A lot of people play video games nowadays. And the most controversial topic relating to these is of course the high level of violence they usually contain.

Taking a game like Grand Theft Auto, the concerns seem to be justified. The game involves players killing innocent onlookers, meeting prostitutes and joy riding. Ok so you have the choice if you want to or not. But the fact the game allows you to do so and even rewards you kinda gives out a dangerous message. Although I’ll admit that if you go on a shooting spree you’ll pretty much end up in jail or in hospital. But hey all you have to do is pay a bribe, give up your weapons and you’ll be back on the streets of GTA to do it all over again.

Subconsciously this will have an effect on a person. Someone with a healthy sense of reality and ability to distinguish between real life and the digital world won’t be swayed by such games. But others may be more susceptible to being swayed by the ‘violence pays’ message.

For those that believe that this kind of violence in games is OK and only a form of entertainment, probably should ask themselves how it would feel to victims of such crime who have been traumatised by their experiences to find out that so many people are having fun re-enacting what for them was an horrific experience.

But Grand Theft Auto is an extreme example. Not all video games glorify violence inflicted upon innocents. For example there are war games enacting World War 2 or other famous military campaigns, or things like James Bond. Some people find even this level of violence as too much, especially when it is so graphic.

But I would argue that these people have double standards against videogames compared with other ‘similar’ games. Take paintballing for example. What many people haven’t realised is how close paintballing and video games are. Face it - you’re more likely to kill someone playing paintball than playing Resistance: Fall Of Man on your PS3. Both involve you trying to shoot other players, but not for real. Whereas paintball involves paint in balls (hence the name) coming at you at more than a hundred mile per hour, video games involve digital bullets killing digital beings. And what about snow ball fights? In any of these games you get hit and you’re ‘dead’ so to speak according to the game. So in theory if violent video games are wrong, then so is paintball, or at some stretch even snow ball fights?

Furthermore, many games, from Doom to Super Mario, follow the same line as books, films and even religious beliefs. The oldest conflict in history: Good Vs Evil. It’s ok to kill Nazi’s in all those World War 2 shooters because Nazis are evil and deserve to be shot. Same for the baddies in most video games – with the exception of the new breed of mindlessly violent ones (of which Grand Theft Auto or Manhunt are examples).

Compare this to the Mahabharata, a tale on the surface which looks like a basic tale of Good Vs Evil, but quickly reveals to us that the world is not black and white. Whereas some folk have taken upon themselves to promote Mahabharata as something which glorifies violence nothing could be farther from the truth. The story involves warriors consistently doubting their ways and methods.

War and violence are a part of life and always have been and looks like always will be. This is what the Mahabharat recognised. But that doesn’t make it good. Often force is needed to fight evil and so on, but it is worth pointing out that despite being based around a very violent war, there doesn’t seem to be any Hindu who as used the Mahabharat to excuse some heinous war crime. The reason for that is hat the Mahabharata paints war as evil, but as a necessary evil.

Coming back to the topic of violence in video-games, indeed it seems as if the industry is maturing and following other mediums which delve into thought provoking. Take Platoon its anti-war message frightening the US Army after its Oscar success causing the government to radically alter its stance towards Hollywood and the media. Recently a game called Haze is to hit the market which the developers admit that in games life is all too cheap. Apparently their goal is to “make you think” twice before pulling the trigger and focus on ethics. (Or so they say). Sony and Vigin comics are also planning a game based of the Ramayana

Games have a way to touch people just like any book or film does, it’s a shame that they’re not seen on a level with those other mediums (though the games industries generates more revenues than Holywood). Just as films and music are now being used by religions to propagate their beliefs, they’re now turning to games as well (whether this is positive remains to be seen i.e. sarbloh warriors and jihad for kids).

Despite all of this there’s no conclusive evidence that suggests there is a link between violent video games and real life violence. It is right to point out that Japan has high rates of violence in its media yet street violence isn’t nearly as high as in other countries where violence in its media is scant. At the end of the day these violent games, music and films are produced because there is a demand for it and its unlikely that unless that demand is taken care of then we will see violence in our mediums continuing.

For those still on the fence if a close loved one was gunned down by someone who admitted to playing GTA then many a belief would be tested.

But perhaps the biggest and most valid reason for avoiding violent video games (and this possibly applies to all video games), being that there is so much else to do. Instead of relaxing by shooting people in games could do some yoga, reading, travelling, meditating, charity, spending time with friends and family or contributing to a cause that you believe in. Things that you will look back on with a smile rather than thinking “man I used to really waste my time back then!” In other words living life rather than spending your time shooting make-believe villains on screen.