Marshall Sprigg Angel Matos Multimedia Writing and Rhetoric 15 November 2012 Todays market for video games

seems to be very split between two very different types of games. On the one hand, there are the action titles like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto that revolve around allowing the player to destroy everything in their path in increasingly creative ways. On the other hand, there are the titles such as Tetris that are completely nonviolent and allow the player to solve puzzles or complete different objectives to progress through the game. In this way there is a type of spectrum that games lie on. Most people only consider the two very different ends of this spectrum, either the nonviolent titles or the violent ones. They ignore the grey area between that mixes puzzle solving and themes or underlying tones of violence. One such game in this area is Angry Birds. Many people recognize it as an entertaining, nonviolent game and in fact ignore or do not recognize the themes of violence within it. It is easy to recognize the potential harm of gratuitously violent games like Call of Duty, however it is important that our society recognizes how Angry Birds reflects the tendency of our society to be drawn to or tantalized by violence. Within the past twenty or so years many attempts have been made to control the increasing problem of violence in video games. One solution was the creation of the Entertainment Software Rating Board or ESRB that places ratings similar to movie ratings on games. These ratings ranged from E, for everyone, to M, for mature audiences. The ESRBs website details the exact process of how games are reviewed and

critiqued and receive there final rating. The company producing the game must submit both a questionnaire and DVD depicting and detailing the type of content within their game. Then a group of ESRB raters reviews these materials and collectively determines the appropriate rating to give the game. (Citation to be included) However, these ratings were there solely to warn consumers and parents about the content within the games before they or their children purchase them. The intention was therefore to keep violent or inappropriate games out of the hands of children. However, even with these warnings, kids or adolescents still manage to get their hands on games and play titles that could be considered harmful. As a long time gamer myself I have always been skeptical of the ratings many games receive. It seems to me that our society is moving in the direction where violent or inappropriate content tantalize us and suck us in. Therefore, it is much more lucrative for companies to ensure their game receives this rating and therefore ensure higher sales. That fact combined with the fact that the ESRB never actually review game content, rather just a questionnaire and video of the intended content, makes it seem to me that it is extremely easy to ensure your game receives an M rating. Recently, however, legislation is being carried out to try to strengthen these ratings and make games rated M only purchasable by people 18 or over. In fact recently a law in California passed that made it so games that received an M rating, the equivalent of an R rating for a movie, could only be purchased by those over 18. So while things are actively being done to limit the purchase of violent games, nothing stops these same kids from purchasing titles such as Angry Birds that reflect a similar move of our society to be seduced by violence. The Apple App Store makes a slight attempt at stopping kids from purchasing violent games by giving its apps a rating that suggests the proper age of the

player. However, it is nothing limiting or binding, in fact these ratings can be completely ignored and the app purchased and downloaded without ever seeing the rating. Occasionally a window will pop up saying you must be 17 or older to download the app, however all you have to do is press OK and the app will download. (Citation to be included) People are so focused on protecting their kids from any sort of gore or violence that they do not realize their kids are playing a game like Angry Birds where they knock over buildings to kill pigs inside of them. Whether this game is as harmful as something like Call of Duty has yet to be seen, however both games reveal similar things about our society and its interests. Our society remains extremely fixated on only one end of the spectrum, those that are violent and bloody, and attempts to restrict games of this type, however, this one sided view leaves us totally blind to the implications of those games that mix elegant puzzle solving with underlying themes of violence. I know many people remain unconvinced that a game like Angry Birds can possibly be as harmful to their kids as violent ones, but I will attempt to point out errors in this logic. First of all, study the theme and purpose of the game. The story of the game revolves around the vengeance these birds are exacting on the green pigs that stole their eggs. What type of revenge you ask? The sort where they launch themselves into buildings to kill all the pigs, and, in the process kill themselves. The player is there to make that vendetta possible by launching the birds into the building. The controls themselves are very simple; one swipe of the finger launches the bird across the screen and into the structure. It is not hard or difficult to destroy and kill, rather it is extremely easy; anyone can pick up the game and begin causing havoc and wanton destruction. However, one argument that can be made against this violence is that most people do not

realize how violent it is, so in that way its power is limited and it cannot be very harmful. However, many implications accompany this statement. First of all, it admits and even acknowledges the violence within the game. It says most people fail to recognize the violence not that there is none within it. Secondly, why are we mindlessly using a game that is violent for entertainment? Either it shows how desensitized to violence we are or how inattentive we are. Yes, we are not actively shooting characters within the game but we are still causing wanton destruction and indirectly killing things. Just because it is not bloody, does not mean it is not violent. What it really comes down it is that we have blinded ourselves to one whole category of game by leading a witch-hunt against another. Before we make judgments about one game and decide that it is not as harmful as another it is important to study the goal of the game and realize both games reflect the same tendency of our culture to be enticed and excited by violence. At this point it is important to differentiate between the categories of violence our society has created. As mentioned before, the ESRB is the board in charge of applying different ratings to games to reflect the type of content they contain. Along with a letter rating the board uses a bunch of different content descriptors to give a general idea or explanation for why it received the rating it did. (Citation to be added) Games rated E, for everyone, are usually accompanied by the descriptors Cartoon or Fantasy Violence. Cartoon Violence is described on the ESRBs rating guide as: Violent actions involving cartoon-like situations or characters. Fantasy Violence is similar being: Violent actions of a fantasy nature, involving human or non-human characters in situations easily distinguishable from real life. (Citation to be included) In contrast, games rated M, for mature audiences, have descriptors like Intense Violence. This is

described as: Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. (Citation to be included) Clearly one type of violence is much more realistic and graphic than the other, yet at its core are they really so different. At its most basic level, is shooting lasers at a cartoonish robot and destroying it really that much different than shooting a gun at a zombie or another person. Obviously one would be accompanied by a gush a blood and a cry of pain, yet both actions are still violent and kill or destroy another being. The last thing I am trying to imply is that kids playing a game like Angry Birds where the violence is clearly fake, is on par with them playing Call of Duty. I just think it is important to show that our society has tried to make these clear cut lines separating them into black and white, while I think it is much more of a grey area than that. To me when you strip away all of the added gore, and get at its most basic level, violence is violence. If you asked most people if consistently playing Call of Duty could cause someone to be more violent, they would probably say there would be increased aggression. One study was conducted to determine the cultivation effects of violent video games. Whether playing these games could cultivate within the player the idea that violence was prevalent in the world around them or even easy to commit. The study was published in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology and was entitled Cultivation Effects of Video Games: A Longer Term Experimental Test of First and Second Order Effects. (Citation to be included) In the course of the study different people played the game Grand Theft Auto 4 for a couple of weeks and then were given a questionnaire to fill out. The questions asked things such as how much they agreed with statements like It is easy to steal a car, and ascertained the level to which these people thought violence was prevalent or easy to commit. The answers were compared with those given before

playing the game, and the results indicated that playing this game in some ways made them think of violence as more of an issue, but also made them consider violence somewhat more difficult to carry out than before. What this study shows is that, the type of game one plays does not necessarily make them a more violent person. It is extremely difficult to show how a game can harm its players in the long term because our image of the world is affected by so many different factors. The book, Childrens Responses to the Screen: A Media Psychological Approach poses many different psychological theories for why media violence could ever cause children to be more violent. (Citation to be included) One of theories put forth is the Cognitive Script Theory. Basically this theory says our knowledge of events or the proper ways to perform different activities are considered a script. These scripts are formed in our daily lives by everything we do, so children viewing violence carried out in seemingly real, or everyday ways can cause them to develop more aggressive scripts. Then when the child happens on this event in their own life they will use this more violent script to govern the type of action they should use. Because many of these theories remain untested and almost untestable it is difficult to know if there effects are as great as they insinuate. It sounds logical that consistently viewing violence could cause aggression but there are so many other factors that could impact this. Whether or not the games we play are harmful to us, they reflect the type of society we live in, that criticize violent actions so greatly yet be enthralled with it in our everyday lives. For me personally, I do not think violent games can make someone more violent than they naturally are. I think that just because we play something we are not any more likely to go out and commit acts similar to what we do in the game. A game cannot

change someones moral code or personality. It can desensitize us, but the world and media around us already barrage us with violence and crimes. From my own personal experience of playing several types of games, more violent titles and then more puzzle solving games, I would say the effect on me is the reverse of what is expected. Titles like Call of Duty do not make me any more inclined to shoot or harm other people and when I finish playing them I end up probably feeling less aggressive. I think the game puts the violence into its own little universe and that allows the player to almost get all of their aggression in a place with no real consequences. The entire goal of the game is to shoot and kill stuff so by the time you are done playing any negative emotions you had are all pretty much gone and I feel almost more calm. In this way it is a kind of catharsis for our soul to pour out all of the negative feelings of violence. This very idea of violence as catharsis is presented in the book Reload: rethinking violence in American life. (Citation to be included) It says that many people have advanced theories that say, that watching violence allows accumulated aggression to vent, leaving one emotionally calm (61). Our aggression builds up and then through the violent actions of the game we empty our soul of it all and feel cleansed and calm. In my own life this is definitely the case, I am able to clear my mind of any anger in a much healthier way than using against someone or something in the real world. On the other hand puzzle games very much drive me to much more aggressive behavior. It brings out both my competitive nature and makes me frustrated and angry. I am extremely obsessive about doing everything in the game perfectly, so when I fail to achieve all the objectives I have only one way to express that frustration, in the real world. Usually I stop playing these games feeling very angry and wound up. However, this is most certainly not the case for everyone. Go online and

play the game Call of Duty and you will experience many people who are driven to anger and rage by this game. They curse at other players and none they take their rage out through their microphone, yelling and screaming at other people. Usually the extremely rude players are shunned but it is not uncommon to hear someone become frustrated because they feel they are not playing well. In this way, the argument for catharsis can work both ways. Either the video games can help us relieve our anger or we can become wound up and aggressive. It is tough to say if there will ever be one definitive theory for the cause of violence, but as a fairly heavy gamer I do not feel that violent games are directly tied to aggression and hate in our world. There are many studies that try to highlight or explain the effects of playing violent games like Call of Duty, yet there are none that study Angry Birds at all. I think our society has just built up an image of what we consider harmful and to us it should be graphic and disgusting. Something we can easily point to and say Aha that has be causing my kids to be aggressive. No one wants to look closely and point out that it could be something closer to home, maybe its because even the seemingly lighthearted games we play contain clear themes of violence. I do not think there will ever be definitive evidence in either direction; rather it is up to us as a society to decide how centered on violence we want to be. Every person makes the choice to download and play these games, maybe it is time we woke up and really analyzed them. As with a lot of things our society has a way of painting something as extremely negative while blatantly ignoring everything else. The market for video games is no different. Some games are criticized for being too violent or harmful while other titles are completely ignored. When we really look close the double standard is very clear. If the

game revolves around the player committing the violence it is shunned, whereas if the violence is a little more hard to see or recognize the game is considered totally fine. However, I argue that the lines are not so black and white. There is a blatant double standard. We need to wake up and realize the type of things we use to entertain ourselves, and the type of things they can reflect about us.