there should be less violence in video games
Debate Round Forfeited
datGUUYY has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||4 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||338 times||Debate No:||95329|
Debate Rounds (3)
I debated this twice already. First time went well. Second time the time ran out on the second round and it still hasn't updated for round three yet (http://www.debate.org...)
so I'm doing this again.
First round is acceptance.
All the terms I needed to define are in the previous debate, which shouldn't take much time to read, and I don't believe that anyone cares enough to read them anyways.
All games have violence any way. Mario you kill a goomba but because there is no blood it does not count as violence put a little bit of blood in and it is bad. But it doesn't matter what game you play they all have violence in them
If you think they are too violent do not play them you do not need to complain. Also games are meant to be fun and enjoyable so if people like me enjoy fps games then i enjoy them if you do not like them then play another game. people have opinons and you should allow them to make there own decisions not try and stop them playing there favorite game. Also games like the new battle field are educational they have a story mode about WW1 as the game is set in early 20th century.
All forms of media whether it is a game, movie news all relate to violence in one way. The reason there is violence is because before there was violence and weren't games in the past and there were more wars.
OK, "first round is acceptance" probably means something different than I thought it did. If I am actually right about what it means though, i may have to make it clear that this is not sarcasm nor a cruel jab, i honestly don't know if i know what that phrase means by now. I've only seen it used a few times, and half of the times i used it, it was ignored, so what do I know?
Anyways, since i already made an argument in my last debate, i find no purpose in reinventing the wheel. I shall copy and paste my previous arguments below:
1:Gaming as a medium of art
Modern gaming has a tendancy of pandering towards a teenage audience: using violence and sex to win over the audience they want (see section 3). The problem with this is that it prevents people from taking gaming seriously. No one wants to accept gaming as an art form, no one believes that games can convey emotion or messages, and no one believes that "mature", in reference to video games, can mean anything other than a rating. I am saying this as a teenage male gamer: games should stop trying to put people like me into a box
2:Coming under fire
You've heard the argument before: "violent videogames ruin the children", "videogames turn people into mass murderers", "videogames killed my children", etc. It will never go away unless we bite the bullet and stop pushing violence. I personally want people to start taking games seriously, as priorly mentioned, but I don't want them percieved as a threat. I can only assume you feel the same way
And, to explain what I meant in section 1, I will copy another excerpt from my previous debate, specifically the counterarguments, here:
3: Reiteration of why games tend towards violence
Why do people tend to like violent games as opposed to nonviolent ones? One of the issues is the AAA games (like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty) vs. indie games (like minecraft and Don't Starve). AAA is sponsored by heavy budget studios with heavy wallets and large numbers. Indie games are created by "independent developers", which can be stretched, but for all practical purposes just means a small team of friends who just thought it would be fun to create a video game. Because AAA games have larger budgets, they can push their games with advertising campaigns. However, they also don't have much area for originality; because they spend so much money on each project, they can't afford to get a failed project, so they just rehash an old formula: buff guys shooting guns at other buff guys. Indie games usually go with violence as well, to mirror their AAA counterparts.
The issue isn't that nonviolent games aren't as good, but that they aren't as well known. What about when they are well done? Undertale, an indie game written by Toby Fox, was prided for its emphasis on nonviolence and the ability to talk with the opponents without taking their lives. Mirror's edge, while still more or less AAA (even with less marketing), and still including heavy amounts of violence, did not focus on violence, but on parkour and freerunning
--" the more life like a game is the better understanding people get from playing video of real life scenario."
Fair, but what does this have to do with violence? I am fine with games using realism, and even the violence it entails, to get across a message or to undestand others' lifestyles. However, currently, it is overused as a means to attract the average teenage male.
--" Any way there is violence in the news about a murder or a extremist group and movies so that doesn't mean games have to suffer"
First off, I don't care about movies. I'll let the cinephiles debate over that. I, as a gamer, am concerned for video games. Second, I do not believe that movies have this problem as much as video games. I have no sources, so maybe this argument is invalid. But I still believe that, if movies are using it as much as video games (which I doubt), they should tone it down a bit too.
-- "people find these games fun so why ruin it for them."
Well, do you think they find specifically running around taking lives fun, or do you believe that the game, in and of itself, is fun? I don't think that violent games should outright go extinct, but we could do without another COD clone. I believe that video games can be fun without violence, or at least without a constant dependance on violence to remain entertaining.
--"All games have violence any way. Mario you kill a goomba but because there is no blood it does not count as violence put a little bit of blood in and it is bad. But it doesn't matter what game you play they all have violence in them"
I disagree with almost everything here. Yes, blood does have an impact on how violent a game seems, and how much it is deemed violent by the ESRB, but this does not mean that every game that doesn't have blood is violent. DDR isn't violent. Guitar Hero isn't violent. Games are not violent by nature, and I believe that games can evolve past gripping furiously onto violence with both hands. Further, I don't care if video games have violence in them, I just have a problem with the pointless overuse of violence.
--"If you think they are too violent do not play them you do not need to complain. Also games are meant to be fun and enjoyable so if people like me enjoy fps games then i enjoy them if you do not like them then play another game. people have opinons and you should allow them to make there own decisions not try and stop them playing there favorite game. "
Well, this is a harder point to argue with, I will admit. However, saying that you like FPS games is not the same as saying you couldn't play nonviolent games. Nonviolent games haven't been explored too much, and I would argue that that is one of the only reasons people don't like them. AAA developers are unwilling to cut much from the original formula they have gone through for a long enough amount of time. I don't want to see COD disappear forever. I don't want Undertale to ditch its Neutral Mode or Genecide Mode. I just want there to be less games like COD and, more importantly, more games like Undertale--where nonviolence is given a chance. Right now, there isn't much in the gaming industry (at least on the AAA side) other than FPS games and similarly made violent games. I just want games to branch out a little, not shrink.
--"Also games like the new battle field are educational they have a story mode about WW1 as the game is set in early 20th century."
But do they require violence to have education in them?
--"All forms of media whether it is a game, movie news all relate to violence in one way. The reason there is violence is because before there was violence and weren't games in the past and there were more wars."
Your first point here was already addressed earlier. Your second point has no bearing in this conversation because it applies to violent video games' affect on real life, which is a point that has been argued to a stalemate, and one which I would rather not address.
Games like COD show what war is like maybe it is not put in the right environment but is still about the CDP team conquering Black ops team. The game is about good over evil. Assassins creed shows what life like was in the past and you can learn from this. Also I know COD is not What it used to be but the new Battle field 1 gives a better representation of war and understanding. Battle field 1 is an art it shows a representation of war and art is a representation of something so your argument about games only having sex and violence is not i all games yes because this is a representation of war it is going to be violent but this shows that games still are not just about sex and violence.
Violent video games do not ruin children. Parents ruin children. What i mean is that guns do not shoot people. People shoot guns. So what i am trying to say is that if a parent is allowing children to play violent games then it is their fault if a child is "ruined" however what do you mean by ruined. Play to many games because if you play to many games and no studying then that will ruin a child.
Games like mine craft is violent and the mods can make mine craft more violent so your argument is technically incorrect mine craft has sword and killing small vulnerable animals and zombies and spiders and skeletons and creepers that explode which could be seen as a suicide bomber which could give children an affect of thinking creepers are cool i want to explode and then they bomb a building. Seems over exaggerated however this is possible but it still gives the ideas of issues relating to even games that seem innocent.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.