If it's not proof positive, it's an interesting coincidence

Last week I wrote a column about the release of the latest version of "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2," a video game from Activision. I took the position that violent video games such as this one are meant to stir up the darkest side of our nature. The game's publisher says it is meant to take the player on an "emotional journey," and one that busts through all previous taboos in gaming. When you consider the violent games already on the market, this is quite a statement.

I read about the release of this game (the biggest sales event in entertainment history, I might add) in a newspaper that also included stories about the Ft. Hood shooting and the decision on the part of the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of life-without-parole sentences for violent teen offenders. It struck me as interesting that the "A" section of the paper contained disturbing stories of violence and its impact on our culture, while the "C" section carried the happy news that "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" would rake in $300 million-plus in one day.

The column considered these things and posed a question about the convergence of "violence for entertainment" and the condition of our cultural soul.

Suffice to say, I got a lot of email last week! The column was picked up on several gaming message boards, where I was skewered for merely suggesting that it's barbaric to be entertained by a game that puts its player in the position of engaging in terrorism against innocent human beings.

Turns out gamers aren't the most articulate group of people ever to email me, and as a group, they use a spicy vocabulary. A boy of 15 wrote to me and dropped an F-bomb in his message (But wait! The game is rated "M" for mature audiences, so why is a 15-year-old playing it?), while someone else told me I made him as "mad as a fat duck." Not even kidding. At least that guy didn't curse.

I also received a few thoughtful and well-written emails from folks who wanted me to consider their point of view with respect to these kinds of games. I truly appreciated those messages, especially in light of the others that flooded my inbox!

Begging the question, did the gamers prove my point? In the column I said it's well known that violent games, while not necessarily causing violent behaviors, are known to incite aggressive responses and produce hormonal changes associated with aggression. The people who wrote to me, by and large, disagreed with me in aggressive and threatening language. Civility in these communications was the exception, not the rule.

Maybe it's not proof positive that violent games promote aggressive behavior, but if not, it's an interesting coincidence.

By the way, the photo above is a screen shot from the game.