argumentative essay on banning violent video games

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Pro and Con: Violent Video Games

To access extended pro and con arguments, sources, and discussion questions about whether violent video games contribute to youth violence, go to ProCon.org .

Around 73% of American kids age 2-17 played video games in 2019, a 6% increase over 2018. Video games accounted for 17% of kids’ entertainment time and 11% of their entertainment spending. The global video game industry was worth contributing $159.3 billion in 2020, a 9.3% increase of 9.3% from 2019.

The debate over violent video games can be traced back to the 1976 release of the game Death Race. The object of the game was to run over screaming “gremlins” with a car, at which point they would turn into tombstones. Controversy erupted because the “gremlins” resembled stick-figure humans, and it was reported that the working title of the game was Pedestrian. After protestors dragged Death Race machines out of arcades and burned them in parking lots, production of the game ceased.

In 1993, public outcry following the release of violent video games Mortal Kombat and Night Trap prompted Congress to hold hearings on regulating the sale of video games. During the hearings, California Attorney General Dan Lungren testified that violent video games have “a desensitizing impact on young, impressionable minds.” Threatened with the creation of a federal regulatory commission, the video game industry voluntarily established the  Entertainment Software Rating Board  (ESRB) on Sep. 1, 1994 to create a ratings system. Based on the video game’s content, the ESRB assigns one of the following ratings: “Early Childhood,” “Everyone,” “Everyone 10+,” “Teen,” “Mature,” “Adults Only,” or “Rating Pending” (only for use in advertising for games not yet rated). In a Pew Research Center 2008 survey, 50% of boys and 14% of girls aged 12-17 listed a game with a “Mature” or “Adults Only” rating in their current top three favorite games.

An Aug. 2015 report from the American Psychological Association determined that playing violent video games is linked to increased aggression, but it did not find sufficient evidence of a link between the games and increased violence. The organization reaffirmed this position in 2020: “There is insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior… [T]he new task force report reaffirms that there is a small, reliable association between violent video game use and aggressive outcomes, such as yelling and pushing. However, these research findings are difficult to extend to more violent outcomes.” 

• Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting.
• Simulating violence such as shooting guns and hand-to-hand combat in video games can cause real-life violent behavior.
• Many perpetrators of mass shootings played violent video games.
• Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence.
• By inhabiting violent characters in video games, children are more likely to imitate the behaviors of those characters and have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy.
• Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness.
• Video games that portray violence against women lead to more harmful attitudes and sexually violent actions towards women.
• Violent video games reinforce fighting as a means of dealing with conflict by rewarding the use of violent action with increased life force, more weapons, moving on to higher levels, and more.
• The US military uses violent video games to train soldiers to kill.
• Studies have shown violent video games may cause aggression, not violence. Further, any competitive video game or activity may cause aggression.
• Violent video games are a convenient scapegoat for those who would rather not deal with the actual causes of violence in the US.
• Simple statistics do not support the claim that violent video games cause mass shootings or other violence.
• As sales of violent video games have significantly increased, violent juvenile crime rates have significantly decreased.
• Studies have shown that violent video games can have a positive effect on kindness, civic engagement, and prosocial behaviors.
• Many risk factors are associated with youth violence, but video games are not among them.
• Violent video game players know the difference between virtual violence in the context of a game and appropriate behavior in the real world.
• Violent video games provide opportunities for children to explore consequences of violent actions, develop their moral compasses and release their stress and anger (catharsis) in the game, leading to less real world aggression.
• Studies claiming a causal link between video game violence and real life violence are flawed.

This article was published on June 8, 2021, at Britannica’s ProCon.org , a nonpartisan issue-information source.

What do you think? Leave a respectful comment.

Christopher J. Ferguson, The Conversation Christopher J. Ferguson, The Conversation

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/analysis-why-its-time-to-stop-blaming-video-games-for-real-world-violence

Analysis: Why it’s time to stop blaming video games for real-world violence

In the wake of the El Paso shooting on Aug. 3 that left 21 dead and dozens injured, a familiar trope has reemerged: Often, when a young man is the shooter, people try to blame the tragedy on violent video games and other forms of media.

This time around, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick placed some of the blame on a video game industry that “ teaches young people to kill .” Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California went on to condemn video games that “dehumanize individuals” as a “problem for future generations.” And President Trump pointed to society’s “glorification of violence,” including “ gruesome and grisly video games .”

These are the same connections a Florida lawmaker made after the Parkland shooting in February 2018, suggesting that the gunman in that case “was prepared to pick off students like it’s a video game .”

Kevin McCarthy, the GOP House minority leader, also tells Fox News that video games are the problem following the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. pic.twitter.com/w7DmlJ9O1K — John Whitehouse (@existentialfish) August 4, 2019

But, speaking as a researcher who has studied violent video games for almost 15 years, I can state that there is no evidence to support these claims that violent media and real-world violence are connected. As far back as 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that research did not find a clear connection between violent video games and aggressive behavior.

Criminologists who study mass shootings specifically refer to those sorts of connections as a “ myth .” And in 2017, the Media Psychology and Technology division of the American Psychological Association released a statement I helped craft, suggesting reporters and policymakers cease linking mass shootings to violent media, given the lack of evidence for a link.

A history of a moral panic

So why are so many policymakers inclined to blame violent video games for violence? There are two main reasons.

The first is the psychological research community’s efforts to market itself as strictly scientific. This led to a replication crisis instead, with researchers often unable to repeat the results of their studies. Now, psychology researchers are reassessing their analyses of a wide range of issues – not just violent video games, but implicit racism , power poses and more.

The other part of the answer lies in the troubled history of violent video game research specifically.

An attendee dressed as a Fortnite character poses for a picture in a costume at Comic Con International in San Diego, California, U.S., July 19, 2019. Photo by REUTERS/Mike Blake

Beginning in the early 2000s, some scholars, anti-media advocates and professional groups like the APA began working to connect a methodologically messy and often contradictory set of results to public health concerns about violence. This echoed historical patterns of moral panic, such as 1950s concerns about comic books and Tipper Gore’s efforts to blame pop and rock music in the 1980s for violence, sex and satanism.

Particularly in the early 2000s, dubious evidence regarding violent video games was uncritically promoted . But over the years, confidence among scholars that violent video games influence aggression or violence has crumbled .

Reviewing all the scholarly literature

My own research has examined the degree to which violent video games can – or can’t – predict youth aggression and violence. In a 2015 meta-analysis , I examined 101 studies on the subject and found that violent video games had little impact on kids’ aggression, mood, helping behavior or grades.

Two years later, I found evidence that scholarly journals’ editorial biases had distorted the scientific record on violent video games. Experimental studies that found effects were more likely to be published than studies that had found none. This was consistent with others’ findings . As the Supreme Court noted, any impacts due to video games are nearly impossible to distinguish from the effects of other media, like cartoons and movies.

Any claims that there is consistent evidence that violent video games encourage aggression are simply false.

Spikes in violent video games’ popularity are well-known to correlate with substantial declines in youth violence – not increases. These correlations are very strong, stronger than most seen in behavioral research. More recent research suggests that the releases of highly popular violent video games are associated with immediate declines in violent crime, hinting that the releases may cause the drop-off.

The role of professional groups

With so little evidence, why are people like Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin still trying to blame violent video games for mass shootings by young men? Can groups like the National Rifle Association seriously blame imaginary guns for gun violence?

A key element of that problem is the willingness of professional guild organizations such as the APA to promote false beliefs about violent video games. (I’m a fellow of the APA.) These groups mainly exist to promote a profession among news media, the public and policymakers, influencing licensing and insurance laws . They also make it easier to get grants and newspaper headlines. Psychologists and psychology researchers like myself pay them yearly dues to increase the public profile of psychology. But there is a risk the general public may mistake promotional positions for objective science.

In 2005 the APA released its first policy statement linking violent video games to aggression. However, my recent analysis of internal APA documents with criminologist Allen Copenhaver found that the APA ignored inconsistencies and methodological problems in the research data.

The APA updated its statement in 2015, but that sparked controversy immediately: More than 230 scholars wrote to the group asking it to stop releasing policy statements altogether. I and others objected to perceived conflicts of interest and lack of transparency tainting the process.

It’s bad enough that these statements misrepresent the actual scholarly research and misinform the public. But it’s worse when those falsehoods give advocacy groups like the NRA cover to shift blame for violence onto non-issues like video games. The resulting misunderstanding hinders efforts to address mental illness and other issues, such as the need for gun control, that are actually related to gun violence.

This article was originally published in The Conversation. Read the original article . This story was updated from an earlier version to reflect the events surrounding the El Paso and Dayton shootings.

Christopher J. Ferguson is a professor of psychology at Stetson University. He's coauthor of " Moral Combat: Why the War on Violent Video Games is Wrong ."

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

El Paso shooting is domestic terrorism, investigators say

Nation Aug 04

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Should Violent Video-Games Be Banned?

With the recent spurt of highly publicised killings, the debate about violence and video games has again taken the spotlight. Many stakeholders and institutions believe that playing violent video games is morally and ethically objectionable as it leads to contribution and promotion of violence. In this essay I would be looking at the general objections being raised by such stakeholders and also subject these criticisms to the test of various juridprudential tests. I would be focussing on the deontological and utilitarian approach to understand these objections as raised. Furthermore, I have tried to study the structure of modern day video games looking at the root question of whether such a link between violence and video games exist or not? The last question being presented is whether such video games should merely be regulated or banned, and would it curtail freedom of speech. Methodology The methodology followed by the researcher is a doctrinal one, in which the researcher relies...

Related Papers

Shaun Rattue

Video Games

Jacqui Taylor

Erica Neely

Many people have discussed ethics and video games. Thus far the focus has been on two elements: the actions players take within a game and whether certain kinds of games are wrong to create, such as extremely violent video games. Taking Miguel Sicart’s work as a key starting place, I emphasize the moral importance of choice with respect to video games. This has several components. Focusing on single-player games, I consider gameplay choices that players make, such as how to complete a particular mission in a game and how the game evaluates and adapts to player choices in a way that attempts to impose and/or encourage a particular moral stance. Much literature focuses specifically on gameplay as the interactive component that makes video games a unique medium. However, I stress that we must also consider the choices designers make when they program a game; these choices can frequently go unnoticed and unquestioned by players. As such, while I agree with those who emphasize that players are capable of moral reflection, I question how often they actually engage in moral reflection. This suggests that there is room for pragmatic concern about how actual players – not ideal players – are affected by video games.

Philosophy Compass

C. Thi Nguyen

What is a game? What are we doing when we play a game? What is the value of playing games? Several different philosophical sub disciplines have attempted to answer these questions using very distinctive frameworks. Some have approached games as something like a text, deploying theoretical frameworks from the study of narrative, fiction, and rhetoric to interrogate games for their representational content. Others have approached games as artworks and asked questions about the authorship of games, about the ontology of the work and its performance. Yet others, from the philosophy of sport, have focused on normative issues of fairness, rule application, and competition. The primary purpose of this article is to provide an overview of several different philosophical approaches to games and, hopefully, demonstrate the relevance and value of the different approaches to each other. Early academic attempts to cope with games tried to treat games as a subtype of narrative and to interpret games exactly as one might interpret a static, linear narrative. A faction of game studies, self‐described as “ludologists,” argued that games were a substantially novel form and could not be treated with traditional tools for narrative analysis. In traditional narrative, an audience is told and interprets the story, where in a game, the player enacts and creates the story. Since that early debate, theorists have attempted to offer more nuanced accounts of how games might achieve similar ends to more traditional texts. For example, games might be seen as a novel type of fiction, which uses interactive techniques to achieve immersion in a fictional world. Alternately, games might be seen as a new way to represent causal systems, and so a new way to criticize social and political entities. Work from contemporary analytic philosophy of art has, on the other hand, asked questions whether games could be artworks and, if so, what kind. Much of this debate has concerned the precise nature of the artwork, and the relationship between the artist and the audience. Some have claimed that the audience is a cocreator of the artwork, and so games are a uniquely unfinished and cooperative art form. Others have claimed that, instead, the audience does not help create the artwork; rather, interacting with the artwork is how an audience member appreciates the artist's finished production. Other streams of work have focused less on the game as a text or work, and more on game play as a kind of activity. One common view is that game play occurs in a “magic circle.” Inside the magic circle, players take on new roles, follow different rules, and actions have different meanings. Actions inside the magic circle do not have their usual consequences for the rest of life. Enemies of the magic circle view have claimed that the view ignores the deep integration of game life from ordinary life and point to gambling, gold farming, and the status effects of sports. Philosophers of sport, on the other hand, have approached games with an entirely different framework. This has lead into investigations about the normative nature of games—what guides the applications of rules and how those rules might be applied, interpreted, or even changed. Furthermore, they have investigated games as social practices and as forms of life.

Ethics and Information Technology

Matt McCormick

Many people have a strong intuition that there is something morallyobjectionable about playing violent video games, particularly withincreases in the number of people who are playing them and the games'alleged contribution to some highly publicized crimes. In this paper,I use the framework of utilitarian, deontological, and virtue ethicaltheories to analyze the possibility that there might be some philosophicalfoundation for these intuitions. I raise the broader question of whetheror not participating in authentic simulations of immoral acts in generalis wrong. I argue that neither the utilitarian, nor the Kantian hassubstantial objections to violent game playing, although they offersome important insights into playing games in general and what it ismorally to be a ``good sport.'' The Aristotelian, however, has a plausibleand intuitive way to protest participation in authentic simulations ofviolent acts in terms of character: engaging in simulated immoral actserodes one's character and makes it more difficult for one to live afulfilled eudaimonic life.

Shawn Doherty

Reasoning .07 .06 Emotional Stability .18 .11 Rule Consciousness -.27* -.21 Utilitarian versus Personal Focus -.10 -.05

Stephanie Patridge

In this paper, I consider a particular amoralist challenge against those who would morally criticize our single-player video play, viz., “come on, it’s only a game!” The amoralist challenge with which I engage gains strength from two facts: the activities to which the amoralist lays claim are only those that do not involve interactions with other rational or sentient creatures, and the amoralist concedes that there may be extrinsic, consequentialist considerations that support legitimate moral criticisms. I argue that the amoralist is mistaken and that there are non-consequentialist resources for morally evaluating our single-player game play. On my view, some video games contain details that anyone who has a proper understanding of and is properly sensitive to features of a shared moral reality will see as having an incorrigible social meaning that targets groups of individuals, e.g., women and minorities. I offer arguments to support the claim that there are such incorrigible social meanings and that they constrain the imaginative world so that challenges like “it’s only a game” lose their credibility. I also argue that our responses to such meanings bear on evaluations of our character, and in light of this fact video game designers have a duty to understand and work against the meanings of such imagery.

David Waddington

Jeffrey Earp , Francesca Pozzi

This paper reports on a literature review investigating the main ethically-related themes appearing in the academic literature on digital games, and considers their connections with games and learning, identity development, and the construction of personal beliefs. The themes explored include how videogames can shape players' attitudes or encourage the development of ethical (or unethical) behaviours (like aggression, to mention just one example), the treatment of personal and social identity, positive and negative effects concerning interaction processes in digital gaming circles, and the use of exploitative game mechanics intended to increase player engagement. These questions are explored by drawing on and updating a broadly based literature review that was carried out within the H2020 project Gaming Horizons. As well as reporting on those themes from an academic viewpoint, this paper offers some indications of both a theoretical and practical nature that may prove useful to a variety of game-world stakeholders, including game developers and marketers, researchers, educators and teachers, policy makers, and gaming enthusiasts of various kinds.

Games and Culture

Mahli-Ann Butt

The presence of women within videogames has progressed to a state where narratives about the empowerment of women are becoming popular; however, such games still invite a number of gendered stereotypes. Housed in the genre of adventure games, The Walking Dead: Season Two and Life Is Strange appear to follow in the spirit of this emerging women’s revolution but inevitably reestablish traditional presentations of sexism in the treatment of their endings. In particular, the presentation of the infamous Trolley Problem and its inherent utilitarian framework is an incendiary moment wherein these games mark rebellious women as necessary sacrifices for the greater good and the continuation of the community. This article explores these two specific moments of sacrifice at the conclusions of Life Is Strange and The Walking Dead: Season Two and engages with tensions between the status quo and the resistances that challenges these norms.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Helen Ryland

Lucy Sparrow , Martin Gibbs , Michael Arnold

Philosophical Inquiry in Education

Simon Ferrari

Monique Wonderly

Tieja Thomas

Tae Wan Kim

Declan Humphreys

Mark Coeckelbergh

Emil Hammar

Computers in Human Behavior

Monica Whitty

Nicholas Bowman

Doctoral thesis

Cultural Studies of Science Education (Print), v. 7, p. 909-943

Charbel N El-Hani

2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Lucy Sparrow

ISBN: 978-1-84888-438-0 First published in the United Kingdom in eBook format in 2016. First Edition

Alexia Bhéreur-Lagounaris , Brittany Kuhn , Declan Humphreys , Vince Vader , René Schallegger , Some Douche , Attila Szantner , Bradley McAvoy-James

Sarah Thorne

Giuseppe Riva

Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds

James W Malazita

The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies (Media Studies Futures is volume 6)

Mia Consalvo

Victoria L Rubin

Kat Schrier

america hernandez america hernandez

Robert Fleet

Laureline Chiapello

Rethinking History - Challenge the past

Jan-Hendrik Heinrichs

Bruno Mendes da Silva

Jennifer R. Whitson

Rob Gallagher

Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities

Tero Pasanen

Paul Formosa

Yuehua Wu , Vivian Hsueh Hua Chen

Communication Yearbook 37

Bruno Mendes da Silva , Beatriz Isca

Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies

Allissa V Richardson

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence?

Around 73% of American kids age 2-17 played  video games  in 2019, a 6% increase over 2018. Video games accounted for 17% of kids’ entertainment time and 11% of their entertainment spending. The global video game industry was worth contributing $159.3 billion in 2020, a 9.3% increase of 9.3% from 2019.

Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings , increases in bullying , and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts.

Video game advocates contend that a majority of the research on the topic is deeply flawed and that no causal relationship has been found between video games and social violence. They argue that violent video games may provide a safe outlet for aggressive and angry feelings and may reduce crime. Read more background…

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1 Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting. 60% of middle school boys and 40% of middle school girls who played at least one Mature-rated (M-rated) game hit or beat up someone, compared with 39% of boys and 14% of girls who did not play M-rated games. [ 2 ] A peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that habitual violent video game playing had a causal link with increased, long-term, aggressive behavior. [ 63 ] Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that children who play M-rated games are more likely to bully and cyberbully their peers, get into physical fights, be hostile, argue with teachers, and show aggression towards their peers throughout the school year. [ 2 ] [ 31 ] [ 60 ] [ 61 ] [ 67 ] [ 73 ] [ 76 ] [ 80 ] Read More

Pro 2 Simulating violence such as shooting guns and hand-to-hand combat in video games can cause real-life violent behavior. Video games often require players to simulate violent actions, such as stabbing, shooting, or dismembering someone with an ax, sword, chainsaw, or other weapons. [ 23 ] Game controllers are so sophisticated and the games are so realistic that simulating the violent acts enhances the learning of those violent behaviors. [ 23 ] A peer-reviewed study found “compelling evidence that the use of realistic controllers can have a significant effect on the level of cognitive aggression.” [ 118 ] Two teenagers in Tennessee who shot at passing cars and killed one driver told police they got the idea from playing Grand Theft Auto III . [ 48 ] Bruce Bartholow, professor of psychology at the University of Missouri, spoke about the effects of simulating violence: “More than any other media, these [violent] video games encourage active participation in violence. From a psychological perspective, video games are excellent teaching tools because they reward players for engaging in certain types of behavior. Unfortunately, in many popular video games, the behavior is violence.” [ 53 ] Read More

Pro 3 Many perpetrators of mass shootings played violent video games. Kevin McCarthy, former U.S. Representative (R-CA), states: “But the idea of these video games that dehumanize individuals to have a game of shooting individuals and others – I’ve always felt that is a problem for future generations and others. We’ve watched from studies shown before of what it does to individuals. When you look at these photos of how it [mass shootings] took place, you can see the actions within video games and others.” [ 146 ] Many mass shootings have been carried out by avid video game players: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in the Columbine High School shooting (1999); James Holmes in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting (2012); Jared Lee Loughner in the Arizona shooting that injured Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others (2011); and Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in Norway (2011) and admitted to using the game Modern Warfare 2 for training. [ 43 ] [ 53 ] An FBI school shooter threat assessment stated that a student who makes threats of violence should be considered more credible if he or she also spends “inordinate amounts of time playing video games with violent themes.” [ 25 ] Dan Patrick, Republican Lieutenant Governor of Texas, stated: “We’ve always had guns, always had evil, but I see a video game industry that teaches young people to kill.” [ 145 ] Read More

Pro 4 Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. Desensitization to violence was defined in a Journal of Experimental Social Psychology peer-reviewed study as “a reduction in emotion-related physiological reactivity to real violence.” [ 51 ] [ 111 ] [ 112 ] The study found that just 20 minutes of playing a violent video game “can cause people to become less physiologically aroused by real violence.” People desensitized to violence are more likely to commit a violent act. [ 51 ] [ 111 ] [ 112 ] By age 18, American children will have seen 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence depicted in violent video games, movies, and television. [ 110 ] A peer-reviewed study found a causal link between violent video game exposure and an increase in aggression as a result of a reduction in the brain’s response to depictions of real-life violence. [ 52 ] Studies have found reduced emotional and physiological responses to violence in both the long and short term. [ 55 ] [ 58 ] In a peer-reviewed study, violent video game exposure was linked to reduced P300 amplitudes in the brain, which is associated with desensitization to violence and increases in aggressive behavior. [ 24 ] Read More

Pro 5 By inhabiting violent characters in video games, children are more likely to imitate the behaviors of those characters and have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy. Violent video games require active participation and identification with violent characters, which reinforces violent behavior. Young children are more likely to confuse fantasy violence with real world violence, and without a framework for ethical decision making, they may mimic the actions they see in violent video games. [ 59 ] [ 4 ] Child Development and Early Childhood Education expert Jane Katch stated in an interview with Education Week , “I found that young children often have difficulty separating fantasy from reality when they are playing and can temporarily believe they are the character they are pretending to be.” [ 124 ] U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent in Brown v. ESA that “the closer a child’s behavior comes, not to watching, but to acting out horrific violence, the greater the potential psychological harm.” [ 124 ] Read More

Pro 6 Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another’s feelings is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. In a study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Jeanne Funk, professor of psychology at the University of Toledo, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. [ 32] A study published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin found that exposure to violent video games led to a lack of empathy and prosocial behavior (positive actions that benefit others). [ 65] [ 66] Eight independent tests measuring the impact of violent video games on prosocial behavior found a significant negative effect, leading to the conclusion that “exposure to violent video games is negatively correlated with helping in the real world.” [ 61] Several studies have found that children with high exposure to violent media display lower moral reasoning skills than their peers without that exposure. [ 32] [ 69] A meta-analysis of 130 international studies with over 130,000 participants concluded that violent video games “increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, and aggressive behaviors, and decrease empathic feelings and prosocial behaviors.” [ 123] Read More

Pro 7 Video games that portray violence against women lead to more harmful attitudes and sexually violent actions towards women. A peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence found that video games that sexually objectify women and feature violence against women led to a statistically significant increase in rape-supportive attitudes, which are attitudes that are hostile towards rape victims. [ 68 ] Another study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women, while 28% portrayed them as sex objects. [ 23 ] Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape, such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape. [ 30 ] Carole Lieberman, a media psychiatrist, stated, “The more video games a person plays that have violent sexual content, the more likely one is to become desensitized to violent sexual acts and commit them.” [ 64 ] Target Australia stopped selling Grand Theft Auto V in response to customer complaints about the game’s depiction of women, which includes the option to kill a prostitute to get your money back. [ 70 ] Read More

Pro 8 Violent video games reinforce fighting as a means of dealing with conflict by rewarding the use of violent action with increased life force, more weapons, moving on to higher levels, and more. Studies suggest that when violence is rewarded in video games, players exhibit increased aggressive behavior compared to players of video games where violence is punished. [ 23 ] [ 59 ] The reward structure is one distinguishing factor between violent video games and other violent media such as movies and television shows, which do not reward viewers nor allow them to actively participate in violence. [ 23 ] [ 59 ] An analysis of 81 video games rated for teens ages 13 and up found that 73 games (90%) rewarded injuring other characters, and 56 games (69%) rewarded killing. [ 71 ] [ 72 ] People who played a video game that rewarded violence showed higher levels of aggressive behavior and aggressive cognition as compared with people who played a version of the same game that was competitive but either did not contain violence or punished violence. [ 71 ] [ 72 ] Read More

Pro 9 The US military uses violent video games to train soldiers to kill. The U.S. Marine Corps licensed Doom II in 1996 to create Marine Doom in order to train soldiers. In 2002, the U.S. Army released first-person shooter game America’s Army to recruit soldiers and prepare recruits for the battlefield. [ 6 ] While the military may benefit from training soldiers to kill using video games, kids who are exposed to these games lack the discipline and structure of the armed forces and may become more susceptible to being violent. [ 79 ] Dave Grossman, retired lieutenant colonel in the United States Army and former West Point psychology professor, stated: “[T]hrough interactive point-and-shoot video games, modern nations are indiscriminately introducing to their children the same weapons technology that major armies and law enforcement agencies around the world use to ‘turn off’ the midbrain ‘safety catch’” that prevents most people from killing. [ 77 ] Read More

Con 1 Studies have shown violent video games may cause aggression, not violence. Further, any competitive video game or activity may cause aggression. Lauren Farrar, producer for KQED Learning’s YouTube series Above the Noise , stated: “Often times after tragic mass shooting, we hear politicians turn the blame to violent video games, but the reality is that the research doesn’t really support that claim… In general, violence usually refers to physical harm or physical acts that hurt someone– like hitting, kicking, punching, and pushing. Aggression is a more broad term that refers to angry or hostile thoughts, feelings or behaviors. So everything that is violent is aggressive, but not everything that is aggressive is violent. For example, getting frustrated, yelling, talking back, arguing those are all aggressive behaviors, but they aren’t violent. The research on the effects of violent video games and behavior often looks at these milder forms of aggressive behavior.” [ 140 ] A peer-reviewed study in Psychology of Violence determined that the competitive nature of a video game was related to aggressive behavior, regardless of whether the game contained violent content. The researchers concluded: “Because past studies have failed to equate the violent and nonviolent video games on competitiveness, difficulty, and pace of action simultaneously, researchers may have attributed too much of the variability in aggression to the violent content.” [ 125 ] A follow-up study tracked high school students for four years and came to the same conclusion: the competitive nature of the games led to the increased hostile behavior. [ 126 ] Read More

Con 2 Violent video games are a convenient scapegoat for those who would rather not deal with the actual causes of violence in the US. Patrick Markey, psychology professor at Villanova University, stated: “The general story is people who play video games right after might be a little hopped up and jerky but it doesn’t fundamentally alter who they are. It is like going to see a sad movie. It might make you cry but it doesn’t make you clinically depressed… Politicians on both sides go after video games it is this weird unifying force. It makes them look like they are doing something… They [violent video games] look scary. But research just doesn’t support that there’s a link [to violent behavior].” [ 138 ] Markey also explained, “Because video games are disproportionately blamed as a culprit for mass shootings committed by White perpetrators, video game ‘blaming’ can be viewed as flagging a racial issue. This is because there is a stereotypical association between racial minorities and violent crime.” [ 141 ] Andrew Przybylski, associate professor, and director of research at the Oxford Internet Institute at Oxford University, stated: “Games have only become more realistic. The players of games and violent games have only become more diverse. And they’re played all around the world now. But the only place where you see this kind of narrative still hold any water, that games and violence are related to each other, is in the United States. [And, by blaming video games for violence,] we reduce the value of the political discourse on the topic, because we’re looking for easy answers instead of facing hard truths.” [ 139 ] Hillary Clinton, Former Secretary of State and First Lady, tweeted, “People suffer from mental illness in every other country on earth; people play video games in virtually every other country on earth. The difference is the guns.” [ 142 ] Read More

Con 3 Simple statistics do not support the claim that violent video games cause mass shootings or other violence. Katherine Newman, dean of arts and sciences at Johns Hopkins University, explained: “Millions of young people play video games full of fistfights, blazing guns, and body slams… Yet only a minuscule fraction of the consumers become violent.” [ 84 ] [ 86 ] [ 87 ] [ 91 ] [ 92 ] A report by the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education examined 37 incidents of targeted school violence between 1974 and 2000. Of the 41 attackers studied, 27% had an interest in violent movies, 24% in violent books, and 37% exhibited interest in their own violent writings, while only 12% showed interest in violent video games. The report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings. [ 35 ] Patrick M. Markey, director of the Interpersonal Research Laboratory at Villanova University, stated, “90% of young males play video games. Finding that a young man who committed a violent crime also played a popular video game, such as Call of Duty, Halo, or Grand Theft Auto, is as pointless as pointing out that the criminal also wore socks.” [ 84 ] Further, gun violence is less prevalent in countries with high video game use. A study of the countries representing the 10 largest video game markets internationally found no correlation between playing video games and gun-related killings. Even though US gun violence is high, the nine other countries with the highest video game usage have some of the lowest violent crime rates (and eight of those countries spend more per capita on video games than the United States). [ 97 ] Read More

Con 4 As sales of violent video games have significantly increased, violent juvenile crime rates have significantly decreased. In 2019, juvenile arrests for violent crimes were at an all-time low, a decline of 50% since 2006. Meanwhile, video game sales set a record in Mar. 2020, with Americans spending $5.6 billion on video game hardware, accessories, and assorted content. Both statistics continue a years-long trend. [ 143 ] [ 144 ] Total U.S. sales of video game hardware and software increased 204% from 1994 to 2014, reaching $13.1 billion in 2014, while violent crimes decreased 37% and murders by juveniles acting alone fell 76% in that same period. [ 82 ] [ 83 ] [ 133 ] [ 134 ] [ 135 ] The number of high school students who had been in at least one physical fight decreased from 43% in 1991 to 25% in 2013, and student reports of criminal victimization at school dropped by more than half from 1995 to 2011. [ 106 ] [ 107 ] A peer-reviewed study found that: “Monthly sales of video games were related to concurrent decreases in aggravated assaults.” [ 84 ] Read More

Con 5 Studies have shown that violent video games can have a positive effect on kindness, civic engagement, and prosocial behaviors. Research shows that playing violent video games can induce a feeling of guilt that leads to increased prosocial behavior (positive actions that benefit others) in the real world. [ 104 ] A study published in Computers in Human Behavior discovered that youths exposed to violence in action games displayed more prosocial behavior and civic engagement, “possibly due to the team-oriented multiplayer options in many of these games.” [ 103 ] Read More

Con 6 Many risk factors are associated with youth violence, but video games are not among them. The U.S. Surgeon General’s list of risk factors for youth violence included abusive parents, poverty, neglect, neighborhood crime, being male, substance use, and mental health problems, but not video games. [ 118 ] A peer-reviewed study even found a “real and significant” effect of hot weather on homicides and aggravated assaults, showing that heat is a risk factor for violence. [ 124 ] Read More

Con 7 Violent video game players know the difference between virtual violence in the context of a game and appropriate behavior in the real world. By age seven, children can distinguish fantasy from reality, and can tell the difference between video game violence and real-world violence. [ 99 ] [ 100 ] Video game players understand they are playing a game. Kids see fantasy violence all the time, from Harry Potter and the Minions to Bugs Bunny and Tom and Jerry. Their ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality prevents them from emulating video game violence in real life. [ 9 ] Exposure to fantasy is important for kids. Fisher-Price toy company stated: “Pretending is more than play: it’s a major part of a child’s development. Fantasy not only develops creative thinking, it’s also a way for children to deal with situations and problems that concern them.” [108] Read More

Con 8 Violent video games provide opportunities for children to explore consequences of violent actions, develop their moral compasses and release their stress and anger (catharsis) in the game, leading to less real world aggression. Violent games allow youth to experiment with moral issues such as war, violence, and death without real world consequences. A researcher at the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media wrote about her research: “One unexpected theme that came up multiple times in our focus groups was a feeling among boys that violent games can teach moral lessons… Many war-themed video games allow or require players to take the roles of soldiers from different sides of a conflict, perhaps making players more aware of the costs of war.” [ 2 ] [ 38 ] A peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that children, especially boys, play video games as a means of managing their emotions: “61.9% of boys played to ‘help me relax,’ 47.8% because ‘it helps me forget my problems,’ and 45.4% because ‘it helps me get my anger out.” [ 37 ] Researchers point to the cathartic effect of video games as a possible reason for why higher game sales have been associated with lower crime rates. [ 84 ] A peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Adolescent Research concluded that “Boys use games to experience fantasies of power and fame, to explore and master what they perceive as exciting and realistic environments (but distinct from real life), to work through angry feelings or relieve stress, and as social tools.” The games serve as a substitute for rough-and-tumble play. [ 36 ] Read More

Con 9 Studies claiming a causal link between video game violence and real life violence are flawed. Many studies failed to control for factors that contribute to children becoming violent, such as family history and mental health, plus most studies do not follow children over long periods of time. [ 10 ] [ 95 ] Video game experiments often have people playing a game for as little as ten minutes, which is not representative of how games are played in real life. In many laboratory studies, especially those involving children, researchers must use artificial measures of violence and aggression that do not translate to real-world violence and aggression, such as whether someone would force another person eat hot sauce or listen to unpleasant noises. [ 84 ] [ 94 ] According to Christopher J. Ferguson, a psychology professor at Stetson University, “matching video game conditions more carefully in experimental studies with how they are played in real life makes VVG’s [violent video games] effects on aggression essentially vanish.” [ 95 ] [ 96 ] Read More

Our Latest Updates (archived after 30 days)

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Video Games – Pros & Cons
• Pro & Con Quotes
• History of Video Games
• Did You Know?
• Entertainment Software Rating Board Categories

Cite This Page

• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Violent video games: content, attitudes, and norms

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 16 October 2023
• Volume 25 , article number  52 , ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Alexander Andersson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4911-3853 1 &
• Per-Erik Milam 1  

5177 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Violent video games (VVGs) are a source of serious and continuing controversy. They are not unique in this respect, though. Other entertainment products have been criticized on moral grounds, from pornography to heavy metal, horror films, and Harry Potter books. Some of these controversies have fizzled out over time and have come to be viewed as cases of moral panic. Others, including moral objections to VVGs, have persisted. The aim of this paper is to determine which, if any, of the concerns raised about VVGs are legitimate. We argue that common moral objections to VVGs are unsuccessful, but that a plausible critique can be developed that captures the insights of these objections while avoiding their pitfalls. Our view suggests that the moral badness of a game depends on how well its internal logic expresses or encourages the players’ objectionable attitudes. This allows us to recognize that some games are morally worse than others—and that it can be morally wrong to design and play some VVGs—but that the moral badness of these games is not necessarily dependent on how violent they are.

Similar content being viewed by others

What drives digital engagement with sponsored videos? An investigation of video influencers’ authenticity management strategies

The Soulsification of video games

Geeks versus climate change: understanding American video gamers’ engagement with global warming

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Violent video games (VVGs) are a source of serious and continuing controversy. They are not unique in this respect, though. Other entertainment products have been criticized on moral grounds, from pornography to heavy metal, horror films, and Harry Potter books. Some of these controversies have fizzled out over time and have come to be viewed as cases of moral panic. Footnote 1  Others, including moral objections to VVGs, have persisted. The aim of this paper is to determine which, if any, of the concerns raised about VVGs are legitimate.

Moral objections to VVGs have three main components, which can be understood as answers to the following three questions:

Moral Question: Why are VVGs morally bad or wrong?

Comparison Question: Why are they worse than other forms of violent entertainment?

Regulation Question: What should be done about them?

For example, one might argue that VVGs desensitize players to violence thereby making them more likely to act violently themselves, that VVGs do this more effectively than violent films or books, and that VVGs should therefore be prohibited or strongly regulated.

In this paper, we evaluate the most common answers to the moral and comparison questions, but set aside the regulation question. Not only does regulation raise a number of other ethical considerations—including free speech, paternalism, and policy design and enforcement—it also requires that we first understand the comparative badness of VVGs.

The paper is structured as follows. Section “ Background and preliminaries ” gives a brief overview of the controversies surrounding VVGs and explains how we will structure and focus our evaluation. Section “ The causation argument ” considers the claim that it is wrong to design and play VVGs in virtue of their bad consequences and concludes that the empirical evidence that playing VVGs causes bad outcomes is inconclusive, and that even if we grant that they have bad effects, VVGs are not distinctively bad in this respect. Section “ The violence argument ” considers the claim that VVGs are bad in virtue of features like realism that are independent of their consequences, but we conclude that existing accounts of these features fail to adequately explain why some VVGs should be considered morally objectionable. Having rejected these accounts of the comparative badness of VVGs, Sect. “ The internal logic of violent video games ” offers an alternative explanation.

Background and preliminaries

There is a history of blaming VVGs for violent acts such as school shootings, mass shootings, and murder in the United States. Footnote 2 Games such as Mortal Kombat, Doom , and Manhunt have all caused controversy in the past. They depict gory, brutal, and gratuitous violence as entertainment. For the uninitiated it may be inexplicable why anyone would enjoy what is happening on screen. Hence, the popular sentiment seems to be that there must be something morally bad about these games.

Since VVGs have been picked out as especially bad, we want to investigate whether it is justified to single them out for criticism. We will argue that most, but not all, common criticisms of VVGs are unjustified. Moreover, any justified criticism will also apply to other forms of entertainment. Thus, for any particular VVG, we must conclude either that it is morally permissible to design and play it or that it is morally wrong to create and consume other relevantly similar entertainment products. Which conclusion is warranted will depend on the details of the case.

However, there are multiple ongoing debates about the comparative badness of VVGs, so, before making any substantive claims, let us first explain how we will structure and focus our investigation.

Targets . While concerns about VVGs appear to be about the video games themselves, games are not natural evils like an earthquake or a volcanic eruption. They are designed and played—not to mentioned commissioned and distributed—by moral agents. We therefore focus on the two most plausible targets of these criticisms: players and developers. Insofar as a game is criticized on moral grounds, we take this to be a criticism either of those who created its content or those who created the particular instances of violence by playing the game. Some may object that critics should direct their objections and blame at the companies that commission the games and the governments that fail to regulate them properly. Maybe so. But such criticisms presuppose that there is something objectionable about the games themselves or about playing them.

Topics . Even limiting our attention to developers and players leaves many issues to consider. Multiplayer online gaming has given rise to concerns about toxic environments and interactions, which may be influenced by the violent content of many of these games. This is a serious problem and one where reforms are possible and can make a real difference to the well-being and experience of gamers, but we will not address it here. Nor will we consider the moral status of violent assault on another player’s avatar—e.g. robbing them for items, killing them out of spite, or ‘griefing’ them. These kinds of behaviors also deserve attention, but they introduce potentially confounding variables into an analysis because they involve moral agents who can be harmed through the treatment of their avatars. We therefore limit our focus to single-player VVGs Footnote 3 —i.e., video games that include violence or violent themes—including those singled out in debates about the ethics of VVGs, like Doom, Grand Theft Auto V, Last of Us II.

It should also be noted that while we use the term “VVG” to denote a specific category of games, what we are essentially interested in is moral agency in games in general. However, since most discussions relating to this topic focuses on violence and VVGs, that is where our main focus will be as well. Having restricted our task in these ways, let us now consider why it might be morally wrong to develop or play VVGs.

The causation argument

Probably the most common objection to VVGs is that they have (or risk) bad effects. According to the Causation Argument, video game violence is morally bad because it causes players to be more aggressive and violent, which is bad both for the players themselves and for those who are therefore more likely to be victims of their aggression and violence (e.g. classmates, family members, coworkers). This claim—that VVGs influence players’ behavior outside of the game—is sometimes called the ‘contamination thesis’ (Goerger, 2017 : p. 97). Peter Singer puts the point succinctly: “The risks are great and outweigh whatever benefits violent video games may have. The evidence may not be conclusive, but it is too strong to be ignored any longer” (Singer, 2007 ).

Because this moral argument relies on empirical premises, it is important to spell out what would constitute a strong empirical case against VVGs. We identify four criteria:

The violent content of VVGs must cause the bad effects.

The bad effects must be worse than other tolerable forms of violent entertainment.

The bad effects must counterbalance whatever good effects these games have.

There must be sufficient consensus among researchers about (i), (ii), and (iii). Footnote 4

Let us be clear about these requirements. One need not show that VVGs are entirely, or even overall, bad in order to condemn them on moral grounds. Societies rightly criticize and regulate many products that are overall bad even while acknowledging that they are good in some respects (e.g. cigarettes). Societies sometimes even criticize products that are good overall on the grounds that they should be better (e.g. unsafe cars or energy inefficient appliances). Insofar as the Causation Argument is concerned with the effects of VVGs, our suggestion is simply that we think like consequentialists when assessing them. We should be concerned with all the effects and with everyone who is affected; we should be concerned with the magnitudes of the effects, their likelihood , and our confidence in the empirical evidence of their risks and consequences; and we should assess these effects relative to all available alternatives .

We can start with the empirical case against VVGs. The large empirical literature suggests four ways that players might be affected. First, players may become more aggressive after playing VVGs (Anderson et al., 2010 ; Lin, 2013 ; Kepes et al., 2017 ; Farrar et al., 2017 ; Shao & Wang, 2019 ). Measures of aggression range from self-reports of engaging in aggressive behavior to indictors like “how long a participant blows an air horn at an opponent after playing a violent game” (Goerger, 2017 : p. 98). Second, VVGs may desensitize players to violence (Deselms & Altman, 2003 ; Funk et al., 2004 ; Carnagey et al., 2007 ; Bushman & Anderson, 2009 ; Engelhardt et al., 2011 ). Desensitization is also measured in different ways, including how long it takes for participants to help others in (simulated) need or how lenient a sentence they give an imagined criminal. Third, it has been suggested that VVGs train players how to kill (Grossman & DeGaetano, 1999 ; Leonard, 2007 ; Bushman, 2018 ). For instance, Bushman showed that players firing a real gun at a human-shaped mannequin were more likely to aim at the mannequin’s head after having played a violent first-person shooter (FPS) game. Footnote 5 Fourth, Wonderly and others suggest that playing VVGs, especially given their increasingly realistic depictions of violence, may diminish one’s capacity for empathy (Wonderly, 2008 ; Funk et al., 2004 ; Bartholow et al., 2005 ). If any of these four causal hypotheses is correct, then condition (i) would seem to be satisfied.

However, there is significant disagreement about these findings and their significance. First, none of the existing research claims that playing VVGs has directly caused anyone to commit actual acts of violence in the real world. This is not surprising, but it is a notable point of contrast with other products and behaviors that we might wish to regulate or ban (e.g. dangerous toys or incitements to violence). Second, there is disagreement about how to interpret the results of the studies cited above. Some have questioned the practical significance of increased aggressive behavior measured in a lab environment (Ferguson and Kilburn 2010 ; Goerger, 2017 ; Hall et al., 2011 ). Others have argued that the field suffers from a publication bias that favors finding an effect of VVGs on aggression (Ferguson, 2007 ; Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009 ; Hilgard et al., 2017 ). Footnote 6 Third, and perhaps most interesting, some have argued that it is the form of a game, rather than its content, that causes aggression. One study suggests that playing games that thwart a player’s fundamental need for competence led to increased aggression (Przybylski et al., 2014 ). Another showed that competition rather than violence causes aggression (Dowsett & Jackson, 2019 ). These studies suggest that features other than violence are of equal or greater concern. Thus, while there is provocative evidence about the bad effects of playing VVGs, there is insufficient scientific consensus. Footnote 7

Suppose that empirical studies had decisively demonstrated that VVGs cause increased aggression and violence. Do we have reason to believe that the bad effects of VVGs are worse than the bad effects of other violent entertainment that we presently tolerate? Some research suggests that VVGs cause more aggressive behavior than watching violent movies or violent gameplay because they are interactive (Lin, 2013 ). However, Lin points out that, “very little prior research has directly addressed the issue of media interactivity with regard to violent effects” ( 2013 : p. 535). Thus, while there is some support for condition (ii), there is far too little evidence to reasonably conclude that VVGs have worse effects than other violent entertainment (e.g. movies, television, books, or board games).

Even if the evidence supporting the Causation Argument satisfied conditions (i) and (ii), we could not yet condemn VVGs. We must also consider the benefits of playing these games. Studies suggest that some non-violent games enhance prosocial behavior among gamers (Sestir & Bartholow, 2010 ), that cooperative games decrease aggression (Gentile et al., 2009 ; Schmierbach, 2010 ), and that video games strengthen our ability to engage in ethical decision making (Madigan, 2016 ). We should be as critical of these studies as we are of those that condemn VVGs, but our point is simply that potential harms should be weighed against potential benefits. One compelling point in favor of VVGs is their incredible popularity. While it is difficult to find concrete and specific information, the following data give a rough picture of gamers’ revealed preferences: as of 2019 more than 2.5 billion people play video games, the average gamer plays more than 6 h per week, roughly half of that play is on consoles and computers (the rest is on tablets or phones), 9% of games are rated M for Mature (the category that contains most controversial VVGs), but those games are among the most popular in terms of sales. For example, Grand Theft Auto V is the third highest selling video game, and the highest grossing entertainment product, of all time (Narula, 2019 ; Limelight, 2020 ). Another compelling point is the suggestion that VVGs, like all games, are experiments in agency. For designers they are an art form whose medium is the agency of the player. And for players they are an opportunity to experiment with the alternative forms of agency created by designers (Nguyen, 2019 : p. 423).

The strength of the Causation Argument depends on various empirical claims. We have shown that none of the relevant claims has been established to a sufficient level of confidence. Furthermore, even if they had been, an outcome-focused argument must assess VVGs in the same light as other risky phenomena and it is not obvious why we should view VVGs as overall worse than many products and activities we accept (or tolerate). Nonetheless, if VVGs are harmful to the players, even relatively weak empirical evidence might be sufficient to ground a moral imperative to develop and play non-violent games rather than VVGs.

The violence argument

Perhaps it is not the effects of VVGs that make them morally objectionable but rather some feature of the games themselves. A second kind of argument, call it the Violence Argument, pursues this line of thought, arguing that VVGs are bad because they represent violence for the purpose of entertainment and that it is therefore (at least pro tanto ) wrong to develop and play such games. Footnote 8

Of course, many types of media represent violence, whether for educational purposes (e.g. non-fiction and journalism) or for entertainment (e.g. poetry, novels, comics, film, and television). Thus, if we are justified in appreciating or tolerating violence in these genres, then the Violence Argument must show that the ways VVGs represent violence are distinctively bad. The most common suggestions are that they are distinctively bad because they are much more realistic, interactive, and immersive.

The depiction of violence in video games has become more realistic as technology has improved. While Mortal Kombat and Doom’s 16-bit violence provoked American parents in the 1990s, they could scarcely have imagined the high-fidelity violence of games such as The Last of Us II. Nothing is left to the imagination as headshots leave a spray of blood and brains, heads are smashed to pieces with baseball bats, all while the victims plead for mercy or shriek in agony. These kinds of advances led Waddington to worry that, as video game violence becomes more realistic, it will be increasingly difficult to differentiate real from simulated transgressions ( 2007 : p. 127).

However, in order to support the Violence Argument, it must be the case that VVGs represent violence in a way that is more realistic than other media and that more realistic representations of violence are morally worse than less realistic representations.

On the first point, video game violence does not seem more realistic than violence in other media. Consider two related forms of realism: content realism and context realism. Footnote 9 A representation is content realistic to the degree that it depicts what would happen in real life. For example, a game might accurately depict how bones break or what happens when a bullet strikes a torso. In this respect, VVGs can be surprisingly realistic, but less so than many films (e.g., Saving Private Ryan ) and much less so than many real videos that people watch for amusement (e.g., the watermelon catapult). Moreover, their content realism is mostly limited to the visual modality. A written representation of violence might have similar content realism, but no visual component (outside of imagination). A representation is context realistic to the degree that it represents a situation that could plausibly occur. This is somewhat relative. A war setting is surely more realistic than, say, battling demons on another planet, but is World War II a realistic context for a millennial gamer? Here too, most VVGs seem less realistic than other media, which often depict disturbing forms of violence for dramatic purposes (e.g., intimate partner violence or police brutality).

On the second point, representing violence may sometimes be worse if it is more realistic—even ignoring any harmful effects on the player like stress or nightmares. Some realistic contexts seem obviously morally worse than others. Public reactions to games seem to match this intuition, as when many objected to The Slaying of Sandy Hook , whose setting was the location of a tragic school shooting. However, this worry does not necessarily transfer to those VVGs that are common targets of criticism, like the Grand Theft Auto series.

The game (GTA) not only depicts drug and gang related violence, but it presents that violence in a largely consequence free environment. Further, this crime is ‘real’ in the sense that similar crimes and criminal enterprises currently control broad swaths of metropolitan areas like Los Angeles … Players are, essentially, being entertained by the misery of others and are thus disrespecting the object of value (Goerger, 2017 : p. 102).

While there is plenty to criticize about GTA , Georger’s comments are mistaken. First, he seriously misrepresents (or misunderstands) the degree to which GTA accurately depicts the level of crime in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles. There are no “broad swaths” of American cities that are controlled by criminal enterprises. Second, while such games do make light of real violence, these representations are neither more realistic nor more violent than many films and television series. Thus, even if we accept that representing violence can be morally bad, it is not the case that most VVGs, including common targets of criticism, are worse in this respect than other tolerated forms of media.

Interaction

Another salient feature of VVGs is that they are interactive in a way that some other media are not. While a movie audience may hope that Woody Harrelson decides to stop at a supermarket and kill some zombies in order to get a Twinkie, a player of Redneck Rampage can make that happen. The player’s experience is interactive insofar as their actions, “make a significant difference to what happens in the environment” (Chalmers, 2017 : p. 312). Some therefore press a version of the Violence Argument according to which being a passive consumer of violent films or books is less bad than “performing” violent acts in a video game (Tillson, 2018 ). Footnote 10

Our view is that violent interaction itself, ignoring the realism and immersive experience of the interaction, is not morally bad. Moreover, even if it were, it would not be worse than other forms of entertainment. A writer interacts with her fictional characters with a similar degree of agency as a gamer does with the non-playable characters (NPCs) she encounters. The writer’s interaction is unrealistically one-sided, but she can nonetheless choose to kill them off and to do so in a brutal fashion [e.g., (redacted to avoid spoilers)]. This does not seem bad at all. Or consider games of make-believe. Kids playing war with toy guns is just as interactive as video gaming. In order for there to be a war, the kids must perform some actions, just as a player must control her avatar in order for there to be in-game violence. Traditional roleplaying games and board games—whose content can be just as violent as VVGs—requires a similar degree of interaction. In order to claim that VVGs are worse than other violent entertainment, one would have to show that video game interactions are different in kind from the forms of make-believe involved in writing fiction, roleplaying, and other violent entertainment. If anything, the fact that enemies are programmed and that experience is mediated by controllers and other devices would seem to make video games less interactive than your average game of Cops and Robbers or Dungeons and Dragons. We therefore conclude that VVGs are not worse than other violent entertainment in virtue of being interactive.

Finally, VVGs might seem morally bad, and worse than other media, because players can more easily become immersed in the violence of the game. This is bad because, regardless of whether a game is visually realistic, it is bad to experience that violence as real. If part of the value of games is that they allow us to inhabit a ‘temporary practical agency’ (Nguyen, 2019 : p. 438) within which we can “occupy alter-ego points of view and practice new strategies by accessing possible spaces of action and affective responses” (Schellenberg, 2013 : p. 509), then the value of such experiments presumably depends on the design of those practical agencies and the contexts in which players inhabit them, including whether they are suffused with violence that is experienced by the player as real.

Immersion occurs when a player experiences the game as if it is real or as if she herself were experiencing the events of the game in the shoes of her character. One dimension of immersion is ‘presence,’ or “the sense of being present at that perspective” (Chalmers, 2017 : p. 312). The immersiveness of a game depends, in part, on its realism. Content and context realism can make immersion more likely, but perspectival fidelity is also important (Ramirez, 2019 ). A representation has perspectival fidelity to the degree that the structure of the experience is realistic. For example, a video game has lower perspectival fidelity if the player uses a controller rather than a VR set up, if the representation includes non-diegetic sound (e.g., music) or a heads-up display (e.g., location, health, remaining ammo), and if the point of view is third- rather than first-person. Importantly, VVGs are unlikely to have greater perspectival fidelity than other media, except insofar as they are more likely to have a first-person perspective. Footnote 11 However, even in this respect the experience they provide has lower fidelity than, say, children playing war, teens playing paintball, or adults performing historical recreations of famous battles.

A more general problem with the argument that VVGs are bad because players are more likely to have an immersive experience of violence is that it is simply not clear whether being immersed in a VVG is worse than being immersed in another violent or disturbing source of entertainment. For example, films and novels are generally praised when they effectively draw in a viewer. Such praise may reflect their aesthetic value, which is compatible with being morally bad, but the same could be said about VVGs. Footnote 12

An objection

At this point, defenders of the Violence Argument might object that, by addressing these factors in isolation, we have made a strawman of their position. Movies can be realistic but not interactive; novels can be immersive but not interactive; tabletop roleplaying games can be immersive but are not usually realistic; and kids playing war can be interactive but lacks a certain kind of realism. The problem with VVGs—and what makes them distinctive among violent forms of entertainment—is precisely that they are realistic, interactive, and immersive.

If the problem is the combination, then VVGs might be distinctively morally bad even if possessing just one of these features is tolerable. Just as a gun is composed of innocuous pieces which, once assembled, constitute a dangerous weapon, so the combination of realism, interactivity, and immersiveness may render video game violence morally objectionable.

However, the problem with this line of argument can be seen by reflecting further on the analogy. The problem with an assembled gun is not that all of its components are in one place. The problem is that a functioning handgun affords certain actions that its unassembled pieces do not. Footnote 13 This is not true of VVGs—or, at least, the evidence for this claim remains inconclusive. In order for the combination of realism, interactivity, and immersion to render video game violence distinctively bad, opponents of VVGs must show either that developing such games makes them dangerous (the Causation Argument) or that this combination is itself distinctively bad (the Violence Argument).

This latter point seems to be what Ali ( 2023 ) alludes to in relation to virtual reality experiences: “VR pushes the virtual closer to the nonvirtual, making, e.g., VR experiences as valuable (in reproductions), or closer in value (as simulations), to their nonvirtual counterparts” (Ali, 2023 : p. 241). It seems plausible that realism, interactivity, and immersion can enhance one’s experience of some piece of entertainment—as actors in films and plays can attest. However, Ali’s ( 2023 , 2015 ) account falls short when it comes to explaining what makes a VVG morally objectionable. According to his view, badness varies with realism. This may be true for reproductions and simulations, which, by definition, vary with realism. Yet, it is not obviously true for video games, where the badness appears to be dependent on other factors. Ali ( 2015 ) highlights one aspect that appears to be the decisive factor for why this is the case. VR simulations, unlike VVGs, lack context and story. Footnote 14 Thus, in order to make the case that virtual violence can be morally bad even in games where the violence is situated within a narrative and performed in pursuit of a goal (i.e., VVGs), we must look for explanations elsewhere. In the next section, we consider alternative critiques of video games and offer an account of our own.

The internal logic of violent video games

We have argued that the level of concern about the outcomes of developing and playing VVGs and about the fact that VVGs are realistic, interactive, and immersive is unjustified. However, there may nonetheless be something morally objectionable about developing or playing VVGs. In this final section, we try to capture the kernel of truth at the heart of the widespread and persistent objections to video game violence by identifying what we take to be a reasonable concern. Our account steers a middle course between moral panic and facile defenses of VVGs by embracing the similarities and continuities between violent and non-violent video games, as well as between video games and other forms of entertainment. In doing so, we build on other recent arguments that have illuminated legitimate ethical concerns about video games, while suggesting that these arguments indict video game violence in ways that they fail to recognize.

We suggest that the most plausible moral objection to VVGs is that some of them generate or perpetuate morally objectionable norms of appropriate violence—i.e., norms of when violence is an appropriate response to a situation. This objection suggests that violence is indeed problematic, but also that it is one dimension of a more general moral concern.

One way to assess VVGs is to imagine uncontroversially immoral games and isolate their objectionable features. It would be reasonable to condemn both the developers and the players of racist or misogynistic games in which the aim is to, say, exterminate Jews or sexually assault women. For many, such concerns depend neither on the kind of effects identified by the Causation Argument nor on their realism, interactivity, or immersion (Patridge, 2011 ). A natural explanation of what precisely makes such games objectionable is that it is wrong to be or act in racist or misogynistic ways and the developers and players of such games are (usually) acting in these ways simply by developing or playing the game. For example, we might say that a misogynistic game either subordinates women or depicts their subordination, and that players participate in that subordination—or at least demonstrates a failure of sensitivity to and sympathy for women (Patridge, 2011 : p. 310)—by playing the games, even if the women depicted are not real.

If one accepts this kind of explanation, one might further argue that non-racist and non-misogynistic VVGs could have content that is similar in morally relevant ways. Footnote 15 If a misogynistic game can subordinate women, then a game where the player aims to kill enemies can subordinate whichever group is depicted as the enemy. Just as misogynistic games depict female characters as fitting targets of assault or abuse, violent games depict certain characters as fitting targets of physical violence. And if sexual violence is bad, in part, because it is violence, then removing the sexual dimension cannot render the game morally innocuous—though it would certainly make it less bad. Call this the Analogy Argument .

This argument has a certain plausibility, but does not succeed as stated. To see why, consider two ways in which the defender of VVGs might reply. First, they could reply that what is morally objectionable is not the content of a game, but how one plays it. One who revels in killing innocent bystanders is acting wrongly in a way that a person who plays the same game in order to complete it as quickly and bloodlessly as possible is not. Call this the Sadism Reply . On this way of thinking, it is the mental state of the player, not the content of the game that explains its badness.

The inadequacy of the Sadism Reply is fairly obvious. Sadism—understood as taking pleasure in the wrongful treatment of others (i.e., in moral evil)—is not the only attitude we find morally objectionable. Schadenfreude—understood as taking pleasure in the non-moral suffering of others (i.e., natural evil)—is another, and there are more, from racism and sexism to simple indifference to others’ well-being. If sadism in VVGs is problematic, then so are these others attitudes. Moreover, non-violent games can be played in sadistic ways—e.g., choosing, in The Sims , to drown your neighbors in your swimming pool—and are therefore open to the same critiques, which seems implausible. Finally, it is unclear how we can condemn a player’s sadistic pleasure in doing virtual violence when we cannot condemn virtual violence itself. The wrongness of taking sadistic pleasure in another’s suffering arguably presumes the wrongness of causing that suffering, but the Sadism Reply attempts to deny the latter while shifting criticism to the former.

Second, the defender of VVGs could point out that misogyny is morally objectionable because its targets—women—are an oppressed group in society. Call this the Power Reply . On this way of thinking, an otherwise identical gender-reversed game, where women victimize men, would not be objectionable in the same way. And, they might say, what we find in most VVGs is precisely that, violence that is admittedly gratuitous but nonetheless morally acceptable—or at least tolerable—because it is not gendered. (Similar points could be made about other dimensions of oppression.) Patridge argues that the content of some video games has “incorrigible social meaning” that targets women and marginalized groups ( 2011 : p. 308). For example, the meaning of a black character eating watermelon is explained by particular social realities (e.g., the persistence of demeaning racial stereotypes) and is incorrigible in the sense that it is difficult to interpret in any other way because of those realities (i.e., there is no plausible interpretation of that image that does not reference those stereotypes). However, Patridge suggests that violent content often either lacks social meaning or has social meaning that is reasonably interpretable in a way that does not implicate some reprehensible feature of our shared moral reality, like racism, misogyny, or homophobia ( 2011 : p. 310).

Even if Patridge is right that most video game violence itself is unlikely to have the incorrigible social meaning of games like Custer’s Revenge , it does not follow that it does not implicate reprehensible features of our shared moral reality. Whether it does is an open question. Content with incorrigible social meaning implicates our shared moral reality by forcing us to recognize that some words, images, or ideas are inextricably linked to hateful and prejudicial ideologies. If video game violence can itself implicate other reprehensible features, what might those features be and how would they be implicated? Our answer is that power norms—i.e. norms of domination and subordination—are just one type of objectionable norm that can be built into the ‘logic’ of a game. Footnote 16 Another type is norms of appropriate violence, which, while often bound up with power norms, are separable. We would rightly criticize a society whose logic of appropriate physical violence included, say, occasions when one is frustrated with a coworker—and this is true independently of the coworkers’ respective social status. But if this is right, then why is a game whose logic of appropriate violence includes anyone who gets in the way of your mission not objectionable on similar grounds? Thus, while both replies warrant revisions and qualifications of the Analogy Argument, we can begin to see how a revised version of the argument might be successful.

Call this revision of the Analogy Argument the Internal Logic Argument (ILA). The ‘logic’ of a video game is the structure, incentives, and constraints that guide player behavior. It is a matter of what the player can do and what they are encouraged to do in the game. In other words, it is the set of ideas (mission/quest, combat, survival) and practices (enacting those ideas via the means provided and avoiding obstacles to doing so) that allow the player to have a successful playthrough—e.g., to progress in the game, to be enjoyable, and be an opportunity to engage in the ‘art of agency’ (Nguyen, 2019 ). Footnote 17 Understood in this way, the logic of a game includes what Nguyen calls its “value clarity,” in that it stipulates a clear structure and conditions for success ( 2020 : 20). However, whereas Nguyen is most concerned about players applying the simplified logic of a video game to contexts where values are more opaque and complex, we are concerned with the content of a game’s internal logic. Our suggestion is that the logic of a game can express, encourage, and legitimate objectionable attitudes and norms of appropriate violence.

As noted above, games such as Custer’s Revenge can express attitudes of hatred and prejudice by targeting specific groups in its gameplay. When it comes to VVGs, Postal 2 , whose tongue-in-cheek comments are prompted when excessive and degrading violence is exerted on innocent bystanders, expresses a lax attitude towards violent behavior. The logic of the game, manifested in minor rewards, treats civilians as fair game when the player’s character is on his way to pick up milk from the store.

A game’s logic and gameplay mechanics can also encourage problematic player behavior. The internal logic of some games is straightforward and explicit. A game may have an obvious theme that directly guides gameplay (e.g., Duck Hunt or Super Columbine Massacre ), or it may incentivize particular ways of playing by awarding points, experience, and trophies for particular results. But a game’s explicit themes, rewards, and punishments do not exhaust its logic. Just like real life, games are full of subtle incentives and nudges that shape how one behaves. Examples include whether a particular NPC can be killed, how players’ treatment of NPCs affects their success, and how the design of a level or quest privileges particular strategies for completing it. Footnote 18 A game embodies norms of appropriate violence based on how violence is afforded by the structure of the game (whether enemies can be avoided, how they can be dealt with, what kinds of items one can acquire and how frequently, etc.). Christopher Bartel gives a relevant example from Grand Theft Auto IV , in which the player is forced to shoot their way out of a bank robbery scenario by attacking the police ( 2015 : p. 290). It is not possible to try to evade the police or succeed in the scenario in any other way.

Miguel Sicart has argued that developers set the ethical boundaries of a game through the formal structure of the game (e.g., game rules) and the actions afforded to the player (e.g., game mechanics). As a result, games are “always ethically relevant systems, since they constrain the agency of an ethical being” (Sicart, 2009 : p. 6). We extend this idea, holding that if a game can constrain players’ behavior, then it can also funnel their behavior in particular directions—though the influence the game exerts may not reflect any intention on the part of the designer. For example, in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City the player can have sex with a prostitute in order to temporarily increase their maximum health. This is not a necessary feature, since the success of a playthrough in Vice City is not dependent on the player’s ability to buy sex. However, it represents a decision by the game designers which codes this act as ‘good’ by increasing the player’s max health.

If a game can express and encourage certain morally problematic attitudes and behaviors, it can also legitimate those attitudes and behaviors. Just as “games threaten us with a fantasy of moral clarity” (Nguyen, 2020 : p. 21), some ways of playing VVGs and the attitudes expressed by doing so may extend beyond the game. In one of the main missions of GTA V , titled “By the book”, the player is forced to torture an NPC in order to progress in the main story. The player can only achieve a “gold rank” on the mission if they waterboard, electrocute, and pull out the teeth of the NPC without killing him. Not only does the logic of this specific mission express and encourage certain attitudes towards torture. It may also legitimate the practice by presenting it as a viable means to an end or a “necessary evil”.

One might share our concern about how the internal logic of video games may legitimate certain attitudes and norms, but deny that violent content is a serious problem. Nguyen agrees that games can exert a subtle and malign influence on our values, but claims to be “more worried about games breeding Wall Street profiteers than…about their breeding serial killers” ( 2020 : p. 190). Footnote 19 He gives two reasons for this. First, he finds plausible Young’s suggestion that fictional game events tend not to be exported to players’ real lives. This would presumably include a game’s norms of appropriate violence. Second, he is more concerned that some games—especially those that result from gamifying activities like exercise, academic performance, etc.—will seduce players with a misleading but attractive “value clarity” ( 2020 : Chap. 9). In brief, Nguyen argues that part of the attraction of games is their clear and simple values—complete the quest, get the high score, kill your enemies—but that, unlike fictional game events, this simplicity can infiltrate players’ real world thinking in a problematic way. In particular, it can cause them (a) to view the real world through the lens of simplified values, (b) to be drawn to simplified values over the more complex values that are needed to navigate our messy moral lives, and (c) to “lose facility and readiness with … subtler value concepts” ( 2020 : p. 214). On this view, it’s unlikely that we’ll come to value violence of the sort we experience in games, and more likely that we’ll embrace simplified and gamified versions of our ordinary values, whether moral or non-moral.

However, we think Nguyen, like Patridge, fails to recognize how his reasoning might ground a legitimate worry about video game violence. The ILA suggests that violent content might be problematic precisely in the ways he thinks values might be undermined. Admittedly, lots of video game violence is unlikely to influence our values or norms simply because it is easily set aside when one stops playing. There is little chance that my in-game goal of winning a martial arts tournament while brutalizing and humiliating my opponents will influence my actual behavior or even instrumentalize my attitudes toward martial arts competition. However, the ILA is concerned precisely about in-game norms that appear innocuous and are accepted without reflection. There is no reason to think that violence norms are not subject to the same seductions of clarity as other values. Moreover, even if some violence norms are unlikely to be applied in the real world, an internal logic that expresses or legitimates those norms is still morally objectionable (e.g., Postal 2 or “By the Book” in GTA V ).

Let us address some potential worries about the ILA. First, one might reply that the logic of a VVG need only fit its content. If one is playing a war game and one’s avatar is a soldier, it makes sense that most of the NPCs one encounters are fitting targets of violence. This would undermine the criticisms of games such as Sniper Elite or Wolfenstein . Moreover, protecting oneself from enemy combatants is plausibly a matter of self-defense, which can permit lethal violence. This would render games like Doom or Fallout 4 unobjectionable. Similar points could be made about other genres of VVGs. Thus, it may be that the violence norms of many VVGs are roughly consistent with common sense morality. The ILA can accommodate this intuition, while still allowing that some VVGs are morally objectionable and, in those cases, explaining why.

Second, one might think that, while developers ought to design games whose logics meet some moral criteria, those criteria do not include eliminating or even minimizing violence. Some would claim, for example, that developers aren’t required to create a morally optimific logic that encourages players to, say, maximize the total well-being of other characters. Indeed, many would insist that the logic of a VVG can permissibly be much worse than the actual logic of our society, just as action films implicitly permit much more destruction of public and private property for the sake of catching criminals than is permitted by actual societies (see, e.g., Bad Boys or any movie in the Marvel Comics Universe). Footnote 20 This isn’t obviously right, though, and we would suggest that a game’s logic of appropriate violence should not be excessively cruel or indifferent to human suffering and that, sometimes, it should even improve on the logic of appropriate violence prevalent in our actual society. Footnote 21

One might object that the ILA does not pick out VVGs as distinctively bad or worse than other innocuous or tolerable video games or other media. This, however, is only partially true. It’s true that the ILA does not distinguish between games that have similar logics. As such, it would not necessarily be better to play Chex Quest than Doom , since zorching flemoids and shooting demons is motivated by a concern for one’s own survival in both cases. This also helps explain why games like Postal 2 and GTA are more appropriate targets of criticism than, say, Last of Us II (Goerger, 2017 : p. 101). While Last of Us II is much more graphic and gorier in its violent depictions, that violence is fitting in a way that the violence of Postal 2 is not. Footnote 22 Nor would it be worse to play violent video games than to watch action movies in which innocent bystanders are viewed as acceptable collateral damage. The ILA identifies a property found in some VVGs (and some movies, board games, etc.) and explains why it is inappropriate.

For all of these reasons, we think the ILA provides a plausible framework for critiquing VVGs. What emerges from the above discussion is a substantive and unified account of video game ethics. It explains how violent games can be open to similar criticisms as racist and misogynistic games. At the same time, it acknowledges that one might worry, not just about the violent content of such games, but about how gamers play them—i.e., the attitudes they manifest in doing so. The ILA unifies these concerns into a single critique that captures the kernel of truth running through traditional objections to VVGs, avoids the problems we raised for the Violence Argument, and extends the insights of two other illuminating critiques of video games, namely, those developed by Patridge ( 2011 ) and Nguyen ( 2020 ).

The core of our critique consists of four claims. First, a game’s content can be morally objectionable and violence is one, but not the only, kind of objectionable content. This is the lesson we learned from assessing real and imagined games with racist or misogynistic content and extending the reasoning underlying critiques of such games to a critique of violence. Second, the attitudes that a gamer expresses or enacts in playing a game can be morally objectionable. Sadism is one, but not the only, such attitude. Just as misogyny is not limited to the explicit, endorsed hatred of women as a group (Manne,  2017 ), sadism does not exhaust the objectionable attitudes one can have toward violence and the suffering of others. However, condemning such attitudes toward violence presupposes an objection to the violence itself. Third, while objectionable attitudes can arise on their own, games can express or encourage morally objectionable attitudes and gameplay in the same way that they shape other aspects of play. This does not mean that all players of VVGs will manifest the attitudes and behaviors encouraged by a game’s norms of appropriate violence, but it is a reasonable worry in light of the influence that the logic of a game exerts. Footnote 23 This is the lesson of the ILA. The most obvious examples of this are games in which the plot of the game requires actions that express or encourage objectionable attitudes (e.g. Custer’s Revenge or Battle Raper ). However, other games may encourage or shape players’ attitudes in more subtle ways—e.g. by normalizing violence, exploitation, and racism. Fourth, if these three points are correct, then our critique is not limited to VVGs, or even to video games. Gamers can manifest their sadistic, misogynistic, racist, and other attitudes in non-violent video games (e.g., The Sims or Civilization ), board games (e.g., Puerto Rico or Andean Abyss ) and tabletop RPGs (e.g. Dungeons and Dragons ), or any other kind of game. Moreover, any entertainment medium can, through its internal logic, express or encourage such attitudes. This means that our critique can embrace its generalizability in a way that was unavailable to the Violence Argument. On our account, the source of concern is neither violence per se nor its potential realism, interactivity, or immersiveness, but rather the logic of the game. Non-violent games and games that are minimally realistic, interactive, and immersive can have objectionable internal logics—e.g., by legitimating or glorifying imperialism, exploitation, or indifference toward the suffering of others. Moreover, the ILA explains why a game might warrant moral praise. For example, we might praise a game which logic expresses acceptance of a wrongly vilified group, encourages reflection on the complexity of a moral dilemma, or simply requires that one work through a problem real people might face. Footnote 24

Together these claims constitute a unified but limited critique of VVGs that avoids the implausible implications of some existing objections (e.g., that VVGs are distinctively bad) while explaining, substantiating, and extending the plausible claims of other critics. Our view suggests that how bad a game is depends on the attitudes, behaviors, and norms that its internal logic expresses, encourages, and legitimates. A game developer can be criticized for the internal logic of their game and a gamer can be criticized both for the attitude they bring to a game and for their acceptance, whether implicit or explicit, of a game’s internal logic. This account also plausibly implies that some games are morally worse than others and that their badness does not necessarily correlate with how violent they are or how realistic that violence is.

Before concluding, let us emphasize that its internal logic is one, but not the only, aspect of a game open to evaluation and criticism. Games are also, and perhaps foremost, aesthetic objects that can be beautiful, compelling, funny, disgusting, overwhelming, or just boring. The internal logic is that part of a game that tells the player how to progress and succeed within the game world. Indeed, this is what makes this kind of art object a game rather than a passive aesthetic experience (perhaps the “walking simulator” genre falls somewhere in between these categories). But it does not determine, by itself, a game’s value.

We have argued that common moral objections to VVGs are unsuccessful, but that a plausible critique can be developed that captures the insights of these objections while avoiding their pitfalls. The upshot of our account is that it can be morally wrong to design and play some VVGs, but that violence per se—no matter how realistic or immersive—is less likely to be problematic than the internal logic of a game and the attitudes it expresses and encourages.

In making our argument, we have not said which are the worst offenders, how bad they are, or what kind of response to their moral failings is warranted. These are tasks for another paper, but also for gamers, activists, regulators, and policy makers who want to know which games to play, which to educate the public about, and which to restrict access to. Some philosophers have developed frameworks that may provide guidance in answering these questions (Liberman, 2019 ), but there is much more to be said.

The most zealous campaigns against VVGs have been in the United States. We will not try to explain why that is the case, but we note that the industry’s implementation of a rating system following US Congressional hearings about video game violence 1993 may have forestalled similar controversies elsewhere as similar ratings systems were applied outside the US.

For an overview of the history of VVGs and their alleged relation to acts of violence see Campbell ( 2018 ).

Our arguments also apply to multiplayer games that can be played in single player mode, such as Mortal Kombat or Unreal Tournament .

What level of consensus is sufficient will depend on the magnitude of the risk/harm.

None of the studies critical of VVGs claim that they directly cause real world violence, though commentators sometimes make or imply such claims. Young emphasizes that “any attempt to posit a direct causal link between video game content and violent (real-world) behaviour should be regarded as overly simplistic, largely uncorroborated, and ultimately contentious” ( 2015 : p. 315).

See Anderson et al. ( 2010 ) for a reply to this objection.

There is room for improving the experimental design of VVGs, including eliminating confounds by studying the same games and controlling for variables like difficulty, competitiveness, and level of violence. Moreover, studies that find evidence that VVGs cause increased aggression should measure and compare the magnitude of that effect to other phenomena known to increase aggression—e.g., being insulted.

While some argue that realistic, interactive, and immersive violence are bad in themselves, others claim that it is these features of contemporary VVGs that cause violence or aggression in players. However, the latter is just a version of the Causation Argument, so we focus on those who take violence to be significant independently of its consequences.

Some might consider ‘perspectival fidelity’ to be a form of realism, but we consider this variable more relevant to a game’s immersiveness than to its realism (Ramirez, 2019 ).

Notice that, if video game violence is bad because it is interactive, designers are, at worst, guilty of facilitating violent interactions. The player is the primary wrongdoer. This asymmetry is reversed for those who worry about realism. Designers create realistic violence (e.g. fatalities in Mortal Kombat ), while players simply activate it.

Even this claim ignores the actors who do actually simulate the violence that the audience sees. They have a first-person point of view on the violence in a play or film. Of course, they know that they are not actually hurting their costars, but VVG gamers know this, too.

It is also worth noting that for many, the concern about immersion is a concern about the player’s experience and the effects of having such an experience (Waddington, 2007 : p. 127). However, this is ultimately a causation question and one that can be answered either by asking gamers about their immersive experiences or by measuring the effects of those experiences.

This is why gun control advocates often emphasize that the presence of a gun allows an altercation that might have resulted in a painful fist fight to instead result in a fatal shooting.

As is evident from the following passage: “[S] imulation games do not provide their own narrative, they simply allow the gamer’s context to define the in-game context. So, when a gamer enacts murder or pedophilia in these games, the act is one of virtual murder or virtual pedophilia because the gamer defines it in this way.” (Ali, 2015 : p. 273).

Some criticisms of games like Super Columbine Massacre , The Slaying of Sandy Hook , or Active Shooter/Standoff seem to make precisely this point.

This is not at all to imply that the sets of norms that sustain hateful and prejudicial attitudes and behavior toward members of oppressed groups are not especially important or deserving of particular attention and opposition.

Hence, the logic is in most cases intentional, meaning that certain player behavior is incentivized and rewarded in the game. But it could also be unintentional, such as when players find and exploit bugs that incentivize them to play in a way the developer did not intend nor expect.

Game designers have long recognized this and some have chosen, seemingly for moral reasons as well as aesthetic ones, to make the logic of a game virtuous. Richard Garriott has said this about his design choices for Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar .

Nguyen’s topic is games in general, but his claims are meant to apply as much to video games as other types.

At the same time, some criticisms of the criminal justice ‘logic’ of action films seems both reasonable and overdue. Hollywood’s cavalier depiction of police brutality is receiving more scrutiny as protests against actual police violence received widespread attention and support. Depictions of rape in film have received similar critiques, with critics arguing that these scenes are often gratuitous or voyeuristic (Wilson, 2017 ).

Notice that the ILA does not merely imply that the most gratuitous violence is the most objectionable. The gratuitousness of a violent act may diverge from how strongly the act supports an objectionable norm. For example, a film in which casual physical violence is normalized can seem much more insidious than a gory slasher flick. A parallel point on objectionable comedy will help further elucidate this idea. Comedy should not indulge in facile jokes about sexual violence in prisons any more than it should indulge in facile jokes about rape generally. Many prison rape jokes legitimate the idea—seemingly widely held—that prisoners deserve whatever might happen to them in prison.

Last of Us II also depicts its violence in very ambiguous ways. It is not obviously portrayed as morally justified, just as humanly intelligible.

Jennifer Saul makes a similar point about the attitudes of those who watch pornography ( 2006 : p. 58).

A good example of this is This War of Mine where the player controls a group of civilians that are trapped in a war-torn country. The player is constantly prompted to make choices between the survival of the group and helping other civilians in need, forcing the player to reflect on the effects and ethics of war.

Ali, R. (2015). A new solution to the gamer’s dilemma. Ethics and Information Technology , 17 , 267–274.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ali, R. (2023). The values of the virtual. Journal of Applied Philosophy , 40 (2), 231–245.

Anderson, C. A., et al. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western cultures: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136 (2), 151–173.

Bartel, C. (2015). Free will and moral responsibility in video games. Ethics and Information Technology , 17 , 285–293.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Bartholow, B., Sestir, M. A., & Davis, E. B. (2005). Correlates and consequences of exposure to video game violence: Hostile personality, empathy, and aggressive behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 31 (11), 1573–1586.

Bushman, B. J. (2018). Boom, headshot! Violent first-person shooter (FPS) video games that reward headshots train individuals to aim for the head when shooting a realistic firearm. Aggressive Behavior , 45 (1), 33–41.

Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2009). Comfortably numb: Desensitizing effects of violent media on helping others. Psychological Science , 20 (3), 273–277.

Campbell, C. (2018). A brief history of blaming video games for mass murder. Polygon . Retrieved March 10, 2018, from  https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/10/17101232/a-brief-history-of-video-game-violence-blame .

Carnagey, N. L., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 43 (3), 489–496.

Google Scholar  

Chalmers, D. (2017). The virtual and the real. Disputatio , 9 (46), 309–352.

Deselms, J. L., & Altman, J. D. (2003). Immediate and prolonged effects of videogame violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 33 (8), 1553–1563.

Dowsett, A., & Jackson, M. (2019). The effect of violence and competition within video games on aggression. Computers in Human Behavior , 99 , 22–27.

Engelhardt, C. R., et al. (2011). This is your brain on violent video games: Neural desensitization to violence predicts increased aggression following video game exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 47 (5), 1033–1036.

Farrar, K. M., et al. (2017). Ready, aim, fire! Violent video game play and gun controller use: Effects on behavioral aggression and social norms concerning violence. Communication Studies , 68 (4), 369–384.

Ferguson, C. J. (2007). The good, the bad and the ugly: A meta-analytic review of positive and negative effects of violent video games. Psychiatric Quarterly , 78 (4), 309–316.

Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2009). The public health risks of media violence: A meta-analytic review. The Journal of Pediatrics , 154 (5), 759–763.

Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2010). Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in eastern and western nations: Comments on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136 (2), 174–178.

Funk, J. B., et al. (2004). Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies, and the internet: Is there desensitization? Journal of Adolescence , 27 (1), 23–39.

Gentile, D. A., et al. (2009). The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors: International evidence from correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 35 (6), 752–763.

Goerger, M. (2017). Value, violence, and the ethics of gaming. Ethics and Information Technology , 19 (2), 95–105.

Grossman, D., & DeGaetano, G. (1999). Stop teaching our kids to kill: A call to action against TV, movie & video game violence . Crown.

Hall, R. C., Day, T., & Hall, R. C. W. (2011). A plea for caution: Violent video games, the supreme court and the role of science. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 86 (4), 315–321.

Hilgard, J., Engelhardt, C. R., & Rouder, J. N. (2017). Overstated evidence for short-term effects of violent games on affect and behavior: A reanalysis of Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 143 (7), 757–774.

Kepes, S., Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2017). Violent video game effects remain a societal concern: Reply to Hilgard, Engelhardt and Rouder. Psychological Bulletin , 143 (7), 775–782.

Leonard, D. (2007). Unsettling the military entertainment complex: Video games and pedagogy of peace. SIMILE: Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education , 4 (4), 1–8.

Liberman, A. (2019). But I voted for him for other reasons! moral responsibility and the doctrine of double endorsement. Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, 9 , 138.

Limelight (2020). The state of online gaming–2020. Limelight Networks Technical report. https://www.limelight.com/resources/white-paper/state-of-online-gaming-2020/ .

Lin, J. H. (2013). Do video games exert stronger effects on aggression than film? The role of media interactivity and identification on the association of violent content and aggressive outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior , 29 , 535–543.

Madigan, J. (2016). Getting gamers: The psychology of video games and their impact on the people who play them . Rowman & Littlefield.

Manne, K. (2017). Down Girl: The logic of Misogyny . Oxford UP.

Book   Google Scholar  

Narula, H. (2019). A billion new players are set to transform the video game industry. Wired . Retrieved December 29, 2019, from  https://www.wired.co.uk/article/worldwide-gamers-billion-players .

Nguyen, C. T. (2019). Games and the art of agency. Philosophical Review, 128 (4), 423–462.

Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Games: Agency as Art . Oxford UP.

Patridge, S. L. (2011). The incorrigible social meaning of video game imagery. Ethics and Information Technology , 13 (4), 303–312.

Przybylski, A. K., et al. (2014). Competence impeding electronic games and players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 106 (3), 441–457.

Ramirez, E. J. (2019). Ecological and ethical issues in virtual reality research: A call for increased scrutiny. Philosophical Psychology , 32 (2), 211–233.

Saul, J. (2006). On treating things as people: Objectification, pornography, and the history of the vibrator. Hypatia , 21 (2), 45–61.

Schellenberg, S. (2013). Belief and desire in imagination and immersion. Journal of Philosophy , 110 (9), 497–517.

Schmierbach, M. (2010). Killing spree: Exploring the connection between competitive game play and aggressive cognition. Communication Research , 37 (2), 256–274.

Sestir, M. A., & Bartholow, B. D. (2010). Violent and nonviolent video games produce opposing effects on aggressive and prosocial outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 46 (6), 934–942.

Shao, R., & Wang, Y. (2019). The relation of violent video game to adolescent aggression: An examination of moderated mediation effect. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 384.

Sicart, M. (2009). Beyond choices: A typology of ethical computer game designs. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulation , 1 (3), 1–13.

Singer, P. (2007). Video crime peril vs. virtual pedophilia. Japan Times . Retrieved July 22, 2007, from  https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2007/07/22/commentary/world-commentary/video-crime-peril-vs-virtual-pedophilia/ .

Tillson, J. (2018). Is it distinctively wrong to simulate doing wrong? Ethics and Information Technology , 20 (3), 205–217.

Waddington, D. I. (2007). Locating the wrongness in ultra-violent video games. Ethics and Information Technology , 9 (2), 121–128.

Wilson, L. (2017). The Long, Problematic History of Rape Scenes in Film. The Playlist . Retrieved October 26, 2017, from  https://theplaylist.net/problematic-history-rape-scenes-film-20171026/ .

Wonderly, M. (2008). A Humean approach to assessing the moral significance of ultra-violent video games. Ethics and Information Technology , 10 (1), 1–10.

Young, G. (2015). Violent video games and morality: A meta-ethical approach. Ethics and Information Technology , 17 (4), 311–321.

Download references

Open access funding provided by University of Gothenburg.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

Alexander Andersson & Per-Erik Milam

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Andersson .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Andersson, A., Milam, PE. Violent video games: content, attitudes, and norms. Ethics Inf Technol 25 , 52 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09726-6

Download citation

Published : 16 October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09726-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Video games
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The frustrating, enduring debate over video games, violence, and guns

We asked players, parents, developers, and experts to weigh in on how to change the conversation around gaming.

If you buy something from a Vox link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.

by Aja Romano

In the wake of two mass shootings earlier this month in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, the societal role of video games grabbed a familiar media spotlight. The El Paso shooter briefly referenced Call of Duty , a wildly popular game in which players assume the roles of soldiers during historical and fictional wartime, in his “manifesto.” And just this small mention of the video game seemed to have prompted President Donald Trump to return to a theme he’s emphasized before when looking to assign greater blame for violent incidents.

“We must stop the glorification of violence in our society,” he said in an August 5 press conference. “This includes the gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace. It is too easy today for troubled youth to surround themselves with a culture that celebrates violence.”

Trump’s statement suggesting a link between video games and real-world violence echoed sentiments shared by other lawmakers following the back-to-back mass shootings. It’s a response that major media outlets and retailers have also adopted of late; ESPN recently chose to delay broadcasting an esports tournament because of the shootings — a decision that seems to imply the network believes in a link between gaming and real-world violence. And Walmart made a controversial decision to temporarily remove all video game displays from its stores, even as it continues to openly sell guns.

But many members of the public, as well as researchers and some politicians, have counterargued that blaming video games sidesteps the real issue at the root of America’s mass shooting problem: a need for stronger gun control . The frenzied debate over video games within the larger conversation around gun violence underscores both how intense the fight over gun control has become and how easily games can become mired in political rhetoric.

But this isn’t a new development; blaming video games for real-world violence — any kind of real-world violence — is a longstanding cultural and political habit whose origins date back to the 1970s. It’s also arguably part of a larger recurring wave of concern over any pop culture that’s been perceived as morally deviant, from rock ’n’ roll to the occult , depending on the era. But as mass shootings continue to occur nationwide and attempts to stop them by enacting gun control legislature remain divisive, video games have again become an easy target.

The most recent clamor arose from a clash among several familiar foes. In one corner: politicians like Trump who cite video games as evidence of immoral and violent media’s negative societal impact. In another: people who play video games and resist this reading, while also trying to lodge separate critiques of violence within gaming. In another: scientists at odds over whether there are factual and causal links between video games and real-world violence. And in still another: members of the general public who, upon receiving alarmist messages about games from politicians and the news media, react with yet more alarm.

Subscribe to Today, Explained

Looking for a quick way to keep up with the never-ending news cycle? Host Sean Rameswaram will guide you through the most important stories at the end of each day.

Subscribe on Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Ove r cast , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

What is new, however, is that recent criticism of the narrative that video games lead to real-world violence seems particularly intensified, and it’s coming not just from gamers but also from scientists , some media outlets , even mass shooting survivors: David Hogg, who became a gun control advocate after surviving the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, unveiled a new March for Our Lives gun control initiative in August, pointedly stating in his announcement on Twitter, “We know video games aren’t to blame.”

And on all sides is a sense that frustration is growing because so little has changed since the last time we had this debate — and since the time before that and the time before that.

There’s no science proving a link between video games and real-world violence. But that hasn’t quelled a debate that’s raged for decades.

Historically, video games have played a verifiable role in a handful of mass shootings, but the science linking video games to gun violence is murky . A vast body of psychology research, most of it conducted before2015, argues strenuously that video games can contribute to increases in aggression . Yet much of this research has been contested by newer, contradictory findings from both psychologists and scholars in different academic fields. For example, Nickie Phillips , a criminologist whose research deals with violence in popular media, told me that “most criminologists are dismissive of a causal link between media and crime,” and that they’re instead interested in questions of violence as a social construct and how that contributes to political discourse.

That type of research, she stressed, is likely to be less flashy and headline-grabbing than psychology studies, which are more focused on pointing to direct behaviors and their causes. “Social meanings of crime are in transition,” Phillips said. “There’s not a single variable. As a public, we want a single concrete explanation as to why people commit atrocities, when the answers can be very complex.”

The debate over the science is easy to wade into, but it obscures just how preoccupied America is with dangerous media. The oldest moral panic over a video game may be the controversy over a 1976 game called Death Race , which awarded players points for driving over fleeing pedestrians dubbed “gremlins.” The game became mired in controversy, even sparking a segment on 60 Minutes . Interestingly, other games of the era that framed their mechanics through wartime violence, like the 1974 military game Tank , failed to cause as much public concern.

In his 2017 book Moral Combat: Why the War on Violent Video Games Is Wrong , psychologist Patrick Markey points out that before concerned citizens fixated on video games, many of them were worried about arcades — not because of the games they contained, but because they were licentious hangouts for teens. (Insert “ Ya Got Trouble ” here.) By the 1980s, “Arcades were being shut down across the nation by activist parents intent on protecting their children from the dangerous influences lurking within these neon-drenched dungeons,” Markey writes.

Then came the franchise that evolved arcade panic into gameplay panic: Midway Games’ Mortal Kombat , infamous for its gory “fatality” moves . With its 1992 arcade debut, Mortal Kombat sparked hysteria among concerned adults that led to a 1993 congressional hearing and the creation of the Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB . The fighting game franchise still incites debate with every new release.

“Like people were really going to go out and rip people’s spines out,” Cypheroftyr , a gaming critic who typically goes by her internet handle, told me over the phone regarding the mainstream anxiety around Mortal Kombat in the 1990s. Cypheroftyr is an avid player of shooter games and other action games and the founder of the nonprofit I Need Diverse Games .

“I’m old enough to remember the whole Jack Thompson era of trying to say video games are violent and they should be banned,” she said, referencing the infamous disbarred obscenity lawyer known for a strident crusade against games and other media that has spanned decades .

Cypheroftyr pointed out that after the Columbine shooting in April 1999, politicians “were trying to blame both video games and Marilyn Manson. It just feels like this is too easy a scapegoat.”

Politicians have long seized on the idea that recreational fantasy and fictional media have an influence on real-world evil. In 2007, for example, Sen. Mitt Romney (R–UT) blamed “music and movies and TV and video games” for being full of “pornography and violence,” which he argued had influenced the Columbine shooters and, later, the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter.

Video games seem especially prone to garnering political attention in the wake of a tragedy — especially first-person shooters like Call of Duty. A stereotype of a mass shooter, isolated and perpetually consuming graphic violent content, seems to linger in the public’s consciousness. A neighbor of the 2018 Parkland shooter, for instance, told the Miami Herald that the shooter would play video games for up to 12 to 15 hours a day — and although that anecdotal report was unverified, it was still widely circulated.

A 2015 Pew study of 2,000 US adults found that even though 49 percent of adult Americans play video games, 40 percent of Americans also believe in a link between games and violence — specifically, that “people who play violent video games are more likely to be violent themselves.” Additionally, 32 percent of the people who told Pew they play video games also said they believe gaming contributes to an increase in aggression, even though their own experience as, presumably, nonviolent gamers would offer at least some evidence to the contrary.

“I find it more plausible that America’s long-standing culture of gun violence has affected video games ... than the other way around” —game developer Naomi Clark

One person who sees a correlation between violent games and a propensity for real-world violence is Tim Winter . Winter is the president of the Parents Television Council , a nonpartisan advocacy group that lobbies the entertainment industry against marketing graphic violence to children. He spent several years overseeing MGM’s former video game publishing division, MGM Interactive, and moved into advocacy when he became a parent. Growing up, his children played all kinds of video games, except for those he considered too graphic or violent.

In a phone interview, Winter told me his view aligns with the research supporting links between games and aggression.

“Anyone who uses the term ‘moral panic’ in my view is trying to diminish a bona fide conversation that needs to take place,” Winter said. “It’s a simple PR move to refute something that might actually have some value in the broader conversation.”

During our conversation, he compared the connection between violent media and harmful real-world effects to that between cigarettes and lung cancer. If you consume in moderation, he argues, you’ll probably be fine; but, over time, exposure to violent media can have “a cumulative negative effect.” (In fact, studies of infrequent smokers have shown that their risk of coronary disease is roughly equal to that of frequent smokers, and their risk of cancer is still significantly higher than that of nonsmokers.)

“What I believe to be true is that the media we consume has a very powerful impact on shaping our belief structure, our cognitive development, our values, and our opinions,” he said.

He added that it would be foolish to point to any one act of violence and say it was caused by any one video game — that, he argued, “would be like saying lung cancer was caused by that one specific cigarette I smoked.”

“But if you are likely to smoke packs a day over the course of many years, it has a cumulative negative effect on your health,” he continued. “I believe based on the research on both sides that that’s the prevailing truth.”

The debate endures because gun control isn’t being addressed — and games are an easy target

Like many people I spoke with for this story, Winter believes that the debate about gun violence has remained largely at a standstill since Columbine, while the number of mass shootings nationwide has continued to increase.

“If you look at the broader issue of gun violence in America, you have a number of organizations and constituencies pointing at different causes,” he said. “When you look back at what those arguments are, it’s the same arguments that have been made going back to Columbine. Whether it’s gun control, whether it’s mental illness, whether it’s violence in media culture — whatever the debate is about those three root causes, very little progress has been made on any of them.”

The glorification of violence is so culturally embedded in American media through TV, film, games, books, and practically every other available medium that there seems to be very little impetus to change anything about America’s gun culture. We can define “ gun culture ” here as the addition of an embrace of gun ownership and a nationwide oversupply of guns to what Phillips described as “ a culture of violence ” — one in which violence “becomes our go-to way of solving problems — whether that’s individual violence, police violence, state violence.”

“There’s a commodification of violence,” she said, “and we have to understand what that means.”

Naomi Clark , an independent game developer and co-chair of New York University’s Game Center program, agreed. “I find it more plausible that America’s long-standing culture of gun violence has affected video games, as a form of culture, than the other way around,” she told me in an email. “After all, this nation’s cultural traditions and attachments around guns are far older than video games.”

In light of incidents like Walmart’s removal of video game displays after the recent mass shootings while continuing to advertise guns, the connection between the shootings and America’s continued valorization of guns feels extremely stark. “We could ban video games tomorrow and mass shootings would still happen,” Cypheroftyr told me.

“What’s new about the current debate is that the scapegoat of videogaming has never been more nakedly exposed for what it is,” gaming sociologist Katherine Cross wrote in an email, “with Republicans and conservatives manifestly fearful of blaming systematic white supremacism, Trump’s rhetoric, or our nation’s permissive and freewheeling gun culture for the recent rash of terrorism.”

Because of the sensitivity around the issue of gun control, it’s easy for politicians to score points with constituents by focusing a conversation on games and sidestepping other action. “Politicians often blame video games because they are a safe target,” Moral Combat author Markey told me in an email. “There isn’t a giant video game lobby like other potential causes of mass shootings (like the NRA [National Rifle Association]). So [by targeting games], a politician can make it appear they are doing something without risking losing any votes.”

And the general public is often susceptible to this rhetoric, both because it’s emotional and because it may feed what they think they already know about games — even if that’s not a lot. “The narrative that violence in video games contributes to the gun violence in America is, I think, a good example of a bad idea that seems right to people who don’t look too closely at the facts,” Zak Garriss , a video game writer and designer who’s worked on a wide range of games, told me in an email.

“Video games are a global industry, dwarfing other entertainment industries in revenue in markets comprised of gamers from the UK, Germany, France, Japan, the US, and basically anywhere there’s electricity. Yet the spree shooting phenomenon seems to be seriously and uniquely a US issue right now. It’s also worth noting that the ratings systems across these countries vary, and in the case of Europe, are often more liberal in many regards than the US system,” Garriss said.

He also pointed out that this conversation frequently overshadows the important, innovative work that many games are engaged in. “Games like Stardew Valley , Minecraft , or Journey craft experiences that help people relax, detox after a day, bond with friends,” he said. “Games like Papers, Please , That Dragon Cancer , or Life Is Strange interrogate the harder and the darker elements of the human experience like love, grief, loneliness, and death.”

In other words, a conversation that focuses on games and guns alone dismisses the vital cultural role that video games play as art. “Play video games and you can jump on giant mushrooms, shoot a wizard on the moon, grow a farm, fall in love, experience nearly infinite worlds really,” Garriss told me. “If games have a unifying organizing principle, I’d say it’s to delight. The pursuit of fun.”

He continued: “To me, the tragedy, if there is one, in the current discourse around video games and violence, lies in failing to see the magic happening in the play. As devs, it’s a magic we’re chasing with every game. And as players, I think it’s a magic that has not just the potential but the actual power to bring people together, to aid mental health, to make us think, to help us heal. And to experience delight.”

But for some members of the public, games’ recreational, relaxational, and artistic values might be another thing that make them suspect. “If they don’t play games or ‘aged out of it,’ they might see them as frivolous or a waste of time,” Cypheroftyr says. “It’s easy to go, ‘Oh, you’re still playing video games? Why are you wasting your life?’”

That idea — that video games are a waste of time — is another longstanding element of cultural assumptions around games of all kinds, Clark, the game developer, told me. “Games have been an easy target in every era because there’s something inherently unproductive or even anti-productive about them, and so there’s also a long history of game designers trying to rehabilitate games and make them ‘do work’ or provide instruction.”

All of this makes it incredibly easy to fixate on video games instead of addressing difficult but more relevant targets, like NRA funding and easy access to guns. And that, in turn, makes it a complicated proposition to extricate video games from conversations about gun violence, let alone limit the conversation around violent games to people who might actually be in a position to create change, like the people who make the games in the first place.

Yet what’s striking when you drill down into the community around gaming is how many gamers agree with many of the arguments politicians are making. As a fan of shooter games, Cypheroftyr told me she routinely plays violent games like Call of Duty and the military action role-playing game (RPG) The Division . “I’m not out here trying to murder people,” she stressed. But like the Parents Television Council’s Winter, Cypheroftyr and many of the other people I spoke with agree that the gaming industry needs to do a lot more to examine the at times shocking imagery it perpetuates.

Many members of the gaming community are already discussing game violence

Multiple people I spoke with expressed frustration that the conversation about video games’ role in mass shootings is obscuring another, very important conversation to be had within the gaming community about violent games.

Clark told me that the public’s lack of nuance and an insistence on a binary reading of the issue is part of the problem. “Most people are capable of understanding that causes are complex,” she said, “that you can’t just point to one thing and say, ‘This is mostly or entirely to blame!’”

But she also cautioned that the gaming community’s reactionary defensiveness to this lack of nuance also prevents many video game fans from acknowledging that games do play a role within a violent culture. “That complexity cuts both ways,” she told me. “Even though it’s silly to say that ‘games cause violence,’ it’s also just as silly to say that games have nothing to do with a culture that has a violence problem.”

“Even though it’s silly to say that ‘games cause violence,’ it’s also just as silly to say that games have nothing to do with a culture that has a violence problem” —game developer Naomi Clark

That culture is endemic to the gaming industry, added Justin Carter, a freelance journalist whose work focuses on video games and culture.

“The industry does have a fetishization of guns and violence,” Carter said. “You look at games like Borderlands or Destiny and one of the selling points is how many guns there are.” The upcoming first-person shooter game Borderlands 3 , he pointed out, boasts “over a billion” different guns from its 12 fictional weapons manufacturers , all of which tout special perks to get players to try their guns. These perks serve as marketing both inside and outside the game; the game’s publisher, 2K Games, invites players to exult in violence using language that speaks for itself :

Deliver devastating critical hits to enemies’ soft-and-sensitives, then joy-puke as your bullets ricochet towards other targets. ... Step 1: Hit your enemies with tracker tags. Step 2: Unleash a hail of Smart Bullets that track towards your targets. Step 3: Loot! Deal guaranteed elemental damage with your finger glued to the trigger ...

“There are very few [action/adventure] games that give you options other than murdering people,” Cypheroftyr said. “Games don’t do enough to show the other side of it. You shoot someone, you die, they die, you reset, you reload, and nothing happens.”

“I know that if I shoot people in a game it’s not real,” she added. “99.9 percent of people don’t need to be told that. I’m not playing out a power fantasy or anything, but I’ve become more aware of how most games [that] use violence [do so] to solve problems.”

An insistence from game developers on blithely ignoring the potential political messages of their games is another frustration for her. “All these game makers are like, there’s no politics in the game. There’s no message. And I’m like ... did you just send me through a war museum and you’re telling me this?!”

The game Cypheroftyr is referencing is The Division 2 , which features a section where players can engage in enemy combat during a walkthrough of a Vietnam War memorial museum. While she loves the game, she told me the fact that players use weapons from the Vietnam War era while in a war museum belies game developers’ frequent arguments that such games are apolitical.

Another game Cypheroftyr has found disturbing in its attempt to background politics without any real self-reflection is the popular adventure game Detroit Become Human , which displays pacifist Martin Luther King Jr. quotes alongside gameplay that allows players to choose extreme violence as an option. “You can take a more pacifistic approach, but you may not get the ending you want,” she explained.

She noted, too, that the military uses video games for training as part of what’s been dubbed the “ military-entertainment complex ,” with tactics involving shooter games that some ex-soldiers have referred to as “more like brainwashing than anything.” The US Army began exploring virtual training in 1999 and began developing its first tactics game a year later. The result, Full Spectrum Command , was a military-only version of 2003’s Full Spectrum Warrior . Since then, the military has used video games to teach soldiers everything from how to deal with combat scenarios to how to interact with Iraqi civilians .

The close connection between games and sanctioned real-world violence, i.e., war, is hard to deny with any plausibility. “When someone insists that these two parts of culture have absolutely nothing to do with each other,” Clark said, “it smacks of denial, and many game developers are asking themselves, ‘Do I want to be part of this landscape?’ even if they have zero belief that video games are causing violence.”

For all the gaming industry’s faults when it comes to frankly addressing gaming’s role in a violent culture, however, many people are quick to point out that critiques of in-game violence can also come from the video games themselves. In Batman: Arkham Asylum , for example, researchers Christina Fawcett and Steven Kohm recently found that the game “directly implicate[s] the player in violence enacted upon the bodies of criminals and patients alike.” Other games shift the focus away from the perpetrators to the victims — for example, This War of Mine is a survival game inspired by the Bosnian War that focuses not on soldiers but on civilians dealing with the costs of wartime violence.

But acknowledging that critiques of violent games are coming from within the gaming community doesn’t play well as part of the gun control debate. “It’s far too easy to scapegoat video games as low-hanging fruit instead of addressing the real issues,” Cypheroftyr said, “like the ease with which we can get weapons in this country, and why we don’t do more to punish the perpetrators [of gun violence].” She also cites the cultural tendency to excuse masculine aggression early on with a “b“boys will be boys” mentality — which can breed the kind of entitlement that leads to more violence later on.

All these factors combine to make the conversation around violent video games inherently political and part of a larger ongoing debate that ultimately centers on which media messages are the most responsible for fueling real-world violence.

The conversation surrounding violent games implicates violent gaming culture itself — which, in turn, implicates politicians who rail against games

Games journalist Carter told me he feels the gaming community needs to, in essence, reject the whole debate entirely because at this point in its life cycle, it’s disingenuous.

“We’ve been through enough shootings that you know the playbook, and it’s annoying that gamers and people in the industry will take this as a position that needs defending,” he told me. “It’s not a conversation worth having anymore solely on post-traumatic terms.”

Discussions about video game violence need to be held mainly within the games community, Carter said, and held “with people who are actually interested in figuring out a solution instead of politicians looking to pass off the blame for their ineptitude and greed.”

But some gamers told me they don’t trust the gaming community to frame the conversation with appropriate nuance. All of them cited Gamergate’ s violent male entitlement and the effect that its subsequent bleed into the larger alt-right movement’s misogyny and white supremacy have had on mainstream culture at large.

“The framing of that rhetoric that began in Gamergate as part of the ‘low’ culture of niche internet forums became part of the mainstream political discourse,” criminologist Phillips pointed out. “The expression of their misogyny and the notion of being pushed out of their white male-dominated space was a microcosm of what was to come. We’re talking about 8chan now, but [the growth of the alt-right] was fueled by gaming culture.” She points to Gamergate as an example of the complicated interplay between gaming culture, online communities full of toxic, violent rhetoric, and the rise of online extremism that’s increasingly moving offline.

Gaming sociologist Cross agreed. “At this moment, there is urgent need to shine a light on video game culture , the fan spaces that have been infiltrated by white supremacists looking to recruit that minority of gamers who rage against ‘political correctness,’” she told me.

“We treat video games as unreal, as unserious play, and that creates a shadow over gaming forums and fan communities that has allowed toxicity to take root. It’s also allowed neo-Nazis to operate mostly unseen. That is what needs to change.”

The resulting shadow over gaming has spread far and wide — and found violent echoes in the rhetoric of Trump himself . “Look at what the person in the very highest office of the US is cultivating,” Cypheroftyr said. “Toxic masculinity, this idea that men, especially white men, have been fed that they’re losing ‘their’ country.”

“While video games do not influence us in a monkey-see-monkey-do manner, they do, like all media, shape how we see the world,” Cross argues. “Republicans, in broaching that possibility, open themselves up to the critique that their leader, who makes frequent use of both old media and social media, might also be influential in a toxic way.”

And this, ultimately, may be why the current debate around video games and violence feels particularly intense: The extremes of toxic gaming culture are fueling the attitudes of toxic alt-right culture , which in turn fuels the rhetoric of President Trump and many other right-wing politicians — the same rhetoric that many white supremacist mass shooters are using to justify their atrocities.

So when Trump rails against violence in video games, as he’s now done multiple times , he’s protesting a fictionalized version of the real-life violence that his own rhetoric seems to tacitly encourage. If we are to accept the argument that media violence as represented by games is capable of bringing about real-world violence, then surely no media influence is more powerful or full of dangerous potential than that wielded by the president of the United States.

In 2018, Vice’s gaming vertical Waypoint devoted a week to “ guns and games ”; in a moving piece outlining the intent of the project, editor Austin Walker observed that unlike real-world violence, “in big-budget action games, and especially games that give the player guns and plentiful ammunition, violence is cheap and endlessly repeatable.”

Yet now, barely a year later, mass shootings and other incidents of real-world violence have also begun to seem endlessly repeatable. Perhaps that is why, at last, the urgency of shifting our cultural focus from fixing violence in games to fixing violence in the real world feels like it is finally outstripping the incessant debate.

Most Popular

Hawk tuah girl, explained by straight dudes, web3 is the future, or a scam, or both, delete your dating apps and find romance offline, the supreme court’s disastrous trump immunity decision, explained, the supreme court hands an embarrassing defeat to america’s trumpiest court, today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

More in Culture

Tiktok is full of bad health “tricks”

How the UFC explains the USA

Kevin Costner, the American Western, and the American ego

Looking for your next great read? We’re here to help.

A new book tackles the splendor and squalor of reality TV 

Take a mental break with the newest Vox crossword

America’s international public health plan is too focused on Americans

The Spotify conspiracy theories about "Espresso," explained

Democrats say Trump is an existential threat. They’re not acting like it.

How dangerous is it really to have a baby in America?

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Law

Free Argumentative Essay About Violence in Video Games

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Law , Violence , Criminal Justice , Children , Games , Video Games , Virtual Reality , Family

Words: 2000

Published: 05/12/2021

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Introduction

Neither constitution nor any parents can stop children from playing video games, as children will find some or other way to play video games. Law Excessive amount of violence in Video games is one of many debated topics in our society. A number of people say that it affects behaviour of children in a substantial manner. These people advocate to ban the games that cater violence on the other hands, a huge number of people do not agree with such logic. They oppose any such step and argue in favour of games even if they portray violence. Court said that “ The negation of the ban itself will likely have minimal impact, as kids would have found their way to violent games in any case” (Tassi). Children should be given freedom to play video games as first ammendment protects the right of individuals, and particpaion of parents can protect them from playing violent vide games, terefore government should not put a ban on video games.

Thesis Statement: This paper intends to discuss the violence in video games and analyses whether violent video games affect children in a negative manner. The paper also discusses the legality of these games in perspective of the first amendment of the US constitution.

Gentile et al. mentioned that the majority of US teenagers play video games on a regular basis. Some of these games are extremely violent and may affect the behaviour of the children in a negative manner. It is difficult to believe that the children who are in constant touch of these video games are unaffected by their negative impacts. “most evidence suggests that amount of play affects school performance, whereas violent content affects aggressive outcomes” (Gentile et al., 6). Children have a tendency to learn, and they learn from these games too. If the characters of any game are involved in extremely violent activities, there are chances for a player to act accordingly.

Experts suggest that violent games adversely affect the children, and it is not very surprising if their behaviour is affected by these games. According to Tassi the voices to ban violent games are not new, and people have been raising their voices to ban violent games since a long time. Author mentioned “The ban was in place that would make it a crime to sell violent games to minors” (Tassi). Violent games like ‘Death Race’ and ‘Mortal Kombat’, Doom, Grand theft auto and ‘Night Trap’ have attracted huge public cries after they were released, and people witnessed their effects on their children. “Playing violent games increases aggressive behaviors, increases aggressive cognitions, increases aggressive emotions, increases physiological arousal, and decreases prosocial behaviors” (Gentile et al., 7).

Playing violent video game require a high amount of attention and intense participation. Liptak mentioned that modern games and controls also involve very active participation on mental as well physical level. Author mentioned that “The court has affirmed the constitutional rights of game developers, adults keep the right to decide what’s appropriate in their houses” (Liptak). In the light of these facts, it is difficult to say that violent games do not affect children in negative ways. Children participate in these games with very enthusiasm and act as their favourite actors who are usually very violent. When children see their favourite characters killing and hurting others, they feel amused. It may inspire children to act in a similar manner (Dill& Dill).

There are people who argue in favour of video games and suggest that video games are just a mean of entertainment, and they cannot affect the behaviour of children in negative ways. Tassi, in his article, advocates these video games by presenting a number of arguments in favour of video games and suggest that video games enhance the sharpness of the human brain. There are a number of people who argue that video games, including violent ones, enhance the fertility of the human brain. Bartholow & Anderson mentioned that “The results confirmed our hypothesis that playing the violent game would result in more aggression than would playing the nonviolent game” (Bartholow & Anderson, 283).

Saunders, in his study, analyses the subject and its relation with the first amendment. US Supreme Court ruled that these video games are protected by the provisions of the first amendment and it is not logical to put any kind of ban of them. The Supreme Court held that even if these games depict extreme violence, these games cannot be banned as they are protected by the first amendment of the US constitution. Author mentioned that “In Ashcroft v. ACLU" the Court addressed the community standards portion of the test for sexual obscenity and its extension to "harmful-to-minors" statutes" (Saunders, 260). It was held that these games are not different from the old books, cartoons or movies, and it will not be wise to ban only video games.

While deciding a popular case, US Supreme Court struck down a law of California state law that banned video games that were found catering violence and sex. The law advocated to prevent the sale of video games to children that portrayed violent attacks, killings and sexual attacks, “Because speech about violence is not obscene,” (Liptak). Lawmakers said that it was a necessary step to stop children from accessing the games that depict violence and sex. Author gave example by saying that “The details of the murderous spree of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine High can be found at a variety of sources. The tie to video games is found in the fact that Harris and Klebold were said to play violent video games for hours and were fanatics with regard to the video game Doom” (Saunders, 52). It was said that such depictions affect the behaviour of children in an adverse manner.

Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court held while striking down the above said law that “Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas -- and even social messages -- through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection” (Tassi).

The Supreme Court respected the reasonable concern of California authorities but at the same time suggested the law making authority to act reasonably and in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court said that the entertainment rights of people cannot be oppressed merely on the context of protecting children. Justice Antonin Scalia said that protecting children “does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed” (Liptak).

Finally, I believe that video games do not impact children in negative manner. A number of people believe that children who play games are also better performers in their study and they do exceedingly well in sports as well as in extracurricular activities. I also observed that children who play video games have a better understanding of circumstances including odd ones. Video game player children are proved to be good drivers than non-players of the video games. Apart from this aspect, the issue involves the first amendment of the US constitution that ensures the right of entertainment and putting any ban on the violent video games amounts to violating this provision. The US Supreme Court has reiterated the constitution makers.

Annotated Bibliography

Bartholow, Bruce D., & Anderson, Craig A. "Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior: Potential Sex Differences." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 38 (3) (2002): 283–290. The article describes the impact of violence shown in the video games on different genders. The article is based on a research study conducted to analyze the impact of video games on behaviour of people. The study revealed that people who play violent video games show the aggressive behaviour. However, people who play non-violent video games do not shows aggressive behaviour. Dill, Karen E. & Dill, Jody C. "Video game violence: A review of the empirical literature." Aggression and Violent Behavior, Volume 3 (4) (1998): 407–428. Gentile, Douglas A., Lynchb, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, David A.z. "The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance." Journal of Adolescence, Volume 27 (1) (2004): 5–22. The article is focused on the research study conducted to analyse the impact of violence presented in video games. The article covers various aspects associated with the subject such as video games habits, video game usage and impact of video game on children behaviour at home, in school and on education. Liptak, A. "Justices Reject Ban on Violent Video Games for Children." 27 June 2011. The New York Times. 11 May 2014, <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/28scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>. The article focuses on the removal of the ban from sales of video games in California. The article described the judgement given by the Supreme Court in favour of children who want to play with video games. The article focuses on various positive aspects associated with the video games, and how video games help children in improving their learning and overall personality. Saunders, Kevin W. "Regulating Youth Access to Violent Video Games: Three Responses to First Amendment Concerns." Law Review Michigan State University-Detroit College of Law, 51 (2003): 52-113. This report critically analyses first amendment with respect to restricting children access to the violent video games. The report provides detailed analysis on all major aspects of the subject. The report analyses violence presented in other media, and factors that cause violence in video games. The report also presents an analysis of evolution of video games. Saunders, Kevin W. "The Need for a Two (or More) Tiered First Amendment to Provide for the Protection of Children." Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 79 (2004): 257-277. This article describes the possible legal and general ways to protect children from violence presented in different forms of media including video games. The author mentioned about limiting the access of children to the internet and other entertainment contents, especially when law can not limit the children. The focus is placed on parents, their willingness and steps they can take to protect their children. Tassi, P. "Supreme Court Strikes Down California's Violent Video Game Ban." 27 June 2011. Forbes. 11 May 2014 <http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/06/27/supreme-court-strikes-down-californias-violent-games-ban/>. The article emphasizes on how amendment one support videogames. The article also makes a comparison between video game and other learning materials. The article discusses how the new decision taken by the Supreme Court will change the general perception of people and reduce the lawsuits.

Works Cited

Bartholow, Bruce D., & Anderson, Craig A. "Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior: Potential Sex Differences." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 38 (3) (2002): 283–290. Dill, Karen E. & Dill, Jody C. "Video game violence: A review of the empirical literature." Aggression and Violent Behavior, Volume 3 (4) (1998): 407–428. Gentile, Douglas A., Lynchb, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, David A.z. "The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance." Journal of Adolescence, Volume 27 (1) (2004): 5–22. Liptak, A. "Justices Reject Ban on Violent Video Games for Children." 27 June 2011. The New York Times. 11 May 2014 <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/28scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>. Saunders, Kevin W. "Regulating Youth Access to Violent Video Games: Three Responses to First Amendment Concerns." Law Review Michigan State University-Detroit College of Law, 51 (2003): 52-113. Saunders, Kevin W. "The Need for a Two (or More) Tiered First Amendment to Provide for the Protection of Children." Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 79 (2004): 257-277. Tassi, P. "Supreme Court Strikes Down California's Violent Video Game Ban." 27 June 2011. Forbes. 11 May 2014 <http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/06/27/supreme-court-strikes-down-californias-violent-games-ban/>.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 215

This paper is created by writer with

ID 283832471

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Pilgrimage literature reviews, comics book reviews, avatar book reviews, divergent book reviews, ebola virus book reviews, restaurants book reviews, pedagogy book reviews, watergate scandal book reviews, peer pressure book reviews, world economy book reviews, freakonomics book reviews, example of essay on religious studies 3, do polymorphisms of adrenergic receptor signaling pathways affect outcomes of patients report example, example of book review on supply chain management, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia research paper example, example of knowledge breadth and depth course work, free technology essay example 2, no mans land movie review, conceptual framework research papers examples, just war military ethics essay examples, good taking responsibility case study example, free meat industry essay sample, beliefs and practices of zen buddhism essay examples, gdp is not an appropriate measure of well essay, concussion in football annotated bibliographies example, free argumentative essay on synthesis analysis essay, good example of the problem of religious films essay, free essay on chm reflection, berry essays, colgate essays, colman essays, darrach essays, externalize essays, aerating essays, stephen v essays, pg e essays, detoxifying essays, dnase essays, chemoautotroph essays, fibrillin essays, constellation brands essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

October 2, 2018

Do Violent Video Games Trigger Aggression?

A study tries to find whether slaughtering zombies with a virtual assault weapon translates into misbehavior when a teenager returns to reality

By Melinda Wenner Moyer

Getty Images

Intuitively, it makes sense Splatterhouse and Postal 2 would serve as virtual training sessions for teens, encouraging them to act out in ways that mimic game-related violence. But many studies have failed to find a clear connection between violent game play and belligerent behavior, and the controversy over whether the shoot-‘em-up world transfers to real life has persisted for years. A new study published on October 1 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tries to resolve the controversy by weighing the findings of two dozen studies on the topic.

The meta-analysis does tie violent video games to a small increase in physical aggression among adolescents and preteens. Yet debate is by no means over. Whereas the analysis was undertaken to help settle the science on the issue, researchers still disagree on the real-world significance of the findings.

This new analysis attempted to navigate through the minefield of conflicting research. Many studies find gaming associated with increases in aggression, but others identify no such link. A small but vocal cadre of researchers have argued much of the work implicating video games has serious flaws in that, among other things, it measures the frequency of aggressive thoughts or language rather than physically aggressive behaviors like hitting or pushing, which have more real-world relevance.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Jay Hull, a social psychologist at Dartmouth College and a co-author on the new paper, has never been convinced by the critiques that have disparaged purported ties between gaming and aggression. “I just kept reading, over and over again, [these] criticisms of the literature and going, ‘that’s just not true,’” he says. So he and his colleagues designed the new meta-analysis to address these criticisms head-on and determine if they had merit.

Hull and colleagues pooled data from 24 studies that had been selected to avoid some of the criticisms leveled at earlier work. They only included research that measured the relationship between violent video game use and overt physical aggression. They also limited their analysis to studies that statistically controlled for several factors that could influence the relationship between gaming and subsequent behavior, such as age and baseline aggressive behavior.

Even with these constraints, their analysis found kids who played violent video games did become more aggressive over time. But the changes in behavior were not big. “According to traditional ways of looking at these numbers, it’s not a large effect—I would say it’s relatively small,” he says. But it’s “statistically reliable—it’s not by chance and not inconsequential.”

Their findings mesh with a 2015 literature review conducted by the American Psychological Association, which concluded violent video games worsen aggressive behavior in older children, adolescents and young adults. Together, Hull’s meta-analysis and the APA report help give clarity to the existing body of research, says Douglas Gentile, a developmental psychologist at Iowa State University who was not involved in conducting the meta-analysis. “Media violence is one risk factor for aggression,” he says. “It's not the biggest, it’s also not the smallest, but it’s worth paying attention to.”

Yet researchers who have been critical of links between games and violence contend Hull’s meta-analysis does not settle the issue. “They don’t find much. They just try to make it sound like they do,” says Christopher Ferguson, a psychologist at Stetson University in Florida, who has published papers questioning the link between violent video games and aggression.

Ferguson argues the degree to which video game use increases aggression in Hull’s analysis—what is known in psychology as the estimated “effect size”—is so small as to be essentially meaningless. After statistically controlling for several other factors, the meta-analysis reported an effect size of 0.08, which suggests that violent video games account for less than one percent of the variation in aggressive behavior among U.S. teens and pre-teens—if, in fact, there is a cause-and effect relationship between game play and hostile actions. It may instead be that the relationship between gaming and aggression is a statistical artifact caused by lingering flaws in study design, Ferguson says.  

Johannes Breuer, a psychologist at GESIS–Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences in Germany, agrees, noting that according to “a common rule of thumb in psychological research,” effect sizes below 0.1 are “considered trivial.” He adds meta-analyses are only as valid as the studies included in them, and that work on the issue has been plagued by methodological problems. For one thing, studies vary in terms of the criteria they use to determine if a video game is violent or not. By some measures, the Super Mario Bros. games would be considered violent, but by others not. Studies, too, often rely on subjects self-reporting their own aggressive acts, and they may not do so accurately. “All of this is not to say that the results of this meta-analysis are not valid,” he says. “But things like this need to be kept in mind when interpreting the findings and discussing their meaning.”

Hull says, however, that the effect size his team found still has real-world significance. An analysis of one of his earlier studies, which reported a similar estimated effect size of 0.083, found playing violent video games was linked with almost double the risk that kids would be sent to the school principal’s office for fighting. The study began by taking a group of children who hadn’t been dispatched to the principal in the previous month and then tracked them for a subsequent eight months. It found 4.8 percent of kids who reported only rarely playing violent video games were sent to the principal’s office at least once during that period compared with 9 percent who reported playing violent video games frequently. Hull theorizes violent games help kids become more comfortable with taking risks and engaging in abnormal behavior. “Their sense of right and wrong is being warped,” he notes.

Hull and his colleagues also found evidence ethnicity shapes the relationship between violent video games and aggression. White players seem more susceptible to the games' putative effects on behavior than do Hispanic and Asian players. Hull isn’t sure why, but he suspects the games' varying impact relates to how much kids are influenced by the norms of American culture, which, he says, are rooted in rugged individualism and a warriorlike mentality that may incite video game players to identify with aggressors rather than victims. It might “dampen sympathy toward their virtual victims,” he and his co-authors wrote, “with consequences for their values and behavior outside the game.”

Social scientists will, no doubt, continue to debate the psychological impacts of killing within the confines of interactive games. In a follow-up paper Hull says he plans to tackle the issue of the real-world significance of violent game play, and hopes it adds additional clarity. “It’s a knotty issue,” he notes—and it’s an open question whether research will ever quell the controversy.

• Board of Trustees
• Property Rights
• Equality and Opportunity
• Separation of Powers
• Amicus Briefs
• Legislation
• Supreme Court
• Sword&Scales Magazine
• Dissed Podcast
• Student Opportunities
• Submit A Case

Video game bans are unconstitutional, and they won’t prevent violent crimes

In the wake of multiple recent mass shootings, some elected officials and advocates have begun asking the question: should violent video games be banned?

The search for rational explanations in the wake of terrible tragedies is understandable. When people do horrible things, the natural reaction is to ask why. Unfortunately, that same impulse can lead to rushed judgment and misplaced blame.

The argument that video games cause violence is not backed up by research . According to the Society for Media Psychology and Technology , the “research evidence available to date indicates that violent video games have minimal impact on violent activity in society.” Also, according to one study , discovering that a person committing a crime plays violent video games “is no more illustrative than discovering that he or she happened to wear sneakers or used to watch  Sesame Street .” Other studies have suggested that video games help reduce stress and in some instances may even reduce crime . Furthermore, video games are played by a diverse cross-section of the American public.

Given the data, it’s clear censoring video games would not prevent mass shootings.

Censoring video games also raises a Constitutional problem. In 2011, the Supreme Court recognized that video games are protected by the First Amendment ( Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association ). The court emphasized that video games frequently communicate ideas by telling interactive stories and allowing players to interact with a virtual world. Therefore, video games are protected just as any other form of speech and expression.

If anything, the Supreme Court undervalued video games’ artistic importance. In recent decades, video games have developed into a highly nuanced art form with storytelling as powerful and compelling as cinema was in the last century.

For instance, the 2018 indie platforming game Celeste grappled with themes involving depression and self-doubt in a masterful fashion. Games such as the Bioshock series have also engaged with complex political and social issues; these games envision dystopian societies based on objectivism and socialism. They challenge players to think more deeply and imaginatively about the world we live in.

True, many video games are violent. Some use violence to illustrate larger themes; other games allow you to just blow things up. In other words, video games exhibit the same artistic variety that one finds browsing Netflix.

In its 2011 Brown decision, the Supreme Court struck down a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors. The court found that studies showing a link between violence and video games were methodologically flawed and unpersuasive.  The court explained that the government does not have “a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.”

If that’s true for children, it’s even more so for adults.

While it’s understandable why people would ask the question “should violent video games be banned?” The answer requires more nuance. We don’t assume that R-rated movies, paintball, or UFC are making people more violent. Stereotyping millions of Americans—and violating a Constitutional right—because of the vile actions of a deranged killer is wrong and distracts us from real solutions to a very serious problem.

Related Cases

No Related Cases

Related Articles

A First Amendment win: Supreme Court rules the government can’t control private speech

June 17, 2019 | by daniel ortner.

Scar tattoos are a First Amendment right too

June 03, 2019 | by daniel ortner.

The Hill: The slippery slope of trying to curb ‘extremist’ speech

May 20, 2019 | by daniel ortner.

Is Playing Violent Video Games Related to Teens' Mental Health?

New research indicates that video games are not as bad as we once feared..

Posted February 25, 2021 | Reviewed by Matt Huston

Key Points:

• Two recent studies provide insight into whether playing violent video games is related to mental health or aggression .
• Teens who had consistently played violent games for years also reported higher aggression compared to those with gaming patterns that changed over time.
• Researchers found no links between violent video game play and anxiety , depression , somatic symptoms, or ADHD after two years.

With so many kids still home this year, and an apparent increase in the number of teens and adults playing video games, it seems appropriate to re-examine the evidence on whether aggression in video games is associated with problems for adolescents or society. A special issue of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking published in January did just that. As a parent of three—aware of how video games can suck kids in—and a psychologist working at a social innovation lab that has been a leader in the games for health movement, I’m eager to look at studies that examine teens’ violent video game play and any effects later on in life. I asked, in the ongoing conversation about whether playing games like Fortnite makes teens more aggressive, depressed, or anxious, what do we now know?

After a few decades of research in this area, the answer is not definitive . There was a slew of studies in the early 2000s showing a link between violent video game play and aggressive behavior, and a subsequent onslaught of studies showing that the aggression was very slight and likely due to competition rather than the violent nature of the games themselves. For example, studies showed that people got just as aggressive when they lost at games like Mario Kart as when they lost a much more violent game such as Fortnite . It was likely the frustration of losing rather than the violence that caused people to act aggressively.

Looking at Mental Health and Gaming Over Time

Two studies in the January special issue add to the evidence showing that violent video games may not be as dangerous as they have been made out to be. These studies are unique because they looked at large samples of youth over long periods of time. This line of research helps us to consider whether extensive play in a real-world environment (i.e., living rooms, not labs) is associated with mental health functioning later on in the teen and young adult years.

The first study revisited the long-standing debate over whether violent video game play is associated with aggression and mental health symptoms in young adulthood. The study reported on 322 American teens, ages 10 to 13 at the outset, who were interviewed every year for 10 years. The study looked at patterns of violent video game play, and found three such patterns over time: high initial violence (those who played violent games when they were young and then reduced their play over time); moderates (those whose exposure to violent games was moderate but consistent throughout adolescence ); and low-increasers (those who started with low exposure to violent games, and then increased slightly over time). Most kids were low-increasers, and kids who started out with high depression scores were more likely to be in the high initial violence group. Only the kids in the moderates group were more likely to show aggressive behavior than the other two groups.

The researchers concluded that it was sustained violent game play over many years that was predictive of aggressive behavior, not the intensity of the violence alone or the degree of exposure for shorter periods. Importantly, none of the three exposure groups predicted either depression or anxiety, nor did any predict differences in prosocial behavior such as helping others.

The second study was even larger, following 3,000 adolescents from Singapore, and looking at whether playing violent video games was associated with mental health problems two years later. Results showed that neither violent video game play, nor video game time overall, predicted anxiety, depression, somatic symptoms, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder after two years. Consistent with many previous studies, mental health symptoms at the beginning of the study were predictive of symptoms two years later. In short, no connection was found between video games and the mental health functioning of youth.

Taken together, these studies suggest that predispositions to mental health problems like depression and anxiety are more important to pay attention to than video game exposure, violent or not. There is also an implication that any potential effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior would tend to show up when use is prolonged—though the research did not show that gaming itself necessarily causes the aggressive behavior.

So, Should Parents Be Concerned?

These findings are helpful during a year when many kids have no doubt had unprecedented exposure to video games, some of them violent. The most current evidence is telling us that these games are not likely to make our kids more anxious, depressed, aggressive, or violent.

Do parents still need to watch our children’s screen time ? Yes, as too much video game play takes kids away from other valuable activities for their social, emotional, and creative development, such as using their imagination and making things that have not been given to them by programmers (stories, art, structures, fantasy play). Do parents need to be freaking out that our kids trying to find the "imposter" in a game will make them more likely to hit their friends when they are back together in person? Probably not.

We still need to pay attention to mental health symptoms; teens appear to be feeling the effects of the pandemic more than adults, and levels of depression and anxiety have reached unprecedented heights.

So let’s say the quiet part out loud: if they’re using video games to cope right now, it’s not the end of the world, and if they’re struggling psychologically, we should not be blaming the games. Normal elements of daily life have been reduced for teenagers during what should be their most expansive years, for what has become an increasingly large percentage of their lives. It is untenable, and even still, teens are showing us what they always do—that they are adaptive and resilient , and natural harm reduction experts.

As parents, let’s stay plugged in to what they’re going through, and think more about how games can be supportive of well-being. It’s needed now more than ever.

LinkedIn and Facebook image: Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

Coyne, S. M., & Stockdale, L. (2020). Growing Up with Grand Theft Auto: A 10-Year Study of Longitudinal Growth of Violent Video Game Play in Adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0049

Ferguson, C. J., & Wang, C. K. J. (2020). Aggressive Video Games Are Not a Risk Factor for Mental Health Problems in Youth: A Longitudinal Study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(1), 70–73. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0027

Kato, P. M., Cole, S. W., Bradlyn, A. S., & Pollock, B. H. (2008). A Video Game Improves Behavioral Outcomes in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: A Randomized Trial. Pediatrics, 122(2), e305–e317. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-3134

Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (n.d.). Violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents’ aggressive behaviour: Evidence from a registered report. Royal Society Open Science, 6(2), 171474. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171474

Danielle Ramo, Ph.D. , is a clinical psychologist, researcher in digital mental health and substance use, and Chief Clinical Officer at BeMe Health, a mobile mental health platform designed to improve teen wellbeing.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that could derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face triggers with less reactivity and get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Change Password

Your password must have 6 characters or more:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

Create your account

Forget yout password.

Enter your email address below and we will send you the reset instructions

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password

Forgot your Username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use , including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

Are Violent Video Games a First-Amendment Issue?

• Louis Kraus

Search for more papers by this author

On June 27, in a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California law banning the sale of violent video games to children. The majority argument for the ruling was that banning the sale of these games to children is a violation of First Amendment rights protecting free speech. The California law would have imposed a $1,000 fine on stores selling violent video games to minors.

Predictably, representatives of the video-gaming industry expressed strong support of the Supreme Court decision. California legislators, however, most of whom voted to pass the video-game restriction, felt that this ruling exemplified the high court majority's support and protection of corporate America under the mantle of First Amendment rights. In my opinion, this is not a First Amendment issue. The issue here, tragically overlooked by the Supreme Court, is the health and protection of America's children.

As studies emerge on the impact of video games on children's growth and development, it is becoming increasingly clear that playing violent video games is correlated with increases in aggressive behaviors and aggressive cognitions in children. And the violence depicted in video games is becoming more realistic as computer graphics become ever more sophisticated. Some of the most popular games, and in particular first-person shooter games, depict the killing of people and animals in graphic detail. Drug and alcohol use, criminal behavior, disrespect toward authority and law, sexual exploitation and violence toward women, racial and gender stereotyping, and obscene language—the list of images these video games present to children is lengthy and distressing. A child cannot view an R-rated movie without parental consent or purchase pornographic magazines, so it is unfathomable that the Supreme Court has made other images that are clearly unsuitable for children readily available, via video games, for purchase by youngsters of any age.

The majority of children in the United States play video games. The exact number of hours per week spent on video gaming remains unclear, although it is likely far more than the maximum two hours per day recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. What is clear, however, is that children are spending increasing amounts of time playing video games and that many of these games have extremely violent content.

Moreover, beyond the impact of the violence, time spent playing video games has additional deleterious effects on children's health. Children who spend large amounts of time playing video games get less exercise and spend less time with family, engaged in positive social activities, and doing homework. This can result in poor social skills, poor academics, and poor physical health—consequences that will not quickly be ameliorated.

Proponents of the Supreme Court decision will point to parents as the ones responsible for determining appropriate video-game content for their children. Often, however, parents lack an understanding of the current rating system, which can be confusing and misleading. Patents tend to buy games based on what their children say their friends have or on what they are told by clerks in the stores that sell the games. Do we really want store clerks recommending which games are appropriate for children?

I strongly believe that not only should there be limitations on selling violent games to youngsters, but that the deleterious effects of the games on children should be clearly spelled out on the label. This is no different from a Food and Drug Administration "black box" warning prominently displayed on a variety of products from cigarettes to antidepressants. This type of warning would make parents aware of the potential for harm to children associated with involvement in these games.

In reality, many products that are appropriate for adults are simply inappropriate for children, and we must protect children from the harmful impact of these products on their health and development. It is imperative for experts in child and adolescent mental health and physical health to explain this to the courts and to refocus the debate away from the First Amendment issue to the issue of what is in the best interests of our children.

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• Speech Writing /

Speech on Should Violent Video Games Be Banned?

• Updated on  
• Dec 19, 2023

Speech on Should Violent Video Games Be Banned: Playing games always helps one to maintain physical strength. Whether it be long hours or for a few minutes, training the brain with an activity always helps one engage in an activity. 

But what if video games are blamed for spreading violence? Will it still be justified to support violent video games? 

Just like there are two sides of a coin, there are both negative and positive impacts of playing video games. Here’s a speech on should violent video games be banned or not.

Table of Contents

• 1.1 Pros For Banning Violent Video Games
• 2 Cons Against Banning Violent Video Game

Also Read: Online Games Good or Bad Speech

Long Speech on Speech on Should Violent Video Games Be Banned? 

Hello and welcome to all the teachers and fellow students. Today we all are gathered here to share our views on the contentious topic that has sparked across the various platforms— Should Violent Video Games Be Banned? 

Pros For Banning Violent Video Games

Let’s discuss what can be possible positive points for banning violent video games:

1. Potential Impact on Aggressive Behaviour

Violent video games such as Resident Evil, The Witcher, and Bioshock likewise suggest a correlation between video games and increased violent behaviour among children. 

The gaming disorder hinders them from understanding and regulating human emotions and results in aggression, depression, and an anxious state. 

2. Protecting Vulnerable Audiences

Younger players, who aren´t able to justify wrong and right actions might result in deficit or depressive symptoms. Symptoms of feeling sad, hopeless, and furious are some of the negative impacts of such negative impacts of violent video games. 

Banning such video games can help the vulnerable audience from potential negative consequences. 

3. Public Safety

Individuals who love to mitigate their favourite characters might carry the same with violent video games. Killing of people, and animals, foul language, and use and abuse of drugs and alcohol are some of the examples of harmful acts. 

Banning such fierce video games may be seen as a precautionary measure to mitigate the risk of such individuals. 

Also Read: 2-Minute Speech on What Makes Learning Fun

Cons Against Banning Violent Video Game

Let us understand whether it is correct to ban video games just because of their violent likeness: 

1. Freedom of Expression

Do you find it justified to ban a speech of expression? Video games are a part of art and creative voice like other forms of media. 

Banning video games with violence is a violation of the creator´s artistic freedom and its impressions. Also, it restricts the potential for storytelling and creativity. 

2. Impact of Industry

As per the data of Statista Market Insights, the video game market is forecasted to reach a revenue of US$389.70 billion by 2028, which is undoubtedly a considerable figure. Banning video games because of their depiction is not justified. 

Also, banning the violent video games industry could result in severe economic consequences, leading to job losses and economic downturns. 

3. Risk of Creating a Black Market

Banning video games with violence can create a secret illegal or black market. These video games, which will be accessed by different groups of children, including minors, might not be safe or regulated. 

Also, there is the possibility of creating hidden illegal businesses too. 

Banning video games with violent depictions is not a solution. Practice should be done to encourage children to consider what they are watching or playing. Instead of putting restrictions, suggest or advise them to learn how to handle situations.

Violent video games express freedom and individual responsibility; thus, one cannot hinder one’s fundamental rights and views.

Many factors contribute to a person’s behaviour. However, it cannot be denied that violent video games don’t create mental disorder problems. 

The relationship between violent video games and anxiety varies from person to person. Excessive video games with violent depictions without proper guidance can cause anxiety. 

Parents can communicate, keep themselves informed about the games, and use parental controls for violent video games. 

Some considerations related to violent video game behaviour are aggression, problems in decision-making, and real-life violence.

Related Articles

For more information on such interesting speech topics for your school, visit our speech writing page and follow Leverage Edu .

Deepika Joshi

Deepika Joshi is an experienced content writer with expertise in creating educational and informative content. She has a year of experience writing content for speeches, essays, NCERT, study abroad and EdTech SaaS. Her strengths lie in conducting thorough research and ananlysis to provide accurate and up-to-date information to readers. She enjoys staying updated on new skills and knowledge, particulary in education domain. In her free time, she loves to read articles, and blogs with related to her field to further expand her expertise. In personal life, she loves creative writing and aspire to connect with innovative people who have fresh ideas to offer.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

60 Violence in Video Games Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best violent games essay topics and examples, 📌 most interesting video game argument topics, 🎮 video games cause violence – essay topics, ❓ research questions about video games and violence.

• The Negative Effects of Video Games on Children Essay Development of knuckle pads in children is associated with addiction to playing video games. Most of the young children tend to think that what they see in video games is a reality.
• Violent Video Games and How They Affect Youth Violence However, despite the overwhelming outcry against the youth playing violent video games, there are a number of researchers and advocates who oppose the idea of directly linking the exposure of young adults to violent scenes […]
• Video Games and Violence in Children There have been arguments that such behavior is as a result of a pre-disposition to violence in the media as well as in video games.
• Examining the Perception of Violence in Video Games To examine the perception of violence in video games and their effects a survey was conducted addressing the current view on video games in general and the visualized violence in particular.
• Violence in Video Games To conclude, it is assumed that the dispute among researchers, the public, and authorities on the question of the relationship between violent video games and aggressive behavior may not have a universal answer.
• Does Violence in Video Games Affect Youth? Our concern in this paper is to concentrate on the violent video games, the effects to the youths through participation in the violent video games, the counter arguments and finally the remarks or conclusion.
• Research of Violence in the Media The left frontal lobe of the participants was analyzed and found to be more active in the control group than in the exposed group. Exposure of children to violence in the mass media leads to […]
• Video Games and Violent Behavior As opposed to watching the violence on TV, in these video games the player is the one who commits the acts of violence. In the survey, a group of 10 young men were allowed to […]
• Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies, and the internet: Is there desensitization? The article under consideration entitled “Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies, and the internet: Is there desensitization?” investigates the links between the violent content of TV programs, video games and the increase of […]
• Do Violent Video Games Lead to Aggressive Behavior? Everyone is however in agreement that the violent video games are in compromise of morals and expose the young kids to in appropriate content.
• A Look at the Violence in Video Games, Movies and Music: A Bad Influence on Our Children
• An Analysis of the Negative Effects of Violence in Video Games
• An Analysis of Violence in Video Games and Violence in Teens
• An Argument Against the Claim That Violence in Video Games Promote Violence in Real Life
• An Argument Against the Opinion on Effects of Violence in Video Games
• Blame Games: Does Violence In Video Games Influence Players To Commit Mass Shootings
• Children And Violence in Video Games
• Critical Argumentations on Violence in Video Games
• Dangers in Media: How Violence in Video Games Affects the Youth
• Does Violence In Video Games Affect Children’s Behavior
• Does Violence in Video Games Contribute to Misconduct
• How Does the Portrayal of Violence in Video Games Influence Children
• Increase In Violence In Video Games Targeted At Children
• Legal and Ethical Issues Concerning Violence in Video Games
• Positive Influence of Violence in Video Games
• Presence Of Sex And Violence In Video Games
• The Consequences Of Video Game Violence In Video Games
• The Debate over Whether the Government Should Restrict Violence in Video Games
• The Depiction of Violence in Video Games
• The Impact of Violence in Video Games on the Intellectual Development of Young People: Grand Theft Auto
• The Problem of Violence in Video Games
• The Use Of Violence In Video Games And Its Impact On Young
• The Vehement Vilification Of Violence In Video Games
• Violence In Video Games and Aggression
• Violence in Video Games and the Role of the Government
• Violence in Video Games Can Be Transferred to the Children’s Real-Life Attitudes and Behaviors
• Violence in Video Games Does Not Create Violence
• Violence in Video Games Do Not Affect Agression
• Violence in Video Games Increases Violence in Children
• What Is Your Take on Violence in Video Games, Movies, and Music?
• Can Violence in Video Games Have a Bad Influence on Our Children?
• What Could Be the Analysis of the Negative Consequences of Violence in Video Games?
• What Argument Can Be Made Against the Claim?
• Violence in Video Games Contributes to Violence in Real Life?
• What Are the Arguments Against the Opinion About the Consequences of Violence in Video Games?
• Does Violence in Video Games Affect Children?
• How Does Violence in Video Games Relate to Violence in Reality?
• Can Video Game Violence Affect Players in Mass Shootings?
• Can Violence in Video Games Encourage Misconduct?
• How Do Video Game Depictions of Violence Can Affect Children?
• What Are the Legal and Ethical Aspects of Violence in Video Games?
• What Is the Connection Between Video Game Violence and Future Technology?
• How Is Youth Aggression Related to Video Game Violence?
• How Negatively Does Aggression in Video Games Affect Today’s Youth?
• How Does Violence in Video Games Cause Ethical Issues?
• What Can Be Done To Prevent the Development of Violence in Children?
• How Can Parents Influence the Development of Violence in Children?
• How Does Violence in Video Games Affect the Maladaptive?
• How Does Violence in Video Games Generally Affect Society?
• Computers Essay Ideas
• Bullying Research Topics
• Cognitive Development Essay Ideas
• School Violence Ideas
• Censorship Essay Ideas
• Critical Thinking Essay Ideas
• Emotional Development Questions
• Human Behavior Research Topics
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 30). 60 Violence in Video Games Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/violence-in-video-games-essay-examples/

"60 Violence in Video Games Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 30 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/violence-in-video-games-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '60 Violence in Video Games Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 30 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "60 Violence in Video Games Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/violence-in-video-games-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "60 Violence in Video Games Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/violence-in-video-games-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "60 Violence in Video Games Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/violence-in-video-games-essay-examples/.

Essay on Banning Violent Video Games

Students are often asked to write an essay on Banning Violent Video Games in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Banning Violent Video Games

Introduction.

Violent video games have been a topic of concern for many. Some believe they can lead to aggressive behavior in children.

Reasons for Banning

Counter-arguments.

However, others argue that such games can provide a safe outlet for natural aggression and have no proven link to real-world violence.

The debate on banning violent video games is complex. It is essential to consider both the potential risks and benefits before making decisions.

250 Words Essay on Banning Violent Video Games

The argument for banning.

Those in favor of banning violent video games posit that they contribute to increased aggression and desensitization to violence. They believe that the interactive nature of video games, where players actively participate in violence, can lead to real-world aggression. This is particularly concerning for young players who may not yet fully differentiate between virtual and real-world consequences.

The Counter-Argument

However, opponents of the ban argue that there is no definitive proof linking video game violence to real-world violence. They contend that millions of people play violent video games without exhibiting aggressive behavior. They further argue that video games, like any form of media, are a form of expression protected by the right to free speech.

While the debate continues, it’s crucial to consider the potential effects of violent video games on individuals and society. A middle-ground approach might be more effective, such as implementing stricter age restrictions and parental controls. This way, the rights of gamers are preserved, while potentially harmful effects on impressionable minds are minimized.

500 Words Essay on Banning Violent Video Games

The debate on whether violent video games should be banned has been a topic of intense discussion among policymakers, psychologists, and the general public. The critical concern is the potential influence these games could have on the behavior of players, especially young people.

The Impact of Violent Video Games

Research has shown that violent video games can have both positive and negative effects on players. On the one hand, they can enhance cognitive skills, decision-making abilities, and hand-eye coordination. Conversely, they are also associated with increased aggression, desensitization to violence, and decreased empathy.

Arguments for Banning Violent Video Games

Counter arguments.

Opponents of the ban, however, argue that it infringes upon freedom of expression and the right to access information. They posit that there is not enough empirical evidence linking violent video games directly to criminal violence. They also argue that parental control, rather than a blanket ban, should be the solution.

The Role of Parental Control

Parental control plays a pivotal role in mitigating the potential negative effects of violent video games. Parents can limit the time their children spend playing these games, monitor the content of the games, and explain the difference between video game violence and real-world consequences. This approach may be more effective than a ban, as it encourages responsible consumption of media.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Advertisement

Supported by

Supreme Court Upholds Law Disarming Domestic Abusers

The decision amounted to a retreat from what had been an unbroken series of major decisions expanding gun rights that started in 2008.

• Share full article

By Adam Liptak

Reporting from Washington

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the government can take guns away from people subject to restraining orders for domestic violence, limiting the sweep of a blockbuster decision in 2022 that had vastly expanded Second Amendment rights.

Indeed, Friday’s decision amounted to a retreat from what had been an unbroken series of major rulings favoring gun rights that started in 2008, when the court first recognized an individual constitutional right to keep firearms in the home for self-defense.

In the 2022 decision, the court established a right to carry guns outside the home and announced a new test to assess all sorts of gun control laws, one that looked to historical practices to judge their constitutionality. That new test has sown confusion in the lower courts, with some judges striking down laws that had been on the books for decades.

The case decided Friday, United States v. Rahimi , asked whether a Texas man could be prosecuted under federal law making it a crime for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess guns. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 8-to-1 decision, said that the answer was yes and that Second Amendment rights have limits.

“When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may — consistent with the Second Amendment — be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect,” the chief justice wrote. “Since the founding, our nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, the author of the majority opinion in the 2022 decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen , was the only dissenter.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Nursing — Video Games Thesis Statement

Video Games Thesis Statement

• Categories: Nursing Video Games

About this sample

Words: 658 |

Published: Mar 13, 2024

Words: 658 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health Entertainment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 587 words

1 pages / 460 words

2 pages / 829 words

1 pages / 1629 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Nursing

Nursing, as a noble profession, plays a crucial role in healthcare systems worldwide. This essay provides an in-depth exploration of the pros and cons of nursing, shedding light on the rewards and challenges faced by nurses, the [...]

Clinical learning experiences hold a paramount role in nursing education, serving as a bridge between theoretical knowledge and practical application. This essay explores the essential role of clinical placements in developing [...]

When driving around Miami, FL there are a copious number of billboards that I see advertising for people to become nurses throughout the city. When doing research, I’ve only come across a couple of news articles, advertising on [...]

Gagnon, K., & Sabus, C. (2015). Professionalism in a Digital Age: Opportunities and Considerations for Using Social Media in Health Care. Physical Therapy, 95(3), 406–414.Nayak, S. G. (2018). Time Management in Nursing -- Hour [...]

Palliative care needs to be demonstrated in a way that makes sense and comes with mutual understanding of the patients and their families to reach its goal. A nurse having strong communication skills can positively influence [...]

Becoming a nurse is not just a career choice; it is a calling. The nursing profession is a noble and rewarding path that requires dedication, compassion, and a strong desire to make a difference in the lives of others. As an [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free