Do Video games cause violence?

-What does the audience want from 18+ rated video games/movies
-What does exposure to explicit violent content, sexual images, censorship and
health concerns cause?
-Audience responses to such claims

18+ rated video games tend to include violence, sex, gore and anything that is deemed not
suitable for persons under the age of 18. A well-known game that includes practically
everything is the Grand Theft Auto series, which has come under scrutiny for allowing players
to kill other characters in the game at free will. This game appeals to most teenagers and
young adults because of the freedom inside the game and how you are able to do as you wish
without consequences in the game. This freedom and ability to murder hundreds of characters
has caused parents and other interested people to link the video game to violence in real life,
a big argument for those who wish to see the game censored. Health concerns come from the
worry that an easy mind can take inspiration from the video game and then carry out the
same violence in real life.

Linking violence in video games to violence in real life is difficult simply because there are
multiple factors the could cause someone to act out in violent ways. A huge argument against
the claim is that audiences take content in different ways and there is no way video game
producers can prepare for every type of audience who buy their game. At the end of the day,
video games are an art form and people invent many of their lives into pieces of art, thus
making anticipating how audiences react to video games an almost impossible task.

Task 1

Hypodermic Needle
This theory bases that media as a whole is like a syringe that injects influence into its
audience. Overall, this theory says that the audience unknowingly is influenced by what
the media puts out and how the media portrays it, being negative or positive. For
example, the news, such as the BBC, could portray a story in a negative light and because
it is the BBC, audiences take their side of it being negative when in fact it could be quite
the opposite. This theory originated in the 1930 has and was deemed fake when data at
the time looks in favour of the theory.
(https://www.utwente.nl/en/bms/communication-theories/sorted-by-cluster/Mass
%20Media/Hypodermic_Needle_Theory/ )
This theory has come back in popularity thanks to the internet as large populations of
people become more free thinkers and get their news from other sources instead of the
large corporations like the BBC.

Uses and gratifications theory

This theory is the opposite of the hypodermic needle theory. It states that instead of the
media controlling its audience, it is the audience who decide themselves what is the truth
and what is wrong and right. Stating that audiences seek out information themselves and
are not forced or influenced to watch mainstream news organisations. This theory came
about in the 1940s when researches started seeking patterns between what was said on
the radio verses the audiences opinion on the subjects mentioned.
(https://www.learning-theories.com/uses-and-gratification-theory.html )
This theorys credibility has gained support with researchers saying that people watch
media to find comfort in relatable subjects and feel settled with themselves and their own
lives.

Reception study
Reception study is a measurement of an audiences response to literature. This theory
came about from the work of Hans-Robert Jauss in the end of the 1960s. The study shows
how audiences accept written texts and whether they have a problem with it or follow it. It
also tries to see if audiences accept the text in different ways that the creator did not
intend for. This study is not as credible as audiences moods change due to vast numbers
of things making measuring incredibly difficult.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_theory )

Passive or active consumption

Active consumption means that the audience questions what the media tells them and
engages with it further to understand it completely. Audiences can interpret the media in
their own way and create their own opinions on matters instead of just confining to the
opinion of mass media. Passive consumption is the opposite where audiences do not
question what they are told and accept it as fact. For example believing everything the
BBC says on their daily news broadcasts. This theory has no specific origin and is more of
a record to how audiences react to media.
(https://mediafort.wordpress.com/tag/active-and-passive-consumption/ )
 Task 2

Do video games cause violence?

A hugely controversial subject, this question has caused countless reports over the past few
years alone. Many parents rush to target video games as the cause of violence in children
with many video game fans defending their favourite form of media.

This
horrible crime committed by the Sandy Hook shooter is linked to the video game franchise
call of duty stating that he used the video game as training for his crime. Call of Duty is a
FPS shooter consisting of game modes where each team tries to wipe out the other in the
fastest time possible.
The example above uses the report of Adam Lanza committing his violent act at his school.
Information came out that the kid played up to 16 hours a day of call of duty. Fitting the
hypodermic needle theory, people presumed that because of the amount of call of duty he
played, he was persuaded to carry out his crime. This theory links to some credibility as the
man had a limited amount of knowledge of guns possibly from his interest in the game.
Personally, I do not believe that the game made him carry out this act but instead his
unstable mind and access to weaponry.
 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516427/Sandy-
Hook-shooter-Adam-Lanza-83k-online-kills-
massacre.html)

A video game franchise that comes under the most

controversy on this subject is Grand Theft Auto. This
game allows the player to murder civilians at will and

carry out
highly illegal crimes. Due to its
explicit and violent content, this
game is age rated 18 to prevent
children from being able to go
out and buy the game
themselves. A huge argument
against the creation of such
games is that they lead youths to violence in
real life. Another point is that it glorifies crime and makes it more appealing to carry out in
real life. A study done by the BBFC in 2006 concluded, Younger players often find violence in
games upsetting particularly when they play games rated for adults. This study goes against
the agenda that violent video games cause violence in teens and youths. When it comes to
scientific studies, they often go against the opinion that video games cause violence;
however, there is a basic link between video games and aggression. This is mostly caused by
the game via losing or frustration at ones self that then can be acted upon in a violent
matter. The media genuinely likes to have something to target and targeting video games as
the cause of school shootings and other violent criminal acts tends to be an easy target that
grabs viewers attention. A huge defence for video games is that it is an art form, by
censoring video games you should be censoring other forms of art that have violence
entwined in it such as music, film and paintings. Film went through a similar phase when films
started including violence and fake criminal acts in a portrayal that is not against the violence
or crime. However, as film matured and so did its audience people slowly understood that film
and real life crime have very little correlation. Personally, I believe video games will go down
the same route.
(https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/09/18/do-games-like-grand-theft-auto-v-cause-
real-world-violence/#22dc7e833241)
The article above discusses the question does Grand Theft Auto V cause real world violence.