The theme of these articles seems to be the pretty standard two sides of the argument about violence in video games. This is after discounting the third view of “It’s just a game” with all the magic-circle baggage that brings. The two sides are roughly as such
Side 1 – Video games create a realistic environment in which players enact violent acts. This is similar to training VR simulators used by all sorts of group for all sorts of purposes, including the Army for combat training. Ergo video games with violence are training players to commit violent acts.
Side 2 – Like sacrifice of old or other “scapegoat” traditions, the virtual enactment of violence leads to a sort of violent catharsis in which violent impulses are purged.
With all of our research it seems that the most important aspect of virtual reality is intent. What you bring in determines what you are going to take out. So for those who go into virtual gaming with a sense of “It’s just a game, let me enter my magic circle and blast some alien scum”, then they create that magic circle and get a -blasting. For those who enter with an extreme propensity for violence, then the gaming might train them to kill or weaken their already faltering resistance to the idea of real and enacted violence. Or some enter into the gaming world with some great rage and frustration and say “Well, I can’t stab my boss but by golly I can stab some orcs.” and they stab some orcs and social order is preserved. The difference between that second and third scenario seems to be the mental will of the player and if he or she is able to keep that psychic barrier between enacted virtual violence and real violence separate.
Of course with a view like “intent is key” it’s really hard to do meaningful analysis because every experience is then different and subjective. But if that’s where the evidence is pointing, guess you gotta follow it.
