Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

On the Moral Consequences of Gaming

Posted by Zonk on Fri Nov 30, 2007 01:35 PM
from the krogan-rights-forever-down-with-the-genophage dept.
Entertainment Games
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?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] On Provoking Emotions Via Games 108 comments
N'Gai Croal, poster at the Newsweek LevelUp blog, moonlights today in a column for Next Geneartion discussing the success games have had in provoking emotional responses. More specifically, he talks about the fact that mostly games are fairly bad at this. Citing a few notable exceptions (Final Fantasy VII, BioShock), he raises again the notion of 'games as art' as they relate to emotion: "Shadow Of The Colossus wasn't a blockbuster, but the frequency with which it's cited in 'are games art?' debates indicates both a medium still in its aesthetic infancy and a videogame that punched above its weight. BioShock won't sell like Gears Of War, but it already feels as though it's going to be one of this generation's most influential games. And if Mass Effect can deliver on its early promise of confronting players with thorny moral choices and the consequences of their actions, perhaps other creators will see that making the player feel bad can be a good thing after all. "
[+] Xbox 360 Updates Social Features, Back Compat 112 comments
Microsoft is gearing up for another big update to Xbox Live, and soon they'll be offering a friend of a friend feature that will allow users to peruse their friends' friend lists. It's a voluntary service, and is gated by your age to avoid any parental fears. If you'd rather turn it off ahead of time, they already have a dedicated site set up for that purpose. (Gamertag login required.) That update will be dropping on December 4th. Relatedly, they're also rolling out a whole bunch of new backwards compatability options for your old Xbox games. Highlights include support for: Baldurs Gate: Dark Alliance, Burnout 2: Point of Impact, Forgotten Realms: Demon Stone, Indiana Jones And The Emperors Tomb, Star Wars: Jedi Starfighter, Syberia II, The Bard's Tale, Worms 3D. There's also support for a slew of sports titles going all the way back to 2003.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

On the Moral Consequences of Gaming 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • 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?
    I'd be annoyed as hell? As if it weren't already bad enough...

    But seriously, we're not affected by games because we're focusing on our performance, not what's happening. Those who focus on games are affected by them; where's the problem?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cromar (1103585)
      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 [lotgd.net] .
      • The news feed you speak of existed entirely within the domain of the game world though. It described your activities in an acceptable way, because you wanted people to know those things, it was, as it were, part of the experience, and a cool one at that.

        I don't have a problem with any site or game that advertises my activities on that site or in that game to others. I'd prefer a 'keep this secret' option. Don't want my neighbor to know I'm stockpiling weapons to launch an attack now, do I.
        • I wouldn't mind something that showed up in my profile, kinda like a reverse "achievements" system..."Oh I see satanicpuppy got the 'Little Sista Slaughta' achievement for killing 50 little sisters."

          No big deal.
      • StarvingSE has successfully flirted with Violet...

        Gotta love nerdy teenage hormones. We didn't even need 3d graphics with physics-enabled "jiggly" sections back then.

    • Re:what if indeed? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 7Prime (871679) on Friday November 30 2007, @09:37PM (#21540771) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by king-manic (409855)

        Someone tell LevelUp and Edge about Fable. Maybe then we won't have any more of these stupid studies.
        So they see a hamfisted, poorly implemented, inconsequential morality system?

        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.
  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hansamurai (907719)
      Speaking of Valve, they just released a ton of player stats on Episode 2, pointing out how long people played, where they died, etc. This was all in very broad terms, but imagine if they did something similar to moral decisions. Say in Episode 3 you have the choice to save Alyx but something else really bad happens to a lot more people, or you save the world but Alyx has to die. Now Valve would keep track of whether or not you saved Alyx the first time through, and then release the stats to everyone. I
      • I agree. Beyond agreeing, I think it would be cool, and useful as well. Might help you match up with people online outside of your immediate social circle by the fact that they tend to have similar achievements.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by pthor1231 (885423)
      Valve didn't give you that. They built it in on the non 360 version of the game because all 360 games have gamerscore, which was probably an idea taken from somewhere else, and I'm sure PC/PS3 players would be kind of annoyed if the 360 version had this and theirs didn't. And yes, there are tons of website dedicated to getting more gamerscore, see http://x360a.org/ [x360a.org]

    • Valve's orange box gave us 'Achievements', which are viewable online.

      Every 360 game has achievements. Some of them keep the achievements in their PC versions, some don't. A few actually use the PC version of live and attach the achievements to your gamertag like the xbox versions do. (not sure whether orange box does this or not)

      1000pts for a retail game

      200pts for an arcade game (also applied to the half-way house burger king games)

      250pts extra for a major downloadable upgrade (oblivion, gears, crackdown

  • No, silly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Debello (1030486) on Friday November 30 2007, @01:42PM (#21535859)
    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.
    • It would be pretty cool if they DID have meanings. Combine that with an alignment stat... oh wait. That's Fable with tags.
    • But what if one of the tags was Team Killer?
    • Why is it that video games are the only media being scrutinized at this level on morality issues? Are people who've seen Silence of the Lambs stamped "Cannibal" after leaving the theatre (or returning the DVD)? I've read Oedipus Rex. Does that mean I'm a motherf****r?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by justkarl (775856)
      It's a video game. Your actions don't have ANY important reaction because IT'S NOT REAL. That makes those tags WORTHLESS.
       
      Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

  • I would not play (Score:5, Insightful)

    by topham (32406) on Friday November 30 2007, @01:42PM (#21535873) Homepage
    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.

        • Re:I would not play (Score:5, Informative)

          by plague3106 (71849) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:57PM (#21537015)
          Huh? Not because its online, because its a game. Your examples are causing real damage to real people / systems. Killing someone in a game is annoying, at best. Get a clue.

  • Roleplaying (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Joe the Lesser (533425) on Friday November 30 2007, @01:43PM (#21535885) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • Re:Roleplaying (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2007, @02:19PM (#21536463)
      I like to role play in bed. Usually I just imagine there's a girl next to me.

  • Then what's the point of Gaming? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by quanticle (843097) on Friday November 30 2007, @01:48PM (#21535963) Homepage

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by nomadic (141991)
      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.

      There are several different reasons to play games, and I don't think escaping moral sanctions is the "entire point". I play games because I enjoy a challenge; whether intellectually, in the case of adventure or RPG games, or physically, in terms of racing or FPSes. And when I'm playing a game I generally play the good guy; I get a little squeamish about mur

  • its a different behavioral system (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PJ1216 (1063738) * on Friday November 30 2007, @01:51PM (#21535999) Homepage
    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 usually play through games that have "good" and "bad" alignment possibilities twice: the first time, I almost always play as good, because I get engrossed in the story and the characters and genuinely have trouble doing the bad things in the game world. The second time, the game and its characters seem less "real" to me and it's easier to play a bad guy; that is, it's easier to see the game as a game and play to reach goals (e.g. see that cutscene or take that quest that I missed because I was a good guy
      • Er, "It became clear part way through my first playthrough invincible." should be:

        It became clear part way through my first playthrough that she was invincible.

  • What about tags that do have an implication? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by faloi (738831) on Friday November 30 2007, @01:57PM (#21536063)
    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.

    • 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.

      Yes, but who hasn't accidentally killed a team member in a game? Or just ganged up on a griefer that joined your team? Should one mistake brand your gamer tag as a Team Killer forever? ("That's not a target; that's Church!")

      And it makes griefing worse: they could deliberately jump into your line of fire so as to ruin the reputation of your gamer tag. Should they be able to force you to give up a prepaid year of service to dissociate yourself from that tag and get another to restore your ability to play

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by faloi (738831)
        Typically, you have to do something repeatedly to "earn" a tag. Killing a teammate once isn't likely to earn you that rank. Killing a teammate (or teammates) dozens of times might. For that matter, there could be a "target" tag. If you have a special aptitude for running in front of your team mates, you become a "target." If you shoot someone with a reputation as a target it, it doesn't really impact your TK reputation. Make them decay over time... Some people may dance at the threshold of getting th
    • Despite some pretty abysmal/buggy online performance last time I played (after 3-4 weeks ago), the rating system for C&C3 was pretty cool. It allowed you to rate opponents skill, sportsmanship (teamkilling I assume would be low) etc. I never really tested to see if you could filter out those who were jerks, but it would be a useful feature. EA had some good ideas there... now if they could only make the thing playable.

  • Why allow the action if it will have consequences? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by quanticle (843097) on Friday November 30 2007, @01:57PM (#21536075) Homepage
    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.
    • 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 th

  • What do I gain? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by east coast (590680) on Friday November 30 2007, @01:59PM (#21536103)
    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.
  • I don't play gamoes to have a socially-dictated morality imposed on me. Games are a sandbox for me, to let the most fucked-up aspects of yourself take over without hurting anyone in real life. Exploring ethical boundaries is a necessary process in our self-development. I see nothing wrong with it provided it does not deter from real life. I contend it's been benefitial to everyone I know who's ever gamed.
    • I disagree with you.

      For years I thought the way you do: "Better they are performing these fantasy killings in virtual worlds than in real life." I've seen plenty of examples to counter this.

      I think instead of providing a carthatic environment where all of these negative actions and emotions are expelled, performing such actions reinforce negative behavior. To your brain you're processing the same information; good choice, bad choice - it's the same chemicals and electrical impulses whether it's real or v

  • Purpose of Games and Gaming (Score:3, Insightful)

    by moore.dustin (942289) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:02PM (#21536143)
    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.
  • The idea of social sanction to enforce moral behavior in games is not a bad idea... if the group we're talking about has any degree of social sophistication. But it's been my experience that gamers, especially the ones who care enough to be actively involved in gaming communities, lack many of the basic necessities of good socialization, such as how to properly express moral disapproval (or even what is and what is not moral, apart from some basic sense of egoism).
    • As a gamer, and fellow /. 6-digiter, I find your opinion incredibly insulting to my intelligence and morality as a person and a serious gamer. Social organization occurs in games specifically to combat the type of bad socialization you speak of. In fact, in these types of sophisticated gaming-societies, there is no need for moral behavior enforcement. That said, obviously it is a bad idea, as long as people like you judge morality on the basis of the lowest common denominator. I also suggest you stop us
  • Ironically, if you tried to enforce moral consequences like this in real life, for real-life, proven atrocities (say, having 'child molester' tattoo'd on the forehead of someone convicted of child rape) the ALCU would sue you senseless.

    Why should our virtual lives have consequences, when we don't have them in the real world?

  • Games desensitize. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SharpFang (651121) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:27PM (#21536565) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Most of the comments are negative, but I detect a patern, ALL of the NEGATIVE comments seem to be from people who don't want to get the label child-killer attached to them.

    Nobody from the child-saver group of players seems to NOT want this label.

    Just an intresting obeservation I think. Make of it what you will.

  • I play video games so I can escape... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord Aurora (969557) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:42PM (#21536799)
    ...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.

  • Moral based Gamertag Blues (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cathoderoytube (1088737) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:45PM (#21536849)
    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.

    • 3 days with mod points and nothing good to mod. As soon as they expire I find this.

  • Man, I *liked* Bioshock and Portal. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ZombieRoboNinja (905329) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:52PM (#21536955)
    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.
  • First time a game has gotten to me this strongly...Getting off the Normandy at the Citadel, a reporter stopped me and asked if she could interview me. I said yes. In the interview, I pointed out that Saren had something to do with the attack on Eden Prime. The instant Shephard said this, the potential consequences of my action began to sink in...what will the council think of this? Am I the cause of some media leak now? Will things on the Citadel start getting out of hand as the people realize that not
  • One game I hold singlehandedly responsible for my eating disorder: Gauntlet. It just HAS to go and announce to the whole arcade, "Red Wizard needs food, badly"

    Shut up! Shut up! Don't shoot my turkey! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

    (bastards)

  • What if... (Score:3, Funny)

    by GigG (887839) on Friday November 30 2007, @03:18PM (#21537283) Homepage
    "...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.

  • The Real Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Capitalist1 (127579) on Friday November 30 2007, @03:48PM (#21537629)
    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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.