Video Game Addiction and Game Theory

Video game addiction refers to extremely playing video games, which seriously interferes with daily life. “Instances have been reported in which users play compulsively, isolating themselves from family and friends or from other forms of social contact, and focus almost entirely on in-game achievements rather than other life events, and exhibit lack of imagination and mood swings” (Wilipedia). Currently, video game addiction is much more about a state of psychological disorder, but it is really hard to diagnose whether or not you are addicted to video games since there is no specific diagnostic standards. So when people say “I am addicted to something” or “You are addicted to something”, I think, they judge based on their own experience and criteria or the social context and stereotype.

I quite like the idea of “problematic use” since on one hand it acknowledges that there can be problem-play if one is heavily engrossed in video games, but on the other hand it also emphasizes the importance and influence of one’s own willingness. Since this theory says “even the person know there will be persistent and deleterious effects on their life if they continue this activity; even they want to stop it but they just cannot”. It means that your ability of self-regulate and your willingness of playing or not playing are the root cause of heavily being immersed in something. Although I almost never play videogames, I am an extremely TV lover and I just cannot stop myself from watching it no matter how I want to. But I do not think I am addictive to it, since my life can go on without it. It is not like drugs, once you are addictive to it, it is hard to say whether or not your life can go on without it. Personally thinking, addiction is more about physical damage, while problematic use is more about psychological disorder. But it does not mean addiction is nothing to do with psychological disorder or problematic use will not lead to any physical damage (nearsightedness, cervical spondylosis, etc.). Thus, I quite agree with Elihu Katz’s theory of uses and gratifications. Everyone in this world has enough power, initiative, and opportunities to choose media and select information to accept.

In addition, in this week’s tutorial we talked about the Game Theory. I cannot totally agree with the idea of game theory is much more meaningful to videogame designers rather than players. I admit that it is really important to game designers since they need to use it to figure out the gameplay mechanics, so either you or the computer will win especially in a single-player video game. But in a multi-player video game, game theory is also really important to every player since, to win the game, you first need to figure out what the other or the others will do and then choose your dominant strategy (one strategy is better than another strategy for one player, no matter how that player's opponents may play (Wikipedia)). I admit that it is really difficult to figure out your opponents’ choices in a complex videogame, but in some simple games you do actually apply this theory without awareness. For example in some chess games, you always figure out what your opponent will do, and then you will decide what you will do. Actually, not only in complex videogames it is hard to accurately apply the game theory, even in the real business it is also difficult since there are too much opponents and you do not have enough information, and the time and ability to figure out their all options. However, I believe you still to some extent use this theory to play or to run your business (you may just figure out some of your main opponent’s options), although the results are not enough accurate. But you cannot get any accurate answer to anything in your real life, isn’t it?