Slashdot Mirror
On the Moral Consequences of Gaming
N'Gai Croal and the LevelUp blog are collaborating with the popular UK games magazine Edge, and late last month we discussed the emotional impact of games. Or, more realistically, the lack thereof. This week N'Gai has been exploring what could be done to reinforce that emotional impact, and perhaps take those choices to a moral level. "What if developers attempted to bring social sanction into the experience? What if your Gamertag were designated 'Child Killer' for having murdered [Bioshock's] Little Sisters--or 'Good Samaritan' for having saved them? Microsoft recently announced its plans to add the Facebook and MySpace-inspired feature of allowing you to browse your friends' Friends Lists; what if everyone on your Friends List were notified each time you killed a Little Sister--or every time you rescued one--like the Status Updates on Facebook?"
Valve's orange box gave us 'Achievements', which are viewable online. I know they're included with Portal, TF2, Ep2, and probably others. Given the framework in place, I'm sure valve could extend it to include more 'moral' type results. The only thing is, I'm gussing a significant number of players would seek to get these, as at least in certain gaming communities, they'll be considered badges of honour more so than a judgement of the moral of the player.
It's a video game. Your actions don't have ANY important reaction because IT'S NOT REAL. That makes those tags WORTHLESS. Maybe if you were an actual child killer it would matter, but since no one is hurt or helped in the process of slaying a little ghost girl, the title loses all possible moral meaning.
If I thought I was being judged on moral grounds when I played a game I wouldn't play. There would be no point.
I believe I am ethical and moral in my real life, why the fuck would I want to be that way when playing a game? Isn't the point of a game to do things you would not ordinarily do.
And yeah, I killed some of the Little Sisters; after fighting a Big Daddy and getting my ass handed to me on a silver platter over and over again I figured they deserved it.
See, there's this thing called roleplaying.
It's when I pretend to be something I'm not by using my imagination.
I enjoy being creative, it adds to my enjoyment of the game.
They create fantasy worlds for us to play in, so we live fantasy lives when we play.
You can not judge someone for fantasy crimes.
I am not affected by these fantasies, except perhaps earning more understanding for the types of people who act that way.
This is important because I will come across many types real people over my lifetime, and my ability to deal with them hinges on my understanding them.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
The entire point of all games (not just video games) is that they allow you to pretend to do things without the moral sanctions that normally apply. To pick an antiquated example, would you like being labeled "potential thief" if you happened to play on the robbers' side in a game of Cops and Robbers? To put it more succinctly: if there are consequences outside the game, then its not a game. Its reality.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
yes, its true, some people will go to the 'dark side' in various games because they like that aspect. though, sometimes, its a completely utilitarian view. sometimes the abilities afforded the player vary depending on how 'good' or 'bad' they are. sometimes a player might like playing a certain way and the abilities afforded to the bad side just play to his/her strengths better. some people look at it as a moral choice, others look at it as a challenge, some look at it as total game completion (yea, i finished the game saving the little sisters, now i gotta play it and not save them), or in the same idea, just changing the game so its less boring (i saved 'em all last time, i want the game to be different, so i'll kill them every now and then when it suits me).
Honestly, if they do it, instead of giving negative names to bad choices and positive names to good choices, it should just be names biased to that side. like on the good side, you'd have titles like protector, savior, etc. and on the bad side you'd have names that people wouldn't mind having or that are 'cool' like dark lord or some ish.
The reason we can choose in games is so we can get a more interesting experience, not so we can be embarrassed by it.
I've seen this exact concept before in the old BBS door game Legend of the Red Dragon. It had a news feed like so:
Malkor has slain GoatseKnight in his sleep!
Malkor has slain Gorfried in his sleep!
etc. It is very similar to the web-based reincarnation Legend of the Green Dragon .
I'm not as concerned about the moral ramifications of how my character conducts themselves in a game. Certainly there are games where you get tags for your accomplishments, like gnoll-slayer or some such. That can give other players some indication of what you're doing.
What I'd like to see are some relevant tags, like team-killer. I don't care how you play the game in a single player mode, it's up to you. But in multi-player games, it would be nice to know what behavior we're likely to see.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
If the action taken in-game will have possible negative consequences outside the game, then why would you even allow the action? To use the example from the summary, you're allowed to kill the "Little Sisters" in Bioshock for a reason. If the game developer wants to make a moral point, I'd prefer that he or she used the in-game mechanic, rather than obscure mechanisms from outside the game. To go back to the example, if I'm not supposed to kill the "Little Sisters", then tell me that as part of the mission objectives, and/or force me to restart if do happen to kill one of them. Don't do this obscure we'll-allow-the-action-but-brand-you-in-real-life crap.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Every one of these "video games as a moral measure" articles always mentions the downside. What if I do good?
Sure, you can label me as a hostage killer in CounterStrike for my occasional screw up in a firefight but does that mean I qualify for the G.I. Bill due to my fine combat record in Call of Duty 4?
And more-so, if I had friends that got bent out of shape because I don't lose sleep over the hostages I accidentally fragged I probably wouldn't want them around me anyway.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Most of them break down to:
Option 1 - Inconvenient (refuse reward)
Option 2 - Neutral (take reward)
Option 3 - Jerk (take reward, and kill quest NPC)
It can be fun, but KOTOR, KOTOR2, Fable, etc.. all look like that. It's difficult to implement any deeper system.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
For many, games are an escape from the grind of life. The last thing I want in my games are things that tie back and bring me back to the reality of life. The reason why I picked up that game was to be immersed in the games fictional world, not to have the game world reflect society.
You play to be different a different person through your character, in a different situations, with different rules/consequences. Why would I want to play a game that related my in game decisions to what society thinks is right or wrong? That is not a game, that is life. A game, to me, is an escape from life. Are they mutually exclusive, games and 'life'? Probably not, but that does not mean they shouldn't be.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
Defcon being a prime example.
The first time I played it, a pirated version shortly after the release, I was genuinely touched. When my first nukes fell on Warsaw and Wienna, I was quite shaken. My friends live there. The music, the crying woman in the background, this all added to the game experience immensely. My conscience at work was quite strong. "Yeah, that's just a game", I'd rationalize, but I still felt for the virtual humanity.
Yesterday I got the original Defcon and played it for the first time in a long time again. I launched a mass attack. Tokyo, Cairo, New York, Mexico, London. And when they broke through the defences, I'd go like "Wow! Yeah!", I enjoyed the huge score and didn't feel the least bit sorry. I knew the counter-strike would wipe my country entirely, but cool calculation was "I have 100 mln people at -1 per million, I can lose at most 100 points. There's +2 for each million of enemy people I kill, so if I get to strike the biggest cities first, I'll reap enough points no loss at a later time will outweight. Screw all the defense, attack all big cities ASAP, hard." I won with over 300 points with the next best player getting just above 100 points. Considering the losses this translates to gameplay murder of about 400 millions people in the game. Yeah, the game was fun.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
...not so that my friends or I can find out something deep and personal about myself. The moment a game has too many ties to the real world is the moment it ceases to become a game and it becomes a nuisance. Video games were created for entertainment. If I'm marginally entertained by calmly slaughtering the entire city of Skingrad when I'm playing Oblivion, that's my business, and reflects nothing about my real life. And I hope I saved the game before I did it.
The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
When I was just a baby my mama told me 'son always be a good boy, don't ever play with guns'
But I shot a man in Bioshock just to watch him die. When I hear that whistle blowin' I hang my head and cry.
I have nothing compelling to say
Why do these two have to ruin fun gaming experiences by bloviating about them for pages and pages like they're Citizen Kane in interactive form?
Calling your Gamertag "Child Killer" for killing Little Sisters would be annoying and sensationalist. These guys are supposed to be a link between video games and the mainstream media, and they don't get that having a bunch of 13-year-olds bragging about their shiny new "Child Killer" tag would be bad PR? (No, those 13-year-olds SHOULDN'T be playing M-rated games, but as anyone who's ever used Xbox Live can tell you, they do anyway.)
Anyway, let's see if I can one-up them on the blowhard meter: if we are to take seriously Kant's Third Critique, we would have to accept that aesthetic appreciation is only possible when the object of appreciation is of no immediate practical interest to us (but rather a "disinterested interest"). If we start salivating when looking at a picture of fruit, that's not "artistic" or "aesthetic" appreciation. If we look at pictures of naked women for sexual pleasure, that's not "aesthetic" appreciation. By the same token, if we're worried about our actions in a video game because we think they'll affect our real life in some way, like making us online social pariahs because of our Gamertags, that's not an aesthetic concern either. Introducing pragmatic interests to games makes them closer to porno than to DaVinci.
"...what if everyone on your Friends List were notified each time you killed a Little Sister--or every time you rescued one--like the Status Updates on Facebook? "
There would be a surge in Little Sister kills.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
The single most important problem with games that try to include consequences for "moral decisions" is that virtually no one knows that there can be more than one idea of what constitutes morality. Most people in the U.S. who talk about morality take it as given that the Judeo-Christian ethos *is* morality. Not just one option, not just a view, it is the entirety of the subject. People take as given that self-sacrifice is good, self-interest is bad, "spirituality" is superior to "materialism", etc.
That is why these morality games will and must fail. There are no real moral issues explored, only a scorecard of how well you've conformed to the designer's idea of what morality is.
Games might very well become more immersive and emotionally involving. They will *not* become real-world moral laboratories. If the player's view of morality differs in any way from the designer's then that disconnect will destroy the entire illusion.
One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
Anyone who has played with average gamers today knows that having tags like "Child Killer" attached to their names would be seen as "awesome", not a deterrent. I'm sure this would inspire a race to collect as many "bad-ass" tags as possible rather than prevent immoral behavior. It's only when your choices actually affect gameplay that morality will be considered.
I disagree. Just like with books, movies, and other narratives, I have an emotional connection to the world I'm in. Therefor, I have an incredibly hard time making decisions, in games, that I wouldn't do in real life. When I played Bioshock, I couldn't bring myself to kill the little sisters, because it just felt wrong to me. In Mass Effect, I tend toward the Paragon or the middle of the road answers. Even if I wanted to play an asshole, I'd feel incredibly bad about doing that, because it would feel unrealistic to who I am. I guess, I don't like assholes, and I don't like heros to be assholes, and what we play, in games, are heros... all NPCs tend to admire them, or fear them (if the NPCs are evil), I don't want anyone admiring a complete prick, partially because I hate to see that happen in real life.
So yes, I completely disagree that we're focusing on our performance. It's like saying that people don't pay attention to the plot of a story because they're more concerned in how many pages they're reading, per minute.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Because everything should be allowed in the game world - the only penalties and rewards we need are those in the game itself. I tried to play one of the Splinter Cell games once - it was unspeakable. I'm trying to stop a madman from detonating some unholy terror weapon and killing hundreds of thousands, and my controller calls a halt to the mission because I accidentally shot a civilian. Yeah, sorry and all, didn't mean to, but let's have a little perspective here. Let me finish the mission - give me the silver or bronze achievement award instead of gold, let me go back and try and do it perfectly when I feel like nailing all the gold awards, but when I'm trying to save hundreds of thousands, cut me some slack over one accidental death!
Mercenaries was another one, there's one particular mission where there's a huge firefight going on, and suddenly, up comes a message saying I'm due them $100K of my earnings because I shot the CNN reporter. Wow. I didn't even know there was one there! There's seven different automatic weapons going off over here, but you're sure it was me? What the hell was the idiot doing sticking his head up in the middle of a gun battle anyway!?
Those events were crap enough - don't go adding Civilian Killer to my gamertag as well.