Video Games: Wrap-up. And goodbye?

I started this blog as an assignment for my summer English course. I had trouble leading up to my first post deciding what to write about. Either my topic was too broad, too narrow, or too incredibly uninteresting to me. Literally the morning that my first post was due I awoke with an epiphany: a topic that was both interesting to me personally and within the proper realm of narrowness without being too narrow. The primary question I asked was: “What effects do, or can, video games have on a person?”

Originally it was my intention to start my search, as I often do when looking for information, at Wikipedia. My instructor was kind enough to comment about a book that Jane McGonigal had written that she believed may be relevant to my inquiry. This derailed, tho in a good way, my search from starting at Wikipedia. Eventually I found a Ted Talk by Jane and thus was my first source of information. From there I explored 5 additional sources, all of which provided interesting and generally relevant information. I will admit I slanted my search, since this was a personal inquiry, towards the positive information. I learned a great number of interesting and potentially useful factoids for use in an upcoming research paper. Being the person I am, however, I could not neglect the negatives even if I could minimize my exposure to them. Comparing my sources is difficult as they all touched on varied ways in which video games could have an effect, positive and negative, on the world, society, and people. From McGonigal’s perspective that we need to triple the number of hours spent as a global whole playing online games, to the research that indicates seniors playing a specific genre of games can increase their cognitive functions, to research showing a link between aggressive behaviors in academically low performing students who play games.  Largely, however, I find myself looking favorably on the information and find that it supports my personal thoughts on the subject.

With respect to my initial inquiry, I believe that the sources I probed have provided me a satisfactory answer. I know how positive the effects of video game use can range and I am aware, to my betterment personally and scholastically, of the ill effects they can have. I still wonder about a few things, some ancillary to the original topic and others only vaguely related to games as a whole. I still wonder about a chicken/egg scenario presented by one of my sources which no research study done can provide an answer to: do games cause aggressiveness or are aggressive people drawn to games? Other inquiries include the effectiveness of ESRB ratings? What stereotypes are portrayed in games: racial, sexual, sexual orientation, etc? Perhaps if I continue my blog I can start to explore these for the purely personal interest…

The greatest probability of an argument on my part will be that video games are NOT the demonizing influence on people, especially children that many interests groups maintain they are. As a secondary argument I would even argue in favor of increased production of video games given the beneficial side effects gameplay can have.

Ultimately I enjoyed, if had some personal difficulty, with this experiment and assignment. Time permitting, I will maintain my blog.

Video Games: Seniors and students

In my first post I expressed an interest in seeing how games can affect different age groups. And I made an error in limiting myself, in word if not in spirit, to looking for affects on young adults and children. Today I found an article which discusses ways that gaming can help seniors improve themselves with games.

An article posted in the news section of the University of Illinois, available here, reveals that playing a strategic nation-building game can actually improve cognitive function in seniors over the age of 60. Per the article decades of research would prove that under laboratory conditions, cognitive functions that typically decline with age could be improved. But only using the method trained for and tested in the lab. And only while in the lab. Meanwhile, after playing the game Age of Nations, testers showed increased memory, improved ability to switch tasks, and other improvements in cognitive function. The researchers did point out that while these were amazing results, playing games should be, by no means, the only efforts seniors make to improve themselves.

Greater Good, a science research center of the University of California Berkeley, has published the article “Playing the Blame Game” which discusses the results of a federally funded study on how video games affect adolescents. Among other results, they find that boys are more apt to be social as a result of and in conjunction with games. That anti-social gaming is potentially a sign, not of a problem with video games, but with the player in question, who may have anti-social tendencies and were more likely to report getting into physical fights. Their study also indicates that playing games with friends encourages, rather than discourages, physical play as well, with an increased probability if the game is a sports game. They do note that the time spent socializing and in physical activity generally was found to come at a cost; less time was spent reading and on homework. The report indicates that while video game play can affect school performance, this is not related to the content of the games. They make a comparison to television: students who watch large amounts of television generally aren’t watching educational programs.

Further into the article the writer discusses violent games, such as the Doom series, and its correlation, or lack of, to violence in youth, with particular discussion regarding school related shootings such as Columbine. An interesting note here is that the profile of a typical school shooter is male with a history of depression and/or suicidal behavior. A study referenced from 2002 showed no relationship between violent games and school shootings and only 1 in 8 shooters having any notable interest in violent games. However a link between increased aggressive behaviors and playing violent games was mentioned in the article, which then proceeded to ask an important question, posed in the form of an apt metaphor: which is the chicken and which is the egg? That is do increased aggressive behaviors draw a player to the violent games? Or do violent games provoke the increased aggressive behaviors? No answer has been yet concluded on this.

Both of these articles feel relevant to me. Each explores how games can affect their player, whether their player is an adolescent or a senior citizen. The articles contrast each other in that one, the Greater Good article discusses the topic in an open-ended manner, searching for as many answers as it can, whereas the article from the University of Illinois takes a specific style of game and sees if it can be adapted to clinical use, and finds that it can. Both articles appear to be written in a fairly neutral form, being written by parties who were not involved in the studies they report, helping to keep them unbiased and free of assumptions. Of the two articles, I think it clear that I am more personally drawn to “Playing the Blame Game” because it discusses more that is personally relevant. It’s interesting to think I could potentially set my grandmother up on a PC to help her Alzheimer’s, but the practicality of it negates the benefit. The information regarding socialization, play, and the lack of an actual link between violent games and violent behavior is personally satisfying.

In light of this I start wondering if there is a NEED for ESRB ratings? What is the purpose of them? Are they effective? I know I raised that last question last time, but I think it becomes more relevant in this new light. If there is no correlation between violent games and violent outbursts, should we be censoring the content this strictly?

Video Games: Psycho-games

In my last entry my explorations ended up focusing on specifically online games and how they players of them might help push us forward as a society. Today I want to step back to some of my initial questions about games. How can games affect an individual?

Henry Jenkins, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (school webpage located here wrote an essay published at PBS’ website titled ”RealityBytes: Eight Myths about Video Games Debunked.” In his essay Jenkins covers a number of topics but I want to focus on only a couple, which matter to me personally. It’s no secret that many anti-game groups and activists, including disbarred attorney Jack Thompson, strongly believe that exposure to violent games produces violently behaved children. Jenkins rebuts this argument by educating his readers that per Federal crime statistics violent crime is at an all time low over the past 30 years. He further points out that, apparently, violent criminals have lower media exposure (and the implication is all media, not just games) than the average person. Jenkins’ kindly informs his readers that per a US Surgeon General study, the prime factors in producing a violent criminal are mental stability and quality of home life, neither of which inherently rely on media exposure. In his second point Jenkins discusses how the articles and studies said anti-gaming groups use are controversial themselves. It seems that they are performed using questionable research methodology: content is taken out of context, subjects “are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand”, and the laboratory environment is different, substantially, from the environment in which the game was intended to be played. He concludes this section by admitting that violent games may be a factor to increased violent and aggressive behavior, but that no study has found them to be a primary factor.

This article is interesting in that it argues against the one of the major claims that anti-video game groups hide behind. It also produces some interesting information while doing so. It confirms, for example, that games are not solely marketed at children, with some games being specifically marketed, and rated, for adults. It discusses, and debunks, the theory that games are socially isolating by discussing multi-player games and online multi-player games. But in the end the information essay doesn’t discuss what effects a game CAN have on it’s players. To that end I set out to find an article discussing exactly that.

Douglas Gentile is a PH.D. in the field of child psychology at the Iowa State University. He and 5 other experts discuss the subject of the effects, both positive and negative, that video games can have on their players in an article titled “Brains on video games” published in Nature Reviews| Neuroscience Volume 12, December 2011. A copy of the article is available at Dr. Gentile’s website. Dr. Gentile discusses that some positive effects games can produce, even citing violent games such as Unreal Tournament, include improved perceptual and attention skills. He also mentions that studies are showing evidence, as I learned from Jane McGonigal’s Ted Talk (discussed in my last post), that social games (such as MMOs) lead to, in general, positive helpful behaviors in their players. This change can actually happen in less than a year; students who played what he calls pro-social games early in the school year were demonstrating helping behaviors later in the school year. A major point in the article, which affects me personally, is the discussion of the addictive properties of video games. I was interested to note that Gentile theorizes that of gamers 8 to 18, only about 8% suffer from an actual addiction to games; he does note that the term addiction is often misused and should is measured in how damaging it is as opposed to how much consumption is involved. Additionally Gentile discusses the potential games have for education and rehabilitation, favorably; however he notes that games as of yet have not lived up to their promise as an educational tool.

I liked this article. While I discuss here the responses of one doctor, Douglas Gentile, the article actually possesses a significant wealth of information from the other five doctors interviewed. At the personal level I dislike seeing any corroboration of negative effects since it weakens my personal bias in favor of games. But I like the acknowledgement academically because I know we can’t overcome the negatives without knowing about them.

When looking at both articles I can see they are both focusing on dispelling ignorance about video games. The first article is heavily biased, no doubt. Jenkins concentrates on dispelling negative assumptions and myths against games, presenting only a positive opposition. Meanwhile Gentile and his peers respond in their interview as neutrally and honestly as possible, presenting both the positives and negatives. As much as I would like to say Jenkins commands my respect more, I have to honestly say I prefer Gentile’s approach to the subject. He accepts and explores both sides, allowing his readers, both fellow psychology professionals and the layman, to see that like so much else the subject isn’t black and white. That appeals to me.

These articles do prompt a few additional questions to look into. Addiction. How serious is video game addiction? How prevalent is it?

Separate from the articles, but relevant to the discussion of violent games, are ESRB ratings effective in keeping content deemed inappropriate for an age group away from that group? 

Video Games: Billions of hours, millions of years!

At the recommendation of my commenter, I actually decided to skip starting with Wikipedia (however, when it becomes relevant I will return there to seek out new sources), and I started by searching Jane McGonigal and her book "Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make us Better and How they Can Change the World." At the moment I haven’t had an opportunity to get my hands on a copy, however her website, Reality is Broken. offers links to a variety of wonderful resources. In addition to the interview that Allison mentioned with Stephen Colbert, Jane has done a TED Talk on this topic, which can be viewed here.

In this 20 minute video, McGonigal discusses quite a few ideas about how video games can help better or fix our broken world. She also discusses how games are helping better our youth. And she presents a few interesting factoids. 1) We currently, as a people, spend 3 billion hours, globally, playing online games… weekly. 2) Globally we as a people have invested 5.93 million YEARS worth of hours playing World of Warcraft ALONE. 3) Per a Carnegie-Melon researcher the average young person in a developed country will spend 10,000 hours playing games by the time he/she is 21; contrasted to the 10,080 hours spent in school (assuming perfect attendance) from the 5^th grade until high school graduation.

All of these things she presents actually help to explore a question I was ruminating on the other day: Social games, and how they can affect players. Now specifically I was wondering about social disorders, such as social anxiety. Can online games be used as an effective alternative treatment regimen? Based on her TED Talk, yes they can and more. It was rather inspiring to listen to, to be frank.

McGonigal’s talk also inspired another question. Can games be developed or turned to helping solve global problems? Gamers are notoriously focused and goal driven. We enjoy meeting and beating challenges. And we aren’t easily deterred. Can craft scientists, mathematicians, psychologists, and game designers work together to start solving real crises? We, as a group, already understand tactics and strategy. Resource management is well within our scope of ability.

So with that in mind I ended up recalling an interesting news story from last year. With this to inspire us, it would seem that yes games and gamers can be put to practical use! In 3 weeks, gamers produced an accurate and workable model of a protein that retroviruses need to replicate; read the full article here. This is, apparently, an accomplishment that scientists were unable to achieve in over a DECADE.  To motivate players they simply gave them points for each chemically stable model a player or team could produce.

Both of these sources are interesting to delve into, however both regard online games. Online gaming is one facet of the world that is gaming.  I haven’t had an opportunity to really explore offline games, which some of my original inquires relate better to. So I now wonder, since online gaming offers such promise to the player (and even the global community) is it only online gaming that has merits? Perhaps offline games are too limiting and isolationist? And I also wonder, especially after watching McGonical’s talk, is it healthy or unhealthy to spend so much time on games? 3 billion hours weekly… it’s staggering. And she wants to multiply that number 7 fold in the next decade!

Watch the Ted Talk below:

Video Games: Fun for all?

Video games. Arguably they are one of, if not the single, favorite past time of mine. I remember back when I was 4 and 5 playing games such as the original Super Mario Bros. 1,2 and 3 on the original NES. When my dad was reassigned to a duty station in Hawaii, our NES was damaged in the move. My parents replaced it with a Sega Genesis. I've played Kings Quest 5-8 on the PC. I own, presently, an Xbox 360 with 120 gig harddrive, purchased back when the black Xbox was a new release onto the market. A few months ago I upgraded my computer, building one for the first time. I spent more money (after mail-in and immediate rebates) on my graphics card than I did on the processor (which is not to say I bought a sub-par processor), ensuring that I could play Skyrim in all its glory. I even recently took on a position of lead in-game moderator for a new public Minecraft server. I devote more than 70% of my free time to playing games.

Naturally when someone decries games as terrible, devil sent, or a bad influence on a person, I get a tad bit upset. How can games really be that bad if I turned out well? Am I an exception or am I the rule?

For the first few posts in this blog I intend to look into the effects games have on people. What effects do, or can, video games have on a person? Can games have a positive effect or are the detractors opinions accurate that games are inherently evil? Personally I believe games can offer a variety of positive effects. I recall that athletes, football players in particular, were training hand-eye coordination with video games. I can't deny, though, that games could have a negative effect on a person. But as the single source that opponents would say they are, I argue against. I sincerely doubt that any negative effect a game could produce in a person could not also be produced by being subjected to violent movies, television, music, or even literature.

Detractors often argue that we should "think of the children!" when unilaterally declaring games to be evil. So I'll be inquiring as to whether any effects are age-based. Are younger children more likely to be influenced? Are young-adults (I'm thinking early 20's and up here) immune?

For anyone who wants to follow along with, and maybe even do their own inquires or offer contributions, I'll be starting at Wikipedia. Yes, I know that Wiki is considered untrustworthy, especially from an academic stand point. However I find that it happens to be the single perfect place to start a search for information, more so even than Google. While the content of the article may be edited by anyone, a well written and important article is monitored to ensure accuracy whenever revisions are made. But more importantly, a well written article cites sources. Wikipedia will show me the opening s to the avenues of research I will drive down.