The Archive of Free Thinking

“They assimilate games into some other, more respectable category of human practice.” 

C. Thi Nguyen

---

Nguyen argues that comparing games to other art forms, rather than establishing and examining games within their own category, leads to an underestimation of their distinctiveness and importance. An importance which lies in a game’s unique quality as a medium; unlike films or theatre, a game is physiologically immersive, and only complete when played. Using the same analytical approaches as with film or theatre, because they involve moving images, is partial and inadequate. This article argues that the genre deserves more respect and a closer analysis of the relationship between the player and the game. Without specific analysis of how games work, they will not be understood, and the medium’s strengths and potential risks will not be appreciated or mitigated.

This issue is particularly critical with the medium of video games because of scale and level of engagement. The global revenue of video gaming now exceeds the combined revenue of the music and movie industries by a factor of three. It is predicted that by 2026, annual revenues will exceed $320 billion. Bob Iger, Disney CEO, after analysing Gen Z and Gen Alpha, stated, “the amount of time they were spending in terms of their total media screen time on video games, …was stunning to me, equal to what they spend on TV and movies.”

The current approach to analysing video games is often limited in scope, focusing on visual quality or ‘playfulness’. Many reviewers concentrate on qualities they recognise in other mediums: the texture and movement of film or the characters and narratives of novels and plays. In the process of ‘assimilating’ games into these other, ‘more respectable mediums’, insightful analysis falls away. With the game, The Last of Us, critics praised its ‘cinematic’ quality, but underemphasised the loss of the game’s features given up to create this cinematic effect. The game design took control away from the player to allow the game to use framing, cinematography and linear narrative, not interrupted by unexpected action from the player. Thus, reviews which sounded complimentary actually revealed an inbuilt weakness in the game, which was then not further developed. In seeking a cinematic quality, the essence of a game was lost. By failing to see games as a separate medium, with distinctive requirements and a different relationship to the viewer than film and other mediums, the quality of analysis becomes limited. This problem is particularly evident in real-world military simulation games like Call of Duty. Reviewers conventionally recognise the remarkable visual realism, the reflection of light bouncing off objects and the accuracy of sounds and echoes. They complement the gunplay and satisfying weapon feedback. Yet they ignore the parts of Call of Duty that are an unrealistic representation of conflict. There is none of the detritus of war: the dirt, the blood, the broken limbs. While the game’s weapons are accurately drawn, they have higher rates of fire and clip capacity than in the real world, making the game quicker and more engaging. The issue here is not with the depiction of war, but rather the way in which the game obfuscates the line between relatively harmless play and revelling in gratuitous violence. It is also about the failure of reviewers to highlight this distortion and the consequences. It is not surprising that the effectiveness of drone warfare is, in part, credited to the skills developed in video games. Not just by sharpening reflexes and piloting skills of flying a remote vehicle via a controller, but also because these games create a state of psychological distance between the player and the outcome.

The lack of substantive analysis of video games makes it harder to properly understand and, therefore, effectively regulate games. This is apparent in the lack of consensus on the role of games in shaping behaviour. Numerous studies, including Lyu’s influential paper, focus on addictive behaviours, increased aggression, and social isolation caused by engaging with video games. Richard’s work on bullying in video games suggests that games result in increased toxicity and create aggressive communities. On the other hand, Granic argues that ‘video games are socially interactive in a way never before afforded’ and create a range of positive emotional benefits. She also argues that they have important social benefits and can result in greater civic engagement. The potential for positive social interaction was demonstrated by the increased popularity of online co-op games, where players team up to work together towards a common goal, during COVID-19, when in-person socialisation was limited. 

Furthermore, the lack of effective analysis of games and the impact on players has resulted in a failure to understand ‘false’ lessons which game playing can generate. There is evidence that the incorrect assumptions about how cities work, embedded in Sim City, influenced many urban planners in the 1990’s. The game, designed initially in the 1980s by Will Wright, was heavily influenced by the urban planning principles of figures like Robert Moses, who made assumptions about the need to separate industry, commerce and residential spaces, or perhaps more dangerously, that cities operated by simple cause and effect rules, exemplified by the game’s internal solution to rising crime rates,  – building new police stations. Not only was the game built on rocky foundations, but its assumptions influenced a generation of planners. One city even used a playthrough of the Sim City as a test to evaluate mayoral candidates.

The failure to understand the neurological mechanisms, combined with a dismissal of their artistic potential, of games makes them easy to overlook, and therefore easy to exploit. Developers manipulate the dopamine spikes from winning a level to convince you to chase one more win, before suddenly withholding success to get players to buy solutions. Most insidious, however, is the prevalence of these features when combined with ‘hidden gambling’, often tucked inside games through randomised ‘loot boxes’ that require players to spend real money. These ‘loot boxes,’ engineer anticipation-high waiting for the prize to be revealed, with the coded probability of getting the thing you want, making these systems incredibly addictive. This is particularly true for games marketed to young people who have less impulse control. For instance, Fortnite allows players to convert cash into ‘v-bucks’ (the in-game currency) but then does not allow them to turn v-bucks back into cash, thereby disqualifying the system from being labelled as gambling. Other games like FIFA/EA FC (Ultimate Team), Fire Emblem Heroes, and Diablo Immortal also have ‘loot boxes’ which give players increased capabilities to win, which creates further risks for young players. With the focus of games on decision making, immersion and interaction, it is vital to understand the medium’s impact on players psychologically and behaviourally. Only by understanding the power of games, in part driven by the medium’s qualities, is it possible to address these problems. 

Without proper analysis, opportunities to build games that are enjoyable and have positive impacts and limited downsides will be missed. Detailed analysis of video games and anti-social behaviour has revealed new understandings. The main driver of anti-social behaviour is not the time spent playing video games but the actual or perceived anonymity between players. When players lack identity, with high levels of agency, and an absence of authority figures (caused by limited regulations, less emphasis on the role of a director and partial parental supervision), the result is an atmosphere ripe for bad behaviour. Alternatively, when players perceive their peers as real people and understand that they are seen in the same way, the risks of isolation, bullying and addiction are reduced, creating opportunities to design more socially responsible games.

The important economic, cultural and psychological position of gaming suggests we need a new framework for understanding this evolving technology. This is underway; the UK Government has launched the Video Games Research Framework, but is this sufficient? There is a need for an expanded approach which emphasises both the behavioural view and psychological understanding. This requires paying attention to the specific qualities of games: namely, their immersive nature and capacity to influence behaviour and beliefs. In particular, greater analysis is needed on the relationship between the player and the game. This level of analysis, and the honesty and perception required to achieve it, will allow for more accurate analysis, better game design and more productive regulation.

In understanding the potential of games we should remember the words of Benjamin Franklin, whole said in 1779, “The game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement… we learn by Chess the habit of not being discouraged by present bad appearances in the state of our affairs, the habit of hoping for a favourable change, and that of persevering in the search of resources”.