Eight myths about video games debunked
by Vladimir Cole 
{ Dec 12th 2005 at 4:59PM }
Henry Jenkins, director of comparative studies at MIT, debunks eight big myths about video games and their impact on society. If you're about to head into holiday get-togethers where others are wont to give you flak about your games hobby (or your games job), you should read up on these issues and to be prepared to set the record straight on games and violence, by force if necessary.
The myths are:
-
"The availability of video games has led to an epidemic of youth violence."
-
"Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression."
-
"Children are the primary market for video games."
-
"Almost no girls play computer games."
-
"Because games are used to train soldiers to kill, they have the same impact on the kids who play them."
-
"Video games are not a meaningful form of expression."
-
"Video game play is socially isolating."
-
"Video game play is desensitizing."
[Via Torill Mortensen's excellent blog, thinking with my fingers]
See also: Penny Arcade and Game Critics interviews with Henry Jenkins.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Sense @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
HENRRRYYYYYYYYY! JENKINNNNNNSSS!
J Low @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
How the hell did Doom 3 get above GTA?
I'm pretty sure in Doom 3 you're killing fake monsters in dark hallways on mars with made-up weapons for the sake of mankind...
In GTA you're a criminal, stealing cars, blowing things up, breaking into airports, having sex with & killing hookers, murdering people, selling drugs and generally many other things that could be considered not good.
Likewise, how did Halo 2 make it in the top 5? You're again trying to save all that is good from all that is evil and there's no horrific deaths like there are in some other FPS.
The National Insititute on Media and the Family needs to get their facts straight instead of publishing what with common sense appears to be utter crap.
Please somebody tell me I'm wrong. And for the record, I love all three of these games so please don't flame.
Jarrett @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
Let us thank Joystiq's guest blogger Tyler Durden for compiling this list.
Kevout @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
Why are the first 2 the same,, I'm so confused
Vasco @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
Thank you leroy jenkins, and thank you joystiq for posting this.
vc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
kev - fixed. thanks.
student @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
halo 2 and psi ops are more violent than manhunt? amazing
Mr. Dude @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
Doom 3 was pretty violent, maybe not so much as GTA though. But not realistic in any way. You hit someone in the head with a flashlight, and their body explodes.
J Low @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
"You hit someone in the head with a flashlight, and their body explodes."
That happens to me all the time...you're saying it doesn't?
I almost forgot about that in Doom 3. I always enjoyed the fact you could mess around with dead bodies in GTA, although that's hardly a selling point.
MegaTroopX @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
J Low:
They probably look at 5 minutes of footage..."Auuuuughh there's shooooting BAN IT!!1!"
These are the sort of people who cannot imagine fighting for the forces of good (What is good? Just a point of view) against evil (There's no evil, just a different perspective)
Games are the comic books of our day, just a convenient target.
PS: If you're wondering where that ()'d quote by "evil" came from, it's the nutbar supreme, Chris Matthews:
"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."
Mecha INSULIN 2 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
How about Battlefield? You are killing realistic human beings associated to an actual faction or country. You are killing arab, chinese or american people! Isn't more violent than killing zombies or martian mutations?
R Love @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
Violence is violence, whether the victim is human or alien, and no matter what the weapon. You can't seriously believe that these things have no effect on children.
Jonathan Underwood @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
I think the people who make these list should play the game all the way through themselves.
This list is bogus.
Twist @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
8. Video game play is desensitizing."
Yeah right. I have seen quite a bit of gore and violence in video games but it doesn't even compare to the stuff I have seen in real life. And no matter how much you see in video games (or other forms of media) it doesn't lessen the impact of seeing it in person. Seeing someone blown apart in a video game doesn't even come close to seeing someone tore apart by a tornado or bomb in real life. I am willing to bet that most people, and even children, can tell the difference between real life violence and gore and video game violence and gore and due to the "make-believe" nature of games it has very little actual impact.
From personal experiences I would also argue that violent video games can provide a safe and healthy way to release anger that might be directed at another person otherwise.
Rare Hare @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
actually i have to disagree with number 8. violent video games certainly can be desensitizing. that doesn't mena that you'll laugh if you see someone stabbed in real life or anything, but you won't have anywhere near the same reaction as someone who never plays violent games.
other forms of media can accomplish the same thing, however.. tv, movies, newspapers, magazines, comic books, etc. but there is no arguing the fact that it IS desensitizing.
The Alex @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
First of all, to Twist, this guy was debunking myths and saying that Video games don't desensitize people.
This crap is useless anyways, regardless of the "fence" you're on. When people do research for this stuff, they usually have a predetermined idea as to the outcome and only convey evidence that supports their point of view (it's called "confirmation bias", look it up). Anyways, I would suggest that the reaction people have to violence varies from person to person and can't be grouped. People who tend to have personallities that are more agressive, will PROBABLY be more likely be influenced by violence in video games, just like people with addictive personallities tend to start with relativily harmless drugs like pot and move on to more harmful coccaine (of course, even that's not the case...).
The last thing I want to say is, Who is Henry Jenkins? Before this study, did ANYONE ever hear of him? probably not. Sure he's probably smart guy, and he might have some good ideas, but come on guys, let's look at our sources. I don't want to make this Jenkins guy look bad, but come on, who is he?
And the original list of games in the picture is from the "National Institute on Media and the Family Minneapolis"? Who the hell are they? What makes them relevant?
They are as relevant as the Spike TV Video Game Awards... (I can't believe people watched that show...).
But then again... Who Am I? I'm just some guy with some opinions...
- The Alex
Court Rye @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
Can someone please explain the sexually explicit material in Doom 3? I never played it and was very surprised to see it on the list... Thanks :)
Probot @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
I find it funny that most of the comments are about the year-old chart which is unrelated to the article.
@The Alex,
You really should know who these people and groups are if you want to debate this stuff.
Dr. Jenkins a is the head of the Comparative Media Studies department at MIT. You'd do well to listen to what this guy has to say. He's one of the most well-respected people on our side. The mainstream news isn't going to listen to blogs like joystiq or slashdot, but they are more likely to pay attention to someone that has a degree in Comparative Media Studies.
National Institute on Media and the Family is one of the biggest organizations "researching" the effects of media on children. We (gamers) know them better as the censorship advocates. They recently blasted the industry with their "report card":
http://www.mediafamily.org/research/report_vgrc_2005.shtml
Your defense of video games is similar to what Jenkins says if you just click the link. Except he uses research rather than just opinion, which is always useful.
I understand what you're saying about biased research, but you should not discount the pratice of finding facts simply because some people abuse the system.
This is what you get when you rely on anecdotal evidence and don't trust research:
"I go outside every day and I don't have cancer. All that stuff about UV rays and skin cancer is nonesense."
I like this article and I like all of Dr. Jenkins work. But this is not for us. This is specifically geared towards mainstream media where these myths are believed. I just wish they would listen.
Dan Choi @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
Probot et. al., I originally posted the image you see here for my post on the Safe Games Illinois Act from December 2nd:
Judge throws out Safe Games Illinois Act
http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000617070796/
The pictured list was cited by the official SGIA site, though the 2004 titles in question have been slightly displaced by more relevant 2005 selections sometime during the past week:
http://www.safegamesillinois.org/
The PBS link for the list of myths by Jenkins has actually been up for a good while now, as I originally linked to it from my personal blog back in March (also cited in my SGIA post above):
http://www.xanga.com/dpac/227031336/item.html
The Penny Arcade interview with Jenkins was linked on that rambling Xanga post of mine at the time as well. Hope that helps! =)
Onyx Alpha @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
I've been playing video games since I was 2(I'm almost 18 now) and I have never seen any evidence for most of these myths. I personally feel very violent games (like the doom series, Doom II personally) are good when you are angry. Instead of taking your anger out on everyone else you can sit down and slaughter a couple thousand non-existant demons instead.
Probot @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
Dan Choi,
I wasn't questioning the validity of the chart, just noting the tenuous relationship with the post. Though I can't think of any other image that would suit it better.
And I did think the list was a bit old, because I could have sworn I'd seen it before. It may even be older than you mentioned, seeing how he doesn't mention that Judge Limbaugh's ruling was overturned in 2003. Today, video games DO qualify as free speech.
Onyx Alpha,
What exactly do you mean when you say you "have never seen any evidence for most of these myths." The point is that there is no evidence that they are true. That's what qualifies them as myths.
But the myths are prevalent in mainstream media. I think they are fading, but still exist, especially the violence one. Here is a recent example:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8449
I think this article is pretty good at being objective, as it talks to skeptics of the study. Like all studies, all it shows is that people that play games are decensitized to IMAGES of violence. And as Dr. Jenkins noted, most research shows that people can distinguish between reality and images.
The Alex @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
Well, I stand corrected Probot, I will admit to "not doing my homework" on Jenkins or the institute. I made the false assumption that Jenkins and the Institute were just trying to make a name for themselves or something along those lines.
And you're totally right about backing up my comments with research, rather than opinion (in my defense, I did say they were just opinions though...) unfortunatly, I left my million dollar grants in my other wallet and am left with my own personal observations, which are pretty limited.
- The Alex
Arahbasha @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
First of all, that list doesn't include Japanese games and "Whoa Momma", do they have some crazy things over there for your PS2.
Personally as a gamer, I think censorship is extremely important. I wouldn't want my teenagers to have sex (but stop them how?), so why then would I let my children shot and kill people AND have sex with hookers in cars? And that isn't even the line for me. I have problems with games that depict you being a person who shoots another person! Children are impressionable and small people whether they are 3, 7, or 10 years old.
There are of course limits to this influence. Halo 2 is not nearly going to have the effect on a child's mind as say ANY Grand Theft Auto game. Why? Frame of reference. I do not see any large aliens running around while grunting, snorting, and shooting things on this planet (less you live in the Ozarks...). I do however see cars, hand guns, malls, strippers, gang support, and other such things.
And on the note of taking some stress off by playing some video games, I have never been filled with more destructive hatred as when I would finally finish playing a GTA game. For some reason, MarioParty has never incurred such emotions.
Probot @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM
Arahbasha,
I agree, you shouldn't let your teenagers or young kids play violent games. So it is your responsibility as a parent to stop them.
But you should not be allowed to stop me from playing a game because you think it will have an effect on your kids. Essentially, parenting (monitoring what YOUR kids play) is good and censorship (forcing games to submit to arbitrary "decency" standards) is bad.
Let me decide what is right for me and I'll let you decide what is right for you. I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that.
As to this statement: "I have never been filled with more destructive hatred as when I would finally finish playing a GTA game."
Maybe you should lay off the games if you think they're causing emotional problems for you. I've never felt that way after playing ANY game. Ever.