| GAMING: VIOLENCE & THE ZONE (May 2000) |
|
by Brent
Stafford
Eyes glazed. Thumb throbbing. A series of nervous twitches, followed by the sheer pleasure and boisterous joy of reaching another level or blasting away another humanoid. These are the distinct signs of the state of utopia sought by every avid video game player. This state is known as ‘The Zone’. The Zone is the nirvana of digital gaming. Once in it, the game player experiences a state of deep concentration, total absorption and a dislocation from physical reality. It is by far the coolest place for a gamer to be. For others, it’s one of the most problematic aspects of video gaming. Developers are obsessed with creating it, marketers fall over backwards trying to hype it, parents worry about what spending 40 hours a week in it is doing to their kids. Over the past several years, we have witnessed an explosion in the popularity of video games. They have captivated the imagination of an entire generation and, because gaming has become the top play activity for children, they have changed the nature by which kids play. This success has focused attention on, and raised serious questions about, the impact of video games on youth and their culture. Why? Because The Zone is an intense and highly-immersed psychological state, capable of communicating values, norms and themes which may effect our children in a negative way. Video games are no longer toys. They are a powerful communication medium. Galvanizing this concern is the controversy surrounding the extreme levels of violence in today’s high-tech and highly-realistic games. Certain events, such as the killings at Colorado’s Columbine High School, have brought the issue of violence in video games to the forefront. In this case, the two killers taped themselves celebrating video games, and they named their guns after characters in Doom, the groundbreaking person-shooter game. Before I begin what is sure to be seen by some as an attack on the video game industry, a little background is needed. My observations and comments are gleaned from my Masters Thesis in communication studies at Simon Fraser University, and the subsequent discussions in the media. Over a two-year period, I conducted 40 television interviews with game developers, including Nintendo, Electronic Arts and Radical Entertainment, as well as with researchers, media educators and video game players. I then edited these interviews into a 58-minute documentary called Insert Coin: The Culture of Video Game Play. The main goal of Insert Coin is to encourage youth to begin thinking about video games in a careful and reflective manner, without dismissing the importance of video games to youth culture. The documentary provides commentary from SFU communication professor Stephen Kline, who just wrapped up a four-year research project on video gaming. Kline studied the evolution of ‘heavy gamers’ and the addiction to gaming. As well, the research team studied game marketing and the synergistic practices of the industry. Video games are huge business, with estimated annual worldwide sales of $20 billion. Every decision, from the content of the play experience to the well-tuned marketing campaign, is based on maximizing the enormous profit potential. So I am alarmed every time I hear developers say that violent games are not a big part of their business. Violence sells video games and violent games consistently rank in the top ten. For the perfect example of how profitable violence is, look at the NHL and its players association (NHLPA). At a time when hockey is vulnerable to criticism because of a growing number of ugly on-ice incidents, they have co-sanctioned a video game that glorifies violence in hockey. The game is called Rock the Rink (by EA Sports) and, amazingly, it was developed in the same style, and is being promoted with the same brashness, as the World Wide Wrestling Federation. As The Province newspaper reports, the Electronic Arts press release declares: “hockey with no rules slowing you down or limiting your fights. Pair up goon against goon or have the big guy lay a pile driver, straight-arm or clothesline on a finesse player for a quick and painful annihilation of the opponent.” It almost doesn’t make sense that the NHL and the NHLPA would sanction this game. That is, until we recognize how profitable violence has become to the gaming industry. For the league, the licensing deal is obviously lucrative enough to risk the bad publicity that has erupted. But, as the old marketing adage goes ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity.’ The media uproar feeds the marketing machine; every article and talk show sells the game. The issue of violence in video games is similar to the well-argued topic of violence on television and in films. However, according to Dr. Kline, in the case of video games, the impact of violent exposure is more dramatic. “In a video game, gamers get to pull the trigger…they are in the drivers seat, they are the people deciding to kill. Therefore the desensitization effects are more likely to be stronger with video games that with any other media.” The key concern is that the interactive nature of video games makes children more active participants in simulated violence. Their direct participation out-weighs the passive exposure in TV and film. While Kline doesn’t directly link violent behavior to violent gaming, he does state in Insert Coin that “For vulnerable kids who may be isolated in their lives, the repeated experience of killing could put some youth at risk.” So where does the industry stand on the issue? It has two positions: 1) We are only giving people what they want, and 2) It’s up to parents and responsible consumers to keep violent games away from their kids. I have problems with both positions. Video games are an extremely powerful communication medium and like film and television, hold up more than just a mirror to society. Powerful media affects our culture in powerful ways and when content creators dismiss responsibility by saying ‘We are only giving the people what they want,’ they turn a blind eye to the persuasive effects of media on our culture. As marketers, we make our living utilizing media to affect consumer culture. We create needs and wants. Why, then, is it such a stretch for developers to recognize that their products may be perpetuating an insatiable appetite for violent games and nurturing a culture of violence? As each new game comes out, it raises the bar and the next version is more violent. The video game industry has also created a very comfortable Catch 22 when it comes to placing responsibility on the shoulders of parents. As Nintendo Canada’s Ron Bertram states in Insert Coin: “Nintendo doesn’t market to parents, because to market to parents would say to kids that Nintendo is boring, and Nintendo wants to be anything but boring.” How does the industry expect parents to stay informed and make responsible choices when the industry doesn’t communicate with them? Developers must accept some level of responsibility for the games they create. I recently spoke to a class of young video game developers at the Centre for Digital Imaging & Sound. This, the next generation of game developers, watched Insert Coin and became quite agitated during the section on violence. They vehemently argued that it’s up to responsible parents to protect kids. I asked them if they planned to have kids. They said yes. I then asked: “As game developers with kids, do you plan to be responsible parents only at home after work and do nothing during working hours to protect kids?” They stared back. ‘No answer. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
 |
