Introduction
Throughout the years there has been many theories surrounding audience and how they react to products. Overtime, the methods and ways of understanding how the public responds to the media has changed and developed. These days the generally accepted theories are much more complex and take into account individuals rather than the mass audience. This differs from the old ones such as "The hypodermic needle" which only takes into account the public as a whole. In this report I am going to be explain a range of audience theories as well as relating them to three video games. The purpose of this post is to figure out how various video games effect people and whether or not the media and games has the power to change peoples ideals or actions.
This refers to how the audience interacts with the media product and how they absorb it's messages. The difference between passive and active is that a passive audience does not question the messages which the media is channelling to them. Rather they remain indifferent and just absorb the message without asking questions or looking into why a specific message is being portrayed to them. An example would be very young children who may not yet have the ability to fully build there own opinions and question what the media is trying to tell them. This is one of the reasons that certain products are age classified as young children are generally more susceptible to the media and it's messages than adults. On the flip side, an active audience will always actively participate with the product and maybe questions it's purpose or ulterior motives. For example an person within this audience may notice the subtle marketing techniques in commercials and analyse why they are there.
You could argue that that the franchise just wanted to provide a realistic depiction of the brutality of war so that people don't take it lightly. However, this in turn can also create negative effects based of the audience theories discussed earlier. For example due to the context it may make certain players feel uncomfortable. For example ex-war veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress may not want to re-live a similar experience in such detail even in a video game. Also a passive audience may interpret it very differently than somebody else. With you having to finish this mission to progress in the game you could interpret it as meaning this type of violence is beneficial is achieving goals and is okay. Due to the out roar caused by this mission in the following game, Infinity ward warned players before they played equally as graphic section of the game. This was seen in Modern Warfare 2 in which a similar mission "No Russian" gave the player an option to skip due to it's graphic content.
No Russian (Modern Warfare 2)
In this mission you are an undercover agent working with a group of Russian terrorists. You wander into an airport with the terrorist group and mercilessly kill hundreds of innocent civilians. This caused much more controversy than the previous shock and awe as you played the perpetrator and have the option to gun down these people. The issue was that there was no consequence to these actions within the game. It doesn't show the punishment for war-crime rather just glorifies in a way by trying to make it into an entertaining game.
Audience Theories
Passive and active audiences
Hypodermic needle theory/magic bullet theory
The hypodermic needle theory is an old audience theory dictating that the media has an immediate and direct effect on the public, The problem with this theory compared to the more modern ones is that it only takes into account the masses rather than individuals. Therefore, it is not an accurate representation of how everybody interacts with the media. This theory implies that any messages portrayed by the media are directed absorbed by it's audience and are just accepted. Although, this theory isn't an ideal model for analysing audience it has been shown to be true in the past. For example, the 1938 broadcast of "The war of the worlds" sparked widespread panic amongst the American population as they thought they were under alien attack. Rather, it was simply a radio drama episode. There was also the propaganda used in the second world war which seemed to have a huge influence on the masses. However, this theory coming into play back then could be for a lot of cultural and societal reasons. The media though radio and television was a new novelty back then so people could have been more susceptible due to it being new.
Effects debate
As the name suggest effects debate simply refers to how media products affect individuals and whether or not, they lead them to take actions they otherwise wouldn't, if they hadn't seen the media product. There have been many incidents which raise these question withing the media and especially video games. I will get into real world example later on. However, speaking theoretically an example would be if somebody watched "Breaking Bad" and later went to build a methamphetamine lab based of what they saw. If this was out of character for the person and they did it solely from the messages which they absorbed from the television show then this would come into effects debate.
Uses and gratification theory
This refers to the media product in which audience seek out in order to fulfil their needs. There are many different needs or gratifications which people use the media as a means of fulfilling. Some examples would be escapism, social interaction or entertainment. For instance, somebody seeking escape may use an online multiplayer game such as "World of Warcraft" as a means of creating a second life and getting immersed in a fantasy world unlike their own. From this they can be somebody who they are not in the real world as a way of making them feel better about their own life. People looking for social interaction will often use social media products such as "Twitter" as it allows them to connect with people all other the world from the comfort of there home. This comfort is also what would gratify the individual as it allows them to be socially active and comfortable.
Call of Duty
Call of Duty 1-3
Call of Duty is a critically acclaimed "shoot-em-up" war game series published by Activision and developed by companies such as Infinity Ward and Treyarch. It began in 2003 with there debut of Call of Duty set in world war 2. In this and the sequels that followed (2 and 3) you played as infantry soldiers from various regiments and countries. The first few games set in this era gained a massive reception with high ratings from many game magazines and reviewers. There was not much controversy over these games which could be due to it being based on real historical events. Therefore, it could be argued that it teaches players the history of the wars and maybe make them realise the atrocities of it. There has always been controversy over shooter games in general with claims that they make people violent but the early Call of Duties didn't particularly stand out amongst the rest in terms of controversy. It wasn't until games developed later in the series depicting current wars and conflicts, that the series began causing altercation in the general public and media.
Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 1 and 2
The equally as successful modern warfare series focused on current conflicts in the world using realistic and accurate weapons and locations. It followed the same structure as the other one following various infantry soldiers from various regiments such as the S.A.S as they wage war in the modern world. Both Modern warfare 1 and 2 caused a lot of controversy due to there hyper-realistic approach too war and the questionable and sometimes brutal content of certain missions.
Shock and awe (Modern warfare 1)
Shock and awe was a mission in the first Modern Warfare in which the players involved in a nuclear blast and crawls to their death in the aftermath of the explosion. This caused debate and outrage due to its realism and shock value. Also the Iraq War was going on at the time so this brought up uncomfortable issues regarding it being insensitive due to current events.
No Russian (Modern Warfare 2)
In this mission you are an undercover agent working with a group of Russian terrorists. You wander into an airport with the terrorist group and mercilessly kill hundreds of innocent civilians. This caused much more controversy than the previous shock and awe as you played the perpetrator and have the option to gun down these people. The issue was that there was no consequence to these actions within the game. It doesn't show the punishment for war-crime rather just glorifies in a way by trying to make it into an entertaining game.
Turning a brutal massacre into a game for the players entertainment raises many ethical questions and can effect people susceptible to media messages in negative ways. Taking the hypodermic needle theory into account if this message was absorbed straight into a passive audiences mind then they may get the wrong idea. Due to their being no consequences for committing these crimes they may feel that killing people isn't so bad and they are no repercussions. In terms of the effects debate it is argued that many brutal scenes like this have actually caused acts of violence in the real world.
Anders Breivick
Anders was responsible for a mass shooting in Norway in the year 2011. He claimed that he used the game Call of Duty in order to train for the elaborately planned attacks. Although the game didn't appear to influence his actions it helped in aiding the act which can come into uses and gratification theory. rather than using it for entertainment purposes he used it as a simulation in order to complete a series of violent acts. Therefore, it is clear that some people can use media products for immoral and violent acts. However, he was diagnosed with borderline-personality disorder due to many events in his life which shows that the game was not a direct correlation between the murders. Rather, he used it as a tool to aid him in completing them.
Sandy Hook murders
The game could however be linked to have affected Adam Lanza the killer of 20 children and 6 staff members at sandy hook elementary. It is reported that he was obsessed with the game and it's weapons, sometimes spending a at least 16 hours a day playing multiplayer. Taking effects debate into account it could be argued that the excessive playing of the game may have contribute towards his violent actions. The aim of multiplayer is to kill other players and gain experience points so you can rank up and unlock new in-game items. Therefore, many susceptible audiences could see this as killing people is rewarding and become conditioned to believe that. If you go of the hypodermic needle theory than the message injected straight into the consumers mind would be "Killing people is fun and rewarding." It is not clear if the game directly influenced the killings however it is something to take into account considering his infatuation with the multiplayer aspects of it. If you take the approach that the killer was already mentally ill than the game may have simply been an escape were he could live out his violent fantasy without fear of persecution. However, it could also be argued that the game reinforced his already mentally ill and violent psyche.
Conclusions
Although it is not clear whether Call of Duty directly influences people to commit violent acts we can assume that it can potentially play a part in somebody who is susceptible to the media such as the mentally ill. Passive audiences such as children could pick up negative message from the games which is why there is an age rating. It is not hard to believe that shoot-em-up games like call of duty can influence people who are pre-dispositioned to things such as violence or lack of empathy. If you think in terms of neuropsychology, the reward centre of the brain releases hits of dopamine when you progress in a game providing a sense of well-being and achievement. Therefore, excessive playing can lead to the brain conditioning itself to believe that killing people is rewarding as that is the main aim of shoot-em-ups. Due to this, it is possible that this process played a role in some of the murders linked to the game.
Grand Theft Auto
Grand Theft Auto is a open world sandbox game in which the player will normally be placed in a fictional city as a criminal or gangster and have to complete various missions to progress. Due to it being free roam, the player can complete missions at his or her own leisure and do whatever they want in the city. Besides missions, players can kill civilians, buy guns partake in races, drug deals and even pay for prostitutes. This has to be one of the most controversial games of all time due to the freedom the player has to reek carnage on the innocent civilians within the virtual world. It also features adult themes such as drug use sexual content and bad language.
Criminal Activities
The game has been heavily criticised for promoting criminal activity contrary to previous games in which the protagonist engaged in heroic deeds. Rather in Grand theft auto you play the anti-hero and commit a number of crimes ranging from murder to armed robbery. The idea of being rewarded for completing illegal acts sparked much debate over the effects this game could have. Attorney Jack Thompson blamed the games graphic nature for the murders of a group of Alabama police officer by 17 year old Devin Moore. He called the game a "Cop Killing simulator" arguing that Devin Moore had no history of mental illness or criminal offences before spending countless hours playing it.
Like Call Of Duty, the game featured very few consequences for the characters illegal or unethical choices. Rather it glamorised them by the character gaining more money which they could buy material things such as houses and clothing with. This could portray to certain audiences such as passive ones that you will be successful if you are a criminal, Consequently potentially leading them to a life of crime due to this belief. It also showed that even extreme offences such as murder were easily avoidable by simply killing police offers or escaping.
Desensitisation
What I have got into yet is how violent video games have the potential to desensitise players. I feel that the torture scene in Grand Theft Auto V is a perfect way to explain this.
GTA V with it's realistic graphics puts the player in the shoes of a man working with the FBI to torture somebody. This brutal scene allows players to choice there torture device of choice and punish them as they see fit. This option of being able to choose what weapon to use forces the player to make a conscious decision of what they will do to him. Although, there is no option of helping the victim or letting him free. Rather, you are forced to do it in order to progress. This could potentially be ore damaging to an audience than say a movie as he or she is making the decisions therefore it feel more realistic as if they are actually doing it. On the other hand it could be argued that it raises awareness of issues such as torture by making the play feel guilt towards the victim. Leaving them no option means they have to torture him irregardless of how they feel. Therefore, it could be argued that this is conditioning people towards being violent.
As you can see from the video above the scene is very bloody and graphic. If you showed this to somebody 30 years ago chances are they would be more horrified than people are today. I believe this is due to the increasing realisticness and violence in the general media we have in the modern times. Nowadays, people are so used to seeing accurate depictions of violence that it doesn't phase them. This raises issues in effects debate as audiences growing up with this sort of violence may not perceive it as wrong or sickening. Therefore, when there are murders in the real world it is often debated whether the media which the consumed affected their actions.
As I have stated earlier, passive audiences such as young children are much more susceptible to the media influence and message that active audiences. After playing the game a six year old stole his parents car and drove 10 miles due to missing the bus. He claimed he learnt this from playing the game. As you can see the hypodermic needle theory can come into play when we are dealing with more vulnerable audience. As seen earlier, with incidents such as the sandy hook murders. Sometime the medias messages are injected directly into the audiences brain if they are in a vulnerable position such as mental illness or being a young child.
As you can see from the video above the scene is very bloody and graphic. If you showed this to somebody 30 years ago chances are they would be more horrified than people are today. I believe this is due to the increasing realisticness and violence in the general media we have in the modern times. Nowadays, people are so used to seeing accurate depictions of violence that it doesn't phase them. This raises issues in effects debate as audiences growing up with this sort of violence may not perceive it as wrong or sickening. Therefore, when there are murders in the real world it is often debated whether the media which the consumed affected their actions.
As I have stated earlier, passive audiences such as young children are much more susceptible to the media influence and message that active audiences. After playing the game a six year old stole his parents car and drove 10 miles due to missing the bus. He claimed he learnt this from playing the game. As you can see the hypodermic needle theory can come into play when we are dealing with more vulnerable audience. As seen earlier, with incidents such as the sandy hook murders. Sometime the medias messages are injected directly into the audiences brain if they are in a vulnerable position such as mental illness or being a young child.
Uses and gratifications of Grand Theft Auto
People mainly seek this game for entertainment purposes and escapism. The open sandbox style of gaming means the player can do things which would be inappropriate in the real world with out facing real life consequences. It could be argued that this is a good thing as it lets people blow of some steam without taking actions in reality. Therefore, letting them live out their fantasies in a simulation rather than causing tragedies such as the Sandy hook murders. However, as I have stated I believe that somebody who is more vulnerable to the messages may take it a step further and the game can act as a catalyst in taking there ideologies into real life.
Minecraft
Although the public opinion on the negative affects of video games seems pretty bleak, it's not all doom and gloom. Some games have been proven to provide positive effects to people and the action which they influence them to take. A quite recent example is Minecraft.
Minecraft is an open world sandbox game in which the world is randomly generated by a series of blocks. The player mines these blocks which are made up of different material to create anything they want from tools to house and castles. The creative freedom of the game i what made gain so much praise in the media. This is due to the fact there is no real aim to it. Rather it is up to the player to make what they want to out of their gaming experience.
Educational Benefits
Minecraft has quite recently began being implemented in school worldwide to teach children various different subjects such as maths and psychics. Due to the fact that you can mould the world within the game however you want it is very beneficial in being able to illustrate theories and concepts visually. Outside of school the game could make children interested in other topics such a electrics. With Minecrafts "redstone" system it make it possible for anybody to create simple to highly complex electrical circuits.
Therefore, in terms of effects debate you could say that the effects caused by this game could be beneficial especially to a more susceptible audience. This is because it allows people to explore their creativity and create things which they do not have the resources to build in the real world. Therefore it can inspire people to pursue things that they want as they can do it withing the game.
Due to the multiplayer aspects of the game it can help people develop communication skills along with teamwork skills. This is because you have to work together in order to build your creation therefore it could be beneficial for people who have issues communicating with other in real life and help them build social skills. In fact the game has been shown to be very effective in treating people with autism such as aspergers. This is because the logic and order of the game world makes sense to them and allows them to creatively express them selves freely which they would find difficult otherwise. However, you could argue that these social aspects of minecraft are negative. It could possible make somebody comfortable with staying inside for interaction and not seek any form of social interaction or enjoyment outside of the game due to it''s addictive and potentially obsessive style.
Conclusions
In terms of uses and gratifications, the main reasons people use minecraft are for creative freedom and entertainment The vastness and freedom of the game allows people to become immersed and sometimes obsessed with it therefore it is an efficient source of entertainment or escape. The possibilities are endless therefore people have the means of expressing themselves and being creative through a world with resources already set out for them. Minecraft is about exploring and discovering new things. This can in subtle ways, inspire people to take more risks in their life and be more curious. The quote shown at the end of the game reinforces this idea.
Minecraft has quite recently began being implemented in school worldwide to teach children various different subjects such as maths and psychics. Due to the fact that you can mould the world within the game however you want it is very beneficial in being able to illustrate theories and concepts visually. Outside of school the game could make children interested in other topics such a electrics. With Minecrafts "redstone" system it make it possible for anybody to create simple to highly complex electrical circuits.
Therefore, in terms of effects debate you could say that the effects caused by this game could be beneficial especially to a more susceptible audience. This is because it allows people to explore their creativity and create things which they do not have the resources to build in the real world. Therefore it can inspire people to pursue things that they want as they can do it withing the game.
Due to the multiplayer aspects of the game it can help people develop communication skills along with teamwork skills. This is because you have to work together in order to build your creation therefore it could be beneficial for people who have issues communicating with other in real life and help them build social skills. In fact the game has been shown to be very effective in treating people with autism such as aspergers. This is because the logic and order of the game world makes sense to them and allows them to creatively express them selves freely which they would find difficult otherwise. However, you could argue that these social aspects of minecraft are negative. It could possible make somebody comfortable with staying inside for interaction and not seek any form of social interaction or enjoyment outside of the game due to it''s addictive and potentially obsessive style.
Conclusions
In terms of uses and gratifications, the main reasons people use minecraft are for creative freedom and entertainment The vastness and freedom of the game allows people to become immersed and sometimes obsessed with it therefore it is an efficient source of entertainment or escape. The possibilities are endless therefore people have the means of expressing themselves and being creative through a world with resources already set out for them. Minecraft is about exploring and discovering new things. This can in subtle ways, inspire people to take more risks in their life and be more curious. The quote shown at the end of the game reinforces this idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment