The following is a research paper I wrote for my final project in English.

Violent videogames have sparked controversy for the last 40 years, but do they really influence the people who play them? There has been an ongoing debate about this subject since the early 1990s. In this essay, I hope to shed some light on both sides of the argument as well as where I stand on the issue. First, let’s look at where this all started, and the history following that.

Violence in videogames has been an issue since 1976 with a video game called “Death Race”. The game was inspired by the 1975 film “Death Race 2000”, which had a cult following. The basic game play consisted of using a steering wheel and gas pedal to run over as many people as you can. When it was released, only about five hundred were made, and was banned just about everywhere. This was the first instance of violence in videogames being an issue.

The next major instance of violent videogames came around in 1992 with the release of “Mortal Kombat”, an arcade game. With videogames becoming more and more popular among kids, the game started a huge controversy because of its “realistic” characters as well as the graphic blood and gore. Mortal Kombat featured “Fatalities”, or finishing moves. The player could, upon defeating the opponent, finish the fight with an extremely gory and graphic finishing move that ranged from tearing out the opponent’s spine, to throwing them into a spike pit.

About ten years later, in the new millennium, a video game called “Grand Theft Auto 3” was released. In Grand Theft Auto, you could do just about anything such as steal a car, kill pedestrians, hire a prostitute and kill police officers. Some thought this was too much freedom and tried to get the game banned, but were unsuccessful.

Obviously such content warrants some sort of rating system. This is why in 1994 the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, or ESRB, was established. This system allowed customers to know what content their game contains. Content could range from mild cartoon violence to blood and gore. At first there were only three ratings: E for everyone, T for teens, and M for mature. Eventually they added other ratings such as EC for early childhood and AO for adults only. Ratings such as these made many parents happy, but others were not satisfied. The ESRB eventually added more ratings, but were taken out because of redundancy.

One could question the way the ESRB rates each game, for they do not actually play them. When a video game company submits its game for ESRB review, they send a video highlighting specific game play elements and possible questionable content. Therefore the ESRB gets a basic idea of the content and not minor elements such as story themes or cheat codes. Resulting from this, some activists and special interest groups have called for stricter ratings.

The opposing point of view believes violent video games influence the children who play them. That raises the question, however, why are these violent children playing these games in the first place? If they really are rated M for mature (17 years or older), how are they getting access to them? This is where the supporters counter this claim.

The supporting point of view believes that it is the parent’s responsibility when it comes to what their children play. Parents should be more involved in decisions for their kids, especially when you have tools such as the ESRB. You wouldn’t take your child to an R rated movie, would you? The same concept applies to video games, R is to restricted as M is to mature. In fact, both share the same age requirement: seventeen.

A survey I conducted showed that out of fifty people, twenty eight said more than half the games they play are violent and only two said they never played video games. Seventeen people said their decision on what games to buy is never influenced by media or friends, while nineteen of them said that they often do. Surprisingly, thirty eight say the ESRB never influences what video games they buy. Finally, the majority of those surveyed started playing in their early childhood to seven years old.

So does this violent content mean it influences the children who play them? Henry Jenkins of PBS tells:

According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population.

He goes on to say:

The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General’s report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. The moral panic over violent video games is doubly harmful. It has led adult authorities to be more suspicious and hostile to many kids who already feel cut off from the system. It also misdirects energy away from eliminating the actual causes of youth violence and allows problems to continue to fester.

Looking at the statistics, it is pretty clear that video games do not influence the children who play them. However those who oppose still do not want violent content exposed to children, which I completely understand. What I do not understand is they want to censor these video games. This could range from less bad language to no violence whatsoever. Censorship goes against the first amendment, so this line of reasoning is not valid. The whole thing goes back to the parent’s responsibility; they are the ones with authority.

There are plenty of alternatives for kids to play. Games such as “Guitar Hero” are a great way to improve a child’s hand-eye coordination. “Tetris” is a very popular puzzle game, and is fantastic for a kid’s problem solving skills. For the little ones, there are numerous games made with franchises like “Dora the Explorer” or “SpongeBob”.

We as a society need to get passed using scapegoats such as video games. This form of entertainment is just as big a media form as television or movies. Video games are not the cause of violence in youth today. It is a matter of raising kids the right way and being involved in their life. After all, who are going to be the ones being involved in our lives?