Video games and morality…
Shamus, over at Twenty Sided put up a post about Bioshock last week.* Watching the trailer for the game, and reading the conversation taking place was interesting to me. Some of you may not be aware, but one of my major fields of study in college was moral theory, and I’ve been playing video games since the 2600 days. What this means, as I was telling someone last night, is that I sometimes find myself torn when I’m playing a game.
Now, there have always been games of, shall we say, questionable moral value. Oh, fuck it, let’s call a spade a spade, right? There have been racist/sexist/homophobic games for a long time, and violence has been common in games for decades now. Video games have involved fighting things, killing things, and blowing things up for almost as long as there have been video games. One of the things that has changed, though, is the ability to tell stories through gaming.
I’m not really interested in doing a complete history of video gaming, but it’s safe to say that advances in technology have made it easier and easier for developers to make games that have complicated stories and that allow players to make meaningful choices. The stories that they choose to tell, and the choices that they allow players to make are important, and I think it’s important to look at these things.
Here’s where the conflict comes in. The philosophical part of me wants to examine and critique games based on the strength or weakness of the moral positions the game endorses. The gamer in me, though, is interested in the game-play. Is the game fun? Is the game intellectually stimulating? Does the game break new ground? Does the game have strong moral positions?
These are all important questions, to me.
Sometimes I find myself really attracted to a game from one perspective, but repulsed or troubled from the other.
Many games don’t seem to push any real philosophical position, and that’s okay. When I’m playing Super Mario Brothers 3 (one of the best games ever made, clearly), I’m not really too concerned with the philosophical implications of bouncing off of the back of a turtle. I could delve into a deep analysis of the game based on Mario being a plumber, and the fact that Peach is constantly being kidnapped, but I think it’d be about as productive as trying to analyze the economy of the Mushroom kingdom.
Well… okay, I admit it. I actually have briefly considered how weird that economy must be. I digress.
Sometimes a video game is just a video game, and it’s going to borrow from standard story-telling clichés, and that’s okay. A lot of video games are: Evil villain kidnaps the hero’s wife/girlfriend/love-interest/best friend/child. Hero must face legions of bad-guys to save the victim. Hero beats the Bad Guy. Everyone but the villain lives Happily Ever After (until the next game).
And that’s okay. You can certainly find things to critique- traditional gender roles, or the use of violence to solve problems, etc. Those are fine conversations, but, for most games, my primary interest is going to be in the game itself. As part of larger conversations, it might make sense to analyze the game like that, but I don’t know that it’s helpful in and of itself.
More and more, though, modern games are taking stronger and stronger philosophical stands. In particular, more and more games are raising important ethical questions. Maybe it was inevitable? Many games are taking steps to allow players an unprecedented level of freedom to act inside the world of the game (thus, the “Sandbox” game). In addition to allowing ever increasing levels of interaction within the game-world, there are quite a few games that are intentionally raising philosophical questions. The increased focus on telling interesting stories doesn’t hurt, either.
Anyway, all of this got me thinking more about the ethics of video games, and what games I really like from a philosophical perspective, and which games I don’t like.
One set of games that I think do a really interesting job dealing with moral dilemma are the Fallout series of games. The Fallout games are interesting in that they present the player with problems, and allow the player to solve those problems in any number of ways. “Good” players will search for non-violent solutions if they can, will help the needy, and act honestly. “Bad” players can murder innocent people, ignore or even add to the problems of those in need, and may lie, cheat, and steal to get the things that they want.
Actions, however, have consequences. Players who act like that- who intentionally harm innocent people, steal, or act violently- will find the game becoming increasingly difficult as the people in the game-world refuse to provide needed help, or even attempt to stop the player.
On the other hand, a player that acts too nice might find that less honest characters in the game take advantage of this, or that certain sections of the game are more difficult because of this.
There’s a certain balance there, and it’s quite interesting to see it playing out within the game-world. Players who build a reputation for being a do-gooder will find that characters associated with criminals won’t want anything to do with the player, which, of course, makes sense. It’s up to the player to decide how to balance his or her moral obligations. That is interesting, to me.
Let’s compare/contrast Fallout to GTA, now. The games are not in the same genre, obviously, but both games have strong sandbox elements, so I don’t think that a comparison is out of order. From a purely gaming perspective, both games are fun. The Fallout games have a really strong turn-based combat system that I really enjoy (it’s actually quite a bit like X-Com: UFO Defense, another fantastic game). GTA positively shines in terms of the vehicle/transportation system. Driving around the city, jump cars over hills and such is a lot of fun. Both games have weak elements- travel can be tedious in Fallout, and there were a number of minor, if annoying, bugs that could cause large groups of NPCs to agro. GTA’s combat system is ridiculously bad.
And yet, I still play and replay the Fallout games, but I haven’t touched a GTA game in several years. Why?
We’re back to the moral position of the game. GTA does allow the player to make a lot of choices. The problem, for me, is that the game doesn’t allow the player to make moral choices. The story is on a narrow track, and the player is forced to do things that are, quite frankly, morally repugnant.
Now, that, in and of itself, isn’t a problem. Sometimes we can learn a lot or take a lot away from a situation like that. Shadow of the Colossus, which I’ll talk about in a second, forces the player to commit acts that are, upon inspection, pretty questionable. There’s a big difference in how the games treat those actions, though.
In GTA, players are not only required to do morally questionable things, but they’re rewarded for them. It’s not that there aren’t morally good ways to complete the missions… well… okay, actually, there aren’t “good” ways to complete the missions. But, that isn’t the point. I’m not as bothered by that as I am bothered by the fact that violent/racist/sexist actions are rewarded the world of GTA, while kind actions not only aren’t rewarded, but are, for the most part, impossible.
To further complicate things, it was pointed out to me that one of the reasons that GTA sold as well as it did was precisely because of the pornographic violence of it all. As much as I hate to admit that, it’s probably pretty accurate. GTA was a controversial game, and intentionally so. That controversy is almost certainly one of the reasons that it became as popular as it did. Comments that “well, you don’t have to beat up the hookers” don’t do much to change that perception, by the way. The point is, everyone knows that you can beat up and murder hookers, and that ended up being treated as a selling point.
And that’s a problem.
Okay, I’m not out to rake GTA over the coals- Rockstar took a lot of shit for GTA, but they also made a lot of money. And, GTA was an important step, and it helped inspire the development of other games that I’ve really enjoyed. Which is, of course, why I said that I was torn.
So, moving on. I want to touch on Shadow of the Colossus for a second. Shadow of the Colossus is an interesting case, and it got a lot of publicity when it came out, because of the strong art direction, and some pretty significant departures from traditional game-play. An aspect that I saw a few other reviewers touch on, but that larger seems to have flown under the radar is the moral position of the game.
Shadow of the Colossus puts the player in the role of a young man who is attempting to save the life of/resurrect a young woman. He is told that he must slay a certain number of massive (note: by virtue of being a colossus, they kind of have to be massive, don’t they?) Colossi in order to return her to life.
The player has no choice in that matter- it’s the entire point of the game. You go out, find a Colossus, and you kill it. If you don’t want to kill the Colossus, you should really just turn the game off, because that’s the bulk of the game-play. You can wander around the land, and take in the sights (which are, to be fair, amazing), but you’re not going to do much playing if you don’t kill the Colossi. So, as far as that goes, the player’s hand is forced, and the game is on relatively narrow tracks.
I can’t speak for other people, but I found some of the battles really troubling. The game designers, I think, took special care to create strong emotional reactions, and it works. When you approach the first Colossus, it is walking around completely oblivious to the player. It’s only after you attack it that it reacts to your presence. None of the Colossi seek the player out, and none of them are evil. They’re living creatures that are minding their own business until the player comes up and starts killing them. Some of them will react with hostility the moment the player shows up, but others will completely ignore the player until they are attacked. That, to me, is really interesting.
By doing this, the game creates a moral problem for the player. You’re being forced to kill creatures that have nothing to do with your situation in order to save the life of another person. The things you’re killing range from being little more than worms (albeit, giant worms) to being rather obviously intelligent (at least, in so far as intelligence can be determined by the fact that they carry what are clearly tools/weapons).
The developers seem to be aware of this, and the game, I think, does a good job with the situation, while still being fun. Fighting the Colossi was exciting, but when the fights ended, there were definite moments where I couldn’t help but feel bad about what was happening. The death animations for the Colossi can be really, really sad. And I won’t even get into the end of the game.
The point is that the game forces the player to do things that are questionable, but it does so in a way that I think shows a respect for the material, and for the complexity of the situations. Shadow of the Colossus has the ability to make you think about why you’re reacting the way you are. It’s a good example of a game that forces the player to act in questionable ways, but does so in a way that doesn’t feel exploitative.
Anyway. I could keep going all day, but where’s the fun in that? I want to know what other people are thinking. Does anyone but me actually care about the moral position of the games they’re playing? What are some other games that you think have interesting moral problems they present the player? What other games do you find philosophically objectionable?
*I just realized, I didn’t bother connecting any of this back to Bioshock. The trailer is pretty violent, but, basically, the game supposedly raises some interesting moral questions. There are “children” (genetically engineered clones, by the sound of it) who collect a valuable resource. I don’t know how many ways there are to get this resource, but one way is to take it by force from the children. The impression I get is that this would involve killing them. Killing the children gets you the resource… but… well… you just killed a child.
Also, there are very large… uh… things that protect the children. Acting hostile towards the children looks like it pisses the large things off in a pretty major way. I’m interested to see how this plays out. If the game requires you to kill the children to advance, and the only consequence is that you anger the big guys, then screw that. Boring and, quite frankly, screwed up. If the idea is that your journey would be easier by acting like an evil prick, but there’s some other, yet unforeseen disadvantage- e.g. a bad ending- for killing the children, that might be more interesting. I don’t mind- and actually kind of like- games that reinforce the idea that “sometimes doing The Right Thing is hard. The easy path isn’t always the right one.” In a game, however, this means giving the player who did The Right Thing some kind of significant reward at the end of it all. If they took the hard route the whole way through the game, because they wanted to do The Right Thing, they deserve some kind of reward.
The Real World ™ doesn’t work that way, but, by gods, a video game ought to.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
[…] Original post by 79soul […]
February 28th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Awesome entry, I love it! I absolutely agree with you, too. I never even TOUCHED GTA (except #2, and only multiplayer), because senseless violence isn’t my thing. But I played my first character Dark Side through Knights of the Old Republic… because it was *fascinating*. You got to see all the bad things that happened as a result of your actions… at one point I was kicked out of a city and never allowed to go back, whereas a Light Side character ends up being a Hero there. It was a great and deeply connective experiance.
So no, you aren’t the only one who thinks about this sort of thing in games. ^^
March 1st, 2007 at 8:20 am
Going back about ten years to the controversial game Blood, I remember being stuck on a certain level for what seemed like an eternity looking for a particular key that would allow me to progress. I searched every corner, pushed every button and section of wall, and was completely stumped.
It turned out that the key was in the possession of a madman who was running around the area, a noncombatant that I had assumed it was my job, in part, to protect from all the monsters. But in fact, the game designers were expecting me to *kill* this guy for no reason other than that in Blood, you can kill innocent bystanders with impunity and for “comedic” effect.
That really, really ticked me off.
March 1st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
The moral issues in games can be really interesting. However, I don’t really think about the issues unless I’m in a game that focuses on them. I would go to my friends house to go on rampages in GTA. I’d steal a bus and run over anybody I could find. Recently, I played Oblivion, and I was actually pretty kind to anyone who didn’t first attack me. You don’t have to run over people in GTA, and you don’t have to be kind to anyone in Oblivion, but you can make the choice. I’d say my moral standard is decent, but sometimes it’s really fun to be bad, if only in a game. Now, when you’re forced into a situation where you can only choose a bad route, that isn’t any fun. In Hulk: Ultimate Destruction, you choose whether you avoid the civilians or hurl them from skyscrapers. The latter brings on punishment, something that should be associated with an evil act.
March 1st, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Great article.
When I first started playing WoW, I felt guilty when killing monsters and beasts that were non-combative. Even more guity when a deer or bunny would be killed for skinning. I mean, the bunnies scream when you kill them, who can’t feel bad about that? I would even prefer to kill ‘diseased’ deer over the healthy kind, as it felt more humane.
Now? The really sad thing? I’m kind of over the guilt.
March 1st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
God of War kinda annoyed me at times because Kratos wasn’t all that likeable, and there were a couple of times he was unneccessarily ruthless, letting people die or even kicking them off to their death.
Galciv II (and the original game) has an interesting morality system, though it seems like it’s a bit of a tangential aspect of the game. You get various situations that you can respond to in a bad way (and get a bonus) a neutral way (and get nothing) or a good way (and generally get penalized). This helps you or hurts you in that other races will treat you differently based on your ethical alignment. If you’re evil, the other evil races will like you, while the good races won’t (and vice versa). Personally, I usually end up neutral, but at least they try…
GTA III was just fun because of the freedom and interactivity of the world. It wasn’t so much that doing the bad things was fun as it was that the game actually allowed you to do so. I couldn’t think of any games that were so free before, so I liked it. But you’re right, I haven’t played that in years. Part of that, though, is that the game hasn’t changed much either. The latest game’s innovations basically force you to watch your diet and exercise, for crying out loud.
March 1st, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I’m glad someone is approaching this without taking either the “it’s just a game” or the “games make kids kill” angles. Frankly, this is a topic that really demands examination.
I’ll play GTA3, and recognize it’s a game. Yes, there are distateful things in the game, and I don’t necessarily enjoy doing them, but I do enjoy the gameplay. On the flipside, I know people who think the most enjoyable part of the game isn’t the gameplay, but the fact that you can do those things that I (and you, apparently) would find distasteful. They enjoy the part of the game that I find distateful.
And that’s what really bothers me. Not that a videogame rewards bad conduct, but that there are people out there who seek do to bad things, and are held in restraint not by a personal moral code, but by the consequenses (fines, prison, etc) of doing bad things. How did they get to that point? What can be done about it? What should be done about it?
Telas
March 1st, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Wow! Comments! Hooray!
I started to reply to the comments, but there’s so much to say! I’m going to have to do another entry, I think.
Anyway, great, great comments, and thanks for the feedback.
March 1st, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Quote: “And that’s what really bothers me. Not that a videogame rewards bad conduct, but that there are people out there who seek do to bad things, and are held in restraint not by a personal moral code, but by the consequenses (fines, prison, etc) of doing bad things. How did they get to that point? What can be done about it? What should be done about it?”
I remember a short explanation of freudian psychology, and of the id, ego and super-ego. The id was the part that wants all its desires satisfied, and wants them satisfied now (ie. gorge yourself on food, have sex with anything that stays still long enough then sleep for 24 hours straight). The ego holds that in check with the thought of all the bad things that would happen if the id was given free reign - you’d get fat, get arrested and piss off everyone around you.
The super-ego was slightly more complex and apparently Freud thought this part of the subconscious didnt develop in everyone, its role in the mix was that it wanted to do/not do things because they were right/wrong things to do, not just in order to fill a desire or avoid a bad consequence.
Sounds like the people you described (only held in restraint by the consequences) don’t have a very strong super-ego,
Either that, or they choose not to exercise it when in a game - because let’s face it, if you can tell reality from animation then you know there’s a difference between beating up a hooker and pressing buttons which correspond to in-game actions that produce an animated picture of a character beating up a hooker (both of whom are composed entirely of pixels/polygons)
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:16 am
Good call! It’s a good thing morals aren’t relative, otherwise what one person found reprehensible might be considered engaging or acceptable by another - and wouldn’t that cause philosophical consternation abount, ha, ha, ha!
The only line I found so ridiculous that I will seriously address it was near the end, specifically when you said “If they took the hard route the whole way through the game, because they wanted to do The Right Thing, they deserve some kind of reward.” Please, consider what you are asking!
You want developers of electronic entertainment to not only wildly estimate your own personal moral compass, but program in multiple game/reward paths to accommodate it. Putting aside the technical hurdles of such a request, there is the much more obvious route to take of the often-iterated cry to simply play a different game. I resisted putting that last statement in capitals, but it needs to be emphasized.
To wit, I personally do not find Bioshock to be morally objectionable in the least. In the context of the game, the children do not represent the same social/biological construct that an actual child does, and most persons can make that distinction. In fact, I praise Bioshock (lightly, because it has yet to be actually released of course and we have no real idea how it will play) for the very qualities you list early in the article - innovation in control, a storyline powered by Ayn Rand and dystopia, etcetera.
If you find the killing of child-like or child objects to be distasteful, play a different game. If you want a game which rewards you for following your personal, arbitrary set of morals, make one yourself, or find a developer who has made one which closely fits. Comparing a game like Fallout, which is dependent on your interactions with other, life-like human entities, to one in which you are thrust into an entirely abnormal situation is nonsense.
On one point, I do agree, and that pertains to SotC; specifically, the sympathy you felt towards the colossi. However, you have to take into account the fact that in a video game, or watching a movie or reading a novel or playing a board game, you are not the main character. They are placed in an entirely different framework than you, environmentally, morally, motivationally - taking SotC as an example, the main character was a person who was more dedicated to resurrecting his companion than anything else, and so one can imagine that he felt empathy for the Colossi, or perhaps questioned the morality of his actions, but in his mind he had rationalized his actions, committed, and only at that point, with this entire persona outside of your own, is the controller placed in your hands. I do not know of a game which allows the entire player’s persona to influence its course - such a game would be too much like the player’s own reality, and may place them in a metaphysical crisis if they think about it too hard.
Please try to think a little more on things, beneath their appearance of “amorality” in this case, before posting again, otherwise you may mislead readers who do not give such things a second thought.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 am
Counterpost:
Perhaps you can do me a favor and point out anywhere in my post where I said that I found Bioshock morally objectionable? I haven’t played the game yet, so I don’t know if I find it morally objectionable at all. In fact, what I said was “I’m interested to see how this plays out.” I gave a couple of possibilities- I might find the game really interesting, or I might find it boring and objectionable, based on the choices the developer makes. I haven’t passed any judgments on the game yet. All I’ve done is talk about what they’ve shown us so far. You may not have a problem with the trailer, which is fine. I don’t, either. I do, however, think it’s disingenuous to pretend that the game isn’t raising a moral issue.
There’s a saying: “Nothing in a movie happens by accident.” I think that this is largely true of gaming, as well. When a developer makes a choice like rewarding the player for murdering a child, that’s something that’s intentional. As gamers, I think it’s important for us to consider the implications, and to think about what those choices mean. Just because an action is morally questionable doesn’t mean that the game is bad for allowing or encouraging it, and I never said it was. Again, in SotC, the main character is acting in morally questionable ways, but I think it’s one of the most brilliant games I’ve ever played. The choice to make some of the Colossi sympathetic, and to make the main character morally culpable was important, and it paid off in spades. The developers intentionally force the player to engage in acts that, upon inspection, raise moral questions. From what I can see, that was part of the point of the experience. That’s one of the things that makes it such a brilliant game.
So, no, I don’t think it’s unfair to question why the makers of Bioshock made the choice to include the ability to kill children for reward. I think it was an intentional choice, and, from the interviews I’ve read, it’s precisely because they wanted to make the player experience moral concerns. If they weren’t interested in raising questions of morality, they wouldn’t have you murdering children- it could easily have been small animals, or robots, or any number of other things.
It isn’t, though.
They’re children.
It could pay off brilliantly for them.
If it’s a good game, I hope it does.
You want developers of electronic entertainment to not only wildly estimate your own personal moral compass, but program in multiple game/reward paths to accommodate it.
No, I don’t. I don’t think that it takes any “wild estimation” to realize that murdering children is something that most people will find morally questionable. Note, again, that I haven’t condemned the game- I’m just not going to pretend that the creators are morons who don’t realize that killing children is kind of… uh… taboo.
Look, there is certainly a lot of debate about what constitutes moral behavior, but there are some aspects that are relatively cut and dry. Even if you believe in subjective morality, murder, theft, lying, rape… those things tend to make it on most of the “bad” lists I’ve seen. Given the number of games that actually do reward or punish players for making “bad” choices, I don’t think that it’s unreasonable at all. If I shoot an ally in a FPS, my ally will eventually shoot me back. Thus, I’ve been sanctioned for negative behavior. Games reward and punish player behavior all the time, so my comment isn’t ridiculous at all. You don’t have to create multiple paths to reward or punish players for the choices they make. Sometimes you reward players by giving them better items. Sometimes you punish them by taking things away from them, by adding more enemies, etc.
Or, you might reward them by giving them perks at the end of the game. Silent Hill rewarded players by giving them different endings and access to new items, based on how they solved certain puzzles.
Comparing a game like Fallout, which is dependent on your interactions with other, life-like human entities, to one in which you are thrust into an entirely abnormal situation is nonsense.
Neither of us have played Bioshock, but I really have to question this statement- have you watched the trailer? The child reacts like a life-like human entity when the character tries to drag it out of the ductwork. There is rather clearly fear on the child’s face. Again, it seems to me that making them children was a pretty significant choice. Further, I question how you can call the world of Fallout- where there are mutants, giant rats, plasma rifles, etc, anything but “an entirely abnormal situation.” It sure looks like Bioshock was trying for a greater sense of realism than Fallout, from what I’ve seen.
If you want a game which rewards you for following your personal, arbitrary set of morals, make one yourself, or find a developer who has made one which closely fits.
If all you took from my article was that I want developers to follow my personal “arbitrary” set of morals, then you’ve seriously misread my intent. The fact that I appreciate games that treat complex moral issues as complex moral issues doesn’t mean that I only like games that reinforce my moral values. Do I object to games that force the player to do immoral things and then reward the player for it?
Sure.
Please try to think a little more on things, beneath their appearance of “amorality” in this case, before posting again, otherwise you may mislead readers who do not give such things a second thought.
Please don’t come onto my website and tell me how to post. I’m more than happy to entertain criticism. You’re free to disagree with the content of my post if you want. This is, however, my site, not yours. When I post things on here, I’m going to work on the assumption that I don’t need to preface my comments with “These are my opinions,” because I assume that my readers are pretty smart people. I don’t need to make a disclaimer before I post shit.
And definitely don’t come on my site and tell me that I haven’t thought about things. I think it’s pretty obvious that I’ve given the subject quite a bit of thought, actually.
Speaking of thought:
1. Why did you put quotes around “amorality”? I never, once, said anything about games being amoral. Were they intended as scare quotes?
2. The word you probably wanted was “immoral.” There’s pretty big difference between the two. If you’re going to try to shame me for not thinking enough, the least you could do is make sure you’re using the right word, and that you’re criticizing the position I actually hold.
March 4th, 2007 at 3:07 am
The only game I have played that had any sort of major morality component was Black and White. If you haven’t played the game, the premise is that you are a god and you have control over a population of people who worship you and you derive your power from their worship. In addition to the main storyline of the game, you have side quests where you can help out your people or just ignore them or kill them for no reason. Throoghout the entire game, you have an angel and devil character advising you on what they think you should do. Your only presence on the screen is a hand…and as you make choices in how to treat your people, the appearance of the hand will change as you become more evil or more benevolent.
I’m not sure about the game actually rewarding one behavior over the other, it has been awhile since I played. I do remember usually trying to play through as benevolently as possible, but had a pretty hard time keeping my hand from getting some evil spots on it and so it seemed harder to be good at the time.
I do think it was a more interesting game because of the way morality was incorporated. And while I agree that the morality component of Gal Civ II is a minor part of the game, the mutliple routes to winning also reward more diverse moral viewpoints of players. It’s not just a military strategy game where you violently conquer your enemies even though it can be played that way. In all, I think having more morality components in games makes for more complex, interesting games.
One of the main objections I have to many games is the way women are represented. It’s not just the impracticality of Lara Croft tombraiding in hot pants and a wonderbra. There are alot of games out there that just have no female components at all. The military strategy genre is the prime example. It’s not about rewriting history, as some people suggest in defense of these games. I understand it would be completely unreasonble to have female soldier on the front lines in a WWII game. But, it isn’t as if women were not affected by or involved in war efforts. They might not have been driving tanks, but they were involved in resistance efforts, they were involved in espionage, they were involved in caring for the sick and the dying. It would not be historically innacurate for a game to have some of these kinds of roles represented. Instead, we have games like Rome: Total War in which pretty much all women can do is get married off and beget heirs. While I think in general the idea of a game set in ancient Rome is pretty cool, for me as a female I can’t play a game where the only characters I could identify with have such a limited role. And certainly, I’m sure there are some people who are perfectly satisfied with these kind of games as they are and I’m in no way saying they aren’t good games. I just don’t think there is any way you can argue that adding in more complexity necessarily will make for a bad game.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:15 am
[…] This is something that I’ve found myself dealing with as my own socio-political beliefs continue to grow and evolve. I mentioned it in this earlier post to some degree, but it seems like a good time to talk about it a little more, because I think that this is something that most people who experience a paradigm shift probably go through. At least, I think that those of us who become really involved in feminism, or anti-racist, or anti-homophobic activism probably go through this. […]
June 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
[…] In the over two decades that I’ve been playing, gaming has changed tremendously- systems are more powerful, the graphics are prettier, the controls are better, and the stories they can tell are more involved and interesting. Lately, I’ve been particularly interested in the stories. As a feminist, and a philosophy student, I’m particularly interested in the intersection of gaming and morality/ethics. Not in a casual “games are corrupting our society” sort of way- but in the ways that games contribute to and are effected by our society, and the ways that we can explore and learn about complicated moral issues through the use of games. […]
June 12th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
[…] In the over two decades that I’ve been playing, gaming has changed tremendously- systems are more powerful, the graphics are prettier, the controls are better, and the stories they can tell are more involved and interesting. Lately, I’ve been particularly interested in the stories. As a feminist, and a philosophy student, I’m particularly interested in the intersection of gaming and morality/ethics. Not in a casual “games are corrupting our society” sort of way- but in the ways that games contribute to and are effected by our society, and the ways that we can explore and learn about complicated moral issues through the use of games. […]
January 10th, 2009 at 5:07 am
Wait, wait, wait. Your problem is with games that force you to be evil, and then reward you, and this is because it oversimplifies the moral issue?
What about the overwhelming majority of games which force you to be good, and then punish you? If evil should never be rewarded, nothing bad should ever happen to you if you’re “good”, either.
If the point of a game is for you to play an evil character then, yeah, you’ll be rewarded for doing evil things. If you don’t want to play that game…don’t play that game. But don’t whine about it afterwards.
Similarly, if the point of a game is for you to play a good character…well, the game still needs conflict, after all. Bob’s Average Day is not a fun game. Something bad has to happen to Bob, even if he’s a paragon of virtue.
Expecting games to sacrifice uniqueness, and all melt into the same mold of “Every moral issue is multi-path”, is a step on the road to madness. Save it for the tabletop, where some storyteller can improvise on the fly - pre-programmed games have to railroad you somehow, and if they all railroad you the same way, you only ever need to play one video game, and then you’re done with the entire medium.