There is a widespread belief that computer games have a terrible effect on a person’s mental state, but there are also competing narratives that argue people need an outlet for the suppressed aggression they feel within. An increasing number of crimes have been perpetrated recently by either young people or adults who have developed an addiction to violent video games. Ethan Gilsdorf, an enthusiastic gamer, wrote the article “Why We Need Violent Video Games.” In addition to being a performer, he is an American writer and poet. Gilsdorf is famous for his views on whether or not video games should be rated for adults (Gilsdorf, 2019).
The author discussed his thoughts on social media platforms like NPR and Ted Talk. Most of the piece argues that violent media has little to do with real-world acts of violence. While Gilsdorf’s arguments try to convince the audience that violent video games positively affect people’s moods and behavior, he provides false information about the shooter, the effects of video games on people’s sensory experience, and how it influence young people.
“Why We Need Violent Video Games” article examines whether or not individuals benefit from playing violent video games. After the Newtown massacre, many people began to link video games with real-life mass shootings, as discussed in the article’s first part. The government took an interest and held meetings with representatives from the video gaming business. President Obama has also proposed many regulations and laws in response to the prevalence of violence in video games (Gilsdorf, 2019).
The gaming business is still shrouded in mystery and many attribute violent actions to video games. Since the Newtown shooter was not a gamer, this demonstrates that Gilsdorf’s claim that violent video games do not generate violent conduct is correct. He then gives examples of experiences that are good for the mind but outside the regular sphere of activity, noting that video games might offer a surrogate for these sentiments. Ultimately, Gilsdorf concludes that playing video games might be the most effective way for many individuals to get their feelings out via physical activity.
Gilsdorf argues that there was no correlation between playing violent video games and acting violently in the second portion. In order to prove his case, he cited more sources that may have a detrimental impact on individuals, such as rock n roll, rap music, comic comics, and heavy metal. The author used the Newtown shooter Adam Lanza, who also happened to be a video game player, as the primary example (Gilsdorf, 2019). Apart from playing games, Lanza engaged in a nonviolent kind of dancing instruction by playing Dance Revolution. Therefore, there was no concrete proof that may establish violent video games produced violent behaviors since the nonviolent dance instructional game did not match the violent conduct.
Additionally, playing violent computer games could be a healthy way to release aggressive, violent feelings. According to the author, playing video games allows for a fairly secure, interactive narrative in which players can take on the roles of good or bad characters (Gilsdorf, 2019). Violent video games can easily and securely provide the emotions our psyches require. People get thrilled about things like skydiving, hunting, and shooting guns, but we can’t do those things all the time. But whenever we want, we can play video games and experience something similar.
The author’s claim that exposure to violent media does not encourage violent conduct is one with which I must respectfully disagree. Furthermore, I can disprove his theory with three reasons of my own. To begin with, in paragraph six, it is said that “he didn’t match the profile of the usual first-person shooter aficionado. Rather than playing games with violence, he preferred ones like Dance Revolution (Gilsdorf, 2019).
The FBI investigated the Newtown massacre, as I discovered in my reading. A mother called Connecticut State Police and said her son Adam Lanza was playing Call of Duty, according to the FBI investigation. Call of Duty is, in reality, a first-person shooter. That Gilsdorf said Lanza did not play violent video games is thus false. Here, Lanza’s erratic conduct may have influenced his choice of computer games, which are notorious for their graphic violence.
My second counterargument is drawn from my own life experiences. Gilsdorf claims that participating in violent video games is just another method to get the sensory, adrenaline-filled experiences that our minds want (Gilsdorf, 2019). He opines this is also why games that promote violence do well. But I am a gamer, too, and the reason I purchase and play games like Call of Duty and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is because many of my friends play them, and I like hanging out with them. Moreover, I do not feel the same way when playing video games as he did. Video games are just a kind of amusement for me, and I do not think the simulation will make users feel the same way playing the real thing does. Skydiving, for instance, leaves a lasting effect on participants, primarily due to the sensation of weightlessness. People cannot experience weightlessness by standing or sitting in front of a computer while wearing virtual reality goggles.
The third Counterargument point is that children learn through watching others. An article from 2013 in China reported on the practice of boiling friends. A group of children was acting out a scenario from the cartoon Pleasant Goat and Big Wolf, in which the wolf prepares a meal of goat by boiling it in a large dish (Chen, 2020). So, youngsters are unaware of the risks associated with such conduct in a group setting. The lack of danger in the animation led them to believe it was safe, but it almost cost the lives of two children in real life. As a result, the children are very skilled imitators. Therefore, when people act violently, it is not always on purpose but due to some external influence. Children may try to replicate what they see on TV because they believe it seems fun, but this might have unintended repercussions.
In summary, the article “Why We Need Violent Video Games” aims to convince the audience that violent video games may positively affect a person’s mood and natural behavior by providing an outlet for pent-up emotions. The article’s author used the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School as an example to support his argument, pointing out the ineffectiveness of the government’s response. To further reinforce his views on the matter, Ethan Gilsdorf drew parallels between the present state of affairs and those of earlier generations. Thus, Gilsdorf’s arguments are invalid since they contain false information about the shooter, Adam Lanza, and do not match the video gamer’s experience. Gilsdorf’s claims also contradict research that shows that violent computer games influence children’s behavior since they readily learn and copy what they watch. Therefore, I find it difficult to fully endorse his claims that violent video games do not generate violent conduct. And therefore, video games cause more harm than good to society, especially children.
References
Chen, S. (2020). Social concern, government regulation, and industry self-regulation: A comparison of media violence in Boonie bears TV and cinematic creations. SAGE Open, 10(4), 1-11. Web.
Gilsdorf, E. (2019). Why we need violent video games.