3. PETER GRAY
A blog entry from psychology Ph.D. holder Peter Gray discusses the benefits of playing
videogames, the studies from which these facts originated, and tackling the reasons that
videogames have been attacked throughout the years, and his rebuttal as to why he
believes these attacks are fear-mongering false claims. He breaks down the attacks on
videogames into the 3 most common complaints. (1) that videogames make people
socially isolated (2) that they reduce the chance for outdoor activities and therefore lead
to obesity and physical health issues and (3) they promote violence in kids if they contain
violent content.
However diving into research literature actually reveals the opposite to be true, and for
the third point about violence, he argues that if violent content causes violence in
children, then wouldn't that extend to other sources not just video games? For instance
William Shakespeare's account of Hamlet's murder of his stepfather? Only difference is
children are made to read Hamlet in school. He argues that making friends in
videogames, which has become an increasing trend with the increasing popularity of
online gaming, requires the same level of social skills as making friends in real life. Due
to the fact that video game developers now design their games in a way that player on
player interaction becomes almost a must to progress, it allows people playing these
games to develop those social skills necessary to make friends, both in the video game
4. PSYPOST (THE SIMON TASK)
A website that backs up the idea of the video games having more benefits than negative
consequences is the website 'Psypost'. For example they state that players of action
based video games have a lower threshold for contrast recognition in visual processing
network, which basically means they can identify changes in contrast quicker. Studies
have also shown a correlation between playing action based video games and a quicker
response time. A study by University of Leicester researcher Claire V. Hutchinson and her
colleagues examined how video game training may impact the selective and inhibitory
aspects of attentional control. This was accomplished by exploiting a known conflict in
the attention system called the Simon Effect. The Simon effect is rather simple,
essentially it's the description of the slowing of reaction times due to stimulus-response
at it's source and responding devices are moved away from each other in regards to
physical proximity.
In this experiment there were 60 participants who had no video game experience
whatsoever, they were all asked to complete a test designed to elicit and measure the
Simon effect, it involved targets on a screen and triggers in each hand. They were then
told to respond with a certain trigger depending on the shape and colour of the target
on screen, the reaction times to these tasks were slower when horizontal location of the
5. PSYPOST (THE SIMON TASK)
However this was just the initial phase to the experiment, after completing this task they
were then assigned to 4 groups randomly, the first 2 were to play an action game for one
hour a day for 10 days, the only element being altered being the gaming system that was
used. The third group did the same training but on a visual training video game I.e. not
action based, and the final group acted as a control group with no training at all. After this
10 day period was up subjects were once again asked to repeat the initial task and as
predicted those who had the training based off action video game training had the quickest
response time. The conclusion they drew from this experiment was the video game
experience could indeed improve the cognitive processes by reducing the impact of conflicts
between stimulus and response locations.
6. CURRENT BIOLOGY
Another study published by Current Biology looks at the benefits of playing video games to
see whether improved probabilistic inference may explain such broad transfer. "By using a
visual perceptual decision making task to show for the first time that action video game
experience does indeed improve probabilistic inference". Essentially this was to test whether
or not videogames could improve your ability to predict future actions.
To test the hypothesis they had gamers and non-gamers take part in a simple experiment, a
dot direction discrimination task, meaning they had to predict where the dot was going to
move on the graph to map out the path for it. "if action video-game players do make better
use of the evidence, we should find an increase in the absolute value of the log odds in their
model. This is indeed what was observed, with the log odds being 19% higher on average
across all gamer subjects". Simplifying this again it means that all test results concluded
that people who play video games regularly had a 19% higher success rate in predicting the
path of the dot onscreen.
7. HEALTH
The website 'Health' research towards Alzheimer's and Dementia state that puzzle games
can help improve memory, but it is circumstantial. The idea that video games can make
you smarter is something that has been exaggerated and if not then debunked as a myth
entirely. For people who were showing a decline in mental health regarding memory they
carried out a test where they played these memory games and the conclusion was that
they did indeed have increased memory ability. However the catch to this is that most of
the training took place in groups with supervision, meaning that this method may have
been less helpful for people at home by themselves.
On the other hand when people who were already diagnosed with Dementia took this test
it had no effect, meaning that this method seems to be more effective in the early stages
of life when the subjects are younger or/and when they're mental health is still in pique
condition. Several software programmes and games in the past have been marketed for
memory enhancement, however experts say that any sort of mental boost from these
programmes/games is down to a kind of placebo effect.
While there is little scientific evidence to support these claims, repeated studies of brain
training exercises, even online versions had a benefit on people who weren't yet
diagnosed with dementia, provided that they did so in a group, doing so alone had no
8. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC (EYESIGHT)
Once again it links back to action based video games, a report from the National
Geographic suggests that game such as Unreal tournament, Halo and Call of duty can
actually improve eyesight. An ability called contrast sensitivity function, allows people to
detect in even subtle changes in shades of grey, one of the first abilities that decays with
age. Which why according to the university of Rochester, a regular video game training
regimen can have long lasting visual power, previous research shows that gaming can
improve another set of visual skills. According to work led by Daphne Bavelier from the
university of Rochester, not to be confused with Daphne Bavelier from the university of
Geneva, who is also a professor in the same field that I also mention in this research. This
includes the ability to track several objects at the same time as paying attention to a
series of fast moving events Bavelier said, "A lot of different aspects of the visual system
are being enhanced, not just one".
"You need to retrain the brain to make use of the better, crisper information that's coming
in" as a result of your improved eyesight, she said. In an experiment of expert action
gamers playing games like Call of Duty and experienced non-action gamers playing Sims
(life simulator), the players of Sims didn't see the same benefits of those playing Call of
Duty, so why is it that action based video games can sharpen visual abilities?
"It may be that locating enemies and aiming accurately is a strenuous, strength-building
workout for the eyes", she said. Another possible explanation is that the unpredictable,
constant changing environment of an action game requires players to monitor vast
9. BBC (AGGRESSION)
Aggression has been at the core of videogame controversies since the inception of the
violent videogame genre, the idea is that violent games such as Mortal Kombat, Call of Duty
and Hitman elicits violent behavior in young people. However this idea has been largely
debunked as the BBC suggests. In 2015 "over 200 academics openly signed a letter
criticizing the controversial research suggesting a link between aggression and
videogames". The findings however were released by the American Psychological
Association, (APA) they stated that video are one of the factors that can be linked to
aggression, however it cannot pinned down to a singular factor alone. "The research
demonstrates a consistent relation between violent video game use and increases in
aggressive behavior, aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect, and decreases in pro-
social behavior, empathy and sensitivity to aggression," according to the report. What this
means is that the research showed that playing violent videogames led to an increase in
anti-social behavior, aggressive tendencies and an increase in being prone to anger.
A large group of academics criticized the methodology of the research as a large portion of
the material used in the research had not been subjected to peer review, this means that
much of the material had been published without being reviewed by other professionals,
leading people to question the validity of the research. "I fully acknowledge that exposure
to repeated violence may have short-term effects - you would be a fool to deny that - but
the long-term consequences of crime and actual violent behavior, there is just no evidence
linking violent video games with that," Dr Mark Coulson, associate professor of psychology
at Middlesex University.
10. BBC (AGGRESSION)
The same taskforce from the APA stated that more research would be required to establish
a link between videogames and violent behavior, however 230 academics from varying
universities openly signed a letter to the APA, saying that youth violence in the US and
around the world is currently standing at a 40 year low point.
"This decline in societal violence is in conflict with claims that violent video games and
interactive media are important public health concerns," they wrote. The Oxford Internet
Institute wrote last in 2014, suggested the idea that the inability to play a game is more
likely to bring out aggressive behavior, rather than the contents of the game itself.
Coming from the lips of Dr. Andrew Przybylski; "We focused on the motives of people who
play electronic games and found players have a psychological need to come out on top
when playing". He went on to say that, "if players felt thwarted by the controls or the design
of the game, then they can wind up feeling aggressive". He concluded that the need to
master the game turned out to be more significant than any violent content the game
contained.
11. BBC (AGE RATINGS)
There are indeed age ratings strictly enforced by PEGI, (the Pan-European Gaming
Information) system in order to protect young people from these games, the age ratings
are 3, 7, 12, 15 and 18. Violence is hard to classify however, for instance on the PEGI
website; an 18+ game certificate will say "may contain scenes of gross violence". The APA
is calling for additional in-game controls in addition to the current ratings. "This is
censorship by another route" says Dr. Coulson, he went onto say that "the people making
these games are more competent than the people acting as gatekeepers". However there is
no foolproof way to ensure that young people don't play these violent games, there are
always ways for them to play such games, playing them at a friends house, or when a
parent buys it for them are the two most common ways they get to play these violent
games, therefore PEGI can only place restrictions that cover the general public, at which
point legally it is no longer their responsibility.
12. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PLAY
In the archives of the American Journal of play from 2014, a report written by
researchers Adam Eichenbaum, Daphne Bavelier, and C. Shawn Green, summarizes their
once recent research covering the long lasting positive effects of playing videogames. Under
the segment entitled 'why videogames are effective teaching tools', they talk about why
videogames are psychologically beneficial, and the short of it is they provide basic
psychological needs to the player. Pulling a quote from the article. "These include autonomy,
competence and relatedness". Autonomy means that the games make the player believe they
have control over their actions and decisions, particularly with modern, story driven games.
Competence in that the player believes that they have the skillset needed to achieve those
goals, and relatedness in that they feel socially connected with other human beings in the
game world.
Research has already shown that our brains release small amounts of neuro-chemicals
related to reward processing, for instance, dopamine. These are the same chemicals the
brain releases when a hungry/thirsty person receives food or water, as well as when
someone takes one of the commonly abused drugs. As a matter of fact a study by 'Koepp et
al. 1998' researched the idea that playing videogames has the same effect with dopamine as
drug use. In a way this reward structure of chemical release from the brain is our way of
telling it that something important has happened, causing re-organisation of the brain to
13. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PLAY/SUPER
BETTERThe article goes onto say that positive reinforcement may not be enough however, that
this reinforcement also has to coincide with in-game events. Over half a century ago we
discovered that animals work hardest and longest when they work under the impression
there is always a chance their next action will lead to a reward, because they never know
exactly when the next award will come.
The result is that people are strongly motivated to keep working under the spirit of
getting the reward at any point, some videogames go further with this by layering the
award structure systems to keep the player further motivated to keep going. As
mentioned previously this reward structure has the same addicting affect from the release
of dopamine as a heroine addict looking for their next fix, just without the self
destructive side affects. This breakthrough in gaming neuroscience was first discovered
in 1998 when British scientists found playing videogames led to a massive increase of
dopamine in the brain. However what reportedly shocked the scientists was that the
dopamine release from playing videogames was, exactly the same to when the scientists
injected the test participants with a dose of 'amphetamines intravenously' meaning games
have exactly the same affect on people as highly addictive substances. On the other hand
however while this previously mentioned structure is used as a genuine reward system in
some games, other game developers use the same psychology against people for a more
14. GAMBLING CONTROVERSY
This is a far more recent issue that surfaced in videogames, developers have found a way to take advantage of the
reward systems and positive reinforcement psychology against players by putting all their rewards behind paywalls,
most commonly referred to as 'loot crates'. The premise is simple, players pay a certain sum of real life currency from
their bank account to the game publisher, and in return the game gives them the opportunity to spin a wheel of
chance to win a reward. This could be something such as weapons or armor or even animations for their in-game
avatar. However the problem is that this loot crate system is often rigged, just like fruit machines in casinos, to give a
poor reward that was never worth the money they spent. However it differs from fruit machines in that you are
guaranteed to get something for your money, whether it was what you were hoping for or not is irrelevant, which is
why it can't be legally classed as gambling.
Often games will try to lure players into this system by giving them a certain amount of in-game currency to spend
on this loot crate system to give them a taste for it, the issue is just like gambling, once you get hooked on it, it's
very difficult to stop, and you have to buy the in game currency yourself after you have run out, or spend hours
playing the game to earn this currency to do so without paying. The problem there is that dopamine is like a drug as
mentioned previously, so people always want to take the shortcut to getting the rush they want, which involves
paying. The reason this is so addicting is because the dopamine rush players get from the loot crate system, has
already been received when they push the button to spin the wheel. Not when the item is received, because dopamine
isn't received at the point of getting a bad reward (which happens very often) it starves the person of the rush they
then crave, therefore the rush is even greater during the moment of tension when you're hoping to get what you
want. Which means they become addicted to the chance of getting the reward they want, rather than actually
receiving it, because they have been conditioned to be this way by the system. This becomes especially effective when
the rewards you keep getting are poultry in comparison to what you can get, the knock on effect to this means that
the dopamine rush you get when you do finally get the item you wanted is incredibly intense. For evidence of that
look at any FIFA pack opening when the player gets a high level character vs a low level one on YouTube such as
this: KSI FIFA pack opening(warning: excessive offensive language)
Naturally the effect of this motivates you to keep opening these packs or loot crates, in the hope that you can get an
item like this again, it is important to note that not everyone is affected by this, people who are old enough for
example who know about the system typically don't get drawn into it as much as they can resist the temptation.
15. GAMBLING CONTROVERSYTo make this potential issue even worse, many of these games have been designed to be
suitable to children, games such as FIFA football, since it's not a violent game the ESRB
(Entertainment Software Ratings Board) gave it a rating of E for everyone. FIFA is one of the
worst culprits for this loot crate system, the ultimate reward in their system is something
they call the 'Ultimate team' this is basically a team of players who have the best statistics in
the game. Just the promise of the chance of getting the ultimate team from card packs in
FIFA has led EA (Electronic Arts) to generate 800 million dollars in 2017, 20% up from last
year. Much of this will have come from children, as a result of the young age rating, of
course children don't have jobs so they can't pay for this themselves, and parents typically
have more sense than to blow all of their finances on loot boxes, so how do they do it?
In a story from the BBC they report that a child spent up to 6 thousand pounds on micro-
transactions on their parents credit card over just 2 weekends after accessing their families
iTunes account. Apple agreed to refund the family, however not all families are so lucky
when children use their bank account for gaming. Microtransactions are similar to loot
crates, they are in app purchases that have a set price, the difference is with
microtransactions, is that you know what you are buying before hand, which makes them
seem more tempting. However micro-transactions are far more common in mobile gaming.
It's impossible to find a mobile game that doesn't use unique in-game currency you have to
pay for to get unique items, however the largest player in this game by far is the Mobile title
'Clash of Clans' by Supercell gaming. Last year in 2018 they generated a gross revenue of
2.3 billion dollars, creating a total profit of 964 million dollars, generated from their games,
'clash of clans', 'clash royale' and their most recent release, 'Brawl stars'. What's important to
16. DISEASE CONTROL
In the book 'Super Better' by Jane McGonigal she explores the possibility that video-games
help us develop as people through the characters that we build throughout the game, she
states how multiple games can "increase our character strengths- like grit, perseverance,
compassion, and work ethic." She brings up a specific game called Re-mission, mentioning
how at first glance the game appears to be a simple shooter, of a robot traversing corridors
using various weapons to take out enemies. However this game is in a fact a coping
mechanism to help people with cancer deal with treatments, because taking a closer look at
the game, Roxxi, the playable character is a robot moving through the human body taking
out cancer cells using 'weapons' such as Chemotherapy blasters and anti-biotic grenades.
Missing doses of medication when dealing with cancer is dangerous, especially when it's a
child, it rises the chance of the Cancer coming back, in fact 80% of cases where cancer
returns in children is related to missing doses of treatment, people are aware of this but
still miss doses for any number of reasons. Usually because they are busy, subconsciously
forget to take it or are simply sick of the side effects, Re-mission was designed to make
young people feel more optimistic and motivated about taking their medication. In an
interview with the senior Hopelab (the developers of the game) researcher and UCLA
professor medicine Steve Cole, Jane was told that, "30% of kids miss 20% of doses or more,
those kids have twice the chance of having rebound on the Leukemia. This is a completely
17. DISEASE CONTROL/SELF EFFICACY
Did this videogame trick work though? The answer thankfully is an overwhelming yes, in a
clinical trial, patients who played this game for as little as 2 hours, had better medication
adherence for three months. Electronic pill cap monitors showed that players took 16% more
anti-biotics over doses over a 3 month period than other players than non-players. This
means that the game eliminated half of the originally missed doses, Re-mission players who
had their blood tested had 41% higher levels of medication in their system, they were much
more efficient at keeping up with medication and as a result were much more likely to stay
in remission.
(this trial was conducted with 375 patients, aged 13 to 29 at 34 medical centers across the
United States.)
Jane goes onto say that a quarter of the patients in this trial had never played videogames
before that point, and a third said they only played for about 1 or 2 hours a week, the
conclusion that can be drawn from that is that this method works for people who are both
hard-core gamers and infrequent/non-gamers, as a result from this clinical trial, Re-mission
has been distributed to 250,000 patients world-wide.
However it wasn't just the rate at which medication was being taken that was being
measured, no in a separate clinical trial researchers were tracking psychological changes in
18. SELF EFFICACY
The reason videogames are such an efficient way to teach us this is because of it's structure
towards teaching self-efficacy. You start off with basically nothing and you overcome
challenges the game throws at you. Each time you get overcome one of these challenges not
only do you feel good about yourself, but you also get a reward for your efforts, each time
the challenges get increasingly difficult. (if the game has been designed correctly) Re-
mission follows this same structure, implanting a concrete skill, the player keeps trying
until they succeed, the belief that through practice and learning they will continue to
succeed. According to Jane McGonigal, "this is the classic path to self-efficacy: accept a
goal, make an effort, get feedback on that effort, improve a concrete skill, keep trying and
eventually succeed." Obviously games aren't needed to achieve this mentality, but because
games are meant to test and make you work to succeed, they are an efficient way of getting
there.
Self-efficacy is also a lasting mindset, permanently changing how you think, what you
believe and what goals can be realistically achieved, which is why this game Re-mission
worked so well, it was a source of self-efficacy for young patients, trapped in a situation
where it otherwise it easy to feel powerless in their own life, this game allowed them to see
that their treatments weren't just exhausting procedures that they were forced to do,
instead they could see them as powerful weapons they had full control of it, that shit in
19. WORK ETHIC
Studies have also tested the determination of different gamers and non-gamers. In a controlled
experiment they had people who played games frequently and people who did not, complete the same
puzzles increasing with difficulty each time. The findings from this experiment were that anyone who
didn't play games regularly were much more liable to give up quicker when the task got harder,
however people who played games frequently had a much stronger sense of persistence before they
were ready to give up on something, even under difficult circumstances. There have also been other
tests that account for this (not based on video games) that proved when an individual succeeds in a
challenging task, that effect carries over into the next task they did and they were more determined to
complete it and less frustrated in setbacks.
As a result from these tests scientists have proposed that a high release of dopamine is the key to a
stronger work ethic. What's important to note is that a strong "work ethic isn't a 'moral virtue' that can
be cultivated simply by wanting to be a better person, it's actually a bio-chemical condition that can be
fostered, purposefully, through activity that increases dopamine levels in the brain." -Jane McGonigal
author of 'Super better'.
Which quickly explains why challenging video games like 'Dark souls' or 'Cup head' primes us to deal
with everyday challenges with higher effort and determination. Indeed a recent report from a team of
25 scientists from the UK, Belgium, Germany, France and Canada together stated that frequent
gamers, whom for simplicity in this case are people who play games for an average of at least 9 hours
a week, have a higher gray matter volume in the left ventral striatum. Gray matter is just what your
brain is made up of, it's what creates every part of the brain from the frontal lobe to the optical lobe,
and essentially what this would mean for the person who has more grey matter, is that they would
have a more powerful brain. However this doesn't mean in general, the left ventral striatum is the
reward processing part of the brain and in this case the more powerful it is, the more cognitive
resources it can devote to determination, optimism, motivation and learning.
20. NEUROPLASTICITY
Neuroplasticity, is the brain's ability to re-organise itself by forming new neural connections
throughout life. It allows neurons (more commonly known as nerve cells) in the brain to cope with
injury and disease, and adjust it's activities in response to new situations or changes in it's
environment. Essentially, it's your brain's ability to adapt and deal with additional stress to the body,
even when circumstances change dramatically. Professor Daphne Bavelier, a noted mind in the field of
psychology at the University of Geneva in Switzerland, is someone I have mentioned before, and she
has been studying the effects of action video games on neuroplasticity and learning. After over a
decade of her research, she firmly believes that games are attributed to neural re-organisation,
resulting in increased attention, faster decision making and more effective learning.
Another professional who supports Bavelier is Judy Willis, M.D., she's a neuroscientist who believes in
the power of games to rewire players brains for the better. She is a former resident at UCLA's neurology
clinic, and she spent 15 years seeing patients in her own pediatric neurology practice. Quoting one of
the basic principles of neuroscience she has a fondness for saying "Neurons that fire together, wire
together." The idea is that the more you repeat a thought pattern, the stronger the neural network that
drives it becomes, the stronger the network, the more likely you are to repeat that action in the future.
The consequence to this is that because patterns are repeated so often, the neural networks become
less vulnerable to degradation over time, because the pattern becomes easier to access with neurons
firing 100 times faster than they used to. (an estimation) Therefore according to Willis this means that
the self-efficacy that we get from playing video games is not just a belief, "It's a way of thinking that's
hardwired into the brain, a result of repeated activation of specific neurological circuitry that train the
21. CONCLUSION (CONTENT RESEARCH)
I decided to do extensive research for the content of my film, because I plan to have it over 5 minutes
long I want there to be enough to fill the gaps, however I doubt I will need everything that I have
researched. I decided to research more than what was necessary so that I would have the option to cut
parts out or add parts in depending on how production pans out. However for the time being I think I
would like to start the video off covering the basic controversies of video gaming, it seems as though
the convention on gaming documentaries states that it has to start with an introduction on the concept,
I will be doing this however I will be incredibly brief as the advancement of gaming has become
common knowledge at this point, with gaming becoming such a huge industry.
I will address the issue of violence in games influencing young people however I will keep it brief,
mentioning the experts, the studies involved and their proposals, as this is an area of gaming that has
not only been talked about many times before now, but has also been debunked almost entirely. I will
also want to include then idea of videogames increasing hand eye co-ordination however I will not
being going into as much detail. I will likely mention the researchers and the experiments they
conducted, but not go into too much detail of the experiments as that will consume far too much time,
this is going to be a running theme for the whole video. Next I will include the experiment that shows
gamers have a higher accuracy rate when predicting near future events. However I will also keep this
section very brief, as the biology behind it is incredibly complicated and difficult to understand, I will
simplify this if I can however once simplified it will be a brief section regardless. The topics of improved
memory and eyesight will likely start to come in towards the center of the video, the topics are slightly
more complex and they will need extra time contributed to them to cover them properly, age ratings in
gaming will go alongside the topic of aggression but I will keep it very brief as it's a simple concept that
doesn't need much explaining.
However the topics towards the end of the video will require the most time to explain, as they link
23. DAVID ATTENBOROUGH
A fairly obvious choice of inspiration however it comes as no surprise, David Attenborough's
documentaries are incredibly popular, in particular his 2 documentaries entitled 'Planet Earth' and
'Planet Earth 2'. Commissioned by the BBC, Tencent, ZDF and France televisions, they were the most
expensive documentaries they have ever released. The reason David is able to make his documentaries
so successful, is because he is able to do something few other documentarists are able to do. He's able
to make his work appeal to a wider audience than what usual documentaries do, one way he does this
is by making his work incredibly cinematic. Using actual footage of hard to spot creatures and
sometimes going as far to use CGI to recreate scenes of nature realistically, and putting camera right
into action, this signature camera technique made the viewer feel like they were in the perspective of
the animals themselves.
Not only this, where some documentaries focus on and explaining scientific data, a lot of people aren’t
going to understand what it means or much less care. Therefore David keeps his documentaries simple
to understand, and narrates his work in a way that is captivating to any audience, describing things as,
to quote him from his series Planet earth 2 "natural wildlife dramas unfolding around us". He does an
excellent job of not only creating these scenes on TV, but narrating over them in a poetic manor, for
perspective according to ratings published by the BBC, the first few episodes of Planet Earth 2,
attracted more people in the 16-34 age category than the Xfactor on ITV. However when asked why he
thought the documentary was doing so well, he responded by saying younger people are “reconnecting
with a planet whose beauty is blemished and whose health is failing”. “The visual signature of the
series is that you feel like the camera is with the animals. It’s very fluid, very active. For example, you
might see this wonderful lemur leaping through the forest. Normally when we’d film that, we’d be
standing back observing it, but here the lemur almost jumps over your shoulder and as it’s jumping
over your shoulder, you’re with it - the camera is running with it!” -Mike Gunton, producer for Planet
Earth 2. In a recent interview with Skavlan, David Attenborough discusses his career and his life, as
well as his passion for why he does what he does he said that from an early age he'd always been an
24. MICHAEL MOORE
Michael Moore is one of the most successful documentarists, consistently releasing different
documentaries, with his most recent one 'Fahrenheit 11/9' released in 2018, he travels America,
interviewing American citizens what they think in terms of the current presidency. To get a sense on the
social, economic and political situation from the perspective of a typical US citizen. Critics however have
described it as subjective, some like the Wall street journal going as far as to describe Moore as a
'propagandist', with that being said however, Wall street journal itself is known for shaky news stories in
the past, practicing yellow journalism. Although some argue that despite this there is still a point to it,
Common sense media described it as "the movie, in its way, summons something ominous".
With this being said the documentary is certainly structured in the way a typical documentary would,
using primarily hand held camera techniques to follow Michael Moore around parts of America. However
with the people he interviews it's done in a very specific way that level headed people aren't included
very much, mainly including people with extreme opinions, this certainly makes for more interesting TV.
However this is supposed to be a documentary, not entertainment, so while the film is structured like a
documentary, it doesn't necessarily follow the rules of one, so whether or not this can be classed as a
proper documentary is up for debate.
In a recent interview in a talk show with Stephen Colbert, Michael Moore talks about 11/9 and reveals
his very strong political views, and it's quite clear that he is very much against a Trump presidency, and
everything he believes the president is endorsing, in addition to this in an interview with Bill Maher on
Real time he openly criticizes people in the media who ignored things the president said or did,
primarily people with Fox news.
Michael Moore approaches his work in a very subjective manor, but he's also very straight forward in
what he says, never once beating around the bush he finds the opinions of people more important than
anything else, rather than collecting objective facts he works by formulating facts off the majority of
25. ADAM CURTIS
Adam Curtis is another documentary producer, however he is slightly more objective than Michael Moore. However he
doesn't just look at the issues being faced in America at the moment, in one of his most recent films called
'Hypernormalisation'. Donald Trump is one of those examples however it also targets topics such as Brexit and the war
in Syria. However a way in which Adam Curtis seems to differ in his work, is that he uses archival footage of the topics
he wants to talk about, which initially seems like a cheap move, however when you consider the topics he's covering, it
would likely be either too dangerous or too difficult to get original footage for what he was talking about. For instance
it would've been incredibly difficult to get an interview with either the US or Russian president, and capturing original
footage of the war in Syria would've not only been difficult and expensive but life threatening.
Listening to a podcast interview with Russel Brand, Adam Curtis reveals what the meaning behind his documentary film
hypernormalisation is, he describes it as confusing and tense situations but no one doing anything about it becoming
the norm, describing it as "impotence in the face of a chaotic world that we think those in charge have no control over,
but we accept it, but we do it because no one provides us with an alternative." In the documentary he tries to argue the
point that we no longer live in a society of old capitalism, and instead now live in a system of power that as he
describes is 'Fundamentally managerial'. He believes that in order to make any real change happen in the world, you
have to belong or feel like you do, to a large group of people who believe the same way, which it has mostly been right
wing groups who have made impacts on the world, not necessarily good impacts but they were remembered for what
they did, the idea of individualism being able to change the world is false yet it being inextricably linked to the future.
However he also believes that we are so desensitised to change at this point due to our modern comforts that make life
easier, have essentially disarmed us as people, but that change can be too scary for some, so we turn a blind eye to it.
He also points out how online media such as Facebook, market to you strictly what you want to hear, isolating different
groups of people to their own knowledge, this creates an ignorant and isolating environment, that no one can share
their opinions and have someone beg to differ anymore because that person is shunned.
His approach to work is essentially the opposite to Michael Moore, instead of building his documentary on the opinions
of like minded individuals or otherwise, he likes to build what he does on a micro-scale. In contrast to this Adam Curtis
builds his work on the larger scale, often just sticking to objective facts and using the majority of opinions if anything,
as well collecting the opinions of experts who can provide a subjective opinion.
27. SCRIPT
According to the official website of the New York film academy the best way to write a script
for a documentary is to wiat until all research and interviews have been concluded, and then
work backwards. In fact according to their website there multiple steps to take to create a
successful documentary, which I will be taking following for additional guidance as these steps
were written by people who currently specialise in film and do so professionally.
Instead I will be writing a rough draft of the script that I will be needing to conduct the
interviews, in order to finalise the script to introduce the narration to the film. The reasoning
behind this is that I cannot control what the interviewees are going to say, and they may
change the direction of the documentary that the script was originally pointing towards,
therefore it's better to wait to record what they say, then build the rest of the script around
that.
I will do this by simply drafting the questions that I want to ask the interviewees, that way they
can still answer questions based upon the original script so that they don't deviate from the
point of the interview.
28. PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES
Overall I want to be able to include aspects in my work, from all of these popular directors.
By this I mean I will take on what David Attenborough does with all of his documentaries,
provide a narrative voiceover but write it in a way that is far more captivating for someone to
listen to. This is something that he is renowned for doing, creating a script in a way that
describes wildlife in a form of Shakespearean play. Michael Moore is a director who I don't
want to take much from, as I believe his style of documentaries are closer to preaching to
the choir than being objective, informative programmes that let you formulate your own
opinion. However I believe that gathering the opinions of everyday people is still a useful and
crucial part of constructing a documentary. While it shouldn't be the sole focus I believe it is
something that plays a huge role in giving the documentary a 'sole', for lack of a better
word, to make it feel more in touch with the every day crowd.
Finally I will use Adam Curtis's approach to film making in that he sticks to facts, I will very
much be gathering the opinions of people however for the most part I want to gather
information from professionals in psychology, respected scientific journals and displaying
the facts we currently know for certain. The issue with this is that the psychology of
videogames is an enormous subject, with more content than what I can cover in a 5 or 10
minute video. Therefore my approach will be to have brief segments of each topic I deem
29. PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES
After viewing the documentaries that I have, I want to use the style of filming reminiscent that of
'Supergamers'. The reason behind this is because they're style of filming is much more close up
and personal, the close up shots of the people and the games they are playing perfectly illustrate
what the film is about, the figuratively symbiotic relationship between the minds of the people and
what they are currently interacting with onscreen. This is an effect that I hope to re-create in my
own documentary, I also want to re-create the effect they made using sound, the subtle yet
effective atmosphere set by the hushed tones of the soundtrack set the mood for the film while
not overpowering the narration, a mix that want to achieve myself. In addition, this documentary
used a lot of colour, especially in the parts where they were on the games, overall I liked how in
depth it went into the personal life of these people, that down to earth perspective is something
that I believe is very important when creating a documentary.
I also wish to use a production technique used by many documentary creators, this is to swap
between a narrative overtone, and a real person presenting on the show, many documentaries do
this to both present the facts and have someone there to interview the people onscreen. As
opposed to just having them talking to the person off camera, this is a legitimate production
technique, however I would prefer my documentary to have that human element to it.
`
I would also like to keep my film somewhat dark whenever possible, in terms if the lighting, I want
to try and dim this whenever I can. This is because the light from the screen will then shine into
the person's face, that way no matter what, your attention is always going to be centered on either
the actors face, or the video game they are playing. I will have to be careful in this regard though,
as a low light level with the type of camera I use could have an impact on the picture quality,
therefore I will have to spend time learning how to shoot in manual mode. In addition to this I also
want to use a theme throughout the documentary, this theme would be reflections, I would do this
31. SURVEY RESULTS
After individually analyzing all of the responses that I collected from my survey (the results
to which can be viewed by clicking the link below) There are a few data trends that were for
the most part consistent with minor deviations. All of these trends seemed to line up with
age, a common trend for all age groups was that they had played a video game of some
sort before. Meaning that the majority of my audience from any age group is aware of the
concept of videogames and has experience with them so I won't have to introduce it at the
start of my documentary. The second common data trend was that younger people (up to
the age of 24) play video games far more, so unsurprisingly they also had a more positive
or measured approach to how they view videogames. The main reason they provide for this
is that they believe that video games provide psychological benefits such as increased
reaction time and that video games give them a form of escape from their lives.
People who were aged 25-34 had more of a neutral stance, not sure on how to treat video
games. However people who are over the age of 45 had mostly neutral or negative
attitudes towards the subject, mainly negative however. They mostly never play video
games now and the most common gripe was how they found it difficult to get their children
off it, claiming they are incredibly addicting and cripple social skills. However despite this,
even though there were a few people who break off from this trend. The majority of people
from all age groups not only are interested about how the human mind operates, but wouldhttps://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-
32. AUDIENCE RESEARCH
Other surveys which connect to wider group of people than mine also have similar statistics,
according to the website 'Earnest' the level of expenses in gaming younger people in the US last
year (18-24) was at 16.3%, those statistics descend at a steady pace until you reach the age
range of 41+, where the expenses spike from the 25-40's expenses of 8.6%, to 9.4%, it also
shows that people with a higher degree of education have significantly lower gaming
expenditure rates than those in High school for instance.
This would support my results in the idea that younger people spend far more time of video
games than older people do, and the expenditure decreases over time. Another website which
collected it's own statistics called 'wepc', an they have shown results stating that men, aged
18-29 years old and are currently studying in college, are the ones who play videogames more
than anyone else.
The videogame industry is now larger than the music industry, and an average release cost of a
game now is £60. Therefore it goes without saying that my documentary will more than likely
appeal to people who are in skilled work as they will be paid enough to afford games, however
my research showed that people in upper managerial roles and those with a high education
status soend far less on video games, so it won't entirely appeal to the upper class either.
Therefore it is most likely that my documentary will be appealing to people with a socio-
33. PSYCHOGRAPHIC
After some research into the different psychographic types, I have come to the conclusion
that my target audience is somewhat of an anomoly, as they don't accurately fit into any of
the defined catagories, they worry about their family playing videogames but not anyone
who isn't close to them, so they aren't saviours, however they aren't doomsdayers either
because they don’t believe that video games will bring down the human race. Thy aren't
achievers because these people focus more on being successful than anything else, and they
aren't emulators because these are more closely regarded to the younger demographic, due
to the impulsive spending.
However I believe that the closest psychographic to match my target audience in the
'resigned'. These people seek survival, and have rigid, authoritarian values, they're interested
in past and tradition, and they are typically older people. I believe this one works best
because video games shape the mind of younger people who play them, modernising a
generation. Something that resginers hate, Which would explain the negative attitudes
towards videogames, they only became popular relatively recently and therefore are not old
or traditional, they are part of a changing world.
34. AUDIENCE GENERAL PROFILE/CONCLUSION
• Age- 45-54
• Sexuality- doesn't matter
• Gender- mixed
• Socio-economic status- C2-B
• Psychographic- Resigners
• The reason as to why I picked this as my target audience specifically, is because while the
younger generations are just as interested in the psychology of videogames, they already
have a largely balanced approach to looking at the positives and negatives. People from an
older generation though, who haven't been brought up in a time when video games were
common place, will naturally have a less measured approach. Therefore I think it would be
best to reach out to the older generation of people, to help them gain that more balanced
view on the topic. Then let them come to their own conclsuion, in partiular this will assist
parents and carers in keeping their children safe around videogames, what they should and
35. BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Peter Gray. (2012). The Many Benefits, for Kids, of Playing Video Games. Available: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/freedom-
learn/201201/the-many-benefits-kids-playing-video-games. Last accessed 14/1/19
• Steven Pace. (2016). COGNITION Action video games improve goal-directed reaction times, study finds. Available:
https://www.psypost.org/2016/06/action-video-games-improve-goal-directed-reaction-times-study-finds-43507. Last accessed 16/1/19
• C. Shawn Green. (2010). Improved Probabilistic Inference as a General Learning Mechanism with Action Video Games. Available:
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(10)00942-5. Last accessed 16/1/19
• Amanda MacMillan. (2016). Yes, Brain Games Improve Memory, But Only Under Some Circumstances. Available:
https://www.health.com/alzheimers/brain-games-improve-memory. Last accessed 16/1/19
• Brian Handwerk. (2009). Video Games Improve Vision, Study Says.Available: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2009/03/news-video-games-
vision-correction-sight-medicine/. Last accessed 16/1/19
• Zoe Kleinman. (2015). Do video games make people violent?.Available: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33960075. Last accessed 17/1/19
• Eichenbaum, Adam Bavelier, Daphné Green, C. Shawn. (2014). Video games: play that can do serious good. American Journal Of Play. 7 (N/A), 50-72
• Vic Hood. (2017). Are loot boxes gambling?. Available: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-10-11-are-loot-boxes-gambling. Last accessed
18/1/19
• Matthew Handrahan. (2017). EA's Ultimate Team now worth $800 million annually. Available: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-03-01-eas-
ultimate-team-now-worth-USD800-million-annually. Last accessed 18/1/19
• Tam Pham. (2016). The Company Who Made Clash of Clans Is Worth More Than Evernote, Eventbrite, and BuzzFeed Combined. Available:
https://thehustle.co/the-company-who-made-clash-of-clans-is-worth-more-than-evernote-eventbrite-and-Buzzfeed-combined. Last accessed
18/1/19
• Christopher Hooton. (2016). More young people are watching Planet Earth 2 than The X Factor. Available: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-
entertainment/tv/news/planet-earth-2-ii-young-viewers-x-factor-bbc-itv-david-attenborough-vieiwng-figures-ratings-a7449296.html. Last accessed
21/1/19
• N/A. (2018). Fahrenheit 11/9 (2018). Available: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8632862/. Last accessed 21/1/19
• The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. (2018). Extended Interview: Michael Moore Talks With Stephen Colbert. Available:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojgum7H7g8w. Last accessed 21/1/19
• Real Time with Bill Maher. (2018). Michael Moore: Fahrenheit 11/9 | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO). Available:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d79X7Udaa2c. Last accessed 21/1/19
• Skavlan. (2018). Interview with BBC's legendary Sir David Attenborough | SVT/TV 2/Skavlan. Available:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKAnHAHBonM. Last accessed 21/1/19
36. BIBLIOGRAPHY• Harold James Madigan (2015). Getting Gamers. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. 187-201
• Jane McGonigal (2015). Super Better. USA: Penguin Press. 77-104
• Game theory. (2018). Game Theory: How Loot Boxes HACK YOUR BRAIN!. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu6pXCxiRxU. Last accessed 24/1/19
• Game theory. (2018). Game Theory: WARNING! Loot Boxes are Watching You RIGHT NOW!. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IXgzc41W3s. Last accessed
24/1/19
• Daphne Bavelier and C. Shawn Green. (2015). Action video game training for cognitive enhancement. ScienceDirect. 4 (N/A), 103-108
• Renjie Li, Uri Polat, Walter Makous & Daphne Bavelier. (2009). Enhancing the contrast sensitivity function through action video game training. Natural Neuroscience. 12
(N/A), 527
• Claire V. Hutchinson, J. K. Barrett, Aleksander Nitka, Kerry Raynes. (2016). Action video game training reduces the Simon Effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 23 (N/A),
587-592
• C.S. Green and D. Bavelier. (2007). Action-Video-Game Experience Alters the Spatial Resolution of Vision. Psychological science. 18 (N/A), 88-94
• (OPEN LETTER) Multiple authors. (2015). On Violent Media Opposing APA Policy Statements on Violent Media. Available: http://www.scribd.com/doc/223284732/Scholar-
s-Open-Letter-to-the-APA-Task-Force-On-Violent-Media-Opposing-APA-Policy-Statements-on-Violent-Media. Last accessed 30/1/19
• Multiple authors. (1998). Evidence for striatal dopamine release during a video game. Nature. 393 (N/A), 266-268
• N/A. (2016). HyperNormalisation (2016). Available: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6156350/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_1. Last accessed 30/1/19
• Russel Brand. (2018). Under The Skin with Russell Brand Is Civilisation Crumbling? with Adam Curtis. Available: https://www.russellbrand.com/podcast/ep-50-
civilisation-crumbling-adam-curtis/. Last accessed 30/1/19
• N/A. (2018). The Demographics of Video Gaming. Available: https://www.earnest.com/blog/the-demographics-of-video-gaming/. Last accessed 12/2/19
• N/A. (2018). 2019 Video Game Industry Statistics, Trends & Data.Available: https://www.wepc.com/news/video-game-statistics/#gamers-demographic. Last accessed
12/2/19
• BigDProductions. (2013). Demographics and psychographics.Available: https://www.slideshare.net/BigDproductions/demographics-and-psychographics. Last accessed
12/2/19
• Joseph Chris. (2016). Psychographic Personality Types . Available: http://www.josephchris.com/psychographic-personality-types. Last accessed 12/2/19
• New York Film Academy. (2014). How to write a documentary script.Available: https://www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/how-to-write-a-documentary-script/. Last
accessed 5/3/19
• Rob Foote. (2016). Who rules entertainment industry? Video games vs. film & music. Available: http://www.kfvs12.com/story/31140647/who-rules-the-entertainment-
industry/. Last accessed 5/3/19 (refer to intro of script for details)
• N/A. (2018). Box office revenue in North America from 1980 to 2018 (in billion U.S. dollars). Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187069/north-american-
box-office-gross-revenue-since-1980/. Last accessed 5/3/19
