UFC Personal Trainer is based on a violent fighting franchise, but could also have positive effects on kids' health.
Image: THQ

By Paul Ballas

Is using a Kinect martial-arts simulator like practicing martial arts or like playing a videogame? The answer is neither.

As usual at this year’s E3 Expo, new videogames were unveiled, sparking a great deal of discussion about several hot franchises’ latest titles. But one game released at the annual gaming conference crossed an invisible line in how we conceptualize videogame violence, and may force us to change our conceptions of the effect of videogame violence on children: UFC Personal Trainer: The Ultimate Fitness System.

In this game, playable with the controller-free technology of Kinect for the Xbox 360, the user will, according to THQ’s website, “learn over 70 [mixed martial arts] and [National Academy of Sports Medicine]-approved exercises including moves from disciplines such as wrestling, kickboxing and Muay Thai.”

Some in the enthusiast gaming press considered UFC Personal Trainer one of the most violent games presented at E3 this year. It’s comparable to Ubisoft’s 2010 title Fighters Uncaged, a Kinect-enabled videogame in which the player makes fighting movements in order to make the game’s avatar fight a digital opponent in hand-to-hand combat.

These two games have two different ESRB ratings: Fighters Uncaged is rated “T” for teens and the UFC game is rated “E” for everyone. The reasons for the different ratings are made clear in the labels: “mild language and violence” for Fighters Uncaged but simply “violent references” for UFC Personal Trainer.

The ESRB rating system exists for a variety of reasons, but I believe videogame technology has reached a point where the way a parents choose games for their children is dramatically changing, and this change is something that needs to be considered by consumers, researchers and politicians interested in the effects of violent media on children. It appears that in the very near future, we will have to consider certain kinds of computer programs not only as not bad for children, but potentially good for them, and will require brand new research to justify our beliefs as to their effects, both good and bad.

For thousands of years, there has existed a group of physical and social activities collectively called the “martial arts.” Martial arts activities can include running drills that involve pure physical exertion, the execution of complicated sequences of maneuvers called “kata” alone or in groups, and supervised sparring matches.

These activities have long been applauded by the medical and psychiatric community for their ability to improve overall health, balance, aerobic capacity, strength, flexibility and psychological well-being.

“Martial arts are known to improve social skills, discipline and respect in children,” reads a 2011 article by the American Association of Pediatrics. Martial arts have also been identified by several researchers as a useful addition to traditional psychotherapy for a variety of disorders in children.

There are no consensus statements that I have been able to uncover as to whether martial arts should be recommended for children with histories of violence. However, it is apparent that the scientific and medical community places clear distinctions between the playing of videogames and martial arts training. I believe this distinction has been blurred in a way that makes past research less relevant to future discussions of videogames.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, violent videogames like Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat took their inspirations from martial arts, but were generally considered to be in the same category as other violent videogames that depicted the hurting, maiming or killing of other players. These games were generally considered to be bad for children and were thought to increase physical aggression and other undesirable psychological measures — though again, no consensus exists.

Should we even call UFC Trainer a game at all?

Until 2010, essentially every fighting game since the late 1980s was reasonably placed in the same category as other violent videogames. Then in 2010, Microsoft released the Kinect and Ubisoft quickly followed with the game Fighters Uncaged. This game could be described as an active violent videogame, in which the player moves very rigorously and this collection of movements results in some violent content on the screen. There wasn’t enough of it to earn a mature rating, but neither was it considered to be for everyone.

At this point in our discussion, we could stop and debate the merits and problems with the use of the Fighters Uncaged game by children, especially those who are at risk for developing obesity. There are supposed negative effects of playing violent videogames by children, but are they countered by the possible physical benefits of such a game? Could I as a child psychiatrist appropriately recommend this game to children with obesity? Would the potential benefits outweigh the potential harm? The UFC game relieves the burden of answering this question by providing an active videogame with an E rating, so theoretically it could be recommended for children at risk for obesity with no guilt of potential harm due to violent content.

But is something else going on here? UFC Trainer purports to have 70 exercises approved by sports groups. Does this mean that this game has some of the potential benefits of martial arts training? If so, should it be encouraged to be played by all children, not only because it is, theoretically, a good workout, but also could result in the some of the psychological and prosocial benefits that martial arts offers beyond ordinary exercise?

If so, should we even call the UFC program a game at all?

This leads us to what is an inevitable development in the technology. In the near future, it is entirely likely there will be a game that, for now, I will call a martial arts simulator. This program, using Kinect, would use the camera and motion sensor to allow multiple users to train together and spar against each other under the watchful eye of a sensei.

The users could be portrayed on screen as a video chat sparring match. The opponents would see each other in the screen and a sensei could be in the corner. The Kinect technology would track strikes that were effective or not, much like a martial arts sparring match. In addition, the user would get instant feedback from a sensei.

During competitions between leagues of users, potentially hundreds or thousands of people would be watching a sparring match, adding the potential psychological effects of succeeding or failing in front of a large group of people. As any online gamer involved in a league knows, the feelings of defeat and victory that come across wires can be very real.

So we would have a technology that could allow a user to participate in martial arts drills, kata and even certain kinds of sparring matches through a Kinect-enabled Xbox 360. This activity could be undertaken either with a computer, one on one with a sensei, with another user or with a group of users.

It appears to me that such an activity is not the same as playing a 1980s martial-arts-inspired violent videogame and is not the same as typical martial arts training. Rather, it would exist as a new, unique social activity with unique risks and benefits associated with its practice. I believe this means that previous research on the impact of videogames and martial arts on children would not apply to this new activity.

Old research may serve as a guide for future research, but no definitive conclusion should be made based on this older research. This is especially true when you consider the possibility that the matches the user plays do not need to be photorealistic, but could utilize avatars that are more gamelike and possess bloody imagery that would be less reminiscent of martial arts practice and more reminiscent of violent videogames.

Such a martial-arts simulator could be the computer program to really change the discussion of the impact of videogames on children and compel us to undertake a more comprehensive view of the potential risks and benefits of new gaming technology.