Neuroscience May Cure Videogames Industry's Obsession With Guns

An anonymous reader writes "Leading developer Chris Stevens tells Edge magazine that neuroscience researchers will soon find 'non-violent triggers to mimic the rush of pleasure gamers feel when firing guns.' Researchers can now use functional MRI scanners to monitor what is going on in a player's brain and search for more optimistic and non-violent pleasure triggers. 'For decades it's as if developers have been driving a car with no speedometer,' Stevens claims, referring to the reliance on reported emotions rather than empirical measurements in game development. The functional MRI now gives a much more accurate indication of when peaceful triggers light up the brain's pleasure regions, opening up alternative game designs, without crude weaponry. 'I would like to see many more beautiful games like Fez and Limbo,' Stevens says. 'When I was a kid, games were more beautiful and magical and immersed you in fantastical, peaceful and enjoyable landscape.' The functional MRI could make these peaceful titles provably superior — no mean feat in a mass-market games industry currently obsessed with the crude dopamine-triggering effects of simulated weaponry."

Comments

Misread the title

[TheInternetGuy]

I misread the title as "Neurosurgery may cure videogame industry obsession with guns".
Now I must admit to being slightly disappointed.

Re:Misread the title

[TheInternetGuy]

if only slashdot had a joke plagiarism filter.

Why did the Anonymous Coward cross the road?

Re:Misread the title

[BlueStrat]

My fear would be if it works and could be applied in advertising, political rhetoric, and incorporated into television news and shows.

Too late.

It's called "propaganda".

Strat

Re:Misread the title

[hawkinspeter]

I need that like I need a hole in my head

Re:Misread the title

[lightknight]

Good News!

Re:Misread the title

[catchblue22]

Too late.

It's called "propaganda".

I find it interesting to watch the "propaganda" machine in action. When there is a new development that might affect the public mind (say for example the "Occupy" movement in its early days), there seems to be a delay in the response by certain parts of the media. Comments by establishment right wing posters are initially sparse, and coverage in right wing media sources is initially factual and muted. Commentary is initially limited. Then the comments begin to increase, and gradually adopt a common thrust. Right wing postings on discussion boards become more common and usually have a common theme. With the "Occupy" movement, some of the themes were, as I remember, that the protesters were a bunch of hippies, that they should get jobs, that they don't have any demands, or that their demands are unrealistic. The coverage peaks, and then declines over time. By the reduction in coverage, the public gradually subconsciously gets a sense that the phenomenon is declining, that it is finishing. People then turn their attention elsewhere and the message that the movement is finishing becomes a reality.

Many readers might say, well, that the above descriptions were true. They were hippies. Their demands were unrealistic or didn't exist. They did decline. To which I would ask how you actually developed those opinions? Did you visit the protesters? Did you interview them? Did you actually try to understand their concerns? Did you really get inside their heads and try to comprehend their concerns in a deep way? Because if you didn't, your opinions were largely based on what you saw in the media. Your opinions were largely based on what we might call propaganda. And that propaganda likely originated largely from the minds of "public relations" experts. It was probably, when necessary, vetted with "focus groups", who were likely monitored in detail for their emotional responses to various statements. It was probably reinforced with polls and interviews. And it was very effective.

I doubt the American Revolution would have taken place if the British had had such all pervasive means of propagandizing the masses.

They've already invented that

[Ukab the Great]

non-violent triggers to mimic the rush of pleasure gamers feel when firing guns.

It's called an orgasm, produced by a hand motion similar to squeezing a trigger. You typically fire one of these at a simulated woman in place of firing a gun at a simulated bad guy to get your rush of endorphins. There's actually quite a thriving industry on the internet involved in this gameplay, so I'm not exactly understanding what the scientists hope to achieve.

Re:They've already invented that

[techno-vampire]

It's called an orgasm, produced by a hand motion similar to squeezing a trigger.

You really need to get out of your mother's basement more often and find out by personal experience why there are two sexes.

Re:They've already invented that

[guttentag]

non-violent triggers to mimic the rush of pleasure gamers feel when firing guns.

It's called an orgasm, produced by a hand motion similar to squeezing a trigger.

Developers have already come up with a video game that simulates the excitement of violence without guns. It's called Angry Birds.

Interestingly enough, it is a fair approximation of this orgasm thing you mentioned:
"Aww... How the hell am I supposed to hit that when you don't even give me a clear shot at it?! You want me to get creative on your ass?! Bounce it off the what now?" (thirty minutes later) "I hit it?! Bam! That's what I'm talking about! Now I'm just going to do my little dance and act like I knew what I was doing all along. I'm ready to take this to the next level! Hey, I need to buy something to continue? I'm just getting started."

Re:They've already invented that

[Dunbal]

You mean the two sexes are not "left" and "right"?

Irony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else think there is a subtle irony in the fact the chap that killed 14 people in the Batman movie in america was studying neuroscience.

This obviously wasn't his thesis.....

Lame

[JockTroll]

A good lot of videogames are not about guns or even about fighting. Those that are about that, unless they're SF or fantasy-based, should strive to have the most realistic experience as digitally possible but there is no substitute for the firing range. And anyway, games are about competition so "peaceful" is a four-letter word here. Take your hippy theories and fire them up your bunghole with an Angry Bird slingshot, loserboy.

Re:Lame

[tehcyder]

And anyway, games are about competition

Not necessarily, unless you include "competition against yourself to have more fun" which you could apply to anything if you stretched it far enough.

Re:Lame

[FTWinston]

Those that are about that, unless they're SF or fantasy-based, should strive to have the most realistic experience as digitally possible but there is no substitute for the firing range.

Surely they'd be better off striving to have the most enjoyable experience possible? Especially if you say that they'd still be "no substitute." A sniper game that involves hiding in the one place for 2 days straight, for instance, may be realistic, but why would anyone want to play it? Give me TF2 any day.

Re:Lame

[vivian]

One of the most memorable games from my youth was an RPG called Ultima IV. In the previous games in the series, you just stole all the gold and levelled entire friendly towns for profit, once you got strong enough - no consequences.

In Ultima IV however all of a sudden there were consequences for mis-deeds. you could still lie, cheat, steal, and lay waste to the friendly citizens, but there were in-game consequences that cost you. Of course a central theme to the game was to become virtuous, but I think more games could do with some of these mechanisms - allow free action still, but make it have consequences.

Re:Lame

[bluefoxlucid]

I think this whole effort is incredibly misguided. Video games used to be peaceful, like Custard's Last Stand or T.E. or that Super Favio Brothers thing where you stomped the shit out of some turtles and walking mushrooms, or alternately set fire to them.

Violence is a fact of life. There is no power to protect; this is a thing I discovered long ago but have been agonizing over to the point of crying trying to understand... somebody spelled it out for me (it was in a book), I finally swallowed it but it was a big pill to swallow. Part of enlightenment is sitting around holding onto truths you've discovered years ago and trying to find the flaw in them, I guess. Unfortunately there is no flaw: there is no power to protect.

Power allows you to destroy, in its simplest and easiest form; more subtle, difficult applications of power allow you to create, and creation is just the careful application of destruction and preservation. People will seek to protect their own interests by force, by taking things that don't belong to them; they will seek to maintain dominance and strength by force of will--by instilling fear, with destruction. The only thing that protects you is the power to destroy: your entire police force functions on the principle that would-be criminals understand they will find you and they will beat and kill you if you resist.

Folks think it's so god damn 'virtuous' to refuse violence. It's insane. You want virtue? Stop being a coward. When you see someone being dragged off to be raped or murdered, go over there and stop their attacker--whether it comes to threats or beating someone's head in with a steel pipe. If you knew the whole damn world would suddenly come to kill you if you rape a bitch, you're probably not going to do it unless you're suicidal; yet sane, rational people will complain about all the violence in the world and then willfully strip themselves of their defenses, and espouse the virtue of having everyone who could possibly stand in to protect them do the same. Lunacy. A lot of good people are gonna get hurt. This is a side-effect of that: violence bad, we should hide it, pull it out of entertainment, teach people to all play nice.

Re:Lame

[DNS-and-BIND]

Are you kidding? The Simpsons mocked this using their squarest character precisely because it is so incredibly lame.

Principal Skinner: Oh, licking envelopes can be fun! All you have to do is make a game of it.
Bart: What kind of game?
Principal Skinner: Well, for example, you could see how many you could lick in an hour, then try to break that record.
Bart: Sounds like a pretty crappy game to me.

I suppose most kids today have never watched the first few seasons of The Simpsons and hence are unaware of this. A pity.

Re:Lame

[Belial6]

Well, as a rule, RPG Heroes are Jerks. http://www.collegehumor.com/video/5977008/rpg-heroes-are-jerks

Ultima IV was still ultra violent. Try playing though it without any weapons or offensive spells. See how far you get. Ultima IV, as awesome as it is, just wraps its violence up in religion.

This is not neuro-science

[LittleImp]

All people want is some false sense of achievement. There are literally thousands of games that do this without guns. And do so successfully.

"no mean feat in a mass-market games industry currently obsessed with the crude dopamine-triggering effects of simulated weaponry" -- This quote just shows another person knowing absolutely nothing about the gaming market, but having an opinion on how to "improve" it anyway.

Swords !

[Jesrad]

I'm reasonably sure they can safely and successfully replace "shooting guns" with "swinging swords" and other bladed weapons. Remote-control explosives, lassos and whips, Force-lightning and gravity-guns would probably also work. I'm unsure about their untold, implicit objective though, but then, science is about testing hypotheses, and not fulfilling fantasies about human nature - now that's what simulation video games are for !

For decades it's as if developers have been driving a car with no speedometer

Well of course the game designers wouldn't need external measuring tools, not when their own brain can tell them what they, themselves, enjoy playing. Apparently they found out on their own that the most efficient way for getting "crude dopamine-triggering effects" was "simulated weaponry".

I'll even go out on a limb and say that the researchers will find "triggering peaceful-triggers" is best done by solving puzzles that are challenging but not out of reach, repeating a timed sequence of memorized or interpreted actions to a sufficiently close match of a model (like, say, jumping through perilously placed platforms) and the sort of things that have spawned entire casual videogame genres.

Re:Swords !

[bmo]

Apparently they found out on their own that the most efficient way for getting "crude dopamine-triggering effects" was "simulated weaponry".

Real weaponry is an efficient way of getting "dopamine triggering effects," thus my obsession as a teen with archery.

--
BMO

Re:Swords !

[BoogeyOfTheMan]

Reading the summary, (no I didnt RTFA), it seems like they have forgotten that before video games, kids played cops and robbers. And before that, cowboys and indians. And before guns were invented, they played with toy swords. Sure there are other non violent games, ones involving a ball, hide and seek, tag, hopscotch, etc. But for centuries, kids have played violent games. Could it possibly be that humans enjoy a make believe violent fantasy? Nooooo, its the game developers not knowing a better way....

There are already plenty of games that dont involve guns and/or violence. Music games, puzzle games, sim games, racing games, sports games. Like the poster above me said. We already have what they are trying to do. Its just that the violent ones tend to be more popular

Re:Swords !

[Jesus_666]

There are already plenty of games that dont involve guns and/or violence. Music games, puzzle games, sim games, racing games, sports games. Like the poster above me said. We already have what they are trying to do. Its just that the violent ones tend to be more popular

Don't lie. Dance Dance Revolution doesn't exist and neither does Need for Speed. And Tetris was just a lie to make the Soviet Union appear harmless. All games involve shooting guns as their only gameplay element.

And before video games came out children were always well-behaved, played wholesome contact-free team sports and got their rushes of pleasure discussing classical literature and working out how to best advance society once they would be old enough to do so. Then computers appeared and it was non-stop Doom.

Ignorance

[ShakaUVM]

I find it quite amusing that their "solution" to violent video games is Limbo.

They obviously never stepped one foot into that world. If anyone got through that game without being impaled or decapitated at least a dozen times, I would be very impressed.

Re:Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

they want to solve "guns" not "violence".

there was a time in the early 1990s

[circletimessquare]

where i played hours and hours of 'DOOM' day after day

i did not turn into a massacring monster. the worst thing on my record is a speeding ticket. i am nonviolent

in fact, i am for much stricter gun control in the USA. the second amendment was written before semi-automatic firearms existed

i enjoyed the escapist violence in 'DOOM' because it is just a game, i can tell the difference between real life and a game. everyone can except a few nutjobs

the point is: violent videogames, movies, books, or any media do not turn certain people into nutjobs. certain people are just already nutjobs, and yes: certain media may set them off

however: in a world where all media is unicorns and flowers, the barking dog next door or the roommate's weird style of laughter or the burning red eyes of the toaster oven would set them off instead. meaning they are going to be set off, one way or another, no matter what media exists

so let us enjoy our first person shooters and batman movies. these media might set off nutjobs... nutjobs who would be set off anyways in any media environment regardless

to get quite pointed here about how silly it is to focus on media: if you are concerned about some media creating violent people, then the bible and the koran are the very first things you want to destroy, as those two books have served as the inspiration for the murder of millions. the contents of those two books are very violent, and suggest that an almighty invisible power has absolute authority to command you to obey its violent teachings. great, that's just what you need to tell a crazy person

Re:there was a time in the early 1990s

[shutdown -p now]

in fact, i am for much stricter gun control in the USA. the second amendment was written before semi-automatic firearms existed

If you wish to argue for stricter gun control, then by all means do so, but don't pretend that the 2nd somehow supports you. It was written when private ownership of artillery pieces and naval ships of the line was not only legal, but actually happened, and no-one batted an eye at that. It would be unreasonable to believe that the writers who didn't feel the need to ban people from having a ship that can fire a broadside of 70 guns, would find a semi-automatic rifle so dangerous as to warrant prohibition.

Again, you may argue that they were wrong, or that they had a point then but now is different - that's fine. If you want to advocate the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, or its replacement with something more restrictive, that's perfectly reasonable, it's not like it's chiseled in stone on tablets that dropped from the sky. But please don't try to "creatively reinterpret" what it says, or imply some things about it which it does not actually say. There has already been too much of that kind of thing rendering the US Constitution practically meaningless in many other aspects.

Yiff!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You really need to get out of your mother's basement more often and find out by personal experience why there are two sexes.

Only two? Pffft. You obviously haven't seen my browsing history.

Re:Already been done.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Take Portals for example. It's an extremely fulfilling game with a gun, that doesn't kill anyone.

Small nitpick: I doubt I'm the only one that has fun picking up turrets, using them as a shield, and tricking his buddies into shooting him up.

Re:Already been done.

[tehcyder]

You can't take the gun out of games, but you can make the gun non-violent. Take Portals for example. It's an extremely fulfilling game with a gun, that doesn't kill anyone.

The reason why players enjoy game have gun that kill other characters so much might stem from the fact that we as a society know that in real life they kill. Therefor we turn to shooter games to play the hero, and save the people from the evil terrorist, and not harm a soul in real life doing it.

Try all you want but the fact of the matter is, guns are part of the gaming culture and an even bigger part in story telling. That is untill something more harmful and destructive comes along.

Guns are inextricably linked with First Person Shooter games, for am extremely obvious reason.

Your error lies in assuming that the only game genre is FPS.

This is not a troll.

[Jane Q. Public]

But I have to wonder about "neuroscience" ASSUMING that an affection for guns has to be "cured".

Other video games have other forms of violence, whether it's punching mushrooms or dumping barrels on somebody's head.

I think there are a number of assumptions here that are probably unwarranted.

When I was a kid, games were more beautiful...

[skine]

"When I was a kid, games were more beautiful and magical and immersed you in fantastical, peaceful and enjoyable landscape."

When exactly did Chris Stevens grow up?

Obviously, it wasn't in the Atari era, where half of all games were space shooters.

Obviously, he didn't grow up in the 8-bit or 16-bit era, where every game involved you killing everything within sight - either with guns, or swords that have the ability to shoot.

Obviously, he didn't grow up in the 64-bit era, where first person shooters became the biggest selling games.

Obviously, he didn't grow up in the modern era, where a good shooter sells a console.

So, obviously, Mr. Stevens either never grew up, or he didn't grow up with video games.

Re:Already been done.

[lightknight]

Thus fulfilling the inner hostage-taker and human shielder in all of us.

My 7 year olds opinion

[trout007]

We recently bought an Xbox 360. I downloaded some demos and one was Bulletstorm. I was playing it and my 10 year old son was watching. My 7 year old walks in, watches for 3 seconds, and says "I don't think this game is appropriate for kids". Just then I finished the level and the guy in the game said something where he drops the f-bomb. My daughter walks out saying "Yeah, definitely not appropriate". I said "yeah I think you are right.

Two words:

[16Chapel]

Pyro Vision.

http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Meet_the_Pyro

Problem solved.

No crude weapons.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

So instead of crude blasters and guns, they are going to use an elegant weapon for more civilized ages? Like what this woman is showing off?

Re:Wrong premise for games!

[Dr. Spork]

Sure, all pleasure is ultimately a neural phenomenon. I'm just saying that the methodology of this experiment - to correlate what happens on the screen with what happens as an immediate result in the brain - will only reveal things that give us pleasure through giving us some kind of rush. Or do you think that this technique could reveal what's good about the novels of Dostoyevsky?

And suppose that you measured the brain of someone who was deeply moved by p. 412 of Brothers Karamazov. Then you implant wires into someone else, which will reproduce the identical neural stimulation in the person who never read the book. You wouldn't say that the two people both receive the same pleasure but from different causes, would you? In general, I'd say that a good novel aims to give us insight, and that insight happens to be pleasant. This neuro technique presupposes that you accomplish what you want by just skipping the insight and going straight to the rush of pleasure that insight causes. So I was saying that this presupposes a pretty impoverished understanding about what experiences are worth having.

Not just humans

[Sycraft-fu]

As I noted in another post: Get some animals together, see how they play. A big part of it is play fighting. They wrestle, chase, chew and so on. Many of their actions are the precise same ones they take when actually hunting or fighting, they just are gentle with it.

For example many cats (which is what I've owned the most of) like to chew on your hand, grip your arm with their front paws, and pick it with their back paws, while laying on their back (often while purring up a storm). This is what they do in combat, just with more force and claws out. They try to bite the neck/face of the other cat and use the back claws to disembowel their opponent.

How they fight and hunt relates to how they play. You see this all over nature. Thus you start to think maybe this is not coincidence, maybe there's an evolutionary reason that play mimics combat. Also you start to realize that humans are not unique in this regard, just more complex in our kinds of play.

fMRI

[argStyopa]

But what does the SALMON think of violent video games?
http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/09/fmri-gets-slap-in-face-with-dead-fish.html

(The comedic scanning of a *dead* salmon with fMRI, showing that - without careful correction - fMRI can give you data from absolutely nothing. In this case, "...the salmon was shown a series of photographs depicting human individuals in social situations. The salmon was asked to determine what emotion the individual in the photo must have been experiencing...". "Studies" like this - purporting to explain some sort of human behavior - always remind me of this result.)

When I was a kid, we threw rocks

[Maxo-Texas]

We played war, threw real rocks at each other (so cover was important). We did lots of violent stimulating activities. Riding bicycles as fast as we could and jumping off to grab a tree branch and swing while the bike sailed off. Running to the edge of the bayo with card board boxes and jumping off the edge onto the 45 degree slope and sliding down (could have broken our arms).

And our video games as they appeared had guns almost immediately. It was like pong, pac man, then shooters.

My favorite games were
Crazy Climber (no gun), ROBOTRON 2084, Defender. Two of three involved shooting and killing things.

Re:I, too, miss the beautiful games of my youth...

[Lord Lode]

Or Dungeons and Dragons.