When is it okay to attack your friends?: Professor defends competitive gaming

Game violence seems to be the hot-button issue for concerned parents who are bothered by their teenagers chatting into headsets while blasting away crowds of starving zombies.

But during C. Thi Nguyen’s Monday afternoon lecture in Utah State University’s Old Main building, he presented a seemingly counterintuitive defense for the violence in the competitive gaming world.

Nguyen, a professor at Utah Valley University, claims there isn’t an apparent major difference between “playing Grand Theft Auto and watching Breaking Bad.”

To preface his argument, he said most people think about violent gaming in graphic, visual ways that relate to cinema. So what differentiates violent films from violent games?

“In games, we actually do things to other people,” Nguyen said.

The word “games” in this context refers to not only video games, but also board games, sports and other competitive activities, which implies that the violence is not always physical or gory.

Nguyen said the distinction of video games from other media serves as an important step to understanding the role of competitive gaming. As Nguyen explained it, “You can take hostile actions and turn them into pleasure … (multiplayer games) are a conversion engine for violent impulses.”

There’s an underlying value to what sounds like a terrifying explanation for the role of competitive games, Nguyen said. To oppose the growing world of gaming, many claim investing time and energy into a game is a “zero-sum activity.” Yet, Nguyen’s idea of a “conversion engine” makes the activity much more productive. To explain why, he made connections to other philosophers.

In Bernard Suit’s book, “The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia,” he explains the function and purpose of games. Nguyen summarized this point this way: “Playing a game is voluntarily taking up (arbitrary) obstacles for the sake of overcoming them.”

This leads us to Nguyen’s overall point: the importance of the “disposable end.” If gamers take up these obstacles simply for the experience of prevailing against them, it is implied that the end goal is far less significant.

Do people sit at the table with a Monopoly board for hours trying to take over each other’s property because they want bragging rights? Do they sit in front of a computer screen collaborating with friends to kill an “x” number of zombies?

A majority of people who enjoy competitive gaming aren’t just seeking to achieve a specific goal. They want the experience. When they reach the end, they “dispose” of it by seeking out another experience. And another. And another.

To put this into more plain terms, “disposable ends” make a game productive. If the player just cares about winning, then suddenly these games become a zero-sum activity.

Consider this example Nguyen gave about a cancer researcher: “If you’re doing cancer research to save other people, you’re working. If you’re doing it for the money, you’re working. If you just want a good challenge and this happens to be the most interesting challenge, you’re playing.”

—danielle.green624@gmail.com