Violent video games have been a crucial part of the video game industry for over two decades now and show no signs of leaving the market.  Originating in the nineteen nineties with games such as Mortal Kombat and Doom, they quickly took over the gaming market and amassed extreme popularity due to their gruesome nature.  However, it was the same extremely violent gameplay that made them popular that kick-started accusations claiming that these games were extremely bad for children, and were actually making children more violent as a result of playing them.  This resulted in a debate that is still occurring to this day about the effects that the extensive playing of violent video games can have on youth.  Numerous scientific studies have been performed to try and give a definitive answer on whether or not these claims are true, but the conclusions they reached were extremely conflicting.  Some claimed that yes these games resulted in increased violence; while others saw results that stated the games alone could not cause increased violent behavior.  These contradictory results raised even more questions and the one at the forefront of the debates seemed to be “What are the actual behavioral and psychological effects extensive playing of violent video games can have on youth?”  This issue becomes more and more important as video game consoles continually increase the quality of the games they can run.  These increases can also result in a staggeringly greater amount of violence as seen in more recent games.  

Video games, violent or not, have always been treated with trepidation by parents, much to the degree things such as Rock and Roll and Dungeons and Dragons were treated in the nineteen seventies.  They were seen as behaviors that would corrupt their children because of the controversial things that they involved such as drugs, sex and magic.  The introduction of games that were graphically violent brought out a new hatred in parents and activists alike.  Games were allowing their children to cause scenes of violence and the industry said it was for entertainment.  This hatred was only further increased when the game Doom brought this violence into the First-Person Shooter genre. “It is hard to understate the importance and significant(sic) of Doom - it created the 3D FPS (first-person shooter) genre, which, since its inception, has dominated the gaming scene.” (Anthony) The debate on whether or not the games themselves could cause violence was brought into the entire nations view after the Columbine High School Massacre in nineteen ninety-nine.  After this incident, it came out that the two individuals responsible for the massacre had been addicted to violent video games, specifically Doom.  In an interview with Doctor David Moore, a psychology professor at Argosy University, he stated that these first person shooter games have a greater impact on an individual mentally because there is not detachment when you play them.  “You are not simply controlling a character who is doing these things, but rather you are the character.  It was this sort of immersion that caused the emotional detachment that resulted in the shooters’ actions during the Columbine Massacre in which they taunted their injured classmates who were writhing in pain, and then killed them without as much as a second thought” (Moore).  This massacre also spurred a number of scientific studies regarding if it was only the video games that caused this behavior or if it was a combination of many factors.  

One study regarding the issue of violent behavior caused by video games occurred in the past five years.  Researchers conducted this project because of the video game industry’s recent passing of the movie and the music industries in terms of income every year.  They specifically focused on the first-person shooter genre and the increased effects of its immersion factor.  Their study involved using four main variables that were four types of video games.  They used on offline neutral video game, an offline violent video games, an online neutral video game, and an online violent video game.  They exposed players to these games, then had them tested for their behavioral response (Hollindale).  Experiments such as these were the primary way of testing theories about the violence caused by these games, but were often criticized for they could not accurately measure the effects of these games over a person’s entire life.  They could only measure what the behavior changes were just after the games were played.  The small amount of time between playing the games and measuring the person’s behavior led to many people on the opposing side of the argument to discredit the experiments saying that they could not measure it influencing behavior a day or a week after they played.

In the early days of the violent video game craze, most people who opposed the idea that the games themselves caused violence simply believed just that.  The games were not causing youth to become any more violent than they were already prone to become.  While most scientific research did seem to point to their side being incorrect, they believed that the studies were done in such a way that it could not accurately show behavioral changes over a long period of time.  However, in more recent years, the side opposing the claims that games cause increased violent behavior began supporting the idea that the violent video games can, in fact, be beneficial to youth.  They argued that they could help benefit children’s problem solving abilities and even help with their reaction times.  There was even research performed that seemed to back this claim for them.

The idea that the playing of violent video games has benefits that outweigh the slight increase in violent behavior that they may cause is one that is at the forefront of many arguments in recent years.  People on this side of the argument have done research into possible education benefits that one can obtain from using these games.  They have also considered the benefits that children develop simply from playing them over time.  Some recorded benefits have been an increase in problem solving or a quicker reaction speed.  Recently, many studies and changes in school policy have begun to show just how effective these violent games can be at teaching children things and helping them develop.

One of the most debated topics regarding this issue on both sides is the actual pros and cons that playing violent video games has on children.  The side affirming that they cause violent behavior believes that there is no other effect on youth and that they are evil.  The opposing side has a far wider field of view on the topic.  They believe that they can have numerous benefits for children, and very few negative effects.  A recent piece of research published in “Computers of Human Behavior” has shown proof that playing these violent video games causes a feeling of guilt to develop in players that can actually lead them to go out and exhibit prosocial tendencies in the real world.  This could be used as a tool to help those with antisocial disorders overcome the fear of having to go out and make friends (Grizzard).  Apart from helping with antisocial tendencies, these games can play a role in a child’s development that could be critical to their future lives.  The “Harvard School Center for Mental Health and Media” performed a study that showed that many of these violent games place gamers in positions that question their own morals.  Being placed in the positions in which one must make these choices can cause a greater development in a child’s moral compass.  This would help these young players to learn about what is right and wrong based on what they did in the games.  

Many parents consider video games just some sort of past- time that have no benefit to their children’s development, or is even in some cases hindering their development with its violence.  There is a large amount of evidence that actually suggests the exact opposite of this stereotypical view point.  Different tests over recent years have begun to show new data that when these video games, violent or not, are incorporated into an educational environment they can cause a sudden growth in a child’s development as they find the games more interesting and are more likely to work hard.  A study performed by an elementary school teacher involved mixing video games with their lessons every day.  He used different systems such as PC and the Nintendo DS.  And within just a few months he reported his entire class having increased at least one grade reading level proving that the games in fact did help their development.  The games he used to help with the education were not games specifically designed with that purpose in mind, but instead common games such as Super Mario Brothers (Zichermann).  The increase in students’ reading levels over such a short time proved that when used in an educational setting, video games can have a positive impact on a child’s development.

While many scientific studies have shown hard proof of the benefits that can be gained from extended playing of violent video games; there has been surprisingly little real world proof of them causing increased violence and leading to crime.  Multiple times different violent video games such as Manhunt or Grand Theft Auto have been sought out as scapegoats for some sort of crime.  They receive terrible headlines blaming them for a murder or a robbery, only to find out soon after that they in fact had nothing to do with the crime, often times the perpetrator not even having owned the game.  A prime example of this sort of false accusation occurred in two thousand four when the game Manhunt was believed by parents to be what led to their son’s murder.  The game immediately came under fire by the media and was pulled from the shelves of many big-name distributers.  However, in the murder’s actual trial the incident was found to be a drug-related murder and the game was not even used as evidence (Rich).  False accusations like this severely hurt the industries profits and bring unfair and incorrect publicity to their products.

Often when a young man commits some sort of violent crime video games are tied in to be a leading cause behind it as soon as the media learns he has played them.  However, this sort of accusation is highly illogical giving the staggering number of youth males that play violent video games on a regular basis.  Studies have shown that four out of five homes with a male youth own a video game console of some kind, and that the male himself partakes in an average of six hours a week of play time (Procon).  This leaves the idea that the video games being the cause of the violence to be preposterous.  If it was the case, many more youth males would be out committing violent crimes. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court supported this in their ruling in favor of the gaming industry in the case of Brown V. Entertainment Merchants Association.  Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority opinion “Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively.” (“Essential Facts About Games and Violence”).

One of the strongest pieces of evidence regarding the idea that there is no correlation between violent video games and youth crime comes from the sales data of the games themselves.  When this data that shows the number of sales of violent video games compared to the youth crime rates, many people believe a positive correlation between the two would be seen.  However the opposite of that is the truth.  They appear to be in a negative correlation.  As sales of the violent video games rise, youth crime drops.  From the years nineteen sixty-four till two thousand fourteen violent video games sales have skyrocketed over two hundred and four percent in this time.  During this exact same time period violent crimes committed by youth have dropped thirty seven percent (Procon).  These statistics prove that there is not a correlation between games sales and youth crime.  The only possible correlation one could draw from these numbers is that the games themselves are decreasing the amount of violent crimes committed by youth.  

The opposition on this topic has a strong belief in their own side of the case and is not without evidence to back it up.  They claim that these games cannot only cause violence, but also can result in long term behavioral disorders.  The proof they bring about this topic is extremely convincing; they use numerous scientific studies and hard evidence to show what appears to be these violent video games influencing kids to commit violent crimes and change their behavior.  While the evidence they bring on this topic appears to be very strong on the surface; once it is thoroughly analyzed and compared to other sources it is easy to see how it falls apart.  

Numerous scientific studies over the years have come up with hard proof about the violent actions extended playing of violent video games can cause.  While many of the original violent games simply had the player performing these actions on computer controlled enemies they were still showing evidence that they increased violent behavior.  In more recent years, a new type of game has appeared on the market that further pushes the violent actions performed to the real world.  This new type of game is the online shooter, primarily the online first-person shooter which has you gunning down other players online to win the round.  A study performed by Jack Hollingdale at the University of Sussex tested how these new online games could affect behavior when compared to the classic offline games.  By using the General Aggression Model, they compared the changes in behavior for online and offline non-violent games and online and offline violent games.  They gave a psychological evaluation before subjects played the games and one after, then compared the changes in their behavior based on what the games played.  The ones who played the violent ones, be them online or offline, showed an increase in violent behavior.  Even though this evidence put forth seems to be extremely convincing for the side that the video games cause violent behavior, when the experiment is deeply analyzed it is highly flawed.  It shares numerous problems with other experiments of this nature.  Many experiments regarding violent video games are not considered to be of highest priority and therefore result in a lack of funding.  Also many of the experiments they performed only have subjects playing the games for a brief period of time and then they are tested immediately afterword. In reality most gamers play many times a week and understand the line between the game and reality much greater (Stanton).  Another argument made by the opposition is that these games cause longer term disorders such as ADD.  However, this is more likely something caused by the real world rather than then the games.  Children these days are very much used to having to move fast and run around outside with their friends.  This is also reinforced with the games they play requiring a staggering amount of focus and skill to succeed at them (Zichermann).  By being programed to have to move and think quickly, the games themselves are aligning their gameplay to how kids are raised and the real world is what is causing kids to develop ADD by moving too slowly for them.  

The topic of violent video games causing violence has been one of the most argued and fought over subjects since the first games involving gory content were released.  Those who believe that they cause children to become more violent and commit violent crimes use them as scapegoats for crimes in which the games had no influence whatsoever.  The press then gives violent games a horrible name tying then to crimes and subsequently hurting sales and the gaming companies themselves.  Even with the ample amount of proof about the variety of beneficial effects from these games, such as improved reflexes, better problem solving, or even a better moral compass, people continue to demonize these games.     
