The Great Video Game Debate

Quite recently, my brother and I were perusing the old Nintendo games available for download on Wii's virtual console. Somewhere along the way, I had a sudden realization: Duck Hunt, one of my favorite games when I was a kid, was a Nintendo game!

With unconcealable excitement, I proffered my question to my brother, "Hey! Do you know if they have Duck Hunt on here!?"

My brother reacted first with confusion and then began to laugh. "That's the last game I thought you would have wanted. You know, because you're vegan?"

The exchange seemed to be a perfect manifestation of the notorious debate about video games: To what extent are the games we play representative of our personal values, mores, and attitudes? Do we select the games we play because they appeal to our beliefs? Are our beliefs shaped by the games we've selected?

Much of the psychological community, as well as the general public, has come down with an unwaveringly damning conclusion about violent video games. They claim that study after study has "proven" a causal relationship between gaming and aggressive behaviors and attitudes in the real world. While typically I trust the authority of experimental designs and scientific procedures to yield these kinds of findings, I've never been able to say that I was comfortable trusting the so-called conclusions of these studies.

The most likely reasons for my skepticism are my personal history and experiences with video games over the past fifteen years. Let's return to the vignette at the beginning of this essay. Duck Hunt, the game in question, obviously centers on simulated violent actions (shooting) toward animals (ducks). As a vegan, someone who would never shoot a duck and experiences a great degree of distress in regard to hunting in real life, one might assume that I should find Duck Hunt to be, at the very least, unpleasant or distasteful. The same is presumed to be true about video games that involve simulated violence against simulated people. However, this is not the case, and there must be some reason why.

At six years old I knew that the ducks on my television screen not only were not real, but actually had nothing to do with any real life creature.  This principle was the reason why I never had a problem with violent video games at six (which extended beyond Duck Hunt and included titles like Doom, Mortal Kombat, and Street Fighter) and why, as a sensitive and pacifistic adult, I don't have a problem with violent video games now. When playing a video game, there is no actual harm experienced by any target. The things I hate about real life violence (like pain, fear, and the irreversible reality of death) are not present in the video game world. Images don't have feelings and once they disappear, they can be recreated in moments. Playing is an exercise in strategizing, problem solving, and hand-eye coordination. Realistically, getting a kill in a video game is more like winning at a hand of cards than it is like actually assaulting someone. Your opponent is back and ready for more in the next round and there are usually no hard feelings.

Some say that this fact is further evidence of the potential for games to harm impressionable players: they depict violent acts without consequences and the presumption is that exposure to this could likely warp the minds of players in such a way that they no longer associate real life violence with consequences. However, if I could handle this concept of differentiation at six years old, it stands to reason that most other young people are just as capable of doing the same. I know that I'm just one person and that I could just be the exception to the rule, but it doesn't seem that way. Of all of the people I've known who play games and have been playing them for years, I can't think of an exceptionally violent or agressive one out of the bunch. Some, like me, are even exceptionally nonviolent.

So what gives? Apparently, most of these studies establish the increased aggressive behavior for a short period of time immediately after playing, rather than any prolonged or permanent effects. Never disclosed is what kind of history the participants have with video games. Isn't it possible that over time the aggression response to gaming would decrease rather than increase? Or that the aggression response could be triggered by frustration associated with being unskilled at completing the objectives of the game, not by the theme of the game itself?

Out of the current body of knowledge that exists on violence and video games, it's difficult to make decisions about who or what to trust. Many questions are unanswered, still more have already been answered, but not sufficiently. Nonetheless, as the Fox News, the American Psychological Association, politicians and overzealous parents continue to duke it out with the video game industry, I'm going to keep playing and I'm not going to feel guilty about it.

 video_games   controversy   violence