Unit 6: Critical Approaches to Creative Media
Products
There is a common belief at the moment that violent video games cause violence in the real world within teenagers-kids. It is true that in the recent years and development of video games some games have become more violent, game titles such as GTA 5, DOOM and Hitman. Each game revelling in the opportunity to show a realistic violent scene ranging from shooting someone to beating someone with a bat. This discussion about whether games do effect a persons mental reasoning however does not have much evidence to support the claims and is instead more based off of theories and minor cases of violence.
The main argument is that videos games do effect people, however through the various studies by professionals there has not yet been conclusive evidence that they do, instead there is more of a link to video games causing people to be more aggressive and or DE-sensitised to violence. Through a survey that I constructed i was able to find out myself from teenage gamers their opinions to this subject, asking questions that would allow me to see if they had been effected by video games in some way.
As you can see from the screenshot above my survey questioned ths theory about de-sensitisation due to violent video games and the results were bias towards people feeling like they had been de-sensitised. However what does this mean? This does not prove the theory that video games cause violence, it merely advances the theory that it can desensitise someone to violence due to them. This does not directly correlate to the action of violence, to give context it applies more to the theory of violence, as seeing and doing are two different things. The aim of this question was more aimed however at whether people understood they were desensitised, and doesnt prove whether or not the recipients of the survey are infact desensitised which leaves this as only speculation. What it does however is showcase whether people understand that they are desensitised or whether they feel it, which is beneficial to know as it can then help them to deal with being desensitised.
Does knowing you are desensitised actually mean anything? Yes I believe so, speaking about the discussion from my point of view i believe that knowing you are desensitised makes you view violence differently to others, not in a sense of satisfaction at it, however it allows you to notice violence much quicker and therefor judge the course of action much better. The action which then follows has other variables that take place when performing the action, such as personal experiences, mental state and environment. All of which differentiate between people making it hard to conclude whether it does effect people or not.
Something that would support the claim against violence due to video games would be the beneficial side to gaming, the skills picked up. A lot of games require precision movements and decisive decision making, which can come in handy to people going into careers that utilise this skill such as doctors. One game known as surgeon simulator allows the player to practice surgical tasks which if carried out incorrectly will result in the patient dying and the objective being failed. As the primary function within games is to complete the objective and in most cases to the best of the players ability it is unlikely that players will actively fail on purpose. The hyperdermic needle theory can be applied to this, as it suggests that information is accepted by the player directly and in some cases unknowingly. This teaches players some basic skills which can then be transferred into jobs such as becoming a doctor. Infact it is becoming more of a normality that people who do play video games find it easier to transfer their skills from the games into real life situations such as doctors operating as said here http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/surgeons-play-video-games-to-prepare-for-surgery/.
Again however it is hard to use evidence such as this to conclude that video games do or dont cause violence, however it has given a beneficial look at video games. In conclusion i believe myself that video games are not a root cause of violence, which has been a part of human life since human existance. I believe however that society has come to a more civilized state that when small acts of violence which are hyped up by the media people react with much more disgust as it is no longer the norm, which back in medieval times violence was a much more common and accepted thing. I feel like video gamers are targetted as it is the easy option, when judging someone for why they have acted violently it is better to asses all the possible reasons instead of latching on one, would a footballer who was violent be analysed and it be concluded that because of his hobby of football which can become physical be the cause? Most likely not, I think it is more likely that the mental state, and the upbringing of a person will define their actions, not their hobbies or interests.
Does knowing you are desensitised actually mean anything? Yes I believe so, speaking about the discussion from my point of view i believe that knowing you are desensitised makes you view violence differently to others, not in a sense of satisfaction at it, however it allows you to notice violence much quicker and therefor judge the course of action much better. The action which then follows has other variables that take place when performing the action, such as personal experiences, mental state and environment. All of which differentiate between people making it hard to conclude whether it does effect people or not.
Something that would support the claim against violence due to video games would be the beneficial side to gaming, the skills picked up. A lot of games require precision movements and decisive decision making, which can come in handy to people going into careers that utilise this skill such as doctors. One game known as surgeon simulator allows the player to practice surgical tasks which if carried out incorrectly will result in the patient dying and the objective being failed. As the primary function within games is to complete the objective and in most cases to the best of the players ability it is unlikely that players will actively fail on purpose. The hyperdermic needle theory can be applied to this, as it suggests that information is accepted by the player directly and in some cases unknowingly. This teaches players some basic skills which can then be transferred into jobs such as becoming a doctor. Infact it is becoming more of a normality that people who do play video games find it easier to transfer their skills from the games into real life situations such as doctors operating as said here http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/surgeons-play-video-games-to-prepare-for-surgery/.
Again however it is hard to use evidence such as this to conclude that video games do or dont cause violence, however it has given a beneficial look at video games. In conclusion i believe myself that video games are not a root cause of violence, which has been a part of human life since human existance. I believe however that society has come to a more civilized state that when small acts of violence which are hyped up by the media people react with much more disgust as it is no longer the norm, which back in medieval times violence was a much more common and accepted thing. I feel like video gamers are targetted as it is the easy option, when judging someone for why they have acted violently it is better to asses all the possible reasons instead of latching on one, would a footballer who was violent be analysed and it be concluded that because of his hobby of football which can become physical be the cause? Most likely not, I think it is more likely that the mental state, and the upbringing of a person will define their actions, not their hobbies or interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment