
        In the present world, video games are vastly outpacing movies and other forms of media as the number one source of entertainment. Since the Video Game industry was born in the 1970’s, the industry has grown into a multi-billion dollar industry, with single games bringing in multi-millions in sales. Sadly the added size and revenue in the industry hasn't come without issues. As the industry grew overtime, the industry ran into more and more issues it had to face. The magnitude of the market has caused many smaller developers to die off, and pressure from publishers has caused many developer studios to create games that lack innovation. However no other market issues has caused as much of a headache for the gaming industry as violent video games.  

From the day that violent video games became a popular past time, they have long been blamed and questioned for violence in those who play them, specifically the youth. However current research shares a different story than previously thought. Violent video games negative effects have been found by multiple recent studies to be vastly overstated, with many of the positives of video games being overlooked. In short, many new studies suggest violent video games have been found to have only a slight effect on a humans short term aggression, with no long term effects. These new studies conflict with some of the old research, which pointed towards the notion that violent video games can cause long term change. Joining with this, violent video games (and video games in general) have been found in some cases to have positive effects, with kids suffering from ADD benefiting from relaxation. However even with this new information, many different opinions are still held within our public and respective scientific fields(Nauert).

 Today, there are three different main schools of thought on the effects of violent video games on human beings. The first one is that they do not cause any negative effects at all, and actually cause a few positive effects (Nauert). The second one is that violent videogames cause short and long term aggression and violent thoughts(Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents : Theory, Research, and Public Policy). The third one is that violent video games cause short term rises in aggression, but no such rises in the long term (American Psychological Association). Within these school of thoughts, the general meaning of short term aggression and long term aggression is the same. Examples of short term aggression range anywhere from feeling pumped up after playing, to a rise in aggressive thoughts, while long term aggression is seen more as prolonged aggressive behavior. The reason that there are still three viewpoints today is due to the lack of information. A lot of people are still confused on the subject because research has been extremely slow in the video game field. While the reason behind the slowness of research development in this field is highly debatable, most people agree that the complexity of video games and how we receive them. Strangely enough, the research pertaining this topic is so contradicting because the studies the sides use to support their claims are from two different times. While most recent studies pointing towards the idea videogames are not any more harmful than an emotional book, most of case studies from the late 90’s to early 2000’s say the exact opposite. Just like research on the effects of cigarettes was confusing in the 1950’s, with some doctors recommending them and some shunning them, violent video games too has a significant issue with conflicting research. However, I plan to show you why the current research today is a more accurate painting of violent video games as a whole, and why the older research is inherently flawed.

Violent games are not the crime causing medium they were once thought to be. Beginning in the late 80’s continuing to the early 2000’s, researchers and the public painted a negative light onto violent video games, and how they affected those who played them. Researchers used case studies, school shootings, and claims of rising crime to denounce video games, with little remorse. People simply thought they were awful, unless of course they played them. This all changed in the early 2000s, when violent games left the taboo scene they had been in since creation, and entered the mainstream market. Games such as Halo, DOOM, and Grand Theft Auto took off massively, selling like hot cakes. According to vgchartz.com, Halo 2 (released in 2004) sold 8.49 million units worldwide. Vgchartz.com also has Grand Theft Auto III (released in 2001) with a worldwide total of 13.10 million units sold. DOOM(released in 1994) sold 3.61 million units. Before such games came out, violent game sales were pretty much abysmal. With the video game industry being smaller and being seen more as something only kids played, violent games were not given the level of advertisement and funding that regular games received. This kept violent games from gaining popularity, thus violent games only became super popular once video games themselves began to be seen as something that wasn’t just for kids.

According to case studies done in the 1990’s and early 2000’s, such as Iowa State Professor Craig Anderson's in 2007, violent video games make a person violent not only in the short run, but in the long run as well (Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy). If this was true, one would think a massive influx of people playing these games, with many of these people playing for hours on end, would cause a major shift in crime. Anderson’s research and others however is massively wrong. Crime has been on a steep dive for the past 40 years according to the FBI, with the Bureau going as far as statistically showing that crime rate in the year 2015 is a fourth of the crime rate in 1993, which was exactly a year before the violent shooter DOOM came out. If violent games were found by Anderson and others to cause people to be violent, why has society not seen a major influx in crime? Why didn't the year 1994 explode with violence after 3.61 million people bought the violent, gore filled game DOOM? Society haven't seen this influx because not only do violent games lack statistical and factual correlation to crime, but also because violent games do not have the long-term effect on people that researchers such as Anderson in 2007, and writers such as TIME’s magazine’s Alice Park’s state they do (Parks). The problem is, many people still believe these outdated studies, because articles such as Alice Park’s on the TIMES detail these case studies, instead of the new information available. A prime example of other common news articles besides Alice Park’s pushing this outdated information is Eric Dolans article on Psypost.  In quote, “The media often over-simplify these types of studies to suggest that the researchers are claiming violent games make people do violent things. That’s not what we are saying. We’re saying that over time, we get better at what we practice, and if we practice aggressive responding to provocations in games, that can lead to more willingness to react unkindly or aggressively when provoked in the real world” (Dolan). This is a major problem, that shows that the media today may in itself be biased towards the gaming industry. While the reason behind such biased reports is hard to pin, older media has always had a tendency to be afraid of new media. Since video games are technically a form of media and entertainment, this tendency would explain the biased approach the news has taken on the gaming industry.

Thankfully though, the facts are still written on the walls by the new wave of research. While a few studies today still point towards the notion that violent video games can cause users to develop long term aggression, the overwhelming majority of new research points towards the notion that only short term aggression is a risk associated with violent games.  In 2015, the American Psychological Association conducted research on the issue. The Association in short studied research that researchers across the U.S.A conducted on the topic, came to a conclusion, and released a statement regarding the topic. The Association found that violent video games caused short term aggression (not violence), and repeatedly denounced the notion that such aggression carried into the long term, stating that research that such studies produced promoting this ideal, were in no way conclusive, nor accurate. The Association made clear that the field surrounding the study of violent games was just too young to be able to make out such correlation, and that further research needed to be done. With that said, the Association's opinion aligns with the opinion most current day researchers hold today, which is that video games do cause short term aggression (American Psychological Association). While this may sound bad, no one explains it better than John Green. In 2014, John Green produced a YouTube video which spoke of the biased that many researchers displayed in their studies on video games, and on the short-term aggression violent videogames cause. He states that while violent video games do cause a short-term rise in aggression, most forms of media and entertainment cause a rise in emotion. A sad story or book is going to cause a person sadness, a violent movie is going to amp you up, make you feel aggressive after, and that's just how media works (Video Games Dont Cause Violent Behavior). While being sad is obviously completely different than feeling aggressive, short term emotions all amount to the same thing. No one is negatively affected but the person who is experiencing the emotion. When a book makes someone sad or a violent game makes an individual aggressive in thought and banter, no one is harmed. See the difference between short term and long term is that short term effects go away. Long term effects are life changing, while short term effects just change your mood. If short term emotions caused humans to lash out and hurt others, then all forms of media would inherently be destructive. Thankfully, short term emotions do not cause destructive behavior, which is why the fact that violent games causing short term aggression really isn’t a huge deal. While it isn't necessarily a good thing violent video games make you feel more aggressive after playing them, such behavior will not negatively affect society. The issue is blown out of proportion, and while violent games make you aggressive afterwards, they don't cause you to be violent (Video Games Dont Cause Violent Behavior).

However even though most current day evidence points to the notion that violent video games are more harmless than you think, it is always important to look at everything from as many angles as possible. The second angle we are going to look at is the belief in which violent video games cause no harmful effects at all, and actually benefit those who play. While this viewpoint is largely the least popular and least supported one of the three, it still has some key points that need to be shared. This viewpoint is both correct, and wrong. The viewpoint itself is correct in the fact violent games do benefit some people scientifically, but wrong in the nature that violent games have no negative effects. In the few studies that does support this viewpoint, such benefits have only been seen in those with Attention Deficit Disorder. While this disorder is fairly common among the general population, it is far from being the norm. Majority of people do not have A.D.D, thus most of those who play violent games are not going to be reaping the benefits. However, a few studies have shown that violent video games serve as a tool of relaxation for those with A.D.D, negating the often-aggressive feeling most get for a short time after playing. While this is an awesome benefit, majority of the population simply cannot get behind this viewpoint due to its inherent flaw of assuming everyone has A.D.D. No such benefits have been found beyond those with the disorder, and with the large amount of evidence that proves violent games make you aggressive for a short time after playing, this viewpoint is just not credible. It's likely violent video games do have more benefits than currently known, but at the current state of research on this topic, none are known beyond people with A.D.D (Nauert).

Now that two out of the three mainstream viewpoints on the subject have been discussed, it is time now to view, describe, and critique the viewpoint that's been around the longest. As stated in the beginning, this viewpoint takes a stance that violent videogames cause 

aggression in the short term and long term, causing people to be violent. This viewpoint largely bases its standpoint on the issue off of Iowa State Professor and Scientist Craig Anderson's work in 2007. Outside of this, the viewpoint places little focus or backing on any other case studies. Craig Andersons work in 2007 refers to the book he published in that year, which detailed his own personal case studies he conducted that claimed that violent games make us violent. While at one point this viewpoint was the most popular of the three as it was the first to be established, due to the recent studies that have been released, this viewpoint has lost a lot of ground (Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy).

Since Craig Anderson’s work is the main supporting “evidence” of the movement, he is often viewed as the face of standpoint. Personally, Craig Anderson is a professor and a scientist who’s known almost solely due to this issue. Unfortunately, Craig Anderson's book and the case studies within it have been repeatedly attacked, due to the fact his studies were funded by the National Institute on Media and the Family(NIMF) a group who is massively against the existence of violent video games. The fact his studies were funded by the NIMF is public knowledge, and can be found by simply reading his book. With this, Craig Anderson's studies have been rejected by the U.S Supreme court, who stated his studies “have been rejected by every court to consider them" (Brown, Governor of California, Et Al. v. Entertainment Merchants Association Et Al.). While Craig Anderson's work is detailed and supported by a handful of other scientist’s, due to the reasons stated above the movement and viewpoints surrounding his work have lost the majority of its public support (Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents : Theory, Research, and Public Policy).

        With all viewpoints explained, it is easy to see that the last two viewpoints lack the substantial evidence needed to successfully perpetuate a well thought out argument. While the viewpoint that violent games are beneficial and in no way negative has some truth to it, it's relatively easy to see that currently their is not enough research to support the idea that violent video games have no negatives, and all positives. Pertaining to the viewpoint that video games cause short and long term aggression which leads to violent behavior, it's simply an outdated model of thought on this issue. Though at one point no research existed on the issue to prove the movement wrong, such research exists today, making this model of thought factually and statistically wrong. While this viewpoint has always been correct in the fact it supports the notion that violent games make you aggressive, its idea of long term aggression leading to violence is no longer correct. It’s also high biased arguments hurts the credibility of the viewpoint, and in a time where citizens around the globe actively try to find such flaws, this movement simply cannot gain the support and credibility it once had.

That leaves only one viewpoint left, which is that violent games cause a short term rise in aggression. Hands down, this is the middle ground stance of the three viewpoints, as it accepts the fact that violent games cause you to be aggressive for a short amount of time, but doesn't go as far as to say they are beneficial to all. Being this way has allowed the viewpoint to not only grow among the population, but also among the gaming community itself, with gamers such as John Green (who has a huge audience) admitting this fact.

        Simply put, it's no lie violent games are not perfect. They cause those who play them to be more aggressive than usual after playing them, and a great number of people believe them to be a contributor to crime. However, violent games are in no way the violent mind altering media platform that Craig Anderson, the main stream media, and others want you to think they are. Since their rise to fame, crime has gone drastically down, and  the U.S Supreme court has rejected the idea they cause us to be violent (Brown, Governor of California, Et Al. v. Entertainment Merchants Association Et Al.). Combined with this, the current research all points to the same cloud, stating violent games do not make us violent. With all that said, I came to the conclusion that violent video games cause humans to have short term aggression. Violent games get us amped up, there's no doubt about it. Riding in a tank in Battlefield 1, and dropping an airstrike onto enemy lines in Call of Duty is exhilarating. There is something about video games that no other form of media has, and that's a huge benefit to video games. However, this hidden “it factor” comes with its flaws, and this is why violent video games are a new breed of media. However, science never fails us, and the current researchers are proving today that violent games don't make us violent, just like a sad book doesn't make us suffer from depression. The moral of the story is, play violent video games all you want, speak of violent games all you want, but be informed. Violent media does not make a person violent, a violent heart makes a violent person.

