Eight Myths About Video Games, Essay Example

A Reaction on the Written Article of Henry Jenkins onReality Bytes: Eight Myths about Video Games Debunked

Introduction

Video gaming has become one of the most definitive trends that are assumed to be making a great impact on the development of the modern society. There are different genres of video games that gamers play. However, considered by critics as a collective form of recreation, the work of Jenkins imposes on the development of understanding of the facts that specifically defy the myths about the effects of video games on their gamers. In the presentation that follows, a particular analysis of the arguments and research that the author used shall be better assumed hence making a definite course of development in identifying the truth about the impending effects of video games on the society and its members especially in consideration with the rising rates of violence. There are eight particular myths that Jenkins discussed hence defining each part as a remarkable point that most members of the society focus on today when it comes to measuring the impact of gaming on the psychological, mental and emotional development of the individuals playing them. Using these eight myths, the discussion below shall provide a more concrete source of understanding that separates the fact from plain assumptions.

Understanding the Argument

As mentioned earlier, there were eight particular myths about video gaming effects that have been discussed in the article of Jenkins. The first myth discusses the idea that connects the availability of video games with the violence that youths are engaging in at present. While most critics of video game playing and development say that these aspects of electronic advancement that gives birth to video gaming recreation specifically affect the thinking of the young gamers therefore motivating them to act aggressively and with violence, expert researches impose on the fact that with the number of those spending time in prison homes, most of them had less to no access to video games. Apparently, there are only two particular elements that contribute to the development of violent culture, and as quoted by Jenkins, these elements include mental stability and the quality of home life that individuals lead. The video gaming culture simply becomes an element of further motivation on the part of the ones who have unstable emotions and mentality over their lives and the lives of others living around them.

This however has been further rebuked by the supposed scientific evidence that imposes the link that puts gaming and aggression cross referenced from each other. The testing and observation have been imposed in line with the desire of seeing how much gaming operations have actually made a definite impact on the process of thinking of the gamers appreciating their existence. However, although there has been a remarkable indication that gaming does leave a specific effect on the perception of the gamers about violence and aggression, the results of the researches have been also assumed to take on the course of identifying gaming as a mere contributor to the already existing pressures that individuals having engaging in aggressive acts already feel.  From this point, it could be analyzed that the problem of violence and aggression is already a thriving problem, the emergence of video games only imposes more on the application of direct violence but does not completely cause the aggression on the gamers.

Another myth imposed through Jenkins research is the target market and the frequent gamers who are assumed to appreciate video games offered both online and offline connections. The third and fourth myths implicate on the idea that the young individuals are the primary target of the gaming producers in the electronic industry development. However, it has been evident that most games that are created require the need of logical thinking that ages 18 onwards are most likely capable of acquiring. On the other end though, it could not be denied that even though the target market is quite segregated, there are some young individuals aged 18 and below who are able to access even the most critical forms of video games. As mentioned in the article, a high rate of percentage of gamers playing mature content video amusement forms belong to the lower grade of market which includes young ones aged 11 to 16 years. Maturity of course is not yet a part of the natural development of these young individuals, nonetheless, because of some gaming choices; they begin to develop a culture of seeing violence, aggression and even sexual promiscuity as somewhat normal. The shaping of the minds of these young individuals has been remarkably imposed to be affected by the games and the messages that they convey to the public. Along with the idea that it is the young ones who are targeted by the producers, most members of the society also assume that less to no girls at all play video games. Imposing on the fact that this is a misconception, it has been reiterated that there are different genres of computer gaming forms. Understandably, to make the industry more responsive to the general market, the producers tried to create particular games that respond to the attitude of girls and their interests as well. One particular example of games such as this is that of the “Sims life simulation” whereas the gamer assumes the life of a virtual character and lives along the needs of that person. Another particular element that producers use to gain the interest of girl gamers is the aim of utilizing “women power” as a featured format of their character creations. Giving women the evident source of power helps them realize the confidence they often do not have in real life; it seems like as if they have been given the chance to realize the unthinkable power they could have which they cannot actually realize in real life. This at some point is the reason why more and more girls are now becoming engaged in several forms of gaming programs.

Another important point of misconception about gaming operations is the fact that the games have no meaning instead of providing training for the gamers when it comes to the idea of “killing”. While David Grossman [as quoted by Jenkins] says that the games become a training ground for soldiers and somehow, the said training becomes a remarkable source of mind-culturing on the part of the gamers; researchers strongly rebuke this idea as they impose on the fact that games create the possibility for gamers to manage their way through particular problems that arise every now and then. Through these particular challenges, they are forced to create solutions and test their assumptions immediately. This also intends to rebuke the idea that gamers become socially isolated [simply because they spend hours seated in front of the computer]. With the strategic ways of operation, most games involve interaction between gamers [both online and offline] thus imposing the value of cooperation and coordination among the members of the team. Communication is an important part of the process of operating as one group against the other. This way, the gamers learn to adjust themselves to the limitations of their group members and find a way to support the need of the entire team. Because of the fact that they do not personally interact with their team members during the game proper, the virtual approach of the connection existing between the members of the team, each individual is faced with the necessity of extending their patience and understanding towards the other so as to make sure that they are to make conceivable strategies that would help them win the competition. With this explanation, it could be analyzed how the gaming operations actually gain implicative meaning that further helps rather than damages the gamers. When it comes to desensitizing the gamers, it has been strongly induced that gaming procedures does no harm to the existing fears of an individual, on the contrary, it does provide a sense of power to the gamer that strongly identifies him in a separate manner to who he really is hence providing him a source of developing the self-confidence that he might not yet have in the reality.

Overall Reaction and Reflection

Relatively, Jenkin’s article has been well researched and defined in accordance with the course of assuming the capability of individuals who are targeted by the industry as they create games that naturally coincide with the interests as well as with the characteristics of the gamers they target to invite. Remarkably, while there are several misconceptions about gaming and the effects that it leaves on the individuals playing the programs offered under its characterization, it has been analyzed that the effect of the said video games would depend on how the gamers themselves view the programs.

While some are actually allowing themselves to be affected by the message of the said games, there are still other responsible gamers who are able to decipher reality from virtual system and are then able to separate their actual being to their virtual characters. True, it is quite unreasonable to put the weight of the growing social problem on an interactive electronic program when it is the human operator who has intellectual control over the matter. Believably, the course of development that the gaming industry takes embraces the fact that the gamers have changing demands and also have improving characteristics. Notably then, this indication insists on the fact that it is the humans who decide and not the game nor the game designers. The rebuttals and the arguments between experts and the society presented within Jenkin’s article has been informative enough in showing both the pros and cons of the gaming procedures as well as that of the approach by which the facts and fictions about the existence and impact of games on individuals are measured through evidence hence making a good implication on what really is the worth and contribution of video games within the development of the modern human communities.

Conclusion

When it comes to the current trends that are responded to by a remarkable percentage of population in the society, people tend to react based on what they know and what is implied by research. As seen from Jenkin’s presentation of facts and fiction about the myths that impose on the beliefs of several individuals and/or groups about video games, it could be realized that at times, even without clear evidence people choose to believe what they simply want to believe in. Defining the course of development that gaming programmers are taking at present, creating a well-assumed [and well researched] position on how games are affecting the minds of the gamers would likely manifest the more positive aspect of the gaming industry and its worth to the social community.

Reference

Jenkins, Henry.  Reality Bytes: Eight Myths about Video Games Debunked.