Changing the terms of the violent video game debate
-
As our industry is dragged into yet another round of scapegoating, I am discovering that the conversation about violent video games is rigged against us from the start, and that we collectively need to change the terms of the conversation before we sit down to talk with anyone.
Shoot the messenger: target game opponents more accurately, then go for the (rhetorical) kill.
-
As our industry is dragged into yet another round of scapegoating, I am discovering that the conversation about violent video games is rigged against us from the start, and that we collectively need to change the terms of the conversation before we sit down to talk with anyone.
Shoot the messenger: target game opponents more accurately, then go for the (rhetorical) kill.
Actual, real psychology says that violent Video games actually reduce our violent tendencies through the vicarious experience. Civilised humans are now less violent than we have ever been. Most of us would go into shock simply witnessing real violence happening in front of us. But we are still living in the same bodies our caveman barbarian ancestors occupied, our bodies and brains are programmed to relieve anger and solve immediate dangers by hitting things. However this is not the way we do things any more in the civilised world - besides which most of the sources of stress we live with don't have any physical part we can hit. Thus we release this built up aggression by playing sports, and watching TV, and playing video games. Take away violent video games and violence in our society will increase.