It is a safe bet that a large percentage of college students received video games for Christmas this year, whether or not they're willing to admit it. And while the demographic most often associated with video games has been teenage boys, that dated stereotype is on its way out the door. Often it seems that women have been under-served in this market; so-called "parlor games" like The Sims are favored strongly by female gamers over the tide of action and adventure games available to males. Almost everyone plays video games at least occasionally and this mass embrace of the video game console has led to countless studies on what effect these games have on the people who play them.
The countless medical, social, and scientific researchers that study video games turn to the effect of violent video games on children more often than any other topic. And why not? Like any good drama, conflict is what makes a video game interesting, and it is impossible to have a video game without some sort of conflict. In turn, conflict most often turns to violence in video games, just as human beings unfortunately turn to violence to solve real-life conflicts.
Not true, you say? Does a game like the original Super Mario Brothers, SimCity, or The Sims Double Deluxe really have any violence? Of course! In Mario Brothers, countless Goomba's were violently crushed under Mario's heavy boots, not to mention the Parakoopas sickening plunges from the sky in the treetop levels. In SimCity, one of the first things everyone tries is to cause a disaster—yes, everyone. Moreover, The Sims provides countless (and cruel) ways to send your Sim to that big neighborhood in the sky. However, with the exception of The Sims—more on that later—each of the games fictionalized violence is just that: fiction. The more realistic the game's characters, actions, and environment become, the more attuned we are to it's violent nature.
The old 8-bit games of yesteryear were highly limited for violence they were able to portray. With today's 128-bit games, virtually anything is possible, and therefore, already for sale. Want to race real cars with realistic handling and style? Done. Want to control every, miniscule detail of somebody's life? Done. Want to take part in anti-terrorist sweeps? Done. Would you rather just walk around aimlessly, kill innocent bystanders with a hammer, and use their money to upgrade to a chainsaw? The gaming industry has you covered, you disgusting psycho. The games mentioned above, Gran Turismo, The Sims, Counter-Strike, and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, respectively, are some of the top-selling video games of all time.
If you think the games of today are realistic, just wait a few more years to vote on your favorite. I recently saw an interview with the President or CEO (I don't remember which) of Electronic Arts (EA Games). In the interview, he mentioned that within five years, it would be impossible to tell the difference between a video game and real-life video—impossible. That kind of realism is both very exciting for video game connoisseurs and somewhat disturbing in other ways. While I enjoy the rampages afforded in games like GTA3 and Vice City, never once do I forget that it is just a video game. If the characters and actions in the game were photo-realistic, gunning down a crowd of people or blowing up a car might go from entertaining to extremely disturbing—especially if damage to the characters was just as realistic. Games like Medal of Honor: Rising Sun already call into question whether it is okay to make an event like Pearl Harbor into a form of entertainment, but if the people in the game looked absolutely real, it may cross the border from objectionable to morally reprehensible.
This month Popular Science Magazine printed a blurb in their year in review feature, Shock & Awe 2003, stating that "University of Rochester researchers determine [in May] that playing video games—especially the really violent ones—improves visual reflexes; frequent players react faster than non-gamers do." Also this month, Time Magazine wrote that Stephen Hinshaw, chair of the University of California Psychology Department and other child behavior experts "point out that aggressive behavior in children is irrefutably linked to exposure to violence on TV and in movies, video games, and other media." Another prominent psychologist, Jerome Singer of Yale, goes a step further by saying, "The size of the effect [of violent media making children violent] is almost as strong as the relationship between smoking and cancer."
The Time article doesn't contradict the Rochester study, but rather makes those catlike reflexes sound like a very bad thing for the friends, teachers, and family of young gamers. So how does one make sense of the fact that some people—such as myself—enjoy violent video games and remain upstanding members of society? I think the main issues, besides overall mental stability, are the age at which children are exposed to violence and the severity and frequency of that violence. That means it is not a good idea to let your six-year-old brother play Manhunt for hours on end... or at all. Am I sick and depraved for driving on the sidewalk in Vice City or allowing my Sim to drown in his pool? Unlikely, but some may argue that my mind is already warped.
Violent video games, like many things in life, are not going to affect negatively most people when played in moderation. However, exposing children to the increasingly realistic violence present in games rated Teen and Mature may contribute not only to the child's aggressiveness, but may cause irreparable harm to the child and those around him in the future. Where responsible adults see harmless entertainment, young and impressionable gamers may see not only that brutal violence and depravity are acceptable, but also learn to equate them with a sense of reward.