A brief examination of why we play video games and addictive tendencies that can arise from playing them.

Video games have become an incredibly large part of our culture in recent years, and for all those years they have received a lot of attention which unfortunately more often than not is negative where the mainstream media is concerned. They have painted a picture of how video games will corrupt children, much the same way television was demonised in its early years. Being an avid gamer myself I feel I can take a slightly more informed approach concerning the effects that video games can have on anyone, let alone children, and also see what positive effects can come from them.

                However, in order to be able to understand the benefits and drawbacks of playing video games we must understand why we play video games in the first place. Now you may be thinking it is obvious that we play video games for fun, and while I agree this is true at its most fundamental level, I believe we can look deeper than that. What exactly do games offer that make them fun to play? Shoshannah Tekofsky has taken this approach in her article on the theory of gaming motivation. She has broken gaming motivation down to 11 different psychological needs that are all grouped into 3 larger categories, believing the player will be looking to fulfil at least one of these when they sit down to play a video game.

This Venn diagram shows a visual representation of these needs arranged under their appropriate categories:

[http://thinkfeelplay.com.taz.kontrollpanelen.se/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Theory-of-Gaming-Motivation.png]

According to her Achievement, Recognition and Satisfaction are all basic needs that the player will be motivated to fulfil for the sense of reward they offer, in the article she offers more insight as to why this is the case. 

To quote Tekofsky directly on her reasoning behind each of the basic needs: 

                [On  Achievement]: "This is the most obvious pay-off of playing games. Beating a boss, levelling up, or creating a new weapon are all obviously “fun” for the sense of achievement they offer."

               [On Recognition]: "This is the good feeling you get from earning the regard of others. You always have to do something for that though. Either you help others by caring for them or cooperating, or you earn their admiration and respect by achieving something difficult."

                [On Satisfaction]: "This is what you feel when you successfully fulfil a basic psychological drive. That may sound abstract, but the idea is that there are some things you need to do no matter what. You feel bad if you do not do them, but you do not necessarily feel good for doing them. Think of dealing with negative emotions and caring for friends. It might not be “fun” to do, but doing it right is definitely satisfying. You see this in video games when players are “just killing time”, trying to    forget about bad feelings, or are simply enjoying the scenery of the game."

Whilst her reasoning behind each of these basic needs is sound, what I find interesting is her view on fun and relaxation, which I will again quote from the article: 

                "Achievement, Recognition and Satisfaction are the rewards we get from gaming. Sometimes we feel that it is “fun” to fulfil these needs. Sometimes it is “relaxing” to do so. Yet, within this model I propose that all sense of reward we get from gaming can be led back to a sense of Achievement, Recognition, and/or Satisfaction."

 

Here Tekofsky has apparently chosen to disregard the possibility that people might simply be playing video games as a means of relaxation or simply to have fun, instead trying to argue that both come about as a result of the desire to fulfil one of the three basic needs. Some may take this to mean that she believes we cannot simply be motivated to have fun or relax, and it would be understandable to do so given that her argument involves psychological urges that are subconscious to the average person unless they are actively introspecting while they play. I myself believe this is a fair argument to make, and provides us with an interesting if slightly controversial perspective on why we play video games.

                So to summarise, taking this perspective we believe that we are motivated to play video games due to basic psychological needs that are felt by everyone, and that through the fulfilment of these needs we experience the fun and relaxation that many associate with playing them.

Now that we've established an acceptable perspective on why it is we play video games, we can examine some broad aspects of the effects of doing so.

                As mentioned in the introduction, it is common knowledge that the media have demonised video games for as long as they have been around, with the target more often than not being violent video games that depict graphic amounts of gore, blood, swearing and adult themes that for example can be found in the Grand Theft Auto series, Gears of War and the Call of Duty games. Ever improving visual fidelity has not helped in this respect as it has allowed these violent aspects to become more realistic. This topic is so vastly complex and has been so widely studied that it would be very difficult to come to a conclusion on whether violent games do affect people or not, so I'll move onto another aspect of video gaming that doesn't rank quite as highly in terms of media exposure but is still a major issue that can arise from spending too much time playing video games, or simply falling victim to the enticing rewards that a game may offer.

                I am talking of course about addiction. Now it is true that anything you spend a lot of time doing has the potential to become a habit and eventually a dependency, but video games can have a certain appeal to some people, to the point that it can have severe detrimental effects on their day-to-day lives. One of the biggest genres of video games that suck people in are MMORPGS. These games are designed to keep players coming back for more, the dangling carrot is an excellent metaphor to sum up the methods used to achieve this, players will spend hours of their time performing mundane tasks purely because a reward or new ability will be unlocked when they make a certain amount of progress, for example a player might kill enemies over and over until they reach a certain level so that they unlock the ability to use a new weapon. The BBC ran an episode of the program Panorama that focused on video game addiction in 2010 that I found very eye opening, and slightly disturbing. An article on the BBC website entitle "Can video gaming cross from innocent fun to addiction?" discusses the content of the program. It mentions how psychological devices are used in some games to keep players wanting more:

                "...scientists discovered that rats which had been trained to feed themselves by pressing a lever would press it obsessively if the food was delivered randomly.

                "People have discovered that this works on humans as well. If you give people a lever or a button to press and give them random rewards, they will press it all the time," he [Adrian Hon, chief creative officer of SixToStart] said.

In computer games, instead of food, players are randomly rewarded with extra lives or extra in-game features. The idea is to create a compulsion loop that keeps them wanting to play on."

The thought that these methods are employed alone is worrying, but the article then briefly mentions two people who believe themselves to have been video game addicts:

"I wouldn't move from my bed. My controller would be at my side table, I would turn it on, play and then I would realise it was about three o clock in the afternoon. It could be up to a full 12 hours... or more … or overnight,"

The next person explains how his mother had noticed him spending the majority of his time playing World of Warcraft and decided to intervene by removing his internet access, going on to explain how he flew into 'an uncontrollable rage' after she had done so:

                "I put on a boot and I kicked a hole in my sister's door. I just smashed anything I could    see."

This paints a chilling picture of one of the possible results of playing video games for too long, and the fact that these games are effectively designed to encourage players to do so makes it all the more worrying. This is not however the only means by which a player may find them self  addicted to playing video games.

                Whilst some people may find themselves falling victim to the incentivised gameplay, others might be playing for a different reason. Escapism is an interesting possible reason for video game play, it requires context for us to be able to make a judgement on whether it is a good or bad thing. For example, when someone plays video games to relieve the stress of their everyday activities such as work, we can consider their escapism to be purely for relaxation and hence perfectly healthy. On the other hand if someone is playing video games to ignore their obligations and ultimately escape their day-to-day life then we can consider their escapism to be unhealthy. It is the latter group that will often find themselves becoming addicted to games, as is likely for anyone who uses an activity as refuge from what they perceive to be a world that they'd rather forget.

                In conclusion, we can see that the reasons we play video games are fundamentally wrought through the psychological urges to achieve, be recognised and gain self satisfaction. We can see that they underlie our basic urges to have fun and to relax. In addition we can see that seeking to fulfil these through the medium of video games can lead to addictive tendencies and that these can have negative effects on the players everyday life.

References:

-          Tekofsky, S. (2010) Theory of Gaming Motivation [Online] http://www.thinkfeelplay.com/theory-of-gaming-motivation/ [Accessed: unknown]

-          Rowe, R. (2010) Can video gaming cross from innocent to addiction? [Online] http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9251000/9251687.stm [Accessed: unknown]

-          Gonzalez, L. (2008) A history of video game controversy [Online] http://uk.gamespot.com/features/when-two-tribes-go-to-war-a-history-of-video-game-controversy-6090892/ [Accessed: unknown]

-          Ellis-Christensen, T. (2003-12) What is Escapism [Online] http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-escapism.htm [Accessed: unknown]

Further Reading:

-          Calleja, G. (2010) Digital Games and Escapism [Online] http://gac.sagepub.com/content/5/4/335.short [Accessed: unknown]

-          Vorderer, P. and Bryant, J. (2006) Playing video games: motives, responses, and consequences [publisher unknown]

Analysis of Charlie Brookers Gameswipe

Charlie Brooker presented a spinoff from his TV program Newswipe, called “Gameswipe”, in which he discusses some of the history of video games and video gaming, and some of the issues that it has faced in that time, namely its negative view in the light of the media.

               He covers how video gaming has been demonised in the news much like it was when television was first introduced to the general public, with the difference being that the video game stigma has been drawn out far longer. While it is true the smallest controversies surrounding any video game will normally be devoured by the media, I would say that in recent years video gaming has received a slightly more positive view in the media thanks to innovations such as the Wii, which break the traditional belief that if you’re playing a video game you are sat on a sofa doing nothing more than moving your fingers around a gamepad.

               Dara o’Briain appeared on the show to talk about his feelings on how in his opinion some games block off content that he has paid for, be it either through providing a challenge too great or simply requiring ‘too much of his time’ to unlock the content he wants the most. For the latter he uses rock band as an example, referencing the fact that only a few songs are available when you first launch the game and that you must play the songs that he isn’t particularly interested in to get to the songs he wants. I can see where this point of view is coming from, but equally it seems to defeat the purpose of a game being a game. Which is that it should provide the player with a challenge, or some reason to play the game, something to work towards i.e. the better songs in Rock Band. Now, in response to Daras issue I would say use the ‘unlock all songs’ cheat if you want it that badly, however it’s true that the knowledge that cheats even exist may not be known by everyone who plays the game. It is a fair point for the person who enjoys playing games but does not have the time to do so for a prolonged period that would allow them to unlock a song or defeat a tricky boss. What he is asking for is a game that can play itself when it needs to, which I guess isn’t unreasonable, but it defeats the object of playing a game and will require extra man-hours during the development period.

               The rest of the show focuses on the different genres in video games i.e. FPS, RPG, Shoot ‘em up, etc. Often referencing the earliest examples of said genres and again reinforcing the notion of how far video games have come, and how in Charlie Brookers opinion, video games have lost the charm they had in the early years, which isn’t entirely untrue. Many video games these days are far grittier than they used to be, using dull, brownish palettes for the games environment and characters, and while I agree it’s not particularly pretty it makes everything that little bit more believable. Another aspect is gore, which has indeed increased to extremes. Games with heavy gore and “unsettling themes” are often the main target of the media, who try to enforce the belief that these games will cause children to become more violent and aggressive, which as far as I know is not true for the vast majority of gamers.

Analysis of "Asteroids" a game by Atari

Asteroids was an Arcade game designed and published by 'Atari Inc.' in 1979.

Composition

Being created very early in the video game era, Asteroids visuals are quite simple so not much can be said about them. Composed simply of a black screen,  with white lines representing the shapes of the ship and the asteroids that the player is tasked with destroying.  The games focal point is the ship you pilot across the screen, a simple triangle that allows the player to focus on the direction the ship is facing.

Space/Depth

Asteroids uses a simple 'wraparound' screen effect to allow the player infinite moving space whilst maintaining a static screen.

Colour

As mentioned previously Asteroids only makes use of the colours black and white. It would be a few more years before Atari developed a system that allowed coloured lines to be drawn. It seems fairly safe to conclude that there probably isn't a "deeper meaning" to the games palette.

Light

Asteroids has no lighting to speak of, something that is again down to the technology available at the time.

Style

The best that can be said about Asteroids 'style' is that it is very minimal, or you could go as far as saying it's an abstract take on the perils of space travel, I personally can't see us flying through space in big triangles but that's just me.

Influences

Asteroids was released in 1979, a time when cinemas were rife with science fiction epics such as the Star Wars films, leading me to believe that this had a big influence on the games design.

Subject, Theme & Meaning

Asteroids is a game with minimal story so again there isn't much to be said here. As far as characters go it could be said your character is the pilot of the ship you control but of course there is no mention of said person at all in the game. Set in space, asteroids simply seems to depict a ship fighting to survive in the midst of an asteroid field whilst also being attacked by the odd alien spaceship.  I'm of the belief that given how early in the video games era this game was made, there really wasn't much thought for deeper meanings such as symbolism. Again the only issues and controversy that surrounded Asteroids was that it apparently became almost too popular for its own good when several hundred units had to be shipped in 'Lunar Lander' (another Atari game) cases.

Context

Context has a profound effect on the meaning that one can decipher from something, in this case a game. I've mentioned on several occasions that I think the fact that this game was created in 1979 means that the "deeper meaning" that we see in many games these days was not present. The context here is the year in which the game was made, 1979, which as far as I know was very early days for video game development, hence why I take that to mean that there was not much in the way of hidden meaning and deeper meanings. Games are far more complex today than they were 30 years ago.

Personal Response

My main reaction when playing Asteroids is a feeling of nostalgia, even though the game was around long before I started playing video games. In its simplicity it shows us how far video games have come, whilst at the same time proving that these games that some may go as far as calling "primitive", can stand the test of time and still be fun to play. The high score mentality lives on to this day it seems.

Thoughts on "Nature and significance of play as a cultural phenomenon". An extract from the book "Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in culture" written by Johan Huizinga.

In this article I’ll simply be taking what is written in the text in front of me, bit by bit and summarising my understanding of what it is trying to say, finally giving my opinion on said summary. Here goes.

The first page simply states the fact that play is something that occurs naturally among many different species besides humans and has done so since long before we became a cultured race. It also seeks to define why we play, but doesn't seem to accept any of the suggested causes written. Personally I believe that it is a very important part of a childs growth and development. Play will teach them vital social skills, among many other things that will help them in later years.

                Next up is a discussion on the seriousness of play, and as I understand it what has been said is that in a very Schrödingers cat sort of way, play can be both serious and 'non-serious' at the same time, depending on what is being played, a sound observation that I agree with completely. Going on from this is a section about some words we can loosely connect and group together, it mentions that these words are 'resistant to any attempts to reduce them to other terms' which I'm not entirely sure I understand.

                From the next couple of pages plays lack of strict rules for when it can be started or stopped are discussed. That is to say it can be initiated (or ceased) at any time and is always done so voluntarily, at ones leisure. A simple observation with which I also have no criticisms.

                Moving onto the next topic which is in short that play is not 'real', again a simple observation but one that carries some weight in that play can, certainly in the cases of children, be immersive to the point of completely absorbing the player. Play becomes their reality, if only for a short time, and I think this is something we can all relate to in some form.

                After this comes a topic I'm not entirely sure I understand,  or at least the part mentioning the 'disinterestedness' of play trips me up a bit. It mentions that play is not 'ordinary life', which is similar in a way to saying that it isn't 'real', I take this section to be referring to playing sports and more formal/adult play, in which case it just seems to be stating the obvious.

                Over the next page the limitations that are put in play in regards to time and space are discussed, for instance all play takes place in a set arena, be it a field, table or board. Thankfully only briefly mentioned it allows me to move onto the next topic which is how ordered play is, in reference to the strict rule set that accompanies most scenarios.  The focus of this section is how delicate the 'play-state' is and indeed how easily it can be broken by someone who doesn't follow the 'rules' that govern it, how it spoils the game and destroys the illusion. The people who break the rules will sometimes be doing so purely based on a desire to succeed in play, something that is covered over the next page.

                The penultimate topic is how a community or club can form around some games that are played, be it purely to further the enjoyment of said game outside the realm of play, or simply because a group of people prefer to play a game a different way to the norm.

                The final topic is the topic of 'secrecy', which as far as I can understand is either simply in reference to having something to call your own and keeping it that way, or having secrecy as part of the play itself by having players dress up to disguise themselves, throwing anonymity into the mix to make it more interesting.

                Overall I think this article states a lot of obvious facts, but in truth they are only obvious to me after having read about them.