Call of Duty, Desensitization, and the Gaming Addiction Debate
This paper examines the arguments made by Zickgraf in a 2022 Jacobin article about the dangers of violent video games, particularly Call of Duty. It traces how his perspective shifted from concern about games inciting real-world violence to a focus on gaming addiction and psychological desensitization. The paper evaluates the rhetorical effectiveness of this evolution in his thinking and considers whether his critique applies equally to non-violent games. Ultimately, Zickgraf's core concern is not violence itself but the numbing effect of gaming addiction on players' quality of life.
- Introduction: Zickgraf's Critique of Call of Duty: Zickgraf's original concerns about violent video games
- From Violence to Desensitization: A Shift in Perspective: Why Zickgraf abandoned the real-world violence argument
- Gaming Addiction as the Real Danger: Numbing and addiction as Zickgraf's current critique
- Do Non-Violent Games Escape Criticism?: Applying Zickgraf's framework to non-violent games
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper clearly traces the logical evolution of Zickgraf's argument, showing how acknowledging a changed position strengthens his credibility rather than undermining it.
- It applies Zickgraf's framework critically by testing it against non-violent games, demonstrating analytical thinking beyond simple summary.
- The paper stays focused and concise, never straying from the central thesis about addiction and numbing as the real harm of gaming.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective rhetorical analysis by explaining how Zickgraf's self-correction functions as an ethos-building strategy. Rather than dismissing his prior view, the paper shows how admitting a changed stance lends authority to his current argument — a useful model for analyzing persuasive nonfiction.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by presenting Zickgraf's original position, then explains why he changed it, then articulates his current argument about addiction and desensitization, and finally extends the analysis by asking whether non-violent games would fare better under his framework. This four-part structure mirrors a classic analytical essay: context, complication, argument, application.
Introduction: Zickgraf's Critique of Call of Duty
Zickgraf's views on Call of Duty and other violent video games are rooted in the criticism that these games desensitize people to the real-world effects of violence and war. This was not, however, his original position. Initially, he was part of a group that criticized these games for their potential to incite real-world violence. He even expressed concerns about the direct marketing of guns and knives to gamers, citing his nephew's suspension from school for bringing a gun to school as a concrete example. He questioned whether games like Call of Duty were a gateway to real-world violence (Jacobin, 2022). Observing his nephew's behavior, he believed they were.
From Violence to Desensitization: A Shift in Perspective
Since then, Zickgraf's views have changed considerably. He now admits that there is not necessarily any clear association between violent video games and real-world violence (Jacobin, 2022). He points to the fact that although first-person shooter games remain popular, gun homicides have generally decreased. He also notes that his nephew stopped using guns, suggesting that the boy's interest in firearms was more influenced by family culture than by video games.
References
Jacobin. (2022). The problem with Call of Duty isn't that it makes us violent — it's that it makes us numb. Retrieved from https://jacobin.com/2022/11/call-of-duty-video-games-isolation-alienation/
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.