What do you think?
Rate this book
Moral Combat: Why the War on Violent Video Games Is Wrong
The media and politicians have been sounding the alarm for years, and with every fresh tragedy involving a young perpetrator comes another flurry of articles about the dangers of violent media. The problem is this: Their fear isn't supported by the evidence. In fact, unlike the video game-trained murder machines depicted in the press, school shooters are actually less likely to be interested in violent games than their peers. In reality, most well-adjusted children and teenagers play violent video games, all without ever exhibiting violent behavior in real life. What's more, spikes in sales of violent games actually correspond to decreased rates of violent crime. If that surprises you, you're not alone—the national dialogue on games and violence has been hopelessly biased. But that's beginning to change. Scholars are finding that not only are violent games not one of society's great evils, they may even be a force for good. In Moral Combat, Markey and Ferguson explore how video games—even the bloodiest—can have a positive impact on everything from social skills to stress, and may even make us more morally sensitive.
256 pages, Paperback
First published March 21, 2017
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
July 1, 2018
I cannot recommend this book enough. It is witty and enjoyable to read, without sacrificing good research, references and insights. It is a lovely consolidation of decades of good (and bad) research into media violence and video game violence, and solidly debunks a lot of myths around violent video games in general. It is tremendously necessary, especially in the new wave of media violence research. One thing I will point out is that it is of course very US focused, with of course a chapter deducated to US mass school shooters - this is obviously a US epidemic that does need to be looked at, but is less relevant to those of us in other countries who have violent video games. It was still very interesting to read the statistics around mass shooters (er, hint: they are less likely to play violent video games).
May 3, 2017
A very well written book on how video games DO NOT promote violence. I think anyone who has kids that play video games should read this. I always said it's not the games. It's how you raise your kids. Anyway very good book.
June 18, 2022
The main take from this book – in my view – other than “games are not to blame for violence”, is this witch hunt stems from a generational issue at best, and at worst is a political stunt to transfer blame from legislation to population without being too direct, and getting some votes in the process. Not that politicians have any right to control what kids or even parents play at home, but saves them from responsibility for those failed public health policies, and keeps floating the political clout of groups like the American Psychological Association (APA), which to be fair, embroils itself in everything controversial, including the “culture wars”, as long more heads don’t start rolling, like they did in 2015.
It was good timing I got acquainted with Moral Combat at the same time I was reading Steven Pinker’s Enlightment Now. The latter showed how despite various challenges the world faces, it is much, much better than it was just a few decades ago. One focal point was crime, specially violent crime, which data shows it has been falling; the former title shows how the gaming industry, including categorically violent games, has been rising over the years, and this can go from Grand Theft Auto to Star Wars Squadrons. Conclusion? Despite the gaming industry getting smarter and bigger, violent crime has been consistently reducing, with occasional new peaks that are not parallel to game releases. If video games were to blame for real life violence, we’d see a starker picture and a most obvious similarities between data.
In order to develop the profile of a typical school shooter, scientists at the Secret Service identified thirty seven incidents of school violence perpetrated by forty-one individuals. By examining police reports, school reports, court records, and mental health information, as well as interviewing surviving perpetrators, the researchers were able to create this profile, and Interest in Violent Video Games was less than 20%, in comparison to a history of being bullied (+60%) and being depressed (60%). And this does not mean depressed people and bullied people are to be avoided or are at risk of shooting people, it just means potential school shooters have much more to worry about, including dealing with their own ghosts, and gaming is rarely a source of relaxation. When it is, the games are not usually violent.
Any game can be a source of frustration, just like any hot sauce or cake with cinnamon – I get pissed when I find cinnamon on my cake, therefore cinnamon increases aggression. Trust me.
The army is known to use video gaming and virtual reality to enhance training in safe environments, mostly to increase visuospatial and team communication skills in soldiers. If they ever want how to hold a gun and how to use it properly, they go for the real deal. It’s funny when Call of Duty or Counter Strike are blamed for gun use, yet the technical skills required for such are not transferable. It’s not as equivalent as a surgeon playing a surgeon simulator. It gets funnier when folk who play these shooters believe they know all about guns though. Visuospatial skills in a video game will only best transfer to real world situations that are somewhat similar to the environment of a video game.
As for the generational problem, it is futile to act as wall between our children and advancing technology. It’s way more productive and healthier to instill a reward system at home trading serious and boring chores for leisure time, rather than prohibition. Parents should better understand new technology and media, and a basic start could be learning the ESRB system rates of games, planning accordingly. Research has found that people overwhelmingly agree with the ratings ESRB gives to games, and that these ratings tend to be strongly enforced by retailers, with parents also finding it useful. Once again the free market regulates itself and each individual participation in the community and children’s lives is creating the rules. Some still fall victim to fear mongering and out of back pocket research funded by certain politicians and coalitions of political motivated parties, but the newer generation is more liberal than the next, also more educated, and tends to adapt better to emerging technology, mitigating the damage and redirecting the conversation to more relevant issues pertaining mental health. But the fact that violent video games do not contribute to violent behaviour does not mean that kindergartners should be playing Grande Theft Auto. Parents might want to shield their children from such game for other valid reasons, like preventing nightmares, avoid negative outlooks of certain situations, reduce needless anxiety and frustration that games can cause, and promote other practical habits in the real world. However also be aware of the perks your child may be getting from playing a video game, specially one with social aspects, like World of Warcraft or EVE: Online, or Warframe. They can help kids open up in ways they couldn’t in real life, and any skills they develop in-game like management skills can be transferable. Kids and adults are individuals with individual sensitivities and personalities, and each family will make their own decisions. Parents will ultimately hold that responsibility.
It was good timing I got acquainted with Moral Combat at the same time I was reading Steven Pinker’s Enlightment Now. The latter showed how despite various challenges the world faces, it is much, much better than it was just a few decades ago. One focal point was crime, specially violent crime, which data shows it has been falling; the former title shows how the gaming industry, including categorically violent games, has been rising over the years, and this can go from Grand Theft Auto to Star Wars Squadrons. Conclusion? Despite the gaming industry getting smarter and bigger, violent crime has been consistently reducing, with occasional new peaks that are not parallel to game releases. If video games were to blame for real life violence, we’d see a starker picture and a most obvious similarities between data.
In order to develop the profile of a typical school shooter, scientists at the Secret Service identified thirty seven incidents of school violence perpetrated by forty-one individuals. By examining police reports, school reports, court records, and mental health information, as well as interviewing surviving perpetrators, the researchers were able to create this profile, and Interest in Violent Video Games was less than 20%, in comparison to a history of being bullied (+60%) and being depressed (60%). And this does not mean depressed people and bullied people are to be avoided or are at risk of shooting people, it just means potential school shooters have much more to worry about, including dealing with their own ghosts, and gaming is rarely a source of relaxation. When it is, the games are not usually violent.
Any game can be a source of frustration, just like any hot sauce or cake with cinnamon – I get pissed when I find cinnamon on my cake, therefore cinnamon increases aggression. Trust me.
The army is known to use video gaming and virtual reality to enhance training in safe environments, mostly to increase visuospatial and team communication skills in soldiers. If they ever want how to hold a gun and how to use it properly, they go for the real deal. It’s funny when Call of Duty or Counter Strike are blamed for gun use, yet the technical skills required for such are not transferable. It’s not as equivalent as a surgeon playing a surgeon simulator. It gets funnier when folk who play these shooters believe they know all about guns though. Visuospatial skills in a video game will only best transfer to real world situations that are somewhat similar to the environment of a video game.
As for the generational problem, it is futile to act as wall between our children and advancing technology. It’s way more productive and healthier to instill a reward system at home trading serious and boring chores for leisure time, rather than prohibition. Parents should better understand new technology and media, and a basic start could be learning the ESRB system rates of games, planning accordingly. Research has found that people overwhelmingly agree with the ratings ESRB gives to games, and that these ratings tend to be strongly enforced by retailers, with parents also finding it useful. Once again the free market regulates itself and each individual participation in the community and children’s lives is creating the rules. Some still fall victim to fear mongering and out of back pocket research funded by certain politicians and coalitions of political motivated parties, but the newer generation is more liberal than the next, also more educated, and tends to adapt better to emerging technology, mitigating the damage and redirecting the conversation to more relevant issues pertaining mental health. But the fact that violent video games do not contribute to violent behaviour does not mean that kindergartners should be playing Grande Theft Auto. Parents might want to shield their children from such game for other valid reasons, like preventing nightmares, avoid negative outlooks of certain situations, reduce needless anxiety and frustration that games can cause, and promote other practical habits in the real world. However also be aware of the perks your child may be getting from playing a video game, specially one with social aspects, like World of Warcraft or EVE: Online, or Warframe. They can help kids open up in ways they couldn’t in real life, and any skills they develop in-game like management skills can be transferable. Kids and adults are individuals with individual sensitivities and personalities, and each family will make their own decisions. Parents will ultimately hold that responsibility.
February 27, 2021
I enjoyed this book so much! I can't even tell you how many people I've recommended it to. It's a well thought out examination of whether "violent" video games make a difference in humans' behavior or not. Spoiler alert: they don't.
February 28, 2018
Patrick M. Markey and Christopher J. Ferguson's Moral Combat is a great book about what scientific study and research has to say about violent video games' influence on society. But it's also a book about moral panics more broadly, and a great resource for living through a time when news can sometimes be more of a collective fiction than fact. My only criticism is that, despite the authors best efforts to be conversational and divide their work with generous use of headings and sub-headings, I found some sections to be a slog to get through.
Well-written and well-considered, this book is a must read for anyone looking for a collection of data, facts, and stories about how violent video games affect people, the potential benefits of video games, and how to avoid falling into widespread, but baseless, moral panics.
Well-written and well-considered, this book is a must read for anyone looking for a collection of data, facts, and stories about how violent video games affect people, the potential benefits of video games, and how to avoid falling into widespread, but baseless, moral panics.
October 17, 2017
I found Moral Combat while browsing at my local library and decided to check it out because I vaguely remwmbered reading about some video game research on college and decided this was a great opportunity to learn more about it. I have to say, Moral Combat was well worth the read! The authors - Markey and Ferguson - are both personally and professionally familiar with the topic; they often share humorous and relevant anecdotes from their own lives to give some context to the masses of video game research that is cited throughout the book. While their writing style would be inappropriate of a professional paper, it is perfect for 'translating' social science research into an accessible, understandable, educational, and enjoyable book for the general public.
August 6, 2023
Što razdvaja znanstvenu fantastiku od znanstvene fantazije?
Znanstvena fantastika je toliko široka ideja da gotovo beskonačan prostor sadržaja i ideja može stati unutar njenih loše definiranih granica. Žanrovi postoje kako bi potencijalnim gledateljima dali naslutiti što bi ih moglo čekati s umjetničkim djelom, stoga je razbijanje tako velike ideje na manje koncepte ključno, čak i ako su granice nejasne. Ovdje pogledajte neke od najboljih SCI-FI RPG igara koje vrijedi igrati!
Na prvi pogled, znanstvena fantastika i fantazija bile bi dva savršeno polarizirana suprotna kraja žanrovske fantastike. Prvi se bavi razumnim nagađanjima o mogućoj budućnosti čovječanstva ili potencijalnom čudu kozmosa. Potonji se u potpunosti temelji na mašti, često bez potrebe za opravdanjem.
Međutim, kombiniranjem to dvoje stvara se nešto sasvim drugo.
Znanstvena fantastika često je vezana pravilima znanosti kako je mi razumijemo, dok fantazija postoji nasuprot njima. Znanstvena fantastika je kombinacija znanstvene fantastike i fantazije koja je pomalo izvan granica obje. Davanje stroge definicije pojma je besmisleno, ali postoje tone znanstvenih fantastičnih djela koja su postala iznimno popularna. U djelu znanstvene fantastike stvari se mogu činiti nadnaravnim ili magičnim, ali djelo će uvijek ponuditi znanstveno objašnjenje unutar svemira koje opravdava njegove detalje. Djelo znanstvene fantastike može uključivati istu vrstu nemogućih magičnih moći, fantastičnih stvorenja ili začaranih predmeta, ali oni će biti objašnjeni. To se obično objašnjava naprednom tehnologijom, neobjašnjivim vanzemaljcima i znanstvenim tehno-brbljanjem.
Zvjezdane staze Genea Roddenberryja često se smatraju jednim od temeljnih djela znanstvene fantastike, no čak se i o tome raspravlja. Elementi tehnologije franšize u potpunosti se temelje na obrazloženim hipotetskim znanstvenim spekulacijama. Na primjer, kako Enterprise putuje brže od svjetlosti općenito se smatra jedinim mogućim odgovorom na nemogućnost ove ideje. Nasuprot tome, Q-ov lik je bog u svemu osim u imenu. U čistoj znanstvenoj fantastici Q ne bi mogao postojati. U čisto fiktivnom djelu on bi jednostavno bio opisan kao moćno božanstvo. U znanstvenoj fantastici, međutim, to se uklapa i ima savršeno razumljivo objašnjenje. To je stvar tona i prezentacije. Neka djela znanstvene fantastike odluče na pola puta dodati elemente fantazije kako bi bila zanimljivija. Ako ne koriste znanost da to opravdaju, riskiraju uništenje svog inače utemeljenog svijeta. Ako koriste znanost da to objasne, stvaraju znanstvenu fantastiku.
Jedno od temeljnih djela u podžanru su priče Harolda Sheaa L. Sprague de Campa i Fletchera Pratta. Ovih pet romana i deset nastavaka pričaju priču o istoimenom dr. Sheau i njegovim kolegama koji putuju u alternativne dimenzije kroz složen niz matematičkih jednadžbi. U biti, oni su u stanju koristiti naprednu teorijsku matematiku za astralno projiciranje svoje svijesti u paralelne svjetove. Kad stignu tamo, zauzimaju znanstveni pristup apsurdnim fantastičnim okruženjima u kojima se nalaze. Shay i njegov tim nalaze se u nordijskoj mitologiji, irskoj mitologiji, Putovanju na zapad, Zemlji Oz, Marsu Edgara Ricea Burroughsa i Shakespeareovim spisima. To je u osnovi vježba dodavanja znanosti tuđoj fantaziji. Ova jedinstvena serija pokušala je osporiti tradicionalne znanstveno-fantastične oblike primjenjujući ih na definitivno nemoguće.
Možda najkontroverzniji naslov za podžanr je Star Wars. Mnogi franšizu Star Wars smatraju znanstvenom fantazijom, ali drugi, uključujući Georgea Lucasa (pogledajte ovdjepogledajte ovdje), ne vide vezu. Daleka galaksija ne odgovara znanstvenoj fantaziji zbog nedostatka znanosti, a mnogi su je opisali kao čistu fantaziju koja se slučajno dogodi u svemiru. Vjerojatno postoji neko znanstveno objašnjenje za nadnaravnije elemente pripovijesti, ali oni su nevjerojatno nepopularni. Fantomska prijetnja uvela je midiklorijane u franšizu i naišla je na nevjerojatan odaziv. Midiklorijanci su zapravo mali simbiotski organizmi koji žive u krvotoku stvorenja i omogućuju im korištenje Sile. Dok je sama Sila potpuno izmišljena, supermoći koje dopušta ljudima da posjeduju objašnjene su ovim vrlo moćnim organizmima. Međutim, znanstveni aspekti Ratova zvijezda su rijetki, a mnoge iteracije rado ih odbacuju što je prije moguće.
Znanstvena fantastika je toliko široka ideja da gotovo beskonačan prostor sadržaja i ideja može stati unutar njenih loše definiranih granica. Žanrovi postoje kako bi potencijalnim gledateljima dali naslutiti što bi ih moglo čekati s umjetničkim djelom, stoga je razbijanje tako velike ideje na manje koncepte ključno, čak i ako su granice nejasne. Ovdje pogledajte neke od najboljih SCI-FI RPG igara koje vrijedi igrati!
Na prvi pogled, znanstvena fantastika i fantazija bile bi dva savršeno polarizirana suprotna kraja žanrovske fantastike. Prvi se bavi razumnim nagađanjima o mogućoj budućnosti čovječanstva ili potencijalnom čudu kozmosa. Potonji se u potpunosti temelji na mašti, često bez potrebe za opravdanjem.
Međutim, kombiniranjem to dvoje stvara se nešto sasvim drugo.
Znanstvena fantastika često je vezana pravilima znanosti kako je mi razumijemo, dok fantazija postoji nasuprot njima. Znanstvena fantastika je kombinacija znanstvene fantastike i fantazije koja je pomalo izvan granica obje. Davanje stroge definicije pojma je besmisleno, ali postoje tone znanstvenih fantastičnih djela koja su postala iznimno popularna. U djelu znanstvene fantastike stvari se mogu činiti nadnaravnim ili magičnim, ali djelo će uvijek ponuditi znanstveno objašnjenje unutar svemira koje opravdava njegove detalje. Djelo znanstvene fantastike može uključivati istu vrstu nemogućih magičnih moći, fantastičnih stvorenja ili začaranih predmeta, ali oni će biti objašnjeni. To se obično objašnjava naprednom tehnologijom, neobjašnjivim vanzemaljcima i znanstvenim tehno-brbljanjem.
Zvjezdane staze Genea Roddenberryja često se smatraju jednim od temeljnih djela znanstvene fantastike, no čak se i o tome raspravlja. Elementi tehnologije franšize u potpunosti se temelje na obrazloženim hipotetskim znanstvenim spekulacijama. Na primjer, kako Enterprise putuje brže od svjetlosti općenito se smatra jedinim mogućim odgovorom na nemogućnost ove ideje. Nasuprot tome, Q-ov lik je bog u svemu osim u imenu. U čistoj znanstvenoj fantastici Q ne bi mogao postojati. U čisto fiktivnom djelu on bi jednostavno bio opisan kao moćno božanstvo. U znanstvenoj fantastici, međutim, to se uklapa i ima savršeno razumljivo objašnjenje. To je stvar tona i prezentacije. Neka djela znanstvene fantastike odluče na pola puta dodati elemente fantazije kako bi bila zanimljivija. Ako ne koriste znanost da to opravdaju, riskiraju uništenje svog inače utemeljenog svijeta. Ako koriste znanost da to objasne, stvaraju znanstvenu fantastiku.
Jedno od temeljnih djela u podžanru su priče Harolda Sheaa L. Sprague de Campa i Fletchera Pratta. Ovih pet romana i deset nastavaka pričaju priču o istoimenom dr. Sheau i njegovim kolegama koji putuju u alternativne dimenzije kroz složen niz matematičkih jednadžbi. U biti, oni su u stanju koristiti naprednu teorijsku matematiku za astralno projiciranje svoje svijesti u paralelne svjetove. Kad stignu tamo, zauzimaju znanstveni pristup apsurdnim fantastičnim okruženjima u kojima se nalaze. Shay i njegov tim nalaze se u nordijskoj mitologiji, irskoj mitologiji, Putovanju na zapad, Zemlji Oz, Marsu Edgara Ricea Burroughsa i Shakespeareovim spisima. To je u osnovi vježba dodavanja znanosti tuđoj fantaziji. Ova jedinstvena serija pokušala je osporiti tradicionalne znanstveno-fantastične oblike primjenjujući ih na definitivno nemoguće.
Možda najkontroverzniji naslov za podžanr je Star Wars. Mnogi franšizu Star Wars smatraju znanstvenom fantazijom, ali drugi, uključujući Georgea Lucasa (pogledajte ovdjepogledajte ovdje), ne vide vezu. Daleka galaksija ne odgovara znanstvenoj fantaziji zbog nedostatka znanosti, a mnogi su je opisali kao čistu fantaziju koja se slučajno dogodi u svemiru. Vjerojatno postoji neko znanstveno objašnjenje za nadnaravnije elemente pripovijesti, ali oni su nevjerojatno nepopularni. Fantomska prijetnja uvela je midiklorijane u franšizu i naišla je na nevjerojatan odaziv. Midiklorijanci su zapravo mali simbiotski organizmi koji žive u krvotoku stvorenja i omogućuju im korištenje Sile. Dok je sama Sila potpuno izmišljena, supermoći koje dopušta ljudima da posjeduju objašnjene su ovim vrlo moćnim organizmima. Međutim, znanstveni aspekti Ratova zvijezda su rijetki, a mnoge iteracije rado ih odbacuju što je prije moguće.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 22, 2024
i was listening to the "rant" and i was asking myself how it's possible that an author who studied psychology, and this book has two of them, can show up in the world with the claim from this book (i studied some psychology too, but, sure, i did not get myself a PHD in playing video games and calling it a selfless intellectual endeavour)...and i can only assume it's because they like playing these violent games themselves, enough to come and defend something obviously toxic to anyone sane (not a sadist...who would want to play the games that they describe in the beginning of the book for fun? honestly?!).
i can understand that anyone who likes these violent games will, most likely, agree with this book, but that does not mean they are right. violent media does break people's minds (people get desensitised, lose empathy, at a best), these violent video games included (and first-person shooters are partially responsible for high school shootings, teens feel encouraged by these games, even if the authors here insist they are not), children should not grow up thinking violence is acceptable or acceptable as entertainment. children a lot will, but adults too, attempt to copy, more or less consciously, the behaviours they are exposed to (here's some valid psychology, from year 1 of a basic psychology college degree...and, um, the Stanford Prison Experiment? from Zimbardo...even people without a psychological degree know about that...simplified, people doing what they see others do, what is expected, even if bad).
this book made me very angry.
DNF, i dropped it at about 40%...i could not continue listening to somethings so absurd.
...but, wow, such a "cool" topic...i'm being sarcastic. that's where a lot of the appeal comes from, the desire to be associated with the "cool" label, and video games are "cool" these days...that basic psychology.
i would call this book pro(-violent)-video-games propaganda, at best. yes, i'm the one who avoids playing them...that might be why the 1 star. i'm not popular here, i got the unpopular opinion...games are loved by society, the good and the bad.
i'm the one doing "moral combat", with this review...
games these days are social, they build communities, and some people like that, but with the social a lot also pack in toxic: violence, sexism, escapism (not doing something which is actually necessary, but difficult, and spending valuable time in a game instead), and a few more things.
i can understand that anyone who likes these violent games will, most likely, agree with this book, but that does not mean they are right. violent media does break people's minds (people get desensitised, lose empathy, at a best), these violent video games included (and first-person shooters are partially responsible for high school shootings, teens feel encouraged by these games, even if the authors here insist they are not), children should not grow up thinking violence is acceptable or acceptable as entertainment. children a lot will, but adults too, attempt to copy, more or less consciously, the behaviours they are exposed to (here's some valid psychology, from year 1 of a basic psychology college degree...and, um, the Stanford Prison Experiment? from Zimbardo...even people without a psychological degree know about that...simplified, people doing what they see others do, what is expected, even if bad).
this book made me very angry.
DNF, i dropped it at about 40%...i could not continue listening to somethings so absurd.
...but, wow, such a "cool" topic...i'm being sarcastic. that's where a lot of the appeal comes from, the desire to be associated with the "cool" label, and video games are "cool" these days...that basic psychology.
i would call this book pro(-violent)-video-games propaganda, at best. yes, i'm the one who avoids playing them...that might be why the 1 star. i'm not popular here, i got the unpopular opinion...games are loved by society, the good and the bad.
i'm the one doing "moral combat", with this review...
games these days are social, they build communities, and some people like that, but with the social a lot also pack in toxic: violence, sexism, escapism (not doing something which is actually necessary, but difficult, and spending valuable time in a game instead), and a few more things.
May 22, 2023
A focused look at the subject of violence in games and what, if anything, that tells us about the psychology of those who play them. Avowedly biased in favor of games and players, and against the moral panic conjured up by their detractors, the authors are preaching to the choir for me and for many readers, I suspect, when they argue that the claims about the dangers of violent video games have been drastically over-reported. Still, it's useful to have a summary of the controversy laid out, and the relevant evidence reviewed in what seems like a thorough manner, if there's even a slight chance that someone might be persuaded to give games the benefit of the doubt. Ruling out games as the cause or even a significant factor in real world violence brings us that little bit closer to confronting the real problem, perhaps. Alas, psychology doesn't seem adequate to it; politics seems paralyzed; the society sickeningly inert; but it might even be possible that games could help where all these fall short, if we recover a deeper sense of community through them.
From a longer piece on games and psychology - https://videogameacademia.org/2023/05...
From a longer piece on games and psychology - https://videogameacademia.org/2023/05...
March 3, 2017
Well researched book about video games and the history of people claiming that it is causing all sort of societies ills. Great resource if you want to shut down that relative at Thanksgiving who is going off about "The Nintendos making kids violent". The downside to this is that I think this book is about 10 years too late. I haven't seen anything in the news about games causing violence (I think we have moved on to religion).
I would recommend this book to anyone, particularly parents of kids who are starting to explore video games, to alleviate any fears that they might have that they are causing their kids harm. There are specific chapters that deal with video game addiction, social aspects of games, and desensitization to violence which all seem to be the biggest fears parents have.
I would recommend this book to anyone, particularly parents of kids who are starting to explore video games, to alleviate any fears that they might have that they are causing their kids harm. There are specific chapters that deal with video game addiction, social aspects of games, and desensitization to violence which all seem to be the biggest fears parents have.
May 14, 2018
Popular in reading style with references that would appeal to fans of "Ready Player One" the authors refute the research on video-game caused violence. There are chapters devoted to the history of video games, school violence, gaming addiction and advice for parents for raising their video-game playing children. The book largely defends video games and points to some of its emotional benefits. I particularly appreciate graphs that show decreases in violent crime with increasing video game sales. With regards to school shootings it appears that school shooters have less interest in video games than typical students; of course, school shooters have much more interest in guns.
April 3, 2024
Not only does the book tackle the specific issue of the social war against videogames, it also more broadly tackles topics like bad psychological research and personal biases. It has references to over 300 scientific studies and articles, so it also serves as a compendium of texts relevant to the psychology of videogames.
This book isn't just for gamers or for parents of gamers. Videogames are such a big part of mainstream media today that I would encourage everyone to read it.
If you ever come across people arguing that violent videogames are the cause of rising real-life violence and/or mass shootings... direct them to this book.
This book isn't just for gamers or for parents of gamers. Videogames are such a big part of mainstream media today that I would encourage everyone to read it.
If you ever come across people arguing that violent videogames are the cause of rising real-life violence and/or mass shootings... direct them to this book.
June 24, 2024
A surprisingly good read for what could easily be a very dry subject. While the authors are academics and take the subject seriously, they also have a lot of fun with their writing (lots of geek culture references, occasional friendly jibes at one another, calling the footnotes "Easter eggs"...)
They manage to mix in a bit of history along with discussions and details of studies related not just to violence, but also to videogame addiction and other issues, and a lot about the benefits of games and how playing games compares to other hobbies and pastimes. Well worth a read if you're interested in the subject.
They manage to mix in a bit of history along with discussions and details of studies related not just to violence, but also to videogame addiction and other issues, and a lot about the benefits of games and how playing games compares to other hobbies and pastimes. Well worth a read if you're interested in the subject.
December 12, 2018
What a fabulous book, not too long, written by couple of guys with a sense of humour and a profound grip on the facts and the fiction around gaming. As an avid gamer there wasn't much in here to surprise me, but plenty to lend an authoritative perspective to beliefs I've held, suspected or was convinced to be true for many years.
If you're a parent with concerns about gaming for your child, this is definitely the book for you, I couldn't recommend it more.
If you're a parent with concerns about gaming for your child, this is definitely the book for you, I couldn't recommend it more.
June 4, 2017
Accessible read with good research, but nothing groundbreaking. Mostly just supporting what gamers have been saying for years. Good resources for parents of gamers who might not know the difference between video game enjoyment (as a hobby) and video game addiction (as a vice that requires intervention).
May 24, 2020
This book breaks down the stigma around video games in such an easy to understand way. The authors engage the reader with their point by making the statistics relevant with stories of how the stigma has effected people. The book follows the growth and change of the video game industry, so that it is easy to see the correlation between the industry changes and researchers.
May 9, 2024
Very well referenced and scientific analysis of how video games affect our morality and other aspects of life. Spoiler: games aren't the devil, and can have many beneficial effects if enjoyed in moderation, just like books, movies, and music. Game on! 🎮
Useful as the parent of a 4 year old girl who is enamored with VR gaming.
Useful as the parent of a 4 year old girl who is enamored with VR gaming.
September 17, 2019
As a freshman in college reading this book for kicks n giggles and kinda for a paper I would recommend this book to parents who don't fully understand why their child plays games and or are worried about their child when they play video games.
February 23, 2019
Concisely argued and clearly written, the authors certainly help put to rest a lot of the ridiculous arguments regarding a supposed link between violent video games and violent behavior.
October 9, 2021
Not great? Not terrible, but I felt like it didn’t present it’s valid research strongly/seriously enough.
Want to Read
April 10, 2017I won this book via Goodreads Firstreads Giveaway. I received a paperback copy.
April 25, 2017
Moral Combat: Why the War on Violent Video Games is Wrong (2017) by Partrick Markey and Christopher Ferguson is book by two psychologists about the real effects of video games on people.
The book looks at the history of the demonisation of games, pointing out that it is the latest in a long line of demonising new media that has included the bible, novels, music and comic books at least. The history of demonising games that have violent themes is also looked at from Death race to Mortal Combat to Doom. There is also an interesting presentation of how the American Psychological Association put together a consensus policy on video games. Essentially august Psychologists reviewed their own work and declared the issue beyond further debate. By carefully selecting the people who wrote the policy they determined the outcome. The limits of their own work is not discussed.
Markey and Ferguson nicely put forward the best argument that violent games almost certainly have a small effect on increasing violence and quite likely a sizable one on reducing violence, namely that as game sales have exploded violent crime has plummeted. Given that video games absorb a lot of time of the group, young males, that commits the most crime it's a reasonable supposition to suggest that games, even violent ones, have reduced violence.
The authors also look at mass shootings that often elicit highly emotional responses. They point out that in recent large mass shootings when looking at the people who have carried them out they appear to play computer games, which are quite social today, less than the general population.
For real problems that video games very probably do contribute to they point out that video game 'addiction' is very mild and the usual consequence is simply spending a lot of time in a hobby. For the contribution that games make to inactivity and obesity the authors point out to studies that increased activity but made a tiny contribution to weight loss and that the reason we get fat is dominated by eating too much unhealthy food.
Nicely the authors also turn to the alleged benefits of computer games such as increased dexterity, cognitive ability and various things and they are just as skeptical as they were about the problems ascribed to games. Basically games are a reasonably mentally stimulating hobby that is as good for the brain as crosswords, playing chess and various other similar activities.
Moral Combat is a well written, fun, easy to understand book that really does a very solid job of debunking the damage that games are alleged to cause. It's well worth a read for anyone who is worried about what their children or spouse or friends are doing to themselves by playing games.
The book looks at the history of the demonisation of games, pointing out that it is the latest in a long line of demonising new media that has included the bible, novels, music and comic books at least. The history of demonising games that have violent themes is also looked at from Death race to Mortal Combat to Doom. There is also an interesting presentation of how the American Psychological Association put together a consensus policy on video games. Essentially august Psychologists reviewed their own work and declared the issue beyond further debate. By carefully selecting the people who wrote the policy they determined the outcome. The limits of their own work is not discussed.
Markey and Ferguson nicely put forward the best argument that violent games almost certainly have a small effect on increasing violence and quite likely a sizable one on reducing violence, namely that as game sales have exploded violent crime has plummeted. Given that video games absorb a lot of time of the group, young males, that commits the most crime it's a reasonable supposition to suggest that games, even violent ones, have reduced violence.
The authors also look at mass shootings that often elicit highly emotional responses. They point out that in recent large mass shootings when looking at the people who have carried them out they appear to play computer games, which are quite social today, less than the general population.
For real problems that video games very probably do contribute to they point out that video game 'addiction' is very mild and the usual consequence is simply spending a lot of time in a hobby. For the contribution that games make to inactivity and obesity the authors point out to studies that increased activity but made a tiny contribution to weight loss and that the reason we get fat is dominated by eating too much unhealthy food.
Nicely the authors also turn to the alleged benefits of computer games such as increased dexterity, cognitive ability and various things and they are just as skeptical as they were about the problems ascribed to games. Basically games are a reasonably mentally stimulating hobby that is as good for the brain as crosswords, playing chess and various other similar activities.
Moral Combat is a well written, fun, easy to understand book that really does a very solid job of debunking the damage that games are alleged to cause. It's well worth a read for anyone who is worried about what their children or spouse or friends are doing to themselves by playing games.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews