There has been no shortage of artistic explorations of the moral quandries of virtual violence but now psychological opinion explores how framing the violence impacts upon the immersion a videogame experience can offer.

The latest videogame nastie to glorify war is ‘Homefront’, in which you play as a freedom fighter in an America occupied by a North Korean superpower. The game’s focus on ‘violence with consequences’ is one of its central selling points. James Madigan deploys an interpretation of the ‘just world hypothesis’ (when people witness someone subjected to some misfortune, they’re susceptible to suggestions that the person deserved it and thus see the misfortune as evidence of justice) to explore what this game might be denying it’s audience in terms of an engaging video game experience

The introduction to the game goes to great lengths to relieve you of any moral misgivings you might have about plugging away at the enemies it’s getting ready to throw at you. ‘You see enemy soldiers not only brutalizing American civilians, but outright murdering a mother in front of her children and callously tossing corpses around. ‘The message is clear: Hey, these guys are evil. When we give you a gun, shoot them and feel good about it.’

Madigan contends that the interesting thing about Homefront is that it’s not leaving any blanks to be filled, which deprives the game of some narrative depth.

The Psychology of Video Games: “Just World Hypothesis and Homefront”

[via Slashdot]