"Teenage psychopaths get inspired by [video games] and want to make it real"

This was a statement made by an anchor from CNN. On the surface, it may seem like the usual media attack. Yet I actually agree with him, and one key word in this statement makes all the difference. Whether he intended to make the distinction or not, the anchor illuminated the difference between video game effects on the psychopathic mind, as opposed to your every day teenager. I don’t agree with media portrayals that video games corrupt good, innocent children, poisoning their once wholesome thoughts. I also don’t think that the negative effects of video games apply to most that play them- most will go on unaffected. Yet I think that there may be something to be said for the notion that whilst video games may not be the root cause of violent thoughts or behaviour, they do perhaps intensify them. 

There was something in one of the readings that caught my attention- the fact that a video gamers exhibit a higher proportion of violent or disturbed individuals than a normal population sample. The writer then went on to suggest, of course, that correlation does not imply causation, that perhaps video games do not cause violent or disturbing behaviour, but rather video games can be attractive to violent and disturbing individuals. I agree with this claim entirely. Yet if we take this suggestion to be valid, I think it is also important that we consider a subsequent question- if an individual that already has tendencies for violent or disturbing behaviour then engages with a video game, what effect do video games have on their pre-existing  behavioural traits or thoughts? 

It cannot be denied that very often, video games glorify or reward violence. For most people, this violence is a means to an end, a part of the competition. Triumph or satisfaction is not sourced in the actual act of killing, but rather the general sense of tackling the challenge that the game has presented. For someone that already revels in the idea of committing a violent act, however, the affect may be different. The spilling of blood, the feeling of walking into a room guns blazing and seeking revenge on one’s enemy- for some this may already be a fantasy and one that the affective experience of the game may perpetuate.

  
I'm not sure such a position has any truth to it, nor do I believe that we should re-form violent content or the gaming industry. Most people are probably relatively unaffected by the violence in video games, and for those that it does perhaps affect, it’s unsure how much impact reform would even have on preventing violent incidences. Yet I do believe that more moderate approaches like this are needed in public discourse. It seems to me that whenever video game violence is brought up its either framed as “video games are responsible for corrupting all young minds, parents beware” or “violence in video games have absolutely no effect, and any claims they do is a conspiracy by the media”. Why can’t either side concede to the possibility that video games violence might be a grey area, or that the answer may lie in the middle ground? Particularly in public discourse, debates are rarely helped and often become stagnant by such a polarised approach. Until we have proven facts on the issue and for at least the sake of continuing reasonable debate, discourse needs to come from a moderate position, rather than two angry extremes.