RSS Feed

Violent Delights

Posted on

UPDATE: Dan suggests from afar that I may have somewhat misunderstood his point. We’ll be having a chat about it later, and I will certainly update and clarify if it does indeed turn out to be the case, as I consider him a friend and would not want to misrepresent him in any way.

It is with the utmost respect that I challenge my friend and colleague Daniel Lipscombe’s assertion that more parents should be involved in the debate surrounding the effects of violent videogames upon children. Here’s what Dan wrote across a series of Twitter transmissions earlier, following the release of and reporting on a study which concludes that violent videogames can be a trigger towards violence for children predisposed to such behavioural problems, rather than a cause:

These videogame violence articles are being written by the wrong people, all the time. […] I think everyone has an opinion, however, most of the argument revolves around children/teens and violent games etc. Yet a tiny proportion of games journalists are actually parents and know what it means to be a protector and guardian. Not saying John [Walker, who wrote about the study at Rock, Paper, Shotgun] or anyone else is wrong, but there are others whose opinion would be more grounded in experience and responsibility.

I imagine this will go off on plenty of tangents. Stick with me.

This is a debate that has surfaced and resurfaced not just since the dawn of violent videogames, but since the dawn of violence in any area of the media. Everyone has a view. I find Dan’s theory fundamentally flawed by the simple assertion that anyone else’s opinion is what we need at all. What the discussion is crucially missing is an abundance of empirical evidence that provides us with information about how children do interact with violent media, about how the agency of a human-controlled videogame affects the way this interaction is processed in a child’s brain, and about the effects that this has on the behaviour of young people across a wide spectrum of society.

Tanya Byron’s pivotal report touched on this, but only briefly, and within the practical context of how the sale of videogames should or should not be restricted by age. Other reports and studies have similarly failed to delve into the behavioural issue to any great degree. The paper that is being reported on today is a corpus study which compiles the results of several different items of research, attempts to draw parallels between them, and logically apply the findings to the specific field of videogames. It is an important step in the right direction, but once again we are left with a lack of hard evidence developed from a study very carefully tailored to this enormously specific medium.

To me, approaching parents for comment on the matter is no more useful than approaching someone like Steve Pope, who, in the Lancaster Evening Post, recently made the absolutely absurd comment that playing a videogame for two hours is equivalent in effect to consuming a line of cocaine. Of course, I would hope that most parents – and I’m sure Dan himself would be among these people – would be sensible enough not to make such staggeringly wild, uncorroborated and simply astoundingly inaccurate claims as Pope’s. (If not, I fear for the world’s children far more because of such obnoxious idiocy than because of violent videogames.) But the potential usefulness of this in propogating actual, substantiated evidence on the matter is categorically no higher than a single therapist making bold claims based on a single anecdote. What can a parent offer us beyond “My child seems to behave in this way after playing a videogame,” or “I worry about the matter because I care deeply for my children and would hate to see them come to any harm”?

Tangent time. At the end of the Labour Government, it took the absolutely preposterous decision to ban the cathinone class of drugs, making them Class B substances. This decision was made – and worryingly recommended by the Drugs Council, from which the previous and very sensible head “resigned” under apparent Government pressure to make recommendations against the Council’s findings – based on absolutely no evidence of harm. The decision sticks two fingers up in the face of research, as only those with a specially granted license, which will no longer be at all easy to come by, will be permitted to be in posession of any of these drugs in order to conduct any studies into them. The absolutely unquestionable reason for the ban, then? Public concern that these terrible bags of white powder would do awful, hideous things to our children.

The comparison is obviously tenuous, and by no means am I suggesting that I believe mephedrone or any of its analogues are harmless. But I’m going to draw the link anyway, because the reporting and the action taken all went by the same token: uncorroborated anecdotes. “Someone I know.” “I’m worried about my children.” It’s utterly, supremely useless information.

And the problem is that, with any of these concerns that parents completely rightly have about anything which may damage their children’s health, whether physically or psychologically, if you are a parent or carer then you have an intrinsic bond with the life for which you are responsible, and a human instinct to protect them at any cost. I really don’t want to speak out of turn here, because I am not a parent, but I would certainly imagine that if I were I would be enormously more concerned about such issues than I am. But I don’t feel that not being a parent, and therefore not being quite so concerned, should have anything like a negative impact on my ability to assess the situation. On the contrary, I believe this allows me to objectively analyse the available information, with no instinctual desire to protect anybody, and simply form educated views on the necessary action that needs to be taken in order to better understand the issue and, from there, take the appropriate action to most benefit society at large.

I want to stress once again that this post is written with the utmost respect for Daniel’s views. And I want to really highlight the fact that I absolutely believe I would be of his view should I have a child. Right now, however, I don’t. So right now, what I want to see is more people worrying about uncovering the facts, rather than worrying about specific individuals and the possible harms media may have to them, and as such being in a conflicted situation where evidence – quite naturally – may not corroborate with human emotion.

Does that make sense?

I really hope so.

I think this is an absolutely fascintaing discussion. I absolutely do not have all the answers. Above is by no means what I consider to be the “correct” view for everyone to take. But it is mine. I also think it’s incredibly important to talk about this in a sensible and mature manner. It’s a field which is woefully under-explored, despite all the debates. Let’s explore it.


8 responses »

  1. Rather than write my own blog post reagrding this, it would be easier to put my comments here with Lewis’ blog.

    The issue of course with Twitter is that my point could not really be made. What I wanted to say is that in any article an opinion is usually summised. And of course everyone is entitiled to one. What I was trying to get at was that many of these articles neglect to find any parents for intelligent comment.

    I’m not saying to appraoch any old parent and ask for comment as most are uneducated and therein lies a big problem (although that’s another argument for another time)

    My point is that a young single bloke in the games industry is going to have a differing opinion to a parent. Not stating that it would be a wrong opinion, merely that if more parents were asked to comment on such subjects we would see more of a varied response in such articles.

    If “we” and “they” are journalists, then why are we not going to the source? I’m sure there are plenty of parents that would jump on their high horse and spew rubbish, but in speaking to parents there is more chance to highlight actual concerns.

    It’s obvious that classification needs looking at, so ask parents what they want from it. It’s obvious that violent games exist, but what do parents think of them.

    There’s a lot of scope in speaking to therapists and psychologists, but they aren’t the concerned party. One could also make the argument that journalists should be speaking to some of the children and teens themselves and asking how they feel when they play violent games.

    We could go on forever, but all I was “trying” to say in 140 characters or less, was that I would always rather hear more from the people concrened by the matter.

    • I much better understand what you were getting at now. Nevertheless I will leave what I wrote intact, as it seems to be at least relevant. And, really, an excuse to write about something I feel passionate about 😉

      In response to this, I’d probably suggest that the mainstream media is mainly approaching parents. It’s possibly the enthusiast press’ instinctive response to defend, and therefore not report on the broad spectrum. But I agree: the more voices that can be heard, the better we can assess the situation.

      In summary: I thought you meant that parents should be writing about it, rather than that journalists should be interviewing them.

  2. Billy Goodgun

    I agree and disagree with both of you. Firstly, being a parent doesn’t qualify you to talk about the discussion with more authority than anyone else. In a similar vein, though, it doesn’t undermine objectivity, necessarily. Like all things and all people, it’s a sliding scale: the idea that parents are automatically best qualified to talk about child-centric issues is a nonsense, since – among other things – it presupposes that parents always know what’s best for their child. This is simply not the case – everything from Baby P all the way to a well-intentioned but misguided prejudice on the parents’ behalf belies the validity of such an assumption.

    That said, there are extremely canny parents who really do have a firm grip on both the core issues of any such debate. Furthermore, not having procreated doesn’t suddenly mean you can stand there and shout “I’m objective!”. Everyone – government lobbyist or videogame journalist – has an agenda. This needs to be remembered.

    I agree that more research is needed. Social policy should come from social science; the application of videogame regulations is no different. But ultimately, while there has to be a rule for everyone, children – just like adults – are very different. What might be good for one may not be so for another, and in those grey areas, you really will have to trust a parent’s judgement.

  3. Billy Goodgun

    EDIT: I had written the above comment before seeing either of yours. Just so you know 🙂

  4. tarantulaboy52

    I think Daniel may have hit the nail on th ehead in some respects. A lot of us games journalists are not parents (althought I can count a growing number of prominent and not-so-prominent games journos who are and I’m sure that you can too) and those of us who comment most about the whole violent games argument do not have kids.

    We do need to hear from games journalists who are also parents far more on the subject. People like Daniel, who are parents, avid gamers and also capable journalists should be writing about the subject so that (like you said Lewis) we can better understand the whole problem.

    What you have both highlighted is the beginnings of a solution to the problem. Better communication adn understanding and more research like the study in question should help us to find the balance we need on the issue.

    Now, I’m off to have me some children so I can make sense of it all Jean Piaget-stylee.:-)

  5. I think comment isn’t getting us anywhere at all, whether it comes from journalists or otherwise, so there’s not really a need for balance at all. The absence of an objective, large-scale study conducted sensibly over a long time scale means that we can’t draw any conclusions at all. Until this is done – and it’s a big ask, I realise – we can comment however we want. We won’t solve the problem.

    That said, the fact that these studies are emerging at all is indicative of a step forward for our understanding of videogames. If there are trends, we need to find them, but it won’t be easy and this study provides little in the way of concrete conclusions.

    In terms of who should be commenting on this – no-one should, really, unless we accept it as comment and nothing more. The danger of anecdotal commentary on things like this is that they tend to end up being anything but commentary in the end. Anecdotes made that Lancaster news article, as Lewis notes.

    However! In general, parents should be far more involved with games reporting. Not this topic specifically, but I wonder if games sites exist to not only keep up with gaming news but also offer commentary on what games seem suitable for children and which don’t. If not, there’s a niche there, Dan!

    • Also, apparently I used “at all” over five times in two paragraphs. So I’m going to stop drinking this coffee.

    • It’s not all parents, but Gamepeople ( has a specific family-oriented reviewer. And the reviewers are all sorts of people playing all sorts of games, so perhaps they could be approached for opinions? Though I guess that comes more from curiosity since discourse hasn’t settled the issue.

      Then again, can any controversy be put to rest with discourse? I assume we’re trying to at least stop irresponsible legislation, but I don’t know how we could finally settle the issue, considering certain types of people being reticent to face the facts.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: