The controversy of violent video games has been a topic for debate for the longest time. Within the past twenty years it has been highly debated by researchers, newscasts, politicians, and parents. Some argue that violent video games lead to violent behavior, while others would argue that there is no correlation between the two. One group believes that video games with lots of violence, such as first person shooters, should be banned and that they are a danger to society. Stating if teenagers or children get ahold of these games they will want to reenact the killings that they perform on the monster/pixels in a video game. The other stance is the violent video games do not cause adolescents to want to go out and perform these heinous acts. Feeling most people are smart enough to know the difference between a video game and reality.  That if a parent were to think their child could not handle knowing the difference then it falls onto the parents to make that decision.  Then there is a small group who says yes more violent video games, such as “Call of Duty” or “Gears of War,” causes teens to have an increased level of aggression but that this does not mean teens will go out and murder or rape someone. That a majority of society is playing these games and get a quick rush of energy but not enough to go out and perform these violent acts. The question now is, “Are violent video games the reason for the increase violence levels in teenagers? Simple answer to the main question, no, violent video game do not cause teens to go out and cause violent acts. 

This controversy dates all the way back to the 1970’s with a game called, “Death Race,” where the player controlled a car whose main objective was to run over people who then turned into little tombstones. In 1976 the game was taken off shelves due to the ethical dilemma of whether or not running over pixelated people was okay for the mass public to play. As society advanced, however, so did the graphics of these video games. In 1993 two in particular sparked the dilemma we still face today on video games. The first being Night Trap in which the player hunts down, traps and murders women. The second being Mortal Combat, which was a game where players fight other players in some of the most gruesome and goriest ways.  These two sparked Congress to take action. So, in 1994 they created the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. From then on gaming companies were required to not let anyone under the age of seventeen get a mature rated game. (NCAC) Nowadays these games would include some of the big names such as, “Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, etc.” These video games have become much more advanced and are advancing more and more through each generation. Many argue that this is the root of the problem but society has always been this way. Desensitization is not a new thing just because of video games. Everything in society is and has become more desensitized. 

Some people believe that these ‘mature’ rated games are the basis of why there has been a spike in mass shootings caused by teenagers. The most famous being the Columbine Massacre that happened in 1999. (Kleinman) So, the question becomes, “do we need more restrictions on video games?” Congress and many parents would argue yes that video games are the core of the problem and must be restricted by all means. The other side of the argument is that the game developers should be allowed to create whatever kind of game they want. If Congress was to restrict gaming companies then the game developers would be losing their rights to freedom of expression. (LaBossiere) The other argument that is made by most researchers is that, yes violent video games do cause in some an increased level of aggression in young adults. Phycologist Christopher Barlett, a researcher at Iowa State University, explains that violent games such as “Mortal Combat or Call of Duty” played for 15 minutes does cause an increase in level of aggression compared to non-violent video games. While a study conducted at Brock University in Ontario, found that “longer periods of violent video game playing among high school students predicted a slightly higher number of such incidents over time,” these “incidents” included having school yard fights or arguing among high school students. (Carey) Even with these few incidents of increased violence, more joy, than violence, comes out of video game playing.  It allows people to interact with other online and have something to relate to with other who have video games as a common interest. Other types of media use just as much violence, if not more. Film is a very graphic form of showing violence to the public. 

The most logical solution is not to completely censor or regulate the gaming companies but in a growing technological advanced world some actions need to start taking place. The gaming technology is advancing very quickly and games are starting to look more and more like the real world. It is not “Death Race” anymore, where all you had were pixelated people. The graphics and CGI of the new technology are very real. Whitney Decamp, an associate professor of sociology at Western Michigan University, says “the evidence points to either no relationship between playing video games and violent behavior or an "insignificant" link between the two. (Scutti)” Unlike Decamp I do agree more with researcher Barlett and some of his colleagues that video games are a source of fuel for violent behavior but that it is not the core reason for mass shootings, rape, or other massacres. Dr. Mark Coulson, associate professor of psychology at Middlesex University explains it best, "I fully acknowledge that exposure to repeated violence may have short-term effects - you would be a fool to deny that - but the long-term consequences of crime and actual violent behavior, there is just no evidence linking violent video games with that, (Kleinman).” The fact is one cannot trace this violent behavior to one particular source. There are just too many outside factors to take into account when an adolescent enacts a violent crime. Many times video games are the easiest to blame because they are so interactive, but if this were the case would not more children and teens think it okay to reenact these crimes. It seems that this is a scapegoat to try and attempt to put the blame on one source of media rather than looking at all the aspects of a deranged person’s life. 

Video games, while yes are becoming more violent, cannot get the full blame for these crimes, but they are not completely in the right either. In game called “Grand Theft Auto V,” one of the main characters you play as in the game is required to hunt down and torture an innocent Azerbaijani man. While in the game this is a rather bothersome thing to watch and have to play through, it is also available to skip through, coming from someone who has played both sides of the game. While I myself had a problem sitting though it in the game, John Morris, a writer for the Guardian, made it clear why it is not the worst thing that people have watched or witnessed in our society. He explains how in Kathryn Bigelow five-time Oscar nominated movie Zero Dark Thirty, revolves around Osama Bin Laden's assassination and the torture used in the quest to find him. He says, “The opening scene, one of several torture sequences, shows waterboarding, which is unsettling. We see the detainee coughing, spluttering and struggling as the Americans continue pouring water into his rag covered mouth. (Morris)” With that in mind, how is it different watching a film do something and it being awarded for its reality and then having a different standard for a video game? We cannot hold a different standard for different media. Now the solution to some of these problems could come from the parents and what they can do to help prevent this. The ‘mature’ rating of video games is on the box and like an R rated movie has the reasons why it is inappropriate for children/teenage viewing. Companies such as Gamesop, Best Buy, and even Walmart require people of 17 and older to show there ID when purchasing a ‘mature’ rated game. It falls down to the parents to decide what they think is appropriate for their children to purchase. Morris puts it in perspective by saying, “You don't become a prostitute-killing criminal through playing Grand Theft Auto any more than you become a plumber with a vendetta against turtles by playing Mario. (Morris)”  In Herald’s article he uses examples of how video games portray fighting, boxing, etc. are not as violent in a video games as it is in real life. That in a video games it is still just pixels on a screen, but television shows men getting beat to the floor while the crowd cheers. He specifically argues that video games that have fighting in them are not nearly as violent to watch as an actual boxing match one would see on television. (Herald) Both Morris and Herald have a strong argument about these other sources of media, that both television and film are held at a higher level mentally than video games. That it is okay to have a rating system for movies or have a lock on what channels someone’s child can watch, but the ESRB rating system for video games is not good enough. Parents control all that their children find in the media. They choose to lock television channels or choose not to drive their child to an R-rated film, but they are not logical enough not to research a M (mature) rated game before they buy it for their child.  

As a society we have to decide on what is important to us. On one hand there is the happiness many people get from playing video games, especially the more realistic games. In the United States alone we have thousands of people who go out to conventions just to hear about the release of a new game. In 2015 Pax Prime, the largest video game convention, made Seattle $35.24 million dollars. (Crowe) So, video games do mean a lot to people. Grand Theft Auto having an open world experience to where players can choose what they want to do gives people joy in flying a helicopter or owning a nice car they can never afford. In games like Red Dead Redemption players can become a cowboy in the old west, stopping train robbers, having a shootout, or riding their horse out on the open range. In Mass Effect, players get to control starships and go off to distant planets with aliens; the game allows to not only become an astronaut but a space ranger. These games allow not only adolescents to enjoy the sense of imagining they are someone else, but it gives everyone a chance to go back to their childhood. Instead of dressing up and going outside to play, video games allow on a larger scale to look and feel like being someone else. It gives people a feeling of fulfillment. It gives people of since of enjoyment and childhood wonder becomes reality. Happiness is one of the core values that we as a society have, thus if we were to censor video games for the few people who take it to the extreme are we keeping the balance of happiness equal? 

Consequentialism theory, is the idea of what makes a consequence good or bad. Utilitarianism is a branch of this idea, it explains that morally relevant consequences to our actions can create or destroy happiness. Happiness is one of the basic ways humans can figure out what is good and what is bad. In the case of video games it is no different. If we censor video games for the public it would be a huge decrease in human happiness. For some video games is an outlet for relaxation while others use it to communicate as a group. Games like Halo or Call of Duty are often played in groups, with players wearing head-sets to communicate to each other and work as a team. It can also help in the medical field for operations. A Dutch surgeon has developed a game designed to train doctors in the specialized technique of keyhole surgery, which he learned from playing first person shooters whose use of 3 dimension helped him become a better surgeon. (BBC)  One can argue that by censoring or even taking video games off the market can have a huge backlash to the creation of happiness. In most societies with a large video game industry, many have the idea of freedom written in their respected constitutions. The theory of deontology explains that there is a set of moral rules that everyone should follow. Kant, the father of deontology, expressed how one must act according to what moral principle they could wish upon themselves or, in a society since, create a law that everyone is able to follow. So, in the United States in particular the society lives on the rule of freedom to everyone in the country. By censoring or taking away certain video games the government would be breaking its own moral rule that one’s freedom should be taken into account. Morris explained in his article that, “the concern is that imposing restrictions based on the content of video games would be a form a state censorship and thus an imposition on the legitimate rights of game makers and their customers.” Through Kant’s theory, if the video games had to be censored it would be taking away not only the rights of game makers but the rights of some customers as well. (Morris) 

In conclusion, video games are not the route of the problem with mass shootings and other massacres that have been popping up within the last few years. Many of these can be avoided with a little more supervision on the parent’s part. Just like a parent knows whether their child should watch an R rated film, they should be able to know not to let their child play a mature rated video game. Video games provide a pleasant and helpful social experience for many people, not only the United States, but globally. Video games help connect people and place them into an alternate reality. Adolescents have been doing this for years, either pretending to be a cowboy, an astronaut, or a superhero, just now in this day in age they can do all this through the medium of video games. Video games do not cause adolescents to have increased aggression levels, but it allows them to go to a world they never could have gone to in reality. 
