Sociology

Benefits of Computer Games: A Sociological Approach

ABSTRACT This paper builds on a small body of critical writing dealing with the benefits and educational opportunities available in computer games. Initially there is a basic concern that teens spend a lot of time playing computer games. Students can be exhausted as a result of time spent playing computer games and this can impact the classroom. Beyond this there may be an impact on the way students learn generally. They are looking for an immediacy of response that they have had cultivated through playing computer games repeatedly. Survey shows computer games do affect attention spans. There is a concern that students who have been brought up on a diet of the immediacy and the very strong visual sensory stimuli of computer games will have shorter attention spans than those who have not played such games. These games allow them to change the screen whenever the game bores them and therefore undermine concentration. In a game there are split second decisions that need to be taken. In life there are many occasion that a person would have to make a quick decision. This actually helps in exams as well. Quick thinking and making quick decisions will help the individual to save time when facing an exam. Strategic games will help them to develop other skills. Take for example a game were one has to build a city and an army, defend it against attack and finally accomplish the mission. This might sound a little scary to parents but actually it will help the person to understand balance. Life as we all know is an act of balance. The game will automatically teach him to balance the income, develop what is needed, guard itself against attack and achieve their goals.

Author Keywords values, games, digital games, computer games, benefits

INTRODUCTION Digital games are more popular and widely disseminated than ever before, and their popularity is extending across a broad range of social, economic, age and other demographic categories. Indeed, from casual games on mobile devices to high budget PC and console titles, the growth of the games market represents a revolution of considerable financial, social and cultural impact. It is known that we are living in technological era. The computers became irreplaceable tool in everyday life of almost each person. The adult users generally use it for business purposes while youngsters for computer games. Computers became the part of our life and very important component in many spheres of modern life. So it is somehow influences on people. One of the spheres of the life is leisure. And nowadays majority of young people spend their leisure playing computer games, surfing through the internet. Computer games have become one of the favorite time-spending of young people all ages, and even some adults. With permanent development of computer technology the quantity of people using computer either for working purposes or entertainment purposes is increasing speedily. Recently, in this modern world that we live in, through the course of the improvement of technology, computer games became very popular among the youth. Whether we like it or not, computer games greatly influences our society today. Computer games become a part of people's lives. Almost everyone has been exposed to some kind of computer game – be it role playing games, puzzle games, action games played on a console, a personal computer, or a handheld device. Because of this sudden interest in computer games, concerns about its effects, may it be positive or negative, arise. So where does this leave computer games? Being in a modern world, we naturally question these things. Is it a safe practice to play these games? Will it bring any good? Continual reliance on computers during the learning stages of cognitive development may lead to an over-reliance on computers in adulthood. It is also worthy to note that there is a clear distinction between the learning potential and educative potential in computer games. Although the effects of computer games elicit varying beliefs depending on social and cultural beliefs and standards, the format of motifs of computer games are common throughout all countries because of the mass global dissemination of computer games. Resultantly, computer games will generally affect users in the same way whether negative or positive. It is argued that computer gaming is pointless activity with which to pass time and can produce socially isolated people and/or promote violent behaviour, while this is true to a limited variety of computer games, this belief focuses overlooks or doesn’t acknowledges the diverse range of game playing experiences available. It is not this paper’s intention to plead for either side of the argument but rather to suggest that the debate is more complex than many people may realize. Ultimately parents buying a computer game must make their own decision on whether that game is suitable for their children, just as they decide whether they approve of war toys or not.

FIELDWORK The primary methodological tool for this paper was analysis of primary and secondary research literature that focused primarily on the supposed link between the playing of computer games and subsequent benefits in real life. The first search for relevant books and journals involved using available sources. This collection alone gave an extensive map of key theories and arguments on computer games. The next part of the research involved a number of interviews among game players in Baguio City to generate relevant information on the key benefits of playing computer games. The defining of ‘young people’ in this review is taken to be gamers under the age of 21. This definition can be broken down in to three broad categories in line with much of the research in this field: preschool and primary schoolchildren; secondary school children; and university students and young adults (Bensley and Van Eenwyk, 2001: 246). However this does raise an issue of the age profile of gamers, with Newman (2004: 50) noting that: ‘The contemporary demographic suggests that the audience is comprised of ‘new entrants’ discovering video games anew and players growing up with the industry’. Individuals who are university students and young adults were taken into consideration for this particular case. Throughout this review we use the terms computer games to cover games played on any media platform such as a PC or television set. The steady growth of digital convergence increasingly makes any significant distinction difficult. The location where computer games are played remains important; one of the major changes in the last two decades has been the movement out of the arcades where some level of policing was able to take place and into the home where the responsibility shifts to the parents to police the domestic environment. Related to this is the extent to which the emerging digital landscape now finds games being played across a range of more diffuse often mobile media platforms, from mobile phones, pocket computers and the internet.

FINDINGS A number of people play computer games as computer games are fun-packed and allow players to enjoy their time. Computer games are also very exciting and this is one of the reasons of the popularity of computer games. Playing fun-packed computer games is one of the best ways to kill the time and to relax. However, not everyone is in the favor of computer games as people usually spend a lot of time on computer games because of the excitement and fun offered by them. Also, an individual usually forgets about the real-world problems while playing computer games and this is one of the reasons why not everyone is in the favor of games. However, computer games have a number of benefits as well, but it depends on the player whether he uses computer games in a correct way or not. Excess of anything is not good and this is also applicable to the time spend on computer games. It depends on an individual whether he uses computer games in a beneficial way or not. In support to the above conjectures, findings from the actual survey on various game players presented several benefits of computer games relative to their personal experiences. Computer games help to improve strategic thinking. It is rather rare that a digital game doesn't require or demand its player to think and make decisions two or three steps ahead of a current situation. Players who play regularly will quickly learn the benefit of strategic and forward thinking and they may start to apply such trait to actual world opportunities. An individual can improve the decision-making skills by playing computer games. In strategy based computer games, the player needs to make optimal use of limited resources in order to complete the missions. A plan has to be developed in order to use resources efficiently and to make a perfect plan, a number of things are to be considered and a number of decisions are to be made. Generally, the player needs to think ahead of the current situation and develop appropriate plans. Computer games help to improve problem-solving skills. Although playing any other games can help to improve problem-solving skills, playing computer games have proven to improve problem-solving skills tremendously. This is because majority of games available out there are centered on problems and challenge the player to solve and overcome them. In just playing one game, a player may have to solve anywhere from one to a hundred or more different problems in different situations. The ability to think forward in real-life is very useful and the people who can think ahead of the current situation usually have the plans ready for handling different situations. Sometimes in a game, decisions are to be made with-in few seconds and so, the player needs to think fast so as to make a decision. So,

individuals who are not very good at making strategies and decisions can play computer games so as to improve the decision-making skills. However, you should not expect instant results as it takes time to improve the skills and the time required to improve the skills depends on the mental ability of the person. Computer games help improve eye and hand coordination. If you find this difficult to believe, pick up a game controller and then try to maneuver around the game. Maneuvering a game controller demands higher and better skills then it takes to move a mouse around a computer screen. It takes great coordination of the eyes and hands to react quickly to difficult and dangerous situation. People who play computer games are found to have better eye-hand coordination than people who don't play computer games. While playing computer games, players need to use eyes and hands together. Players need to use hands to use the buttons which are required for performing different tasks available in the game and eyes are needed to see the game. The current situation of the game determines the task to be performed and so, the player needs to use hands and eyes together in order to play the game efficiently. Computer games help to facilitate fast and accurate decision-making. One factor of computer games that tend to demand the player to make quick and accurate decision-making is its impromptu situations. The element of surprise is constantly around the corner and it is this that makes games exciting and wonderful to play. To win in a game, players need be able to make good and smart decisions within a very short period of time. Computer games help individuals to improve their ability to solve puzzles. A number of puzzle games are available which require players to think logically so as to solve the puzzle. So, people can improve their ability to solve puzzles by playing puzzle-based computer games. Computer games help enhance your imagination. Some people claim that computer games take away one's power in imagination because games supply the mind with things and situations instead of encouraging the mind to develop these things on their own. However, we are all well aware that even a stack of blocks or Lego is sufficient to stimulate and grow a child's imagination. The imagery situations in computer games do spark and fuel our imagination and encourages it as a springboard to form new possibilities that might not have occurred otherwise. Computer games encourage adventure and exploration. In role-playing computer games, players are forced to venture off the beaten path and explore the new and unknown situations. They have to open doors without knowing what lies in front of them. They are required to enter areas of the game without knowing what the situation and consequence will be. They have to interact with suspicious characters that they have never met before. In such kind of games, the players are exposed to opportunities that require them to gather up enough courage to explore the unknown territories that lies ahead.

Computer games encourage memorization. Another strong feature of computer games is its influence of enforcing memorization. The various terrains portrayed inside some of these games is tremendous; yet accessing the maps available can be disruptive and cumbersome to the player. To compensate and become more efficient, gamers will not only try to memorize a huge portion of the various terrains, they will also try to remember the tasks and the required skills to get to specific areas or stages. Computer games also help individuals to improve their ability to memorize things correctly. Some games require players to remember the clues, maps, and the location in order to play the game easily. So, players try to memorize and re-collect various things while playing games. This helps them to remember and re-collect things easily in real-world. Remembering and re-collecting things in real-life is very useful and by playing computer games, an individual can improve his ability to memorize things. Computer games help to teach the player to face the consequence. All computer and computer games operate on a 'cause-and-effect' or an 'action-andreaction' principle. Execute something, and the game will react. This is a tremendous opportunity for the players to learn about consequence. Computer games teach dedication, patience and endurance. Great and good games cannot be conquered in a day. In fact, some of the most popular and best games take weeks or even months to complete or finish the entire stages.

THE SOCIOLOGY Computer games play a significant role in young people’s relationships with their families and their peers (Buckingham, 1993). They are a widely available format of entertainment that has been disseminated to the broadest segments of society (Singer & Singer, 2005). As a result, concern has arisen over the moral implications of computer games and youth culture. These primarily focus on the effects of computer games on the cognitive and emotional behaviour of youths and how they affect and impact social interaction. This particularly concerns the ability of children to distinguish between reality and virtuality. It also includes the issue of egocentrism (Myers, 1998, p. 37ff.). Egocentric behaviour is stimulated by characters in computer games as well as the player himself. One the one hand, game characters function as role models afar from the player. On the other hand, players have the possibility to assign qualities of the self to individual characters. The progression of computer technology is providing more realistic imagery, scenarios and sound. As a society, people have become used to the excessive depictions of violence in the media and are therefore becoming indifferent to witnessing murders, theft and assault on television. The main difference between television and computer games is that computer games possess a level of interactivity that the television can not. The problem with interactivity is that when a game becomes so realistic that players can see, hear and feel, and perhaps smell the “person” on the monitor as they gun them down, does it become immoral? The online gaming experience can be perceived in two distinct ways, one as a form of social isolation, and the other as a form of social interaction. Much computer game play is social. It is apparent that a substantial portion of gamers seek out an online gaming experience as a form in social interaction with those they are familiar with. In many instances, gamers who play against their friends, family and peers do so as a means of maintaining an interactive, albeit virtual, relationship in addition to or as a replacement for telephone calls, e-mails and online chatting. A growing number of games are designed for multiple players — for either cooperative play in the same space or online play with distributed players (Jenkins 2005). Wright, Boria and Breidenbach (2005) provide that, the playing of multiplayer games can reproduce and challenge the rules of social interaction in real life, while also generating “interesting and creative innovations in verbal dialogue and nonverbal expressions (Wright, Boria and Breidenbach, 2005)”. This suggests that online gaming not only mirrors normal social interaction, but also enhances and challenges it through a shared and interactive medium. In playing a FPS computer game such as Counter-Strike, Wright, Boria and Breidenbach (2005) suggest that within the game there exists a complex social world and a subculture which brings together many problems and possibilities of power relationships hat prevail in the real world.

Wright in Jenkins (2005) makes the observation that meta-gaming (conversation about game content) provides a context for thinking about rules and rule-breaking. It could be said that there are two games taking place at the same time. The first being, the explicit conflict and combat of gameplay on the screen; and the second being the implicit cooperation and comradeship between the players. Write in Jenkins explains that “two players may be fighting to death on screen and growing closer as friends off screen”. In this way, social expectations are played out and reaffirmed within a virtual world. Social interaction not only occurs within an online game, but also through other online mediums such as in forums whereby tactics and events are discussed and virtual identities is further developed. Simultaneously, while players spend often large amounts of their spare time playing computer games, their real life families, friends and peers are neglected. Although to the player it may seem that they are engaging in fulfilling social interactions, from a broader perspective, it seems apparent that social, and other, aspects of their lives are sacrificed for a relatively small gaming community (Media Analysis Laboratory, 1998). According to studies conducted by the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and general popular belief, violent computer and video game gameplay can cause aggressive thoughts, feelings and behaviours due to its interactivity (APA, 2000). Conversely, Leech (1994) argues that violent gameplay “… [provides] a harmless outlet for the natural aggression that exists to some degree in [a] child's subconscious”. Research also suggests that whilst experiencing a game, players prefer to utilize their full range of emotional states that include both aggression and anger (Jones and Sutherland, 2005). Therefore aspects of violent gameplay can enhance a player’s experience, as they are able to interact using a wider range of emotions. Gaming violence and aggressive behaviour in youths have been commonly perceived by researchers as directly related to each other. It is believed that media violence, especially in computer games making children more aggressive and behaviorally unbalanced. This is a belief espoused by Grossman (2002). As a large proportion of gamers are in their teenage years or younger, their cognitive and emotional development stages are more susceptible to external influences. Considering the cultural significance and permeation of computer games and the fact that they are leisurely and interactive medium which have significant educative potential, gaming violence does affect youth aggression to some degree. Interactive computer and video games have the power to ‘immerse’ players in simulated environments, surrounding them with alternative realities (Berger, 2005, pg 191). Murray (1997, pg 110) argues that immersion is not only the suspension of disbelief; it is also the creation of belief as our minds reinforce the realities of the experience. This can have both positive and negative effects on the psychological well-being of gamers. It can apparently absorb players into hyperreality, “…the

representation of a thing or event which has no counterpart or [analogue] in consensus reality (Soules, 2003)”. An issue regarding immersion is that players of a game, especially children, can supposedly fully involve themselves within a virtual gameworld. This behaviour can lead to addiction as Ungerleider (quoted by The Parent Report, 2005) explains that "…[computer games are] very compelling with increasing complexity, so a child becomes more facile, yet wants to know more and apply new skills”. Seemingly as a result, players that are computer game addicts can immerse themselves within a simulated environment so much so that they find it difficult to differentiate and focus between the real and virtual whilst engaged in gaming (Mohler, 2005). Allegedly, interactive computer and video gaming does not necessarily lead to addiction. Immersion within a gameworld can be both pleasing and educational. Douglas and Hargadon (2001, pg 160) suggest that the pleasures of immersion come from our ability complete tasks and see the outcomes. Kubey (as quoted by Berger, 2005, 193) also states that computer and video games “…offer the player a kind of escape, and… players learn quickly that they momentarily feel better when playing computer games; hence, a kind of psychological reinforcement develops”. Research by the group Teachers Evaluating Educational Multimedia (TEEM) claim that children engaged in simulation and adventure games can develop their strategic thinking and planning skills as well as help to improve their mathematics, spelling and reading (BBC News, 2002). Interactive computer games provide ‘agency’, also called interactivity which “…is a concept adapted from the philosophical action theory, which focuses on how it comes about that an individual decides to take actions and how s/he executes them” (Jorgenson, 2005, pg 2). An example of this is spatial navigation, the ability to move through virtual landscapes (Murray, 1997, pg 129). Agency also refers to the level of participatory a gamer has on their avatar or playable character. Through agency, a player can experience ‘urgency’, which is an identification between the gamer and the on screen avatar, and it is through this that belief is suspended and the virtual world becomes real for the gamer (McMullen, 2004, pg 13-14). Once again these experiences are able to lead to addiction to video games as players find it challenging to focus between the real and virtual worlds. However, as it relies on realism and agency, players that undergo urgency can sympathize with the on screen character, adding to the entire gaming experience that acts as an escape from reality (McMullen, 2004, pg 14-15). Realism in computer games is achieved in many different ways. Perhaps the most direct and cognitively closest is in the graphical quality of games. The first thing people notice about a computer game is how “real” the graphics look. The importance of perception to us is captured in the old adage “seeing is believing”. However, perception alone is not sufficient to lead us to feel that the game world is “real”. The bottom line is that we interact with the world. We cannot perceive

a virtual game world as being “real” unless it reacts to us in a “realistic” way. Merleau-Ponty rejects the idea of perception as simply a passive reception of visual stimuli. Action is a necessary component of perception. This has been shown by an experiment conducted in 1963 by Held and Hein. Two groups of kittens were raised in the dark and exposed the same visual sense data, but one group was allowed to move around, while the other was kept passive. After a couple of weeks, the kittens were released. The active kittens were normal, but the ones that were kept passive kept bumping into things as if they were blind. Referring to this particular study, Varela et al (1991) said, “objects are not seen by the visual extraction of features, but rather by the visual guidance of action.” The idea of perception as requiring action is most apparent in threedimensional computer games. The perception of three-dimensional space requires the player to move around in that space in order to perceive it as such. We are able to perceive our three-dimensional reality because our eyes shift constantly and our brains are able to process these slightly different images into the perception of threedimensional space. A static painting on the screen would not do very much to make the player feel that this is a “real” game world that can be explored, since all the player’s eyes can tell him is that this is just a picture on a plane. Therefore the only recourse is to change the view, as if the player is moving his head to look in a different direction. Some games are designed such that finding certain important objects require the changing of the direction of view and noticing subtle visual cues, although I will not comment here on the appropriateness of employing such devices to make a game more challenging. Objects are recognized through action. Plates on a rack in the kitchen in a first-person shooter might as well be plastered images on a box unless they respond to the player’s actions. Windows and doors are simply wallpapers if they can’t be opened or blown up or broken down. This is why much effort is also made into the simulation of real-world systems in computer games, to make everything “fraggable”, to put it in Quake terminology. Even in non-first-person-view games, we see the need for action to perceive objects. When the first-time player plays Space Invaders, how does he know that the white blocks are shelters from the alien’s bombs? Easy, he moves underneath them and realizes that the bombs will not reach him. In PacMan, how do you know that those big dots are power-ups and not poison? The only way to find out is to eat them. Action is also required for the simple task of knowing which one of the things or characters on the screen is “you”. Many computer players have no doubt experienced the frustration of trying to find out just exactly where they are in a complicated game scene. This is one situation when less realism might be desired so that the character and important objects stands out. In Pac-Man, the player knows which one of the moving images is Pac-Man because it is the one that responds correctly to his actions on the controller. When friends get together to play fighting games such as Street Fighter, it is very common for them to ask the other person, “which one am I?” especially when both are playing the same characters. It takes a short while for them to figure out that Tom is the one on the left and Joe is on the right, then the fight starts out proper.

The need for action in perception is why computer game players are just as quick to bash games for their “eye candy”, as they would be to rave about their “realistic” graphics. Games that rely on amazing graphics alone are not “realistic” if they do not have a similarly realistic interactive world to match. Dag Svanaes says that it is only through interaction that objects appear to us as immediately existing in the external world. The same is true for the virtual world. The first-person point of view is the “in” thing these days. At first glance, the first-person view appears to be more cognitively realistic and therefore logical. It might come as a surprise then to some people that the first-person view is in fact not realistic at all. Painters have known for centuries that “one should not draw or paint exactly as the eye sees.” Perspective in computer games in based on plane projections. It is like tracing the outlines of objects on a windowpane. A sphere placed to one side of our vision would actually have an elliptical rather than a circular outline, if we followed the rules of true perspective. But then it would be “wrong”. This effect is called “marginal distortion”, and the reason it occurs in real-life is once again a consequence of the human body. As discussed above, we do not maintain a fixed viewpoint for long periods of time, but rather keep shifting our eyes over the scene. To reduce the discomforting effects of marginal distortions, computer games keep the angle of vision artificially narrow, resulting in what we call “tunnel vision”. Peripheral vision is a big problem in first-person perspective. The player cannot detect something that is just off his field of vision. Still, people are quite comfortable with this way of seeing because people are familiar with paintings and films, which operate the same way. Merleau-Ponty would say that we have acquired the skill of how to interpret the world through a window or plane of projection. Our phenomenal field is shaped by our experiences with similar projection-based media. We have no problem interpreting the scene on the screen as something that we would see through our own eyes. The third-person point of view in computer games raises the question of disembodiment. In fact, it appears that playing computer games is a very detached and disembodied activity. The player is sitting away from the computer or TV set, all the action is happening on the screen, and the only link between the player and the game is the keyboard, mouse, or other controller hardware. The rationalistic view of game playing would split the mind away from the body, and say that the player can project his mind into the game world, without making reference to any need for the player’s own physical body in the whole equation. Dreyfus argued against the rationalistic viewpoint of disembodied tele-presence. He says that it is because we are not aware of the way our body works silently in the background that it is so easy to think that we can do without it. The same argument can be applied to computer games. When you ask a computer game player what he is doing, he will probably say, “I am jumping”, or “I am picking up that ammo clip on the floor” without making any reference to the controller in his hands. The controls are so second nature to him that he is no longer making a conscious effort to link up his physical actions and the virtual actions of his counterpart on the screen. In Heidegger’s terms, the controller is “ready-to-hand”, perhaps more than just ready-to-hand. Merleau-Ponty would say that the player has learnt how to perceive the virtual world through the game controller, that the game controller has become part of the player’s own experienced

body, and therefore his own bodily space, just like the organ player that MerleauPonty described5. Steven Poole, in his book Trigger Happy, also compares this to the way musicians remember how to play a musical instrument without calling it from memory. He calls this “muscle memory”. The player, therefore no longer presses a button to jump, he simply jumps. It does not seem to matter that the act of pressing a button has no relation to the act of jumping. Computer games are a unique phenomenon in that nowhere else can you find yourself projecting your intentions, actions and identity onto something else that is obviously not you, and yet is “you”. It is not simply “some character” that you are controlling. Not even a puppeteer tries to believe that he is actually the puppet. Merleau-Ponty’s concept of the dual nature of bodily space may help us in understanding why we do not have much of a problem seeing ourselves as an object in this virtual world, but it is inadequate. In the case of virtual worlds there are now two bodies – our physical body and a virtual body. Many computer games today try to link the two bodies together with haptic feedback devices, with varying results. Sometimes they make the game seem more realistic and exciting, but at other times they jolt the player out of the illusion of the game world, a reminder that he is just a physical body controlling a virtual one. The question of morals in computer games is an ongoing debate, however, speculation suggests that as game development progresses further, players may need to ask themselves as to whether or not killing or assaulting a character in a computer game is any less immoral as doing so in real life.

CONCLUSIONS Although many people think that it is unhealthy to play computer games, I believe that, in moderation, computer games can be beneficial in many ways such as in leisure and experience, learning, as well as improving our cognitive, logical, and managerial skills. There are games which are specifically built towards making the mind work. Children love to play, so what better way to teach them than through an educational game. There are so many games that will improve a child's mathematical skill, language skills, thinking skill, reasoning skill and so on. There are games out there which are not suited for adults much less children. These types of violent games which provide a target of killing another as brutally as possible should be criticized thoroughly. But saying that does not mean that all games promote violence, it is just a bad point in a very larger sample. Furthermore, it is important to understand the meaning of games as a source of entertainment and a source of development. There are good and bad games out there and it is up to the parents or the guardian to chose wisely and provide for the young. Lastly, many of the concerns about the impact of computer games on young people are actually symptomatic of deeper social concerns about the changing nature of childhood in the modern world and the perceived increase in the elements of risk to which young people are exposed in society. As long as these concerns exist, areas of popular cultural activity such as computer games culture will be the subject of ongoing debate about its wider social impact on patterns of behaviour. RECOMMENDATIONS There are down sides to computer games as well. There are games which are pretty violent and do not help the cause of learning something new or to relax the mind in any way. This is of course expected, because like every thing in this world there is a down side to all good things. So it is up to the player, parent or guardian to select the proper games to play which by experience many would say will take you for a ride like no other. In order to minimize if not eradicate the negative implications of computer games, the following propositions are offered which may be implemented not only in the locality of Baguio City but also for the entire country if opportunity arises.  Legislations should be passed in that people who play computer games for more than three hours in internet cafes get cut off if the registered user is

under 18. However, draconian regulation may not be the best way forward.  Heightened awareness and information about how too much time on computer games may not be in the individual's interest would be a useful step. Beyond that there is scope to have a better debate with the industry.  School policy needs to be changed. While an outright ban would not be implementable, parents need to be more aware of the potential dangers and should ensure that computer games are played in places where it is visible and can be monitored.

BIBLIOGRAPHY A.P.A: American Psychological Association (2000) Violent Video Games Can Increase Aggression. Bensley, L. and Eenwyk, J. (2001) ‘Videogames and real life aggression:review of the literature’. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29, 244-257. Buckingham, D. (ed.) (1993) Reading Audiences: Young people and the media, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Crawford, Chris (1982). The Art of Computer Game Design. Dreyfus, Hubert (2001). Disembodied Telepresence and the Remoteness of the Real. Grossman, D. 2001. Killology Research Group. Jenkins, H. 2005. Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked. Jones, C.M. and Sutherland, J. (2005) Creating an Emotionally Reactive Computer Game Responding to Affective Cues in Speech. Jorgenson, K. (2005) Problem Solving: The Essence of Player Action in Computer Games. Leech, B. (1994) “Computer Games, Violence and Children,” PC Update Online! McMullen, S.P. (2004) Stereo 3D: A Study on Urgency, Agency and Realism and Their Effect on Video Game Immersion. Media Analysis Laboratory. 1998. Video Game Culture: Leisure and Play Preferences of B.C. Teens. Media Awareness Network. Mohler, A. (2005) Video Games: The New "Playgrounds of the Self?" Murray, J. (1997) Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace, New York: The Free Press. Myers, D. (1998) "Playing Against the Self: Representation and Evolution," in: St. Reifel (ed.) Plau & Culture Studies, Vol. 1, Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation, pp. 31-46. Newman, J. (2004) Videogames, London, Routledge. Poole, Steven (2000). Trigger Happy: Videogames and the Entertainment Revolution. Singer, D. G. and Singer J. L. (2005) Imagination and Play in the Electronic Age, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Soules, M. (2003) Virtual Reality / Hyper-Reality.

Svanaes, Dag (unpublished). Understanding Interactivity, Chapter 3: Non-Cartesian Alternatives. Winograd, Terry and Fernando Flores (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition. Wright, T. Boria, E & Breidenbach, P. 2002. Creative Player Actions in FPS Online Video Games: Playing Counter-Strike.