Video games make you violent… ouf… that
must’ve been a hard false reality to live
under. I and assumably you are fortunate to
have grown up as gamer folk in a world where
this expression had either already been or
was in the process of being disproved. We
know today that this isn’t true and we’ll
get to some examples of why that is later…
but what’s important right now is that I
disclose to you that for a long time, I’ve
doubted this. I doubt that video games don’t
make you violent, or in other words I suppose
that under certain conditions, it's possible
that a video game and a video game alone could
be the cause of a person’s violent behavior.
Why’s that? Well, because of a personal
experience I’ve had with guess which hyper
violent game your parents would’a never
let you played as a kid?
Gather round losers, story time!
It’s easy to forget the technological and
cultural impact of Wii Sports Resort. So remember
the Wii? It was marketed as this incredible
machine who’s peripherals would translate
your movements one-to-one into its games.
Turns out that was mostly bologna. I mean
it still did some fun stuff, but it was mostly
bologna. So a good few years into the console’s
life they put out this attachment: the Wii
Motion Plus. This butt-plug looking device
encased a super accurate gyro sensor which
promised to, well, fulfil the console’s
original promise. And did it? Heck yeah it
did. The Wii Motion Plus allowed for games
to be developed in which the most minute movement
affected by a player could impact their performance
in the game. And what better way to demo this
than to package it with a sequel to Wii Sports?
Whereas Wii Sports’ scope was broad movement
and swings and waggles, Wii Sports Resort
was chock full of games where wrist positioning
was critical. We weren’t in infrared-sensor-town
anymore, we were in gyro-city! Now when you
go to gyro-city, you get what you expect:
pita, fries, and a salad. But as far as the
game goes, this is the sorta accuracy they
were working with.
This joke cost me $20. There’s no coming
back once I take a bite, I can’t do another
take.
[loud chewing sounds]
$20 well spent. For context, I tried last
weekend working this, like, this joke into,
like, my actual diner. It failed. So I, I’ve
already had diner, and now I have all this
food. I don’t know what I’m gonna do with
it. But um… I’m twentyfour fucking years
old, I’m still doing this fucking bullshit…
I need to be put to rest.
[cackling]
Whoa what the fuck was that?
One of it’s games though was the main reason
you’d wanna try this thing out. Freaking
believe it or not, one-to-one motion controlled
sword fighting. And this is the game that
made me mad.
Everytime I played this game it was the same
story: I’d be fine for a little while and
then suddenly once I reached a certain difficulty
level I’d just get pissed. I would start
slamming stuff when I lost, I’d punch my
damn couch, I’d slam my controller against
the table. It was like, it was like something
I couldn’t control. And worse, the same
thing would happen to my little sister when
she played. For this reason, Wii Sports Resort
took its place as the second game which my
mom ever had to ban us from playing, a spot
it well deserved right next to Duke Nukem
for the gameboy color.
Now here’s what never made sense to me about
this. So according to a lot of studies, games
don’t make people violent or aggressive.
What are contributing factors to violent behavior
though are things like a family history of
violence, substance abuse, some societal causes,
stuff like that.
And that’s why I’ve never been able to
wrap my head around this. I mean, I was a
Canadian kid, that’s like the most non-violent
demographic you can imagine. This is how old
I was, I made this video like 3 days after
Wii Sports Resort came out. Family history
of violence? No, not really. I mean, shit
I don’t know how much reach into the future
this video will have but I was born into probably
the last generation in which spanking your
kids wasn’t socially unacceptable.... me
being on the receiving end that is. I got,
as we say in italian, a little pac pac au
coulo from time to time when I was being a
little too much of a, as we say in greek,
a malaka. But that was it.
So that’s why, for a long time I’ve been
unconvinced that games are incapable of making
us violent. Because unless I’m missing something,
this game made me and my family violent without
any external factors. Unless…
Here’s the external factor: motion controls.
Due to my personal experiences, I think in
general games cannot be a sole factor in aggressive
or violent behavior. But for the longest time
and in the back of my mind is where I stored
this little doubt that this also held true
for games who’s take on immersion goes a
step further. And in the back of my mind is
where this little doubt, this little thought
stayed… until I got an Oculus Rift this
year.
Here’s a dramatic reenactment of myself
playing robo recall for the first time:
“Oh my god, this is incredible! Oh my god!
This is incredible!”
More so than any technology, virtual reality
hereafter referred to as VR, is allowing for
the most emergent gameplay video game players
have ever seen, to take place. That’s even
if we can call these basic movements and interactions
gameplay, I don’t think that’s a strong
enough word.
While we’re here still in the introduction,
for the sake of this video, VR is a virtual
reality experience which a user interfaces
with through a specialized headset which displays
stereoscopic 3D images and includes head-tracking.
In VR the user experiences the world through
the body of some avatar which they are viewing
through the eyes of. Additional tracked controllers
for things such as hands or legs are optional.
So it’s VR if it’s 3D, its first-person,
and there’s at least motion control of the
head.
I specify this because by this definition
neither a plain 3D video screen nor a 2D projection
of a game played with motion control are allowed
to be called VR. These distinctions will be
important later.
What is VR going to do? What is it already
doing? What are the impacts of this technology
on us, personally? psychologically? But also
on a grander scale, societally? What kinds
of conversations should we be having about
VR? Or what sorts can we be having before
it's too late? And in terms of those creating
content, aka games for VR, what are their
ethical concerns and responsibilities? What
are ours, as a society that’s currently
receiving this tech with open arms it seems?
Is it maybe time to reconsider Violence in
Video Games in 2019?
Now, before talking about games and their
effects on us particular to this bleeding
edge technology, it’s important to take
a step back and see where when why and how
this whole ‘violence in video games’ conversation
started.
He was a video game player in the 90’s.
She, or they, rather, were his overprotective
paranoid boomer or gen x parents… can I
make it anymore obvious? Past the point of
novelty, when games started to be more than
just dots on a screen that you controlled
with a stick and a button, when games started
moving closer to the living room and forward
into depictions of more faithful action and
player input, adults of the world started
flipping their shit. Sure, this is a new thing
that they didn’t grow up with and didn’t
know what would be the effects of, seems it
should make sense they might react this way.
Now, the hypocrisy here is that many of these
grown-ups had been on the opposite end of
this rodeo before; be it with the movies,
comic books or godforbid rock-and-roll music
that they loved but that their own parents,
priests orrabbis rallied against. But hey,
to be fair, never before had any of form of
media tried to put realistic looking guns
into the hands of kids... I mean come on…
look, neither side was playing with a full
deck it looked like.
So of course, public interest in the subject
of the effects of videogames on players drove
tons of people into its research. Lucky for
me, just after the turn of the millennium,
a couple of guys including one Dr Bushman
(stick a figurative pin in him, he’ll be
important a few times throughout this video)
played cowboy to all these old pieces of Scientific
Literature and wrangled them up into a single
Meta-Analytic Review, aka a summary of everything
that was known about video games and their
effects on aggressive behavior at the time.
In the end, their analysis of the massive
amount of existing research revealed that
“violent video games increase aggressive
behavior in children and young adults”.
Well, shit.
And that’s kinda how the subject was left
for a while. Video games make people violent…
fuck how’m I gonna convince my mom to get
me Hamtaro Ham Hams Unite now?
Except then paradigms began to shift, duh.
Turned out a lot of the studies previously
conducted on games and aggression suffered
from the same limitation: the correlation/causation
issue. AKA just cause shit’s linked in some
way, doesn’t mean either’s the cause or
consequence of the other. Many of them delved
deep enough to find a link between violent
video games and aggression and assumed this
meant that the games were responsible for
creating the violence in people. This however
isn’t logically sound as it could also be
used to argue the case that people with existing
violent tendencies would be likely to seek
out violent games. Basically, studies up until
then had shown that aggressive people play
violent games, but the relationship between
the two wasn’t properly established. People,
or, researchers at least, were no longer satisfied
with blaming games for violent behavior and
realized that this didn’t paint a clear
picture.
Here’s a good example of a work done during
these changing mentalities: Violent Video
Games and Aggression: Causal Relationship
or Byproduct of Family Violence and Intrinsic
Violence Motivation? Dr Ferguson coming out
here hitting us with a two-parter! Part 1:
do video games cause violence? No! “neither
randomized exposure to violent-video-game
conditions nor previous real-life exposure
to violent video games caused any differences
in aggression”. Here he is checking immediate
AND regular exposure, now that’s a bro!
Part 2: alright so what are some factors involved
with aggressive tendencies? “Results indicated
that trait aggression [aka personal proneness
to aggressiveness], family violence, and male
gender were predictive of violent crime, but
exposure to violent games was not”... well
shit that doesn’t help my case… but hey,
neat stuff!
Studies like this were extremely valuable
to the reception and recognition of gaming
as a hobby and games as a medium for entertainment.
They not only refuted that “players of violent
video games can be categorized as being prone
to violent criminal acts”, but they highlighted
the true combinations of influences of this
sort of behavior. While playing violent games
is a choice someone who is violent would likely
make, they don’t make you that way… is
what people started to learn
Now here’s what studies like this didn’t
rule out. The possibility that playing violent
video games could have harmful impacts on
people with preexisting violent tendencies
or mental illnesses. Maybe they can be used
as a contributing factor, a vicarious experience
or way to prepare for a real life violent
act. This is the angle from which the anti-gaming
crowd would most often continue to prod from
and still do today, and I guess you can’t
blame them for that.
That being said, there’s still a lot to
learn and a lot of people from both sides
are continuously working towards answering
new questions. Here’s a snapshot of the
conversation of violence in video games in
the modern age: In 2019, we believe that there
is no strong evidence that games are a cause
of violent criminal acts. However, some links
have been found between games and short-term
aggression. As important as it is to acknowledge
that, it’s just as important to pay mind
to the murkiness of it. First of all, measures
of aggression are weird and often criticized.
They include things like making subjects feed
hot sauce to someone. As Dr Graham Wilson
from the University of Glasgow told me in
an on-paper interview, (thank you again by
the way!), “there is a world of difference
between hot sauce and criminal aggression
/ violence. [It’s] the player’s personality
that matters more”.
Now the issue here is that studies from the
other end of the line agree with this. They
agree that violent behavior does have more
to do with someone’s personality. So instead
what they’ve reported to show is evidence
that “cognitive aggression is [a] predictor
of long-term aggressive personality changes”
and that repeatedly and regularly activating
one’s aggressive thoughts by, I don’t
know, playing games can risk aggression becoming
part of their personality (Mcgloin, Rory,
et al).
And that’s a really interesting counterargument!
Or at least it would be if it weren’t for
another study (Hilgard J.) showing publication
bias towards works which show positive links
between games and aggression as opposed to
those that show none or other.
That’s why I’m using the word murky to
describe the state of the violence in videogames
conversation in the modern age. There’s
no evidence for the big scary and potentially
‘important-if-true’ claims, but people
are finding out some interesting stuff by
poking around at the issue at a lot of different
places. For example, maybe it’s not about
if games can make us violent but its instead
their addicting qualities that we should be
worrying about.
Or here, remember my whole goofy intro bit
with the story of how my family and I got
angry playing Wii Sports Resort? Well in 2014
a group of researchers from the University
of Rochester showed through the lens of Self-Determination
Theory (a psychological framework about how
people make motivated decisions) that wholly
independent from violent content, a game could
make someone aggressive by result of what
they call Competence-Impeding (Przybylski,
A. K.). In their experiments in which they
pretty much explored the psychological processes
behind rage-quitting, they took a few steps
to make subjects feel incompetent playing
games that included re-mapping buttons to
un-masterable combinations and manipulating
games to present a difficulty that can only
be described as unfair. They literally made
a version of tetris that would algorithmically
determine the worst 4 possible pieces to dish
out per-turn, and then pick the absolute worst
at a 75% chance. Talk about a Tetris effect,
this is someone out there’s version of Hell!
They showed that impeding someone’s confidence
could result in them having aggressive and
violent feelings, and there’s no doubt in
my mind that’s what we were experiencing
with Wii Sports. I mean, the sword fighting
is really cool… for a while. The problem
I guess is intrinsic to designing automated
challenges for a motion controlled game. With
every round won, the game kinda just cranks
up the reaction time of the AI opponents it’s
serving you until you reach a critical point
at which they’re able to counter your every
move with just frames to see ‘em coming.
It feels unfair and you feel incompetent for
being unable catch them off-guard for a clean
strike, the fact that those strikes are triggered
by the identical movements of your actual
body and the immersion that lends make the
aggression even hotter. You get some spicy
feelings playing that shit.
So, while murky, the fact that people are
thinking outside of the box and examining
this subject every which way is really important.
Some have observed that historically, most
studies took a very unsophisticated view of
of video games (Madigan J. Psychology Today)
which might be the reason for their weird
conclusions. I think I’d attribute this
most recent shift in the way games are studied
to the fact that many researchers today are
people who’ve grown up with games and like
you and me, participated in the establishment
of whatever the hell gaming culture is. These
aren’t outsiders looking in, you know, trying
to compare paper plane glider games to first
person shooters. These are gamers who treat
the medium properly, don’t make goofy mistakes,
but most importantly are likely to pick up
on subtleties that researchers of older generations
are unable to.
I mean, it feels to me like we’re in the
golden age of psychological research on video
games… which I think is cool for as niche
as it is.
There’s still a lot to learn though, especially
when it comes to VR which in its commercially
available state is still a very new thing.
So, let's take a look at what relevant research
does exist.
So first of all, let me introduce to you a
problem I discovered. If you ever find yourself
for whatever reason researching the psychological
effects of VR, you might be led to believe
from your first search results that a small
wealth of studies already exist on the subject,
which is really exciting! Then the further
you dig into them the less they make sense.
I mean, they didn’t have this tech back
then did they?
Turns out that before the head-mounted displays
of today, the term VR was popularly used to
describe any sort of computer graphics application.
From interactive games to emulations and simulations
to 3D videos, the term Virtual Reality was
used often to describe very broadly any visual
stimuli which was produced digitally or was
some other way virtual. Other slightly more
recent studies seem to understand what VR
is but then do a poor job of explaining how
they got their studies to work. For instance,
one study that claimed to have players play
Grand Theft Auto 4 in and out of VR… which
as a gamer I know is not a feature of that
game and that mods for are pretty bad because
Grand Theft Auto 4 was not optimized for this
sort of perspective or control. Then you take
a deeper look and realize oh, they somehow
projected the game in stereo 3D… I mean
it’s not really VR but I get the point.
These common occurrences unfortunately make
it a little bit difficult to delve into research
on what it is that we call VR today. They
muddy the results which is a pain.
But once you, who are for whatever reason
still researching this subject, discover these
mirages and learn to look past them... you
don’t see very much left. Maybe one or two
cactuses.
Most studies I could find that proposed there
being a difference in how we consume content
in this media were either about 3D projectors
or sole VR headsets. Other studies I found
which I considered relevant were about motion
controls on their own, most a response to
the Wii era of household gaming peripherals.
These might not be exactly what I was hoping
for, but they were stepping stones technologists
needed to take towards the contents of the
cardboard box I keep on my desk chair when
I’m not using it, the complete package that
we call VR today, (you know, a headset, motion
tracking, and hand controllers) no doubt.
But here’s where one of this video’s primary
cruxes is going to be; in the assumption that
the studied effects of 3D displays and headsets
AND the studied effects of motion controls
are both applicable when it comes to modern
VR. As you might remember, when defining VR
earlier we mentioned that motion controls
are an optional component. That’s true,
while some games require them, others work
without them. So, we’re basically gonna
take look at their effects separately and
assume they add up when… well, added up.
Here’s a good time to mention that I have
no background in psych. I’ve had experienced
help writing this though. My background is
in software engineering… so while that means
there’s undoubtedly gonna be a whole bit
towards the end of this about technological
ethics, it also means that, for once, this
is my first of this kind of rodeo. So, from
my perspective, as a technologist lets say,
I see no reason not to assume that the results
of studies on general 3D display systems and
those on motion controls would both be applicable
when it comes to VR. As far as I can tell,
they shouldn’t contradict or conflict with
each other in any way.
Nevertheless, I should be pointing out that
in the lack of any studies about the exact
sort of VR games I’ve been playing, those
where I wear a headset and move my hands about,
yada yada, I’m going to be taking what people
have learned about VR headsets and 3D and
other immersive displays, and I’m gonna
be taking what people have learned about motion
controls, and I’m gonna make the assumption
that both of these would hold true when paired.
So you might remember that in the intro when
defining the technology, we mentioned that
3D movies are distinguishable from VR; that
while implementations of stereoscopic 3D are
certainly a component of VR, they are not
the same thing. As far as what they do though,
they both immerse the player or viewer, in
the most literal sense of the word, by providing
you a perception of depth comparable to real
life vision. So here’s another assumption
I’m making which should be easier to swallow:
I think when it comes to what effects a 3D
display is shown to have on people, we can
assume that those effects would at least be
true of VR displays as well. Why’s that?
Well because the actual source of those effects
wouldn’t be either technology but rather
their byproduct: immersion. Now, VR displays
should no doubt have immersive properties
and effects unique to themselves, but whatever
3D does simply by being 3D, I want to assume
VR also does for the same reason.
So let’s talk 3D. 3D tvs, remember when
those were a big deal? No, me neither. But
you know who does? Dr Bushman!
In 2014, he and his associate published a
study on the mediatory effect presence has
on violent video game play (Bushman and Lull).
Presence is the word researchers seem to like
to use to describe the particular brand of
immersion available through VR. Presence is
the combination of 3 phenomena:
Place Illusion, the sensation of being in
a real environment.
Body Ownership, basically how much you believe
that your avatar’s virtual body is your
own.
And of course, Plausibility Illusion, the
feeling that the events or actions occurring
are actually occurring or could actually be
occurring. This one’s not unique to VR,
it’s something you’ve probably seen in
any deep systems-driven game or immersive
sim where you have freedom to solve problems
as you would, though VR definitely does help.
Now no shit as you can tell from how roundabout
I’ve been at introducing this, Dr Bushman
didn’t study how Presence affected violent
game play in VR but rather on 3D monitors.
Why’s that? Well, as he explains, at the
time studies of HMD type VR were already cropping
up but with mixed results. He attributed these
inconsistencies to the pairing of the awkwardness
and novelty of this sort of technology.
As he says, “These in-consistent effects
may be due to the bulky and unfamiliar nature
of VR headsets, as relatively few participants
typically have experience with VR headsets
compared with more popular immersive technologies
such as large screens and high definition
images”
I mean it makes sense, most people have not
experienced VR, and anyone’s first experience,
whether it be after waiting an hour in line
at a convention or just in a laboratory setting,
is bound to be weird. I can see how the lack
of most people’s exposure to VR and the
fact that a first interaction with it can
be as incredible as it can be nauseating makes
it really hard to study on a mass scale. There
more variables at play here than just the
content of the games which could be influencing
the results. Not too dissimilar to that whole
competency impediment concept with the remapped
controls and unfair difficulties maybe.
So long-story-short, he studied 3D screens
instead which admittedly would have a much
lighter Presence, but a sort of Presence nonetheless.
And of course, 3D media being something most
people are familiar with from their movie
going experiences, there was less to worry
about in terms of external factors limiting
the results.
And so in the end what they found by having
participants play violent and nonviolent games
across different sized displays in 2D and
3D was that violence in 3D had greater impacts
on aggression which were attributed to its
immersive condition. Basically, the more present
you feel in a game, the angier you’ll feel
afterwards if you’ve played violently. Or
maybe another way to put it: if you're a violent
player, immersion increases your feelings
of aggression.
Here’s as good a time as any to bring up
that Dr Bushman doesn’t have the most spotless
record. He’s a controversial guy. He’s
had papers redacted, he’s been accused of
fabricating moral hubbubs, he’s got some
beans. But at the end of the day he’s a
doctor of psychology specializing in human
aggression. Maybe a lot of what he’s gone
on about has been disproved but that’s fine.
Without a character like this we wouldn’t
have the current discourse we have today which
is so great! Now that being said, when it
comes to technology on the cutting edge which
it’s funny to admit 3D displays once were,
this is stuff he hasn’t necessarily been
directly challenged on yet, as far as I could
find. So there’s some uncertainty here we
need to consider. These results might be something
worth worrying and learning more about.
It’s a worry that personally I’ve had
making the rounds in my head for a while.
It’s the ‘BUT maybe’ I think it might
be necessary to add at the end of every ‘videogames
don’t make you violent’ argument. It’s
one of the reasons I’ve wanted to make this
video for a long time. Here’s one of the
things that worries me…
One of the earliest virtual reality experiments
people have ever done is the ‘walk-the-plank’
experience. It’s basically a height simulator.
A virtual plank exists high atop a city, and
you walk across it. Simple enough. These days
you can buy a version of it on steam for like,
17 bucks. Outrageous!
In cognitive science there’s this concept
of schemas: the way our brains organize information
for storage and retrieval. As a kid when we
learn the schema for dog, it might include
things like names of different breeds, physical
attributes like having four legs and a tail
and others that make them distinct from, say
a cat, like the noise they make, and the fact
that they're better.
As far as what we care about today, we may
for example have a real life schema which
includes information about how we behave and
respond to things in the real world, and then
a media schema which keeps track of how things
in media are to be interacted with. This helps
when, say you watch a violent movie. You store
information about how those characters interact
in your media schema because, well, you’re
smart enough to tell this is just a movie
and it’s not how you should behave in real
life, assuming you're a typically-functioning
and fully developed adult at least, which
honestly is an asterix, I’ll mention here,
is implied basically everywhere throughout
this video unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Well, a few scholars have proposed that when
it comes to VR and the presence we feel when
in it, our brains might be fooled into feeding
us information from our real life schemas
rather than our media ones.
“Is this real life?”
“Yes. Na ah ah ah, uh huh, yeah. Don’t
touch it. Don’t.”
Evidence of this can be traced as far back
they say as some of those earliest plank simulators
(IJsselsteijn, 2002) and how players respond
to them under various levels of sensory feedback.
We know its not real, we observe ourselves
putting on a headset to peer into this virtualization,
but still we react to the height similarly
to how we would if it were actual. And raising
the seamlessness of the simulation increases
those reactions. If we amp up the frame rate,
we react to it more realistically. If we induce
haptic feedback by walking on an actual plank
rested on the ground exactly where the virtual
one would be, we react more realistically.
If we know none of this is real… why do
we respond with natural fear?
And I mean… and pardon my language… but
no shit! VR is supposed to try to convince
you it's real, I mean otherwise what’s the
point? What’s its novelty? Like, as a commercial
product I’m talking. But here’s what worries
me: for a long time our greatest guard against
those suggesting that video games cause violence
is that we can tell the difference between
media and reality. But VR, by its nature,
has as an objective trying to fool us into
believing its real. As gamers, we see increases
in visual fidelity and immersion as progress,
always. Does that mean though that the direction
we’re progressing will eventually surpass
our guard? I don’t know.
But when it comes to violence is where I personally
begin to have second thoughts. First of all,
is violence really something we want to subject
ourselves to in this medium? And if there’s
a chance that increased sensations of presence
give us greater feelings of aggression…
aggression that our minds might be associating
with real life schemas rather than media ones,
is that a problem? Is there a chance that
in its current state or the states it will
no doubt mutate into in the future, will enactments
of violence in VR contribute to learning in
parts of our brain responsible for interpreting
and operating within the real world rather
than the virtual? I know that comes off sounding
super “moral panic-y”... but, we don’t
really know, right?
Before diving into that with only the ability
to extrapolate based on what we know about
3D displays in general, lets actually see
what studies about modern VR do exist, eh?
Violent Video Games in Virtual Reality: Re-Evaluating
the Impact and Rating of Interactive Experiences
is a study on, you guessed it, the impacts
of violent video games in virtual reality,
by Dr Mark McGill and Dr Wilson (from before)
of the universities of Strathclyde and Glasgow
respectively. The latter of which, as you
may recall, agreed to answer some questions
for me in an on-paper interview. Unlike a
lot studies on games content though, these
docs came at it with a tangible goal, a suggestion
to the industry. The twist in their study
was that it was about game ratings, like,
ESRB, PEGI and the likes. Basically, like
I’ve been trying to say in this video, proving
that VR games affect people differently than
their non-VR counterparts should be sufficient
in getting them different treatment and consideration,
and one of those differences, these guys propose,
should be how we rate them.
At the center of their study is Resident Evil
7 for the PlayStation 4, a game selected for
its ability to be played either regularly
on a TV like any other mediocre-to-bad first-person
survival-horror game… OR in VR using a PSVR
headset. And very importantly, at least to
these two researchers, these two versions
of the game are not rated separately but instead
share one rating with nothing but a little
warning about VR creating a sense of presence
and immersion. To the Glasgow boys, this is
insufficient.
This paper is really cool, and it's a good
read, unlike most of the old-timey game studies
I’ve been checking out a lot. My one issue
with it might be their sample size which is
pretty small and might not be generalizable
to population, but like Dr Bushman observed
when he decided to study 3D monitors, the
elements that make VR VR also make it hard
to study on a large scale. And since the people
used here are still the target demographic
for these games and headsets, it might be
okay.
In their study and on their quest to show
that there is what they call a “meaningful
difference” (Wilson and McGill. 2018) between
VR and TV, they describe this concept of visceral
realism. Games marketing has historically
used the term realism to describe advanced
graphics and visual effects, so describing
VR as real alone “may only suggest realistic
portrayals of events” and not tell the whole
story. They explain that “the effects of
presence [and] body ownership are [for the
most part], subconscious and inherent”.
They say that “the instinctive nature of
the player’s disposition and response”
is the difference here and is what needs to
be highlighted when it comes to ratings. The
term Visceral Realism instead they believe
better implies “that player experiences
could feel instinctively, even irrepressibly,
real”.
As Dr Wilson told me in his interview, they
“found [that] people felt more personally
involved in violence when playing in VR vs
on a TV”, which is “compelling evidence
that violence can *feel* different in VR,
[affecting us emotionally] and [feeling] similar
to how it does in reality [which is usually
very unpleasant].” He believes that a more
important real-world concern than whether
VR violence makes us act differently is “how
[this] violent media affects us” and who
might be affected differently.
As they explain in the study itself, when
acts of violence are committed against the
virtual body of the viewer, their subjective
and physiological responses are correspondent
to those they’d have were the attacks real.
At this point I don’t think we’re even
in the realm of games anymore! I mean, what
are the harmful psychological impacts of having
someone assault you? Having someone hold a
knife at you? Of subjecting yourself to a
realistic fear of heights?
The researchers then run with this to say
“hey! There’s a meaningful difference
here and maybe slapping a small warning on
VR games isn’t enough to protect consumers”,
which yeah holy shit it probably isn’t.
It sounds weird admitting it, but VR content,
especially that with depictions of first-person
violence like Resident Evil 7, might harm
the people who choose to purchase it. I don’t
know... -- imagine paying money for a game
and then having to go to therapy or something
because you experienced a realistic reaction
to a virtual trauma. I mean, this isn’t
something unheard of happening even outside
the realm of VR, like the case of the Mortal
Kombat developer who needed to be treated
for PTSD following their work on the game
(Joshua Rivera. Kotaku). So yeah, it only
makes sense to treat VR content differently
in the rating process to ensure that nobody
gets hurt or damaged in any way. These ratings
are meant to protect consumers from things
they might not know about the things they
want to buy.
Now, all this talk of the negative impacts
VR experiences could have, it feels like the
right time to mention some of the positive
effects it's already been shown to have. By
a function the same elements that might seriously
harm someone, (presence and body-ownership
and immersion), VR has also been able to help
treat people suffering from serious phobias
and anxieties. Immersion therapy is one of
the ways we currently treat these issues,
by exposing someone to their trigger in a
controlled environment. One of the reasons
VR treatment is said to work so well is because
it has “lasting effects that generalize
to the real world” (Maples-Keller, Jessica
L, et al.), aka virtual experiences can impact
our processing of the real world just like
real-world experiences. VR’s been shown
to surpass traditional therapy in types of
situations where it might be impossible to
expose someone to anything close to the circumstances
of their trauma. VR’s was super helpful
for example in a case where it was used to
treat a 9/11 survivor’s PTSD (Difede, JoAnn,
and Hunter G Hoffman) in a safe and controlled
way.
In addition, VR’s been shown to help with
body image issues and promote exercise both
in and out of games. This is something I totally
get: it sucks to fail at a video game because
of a limitation of your own body, and I’ve
personally experienced how it can motivate
you to work on improving yourself.
“Oh, fuck fuck fuck. Yee yai yai, dude.
Guys hold up, I have a charlie horse”.
I fucking screwed up my knee trying to play
a sniper in Onward, it sucked having to admit
that transitioning in and out of a crouch
is not something my body and myself are very
good at which limits the sort of combat roles
I can play in this game. But it was a serious
motivating factor in me trying to get out
of the office more during lunch and just go
for walks.
So, types of VR content have already been
demonstrated to affect our psyche in a lot
of different ways, not all negative like it
might’ve sounded like I’ve been saying.
So let’s talk real quick about motion controls
before going any further.
Like I said before, there’s not much I could
find specifically about motion controls paired
with VR, but when the Wii came out and once
again put a gun-looking thing into the hands
of kids, some folks were a bit peeved, as
to be expected, and this public interest led
to a few studies being done. What folks/parents
were most concerned about were games which
asked players to mimic violent motions. At
the center of attention for a while was the
snuff film themed Manhunt 2 for Wii which
had players trigger all manner of murderous
actions analogously through gesture based
control.
After a lot of research, bing bang boom turns
out there’s nothing really to worry about.
Playing these sorts of games and doing the
motions does not a violent individual make,
or at least there’s no evidence for it.
You know, same as for games before the touch
and motion generation.
As before though, there are a few positive
links between motion controls and increased
short term aggression, and once again, they’re
brought to you in part by Dr Bushman.
In social psychology there’s thing thing
either called the Weapons Effect, the Weapons
Priming Effect, or the Sight of Weapons Effect,
depending on who you’re talking to (Benjamin,
Arlin James, and Brad J Bushman). Its something
monsieur over here has spent some time studying.
Basically what it is is a description of how
people naturally experience increases in aggression
when seeing or holding weapons. It’s pretty
much that old expression, “when you’re
holding a hammer, everything looks like a
nail”, but extended to things like guns.
Turns out, merely seeing an image of a firearm,
say, increases our aggression. Holding one
is even worse.
In 2015, a group of researchers published
a study about the effects of Realistic Gun
Controllers for video games on Perceptions
of Realism, Immersion, and Outcome Aggression
(Mcgloin, Rory, et al). What they found was
“compelling evidence that using a realistic
firearm controller positively impacts cognitive
aggression”. They called playing a game
with a controller like this a Triple-Whammy
in terms contributing factors of increased
aggression, due to the Weapons Effect from
the weapons on screen, the immersive violence
depicted on-screen, and the Weapons Effect
from holding the aforementioned realistically
designed gun controller.
Now, as a gamer, I have some problems with
this study. That is a great fucking line.
But what it comes down to again I assume is
unfamiliarity with games on the part of the
researchers. First of all, they mention first-person-shooter
games throughout the study but then in the
experiment the have participants play Time
Crisis 4, a light-gun shooter. This is a different
genre, this is a type of game that plays entirely
differently to the fps games they say they’re
really worried about. And I don’t know if
you’ve played a light-gun game with a regular
controller, but its ass. I think they went
the wrong way with this study: instead of
picking a game designed for a light-gun and
then comparing the experience to the outright
bad controller version, they should have taken
a traditional first-person-shooter which is
also playable with motion and compared those
experiences. They could have used any of the
Wii or Wii U versions of Call of Duty games
to do this with which all have extensive motion
control support. I, as a true gamer, should
know!
Do I think this shows a lack of attention
to detail in their study? Yes. Do I think
it invalidates it though? Yeah probably not,
I just like to complain.
The Weapons Effect is something with a wealth
of research validating it, no questions there.
So when they say their results “raise concerns
about the harmful effects of [...] realistic
firearm controllers” (Mcgloin, Rory, et
al), they might be onto something. But, I
mean come on, who’d go ahead and call what
we use in VR a realistic firearm controller,
thing looks like a… looks kinda like a…
well, not really like much really. Well, here’s
the issue we’ve never really faced before
when it comes to controllers. When you play
the Wii and you grab this thing, sure maybe
it feels a little like a gun but it certainly
doesn’t look like one. When you go into
the Rift though and pick up these mannetes,
they don’t look like this anymore. The game
world overlays hands onto them, your hands.
And with those hands, your hands, you grip,
aim, and squeeze the triggers of virtual guns.
So I wouldn’t disregard a study like this
because, unlike the light-guns which they
studied, the way a virtual gun is observed
can be described beyond realistic-looking.
In VR your controller is not analogous to
the weapon you’re wielding in-game, you
controller becomes that weapon exactly.
The motion capturing technology effortless...ly
grants
The motion capturing technology effortlessly…
The motion capturing technologis…
the motion capturing technology effortletless…
effort… effortlessly...
the motion capturing technology…
the motion capturing technology effortletle…
effortlessly…
the motion capturing technologe…
the motion capturing technology effortletlessl…
Okay, this is the fucking, like, firth time
I’m trying to get this line down, so I’m
gonna read it really really slowly, and you’re
just gonna have to put up with this, but the
motion capturing technology effort… EFFORT…
effortlessly, fuck!
The motion capturing technology…
The motion capturing technology effortletles…
efforlessly, efforlelely.
The motion capturing technology effortletlessly.
Effortletlessly, effortletlessly. I just fucking
can’t do this. I can’t fucking do this.
Fucking hell...
The motion capturing technology effortletlessly…
fucking hell! What the fuck! I’ve never
had this much trouble with a line.
The motion capturing technology effortlessly…
effortlessly…? Is that correct? Yeah, that!
Wait that’s fucking right!
The motion capturing technology effortletlessly,
fuck I can’t.
The motion capturing technology… no but
now I’m in a weird tone, this isn’t how
I ended the last line.
The motion capturing technology effortlessly
grants you access to abilities no light-gun
game or fuck, man, god, fucking damnit!
The motion capturing technology effortletlessly…
uh effortletlessly…
The motion capturing technology effortletlessly…
uh effortletlessly… effortlessly.
the motion capturing technology effortlessly
grants you access to abilities no light-gum…
light gum.
The best part is, um, after flubbing that
line so many times I guess I didn’t even
realize that it’s one of the lines I flagged
to do in person. So, that, this whole thing
has been an exercise in futility. Hey, at
least we got a good joke out of it. But, as
I was saying 10 to 20 times, the motion capturing
technology effortletlssly, effortlessly grants
you access to abilities and… [laughing]
fucking, I can’t fucking do it. I hate this
line.
But as I was saying, the motion capturing
technology effortlessly grants you access
to abilities no light-gun or fps game ever
has: you can accurately aim without using
sights by simply pointing your hand, even
directions you’re not looking. You can lower
and raise your weapons exactly as you wish,
manipulate and position them any which way,
set them down, pick them up, throw them away,
anything!
Included in the researchers’ original concerns
was how the effects of these sorts of controllers
(and the mental link that exists for most
people between the guns they represent and
aggression) could reach a large proportion
of people through the great market popularity
of shooting games, among other genres. This
concern however was partly based I’d say
on their misunderstanding of game genres and
the fact that light gun games are not first-person-shooters;
not in gameplay, not in audience, and definitely
not in market share… Nobody really plays
these things at home lets be honest. When
it comes to VR in its current state though,
I’d say at least half the games with motion
controls out there involve firing weapons.
Shooting games lend themselves really well
to the medium. The design of handheld controllers
with grips and triggers are a response to
this, or maybe its the other way around. Implying
I believe VR might have a stronger sight of
weapons effect because unlike light-gun games,
you actually see your weapon in your field
of view rather than just a 2D reticle projected
onto a screen… assuming this, I think it's
easy to understand that VR shooting games
can be considered a Triple Whammy risk factor.
You see detailed 3D imagery of weapons; your
own and those of others, you’re fully immersed
and present in a world of 3D violence, and
a couple of dongles you hold shape a corporeal
feeling of holding a firearm.
But again we’re talking short-term self-reported
or convolutedly measured levels of aggression,
spicy, not progressions towards or links to
serious violent criminal behavior. This isn’t
enough reason for the people who’ve called
VR an “over-the-counter digital bootcamp”
(Bailenson. CNN) to be suggesting that. Afterall,
as we’ve learned, the fact that violent
individuals tend to play violent games doesn’t
mean the games make them that way.
But one of the points the confused gun-controller
researchers have might stick, I don’t know.
So right away they admit that yeah, that “cognitive
aggression [short-term aggression] is not
a measure of current or future behavioral
aggression” (Mcgloin, Rory, et al), but
they bring up that “other researchers have
argued that cognitive aggression is the most
theoretically useful predictor of long-term
aggressive personality changes” and that
“aggressive thoughts that are repeatedly
activated in [a] person can lead to aggression-related
knowledge structures becoming a part of [their]
personality”. Having aggression be part
of your personality is trait aggression. So
what they’re arguing basically is that repeatedly
exposing oneself to immersive violent motion
controlled games and the Weapons Effect with
realistic gun controllers can lead to the
development of trait aggression.
Now to be CRYS-TAL FUCKING CLEAR, they’re
not proving this, this isn’t evidence. This
is a concern they’ve risen and have justified,
that these sorts of games could lead to “aggressive
knowledge structures and, potentially, subsequent
aggressive behavior” in people. And as a
consumer of this sort of media, and more generally
as just a person living in this world, this
kinda concern me a bit.
But like Dr Wilson says, “seeing a sad film
may make us temporarily sad and we may cry,
but it does not induce clinical depression,
and so why would violent [media] make someone
go out and repeat those acts?”
Alright so let’s wrap things up and do a
little recap of what we’ve learned so far
about the gaming specific impacts of VR related
technologies.
Important question: does VR media impact us
differently than other media? Yes, due to
its distinguishing factor which sets it apart
from other media, Presence (composed notably
of Place Illusion, Plausibility Illusion and
Body Ownership) it would seem so.
Though as Dr Wilson mentions, “none of these
are inherently problematic in a way that would
cause more aggression than TV [or] monitor
games”, and it probably comes down more
to the personality of the player rather than
the game itself.”
“We don’t know yet” whatever effects
will (and are) being had on human behavior
either in or out of VR games, as he says,
“there’s not really any research in the
area.”
There’s the good, the positive impacts of
this which can be leveraged for applications
like therapy and healthcare. There’s the
bad of course, impacts which most would perceive
as negative. Most importantly the unintended
consequences of visceral realism which improperly
expressed to a consumer might cause them mental
and psychological harm. False memory acquisition
making us suffer physiologically to fabricated
and virtual yet vivid events. Digital trauma
with real life consequences. And then there’s
the ugly, the real spooky stuff that, unlike
the good and the bad, isn’t quite proven
as of yet sure, but I think the risk of which
deems them worthy of some serious scientific
scrutiny. This is the ugly learning of violent
knowledge by VR’s potential to bypass media-schemas,
our previously thought best defense when it
comes to how much influence media can have
over us. This is the ugly potential for regular
exposure to immersive VR motion controlled
violence, games and experiences where the
weapon is put in straight into your hands,
to encode aggression within our personalities
and change who we are.
We don’t really know, conclusively, much
about this. Not many people are really looking
at it to be fair. But what I think is that
if virtual events and experiences stand to
have similar effects on people as real events
and experiences, what the various stakeholders
involved in this technological ecosystem might
need to be more considerate of is the gaming
content ethically permissible on these platforms.
But gaming isn’t the only domain in which
VR exists. I mean, not even is it just in
entertainment. Outside of that industry completely,
VR, and AR mind you, have for a long time
found roots someplace a little weird: training.
Now, the training industry is a little hard
to visualize. Every company, big or small,
has to train their workforce for the particularities
of their job, and for a long time training,
head-to-toe, was a completely internal process.
But developing and maintaining training material,
issuing it, collecting and distributing it,
this is a lot of work. That’s why a few
businesses dedicated to this sort of stuff
have cropped up to serve this market. If you’ve
ever worked for a large company, you’re
probably familiar with those horribly acted
weird HR videos you have to watch from time
to time. Well, unless you work for the sort
of place with the means to produce video content
like that, odds are the clips you watched
were part of a training service package that
your employer bought or had commissioned from
one of these businesses that makes them. Now
that being said, in certain industries, often
in extremely complex domains, there’s still
a need for on-premise internal training material.
So the training industry, if you like, can
be seen like this. It encapsulates every company
creating its own training and all companies
producing training content and/or offering
training services to other industries, businesses
or individual clients.
Why are VR and AR such good pairings for it?
Well, partly for the same reasons we’ve
discussed relative to the impacts they can
have on people from games. The fact that we
may perceive and interpret virtual experiences
as real in terms of our responses to them
and our memory formation means they can have
a very similar influence on us as compared
to real-world training. Then of course there’s
the cost factor. As I’ve learned, the hotel
industry is big on VR training, particularly
for its higher ups to experience what it’s
like to work on the front lines. There’s
these intricate VR workspace demos they have
for customer service roles with paid voice
actors and all sorts of gnarly stuff. VR’s
across the board for workplace safety training;
much more impactful interactive safety demonstrations
taking the place of simple video presentations.
These cut costs by not having to spend resources
building training environments or spending
to have people travel all over the place to
it do on-site. You can put a headset on in
the comfort of an office and just be transported
anywhere else to do anything else, it’s
practically magic! And of course, though not
real, you do get a sort of hands-on experience
similar to the real thing that leaves more
of an effect on you than watching a clip or
not doing it at all as the case may be when
costs are too high.
Then of course, especially when it comes to
AR, augmented reality (you know, stuff where
additional details and graphics are overlaid
atop a user’s view of the real world) there’s
a lot of medical stuff. There’s definitely
a lot of what you’d call medical AR apps,
just plain applications used for diagnostics
and treatment, but there’s also a wealth
of education and training specific stuff out
there.
Now to give you a sense of the scale of this
industry from the developer perspective, XRDC,
one of the largest VR, AR and MR conferences
in the world runs a survey amongst developers
and publishes the results as a report every
year prior to their event. Its kinda like
a nice little annual snapshot of this very
young industry, and it’s interesting to
see the progression of it. This year, it turned
out that when surveyed about the focus of
their current or potential work, education
came up as a target of a third of developers.
Almost as many mentioned training and over
a fifth specified that their work was medicine
or healthcare related, and a few more said
they were doing something for workplace and
public safety projects (XRDC Innovation Report).
Like I said, this industry is kinda hard to
put one big cap over, it’s very dispersed.
Just, a rundown of the titles of articles
announcing presentations at this conference
make that clear.
But the point I’m trying to make I guess,
what I’m trying to expose is that to most
people, especially the audience I expect to
be watching this video, gamers, VR is gaming.
Like, it seems like most people are aware
of VR games and maybe some other VR entertainment
like 360 video and oooooouh spooky spooky
VR porn! And like, maaaaaybe a few more people
know about the industrial design and visualization
applications. But like, nobody I’ve spoken
with knows about the training aspect.
And going back to what we’ve learned is
a possibility when it comes to how immersive
violent VR might affect us… holy fuck!?
I mean, okay, this is just me talking, this
is nobody else. This isn’t even necessarily
my opinion, this is just me trying to explain
what I’d call the elementary mental gymnastics
my brain does whenever I think about this.
“Okay, so video games don’t make us violent,
sure. Violent behavior has more to do with
the individual, badabing. Can video games
make us aggressive in the short term though?
Yeah. Do immersion and presence and plausibility
and all that shit amplify that aggression?
Some people say it does, so maybe. We know
at least that we respond to it realistically,
and that’s a danger, but whether it can
affect how we act, eh, we don’t know. Now
can we be tricked into thinking it’s real
and processing what we do in it like it’s
real? Eh, maybe. And eh, how about uh, if
we keep exposing ourselves to this, is there
a possibility of personality change? That
regularly playing VR games can turn us into
more aggressive people? Well I mean, there’s
no real evidence but some people have suggested
that could be the case… so I guess, uh,
maybe. There’s uh, a lot of uncertainty
around here? But I mean, come on, learning
to be actually violent from video games? Come
on. It’s, it’s not like, you know, we’re
using this same technology to teach anybody
anything else right? It’s not like there
are serious benefits when it comes to, like,
training people to do things… right? Oh
fuck wait.”
I know its dumb, but I think, I---- think...
there is something really fucked up about
the same devices I use to transport myself
to some unnamed middle-eastern warzone where
I use guns and shit to kill bad guys… being
also used to train workers how to keep their
asses safe, and aspiring doctors how to perform
surgeries, and hotel chain directors how the
day-to-day work of their employees looks and
feels. Look, I don’t think video games make
you violent, and at least in their current
state, despite how the fuck this video sounds,
I mostly doubt that VR games are an exception
to that rule. But I think its fucked that
I think that despite looking at the training
industry and its potential implications. I
don’t know, I don’t know what analogy
to make, I don’t think there is one for
this. It feels like we hold games and entertainment
to this different standard because unlike
an industrial application, we see them as
art. I don’t know. I just, even the thought
of this is really dissonant to me. I can’t
run through the flow of thinking about this
without feeling like there’s something wrong,
like I’m putting the wrong shaped block
in the wrong shaped hole.
Especially when you think about the development
of these games and applications. VR expertise
is not super common and it takes a lot of
time to acquire, so I’ve heard. So often
developers will have had experience across
the board, in training, in medicine, in games.
Realistically, last week’s fire safety demo
could be built by the same team making next
week’s hyper violent power fantasy. Isn’t
that strange? Should that concern us?
Given that the two largest industries in which
VR technology is applied are gaming and training…
is it maybe a little weird for game developers
to be making violent content on this platform?
Or is it incorrect for us to think this way
or be worried about this, there’s not much
evidence. And afterall, a teacher can use
chalkboard to teach a class a lesson, and
serial killer can use one too to keep track
of their murders… or whatever the fuck weird-ass
shit a serial killer might want to do with
a chalkboard… this is a terrible example.
But, like, maybe VR is just a tool?
Let's ask some important questions.
Can violent skills be learned in VR? In other
words, can I go into a violent game and learn
something I previously didn’t know about
committing violence which then I can take
back with me into the real-world once I remove
my headset? Personally, I think so. I mentioned
before, I’m Canadian. We don’t really
see guns so often up here, they’re probably
afraid of the cold or something. My experience
with them goes as far as the pellet guns I’ve
shot. Uh, I also used to collect airsoft guns
which I disarmed in order to take to conventions
for cosplay, and I used to make goofy films
with them my friends. I fired an assault weapon
once at a family friend’s home out in the
country but in Canada automatic firing weapons
are banned and magazines are limited to only
5 rounds, so it wasn’t anything crazy. And
It even jammed right after my first shot and
I didn’t get a second.
So maybe it’s just my lack of knowledge
and experience, but when I play any of the
shooting-range or military simulators which
are extremely popular on VR marketplaces,
I feel like I come away from them learning
something about guns. Like, small things I
couldn’t’ve ever gotten by reading about
them or watching videos. I feel like I don’t
think I could honestly say that I don’t
believe that violent skills can be learned
in VR because I once had to google how a certain
gun actually operated in the real world in
order to reload it in the game. Even though
that’s the other way around, it’s weird.
But stuff like becoming accustomed to how
holographic optics work, or just, developing
the muscle memory to reload a gun.
In Onward, one of the games I play a bit,
my favorite weapon is this heavy machine gun
whose complicated and time consuming reload
I’ve seen animated countless times from
the first-person perspective in other video
games at the simple press of a button. Before
having to do it in VR I didn’t really understand
the intricacy of it, and when I first started
I fucked up constantly. But I’ve gotten
to a point where I can do it pretty quickly
now. I mean look at this shit, that’s impressive
ah? If I didn’t tell you I was doing all
this with my own hands, you’d probably think
this was a Call of Duty animation or some
shit. But no, that’s what a few hours of
experience looks like; I’ve learned how
to realistically reload a machine gun, and
a few assault rifles, and handguns, this sawn-off
shotgun, which by the way feels is reeeally
fun! I mean, sure it’s not real, but I’ve
learned to get into the swing of things. Is
that something I should be happy about? Or
is that something that should worry me?
Most people though tend to disagree with me
on this point, which is why I think maybe
it's some of my own personal bias.
Dr Wilson brought up the issues of motion
“tracking not always being perfect”, weapons
having no weight, and that a lack of force
feedback being limiting factors to the transfer
of skills. “Yes, you can aim down sights,''
he says, “but the guns have no weight, no
kick back”, and unrealistic things like
auto-aim and auto-spread are still present.
I talked to a few friendly players I met in
Onward who agreed to share their thoughts
about this as well and they echoed the same
points. Turns out that the game attracts a
large milsim crowd, (an abbreviation of military
simulation traditionally used to describe
variants of airsoft or paintball) and they
were quick to point out the limits to skill
transfer with current VR.
Still, it's enough for now to
point out the current limits of this platform
and be reassured by them, but VR is an evolving
technology. Compare where it was a few years
ago to now and you’ll realize why critique
and judgment passed on those old things wouldn’t
necessarily apply today. VR is going to get
better, no doubt about it, and as it does,
the fidelity of performing any sorts of acts,
not just violent ones, will get better and
come closer and closer to reality. “So [it’s]
important that we understand if and how any
transfer might work” says Dr Wilson. “If
there was theoretically a 1:1 recreation of,
[for example], a famous monument, and an individual
was able to practice moving through it and
shooting with a highly realistic gun, then
[there’s] scope for risk. But [we’re]
some distance away from that.” He’s referring
here to the concern some have raised that
VR could be a digital bootcamp which aspiring
mass shooters might use to virtually hone
their skills in preparation for the real thing.
Unfortunately, if it is, there’s not much
we can do about that. None of the suggestions
the proponents of ideas like this make any
sense at least, but this shouldn’t matter
so much because as Dr Wilson tells, “this
claim is simply unfounded based on the research,
there’s no evidence of transfer yet”.
But I’m getting ahead of myself, more on
this in a moment.
So on the topic of bootcamps, let’s flip
the script for the next question: Can violent
skills be taken into VR?
This is hard to answer, there’s no real
research around this I could find, probably
because of how new VR is and how busy people
with violent skills typically are. I don’t
think it’s as controversial though for me
to say that I wholeheartedly believe this.
Do I have any non-anecdotal evidence for this
though? Nope not at all. In my decent time
playing Onward I’ve noticed a cultural similarity
among the player base which is that a lot
of players think very highly of military service
members. Often players who perform really
well will be asked in the waiting lobbies
whether they’ve served, others will try
to point out behaviors in their teammates
from the spectator screen and try to guess
when and where they were trained. It’s stuff
that mostly goes over my head, but something
I’ve noticed a lot of.
“You see, is there snow all on my butt?
Is there? Ha. This is next, this is gorrila...
do I still have it? It’s not? It’s done?
Oh yes! We did it everybody, plant our flag,
welcome to death strand- oh this is very tall!
Oh my god, this is like a whole tree!
This is, this is gamer country now folks. You heard
of donkey kong country? Well this is gamer
country! I can’t put this down without it
making a big mess. Be ready.”
The only other story I have is that a very
close person in my life who’s actively serving
tried out my VR setup last time they were
around to visit. And when they did they played
really freaking well. I had set them up in
Robo Recall because it was the only game I
owned, and I accidentally loaded them into
the first boss-fight instead of the level
I meant for them to try out. And much to my
surprise, a level that took me 3 tries to
beat when I did it and for which I had already
learned the ropes for by clearing the previous
stages prior, they were able to take out on
their first attempt… their first attempt
in their first real triple-A VR experience.
It wasn’t just that, but the way they played
was really interesting. I mean, Robo Recall
is kinda meant to be played with a Keanu Reeves
kinda energy, you know, dual wielding, not
looking where you’re shooting, total ninja
matrix mayhem. But they played this with cold
precision, almost never holding more than
one gun at once, aiming down sights, picking
off targets one-by-one despite the enemy’s
hoard approach. It was really impressive,
and not a question, one of the reasons I think
real-world skill and training for violent
situations can be taken into VR and used effectively
in games. I’m not even talking about tactics
or strategy or anything, I think just having
some sort of real combat experience and weapons
training can give you a measurable advantage
in the second-to-second action gameplay these
sorts of games serve. It doesn’t really
make sense to me that it wouldn’t.
So then, back to what in my opinion is probably
the most important question related to violence
in video games in 2019 (or 2020 by the time
this fucking video comes out): Can violent
skills be honed in VR? Can someone with pre-existing
violent tendencies and abilities and skills
apply these to VR in order to improve them?
To train? To learn? Can someone fulfill that
sensationalist headline we’d all dread to
see one day? This week’s mass shooter prepared
for attack by practicing in Virtual Reality
video games.
As a player of these things whose observed
personal physical improvements in these sorts
of games over time, it makes me wonder. Would,
for example, having some sort of muscle memory,
no matter how loosely related to the real
experience of carrying out the motions of
reloading a particular weapon, have any impact
on the damages done by such a malicious shooter?
I don’t know. Like we said before, if the
technology keeps advancing (which it seems
like it will) the feeling of performing violence
in VR will trend closer and closer towards
the real thing. Will it ever meet it? Or is
there some close-but-no-cigar limit it will
infinitely converge towards? I don’t know.
But will it get to a point where, for the
same reason companies buy VR training programs
for their workers’ safety formation, will
it get to where it’s more cost effective
and immersive for a malicious individual to
pick out a cool new gaming headset and motion
controllers to prepare for this sort of act
than to do it any other way? If things keep
improving… I don’t really see how not.
I’m not really prepared to answer whether
violent skills today can be honed in VR. Based
on my own exposure to the games I’ve played
in this medium, I think these sorts of experiences
could be able to desensitize someone to violence
and fear, and maybe prepare them mentally,
but physically? Could playing VR improve whatever
skills are necessary to carry out acts of
violence like a sort of training program?
Well, remember when we talked about how VR
is used in training for various purposes and
domains? One I left out is military. Depending
on your role and location and responsibilities,
as a military trainee it's possible you’d
be exposed at one point or another to some
form of VR training. As a training platform,
VR has benefits where, you’ve probably guessed
it at this point, it can stand-in for otherwise
expensive practice environments or situations
that are impossible to recreate under control.
In particular flight and vehicle trainings
are good applications. But there are, however,
less frequently used boots-on-the-ground training
simulations which modern vr fps games might
be proportionate to (Virtual Reality Society).
Now, when it comes to the nitty gritty, stuff
like weapons drills and field exercises, these
are done in real life. We’ve already brought
it up, but the weightlessness and lack of
feedback inherent to the general purpose peripherals
packaged with most headsets doesn’t allow
them to very accurately emulate the experience
of operating a weapon or doing anything really,
which then limits the transfer of knowledge
back into the real world blah blah blah. So
VR’s very limited military use for soldiers
is instead focused on team dynamics including
things like tactics and planning for combat
scenarios and also adapting to variable conditions
like environment and casualties.
So while there’s an evident line that protects
us right now from a reality where specific
violent skills can be practiced in virtual
worlds for the sake of their improvements
in the real one, this technology, albeit in
a moderately mutated state, can and is being
used to acclimate people to certain experiences
they’ll be meant to have and to train them
on the softer skills required for operating
effectively, violently, as a team.
An anecdote I have which occurred while I
wasn’t recording gameplay so don’t assume
what you’re seeing is what I’m talking
about, but one time after spectating the last
surviving member of my team in a round of
survival in Onward, one of the other spectators
who’d said he recognized one of the tactics
this dude was using, asked him if he had served.
The guy answered that no, he hadn’t, but
he’d picked up some army field manuals and
had been practicing the techniques and tactics
he learned from them in the game to get better
and achieve the sorts of miraculous results
the rest of us had just witnessed. Dude was
a monster, straight discipline.
Which, and I mean to a lesser degree, holds
true for my experience with the game Onward
in particular as well. Most of my best VR
victories in this tactically focused game
were won through communication enabled teamwork.
There are clearly some dudes in there bringing
in real-world tactics and commanding their
teams to victory, and I’m just happy getting
to be a player in those people’s game because
its always a blast and you learn a lot. In
my experience, it's regularly made a difference
in terms of the outcome of every round.
So, these were interesting questions to ask,
but let's go back to what we had discussed
the research saying and see what implications
there might be now.
Does VR violence create violent individuals?
No. It’s fun to worry but there’s no direct
evidence of this and so, much like with their
non-3D video game counterparts, violence likely
has much more to do with the individual. However,
studies of technology within the range of
VR have shown that increased immersion can
lead to increased aggression which has been
suggested that in excess could lead to personality
changes. Still, like regular games, this is
mostly only a risk for people with existing
violent tendencies or at risk of developing
violent tendencies.
Now, something we’ve yet to bring up directly:
there’s a difference between learning violent
acts and developing violent tendencies. We
can learn the motions to draw, aim, fire,
and reload a weapon to great effect, but that
doesn’t come with it violent tendency changes.
Same as how we can become momentarily more
aggressive without developing a violent personality.
So research pertaining to games and immersive
technology and our exploration of the use
of vr in other industrial settings have shown
that, to this point, the effects of this platform
can make people more aggressive… and that
it can be used as a learning and training
tool for real-life scenarios. That’s as
far as it goes. There is no established link
here.
Do I want to be the guy who tells you in a
youtube video that because the two main applications
of VR are gaming and training, that playing
violent games is effectively training us to
be violent? That VR is, in fact, an over-the-counter
virtual-bootcamp? Well, quite frankly yes,
fucking absolutely! That’d probably go viral
as shit! But am I? No. We can’t draw conclusions
from this because this isn’t evidence. The
media men might beg to differ, and you or
I or your dog might have strong feelings about
it, but this isn’t proof… judging by the
hole in the satellite picture. This is as
close as it gets, this is just a fun and interesting
story about a certain technology and its potentially
conflicting effects and applications relative
to our social values. But if you’re asking,
yes, in my opinion, it's probably a good argument
as to why there should be more research interest
here.
All this story reveals to me, personally,
is that there’s barely any inquiry here
into a device I paid a few hundred bucks for
that’s sitting in a box next to my computer
when I’m not using it.
So there’s no evidence or anything and that’s
all fine and good, but for a moment (before
looking at any new research and without any
evidence)... let’s assume the worst. VR
is used for training purposes, and it’s
also used for games. And when gamers play
games, just like in training scenarios they
pick up skills. We don’t or might not actually,
but let's pretend that we have reasonable
cause to believe this.
Considering this, as a creator of any sort
of vr content (whether a game maker, a film
maker or whatever) you’d probably have some
ethical concerns or considerations surrounding
your work and its impact. From an audience’s
perspective, there are probably kinds of content
and subject matter safe to project when viewed
on traditional displays which would be off
limits in VR given the unique ways in which
it affects us. Subject matter that, as we’ve
learned, might either cause people psychological
harm... or as we’re imagining, teach them
certain skills we’d ought not. From a creator’s
perspective, if a link is made between their
content and harm to or the behavior of their
players, perhaps it would be best to avoid
these sorts of things all together.
I mean, forget imagination, this is something
the artistic medium of gaming has seen before.
Over the years, many game developers have
demonstrated a certain awareness or moral
responsibility towards producing certain content
which they considered too-far. For instance
the designers of 2009’s Call of Duty Modern
Warfare 2 who had the sensibility to make
completely optional an emotionally intense
part of the game where the player’s character,
for various narrative reasons I won’t go
into, is asked to participate in the shooting
of a public airport. Not only did they make
the entirety of the level No Russian skippable
by choice, but they designed it in such a
way that if the player does decide to play
it, they aren’t forced to actually participate
in the shooting themselves. The player can
just walk through and view the graphic scene
being composed by their teammates without
actually participating in it if that makes
them feel uncomfortable.
Games of the last few generations which have
begun to touch more on these kinds of mature
subjects have done well to show awareness
of the limits they think their medium should
have. There’s a reason No Russian is optional.
There’s a reason there are no children in
open world sandbox games like Grand Theft
Auto.
Violence against children, as a good example,
is not the sort of subject designers probably
want players to experiment with and make their
own stories about in these kinds of sandbox
games where the draw is that, well… it’s
a sandbox and you can make whatever good or
bad choices you want to fulfill whatever weird
and possibly violent or chaotic and power-driven
fantasies you might have. No, that’s not
something even the creators of a totally open
game like Grand Theft Auto which is constantly
getting flak from the popular media for its
sheer raunch, are very comfortable with. Instead,
this subject is reserved in the rare instances
where it IS brought up in games, for telling
specific messages. Often, the presence of
children in a game is surrounded by restrictions;
an open world game that otherwise treats everything,
every mechanic, every system as a toy for
you to experiment and play with, when it comes
to children the game stops and says “no,
this is how you play with this one, there
are rules now”. That shows some serious
maturity, that this medium is evolved.
There are certain things we can expect these
days. Games which cover certain topics like
sexual violence or mass shooting anywhere
close to insensitively are bound to be rejected
by the general public and banned from digital
marketplaces (BBC). Most people don’t see
these sorts of subject matter and the interactive
medium being things which can really shake
hands, even when discretion is advised. And
so what we can expect from developers is not
to cover these. We can expect them to know
that there’s a line that they can’t really
cross or even dance around without getting
some hate. And so when it comes to VR, we’d
expect the same sorts of restrictions apply,
the same sort of awareness from its developers,
right? Well, as someone who owns one of these
headsets and often performs searches for games
to play on it, lemme tell you… it doesn’t
seem that way.
When we say that games don’t cause violence…
I don’t feel like we’re talking about
stuff like Blood Trail, a VR exclusive game
which prides itself on being called “The
most violent game in VR” (Blood Trail).
What sets this game apart from most VR shooters
is its focus on realism. Simulated laws of
physics rule the game world, waves of bodies
tear apart and ragdoll by the intense forces
applied to them leaving behind blood splatters
of the most supposedly true to life shapes
and sizes. There’s a sandbox mode of course,
basically a virtual torture chamber where
you can experiement with whatever you want
and learn the best ways to off your foes…
I guess… in preparation for the main game
in which you shoot people… but it’s okay!
It’s okay! Because they’re not JUST people,
they’re fanatical cultists! See! They’re
bald and everything! And they’re also mostly
unarmed… and this guy would really much
like to be able to snap their necks...
A brief scroll-through of this game’s steam
reviews will reveal that… well a lot of
people aren’t super pleased with it. But
to a few people… it's fulfilling something
that I’m not really sure I’m comfortable
talking about. This is just a dumb game, a
really stupid fucking game, but its clear
its trying to be, without outright saying
it, a murder simulator. Its ability to be
that draws in people, and that’s fucking
freaky business.
Look, I’m all about artistic freedom and
I don’t think video games cause violence,
I think most of us feel the same. But when
we say that we’re not thinking of things
like this… this realistic physics and gore
driven cocaine cult shooting game with a torture
room mode that’s probably giving a few people
out there their kicks. If you want it to be,
this can be an approximation of mass shooting,
it can be an approximation of torture, and
of murder. I don’t know what playing something
like this, going into it thinking its just
fun entertainment, might do to you if you’re
not aware of the unique ways vr can fuck with
your mind. It makes me uncomfortable that
a game like this would be made and released
and sold with the lack of research that exists.
Sure, there’s no evidence right now for
us to worry about… but I don’t think that
means developers should go all the way to
extremes and assume everyone’ll be safe.
It seems pretty unethical and irresponsible.
Dr Wilson and associate bring this topic up
briefly and less slippery than myself as “Impermissible
Content” mentioning that certain red lines
might exist for virtual reality content and
that we’ll need to do more research to determine
if, at all, portrayal and interaction with
a certain level of sensory fidelity and realism
will be unacceptable for whatever reasons.
This research will be necessary to determine
what guidelines or restrictions might need
to be made. They mention this is important
in order to protect creators as well as consumers.
“Content creators”, they say, “should
be able to push the artistic and aesthetic
boundaries of their medium without potentially
harming their consumers or being falsely accused
of causing harm” (Wilson and McGill. 2018).
This isn’t the only game like this. I’ll
spare you the slew of pornographic vr games
that you know exist and instead show you the
absolutely ridiculous intersection, or, inter-sex-ion,
if you will… of sexual and violent content
in Sex-&-Gun-VR. This is not a joke, this
is an actual game where you have straight
male sex & gun down bad people…? I don’t
know, I have not played it. It’s just fucked
to me that something like this could exist
so openly, like not even try to hide itself
or anything. How is this shit so easy to access?
Why is there so much VR content out there
that seems to disregard the socially enforced
content rules we’ve established, as a community,
for games? Is it just because the VR market
is so small that there’s a lack of awareness
of these sorts of things being built? And
what are the ethics to consider from the creative
side?
Well, it turns out it might be more a cultural
thing. I spoke with Dr Stuart Thiel, an old
professor of mine who on the side of his faculty
responsibilities had at one point been in
charge of Concordia University’s games research
lab. A point that kept coming back up in our
interview was that Dr Thiel was concerned
with how creators in this new technology might
believe that any old rules would not apply
to them, that they could do whatever they
wanted and explore uncharted territory in
this medium. The excitement of a new technology
like this could have a liberating effect on
people who wish to try new things previously
considered a little weird.
Dr Thiel: “People learn what they wanna
learn. Tricking people into learning things
is, I mean I have some experience with that
as a university professor. But generally speaking
people learn on their own what they wanna
learn. You show them a door, they walk through.
If you make that door video game shaped and
kinda fun, then you might get a few more people
to walk through it. But these are people who
are actively choosing to learn a particular
skill and take away some idea of how they’re
going to apply that skill, and that’s true
in the classroom, and its gonna be true to
some extent in a video game as well. But I, but that’s,
I’m not making the, you know, ‘guns don’t
kill people, people kill people’ argument.”
Denis: “Yeah no. But you’re, yeah, no,
I get it. You’re basically saying like,
if people are actively trying to learn these
sorts of things, this is something they can
use to learn it, and they will seek it out
but people who are just generally looking
to have a good time playing a video game are
not necessarily gonna picking up on these
things.”
Dr Thiel: “No no, but I, I see that, it’s
just I’m not necessarily convinced about
all, all that, um. I’m more convinced, or
more concerned about the fact people feel
that they now have a opportunity and a conduite
to communicate a message that doesn’t have
the cultural barriers that we’ve put about,
put up about violence in our other art forms
and our other media. So, video games, and
in particular VR video games that are newer,
the fact they’re new means people could
break the rules, something like these sketchy
VR porn games you were referencing. This is
a new technology, its quote unquote disruptive,
and so people feel that they don’t have
to follow certain social conventions. And
I think that’s a bigger concern, but that’s
not about the game perpetuating the idea of
something problematic necessarily. Its about
the people who want to perpetuate these things
having, you know, a way to express these things
in a way that I think probably isn’t healthy.
I don’t think it helps people deal with
it, I think it helps them spin up and become
angry. And I suspect that’s more about creating
a message and creating a group around a message
than any actual game itself. Uh, what is the
video game they made about the columbine shooting?
I mean that was new when RPG Maker just came
out, that was a big deal. You could make your
own game about anything, so someone made a
game about that! And, I mean, not really VR,
this is as far from reality as you can get,
but, like, it was around this is someone said
‘I can express this thing that I’m feeling
in this way and advance that’ instead of
walking through it in society.”
And I agree with his point. You have to look
no further than another disruptive gaming
technology to see the same pattern we’re
seeing with VR now. Flash had major influence
on our perception of what gaming was back
in the 90’s to 2000’s and probably is
to credit for some of the foundation that
the industry sits on today, especially the
indie scene. Prior, games were for the most
part physical things you needed to go out
and buy, products controlled by ratings boards
and sold over the counter by stores willing
to sell them. Now, games could be published
and played directly on the web with nothing
but the most basic browser installed on, say,
the machines in your grade-school’s computer
lab. The ease with which flash games could
be developed and reached made this a double
threat. Not only was it easy to distribute
them, but anyone could make them. Flash was
a liberative creative force that showed the
world the likes of Heli Attack 2, of full-fledged
series like The Last Stand, of countless archery
games, (what the fuck was up with all of the
archery games!), but also, on the darker side,
things like the Torture Game where you’d
point and click on a dangling body to use
various torture weapons on it and cause as
much damage as possible while seeing how long
you could preserve the victim’s life. There’s
even, get this, an option to upload an image
of someone else’s face to the torturee…
hahaha that’s cool right? No that’s fucked.
But despite that we used to play it all the
time in the computer lab at school.
See, anything that frees us to produce more
creative works, or any sort of disruptive
technology linked to entertainment will no
doubt lead to the development of some fucked
up shit. In the case of Flash it’s ease
of use was unfortunately paired to ease of
publication which is why a bunch of canadian
grade-schoolers were able to spend hours peeling
skin off a half naked man’s body…
Reflecting back on vr now, maybe it's easier
to understand how by granting tons of people
access to a whole new medium of entertainment,
their creativity is naturally running wild.
Freedom to make art also means freedom to
make shit though, and so that’s probably
what we’re seeing happen here, something
that’s happened many times before in entertainment,
even in gaming. Ultimately though as the markets
mature, the ranges of content we should be
seeing coming out of vr devs’ heads and
studios should normalize out the extremes.
So while this is some real fucked up shit,
it's probably a necessary phase. So long as
it doesn’t persist too long, it shouldn’t
be something to worry about.
The bigger issue I see with vr is that while
there’s little to no evidence to suggest
that we actually worry about anything, there’s
also basically just one study about anything
close to the kind of VR I’m talking about
and even it suggests that we need more research
on this shit! You know, the kind of vr that
I’ve seen is very much alive given the online
multiplayer lobbies I’ve had little trouble
finding. The kind of vr that, myself semi-included,
many people are enjoying on a regular basis.
There isn’t just the ethics of the creative
side to consider when it comes to controlling
the progress of VR however, there’s also
the role of society at large.
At the moment, gaming culture is universally
and unconditionally in-support of graphical
advances and immersive tech. You’ll hear
people discuss and argue design and mechanics
‘till the world’s end, but you’ll never
hear someone wish the graphics were worse
or that the experience was less immersive.
Graphics and immersion, these sorts of things
even get the attention of non-gamer folk,
they transcend the medium’s regular boundaries.
When companies show off their latest cutting-edge
ray tracing engines or whatever else they’re
cooking up, we all clap, always. This view
of technology is called Technological Determinism.
Basically, it’s the belief that any technological
progress is progress in-and-of-itself, in
terms of… like, the human race and our advancement.
Any new developments and any new learnings
are always considered inherently good. “Progress
towards what?” is not a question you ask
because it's the belief that you can’t stop
progress, that technology is the key driver
of social change and then that it shouldn’t
be stopped.
A hard determinist view of technology would
for example lead us to construct things like
nuclear weapons and allow them to determine
the way we live. In reality though it's much
more complex. It’s neither technology or
society that determines the other, but rather
a broad set of multidirectional influences
that allow them to co-shape one another. Nukes
didn’t make the Cold War, just like the
stirrup didn’t make feudalism, and neither
the other ways around.
But when it comes to gaming and immersive
technologies like vr, any new tech that can
sell enough to cover its own costs seems welcome
at the table. The way we dance around gaming
tech to me looks a lot like technological
determinism, and I think this might be a dangerous
view to have, culturally. I mean, I don't
think you could argue that it’s a sustainable
way for us to view games. I hate to go all
best-case futurology for a minute, but if
the world doesn’t end, what we can expect
is that this technology will keep improving
and improving. I mean even just in the next
10 years, what will vr look like? And now
that modern smartphones are being used for
AR and VR, what’s gonna happen? Rumor has
it that the next generation of VR is gonna
be a lot about hand tracking, eye tracking,
foveated and varifocal displays which have
the potential to drastically improve graphical
performance and immersion on current-gen machines.
Little innovations with large impacts like
that will just keep happening as time goes
on. Someday far far far into the future, unless
something halts it, this technology’s final
form will probably be close to what we’d
call indistinguishable from reality… at
which point we know beyond a shadow of a doubt
that violence in it will have negative impacts
on people and society.
What I’m saying is that we’re not there
yet, but we’re heading in that direction
now, a direction where we know eventually
we’ll face an issue. Yes, there’s a lot
of things that could go wrong and stop us
from getting there, but, optimistically, if
we do… and I’m not talking 20 to 40 years,
but if humanity is still around a century
or two from now and this tech keeps progressing
the way its trending to, I think eventually
there will be a point along this line at which
time violence in this medium will be a problem.
Now why does this matter? Why am I talking
about this now, in 2019? Or fucking 2020 probably
by the time video comes out… Well, because
I think there’s also eventually going to
be a point at which it will be too late to
start establishing any sorts of rules or guidelines,
which are probably what we need. There’ll
come a point where if we haven’t already
considered the way we’re progressing, if
we haven’t already asked ourselves “progress
towards what?”, we won’t be able to stop
it once we realize that maybe we’re not
heading somewhere we like.
Who’s to say that point isn’t now? Or
won’t be in the next 20 - 40 years? Maybe
it's foveated rendering that’s the domino
piece that seals in the deal. Maybe it's more
advanced haptics. Maybe it’s portability
and hand tracking which we have now. Maybe
it’s some special combination of these which’ll
seal our doom. I don’t know. But what I
do know is that with momentum building it
can at some point become too late to give
things a little bit more thought... it can
never be too early though.
So let’s ask. Should we be treating vr differently,
socially? And how could we?
Well one way, as Dr Wilson and associates
suggest in their study, is to rate vr games
differently. As they determined when comparing
VR and non-VR play of the same game, “the
two formats led to meaningfully different
experiences”, which most importantly presents
the case “that current game ratings may
be unsuitable for capturing and conveying
VR experiences” (Wilson and McGill. 2018).
They go on to explain basically what I’ve
been saying throughout this whole video but
much less sensationally, that “issues of
sensitive or extreme content in video games,
particularly violence, are a recurring social
concern [despite] there [being] no strong
evidence that playing violent video games
leads to long-term violent or anti-social
behaviour [or] cognition”. BUT, “because
of the demonstrable effects [its] experiences
can have, VR introduces a new angle to this
debate”. When it comes to ratings, they
explain that “as VR increasingly tends toward
realism”, it’ll be necessary to know how
players and users will be affected in order
to “provide accurate and robust content
ratings and descriptions”.
So of course, the call to action is to push
more research into this direction. We currently
don’t know much about this subject, and
if I may add some of my own opinion (not that
I haven’t throughout this whole video) but
it doesn’t seem like we’re on the right
track to know more right now about this subject.
It would be a terrible event for them commercially,
but maybe creators of VR headsets could be
held accountable to fund research into how
their disruptive technology might negatively
impact us. Maybe like cigarette companies,
they could be forced to label their packaging
with the potentially ugly consequences the
use of their products can have.
I mean side note, but even the just the nausea
and motion sickness issue. Could we force
oculus and htc and the rest of em to fund
research on that? One of the biggest hurdles
in finally making the purchase of my own headset
was knowing there’d be a chance I’d be
one of those people who never quite gets used
to it, that I’d constantly feels sick while
playing. And honestly I’m not really out
of the woods there yet. I’ve gotten better…
but I can still easily and suddenly get whacked
into a cold sweat and belly ache by the most
innocuous situations. And it’s baaaad fucking
nausea, it’s debilitating, fucks you up
for a whole day. Gut pain, dizziness, weakness,
sweating, dry mouth, and vomit and loose poos
to write home about. It’s gotten better,
but it sucked paying so much money for something
that I just couldn’t find any decent statistics
on. Just gimme a percentage, that’s all
I ask. I feel like they should be obliged
to tell during purchase, “hey there’s
an X percent chance you’ll feel incredibly
ill when using this product”. Fuck me, man.
This is stupid money for something that might
not work!
When it comes to console stuff, VR isn’t
really vibing. For PlayStation VR, ratings
of special-case games like Resident Evil 7
which can be played in and out of VR include
a little disclaimer which isn’t enough.
Any VR content should be reviewed as a standalone
experience, no matter if the same material’s
been rated before for a different platform.
The bigger fish though is PC, where most hardcore
VR game playing occurs.
Steam for instance doesn’t have expert game
content ratings. Anything similar is either
added at the discretion of the publisher themselves
or generated by the community, like content
tags. However important to note, unlike other
retailers who might be restricted from selling
physical games to children below the age suggested
by the ESRB or PEGI rating on the box, nothing
stops a child from just clicking ‘okay’
and getting whatever they want on Steam (Will
Freeman, askaboutgames.com). And trust me,
a lot of them do. I’ve seen a lot of kids
making a mess of things in tactical military
simulators. Sometimes it’s just a harmless
kid frivolously charging forward into battle,
not having been weathered long enough by this
world to fear death yet.
And sometimes it’s some Lord of the Flies
fucking shit: organized kids teaming up on
you and endlessly spawn killing you. Aka,
hell itself.
So another option aside of rating them differently,
should we maybe be selling VR tech and games
differently? Sure. But does that then turn
sale of VR headsets into a gun-control sort
of conversation? No, because unlike weapons
which, no matter what light you shine on them
are always weapons, it’s the content which
is played on these headsets that could be
the problematic cause of harm.
So if this is the approach we take, selling
VR differently, it shouldn’t be on the sellers
of headsets but instead the salesfronts of
games that we focus. Should we ask them to
take more control over what they publish and
sell for VR? Or otherwise find some way to
control what certain underprivileged users
like children are allowed to buy? Or are simple
content warnings sufficient? Keep in mind,
these are games folks don’t just watch from
a couch, they wrap them around their whole
heads which makes vulnerable their psyche.
In general, I think a lot of headaches would
be avoided if more awareness were made about
how VR experiences are different than traditional
screen-based ones. And since this is the case,
since there’s evidence to prove it, all
parties involved in selling the VR experience
(whether they be stores, publishers, rating
organizations or even developers) should be
held accountable to properly inform their
potential customers about what they’re getting
into.
This of course is just my opinion, but we’re
already seeing some of this sort content awareness
among some VR stakeholders and it seems like
it comes from a place of good intention. For
example, a developer of a VR horror game who
implemented an out-of-ammo fail-state because
of what they deemed an otherwise really uncomfortable
and frightening experience (Ben Kuchera, Polygon).
So what can each of these groups do to better
redirect VR into what’s probably a better
track then it's on now?
Well first of all, rating orgs could develop
a new ratings system specific to VR. The console-based
roots of some of these organizations has meant
that VR has up until very recently flown outside
of the scope of their purpose. With the current
and next-generation consoles dabbling in it
though, this might be the right opportunity
for someone like the ESRB to establish a dedicated
framework for rating VR content which we could
then later apply to the slew of currently
unrated PC VR games. At the very least, as
VR is currently looking to straddle the gap
between console and PC, these organizations
can put more effort into rating separately
such bifunctional hybrid VR games like Resident
Evil 7.
Publishers could do more to disclose the intensity
of the realism of their games. Its been shown
that the disclaimers currently posted might
not be enough. This is especially important
when the games being published contain sensitive
content like violence or anything else that
might hurt or disturb someone. Also, gonna
sound like a broken record here, but they
could distinguish more strongly the differences
between their games which are playable in
and out of VR. Simply including a description
of the non-VR mode with a little blurb about
VR attached might not be enough. As far as
publishers go, it’s their job basically
to make sure the players see all the signs
before heading down the road to VR.
Stores, physical and digital, could disclose
content warnings on VR games that stand to
disturb some players at the point of sale
or even enforce restrictions all together
when it's clear a certain person shouldn’t
be getting their hands on a game whether by
age or some other factor. This is something
we’ll never be able to eliminate entirely,
but stores could definitely enforce policies
of informing parents of minors who come in
to buy a headset or a VR game for their kid.
On the more extreme side, marketplaces on
which VR games are sold could outright ban
titles with subject matter unsuitable for
entertainment that common sense would tell
you are impermissible for VR… at least until
some proper studies come out that show the
all-clear. I’m not for artistic censorship,
but I don’t think we need to be selling
a fucking VR torture room game anywhere. I
don’t really care what anyone thinks, judge
me, whatever, I don’t think this is right,
I think this should be taken down, like, fucking
today. It makes me uncomfortable to think
that people play this. I happen to know a
lot of people who are into VR and it would
make me uncomfortable to know that any of
them played something like this. This sort
of shit, people either are only playing for
shock value or to make a point in a fucking
video essay… or for some sort of dark fucked
up reason I don’t think a sales platform
like Steam should be catering to. Again, at
least not until we have actual studies out
telling us that this shit is fine. Which…
fucking good luck ya bozos.
Developers, probably one of the most important
groups, can do a lot.
First of all, to mitigate the potential harm,
they can include safety modes in their games.
Many already do offer such accommodations,
which was something really surprising to me
entering the VR party so late into the game.
Often these are referred to as ‘comfort’
settings and most have to do with physical
and physiological limitations. Most of these
displays and locomotive options are they’re
there to prevent you from bumping into your
surroundings, tangling yourself up in cables,
or getting too nauseous by sharp unnatural
movements. But there are some games which
on top of considering the physical also deal
with what might be mental health comfort controls.
The best example is VR Chat which enables
a personal-space option by default, preventing
you from seeing any other players who approach
too closely. Turning it off and letting something
like this happen can be a deeply uncomfortable
and claustrophobic situation to say the least.
VR Chat has a lot of other nice-to-have comfort
and safety options that other games would
do well to follow as a standard. Basically
what I’m saying is I’d like to see more
of this coming from VR devs. Just like I’d
like to hear more stories of designers acknowledging
the unique impacts of their medium and changing
experiences that would’ve been been fine
to have on a regular screen but are a bit
too much on a headset.
Look, basically, there’s a difference between
seeing someone holding a knife to what’s
implied to be your neck but is really just
the bottom of your tv screen a living-room’s
distance away, and seeing someone hold one
to your actual neck. And since this is the
case and not everyone will be cool with that,
there should be a way to turn that off. You
know, have maybe alternative less-threatening
animations for players who still wanna play
a game in VR but don’t wanna have to seek
therapy after.
So, here we are, we’ve made it to the end
of this video. Let's WRAP things up with a
little recap. Thank you Matt, for the joke.
That’s another 20 bucks. This video’s
got a budget.
[gross eating sounds]
No this is chicken. They got the order wrong.
Who the fuck wants… okay. Who the fuck wants
a chicken souvlaki? Chicken, lowest level.
Here’s, okay. This is the official souvlaki
pita ranking list, okay, tier list. Chicken,
okay? Beef, okay? Lamb, okay? Gyro! This fucking,
when you order gryo and the fuck up your order
and they don’t give you something but, they
give you the lowest possible denominator…
assholes. Give me free potatoes I didn’t
order. Thanks! That makes up for getting literally
the, like, three fucking notches down the
worst fucking souvlaki, dumbasses. This is
the dumbest fucking bullshit. This ruins the
video. The whole video is fucking trash now
because they gave me the wrong fucking souvlaki.
The potatoes are better than the fucking pita.
It’s like, it’s, and it’s co- you know
what? Gyro? That’s why I put them in the
fridge! Because we got them and I was like,
oh lets put em in the fridge, gyro is great
cold. Chicken is bullshit cold! Okay, it’s
not so bad. But like, it’s not as good as,
like, gyro.
What’ve we learned? Well, first of all,
violence in video games is a very popular
topic, even today. Though we’ve shown more
ways than wednesday there are no strong links
between violence in games and actual real
world violence, virtual reality is possibly
standing to change what we think of as games.
Studies of past immersive technologies have
demonstrated that what weak influences violent
games did have on aggressive thoughts and
behaviors were amplified by them. They attributed
this to sensations of presence and immersion,
both from the visual and motion-control side
of things, which when you buy a VR kit these
days is exactly what’s in the box. These
feelings of presence and body-ownership and
realism crafted by VR technology and it’s
content developers are exactly the things
that can also leave harmful effects on us
psychologically. They can make us respond
to virtual experiences as though they were
real… which is why they’re a really good
match for both therapy and training. From
workplace safety to military applications,
treatment of PTSD, VR’s ability to convince
us of its unrealism can be a powerful learning
tool.
So the questions reads: if this technology
is used for learning in other domains, does
that mean people will learn from the violent
experiences they have gaming with the same
technology? Will players of violent VR video
games become violent people? Pick up violent
skills. No, or probably not, or maybe… but
not yes.
Consider the worst case, lets ask ourselves
what we can do about this. Creators can be
more concious of what they’re making and
try not to make horrible fucking garbage.
And we, as a society, can be more aware of
the direction vr is progressing and stand
up and make noise when or if we don’t like
it. We can talk to all manner of stakeholders
about treating VR a little bit differently
than other games, show them the evidence as
to why they ought to. Developers seem to already
understand this, but the places games are
sold and those who publish them there aren’t
putting in the effort quite just yet and probably
need to be addressed by us. Hopefully sooner
rather than later, before anyone gets hurt.
In case it wasn’t clear, this video is mostly
my opinion. Don’t take my word as shit,
I’m just some dude. Yeah I did-
[gunfire interrupts]
I’m gonna get somewhere safe. Ah, damnit!
Yes, did a lot of research and yes and had
a lot of people help me out with either writing
or answering interview questions, and trust
me there were originally gonna be a lot more
interviews… I just got ghosted by a few.
But that doesn’t change who this video comes
from: me. I’m not a journalist, I’m just
some dude, some dumb fucking dude, and this
is kinda just a big, hopefully well structured
editorial made to raise awareness of something
I think more people should be thinking about.
My goal isn’t to convince you that VR is
gonna fucking ruin the world, it’s just
to make you think about it a little bit more.
I’m here talking so that the next time someone
blindly regurgitates “video games don’t
cause violence”, you can offer a “BUT
maaaaybe”… “BUT maaaaybe VR”.
But… that’s all it is, a BUT. I’ll be
honest, its been hard playing devil’s advocate
throughout this whole discussion when most
times I entered VR game lobbies expecting
to capture some hardcore violent gameplay
footage to use in the video, I’d come away
with mostly just… hope in humanity.
LambHoot: “If you don’t mind I have a
few questions I could ask you guys?”
Dude: “Sure, let me just kill my friend
here.”
[gunshot]
LambHoot: “Perfect”
[gunshot]
LambHoot: “[laughing], good, good, good
stuff.”
We’re a weird animal. We can spend exuberant
amounts of money to put virtual guns in our
hands and wear goggles that transport us to
non-existent battlefields where we can lay
waste to our enemies in gory immersive bloodbaths…
and yet we’ll still take the time to make
complete goofy asses of ourselves for the
sake of having fun.
LambHoot: “[laughing] guys look, we can
get a couke! You wanna have a nice cold couke?”
Dude 1: “a couke?”
Dude 2: “aaay anybody got any quarters?”
LambHoot: “Nice”
Dude on left: [grunting sounds]
Dude on right: [belly laughing]
Dude on left: “[laughing] I’m working
out”
Sure, screens and the depthless view they
present may keep us protected from harm as
they’re an easily perceived border between
a game world and reality. But as VR permits
us to pass through that boundary (or at the
very least look into the screen rather than
at it), it’s clear that what a lot of people
see on the other side isn’t harmful. Instead
they’ve found the means to be more creative,
more expressive, and to make a total mockery
of their surroundings, which is what I think
are some of the things people do best.
If you’re interested in any of the materials
I used to prepare this video, I’ll have
a list of resources in the description.
This project has been no doubt my largest
and I couldn’t have done it without all
the help I received. I’ve never actually
had writing help on a video before, but this
one necessitated it. There are too many people
to thank so I’ll try to include as many
of you willing to be acknowledged in the description
as possible. Thanks again of course to Dr
Wilson and Dr Thiel who agreed to let me interview
them. And thanks to those who were willing
to take a few minutes out of their games to
be questioned by me in Onward. That’s actually
how this whole video began… I wanted it
to be like a battlefield reporter sort of
bit, but I figured its a topic that deserves
a little bit more seriousness.
That’s all I’ve got. From my reality to
yours, have a… a decent day? You’d think
a decade in on this damn website I’d know
how to end a video. How about a poem?
[distant caugh]
Virtual Reality is red,
Virtual Reality is blue,
Virtual Reality in bed?
Virtual Reality 2!?!?!?!???!!?!!?!?!
That’s it.
hello and welcome to the end screen!
[Hi, just wanted to let you know that I no
longer
fully caption my endscreens anymore. It takes
a really really
long time and I typically don't say much of
any importance here.
If really would like to know what I'm saying
here though, please
feel free to reach out and I'll be happy to
let you know. With that, here are the
automatically generated captions, I hope they're
okay. Thanks!]
this
is um it is 1:18 a.m. on Christmas Eve at
this point December 24th I've been just
kind of working on this video basically
all day today and yesterday and every
day
this video has almost killed me and
that's a joke but you know most I don't
a few people know this I've said this
before but actually what I do if it's a
little bit if you're like prone to very
quickly add to a dark headspace maybe
just like pause right now but basically
um sometimes I get a little bit paranoid
when you're working on a big video
project like this I'm worried like you
know it's it's like a year you're slowly
building it up and then I wonder like
what if like one day I just get hit by a
bus and the video it just doesn't
fucking come out there's like thing that
I want like I wish like at least like
the work in progress can be released so
what I actually do is just in case the
video does actually kill me
I pre-render every basically every night
that I work on it I do a pre render and
I upload that to my second channel ram
hoot or now I believe it's called lamb
who are H and I I scheduled it for the
future so basically for for this whole
video I was scheduling all my backups to
upload and like when I say all my
backups I mean 30 fucking 50 go back up
to upload on May 1st I just a number of
months away just in case I got hit by a
bus and I'm saying that I I joke about
that but literally like a few days after
talking to some friends about that I saw
a lady get hit by a bus on my way to
work and I was like wow if I had left
early that could have been me because I
had left late that day and then that
actually I thought about making this
video episodic after that some people
thought it was episodic after the intro
it's it was never meant to be it was
always meant to be just one big-ass
fucking
one fat log so to those of you because I
know there are a lot of new people
who've recently joined for those of you
who are not in the loop typically at the
end of the video I do a little thing
called an end screen where even at this
point we don't have annotations on
YouTube anymore but I still just show up
and I just talk about some shit that
couldn't really make it into the video
but given that it's now what a 1:21 a.m.
on Christmas Eve and I have plans
tomorrow I'm not gonna talk about
anything and and not actually just
because of that but I did have a plan
for this so basically there is a lot of
stuff that I did want to originally I
wanted to just do in the end screen
there were things that didn't make it
into the final video because either I
couldn't work them in or I couldn't find
any sources for a lot of things for
instance there's gonna be like the
violence aspect then on the social
aspect but one of the one of the things
I wanted to talk about on the social
aspect was virtual reality sex and not
like with like the robots like I talked
like I did to show that one weird sex in
gun VR but this was like more like
people having intimate relations with
with each other and there's this thing
called the the phantom touch which
basically like until VR it was really
sure like how many people actually could
like could feel this experience this
phenomena but anyways was like it was
just a really awkward conversation as
you can no doubt tell and I could I
could not find a single source on VR sex
you'd think it'd be a hot topic I don't
know what I was talking about but what I
wanted oh yeah other things I want to
tell you I wanted to talk about sports
how basically a lot of the shit that you
can you can say about VR and how you
know these these physical activities
that you do can like make you
temporarily aggressive basically all of
this applies to sports also but I these
were just discussions that didn't really
fit in by the video hopefully if you
watched it this far you saw that it had
kind of an air
of path that I was driving it through
and there were detours I could have
taken but they would have detracted from
really the road I wanted to take I'm so
tired
so yeah anyways there are a couple of
things that I have a list of other
things that I can't remember them for
the fucking life with me right now but
basically what I plan to do is instead
of adding them all here because this
video is long enough
it's fucking long enough what I'm gonna
do is is actually the same thing I did
for actually kind of a very similar in
tone to this video the what I call the
gen-x video please don't watch it I
don't think it well maybe does a few
people tell me it's pretty good but like
I can't watch that without cringing and
mostly for some video editing hiccups
that I did that I'm really really not
happy with but anyways but it was what I
did with that one what I'm gonna do with
this one is make I kind of leave this
video out for mmm excuse me for like a
week or two oh my got some phlegm in my
throat and then once it's had a moment
to sit I figure I'm probably gonna
really receive a lot of feedback some
positive some negative there are
differently things that I will be
corrected on like I'm publishing this
video knowing that there are a couple of
mistakes a couple of inconsistencies a
couple of things I say that are there
could be interpreted as outright wrong
but I have a reason for the way I'm
saying them but I'm not I'm not gonna
sit here like this is a video it's meant
to entertain you really really quickly
I'm not gonna sit here and explain to
you why I'm calling a certain thing a
certain thing when really someone else
might call it anyway I'm talking about
the fact that time crisis for does
actually have a first-person mode
basically is what I'm saying and I know
people are gonna give me shit for that
but that it it's not like like I'm sorry
fuck you if you think time crisis force
first-person mode isn't a light gun
shooter it's just a fucking light gun
shooter it's a light gun shooter where
you move a window it's fucking dumb but
there are a couple of other things like
just the fact that this video took over
half a year I don't even know the
original start date but the fact that it
took so long it was like every day I was
working on it they were like new
developments and
you are an AR that I was like god
fucking dammit like I had like
extrapolated this idea and then suddenly
there was like this clip of maybe you've
seen it but like that clip of like the
pass-through technology they were using
for the the AR helicopter pilot
simulators I was like fuck like if only
the like I can't I could show the
footage but I can't it's too late for my
script so I can't and there's a lot of
shit in this video that I'm definitely
it's very time-sensitive it's not just
the fact that it had the year in the
title it's there was a it's a very it's
a very relevant topic right now VR has
never been as relevant as right fucking
now
so yeah just so basically all that to
say if you're interested in whatever the
fuck follow-up I might make to this go
ahead and check out my second channel or
don't don't subscribe to it if you don't
want to because it's a fucking mess as I
regularly like upload just like dozens
of videos in like a day and it ruins
anyone who subscribed Twitter subscriber
feed because I just like upload gameplay
footage to it sometimes so don't don't
bother subscribing to it what I'll do is
when I make this when and if if if it's
worth it I probably probably do it but
when I if and when I do make this
follow-up video what I'll end up doing
is I'll make a community post on this
channel to drive you to that if you're
interested in any of the things so I'll
just collect everyone's feedback I
figure you know from the jeddak's video
for my experience with that a lot of the
feedback will be very very similar among
people so I'll be able to like
conglomerate conglomerate
there's a word I want to use but it's
too late or too early in the morning to
find it in my brain and with that I'm
gonna cut to some footage of something
else while I read off the names of my
active patrons which I just found out I
can't do off my phone so I have to do it
on my computer screen by the way this is
the video this is the this is the
timeline for it or as I call it the
slides these are these are the slides
for the this what you're watching
basically one as soon as I'm done this
I'm gonna turn that off and turn this
off and put it all together I'm gonna
put it at the end over here make a
little nice edit it'll probably take
like an hour and and then I'm just gonna
hit render and I'm gonna go to sleep and
I'm gonna pray that the render is done
by before I have to go through my dad's
tomorrow for Christmas Eve anyway it's
always the same my patrons are you guys
who pay me money to make videos
sometimes that mean it's pretty good
deal some people some sugar creators
charge once a month I made this took
like what like seven months ago I get
charged twice a year I swear I'm gonna
make more videos at a regular pace but
we've got your boy Austin green we got
cosmic crowns we've got disgruntled
mushroom we got the final blue man we've
got Glen stron we've got you know it you
know it Grant wailing oh baby yeah we've
got Isaac Holland we've got the just
Wally and we've got Kiwi and we've got
Matthew Steven and we've got Nathan
Walker and we've got Tito's
and we've got vin jock and we've got
William Van Zandt
and that's all you motherfuckers and I
do have something important to say I was
gonna make a patreon poster but I
totally fucking forgot if you are one of
the patrons or if you're someone
considering patronizing me that's I
reorganized my tier list and I created
like a tier below what some of you guys
are actually like currently pledging to
me but it didn't it doesn't seem like it
automatically gave it to you
which is weird so like feels like
honestly I don't know if I don't need
your pledges but I do really appreciate
them but like feel free to like readjust
like I think I've been in this situation
before with people I patreon I think
what I had to do was like cancel cancel
cancel my pledge and then repledge and
then I got the thing or I think you can
actually when you edit your pledge if
you just click Edit and then click Save
it automatically does it but it's kind
of shit that like on my end I can't
automatically give you guys a thing I
think I basically added a new benefit
where you will receive my scripts which
I guess for this one I'll do oh we're
gonna have to cut this short because I'm
feeling a rumbly in my tumbly I gotta
take a shit but anyways if any if you
enjoyed any part of this video other
than this bit because this bit is
bullshit you if you're interested in
supporting my dumb ass you can join the
rest of these folks lovely folks on
patreon and give me like a one Canadian
dollar that gives me about I can go to
the dollar AMA and pick up a pencil or
something but honestly a better way and
I'm a more personal way to support me
that I really enjoy much more is if
you're interested I sell multiple
t-shirts so the bit is that I design one
p'tee shirt per video so you can
basically browse through my shirts as if
you browse through my uploads which i
think is pretty cool most of the time
it's it's the shirt is based on a joke
in the video I don't know what it'll be
for this one but
hopefully it'll be out at the same time
as the video if it's not it might be a
few days later I'll tweet about it it'll
it'll be up there and if you get ash if
you get a shirt that's really cool I
that's like the cause of this the thing
I don't need I don't really really need
support it's really really appreciated
but if you're gonna if you're really
interested in you I mean it does cost
much more than having a patreon pledge
but I think it's really really cool just
to know that like someone is wearing
something I made and if you send me a
picture of yourself in a goofy ass shirt
I will most likely in especially if it's
in a strange place I will most
definitely fucking retweet that shit the
problem is a lot of my shirts I really
really like the designs that I come up
with but like too many of them have my
face on them and so I can't wear them my
cell like any one of the shirts that
does not have my face I have like I have
one where it's just my face in a toilet
and it's for the one where I I made that
video about Resident Evil 7 called I'm
sick and tired of Resident Evil 7 where
the joke is that I was actually sick
when I recorded the video so I was just
like sneezing during the recording and
it was fucking horrible and it was such
a good joke get it cuz I'm sick and
tired of Resident Evil 7 is fine but I
can't wear that shirt because it has my
own face I've had shirts taken down for
like weird they wouldn't let me sell a
shirt with well eventually they did but
it was I was a uphill it was an uphill
battle to let to get them to let me sell
a shirt with a picture of myself as a
child on it because they thought it was
just a picture of some child like which
I get is totally fucking weird but like
it was it was me as a kid anyways I did
and there was a copyright issue with I
won but I did some weird shit to make it
pass and it passed and it is a fucking
weird shirt right now so many of those
shirts started off as an idea and then
got like flagged too many times and have
just mutated to the point that they're
like the original concept is just not
there anyway it's not present the shirt
is just something else I'm sorry I'm not
even making eye contact with the camera
my I'm so tired I wanted this end screen
to be like a minute it's probably
anyways that's it please anticipate the
follow up video sometime I don't fucking
know and again don't don't bother if you
if you want to see that video and you
don't want to subscribe to my second
channel that is 100 M fine you don't
need to my second channel is like I said
it's a garbage dump I'll be posting it
I'll be community tabbing and whatever
the fuck it is to this page and you will
if you are interested you will see it
it's been a really strange year oh yeah
I know some of you guys were hoping that
I would do the Game of the Year video
for those of you not in the loop every
year I do a Game of the Year video but
the the the bit is that like halfway
through the the games on the list are
not games like I have awarded Game of
the Year to a friend of mine once I have
awarded Game of the Year to a festival
in Wisconsin I have and you know enough
set you can go watch those if you want
and oh shit my camera's out of space I
got turned off okay everybody that's it
my camera is officially out of memory I
gotta fuckin go bye bye
