Another day, another sad media opinion piece dragging the videogame market through the mud. This time it is the turn of The Star Online, which concludes: ‘Videogames are doing many children great harm. The many children in question constitute a significant number of boys in the up-and-coming generation. For these boys to become authentic men, they need to be rescued. They are not going to rescue themselves.’
One of the better videos on the topic of videogame addiction and the surrounding media hysteria surrounding it is by Extra Credits, shown here. The video is rightfully careful to discriminate addiction from compulsion, and importantly demonstrates why videogame ‘addiction’ as it is termed by the media is largely sensationalism. I think the most important part of the video to pay attention to is that addiction refers to the alteration of brain chemistry to create biological dependence on the substance, an effect commonly seen in truly harmful addictions such as nicotine and alcohol and to a lesser extent, caffeine. Addiction carries with it a horrifying stereotypical image; a violent man with poor hygiene performing desperate acts of crime to further fund his own habits, perhaps. This imagery is often wrong and unfair to those who suffer from addiction, which in itself is one way in which the article and wider media are largely wrong. Not only does such sensationalism harm gamers but it also harms those who suffer from addictions.
On the other hand, Extra Credits reports that videogames rather use the way in which brain chemistry works to create a rewarding system for the player. This is a correct identification, and possibly the main reason that we play videogames as a whole. However, this comes with a lot of issues regarding responsible use of the tools available to videogame developers, something which has sadly been lacking. Many of the big developers instead exploit compelling design in gaming for immoral reasons, in the most cynical of ways. More needs to be done from an industry perspective to tackle immorality in game design, and more pressure from the market will eventually lead to an improvement in this area.
More immediately, however, many of the assertions of the article are downright false and damaging. The way in which the writer paints game compulsion in children is offensive and harmful and not indicative of a healthy approach. This is a tough, negative approach to a problem. Blame is placed squarely on the videogames and they are identified in this article as the singular variable that is causing so much damage. The solution to the problem is to ‘confiscate the controller, smash it, and toss the pieces in a dumpster located at least ten miles from home – and do not ever, under any circumstances, allow one of these nefarious devices back in said household.’
This is, of course, a nuclear option. The complete withdrawal of videogames from a child’s life is an extreme course of action to take. Let’s face it, we live in a time where gaming is more visible than ever, and more accessible than ever. Either through mobile gaming, or through their own social networks, a child is going to be exposed to videogames. To tackle the underlying issue which is toxic videogame playing, a nuclear option is oftentimes going to do more harm than good unless in the most extreme of cases. Granted, where gaming becomes the square, central behavioural issue, some withdrawal of gaming privileges can, in a parenting sense, be a logical move to make. However, this is definitely where the facade of the article’s bias begins to fade; look at the terminology used. Games are described as ‘nefarious’. Evil, cunning things that are out to get you. This is the definite thing that games are not. Games are tools, and it is the misuse of these tools that are causing the problems.
On the other hand, Extra Credits has a great counter-strategy in the positive sense to combat toxic, compulsive gaming in young people. It correctly identifies that in a lot of these cases where videogames have become a harmful element of people’s lives, the main problem is mismanagement. Not just of the videogame as a tool, but a chronic mismanagement of that person’s life, either through a lack of real discipline or parental engagement. This is where I particularly like EC’s approach: it identifies the use of a positive mechanism by which to tackle and encourage videogame behaviour.
Too much is placed on the negative aspect of videogames. They’re addictive, they’re violent, mind-numbing. Not enough is placed on the positive ways in which we can use them. Through a good use of scheduling and the right encouragement and parental framework, games can be just another useful tool by which to raise your child. Instead of taking away, and engaging in destructive activities that only serve to cement one’s dominion over their child, Extra Credits instead encourages positive relationships with games.
Instead of throwing out the controller, pick it up, and use it as a point to engage with your child. Talk to them about games. It’s such an important part of your child’s life, and they would be thrilled to be able to have a meaningful conversation with their role models about it. Learn about gaming and learn about the right and wrong games for your child to play. Use this knowledge to push your children from the toxic parts of gaming into the kind of games that help them grow; the Minecrafts, the Zeldas, the Don’t Starves of the world. Ultimately, I think that Extra Credits approach is a lot more involved and a lot more realistic. We live in a world where videogames exist, and they are protected as free speech and as an art form. Not only that but videogames are a valuable medium that has developed a strong economy but also is a strong learning tool and culture in and of itself. To think that we can destroy people’s engagement with the medium is naive and destructive in and of itself. Instead of treating videogames like the enemy, the public should instead treat it like a tool, just like television and books.
The Star Online’s article may be sensationalism for the sake of clicks, or it may be a genuine piece of opinion. But it most certainly is harmful and encourages exactly the wrong kind of engagement with gaming, coming from a stark misunderstanding of what a videogame is. While there are massive issues underlying the cynical exploitation of videogame mechanisms, particularly in the mobile and microtransaction space, games are a tool that I will always firmly believe is a force for good. Not only that, but I am a strong proponent of the use of positive mechanisms instead of negative, and the use of engagement and knowledge will surely be far more effective in everyday circumstance than the use of force and oppression.
However, if there is an extreme case where videogames are causing genuine harm to a child, then professional help and a measured response is needed. A knee-jerk reaction informed by a sensationalist article will help nobody. Instead, seek professional help to come up with a measured response plan. It may be the case that videogame time for your child should be reduced or limited as much as possible, but the important thing here is developing an individual, measured plan. Just throwing away videogames is an expensive and damaging thing to do and treating them like the enemy is a more harmful plan in itself. Professional help exists and will undoubtedly assist parenting, but ultimately it is down to parenting strategy to decide a child’s fate, not a videogame’s.
