Unit 6 , Assignment 3

Improvements highlighted.

The use of violence in video games is becoming increasingly popular and the thing that's worrying about it - is how the violence can influence people, causing them to become violent themselves.

An example of this is Anders Breivik. He killed teenagers in a camp in Norway dressed as a police man and said that playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and World of Warcraft for over a year, "trained" him to use a gun (X).
Since then and even before this incident, there have been complaints about the game being too graphic about the fact that it's possible for gamers to "learn" how to physically use a gun by playing the game and it's worrying that anyone can do so.

Another example is when 17 year old Warren Leblanc stabbed a 14 year old in February of 2004 (X). He armed himself with a claw hammer and attacked him in the woods. The attack is similar to the structure in a video game, now banned in some countries including New Zealand called Manhunt. In court the father of the victim said "there is some connection between the game and what he has done."
Complaints of this game include people saying there need to be some boundaries when it comes to material like this, and that it isn't something they see as harmless fun - but encouraging brutal killing of people.

These articles in a way do prove that the effects model is more of a fact than an idea because those in the stories have allowed the game to have an affect on them. Whether they played it to pass time because they were bored or because they were obsessed with the game, they still let it influence them and made them behave in a negative way.
All of the stories were linked in someway to a violent video game and I don't think it's a coincidence that they all were violent after playing a violent video game for a certain amount of time, so I do think that the effects model can be considered as a fact.

I think those in the articles reacted in a violent way because they became so obsessed with playing the game and the story lines that they wanted to make it reality. I also blame whoever sold the game as in the case of Warren Leblanc, he was 17 but played a game that was a PEGI 18 so he shouldn't really have been allowed to play it. His parents are partically to blame in my opinion because the would have known the stuff he was playing or even if they bought it for it - he wasn't old enough to play it.

With games that include extensive violence you need to be a mature kind of person because they do contain explicit content and I don't think that these in the stories are because they went out and copied the behaviour in the games.  

A lot of people have an opposition to the extent of violence used in video games, some being;

• http://www.parentsagainstviolence.org/

Written by parents, they make it clear that they want to protect their children from seeing the kind of scenes that feature in modern day video games. They feel like they can have a big influence on gamers - especially if they're young and can put dangerous ideas into their heads. They are more against first shooter mode games where you are the one killing people -
"Interactive first-person shooter and assault games raise the greatest alarm.  The stream of mass attacks and commando tactics have become too familiar in real life to be dismissed."

Another is by •http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2013/01/17/video-games-ethan-gilsdorf

This website tells us how we have become desensitised to violence in video games. They claim it's so common that we either don't take much notice of how gory something can be or we laugh at it.
They say that parents and the media have made game violence scapegoats for the motive of some murders - including the Sandy Hook massacre - "Parents and media have jumped on video game violence as a possible scapegoat."
The website raises a point that maybe video games are a way for people to let out their aggression in a way that isn't harmful to themselves or others, but is contradictive as this can fuel some people into putting violence they see in Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty etc, into practice.

On the other side of people slamming video games for having negative impacts - good can actually come from them. Some are created purely for education purposes and have positive outcomes, for example games like Big Brain Academy and Mine Craft have been credited for making us have to apply thought and strategy to advance in the same. Also games like Zumba Fitness and Just Dance encourage us to get up and be active and have fun with it.
The Nintendo Wii has been very popular and successful in making games have positive affects on people. It's created a new world of virtual sports and a way for children and teens to play games that don't involve the mass murder of people and it allows them to play against each other and against people all over the world.

I think audiences will have reacted well to the video games that have positive affects because it's a change from the normal shooting people left right and centre and blowing places up. It would have made parents feel more reassured that they can leave their children to play video games as there are some that will teach them something and they aren't making their behaviour deteriorate like some violent video game can. 
Parents naturally want to protect their children, especially when they're younger so giving them games like Big Brain Academy will educate and can inform them. They're also having fun playing it so it's also for entertainment purposes so they're still getting all the gratifications out of it. 

I'd say I have an oppositional and preferred reading when it comes to video games. In my opinion, I don't think that video games make people violent. Those that have been linked to violent attacks because of video games are part of a minority and we find stories like that so shocking because we don't hear of them very often, so it's very rare.
Just like this story where an 8 year old boy killed his grandma after playing Grand Theft Auto, I think this was more a fault of whoever was looking after him as they let him play the game that has an age certificate of 18.
A report by IGN says that games don't cause harm to children, "A decade-long study of over 11,000 children in the UK has found no association between playing video games from as young as five, and mood or behavioural problems in later life."
I think that you have to be a very vulnerable to let animated violence have an affect on you or you have to be mentally insane.
But on the other hand I do think that some games are quite twisted and I'm not sure on the creators' logic. There's a line between harmless fun and a bit of violence to make it interesting and being brutal with the mass killing of people. An example of this is in Call of Duty, Modern Warfare 2 in the level where you're in the point of view of a gun man in an airport. I thought it was quite disturbing how they included the screams of children throughout it yet they carried on shooting.

I think the effects model does have a small relevance to video games and there is proof of it. The idea of a media product having a "see it, do it" affect and that it influences how we behave is true - from the stories of people killing/injuring others by being "inspired" by the violent content in video games happens but really shouldn't.
It's sad that the effects model relates to society as well, I think audiences should be more active when watching something. Like in the uses and gratifications theory it says that an audience watches something to get a gratification out of it, whether that be for education or entertainment. Either way you're actively choosing to watch something and have a reason for wanting to watch it rather than watching it for the sake of it. I agree with the uses and gratifications model because I don't know anyone who would watch something for no reason, you would watch it to get something out of it - for example to be entertained. I think that audiences do actively choose to watch a programme or play a game which is why I agree with it. 

But audiences can be passive, where they just sit and watch something and let it have an influence on them. Although they may not realise it, watching something and hearing other peoples' opinions can often change your own, the idea of being passive relates to being a "couch potato" where you just sit there and pretty much just let the media change your perspective on something.

Video games can make people violent, and there's proof from news reports. There aren't many people though and I don't think it's good at all that in the past decade there are more and more stories about people being violent from playing video games. 
However I don't think they should be banned, it's not as simple as that and it will only create more of a demand for them and people will start to sell them illegally. In my opinion I think there should be more restrictions on who can buy violent video games - for example proof of ID when buying 18 rated games so that under age people can't play them. Also even if parents had a closer eye on what their children play as most of those in the articles were underage the games age restriction and those cases could possibly have been prevented had someone known how serious they were about playing them.