Gamasutra: Meeting with the US Vice President is a mistake for the game industry
This article just popped up on Gamasutra. Things are getting pretty interesting down in the comments section.
What are your thoughts? Could the game industry meeting with the US Vice president to discuss ways to "reduce the occurrence of mass shootings" be interpreted as it taking responsibility for causing violence? Is denying the offer an even worse choice? This is obviously an American issue, but I believe the core issue extends to all developers: As a medium with high levels of influence should we remain aware of the effect including certain content may have?
What are your thoughts? Could the game industry meeting with the US Vice president to discuss ways to "reduce the occurrence of mass shootings" be interpreted as it taking responsibility for causing violence? Is denying the offer an even worse choice? This is obviously an American issue, but I believe the core issue extends to all developers: As a medium with high levels of influence should we remain aware of the effect including certain content may have?
Comments
The entertainment industry as a whole has violent content. Movies, comics, games, books. Everything has a rating on them. If they want more control, they can speak to the entire entertainment industry.
Also EVERY independent study undertaken to prove the link between violent game and movies and real violence has turned up proving there is no significant link between the two.
This is an old article I haven't found anything more recently that was conducted independently from a control group pushing an agenda. http://ap.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=48012
I personally faced this question in 1997 in an interview seams the no matter the studies people want it to be true. People want to think they can protect children by doing something. Protecting children is a smart social responsibility. But its need a real solution not some hyped up nonsense that gives a false sense of security and nothing more.
That been said there really is an embarrassing issues about age restrictions in games. Most games are self rated that is the publisher decides there rating. After all how could you rate a game cost effectively that takes 200-400 man-hours to play. Newer games with growing online content would require re-rating all the time. After that there is no control on who actually plays a game based on its age restriction. This might make me unpopular but really whats the point of giving an age restriction that means nothing in the end, might as well not bother.
I don't really have an answer I don't even know if there really is an issue, I am just saying the ratting seams reasonably irrelevant. I guess it is in the hand of parents and at least should give them a fair opportunity to make an informed decision for there kids. I am not personally in favor of government having control of social choices. It leads to some disturbing possibilities.
To further that it really seams to me that a government like the US one where its OK to have sex with horses and marry your own cousin in more states then its OK for same sex marriage really doesn't have the moral compass its suggesting it does. Buts that's more of a personal jibe.
@Tachyon, there is a diffrence between saying "No significant link" vs "Has no Impact".
http://vgresearcher.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/gunslingers-in-arms-three-studies-on-two-player-cooperative-play-in-first-person-shooters/
Not that I'm arguing that going on a murder suicide spree is as a result of video game playing. I mean, if anything the fact that that person is willing to kill themselves seems to me to be at the heart of the issue. Having access to automatic weapons, hating other people and the glorification of headshots can't help though. (Although frankly I'm unqualified to speculate)
@Bensonance What are your thoughts?
---
I read through the better part of the comments on Gama, and I feel that they have picked up some trolls. But I believe the author made a good point about the issue. But if 'we' do not represent at this meeting then there will be a political charade be the NRA and its ilk portraying games as the problem. By representing as system designers who have the ability to comment and help with the situation. In the end I still feel like 'we' are between a rock and a hard place.
Edit with a fun fact. The general increase in aggression after playing a violent video game, or watching a movie are about the same in both intensity and duration.
<sarcasm>Also between me listening to heavy metal and playing game I am not sure how anyone in my high school walked out of there alive</sarcasm>
In fact, claiming that stimuli that cause aggression and real world violent behavior aren't linked even slightly causally sounds like plain old lazy thinking.
Or to phrase that another way: You seem to be saying that angry people don't commit more than the average amount of violence.
Also: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57558300-76/violent-video-games-and-aggression-a-cumulative-effect/ and http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/121055-Research-Finds-Negative-Effects-in-Violent-Videogames
Plus: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22242256
And this: http://phys.org/news186665767.html
And this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20549320
Firstly a note on research: For every study that says there is an increase in aggression from playing games there is one that says there isn't a correlation. The truth is that there can be no solid conclusions drawn academically until there has been a meta analysis of all the studies dealing with a link between violence or aggression and video games.
My thoughts on this matter then are the following: Games are art. This means they can elicit emotions and change the way people think. That is really an indisputable point. Who can say whether this influence will be positive or negative, though? If games can make people laugh and be happy or sad surely they can make them aggressive? I think it's impossible for games to be held solely responsible for mass killings, as they're not the only medium with violence that is regularly consumed. However, I think it is likely that they do contribute to the problem. Just as Film, TV and various other mass media do as well. It's possible that games play more of a role than other media because of the high number of hours they consume in relation to other media; in addition to the use of interactivity. However, for now at least, there is no proof of games playing a bigger role.
So back to the issue. I believe they should attend this meeting, even if leaders from other media do not attend. It's really a bit of a catch 22. Games people say: "We're art, we can influence people!", but when asked: "Do you think you could have contributed to violence or aggression" The answer is usually a strong: "No, definitely not." It would be a sign of maturity in the industry if we could say, "Yes, as an influential medium of art, we believe we could help reduce these events" at the same time as clearly stating that we're not taking sole responsibility for the events.
My hope is actually for self-awareness among game developers. We should always ask ourselves: "Why are we including this piece of violence - what is it's purpose?" Kris Graft actually briefly grapples with this point in his article and I agree with him: games use violence poorly. Violence at some level has purpose in other mediums, but often in ours it does not.
The truth is, if games can do good, they can do bad as well - every game developer needs to grapple with this point no matter how painful it may be.
Question: I recently played Spec Ops the line. I wonder if that can be said to use violence poorly as well? Maybe it does a bit both? Sort of sending mixed messages about violence, perhaps being anti-war but pro-violence. Though I imagine as a whole work, and considering its peers, it makes an very mature argument.
With regards to Spec Ops: The Line, I also played it recently and I think it uses violence 'correctly': with weight and meaning. I actually want to write a blog about this entire topic because I have recently been considering why and how violence is used in other mediums. My conclusion is that it is mostly about eliciting feelings of awkwardness and disgust in the consumer. You want to look away, but you can't. It's also used to make you dislike characters, I believe.
With this in mind, I believe violence is only effective when used in contrast to non-violence. Otherwise the weight of the violence is limited because you become used to it. In The Heroes Journey model of narrative, the first section is called 'the ordinary world' and is used to show the viewer what is normal for the protagonist of the story. If we look at The Hobbit through this lens we see The Shire as calm, serene and void of violence. I would argue that the contrast of the violence and action to the serenity of The Shire achieves many things for the story.
Bringing that tangent back to the issue at hand, I don't think games use 'violence contrast' well at all. This is likely because of the reliance on violence as a mechanic in addition to bad pacing. COD:Modern Warfare 1 & 2 actually have above average 'Ordinary World' sections with the training tutorial levels, but they're still weak compared to other mediums. The rest of those two games is all violence and shooting with no real moments of non-violence or reflection.
In contrast, Spec Ops: The Line has numerous sections between levels where you are simply walking with your teammates and reflecting on what's happening - that's even how the game opens. These sections act as the non-violence which makes the violence all the more so horrifying. And that's just mechanically, Spec Ops also has a fantastic narrative that supports its use of 'violence contrast'.
I would point out that the use of non-violence makes games an easy target for criticism. It's pretty easy to say games might be desensitising people when they spend long periods of time with no engagement with non-violence - even if it's not true. Multiplayer is specifically guilty here, but admittedly it might be difficult to insert sections of non-violence into these games. Then again, that's what Game Designers are for.
@BlackShipsFilltheSky I'm interested in your thought that it might be "anti-war but pro-violence." Do you think it's an issue of ludonarrative dissonance (I feel a bit pompous using that word :/ ).
Having looked up "ludonarrative" I would say there is a hint of ludonarrative dissonance in Spec Ops: The Line. Though I think it's minor and (considering the genre) it's more me nitpicking than an actual complaint.
In particular I'm thinking of the execution moves which provide you with bonus ammo. Near the end of the game there is a violent moment where one such move elicits disgusted remarks from my comrades, but all through the game up until that point brutally killing already dieing foes had been going unremarked and had been rewarding me with extra killing power.
The execution moves did make the game more interesting as the mechanic encouraged risk taking. But in the early stages of the game it seemed somewhat at odds with the narrative.
But thinking back on Spec Ops: The Line again I feel like most of the early game's eagerness for you to kill things (and ambivalence to the results thereof) actually sets up the end of the game to be that much more dramatic.
Every time I think about Spec Ops I realize I may have been out thought by the game's designers.
@Bensonance Re: "anti-war but pro-violence." I don't think there's really a moment in Spec Ops where the war going on is portrayed as just or fair or simple or even necessary. I think it's safe to say it takes an anti-war stance. However the game does involve a lot of violence. But I think you've answered my question very well about how it portrays the violence.
I also wounder when we say "violence" in a game do we only specifically mean gratuitous violence? Arguably games like chess include violence pieces are killed all the time and quietly removed from the board. Its it the gratuitous violence that's in question or all forms. I wounder if the same test that was mentioned about aggressive behavior in players after playing a first person shooter would be any different after the spent an hour playing fifa or any other competitive twitch game. Does the change happen with single player games with the same violent imagery or only when its competitive. Correlation doesn't imply causality. As an industry if we could understand the specific causality (assuming for the sake of this there is one) we could specifically work around it.
@Bensonance can you link one of the independent studies you talk about that shows violence in games brings about violence in players? I have only ever seen ones that were done by groups with the intention of proving its true. I am wary of studies that start off with the answer they want and work back to make it true.
I don't mean to draw any conclusions here more just bring out some of the aspects I wrestle with when I consider the question.
In relation to the article in question above I really don't know if its better or worse to have attended. Attending gives legitimacy to the issues been raised and in a way I don't feel that they are legitimate (only my opinion mind you). However neglecting to go would make the industry look like they simply callous. I guess attending and making sure the whole process is scientific in its studies and results might be a worthy goal.
There is no reason or benefit to having a 'games industry representative' meet with Biden. Nothing good can come out of it.
Gun violence is a deep and complex issue and trying to pin it to one issue will always fall short. I think people are inherently violent; Mongols would pour lead into peoples' throats as a method of execution, and school shootings have been around since long before video games (see Charles Whitman). Children, little boys especially, are known for often being cruel to animals (or other children) and have been playing cops and robbers or cowboys and indians since long before the rise of video games. Violent video games are simply just a vehicle for expression of this trait already present in people.
Violent games may even allow people a healthy expression of this trait*. In fact there are some interesting correlations here:
Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
It is almost inevitable of anyone capable or willing to commit one of these acts will be drawn to violent video games. But this says nothing about players of these games in general and does not imply causation at all. Do games cause aggression? Undoubtedly, as anyone that's ever heard me play dota can attest. But that has nothing to do with it being a video game and has far more to do with testosterone and competition. case in point, John McEnroe.
*if anything this implies that as an industry the onus is on us to make games as violent and realistic as possible
@tbulford Here are are a couple:
[url = http://storage.vuzit.com/public/33e/source.pdf] "playing violent videogames on the Internet was associated with greater tolerance of violence, a lower emphatic attitude, and more aggressive behavior" [/url] It was published in a peer reviewed Journal so it's reasonably reliable.
[url = http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00028.x/abstract] "children who played the violent videogame later showed more aggression." [/url] Also published in a peer review journal.
[url = http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1984.tb02165.x/abstract]This paper[/url] doesn't have to do with aggression, but it found a correlation between lower self-esteem and video games, which is interesting.
[url = http://scholar.google.co.za/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=Violence+and+Videogames] Here [/url] is a Google Scholar search for all the papers that are related to Violence and Videogames.
So the research is there, but I remain unconvinced either way.
@raithza You have graphs so I can't argue too much with your points :P. I would say that all the examples you give are possibly results of societal influence. Genghis Khan expected that of his warriors because he saw that's how the job got done. The very name of "Cops and Robbers" implies a societal influence - do Eastern countries play those games, for example?
School shootings may have been around longer than Videogames, but can it be said of all violent media? Violence is perhaps a result of the culture within which one is embedded. As Game Designers, we must realise that we form part of that culture and our work influences people. Self awareness is important - we may not be responsible, but we contribute to it.
I won't argue with your point about games being a release of violent energies, there is some great research which backs this up. As with all things, violent video games may likely achieve good and bad things. It is also likely that violent people are drawn to violent video games, but it is possible games create violent people too.
Why aren't people asking if gun violence is associated with having the largest military in the world? Or the large number of private gun owners per capita? What, exactly, is it that makes people assume entertainment has anything to do with it? Are millions of people elsewhere in the world gagging to commit murder suicides, but unable to gain access to weapons with which to do the deed?
@dislekcia seams its easier to take on a whole bunch of geeks with play-station controllers then the NRA all armed to the teeth.
But it irks me that in 2012 video game developers still argue something like "there has never been an independent study that has shown a link between real world violence and video games" which is just plain false and we should stop arguing it and instead focus on our good arguments as to why video games don't teach kids to actually shoot their classmates (and also be ready to bare responsibility and change our ways, like decent human beings, if it does turn out we did contribute to people being killed).
@BlackShips take it as lawyering or however you wish: I the author am dead. Neuropsychology is not my field, but I am able to accept that a short term boost in aggression does not lead to a long term boost violence. Same as a short term boost in 'energy' from caffeine may not lead to a long term boost in productivity. It may be possible but like I said it is tangential to what should be discussed in this thread.
Regarding the meeting itself (rather that the myth that there's no independent studies showing a link between video game playing and violent behavior). I think what LexAquilla said made the most sense. Even if the video game industry cannot win at talking to the Vice President of the United States it can lose really hard by refusing to enter the dialogue and letting others talk for it.
Also, I don't presume Joe Biden is an idiot. I'm sure he's aware that his office is posturing to make people feel better and he had no choice in the matter even though he expected no productive outcome. Biden has no history (as far as I can tell) of hating on games.
(Though I wonder if he felt reluctant to meet because it implied that the White House was responsible for the shootings :P )
I have read through the sites that were cited and can see there is a lot of proved correlation (albeit short term correlation) but still further study would assist us understanding causality. We can avoid situations that prove correlation but understanding the cause and effect would prove more useful. Additionally so far as the studies go the prove a short term increase in aggression and still nothing conclusive about long term. Further research could indicate the long term effects. How many hours a week are safe to play and so on.
If we consider all other competitive games and ask the same question. Does a soccer or rugby also provoke short term aggressive behavior (my personal experience is it does in the audience and plenty fights start on on the field far more then I have seen at any LAN). Is the issue with the competitive nature of the activity more then the violent representation. Even further and more important is the understanding of whether or not that short term increase is as negative as we perceive. Is it part of a learning and growing process. Emotional states are often labeled as taboo when they are simply part of our nature. We have to understand and manage our behavior when we experience them not simply never have them.
I don't think any of us think that kids play a computer game and head out and shoot everyone at school (of course if this was proved true we would need to rethink our position). Personally I am a far greater advocate for co-operative style games then competitive ones, but mostly because it leaves everyone in a group feeling good when they are done playing.
I'm not confident that anything is proven either way, but the fact that there HAVE been a lot of studies on long term behavioral changes (AS WELL as studies into the way video games affect aggression) makes an argument like "short term increases in aggression don't amount to behavioral changes in the long term" seem very moot (as it doesn't matter what you think of the relationship because the two things are being documented separately for your convenience).
And in any case @Karuji was saying that this statement is true: Which simply isn't true, there's a lot of studies that suggest there might be a link, some that suggest their isn't (though I haven't seen a recent one), and a lot of studies that DON'T prove anything either way. And Karuji was trying to argue that that statement is true on a technicality (that according to him all the studies are about short term aggression and according to him there is no relationship between the short term aggression documented and long term aggressive behavior).
Short term aggression is just one of the metrics being studied, and it's a relatively easy one to measure. It's been shown that players that play Tetris may experience an increase in aggression, while players that play violent co-operative games, though violent, cause players to be more cooperative after playing. http://vgresearcher.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/gunslingers-in-arms-three-studies-on-two-player-cooperative-play-in-first-person-shooters/
Here's an extract out of a peer reviewed article by Craig A Anderson and Brad J Bushman about some of the effects of violent media (not just games, though this comes out of a meta-analysis of the effects of violent video games back in 2001): To be clear: Craig A Anderson and Brad J Bushman have been studying game and media violence for most of their careers. They are strong proponents of violent media as a cause of violent behavior. They also state that more study is needed to understand the neurological affects of playing video games, which may take some time in coming still.
Has anyone seen articles like this one. Some of these studies are a bit older, but in all fairness sport has been around longer. Are you aware of any that do a correlation between them?
Another interesting article that relates more to the school shootings issue and not specifically to one element that could contribute.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/bruceperry/aggression_violence.htm The question I ask myself is will a layperson like me ever be able to understand an issue like this well enough. I guess I am left with learning as much as I can and making the best choices I know how to.
My main concern when I first heard about the invitation was the game industry being caught up in some kind of political gestalt. We still are, but on the face it would seem like the politicians, as presented by Biden, will only take actions against the medium if there is a mass of public pressure.
The irony is that politicians and the media oft use games as a scapegoat, and thus create the negative impressions.