Video games have been around for decades and include a
plethora of game types and platforms. However, they have come under the scanner
for potentially creating violent responses in children and teenagers. But how
many have actually considered the base of this argument? How much of it is
actually true?
Almost all video games are a competition or are based on meeting
a time crunch. They are about which player can score more points than the other
or who can finish the game in the least amount of time. That is how their
creators intended them to be. They were made to enhance the players skills and
improve upon other abilities simultaneously. Video games push players to use
their mental and physical capabilities to beat the machine, or each other, in a
battle of time and skill management. In all classic video games, the game
challenges the player's timing, reflex, tact and strategy - and builds their
ability to perform under pressure; usually a time crunch or deadline of some
sort.
In player vs. player games, the outcome of the game is
decided by who responds sooner and acts in the most appropriate way to attack,
defend or counter-attack as to gain an advantage. Some players adopt a tactical
and calculated approach, while many other find a moves that the easiest to
perform and begin a continuous barrage of attack which undoubtedly always leads
to their downfall.
Strategy games were created with the aim to invoke a
player's planning and evasive tendencies. They sharpen your mind and reduce
decision making time while improving reaction time.
The point argued is that such games are violent. They
aren't! Children don't play video games from the day they are born. They learn,
they see, they listen and absorb what they can from around them. This is what
makes up the world surrounding their existence. When the child grows enough to
handle a game controller; they act upon what they've absorbed and their inner
self is presented on screen in plain sight. Parents should let the child choose
what sort of games he or she wants to play. They need to pay attention or even
partake in the game with their child or children. This will let them gauge what
the child is focused on. Do they pick competitive racing or fighting games? Or
do they choose a strategy game which involves team work and dependence on the
performance of others in times of need. If so, are they focused on the goal at
hand or on destroying everything in sight?
Here, it is the parents who are responsible and need to realize their child's or children's thought
patterns and counter actions thereof. Failure to note the difference is what qualifies
as ignorance in upbringing. It's the little things that make a big difference
later on.
A game is played how the player chooses to play it. An angry
child will prefer a game with guns so he or she can shoot at everything to
glory deriving pleasure from dissipating their anger among virtual beings.
Games like Contra or Quake are mission oriented. They provide you an arsenal to
attack and defend yourself but the game is ultimately based on accomplishing a
goal - complete the level as soon as you can with minimum fuss. Here, the
player can choose to evade game opponents and stealthily complete levels taking
down enemies only when they stand in their way. The game can be played several
different ways. The player decides how they want to go about it. It's more than
a game; it's a gauge of discipline and choice.
Not to stereotype any players or games, but some games
actually let you gauge what sort of person the player is. Arkanoid, Tetris and
even Pinball tend to be played by those looking to exceed their own limitations
- those who push themselves to be better
than they used to be. Similarly, Super Mario Brothers or games of such genre
show a curiosity, a perseverance within the player to reach their goal, their
prize. Some may even consider people to be addicts. However, there's a fine
line between being committed to oneself to see a goal through within a
reasonable amount of time and being addicted.
Then there are the games created later by those you could
safely say are in need of a psychological consult or even mental help.
"Shoot as many as you can" or "shoot as much as you can"
are simply not rules. They seem easy enough at first but then you realize that
they are mindless violence oriented games with a single track to follow. What's
more; they don't last because of that aspect. They don't bring anything else to
the table or offer anything else to benefit the player. They certainly don't
engage players beyond a single parameter. This is the major difference between
those sort of games and games like Call Of Duty or Commandos. These are hot
sellers because they actively involve the player and strengthen several skill
sets which are basically required to survive. They inculcate responsibility, strategy,
planning, tact, team work and sacrifice. They require quick thinking and
decision making and utilize considerable reserves of the players memory. They
engage the mind and body of the player in ways that few other games can.
Thus, it's wrong to blame video games for the violent
tendencies of children. Video games are merely an outlet which lets you see
what a child would do given the power and abilities that video games offer in a
virtual world. Of course, this does not translate literally to their actions in
the real world but there are some who cannot process the difference. There are
some who will have certain feelings triggered by events in the real world which
cause them to react upon the real world as they would in the game.
As
for violent video games; they don't exist! The ones that are simply focus on a
singular path of violence never make it to the mainstream. There is always a
choice and there are those who choose.
