POLL: Video Game Addiction

Remove all ads!

This is a topic that seems to be getting around there. However, yesterday on G4TV a topic of discussion on their trade show "Attack of the Show" was, Video Game Addiction, who's at fault: The Gamer, or the Gamemaker?

Their poll showed that 15% thought it was the Game Maker,
and 85% thought it was the gamer.

They had three "experts" discuss the issue. One was a game publishing company publicist, another was a clinical therapist who dealt with addictions, and more specifically addictions for the young, and the third was a woman who has been blaming Everquest since 2001 for making her young son shoot himself.

Needless to say the debate was heated, the woman screaming at the Game Man that he needs to accept responsibility for making addictive games, the Game Man trying to politly suggest that parents should look in on their kids once in a while and seeming like an ******* for it. The Headshrinker didn't have much to say besides "anything can be addictive."

But anyways, Who's at fault the industry for making games exciting and fun to play, or the parents of the kids for not placing rules and limits on things (we're assuming that any adult can choose whether or not to fritter away time playing online games or otherwise and accept the consequences.)

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 25 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Video Game Addiction (25 votes.)

Who's at fault for Gaming Addiction? (Choose 1)
* Industry: Game makers, designers, etc. - 4% (1)
* Gamer's Conscience: the gamer themselves when they are rational and well thinking, the parents when they aren't - 96% (24)

 

The kids and parents of course.

 

Let's take a look at why people say it's gamers' own fault:

Everyone is responsible for himself and his own choices

Therefore the gamer can't say, "It's nothing that I chose the game, they made it!"

However, in that case, why not apply the same standard to the game maker? Why should he be allowed to say, "It's nothing that I made the game. He chose it himself!"?

I think that between the game maker and the game player, so long as we are talking about adult people, they shouldn't be allowed to use the "he made it" and "he chose it" argument against each other.

However, neither the game player nor the game maker can dodge responsibility for their action. Morally at least. Legally, however, the liability should extend as far as normal, predictable consequences reach. Attitude should be important, as well. For example, if the maker of games rated 18+ somewhere at the bottom of the box is aggressively advertising them in a magazine for teenagers, including no parental locks and so on, it's a completely different thing from including a violent or sexual scene which composes well into the story and the setting. Also, if developers and publishers are advised of the effect their product may have on the audience, it's different. If the developers are advised of the ill effects their product is already having, then it's completely different. Ultimately, if the developers are knowingly and willingly employing subliminal messages or any other psychological manipulation techniques, they aren't perhaps intending the end (a teenager venting the aggression on someone), but they are intending the means (i.e. the arousal of violent and hostile emotions in the target audience). Especially as they aren't really doing it as a means of artistic expression but rather as a matter of business bringing profit, they consider it a fair trade and they thus accept the consequences. In such cases as when they dodge ratings, the matter is obvious: they are acting in bad faith. That's the highest degree of guilt, higher than mere negligence.

If it's so easy for everyone to notice how hate leads to hate-based crimes, be it racism or religious intolerance or even the universally favourite "homophobia", then why does everyone seem to believe that the same links don't exist between the propagating of violence and sexual dissolution and it actually happening?

Whoever calls on low instincts in the general public or specified audience, that person should be (held) responsible for the damage thus caused. Let's not make exceptions for the sake of freedom of whatever taken to ridiculous extremes -- especially if the same degree of freedom doesn't apply to everyone equally.

Of course, I will still insist that casus a nullo praestatur, that is no one is responsible for accidents. Unless we're talking about someone with a special care obligation, of course. Game makers don't have such an obligation, but they should still fulfil the obligations they do have. Moreover, there's a difference between not holding someone to overly strict standards and tolerating actual gross negligence, let alone acceptance of the possibility of doing harm for the sake of profit.

Edit: Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. In case of normal games, or at least aimed at and delivered to the right age group, we could only really talk about the developer's oh-what-great-guilt if he knowingly and willingly employed manipulation techniques. What I said above mostly refers to getting a player addicted not only to the game per se but also to the sex or gore coming with an explicit one. Not something like getting addicted to BG2. Not something like normal advertising. But if you let loose the hounds of PR, you're responsible.

[ June 23, 2006, 23:42: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

To me, it's a pretty simple issue. I think of it like any other acquired addiction. You choose to engage in said activity to the point of habitual addiction, no one forces it on you. There's nothing about, say, World of Warcraft that makes the player waste days upon days online playing it. There's no "game nicotine," for lack of a better term, that the developers put into the game (unlike cigarettes).

There was a period a few years ago where I was absolutely addicted to playing BG2. I thought about it constantly, I would go to bed thinking about characters to create, I would spend hours rolling ability scores, yada yada. Not for one second did I, or do I, blame Bioware for that. I was the jackass, period.

The industry is in no way to blame for video game addiction, IMO. Anyone claiming otherwise is avoiding personal responsibility. Again, IMO.

 

The game-makers are only responsible in that they make their games so good that they can be addictive. Now I don't know about you, but I for one am not of a mind to discourage making games good.

No, the onus goes on those playing the games not to be complete morons. The same debate started up over D&D when a story got out about a player slitting their wrists because their character was doing badly. Was this the fault of D&D? Hell no. This was the fault of someone who could not adequately separate fantasy from reality. These kind of people culling themselves from the gene pool might even be a good thing for the species.

Though I feel bad for that mother, it isn't for losing her son. No, I feel pity for her parenting skills that she raised someone who would do this, and for her necessary self-delusion that she is not partially at fault. Rather than see the truth, it is far more easy for her to blame the game for being so good than to acknowledge her child's suicidal and addictive tendencies. Both of these qualities I have too, but I've always been able to pull myself back from the brink, due in large part to the awesome parenting of my mother. That woman's kid wasn't so lucky.

 

Yeah, I agree with Felinoid. Unless the game has some sort of subversive subliminal addictive messages in it, then it is not the game maker's responsibility if someone gets addicted to the game.

 

I agree with Felinoid too although i think there should be stricter measures to stop really violent or sexual games being available to children, the system is quite slack (from my experience in the UK) and i can start to understand how children may be affected by extremely strong violent games. Children copy many of the things they see on TV so i dont see why this should be any different to gaming though it is still not the fault of the game producers they are just making the best possible game they can, IMO a lack in responsible marketting i.e selling violent games to those clearly underage and a lack of parents monitoring what there children are being subjected to is the problem.

 

We agree on that issue too then, Duffin. Games not suitable for children should not be sold to children. Much like movies, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.

 

Game makers want to make games that are fun. The more fun a game is, the better the sequel and other titles from that comapny will sell.

By the same token, when nothing else pressing is happenning, we all want to do things that are fun. If that means firing up the killing box and playing Civ IV for several hours, that's what I do. But when these prioritiesput gaming first and hygene, food, sleep, housework, job, family etc, there is a problem.

Game Companies make fun games, but when the user can't stop playing, then they are the one that needs help.

As for suicides, there's usually larger issues, the games become a scapegoat for these problems...

 

Personal responsibility for ones actions. The game companies are not to blame. A company should be commended for making a game that causes people to become addicted to it simply because the company has done such a fine job.

I'd like to see that crazy Everquest lady on TV, just somebody to laugh at. If your son kills himself it usually isn't linked to just one issue, and I very much doubt anyone would kill themselves over an MMO.

I play games, nobody forces me to play games. I play them because I enjoy them, not because the company is holding a gun to my head and forcing me to play them.

 

I guess we should commend cigarette companies for making something so addictive too, right?

 

There's a difference between cigarettes and computer games. A computer game being addictive is based purely on quality of the game whereas cigarettes is based on the addictive substances found within, namely nicotine.

 

I can say from personal experience that video games can have a LOT of influence on a kid. Takes my smaller brother: he's got 007: Nightfire and From Russia With Love on the PS2, and now all he does is run around with a suit-jacket, bowtie and toy gun and saying "The name's Bond, James Bond" at every oppurtunity.

I used to be badly addicted to video games when I was younger. I'd get frustrated to the point of crying with such games as Mario 64 (mind you, who didn't?), and play obssessively for hours on end. However, I grew out of it, and apart from the occasional stream of profanity directed at my computer moniter, I'm okay. I can play for half an hour, turn off the computer, and go read a book or something.

I agree with Abomination. Bad analogy, and it's your own problem if you can't put down the Goddamn controller, not the company's. Fel and Duffin are right about selling games to minors. I think the main problem is ignorance on the behalf of parents and apathy on the behalf of shop clerks.

 

As someone who's worked at game, I can safely say that you're under horrendous pressure to sell as many games as fast as possible. We were told to sell any game to anybody, regardless of age limit.

It's not "apathy on the behalf of shop clerks" that's the problem, it's the head office of companies like Game and EB setting targets that each store MUST meet. As a result, they get more and more desparate to sell games. All of a sudden, age limits are "flexible".

 

I don't agree on pointing fingers at the retail stores. How does a child get the money to purchase a game? The parents/guardian gives it to them. $50 is alot of money for someone who would be under the reccomended age for purchasing a video game and I doubt they would have earned it themselves. It's the parent's fault for allowing their child to purchase the game.

Every box comes with an ESRB rating. If your child does not meet the ESRB reccomendation: don't buy the game for them. It couldn't be easier, yet these people can't follow this simple instruction. Frankly if you complain about your child's attitude changing because you bought them a game that is considered 'too mature' for their age then I think the problem is the parent's for buying it in the first place.

What next? We need to put labels on knives stating "Careful: Sharp!"

 

People should know there're alternatives where one can be entertained just as well as with a videogame.
Most of the time, they just don't know. They don't have the "competence" to enjoy anything else.
On the other hand, other activities consume as much time as playing videogames, also having serious consequences for a person's well being, yet they're not blamed for anything. Sigh.

 

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. The video game addicts I know (World of Warcraft is the drug du jure) are fully aware there are other fun things out there to do. Basketball, hiking, frisbee, masturbation...they just CHOOSE to play video games over everything else. I don't think it's a question of "they don't know any better," they do. When I was a junky of BG2 I knew full well there were better things to do, I just chose my fix instead. In most cases, these are adults we're talking about here - or at least young adults who's parents don't know how to set limits. The lack of responsibilty here it chosen.

 

From Firey:

Deyamn, right, I forgot to throw in a paragraph about retail. I will provide, in a minute.

@Abomination:

Even simpler: If your customer is obviously a kid, don't sell it to him or her. Carding a young looking game shop customer might violate some sensibilities, but it's nothing compared to what goes on at airports in the height of the "war on terror".

1. Cause-result link invalid. The money can be a birthday gift or part time work wage or kids can pool it, anyway.

2. How does a child get the game? The salesman sells it to him.

Seriously? Your average wage is 2 or 3 times what we have in Poland and teenagers buying games aren't that uncommon. Especially games that cost about 20-30 dollars in local currency, which is more to us than 50 dollars is to you there Americans.

Besides, I thought teenagers working part time were quite common in the States, at least compared to the rest of the world?

Also, your argument is easily invalidated if we consider cigarettes or alcohol, which isn't outside a teenager's financial limits.

You arrive to that conclusion by imposing artificial allegations that the child buying the game is tantamount to the parent giving it to him. That's obviously not true and it makes your conclusions quite shady.

Don't forget that no one asks retailers to make assessment of unrated games or their potential effect or the degree of violence or sexuality. Retailers are merely supposed not to sell to minors what is marked unsuitable for minors.

Irresponsible greed that makes people sell 18+ games to minors is not something that should be protected by the law and is definitely not a constitutional freedom in the light of any constitution I have read and it's been a couple. In fact, it's enough of a criminal motive for a good old-fashioned crime like selling cigs, alcohol or porn to kids. Same with adult films or games or books.

It strikes me as highly errmm... peculiar that people use the concepts of personal responsibility to justify selling adult things to minors just because of self-made judgement that the parent obviously doesn't care or something like that. So if you face a corrupted youth, you're free to corrupt him further without any moral implications? By that token, it shouldn't be taken against drug dealers that they sell coke to those who are already addicts.

 

@chevalier:

Not that many teen agers have part-time jobs, they have to study for standardized tests to prove their worth to major universities. In the states we have illegal-immigrants doing all the work teens used to do part-time.

@Abomination:

I like and understand plus believe several of your points, but pointing and laughing at a lady on TV who is so traumatized by her young son's suicide that see blames Everquest? That's harsh even by my race-war, chiovanistic, and borderline intolerant ways. Even someone that pathetic could not be worth laughing at. When you see an amputee clearly haunted still by the lose of important appendage do you laugh? Best to just close your eyes, take a deep breath and shake your head sadly at their predicament. There's no need for cruelty in my hatemongering world that I love and wouldn't trade for anything save a more anarchist time here in the sates like between the war of 1812 and the Civil War. Peace be with you my friend, and may it drown your insecurities in rosy colored light and gin.

 

Social skills DO in fact atrophy. So if a person spends a significant amount of time in an activity that is sedentary and isolating by nature, they are going to become progressively less likely to be able to form the relationships necessary for other more healthy activities. And video games, particulary RPG's, are able to cause a vicious cycle by providing false companionship with imaginary friends. So the person becomes less social while becoming more dependent upon digital dolls to provide for social needs.