The Voltage Gate

Finally we have a bit of reason from the academic community regarding video games. Peter Kierkegaard of the University of Essex wrote a piece for the International Journal of Liability and Scientific Enquiry claiming that, according to his review of the literature, there's no direct evidence of real life violence being caused by video games:

Kierkegaard has studied a range of such research papers several of which have concluded since the early 1980s that video games can lead to juvenile delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods and violent criminal behaviour such as assault and robbery. Evidence from brain scans carried out while gamers play also seem to support a connection between playing video games and activation of regions of the brain associated with aggression.

However, Kierkegaard explains, there is no obvious link between real-world violence statistics and the advent of video games.

The overarching claims that video games breed RL violence have always seemed a bit silly to me, especially the research that has been done involving deceptively pointed and contextualized measurements of blood pressure, heart rate and other physiological factors before and after playing games. The conclusions made in these experiments are that video games produce all of the biological signs of aggression or desensitization or addiction. The media takes an additional step, claiming that the research shows that video games are destroying the minds of our children and making people more violent. I'm glad Kierkegaard is challenging this conclusion.

I would like a survey of the researchers that conduct these studies. How many of them play video games regularly? Do they know what it's really like? Did they grow up playing these games with friends? Are they familiar with them as a cultural element? From the studies that I see, probably most would answer no to these questions. How can I tell? Because they're asking the wrong questions. The factors they consider display their ignorance to gaming in general, and it's troublesome to see such a generational bias.

The research itself is simplistic and silly. Measuring a physiological response to any stimulus will get you a response, but what does the response tell you exactly? We are told that video games stimulate aggression. Why exactly do they stimulate aggression? What is the cause? Is it the animated violence in the game (blood, gore, etc.) or is it the vicarious problem solving within the game's structure? We are presented with puzzles/challenges within the game and will be rewarded in some way (by becoming more powerful, or attaining new content) if we figure out how to solve/overcome. This is the common thread in all games, and it can be incredibly frustrating when you fail. Even if it is "just a game".

Let's take one of the most frustrating instances in any game that I know of: a Warsong Gulch battleground in World of Warcraft. For those that don't know, these battlegrounds are where players can duke it out to achieve certain objectives. You are rewarded with a form of currency at the end of the battle in order to buy more gear to make your character more potent. The winning team receives more currency than the losers. Ten players from each faction are thrown semi-randomly in an area, and must capture the other team's flag. First one to three captures wins.

I play Alliance, so I lose more than win. When people don't work together in this situation to concentrate on the goal - running the flag to the base and protecting the flag carrier along the way, while trying to disrupt their carrier - you will lose.

Giant orcs and trolls swing huge axes at my head. I shoot them repeatedly with arrows. My pet claws and bites my opponents. Blood splatters. We are directing the characters that we control to kill members of the other team. They die, and are resurrected to fight some more. It's the essence of brutality and violence, a Norse hero's dream of heaven, but what is actually on the player's mind? First and foremost for me is to get that damn flag. If killing another player's toon is the way to accomplish that goal and win the game, then that's what needs to be done. The challenge is not to kill, but to work together as a team and out-maneuver the opponent.

Sound familiar? This is what "violent" sports like hockey and football are all about, aren't they? We glorify the violence of these games, relishing in the combat, but the actual game is about strategy and learning to work together and accomplish goals as a team. When that strategy fails and mistakes are made, it makes people agitated and aggressive as hell. I don't think it has as much to do with the actual physical violence of the sport.

When I get my ass handed to me in a battleground or my teammates are more concerned about themselves and we lose the game because of stupid mistakes, then it's very frustrating. I'm sure my heart rate and blood pressure go through the roof.

They're boiling things down to one factor among hundreds at any given time during a person's life. In these studies, is the subject's social or family life considered? Job? Sex? Financial status? Can we get a study of how our brains react when our laptops freeze in the middle of editing a lengthy, unsaved document? I can see the headline now: "Windows contributes to long term violent behavior in desk jockeys".

The bottom line is that the "violent" video game distinction is irrelevant when determining aggressiveness. It's not the violence depicted in the game that make players aggressive, it's the competition, with each other or with the program.

If researchers can answer this question, then I will start giving these studies credence: Is the increase in aggressiveness after playing a video game due to the imaginary violence within the game or the challenge of completing a task that bears some sort of reward? Does that aggressiveness have sustainability? Does it impact the brain in such a way to produce long term affects? I'd be willing to bet money on the latter.

If anyone says otherwise, I'll kick their ass.