Features

The latest instalment of the controversial video game series Grand Theft Auto is to be released on 17 September. Critic’s Gaming Editor Baz Macdonald tackled the question of whether GTA and other video games are making us violent.

On 8 December 1980, a 22-year-old Texan man finally succumbed to the irresistable pull of entertainment. Consumed by thoughts that were not his own, but rather those of his favourite protagonist (of whom he believed he was the living embodiment), he became convinced that he needed to kill a number of iconic figures, some of whom he hated but most of whom he adored.

Early that morning, he left his hotel room carrying only a .38 special revolver and a copy of the story that had so captured him. Signing the book as the protagonist and inscribing “This is my statement” on the inside, he waited outside the Dakota Apartments for a full day before his target arrived. Taking a knee, he put five bullets into the back of his victim before waiting calmly for the police to arrive, his most prized possession clasped tightly in his hands. His name was Mark David Chapman. The story that consumed him was J. D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye. And the man he killed was John Lennon.

The Catcher in the Rye is one of the most infamous pieces of twentieth-century literature, and has been implicated in a number of violent acts, including the murder of John Lennon and the attempted assassination of US President Ronald Reagan. So what is it about this novel that so incites violence? Does it subconsciously command people to commit such acts? Or is it simply emotionally and intellectually evocative enough that unstable readers are sometimes adversely influenced by its content?

Despite the theorists who contend that Salinger wrote his novel in order to affect people in this way, the second option is clearly the more accurate. All entertainment, if skilfully executed, has the potential to provoke powerful emotional and intellectual responses in those that engage with it. 99 per cent of the time, such responses take the form of tears or laughter. For a minute portion of the population, however, they can result in far more serious outcomes. This was the case with Mark David Chapman.

There is no doubt that Chapman was mentally unstable before ever setting eyes on The Catcher in the Rye: a brief survey of his life history reveals a flood of potential exacerbating factors and a number of suicide attempts. Yet the death of John Lennon did not lead to an inquiry into the American health services. Rather, the blame for his death was placed squarely at the feet of Salinger’s novel.

This is nothing new. Politicians and the media have always jumped on entertainment as a convenient scapegoat for such tragedies. Events like this understandably scare us, and we have an inherent need to explain away scary ideas. If we were honest with ourselves, careful consideration of the question would likely lead us to re-examine almost every aspect of our existence, from the way we raise our families to the way we structure our very society. We aren’t interested, however, in these sorts of difficult solutions; instead, we happily accept the answer offered to us by the media, and blame the books we read, the movies we watch, and, most often, the games we play.

In her book Do Video Games Kill?, sociologist Karen Sternheimer concludes that “by focusing so heavily on video games, news reports downplay the broader social contexts. While a handful of articles note the roles that guns, poverty, families, and the organisation of schools may play in youth violence in general, when reporters mention research to explain the shooters’ behaviour, the vast majority of studies cited concern media effects.”

Being the games editor of this illustrious magazine and an avid game enthusiast in general, it is the media’s treatment of video games that interests me most. In the 30 years since video games first became popoular, the medium has been subjected to to almost every form of scrutiny possible, and while most of this scrutiny is fair, much of it is prejudiced. Additionally, much of the criticism directed at video games is prompted by the misadventures of gamers and the uninformed assumptions of non-gamers. The occassional violent act, like Chapman’s shooting of John Lennon, has resulted in a persistent and heavy-handed monitoring of the gaming industry.

I started this article with the story of Mark David Chapman to illustrate three points: firstly, that all forms of entertainment have the potential to influence people in a negative way; secondly, that those who respond adversely are primarily those with severe mental illnesses; and thirdly, that video games are simply the current target of such vilification.

Every manifestation of enterntainment has been scrutinised in order to determine the effects it may have on us. Even the basic written word, which marked our ascent as a civilised species, was closely analysed by the greatest thinkers of the time: Socrates once warned that “this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves.” Video games are currently in their infancy, and it is during this stage that we will discover exactly how they affect us and what future effect they may have.

The question that really needs asking is whether video games are adversley influencing us in ways that other forms of entertainment are not. In other words, is the violence portrayed in many modern games making gamers themselves violent? This debate has flared on a number of occassions, most notably in 1999 (when the Columbine High School massacre was blamed on the game Doom) and 2011 (when Anders Breivik, the man responsible for the Oslo attacks, claimed that he had trained by playing Call of Duty). On both of these occassions, video game violence was spotlighted by the media. Left unmentioned, however, was the fact that video games have been the subject of numerous scientific studies, some of which point to their inherent value and positive potential.

No doubt everybody who reads this will have witnessed the denigration of video games in one form or another. Hell, you may even have conributed to it. These tirades typically take the form of opinion pieces, or discussions between self-serving politicans and concerned parents on various talk shows. However, while such forums are certainly great places in which to raise concerns related to entertainment media, it must be remembered that it is scientific research that determines the validity of these ideas, not the ideas themselves.

In 30 years of gaming, research conducted by reputable scientific figures and reviewed by authorities such as the US Supreme Court, the US Surgeon General and the Federal Communications Commission has so far failed to confirm a link between video games and violence. A wealth of inquiry has led to this conclusion, and yet paranoia around the pernicious effects of this form of entertainment persists.

In “The Public Health Risks of Media Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review,” published in the Journal of Paediatrics, Christopher Ferguson and John Kimburn argue that “analysis does not find support for either a causal or correlational link between violent media and subsequent aggression in viewers.” They conclude that “why the belief of media violence effects persists despite inherent weaknesses of research is somewhat of an open question.”

On the contrary, analysis has found that “violent crime, particularly among the young, has decreased dramatically since the early 1990s. During the same period of time, video games have steadily increased in popularity and use, exactly the opposite of what one would expect if there were a causal link.” It is a big call to say that video games make people less violent, but research published last month in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence suggests that this may in fact be the case.

Clinical psychologist Dr Ferguson, based at Stetson University in Florida, studied 377 children who were suffering from some form of elevated attention deficit or depressive symptoms to see if violent video games made them more angry or aggressive. No doubt he expected that these games would have an adverse impact on these children. However, his results showed the opposite, and suggested that in many cases “playing the violent games was cathartic, helping to reduce their aggressive tendencies and bullying behaviour.”

This sounds ludicrous, but an explanation may be found in displacement theory. Displacement theory recommends substituting a socially unacceptable action with one that channels the release of similar emotions but is more widely accepted. Common examples include athletic exercises such as boxing, which are often recommended for people with anger issues. It makes sense that violent video games might work in a similar way, acting as conduits through which people can vent their pent-up emotions without harming themselves or others.

More baffling than the fact that video games continue to be attacked despite the lack of evidence regarding their negative effects is the fact that the wealth of research indicating their positive effects is largely ignored. The number of improvements being made by gaming companies is staggering; it seems that every possible field is finding ways to capitalise on our desire to game. Video games are being designed to aid in scientific research. For example, Galaxy Zoo asks players to identify the shapes and types of various galaxies, hereby outsourcing data analysis that is unable to be done by computers.

More important than the benefts video games can have for society as a whole, however, are the benefits they can have for us as individuals. Current research indicates that many gamers become more proficient at performing a range of tasks. A study conducted at the University of Rochester and published in Current Biology found that the reflexes of gamers who played fast-paced games were, on average, 25 per cent faster than the non-gaming control group, with each group demostrating an equal level of accuracy.

The potential advantages of this for everyday life are obvious, especially when it comes to dangerous tasks such as driving. However, these results also have implications for a number of professional fields, particualrly those requiring acute motor skills. A study carried out by the Beth Israel Medical Centre in New York found that surgeons who played more than three hours of video games a week “made 47 per cent fewer errors, performed 39 per cent faster and scored 41 per cent better on the overall ‘Top Gun’ score.” I don’t know about you, but I sure as hell want a gamer performing my surgeries.

Playing video games also affects us psychologically, and has the ability to both enhance our cognitive abilities and enable us to deal with seemingly insurmountable situations. For example, the game Re:Mission has been designed to help children with cancer deal with their illness: players take on the role of a white blood cell, and aim to hunt down and destroy the enemy cancer cells. Not only is the game an enjoyable distraction, it also helps these children to gain a sense of contol over their condition.

Of course, opinions are mixed as to whether it is possible to “think yourself better,” but it certainly doesn’t do any harm to try. The greatest role such games play, however, is in making the pain of cancer manageable, not just for children but for all sufferers of the disease. In a study conducted by Wheeling Jesuit University, participants were asked to submerge one hand in ice water. One group played video games whilst doing so; the other half did not. Interestingly, the former group lasted markedly longer. The study suggests that games “are more than a distraction – that the patient experiences physiological changes as a result of using the system. … Games may have an analgesic influence and may impact how the brain responds to painful stimuli.”

When researching this article, I was met with a wealth of scientific studies that refute any claim that video games are linked to violent tendencies in gamers. More surprising, however, was the number of studies indicating the positive potential of many games. Trust me – I have left a huge amount of great research out of this piece, including some that indicates that casual games may be as effective a cure for depression as medication.

As demonstrated by Mark David Chapman and the Oslo and Columbine massacres, entertainment can have adverse effects on a tiny portion of the population. However, such violent acts are nearly always the result of such individuals’ mental states, and not a direct result of their engagement with entertainment media. As Drs Cheryl Olson and Lawrence Kutner put it, “for most kids and most parents, the bottom-line results of our research can be summed up in a single word: relax.”

So relax! Video games are not going to corrupt your mind, nor the minds of your loved ones. If anything, video games have the potential to improve not only our brains and bodies, but our entire society. So go and pre-order GTA V – it’s going to be badass.