With an estimated 2.2 billion gamers worldwide, gamers stretch to almost a third of people living on this planet. Gaming is a popular media of entertainment and has grown rapidly in recent years. According to a market analyst firm named Newszoo, the games industry earned $108.9 billion and is expected to increase to $128.5 billion by 2020. The label ‘Virtual Realm’ refers to the use of computerised technology bound together to form a simulated environment. The virtual realm immerses a user inside a newly created, 3D world and allows them to participate freely. It is a form of entertainment that provides escapism for players as they adapt themselves to another, virtually formed, world. It is known that gaming provides many benefits such as reducing stress, improving reactions and decisions as well as helping to address autism. However, with many benefits gaming also includes many disadvantages, such which raise questions to be asked about its ethicality on people and society.
Whether video games cause violence has been a long debated subject. The debate began in 1983 when U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Coop claimed that graphic video games, where violence was encouraged, was a leading cause in brutal acts. From then on, many agreed with this statement. In recent years, this notion has been challenged. Christopher Ferguson, a professor at Stetson University, believes that video games do not cause violence but rather prevents it. He claims that “keeping young males busy with things they like, keeps them off the streets and out of trouble.”
Many tragic events such as massacres have been linked to video games. In particular the massacre which occurred in Oslo, Norway in 2011. The suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, claimed that Call of Duty and World of Warcraft inspired and aided his training for the attacks. This subsequently, lifted the debate of video games and violence once again. However, is it right to solely blame the violent acts of an individual on a hobby that millions of people play? It is known that around 150 million Americans play video games according to a survey conducted by Theesa, yet only a handful of Americans commit unethical acts. Moreover, many of those who do commit unethical acts have not been associated with video games. Perhaps video games aren’t causing people to become violent but are just awaking an inner health issue.
On the other hand, it is argued that the way video games are presented can be harmful, especially to those of a young age. In Plato’s Republic, 1992, it is expressed that people are able to act however they want in video games without having to worry about the consequences. Freedom is presented to the players, allowing them to act as they please whether the path they follow is good or bad. They are able to commit immoral acts without a reprisal. For children, this could prove damaging. Although many of these games are recommended to those over eighteen, there is no force preventing young children from playing. Young players can become confused with unethical gameplay as they may believe that the actions they take in the virtual realm can be excepted in reality. This notion is enhanced by the fact that games often reward players for immoral tasks, in Grand Theft Auto violent acts are often encouraged – stealing cars and beating characters up – in order to reach an objective or gain money. In July 2016, the American Academy of Pediatrics warned that games “should not use living targets or award points for killing, because this teaches children to associate pleasure and success with their ability to cause pain and suffering to others”. This reinforces the idea that violence is often linked to fun in video games. After the Columbine Massacre, 1999, the video games developer Danny Ledonne created a controversial game which concentrated on recreating the events of the massacre. This ultimately turns a tragic event into something entertaining as the game encourages the killing of innocent civilians in order to win achievements.
Amongst these unethical acts, certain games such as Grand Theft Auto do pay attention to consequences. Police will chase the character after breaking the law. This element can teach players the social norms of society and focus on realistic consequences.
Multiple choice games such as Heavy Rain, Detroit: Become Human and Telltales: The Walking Dead test players with multiple moral choices. There are various options throughout which lead the story-orientated games to two main paths for the character being controlled, a ‘good path’ and a ‘bad path’, which ultimately decides the ending of the game.
The choices that the players are encouraged to make through the character being controlled can often affect the players emotions. Games such as these, encourage the attachment between a character and player which is often heightened by the difficult decisions they supposedly ‘make together’. Throughout a game, the player can become so familiarised with a character to the extent that they believe the character is real. This causes the emotional impact of the game to become significant for the player as they move their character through obstacles in an attempt to keep them alive, the fate of the character and structure of the game rests in the hands of the player. Due to the graphics being so realistic, especially in recent games, this proves harder for players to detach themselves from the character.
As well as the graphics, voice acting within these games can also alter your decision. If faced with a challenge, for example the character had to make a decision on whether to harm another character, the dialogue performed and emotion displayed on the digital face of the character can often persuade them to follow a morally right path. Players are experiencing the emotions of an event which they haven’t seen in real life. If the game causes players to feel guilty for harming another, this may dissuade them from doing so in real life. As quoted from Schrier. K & Gibson. D ‘when someone cares about a game, it becomes part of their life’.
Linking to the idea that games can alter your emotions, many have been designed as an aid for those willing to cure their fears and phobias. Virtual Reality headsets, such as the Oculus, are particularly helpful in this area. When using a headset, the player becomes absorbed into a virtual world which reacts to their actions and movements. When in the game, it is often difficult to distinguish between reality and virtuality, the player is not physically in the game however their mind is convinced they are. Therefore, virtual reality can cause a player to feel as if they have in fact faced their phobia. As explained by the ‘Center for Anxiety Disorders’ virtual reality exposes people with their fears in a safe and comfortable environment. They claim that ‘nearly 83 percent of people who have tried virtual reality therapy have managed to put their fears behind them’. Ethically, this clearly shows how virtual reality and video games can be used to benefit others and help them achieve their goal.
Similarly, online gaming sites can become an important part of players daily lives. Acting as an example, ‘Second Life’ is a game which allows users to form relationships, find jobs, purchase a house and decorate their own avatar. It is estimated that ‘Second Life’ holds 800,000 active players. Overall, the game allows players to live life however they may want, causing it to become addictive. The game ultimately enables players to live two separate lives, a virtual and real one.
However, there are multiple ethical concerns which follow the idea of online gaming. Due to players communicating with other individuals through their avatars, cyberbullying can be prevalent. This can lead to various problems and although users are able to report harassment, what has been said may still affect the mental health of the victim.
Peer pressure became a major unethical issue of the virtual realm in 2013 with the online game ‘Blue Whale’. ‘Blue Whale’ used older individuals to manipulate teenagers. The game was set in stages, each level causing more harm for the player before goading vulnerable teens into killing themselves ‘in order to win the game’. It made headline news across various countries as at least 130 deaths had been linked to the game. This leads to questioning upon the ethicality of online gaming and whether its safe to allow young, vulnerable individuals to access it. The safety of users on the internet is said to be a priority however whether we are doing enough about it is questionable. The ‘Blue Whale’ game lasted around five years until the culprit was detected however, it was only discovered in 2017, therefore highlighting the query ‘is the virtual realm really protected or is it a place users have to join at their own risk?’
The virtual realm should be a place of entertainment and escapism but unfortunately, due to many concerns, parents often have to monitor their children and players have to constantly be careful with the information they share and who they speak to. Players can become so involved with the virtual realm that they see avatars and know the online persona of this avatar yet are oblivious to their real life version. This can lead to further concerns of predators. Certain individuals meet up with other online gamers in real life which can be a risk, they are expecting to meet with the online persona of the avatar rather than the reality, which can be far from it. This suggests that the escapism virtual reality provides may have a negative ethical effect as, in this instance, it can endanger individuals.
Voice-masking technology can be used online, which is often used to trick others. By using this software an older man is able to alter his voice to make it appear younger and more trusting around a younger girl and vice versa. This is a trick which the virtual realm enables, again reinforcing the notion that users never know who they are meeting with on the internet.
Virtual Realm headsets also have their own risks. Embodiment is a clear risk which many who participate in the use of headsets experience. As quoted by Margaret Rouse in a recent article about the risks of headsets, she defines the term embodiment as ‘the perception of sensory feedback related to an individuals virtual, non-physical body, also known as an avatar, and the effect it has on the individuals cognition’. Therefore, embodiment can cause an individual to loose track of time and place and they become so immersed in this digital world, they forget what is real. This can often lead to hours of gameplay, a risk in itself, as this can affect mental behaviour.
Nausea is also a common risk associated with virtual realm headsets. Due to the realism of the world being conveyed, players minds are often tricked into thinking they are physically moving. This, thereby confuses their cognition and causes motion sickness type symptoms.
Furthermore, relating to the wireless connections between bluetooth or WIFI with a smartphone or computer, it has been researched that headsets can potentially expose users to electromagnetic frequency radiation. This can be harmful for the body as this type of radiation contains carcinogens, a substance which when taken in large quantities is capable of causing cancer in living tissues, similar to those in cigarettes.
Each year, the virtual realm becomes more advanced, with graphics becoming more realistic and narratives gaining further complexity. The idea of the virtual realm, in particular multiple choice games, is a popular method being used in all types of media as an experiment to involve audiences further. At the end of 2018, a film directed by David Slade named ‘Black Mirror: Bandersnatch’ took this multiple choice gaming notion to another level. Slade created a movie, performed by real people rather than digitally created avatars, and used the element of active participation. The movie allowed viewers to make various choices which would ultimately affect the path the film would follow. Audiences where allowed to operate the characters narrative, much like in Heavy Rain and games similar to this. In summary, this suggests that the interactivity of gaming may be the future of media. Many more films may allow audiences to actively participate by choosing their desired options.
In 2016, Elon Musk delivered a notion about the virtual world that shocked many. He believed ‘that life is a massive multiplayer online game and that the chances we’re not uploads in a virtual world are billions to one against’. This ultimately suggests that mankind are placed in a series of Matrix-style worlds without acknowledgement. We are living in our own, virtual game. However, relating to this statement, questions have to be asked as to why, if we live in a virtually designed world, would we allow the diseases and violence that come with it. Unless these act as obstacles, like in many gameplays. It is a far stretched theory that has yet to be proven, nevertheless it shows the significant impact that the virtual realm has on our life. Whether ethical or not, it is almost impossible to live without another, virtually created, world.
In conclusion, there is no scientifically correct answer as to whether the virtual realm is ethically wrong or right. Personally, I believe the virtual realm is a form of entertainment and shouldn’t be questioned upon its ethicality. Although there is no doubt we have to be careful with which games we involve ourselves in, respectable games can often be used as a welcomed distraction from day to day life. The claim that video games can cause violence is a subject that rests on an individuals opinion. On one hand, I do believe that certain gamers often have a predisposition towards pleasure in violent outbursts. This can shed the negative light on gaming, which acts as a catalyst in encouraging gamers to commit unlawful actions in the real world. Moreover, if young children have grown up playing violent games and have not been taught with proper education, they may become confused at to what is acceptable, thereby leading to harm in later life. Whereas, if children had been educated at a young age as to what is acceptable behaviour, the introduction of games in their later life should not influence any violent tendencies. However, in contrast to this, I believe that people want answers as to why unethical acts occur and therefore need to blame this on something, and in this instance video games. This may cause the public to feel safer as they adopt the idea that video games cause violence and therefore if video games were banished, the violence would disappear. However, there will always be something to blame for the cause of unethical acts. As Decamp stated in a CNN article ‘we need to take a lot of caution before we place the blame on any one particular thing.’
2019-1-8-1546941232