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.

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.....

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 !

[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

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.

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.

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.)