Computer games, philosophy in games, and psychology.

j2xj2x · Deinonychus Joined: Feb 13, 2008 Posts: 329

I've had a lot of ideas running through my head; it never ends. Computer games are a very interesting form of art, that is if they are not produced for the sole purpose of being sellable. It fascinates me, the endless possibilities for game developers, and all of the other areas of knowledge that can be related to computer games. Isn't it fascinating? Creating new realities, maybe to teach and to help people develop skills. For one thing, computer games can help a person develop hand - eye co-ordination, so that is the physical side, and also there is a the mental side.

Some would argue that computer games can have a profound effect on individuals, perhaps encouraging them to commit violent acts. My personal opinion of this is that perhaps a computer game may provide limited encouragement, just like anything else. Of course, the more abstract a game is, the less likely it is to encourage someone to act like characters of the game in real life. And, this brings me onto thinking about an interesting thing; young children have wild imaginations, and real and unreal is subjectively less defined for children, to the point where they may pretend to be characters from games. What this essentially means is that games are realities with rules that can be, to some extent, mimicked by people in this "real reality. Wink

" Mimicking and believing, of course, are two completely different things. A child may believe that the game is real; it is a possibility. An adult may think otherwise, in fact, I find it to be highly unlikely that an adult would mimick the game with the belief that it is reality.

Here is an example of a game based on reality: Grand theft auto. It has a lot of similarities to this reality; it allows us to explore the possibilities. What happens if I am a guy with a gun and I can do as I please and take down helicopers and tanks?

The point I will make in relation to that, is that we know what goes on in the world. There are lunatics who kill people, and there are criminal organisations and gangs, who kill people. That is REALITY. The game is only mimicking this reality.

Why would a person want to mimick that reality?

Arguably, watching any form of media that glorifies the actions of such guys with guns who star in games and films, could be classed as encouraging, but I wonder, what is a real motive to be a criminal? Is it real, persuasive brainwashing with a political motive; is it the desparation for money; is it a bad personal experience of abuse, or is it a video game?

Comparitively, the video game is the least serious of the lot, and it does not make the player feel the need to kill, it makes the player want to kill but not need to kill. There is a major difference. It is not strong persuasion. Now, one more thing, in relation to that point, is that when a person wants to do something, it is not a necessity, so therefore the person will decide whether or not to carry out the action. Take for example, a theme park ride; we know the risks of going on a theme park ride. How many people die a year from deadly theme park rides? We may consider that risk and figure out that it really isn't anything to worry about because the chances of dieing are extremely slim. Some people may have an irrational fear.

What is the opposite of an irrational fear? Is it an irrational predisposition? Have a gun in your hand in front of someone you hate? What would most people do? Yes, but why would the person end up having the gun in the first place?

A lot of people could say that they want a certain person dead but they know it is morally wrong so they won't do it, and after they play a video game where they get to kill this person, would it encourage them to kill this person in real life? I don't think it would, but I will let you decide.

Furthermore, there is a difference between a person who feels the need to kill someone or has an extremely strong desire to kill someone with a disregard to logic or morality, who plays a violent game, and a person who does not want or need to kill someone who plays a violent game. The question is: why is the person playing the game in the first place? Surely both would have different motives for playing the game, and it wasn't the game that caused those motives?

One other difference I will state, is the difference between killing someone and shooting something as target practice. Replace the 3d model of the man in a game with a 3d model of a target. What is the effect on the player? Will shooting targets in the game make a person want to go out and shoot targets? Possibly, although that wasn't the best example. What about people? Would shooting people in a game make the person want to shoot people in real life? Logically, morals aside, it is not a good idea to kill someone. Shoot a target? What's wrong with shooting a target?

The 3d models of people in games are essentially abstract targets. They are nothing more than a means for a core game mechanic to function. More to the point, they are not living, so why does it matter if you kill them? What are the consequences? What are the rewards? Apply this same question to real life. And also consider that knowledge only exists because of an evaluation of the facts and a person's own personal opinion. If the action of a person in real life is strongly opinionated, why does that person have that opinion that drives him/her to perform that action? Also, can a fact be exaggerated and turned into an unrealistic opinion, based on a vague idea of the overall picture?

How could a computer game possibly convince a person against their own common sense and their own learnt realisation of the world? Remember that imaginative children haven't usually much experience of the world. They may be of the opinion that what goes on in the game is more real than it actually is, and therefore such rules can be applied to real life.

So, you can think about all the above if you like, but one more thing I want to talk about is philosophy in games. I was wondering if it would be good to try and use games to send across philosophical messages, using the game elements to help make the philosophy clear, and using the rules within the game to demonstrate how if that philosophy were true, it would have a certain effect on the game world. This is a fascinating original idea that I have thought up, as far as I know. It is something to keep in mind for the future. Imagine a list of philosophies that the player can select! I would love to do that. It would have similarities to a sand box game, though I wouldn't want it to be a pure sandbox game.

My favourite game genre, btw, is turn based strategy sci-fi games. I want to develop one in the future. I love game development!!

Games can teach positively, I believe, while some don't teach at all. I don't think gta teaches you to kill. It may teach you to kill within the game, but not in real life. There is no persuasion of any sort saying that a person should kill people in real life. I don't really think there are any lessons to be learned that can be applied to real life, from playing that game. And, if a person wants to play the game to practice killing people, it wasn't the game that made the person want to kill people in the first place.

Wow, I really feel like I have got rid of a lot of frustration talking about computer games. I have been keeping it within me and it has been bothering me. I feel like I need to write more often. It is good for my mind. What's the point in chatting? It is boring. Talking about this is much more interesting for me, and it is frustrating in no way.