Game Development Reference
In-Depth Information
have a powerful impact on their lives. Often the benefi ts of gaming will be
noted, with particular attention placed on the increase in manual dexterity
that can be obtained by playing games. This is usually followed by a set of
warnings about the negative impacts on children, which typically revolve
around the addictive qualities of games and the violent, mature content
within them. Both of these factors are at least partially attributed to the
interactivity qualities of video games, as opposed to the passive consump-
tion encouraged by most other forms of media, like television. Tracking
these debates, with a particular focus on which elements of video games
and culture they emphasize aids in charting the connections between target
audience and wordplay.
Often concerns about children's use of video games are grounded in the
holdings of the Provenzo report, which was prepared for U.S. Congress in
the wake of Nintendo's expansion into North America. Frequently, critics
focus on Eugene Provenzo's contention that the primary target audience of
video games was children and that games have been developed with sub-
rooted in the notion that video games shift audiences from being passive
spectators into being active participants through their engagement with
the mediated text. As a result, the potential harm for players comes from
actually performing the activities on the screen, which has led to the accu-
sation by some that video games are violence simulators. In his take on vio-
lent video games, pop psychologist Dr. Phil contends that “violent games
activate their [young players] anger center while dampening the brain's
'conscience.' And think of the more subtle impact. What do you think the
ef ect is when your kids spend time with violence simulators that glorify
gang culture, celebrate brutality, lionize crudeness, and trivialize violence
report, Dr. Phil moves the discourse away from strong, declarative state-
ments about the impacts of video games and toward a series of potentially
unanswerable questions. Without clear evidence to support his point, Dr.
Phil centers his interpretation of violent games upon a particular psycho-
logical philosophy about the way the brains of young children work then
follows this with a question, rather than a statement. In so doing, Dr. Phil's
audience is led to a conclusion of their own making, rendering it impossible
to prove him wrong and capitalizing on any potential biases among audi-
ence members. One cannot simply cite studies or research in response; one
must answer the meticulously framed question Dr. Phil asks. When 54% of
lence simulators the tone of the discourse shifts. Any contention that games
can be played for fun or for other ends is shelved, as the content of certain
games is to be rejected without question because they most certainly train
players to perform illicit, socially destructive acts.
