are violent video games ruining the youth of tomorrow

[greekanilater]

Are violent video games ruining the youth of tomorrow? i think they are because violence has increased dramatically in the last 20 years

[super kid]

Yes indeed it is. To much violence in games such as Grand Theft Auto and other games for kids to be playing. The only game my mom lets me play that has violence in it are Halo, and all the old fighting games. If I had a child I wouldn't want him to be playing video games with extreme violence thats why the Nintendo Wii is way better then the PS3 and Xbox 360 becuase if its fun factor in games such as Mario Party etc etc.

[Relambrien]

Look at this graph:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm (This is part of the website of the Office of Justice Programs, which is a part of the U.S Department of Justice).

Notice that the violent crime rate started dropping dramatically in 1994, just before video games started getting good enough graphics to depict violence and blood and such.

You say that violence has increased dramatically within the last 20 years. Of the last 20 years, violence spiked in 1994 (just before it dropped off), and in 2005 (when this graph ends), it's the lowest it's been since before 1973.

EDIT: Turns out that site also lists a bunch of other information about crime trends.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm

[Squeek]

http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp

Kids shouldn't be playing M-rated games. Simple as that.

It's the parent's fault if such a thing is true, but as Relam pointed out, video games, violent as they may be, keep kids from doing other things out of boredom. Like crime. As such, crime rates have plummeted since video games were released.

[Relambrien]

http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp

Kids shouldn't be playing M-rated games. Simple as that.

It's the parent's fault if such a thing is true, but as Relam pointed out, video games, violent as they may be, keep kids from doing other things out of boredom. Like crime. As such, crime rates have plummeted since video games were released.

I agree. Young kids shouldn't be exposed to most M-rated games (I personally still don't know why Halo/2 is an M), but that's the responsibility of the parent to recognize. Every video game has the ESRB rating on the front and the back, along with just what caused it to have that rating (on the back only). "Blood and Gore" seems to be a popular reason to make games M-rated, though I personally disagree that only those 17+ can handle it. Extreme blood and gore (e.g. Mortal Kombat) should probably be 17+, but games like Halo/2 don't seem to have enough of it to merit an M-rating in my opinion.

Here, actually I'll go find out what the M-rating came from. "Blood and Gore, Violence, Language." I haven't seen any blood in Halo that's made me even bat an eye, and language is in my opinion a laughable reason to make games M-rated (excepting extremely grotesque sexual things and the like), but oddly I can understand the "Violence" part. In the game, you can kill allies with a few shots from your gun or a melee attack to the head, and there is no inherent penalty for doing so. Thus, young teens (13 etc) -may- develop problems after seeing that (since there is nothing in the game that punishes you for killing allies), though I personally can't say for sure one way or the other.

I guess the gist of what I'm trying to say is that the rating system needs improvements. Currently we have Early Childhood (before 6), E6+ (6 and up), E10+ (10 and up), T (13 and up), M (17 and up), and A (18 and up). I would personally like to see something like this:

Early Childhood - below age 6
6+ - 6 and above
9+ - 9 and above
12+ - 12 and above
15+ - 15 and above
18+ - 18 and above

Many M-rated games would probably fall into the 15+ category in such a system, and it is my personal belief that almost all 15-year olds can handle something like Halo.

[Intrastat]

This has always been a topic of heated debate, particularly with the (zomg stereotype!) over-protective mothers of America, and while I was a kid who grew up rooting for videogame rights, now there are more examples of games out there that make me wonder how they even got onto store shelves.

Companies like Rockstar Games, and in rarer cases Acclaim, thrive on churning out crap games with loads of violence and gore to cover up the absence of any recognizable storyline. It's in regards to these cases that I can sympathize with the mommies, but only in the aspect that they're over-the-top.

In short, meaningful vidja-gayms pwn. Crap games give the sport a bad rep with PTO moms.

[CobaltWire]

I blame parents more than I blame the games. I feel it is the parents fault for not putting up more responsibilty into disciplining the kids. Though todays media does contribute to turning kids into brats too. Not just video games, but movies and music too.

[Cavernio]

You know, there are hundreds upon hundreds of factors involved in violent crimes, and as such, it's perposterous to say that 1 of the factors possibly involved causes the change we see, at least not without a lot more supporting evidence.
The example told in at least one of my psyc classes used to explain how careful we have to be with correlation, is that violent crimes increase with ice-cream sales.

[Relambrien]

You know, there are hundreds upon hundreds of factors involved in violent crimes, and as such, it's perposterous to say that 1 of the factors possibly involved causes the change we see, at least not without much much more supporting evidence.
The example told in at least one of my psyc classes used to explain how careful we have to be with correlation, is that violent crimes increase with ice-cream sales.

Exactly. For those who possibly misunderstood, I am -not- claiming that the release of video games caused the decline in violence. I am merely -showing- that violence has declined steadily since the growth in video game popularity, which defeats the idea that violent video games have caused an increase in violent crime. This is, of course, because there has not been an increase in violent crime, but rather a large decrease.

[Flt. Ad. Matt]

I think violent video games should only be allowed to older persons (ESRB Ratings M and AO). This system was designed to keep violent games away from our youth. However, I know that some parents buy these games for their children and totally disregard the warnings. Therefore, the games are not entirely in fault; the parents have more responsibility when it comes to their young children.

[devonin]

Further, the idea that crime is at some manic all time high is a total myth. Relambrien linked to some excellent sources on that, but the real issue is not an increase in violent crime, it is an increase in the reporting of violent crime in media.

Child abductions, as an example, are at their lowest in decades, but the incidence of child abductions -reported on the news- is up 600% over the past 10 years.

The most you can say about violent videogames is that people who are already prone to violence might get some ideas playing games intended for adults. The same is true of watching the evening news however, and to claim that a game can warp someone into being violent is rediculous.

[Cavernio]

Exactly. For those who possibly misunderstood, I am -not- claiming that the release of video games caused the decline in violence.

I almost told Squeek that, (I hate it when people misread things!) but by the time I got around to posting, you had already replied and didn't contradict him.

[Dragula219]

I agree with almost everything Relambrain said, but what I don't understand about this whole situation is why violence is less taboo than sex and nudity. I mean there are "T" rated games like Medal of Honor where you can blow up people with C4 and the like, but any game that has nudity is rated "AO", Period. You would think that killing people (something that is against the law obviously, and no one is ever supposed to do) would be a lot more "AO" material, than sex (something that everyone desires and almost all people engage in.)

[Master_of_the_Faster]

First of all, a person can't just randomly link some random teen or youth to violent videogames just because he/she goes around trying to commit a crime. There has to be some reasonable evidence that by banning violent videogames there would be less crimes or violence or else you're just limiting free speech without any cause. Videogames and violence somewhat portray what happens in the real world. A good amount of violence can be found by most of the stories the media has to put out.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Yes, I feel that violent video games are a contribution to rising violence among youths. However, there can also be personal issues and such which may also help to contribute to this. Plus it's so easy to get a hold of guns or even knives that violence is becoming an everyday occurence since people can avoid handfights.

[devonin]

@Dragula: You'll notice that it varies by country, which content gets harsher ratings. In Canada, we are far less likely to rate a movie R for violence or language than in the United States. However, both countries are pretty strict on high ratings for sex. Conversely many R-rated movies in the United States are, in European countries rated for as young as 12-14 year olds.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Yeah, well that's Europe. It's of no importance to us what goes on there. <_<

[Baka05Carl]

its what the kid does, its not the video games, if kids dont have responsibility enough to kno that doing all those violent things are bad, why make them play games.

[GuidoHunter]

I blame parents more than I blame the games. I feel it is the parents fault for not putting up more responsibilty into disciplining the kids. Though todays media does contribute to turning kids into brats too. Not just video games, but movies and music too.

Don't be so quick to blame the parents. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2007/02/21#1172088960)

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Intrastat]

Bookmarking that page, Guido.

Dose of reality right there.

[callum111]

http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp

Kids shouldn't be playing M-rated games. Simple as that.

It's the parent's fault if such a thing is true, but as Relam pointed out, video games, violent as they may be, keep kids from doing other things out of boredom. Like crime. As such, crime rates have plummeted since video games were released.

Well I heard my brother when he was like 3 he played doom. Thats like rated M.

[Squeek]

Bookmarking that page, Guido.

Dose of reality right there.

Even if it's a "dose of reality", it's not the overarching truth.

Most parents are lazy and don't care about what game their kid wants, so long as they get it and shut up for a while.

This is totally unrelated to youth violence, though. This just shows the trace of responsibility to young children who play M-rated games.

Youth violence is usually related to issues at home.

[kratos7]

hell no violent games are the healthiest games there are and if u disagree with me ILL KILL YOU.........jk

[ddr_f4n]

Kratos, this is critical thinking, so post something meaningful.

On topic: Well, some kids (even adults) consider what happens in games happens in reality (like being shot 100 times and still live, and you recover over time) and those are the dumb people who just needs know the truth about violence and death. Those are the only people that are being affected by video games. Parents should realize this and use the ESRB ratings to avoid the youth from playing games like these. But this isn't the real reason why there are so much violence out there. Some are because of abusive families, or needs to kill to survive, and other reasonable explanations. The government needs to stop judging video games to get rid of them.

[macgravel]

I played all kinds of violent video games when I was younger. Will I ever kill someone, want to rob someone or steal a car? Hell no. My parents actually raised me correctly and taught me at a young age to make correct choices in life. Some kids don't want to listen to their parents, or some parents don't want to tell their kids what's wrong and what isn't.

It takes a sick and twisted mind to do anything evil. If someone plans on doing anything evil in the first place, then video games won't affect that.

Violent games don't cause kids to kill people. That's my opinion.

[lord_carbo]

1) You'd need to be mentally unstable to not be able to distinguish games from reality.
2) You'd need to be a violent or mentally unstable person to do something violent because you were influenced by video games in the first place.
3) Games don't teach you how to shoot a gun.
4) Games don't prepare you to shoot a person.

Crime has gone down ever since the PS1 hit the market rapidly (it actually was increasing slowly up to that year), and has been a record low in nearly 25 years. greekanilater, unless you live in England, you are wrong and I'd love to see some data to support what you said. (In England, the problem is gun control. Yes, the almost complete ban of guns spiked crime rates! And don't give me that cum hoc crap, if you even know what that is bwahaha.)

Oh, and violent crime would decrease even less by a huge amount if we decriminalized, hell, legalized drugs.



"So carbo, you're saying that drug legalization, gun rights and violent video games actually decrease violent crime?!"

"Yes."

"You're ****ing nuts."

[boondocks77]

1) You'd need to be mentally unstable to not be able to distinguish games from reality.
2) You'd need to be a violent or mentally unstable person to do something violent because you were influenced by video games in the first place.
3) Games don't teach you how to shoot a gun.
4) Games don't prepare you to shoot a person.

Crime has gone down ever since the PS1 hit the market rapidly (it actually was increasing slowly up to that year), and has been a record low in nearly 25 years. greekanilater, unless you live in England, you are wrong and I'd love to see some data to support what you said. (In England, the problem is gun control. Yes, the almost complete ban of guns spiked crime rates! And don't give me that cum hoc crap, if you even know what that is bwahaha.)

Oh, and violent crime would decrease even less by a huge amount if we decriminalized, hell, legalized drugs.



"So carbo, you're saying that drug legalization, gun rights and violent video games actually decrease violent crime?!"

"Yes."

"You're ****ing nuts."

wut u said aobut being mentally unstable not to distinugish games from reality isnt necessarily true. I have a friend who saw the movie 300 and wants to kill ppl with a sword
and he wuz serious about doing it too im not even joking he isnt mentally unstable, hes in the high school honor roll for pete's sake

[Infinity^]

Are violent video games ruining the youth of tomorrow? i think they are because violence has increased dramatically in the last 20 years

Your proof of statistics intrigues me.

[Squeek]

wut u said aobut being mentally unstable not to distinugish games from reality isnt necessarily true. I have a friend who saw the movie 300 and wants to kill ppl with a sword
and he wuz serious about doing it too im not even joking he isnt mentally unstable, hes in the high school honor roll for pete's sake

Thinking it's cool and actually following through with it are two different things.

Besides, swords DO exist, and when you swing them hard at a person, you CAN sever limbs. That's perfectly realistic. I'm pretty certain he knows that doing it will cause the receiver to suffer immensely.

This is different from, say, a light-saber, which doesn't exist.

[boondocks77]

Thinking it's cool and actually following through with it are two different things.

Besides, swords DO exist, and when you swing them hard at a person, you CAN sever limbs. That's perfectly realistic. I'm pretty certain he knows that doing it will cause the receiver to suffer immensely.

This is different from, say, a light-saber, which doesn't exist.

*cough* little confused here... r u agreeing or disagreeing with me?

[FatalRay]

OOOOOO, Finally....A topic I can get wrapped up in.

I gotta say, the only true thing at fault here is. The kids and the parents. There is a rating system that is there to warn the parents, many times, Have I over heard someone at my local EB games tell a parent what grand theft auto has in it and they shrug it off, 2 hours later, they try to return it. Now we have done our part as gamers to notify parents...

Now we come to the kids, unless the kid is actually mental in the head, video games should NOT have anything to do with their developement. Everyone is in control of their own mind, and no one but them make the full choice. See in a way I am a hypocrit, my parents never gave 2 craps about what I played. When I was 5 I got turok. An old M rated game. Big deal. I'm a perfectly "Normal" if anything can truly be called that, person, that looks out for others and is respectful. However I am still under 18 but I play some crazy gory games such as gears of war, and soon to be, bioshock.

I'd also like to bring up, the wii has some very sexual humor in it from say mario party 8, if you ever play the game shake it up, and you check the controls...You will understand. Yes gaming can be impressionable, but the true fact is we do our part to keep the games out of the hands of lil kids. The way it is, is that if the kid cannot cope with the fact that that is fiction,and the world is reality, then he shouldn't play. But if the kid can cope with it, by all means go friggin crazy. All in all there is absolutely no reason for games to be blamed. As for the sexual manner I can kinda see where they are going with this, as for the fact that with teen pregnancies shooting up every day, I can see them reflecting it off of that. Also pornography is offensive to many, including me despite my hormone raging teenage male body.

Currently, there has only ever been ONE AO rated game but that was changed to an M rated. The game was Manhunt. All in all, that is the truth.

[boondocks77]

OOOOOO, Finally....A topic I can get wrapped up in.

I gotta say, the only true thing at fault here is. The kids and the parents. There is a rating system that is there to warn the parents, many times, Have I over heard someone at my local EB games tell a parent what grand theft auto has in it and they shrug it off, 2 hours later, they try to return it. Now we have done our part as gamers to notify parents...

Now we come to the kids, unless the kid is actually mental in the head, video games should NOT have anything to do with their developement. Everyone is in control of their own mind, and no one but them make the full choice. See in a way I am a hypocrit, my parents never gave 2 craps about what I played. When I was 5 I got turok. An old M rated game. Big deal. I'm a perfectly "Normal" if anything can truly be called that, person, that looks out for others and is respectful. However I am still under 18 but I play some crazy gory games such as gears of war, and soon to be, bioshock.

I'd also like to bring up, the wii has some very sexual humor in it from say mario party 8, if you ever play the game shake it up, and you check the controls...You will understand. Yes gaming can be impressionable, but the true fact is we do our part to keep the games out of the hands of lil kids. The way it is, is that if the kid cannot cope with the fact that that is fiction,and the world is reality, then he shouldn't play. But if the kid can cope with it, by all means go friggin crazy. All in all there is absolutely no reason for games to be blamed. As for the sexual manner I can kinda see where they are going with this, as for the fact that with teen pregnancies shooting up every day, I can see them reflecting it off of that. Also pornography is offensive to many, including me despite my hormone raging teenage male body.

Currently, there has only ever been ONE AO rated game but that was changed to an M rated. The game was Manhunt. All in all, that is the truth.

im sorry totally unrelated but ur avatar is hilarious i had to put tht out there

[FatalRay]

Lmfao thank you. Steal it if you want XD

[guyofgod]

If the video games of yester-year effected our parents, they would be bright yellow, would be afraid of ghosts, and would eat magic power pellets in a corner waiting for the fruit of the day to appear in the middle of the scree- I mean room.

[boondocks77]

its ok thanks anyways i like my drowning dog

[FatalRay]

lol is that menshi from excel saga?

[boondocks77]

lol is that menshi from excel saga?

wtf?

[Squeek]

This is Critical Thinking.

Do not make irrelevant posts.

[iamsteves]

lol no

[ouch123]

No. Violent video games are there for our entertainment. Nobody in their right mind would act on anything they see in a video game.

Oh, and to the first poster, you\'re full of ****. Could you at least provide a credible source for that information? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Ratings are there for a reason. Though I can look the other way if you want to play an M rated game, but you\'re only about 13 or 14.

[Wootsicle]

People who say that video games cause violence really makes me rather angry.
Video games are more of an anger outlet that allow the youth of America to get their aggression out. Violence (as stated before) has decreased dramatically since the release of the PS1. The correlation is there, and I'm not sure if you can say that one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

Of course, the media loves being able to blame video games, because games are something that can be banned/censored. You can't censor bad parenting, or mental disabilities, which leaves video games as a much easier culprit for violence.

[Dragula219]

Currently, there has only ever been ONE AO rated game but that was changed to an M rated. The game was Manhunt. All in all, that is the truth.

You're wrong. There are MANY games rated AO, they just don't sell those kinds of games in EB games and such. But that's really off topic.

The instant you take blame off the child who committed a crime, then anything in the child's life can be blamed. The real truth is, nothing made the kid pull the trigger but himself. The media doesn't want to cover this kind of thing, because no American wants to hear about their kids being ****ed up in the head, but a lot are and if they commit a crime they should be punished just like an adult should.

[Relambrien]

No. Violent video games are there for our entertainment. Nobody in their right mind would act on anything they see in a video game.

Oh, and to the first poster, you\'re full of ****. Could you at least provide a credible source for that information? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Ratings are there for a reason. Though I can look the other way if you want to play an M rated game, but you\'re only about 13 or 14.

I'm not sure if you're using the backslash intentionally, but you don't need an escape character here; apostrophes register just fine alone.


You're wrong. There are MANY games rated AO, they just don't sell those kinds of games in EB games and such. But that's really off topic.

The instant you take blame off the child who committed a crime, then anything in the child's life can be blamed. The real truth is, nothing made the kid pull the trigger but himself. The media doesn't want to cover this kind of thing, because no American wants to hear about their kids being ****ed up in the head, but a lot are and if they commit a crime they should be punished just like an adult should.

This is completely true. For a game to be rated AO, it has to be insanely graphic (e.g. showing graphic sex scenes), and most stores don't want to have a reputation of selling such things. I imagine they would be easy to find on the Internet, however...

There was one game that got bumped up to an AO rating from M; it was one of the Grand Theft Auto games. It might have been San Andreas, but I'm not sure. Whatever it was, it was the one with the "Hot Coffee" mod; the reason it was bumped up is because this "mod" was actually programmed into the game, but didn't have a way inside the game to trigger it. At least, that's what I understand from what I've been told. Because it was in the game, however, the game was required to be bumped up (this "mod" was a sex scene).

Also, the part about taking the blame off of the kid and then placing it anywhere else is true. People are too quick to forgive children for their actions; I at least was able to know the consequences of all of my possible actions by age 13. And once you forgive the kid either because he's young and impressionable or because of something else, any negative influence can receive the blame. If it's well-known that the kid's parents were horrible drug addicts or something, then the blame may be placed on them. But, if there's nothing completely off-the-wall, things like video games get the blame.

[jewpinthethird]

You're wrong. There are MANY games rated AO, they just don't sell those kinds of games in EB games and such. But that's really off topic.

The instant you take blame off the child who committed a crime, then anything in the child's life can be blamed. The real truth is, nothing made the kid pull the trigger but himself. The media doesn't want to cover this kind of thing, because no American wants to hear about their kids being ****ed up in the head, but a lot are and if they commit a crime they should be punished just like an adult should.

But why should we stand around and wait for kids to commit crimes when we can stop it at the source. I mean, if planes kept falling out of the sky because the wing wasn't bolted down right, you wouldn't go blaming the wing for breaking, you'd blame the mechanic whose job was to make the plane safe for flight. In this case, parents are the mechanics. It is their job to teach their children how to be obedient and the difference between right from wrong through discipline, if they fail to do this, the child will grow up social problems.

Or a better analogy: parents acts as a window to protect the child, while at the same time exposing their children to the real world. Parents who don't pay attention to their children are likely to have their window smashed, exposing the child to the elements.

Children can't comprehend why adults think and act the way they do because they have a different perspective about the world. For the first decade of life or so, a child is extremely egocentric. They don't realize that the other people have feelings, in fact, they are fairly oblivious to others. Children aren't little adults, they are stupid little adults who don't understand the consequences of their actions.

A child is a clean slate (to an extent) and the personality of that child largely depends on how good the parents are at their job. The better they are, the more likely it is that the child will turn out normal. The worse, the more like likely it is that the kid will spend the rest of it's life jumping in between jailhouses and methlabs.

[ouch123]

I'm not sure if you're using the backslash intentionally, but you don't need an escape character here; apostrophes register just fine alone.



This is completely true. For a game to be rated AO, it has to be insanely graphic (e.g. showing graphic sex scenes), and most stores don't want to have a reputation of selling such things. I imagine they would be easy to find on the Internet, however...

There was one game that got bumped up to an AO rating from M; it was one of the Grand Theft Auto games. It might have been San Andreas, but I'm not sure. Whatever it was, it was the one with the "Hot Coffee" mod; the reason it was bumped up is because this "mod" was actually programmed into the game, but didn't have a way inside the game to trigger it. At least, that's what I understand from what I've been told. Because it was in the game, however, the game was required to be bumped up (this "mod" was a sex scene).

Also, the part about taking the blame off of the kid and then placing it anywhere else is true. People are too quick to forgive children for their actions; I at least was able to know the consequences of all of my possible actions by age 13. And once you forgive the kid either because he's young and impressionable or because of something else, any negative influence can receive the blame. If it's well-known that the kid's parents were horrible drug addicts or something, then the blame may be placed on them. But, if there's nothing completely off-the-wall, things like video games get the blame.

No, it was just a typo, the backslash is right next to the enter key, and sometimes when i'm typing fast I hit it without knowing.

But what you're saying is correct, by age 13 you should be able to tell right from wrong, and know that anything that is done in a game, is generally unacceptable behavior in the real world, especially for games like Grand Theft Auto: San Andres.

[kylehaas]

I let out my violence in games because I would never do such things in real life.

I blame rap and hip-hop "music" and bad parents.

[tobi14]

people who think violent games ruin kids, i personally think, are full of s**t. if u believe that they do, then just dont buy them.

[devonin]

You've connected two concepts that have nothing to do with each other. You've provided no link between "Video games are violent/not violent" and "You should/should not buy video games"

[tobi14]

i stated my basic opinion in the simplest form. i dont feel like going in depth at the moment, much less have an arguement online. online arguements are more pointless than trying to make a fish survive outside of water, so im not going to post further

[devonin]

online arguements are more pointless than trying to make a fish survive outside of waterYou either didn't read the rules of this forum, or you did and simply have no intention of following them. Maybe not posting here anymore is a good idea for you.

[clashrocker7]

Its pretty simple.
Grand Theft Auto did not tell the kid to shoot people in reality.
The kid's sick twisted mind told him to shoot people in reality.
I play San Andreas every day, and I don't think about doing a drive-by....

[toxicninja]

But why should we stand around and wait for kids to commit crimes when we can stop it at the source. I mean, if planes kept falling out of the sky because the wing wasn't bolted down right, you wouldn't go blaming the wing for breaking, you'd blame the mechanic whose job was to make the plane safe for flight. In this case, parents are the mechanics. It is their job to teach their children how to be obedient and the difference between right from wrong through discipline, if they fail to do this, the child will grow up social problems.

I don't think it's always the parents fault, sometimes people are born with mental defects.

[Dragula219]

You make some good points, so I'll respond the best I can. Just a note, whenever I refer to "blame" or "fault" in this response, I mean finding them guilty of the crime committed.

But why should we stand around and wait for kids to commit crimes when we can stop it at the source. I mean, if planes kept falling out of the sky because the wing wasn't bolted down right, you wouldn't go blaming the wing for breaking, you'd blame the mechanic whose job was to make the plane safe for flight. In this case, parents are the mechanics. It is their job to teach their children how to be obedient and the difference between right from wrong through discipline, if they fail to do this, the child will grow up social problems.

Sure, in the situation you explained the blame could be on the mechanic, but that is a completely different situation from a child shooting someone. The problem with your analogy is that the wing is an inanimate object, not a person. If the wing could chose to not be bolted down right (for whatever reason) you would blame the wing. No matter how good the mechanic is, no matter how hard he bolted it down, if the wing has a choice you can't blame the mechanic. Same thing with a child shooting; No matter how "good" parents are, the child still makes the decision to shoot someone of his/her own accord. Now, don't get me wrong, I think that parents do play a major role in prevention of these kind of things, but prevention and fault are completely different things. You can't say it's the police's fault that a shooting occurred because they failed to prevent it.

Or a better analogy: parents acts as a window to protect the child, while at the same time exposing their children to the real world. Parents who don't pay attention to their children are likely to have their window smashed, exposing the child to the elements.

Well, I guess you could argue that if they are at a young enough age to not understand the consequences of their actions (which happens to be one of the things that must be proven in court to be found guilty of a crime.) In that case, I believe it is nothing more than an accident. You still can't blame the parents in my opinion. Sure, they possibly could have prevented it, but you can't charge someone with a crime because they failed to prevent it. It's not like they told the kid to go shoot somebody (and if they did they obviously should be found guilty.)

Children can't comprehend why adults think and act the way they do because they have a different perspective about the world. For the first decade of life or so, a child is extremely egocentric. They don't realize that the other people have feelings, in fact, they are fairly oblivious to others. Children aren't little adults, they are stupid little adults who don't understand the consequences of their actions.

That is an extremely general statement, you can't say all kids have no understanding of the world. You are also referring to a much younger age than most school shootings occur. As far as I knew, we were talking about early high school students, because that is the most common time shootings occur. Also, the same time everyone has been trying to blame them on video games and parents and whatever they want to. Honestly I believe even without the help of parents a child that age knows the consequences of his/her actions, and is basically a "little adult".

A child is a clean slate (to an extent) and the personality of that child largely depends on how good the parents are at their job. The better they are, the more likely it is that the child will turn out normal. The worse, the more like likely it is that the kid will spend the rest of it's life jumping in between jailhouses and methlabs.

First, I don't necessarily believe that's true. I have many friends who came from broken homes and are just as functional as me or you, and I know many kids who come from secure homes and turn out to be crackheads (actually, it is a major trend at an expensive catholic high school near me. They have crazy coke/crack parties with lots of sex involved, I found it utterly hilarious.) My whole point is it doesn't matter, influence is not fault in my eyes. You can't find a parent guilty of murder because the didn't raise their child well enough. Not raising them well enough ≠ Putting a gun in their hand and telling them to shoot up a school.

[Shad_Zero]

Well, I may live in a crazy neighborhood and play violent games, but I never think on killing anyone. I think that it's not really much of the kid's fault, but the parents. To me, M rated video games is really a privilege and my parents only give them out to me at times. If parents would know how to lay their hand on these little kids and tell them that until you pay bills, I buy you whatever the **** I say. And that's how I think that if parents would tell their kids that video gaming is a privilege and not a right, maybe we might not have as much killings as we do now.

[Coolgamer]

The media will blame anyone from games to Manson to Luvox. Could it be that the kids were screwed up to begin with?

[Aa_Doodaa]

Well, I may live in a crazy neighborhood and play violent games, but I never think on killing anyone
And that's how I think that if parents would tell their kids that video gaming is a privilege and not a right, maybe we might not have as much killings as we do now.
Contradicting opinions in one paragraph. Smooth.

As for my thoughts, I think that violent games are more of somewhere for people to go TO kill people. They know the consequences of such actions in reality, and so fall back on the option of virtual slaughtering.

If a person wishes to shoot people in reality and at the same time not have to worry about criminal charges, there are other much easier ways to do so than getting a hold of a weapon and murdering someone. Paintballing, for example.

[Coolgamer]

I've done a lot of research on it since Columbine, and the thing is, there's school shootings where games haven't been a factor. Remember VA Tech? The shooter barely touched games in that case.

I remember when it was evil rap music we had to slap warning labels on and shield our precious kids from.

[MixMasterLar]

Ok, Here I go.

While I agree with most crimes not being related to Games, I will say that games can and have shaped children's thoughts. Ive known alot of little kids (10 under) who were simply messed in the head due to playing games 14+ hours a day. Now I know that's extreme, but even if a small kid only plays a game for, say, 5-7 hours a day then I guess the game will pretty much program the kid's thinking pattern.

I have no links or proof for the above statment, it is just a veiwpoint.

And so is the next one:

We, as gamers, have been pushing all the blame on perents for too long. BOTH parties are guilty for diffarent reasons: Perents for not teacher young children that games are just games ("He's just a boy, He'll grow out of it"), for not making them stop playing if it seems to be getting to they're head ("he just looooves that gun game") and for not following the ESRB at all; Gamers for Suportting that a game is OK when it's not (When Hot Coffee was found, every gamer it seems defended it), not making the ESRB rate the games better (They just randomly pick between T and M it seems), and by consently saying that only a game rated T or M is worth playing (No, FFR is not this bad, but it has happened) Sometimes, like Guido said, it's no one's fault but the kid's.

ALSO: Keep in mind that when we first started playing games, they werent as bad as they are now. It was mostly about gameplay, and today the story of the game itself is a sellpoint to kids. Even if we knew the story, it was 9/10 that you were the hero saving the girl/world from evil (Mario, Ninja Gaiden, Final Fight) and today that's not so true (Destroy all humans, GTA, Soul Calibur 3) even games like Jak & Daxter were Jak is protrayed as a ****y rebel who follows his own rules or the Crash games were Crash will team up with the "bad guy" if he's playing by the rules (regardless of what was done--adding to the "Notthing will come of it" thing) have put a big - on kids.

Note: I metion Soul Calibur due to even the "Heros" having some faults of they're own. Xianghua, Taki, Ivy etc, and even allowing you to play as the dark side (Nighmare, Tira, Rapheal, etc etc

[DeMoNpUpPeT]

I blame parents more than I blame the games. I feel it is the parents fault for not putting up more responsibilty into disciplining the kids. Though todays media does contribute to turning kids into brats too. Not just video games, but movies and music too.

I do agree that some parents have some take in this.
I don't agree that it's about responsibilty in diciplining the kids.
Sure kids need discipline, but parents can't control the media.
Kids shouldn't be disciplined for whatever is happening in the media.
They have no say in what there is out there.
I believe the parents can help with this by using restriction to their child/children not discipline.

It's true the media contributes alot to this more than anything else
I would blame the media.
And yes violent video games are ruining the youth of tomorrow.

[Zamiax]

i say that public schools are at fault not video games, in fact many video games were just made to further the intellect of the mind with several puzzles that are simliar to an IQ test.

[frank34443]

I haven't read all of the posts, but I have an opinion on this, so if anything that I say has been said before, my apologies.

Before I start stating my opinions, I want to make it clear that I play tons of violent games. Metal Gear, Tekken, Counter Strike, etc. So, without being a hypocrite I'll do my best to express my opinion on this. Violent games are not ruining the youth of tomorrow, they are simply ruining the children of tomorrow. Usually, teenagers who are about 14-18 are mature enough to play a violent game, put it down, and then act as friendly as ever without looking like an idiot, but kids who are about 10 years old should not be allowed to grow up "virtually" slitting throats and taking lives, "virtually", because by the time they become older they will have it embedded in their brains. Games with blood and gore were not made for an audience of kids, but for an audience of more mature users. In the end, this all comes down to the parents. Game companies have no say in what kids buy, they do their best to give a rating and hopefully prevent kids who can't handle the particular game from playing. Parents on the other hand, unfortunately will buy anything for their kids nowadays because they are "tired", and "busy", so they want to keep their kids occupied. I am not saying that every teenager can play a violent game and stay unaffected, because many times they are, but form personal experience I believe that violent games affect kids more than teenagers. With that being said, it all comes down to the parents and the way their child is raised.

[panphil]

no. ive been playing violent games since im 5 years old. My first violent game was unreal tournament (my third video game i played ) and the next one was starcraft. im not stupid and i will not try to do what is in the game. Maybe some people cant understand its just a game but i do. Violent video games Rocks!! 8-)

[frank34443]

Today's violent games are much more brutal and gorey than violent games from when you were 5 yearsold. On top of that, many people are different. It doens't mean that everyone will be violent when they grow up after playing a bunch of violent games.

[Professor Raine]

I know. And if they are saying that video games influence children, how cmoe when someone has something prove video games are good, those are brushed aside pretty quickly? Think, how many people think that video games can cure lazy eye (Which is true after wearing an eyepatch over the non-lazy eye while playing 3 hour increments)?

And if Video games influence children, why don't some characters get praise (i.e. Mario for doing good deeds, Sonic for constant exercise, Aries for being kind, shall I go on?)?

[Relambrien]

And if Video games influence children, why don't some characters get praise (i.e. Mario for doing good deeds, Sonic for constant exercise, Aries for being kind, shall I go on?)?

Because Mario kills turtles and thinks it's fun, Sonic disregards law and escapes from custody (Sonic Adventure 2), and Aeris gets killed (OMG SPOILER).

PS. If you couldn't tell, that's one of the few times I've ever been sarcastic in CT.

[tha Guardians]

Okay... yesterday I played Halo 2 Online for the first time in 2 months, simply because I had lost interest. Let me tell you, it was a huge relief. Killing all those innocent childrens was a blast, but I would never do it in real life. You know what games make me seriously want to kill people?

FFR
Classic Mario games

They are extremely stressing sometimes. I'll be playing the same song on FFR for 2 hours, and just snap... or I'll be playing Super Mario Bros. and get to Bowser on the final level of World 8, and die. GAME ****ING OVER!

Peach was in that castle, but you died so I ate her. kthxbai

[Aa_Doodaa]

I've seen evidence that crime rate has dropped dramatically since the release of the PS1, which also brought the first violent video games... but I've yet to see evidence from the other side, that proves that violent games are making kids more violent. Would someone take the time to gather some up? I'd like to see proof, though I know there is none.

EDIT:: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm - Thanks, Relambrien.

[sk1mNskat3]

I disagree with rap music being the reason for violence. Last time i said that I got banned by someone who clearly doesnt like rap. By the way this thread should really be called "Do violent video games bring out mental illness, because no one sane will kill someone because they saw it on Grand theft auto.

[Mookage]

I believe that the cause for violence in todays society is society itself. We grow up with violence all around us. When we read the paper or watch the news on tv, all we see is dying and war. The world around us is harsh and covered in violence. So the video games aren't the violent things in the world, but just a slight addition to the violent world around us.

[Kilroy_x]

The answer is categorically no. Any kids who are especially effected by violent video games were pretty much defectives to begin with. Just like with anything, in excess video games can get in the way and prevent "good" development, but that doesn't equal "ruining".

[Flesh Field]

Personally, I think it depends on the person. Mature people could just think to themselves, "hey it's just a game." where-as others could be like, "ZOMG THIS GAME ROX!1!!1! LETS TRY IT IRL AND SHOOT SO PPLZ!"

[AnUnknownDrummer]

I think this is bull****. Just because violence has increased in the past 20 years does NOT directly link it to only video games. I've been playing video games since I was 6 and I own almost all the violent games (Halo, Halo 2, all GTAs, Crackdown, Saints Row, Gears of War, both GRAWs, etc) which I have indeed completed on my own. I've never gotten frustrated over any of those games. I find myself getting more angry over games I cannot complete, rather than the game being violent itself.

Honestly, the children that are shooting schools are ALREADY mentally ill and their lives have been ruined from the start. It doesn't mean that their illness or retardation was caused or can be blamed on violent video games.

[meno_rocks123]

I play violent video games often, in fact I am playing one right now and I find that being able to shoot people and take out your anger on a video game character really calmes the nerves and actually makes me less violent. If kids think it would be cool to mimic a violent game in real life, there is some mental problem involved. No one in their right mind could think "Oh this game is soo cool, I'm gonna go buy an AK-47 and shoot random ppls on the street like in this game." If some kids are shooting other people for that reason, there are other things involved e. bullying, drug/alchohol abuse.

That's my take on this.

[perkeyone]

a person can make statistics say what ever that person wants.
i could make a survey that says 100% of americans say that eating babies is great.
statistics that show EITHER side of the argument MAY have been manipulated.
these statistics should not be immediately accepted as truth.

besides that, i believe that all people have complete control of their own actions and that they also have the power to allow and disallow themselves to be influenced. influence is not uncontrollable. this stubbornness, you could call it, as to what one should allow to influence them is learned from one's parents, as is the meaning of right and wrong.

to say that a psychologically and mentally healthy individual who's psychologically and mentally healthy parents upheld their unwritten responsibilities could possibly be influenced to commit horrendous crimes by a video game is ignorant to say the least.
i firmly believe that criminals who blame video games are...
a. so psychologically and mentally unstable that they are influenced by video games (.01%)
b. psychologically and mentally unstable and ignorant enough to blame a scapegoat

this is a horrendous excuse for a sample of the way i feel about this topic

[devonin]

a person can make statistics say what ever that person wants.
i could make a survey that says 100% of americans say that eating babies is great.
statistics that show EITHER side of the argument MAY have been manipulated.
these statistics should not be immediately accepted as truth.

Um...which statistics in this thread were you referring to here?

[perkeyone]

Um...which statistics in this thread were you referring to here?

oh just statistics in general
i simply meant that looking at numbers or graphs does not give one empirical knowledge

[devonin]

oh just statistics in general
i simply meant that looking at numbers or graphs does not give one empirical knowledge

I'm just saying that, given the lack of these numbers or graphs in this thread, was observing that you don't feel they are useful really worth a 21 day bump?

[perkeyone]

I'm just saying that, given the lack of these numbers or graphs in this thread, was observing that you don't feel they are useful really worth a 21 day bump?

there were links to graphs
and the statements that violent video games influence criminal behavior were (i assume) based on statistics
i didnt notice the age of the last post
but i assumed it wasnt too stale because it was on the first page of ct
my mistake

[devonin]

Well, the injunction on bumping old threads is a lot more relaxed in CT because the nature of the discussions is that they tend to go dormant for a while, then resurface. You certainly didn't do something "wrong" just because you bumped an old thread.

It's just that in CT we tend to want something pretty substantial and topical if an older thread is going to get bumped, and it seemed to me that a general sort of statement about statistics in general wasn't really something to bump it for. That's just my opinion, and like all of our opinions, is something to be considered, and agree/disagreed with as you like.

You're just as allowed to go "Dev, you're full of ****" as you are to go "Oh, well I guess I shoudln't have bumped it" provided you can back up whichever one you go with.

[Nightfirecat]

I play violent video games often, in fact I am playing one right now and I find that being able to shoot people and take out your anger on a video game character really calmes the nerves and actually makes me less violent. If kids think it would be cool to mimic a violent game in real life, there is some mental problem involved. No one in their right mind could think "Oh this game is soo cool, I'm gonna go buy an AK-47 and shoot random ppls on the street like in this game." If some kids are shooting other people for that reason, there are other things involved e. bullying, drug/alchohol abuse.

That's my take on this.

Exactly. What adults/parents don't realize about video games is that they're just games. They only see the violent part of it, but we as teens/kids/whatever age you are, see them as games that are fun. That's it. The violence is only a side effect of making the game as fun as it can be... Take halo 2 for instance. That's a wonderful example of what I'm explaining.

[/addition to quote]

[tsugomaru]

You do realize that the side arguing that games doesn't lead to violence is using more to back up their argument than just with a silly graph? It can help prove a point in an argument and to be honest, I believe it was an accurate graph, but the argument wasn't centered around it.

There was no graph stating that gaming lead to violence. They're main argument is that if we shoot people in a game, we start to believe it's acceptable behavior in real life. In which case, said people were just not mature enough to handle the game, so it's less of the game's fault than the person's maturity level.

~Tsugomaru

[Dimitri13]

I think this argument will eventually lead back to the "Is the ESRB(Is that what it is?)/MPAA doing their job" argument, because of the last post. Parents should pay more attention to the labels, review what their kid is going to play, and the ESRB should make the labels more clear and easier to understand.

If parents don't let their children play excessively violent video games while their still not mature enough to handle them (i.e. GTA for early teens and such), then we won't have so much of a problem regarding this issue.

[tsugomaru]

Yah, except we've reached this conclusion, pages ago. It was later continued in the ESRB thread.

~Tsugomaru

[devonin]

Seems like a good time to let the thread die, possibly with a little lock action.

[masterhickle]

1) You'd need to be mentally unstable to not be able to distinguish games from reality.
2) You'd need to be a violent or mentally unstable person to do something violent because you were influenced by video games in the first place.
3) Games don't teach you how to shoot a gun.
4) Games don't prepare you to shoot a person.


I was going to post something very similar to that, but then I read that. Except he said it better.

Winning statement right there.

[devonin]

So...you're actually adding nothing whatsoever to the discussion...that was totally worth the bump of an otherwise dead thread.

[masterhickle]

So I got bored while waiting for my class to start today, and this thread caught my eye.

I also clearly stated my intentions of posting. I didn't read through the entire thread thoroughly due to lack of time to do so, hence my not knowing the thread was "dead."

[ap19]

if hentai is considered violent then yes... i mean even a 6 year old like me has access to hentai games in Japan... not just the computer, like they sell them for the PS2 too...

[devonin]

If a 6 year old has access to hentai games, and there are no controls in stores forbidding selling such games to a 6 year old, that is a failing of the system for handing them out like that, not of the game for existing.

[MixMasterLar]

if hentai is considered violent then yes... i mean even a 6 year old like me has access to hentai games in Japan... not just the computer, like they sell them for the PS2 too...

You must be 13+ years to post

On Topic: I wouldnt know why on earth a 6 year old would want to play that, but it's the store's fault as devonin said

[kylehaas]

Hmmm.
Violence over the last 20 years has increased?
How about the world population? Has that increased?
Has the amount of disease in our world increased?
Has the amount of resources decreased?

Seems like all of these things rely on each far more than video games.
For instance, 60 years ago we were in WWII. Was that caused by video games?
Millions of people died.

The war in Iraq sure as hell isn't caused by video games.

I kill dozens of people on video games per day.
I have never attacked or even been in a fight with another person in real life,
AND I don't plan on it any time soon.

[ReachfortheLight]

Well ideally, parents would be able to use good discretion and just limit their kids' games on an individual basis. Doesn't seem to happen, somehow.

Video games don't teach you how to use a gun, but they sure get people used to the concept of shooting people, going for the head, etc. In fact, to play violent games well, that kind of thing has to become a reflex. It becomes an integral part of the problem-solving process when you play, so... you can't really write violent video games off as harmless.


Oh, and there's a ton of other stuff "ruining the youth of tomorrow," anyway. I guess that really means the adults of tomorrow, actually. A lot of the youth of tomorrow are still single-celled.

[TWSTR]

I'm not going to say violent games are good for our society. They're not bad for it, either, though.

I play violent games. Hell, I'm even planning to MAKE a violent game (yes, I'm a programmer). The violence in these games has NO EFFECT on my view of killing, on my friends' views of killing, on any sane person's view of killing. I do not think that since I can play a 32-player online match and kill as many people as I want to virtually, that justifies taking away an actual life. There are people who I genuinely hate and have thought about attacking, but I would never take away someone's life. They have just as much right to live as I do, even if they are a ****er. What does feed modern crime? I don't know. Could it be that other forms of art are contributing to it? Could it be parents not doing their jobs the way they should? It very well could be.

Anyway, the condiluted logic that games help people kill is wrong. I am welcome to counterarguments, if you disagree with me or want more information.

[kylehaas]

The statement that video games have caused more violence in our world due to an increase over the last twenty years is total bull crap.

No war has EVER been fought over video games.
There is not truly substantial proof that video games have ever killed anyone besides those who don't follow directions and the uber-obese.

Whoever started this thread needs to get outside and get a life.
Billions and billions of living things die daily,
most likely none of them are killed by video games in any way, shape, or form.

Anyone who was ever on the news for killing someone had mental issues.
In our day and time, you cannot get away with killing people, especially in America.
And you sure as hell can't blame video games for making a person retarded either.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Sometimes, I'm under the impression that the media is just trying to shift the blame of any violent youth to violent video games. I mean come on, if there is a news story about violent video games, once that news story about violent video games is over, there is a chance that the media will show a news story like a suicidal bomber in Iraq with certain material as violent as portrayed in something like Resident Evil or Grand Theft Auto. Not to mention, the people shown on the news are real people, which means that a person could probably think of these type of violent people as role models more than a video game character (though some games may contain real people). After all, if I was incredibly mad to the point of killing someone, certain news reports might cause me to do something bad (though I wouldn't kill someone or do something as drastic), but by playing some video game, I would vent off my anger as I get to control what would happen in the game. Of course, I'm an addict to video games so I wouldn't put down the controller or let losing get the best of me while playing video games unless I had to sleep or stop playing games for some reason.

[kylehaas]

You are right.
Although I would never own GTA, due to it's content, I know what you are saying.
There are a lot of government/parental figures who are just mad at video games AND want revenge simply because they didn't have them when they were growing up.

It all boils down (or up?!?!) to two things, thing 1 and thing 2.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

You are right.
Although I would never own GTA, due to it's content, I know what you are saying.
There are a lot of government/parental figures who are just mad at video games AND want revenge simply because they didn't have them when they were growing up.

It all boils down (or up?!?!) to two things, thing 1 and thing 2.

Well, why would government/parental figures want revenge on games because it didn't exist in their time? I mean nothing is stopping them from playing any video games so I don't see how this is of any relevance. Besides, some people wouldn't even play video games if they were out when government/parental figures were growing up.

[perkeyone]

"violent video games cause violence" should be changed to "religions cause violence" lol

[kylehaas]

Well, why would government/parental figures want revenge on games because it didn't exist in their time? I mean nothing is stopping them from playing any video games so I don't see how this is of any relevance. Besides, some people wouldn't even play video games if they were out when government/parental figures were growing up.

That was a joke.
I thought I would make up some crap; that's what the creator of this thread did.

[masterhickle]

Although I would never own GTA, due to it's content, I know what you are saying.
There are a lot of government/parental figures who are just mad at video games AND want revenge simply because they didn't have them when they were growing up.

I hadn't thought of that, but it does make a lot of sense. I hear a lot of parents telling their kids how much better they have it in comparison to when the parents were young.



I think it's about time for this thread to be let go...we're all dancing around two ideas, it seems.

1) It's the fault of the parents if a child is playing a game that s/he is too young for, they have a say it what games they get the kid, and they can monitor any purchases by the kid...
2) Only a mentally unstable person will let a violent game tell them that they're supposed to go around and do the kinds of things done in games (as in GTA, for example).



"violent video games cause violence" should be changed to "religions cause violence" lol

Don't get people started on "Religion causes violence." >.> Science gets brought in, then it turns into the typical Science vs Religion debate (I have proof vs the bible says so).

[tsugomaru]

Parents don't want kids to own video games because they (the parents) never owned some themselves? Don't be stupid, if a parent really wanted to play video games, they would've gone out and get their own.

~Tsugomaru

[ljw5021]

Pinning the blame for these crimes on video games does not solve the problem, but only delays a possible solution. The most likely factor is poor home life. I grew up playing the original Doom and Quake from when I was 6, and I'm fine. To me, violent video games are a way to relieve stress and are not a source of negative thoughts.

[akuma696]

I think it's real funny when someone says that a video-game someone commit a crime. Did this game literally tell them to go out and do whatever it is they did? I seriously doubt it. The individual made a conscious decision to do wrong. The only way a violent video-game could influence someone to reenact it is if the person were unstable. And also, I played a ton of violent video games, I mean Jesus I played Postal and it's sequels, and that didn't make me want to go out and kill random people and piss on their bodies. The only reason violent video-games take the blame in violent cases is because it's an easy fallback. I mean really, in the Columbine school shooting what was the first things that were being called out? Violent video-games and music. Nevermind the fact that they were bullied and picked on in school. And how do you think they got the guns for the shooting? Where were they're parents at during all of this. Good questions to ask yourself. There is a saying that idle hands do the devil's work, and i believe that to be true to this day.

[greekanilater]

thanks guys for your input i reading

[FreezinIce]

Saying that video games are ruining the youth of tomorrow is like saying cement is made of only rocks. Yes, video games are contibuting to this undesirable change in our youth, but video games are only a small margin of the problem. Give some credit to our aggressive society and violent media, both which popularize, glorify, and profit off violence and brutality. Inattentive parents who cry foul but are too lazy to regulate thier childs T.V./video game intake also deserve a shout out, as well as pandering politicians who see the media/video game industry as a target to get them votes from said parents.

[devonin]

What's interesting to note is that in a surprisingly large number of types of crime, crime rates in terms of how many crimes -happen- are actually decreasing, and in some cases are at their lowest in decades, but crime rates in terms of how many crimes -are reported in the news- are skyrocketing.

I remember a stat that around 2002, incidents of child abduction were at their lowest rate they had been since the 1970s, but the rate of child abductions reported in the news was up 600%

We've created a climate of fear that makes us think things are dramatically worse now, when in fact it seems to be that in many cases, things are better, but we hear more about each individual case, creating the illusion that things are worse.

[tpl2000]

Ahh, the conspiracies. I just figure that the producers of CNN and the like want to get their money's worth out of the reporters by forcing them to report the worst possible things (and as many as possible out of those).

may edit later. must go to sleep.

[MixMasterLar]

Ahh, the conspiracies. I just figure that the producers of CNN and the like want to get their money's worth out of the reporters by forcing them to report the worst possible things (and as many as possible out of those).

That's pretty much it. Most News programs aim to entertain. You cant really tell me otherwise either:Only visually attractive reporters are on CNN (for the most part) and they always want to sit around and talk about a subject after they report it in a fasion that is ment to keep people watching.

This goes for all crimes, not just ones with games involed. People dont want to turn the news on and see someone say "it's getting better" .....they wouldnt keep watching, would they?

[FreezinIce]

That's pretty much it. Most News programs aim to entertain. You cant really tell me otherwise either:Only visually attractive reporters are on CNN (for the most part) and they always want to sit around and talk about a subject after they report it in a fasion that is ment to keep people watching.

This goes for all crimes, not just ones with games involed. People dont want to turn the news on and see someone say "it's getting better" .....they wouldnt keep watching, would they?

Makes perfect sense since 90% of all news networks are owned by about 6 entertainment industry giants (ect. AOL Time Warner) Why else would CNN spend 4 days covering a kiddnapping when stuff like the War on Iraq is going on? Stuff like this is a dead giveaway to anyone willing to consider what they're seeing.

[devonin]

I think it is sad and a little frightening that you display such a total buy-in to what is going on. To see someone say "It just proves how much the media is fear-mongering because they spend time on a kidnapping while the war is on" shows just how effective the actual thing going on here is.

How you can look at "THE WAR ON TERROR!!!!" and say that -anything- else is fear-mongering in comparison shows how well the media has distracted you from what is actually going on. They've got the country so fightened of everything, that the population at large will support anything (including the illegal and unwarranted invasion of another soverign nation) that looks like it could promise to make you safe.

[Coolgamer]

Are violent video games ruining the youth of tomorrow? i think they are because violence has increased dramatically in the last 20 years


Are books secretly killing people in their sleep? I think they are because the amount of people who died in their sleep rose 5% in the last twenty years, and book sales have increased by 35%!

Seriously, this is one of the WORST logical fallacies I have ever heard, and I've heard some good ones.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Here, I'm sure it's somewhere on the official list of logical fallacies, but I don't have the time to look.

Hey, you know what else has risen in the last twenty years?

1. Depression.
2. Rate of mental disorders.
3. Pollution and toxic chemicals.
4. Lead paint in children's toys.
5. Availability of mood-altering drugs
6. More drugs given to children to "fix their moods".
7. Better access to firearms and other lethal weapons.
8. More people watch TV.
9. More people watch movies as well.
10. A war that has been going on for the last few years sure affects mental health.
11. An unending amount of depressing news.
12. Holy christ global warming!
13. Sweet jesus ZERO TOLERANCE in schools!
14. OMFG DRUG WAR!

The list goes on. To claim that some random statistic proves that something is bad is not only dumb, it's totally insane.

Description of Questionable Cause

This fallacy has the following general form:

1. A and B are associated on a regular basis.
2. Therefore A is the cause of B.

The general idea behind this fallacy is that it is an error in reasoning to conclude that one thing causes another simply because the two are associated on a regular basis. More formally, this fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because they are associated on a regular basis. The error being made is that a causal conclusion is being drawn from inadequate evidence.

The Questionable Cause Fallacy is actually a general type of fallacy. Any causal fallacy that involves an error in a reasoning due to a failure to adequately investigate the suspected cause is a fallacy of this type. Thus, fallacies like Post Hoc and Confusing Cause and Effect are specific examples of the general Questionable Cause Fallacy.

Causal reasoning can be quite difficult since causation is a rather complex philosophic issue. The complexity of causation is briefly discussed in the context of the specific versions of this fallacy.

The key to avoiding the Questionable Cause fallacy is to take due care in drawing causal conclusions. This requires taking steps to adequately investigate the phenomena in question as well using the proper methods of careful investigation.
Examples of Questionable Cause

1. Joe gets a chain letter that threatens him with dire consequences if he breaks the chain. He laughs at it and throws it in the garbage. On his way to work he slips and breaks his leg. When he gets back from the hospital he sends out 200 copies of the chain letter, hoping to avoid further accidents.

2. When investigating a small pond a group of graduate students found that there was a severe drop in the fish population. Further investigation revealed that the fishes' food supply had also been severely reduced. At first the students believed that the lack of food was killing the fish, but then they realized they had to find what was causing the decline in the food supply. The students suspected acid rain was the cause of both the reduction in the fish population as well as the food supply. However, the local business council insisted that it was just the lack of food that caused the reduction in the fish population. Most of the townspeople agreed with this conclusion since it seemed pretty obvious that a lack of food would cause fish to die.

[ty00123]

This is different from, say, a light-saber, which doesn't exist.

This brings up the whole question of fantasy violence vs. realistic violence in games. (Fantasy violence meaning things like magic wands and light-sabers causing harm, and realistic violence meaning things like guns and swords causing it.)

Do kids actually react in a more negative way when seeing Grand Theft Auto, in a real environment with real people, than in a Star Wars-esque setting, where all but young children know that events/objects aren't real?

[reddarkd]

Most Violent Crimes Involving Teen's And Kids Are Mainly A Subconcious Need For Attention, Or A Lack Of Parental Influences

[devonin]

If you have some evidence to support that claim, I'd be interested to see it. Also, please try to avoid all of those unnecessary capital letters. They make the text more awkward to read.

[lord_carbo]

I think it is sad and a little frightening that you display such a total buy-in to what is going on. To see someone say "It just proves how much the media is fear-mongering because they spend time on a kidnapping while the war is on" shows just how effective the actual thing going on here is.

How you can look at "THE WAR ON TERROR!!!!" and say that -anything- else is fear-mongering in comparison shows how well the media has distracted you from what is actually going on. They've got the country so fightened of everything, that the population at large will support anything (including the illegal and unwarranted invasion of another soverign nation) that looks like it could promise to make you safe.
Or perhaps a climate of awareness, which can reasonably correlate to the reduction in child abductions.

[devonin]

Or perhaps a climate of awareness, which can reasonably correlate to the reduction in child abductions.

Er...feel free to restate that in a way that actually looks like it has the first thing to do with the text of mine you quoted?

The time they spend on kidnapping, and murder, and rape, and all of these other personal and violent crimes especially since the number of many of these crimes is actually dropping seems to me to be clearly designed to a) Improve ratings for their news show and b) Keep the people frightened and off-balance to allow the forwarding of political agendas that they would never be able to get away with if the population felt safe and secure without them.

You can't honestly tell me that there would be nearly as much support from Americans for all of the rampant rights abuses that have become legal, and for all of the military action on other nations if they weren't being constantly bombarded with yellow and orange "terror alerts"

Seriously...there has -never- been a lower than "yellow" terror alert since that system was instituted. There's never been one time where there was only a "General risk of terrorist attack"? Ever? That's ridiculous.

If they are seriously trying to say that "At no time, ever, in years, has there been anything less than a significant risk of impending attack" then that should show them that they are doing something -seriously- wrong.

[slipstrike0159]

What's interesting to note is that in a surprisingly large number of types of crime, crime rates in terms of how many crimes -happen- are actually decreasing, and in some cases are at their lowest in decades, but crime rates in terms of how many crimes -are reported in the news- are skyrocketing.

I remember a stat that around 2002, incidents of child abduction were at their lowest rate they had been since the 1970s, but the rate of child abductions reported in the news was up 600%

We've created a climate of fear that makes us think things are dramatically worse now, when in fact it seems to be that in many cases, things are better, but we hear more about each individual case, creating the illusion that things are worse.

Just to back track a little bit, i think its worth considering that the increase of media output maybe just a side affect of things getting better. I mean really, the news reports on new things that happen that dont normally happen right? Well in this case, it would suggest that it is becoming more uncommon and so its taking its natural course of more publicity until almost every crime gets televised because of lack of commonplace. Addressing all the cases and stepping up measures due to these crimes also helps awareness to continue trying to keep those types of crimes down.
If anything, its a good sign.

Also, the only legitimate arguement that the anti-videogamecrime side can really make is that the increase in video games decensatizes the children today more than it used to. ALL THAT DOES is make them feel more justified when they are ALREADY COMMITING the crime. There is a line someone has to pass to commit a crime (especially a violent crime) and in no way does violent video games push them over the line, all it does is make them feel a little bit better when they are walking over or on the other side of that line.

[devonin]

I mean really, the news reports on new things that happen that dont normally happen right? Well in this case, it would suggest that it is becoming more uncommon and so its taking its natural course of more publicity until almost every crime gets televised because of lack of commonplace. Addressing all the cases and stepping up measures due to these crimes also helps awareness to continue trying to keep those types of crimes down.
If anything, its a good sign.

And yet the result of all of this constant publicity for crime is that for the -majority- they come away with the impression that this is the most dangerous time to live in ever, and that crime is dramatically on the rise.

While I can grant that a climate of fear may make people more cautious and thus contribute to an overall reduction in crime, wouldn't it make -more- sense to say "Crime is on the decline because people are more careful, and more aware, so keep up the precautions because they are working" instead of "OMG CRIME IS HAPPENING EVERYBODY PANIC!!!" Both seem like they would accomplish the same ends, but one seems more than a little more respectful of people.

[Relambrien]

While I can grant that a climate of fear may make people more cautious and thus contribute to an overall reduction in crime, wouldn't it make -more- sense to say "Crime is on the decline because people are more careful, and more aware, so keep up the precautions because they are working" instead of "OMG CRIME IS HAPPENING EVERYBODY PANIC!!!" Both seem like they would accomplish the same ends, but one seems more than a little more respectful of people.

It seems you overestimate people. In my experience, whenever someone says "This situation's getting better, good job," the resulting effect is that people feel more relaxed, like they don't have to keep working towards improving it as much. And then it just ends up getting worse, until once again you hear "The situation's worsening! Do this!"

[devonin]

But surely if you make it clear that the -reason- things are getting better is -because- of the caution and diligence, that it shouldn't be too tough to see how you need to continue doing that.

I guess I may be overestimating people, but it makes me sad that thinking that to be the case is an overestimation.

[Relambrien]

Well, let me attempt to delve into the thought process of the type of person I'm describing.

Situation: "We have this situation that's pretty bad right now. Here's what you can do to help."
Person: "Hmm, if things are this bad, then I should help out. I guess I'll do all this; if it helps, then I'll go for it." The person then goes and does what is recommended.

Later...

Situation: "Thanks to the efforts of the people, the situation's improving. Keep up the good work, everyone."
Person: "Oh good, it isn't as bad anymore. That means I don't have to work as hard, since the situation is better than it was. Now I don't have to worry about making sure I do what I can to help with the situation, since it's not as bad anymore. I'll probably help enough with just my daily activities." The person reverts to their activities before the problem arose.

As a result, the situation worsens once again as not enough is being done to improve it. The less of a problem there is, the less-inclined a person is to do something about the problem, regardless of the reason the problem isn't as bad as it was.

[devonin]

"Thanks to the efforts of the people, the situation is improving. As long as people continue to put forward this effort, the situation will continue to improve. Keep up the good work. Your actions are making a difference."

Seems okay to me.

[Relambrien]

And yet, few will actually follow that directive. Since the situation isn't as bad as it was, there is no longer an "urgent" feeling; helping out seems far less necessary and therefore less people will do so.

[devonin]

But can you not argue that if the situation isn't as bad as it was, that people -ought- to notbe made to continue to put the same effort into it? Everyone will make a decision. They'll see how the situation has changed, and if that is good enough for them, they can revert back to their old behaviors, but I suspect most people will learn -something- from the original effort, so even if they went far overboard when it was a major crisis, some of the precautions will stick with them as sensible, thus making them more cautious in general.

[Relambrien]

But can you not argue that if the situation isn't as bad as it was, that people -ought- to notbe made to continue to put the same effort into it? Everyone will make a decision. They'll see how the situation has changed, and if that is good enough for them, they can revert back to their old behaviors, but I suspect most people will learn -something- from the original effort, so even if they went far overboard when it was a major crisis, some of the precautions will stick with them as sensible, thus making them more cautious in general.

I can understand this. Allow me to further explain my thoughts with math.

Imagine, if you will, two graphs, one labeled "Population cautiousness vs time" and one labeled "Situation severity vs time." Each would follow an oscillating sine curve, with the former graph's crest at the latter graph's trough. As time passes, each curve would oscillate to the sinusoidal axis.

Here's a rough pictographic representation, though my graph-drawing skills are exceedingly limited. It should be enough to get the point across though.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/3110/ctgraphzr9.jpg

The situation levels out over time as people become used to its occurrence and act accordingly, and, as you state, a few continue to be cautious each cycle. Of course, this is assuming little or no outside influence, and other events can drastically affect what I'm discussing, but you get the idea.

[Tokzic]

I find it hilarious how long this topic has been bouncing to the top of CT when there has been barely any word against the OP, and the only discussion has been about related topics that really deserve their own threads.

Admin Edit: Stay on topic.

[devonin]

CT is fun like that. The discussion can evolve and change as the pages go by. That isn't really a huge issue. When there's a big jump in topic all at once, there should usually be a new thread about it. If there's another jump, or this new topic gets really in depth, I'll split off some new threads.

[Relambrien]

I find it hilarious how long this topic has been bouncing to the top of CT when there has been barely any word against the OP, and the only discussion has been about related topics that really deserve their own threads.

You may recognize rule 25: Relation to the original topic decreases with every single post.

That said, I don't really care whether the debate is on-topic, I just like debating. So as long as there's something I'm interested in to debate about, I'm happy.

[Cheesy74]

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/censorship.html

That is all.

However, if you can give me any evidence that actual, physical violence is inspired by violent games, as opposed to thoughts of violence, let me know. Because that Department of Justice graph is making a strong case to the contrary. (I know, coincidence, cause, I'll use the same arguments David Wong did.)

[E-x-Treme]

This is an interesting subject that has been on my mind a lot lately. I really believe the decision is up to the disgression of the parents. If a kid is mature enough to be able to watch people getting bloodied up/shot/grotesquely injured/etc. and realize that their is a difference between seeing it on screen and doing it in real life, they're probably mature enough to play an M-rated game. However, if parents think their kids are young, innocent, and probably not sensible enough to realize the difference, they aren't ready for violent games.

[XCraigeX]

I feel it depends on the maturity level of the child. For example, one such as myself - who i consider most mature for my age (better be o_o) - would not be as idiotic as to think that smashing a woman's head in with a baseball bat would be funny. However, some children may think this.

Not all of them are like that for no reason though. It could be due to a bad childhood experience - e.g. my dad hits my mum so maybe its ok if i hit that woman across the road like in the game.

Or possibily the violent games could have a more meaningful effect on children with slight or severe mental issues. For example - i remember reading an article about a child of 15 or so who could no longer distinguish reality from illusion and thought he himself was in the game known as "San Andreas". He did some horrific things before being taken to a mental clinic where i hope he is getting the help he needs. This goes to show that perhaps the violence in the games could trigger a mental illness which then causes the child to act violently or irrationally.

[devonin]

For example, one such as myself - who i consider most mature for my age The point you seem to miss is that the vast VAST majority of kids between the ages of 10 and 17 think they are very mature for their age, especially when they want something they aren't allowed to have because of their age.

[XCraigeX]

perhaps, but i suggest you re - read my point. It dosen't matter what they intitially think - i was just stating that a mature child would not consider vulgar things such as decapitating someone humane.

[D.J. Cristo]

A) You mean the youth of TODAY.

B) Perhaps, in a few instances, video games have been the cause of a portion of violent behavior in children, but this issue is being blown way out of proportion. What REALLY needs to be taken into account as factors of violence in children are the families they grow up with and the environment which surrounds them. Of course, some people are just plain psychotic too. Video games, however, cannot be used as a scapegoat for ALL violent behavior in children. I'm sick of seeing it being done. Everything that is wrong with a child is not caused by god-damned video games.

[Satan.]

Yes. Video games are poisoning the youth of America. That's why I created them (50 Cent: Bullet Proof, Resident Evil, Teletubbies etc etc). I'm responsible for this. What's going to happen to me?

Mod Edit: You're going to never post in CT again, that's what.

[dood gone krazee]

I'd have to say that video games today are difinetly ruining todays youth. Video games are fine, but only certain ones. Kids ages 8 through 13 should definitly NOT be playing games like Grand Theft Auto, or Medal of Honor. These games have way too much violence, and it's teaching kids too much about it. Same with Gears of War, I've played it a few times, and I KNOW that some 7 year olds even play this game. Now if I were this kid's parent, I would'nt want him playing a game where you can easily blow some guys head off with a gun, see blood and guts and such splatter everywhere, then go up to the dead body on the ground, kick it, and make more guts explode from the corpse!

But then, what if video games like this, weren't even invented? Kids would be out in the streets alot more, probably doing the crimes, instead of just being able to do it on a computer screen.

So at the same time, video games are very bad for todays youth, but also, it has a good side. Keeping the kids from doing the crimes in the real world, and doing it virtually.

[devonin]

It is fallacious to argue that a game explicitly intended for those over 18 is inappropriate for those under 18, and use that as a basis to say that video games are "a bad influence" If you're talking about teens, you shouldn't be looking at anything rated over T for Teen. If you're looking at children, E for Everyone should be the only valid category to judge.

Inappropriately accessed video games are a bad influence on children, sure, but that doesn't make Rated M games bad or wrong or even morally ambiguous, there just needs to be appropriate enforcement of the age restrictions.

I mean, I'd argue that free access to hard liquor is a bad influence on 8 year olds, but since it is legally only for those over (depending on country) 16, 18, 21, if there are 8 year olds getting access to hard liquor, that doesn't speak to booze being -bad- it speaks to insufficient controls on access.

[Sullyman2007]

I see where your comming from, Devonin, but shouldn't you be able to infer what thats doing to a childs mind? When an 11 year old kid sits down at his T.V, switches on his 360 and starts decapitating people with chainsaws, shouldn't that constitute as being, "a bad influence"? I'm not trying to sound biased, but that should be common sense.

Also, I do believe that parents should have more of an insight on what their kids are doing. I think that most kids get away with playing these games because the parents really dont know what their playing. Its a parents responsibility to moniter what his/her child plays, and for that matter, what their child watches on T.V, websites they visit, etc.

[Chrissi]

I am noticing a theme in this thread.

"If the parents raised the children well, the children won't be messed up."

"People are responsible for their own actions. Everyone can make good decisions."

I would like to cite the example of Phineas Gage. Phineas Gage is a guy who lived about 150 years ago. He was a typical hardworking, responsible, kind railroad construction worker who was well-thought of by everyone he knew. He had a high status at work and a good social life.

However, he was involved in a freak accident at work where an iron rod blew through his head, probably destroying most of his prefrontal cortex. He recovered and was perfectly normal, able to go about his life unimpaired except for one thing - he was no longer the same person. He wasn't kind, well-mannered, responsible, and well-loved anymore. He had become an extremely irresponsible, bitter person, who was prone to losing his temper.

He made lots of bad decisions. He couldn't work anymore. He cursed a lot, when he never did before. He was violent, whereas before he was quite docile. It basically destroyed his life, his personality, and his ability to make reasonable, responsible, and rational decisions.

This case is often cited in psychology, and should really be causing many of you to question what causes people to behave in stupid ways. I know lots of people who were raised by bad parents and turned out to be excellent people. Then again, there are those whose parents practically killed themselves over trying to resolve their problem child, and the kid is still terrible.

I'm not saying it's entirely within the brain. I'm saying you can't blame either environment or mental capacity. I think they both work together. Everybody's brain is kind of different from everyone else's, and these variations can sometimes make for an aggressive or a docile person, a responsible or an irresponsible one.

But who's to blame? The person? Think about Phineas Gage. Is he to blame for his actions? He was a great guy who developed a terrible personality out of a freak accident. You might say, no, it's just really sad. Phineas Gage was awesome, and it's none of his fault that that happened.

But then, if a person is born with brain damage similar to what happened to Phineas Gage, can we keep blaming them for their irresponsible/violent behaviour? I guess something has to be done.

I think we need to stop looking for people to blame and start looking for ways to resolve problems.

If we say "Oh it's all the parents' fault, you can't do a thing about it unless you are the kid's parents", well, even if that were true, it makes things simple, but it doesn't resolve a damn thing. If it's all the parents' fault, what can we do to help? Nothing? That isn't useful at all. Why are we blaming the parents when we could find the real root of the problem and attempt to solve it? Similarly, why blame video games? We need to actually find out what makes people tick, instead of blaming everything around us.

Accurate statistcs might help too.

[Dark Ronin]

Are violent video games ruining the youth of tomorrow? i think they are because violence has increased dramatically in the last 20 years

Video games have nothing to do with increased violence, and really violence isn’t increasing. It’s always been here. Slight increases could be due to the increased population across the world. But if you really think about it, where do all the violent video games come from? What about the horrifically violent anime and manga that we don’t even have in America? It’s all coming from Japan. But Japan has the lowest crime rate in the world. It’s true that Microsoft is getting some American games out there, but it’s not like just as soon as they made an Xbox crime rates shot up, and they still get our games in Japan too. I do love how this is a thread on a gaming site though. Of course everyone is going to be pro video games here.

It is true that a group of people went on a killing spree and blamed it on GTA, but people have done the same thing in the name of music, celebrities, TV shows, old killers, etc. If it wasn’t the game it would have been something else. It’s just how humans are made. Their always has been and always will be murderers. I assume by violence this thread is more about anger issues, if that’s the case sports cause much more violent tendencies than do video games. Video games are more likely to cause one to repress violent outbursts than express them. That’s not always a good thing, but it’s true.

I am noticing a theme in this thread.

"If the parents raised the children well, the children won't be messed up."

"People are responsible for their own actions. Everyone can make good decisions."

I would like to cite the example of Phineas Gage.

Phineas Gage was pretty awesome, but I don’t see how what happened to him really applies here. It is true that if one suffered from some sort of mental handicap that there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. They are still to blame for their actions. For example, there was a man my father knew in the military. He lost it one night and just started killing people. Not just enemies but shooting everyone around him. Its true that he wasn’t thinking clearly. He was under a lot of pressure and something inside of him snapped. But he was still responsible for his actions. Its not like just because he had mental issues he was exempt from the law. Phineas Gage lost his ability to filter his thoughts, and make rational decisions. He wasn’t a typical person. Violence definitely has a lot to do with your parents. They supply the genes and usually the environment. If both of those go together just right, you become a psycho killer. Its interesting to think that if you were that person, and you went through everything they did you would end up a killer too. But the truth is we are all different. One person in the situation, might snap and start killing, the other may kill him or her self, another could get away from it and better themselves, or go into shock. There are countess ways to deal with any given situation. Both nature and nurture play into everything we do. But it is impossible to separate the two so we may never know which has the greater impact.

[chunky_cheese]

It seems that kids of today (and FPS developers) are making console games more fictional and more and more having to do with killing zombies/aliens or other fictional creatures, how does this fare in the eyes of "Video games make kids eat their lunch in jail" fiends?

[bluelight888]

I think through the media and a more lenient system of choosing games to play has corrupted Americans. Recently, I was at a Gamestop where a kid who couldn't have been much more than 12 was eyeing Halo 3 and saying,"Can I have that Mommy?"

You see death and you've never seen death before, you think how horrible it is, the blood, the gore, everything. You see death 28,543 times, you think death isn't a horrible thing, blood happens, people shot in the head on television, who gives a sh!t?

Thanks to how loose our system of choosing media is, our society has grown to not caring about death, sex, gangs, guns, bombs, and war. Ask anyone from Iran or Pakistan what death is and I'll bet my life that they know what true death is, true pain. So here's a message to all people who treat corruption as a joke: STOP IT. Stop pretending like you have a grip because you play Halo 3+ hours a day. Cause death is a bitch. It's not a joke.

[devonin]

The game is rated in such a way that the child -cannot- simply "choose" Halo 3 as media. It is up to the parent hearing the request to exercise something approaching due diligence in the raising of their offspring and actually -looking- at the game and its rating before buying it.

If the parent has decided that its okay for their kid, whose fault is it truly if the kid is adversely affected by it?

[bluelight888]

The game is rated in such a way that the child -cannot- simply "choose" Halo 3 as media. It is up to the parent hearing the request to exercise something approaching due diligence in the raising of their offspring and actually -looking- at the game and its rating before buying it.

If the parent has decided that its okay for their kid, whose fault is it truly if the kid is adversely affected by it?

Well I can't really argue with that. But seriously, parents need to be more careful over what they expose to their children. Because what I saw in that Gamespot store was shocking. The mother actually LET that kid who couldn't have been more than 12 buy the game! It was almost his birthday, after all. Oh gee, so I guess that lady has many more birthdays to go.

[DARKSAMUS]

Are violent video games ruining the youth of tomorrow? i think they are because violence has increased dramatically in the last 20 years

You must be a liberal. I wouldn't think so. As long as your a mature person then no. But if a fourth grader is playing halo and all those Tom Clancy games etc. Then it just might. Eventually all they will think about is killing things and blowing things up. I know from experience.

[Coolgamer]

You must be a liberal. I wouldn't think so. As long as your a mature person then no. But if a fourth grader is playing halo and all those Tom Clancy games etc. Then it just might. Eventually all they will think about is killing things and blowing things up. I know from experience.

Umm... excuse me?! Most liberals are in FAVOR of less controls in the gaming industry. (Liberman does not count. He is an independant.)

You and I both can name members of each party that have issues.

That's still no excuse for your broad generalization.

Do not label people politically from their opinions, and don't use the "OH YOU MUST BE A LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE/ATHEIST/BIBLE FREAK" argument here. It won't work.

[knuckles2224]

My little brothers play Grand theft Auto, I don't think them going around stealing any cars or punching random old people in the streets.

[drakethelegend]

I agree with cobalt wire. It's not really video games, ive been playing violent vids all my life, it's all the parents fault, well mostly. Parents are a lot more slack these days and don't spank their kids and they wonder why they end up brats. Ever seen those parents with the pet collar thing on their kid? There's my proof lol. It does have to do with the media like cobalt wire said though, music, games, and especially music, all influence it, but that's below the parent level. If the parents were on top of it, then it would be fine, i think, but most arent', so that level takes over.

[chuckey]

i don't think violence from video games are messing up our youth. I think kids should be smart enough to know that they should not do that in real life. I think it's more the medias fault for changing a kid.

kids see a REAL PERSON shooting people and getting away from the cops without consequences, and they think they can do that too because they saw a real person do it also, not a video game character.

But you never know, kids this generation are stupid spoiled brats with things like "stupid spoiled whore video playset."

[Bangcrashboom]

truthfully, i dont think that its the games itself, its the type of kid before they play the games. The games just make it worse if the kids are already violent...

[devonin]

Okay guys, we're rehashing things for the second and third time now, so I think we're about done.