Slashdot Mirror
GTA Violence, the Media, and the Gamers
jvm writes "The Video Game Ombudsman and Curmudgeon Gamer currently have posts with opposing views on the recent and oft-criticized NY Post article about the violence in the Grand Theft Auto series of games. The Ombudsman discourages gamers from getting upset over the 'false and irresponsible' writing in the NY Post, equating it with a 'National Enquirer story saying that video games cause AIDS'. In response, this Curmudgeon says that's plain wrong, that gamers should 'stop dodging the issue' of game violence and 'start talking realistically about degrees of harm, freedoms, and responsibility'. So what's a gamer to do? Ignore the obviously clueless mainstream press or start the soul searching? Oh, and Penny Arcade has its own angle on the perils of dealing with the mainstream press, in response to how the noble Child's Play was represented."
This game was not designed for kids. Period. So the issue should not be the violence in the game but why parents allow their kids to play it.
It's like complaining that the levels of sex in porn movies are harming our children. The populous needs to understand that there are more adult gamers than kids. I don't think there is anything wrong with providing games with more 'adult' content, since we make up a huge part of the market.
Environment affects behavior. If you provide no balance to the violence of video games, the outcome can only be violent behavior.
I have been pwned because my
Yeah, kids are impressionable, and they can and do take things too far, even when raised as well as possible. But that's irrelevant
This isn't a kid's game
It's a game for adults, like me, to play. Suggesting that it's going to aid in changing the actions of a full grown, reasoning, sensible adult is like saying magazines like Playboy make people watch Porn, or like saying advertising is the only thing that makes us do anything.
It's bunk
Then the only outcome can be a police state for your children to live in when they grow up.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
These extreme violence games are not for kids.
Besides, I can't say it better than Running With Scissors (makers of Postal): "Violence belongs in videogames - Not on the street!"
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
Why is it that whenever a killing supposedly happens because of playing a video game, it is only the game manufacturers who are blamed? Why are people suing the coders, and not the parents of those who actually went out and killed people? Why not the gun companies, without whom there wouldn't be guns in their hands? Why don't we actually go after those responsible? If parents are incapable of keeping inappropriate materials away from their offspring, be they video games or firearms, we must seriously question their parental ability.
Now I have to say that I don't agree with censorship, but GTA: Vice City is
a game that could do with restricting as to who can play it.
It has an 18 certificate - what more do people want? Sure the game is violent, but it's only a game. Shops shouldn't sell it to underage people, and parents shouldn't buy them for kids and then complain about the content.
Take the GTA arguement and substitute "Booze" or "Porn" for GTA - the story completly changes - suddenly it's completly obvious that its wrong to buy little jimmy those skin mags he's been eying up, or that bottle of vodka he "really wanted"...
Some people can be really dumb, but like to blame everyone but themselves for their shortcomings...
Games, guns, cars, etc. , are all tools that can be used in various ways.
Games can be used to amuse, to teach, to kill time.
Guns can be used to defend, to intimidate, or to kill.
Cars can be used for joy rides, trips to the library, or mowing down a crowd of people.
It is my opinion that tools and the tool manufacturers should not be blaimed for illegal use of their tools.
The only exception to this rule is if a tool is so poorly designed that it can cause harm even though the user of the tool has taken reasonable precautions to obey the law and use the tool safely.
Jumping to correct solutions slowly is better than jumping to incorrect solutions quickly.
Oh, but they did. Or haven't you heard of the Second World War?
The reason domestic guns could be prevalent then and yet not used is becaused a large proportion of the adult population had just seen the horrors of what happens when guns really get out of control. This generation hasn't seen that - there have been wars of course, but the population itself hasn't been drafted and isn't as deeply affected as with World War II. In fact, it mostly seems to be treated as an excuse for some flash graphics on a news programme (yes - the 'programme' gives it away. I'm in the UK, and I'm afraid our news channels can be just as bad).
Cheers,
Ian
"If you show a man sucking a woman's breast you get an R rating. But if you show the same man shooting the woman's breast off with a shotgun you get M."
De Niro, I think.
Basically the whole argument that bad behaviour stems from playing video games is just insane as the people who believe it. If the argument is that people reflect what they see in the video game and believe its also acceptable in real life then why arent thousands of kids out being like mario eating mushrooms and stealing coins?
And a small history lesson... there were badly behaved people before video games were even thought of! *gasp*
If people who are against videogame violence were to be believed then the first murder happened shortly after space invaders came out. Gang rapes started happening after pacman, and paperboy bought on genocidal tendencies.
The blame of any kids that do bad things should be squarely on the parents instead of trying to find someone else for their own failings. If i did something wrong, I got smacked for it and I learnt not to do it again.
If anything they should censor the news or clean it up, how many murders with gruesome details to they report on each day?
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Seems a little OT, but any post here is either going to be OT or redundant (given that we've already discussed the original article), and Child's Play was mentioned in the post.
Child's Play wasn't done to get the "public" to like gamers, nor to counteract the "games make you a psycho-killer" lobby. It was done to help some kids. You can be cynical and disagree, but so what? Sure it also has the effect of projecting an image of games as fun, as something good for a change, but "two birds with one stone" isn't a crime (provided you stay metaphorical).
In many parts of the world motorcyclists organise "toy runs" where lots of bikies/bikers collect money and toys, meet at a pre-arranged spot and then ride en masse to a children's hospital where they hand the goddies over. This creates an alternative image for the media. They can run a story about bike gangs / speeding "organ donors" or one about subverted stereotypes and outlaws with hearts of gold. It's a cliche either way but at least the toy runs give them the option.
It sounds as though the media didn't know what to make of Child's Play, so they pretended it wasn't there. The kids still got their toys, and if it becomes a regular feature, perhaps the media will have to develop a similar bifurcated view of gamers.
Sure they'll still be tossing a coin, "heads = GTA psychos, tails = human interest story with sick kids", but at least there's a positive stereotype in there too.
This won't change the fact that games, like motorcyclists, span the gamut of psychos and idiots through to saints and whatnot, but it might help a little. Give it time.
Of course, it's worth keeping up just for its own sake too.
I can't believe you're linking beating children to warfare.
Your logic seems to be - if you beat children, they will go to war in the future and only the teaching of violence leads to war.
There are a couple of fallacies with that. The basic one is that wars haven't stopped. The US, the UK and other developed countries where parents are discouraged from smacking their children around are still willing to use violence to protect their interests. Vietnam. The Falklands. Grenada. Panama. The Gulf I and II. Etc. etc. They just haven't met an opponent strong enough and that they were willing to take on, to cause a world war. The Soviet Union was too powerful too fight in a warm war but there was still a cold war with plenty of of proxy violence.
The other fallacies include the facts that kids are violent little sods even without any adult schooling in the ways of violence and that violence seems to be an inherent characteristic of mankind that cannot be educated away.
If your grandchildren can't understand why you sniped Germans (to stop Hitler turning the world into a nightmare, to save people from the gas chambers, etc. etc.), then you might want to have a little talk with them about ethics and self-defence.
Also - take a look around you. Most people believe in the US believe violence is justified by national needs.
No shit.
It seems that americans are violent, but when you compare suicides its places in europe that always at the top of the list.
Is it better to be violent and happy or be suicidally depressed?
Anyways places in america with the highest rates in gun ownership have the lowest murder and violent crime rates. In my neighborhood everybody and their mom owns guns. I own a rifle and a handgun, I see people carring shotguns to and from target practice. The local hardware sells guns and hunting supplies, and their is a local gunshop just walking distance from my house. They have deer rifles, handguns, shotguns, semi-automatic rifles and cheap ammo and accessories.
The murder rate in my neighborhood is practicly nil. I don't remember the last time their was a issue. Can anybody in London or Paris say that?
In reality the only real coorolation between murder rates and any usefull statistics is:
DRUG USE.
Drug dealers and users continually are ripping one another off. People whiling to supply chemicals that destroy bodies and minds arent' going to sit still when some a-hole druggy just ripped them off for 4000 dollars. That's were the murder rates come from. Gang members stealing from each other and fighting over drug sales is what drive-by's are all about.
Not some 13 year-old playing GTA and then stealing his dad's shotgun and car and blasting some old guy in the face from the passenger window.
That shit just doesn't happen.
You look whats beginning to happen in Europe in areas were heavy drug use sets in. Murder rates and especially suicide rates skyrocket in those localised areas.
It has very little to do with the aviablity or ease of location of guns.
There are places in Mexico were the murder rates are astronomical. Every night several people get murdered in some towns.
In these areas guns are practicly non-existant. Only the wealthy and police own firearms.
The murders all happen thru stabbings.
Sure America has big issues, but gun control is a red herring and concintrating on it is distracting people from the real issues.
The trouble is that you can't regulate people anti-asshole behavior regulation. And drug control is next to impossible with governmental and social attitudes. A weird combination of hatred and live and let live attitudes that just are insane.
So people go GUN KILL PEOPLE. GET RID OF GUNS GET RID OF VIOLENCE.
Hey kids, it's just not that easy. If it was we wouldn't be in the situations that we are today.
When my dad grew up (b 1944), every hardware store and mass merchant sold guns and ammunition freely. Kids grew up with guns all around, got their own rifles at a young age, hunted after school, shot rats at the dump, you get the idea - they were everywhere. How many mass shootings occurred then?
Well, I would hate to come off as some conservative and agree, but I think I agree. There has been an "awakening" as to the danger and (now) unnecessity of guns. People increasingly don't need guns (because they don't need to hunt for food any longer) and guns have shifted from a tool to a sort of taboo. When guns (or drugs or sex or anything) are everything they lose their interest and appeal and perhaps even become commonplace. Just go to Amsterdam where the locals don't seem to bat an eye around such sinful items (in fact, those drooling in the Red Light District are likely -- American -- tourists -- college kids). Not to say that inundating our society with these vices is a solution because in Amsterdam you'll find guys on the street offering you any kind of hard drug imaginable, but perhaps the Dutch are better equipped to decide not to use such things. Perhaps if hammers weren't so useful and were banned because they were dangerous we would all be ranting and raving about the hammer problem, and Hammer Control would be a banner political issue.
While I couldn't tell you how many mass shootings were going on back then (it's tough to verify because of selective history, less media presence, among other factors) but I do imagine there were fewer, and this is because children were raised knowing how to handle guns and of the risks and everything. It wasn't suddenly interesting to stumble upon a gun, because you see them all over.
The irony (and perhaps this is a stretch) is that maybe these violent games are actually doing the reverse of what all these curmudgeons claim. Perhaps these games are giving our children some exposure to guns and sex and such things in a manner that is less harmful. These games typically don't make and secrets out of what guns do and everything, and many kids can probably get some sort of inkling that guns do kill people because these guns do kill people in the games.
But this is a difficult side to defend also because these kids also don't see any direct consequences of their actions. Only pixels are getting shot up in GTA, much different from actual guns.
I think it comes down to two things:
1) You have people trying to rationalize and allocate the blame for the horrible things that happen. A shooting occurs and we scramble to explain why it occurred. But this is fallacy. I've played such games and I have no (little) inclination towards violence, and no intent on ever handling a gun (especially any of the sorts in these games). I'm sure the case is the same for many of you. Likewise, there are the most violent people who've never played a violent game (or watched a violent movie or anything in their lives). There was violence before video games in fact (and possibly even more violence).
2) And the consensus seems to be (rightly so) that it's all about the parenting. If a parent screws up then these games could very well trigger something violent within a child and if a parent raises their children properly, the kids should be able to play such games responsibly. I don't doubt that tens of thousands of kids have played these games without any major incident. You can't blame Rockstar for triggering moral deficiency in children just as you can't blame a pornographer or an author or anybody for the moral deficiencies it incites in another. Free speech is free speech. The rest is accountability.
You have such a gun culture (well in some parts at least), and then wonder why shootings occur.
I always laught at clueless forginers...
you make such statements without a clue as to what you are rtalking about. First off stop insulting and entire continent of people... canadians, Mexicans and south americans will take a major offense at your remark.. it's like me saying you europeans are nothing but terrorists. Its a wrong generalization.
Let's take one simple fact mister... Canada has as much as a gun culture as the USA. hunting and gun ownership is pretty much the same across the board....
for some reason the canadians have 0.5% of the shooting rate as the United States... Why? is it the beer? Colder weather? Back Bacon?
Guns are NOT the problem.. it is something else.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
*Yawn*- same thing played out in the 1950s concerning comic books, communism and rock & roll. Can't really say much about the 60's and 70's (there was enough crap going on that people didn't need to create new boogiemen). In the 80's, it was everything from drugs, D&D, more of that damn rock music, Satanist and...Heh, maybe they had a point about the drugs.
And now it's video games.
Can you say Generation Gap? Can you say power grab? Can you say neurosis? I knew you could.
You can cite study and statistics stating that video games are mostly harmless (and maybe even beneficial) until you're blue in the face, and it wouldn't do a damn bit of good.
You can't have a rational debate with those who are irrational (equating game playing with molestation... I guess Michael Jackson isn't so creepy after all). If god himself came down from on high and stated he got a kick from jacking FBI cars, they'd only say that the FBI were the tools of Satan. You can't win.
So forget mentioning the game was displayed at a major museum as a work of art, forget mentioning that with the sheer number of copies sold you'd expect at least a slight blip in the number of crimes being committed, forget that several generations of youth have grown up with comic books, video games, and rock music without seemingly any adverse effects: they wouldn't understand you.
This isn't about video game violence. It's about control.
And I shove it right back in their face: "Where are all the damn Satanist? Where are the Communists? Where is this Legion of Doom sent to corrupt the youth? Where the fuck are they? You've been WRONG so many other times, why should I believe you now?"
We are a schizophrenic nation: we want the freedom to take away everyone else's freedom; we want freedom from freedom.
So no, let's not talk about video game violence. Let's talk about how many serial killers have read the New York Times. Coincidence? I think not. Let's talk about how people fear technology and change. Let's talk about how easy it is to gain political leverage by enforcing arbitrary rules against those most defenseless: the children. Let's talk about that.
Video games? Never touch the stuff personally, why do you ask? Ooh look, did you know the murder rate goes up with every unsavory editorial piece the New York Post does? See, look at my graph, it's true. Just between you and me, I hear if you run the Times backwards through your fax machine, it tells you to invite NAMBLA to cater your child's next birthday in Gaelic. I read it in the Washington Post, so it must be true.
Upon reading the Times article, I went up to a little girl and asked if she would rather be raped, or prefer me to continue playing GTA. She said she'd rather me continue playing the game, but she could still kick my ass in Virtua Fighter 4.
Who ya gonna believe?
God bless insomnia.
Here's what I don't understand about life in the US, and I grew up here.
Why is it that we let 16 year-olds operate heavy machinery at high speeds, yet we don't consider them legally responsible for anything, except perhaps the odd ticket they migh receive in relation to that mentioned machine-operating privilege?
Does it make sense to anyone out there how there is no graduated system of gaining control and responsibility over one's life, and how magically at age 18, suddenly one has control over all areas, with the exception of the consumption of toxic substances, namely alcohol and, in some area, tobacco?
When we combine this with a system that on the one hand blames parents for anything their children do, but again makes it easy for parents who fail to act responsibly to sue another party, we're bound to see a ridiculous trend of litigation. We have parents who refuse to parent their children, assuming society will do the job through schools and teachers, yet when things go wrong (because a teacher cannot parent 35 children/class) they engage in litigation, not to fix the problem, but to get money to throw at more escapism.
I have this theory that in this litigious society there is correlation between the street price of cocaine, the amount of cocaine use necessary to wipe out enough brain cells to forget a tragic event without causing death, and the amount of money people sue for in this lawsuits springing from people failing to take responsibility for their own actions.
The desire to stare at video games as the big evil is another step in the trend of people to ignore true mental health issues and blame something else. We've seen it with rock n' roll, Dungeons & Dragons, movies, etc. Unfortunately with the rise of neo-conservatism, we also see a neo-Victorian trend of want to see but not hear children. Hence the overdiagnosis of ADHD and the drugging of children. It's a sick, quick-fix society.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
Ummm... Yeah, I'd take that opinion.
I watched the (admittedly short) bits of the films they showed on the news. I listened to the newscasters complaining about the fact that the Columbine kids were comparing bowling pins to human outlines. Honestly, I was much more offended by the lack of respect that the kids showed for their weapons and the lack of control that they displayed while firing.
Granted, my idea of gun control is keeping a good sight picture and being aware of what's beyond the target. In my mind anyone who uses a gun should have a firm understanding that it's a tool whose sole intended purpose is to inflict mortal harm. Anyone who gives anyone else a gun - regardless of the age of the recipient - has a responsibility to make sure that the new gun owner fully appreciates the nature of their new tool and further understands that the user of such a tool must be ready to stand accountable for its use.
The Columbine kids seemed to have grasped the nature of the gun as a tool. I have no problem with that.
They also showed little or none of the respect to the tool or the weight of responsibility that should be associated with it. I have a serious problem with that. So, yes, I'd argue that they did not have a firm grip on the "risks and everything."
Travel the Galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms...
Critics argue that violent games should be banned because:
1. They are meant for adults but kids still get hold of them.
2. They cause violence.
By same arguement, you'd figure they'll also call for the banning of alcohol for the same above reasens, not to mention the various health issues. However, I doubt that it will happen because:
1. Many of the critics probably enjoy alcohol and most people are all for banning everything except for things that they enjoy.
2. Alcohol industry lobbiests gets paid more than the gaming industry lobbiests.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Yeah, I know, they need to sell games, and have every right to. But you can't have it both ways: knowingly making money off of kids who shouldn't be playing your games, then crying foul on parents when those kids get their hands on the game. You can say the rating system needs to be enforced all you please. The fact is that it isn't enforced, probably never will be, and that's how the game companies like it.
Do you really think the presentation of tits, guns and violence in most controversial games is "mature"? This ain't Shakespeare -- it's trash designed to titillate 14 year old boys. Killing prostitutes for health and cash is nothing profound, it's just a cynical transaction: shock value for money.
If a serious videogame needs to use violence, sex or any other debatable storytelling element in order to succeed as a piece of art, then I'm all for it. But for all of our whining about how videogames are art and should be taken seriously, the medium is still clearly aimed at juveniles. Until gaming actually matures I'm not prepared to give outfits like Rockstar a free pass.
This one quote in the Post article regarding GTA Vice City sums it up for me, saying the game "is 10,000 times worse than the worst thing anybody thinks Michael Jackson ever did to a little boy". That's it. Enough. I have 2 small children and I have played both GTA games (never letting them see it of course). Anyone who could equate sinister premeditated child molestation with an adult playing a video game that harms no one should be fired from their job as a reporter. Period.
We all know the game is not what you'd want kids to see, but neither is porn. Is that against the law? Should the platform in which something is viewed or experienced dictate the way in which its content is judged? Ridiculous.
The GTA games are so great for just the very reason that they are such complete departures from reality, where anything can happen - and guess what? No one gets hurt for real.
I was impressed with Child's Play at first, but PA went too far out of their way to pat themselves and the gaming community on the back for it to last. One thing noticably missing from all of this is any description of how the toys made the kids feel. Isn't that who this was supposed to be mostly about? And now they've whined so much about how they haven't gotten enough credit for having done it.. Well, it's just a bit of a turn-off. If you are doing something for good press (or, the other great reason for charitable giving, to reduce your tax bracket so you can save money) it isn't charity any more. (Hint: The rough meaning of the word "charity" is "love." Hint, Hint: It isn't talking about self-love.)
Very simple. Take them to court and sue them into eternal poverty. Just like everyone else in this country. I'd also demand that their ability to contribute to the human gene pool be removed too. But that might be harder to do.
In many voter's eyes, maybe it's just easier to ban the video game totally than to force someone else to be a better parent?
Translation: Take away other people's rights, rather than tackling the REAL problem and going after the people actually responsible. Blame-shifting. I'll give you three choices here. Take your pick.
Put another way: I think that it's logical to assume that the people most interested in banning violent video games don't allow their children to have them, so you can hardly say that their looking to excuse their own bad parenting. Instead, their looking to circumvent their neighbor's bad parenting.
The problem is, that a blanket ban affects a MUCH larger group than the agreed-upon problem group.
However, that doesn't blind me to the fact that critics of games like GTA3 have a legitimate concern.
Correction. They THINK they have a legitimate concern. The manufacturers don't force people to buy the product at gunpoint. They also do NOT put real guns into the hands of kids.
Studies have shown that video games directly influence behavior.
What was that term again? Oh yes.
I have no doubt that in some case somewhere, some violent video game led to the taking of an innocent life.
I do. If someone can actually do that, there's much more than just a video game feeding into it. Yes, the video game COULD be a trigger for an unstable person. But so could Twinkies. So could Roseanne Barr. So could a rainstorm on Friday the 13th.
Simply because some whack-job gets it into his head that a game is telling or teaching them to kill for real doesn't mean it's so. And simply banning things because they COULD trigger it basically means taking away all freedoms to do ANYTHING. Because anything COULD trigger their negative impulses.
In the end, I agree with you that the solution is, in some way, a combination of holding the parents responsible for their kids' actions. And understanding that while some of this is quite horrible, we ARE a free society. And with that comes the freedom to do certain things that others might find repugnant, or could possibly adversely affect some person who's not really nodding acquaintances with reality.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I am fed up with the false dialectic which is peddled on a variety of controversies: guns, violent video games, reality TV, etc. The false dialectic is that a culture can only have two possibilities: either there is a race for the bottom, as media peddlers compete to out-do each other in outrageous behavior. Or, there is some sort of nanny government overseeing what sorts of images and messages can be portrayed in the media -- meaning that books are banned and so forth.
Those advocating "freedom of expression" (actually license) accept no responsibility for their actions, and those advocating censorship accept none either.
So, we are left with an increasingly polarized standoff between those who would impose limits and those who say that any limits are arbitrary and therefore no limits should be imposed. The result is madness.
I think both sides need to acknowledge that the other has some valid points. Would-be censors have got to acknowledge that the Hollywood film 'Code' really cut into freedom of expression. Yet, that did not prevent great films, including controversial ones, from being made during that period.
I don't claim that all mass media are part of the great wasteland. The best contemporary books, TV, music, films, etc are every bit as good as anything produced in any era (at least, where a comparison makes sense -- comparing The Who to J.S. Bach might not work so well).
But the amount of dreck that debases humanity seems to grow and intensify every year. This is something we should be concerned about. Men and women of good will need not participate in such debasement by holding the shares of publicly traded companies engaged in same. Ironically, the New York Post might also fall under this category itself.
But the populous wants excuses, and the media provides them.
-Then later-
It's all about taking responsibility for your actions.
Wow. Did you go to a sociology convention for that, how many doctorates in human behavior do you have?
Your generalizations are unscrupulous. You talk about taking responsibility for your actions. Your generalizations show that you take no responsibility for the accusations you fling out towards the world.
But the populous wants excuses, and the media provides them.
I am a member of the media. I purport no claims, but according to many of you self-claimed GENIUSES here at slashdot, I am a media liar. I am a slime only out looking for a story. Some of you twits cannot even get logic puzzles and causation right. Then you accuse the entire media about ONE FREAKING ARTICLE FROM THE POST?... but, hey, if we're generalizing, let's generalize some more...
So here we go:
1. All mathematicians are potential unabombers. Anyone here a slimy, weasely mathematician?
2. All programmers are Kevin Mitnick. Anyone hacked a good system and stole from someone recently? WELL YOU ALL HAVE BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL PROGRAMMERS ON SLASHDOT. See? The logic is INSEPERABLE. After all, many of you geniuses at science and mathematics have applied this to me and my profession.
3. All clowns are like John Wayne Gacy.
4. All law students are Ted Bundy.
5. All business owners are like Ken Lay.
6. All scientists are actually working in an effort to bolster the munitions industry. ADMIT IT! You're trying to kill people.
SEE HOW STUPID IT SOUNDS?
But yet, for some reason, you are allowed to GENERALIZE when it comes to the media. You know what that makes you? The very "sheeple" that you rail on constantly.
Honestly, "the media" excuse is tired and busted. Completely. You can't generalize all of the media when some are acting like whores. Just like I can't generalize that all people that are good at computers are committing crimes.
Perhaps, after heavily debated research, violent video games are shown to make it "easier" by desensitization to commit acts of violence. What does this mean? Should we seek to rid our society of all violent content that desensitizes us to such actions? Should all simulations of violence either real or fictional be removed from American culture? Would we revert to movies of the quality of action made in the 30's, 40's, and 50's? While certainly there were some good shows made during those time periods, I doubt the public would appreciate the perceived regression. Perhaps we would see literature and music that relied less on the action and thrills of violent content, but I doubt it would be a welcome reversion.
Perhaps the real question should not be "Does video game violence contribute to real life acts of violence?", but "Why are violent video games such as GTA a huge seller in the video game market?". Additionally, we should perform some introspection on why our society creates violent content in the first place? Could it be that we are a society that still finds violence an acceptable method to reach our goals? Perhaps, or pehaps not.
Personally, I think the researchers are barking up the wrong tree. The questions they should be asking are not being asked. If they are, we don't see the media reporting on such research. Rather, we are playing the "blame game" and "pass the buck". It is easier to pass the blame than to address the underlying issues. Why do we play violent video games in the first place? Because they are "fun" is not a sufficient answer. What makes simulated violence fun? Why do we enjoy going to action movies that depict peoples' heads being chopped off, massive explosions resulting in death, etc...? Is it a substitute we seek to fulfill a lack of "excitement" in our own lives? We should be more concerned with how to create a responsble person in today's society. Responsible people do not believe that violence is an acceptable measure to accomplish their goals. Responsible people can be trusted to drive a car sober, parent their kids appropriately, own firearms, and generally "fit in" with society on a level that precludes violence altogether.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.