It's no secret that violence of any form has been prevalent in all forms of entertainment, potentially as narrative was the primary venue. From campfires to theater, from novels to comics, from television to video games, and you could say that humans are simply drawn to violence. But this read isn't about philosophy (well, there's some of that in the conclusion), but about a somewhat controversial topic: violence in video games. It seems that violence is not talked about so widely in other media. Given the interactive nature of these devices, some may feel that the effects (especially negative ones) are amplified. Because of their use by perpetrators of school shootings, the general media often highlights them. This has also favored studies on the effects of video games, both violent and non-violent. The results of these studies cover both sides of the spectrum; games are a direct cause of violence and do not instigate violent thoughts and 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 some form of entertainment? Before we get to the heart of this article, it's necessary to review the history of the prevalence of violence in entertainment (and video games, of course), as well as how new forms of media are typically misunderstood and/or scapegoated for evils of the company. Violence in entertainment has been around since the days of storytelling. The Greek poet Homer's Odyssey and Iliad contained bloodshed. The Romans watched gladiators duel to the death, a sport that involved the actual death of people. Most of Shakespeare's plays had some form of violence moving the plot (Macbeth and Hamlet anyone?). So violence is indeed prevalent across fictional works and sports throughout recorded history. Maybe humans are just