It's no secret that violence in all forms has been prevalent in all forms of entertainment, potentially ever since storytelling was its primary locus . From campfires to theater, from novels to comic books, from television to video games, it could be said that humans are simply drawn to violence. But this reading is not about philosophy (well, there is some in the conclusion), but about a somewhat controversial subject: violence in video games. It seems that violence in other media is not as widely discussed. Given the interactive nature of these devices, some may assume that the effects (especially negative effects) are amplified. Because of their use by perpetrators of school shootings, the mainstream media often highlights them. This has also encouraged studies on the effects of video games, violent or not. The results of these studies fall on both sides of the spectrum; games are a direct cause of violence and games do not arouse violent thoughts or actions. Because of this wide range, the text will contain both sides of the results. The main questions this article answers are: should violent video games be available on the market? If not, should violence be present in all forms of entertainment? Before getting into the meat of this article, it's worth reviewing the history of the prevalence of violence in entertainment (and video games, of course) as well as how new forms of media are generally misunderstood and/or designated as scapegoats for society's ills. Violence in entertainment has existed since storytelling. The Greek poet Homer's Odyssey and Iliad contain bloodshed. The Romans watched gladiators fight to the death, a sport involving the very real death of people. Most of Shakespeare's plays included some form of violence in their plot (Macbeth and Hamlet, anyone?). Violence is therefore indeed prevalent in works of fiction and sports throughout recorded history. Maybe humans are just