Has Video Game Violence Really Gone Too Far? Part 2

In my other article, I have argued that games have begun a trend towards violence, that a good game requires violence and the more violence, the more enjoyable the game. I have argued that games have deviated from its core: action game for action, shooters for shooting) in favor of over-the-top gore.

But is that really the case?

Games still retain some principle of core gameplay in that games such as Ratchet and Clank (although aims more at an audience of a family rather than gamers in pulling back some humor and adding gimmicky minigames *note the word gimmick means that which is unnoticed but is significant*). However, can one game really represent the mob of violence that is the trend of the hardcore gaming industry? Hardly, yet there are still games that pushes the envelop in terms of gameplay rather than gore, but unfortunately, they are usually insignificant small games such as those found on the Playstation Network or Xbox Live. Gamers in disagreement of the original part 1 of this article might also say games like Little Big Planet, which is indeed aimed at hardcore gamers, as I cannot imagine a game where the gamer has to make the game can be made for the girlfriends or grandmothers, clearly disproves my first article. But then again, are 2 games enough to create a trend? Maybe.

Back to the topic of video game violence. The most vocal argument in favor of the violence is that by definition a video game is not a game; thus it should not be taken in reality. For example, Mario jumps on turtles does not mean that little children who play Mario will jump on turtles. Similarly, the violence is just a facelift of the Mario turtle jumping. Those who do take video games to the extreme and adopt gameplay as a lifestyle do run the risk that is the danger of video game violence. Said person is dangerous already, regardless of violent video games or not. The violence is merely an expression of violence, and the real criminal is the one that realistically imitates the violence. In other words, the violence offers the bullets and the guns, but the criminal cocks it and pulls it. Nobody blames the gun or the bullets just as nobody should blame violence in video games.

Which returns to another point, video game violence should not influence real world violence. Back to the bullet and gun example, just because bullets and guns exist does not mean that people who has seen it work will use it or will want to use it in unethical ways. Or more precisely, just because a person has gone to the shooting range does not mean that person will shoot other people because of his practice in the range. In addition, games had been around for ages; however, only recently do they start affecting behaviors. Back in the Mario days, Mario was a much more popular character than any current game characters, but I don't recall having an incident of people jumping on one another's head and then kick them afterwards. Current science argue that games are getting more realistic and interactive, which attributes to the connection between games and reality. But that does not change the fact that games are still games. Games are still for entertainment sake. Gore is still for appealing entertainment sake. So the only factor that changed is the consumers' preference. What that means is that games, although more realistic, is still a game; however, the people are taking them more and more seriously, making games not just entertainment, but a lifestyle, and that, in my opinion, is the problem with increasing game violence. But then again, has violence in video games one too far? Or are we too much influenced by games?

To me, video games are merely scapegoats to a much larger problem. Namely, why do people want to shoot another in the first place? What was the motivation? To me, that is a much more important issue than game violence because to solve those problem is to reduce the risk of future shoot-outs of people suffering under those problem even those who do not play games. Finally, the hypocrasy of the government itself: video game violence is bad, yet the US Army made a video game, distributing it for free to ENCOURAGE gamers to join to shoot other people. So it's not ok that games are including violence but not explicitly encouraging it; yet it's ok for the government to have violent video games aimed to have people shoot at other people, just not the citizens of US?