Game Violence Has No Long Term Effects; Games Might Actually Be Good For You

[Spigot]

Gamepolitics.com (http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/79462.html) have a link to an article in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/health/psychology/30real.html) (free subscription required) comparing two recent studies on games and game violence. Of interest is the one done by Dr. Dmitri Williams (http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/05/0809videogames.html) which says that they're becoming more violent but have no long-term effects AND promote problem solving and teamwork.

"I'm not saying some games don't lead to aggression, but I am saying the data are not there yet," Williams said. "Until we have more long-term studies, I don't think we should make strong predictions about long-term effects, especially given this finding."

Today, more than 60 percent of Americans play some form of interactive game on a regular basis, while 32 percent of the game-playing population is now over 35 years of age.

Fears about the games’ social and health impacts have risen with these numbers, Williams said, with politicians, pundits and media outlets fanning some of the flames.

Games are becoming increasingly violent, as shown by content analyses, Williams said. One reason is that “the first generation of game players has aged and its tastes and expectations have been more likely to include mature fair.”

Still, the extent of knowledge about what games do to or for people is limited, and there is “even less understanding about the range of content.”

"If the content, context, and play length have some bearing on the effects, policy-makers should seek a greater understanding of the games they are debating. It may be that both the attackers and defenders of the industry's products are operating without enough information, and are instead both arguing for blanket approaches to what is likely a more complicated phenomenon."

"Based on my research, some of the potential gains are in meeting a lot of new people and crossing social boundaries. That's important in a society where we are increasingly insulated from one another...Some video game researchers also feel that playing leads to significant advances in learning teamwork, managing groups and most importantly, problem solving.

"How often can someone direct and coordinate a group of eight or 40 real people to accomplish a complex task, as they do in these role-playing games? That's a real skill...Games are about solving problems, and it should tell us something that kids race home from school where they are often bored to get on games and solve problems. Clearly we need to capture that lightning in a bottle."


The article on Dr. Williams is actually quite an interesting read. Too bad they chose Asheron's Call 2 as their MMORPG of choice for the study :p

[InstaPete]

Looks more like he's saying that it's not conclusive that games have long-term effects, not that there aren't any.

The stuff he's saying about problem solving is real interesting, though. Especially the last line in the quoted bit.

[retsudo]

What hes saying is that nobody has shown that there are any long term effects of gaming on violent tendencies; which translates into 'there aren't any major effects. At all.'

All the fucktards who claim games cause violence, who in past decades claimed videos, movies, music, books, art and so on cause violence... are wrong. And have always been wrong.

[Spigot]

The bits about problem solving were the most intriguing for me as well. I've often run into people at work who have absolutely no abilities to problem solve (aside from blaming someone else because they can't figure out a solution to a problem). I once told my manager that the idiots needed to spend some time playing videogames because it's all about using lateral thinking to solve a problem with no obvious solution.

Of course, I got laughed at, but I think I might have been on to something.

[JazGalaxy]

The study is junk. First of all he's not talking about ALL games. His idea of a good study is JUST to have people PLAY ASHERON'S CALL! Oh yeah, that really compares to Postal. And secondly the idea that playing Halo 2, which regularly subjects the user to hostilitiy based on things like gender and race is somehow promoting healthy social interaction is just plain stupid. Anybody with two eyes and a brain can tell that heavy online gameplayers are not MORE socially adjusted.

Whoever posted this arcticle should be held accountable for making up news. Had they actually read the arcticle they'd know that NOTHING in their headline is true, and using the text to support it is unethical and wrong. The best they could put is "Study suggest that adults playing Asheron's Call on a regular basis argue the same amount as those who do not. Researchers opinion is that online games promote teamwork."

Those are the only facts in the whole article.

[RMan]

Yea, I'd question severely any "long term" studies since the graphic violence has only been really bad in games in the last 10 years. JazGalaxy is right, clearly whoever chose the title of this news post has made up their mind, boo!

[thebuilder]

I don't pay attention to these studies personally. You can make a study say whatever you want it to say. You'll have several instances in which the results will be "games are bad for you" while other times they'll say that they're good for you. Since the only way to objectively evaluate the results of the study is to take a good look at how the research was conducted, the only thing the average person would have time to do is forget about it and move on.

[Spigot]

Maybe I should have reworded the post to focus more on the fact that the guy actually realizes that there are good sides to gaming and that people should recognize that kids who can't be bothered to solve simple problems in school are spending all of their spare time solving problems in a videogame context.

That said, I was basing my headline more on this quote from the New York Times article than anything.

"THE BOTTOM LINE: Studies generally show that violent video games can have short-term, or momentary, effects on children, but there is little evidence of long-term changes."

It was more to show that there is someone non-ESRB related trying to see what the positive effects of gaming are AND that the NYT is contrasting both arguements and came up with the above verdict. Argue amongst yourselves as to which study is right and whether Dr. Williams' study is valid.

[RMan]

Discussing the positive aspects of game playing is fine and dandy, but drawing such a wild conclusion is not. For instance, if I said there was a study showing that global warming decreases heating bills, and another that mentions that there are no long term studies about the negative effects of global warming, summarizing them with the headline “Global warming has no long term effects; May be good for the planet” would be a poor representation of the content. Drawing such conclusions in your headlines will often draw this kind of criticism, if you still do not see the error in your logic, then I suggest in the future just don’t draw any conclusions at all and just report what the article’s about (typically best anyway).

[Spigot]

Well, I've learned my lesson today. My first two newsposts and I did something wrong in both :( . I'd probably be the first person to jump all over someone else for a headline like mine though... Lesson noted!

[JazGalaxy]

I can understand wanting to show that there are some researchers who are attempting to defend games and have research to support their actions, but honestly I think that showcasing poor researchers as a defense is a practice that only makes your side look worse. The man claims that 60% of Americans play online games in his study, which is obviously misconstrued information. 60% of americans play Yahoo Poker, perhaps, sure, but certainly 60% of americans do not play violent video games. Also, the man is not even a psychologist or anything in the same ballpark. He's a professor of communications and a so called "expert on the effects of videogames". I don't even remotely see how one could go with the other, and it shows in his research methods. He apparently measures the effects of violent videogames in how many people report having arguments with their friends and relatives, apparently, via a messageboard. Last he makes the common misrepresented argument that the majority of game players are in their 30's. I don't know where this crap information came from, but it's not true. What IS true is that this age group spends the most MONEY on gaming, since they're the ones who have it. HDTVs and high priced consoles are purchased by these people, yet they may only play games an hour a day. Meanwhile a kid can borrow GTA from a friend and play it 13 hours a day all summer long, and not show up in these "statistics".

It would just be more professional, as RMan was saying, to not make conclusions about things such as this. I know Gamespot is HORRIBLE at making their opinions into news, when it comes to this subject and it turns some readers like me off.

That being said, thanks for posting the arcticle and helping to make this a fun site to read.

[MosBen]

I highly recommend everyone read "Everything Bad Is Good For You". Lots of good points about video games and pop culture generally.

[JazGalaxy]

I actually just saw that book someplace today. I have no idea what it's about, or who it's by, but I think the title is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[DJACE]

What hes saying is that nobody has shown that there are any long term effects of gaming on violent tendencies;


Very true, no one has proved that. Because no one has the time. A long-term study is one going over YEARs of game playing. You'd have to follow a 5 year old who never played games all through their formative years playing games, documenting it all. And, of course, it would be a shit study because millions of factors could effect it.


which translates into 'there aren't any major effects. At all.'


That's wrong, you're interpreting the facts as you see fit. You've already made up your mind on the subject, and are twisiting vague statements to suit your needs.

[JazGalaxy]

It hink you're right on the money by saying that people don't need games to be violent, but I don't think anyone is saying people need games to be violent. People who are for violent videogaems use the same cop out you mention, saying that they are "Crazy" to begin with. As though even if these people had never played a game they would flip out regardless. People who are against violent videogaems use the much more logical reasoning that violence begets violence. IF a person sits there and consumes violence as a means or recreation, they then see violence as an acceptable way to solve their problems in real life. People who DON'T regularly feast on violence as a form of entertainment are LESS likely to see violence as a problem solving action.