Most teachers agree on one thing, the website known as Wikipedia should not be used in a research paper. I don't agree with this statement one bit. My current research paper on the public's perception of violent video games and their affects on children is largely driven by "the public's perception." On the website Wikipedia, anyone is free to post information on a certain topic. Therefore you get to find out what the public's view is on certain events because even events such as the Columbine shooting, the Beltway murders, and the Virginia Tech massacre all have opinion and what the public perceives from the event. Sure a bulk of each of these topics is straight facts such as the times, dates, locations, etc. but after you unravel all of the cold, hard, facts, you are left with a lot of opinion and what the public believes is to be blamed.
Take the Columbine school shooting for example. On the Wikipedia page for the Columbine school shooting they go through a list of "rationales" as to why Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold might have caused the school shootings. Under one subcategory is "video games," and after unravelling all of the cold, hard, facts, I was able to come to the fact that the public's perception, even though not the entire publice created the page, thought that video games did not play a large role in the Columbine school shootings.
Teachers can bad-mouth Wikipedia all they want, but in reality Wikipedia is more then just cold, hard, basic, knowledge to a certain object or event. Instead Wikipedia is a way to divulge deeper into what the popular opinion is on a certain event, in my case violent video games and three seperate rampages.
Imagine sitting and watching a film clip showing a locomotive leaving a train station. Now imagine everyone jumping back in their seats as the train comes into the station. It's an unusual site; we are used to the site in this day in age, but this was the scene of one of the first motion picture screenings in 1895. Could you imagine a simple video popping up on the screen of a locomotive as it leaves station? We are so used to images such as this that it is just written off as something that is normal. However in the 1895, this was not a normal image, to them it was scary to see this image of a locomotive leaving the train station, they thought the train was going to jump out of the screen at them. To them, this simple film envoked fear, because they had no idea what to expect.
This is similar to how we currently are with video games. Violent video games are especially scary for an older breed of people who grew up prior to the 1990s and the first real violent video game (Mortal Kombat). Violent video games to the older breed envokes a fear simlar to the fear of the first motion picture because this older breed has no idea what to expect. Will I see someone's head ripped off? Will they actually teach me how to kill someone? These questions burst in and out of their heads because they never played these games growing up, how are they to know that they are not as bad as they seem. This is the culture we are currently in.
This culture, is the same type of culture from 1895 when there was a fear with the motion picture. It was also the same culture when adults had a fear of music lyrics in the 1980s and 1990s. This culture seems to be repeating itself over and over. It is because the majority of the people have no idea to expect when a new piece of technology comes out, so naturally they fear it. In this day in age, motion pictures are not seen as scary, neither are provokative lyrics, but still back then, this was the way it was.
Unfortunately not enough research has been done on this topic to really gain a clear-cut answer, however look at who had the fear of motion pictures, song lyrics, and now violent video games. For the most part it has been adults in their respective eras. Adults never grew up with motion pictures in 1895, nor did they grow up with provokative music in the mid-1900s and in this day in age there are not many adults who can say they grew up playing violent video games. Kids on the other hand were born into the age of these, so to them motion pictures, bad song lyrics, and violent video games are just another way of life, something that is not scary and should not be feared. Adults though are scared because they have no idea what to expect, and I bet in thirty years when the first "reality" video games comes out, the same culture that grew up watching movies, listening to provokative lyrics, and playing violent video games will have the same fear.
When I first chose my topic, I wanted to write about how violent video games do not affect the violence cause by children who play them. In every credible source I have found throughout my research, I have learned that there is no way to prove that violent video games do not affect violence in the children who play them. It has been proven over and over that violent video games cause violence in children who play them. The discrepensy I have found however, is the definition for "violence." There is no working definition for violence in any of my sources; some call is "aggression" while others call it "violence." Both words are similar, however proving my new topic, without this working definition is hard. I want to explain that violent video games do cause aggression in the form of outbursts, and temporary rage, but do not cause things school shootings, or killing sprees. So when some of my sources say "violence" or "aggression," what does it mean? Does it mean killing sprees and school shootings or does it mean outbursts and short "tantrums."
Then, earlier in the day, it hit me. I am the definition of aggression and violence. I have played violent video games for much of my life. I know through past experience that violent video games do cause violence, but violence to me means temporary outbursts and swearing. When I would die in a game, it provoked mean to scream loudly or swear at the other player. I have been known to throw my headset or controller if I get extremely frustrated. The picture I am inserting is of my old headset from playing video games. The story goes like this: I was playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, a violent video game where you kill other soldiers and terrorists, about two years ago, when my sister walked in front of the television just to make me mad. I was doing really good in the game and when she walked in front of the television I proceeded to die. I got super mad at her that I threw the headset at the wall, and it broke.
I am not alone, you can go online to Youtube and search for other kids who rage at violent video games. Some are very funny, and some are very sad. I have found a handful of kids whom get so mad, they end up breaking their video games systems worth at least $250, imagine being their parent. This is the definition, in my opinion, for "aggression" or "violence." It is not murdering, or bullying other people such as the Columbine shootings or the Beltway murders, but having temporary outbursts while playing a game, such as swearing or throwing a controller.
It's true, parents are nieve. They usually listen what their kids want. When a young kid wants to buy a violent video game, he will usually turn to his parents. His parents in turn will be nieve and buy the game just because that is what their child wants. It's a cruel circle, but in the end, you cannot blame the kid for wanting the video game, kids love video games.
Parents cannot be so nieve. If parents want to blame the violence their kids cause on violent video games, they need to take a stand. They cannot wait till the violence happens and then blame the violent video games. Instead the need to take steps to stop their kids from getting their hands onto the violent video games. They need to understand video game ratings first and foremost. One way I plan on regulatting video games on my kids is not giving them a video game until seven or eight years old because I feel at this age, kids are more mature then say age five. From age seven or eight, to age thirteen I will only let them play games rated "T" or below no matter how much they demand. This is where parents need to gain control of the situation and not cave in to the constant begging. At the age of thirteen start allowing "M" rated games into the picture, but start with games that are more on the moderate scale. Understanding the ratings here is the key. Don't start with a game such as Grand Theft Auto where the situations in the game are realistic and the ESRB says contains stuff such as extreme violence, sexual situations, profanity, and intense blood and gore. Start with a more moderate "M" game such as Halo, where the game is not based on real world aspects. Think about it this way, what is worse, exposing a thirteen year old child to a video game that includes real world aspects such as prostitution, murder, and swearing, or exposing the same child to a video game where you're shooting aliens with fake-looking guns? (Question Below Picture)
The question I want everyone to answer is how you will regulate violent video games for your kids?
The entertainment software industry has a regulating system for video games called the Entertainment Rating Software Board (ESRB). They rate games based on the game's content and suitability taking into account factors such as blood and gore, language, and sexual inuendo. According to many people, who I will describe in my paper, the ESRB does work because it is meant to rate video games based on all of the factors in the game and allow parents to make the final decision to buy the video game based on the rating assigned.
Parents are quick to blame the violence in children on video games, but in the end who is buying the video games for the kids? Parents cannot be nieve, I mean the rating that the ESRB assigns the game is plastered throughout the game's case on both the front and back sides. Additionally the cashiers at the store usually ask the parents to verify that they know their child is buying a violent video game. The only way around the system is to buy a violent video game online, but in that circumstance, you would need a credit card, and I doubt some kid, under the age of sixteen has a credit card.
I used to work at Best Buy while in high school. I worked as a cashier, and one thing that I was told over and over was to always check with the parent to make sure they approve of the video game their child is buying. I was always good at it, because I understood how serious our company took the policy. One day an undercover employee from Best Buy corporate came into our store with their child. I was not working that day, but according to my boss, the undercover employee proceeded to have their child, who was about 13 years old walk up to one of the cashiers carrying four video games, all of them rated for his age, except one which was rated for "mature players ages seventeen and up" and would require verification from the parent. The cashier had thought that because the parent was standing right next to the child, they were approving of the game, so the cashier did not ask if they approved. In the end, our manager was confronted with the problem and the cashier recieved a very nice talking to. What I am trying to show here is how strict the retail industry takes on the ratings of video games, and the ways which we make sure violent video games do not slip into the wrong hands. This shows that parents have to understand the rating of a video game and what their kid is playing. So why do parents blame violence in children on the violent video games when in reality they are the ones putting the video game in the child's hand, fully knowing what the game's content includes.
It's Monday, November 7th, 2011, the day before Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is about to be released. Already numerous people are outside the local Gamestop waiting to get their hands on the game at midnights, when it is finally released. Nothing was strange about that, but according to my friends who were there and said that nearly 400 people in line, they estimated half of the people in the line were young kids with their parents. They couldn't believe what they were seeing; hundreds of kids around the ages of ten to fifteen waiting to get their hands on what was said to be one of the most highly anticipated games of all time.
This is the era we are in. Kids younger, and younger continue to be exposed to video games that continue to become more violent and this is becoming the "norm." When I went to get my hands on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 the next day after school, I too was shocked by the number of young kids waiting in line to get the game. Of course I had went around 2:30 to 3:00 in the afternoon when elementary, middle, and high school was just getting out, but it just baffled me with the number of young kids in line with their parents who were impatiently waiting to buy the game. Years ago when the first Call of Duty game came out, there would not have even been half of the amount of kids waiting to get this game.
I have been playing violent video games including Halo, Call of Duty, Battlefield for many years. Over these years, I have noticed the complexion of the kids playing the game transform from teenagers and adults to younger and younger children. I think it is getting a little ridiculous with the amount of young kids entering the violent video game world and I think the video game Modern Warfare 3 has pushed the limits for kids and violent video games; I mean when I was their age, I wasn't killing aliens, soldiers, or civilians in a virtual world, but this is the new era of fun. Young kids think that this is fun and they don't realize that these games aren't meant for them. The new era of fun shouldn't be learning how to kill people or blow up houses, but rather it should be focused on playing with friends and meeting new people, just like when I grew up.
