For three decades, the question of whether video games cause violence has echoed through news reports in the US. Now, I’ve been an avid gamer ever since I could hold a remote, so this statement always confused me. I’ve played a lot of inherently “violent” video games over the years, yet I have a better moral compass than most adults.

I believe that video games do not inherently cause violence, and I’m here to prove it. This is Atomic’s take on the much-overdone topic. 

Firstly, the diverse array of non-violent game genres such as Puzzle, Simulation, Platformer, Sports, Racing, and Strategy discredits the blanket assumption. Notably, games like The Witcher and Metro 2033/34 originated as book series, raising the question of whether we should label books with similar origins as violent.

Secondly, the scientific community aligns with the argument. The American Psychological Association finds little evidence linking violent behavior to video games, while a Harvard Health study reveals that only 66% of teens play violent video games. This statistic challenges the narrative that video games universally contribute to teenage violence.

Contrary to decades of media coverage on the topic, the gaming industry thrives, reaching a staggering $347 billion. This longevity suggests that news reports have failed to significantly impact the industry, undermining the idea that video game violence is a pressing issue.

Acknowledging the potential pitfalls of overconsumption, I assert that responsible usage falls under parental guidance. Most gaming stores require parental presence for purchasing M-rated games, indicating that adults are aware of the content. The responsibility lies with parents to regulate usage and prevent addiction.

In conclusion, while violence-centered games dominate the market, only one-third of teens play them. The responsibility should rest more with adults than the general public. This is Atomic’s perspective on the question: “Do video games cause violence?” What’s your take?