Young Writers Society

I would appreciate a review on this piece. Harshness and nit-pickers most welcome. Yes, I said it.
It's purpose is to argue that video games do not rot one's brain and definitely do not cause violence in youth. (e.g. such as school shootings)
Also, take the headline into consideration, and suggest a better one if you can
Thank you in advance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



3, 2, 1– ACTION! Leap from building to building. Now down the emergency stairs. Stealth attack from behind; receive bonus. Regenerate energy. Jump off the ledge, there is a bale of hay beneath each one anyway. Now, return. Wash dishes. Quickly, resume on your perilous task. Sometimes, reality needs a serious break. Considering this, you conclude that you must now cascade out of your nearest window in order to reach your next checkpoint. I mean, you do have two lives left. Do media concepts influence you to such an extent? As it seems with children, they do.

According to extensive research by the Executive Intelligence Review, rumour has it that the act of entertaining one’s self with games of the violent sort, leads to a series of assaults, homicides and a potential mutilation of the functional mind. In other words – they’re bad. Now off you go, throw your cupboard-worth full collection right out. Some schools have even gone to the extreme of demanding a ban on a certain number of these games, for their apparent influence on the children of today.

The biggest mistake here is not in fact the failure to restrict age inappropriate content, but underestimating the youthful population as a whole. Do you get the sudden urge to run for your dear own life from a giant manic rock (resulting in perhaps a couple of splattered innards) after seeing Revenge of the Crystal Scull? Jones seemed to have had fun. Why not? Oh right, your possession of common sense. Something the younger population seemingly lack. Certainly children are more affected and follow by example; nevertheless they do not completely lose all their gist of judgement. Children can tell their general right from wrong. The way one’s brain functions relies on the upbringing on the part of the parents, as well as the environment in which one had come to grow up in. Whereas model behaviours from outside the home are usually not picked up on – proposing a question, why is this so? For instance, the boy who had broken the Lego cubes in your play box the time when you too, where a child. Or the kid who kicked people on the playground, had he impinged the rest to do the same? The answer is no. Violence comes through per individual, and not through what they absorb at a later stage in life.

Likewise goes for games. The influence that they supply is not necessary applied, thus being completely harmless. Who can deny the truth in this? Does Mario imply the receival of money through punching bricks? Meanwhile, Lara Croft successfully shows the ability to jump the length of a waterfall. Running peaceful citizens over with a truck in Grand Theft Auto says just the same. Their sales when compared to youth violence, dismisses any otherwise claims – showing a significant decrease in crimes at the concurrent rise in sales.

Nonetheless, video games induce stress. People are largely capable of becoming dependent upon, and even attached to certain things. Children that is, included. The effect of video game intervention with everyday lives is so immense, that people develop true feelings towards an entity; a mere program that you come to rely on. Frustration, rage and genuine agony are all part of the aftermath when your mission doesn’t go quite as planned. A terrible effect, which can in itself cause violence, right? Wrong. Video games hold an important lesson beneath the very many layers of gore, guts and guns. The importance to persevere when the going gets tough, the wrenching sense of responsibility and believe it not – expanding one’s vocabulary.

However you may argue, about teenagers becoming obsessed with guns, going on killing sprees and joining mobs. What about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who had shot to death 12 fellow students and a teacher? What about the Virginia Tech Massacre, which left 32 dead? Would it be wise to conclude what had gone through their minds at that given moment of time? The correlation between school shootings and games has proven to be false. The felonies convicted by the latter were found to be planned attacks with individuals who in fact had a mentally unstable state of mind. In addition to which, they did not play games. This completely dismisses a large part of the conspiracy circling around the transferring of virtual violence to reality.

Thus, considering the mentioned, video games are not harmful to the society. I grant it that their core purpose to entertain is exactly what they achieve, diverting the problems of everyday life, providing an escape route to a world beyond the real. At any rate, it is not just children that choose this path to relieve frustration or relax. No doubt you, sometime during your treacherous life, have done it too.

I like it. Keep writing

Wow, I really like this so far. You are a really good writer. However, it's so many words I never got to read the whole thing, but the first three paragraphs I read was very good and interesting. You must be good at writing judging my this and keep going! I like your work! =D.
P.S. I like your title too!

I'm coming, trust me. I haven't forgotten to get to review this, just a little busy. Back soon.

Hai! Sorry this took me a while to get to... Uni’s a pig.

3, 2, 1– ACTION! Leap from building to building. Now down the emergency stairs. Stealth attack from behind; receive bonus. Regenerate energy. Jump off the ledge, there is a bale of hay beneath each one anyway. Now, return. Wash dishes. Quickly, resume on your perilous task. Sometimes, reality needs a serious break. Considering this, you conclude that you must now cascade out of your nearest window in order to reach your next checkpoint. I mean, you do have two lives left. Do media concepts influence you to such an extent? As it seems with children, they do.

As this is essentially an argument, I feel like you need a stronger beginning here. Pretty much every argument I ever read begins with a graphic example of the thing you’re arguing for/against, but I feel like this works two ways. It means you’re following conventions, but also means that this isn’t anything new. Unfortunately I have no idea about how to change this because I rarely read pieces like this.

The bolded bit was unclear. When you say “wash dishes”, is that implying that the gamer has taken a break from the game? Only the way it’s structured makes it sound like washing dishes is a part of the game along with stealth attacks and jumping from windows.

According to extensive research by the Executive Intelligence Review, rumour has it that the act of entertaining one’s self with games of the violent sort, leads to a series of assaults, homicides and a potential mutilation of the functional mind.

This sentence is too long and wordy. You’ve just had a big long paragraph, so a short punchy sentence right after will have the most effect. Using phrases like “the act of entertaining oneself with games of the violent sort” is far too wordy. What you mean is, “playing violent games” but you pad it out with too many words. You’re writing an argument. You need to be direct.

This sentence also sounds contradictory—“extensive research” suggests fact, but you say it’s rumour. “One’s self” should be “oneself”, and you don’t need the bolded comma.

Do you get the sudden urge to run for your dear own life from a giant manic rock (resulting in perhaps a couple of splattered innards) after seeing Revenge of the Crystal Scull? Jones seemed to have had fun.

That should be “Skull” not “Scull”—and surely you mean Raiders of the Lost Ark? The last film was called Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but the giant boulder is the first film.

The way one’s brain functions relies on the upbringing on the part of the parents, as well as the environment in which one had come to grow up in. Whereas model behaviours from outside the home are usually not picked up on – proposing a question, why is this so?

Using “whereas” at the beginning of a sentence feels rather odd. It would work better to string these two sentences together.

For instance, the boy who had broken the Lego cubes in your play box the time when you too, where a child.

This should be “...when you, too, were a child.”

Children that is, included.

Why the bolded part? Doesn’t make sense.

Video games hold an important lesson beneath the very many layers of gore, guts and guns.

Admitting that there are gore, guts and guns is good because it shows you know there is violence, but going on about the quantity doesn’t strengthen your argument.

However you may argue, about teenagers becoming obsessed with guns, going on killing sprees and joining mobs.

... Yes? “However you may argue about _____” and then not offering a counter doesn’t work. You need something else in this sentence to counter the beginning.

What about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who had shot to death 12 fellow students and a teacher? What about the Virginia Tech Massacre, which left 32 dead?

Some dates here would be good. Also, write out numbers, don’t just give the symbols.

Would it be wise to conclude what had gone through their minds at that given moment of time?

Don’t you mean “discover” what had gone through their minds?

The correlation between school shootings and games has proven to be false.

Proven to be false by who? You need to back up your claims with names, dates, studies.

The felonies convicted by the latter were found to be planned attacks with individuals who in fact had a mentally unstable state of mind.

The latter what? If you’re referring back to the massacres you mentioned, you need to do it in the sentence after. Too many words have gone by for you to say “the latter”, meaning something several sentences back.

---
Hmm. I can’t say I’m completely convinced by this. You write with great authority, which is an integral part of writing a strong argument, but sometimes you beat around the bush too much, like in the examples I pointed out. Be direct; just come out and say something without putting in words to make it sound sophisticated.

Also, I don’t feel that you argued your point across very well. What a lot of people are concerned about in video games is the glorification of violence. Beating people up is made to be cool, wrecking cities is the way you win, complicated manoeuvres that wipe out bands of baddies are things of skill to be earned after several levels—essentially here, the ability to kill your enemies quicker is your reward for getting this far. The baddies themselves are usually faceless, nameless mooks so the player doesn’t feel bad about killing so many of them; it’s like, so long as you don’t know their names or their back stories, it’s okay to kill them because they’re not real people, unlike the other characters in the game.

You didn’t touch on any of this in your article, and yet this is one of the strongest and most common arguments I’ve seen.

The other points you made weren’t backed up strongly enough. You said “it’s been proved” but you didn’t say when, who by, or what their definite conclusions were. If you make a statement, you need to back it up with facts and examples, otherwise there’s no way to prove it true. Adding in proof like this also strengthens your statement.

I’m sorry if this sounded too harsh, but you did say you wanted harsh, so... PM me if you have any questions!

-twit