Creativity in Video Games

I just read this article, and I found some things I agree with, but I also found many that I do not.  I am a gamer.  I do not spend all of my time playing games, but I enjoy them, and video games are my default entertainment activity.  I am also a researcher, and if I have spare time that I am not spending on video games, I am probably searching the internet for obscure information on some subject that interests me.  One prominent subject that I tend to come back to regularly is the psychological effects of video game on humans.  I have read a great many articles on the subject, and I have found many studies.  One interesting thing about the studies is that they all seem to agree.

Here is a brief summary of what the research indicates: The first studies on this subject very quickly found that video games improve hand eye coordination.  There were also some positive effects found on reflex speed for certain types of actions.  These were initially revered (and one US President was very excited about the prospects of recruiting skilled gamers to the Air Force, because games are great from improving the skills required for flying military aircraft), but became the subject of ridicule less than a decade later.  More recent studies have found that the hand eye coordination benefits are actually very profound and have many useful applications in everyday life.  They have found much more, however.  Regular gamers tend to have sensory benefits similar to those found in the remaining senses of people who are missing one sense entirely.  For instance, blind people tend to have more acute hearing and touch.  Gamers with normal sight also tend to have these benefits.  Even non-gamers were able develop these benefits by playing games regularly.  Specific types of games can bestow specific benefits.  MMOs, where large numbers of players must frequently interact with each other, help with social skills.  Games where any sort of accounting is necessary help improve math skills.  Action games improve fast decision making skills.  Many games improve memory and spacial mapping skills.  Many games also improve organization skills.  Games of all genres have been shown to have many benefits.  Even violent games can have strong benefits in real world skills.  Just learning to play a new game can improve problem solving skills.  More recently another concern has gotten a lot of attention.  In some cases, violent behavior has correlated with the use of violent video games.  This has led to an unwarranted assumption that violent video game cause people to become more violent.  There is also plenty of research on this subject, but there is no evidence that the assumptions are true.  There is indeed a correlation, but the evidence indicates that causality goes the other way: People who are already violent or prone to violence are more likely to play violent games.  There is also plenty of other research examining other aspects of the effects of video games, but this summary covers the most controversial and important parts.

I want to look at the claims made in the article mentioned above, because many of them show that most of society, including those who should really know better, are basing conclusions of causality on evidence that shows only correlation.  The article initially discusses Carey Martell's childhood.  Carey is a former game developer and is now the CEO of an internet TV network.  His father played video games with him when he was young, but eventually started preaching to him that video games would not get him anywhere in life (note again that one of Martell's careers was video game developer).  Back then, this was a common attitude toward games, and even psychologists often preached this unsupported doctrine.  Needless to say, Martell's opinion on the matter is much different from that of his father.

The second person quoted in the article is a "toyologist and child development expert."  Stevanne Auerbach claims that the only educational value in violent video games is preparing young people for the army.  This is a lie.  First person shooters have repeatedly been shown to improve spacial mapping skills and memory.  Surely there are professions other than the military that these skills are useful for.  In fact, mapping skills are exactly the thing needed to avoid getting lost in a new city, which is a common problem for business people who travel a lot.  There are few professions that do not benefit from improved memory.  First person shooters also tend to improve attention to detail (it is easy to get shot from behind if you are not watching every shadow and listening for footsteps).  This skill is important in nearly every field where mathematics play a role, and it is especially valuable in engineering and science fields.  MMOs typically feature a lot of violence as well.  This genre typically helps improve social skills, math skills, problem solving skills as well as spacial mapping and memory.  Again, these are all very useful skills outside of the military, and some of them (problem solving especially) are very valuable skills in high paying business and engineering jobs.  Other genres that typically revolve around violence also have their own share of benefits, often favoring higher paid jobs as well.  There are still some concerns about excessive use of violent games, especially for people who are already prone to violence, but saying that violent video games have no educational value outside of military service is absurd.  Someone in child development should know better than to make bold claims without first examining the evidence.

Dr. David Bickham also missed the mark, though not as dramatically.  Bickham works for Boston's Center for Media and Child Health and also would benefit from doing his research before commenting.  He is partially right though.  There are some strong theories that Minecraft may promote problem solving and cognitive skills.  He is also right that we need more research on this topic.  He is wrong, however, in his claim that it is unclear if Minecraft is really beneficial or just good entertainment.  Minecraft has been proven to promote good problem solving and cognitive skills.  The only thing that is not clear is how much these benefits translate to real life skills.  Several schools in the US are already using Minecraft as a learning tool, in some cases for many different subjects.  It has already been shown to be useful for teaching math and basic architecture (despite not having realistic physics).  Some teachers have started using it specifically for learning problem solving skills, and it is frequently used as a group activity in this way to promote good social skills at the same time.  There is, so far, no teacher using Minecraft for teaching that has not reported dramatic benefits, with numbers to back their claims.  Minecraft is a very potent learning tool, and we even know why, in a large degree.  It is engaging, which keeps students focused and interested.  Engaged learning is the most effective kind of learning.  Where we need work is determining what subjects it is good for (and if there are any that it is not), what the limitations are, and how to maximize the benefits.  If Minecraft is already showing good results with just basic teaching techniques, imagine how well it could do if we can figure out the best ways to use it for education.  Anyhow, it is not a matter of trying to "figure out what it means."  The question is how we can best use it.

One thing the article hits on that is the real gold mine that Minecraft managed to hit is creativity.  The one thing that all of the violent games miss is creativity (most games miss it, because allowing creativity is very hard to program).  Creativity is another very important skill for many of the highest paying (and most interesting) jobs.  It is especially valuable in engineering.  Creativity is the thing that Minecraft brings that makes it such a powerful teaching tool.  Trying to teach architecture by having students play a game where they merely walk around the buildings (or even destroy them) is obviously not going to be as effective as having the students play a game where they actually build the buildings.  Minecraft is especially good for math, because players get to see and experience real world applications for the math, as they do things like calculating how much materials it will take to build a building.  Further, gaining the skills will help the students to play more efficiently, allowing more time to be spent doing fun things.  One additional benefit of sandbox games like Minecraft is that they combine fun with work.  Building awesome things in Minecraft takes a lot of work, and much of the work is spent gathering the materials.  In real life, many tasks require a lot of work that is only indirectly related to the end product.  This work is tedious and often hated.  Minecraft players build a strong drive to finish projects, and they learn the importance of the less fun work.  The result is people who are well suited to doing the difficult tedious parts of the work, because they can see the necessity of it for completing the fun parts of the project.

Auerbach contends that it is the responsibility of game industry to start improving the educational value of video games.  This is another lie.  The legal responsibility of any for-profit company is to generate profits for its share holders.  So long as violent games with less than maximum educational value make large profits, this is what the game industry is going to make, because they are legally bound to maximize profits for shareholders.  The people with the biggest influence are consumers, however the real problem is public perception of video games.  So long as they are viewed primarily as valueless time wasters, this is all they will ever be.  The people with the power to change public perception are the child development experts themselves.  As long as they are telling parents that video games are bad, parents will avoid video games.  When they do get games for their children, they will largely ignore the content of the games, because all games are bad, so it does not matter which ones they get.  Even saying that some are good and some are bad will have negative consequences, because parents will not feel qualified to make the decision for their kids.  Society (and especially experts) need to accept that all video games are beneficial to some degree.  Once they accept this, they will be ready to start examining what makes some games better than others.  It turns out that the most beneficial games are also some of the most engaging games.  Once we break through this barrier, video game companies will start deliberately making more beneficial games, because more engaging games sell better.  Ultimately, it will be the game industry that makes better games, but before they will (or can even be reasonably expected to), they must be shown that it will be in their best interest and in the best interest of their share holders.

The big barrier in all of this is public perception of games.  There are few of us that believe that games are already powerful educational tools, just as they are now.  Most of those who believe that they can be powerful educational tools (but do not believe that they currently are) are lamenting the supposed fact that they are not and are blaming the game industry for the problem.  The evidence supporting the belief that games are already beneficial is extremely strong, and it is not very difficult to find.  All of those child development "experts" that are spending their time and effort whining need to get off their butts and do their research.  Then, they need to start teaching parents that games are not bad.  The public needs to know that games are already powerful teaching tools, and they need to learn it from experts that they trust.  They also need to know that current games only educate to a fraction of their potential, and that choosing the best games will help their children more.  If the public demands better games, the game industry will make them.  If the public believes that all games are bad, however, the idea of "better games" will not make enough sense to them to convince them to demand them.  The fault for this situation does not belong to any one group, but the group complaining the most seems to be the group with the most capacity to affect change.  It is time for the child development and psychology fields to start teaching the truth about video games.



I want to add a side note.  I am a video game designer.  I am currently free lance, and I prefer it that way.  I don't know if I can make it profitable enough to remain free lance, but I am going to try.  Now, here is the important part: I have been studying the subject of this article for almost a decade.  I mentioned that I have read a great deal of articles and research on it.  One of my goals is to leverage my knowledge to create fun and engaging games that also happen to be educational.  (Games designed specifically to be educational are almost invariably not very engaging, and thus do not keep students' attention well enough to be effective.)  In the game industry, my perspective is something of a pariah.  Most companies either want to make explicitly educational games (and may even believe that all other games are evil), or they believe that any attempt to add deliberate educational elements will ruin the game.  I believe that engaging games can have many educational elements, and I do not think it is too difficult to include them.  The trick is to avoid contrived educational elements.  In my opinion, Minecraft is strong evidence that this is possible.  I do not know if I will be able to accomplish this goal, but I plan to try.