If you’re anything like me then you may love your FPS games. I mean things like Medal of Honor, Gears of war or maybe even the now so retro DOOM. While it may not be everyone’s cup of tea, it definitely appeals to a wide audience. A lot of this genre consists of a slight aggression factor in some cases. Maybe not in years gone by, but as games and technology have evolved through the years and things have become more incorporated into the games. It wasn’t just going around a set route shooting the targets that popped up in front of you. Games developed environments which made the gamer more engaged in the game, like the Grand Theft Auto series, and also added real life situations and scenarios into them. But does making games more true-to-life glamorize some of the negative life choices that people make?

We all know that, these days, games have guidance ratings for the level of content that may offend or shock children of a certain age or prove harmful to their development. But is this system actually working? It seems the more it offends or shocks the more people are interested in it. I love games like GTA, some people I know play things like Call of Duty or Gears of War, yet all of these games consist of a lot of aggressive behavior, especially when you become completely engaged with the game.

There is a belief that games like GTA and more recently the game Bully promote aggression in reality. But surely the content of the game is not there to glamorize violence, robbery, murder and social carnage, it offers a virtual alter ego where you can safely let go and be a maniac. Perhaps it even educates people on what life would really be like if you became that low-life character as portrayed in the game. In fact, are the kind of things people are complaining about in games any better or different from what we see in most TV programme’s or movies?