That persistent effort comes from the fact that in a video game you are actively engaging in the deaths of people, not just reading about it. As I indicated above with my link, movies also influence behavior.
You know what I enjoy when I’m playing games? I enjoy hearing 12-16 year-old kids discussing the merits of certain firearms. I enjoy listening to them discussing the most efficient way to kill people. Oh, and the never-ending racism is fun, too. There is no way that they are not influenced by that to some degree, and it is certainly a higher degree than the influence of artwork or books.
To an extent, I admit to feeling that allowing 12-16-yr-olds to socialize in an essentially unrestricted environment with adults (especially 20-somethings) is more of a problem than the gaming.
Certainly that’s a better explanation for the racism and language that’s not attached to the game in question.
Regarding the firearms and killing efficiency discussions, there’s also a clear demarcation between “in the game context” and “out of the game context”–back in the day when I played a lot of CounterStrike, I’m reasonably sure no one actually believed in the real-world truth of statements like “the AK-47 is as accurate as a sniper rifle and much faster–it’s far better than the M-4”.
Having a boy myself has helped me to understand this issue.
In a kid’s mind (at least, a boy’s mind from what I have seen), there is really two different things about violence:
Play. Boy’s play often involves pretend violence. My kid likes to pretend he’s a samurai warrior, or a dragon, attacking daddy. Even simple games involve some of this - in his mind, he’s not just throwing a ball into a hoop, he’s Superman throwing a planetoid at Lex Luthor’s hideout.
Meanness. Kids know when other kids are picking on them. This could involve actual physical force, like hitting or pinching, but equally involves putting other kids down, or worse, encouraging “everyone” to put one other kid down.
What is key is that kids tend to lack any notion that the one of necessity implies the other. They do not think that it may be wrong to hurl a planetoid at Lex Luthor, or that anyone could be hurt thereby. To them, being “killed” in such a game simply lacks reality - they know that if he’s playing at being a dragon and “burns” daddy, daddy isn’t really burned. It helps that at young ages the concept of death is pretty sketchy.
OTOH, they can be very, very sensitive to any hint of meanness. That’s because, unlike samurai beheading people, kids can relate to meanness.
Therefore, when it comes to computer games, what is problematic is not the violence, stealing or whatever being acted out as part of the game. What can be problematic, in games played online over the 'net, is actions and conversations between the players that smacks of meanness - such as picking on newbies, casual bigotry and sexism (all somewhat encouraged by the fact of anonymity). This is not “violence” per se but it can be very upsetting and worse, kids could be encouraged to act badly towards others - not by (say) beheading others as part of the game, but by teasing, taunting, etc. through using the game as the media.
That’s why the scariest words on a game package to me, as a parent of someone who will eventually play video games are “Game Experience may change during Online Play”