I actually think that romantic comedies do much more harm on society that any violent video games. There is probably no doubt in most players minds that these games and movies like them are pure fantasy. However, there are lot of people who watch romantic comedies as if they are some sort of attainable reality. Then they live their life every day thinking that they will not only end up in this perfect relationship, but that it will happen in an amusing way in a beautiful setting. Then it's these people who actually go crazy and then drive the rest of us crazy. At which point all of these people need games like GTA, so they don't actually go out and kill prostitutes to resolve the anger and depression caused by John Cusacks and Hugh Grant movies.

LMAO

*shakes tiny internet fists of rage against John Cusack*




Where have I heard that argument before? Oh yeah -- pedophiles claiming child porn relieves their sexual desires. At least we now know (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16866601) that kind of argument is a load of horse hockey. If anything, violent games will tend to increase the chance that you will result to violence in say for example, parking lots.

Comparing a mother that interacts and plays with her children to pedophiles? Smoooooth. Nice strawman. You lose 10 logic points.

2) there has been efforts to stiffen sentencing, especially for repeat violent offenders


I would love to see some proof of that. Admittedly, I am a physicist by trade, and not a criminologist, but it seems that a deterrent theory of incarceration has sort of gone by the wayside.

In any case, OKCCrime, you confuse flaws in methodology with reasonable efforts. Just because its not reasonable (or ethical) to measure actual violence by encouraging it, it does not make it any more predictive when the study pretty much assumes what it is trying to prove... Think about it. -->

Study is showing that fantasy violence causes real violence (essentially)

Subject engage in fantasy violence

Subjects given opportunity to engage in fantasy violence again

Subjects engage in such fantasy violency, and conclusion is reality violence is caused by fantasy violence.


Forgive me if I've oversimplified this, but I have read that study before and it doesn't tell me anything.

The only ethical way to do the study would take 20 years, (and I hope they are doing so)


Take a 100 person control group and a 100 person experimental group, making sure to have kids of similar socioeconomic backgrounds, and only let half of them play GTA4 for 5 years.... see where the end up.

The problem is such studies are not really feasible, because you cannot control a g roup that long. Also, studies which look retrospectively at those who play violent video games ignore the HUGE possibility of a single factor (or multiple) which causes the individual to both play violent video games AND be violent. Doesn't that make sense? If I am a violent person, would I not be more likely to play Whack a Cop than My Little Pony?

Where have I heard that argument before? Oh yeah -- pedophiles claiming child porn relieves their sexual desires. At least we now know (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16866601) that kind of argument is a load of horse hockey. If anything, violent games will tend to increase the chance that you will result to violence in say for example, parking lots.


Sorry, you have me there. I don't converse with pedophiles so obviously you know more about them than I do.

But, I really see no correlation between child porn and video games, but use whatever you need to use to make an argument.

It's not going to change my mind anyway. I have no qualms about playing video games or letting my kids play either. We love them.

And trust me, before I ever played video games I had violent tendencies when someone put my kids in danger on the road (or even in a parking lot, which was a joke of course, that went right over your head). Lucky for them, now I can go home and blow up aliens ... instead of them.

Have a nice day.

Yeah, sure, not a relevant population at all - college students

Sure they do, but many more population groups do as well. When you do a study which you intend to stand for a general proposition, you have to use a diverse group of people. I don't know ISU's student body statistics, but I'm guessing the sample is about 90% white and middle class and 100% in college. That group doesn't exactly represent America at large.


A little thing known as ethics gets in the way of experimentally studying violence in actual situations. I guess that is something that Dr. Anderson understands and is reflected in his 'junk science'.

One of his later studies attempted that as a correlational study, but as mentioned before, those are generally flawed in that they fail to examine all possible alternatives.


You weren't wearing rose-colored glasses by chance were you when you read the article? :)

Critical glasses, maybe, but considering the crusade Prof. Anderson has gone on regarding video games, the same can be said for the person who wrote the article.


Violent crimes have decreased because
1) US population is aging (baby boomers are getting older and older people commit fewer crimes)
2) there has been efforts to stiffen sentencing, especially for repeat violent offenders
3) there has been increased police enforcement and effectiveness (just watch CSI sometime- they always catch the bad guy)
NOT because of the increase in video game sales :)

I never argued that. I said that violence has decreased despite record video game sales. The overall argument is that these games create a more violent society. Considering the verifiable fact that crime is down, that argument fails at the outset.

I get to bite from that apple because the data shows no rise in violence exists. Now.. if crime stats spike over the past few weeks due to kids playing GTA IV and then going out to kill hookers, gosh.. I guess I'll be proved wrong. 'Til then, the overall reality doesn't support the argument that these games really have any societal impact whatsoever.

Violent crimes have decreased because
1) US population is aging (baby boomers are getting older and older people commit fewer crimes)
2) there has been efforts to stiffen sentencing, especially for repeat violent offenders
3) there has been increased police enforcement and effectiveness (just watch CSI sometime- they always catch the bad guy)
NOT because of the increase in video game sales

Ahhh, but see that's an associative conclusion, not a scientific one. The problem with referring to studies that try and ascertain the effect of violent media on actual violent acts as "scientific" is that they, too, are simply associative conclusions, not purely scientific ones.

Behavioral studies on humans are inherently problematic because any attempt at using true scientific controls would be cruel when even possible. Think about it, can you find a large enough sample in which you could control all other behavioral stimuli, both environmental and genetic, with the only variable being violent media? Of course not. Even identical twins don't have the exact same life affecting experiences. So, basically, every sample is tainted and every outcome is more or less a product of the design of the test and not a true result. You could isolate the sample and study the change in violent tendency as a result of exposure to violent media over time, but could you do it in any humane way?

So, really you have to look at the empirical data when forming policy. Unfortunately, public policy is formed politically where emotional response to anecdotal evidence is more often the guiding force rather than comprehensive empirical data. It may be easy to look at certain events and say that violent media played a role, however it would be irresponsible to say it was the cause of any violent act, such that if the exposure to violent media was removed that no violent act would have been committed, all other things being constant.

In a society based on liberty and freedom, responsible public policy formation should weigh the effect on personal liberty against the mitigation of risk a proposed policy affords the community. Since it's pretty clear that most violent media is consumed without causing violent acts and that the rate of violent acts can actually have a negative relationship to the rate of consumption of violent media, then it seems that public policy that limits public access to such media is unwarranted and actually irresponsible in the context of trying to maintain a free society.

However, that in no way means that a personal restriction on access to violent media isn't prudent or beneficial to individuals, their families, or communities. At the very least, the opportunity cost of consuming violent media at the expense of other leisure activities may alone be worth efforts to implement such a personal policy. And, really, that's why most find voluntary ratings systems of movies and games and TV as prudent, helpful, and without detrimental impact to personal liberty. It seems that we have actually found a pretty good mix in this country, where education and information partnered with enforcement of violent crime statutes has coincided with fewer violent crimes. Can we say scientifically that any of this has actually caused this decrease? Not with any more certainty than we can claim that violent media is the cause of a significant amount of our violent crimes.

If anything, the popularity of violent media has had a greater effect on the media coverage of violent crimes than it has on the crimes themselves, as we continue to have increases in reporting on violent crime, even in periods when violent crime is actually decreasing.

I would love to see some proof of that. Admittedly, I am a physicist by trade, and not a criminologist, but it seems that a deterrent theory of incarceration has sort of gone by the wayside.


An example of such a law:
Three strikes law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law)

Admittedly, there is a debate over the effectiveness of this and similar laws. However, one does not have to believe that such laws decrease crime through deterrence (although they may). It is sufficient that more criminals are being locked up for longer periods of time to reduce crime given that recidivism is something like 60% in the US. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism)

Comparing a mother that interacts and plays with her children to pedophiles?

Ok - one more time for OGTS's benefit.

The analogy is between:

a mother relieving her aggressive feelings using violent video games

and

a pedophile relieving his sexual feeling for children using child porn.

The research shows that contrary to the arguments of some pedophiles, the viewing of child porn increases the likelihood of illegal sexual acts rather than decreases it.

I argue that the claim that video games relieve aggressive feelings is similarly incorrect. Years of research points the conclusion that violent media increases aggressive feelings.

If anyone can point to a scientific study that demonstrates that the use of violent video games decreases feelings of aggression, I'll eat my hat.

tee hee, I do that without playing the game.. if I see one more mom not using her turn signal in our school parking lot, I'm opening a can of whoop *&( !

sheesh, take a moment and read what I originally wrote.

Notice the 'tee hee' - that indicates a humorous response.

I have never played GTA 4 (which is a driving video game).

I play a game that allows me to shoot aliens.

So, until an alien crosses my path, you shouldn't be too concerned about me.

When you do a study which you intend to stand for a general proposition, you have to use a diverse group of people.


Sounds like you are more familiar with the literature than me. Can you point me to the place (the words) in a scientific paper on this topic where the claims made were inappropriately applied to the general population from an inappropriate sample. It does sometimes happen in scientific papers, but it is much more commonly the fault of the popular press who present a lay interpretation of scientific work.



The overall argument is that these games create a more violent society.


I've got to ask again, can you point me to any scientific publication that makes exactly this claim? Typically, scientists are very reluctant to draw such sweeping conclusions from single studies. I does happen, but again it's typically the press at fault.

sheesh, take a moment and read what I originally wrote.

Notice the 'tee hee' - that indicates a humorous response.


Karried, I wasn't referring to that statement. That was clearly a joke. However, look back at what you wrote in another post.


it helps me release feelings of aggression I might feel in the real world


I assumed that you were serious when you said this. If not, just say so.

Look, I get your point.. I actually do agree that not all kids benefit or should even play violent video games... for our family, it's never been a problem, so I'm only speaking for myself.

I'm not violent, my kids aren't violent, that's not our environment.. who's to say that if we did live in a violent home, then video games might encourage even more violence?

I don't know, we've never gone there and never will. It just doesn't happen in our home.


it helps me release feelings of aggression I might feel in the real world

It's a stress reliever for me - when I'm playing a video game, I'm relaxed and having fun with the kids.... so in that way, yeah, it does alleviate stress and hopefully curtails my urge to beat someone up when they cut me off with my kids in the car. Like I said, I'm only speaking for myself.

Out of curiosity, Do you let your kids play video games?

So, really you have to look at the empirical data when forming policy. Unfortunately, public policy is formed politically where emotional response to anecdotal evidence is more often the guiding force rather than comprehensive empirical data.
...
In a society based on liberty and freedom, responsible public policy formation should weigh the effect on personal liberty against the mitigation of risk a proposed policy affords the community.
...
However, that in no way means that a personal restriction on access to violent media isn't prudent or beneficial to individuals, their families, or communities. At the very least, the opportunity cost of consuming violent media at the expense of other leisure activities may alone be worth efforts to implement such a personal policy. And, really, that's why most find voluntary ratings systems of movies and games and TV as prudent, helpful, and without detrimental impact to personal liberty. It seems that we have actually found a pretty good mix in this country, where education and information partnered with enforcement of violent crime statutes has coincided with fewer violent crimes.

Won't argue with any of that. Policy and science are often estranged.

I'm not violent, my kids aren't violent ... I don't know, we've never gone there and never will. It just doesn't happen in our home.


But how can you be sure, about yourself or your kids? Especially given that there are many scientists and pediatricians saying that there is a causal role of violent media on aggressive behavior. Maybe the effect of violent media is small, but it could be a decisive factor in as given situation. For example, does a child decide to turn to fight an overly aggressive school-mate or does he/she decide instead to flee or diffuse the aggression? Children rely more on past experiences than logic of what is right or wrong to make such decisions. It doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that experiences learned in very realistic violent video games might build the foundation for action in real world situations. The evidence for this is under debate, but why take the chance when there are so many other non-violent outlets for recreation.



hopefully curtails my urge to beat someone up when they cut me off with my kids in the car.


Yeah, I hope this too, but all signs point in the other direction on this street.



Out of curiosity, Do you let your kids play video games?

Slow down - let's stick to the issue instead of fishing for evidence of hypocrisy to fuel an ad hominem attack. I have no kids nor do I play violent video games.

instead of fishing for evidence of hypocrisy to fuel an ad hominem attack


That's not what I was doing. I was curious.

I hope you're not approaching this on the premise that we are all trying to attack one another in our discussions. It's just a discussion on a message board & personal attacks are highly discouraged.

I shared a personal story regarding this topic so I was asking for your personal experiences with kids and video games.

You don't have any, so it's clear we don't have a lot of common ground regarding this issue.

I don't believe the way you do and I have personal experiences (since I play games and my children play games) that reinforce my feelings. And I have non violent children - go figure.

If my kids were violent, I might find your argument more compelling, but they aren't. I'm basing it on my past experiences with many kids I know, my relatives and friend's children and I don't see what you see apparently.

Keep in mind, I've mentioned moderation a few different times. It's not like we have all nighter death matches non-stop in our home. We do tons of other activities as well. And all video games aren't violent or bad. We play Rock Band all the time.. and Guitar Hero. If what you say is true, then my kids will grow up to be rock stars. We also play the Wii - bowling, fishing, baseball, etc.

And, believe it or not, we actually go outside! lol, so yes, moderation is a beautiful thing.

If and when you have kids, you will decide what you are comfortable with as a parent, and a lot of variables are involved. It's not always black and white.

There, we can agree to disagree.

Where have I heard that argument before? Oh yeah -- pedophiles claiming child porn relieves their sexual desires. At least we now know (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16866601) that kind of argument is a load of horse hockey. If anything, violent games will tend to increase the chance that you will result to violence in say for example, parking lots.

::::first before i start my real rant:::: how can you compare a pedophile with child porn with video games as stress relievers? a pedophile's use of child porn requires that real pictures be taken at one point in time to fulfill their warped fantasy. going on the basic definition of video gaming as something not real makes your argument null & void.

playing video games of any style & content that have passed the ESRB (http://www.esrb.org/) rating program, has nothing to do with your comparison. it is perfectly legal & it is recommended with age restrictions. so if a videogame is deemed as a legal form of entertainment defined as an activity that is diverting and that holds the attention, then i think most everyone with a speaking education would agree that video gaming is a healthy legal form of stress-relief from whatever causes stress. ::::end first rant::::


:::now back to the topic:::: before discussing age ratings, would you have the same argument about its entertainment value on any theatrical released movies that have action, nudity, violence, &/or adult situations? is it viable for adults view a movie as entertainment value? ocean's eleven is a movie about a robbery of a casino. by watching, does that mean i will plan a robbery myself? it is a statistical probability no matter how remote, but does this mean the average citizen's rights should be removed in order to protect society from the story's effect on itself? most people would say no.

some games are called sandbox games, because you get to choose the behavior or moral ground from which you base the fictional character.

(in late 70's they looked at dungeons & dragons as a devil's game which is just a pen & paper game, lol. google it if you don't know what that is. regardless, they've had witch hunts out in one form or another towards gaming ever since. it's the biggest & easiest political bet for politicians to pander on).

not everyone likes to play the cop in a fantasy world or the good decent law-abiding citizen & if we all did there probably wouldn't be much need for the cop or much need for an actual story because it would no longer be escapism or a fantasy world because it'd be bound by societal laws & realistic physics & behavior. what kind of sandbox game would it be if it were weighed so heavily on rules. people play sports in real-life & in video games as a break from reality, so why is it any different for some of these other games? it's a curiosity i think we should all ask ourselves. do we need to waste this much time legislating ethics or should we spend that time on educating parental responsibility?

do we need to live in such repressed worlds that everyone has to agree to the same ethics in our imaginary lives? as long as parents are involved with their kids, i think if they want to allow their kids (maybe after 12) to explore cause & effects of right & wrong in a fantasy world (if accompanied by them on games deemed appropriate by them) should be considered more educational & gives the child more preparation of understanding where & how they fit as far as personal & socio-responsibility requirements take them as they further grow into an adult identity in the real world. ie., tool to further establish right & wrong; real & fantasy. now, as far as whether a game is rated as 17 and older, this is personal parental choice in my book as long as the parents are spending time & watching over their kids making their own personal ethical choices appropriate for their kids. there was a time when kids played outside & were allowed to play whatever they wanted. it wasn't like parents placed bugging devices in kids before they went outside to play. role-playing is one of the most basic building blocks of learning. babies imitate the moment they open their eyes. cops & robbers is one of the oldest games kids play & i don't recall a big moral dilema with the parents back then. i do know that less involved parents help create more troubled kids. point is, we should be careful with the first amendment just as we should the 2nd. a police state is not the best way to protect freedom. parental education class would be money best spent over more legislation.

some sites everyone might want to venture out to read:

popular & respected video game news site:
Law of the Game on Joystiq: Video game laws (abort/retry/fail) - Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/19/law-of-the-game-on-joystiq-video-game-laws-abort-retry-fail/)

this one is an advocacy site (most useful in this case) which gives stats on the average video game consumer:
Video Games & Violence | Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) (http://www.theeca.com/video_games_violence)

another one i googled:
GamePolitics.com » Blog Archive » Supreme Court Justice: Video Game Laws Might Be Constitutional (http://gamepolitics.com/2008/02/20/supreme-court-justice-video-game-laws-might-be-constitutional/)

important side-note for parents:
any parents that have kids who are minors should be very careful allowing them to play video games online with voice chat without parental involvement. there's just no way to know who the people are on the other side. best way to protect yourself is to use parental blocking features that i know are there for xbox 360 where parents can set-up the blocking preferences to their needs. all parents need to use this to some extent especially if they have online access. there are pedophiles out there that go where the kids go & parents need to arm themselves without imprisoning their kids to do so. at the very least, educate the children about online gaming as you would if strangers approached them trying to strike up a 1-to-1 conversation.

if you have a Wii, don't worry, it's so difficult to configure to play online & have voice chat there is an 85% chance your child will never play it online. i'm sure there's parental features on Wii & PS3 as well.

That's not what I was doing. I was curious.

Ok. I accept that.


I hope you're not approaching this on the premise that we are all trying to attack one another in our discussions. It's just a discussion on a message board & personal attacks are highly discouraged.

Sorry, but implicit and explicit personal attacks, trolling and general snarkyness is par for this forum. You already deleted one post from this thread that attacked your comments on personal grounds.



I shared a personal story regarding this topic so I was asking for your personal experiences with kids and video games. ... You don't have any, so it's clear we don't have a lot of common ground regarding this issue. ... If and when you have kids, you will decide what you are comfortable with as a parent, and a lot of variables are involved. It's not always black and white.


So now you discount my views because of my lack of experience with children rather than on the basis of the arguments I am making. That is still an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) argument.
Yes, I have few personal experiences with kids (thank heavens) but I'll take the results of numerous scientific studies over anyone's anecdotal evidence derived from parenting a few children.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's just a voluntary thing some stores do. I sort of recall some law about that being struck down as unconstitutional.

There are places that would have no qualms selling GTA IV to a 6-year-old if he had the cash.
forgot about that. you're mostly correct: they're recommended guidelines for parents & suggested age restrictions for stores. but it is considered a self-policing policy that most stores have gotten better at. it's not as if the developers want inappropriate games to be sold to minors, they just want the distributors to be able to police themselves. otherwise, we go back into a book-burning situation. and if a 6-year-old was allowed by their parents to by such a game, don't you think the parents should be held accountable?

i don't have strong convictions in this area, but if it effects my options of games to play because of more restrictive policies that i think parents need to be held responsible for, then i will be upset.

The review that I mention above discusses correlational, experimental, longitudinal and meta-analytic studies. It would be hard to call all of these studies junk science or pure pandering.

It's a decent article, they definitely got the video game history correct. The thing is, I don't think people realize the huge numbers of people born in the last 20 years that have been massively and constantly exposed to violent video games. The video game industry is now *far larger* than Hollywood. If things were as bad as some researchers claim, violence rates would be skyrocketing beyond belief, but they're not.

One problem I see with this study is the experimental data that was gathered was based on, in part, criteria evaluating a subject's violent *thoughts* after playing a game. Personally I think this is total crap. Have I played a game and felt an adrenaline rush afterwards and had images of that game linger in my mind? Sure. Would I ever act on that in any way, either verbal or physically? No, I wouldn't, and I don't know anyone who would. Other data seems fairly convincing, but again if you think about the sheer number of people who play violent video games then teen violence should be skyrocketing because the data shows an across-the-board increase in all risk categories. It just doesn't pass the stink test in my opinion. I'd like to see the collected data and statistical methods used and review it further. I get so tired of people with business or quasi-science degrees running around thinking they know what they are doing when it comes to math and science when clearly they don't. I don't know that this is the case here, but I mean look at the data, it just doesn't add up.

There are first-person-shooter contests held all over this country, one of the largest is QuakeCon in Dallas. If you were to go and conduct a few interviews at a place like this I am almost positive you would find that almost all of these people are computer geeks and non-violent to the extreme.

As far as the larger issue goes, sure it makes sense to keep games with more violent content out of the hands of little kids. I don't really think there is much of a problem with older kids.

We have a rating system in place for all video games, and retailers will not sell games of a certain rating to anyone under 17. As far as the media goes, every single TV, cable box, satellite box, DVR, etc. sold since the mid-1990s has come with a V-chip or other parental rights management software installed in them. If people are so concerned about these issues instead of forcing their will on everyone else they need to take responsibility themselves and learn how to enable these features. The same goes for software -- it's easy to lock others out from being able to install software on a computer if you know what you are doing. We need to stop writing laws for the lowest common denominator in our society... it does nothing but bring us all down to that level.

Here's a correlational stat for you: The sales of violent video games are at record levels. Since the early 90's when we first saw true video game violence, i.e. Double Dragon or Mortal Kombat, we have seen two figures with inversely proportional relationships -- while the number of violent video games sold over the years has skyrocketed, the rate of violence has decreased rapidly. In fact, if you want to look at murder rates since 1992, we're currently at nearly half that rate.


You're absolutely correct. Violent games sales are through the roof. The data in the article OKC Crime linked to would suggest that violent crime among those under 18 should be near doubling by now. Is that happening? NO.

Here's my 2¢ on the topic:

Lots of people want to try to find some simple, sensible explanation on why certain people turn into criminals. Unfortunately for those folks, there is no "one thing" that explains it. No "magic bullet." No chief contributing cause.

I think the problem is much more complex. If I had to try to blame the problem of kids turning into criminals I'd be more likely to blame it on bad parenting or parents that just weren't even there at all. Blaming the problem on video games is a cop out.

That being said, I don't like GTA4 for all the very negative messages it sends. I find it offensive.

One of my close friends has a younger brother who is about to go away for his second term in prison. This guy didn't grow up in squalor or in a broken home. Both of his biological parents raised him from birth to adulthood and had a very respectable combined income. Despite good upbringing he still turned into a scumbag.

Perhaps if we had a greater balance of positive influences coming out of all the various modes of entertainment and popular culture that might have some effect on the situation. But I think a lot of people out there are just destined by their own unique built in nature to become bad people or even evil sociopaths. It's also pretty difficult to sell the message of being a decent, responsible person as something that is cool and desirable. Us Americans are still in love with anti-heroes and negative imagery. We eat up too much of the nice = weak message.

Even back in the golden years of the 50's, there was still violence, and teenage girls getting pregnant, despite the "wholesome" entertainment provided on tv. There has to be a biological reason for some people to turn into violent criminals. It can't all be from something that has become a recent phenomenon.

You're absolutely correct. Violent games sales are through the roof. The data in the article OKC Crime linked to would suggest that violent crime among those under 18 should be near doubling by now. Is that happening? NO.

Huh? I don't see anywhere in the article where the author states anything like "violent crime among those under 18 should double". Please point out where the author or any other respectable scientist makes such a prediction on crime rates attributable to increases in violent video game playing.

Instead the author states that playing violent video games is a risk factor for aggressive behavior. To make this point clear, he offers "Only one-third of smokers ever get lung cancer, but that does not mean that smoking is “good” for the other two-thirds. Smoking is a risk factor for all smokers, regardless of whether they ever actually get cancer."

Similarly, not everyone who plays violent video games will engage in aggressive behavior that gets them arrested. They are only at more of a risk for such an outcome. Moreover, there are many legal outlets for aggressive and violent behavior, e.g. violent sports or military service. We just may not see a noticeable rise in crime.

Lots of people want to try to find some simple, sensible explanation on why certain people turn into criminals. Unfortunately for those folks, there is no "one thing" that explains it. No "magic bullet." No chief contributing cause.

I think the problem is much more complex. If I had to try to blame the problem of kids turning into criminals I'd be more likely to blame it on bad parenting or parents that just weren't even there at all. Blaming the problem on video games is a cop out.

Very insightful. I agree. Just be clear that "lots of people" means the press and the public, not the scientists. The article that I cited argues, as you do, that there are a number of factors contributing to aggressive behavior. One of these factors is playing violent video games. As you point out it probably isn't the chief contributing cause for criminal behavior. However that doesn't make it irrelevant. Furthermore, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take action to limit its influence through legal means.

There are first-person-shooter contests held all over this country, one of the largest is QuakeCon in Dallas. If you were to go and conduct a few interviews at a place like this I am almost positive you would find that almost all of these people are computer geeks and non-violent to the extreme.


Computer geeks (http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/288096.htm) can be violent too.

Have I played a game and felt an adrenaline rush afterwards and had images of that game linger in my mind? Sure. Would I ever act on that in any way, either verbal or physically? No, I wouldn't, and I don't know anyone who would.

The individuals most at risk (and the topic of discussion in the thread) are children. Adults may be able to better separate in-game learning, and real-world learning because most adults try and logically think through their actions in advance. Children tend to just act and those actions are based on their past experiences. It is not unreasonable to believe that past actions learned in a video game would influence real world behaviors, especially for younger children. As you argue, the evidence is flawed, but why take the risk when there are so many non-violent entrainment options for children?

Computer geeks (http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/288096.htm) can be violent too.

More cops illegally beat, maim, or kill than geeks. I'd bet by an order of magnitude.

So I'll blame their blue shirts.

Here's another observation: if someone is spending much of their time playing video games, even violent video games -how are they going to have to time to go out and commit acts of mayhem in the real world?


One of these factors is playing violent video games. As you point out it probably isn't the chief contributing cause for criminal behavior. However that doesn't make it irrelevant. Furthermore, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take action to limit its influence through legal means.

I think the means to limit the use of certain video games is already there: the ESRB ratings on the boxes.

A game like GTA4 is no different than a R-rated movie. Children should not be playing GTA4, just like they shouldn't be watching R-rated movies filled with blood flowing violence or frank sexual content. GTA4 is really a video game for adults, not children.

Some parents want these kinds of video games banned outright. My feeling is the parents should be a little more careful about what video games they buy for their kids and be a little more involved in what their kids are doing. Basically, they need to do their jobs as parents. Banning something allows those parents to just continue coasting on auto-pilot and not doing their jobs.

When it comes to controversial content coming into the homes of families, I have much greater problems about the many different negative messages and influences coming in from various TV and cable network shows. It isn't hard to keep a child from playing GTA4. It's more difficult to keep a child from getting bombarded with all sorts of BS coming in from regular network TV. Even listening to radio stations is an adventure. Any time of day you can turn the dial and hear lots of scandalous stuff. It doesn't bother me since I'm an adult and can put that stuff in its proper content, but I'd be mortified if a young child was within earshot of it. Lots of people give the excuse, "I just listen to the music not the lyrics." Yeah, OK. The fashion industry is often tied to the music industry since the actual music isn't important anymore -just only how the performers look. I wonder how many thousands of young girls have started eating disorders for the first time today.

Here's another observation: if someone is spending much of their time playing video games, even violent video games -how are they going to have to time to go out and commit acts of mayhem in the real world?


The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that children 8-18 play on average 1 hour of video games per day (http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Executive-Summary-Generation-M-Media-in-the-Lives-of-8-18-Year-olds.pdf). Thus, they have plenty of opportunities to 'commit acts of mayhem'. Funny enough, kids also spend on average 1 hour per day on homework. We assume the homework is teaching them something. Safe to assume that the video games are too given that children spend as much time playing games as on their homework. What exactly does GTA teach children if not to be aggressive?

What's wrong with being aggressive? Assuming all of your premises are accurate, if channeled properly, aggression = success.

What exactly does GTA teach children if not to be aggressive?

That's easy, it teaches them how to steal a car. j/k

Assuming all of your premises are accurate, if channeled properly, aggression = success.

Yes, controlled aggression can be extremely valuable in certain situations, for example, when self defense is required. If only, somehow, GTA also taught self control, sound ethics, personal responsibility, and critical thinking....

I'm surprised someone hasn't mentioned it already, but a violent video game that does teach ethics is America's Army (http://www.americasarmy.com/). Apparently the US Army (who created and maintains the free to download and play game) believes that video games do influence young minds, even if most of you do not.

Halo is our favorite family game ever...

The UNSC Marine Corps is a branch of the United Nations Space Command Defense Force (http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/United_Nations_Space_Command) that is primarily responsible for land-based military operations, and protecting Naval (http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/UNSC_Navy) vessels and bases from attack.

"ohh rah"

I believe young minds can be influenced of course, I'm sure we all do, but I don't think playing a video game that has violence in it will automatically make them serial killers.

I believe young minds can be influenced of course, I'm sure we all do, but I don't think playing a video game that has violence in it will automatically make them serial killers.

Bravo Karried. A tour de force - really, You started with an ad homenim argument and are now onto ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi). No one ever claimed that playing violent video games makes you a serial killer.

The article that I cited claims that playing violent video games is a factor contributing to aggressive behavior in children.

You started with an ad homenim argument and are now onto ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi). No one ever claimed that playing violent video games makes you a serial killer.


I never said anyone claimed anything.

I said I don't think ...... I was giving my opinion.


I don't think playing a video game that has violence in it will automatically make them serial killers.

That is my opinion.

Nevermind. I don't even know why I'm even continuing this conversation. It's a discussion board, not a debate club.

Goodbye, I'm off to go have fun and slay aliens.

I was giving my opinion. It's a discussion board, not a debate club.

Hmm. Note to self: Discussion boards are only for opinions, no debate allowed. Avoid all critical thinking.

Hmm. Note to self: Discussion boards are only for opinions, no debate allowed. Avoid all critical thinking.

Don't forget to take yourself entirely too seriously.

Some thoughts -

Passively watching television, even violent shows, is NOT the same thing as the interaction that goes on with a video game.

Young children's brains, judgment and moral development vary, depending on developmental stage. The impact of a video game on a 5 year old is not going to be the same as on a 17 year old or a 30 year old. If you are 15 and wouldn't be inspired to be violent that does not mean a 5 year old wouldn't, either.

Kids who are too young to understand that making violent threats and acting tough (even if they are actually kind hearted souls) run a greater risk of attracting violent peers by virture of their accepting attitude toward violence and the things they say. A correlation is that children who are acting like little gangsters are going to be avoided by families who don't want that sort of behavior in their kids - thus increasing the likelihood that hoods of a feather will flock together. Parents who allow a child to act like a thug and think that is cute and harmless are so lacking in basic parenting skills and common sense that video game or not, their children are going to have problems. This matches up with earlier comments about poor parenting, in general.

For whatever reason, some of the most violent families that I work with in my job allow young children to play video games, even violent ones.

Notwithstanding the stats that have been mentioned related to a declining crime rate, I have been working with children in the courts for years and know probation officers who have been doing it for decades. The consensus is that not only are we seeing violent crime at a younger age, the truly horrifying part is the lack of remorse and the mercilessness that comes with it. Younger children's brains are not developed. A 17 year old might rob a liquor store for the money. A 14 year old might beat and torture the victim just for the hell of it and not even "get" that what he/she is doing is horrific. The stats will tell you that there were, say, ten robberies. The stats don't necessarily tell you just how vicious the attacks were. The pure brutality of many of the assaults I've been seeing, even in the past 5 years, makes my blood run cold. Some of the girls are the worst and violent female crime is definitely up.