Virtual Morality Gives Pause For Thought 68
Thanks to Globeandmail.com for their article discussing deeper storylines and more complex moral choices for a maturing videogame audience. They cite a forum post from a KOTOR player lamenting: "Being evil is addictive and I find myself in situations where my conscience kicks in and it's difficult for me to do the bad thing", and the article claims this "...represents a new generation of sophisticated electronic games, created for a maturing and rapidly expanding audience, that are transforming gaming consoles from an adolescent diversion into a mainstream entertainment medium with artistic integrity and a social conscience." Is it justified to feel guilty about being evil within a videogame?
Forget guilt -- it's fantasy (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it justified to feel guilty about being evil within a videogame?
I don't see why. You should be in touch enough with reality to know that the videogame is a clear-cut fantasy. Let's face it, Japan produces an entire genre of animated films featuring young-looking women being raped by monsters with tentacles. They don't seem to feel guilty about watching those movies.
Hentai films and violent videogames lie squarely in the realm of fantasy. There's no need to apologize for your interest in either of them.
GMD
Re:Forget guilt -- it's fantasy (Score:4, Insightful)
Guilt is not a question of damage, but character. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even fantasy is, to some degree, echoes of experiences with people. The Ilthorian mentioned in a previous poster's comments is a stand in for a very real situation we have probably all faced in our lives: Do we add our voice to a chorous of tourments for sake of personal gain or do we sacrifice o
Re:Guilt is not a question of damage, but characte (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree with these examples. That is your GOAL in the game in that context (being an 'evildoer' as our braintrust of a President calls it). Does that player feel worse for having been eaten knowing it was a person being the bad guy, versus a bot/scripted game event? I doubt it. Do you feel guilty when playing Quake 3 and you frag the point leader in an elimination round?
Re:Guilt is not a question of damage, but characte (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that nobody should feel guilty for fragging a point leader. But one should feel guilty if one DDOSes the point leader in order to win. There are certain roads that are immoral to take in the achieving of one's goals. Just because videogames change both the goals and the morality of the situation doesn't mean that the morality has been moved. The closer the videogame attempts to ape the situations found in life, the closer the resulting morality template will be. Characters in stories can act immorally even though they are characters. As a player in the role of a character you too should feel emotional ramifications of your decisions.
addenum (Score:2)
Re:Guilt is not a question of damage, but characte (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but if he's killed by another person, or a computer drived NPC is irrelevant. He'll still feel bad. So if there is a choice to play the bad guy, adn one chooses that, and they kill another character, so be it. Everyone's getting what they knew could happen.
Re:Guilt is not a question of damage, but characte (Score:1)
Lets change the qustion slightly. Should one feel guilty to create a game where a potential goal (roleplay) is of evil? Should one feel guilty creating a game where the only role is of evil. (GTA3, for example)
Video games are like wrestling. They both appeal to the masses. Tetris isn't GTA3, WWF isn't Sumo. But there is an intended audience, and the developers of both types write for their audience. The end product contains not only the developers vi
Re:Guilt is not a question of damage, but characte (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a difference though, and it's the reason why people who play "evil" characters in MMORPGs quickly discover it's a bad idea.
In Quake, the entire point of the game is to kill the other players. Without that there's no game, and there's really relatively little downside to having been killed.
In a MMORPG RP'ing an evil person is usually seen as no different from being an asshole. Probably because there's not much difference in reality either, and in neither case do people want to deal with you. Yeah, great, you're a dark elf and you're supposed to be evil and look out for yourself and whatnot, but if you ditch the group because you were worried that you might die, screw you - I don't need to deal with that kind of crap. If I'm in a PvP area and you're killing people and keeping them from getting back to their corpses or whatever -- screw that too. It may be fun for you, but it sure as hell isn't for me, and as far as I'm concerned you're an asshole.
Which is the thing that people tend to forget when they play evil characters, or are griefers, or whatever -- there's a real person on the other end of that avatar, and they want to have fun too. Having your fun at the expense of others -- when there's other options that don't involve screwing someone else -- is deplorable, and you deserve to be treated as scum.
Re:Guilt is not a question of damage, but characte (Score:3, Insightful)
Nicely put (Score:2)
There's a good deal of noise about folks that can't separate video games from reality, and how ridiculous it is that people do this. Of course, that's always in context of someone gunning down a bunch of people in real life.
Now it's considered healthy and mature to again be unable to separate video games and reality, except this time to extend moral worries to video games?
I'll grant that the latter is less likely to have nasty direct real world consequences...
Re:Forget guilt -- it's fantasy (Score:1)
But if a game is MultiPlayer, and you do immoral thigns to other characters (such as mugging them, or Killing them wrongly (TK) , or robbing them of everything they have) you could easily be detracting from the expierience for someone else.
Jumping into a game of Quake and being a griefer is certainly not a good thing, true it is petty immoralty, along the line of mild harrassment or teasing someone gently who is not cool with it. In that case, true it is a fan
It is becoming more relevant (Score:2, Insightful)
The article seems to use examples mainly from online games, which can completely affect someones decisions. When your action is going to affect a few bytes of data stored temporarily on your computer its no big deal, but anyone who has played an online game will at some time have been upset by another player, even if they have simply lost a fair game, so they then
Ultima (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also easy to become addicted to the high road (Score:4, Interesting)
Even when it came to dealing with the Sith, I never passed up a situation to give them a second chance.
I think by going this route I may have tacked on another five hours to complete the game with all the backtracking that had to be done.
Is there a guide that could show the opportunities lost on taking a single path light or dark? I know of only one or two quests that were exclusively dark side material, acting as bounty hunter.
I find myself in the same position, actually. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet, I know when I get to the part where the kids are picking on the Ilthorian (Hammerhead for those not knowing what an Ilthorian is) in Taris (very early in the game, so not a spoiler), I will have a very difficult time with myself trying to be mean to it.
Everything else I should easily pick the Dark Side stuff....but the kids picking on the Ilthorian I may just gain a Light Side point or 2. Not that it really matters, I got around 5 Dark Side points my first time through, and still had uber Light Side Jedi by the time I finsihed the game.
Thursdæ Sith Lord in Training
Re:I find myself in the same position, actually. (Score:2)
Re:I find myself in the same position, actually. (Score:2)
But, I want to see the Dark Side ending, and it's kind of impossible unless I act like a Sith Lord wou
well (Score:1)
Friendly fire? PKing? Using cheats? I got a problem with that (and I won't be the first person to admit to these "crimes"..but it got old fast.)
GTA (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd also pull "Lost Highway" style politeness education sessions on drivers who cut me up.
Quoth the Dungeon Keeper box (Score:2)
Kick ass!!! (Score:1, Funny)
~~~
eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it justified to feel guilty about being evil within a videogame?
Is it justified to feel aroused when looking at a picture of a naked woman? Is it justified to feel hungry when thinking about a hamburger? Is it justified to feel angry about something that happened in a movie?
Yes of course it is! The REASON that movies (and video games, etc) are popular is because they let you "drop your guard" for a little bit. they let you feel emotions or experiences that you don't usually. If you didn't feel emotions like this, you wouldn't be human.. the same part of your brain is involved either way.
Of course it's a problem when somebody confuses "fantasy" with "reality" but I'll admit those are pretty fuzzy lines. We all live in a sort of fantasy world anyway, or more precisely, a subset of reality.
If this fellow feels bad about being evil in a game, then he has two choices: 1) don't be evil in the game, or 2) explore your feelings and self-understanding through being evil in the game. It could be frightening, exciting, and perhaps enlightening. You don't get those changes in the real world.
Re:eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you wrote that comment off too quickly.
Many folks think it is quite justified to feel bad (though perhaps not precisly guilty) when they play an evil character. If we have any notion of "good" then we should be repulsed by evil to some degree. If someone denys any absolute morality, then there is no reason to feel anything because it's all meaninless as it is all relative.
I completely agree that movies, books, rpgs and music especially, let us feel, live, and express ourselves beyond our immedia
actions modify personality (Score:5, Interesting)
I worry about playing negative characters for the same reason. When truly embracing the character of a game (and play it for hours!), why wouldn't we expect it to carve neural pathways. It might guide our actions only subtlely in day-to-day life, but isn't that a bit disturbing, regardless?
Re:actions modify personality (Score:2, Interesting)
I worry about playing negative characters for the same reason. When truly embracing the character of a game (and play it for hours!), why wouldn't we expect it to carve neural pathways. It might guide our actions only subtlely in day-to-day life, but isn't that a bit disturbing, regardless?
Actually, this is because of a physiological phenomenon.
Re:actions modify personality (Score:1)
This is effectively what the grandparent was saying. The smile is the fantasy--appearance without meaning. Since the appearance is neurally associated with the meaning, however, triggering the former can stimulate the latter. This could be ap
Choice is not New, just Mainstream now (Score:5, Interesting)
For even more choice-riddled gaming, I suggest checking out Planescape Torment, Fallout 1+2, and Deus Ex, among others.
Intent (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll attempt to narrate a short passage from a famous Chinese kungfu novel, `The Return of the Condor Heroes'. These and other novels, written by Louis Cha, were responsible for the interest in swordfighting themes that ultimately led to films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
A very highly- skilled character who spent most of his life killing has become a monk in order to curb his murderous desires. One day, he comes across a snowman, and in order to satisfy his craving to kill, he attacks the snowman with a mighty blow and destroys it.
Initially unbeknownst to him, the snowman was a live person who had been immobilised and left standing in the snow, and so this person perished at the hands of the murderous monk.
So said the monk's teacher: When you destroyed the snowman, you did so because you did not want to kill a real human being. And yet, when you destroyed it, did you not have killing on your mind?
Morality in games is new? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Morality in games is new? (Score:1)
"Shut up Iolo"
That game was so cool.
Steven V.
We are creatures that love simulations. and.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Morality is something mixed directly with all other interactions with other humans, and even with our own potential in our future. If we like a real simulation, we like our freedom to act within it.. and that suddenly is moral. ALmost *ALL
I can understand this (Score:3, Insightful)
The best I could manage was a semi-evil character who still does the good things but chooses the mean/smart mouthed dialogue options.
I don't see this as a bad thing though. I also can't bring myself to go on an online game and intentionally cause trouble or try to ruin the experience for others by killing them off. I wonder if there is a link between the two types of gamer?
Re:I was going to mention BG2 as well (Score:5, Interesting)
The first time I played it through, I was good. It was nice to have the high Reputation, and I know from prior RPG experience that playing a good character is generally quite a bit easier than playing a bad one, mostly due to NPC reactions and general relationships within the party itself. However, I noticed one thing...all those evil characters I couldn't hire sure were tough, and they'd make a great ally...
Henceforth, the second time through I was evil. Not chaotic, just neutral evil, and I was a thief sub-class, so that seemed to fit. Guess what? It was actually more fun playing through the game as the evil character. My allies were tougher and more skilled, and, surprisingly, worked very well with each other. The evil party could have taken down the good party, no problem. There were a few quests that I couldn't attempt due to my alignment, and there were a few quests that I received Reputation points for. As you may or may not know, if you have an evil party and your Reputation gets to a certain high point, your party will not stop bitching at you to "get back on track" and the like. If it gets high enough, they leave the party. So, to keep that stat in check, whenever it got too high, I would go slaughter some random town denizen. It was like a sacrifice. "I want the good items and the experience, therefore an innocent must die." But, like previous posters have pointed out, this was not online, this was single player, so they weren't really NPCs, they weren't people, they were just bits and a method of keeping the party happy and together. That was all I had to do to remain in good, er, evil stead.
I can absolutely see how ruining some other person's gaming experience can make one feel bad, and this is why I don't do it. The only time I go out of my way to make some game a little more hell for someone is if they bring it upon themselves by doing this to others, so it's almost like a "vigilante" point of view. However, I can say that without a doubt, BG2 was more fun to play as an evil character, and I recommend you go through and try it again that way, if you get the urge to play it through again. Single player games afford more freedom in this area, no matter which way you look at it. The only way this would not be true is if there were some kind of unbalance within the game itself, i.e. it being far more difficult to play through as either a good or bad character. That might still be ideal, though, giving players the opportunity to make the game harder or easier on themselves, similar to choices one would have to make in the real world.
Re:I was going to mention BG2 as well (Score:2)
I tried to play BG2 evil once ... I didn't get very far. I thought I should get "in character" at the start by being arrogant and insulting to Jaheira and Minsc and Aerie, but I couldn't bring myself to do it.. They were "only NPCs", but I still didn't want to hurt their feelings.
(well, maybe not Jaheira ... She got on my nerves :-/)
I tend to have the same problem when it comes to changing party members.. I'm like, I'd love to have you join me, but I'm too attached to these other folks to kick one of the
Re:I was going to mention BG2 as well (Score:2)
Re:I was going to mention BG2 as well (Score:2)
If you're being "in-character", you _can't_ have experience points as a motivation, since they're an out-of-character concept. _You_ know that quests are always worthwhile; your character doesn't (and, in fact, wouldn't recognise most of them as a "quest").
Re:I was going to mention BG2 as well (Score:2)
Me too (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes and No (Score:1)
My own experience (Score:5, Interesting)
I think we're only going to see more of this as games become more and more realistic and involve online communities rather than single-player games or shoot-em-ups. The latter is specifically made so that if a person loses one fight, he isn't set back much. It wouldn't be fun otherwise.
I play an online turn-based strategy/rp game called BattleMaster [lemuria.org], where you have quite a bit of freedom to behave however you like, within the RP restrictions of your realm and class. You can be a jerk, you can be noble, you can be snooty. I'm amazed at the people who are able to pick a path for their characters, and stick with it - "this character will always be true to his country, even at the expense of other players", or "this character will do whatever it takes to get the highest fame and fortune", etc. I, on the other hand, keep coming up against the fact that there are real people on the other side of the computer screen, and they've invested months playing these characters up to this point. We're all here to have fun, and it simply isn't fun to lose all that effort.
As a ruler, I had thirty characters under my command and I controlled not only the future of both my realm as a whole, but through that, each of these characters as well. I ended up failing both miserably, thanks to bad timing and alliances that fell through, and I will probably never try being a ruler again. I have the political skills, but the stress of so much fate resting in my hands was too much of a burden.
Another character of mine once defected from one nation to another. I've seen other players do it all the time. My stomach was queasy and my hands were literally shaking, though, while I wrote my manifesto to my ex-comrades and clicked the button to become a traitor. It took me some time to realize exactly what I was scared of, sitting safely in a cozy computer chair in my living room... I was scared about what everyone else would think of me - that in their eyes, I was a rebel and traitor, not a man of honor.
I have a hard time keeping my real self out of my virtual characters. I set myself a high standard to live up to, and that rolls over into my online lives as well. Likewise, when someone thinks I've done something dishonorable online, it hits me about as hard as someone telling me to my face.
In the end, though, the advantage of the game world is the ability to turn it off, which I will be doing for this game next month. With a couple clicks, I won't ever again hear from any of the people I've endured harassment from or any of the people who I feel I've failed as their leader, yet I can still draw from the experiences as though they were my own - because they were.
-jupo
I'm surprised the point hasn't been made yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is role playing after all, and without evil roles being filled, who would be in conflict with all the do gooders?
Unless the game is "Virtual Boyscout" or "Utopia Online" I think the evil roles are definitely necessary.
Besides the necessity, who wants to be a good guy all the time? I don't mind playing a bad guy, if in the process I'm taken down by do-gooders, so be it, I don't mind. If I'm playing a good guy and evildoers get me, oh well. That's the point of the game, conflict. I try to win, and if I'm going down, I'm going down hard (and taking as many with me as possible). I'm not just going to roll over, how much fun is it for anyone to win a rigged "good should always beat evil" fight?
Not to be offensive, but some comments I've read seem to hint at the idea "everyone should be winner". In my opinion, how can one win if someone doesn't lose? Forget that, I'll take my wins and my losses. Winning without the possibility of losing is meaningless, and even losing can be fun too.
Isn't the whole point just to have fun anyway?
Re:I'm surprised the point hasn't been made yet... (Score:2)
Evil does not think it is evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider Saddam and Sons - the things they've done are, by most people's judgement, evil - putting people into a shredder feet first, raping women, killing their opposition. Yet, do you think that Saddam thought to himself, "I'm so EEEVIL - I love being me!". I doubt it - he almost certainly rationalized what he did - "Yes, putting this guy feet-first into this shredder is terrible (although kind of cool), but the pure horror of it will prevent anybody else from doing what he did, and thus will keep order in my country."
Or, consider Anakin/Vader - as we are seeing over the course of the first three movies, his descent into evil was not caused by a desire to do evil, but natural and otherwise good impulses ("These raiders are bad people - they hurt an innocent (my mother). I will remove the threat - I will destroy them.")
Now, consider the game - you say you are having problems "doing evil". Good. Don't "do evil" - roleplay. Say to yourself "I am going to do whatever it takes for my character to advance. Everybody else is going to do whatever they can do do advance, I must do it to them before they do it to me." Get yourself in that mindset, and the evil will come naturally.
Then, after the game, please MEDITATE UPON YOUR ACTIONS, and realize why that sort of attitude should be strictly confined to situations where the harm done is fictional!
Re:Evil does not think it is evil (Score:2)
Ah, but the problem there is that so many of the "evil" choices in KOTOR are, simply, evil for evil's sake.
Re:Evil does not think it is evil (Score:1)
While it may make the galaxy a slightly better place with them out of the picture, it turns your Jedi into nothing but a tool for the power players behind the scenes.
Re:Evil does not think it is evil (Score:2)
Aye, the Genohanden or some such; a Rodian on Manaan. There are other such examples of that sort of thing, as well.
Most of them, though, are evil for evil's sake.
Virtual Evil Actions (Score:2)
Re:Virtual Evil Actions (Score:2)
Here's my reasoning: We all get pissed off from time to time and really feel a need to vent. Games like Deception 1&2 are simply an outlet for this sort of thing. Its like a much more interactive version of punching a pillow, the intention is still the same, to get our frustration out, and relieve stress. Sure, in the context of the game we are killing people in horrible, albiet entertaining, ways; but maybe that is part of the enjoyment of the game,
evilness.. (Score:2)
first morality game? (Score:1)
the greek figured it out.. (Score:2)
Besides there is the issue of relavance of trying to impose morals in a virtual and furthermore non-persistant world, where its inhabitants are granted immortality by the power of continue or restart game...
wrong wrong wrong (Score:1, Informative)
The part of the brain that is referred to as the "reptilian brain" has very little to do with behavior, it controls primarily maintenance functions, not advanced behavior or rational thinking.
Furthermore, almost every single study conducted on the cathartic process (everywhere from movies, to games to punching bags) has concluded that acting out anger only furthers it since the excitation
interesting (Score:3, Informative)
You are right... humans do have some kind of "animal instict" behavior, but indeed, it is probably rooted in another place. I have used the term somewhat loosely in this respect...
almost every single study conducted on the cathartic process has concluded that acting out anger only furthers it since the excitation
But for how long is this excitement high ? Is it measured immediately after the experiment or in the long term? Studies with kids and video
Re:the greek figured it out.. (Score:1)
I don't know if performing virtual evil acts quite counts in this sense, unless you feel some kind of remorse or guilt for your virtual actions.
indeed (Score:2)
For example, I was investigating a murder and in talking to the witnesses it was very obvious that one of them wasn't telling me everything he knew. I couldn't talk the truth out of him, and since i was trying to prevent an innocent man from being ex
Like playing The Sims? (Score:2)
Vice City vs Unreal (Score:2)
But then I tried Vice City (the sequel actually). I couldn't finish it. In fact I probably only played an eighth of the way through before I couldn't stomach it anymore. I think the turning point for me was when you had to
VM (Score:2)
"Virtual Memory Gives Pause For Thought"