Psychology Video Game Debate

In concerns to whether or not “violent” (a term with an ambiguous standard) video games has a
negative effect on minors, I think the entirety of the argument is both unfounded and based in a
Luddite-esque fear of a medium that certain fear-mongers refuse to both understand and accept as a
form of art. We’ve come a long way since the days of 8-bit Space Invaders, as now the extent of video
games can range from casual family fun of a “Mario” title, all the way to the esoteric Shadow of the
Colossus, which is widely regarded within several communities as an outright piece of art (that also
happens to be fun).

A research article conducted by the National Center of Biotechnology Information sums up the hysteria
surrounding violent video games and minors as “overly cautious, if not foolish” (Murray et al., 2011)
[1]. This same article also describes the warped outlook of supreme court justice Stephen Breyer, who
alludes to the banning of violent video games as both restricting sales of a magazine featuring nudity to
a 13 year old and then has the gall to compare that in turn to forbidding sale of a product that “actively
but virtually, binds and gag the woman, then tortures her”. I have playing video games for well over 25
years and I have yet to know of a mainstream title that features such extensive acts explicitly (as in
asking the player to do such an act in order to advance the game).

I think one of the core issues here is the term violence itself. Be it watching Looney Toons or playing
“Cops and Robbers” in the backyard, our children are not only exposed to the concept of violence on a
daily and universal basis, but also actively partake in such fantasies. Whether helicopter parents want to
admit it or not, nearly every minor has thoughts of violence no matter how enclosed their environment
is, and that’s because violence is a rather natural thing in both the virtual world and the real world (the
conflicts of the world aren’t exactly solved by rock-paper-scissors, after all). To try to erase every
source of an entire concept is not only impossible, but will have faulty results in it’s implementation
One of the great enlightenments we face in childhood is determining fact from fiction. For example, I
recall watching Nightmare on Elm Street as a considerably small child (and I turned out to be a horror
buff later in life; go figure) and then feared that I would be Freddy Krueger’s (the film’s dream-
invading antagonist) next victim. It was then my father, doing what every parent should do, explained
and assured me about the differences between real life and make-believe.

Upon further examination, the problem may stem from just that; the difficulty of explaining the
concepts of fact and fiction to a child and the subsequent unwillingness to do so. Much like sex
education in the public school system, there is such an anxiety (or in some cases, laziness) of
explaining such concepts, that common solution appears to be shifting both blame and responsibility to
others. One often hears of the double standards of our children being exposed to the unexplained
concept of sex, only to put the onus of the explanation onto teachers and caregivers. The hysteria
behind video games is no different; explaining what is real and what isn’t is too daunting of a task for
some parents, so instead a witch hunt is started against developers and publishers to try to impossibly
participate in these new ridiculous standards over such a vague blank term as “violence”.

As I said earlier, violence is found in nearly every asset of every piece of media, video games included.
Even in more child friendly titles, do you not have to stomp on the enemies to defeat them? Defeat the
boss of the dungeon to rescue the princess? If these fear-mongers had their way, the only acceptable
games would be ones among the likes of Tetris, and even in the “ideal” world, the thoughts and
concepts of violence would still be present among children. Unless the content is explicitly lewd or
exploitative, censorship only serves to deter the experience of the potential consumers and the
paychecks of hard-working developers. At the end of the day, the responsibility falls upon the parent to
both check the ESRB rating of a title (which ranges from early childhood to mature) and explain the
difference between the real world and a virtual one. The rating system in itself should be more than
enough to suppress these anxieties, since retailers cannot legally sell a game containing certain content
to a minor, but it’s much easier to scream and yell at the problem than take responsibility.

Works Cited

[1] – National Center for Biotechnology Information, Murray et al., A Plea for Concern Regarding
Violent Video Games, Mayo Clinic Proc, 2011
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3146382/
Accessed 3/1/2019