Video game addictions? I think not.

Are video games addictive?  At first, one would be inclined to think so with the funny and sometimes horrific news stories, forum articles, and crazy addiction videos.  There are thousands upon thousands of stories of video game addictions on the internet.  There are threads about people who forget to feed their children because of a game called Second Life, and people who lose their jobs, families, and dignity because of the game World of Warcraft.  With such obvious examples like this, it would be difficult for anyone to deny the power that video games have to take hold of their users in the form of an addiction.

Sherry Turkle brings up an interesting viewpoint that contradicts with the assumption of video game addictions as actual addiction.  In an article called Video Games and Computer Holding Power, Turkle researches the addiction question.  She examines situations in which, as people play games, they seem more “possessed” by them rather than playing them for enjoyment.  She eventually steers towards the final argument that sums up her article: the video game addiction problem is more about the people than the video games--video games themselves are not addictive.

How can they not be?  People forget to feed their children!  People lose hold of their friends, spouses, families, and sometimes even their lives!

So, why aren't they addictive?  Turkle mentions that you need look no farther than a house's back yard: gardening is the answer.

=?

If you research briefly, gardening can be addictive, just like video games.  The key similarity between gardening and video games, as addictions, lies on the basis that both can be escapes from regular life.

Video games are an escape--an excellent escape.  They require almost no physical effort to get involved.  Note though, that it be too much of a stretch to consider all video games as addictive.  Some games are too short, too difficult, too boring, or just too strenuous to play for long periods of time.  Many of the modern video games coming out require strenuous physical exercise, which most aren't capable of performing for long periods of time.

Of all video games, there are only a few that get targeted over and over as "addictive."  These few video games are meant to be played for hours at a time, and offer great psychological rewards for doing so.  They also have the potential to be self-perpetuating, with extended play of video-games causing real-life circumstances to diminish, which then reinforces the desire to escape into the video game.

In my experience, anything that helps someone escape from the realities of their own life can be habit forming.  The video games that are commonly cited as being "addictive" fall among these tools for long-term escape, but the set of escape activities one can partake in are endless.  I strongly agree with Turkle's thesis: the great distinction that must be made is that the escape is addicting, not the game itself.

Where is the "Too Much Realism" Boundary?

Games are supposed to draw the player in, and immerse them in an experience very far and distant from their own.  In the 1980's and 1990's, people could use their gaming devices to pretend to be a plumber stomping on turtles.  But as graphics become more and more lifelike, games will continue to aim at more and more lifelike situations.

As video game design begins to be more satirical and story based, they often touch on sensitive areas of politics or ethics.  A recent example is Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 where there is a mission that "lets people kill civilians in terror attacks".  The game features a mission where the player, in an attempt to infiltrate a Russian terrorist group, takes part in the slaughtering of hundreds of civilians in an airport.  As would be expected, this has caused outrage among many parents and people across the world.  So, when is too much realism a bad thing?

I recently listened to a podcast about a one-of-a-kind game (not a video game, but board game) called Train by Brenda Brathwaite.  The game was created as an experiment to see if a game could be made about the Holocaust.  As game design goes, Train is very interesting and draws an eerie symbolism with regards to the parallels between the Holocaust and ending of the game.  The design has players attempting to collect as many people in their train cars as possible, and uses drawn "action cards" as the random element of the game.  Some cards help the player progress to the end, or collect people in their train, while others impede their progress.  The punch-line of the game occurs when one of the players reach the end of the track and "win" the game, only to realize that they successfully delivered their train full of people to Auschwitz, and ultimately "lose" the game anyway.  Train was revered as a piece of art, and received praise as being revolutionary and sensational.

A video game that sells millions of copies and includes a realistic scene of terrorism, similar to those experienced by real people around the world, can be seen as "crossing the line" with respect to comfort boundaries, while a board game that subverts its players to pack trains with people bound for concentration camps is considered a revolutionary artistic piece.  Both pieces attempt to draw realities to real life through the playing of the game, and both demonstrate pitfalls and reflections of the darker side of warfare.  However, the video game was marketed to a large general audience and was therefore much more visible, and as a result crossed the "too much realism" boundary.  Train in contrast, only one copy made, and was viewed as something unique and special.  As a result, the message was viewed as something special before people thought to blast it with criticism.