Summary Response How are video games too real for children? The article “Are Violent Video Games Too Real for Kids?” (via ABC news) seems to believe the sole cause of this is depictions of 9/11, whether intentional by the game manufacturer or not. This article also makes the statement that action figures can somehow have the same effect. But what’s the problem? It’s certainly not exposing the children to violence at so young an age as both a twelve and thrteen year old can tell you that 9/11 should be taken out of video games. Even mother’s agree that 9/11 has no place in video games. Remember, don’t forget to watch for the signs of pent-up gaming emotions. Though most everyone would agree, 9/11 reenactments have no place in today’s video games, most people would agree, it’s not the sole cause of video game violence; beyond that, what’s an article with so broad a title as this doing focusing on such specific arguments as 9/11 in games? Seriously, reading this article leaves a sour and decidedly acrid taste in the mouth. From the very beginning, it seems to take the assumption that actions figures of past ages have the same effect as violent video games of this age as it compares the Cold War era family with children and actin figures as being the same as the modern family with same-aged children and violent video games. Past this, the article doesn’t even have the semblance of an assertion beyond talking about 9/11 virtually constantly. Instead, it simply flits back and forth between criticizing video games with no coherent evidence and seeming to believe the only violent thing wrong with video games is any depiction of 9/11 in any form. That’s right: not the ever increasing realism of video game graphics; not the gaming industry’s pure focus on profit margins compared to the consumers’ best interests; not even the ever younger gaming population; and heaven