Youth and gaming (2007)

Games are undeniably and increasingly in the public spotlight. Since their inception, about 40 years ago, they have evolved from an arcane subculture to a mainstream cultural movement serving a broad audience. Despite their respectable age, their place in (youth) culture and their economic impact, games are still faced with an ill-informed and biased representation in the public opinion and political discourse.

Triggered by the observation that in Flanders there is little room for a serene, open debate about gaming, the Vlaams Instituut voor Wetenschappelijk en Technologisch Aspectenonderzoek (viWTA) ordered a broad study titled “Ze krijgen er niet genoeg van! Jongeren en gaming” (‘They cannot get enough of it! Youth and gaming’). This study aims to explore and map four themes: ‘games as an industry’, the ‘effects of games’, ‘games as new social networks’, and ‘games and education’. The Research Cell Digital Arts & Entertainment (HOWEST-PIH) worked on the part about the Flemish industry. In this part, people from the industry, education, research, public broadcasting and the cultural sector have been interviewed. The focus hereby lay on the importance of having a Flemish game industry and how it can be further developed, on the needs of the sector and on possible incentives by the government. The Research Centre in Security, Safety and Society (KATHO dept. Ipsoc) carried out the study of gaming effects and new social networks. The researchers based their work on literature, organised surveys and interviews and took into account the public debate on the symposium ‘U Play 2’ in Leuven. The research group Culture and Education (University of Ghent), at last, took a closer look at the educational potential of gaming. Through a detailed analysis of international literature and by interviewing Flemish stakeholders, they analysed and evaluated various possible applications in education.

Games have become big business. The sector has become a global industry comparable to the music and the film business. Flanders could become an important player in this sector. It has several advantages: a high broadband penetration, high degree of schooling and – because of its tradition in comics – a strong creative heritage. Game development can bring investments to Flanders, create employment and fulfil its role in the movement towards a knowledge based economy as premised in the Bologna declaration. Flanders has strong education, a lot of talent (who now largely go to work abroad) and several promising companies. But the government can do more to support a real game industry. It could improve and extend specialised education and stimulate (sociological) research into the phenomenon of gaming so that we have the necessary information for policy making and industry. It could also improve the investment climate by introducing a tax shelter, a pre-production fund or an incubator. The latter could centralise expertise, support starting companies, provide working spaces and technology and administrative, juridical and technological support. It is up to policy makers.

The negative investment climate that faces the industry is also due to the position games and gaming culture take in the public debate; games are said to cause aggressive behaviour and violence and lead to addiction and isolation. Concerning the relation between playing games and aggressive behaviour, research shows that there is no scientific support for this. However, the picture is more complex when it comes to addiction. Of course every good game must be addictive to a certain extent in order to be enjoyable, but intensive and excessive gaming can also lead to health problems, lack of sleep or severe addiction. More research is needed to evaluate how serious the problem is here and to estimate its size. On the other hand, the public debate tends to ignore the positive effects of computer gaming: improvement of coordination, problem-solving, stimulating creativity, learning to make decisions, spatial and visual conceptualisation etc. These elements indicate that games can be a useful learning tool. Therefore this study favours a responsible and well-balanced use of games in schools.
Finally, despite the fact that games supposedly lead to isolation, they often do the opposite and function as buffer against declining social capital. In particular online games have a social function in a network society. Research indicates that the social aspect of playing online games (e.g. World of Warcraft) or the wandering about in virtual worlds (e.g. Second Life) plays an important role in the social life of gamers. There are also risks, however, that should not be forgotten: cyberhate and cyberbullying, virtual (sexual) violence or theft, online gambling etc.

So how should we deal with games? Based on this research, ignoring or forbidding them are both inadequate strategies. A prohibition – based on an age classification for example – will quite easily be overcome and denies not just the positive effects but also individual differences between children. Finally, one should also ask why we should prohibit violent games when there is no ban on violent movies for example. A more useful strategy seems to be to engage parents, but also teachers and youth workers to steer playing behaviour. Informing, evaluating, encouraging and – why not – playing together is probably the best way to stimulate the positive effects of gaming and to reduce the negative ones.