[OPINION] Why blaming violent video games for youth violence misses the mark
The recent school shooting in Tacloban resulted in the death of three students and left several others injured. Many Filipinos expressed disbelief that a social problem like this could happen in the Philippines, especially since school shootings are more commonly reported in the US.
The frustration easily translated into a myriad of questions. How could a tragedy like this unfold in our country? We have gun laws in place, not to mention a strong sense of community. As people search for answers, some were quick to conclude that violent video games influenced the suspects—both minors—to commit the crime since one of them regularly played GoreBox.
That is not by accident. It's deeply ingrained in people to blame the things they don't fully understand for their community’s issues. We have mothers blaming phones for their child’s illness; we have fathers being part of an online conspiracy regarding the dangers of 5G; and we have adults blaming TV series flirtations for teenage pregnancies. Because of this pattern, it’s not surprising that some Pinoys think that way when it comes to youth violence. The idea has been around for decades, since the rationale for it is derived from common observations mixed with sudden conclusions.
But Filipinos, especially lawmakers, need to understand that the relationship between gaming and violence is yet to be established. A 2019 study exploring video games in adolescent behavior concluded that there is no direct correlation between the two. Research from the Michigan Youth Violence Prevention Center showed that video games only have a strong link to minors in terms of being precursors to violence, which refers to children or minors who already have a vulnerable social foundation.
To simply conclude that violent video games can cause aggressive behavior is to also conclude that all adults who played the same genre during their childhood have a higher tendency to commit heinous crimes.
Many millennials and Gen Zs who were born in the late 90s and early 2000s played VVGs such as Counter-Strike and Grand Theft Auto. At the time, gaming was a very collectivist hobby because of its inaccessibility. Personal computers and consoles were extremely expensive in the past, and the technological skills in maintaining a computer were monopolized by technicians since the internet was hard to access, unlike today.
But that didn't stop the increasing demand for gaming and video games. Computer shops or "kompyuterans"—where Filipinos would rent computers for a fixed time for a fixed price—turned into the favorite pastime of the youth back then. After school, you would see students renting computers to play DOTA (Defense of the Ancients) or Counter-Strike against themselves or other classes, while some would play single-player games like GTA San Andreas or GTA Vice City.
Computer shops were an important distinction for gaming in the past, which could have prevented the radicalization and construction of criminal behavior of people. To better understand why, we must first know Erving Goffman's theory of dramaturgy and Durkheim's concept of social sanctions. In simple terms, dramaturgy suggests that people behave differently depending on where they are and the people around them. Much like actors on a stage, individuals adjust their behavior to fit social expectations and maintain their credibility within a group. The concept of social sanctions complements this idea by explaining how people are informally rewarded or punished based on whether they conform to or deviate from accepted social norms. In everyday life, this can take the form of approval, disapproval, criticism, or even social exclusion.
Applying both concepts to computer shops here, these spaces were more than just places to play video games—they were social environments that shaped and regulated the behavior of young Filipinos at the time. Kompyuterans had both formal and informal rules set by the owner and the people around them. Breaking those rules could result in being warned, kicked out, or even banned from the shop.
This social environment worked because everyone was constantly aware of their surroundings. Other customers could see what you were searching, watching, reading, or playing, making it less likely for someone to engage in behavior that violated the group's norms. Gamers were performing before an audience, adjusting their behavior to maintain a positive social image. If someone acted inappropriately, they risked public embarrassment or being banned—a form of social sanction that reinforced what was considered acceptable behavior. Witnessing these consequences also reminded everyone else of the standards they were expected to follow.
It’s also worth noting that gaming in computer shops was constrained by time. Since players paid by the hour, they usually spent their limited time focused on playing with friends, competing with other gamers, and socializing.
Compare that to the present context of gaming's social dynamics, and you would realize it's almost a different system on its own.
Gaming with friends or other people no longer requires being in the same physical space. While that has made gaming more accessible, it has also reduced face-to-face interactions for some players and contributed to isolation. Minors now have freedom over the hours they spend in gaming spaces or communities filled with online strangers that could negatively influence their already vulnerable social foundation. The issue, then, isn't VVGs themselves. It’s the growing isolation that can come with spending long periods online and the formation of parasocial or pseudo-social relationships that may replace healthy, in-person social connections.
Studies have shown that isolation and aggressive tendencies have a complex relationship and could even lead to violent behavior, especially when people spend significant time in online spaces where bad actors promote extremist ideas, normalize violence, or encourage bad behavior. And because there are no social regulatory groups like in computer shops then, minors can get rapidly and frequently exposed to harmful ideas without anyone condemning it. This is where parents and guardians play a crucial role, yet some of them use these platforms as substitutes for guidance instead.
Computer shops are just a good example of how crucial safe and communal spaces are for the development of minors, and the reason why we have a lot of minors staying home and using these platforms is that they are compensating for their lack of socialization from the outside.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of PhilSTAR L!fe, its parent company and affiliates, or its staff.
Want to get published at PhilSTAR L!fe? We’re accepting submissions from aspiring and experienced writers. Send us your original piece at hey@philstarlife.com for review and possible publication.