A game can end with a restart button. Outside the screen, violence leaves consequences that simply cannot be reset.
In the Philippines, two school shootings have pushed video games into the search for answers surrounding youth violence. From GoreBox in Tacloban to Roblox in Zamboanga, games have moved from virtual worlds into real-world investigations.
But when a game appears in the story, does that make it part of the cause?
When Games Enter the Crime Scene
On June 22, a shooting at San Jose National High School in Tacloban City killed 3 students, and later reports said at least 20 others were injured. One of the teenage suspects was reported to have played GoreBox, a violent sandbox game, according to the Police Regional Office of Eastern Visayas.
The disclosure placed the game among the details being examined after the attack. But police reports also indicated that the shooting had been planned weeks beforehand, making the circumstances surrounding the attack more complicated than the presence of a particular game.
The connection quickly drew government attention. Authorities moved to block GoreBox in the Philippines while investigating the shooting, while Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Jonvic Remulla later pushed for a permanent ban.
Then, on August 18, a Grade 9 student opened fire at a school affiliated with Ateneo de Zamboanga University, killing a Grade 10 student before taking his own life. Authorities began examining the student’s online activity, including his gaming history, as they searched for a motive.
This time, Roblox entered the investigation.
The student was reportedly a Roblox user, and the platform became part of the public discussion surrounding the shooting. Remulla later called for a total Roblox ban and pointed to the platform’s possible influence on the suspect.
Two shootings. Two games. One familiar suspect.
But finding a game in someone’s digital history is not the same as finding a cause.
Past the Play Button
Here’s where the investigation gets more complicated.
Researchers have spent years examining whether violent video games are associated with aggression. Some studies report a relationship, while other analyses have questioned how large or reliable that relationship actually is.
A 2018 meta-analysis of prospective studies found a relationship between violent video-game exposure and later physical aggression. However, the effect was relatively small, showing why the findings should not automatically be extended to extreme acts such as school shootings.
The American Psychological Association (APA) similarly reports a small, reliable association between violent video-game use and aggressive outcomes such as yelling and pushing. However, it cautions that these findings are difficult to extend to more serious forms of violence.
Other researchers have challenged even the strength of the aggression link. A 2020 reanalysis found negligible relationships with aggressive behavior and argued that the effects of violent games on aggression should be interpreted more cautiously.
So, what does that leave us with?
Violent games may be associated with certain forms of aggression, but that is not evidence that playing a violent video game causes someone to commit a shooting.
The Missing Variable
Think of violence as a puzzle.
A video game might be one piece, but one piece cannot show the entire picture. Family environment, social relationships, previous experiences, online communities, access to firearms, and other circumstances can exist outside the screen.
This is where correlation and causation matter. Two things appearing together does not automatically mean one caused the other.
In Tacloban, a suspect’s connection to GoreBox became part of the investigation. In Zamboanga, Roblox and online interactions were also examined, but neither connection by itself establishes that a game caused the violence.
The difference matters because playing a game is a fact; proving that the game caused an act of violence is a much larger claim.
Blame Reloaded
Still, video games can become an easy target when violence happens. They are visible, familiar, and easy to name, especially when a suspect’s gaming history becomes public. Once the connection is reported, it can quickly become part of the wider conversation—and, in some cases, even calls for restrictions or bans.
But an investigation should not end with the discovery of a game. It should ask what else was happening around the person who played it.
The question is not simply, “What game did they play?”
What is it beyond the game that shaped the person who played it?
A screen can contain violence without containing the whole story.
Before we decide what to blame, perhaps we should first ask what we have failed to understand. Look beyond the screen, question the evidence, and ask what the investigation may still be missing. Because violence rarely begins with a single button, a single game, or a single cause.
Written by Akeisha Bless Urgel, Insight PH
Akeisha Bless Urgel, Insight PH is a dedicated campus journalist and contributor. Their insightful writing sparks meaningful conversations and keeps the community informed.
