Video games are one of the most misunderstood forms of entertainment. In one sense, it's easy to see why: if you haven't had much interaction with them, watching someone play one can be a pretty unsettling experience. Gamers can often give the impression that they're glued to the screen, absorbed in the digital equivalent of junk food. However the reality is somewhat more complex.
For example, a long-standing claim is that violent games can cause players to become more aggressive in the real world. Video games often take centre stage in the constant media analysis of acts of aggression, with claims that not only do violent people play violent games, but that they were driven to some act of aggression because they play games.
Such accusations often fall flat in the face of subsequent forensic analysis. In one recent study participants were asked to play a violent game, a non-violent game, or no game at all, every day for two months. The study's authors found that playing the violent video game had no significant negative effects. One study doesn't give the whole story, of course. However, the emerging picture from the research literature is that video games certainly aren't the root cause of mass acts of societal violence.
Another claim relates to addiction. Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) formally included 'gaming disorder' in its diagnostic manual, the International Classification of Diseases, for the first time. It was a decision that ignited a furious debate in the academic community. One group of scholars argued that such a diagnostic label would provide greater access to treatment and financial help for those experiencing genuine harm from playing video games. Others argued that the scientific evidence for gaming addiction simply wasn't accurate or meaningful enough.
Part of the problem lies in the checklists used by the WHO to determine whether a disorder exists. The criteria for gaming addiction are derived from those used for other sorts of addiction. While that might be a reasonable place to start, it might not tell us the whole story about what the unique aspects of gaming addiction look like. For example, one of the standard criteria is that people become preoccupied with games, or start playing them exclusively, instead of engaging in other hobbies. However, this criterion doesn't sit very well as a benchmark for what you might consider to be 'harmful' engagement, because unlike many other addictions, games are not in themselves harmful. Also, using this as a criterion has the potential to exaggerate how widespread addiction is. While there will be people out there for whom gaming can become problematic, the chances are that this is a small group.
Moreover, results from a recent research project suggest that gaming addiction is fairly short-lived. Data looking at players over a six-month period has shown that not one of those who initially exhibited the diagnostic criteria for addiction did so by the end of the study.
Another issue is social isolation. The stereotypical view of a gamer is a heavy-eyed, pale-faced teenager playing alone in their bedroom. It's understandable that something about that situation seems unhealthy or unnatural. But this view usually comes from a misunderstanding of what video games really are. From their initial inception, the aim of video games was to provide social experiences. Whereas in the first 30 or so years of their existence this was restricted to people playing multiplayer games in person, the advent of high-speed internet access means increasingly that these interactions are moving online. Rather than isolating people, online gaming has the potential to unite people in many new ways and to form close-knit communities based around common interests and hobbies.
Another criticism aimed at video games is that they're a meaningless waste of time. There's a certain illogicality to the notion, in a way: somehow, we are able simultaneously to worry that games are the root cause of many societal ills, yet also consider them to be pointless. Why play them when you could go outside, or engage in more culturally fulfilling art forms? But this comes from a misunderstanding about the creative power that games possess.
As novelist and games designer Naomi Alderman outlined in a 2013 radio essay: 'While all art forms can elicit powerful emotions, only games can make their audience feel the emotion of agency. A novel can make you feel sad, but only a game can make you feel guilty for your actions.' Video games place you at the centre of the story as an active participant. Games help us explore what it means to be human, allow us to travel to far-off incredible places, to become incredible people – all from the comfort of our own home.
Finally, video games are more than purely entertainment. Now, in part because of their power to draw us in, video games are actually being utilised in the course of scientific study. The best examples achieve two things: they act as fertile ground for gathering valuable scientific information, while at the same time providing an exciting gaming adventure.
An example of this is the recent mobile game Sea Hero Quest. Players are tasked with memorising a map, and then navigating a fishing boat around a series of waterways, visiting a set of buoys in a specific order. The information gleaned from this is being used by scientists to understand how spatial navigation abilities change between childhood and old age. The research can also be used to examine differences across the globe. This sort of knowledge can also be crucial in developing a deeper understanding of how such abilities start to decline in neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer's disease. The hope is that this information will help inform innovative methods in diagnosing and treating dementia.