Personally, i dont play Violent Games.

However, I understand some people do. I don't think they should be banned, instead parents should be more careful about what they let their children play.

I personally don't believe they should be banned.

I remember when I was younger I used to play games that could be considered 'violent' such as army (pinecone grenades, peg guns, slingshots all provided by my grandfather) and swordfighting (big sticks and we weren't afraid to bruise each other). I was also allowed to watched movies such as Scream and Platoon and play videogames such as Mortal Kombat and GTA the first one.

Even though I did these things, I turned out as a generally well-adjusted adult with violence being the furthest thing from my mind because of the way I was brought up.

No, the fault will always lie with the parents up to a certain age; It's the parents that set the boundaries because - and I hate to pull this one - parents should know best for their kids in areas like this. It's up to the parent to:

* instill into the child the difference between fantasy and reality and not use violent games to babysit their kids.

* control what entertainment they have access to and for how long they have access to it.

* place focus on things other than games.

For me, I was given a set amount of time I was allowed to play them games before I had to switch them off and do something else (which was usually reading, taking things apart or building them). I had a limit on how many games I could have for my birthday and Christmas, but was allowed books at any time - thus my interest for reading grew - and other things (airfix models, or bits for my chemistry set usually) provided they had the money.

I had limited amounts of 'Game Time' which was irksome, but I can understand why.

Thats why I got into reading books instead, because I could have fun without eating into my 'Game Time'. Board games didn't count either.

Overall, it's the parent that's at fault if someone becomes violent from these games.

Than again I don't play violent games, so maybe I should stop talking about the subject like I know what im on about

Actually, there are studies that show there is absolutely no correlation between violent videogames and violent behavior.  Furthermore, I grew up playing all kinds of games and LOVING hyperviolent videogames.  I do have anger management issues, but they were caused by a variety of other issues growing up.  Videogames were always my escape from those problems and I still play them today, even at 33 years of age.  I've never been arrested.  Not once.

I'm also in IT and have dabbled with game development for nearly 20 years (never really finished anything, but yeah).  It is the parent's responsibility to determine what's right and what isn't for their child because every case is different.  My daughter doesn't get freaked out by horror movies, yet my son can't stand them.  My daughter has also, from a very early age (when she still in diapers), watched me play extra violent videogames without any amount of censorship.

Of course, I will IMMEDIATELY eject them from the room when there's any amount of nudity, but I don't censor foul language, violence, or anything of that sort around them.  I figure they're going to hear and see it anyway, so I may as well be there to educate them about it where I can before they hear it from someone else.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.  Violent videogames are awesome.

The problem is that with a law, you would have to define terms.  There have been many studies on video games and I do not think that they have truly reached what really causes problems.  I believe that stores should sell to the rating system, parents should be allowed to buy their kids "M" rated games if they believe that they can handle them (within five years of 17 years old).  I do believe that they should have a variety of games.  However, I don't believe we should protect our children from the bad stuff in life and if you read the old time fairy tales, you will see that parents exposed their children to things in languages and tones that a child would understand.  So, no, I do not believe that violent video games should be banned. 
 

There are also a lot of ones showing correlation between them. There will never be an unbiased report on this type of thing because it is INCREDIBLY politically charged.

I don't believe that these games should be banned, but I do believe that parents, and or legal guardians, should reign the kids in on the violent games, give them two or three hours of game time, have them try something outside of gaming, maybe take them away for a week, so that they can discover something that they may have not otherwise. Ultimately, I do believe that they can lead to violent behavior, but only when the kids have no life outside of them, have never been forced to go without them for a good amount of time.

Yeah, this is about as open and shut as it can get really. I don't think there are very many people who play games who would seriously argue that violent games should be banned. Maybe people could argue they should not be sold to minors, and maybe even that some games should kept out of big name public storefront displays, but not banned. People who seriously try to out and out ban things are usually old fashioned highly reactionary idiots that are completely out of touch with how the world works and just lash out by angrily investing all their energy into whatever bullshit cause the media manages to rile them up about and have most likely never touched the thing before in their life and have no actual knowledge of it other then someone said it was "bad". And there are a lot of those people sure, but I bet none of them are here on this site, and it's pointless to try to convince people like that.

Also:

Of course, I will IMMEDIATELY eject them from the room when there's any amount of nudity, but I don't censor foul language, violence, or anything of that sort around them.

I smell double standard~♫ !

There are also a lot of ones showing correlation between them. There will never be an unbiased report on this type of thing because it is INCREDIBLY politically charged.

 

I don't believe that these games should be banned, but I do believe that parents, and or legal guardians, should reign the kids in on the violent games, give them two or three hours of game time, have them try something outside of gaming, maybe take them away for a week, so that they can discover something that they may have not otherwise. Ultimately, I do believe that they can lead to violent behavior, but only when the kids have no life outside of them, have never been forced to go without them for a good amount of time.

My parents never game me a certain limit when playing games. I could play games all day. You don't see me saying violent stuff. I don't believe in violence so when in the situation, my devotion to peace is a weapon. Of course, if that doesn't work then I have no choice but all the parent has to do is teach their kids "Hey, this is a game. This isn't and will never be real. Things run a lot different in real life."

[Fast food] is enjoyed by young and old across the world, and comes in many different varieties. The [fast food] industry supplies thousands upon thousands, if not even millions of jobs across the globe and is a major factor of the modern economy. Fast food is believed, however, to have negative effects on children and their development, and thus, it is illegal to sell a majority of the most expensive, well-made, and the highest profile [fast food] to anyone under 17. If you are suspected to not be 17, you have to provide one piece of ID at a retailer, in order to purchase the desired [fast food].

Sounds stupid eh? Now replace [fast food] with video games and you have the current situation.

...Even though video games are an artistic medium, unlike fast food, and frequently provide social commentary and criticism on top of escapism.

...Even though video games are empirically not as harmful to you as fast food.

...Even though there has been no valid studies correlating video games and an increase in violent behavior. (In fact if you read statistics, video game prominence seems to coincide with a decrease of violent crime in North America, Europe, and Russia.)

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

There is no such thing as "good censorship", it simply does not exist. For senselessly violent games like Hatred (remember that flash in the pan?), or AO Rated games of all variety, what borders on too tasteless for any audience can be shunned to die on the free market on it's own. As is, there is a market for Hatred, there is a market for Rapelay. Get over it. We don't need thought police, or holier-than-thou moral guardians pushing agendas and making the standards for our culture and lives.

You see the cool thing is that the Supreme Court ruled that video games were a valid artistic medium therefore making it so that as long as a video games meets one of four requirements (Literary value, Artistic Value, Scientific Value, I forgot the last value) then they can not be banned.

The regulations fall under Obscenities, and something can only be considered obscene if the work, as a whole, doesn't meet ANY of those requirements.

So you could literally play a twenty minute porno clip in a game followed by a bloody massacre for another 20 minutes if the whole game in its entirety actually has some valid value to one of the aforementioned values.

Then again, Madworld is one of my favorite games ever so I'm a bit biased.

My humble opinion on this subject is that violent games are bad.

Indeed, a person might already be violent and kids generally are violent (almost 90% of the games they play in school is war).

Violence was at some time something necessary for humans in order to survive and not be extinct by wild animals.

So it is in our animal nature to be violent and these games take advantage of that instinct in the exact same way they take advantage of every human instinct. (sex, food). They take advantage of our instincts in order to make money but simultaneously they make these instincts more and more intense.

So, this is a slavery of some sort. 

And even if they weren't making the instincts more intense, violent games are also unaesthetic and Plato used to say, that games and art have to be beautiful in order to teach children virtues through them. From example, a beautiful temple teaches a child the virtue of moderation. Cutting heads off is just making a person used in foulness and inhumanity.

Again, this is just an opinion.

Well weather violent games are "bad" or not, do you really think people should have the right to dictate what is or is not allowed to be done with an artistic medium? I am not going to argue that any kind of content, violence included, is always completely harmless or never effects anyone in a negative way. I will argue however that any authority, regardless of how well intentioned, with the power to unilaterally censor and control artistic expression "for our own good" is very very dangerous and untrustworthy.

Though, yes, to me violence (or at least the depiction and focus it has in media) is a out off control meme, a dangerous self-replicating mind virus that spreads from person to person. Ideas like "guns are cool", "gore is cool", all that stuff can certainly be seen as dangerous ideas that spread from person to person and infect their mind. But if so, the answer to the problem is not simply to try and stamp out any expression of the meme. That won't work. Instead, like a disease, we need a vaccination or a cure, a carefully engineered counter-meme, such as "compassion", "justice", "peace", and all that stuff. If violent media negatively effects people, make media that positively effects people.

Also: Plato, no matter how wise he was by the standards of the day, is pretty much still completely full of shit. And don't get me wrong, I kinda like and appreciate his work (though I think Aristotle is more interesting), but you can tell most of the great philosophers back had never heard of or didn't appreciate that whole "scientific method" thing, and mostly just made up whatever sounded good to them.

@KilloZapit, may i ask, who is Plato?

You know, Plato! Ancient Greek philosopher, one of the legendary greats! I mean I may not agree with everything he said, but really what the heck are they teaching in school these days if you never heard of him? Ah but I guess maybe ancient Greek philosophers are not a big priority in school... after all if they taught you anything about philosophy you might actually question the bullshit propaganda they fill your head with.

I will argue however that any authority, regardless of how well intentioned, with the power to unilaterally censor and control artistic expression "for our own good" is very very dangerous and untrustworthy.

Wait, I didn't say that we should censor violent games, I said that we should teach parents and kids that they affect their psychology. We should inform them about the dangers they have and finally we should not let little kids play those games. School does none of them.

But things like "violent games are cool and there is no problem with them" is just a lie. Of course, violent games make us more violent even if we don't understand it (just like strategic games make us smarter). They wake up ours instincts and make us more controlable. And this is proven by seeing how modern kids have become aggressive to their classmates (bullying) to their parents and to society (anarchy).

Censoring will only make these games more desirable, on the other hand making "peaceful" games... who would make a peaceful game and try to enable the logical part of someone's brain when he can make a violent game and enable his instincts which is much more profitable and not risky? 

So, game companies don't care about people, they care about money. So, we as players and humans have to take care of ourselves and choose games that respect our personality. That's my opinion.

Also, when I say violent games, I don't consider violent a game with magic for example. I mean gore, blood.

PS. I was taught Plato all this year in School and this is why I mentioned him However, indeed, I disagree with him in the most of the things he says. But, I like the one I mentioned before. Art should offer something, isn't this right?

Art should offer something perhaps, but sometimes people need to see the ugliness of the world to appreciate it's wonders. But that's kind of besides the point anyway isn't it? It's all basically just raw data that people take in and use for their own reasons. Art is important sure, in the same way the data of our experiences is important. It's important for us to internalize and analyze the raw data that is feed to us and examine it carefully, because we can use that data and it's analysis to further our goals or even to figure out what or goals should be. That's what art is for isn't it? To give us ideas and to refine our ideas, to think abstractly about things so we can live
better. To that end "beauty" and "positivity" are only aspects of that, art is more about "truth".

The problem isn't violence, not really. It's the unbalanced over abundance of violence that is often devoid of context or meaning, or at least devoid of any context or meaning that hasn't been lost or ignored under the constant repetition of the tropes involved.  Like it or not, people are going to have to deal with violence, and to do that they should be well prepared for what violence actually means and what it should be used for. And they can't do that if either the violence in the world is hidden away until they suddenly stumble on it without proper context, or if it is simply another part of the background noise of culture that they never seriously think about or explore.

That's why we need art that deals with violence sometimes, but quite frankly I wouldn't count half the games that do as art. I am often told Spec Ops: The Line is a good example of a violent game that actually has an important message and story to tell, even if it seems heavy handed at it. And there are lots of violent gases and movies and things and things that at least attempt to do that kind of thing. Even Grand Theft Auto, the series that has gotten so much flack for it's violence and sex, is really intended to be a satire, an example of a society gone wrong, not one to be glorified. But there are still so many games that just have violence as shock factor and nothing else.

And yes the fact that so few people seem to pick up on that and just treat the game as a fun sandbox to kill things in is a problem. I am not saying it isn't, and I am not saying most violent content really has any justification. I am just saying, it's not so black and white. If you totally refuse to accept how any story that deals with a particular subject can have any kind of positive result, you will lose out on learning any sort of truth about a subject through art.

Though if you are just counting stuff like super messy flying gibs or fighting game fatalities I admit that can be harder to defend. But that always struck me as too cartoonish to take seriously. Even then, I think the themes and reasons behind them is far more important then the existence of gore it's self.

I see your point. But I think most of violent games don't have a serious reason to show so much violence. They don't have a point. I mean... God of War... What's the point? Just satisfaction.

I get what you say. But I doubt that most of teenagers that play GTA do it to see the point of society going wrong. And I double-doubt it helps them a tiny bit in their social life. I mean, we have to be realists. What I see from my personal experience is that most of those who play violent games or enjoy watching violent movies (and believe me they also claim that they want to see the harsh side of life or do it for "education") those people are pessimists, disappointed in life and usually claim everything is wrong and believe in utopias like living without laws and trading food out of love stuff.

I think it fills them with bad and cruel images and makes them used to them. I believe we should hide violence from kids in order for them to grow normally and that to me is indisputable for kids until 14 years old at least. I (as a parent) would never let my child play God of War for example.

"Violence is caused by video games" -some person

Oh reeealllyy, I wonder what game they played during the Civil War. I bet Jack The Ripper played some GTA right before he did his stuff.

If there is anyone who was influenced by video games to commit a violent act, it is solely the parents' fault for not instilling in their child what is wrong and right. Once the kid understands that difference, then he/she would understand not to do it in real life, and that games are a safe way to have fictitious fun. I grew up with no violent influence in either video games or movies until I was 10. That's when I started to watch and play more violent things. Of course, at that point, I was smart enough to know the difference between good and bad. Though I wouldn't let any future kid of mine play M-rated games until he/she is at least 14. Teen rated games at 10/11.

If anything, I let out my rage upon video games.It's a safe way to vent stress and anger without hurting someone in real life. In fact, that lessens the chance of taking out your anger on a real person. It's fun, it's not hurting anyone, and it's also the choice of the person playing. No one should have the right to decide what I want to do in my life. I remember that new game Hatred received quite a lot of lashback for it's violence, and Steam even removed it for a while (the game wasn't out yet, and Im not sure if it is now) but put it back on as a big "fuck you" to the people trying to shut the game down.

The case and point is, if you don't like violent games, then don't play them and don't let your kids play them. You have no right to decide if your neighbor plays them. Seriously, is it that hard of a concept?

Jelly, I agree it is the choice of any adult to play the game or not. I just say it takes advantage of our lower instincts and to me this is demeaning.

There have been numerous of studies done that have said that violent video games makes kids violent in fact the studies reveled that violent video games revealed stress and make them have an alternate source of getting rid of frustration. Personally I do not believe that violent video games make people a bad person or anything because as a kid I played halo as a kid along with a lot of other shooters that was raited M and nothing happoned to me. I feel that the whole violent video games thing is being blown out of proportion with bad apples "oh he played call of duty and then he killed 11 people it must be the games fault because he clearly wasn't INSANE or anything." 

Btw I wasn't aiming it at you, Rodoren, i was just putting my two cents in