Violent video games desensitize individuals from real-world occurrences. Within a first-person shooter game which rewards players on getting kills and causing damage to other players, that effects how they would act in real life shootings or situations which don’t have rewards or killstreaks. Ultimately, Individuals who are exposed with the virtual experience will not know how to act in the proper manner in rea life. Scenes or events should be taken out of such video games entirely or have the scenes recreated in a respectful manner. The developers can input scenes or practices within games which accurately portrays what is needed or what actions should take places within the given situations. We don’t know what such scenes have done to these individuals playing the game, when the situation arrives we will be able to tell or it might be too late.
Violent video games are video games that have a rated M on them and rated by ESRB. An article from “HowStuffWorks” stated, “Games marked M are for people 17 and older. They usually have very violent or gory content, strong language and possible nudity.” Violent Video Games are often likely are involved in categerories such as blood and gore, strong language, sexual content etc.. Most of the video games now have their fair share of violence and guns which puts bad images into kids head’s. Now the problem we are faving is if these video games are too violent and cause desensitization in individuals who witness these actions.
Anyone who plays these violent video games is a target for desensitization. If they want to beat the whole game or experience what the developers have to offer then they have to go through all of the violence. Retailers are The initial problem because they sell the video games in the first place so they have to abide by the rule of rated M games which is ages +17. “A new survey from the Federal Trade Commission found that more retailers and movie theaters are enforcing age-based content ratings by turning kids away” (Adweek.com). This is what we need to follow, like California, we need to enforce these age rules on video games so it does not effect the players. The sooner we change our rules involving retailers willing the games, the better.
Effects/ cite a source(s)
Alternatives/persuade reader
Conclusion
Sources
HowStuffWorks. (2007). Choice Reviews Online, 45(03). doi:10.5860/choice.45-1203
Counterintuitive 
You didn’t specifically ask for help in your first sentence, Peter, so maybe you aren’t seeking it, but you did enter it in the Feedback Please category, so I’ll offer some reactions.
I am very much in favor of a bold straightforward claim to open an essay. This one certainly seems to be that. I wonder how much of it you really mean. Maybe you mean that when I find myself in a real-life scene in which everyone has a gun, I will feel as well-armed and in control of the situation as I do when I play games on my sofa. Or maybe you mean something very different: that because I’ve been shooting people for years in my favorite game, I’m more likely to get a gun and start doing it in my neighborhood. Both seem possible, which means this claim is not as clear as it appears.
If this is your actual thesis, we don’t have to worry much about the games. Their effect will be limited to the behavior of people who find themselves in gun battles. There’s no indication that more gun battles will occur, only that the experience of those battles will be altered for its participants. Presumably they were going to try to eliminate one another with or without the game-playing experience.
Surely you can’t mean that they won’t be adequately prepared to use diplomacy to defuse the aggressiveness of their foes. That would be the proper manner for dealing with potential violence. Their video game experience will probably be entirely irrelevant if that’s what you mean.
If I take you at your word here, you mean single-shooter games that put guns in the hands of the active shooters should remove from the game the bloody mayhem that results when they fire their weapons. Not only would that no longer be an active shooter game, it could easily have the opposite effect . . . convincing the player that there are no painful consequences to spraying a scene with bullets.
Again you appear to be advocating for a de-escalation game. I wonder if that’s what you truly mean.
It’s not particularly persuasive to suggest that the result of your research is “who knows”! This must be a rhetorical question. If so, you should answer it immediately with a bold: I know!
I’m not the final word, Peter. This is meant to be a conversation. I hope my remarks here will help you plan your second draft.
LikeLike