About videogames and aggression

[carfonu]

About Games and Aggression

First of all, yes, i know this is very repetitive topic, but since this is a game making forum, i think it's relevant to consider how the construction of games can affect the response to some forms of violence. I start by making some observations:

• To show a study, Mathiak and Weber (2006) made some discoveries on the relation between the relational mechanisms of amygdala and brain frontal cortex and violent video games. It seems that, when playing violent video games, individuals tend to respond like it is an actual violent situation.
  
• Also (i don't remember where i read it), it seems that long exposure to violent video games and TV programs makes the cortex diminish his regulative function against the emotional aggressive response of the limbic system. This means that (specially in children), logical responses from the cortex to a possible aggression can be more impulsive (by the action of the limbic system) and less mediated, with worst results of course.
  
• To that previous point, most of video games doesn't show the consequences of the actions of the character (let's skip GTA).
  
• Also, most of the games makes use of other persons like a way to make some objectives (let's think about quests), which is the opposite of most of the ethic propositions, which try to take the person as an objective itself. This is like the discussion of Kant against the hedonist and transcendental ethic. Using persons as ways of making objectives is a really selfish model which i think is not the idea we want to give when we make a game.

I would like to see other opinions about this term. I'd like to see if we can argue and find some common points, and also see our differences.

PD: Sorry for my english. i hope that i've been clear.

 

[BlueScope]

You're not offering too many opinions yourself, however some interesting (while subjective) observations. As this is an interesting way to run a topic, let me try to follow this path...

• some video games simulate the real world, and therefore are very able to be recognized as a mirror image of it
• some people are more likely to be influenced by such mirror images than others, and some games are more likely to influence people than others
• if there are some video games that might actually create such a powerful mirror image that they can influence people negatively, conclusions must not be applied to video games in general, or even other games of the same genre
• with games getting more realistic over time, the conclusions of today may not be the conclusions of tomorrow
• games are not the only media capable of influencing people, however due to the partaking of the player (or just the existance of a player) they might be more influencing than others
• no matter how influencing games might be, they will never be more influencing than real occurences such as news reports, politician's speeches, or personal experiences such as a gas station robbery
• for all of the above, games will not be the sole contributing factor for possible negative outcomes
• the majority of games is highly unlikely to cause any negative input of any kind, and might even teach the player something they wouldn't have learned about otherwise

 

[carfonu]

Well, you are right, so... my opinions:

• Even when games are just simulations, the factor reality is something that is just taking shape in the first stages of life, so, at least, in children i consider important the way a game teaches the to see the world. Especially when a lot of countries have decreasing rates of relation father-child because of growing times of work, and the primary interaction of a boy is a human or TV baby-sitter. Also, (this may seem obvious) most of the children learns first to see a TV than reading.
• With games getting every time more and more realistic, it may be difficult, even for a mature person, to be able to distinguish in the moment the difference between reality and simulation, even when we are able to make the conscious differentiation after the play. To show a example, when we play a game, and the game is so good, we actually get "into it" (It happened to me with Silent Hill, damn those creepy surprises). The problem is that the brain is processing in every moment the information it receives, and the brain plasticity is influenced with the experiences of the world.
• Yes, not all the videogames have negative consequences, but still, there are games that can influence the behavior in some way, even in aggressive ways. In the 90's i saw news on a magazine about a boy that believed that he was a character of Street Fighter and they found him running like crazy on the streets (of course he had some troubles of his own too).
• There have been projects of training and teaching tactics on soldiers on the U.S. using software made for that purpose, i mean simulations.
• Indeed i maintain my opinion: if you look at almost any game, the NPCs are just useful to make an objective, and not an objective on their own. This is something that i think is very important, because is the difference of seeing a person as an investment or as a human being.

Also, indeed, i'm being subjective. Being objective is somehow difficult when it's a matter of opinion. The whole point radicates in the possibility of discussion.

 

[BlueScope]

I didn't mean to say subjective is something less than objective - just stating a mini-observation

• It's the parent's responsibility to watch their child and it's media consumption. Media itself can never be bad by default, but always in the context (think of throwing a master swimmer and a hydrophobic person in the water... one will probably be challenged, the other one terribly frightened). Generalizing because of the lack of time to control one's child's media consumption is nothing but a handy excuse for something you should have done
• male and female gamers are, if at all, about equally affected.
• someone relating to a video game doesn't mean that is the cause (if someone runs around pretending to be a chicken, you don't blame farms, which by the way provide a way more realistic image of chicken than street fighter of people)
• There have also been projects of teaching children math (such as early Ray Man) and adults languages (the Rosetta Stone principle, for example). Learning games don't differ from action games in their basic game design nature (goal -> learning curve -> achievement -> progress) other than in how different groups of people (the players, their parents, and politicians) see them
• There have also been projects teaching children how to kill men with an automatic rifle, completely without video games. Seems a little more dangerous for the child in question to me.
• I agree with your last point, but objective isn't bad in it's nature. It could very well be helping them, aiding them or letting them help you. What you might be talking about is the selfishness induced by the media: As you'Re not actually dealing with other humans or living beings, you don't help for no reason - you expect something in return

 

[carfonu]

Sorry. I've been a long time away from the web.

• Media itself can't be bad in most off the cases, however, there are some points we can call undesirable. If you ever saw italian gore, you'll know what i mean.
• There are indeed, lots of games that are not what we could call an inminent threat to child's safety. There is full of games that even when they have situations that we could call somehow violent, that's not the central point of the game. I'm not arguing against, for example, Kirby, i'm just saying that when we try to design games, we should be aware of what we are doing.
• That's the problem i talk, selfishness. One of few games that actually teached you to have good relation with others was Harvest Moon, just because the prize for helping others (the posibility of keeping your farm) was so far, that you end learning some guidelines in the process (i talk for a 7 years old boy).

 

[BlueScope]

• A game might be unsuitable for children to play in respective contexts, however then it's a matter of not making children have access to those games instead of not making them at all.
• I as an adult enjoy playing games such as God Of War, which intentionally over-exeggerates violent and sexual game contents. That does contribute immensely to the believeability and integrity of the game series, and I would not want to miss it because of a screw-up of a completely different department (in this case the people responsible for not handing those games out to people who according to the package should not play it).
• Harvest Moon is very selfish in nature as well, as everything you're going for is more fruit, therefore more money, therefore bigger house or bigger TV. I think the never versions actually added girlfriends, so it's bigger boobs as well.
  To be fun, a game needs to be rewarding, and to be rewarding, the game has to give something back to the player.

 

[Venetia]

There has always been violence, and there will always be violence. We are hard-wired for it. It's just a sad fact of life.

I've also read studies which suggest that videogames may provide a nice outlet for releasing pent-up aggression.

And, in the end, little kids that are impressionable enough to actualize things that they see in games or media should not be seeing/playing them. There are ratings to guard against them seeing/playing them, and if the parents ignore that, it's the fault of the parents (or of the parents who let the kid's friends have/share them).

People in 1st world countries, who don't see too much violence or death or strife, have to realize that violence and nasty things that happen will sometimes just HAPPEN, and there is no way to be 100% safe all the time. There are kids in 3rd world countries, who have NEVER seen a videogame, or even watched a movie, who act out violence, simply because they are allowed to do it by either their parents, or their culture (or, sadly, they are FORCED into it by other aggressors).

I don't think we need to censor games or movies or anything else more than we already do. I'd say that the internet is a bigger threat to fucking up childrens' minds than games or other forms of media (though we don't need to censor that, either)! At the end of the day, no matter what, it's up to the parents & rolemodels to get their shit together and teach their kids not to be shitheads.

Asshole people will ALWAYS find a way to filter through into society -- doesn't matter how much we try to censor. Maybe their parents dropped the ball. Maybe it's psychological. Or maybe they're just a nasty wildcard. You, as a 3rd party, really can't do much of anything to prevent it.

 

[carfonu]

Well, when i started this post, i didn't wanted to look like some fundamentalist guy against every form of media that shows a single drop of blood. Violence itself (paradogically) can be interpretated as good or bad. As good as can look when a president of a 1st World Country with the Nobel for Peace tells the world that is actually good killing another man for messing up with your country. Violence is something we have to deal with if we want to live in a world where not everybody is going to agree with us. The point is the way you want to show it. If a human being appears first as a person or as a target. The way the human race devalues itself can tell us the kind of futurre we can expect. Also, there's a lot of examples where the "1st world" is responsible of lots of violent threats. Even when the makers of those acts (i guess) didn't learn it from videogames, the mindless repetition of a circle of selfishness and devaluation it's still only an option and not an obligation. Thinking that our own opinions don't make much of a change is throwing the towel without even trying. Sometimes just a gesture is required. Like Rosa Parks or many others.

 

[rosareven]

You don't sound like an elitist at all throughout this thread to me, carfonu, so no need to worry about that. It's a legitimate concern.

In my humble experience with plenty of friends as fellow gamers, I see them closer to light-hearted internet trolls (that is, humorous and non-sensitive) more than overly serious manifest of real world rage. That sort of behaviour, in which game world is being taken as a literal reflection of reality, is a bit disturbingly evident from "fanatic hardcore fans" in some AAA games forums, as well as hardcore roleplayers.

What I'm trying to say is, I came across people who like a game because "it's what reality is supposed to be", instead of "this game is fun". The initial idea back in early 2000 where people played games for escapism slowly becomes ironic in this context.

Not only violence, but the idea of unfairness, real life drama, social politics, all these things that gamers used to escape away from by playing games, are now what gamers play games to enjoy. As someone who play games for escapism, I find that disturbing.

 

[BlueScope]

@rosa: I agree that there is an ironic part to it, however escaping reality and playing games that seem realistic don't necessarily have to cancel each other out.
To bring my previously mentioned God Of War back to the table: It's a fantasy game much like old RPGs, with graphics and mechanics adjusted to nowadays' technology and players. You will have something that to some extend looks realistic, however you're still in a 100% made-up world with made-up characters, that except for the graphical violence is not any more brutal than your average Disney movie.

There of course are games like Postal, Unreal Tournament or others that are 'glorifying' violence without justification, and regarding those, I feel the same way that you do. At the end of the day though, it's still demanded by the players, and it therefore is not a bad choice as for released games in general. Saying that those games shouldn't be produced anymore because they don't match your personal preference is like saying you would like people to stop releasing Tetris clones because you already have one (very nuff said).

 

[zomedumox]

One of the main concerns that has constantly been raised against video games is that most of the games feature aggressive elements. This has led many people to assert that this may have a detrimental effect on individuals who play such games. tend to show that children do become more aggressive after either playing or watching a violent video game. Of course, there’s no single factor that can drive someone toward violence or aggression, but that violent video games could be classified as one risk factor.