|
In defense of video games |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, 26 July 2005 |
from todays' Los Angeles Times editorial
By Steven Johnson
Hillary vs. the Xbox: Game over
"Senator, would your probe of video games also take a look at the substantial benefits they can provide?"
Dear Sen. Clinton:
I'm writing to commend you for calling for a $90-million study on the
effects of video games on children, and in particular the courageous
stand you have taken in recent weeks against the notorious "Grand Theft
Auto" series.
I'd like to draw your attention to another game whose nonstop violence
and hostility has captured the attention of millions of kids — a game
that instills aggressive thoughts in the minds of its players, some of
whom have gone on to commit real-world acts of violence and sexual
assault after playing.
I'm talking, of course, about high school football.
I know a congressional investigation into football won't play so well
with those crucial swing voters, but it makes about as much sense as an
investigation into the pressing issue that is Xbox and PlayStation 2.
Your current concern is over explicit sex in "Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas." Yet there's not much to investigate, is there? It should get
rated appropriately, and that's that. But there's more to your proposed
study: You want to examine how video games shape children's values and
cognitive development.
Kids have always played games. A hundred years ago they were playing
stickball and kick the can; now they're playing "World of Warcraft,"
"Halo 2" and "Madden 2005." And parents have to drag their kids away
from the games to get them to do their algebra homework, but parents
have been dragging kids away from whatever the kids were into since the
dawn of civilization.
So any sensible investigation into video games must ask the "compared
to what" question. If the alternative to playing "Halo 2" is reading
"The Portrait of a Lady," then of course "The Portrait of a Lady" is
better for you. But it's not as though kids have been reading Henry
James for 100 years and then suddenly dropped him for Pokemon.
Another key question: Of all the games that kids play, which ones
require the most mental exertion? Parents can play this at home: Try a
few rounds of Monopoly or Go Fish with your kids, and see who wins. I
suspect most families will find that it's a relatively even match. Then
sit down and try to play "Halo 2" with the kids. You'll be lucky if you
survive 10 minutes.
The great secret of today's video games that has been lost in the moral
panic over "Grand Theft Auto" is how difficult the games have become.
That difficulty is not merely a question of hand-eye coordination; most
of today's games force kids to learn complex rule systems, master
challenging new interfaces, follow dozens of shifting variables in real
time and prioritize between multiple objectives.
In short, precisely the sorts of skills that they're going to need in the digital workplace of tomorrow.
Consider this one fascinating trend among teenagers: They're spending
less time watching professional sports and more time simulating those
sports on Xbox or PlayStation. Now, which activity challenges the mind
more — sitting around rooting for the Packers, or managing an entire
football franchise through a season of "Madden 2005": calling plays,
setting lineups, trading players and negotiating contracts? Which
challenges the mind more — zoning out to the lives of fictional
characters on a televised soap opera, or actively managing the lives of
dozens of virtual characters in a game such as "The Sims"?
On to the issue of aggression, and what causes it in kids, especially
teenage boys. Congress should be interested in the facts: The last 10
years have seen the release of many popular violent games, including
"Quake" and "Grand Theft Auto"; that period has also seen the most
dramatic drop in violent crime in recent memory. According to Duke
University's Child Well-Being Index, today's kids are less violent than
kids have been at any time since the study began in 1975. Perhaps, Sen.
Clinton, your investigation should explore the theory that violent
games function as a safety valve, letting children explore their
natural aggression without acting it out in the real world.
Many juvenile crimes — such as the carjacking that is so central to
"Grand Theft Auto" — are conventionally described as "thrill-seeking"
crimes. Isn't it possible that kids no longer need real-world
environments to get those thrills, now that the games simulate them so
vividly? The national carjacking rate has dropped substantially since
"Grand Theft Auto" came out. Isn't it conceivable that the would-be
carjackers are now getting their thrills on the screen instead of the
street?
Crime statistics are not the only sign that today's gaming generation
is doing much better than the generation raised during the last
cultural panic — over rock 'n' roll. Math SAT scores have never been
higher; verbal scores have been climbing steadily for the last five
years; nearly every indicator in the Department of Education study
known as the Nation's Report Card is higher now than when the study was
implemented in 1971.
By almost every measure, the kids are all right.
Of course, I admit that there's one charge against video games that is
a slam dunk. Kids don't get physical exercise when they play a video
game, and indeed the rise in obesity among younger people is a serious
issue. But, of course, you don't get exercise from doing homework
either.
Steven Johnson's "Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today's Popular
Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter" was published by Riverhead Books
in May.
|
Home 
News 