After reading the two arguments about video game violence: the Economist editorial argument was more persuasive. Although he only uses one study in this piece, he also uses to his advantage, third party validation by Mr. Williams of the University of Illinois and Steven Johnson a Cultural Critic. He points out the simple truths about generations that we can’t deny; The Economist editorial states that ‘like games today, [Rock and Roll] was a new form of art that was condemned for encouraging bad behavior among young people… But now the post-war generation has grown up, rock and roll is considered to be harmless.’ Pg. 86
His argument is basically the change in humans from generation to generation. He plays on the old and the young cohabiting to suggest that the problem of the video gaming movement is the older generation critics and not the video games or the players. Steven Johnson makes a great point when he says that in America violent crimes actually fell sharply in the 1990s, just as the use of video and computer games was taking off… video gaming has clearly not turned America into a more violent place than it was. Pg. 84 This statement is clear and it diffuses the myths that Anderson try to bust because it simply says ‘there’s no proof.’
I will not deny the argument of Anderson as being dismissal; his points of relating T.V and movies to video games make logical sense. He doesn’t have enough information though that weighs heavier on the negative side than the positive. Video games do have positive aspects to them and the Economist editorial points them out effectively in his piece.
Based on the two pieces I don’t think governmental action into the video game industry is necessary. The ratings that are in place are used effectively and until further proof is available that this system is not effective, they will not be changed or intervened by the government. Neither side presents a need not being addressed currently by the consumers or people in the industry.
Parents and educators should be more mindful of what children are involved in because this will help keep the ratings age appropriate not based on profit but on actual age appropriateness.