'Playing With Fire - How Do Computer Games Influence The Player'
by Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen & Jonas Heide Smith
(2004)
The reason I picked up this book was due to the previous research I had carried out - relating to the stigmatizing use of Mental Illness in games. This book is a report that highlights how computer games influence the player. The researched that is carried out and delivered in this report was split into two sections:
1) Research which poses the basic question 'What do people do to media?'
2) Research which poses the basic question 'What do media do to people?'
In all honesty this book was not exactly what I was looking for. I was wanting to find out how to influence a player in order to find out a way to entice someone to play through the whole interactive experience I create and not get bored and stop half way through. I did however read the book and found out some interesting points that does distantly link into my project.
Interesting points were raised such as the idea that video games are destroying children's imaginations and not helping with there development however this theory has been proved wrong:
Contrary to what has previously been believed, children's imaginations are destroyed by popular video games. However, international research shows that they adopt a far more strategic way of thinking. (Carstensen & Vestergard, 2003; our translation) - p09
Sadly this research was carried out by a Danish newspaper - 'Berlingske Tidende' which is difficult for me to find and understand however this report has translated it and given us the translation above. If I'm honest I always thought that video games were not healthy for children too play however now I think about it, I would only find this the case if it was excessive play. With this report of a more strategic thinking being developed I can see how this could be the case as when playing these games a lot of thought is involved on how to simultaneously play, plan, think ahead as well as many other factors to consider.
What this report primarily focuses on is how computer games influence players especially when dealing with violent games. It is well known that some serious crimes committed have been blamed on violent and therefore influential computer games:
Negative effects of computer games have become the centre of renewed attention, however, primarily because of tragic incidences of violence, especially the tragedies in Littleton, Colorado (1999) and Erfurt, Germany (2002), in which school pupils shot and killed a large number of their fellow pupils. Violent computer games of the time were explicitly accused, both in the media coverage and in subsequent legal proceedings. During the Littleton case, the perpetrators' fascination with the 3D shooting game 'Doom' was regularly referred to as a contributory factor. - p10
These are only a few examples of games that were influential to perpetrator's; as in recent years, there has been many more. This report looks into whether or not it's actually the games that are causing the violent behavior. What the report heavily states and keeps proving is that this is not easy to research. It gives evidence and examples of different research methods that have been carried out over the years looking into this idea however none of them actually have concrete evidence that computer games influence the player.
There is plenty evidence that suggests that computer games do not cause violence - in fact, it's hard to prove otherwise, you see in all honesty, there are an abundance of factors that need to be considered and simply just cannot be tested and proved accurately:
A computer game does not do any harm per se and is only problematic for some children and young people in certain circumstances (Gauntlett, 2001; Liestol & Liestol, 2001; Sorensen & Jessen, 2000a). -p13
This is a very valid point and this report gives plenty of examples into how this is true. My favourite example is a simple yet effective one which is easy too understand and easy to picture. This example is explaining how certain activities may appear and seem different depending on which persepective you look at it:
For example, if two boys are playing Star Wars in a backyard with wooden swords and tree stumps as props, it may resemble aggressive behaviour to an outsider. From the boy's perspective, however, it is a game, and it would be wrong to consider it violence. - p14
In relation to a video game, this example merely means that from afar and with a glance, a certain game may appear violent and inappropriate however it depends on the mind-frame of the person playing the game. Contrary to this point, there are games that have excessive violence however that does not mean that by playing them you are going to be violent yourself.
Through observations and interviews (in after-school clubs, kindergartens, etc.) conducted over a 10-year period, Jessen has found that children use computer games as toys in the same way they use other types of toys, and that the nature of their play cannot, therefor, be said to be dictated by the machine. Jessen stresses that children use the games in a different manner that that which outside critics might imagine - children are imaginative and creative. - p15
Again, this is raising the point that children use their imagination for nearly everything. What goes on in their head is completely different to what an outsider thinks. Hence that playing games is just like playing with their ordinary toys; they could be violent or not, depending on how their imagination works. It is fair too say that certain things may affect how we think however due to the difficulty of proving otherwise. American psychologist Sherry Turkle believes; 'technology may well have an effect, but that this effect cannot be classified as predominantly positive or negative.' - p17. This was made clear when Turkle wrote, in relation to people and technology:
.....that they are getting an instrumentally useful product, and there is little question that they are. But now, it is in their home and they interact with it every day. And it turns out they are also gettign an object that teaches them a new way of thinking and encourages them to develop new expectations about the kinds of relationships they and their children will have with machines. (Turkle, 1995 49). - p17
With all this in mind however, there has been research by recognizable groups that prove that video games do have an effect on aggression level. In 2000, several associations issued a joint statement to the US Congressional Public Health Summit stating:
The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children. Its effects are measurable and long-lasting. Moreover, prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life. (ACoP, 2000) - p19
The associations that contributed to this statement were:
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association.
As you can see these are respectable professions which have clearly done plenty of research however I still feel that it really depends on the individual and the environment.
On page 21 & 22, the report discusses in depth about certain study's that suggested a more realistic result and shows that violent games to increase aggression etc.
Overall I still feel it truly depends on the individual and the environment. Obviously some games should not be played until you are at a suitable age to understand the difference between what you can do in a game and what can be done in real life. This report has given me great insight on the matter even though it is not directly what I plan on studying. This report will be useful for some aspects of my study.
There is plenty evidence that suggests that computer games do not cause violence - in fact, it's hard to prove otherwise, you see in all honesty, there are an abundance of factors that need to be considered and simply just cannot be tested and proved accurately:
A computer game does not do any harm per se and is only problematic for some children and young people in certain circumstances (Gauntlett, 2001; Liestol & Liestol, 2001; Sorensen & Jessen, 2000a). -p13
This is a very valid point and this report gives plenty of examples into how this is true. My favourite example is a simple yet effective one which is easy too understand and easy to picture. This example is explaining how certain activities may appear and seem different depending on which persepective you look at it:
For example, if two boys are playing Star Wars in a backyard with wooden swords and tree stumps as props, it may resemble aggressive behaviour to an outsider. From the boy's perspective, however, it is a game, and it would be wrong to consider it violence. - p14
In relation to a video game, this example merely means that from afar and with a glance, a certain game may appear violent and inappropriate however it depends on the mind-frame of the person playing the game. Contrary to this point, there are games that have excessive violence however that does not mean that by playing them you are going to be violent yourself.
Through observations and interviews (in after-school clubs, kindergartens, etc.) conducted over a 10-year period, Jessen has found that children use computer games as toys in the same way they use other types of toys, and that the nature of their play cannot, therefor, be said to be dictated by the machine. Jessen stresses that children use the games in a different manner that that which outside critics might imagine - children are imaginative and creative. - p15
Again, this is raising the point that children use their imagination for nearly everything. What goes on in their head is completely different to what an outsider thinks. Hence that playing games is just like playing with their ordinary toys; they could be violent or not, depending on how their imagination works. It is fair too say that certain things may affect how we think however due to the difficulty of proving otherwise. American psychologist Sherry Turkle believes; 'technology may well have an effect, but that this effect cannot be classified as predominantly positive or negative.' - p17. This was made clear when Turkle wrote, in relation to people and technology:
.....that they are getting an instrumentally useful product, and there is little question that they are. But now, it is in their home and they interact with it every day. And it turns out they are also gettign an object that teaches them a new way of thinking and encourages them to develop new expectations about the kinds of relationships they and their children will have with machines. (Turkle, 1995 49). - p17
With all this in mind however, there has been research by recognizable groups that prove that video games do have an effect on aggression level. In 2000, several associations issued a joint statement to the US Congressional Public Health Summit stating:
The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children. Its effects are measurable and long-lasting. Moreover, prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life. (ACoP, 2000) - p19
The associations that contributed to this statement were:
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association.
As you can see these are respectable professions which have clearly done plenty of research however I still feel that it really depends on the individual and the environment.
On page 21 & 22, the report discusses in depth about certain study's that suggested a more realistic result and shows that violent games to increase aggression etc.
Overall I still feel it truly depends on the individual and the environment. Obviously some games should not be played until you are at a suitable age to understand the difference between what you can do in a game and what can be done in real life. This report has given me great insight on the matter even though it is not directly what I plan on studying. This report will be useful for some aspects of my study.
