The Truth About Violent Youth and Video Games

I couldn't help but notice that one graph is titled "nonfatal firearm related crimes". Is it possible that these games have made perpetrators more acurate? Also, the chart titled "homocide offending by age" seems to tell a different story than the article's author. The sharp increase from 1985 to 1993 coincides with the start of the tv game industry. Counterpoint that with the period of declining homocides by age from 1994 to the present, and Duke Ferris's article covering only that period, and I suddenly start to wonder if the author is trying to scew the statistics in his favor.

As always, any article based on statistics MUST be examined closely. Simply agreeing with an article just because it favors one's viewpoint can cause loss of one's credibility

BTW, I have never subscribed to the idea of violent games (or TV programs or movies) creating violent youth.

1985 to 1993 was the "golden age" of gaming. I think in terms of "killing simulators" we had Wolf 3D at that point. Doom wasn't even out until the end of that year. Up to then, games were 2d, and hardly realistic enough to blur the lines of reality even for the most mentally unstable.

If on the off-chance games do tie to violence, they weren't advanced enough until the past 6 or 7 years to be "real" enough to cause a problem. I don't think Pac Man or Space Invaders really could inspire violence or confuse someone over what is and isn't real. Sure you had light guns in arcades, but those are about as close to reality as duck hunt is to hunting actual ducks.

I think he may have been framing the argument as looking at games in the Post-Doom era. Doom afterall is what started this feeding frenzy. Games prior to that were never considered as targets by media and lawmakers.

kids were shooting each other with bebe guns playing cowboys and indians long before video games.to me it seems mostly the parents fault in some situations. on ALL games it says whats on it and what their kids are gonna be looking at. Its the same as parents renting a movie and watching it with some little kids then getting shocked when theres a makeout scene or something when it says "adult situtations" on the box. as for the grand theft auto thing, it isnt even an easter egg. its a mod that you have to mess with the game to get and someone happened to put it on the internet to download. sony and other gaming companies have no control over how the buyers modify the game or that kids parents let them get on the internet and get that kind of thing. If a kid is violent there are signs to tell. torturing small bugs and animals. yelling. quick temper. Thats got nothing to do with video games. some kids are just evil/spoiled and the parents need something to blame it on. and boys are always gonna be aggresive. its wired into there brians.

Actually Rockstar has admitted that the content was in the game the whole time and the "mod" is just turning off a flag that hides it. That's why this is really tanking Take-Two right now. If it were a mod, this wouldn't be nearly as bad for the company.

We need a game to sim killing lawyers. Especially the ones that start all these it's not my clients fault law suits. I would gladly let my children play. Then after 10 years we can see how many lawyers have actually been killed, because we have been influenced by this violent game. If we are lucky they will all be gone. Wishful thinking I know. Good idea for a game though.

.JG.

We need a game to sim killing lawyers. Especially the ones that start all these it's not my clients fault law suits. I would gladly let my children play. Then after 10 years we can see how many lawyers have actually been killed, because we have been influenced by this violent game. If we are lucky they will all be gone. Wishful thinking I know. Good idea for a game though. .JG.

Its pretty win-win, if they are right theres noone to sue you, if they are wrong they are gone anyways

to me it seems mostly the parents fault

While your statement is quite controversial, I do believe there is a certain amount of truth to it. Young children learn what is acceptable and not acceptable from thier parents' examples. One oft given example of this is that more children of smokers smoke, more children of non-smokers don't smoke. Certainly this is a very visible example, but the principle continues into the more abstract areas of acceptable human behavior.

However, it is also true that when parents refuse to let their young children play violent games or watch violent movies and state that they object because even they (the parents) find them too violent even for adults, then this has a much more direct affect on the attitudes of their children. A rejection of a game, movie, or TV show based on adult vs youth appropriateness tends to do just the opposite. After all, the most important thing to a child is to be an adult, just like his/her parents.

We also have to remember that "one size does NOT fit all", and we, as parents (or future parents) have to recognize this and adapt in child rearing as the need becomes apparent. (I have yet to see an "child expert's" advice that applied to all children.)

How could Florence Cohen, the litigant in the suit against Take Two, have thought GTA: San Andreas suitable even WITHOUT the unlocked content?

Here is a quote from the CNN coverage of the story:

"Cohen said in the suit that she bought the game in late 2004 for her grandson when it was rated "M" for mature, for players 17 and older." (Bold added by me.)

Her grandson was 14 at the time. So she bought a game intended and labeled for 17 and older for a 14 year old and found that it contained inappropriate material. And this isn't a frivolous suit?

On the other hand, the more serious issue for this one case may be that Take Two did fully disclose the games content to the ESRB rating board. If we are to have ratings as the industry itself agrees, those ratings need to be accurate.

As a parent why trust a ratings board? It is pretty easy to figure out the games you want and don't want your children to play. I prefer to play the games with or watch my kids play the games and have dialogue about what is appropriate behavior and what is not. So even when something violent or sexual in nature happens I can put my 2 cents into my childs prospective. If you are trusting a bunch of idiots in an ivory tower to tell you what your kids can or cannot play, that is a problem all onto itself. If you want it done right do it yourself, especially for your kids.

While the ratings can certainly help parents select the games they still need to be watched as you stated Judo Jimmy. The problem I have seen (when I was with the retail side of games) was that most parent simply don't care. They will buy them whatever game they want either because they are spoiled or because the parent in question thinks its "just a game how bad can it be?" Then again parents still do that for movies...

I prefer to play the games with or watch my kids play the games and have dialogue about what is appropriate behavior and what is not.

JJ, you are doing it the only effective way. More parents should be like you.

The sharp increase from 1985 to 1993 coincides with the start of the tv game industry. Counterpoint that with the period of declining homocides by age from 1994 to the present.

There are other interesting coincidences to consider. For instance, in 1973 Norma McCorvey, later renamed Jane Roe, won a controversial Wade vs Roe Supreme Court ruling that made it legal for women to get an abortion. And approximately twenty years later, the violent crime rate reports start dropping. It makes the news, and everyone jumps up and down, saying it was their good work that made the difference, vote for them, etc.

It could be that unwanted births have a higher percentage of turning into violent criminal offspring. Not on purpose of course, but it does seem to support the hypothesis that homeless youth without a family and future are much less likely to become successful, productive members of society, and more prone to hatred and retaliation for their pleight.

It could be

There are a lot of "could be"s in this discussion, and we need lots of people to point out as many "could be"s as can be found. But we also must all remember that it is all "could be", every bit of it, from the article that inspired the original post of this thread through all of the future discussion in this thread. I doubt very much that Duke Ferris did a scientific analysis of the data he had available, or at least, if he, or his sources, did so, that it was sufficiently inclusive enough to include examination of the many very good points raised in this thread. (He says as he cringes at the thought of the agendas he has seen so often when an author limits an analysis to the view point the author is trying to justify.)

Yeppers, this is hypothetical meanderings along the same lines as black holes, gravity waves, and other unmeasured stuff, supported by the weakest of all data: anecdotal evidence. Definitely not scientific research!

So in that vein, something I found from playing Grand Theft Auto -- The amount of violent criminal behavior that I was performing in the game eventually made me ill! (yeah so i'm a wuss. whatever.) I didn't want to go back to another several hours of yanking people out of their cars, killing unfaithful wives, chainsaw massacres, etc. Point is that I'm not sure that these games can influence individuals. They might be capable of swaying advertized public opinion (the mob brain).

My guess is that it is more a co-incidental, correlated, and visible symptom of the current state of society. What if we suddenly made all video-games rated G--Would that make the youth less troubled? Or would it be just one more law against them, one more denied freedom, one more reason to hate the system?

Personaly, i am a 17 year old gamer...i have been buying M rated games for the last 3-4 yearswith out ANYONE checking my ID to see if i was 17 or older...the ESRB board is a joke and eveyone knows it they should just top with the whole thing becuase it really doesnt help...

If your 12 year old kid comes running up to you with a copy of Doom 3 or Grand Theft Auto...if your not smart enough to LOOK AT THE BOX...you deserve what you get...

my 2 cents lol

If your 12 year old kid comes running up to you with a copy of Doom 3 or Grand Theft Auto...if your not smart enough to LOOK AT THE BOX...you deserve what you get...

Take one look at the Doom3 cover art. The parent that doesnt bat an eye lid at that snarling thing on the cover needs to ask themselves some serious questions anyway. If they blink at the front, they should turn it over and look at the back. Where there is a mean looking guy with a shotgun, 2 creepy blank staring zombies, a thing with a chainsaw and another marine firing a machine gun. And the graphics arent exactly in a cartoon style. And the finishing touch, here in britain the top rating (age 18+) uses the same badge as video/dvd/cinema releases. The red 18 badge is featured clearly on the box in four places. Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines is another 18 certificate game and has the same universal 18 badge which is clearly displayed front and back. The images on that packaging includes an ugly vampire beasty wearing some interesting leather, a busty cow girl who obviously doesn't believe in underwear and a shot of 3 people being burned alive with a flamethrower.

Yet so many people never seem to question these games when they buy them. In my opinion no 12 year old has any business playing either game I have mentioned there, Doom3 is a gorefest with shock tactics where there are lots of dark places with things to leap out at you. It contains alot of blood and guts, and tbh I can't play it for extended periods as it plays havoc with my nerves. I manage to see more hiding places than there are monsters so I'm twitching constantly. I don't think that bothers the little ones too much, its more the quasi-satantic imagery as you journey into hell that bothers me. In the context of the game I'm ok with it, but it isn't for the very young and impressionable.

Vampire is a similiar story. its a game where you roleplay being a Vampire. You are the monster, and you discover an underworld filled with other monsters just like you. If you imagine the kind of person who would choose to live off other peoples blood, you can soon see that you will meet alot of not very nice people. The thing about Vampire is, as a roleplay game it has to be believable and so explores this dark and seedy hypothetical other world. In context, you meet the people you imagine that you would meet, and are presented with some characters you simply loathe. I love the game for that, but I am very clear that in order to play it you should remeber just what it is you are playing, and why it is this way. I don't think a 12 year old is able to grasp that properly, and wouldn't interpret it correctly.

I wonder how many 12 year olds have played either or both of those games. I wonder if their parents bought them to keep them good in the school holidays this sumer? I wonder how many bothered to look at the box.

The ESRB is very essential to the industry right now, it's the only thing holding back the floodgates of legislation on video game content. The latest kerfluffle over GTA:SA ended when the ESRB modified the rating to Adult Only. Having an ESRB rating on a box allows developers and publishers to say "Woah, we KNOW this is a violent game, so we submitted it for review and it got a mature/adult only rating. At that point it's the responsibility of the retailer to use discretion"

See that? It shifts the blame to the retailer (who honestly has the most control over who gets a game) and/or the parents (who have the most control over what is done in their household). It serves the same purpose as movie ratings at the theater. It places the decision with the consumer and the retailer, where it belongs.

Where there is a mean looking guy with a shotgun, 2 creepy blank staring zombies, a thing with a chainsaw and another marine firing a machine gun.

Sounds like a lot of game boxes I have seen on store shelves. Come to think of it, it sounds like the comic book covers I used to see on store shelves when I was a teen ager, in the 1950s. I.e., it just plain sounds like the same old saturation of come-ons to get you to buy the product. And with the frequency of come-on cover to actual content dissappointment, I think I should be excused for being rather blase about covers.

And back then we didn't have ratings boards. I haven't seen any statistics on youth crime then compared to now. I suspect that such a comparison of data would prove to be inconclusive?

Even so, I like the idea of the ratings, but I am sceptical about the accuracy of those ratings.

Where there is a mean looking guy with a shotgun, 2 creepy blank staring zombies, a thing with a chainsaw and another marine firing a machine gun. Sounds like a lot of game boxes I have seen on store shelves. Come to think of it, it sounds like the comic book covers I used to see on store shelves when I was a teen ager, in the 1950s. I.e., it just plain sounds like the same old saturation of come-ons to get you to buy the product. And with the frequency of come-on cover to actual content dissappointment, I think I should be excused for being rather blase about covers.

The main point I was driving at is that the images featured on the Doom3 packaging (especially considering the high quality graphics engine) should at least make people think. It's not like we're talking about Doom2's brightly coloured cartoonish images anymore.