Archive for March, 2010

It’s always easy to put games on blame because “games are easy target”. Yet by mindlessly blaming games for making young people to become violent is solely an accusation. We need to take a closer look of this misperception. In Prensky (2006), it is clearly described that children has been able to grasp the concept that violence in games is solely artificial and fake – they know that it’s just a game – by means that aggressiveness only appears when the game is on. When the game is off, the aggressiveness is likely to disappear.

In Prensky (2006), we can also find excellent corroborated theme opposing the violent accusation as follows:
1.In his book A Theory of Fun for Game Design, game designer Raph Koster argues that kids don’t even see the violence for what adults think it represents. They see it rather as just a form of window dressing to what they are really doing, which is trying to achieve goals and beat the game.

2.Gerard Jones, in Killing Monsters, make a catharsis argument, showing how kids have always gotten to act out their violent impulses through games and other media, and so do not need to in real life

3.Reviewer Charles Herold of the New York Times argues similarly that games offer a way to be aggressive without hurting anyone in the process What is more, as in Prensky, it is important to be noted that games has helped decreasing violence – “Facts remain; violence in the US has gone down dramatically during the same period that game playing has dramatically increased. More importantly, the overwhelming majorities of normal kids who see some violent movies and play some violent games but receive the usual, societal counter messages do not and will not act violently in public or in private” (2006, p. 21)