Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT
I'm sorry, but this is a pretty huge stretch to claim CoD "exacerbated" his condition to the point where he shot his mother 20 times, and then attempted to rape her.
Sounds more like a gut reaction rather than anything backed up by science, research, and peer review.
|
I should note that the science is very contradictory. There are reports going both directions as to whether or not violent games actually encourage violent activity.
As a gut reaction though, mental condition seems to be a huge thing here. It's unlikely someone who goes to that far an extreme would have been affected by the type of game. Rarely, if ever, can I think the game itself being the primary contributor, but being more of a catalyst.
The problem is that it's an image issue. People keep seeing kids getting games which are rated far above what they should be allowed to get. See: Call of Duty and a pre-teen child here. This would remove the instant "He was playing a violent game that he shouldn't and killed someone. Most kids don't play that game. Therefore, that game caused violence" association (I admit, this is logically incorrect, but it's the logic I hear most often).
I think a major factor for games losing this association is for parents to purchase games for kids responsibly. Seriously, who buys an M rated game for a 11 year old? Would you take that kid in to see the Saw franchise? If the answer is no, then why let them own Halo or the like? I agree that the ratings are subjective, but parents need to take an active role in understanding what that rating scale actually means and do their own work instead of buying whatever game their kid asks them to.