Thread: Violent Video Games And Their Effects

I like violent video games but I'm a big softie really You may be mistaking competitiveness for aggressiveness, a lot of people get competitive about those games in the same way people can get competitive about any other game, which can look like they're about to blow a gasket even if it's fishing or soccer or something.

That being said I think it's a bad idea to let psychotic people play violent video games

EDIT: Reading the OP again, I would much like to know what you mean by people getting "caught up in their anger" and turning "downright nasty". I have just never had that experience and I've played a lot of violent video games with a lot of people. I've seen people get frustrated and I've seen some really competitive people, but I've never played games with anyone who undergoes such a transformation while playing the games, a transformation into someone I would worry about or be afraid of.

After my cousins played glorified war games, they enlisted

No different to violent films or war films.

I remember my favorite game series of all time, Myth. In fact that is where I got the name Alric, he was one of the leaders in the game. They were real time fantasy strategy games. I really liked the story and game play, but I remember I also loved the graphics which were extremely violent in nature. They had dwarfs that threw Molotov cocktail and people would explode, and liches that shot lightning that would make people explode. And giant stone creatures that would kick the smaller guys and they would explode from the force of the kicks. Basically body parts went flying all over the place. Even when no one blew people up, there would be huge piles of bodies from fighting, and blood all over the place.

That said I am not violent at all as a person. In fact, I don't even like killing things like cockroaches and stuff, things most people would kill without thought. I am a very calm and relaxed person, and I don't ever get into fights. I admit I don't play first person shooters that often, but I have played a lot of them over the year, among other bloody games and it has never effected me in a negative way.

I agree with Whatsnext said, that some of what you are seeing is probably competitiveness. Also, some of it might be frustration. I can see someone getting frustrated a lot if they die from something stupid in a game. However, if you are playing a my little pony game with a calm and relaxing setting, but it had bad controls or something, you could still get really frustrated and upset at the game.

its more about self control than about violent video games. i've had violent thoughts and fantasies but i never acted out on them.

That said I am not violent at all as a person.

so if someone were to punch you in the face, you would just stand there? or what if someone were attacking a family member, you wouldn't use violence?

Originally Posted by tropicalbreeze

its more about self control than about violent video games. i've had violent thoughts and fantasies but i never acted out on them.



so if someone were to punch you in the face, you would just stand there? or what if someone were attacking a family member, you wouldn't use violence?

Using force defensively doesn't make someone a violent person. A "violent person" is someone for whom violence is the first solution, not the last ditch one.

i never classified anyone as a "violent person." but at the same time you can't really say "you are not violent at all," otherwise there will be no question of using violence.

Originally Posted by AstralMango

So I'm just here to ask for opinions on the effect of violent video games on people's behaviour. I've actually noticed that there is increased aggressive behaviour in a few people that I know that play games like CoD. First-person shooter type of games. I really detest violence like this and when I see the person play these games... it's like I don't know them any more. They get so caught up in their anger and then I'm suddenly walking on eggshells. Honestly, these games do not do good to the society in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong though; I love video games. I love the adventure and the fun you can have in them. I love games with fantastic story lines and characters. But these first-person shooters... I just absolutely hate them. They're all about blood and gore and in my experience, they turn a person downright nasty.

So, what's your opinion on this?

I love violent video games! I don't get angry when I play them, but I know some people do and I don't think that this is caused by the game itself. I think it is more caused by an aspect of their personality that is already there that makes them more inclined towards anger when something doesn't go their way.

I also don't think that violent video games are necessarily bad for society, I think that they are simply reflective of the societies in which we live (violent, barbaric, warlike societies). I find it quite interesting that games that are completely centered around violence and killing are very popular and then games that are about love and compassion are seen as taboo or ridiculous. So removing violent video games would do nothing to change the nature of our society, if anything it might block a release valve that some of society's more warlike members use to vent their rage and violent ways. Violent sports are not a new thing by any means, they have been around for as long as there have been warring societies. Back in the day, knights would have tournaments in which they would test their skills in battle against each other. Romans had the coliseum. Aztecs had some ball game called Ullamaliztli where, I believe, the losers would get decapitated or something. Today, we have football and violent video games.

I think it's really cool that you don't like those violent war games like many members of our society.

If someone tries to punch you in the face, the obvious nonviolent approach would be to run away. So no, I wouldn't just stand there, I would run away. If I needed to, I would use the minimal amount of force required to escape, which would be trying to hit them in one of the weak spots(such as eyes, throat, groin, stomping on their foot) and then running.

If you use physical force with the intent to flee, then isn't really considered violence, which would be physical force done with the intent to harm. I would never use force with the goal of harming another human being, no matter the situation. So I think it is pretty accurate to say I am not at all violent. If I have to use force against others, the goal is always going to be to escape.

Originally Posted by tropicalbreeze

i never classified anyone as a "violent person." but at the same time you can't really say "you are not violent at all," otherwise there will be no question of using violence.

If he's not "not violent at all" then what would that make him? At least a little bit violent. And he is a person, no? So it seems you are calling him at least "a person who is at least a little bit violent".

A person who's "not violent at all" can still commit violence, because there is a difference between a violent act and a violent person. A violent act is just an act with force behind it that can do bodily harm. A violent person is someone who commits such acts with excess, and for whom violence is a fundamental part of their existence. It's a description of their psyche and personality more than it is of their history. When used to describe a person, any other adjective has the same difference in meaning and scope compared to when it is used to describe an act. A person doesn't become "a little bit peaceful" for not swatting a fly after a life of murdering people for fun. And a person doesn't become "a little bit violent" for defending someone with violence after a life of volunteering at the animal shelter and knitting clothes for poor kids.

That video-games impact children's behavior there's no doubt, it's just like tv. But the extent of that impact on the agressive-behavior aspect?

There's so much controversy, but there seems to indeed be a link between those 2 factors: here's 2 famous meta-analysis (this and this one), one of them with a sample of more than 134000 individuals.

If you'd ask me, I'd say it's not just a matter of increased aggressiveness. For example, there are studies that show that children who view larger doses of sexual content on television have the tendency to engage in sexual behavior earlier and have more sexual partners than children who don't view that type of content. But this could merely be an expression of the knowledge/experience they have, those consequences are not necessarily negative (if they are practicing safe sex or have good principles regarding sexual relationships). Besides, these kind of studies are mostly correlational, and even if the argument of "that's how we do all these type of studies" is brought to the table, it doesn't eliminate the limits of the study itself.

That's why violent games aren't allowed for children.
Also, when someone plays a violent game, they enjoy using their skills to win, not enjoy the killing itself. Also, another aspect is competitiveness. I can't stand my brother winning is PES(soccer), but in Counter-strike(1st person shooter) not that much.
But, there is no doubt that it can teach children violence, especially pro wrestling(which I adore, go Dolph!!!)

Originally Posted by Alric

If you use physical force with the intent to flee, then isn't really considered violence, which would be physical force done with the intent to harm.

using physical force is violence how is it not? your using violence with the intent to flee. everyone has the potential to become violent, this is why i don't understand why you would say you are not at all violent. its not a bad thing, its how we survive. if you were alone in the wilderness you would have to kill for food otherwise you die.

A person who's "not violent at all" can still commit violence...

that makes no sense. that's like saying a non-angry person can still become angry. lol

And a person doesn't become "a little bit violent" for defending someone with violence after a life of volunteering at the animal shelter and knitting clothes for poor kids.

of course they can. they can even be extremely violent. what does volunteering at an animal shelter and knitting clothes for the poor have to do with whether a person is violent or not? even the nicest person has the potential to become extremely violent.

Originally Posted by LouaiB

That's why violent games aren't allowed for children.
Also, when someone plays a violent game, they enjoy using their skills to win, not enjoy the killing itself. Also, another aspect is competitiveness. I can't stand my brother winning is PES(soccer), but in Counter-strike(1st person shooter) not that much.
But, there is no doubt that it can teach children violence, especially pro wrestling(which I adore, go Dolph!!!)

I think that cartoons and violent video games can be very dangerous for children, because they don't fully understand the repercussions for their actions yet. I remember my uncle telling me a story about when he was little, he said that my mom put a pencil through his ear because she expected it to come out the other side like in a cartoon. His eardrum was punctured by the pencil. And another story where she hit him in the head with a frying pan, I guess she expected a bunch of stars and birds to start flying around him. He got a pretty serious concussion from it. She didn't mean to hurt him, they were just playing like they had been taught by cartoons.

Originally Posted by tropicalbreeze

using physical force is violence how is it not? your using violence with the intent to flee. everyone has the potential to become violent, this is why i don't understand why you would say you are not at all violent. its not a bad thing, its how we survive. if you were alone in the wilderness you would have to kill for food otherwise you die.

that makes no sense. that's like saying a non-angry person can still become angry. lol

of course they can. they can even be extremely violent. what does volunteering at an animal shelter and knitting clothes for the poor have to do with whether a person is violent or not? even the nicest person has the potential to become extremely violent.

You're not getting it. Of course a non-angry person can still become angry. Are you an angry person? I hope not. But I'm sure you've become angry at times, we all have. That doesn't make us all angry people because being angry, for most people, is not one of their defining characteristics. If everyone who has ever been angry is an angry person than the designation becomes meaninglessly vague. Then we'd all be happy people, angry people, neurotic people, illogical people, logical people, smart people, dumb people. That is just simply not how the language is used.

Volunteering at an animal shelter and knitting clothes for the poor, I was only using that as a metaphor for living a generally peaceful life. An act of violence in a life of peace colors your character no more than a drop of blood colors an ocean. Is the ocean red afterwards? No... Because the red does not replace the ocean's defining blueness.

-Red Dead Redemption
-Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare
-BioShock
-BioShock 2
-BioShock Infinite
-Aliens vs. Predator
-Assassin's Creed
-Assassin's Creed II
-Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
-Assassin's Creed: Revelations
-Assassin's Creed III
-Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag
-Dishonored
-The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
-Grand Theft Auto IV
-Grand Theft Auto V
-Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
-Call of Duty: Black Ops
-Call of Duty: Black Ops II
-Far Cry 3
-Mortal Kombat

That, my friends, is an incomplete list of M-rated violent video games that I currently own. I have never fought anyone in my life and will be the first person to tell you that diplomacy should be favored over violence.

Should five-year-olds be playing these? Fuck no. But most older kids and teenagers can differentiate between these works of fiction from reality.

Here are some definitions of the world violence.

Violence is "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

Exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house).

Intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force.

Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing.

Abusive or unjust exercise of power.

The exercise or an instance of physical force, usually effecting or intended to effect injuries, destruction, etc.

Intent is a big part of what is considered violence, if you are not trying to hurt someone, it isn't violence. If you never try to harm others, then you are not a violent person.

Are you an angry person? I hope not. But I'm sure you've become angry at times, we all have. That doesn't make us all angry people because being angry, for most people, is not one of their defining characteristics. If everyone who has ever been angry is an angry person than the designation becomes meaninglessly vague.

remember i never once called anyone a violent person. so that ^^ example is completely invalid. but at the same time you can't call someone a non violent person if they have the potential to become violent. it doesn't make sense.

An act of violence in a life of peace colors your character no more than a drop of blood colors an ocean. Is the ocean red afterwards? No... Because the red does not replace the ocean's defining blueness.

so basically if a person who lived the so called "peaceful life" for many years decides to one day kill someone, he/she should still be considered a peaceful person because their good deeds outnumber their bad deeds. is that what your trying to get at?

Volunteering at an animal shelter and knitting clothes for the poor, I was only using that as a metaphor for living a generally peaceful life.

just remember. just because someone goes around doing good deeds doesn't mean they are less violent then the average human being. their thoughts could be just as filled up with violent images and fantasies as anyone else. they just choose to suppress their violence and all it can take is a certain situation to unleash the beast.

Here are some definitions of the world violence.

i have no clue why your throwing definitions at me. all your doing is validating my point.

Violence is "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

yet you mentioned earlier that you would strike someone in the throat, groin, and eyes if you were in danger. striking someone on the throat can cause blood drowning and possible death. striking someone on the groin can cause severe pain and sterility. striking someone in the eyes can cause vision problems. if you hit those areas obviously your intent is to cause harm. otherwise why not just give them a little slap in the face. lol

Intent is a big part of what is considered violence, if you are not trying to hurt someone, it isn't violence.

same as above ^^.

come on bro, your obviously not trying to tickle someone by striking them in the throat lol. even if its just self defense your intent is to cause harm. i'm pretty sure if someone were to attack a family member of yours, you would attack the person with the intent of causing harm.

Originally Posted by tropicalbreeze

remember i never once called anyone a violent person. so that ^^ example is completely invalid. but at the same time you can't call someone a non violent person if they have the potential to become violent. it doesn't make sense.

It was your example, not mine. I was responding to where you said...

that makes no sense. that's like saying a non-angry person can still become angry.

so basically if a person who lived the so called "peaceful life" for many years decides to one day kill someone, he/she should still be considered a peaceful person because their good deeds outnumber their bad deeds. is that what your trying to get at?

It depends. After they decide to kill that person, are they going to go back to living a life or peace or continue living a life of violence? Like I said, the designation of being a "violent person" is more about your psyche and personality than it is about your history. And as I said in my first post, a violent person is one for whom violence is the first answer. Does that describe him after he kills that person? If so, then he's a violent person. If not, then he's not a violent person. While he's plotting to kill somebody, or carrying out the act, he is a violent person, assuming he is using violence as his primary or one of his primary modi operandi. If he's plotting to kill an evil demon lord who can't be negotiated with, and killing the demon is the last possibility left to him after the others are exhausted, that doesn't make him a violent person.

His balance of good deeds vs bad is only relevant insofar as it's used to evaluate his life, but not his current geist (until he dies, at which point the distinction evaporates because the latter no longer exists). But it would take a lot of good deeds to offset killing someone in cold blood. You might look to Nelson Mandela for an example, he probably ordered the unneccessary and ineffective Church Street Bombing which killed a score of people, but his latter years were so impressively reconciliatory that he's commonly said to have lived a life of peace. In the end, it's subjective whether you think he has or not, but the point is, his violent acts don't automatically disqualify him.

Which leads me to another point, what if someone has committed some violence in their life but has also often used the peaceful solution? By your reasoning this would make them a partially violent and partially peaceful person. But that's what everyone in the entire world would be. Have you even seen someone referred to as a somewhat violent and somewhat peaceful person? I haven't, even though according to your reasoning, everyone in the world is one. In reality, the terms are mutually exclusive. That person would be said to have a neutral temperament because their dark side and light side are in even competition. If everybody is simultaneously a bit violent and a bit peaceful, then what the heck is the point of even using the terms? There wouldn't be any.

just remember. just because someone goes around doing good deeds doesn't mean they are less violent then the average human being. their thoughts could be just as filled up with violent images and fantasies as anyone else. they just choose to suppress their violence and all it can take is a certain situation to unleash the beast.

Sure, I already said I was just using those examples as a metaphor. And it's a little bit of a gray area but I would say that someone who successfully supresses violent urges is not a violent person because his ego is apparently peaceful.

Think there's some confusion going on:

Violence is not necessarily negative. Violence is good when it comes to scenarios of self-defense, public order (for example police uses violence to stop stop criminals and terrorists), along with other situations where the health of you or others is at risk.

To be fair most people play videogames either for the power fantasy aspect, the challenge aspect or for competitiveness. All usually include defeating a foe, NPC or opposing player, to reach that goal. Doing so is most easily conveyed using violent acts.

Thus violence is not the theme of the games, rather the tool or medium with which progress is conveyed. It's easily comprehended and quantified.

No studies have proven the link between violent videogames and RL violence.


Anyone who cares for this topic, I urge you to watch this video, in which a well respected youtuber explains the topic.
wxw.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwAo8lcAC4 (replace x with w)

It was your example, not mine. I was responding to where you said...

even in my example i never classified anyone as angry.

His balance of good deeds vs bad is only relevant insofar as it's used to evaluate his life, but not his current geist (until he dies, at which point the distinction evaporates because the latter no longer exists). But it would take a lot of good deeds to offset killing someone in cold blood. You might look to Nelson Mandela for an example, he probably ordered the unneccessary and ineffective Church Street Bombing which killed a score of people, but his latter years were so impressively reconciliatory that he's commonly said to have lived a life of peace. In the end, it's subjective whether you think he has or not, but the point is, his violent acts don't automatically disqualify him.

what???

By your reasoning this would make them a partially violent and partially peaceful person. But that's what everyone in the entire world would be. Have you even seen someone referred to as a somewhat violent and somewhat peaceful person? I haven't, even though according to your reasoning, everyone in the world is one. In reality, the terms are mutually exclusive. That person would be said to have a neutral temperament because their dark side and light side are in even competition. If everybody is simultaneously a bit violent and a bit peaceful, then what the heck is the point of even using the terms? There wouldn't be any.

please don't twist my words around if your trying to make a point. i've never mentioned anything about partially violent or partially peaceful.

Sure, I already said I was just using those examples as a metaphor. And it's a little bit of a gray area but I would say that someone who successfully supresses violent urges is not a violent person because his ego is apparently peaceful.

someone who suppresses violent urges is not peaceful. the very act of suppressing violent urges will always create a disturbance within you.

Think there's some confusion going on:

Violence is not necessarily negative. Violence is good when it comes to scenarios of self-defense, public order (for example police uses violence to stop stop criminals and terrorists), along with other situations where the health of you or others is at risk.

exactly

if force is the best option available, then it is justified.
If force is used not because it could be the best option available, but for the benifit of the user, then it is not justified, thus not rightous.
Every human being thinks/commits violence. The issue is if it's justified, will it be rightous. Every human being is born neutral, and can always change, so the person's status as GENERALY violent or not depends on his current intentions(using the best available or the option that is best for his personal interest). You two are only arguing on the naming, so please stop, the arguement seems to be heated.^^
Of course I only want the best for you two^^.

Originally Posted by LouaiB

Every human being is born neutral, and can always change, so the person's status as GENERALY violent or not depends on his current intentions(using the best available or the option that is best for his personal interest)..

That's what I've been saying, but apparently it's a tough idea for some people. But at this point my case is fully stated and all I'm getting is dodging, so there's not much more I can say anyways.