...and that only someone who is already 'disturbed' would be effected by them...

Could it be argued that games such as Manhunt have the ability to effect a less troubled mind than games like Doom?

Obviously out and out wackos are far rarer than victims of mental breakdowns - and mental breakdowns are far more likely to go undiagnosed or even unoticed by friends & family.
Could it be then that games which are 'darker' or (to quote the BBFC) feature "unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone [and] which constantly encourage visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing" are therefore be more likely to effect more people than say Gears of War?

It's very easy to feel confident in saying that only a certified nut-job would go on a killing spree after playing Double Dragon.
However, as graphic realism increases, violence continues to be a big cash draw and developers push to remove more and more trappings of a 'game' does the extent to which the mind would need to be broken lower and the number of sick people that are potentially effected increase?

Have you been locked in a room with Fox News again?

You have to bare in mind that the "problem" if there is one is greatly over-exaggerated. People who have a mental breakdown rather than being an "out and out wacko" are more likely to be already too deep into a mindscrew for a simple videogame to have a major adverse effect.

If it does then the person in question needs a slap to the face with a reality stick.

Yes, Mr Depressive, you are breaking down because you can't get past that level in Manhunt. The fact your wife left you, you got fired from your job and your daughter hates you has nothing to do with it...

I'm sure there is some argument that violence in any medium can affect people.
If you look at how children respond to visual stimuli, and how they will pretend to be a Sportacus or a Ben Ten, it seems silly and ignorant to argue that certain actions won't affect people of any age in the same way. Not everyone has a brain that has developed the same way and some peoples synapses don't fire in the same way as others.
As an example, my son, who is almost three, has now taken to running around and claiming to be Superman, Batman or Optimus Prime. And this is because of the influence I have had on him. Now, if I play the games I play when he's out of the way or let him watch a film like Ichi or RoboCop. I'd only have my self to blame for how he respods to these influences.

I remember reading somewhere (obviously not mainstream media) that a study at monash university (a uni in australia) had pretty strong evidence that people under the age of 15 were affected by vidja games/movies/music etc, and that almost nobody over 15 was really influenced by it.

Violence in videogames has been proven to be detrimental to the a certain part of the brain (Frontal Cortex or something, use Wikipedia), which controls essentialy what you consider to be morally right and wrong and how you respond to situations. However it is unclear how much it does actually affect it, if at all.

curlycrouton:
Violence in videogames has been proven to be detrimental to the a certain part of the brain (Frontal Cortex or something, use Wikipedia), which controls essentialy what you consider to be morally right and wrong and how you respond to situations. However it is unclear how much it does actually affect it, if at all.

You've just totally contradictred your first sentence with your last.

true,
ok,
Violence in videogames may have been proven to be detrimental to the a certain part of the brain (Frontal Cortex or something, use Wikipedia), which controls essentialy what you consider to be morally right and wrong and how you respond to situations. However it is unclear how much it affects it, if, of course, at all.

Which study are you using again?

I'm having a hard time figuring out, because violent video games have a small, negative short term effect on children, however for normal adults it's quite relaxing.

Am I the only one who thinks that if you play violent video game you take out your anger instead of keeping it inside until you throw milk bottles as molotov coctails on your work place?

http://mentalhealth.about.com/cs/familyresources/a/videojap.htm
I used that, as well as a recent article in the Guardian newspaper by a respected psychologist. (I looked him up by the way, he's not an anti-video game whacko or anything)

Don't get me wrong, I love violent games as much as the next guy, but it's important to appreciate what effect it has.

Games don't make people violent, and I'll kill anyone who disagrees

dekkarax:
Games don't make people violent, and I'll kill anyone who disagrees

Nice,
I could well believe that videogames can have a negative effect (big or small) on the players, but disallowing violent videogames goes against my constitutional rights and the capitalist system.
If people want to buy these things, if parents want to allow it, and if developers are going to make it; who are we to decide what is correct in a free-capitalist society.

I must also say that there are far worse problems society needs to work on solving before further censoring the gaming industry.

Seeing this thread, I'm reminded that I really should go out and buy Grand Theft Childhood.

Violence in video games affects children.

That's why the fucking ESRB is there, you self-righteous anti-game advocating pricks who work for the media, and the irresponsible and idiotic parents who will do anything and buy anything for their child if they bitch and whine about it enough.

Sorry, let myself go there.

Violence in video games affects children.

And that is why Jack Thompson isn't practicing law anymore.

There is no denying that Video Games, violent or not, have some sort of effect on people, negative or positive.

But it's how much of that negative or positive effect the game has is what we're missing here. People like Jack Thompson and other anti-video game guys think that violent Video Games automatically make you a killer the second you play them, while we just think "Video games do not cause wackos!"

To sortof quote an article on the Escapist:

"When people start raving about violence in video games, we just blow it off and say 'it's just a video game', but when the question becomes art we say that video games can be art."

Something like that.

Who knows? Maybe that one game of Manhunt or GTA set the guy over the edge thinking "If he can do it, why can't I?". Of course, that person would have to be completely mental and be tortured by other things besides video games which is what I think alot of those Anti-Video Games people are missing.

There are other violent medias out there as well as violent behavior causeing these people to act like what they do. Everyone should know this first hand, the bully next door, kids calling you "gaaaayyyy!!" and saying they "slept with your mom!". Video Games are just another scapegoat for people to point at without looking at the real problem or the other half of it.

Most of the studies I have seen generally agree that violent video games can set someone off...

...The catch is that these people already have deeper emotional or mental problems, and that ANY violent form of entertainment, be it a game, movie, or what have you, could do the same thing.

The violence can have a small effect on someone, even more so for developing children, that is shown to be true. Some studies also show that someone who is mentally unstable in some way can become more aggressive after playing a violent game or watching a violent movie. However, the whole "games cause violence" debate is always blown way out of proportion.

This is because many that are against violent games are extremists like Jack Thompson, who claim that a perfectly normal, mentally healthy teenager will become a savage and brutal murderer after playing Gears of War. That simply doesn't happen. There has NEVER been a case where a video game was the sole reason why someone snapped. I'll give some examples:

I remember a while back this teenager killed his father. The boy played GTA a lot, so there were people claiming "Grand Theft Auto turned this sweet boy into a murderer!" Well, they were ignoring the fact that his father beat him and his mother on a near daily basis. Yes, clearly he killed his father all because of GTA. Yes, it clearly had nothing at all to do with all those years of mental and physical abuse.

Better example, Columbine. People like Jack always say "See! They played Doom! That PROVES that games did it!" Well, the shooters in Columbine were seriously fucked up. They were loners who shunned others, and I'm fairly certain I remember hearing something about bullying involved. Likewise, they were neo-fascists who worshiped Hitler. Frankly, they were time bombs ready to explode at any moment.

Then you have examples where the extremists cry "video games!" without knowing more about the person involved, basically chasing ambulances and school shootings to further their political agenda. For example, when Jack went on the news mere hours after a school shooting and started rambling about random shit like "He trained on Counterstrike! That is why he was wearing black! He was dressed like one of the terrorists in Counterstrike! VIDEO GAMES ARE MURDER SIMULATORS!!" Well, guess what? The guy was kicked out of the Army for "mental instability." Likewise, Jack did the same thing with Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter and guess what? Cho didn't even play video games, he was just a very, very disturbed individual.

So, to review: Violence can have a minor effect on people, studies have generally shown that. But, it isn't necessarily limited to violent games. So, if we want to play the "blame something else" card to cover our own mistakes, then we should be pointing fingers at everything that depicts violence, not just video games.

It is usually the genuine nutjobs that are set off by violent games. After all, if violent games really DID set people off on their own, we'd have millions of murderers going on killing sprees. Likewise, people ignore the fact that violent crimes involving minors have DECREASED in the US since video games have came about. Take that as you will. In any case, it proves that video games don't cause violence by themselves, because if we were to believe the extremists then violent crimes involving minors should have INCREASED since video games have become popular.

Really, the whole "video games cause violence" debate is little more than your typical scare tactics so common in America now. They are blowing the whole thing way out of proportion, making it seem like a much more widespread and serious problem than it actually is because the people in question have jaded or conservative views and are scared of the new and unknown. So they resort to grossly exaggerated scare tactics to frighten the masses and brainwash them with their own views.

Then you have the likes of Fox News, who make up some random bullshit to get ratings...like the "OMG!! Child rapists are using the Nintendo DS game system to find and MOLEST your poor children! Someone please think of the children and the evil, evil people who will RAPE YOUR DAUGHTER because he found her through the DS!! THIS WILL HAPPEN TO YOUR DAUGHTER! WATCH TO FIND OUT HOW YOU CAN PREVENT IT!!!!!"

Oh, and trust me, that segment really was like that.

It's funny how often I start a thread on these boards and the point or question is entirely ignored.

Does anybody actually read posts or are you already compiling replies after reading the title?

No, I understand what you are saying. At least, I think I got it right. Basically, you're asking that, if game X doesn't cause someone to become violent, then does game Y have a higher chance to because of the more graphic content, and also based on the mental conditions of gamer X versus gamer Y?

And the answer is, once again, that while violent content in the media can affect a developing mind, it is often blown way out of proportion by the ultra-religious and conservative to be used as scare tactics to push their views and beliefs onto the masses. That is what propaganda is: Making up enough bullshit mixed with the occasional half-truth to convince people to follow you...Which, when you get right down to it, makes up a lot of what the anti-game activists say.

It is also true that other forms of media (most notably television) have lost out due to the increase in the popularity of games.

They have a vested interest in discouraging people from playing games, and ensuring that they spend more time watching television instead.

Theo Samaritan:
Have you been locked in a room with Fox News again?

You have to bare in mind that the "problem" if there is one is greatly over-exaggerated. People who have a mental breakdown rather than being an "out and out wacko" are more likely to be already too deep into a mindscrew for a simple videogame to have a major adverse effect.

If it does then the person in question needs a slap to the face with a reality stick.

Yes, Mr Depressive, you are breaking down because you can't get past that level in Manhunt. The fact your wife left you, you got fired from your job and your daughter hates you has nothing to do with it...

This. Last paragraph sums it up perfectly.

A while back, I wrote a column for Game Revolution that would occasionally wander onto the main page. In the past, I'd dealt with issues from how players over-react to censorship lobbyists, to what makes horror games scary. My most recent one, however, has attracted the most controversy. In it, I state that whilst the glorification of violence in videogames ain't causing mass riots around the world of people succumbing to the power of this medium, but it is definitely affecting thought and changing thinking about such violence. I've been playing videogames since I was 5; one of my very first was a chopper game on the Saturn where you blew up a lot of people. I'm quickly approaching 20, and has 15 years of playing videogames turned me into a mass murderer? Quite the opposite, but my rational thinking cannot - as the examples mention - speak for all of the gaming community.

Over here, in the UK, we don't often see atrociously explicit acts which can be linked back to videogaming, although after the recent period of stabbings the media are turning a wary eye to our communities, despite these kids obviously coming from poverty-stricken, gang-ridden backgrounds that have sod all to do with gaming. Still, can't you argue that games can cause you to at least -feel- a little more aggressive, subconsciously, about certain acts? My own opinion is that of a glorified troll simply profiting from peoples' eagerness to assume that videogames could never affect someone negatively, but is that really the case?

Full edit, on mah blog.

Games have really become the new pot, in that it's easy to blame them for everything if you know nothing about them, but you know other people enjoy using them.

"He's happy and I'm not, there must be something clearly mentally and morally defective about him!" "What if he's just happy to engage in an action that evokes pleasure by design?"
"I can quote a trained qua-I mean doctor, so there!"

I think that we should round up 50 or so anit-gaming people at a time and lock them in a room with games of varied degrees of violence and make them beat them on easy at least and then realese them into there natural inviorments and see how they iteract.

in my opinion i don't think violant video games effect anyone to turn violant (anyone smart!) after all if we didn't have them noone would have a way to take out some of their anger and there would be more violence violance HOWEVER YOU SPELL IT ah im gonna go play GTA IV

why is it always the video games that get the blame, why is it never the shitty or non-existant parenting, I'm so sick of no one ever being willing to accuse parents of being bad at what they do, it is just like in the end of the song "Blame Canada" from the South Park movie when the parents say "we must blame them and cause a fuss before somebody thinks of balming us." maybe if the parents weren't so incompetent and taught their kids right from wrong then this wouldn't be an issue, I can only wait for the day when the blame is placed on those who are really responsible. I have played violent games for the better part of my life, and never have I wanted to go on a shooting spree, because my mom and dad actually took part in my childhood instead of letting the TV babysit. the Absurdity of this whole thing is maddening.

Dys:
I remember reading somewhere (obviously not mainstream media) that a study at monash university (a uni in australia) had pretty strong evidence that people under the age of 15 were affected by vidja games/movies/music etc, and that almost nobody over 15 was really influenced by it.

Gregg Easterbrook has claimed in his writings that the age threshold is closer to 19. At any rate, excessive media consumption by children is an evil thing in any society because it turns them into obedient little consumerists and stunts their intellectual growth. Doesn't matter if it's Halo 3 or Mario is Missing.

There's no doubt that violent video games affect the brain. http://www.amenclinic.com/ac/bitn/bitn_detail.php?articleID=134

Now, I don't think we can extrapolate a direct cause and effect, but for someone already predisposed to violent behavior, it could be a lynch pin to more.

The key is not to deny this or have a knee jerk response such as Banning All Violence. The key is to understand what video games can do and use moderation and caution. If a parent see his child behave negatively after four hours of some game---talk about it with him. It's hardly entertainment if it only serves to make everyone else in the house miserable--including the child.

JaguarWong:
It's funny how often I start a thread on these boards and the point or question is entirely ignored.

Does anybody actually read posts or are you already compiling replies after reading the title?

Maybe others don't see your point?
I'm quite sure that some have responded to what they think the original point was, but I'm not going to claim to know what others thought before they pressed the "Post" button.

I believe this is your point, so I'll reply to this:

However, as graphic realism increases, violence continues to be a big cash draw and developers push to remove more and more trappings of a 'game' does the extent to which the mind would need to be broken lower and the number of sick people that are potentially effected increase?

The people that go and kill others in public places often have more severe mental problems, games have nothing to do with this.
If someone goes and kills others because something went wrong in Counter Strike, that person would have gone and killed others because his or her favourite dvd broke.

I stole the following from some website a few years ago, can't remember the site and don't really care.