Rebuttal Rewrite – Rubes

Video Games and Violence

Violent acts as a result of video games come from the misuse of the product, rather then the game itself. Video games as a medium are often blamed as the reason for certain violent acts, often done by young men. For example, in the article “Video Games and Children: Violence and Video Games” by Filiz Öztütüncü Doğan, it states:

A 17-year-old student, Warren Leblanc, faces a life sentence for repeatedly battering his 14-year-old friend Stefan Pakeerah with a hammer and stabbing him to death at a local park in Leicester, in the English Midlands. According to the CNN webpage, this boy was
obsessed with the game called Manhunt in which the players score points for violent killings.” This is not an isolated incident” said Jack Thompson, a Miami attorney and video game regulation advocate. He added “we have had dozens of killings in the U.S. by children who had played these types of games”

While this might seem pretty damning to the argument that video games don’t cause violence, it doesn’t take into account the systems we have in place to stop children from playing said violent video games. All game packages are required to have an ESRB (entertainment software rating board) rating on their cases (or their game page if they are a digital game) telling you what the minimum age is for its players. These ratings range from E to A, with E being for everyone and A being for adults eighteen and up. The game in the quote above, Manhunt, is rated M, which encompasses all ages seventeen and up. While the student who performed the act was seventeen, the rating listed still tells you what to expect from the game. These labels are there for parents to understand what their kids are playing, and the type of content that is in them. Manhunt is clearly listed as having intense violence, and therefore, it is up to the parents to decide whether or not their kid should play the game.

The violent and mature content of video games creates a toxic cultural environment for children. A recent study, conducted by Jeanne Funk, a professor in clinical child psychology in The University of Toledo, found that approximately 65% of male and 57% of female students play video games at home for 1 to 6 hours per week. Moreover, 39% of males and 16% of females play 1 to 2 hours of video games per week in video arcades (Cesarone 1994). These children also spend several hours watching television. This media exposure contains a great degree of violence and of sexism. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation webpage “89% of the top selling video games contained violence: about 50% of all games contained serious violence, and 17% featured violence as the primary focus of the game” (“Children and Video Games” 2002). Unfortunately, seldom are parents aware of their children’s playing habits and video games contents (Funk 1999).

Children play video games for long periods of time as a form of escapism. When a child is facing issues in their life (i.e. stress, abuse, anxiety, depression, etc.) they often turn to different forms of media to help them “escape” from these issues. The more time they spend watching television, reading, playing video games, or scrolling on their phones, the less time they spend worrying about the real world. These pieces of media also provide a constructive way for children to use their time. The offer a world that they can lose themselves in for as long as they want. Children spending an abundance of time playing video games is often at the fault of the parents, not the games. In the abstract of a chapter from the book “Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences,” authors Astrid Kristen, Caroline Oppl, and Maria von Salisch state:

In sum, children are active users (although not always rational ones) who are attracted to electronic games that 1. address their developmental tasks, 2. offer possibilities for escapism and possibly mood management, and 3. match their level of development.

Children gravitate towards games in the same they way the gravitate towards their peers. Parents should monitor their kids video games in the same way they monitor their peers. Parents already try to keep their kids away from people who are bad influences, and it is also their job to do the same for video games. All video games have the power to do is suggest who is right for their game.

The gaming industry uses violence as a marketing ingredient. Most of video games present fantasies and stereotypes that support an aggressive culture of violence, sexism and war. The main characters in video games are more likely white strong men who use a broad variety of weapons and solve problems by exterminating their opponents while women are docile victims or decorative trophies incapable of solving problems (Action Agenda 2004).

Video games, like all media, change and adapt over time. When the games industry was in its infancy, players were mainly young, white men. Advertisers would try to market to these men, by making their games sound manly. Including violence, and guns was meant to make the player feel older. As games have evolved though, so have their fanbases. Many different types of people now play video games, which has caused these same types of people to begin also working on games. More games today have representation of under-represented groups then games ten-years-ago. Games like Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, and Cyberpunk 2077 have canonically female leads. Games like Overwatch, Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege, and Valorant have casts of characters representing people from the Trans, LGBT, and Black communities. While players of video games are still a majority men, many developers and players push for more and better representation of people that they identify with. Representation of different types of people has also become a marketing ingredient. Trailers for the game “Overwatch” try to show as many of their different characters as possible. While hurtful stereotypes haven’t completely left games, the industry has certainly made positive changes and improvements.

References:

Filiz Öztütüncü Doğan, Video Games and Children: Violence in Video Games, 2006. https://www.neuropsychiatricinvestigation.org/Content/files/sayilar/pdf/EN-YeniSempozyum-47b2facc.pdf

APA PsycNet, What Attracts Children?, 2006. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-05034-011

Entertainment Software Rating Board, Ratings Guidehttps://www.esrb.org/ratings-guide/

This entry was posted in Rebuttal Rewrite, rubes. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Rebuttal Rewrite – Rubes

  1. rubes1256's avatar rubes1256 says:

    In terms of feedback on this post, I want to see what I can do to make this argument stronger and what you think of the content overall. Thank you!

  2. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:

    How did you get permission to write on this tired hypothesis? I would never have OK’d it knowingly.

    • rubes1256's avatar rubes1256 says:

      That’s a fair piece of criticism. I ended up doing this assignment much later then I would’ve liked to so it’s completely my fault. I’ll find a way to improve it.

      • rubes1256's avatar rubes1256 says:

        Would you happen to have any suggestions for stronger hypothesis that I could think about giving a rebuttal to? And do you think there is anything specific that is salvageable in this first draft?

  3. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:

    I was on board with your original Hypothesis that recommended crowdsourcing or at the very least collaboration between game developers and gamers to achieve games that better responded to the needs of the “customers.”

    I was also intrigued by your contention that games promote analytical methods and systems analyses that are ignored or neglected in traditional education.

    Both of those were encouraging and, with luck and a bit of effort, will still be your content preference during revisions.

    I wonder how much academic sourcing you’ve done. Your five named White Paper sources are pretty generic, but the PsycNet article shows promise. It also appears you may have referenced only the Abstract.

    Let me see what a quick search will turn up . . .
    THOUSANDS of sources of positive research into games and learning.

    I made the search parameters as narrow as possible:
    “video games” “learning and literacy” “cognitive development” “participatory learning”
    That’s not four searches. I combined all four into one Google Scholar search and still got 49 hits.
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=%22video+games%22+%22learning+and+literacy%22+%22cognitive+development%22+%22participatory+learning%22&btnG=

    I didn’t read them or find one whose title suggested it was NEGATIVE on the subject, but you’ll no doubt find one or more that at least cast doubt on HOW EFFECTIVE games can be at, as your White Paper put it, presenting “a model for skill building in a group setting that we do not see in a curriculum based education system.”

    I want you to succeed AND do something a bit meaningful with your time here, Rubes. You appeared to be on your way toward that, so I’m disappointed (apparently you’re not proud of the effort either) that you landed on this shortcut.

    I’m not asking you to put in a week’s work on this. You’re more than capable of learning something surprising with a couple hours of reading. Do that. Share it with us. Don’t get hung up just now on tracking the perfect Refuter. Make the strongest case you can that games truly represent a valid alternative to traditional education models, not MERELY to deliver ordinary content, but to BUILD NON-TRADITIONAL SKILL SETS.

    • rubes1256's avatar rubes1256 says:

      Yes it does. I appreciate you being honest and straight forward with me, it’s given me a lot to think about in terms of my writing. Thank you!

Leave a reply to davidbdale Cancel reply