An hour ago, the BBC aired an episode of Panorama, our go-to investigative journalism programme, on the subject of video games. The subject, predictably, was the ever-present “are video games addictive?” question that has been raised and not answered many, many times prior to now.
The programme made a few fair points that are more common sense than anything else. Firstly, those with addictive personalities are prone to becoming addicted to games. Many games have in-built reward mechanics which those who get easily addicted to things will… well, get addicted to. Social games like Farmville, MMOs like World of Warcraft and popular multiplayer titles like Call of Duty all take great pains to ensure a regular stream of rewards and gratification being sent in the player’s general direction. Whether it’s a “medal”, a “completed quest” or simple experience points, there’s a constant flow of something that leads the player to believe they’re achieving something. Those who become addicted to things easily can use that as a justification.
Secondly, the programme pointed out that parental controls need to be used more effectively. Many children and teenagers are given free reign on their use of video games and as such don’t limit themselves on how much to play, to the exclusion of other things. Parents need to get better-informed about the facilities available to them to control their children’s playing habits. This is, sadly, something that many parents are very resistant to, despite the fact that the tools are there for use, particularly on the Xbox, which offers some of the most robust family controls that there are—as does the Mac, oddly enough.
There were no concrete conclusions drawn, however. The “conclusion”, if you can call it that, was that more research was needed from an independent body.
The thing is, this discussion has been going on for decades now, and no-one has thought to actually do that research in an appropriately investigative and non-biased manner.
I was reading through a few Formspring answers from Leigh Alexander (I think) the other day and she made the very good point that those of us out there who write about games can’t be called “journalists” in the same sense as those who write for, say, national newspapers on breaking stories. Our role as members of the games press involves reporting on carefully-disseminated information provided by PR companies, critiquing products on general release (occasionally before general release) and sometimes interviewing a developer from the industry. There’s no real “investigation” there, there’s no hard-hitting stuff. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but given that mainstream media tends to come down on the more negative side of the fence when investigating gaming, I think there’s certainly scope for a counter-argument: someone who does know the industry well investigating the burning issues. And investigating them thoroughly using established journalistic, sociological research techniques.
Who’s going to be the first person to step up and do that, though? More to the point, would anyone read it or take it seriously? Gamers, by their very nature, are defensive creatures, having been made out to be “the bad guys” by the mainstream media once too often. And those not “in the know” are often inclined to have their minds made up by sensationalist stories in the aforementioned mainstream media.
What we need is balance. What we need is a hero.
Wait, what?
Discover more from I'm Not Doctor Who
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
