Rhetoric & Technical Communication
Rhetoric & Technical Communication
Toscano, Aaron, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Dept. of English

Resources and Daily Activities

  • Conference Presentations
    • PCA/ACA Conference Presentation 2022
    • PCAS/ACAS Presentation 2021
    • SEACS 2021 Presentation
    • South Atlantic MLA Conference 2022
  • Dr. Toscano’s Homepage
  • ENGL 2116-014: Introduction to Technical Communication
    • February 1st: Reflection on Workplace Messages
    • January 11th: More Introduction to Class
    • January 18th: Audience & Purpose
    • January 23rd: Résumés and Cover Letters
      • Duty Format for Résumés
      • Peter Profit’s Cover Letter
    • January 25th: More on Résumés and Cover Letters
    • January 30th: Achieving a Readable Style
      • Euphemisms
      • Prose Practice for Next Class
      • Prose Revision Assignment
      • Revising Prose: Efficiency, Accuracy, and Good
      • Sentence Clarity
    • January 9th: Introduction to the Class
    • Major Assignments
  • ENGL 4182/5182: Information Design & Digital Publishing
    • August 21st: Introduction to the Course
      • Rhetorical Principles of Information Design
    • August 28th: Introduction to Information Design
      • Prejudice and Rhetoric
      • Robin Williams’s Principles of Design
    • Classmates Webpages (Fall 2017)
    • December 4th: Presentations
    • Major Assignments for ENGL 4182/5182 (Fall 2017)
    • November 13th: More on Color
      • Designing with Color
      • Important Images
    • November 20th: Extra-Textual Elements
    • November 27th: Presentation/Portfolio Workshop
    • November 6th: In Living Color
    • October 16th: Type Fever
      • Typography
    • October 23rd: More on Type
    • October 2nd: MIDTERM FUN!!!
    • October 30th: Working with Graphics
      • Beerknurd Calendar 2018
    • September 11th: Talking about Design without Using “Thingy”
      • Theory, theory, practice
    • September 18th: The Whole Document
    • September 25th: Page Design
  • ENGL 4183/5183: Editing with Digital Technologies
    • August 24th: Introduction to the Class
    • August 31st: Rhetoric, Words, and Composing
    • Major Assignments for ENGL 4183/5183 (Fall 2022)
      • Rhetoric of Fear
    • November 16th: Voice and Other Nebulous Writing Terms
      • Finding Dominant Rhetorical Appeals
    • November 2nd: Rhetorical Effects of Punctuation
    • November 30th: Words and Word Classes
    • November 9th: Cohesive Rhythm
    • October 12th: Choosing Adjectivals
    • October 19th: Choosing Nominals
    • October 26th: Stylistic Variations
    • October 5th: Midterm Exam
    • September 14th: Verb is the Word!
    • September 21st: Coordination and Subordination
    • September 28th: Form and Function
    • September 7th: Sentence Patterns
  • ENGL 4275: Rhetoric of Technology
    • April 13th: Authorities in Science and Technology
    • April 15th: Articles on Violence in Video Games
    • April 20th: Presentations
    • April 6th: Technology in the home
    • April 8th: Writing Discussion
    • Assignments for ENGL 4275
    • February 10th: Religion of Technology Part 3 of 3
    • February 12th: Is Love a Technology?
    • February 17th: Technology and Gender
    • February 19th: Technology and Expediency
    • February 24th: Semester Review
    • February 3rd: Religion of Technology Part 1 of 3
    • February 5th: Religion of Technology Part 2 of 3
    • January 13th: Technology and Meaning, a Humanist perspective
    • January 15th: Technology and Democracy
    • January 22nd: The Politics of Technology
    • January 27th: Discussion on Writing as Thinking
    • January 29th: Technology and Postmodernism
    • January 8th: Introduction to the Course
    • March 11th: Writing and Other Fun
    • March 16th: Neuromancer (1984) Day 1 of 2
    • March 18th: Neuromancer (1984) Day 2 of 2
    • March 23rd: Inception (2010)
    • March 25th: Writing and Reflecting Discussion
    • March 30th & April 1st: Count Zero
    • March 9th: William Gibson’s Neuromancer (1984)
  • ENGL 6166: Rhetorical Theory
    • April 12th: Knoblauch. Ch. 4 and Ch. 5
    • April 19th: Jacques Derrida’s Positions
    • April 26th:  Feminisms and Rhetorics
    • April 5th: Knoblauch. Ch. 3 and More Constitutive Rhetoric
    • February 15th: Isocrates (Part 2)
    • February 1st: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric Books 2 & 3
      • Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Book 2
      • Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Book 3
    • February 22nd: St. Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine [Rhetoric]
    • February 8th: Isocrates (Part 1)-2nd Half of Class
    • January 11th: Introduction to Class
    • January 18th: Plato’s Phaedrus
    • January 25th: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric Book 1
    • March 15th: Descartes, Rene, Discourse on Method
    • March 1st: Knoblauch. Ch. 1 and 2
    • March 22nd: Mary Wollstonecraft
    • March 29th: Second Wave Feminist Rhetoric
    • May 3rd: Knoblauch. Ch. 6, 7, and “Afterword”
    • Rhetorical Theory Assignments
  • ENGL/COMM/WRDS: The Rhetoric of Fear
    • January 10th: Introduction to the Class
    • January 17th: Scapegoats & Conspiracies
    • January 24th: The Rhetoric of Fear and Fallacies Part 1
    • January 31st: Fallacies Part 2 and American Politics Part 1
    • Major Assignments
  • LBST 2212-124, 125, 126, & 127
    • August 21st: Introduction to Class
    • August 23rd: Humanistic Approach to Science Fiction
    • August 26th: Robots and Zombies
    • August 28th: Futurism, an Introduction
    • August 30th: R. A. Lafferty “Slow Tuesday Night” (1965)
    • December 2nd: Technological Augmentation
    • December 4th: Posthumanism
    • November 11th: Salt Fish Girl (Week 2)
    • November 13th: Salt Fish Girl (Week 2 con’t)
    • November 18th: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Part 1)
      • More Questions than Answers
    • November 1st: Games Reality Plays (part II)
    • November 20th: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Part 2)
    • November 6th: Salt Fish Girl (Week 1)
    • October 14th: More Autonomous Fun
    • October 16th: Autonomous Conclusion
    • October 21st: Sci Fi in the Domestic Sphere
    • October 23rd: Social Aphasia
    • October 25th: Dust in the Wind
    • October 28th: Gender Liminality and Roles
    • October 2nd: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
    • October 30th: Games Reality Plays (part I)
    • October 9th: Approaching Autonomous
      • Analyzing Prose in Autonomous
    • September 11th: The Time Machine
    • September 16th: The Alien Other
    • September 18th: Post-apocalyptic Worlds
    • September 20th: Dystopian Visions
    • September 23rd: World’s Beyond
    • September 25th: Gender Studies and Science Fiction
    • September 30th: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
    • September 4th: Science Fiction and Social Breakdown
      • More on Ellison
      • More on Forster
    • September 9th: The Time Machine
  • LBST 2213-110: Science, Technology, and Society
    • August 22nd: Science and Technology from a Humanistic Perspective
    • August 24th: Science and Technology, a Humanistic Approach
    • August 29th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem (Science), Ch. 2
    • August 31st: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem (Science), Ch. 3 and 4
    • December 5th: Video Games and Violence, a more nuanced view
    • November 14th: Boulle, Pierre. Planet of the Apes. (1964) Ch. 27-end
    • November 16th: Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 1818. Preface-Ch. 8
    • November 21st: Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 1818. Ch. 9-Ch. 16
    • November 28th: Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Ch. 17-Ch. 24
    • November 30th: Violence in Video Games
    • November 7th: Boulle, Pierre. Planet of the Apes Ch. 1-17
    • November 9th: Boulle, Pierre. Planet of the Apes, Ch. 18-26
    • October 12th: Lies Economics Tells
    • October 17th: Brief Histories of Medicine, Salerno, and Galen
    • October 19th: Politicizing Science and Medicine
    • October 24th: COVID-19 Facial Covering Rhetoric
    • October 26th: Wells, H. G. Time Machine. Ch. 1-5
    • October 31st: Wells, H. G. The Time Machine Ch. 6-The End
    • October 3rd: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 7 and Conclusion
    • September 12th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem (Science), Ch. 7 and Conclusion
    • September 19th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Prefaces and Ch. 1
    • September 26th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 2
    • September 28th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 5 and 6
    • September 7th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem (Science), Ch. 5 and 6
  • New Media: Gender, Culture, Technology (Spring 2021)
    • April 13th: Virtually ‘Real’ Environments
    • April 20th: Rhetoric/Composition Defines New Media
    • April 27th: Sub/Cultural Politics, Hegemony, and Agency
    • April 6th: Capitalist Realism
    • February 16: Misunderstanding the Internet
    • February 23rd: Our Public Sphere and the Media
    • February 2nd: Introduction to Cultural Studies
    • January 26th: Introduction to New Media
    • Major Assignments for New Media (Spring 2021)
    • March 16th: Identity Politics
    • March 23rd: Social Construction of Gender and Sexuality
    • March 2nd: Foundational Thinkers in Cultural Studies
    • March 30th: Hyperreality
    • March 9th: Globalization & Postmodernism
    • May 4th: Wrapping Up The Semester
      • Jodi Dean “The The Illusion of Democracy” & “Communicative Capitalism”
      • Social Construction of Sexuality
  • Science Fiction in American Culture (Summer I–2020)
    • Assignments for Science Fiction in American Culture
    • Cultural Studies and Science Fiction Films
    • June 10th: Interstellar and Exploration themes
    • June 11th: Bicentennial Man
    • June 15th: I’m Only Human…Or am I?
    • June 16th: Wall-E and Environment
    • June 17th: Wall-E (2008) and Technology
    • June 18th: Interactivity in Video Games
    • June 1st: Firefly (2002) and Myth
    • June 2nd: “Johnny Mnemonic”
    • June 3rd: “New Rose Hotel”
    • June 4th: “Burning Chrome”
    • June 8th: Conformity and Monotony
    • June 9th: Cultural Constructions of Beauty
    • May 18th: Introduction to Class
    • May 19th: American Culture, an Introduction
    • May 20th: The Matrix
    • May 21st: Gender and Science Fiction
    • May 25th: Goals for I, Robot
    • May 26th: Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot
    • May 27th: Hackers and Slackers
    • May 30th: Inception
  • Teaching Portfolio
  • Topics for Analysis
    • A Practical Editing Situation
    • American Culture, an Introduction
    • Efficiency in Writing Reviews
    • Feminism, An Introduction
    • Fordism/Taylorism
    • Frankenstein Part I
    • Frankenstein Part II
    • Futurism Introduction
    • Isaac Asimov’s “A Cult of Ignorance”
    • Langdon Winner Summary: The Politics of Technology
    • Marxist Theory (cultural analysis)
    • Oral Presentations
    • Oratory and Argument Analysis
    • Our Public Sphere
    • Postmodernism Introduction
    • Protesting Confederate Place
    • Punctuation Refresher
    • QT, the Existential Robot
    • Religion of Technology Discussion
    • Rhetoric, an Introduction
      • Analyzing the Culture of Technical Writer Ads
      • Rhetoric of Technology
      • Visual Culture
      • Visual Perception
      • Visual Perception, Culture, and Rhetoric
      • Visual Rhetoric
      • Visuals for Technical Communication
      • World War I Propaganda
    • The Great I, Robot Discussion
      • I, Robot Short Essay Topics
    • The Rhetoric of Video Games: A Cultural Perspective
      • Civilization, an Analysis
    • The Sopranos
    • Why Science Fiction?
    • Zombies and Consumption Satire
  • Video Games & American Culture
    • April 14th: Phallocentrism
    • April 21st: Video Games and Neoliberalism
    • April 7th: Video Games and Conquest
    • Assignments for Video Games & American Culture
    • February 10th: Aesthetics and Culture
    • February 17th: Narrative and Catharsis
    • February 24th: Serious Games
    • February 3rd: More History of Video Games
    • January 13th: Introduction to the course
    • January 20th: Introduction to Video Game Studies
    • January 27th: Games & Culture
      • Marxism for Video Game Analysis
      • Postmodernism for Video Game Analysis
    • March 24th: Realism, Interpretation(s), and Meaning Making
    • March 31st: Feminist Perspectives and Politics
    • March 3rd: Risky Business?

Contact Me

Office: Fretwell 255F
Email: atoscano@uncc.edu
LBST 2213-110: Science, Technology, and Society » December 5th: Video Games and Violence, a more nuanced view

December 5th: Video Games and Violence, a more nuanced view

Well, folks, this is it. Our last class webpage. Of course, you still have the Final Exam, and I hope to be opening that on Canvas soon (you’ll definitely get an e-mail). You’ll have until Monday, 12/12, at 11:00 pm. Everything is fair game from the semester, but stuff since Test 2 and the Midterm Exam will be worth more points. The exam will be between 80-120 questions, and you’ll have two and a half hours (150 minutes) to complete it once you start.

A Note on Definitions

Review the definitions for “aggression” and “violence” on Nov. 30th’s page. Remember those definitions are specific to the articles, but we probably have broader definitions for aggression that includes the following non-physical actions against others:

  • Verbal harassment
  • Bullying
  • Threats
  • Punching walls/Breaking objects
  • Gaslighting (2022’s word of the year)
  • Amassing troops on the Ukrainian border…
  • Anything we missed?

Notice the key distinction between the articles’ definitions and our broader, non-disciplinary definitions.

Violence in Video Games and Real-World Violence

These next two articles call into question the link between violent video game exposure and real-world violence. In fact, they really conclude that there’s no evidence playing violent video games leads to real-world aggression. Although they don’t offer too many alternative explanations, these articles seem to conclude that there are too many other factors leading to violent behavior (e.g., familial situations) to isolate any single cause—video games included.

  • What does a cultural studies lens bring to this topic?
  • How might we read these articles to find a different perspective on the topic of violent video games?

By the way, did you hear that a prosecutor during Kylie Rittenhouse’s trial tried to make a link between Call of Duty and Rittenhouse’s actions.

Entertainment Software Association 2021 Report

  • Page 2 explains how the data were gathered through online surveys
  • Notice the list of ESA members on page 19
  • What is the visual rhetoric of the report?
    • Consider the images, quotations, and “Forward” on page 3
    • How does one feel playing video games?

More Information on Surveying

The below links aren’t required reading, but, if you’re curious about surveys, they are interesting. I recommend taking a class in statistics if this interests you, and/or explore classes in Criminal Justice, Political Science, and Sociology that rely heavily on statistics.

  • Not required reading: If you’re interested on sample sizes for these and similar surveys, here’s a link to a PEW Survey that identifies the number of people in the sample size
    • Click “How did we do this”
  • Not required reading: If you’re interested in another survey…“Marriage and Cohabitation in the U.S.”
    • Scroll to the bottom and click “Methodology” for how the survey was done
    • Makes you wonder about the definition of “premarital”…if you don’t intend to get married, is it really “premarital”?
  • Not required reading: “Rising Share of U.S. Adults Are Living Without a Spouse or Partner”
    • Check out the section “unpartnered adults have worse economic outcomes than partnered adults”

Ferguson, Christopher J. “The Good, The Bad and the Ugly”

This article (and the following) calls into question the link between violent video game exposure and real-world violence. Let’s think of the other possible factors that might explain why violence exists in society. Also, we should do our own survey on playing violent video games (or consuming violent media) and real world violence.

  • p. 309: “reframe the violent video game debate in reference to potential costs and benefits of this medium”
  • p. 310: “It is not hard to ‘link’ video game playing with violent acts if one wishes to do so, as one video game playing prevalence study indicated that 98.7% of adolescents play video games to some degree….can an almost universal behavior truly predict a rare behavior”
  • p. 310: “most studies do not consider violent crime specifically”
  • p. 310: “any correlational relationship between violent video games and violent criminal activity may simply be a byproduct of family violence”
  • p. 311: aggressive thoughts vs. aggressive behaviors
  • p. 314: “Video games may…be associated with increased visuospatial cognition.”
    • Ferguson is trying to point research to a more fruitful area of analysis concerning video games because, as he notes, claims regarding the “the relationship between violent games and aggressive behavior” aren’t accurate.
  • p. 314: “[I]t may be worth examining whether there are special populations for whom video games violence may pose a particular risk.”
    • But Ferguson doesn’t believe most are at risk, and VGs aren’t making them at risk–they started out at risk.
  • p. 315: “Although violent games are not likely a cause of violent behavior in such individuals [at risk for being violent], it may be possible that violent games may moderate existing violence predilections”

Ferguson brings up a lot of holes in studies that claim consuming violent media leads to committing real world violence. He is a co-author, along with psychology professor Patrick Markey, of the book Moral Combat: Why the War on Violent Video Games Is Wrong (2017), which goes into much more detail on why it’s ridiculous to claim playing violent video games leads to committing real world violence.

If you haven’t watched the video on what a Noise Blast test is, please do so. Yes, it’ll be on the Final Exam.

Daniel Greenberg’s “Playing Games” (2014)

Greenberg’s short article is really a letter to the editor. He is a video game designer who opposes anti-video game rhetoric and the calls for censorship. Someone might say, “hey, this guy is too biased to weigh in on this discussion; he’s got a stake in it.” Here’s why a blanket, universal statement that claims anyone a part of an industry must be lying to protect the industry. Sure, tobacco companies claimed for years that cigarettes weren’t harmful. However, there was empirical evidence to the contrary! Greenberg might be a video game developer and most likely wants the industry to thrive, but there’s no empirical evidence suggesting playing violent video games leads to real-world violence. Comparing the tobacco industry’s lies to the video game industry’s observations and claiming it’s the same hypocrisy or cover up is a false analogy.

Let’s look at some of Greenberg’s statements:

  • The report “perpetuates the scapegoating of video games through logical fallacies, guilt by association, inaccurate paraphrases, false equivalencies and the blatant omission of the reasoning of one of its own members.”
  • Paraphrasing paragraphs 4-5: Violent people watch violent shows, yet more people watch violent media than commit violent acts…the commission doesn’t explain this.
    • See the graphs on Dec. 2nd’s page.
    • Also, consider the myth of marijuana leading to heroin addiction.
  • “the Supreme Court [notes] that the effects produced by video games are ‘both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media.’
    • But does the Supreme Court actually have the expertise to claim that there are effects–big or small–of consuming violent media?
  • “Scapegoating the work of game developers isn’t going to help.”
    • Ch. 3 of my video game book is “The Video Game as Political Scapegoat: Anxieties, Contradictions, and Hyperbole.”
    • In a nut shell, it discusses how children’s media (and sometimes children themselves) are scapegoated–made to be the cause of all problems of a topic–because it’s easier to point to a single cause than to delve deeply into the myriad causes of something.
  • “Because [the commissioners] omitted facts and erred so often on the side of the anti-video game crowd, we reluctantly conclude that they failed at their task when it comes to video games.”

This commissioner report Greenberg punches holes in deserves this refutation. I will say that it’s actually hard to believe that no evidence exists to support the claim that consuming violent media leads to committing real-world violence and/or aggression. After all, these plenty of these videos online:

  • This video has lots of profanity, so, if #$%& offends you, watch it with the sound off, and you’ll still get the point
    • Top 10 Gamer Rage Freakouts of All Time
  • Just search “BEST GAMER RAGE COMPILATION” in YouTube for plenty more evidence

After all, seeing celebrity fashion makes people want to buy similar clothes; watching commercials where celebrities (or just beautiful people) pitch products makes people buy those products; and watching animated shows makes some children want to buy dolls, action figures, and other related toys. So why is it so hard to think that watching violent media doesn’t make a person want to commit violence? I don’t have a definitive answer, but my research shows that violence in society has way more to do with factors other than violent entertainment.

Important Takeaway on Definitions

There is some evidence that consuming violent media increases aggression, which is what the noise blast test (above) demonstrates. Here’s what you need to takeaway from this: aggression vs violence. Different disciplines define terms differently; furthermore, a general definition of a word may be very different from a particular discipline’s understanding of a word. With my own eyes, I’ve seen people scream and yell while playing games (video and otherwise) or watching sports (in a bar, at home, or in the arena). I consider yelling–regardless of intention–to be aggression when directed to a person. Saying “I’m going to $%^&#$% kill you” is aggressive, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to actually kill the person. However, remembering Anderson’s definition that aggression is an act and not an intention, a gamer has to immediately act out and attempt to harm somebody. Surprisingly, this definition doesn’t even account for breaking stuff, punching walls, or trash talk…again, I would call those activities aggressive; in fact, I’d call breaking stuff and punching walls violent behavior even though it’s not directed towards an individual.

In my broader research on debunking the myth that consuming violent media leads to enacting real world violence, I came across a Bushman and Anderson article that claims “watching one violent TV program or film increases aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, but these effects usually dissipate within an hour or so” (p. 481). They juxtapose this with a discussion on cigarettes, claiming

“One cigarette has little impact on lung cancer. However, repeated exposure to tobacco smoke, for example, smoking one pack of cigarettes a day for 15 years, seriously increases the likelihood of a person contracting lung cancer (and other diseases)” (p. 481).

They made this claim in 2001–two decades ago. Consider the technological advancements in video games over that time.

Rhetorically, they discuss smoking and violent media together (juxtaposing) in order to force a connection that consuming violent media over time will build up aggression that leads to real world violence just as smoking builds up the carcinogens in your lungs (and other organs) and causes cancer down the road. It’s similar to plaque building up on your teeth leading to tooth decay (or loss) or plaque building up in your arteries leading to heart diseases. Unfortunately, this is a false analogy. If it were true–aggression from violent media builds up over time–than we should see more violence in society, but, as we know, video game sales increased, and violent crime decreased. Their link is specious…it is bogus.

Interestingly, this technique of juxtaposing two (or more) ideas together to foist a connection or bring up something the speaker wants you to keep in mind, is a classic advertising practice. What do car commercials, beer commercials, and other commercials really try to sell?

Wrap up on Violent Video Games

We’ve only read 5 articles (2 peer-reviewed ones and 3 popular ones) on video games and violence, so we haven’t really delved deeply enough into the conversation to claim we have a well-researched view of ALL the literature out there. For a thorough examination, read Chapter 2 of Video Games and American Culture: How Ideology Influences Virtual Worlds. That pretty much ends all discussion on video games and violence. However, our goal with these video game readings is to start to think critically about the topic.

Reflect on this a bit and consider the following questions:

  • What do you think about the effort researchers have placed on establishing a link between consuming violent media and committing real world violence?
  • What might be a preliminary reason to you that the technology of video games is seen as an indicator for aggressive and violent behavior?
  • Have you ever been aggressive while playing video games? (Be honest. Remember, according to Anderson, yelling, screaming, and breaking stuff isn’t aggressive…unless you’re breaking a game controller over someone’s head.)

I don’t know the exact answer (assuming an EXACT answer can be found), but the anti-violent video game researchers appear to have an agenda, and it isn’t necessarily a bad agenda. These psychologists, criminologists, and related professionals are trying to find ways to reduce violence in society. In the early 1990s, violent crime was pretty high, and violent video games were very popular. Since then, games have become more immersive with more graphic depictions of violence, yet the violent crime rate has dropped. It’s just too convenient to scapegoat an entertainment practice that nearly 67% of American children and 76% of American adults do regularly according to the Entertainment Software Association (ESA, 2021).


Violence and Video Games

The information below is some of the early research I found on video games. Some of it is dated, but it’s still relevant. You don’t have to read anything between these two dividers. If you’re interested in more information on video games, enjoy. If you’re done, just jump on down to “Next Class…”

  • Video game sales rose as violent crime dropped
    • “Violent Crime Arrest Rates Among Persons Ages 10-24 Years, by Sex and Year, United States, 1995–2011”
      For males: 850.8/10,000 to 423.1/10,000—just over a 50% drop
      For females: 136.6/10,000 to 99.7/10,000—over a 33% drop
    • Violent video games from 1995
      • Hell: A Cyberpunk Thriller
      • Command & Conquer
      • Mortal Kombat 3
      • Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness
      • Phantasmagoria
    • Video game sales:
      1996–$2.6 Billion
      2016–$23.5 Billion (was 2010 was $17.1 Billion)
    • 97% of children play video games (Pew Research Center)
    • 74% of gamers are over 18 (ESA, 2015); average age is 38 (ESA, 2016)
  • Craig Anderson (2003) debunks 11 myths…cites himself 9 times

Video Game Videos

  • Noise blast test (slow loading)
    • The above is required watching for the Final Exam
    • The below two aren’t required viewing and may be disturbing
  • News segment about Mortal Kombat from September 1993 (required watching)
    • Who doesn’t love a nice fatality? (not required and possibly disturbing, so you’ve been warned)
  • This next video is disturbing for some, so don’t watch if you’re not ready for graphic depictions of violence
    • Video game advancements allow for more “realistic” gore
  • This video doesn’t get too graphic until time stamp 1:30
    • Video game technology: A brief history of Wolfenstein

Next Class…

There is no next class! That’s it for reading this semester. You have no more Weekly Discussion Posts, only the Final Exam, which will be up on Canvas later this week and due by December 12th at 11:00pm.

Take care and be safe this Winter Break. I hope to see you in person in future semesters.


Works Cited

Bushman, Brad J. and Anderson, Craig A. “Media Violence and the American Public Scientific Facts Versus Media Misinformation,” American Psychologist 56, no. 6/7 (June/July 2001): 477-489.

  • *Original source is from this book chapter: Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of Televised Violence on Aggression. In D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of Children and the Media (pp. 223-254) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Skip to toolbar
  • Log In