Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

The Moral Responsibility of Game Creators 161

Posted by Zonk from the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't dept.
Gamasutra.com has reactions from another provocative question of the week. The topic this time was "Do game creators have any moral responsibilities in teaching values to their audience?" There were many responses on both sides of the issue. From the article: "A resounding NO. Do writers have that same responsibility? Actors? What other limitations would we put on them and our freedom of expression, in order to accomplish that lofty goal? Just ask Jerry Falwell, or the embittered ghost of Senator McCarthy for your answer... NO. Leave the morality lessons to the parents and the priests. They are quite good at their jobs. -Anonymous"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Moral Responsibility of Game Creators More

The Moral Responsibility of Game Creators

Comments Filter:

  • Rediculous question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gothzilla ( 676407 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @03:42PM (#11816014)
    Do artists have a moral responsibility?
    Do authors have a moral responsibility?
    Do writers have a moral responsibility?
    They do if they choose to have one. Period. End of story.

    • Re:Rediculous question (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BoomerSooner ( 308737 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @03:49PM (#11816140) Homepage Journal
      Submitter forgot this jackass [cnn.com].

      What the fuck is wrong with people today? It's hard to believe but the US is getting farther and farther from being the bastion of freedom and becoming just like those countries we ridicule.
    • They do if they choose to have one. Period. End of story.

      I'm sorry but I don't think this answer makes much sense. A responsibility is something that one has whether they like it or not. One can choose whether or not to take up a responsibility (by choosing to not become an artist/author/writer/etc, assuming those positions actually carry a responsibility), but the person has the responsibility regardless.

      What you're talking about is typically called a "decision", not a "responsibility".

      • Re:Rediculous question (Score:4, Insightful)

        by gothzilla ( 676407 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @04:42PM (#11816801)
        One can choose to take responsibility or abandon it. You can give someone responsibility but that doesn't mean they have to take it. There is no such thing as inherent responsibility that is out of ones control. This is the essence of free will, the ability to choose what you do, what you create, and what you give a crap about. I'm not saying that there aren't any consequences for their actions, nor am I saying that there shouldn't be any, but the initial choice rests with the individual alone. If a game maker is forced to "take responsibility" through consequences, then all artists, musicians, and creators will have to be as well.
    • Do artists have a moral responsibility?
      Do authors have a moral responsibility?
      Do writers have a moral responsibility?
      They do if they choose to have one. Period. End of story.

      Not the end of story, not even correct.

      Yes, they all have a moral responsibility, as do game creators. Everyone has moral responsibility. You can't choose to have a moral responsibility or not have it - whether you want it or not, it's yours. You can only choose to act according to it or to ignore it.

      However, neither game develo
      • Sorry but that just doesn't make sense. Morals are self imposed. Each person decides what their own personal morals are. When they leave the realm of the individual and start applying to more than one person they become ethics. We used to have ethics classes in public schools, but never had morals classes because you can teach a group of people ethics but you cannot teach morals. You can try, as many do, but in the end morals are strictly a personal thing. If you can tell someone that their morals are wrong
        • I think you are the one that is confused about ethics and morality. Ethics and laws are really more about keeping a society running smoothly. Morals are about one's relationship with the divine - right and wrong, sacrament and sin and all that.

          Morals are not all self-imposed and they are not purely individual. We do not have morals classes in public schools because morality is traditionally the province of religion and spirituality. Religions are all about providing a consistent moral framework for gro
          • Sorry but morality has nothing to do with ones relationship to the divine and absolutely nothing to do with religion. Some people use religion as source material for their morals but there are many different places to get morals from, religion being only one of them. Children develop morals by watching their parents and by being disciplined by their parents way before they can even begin to understand religion.

            www.dictionary.com
            Morals:
            1 Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human
            • Some people use religion as source material for their morals but there are many different places to get morals from, religion being only one of them. Children develop morals by watching their parents and by being disciplined by their parents way before they can even begin to understand religion.

              I agree that religion is only one source for morality, but the nature of the morality does not change because the source changes. When i talk about a connection to the divine i'm not necessarily talking about a tr
    • When was the last time you saw art with inappropriate content marketed to children?
    • If they are human they have moral responsibility.
      Do they have the responsibility to teach morals? No.
      Do the have the responsibility to act morally? Yes.

      I hate the idea that authors have a responsibility too teach morals. However I will admit that I often find myself shocked at how totally amoral they act. Perhaps it a better question is do they have a responsibility to not teach immorality?

  • No thanks. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Godeke ( 32895 ) * on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @03:44PM (#11816046)
    The game creators have the same moral responsibility as any other media, which is nearly none except to the "market". That means whatever moral code (or lack thereof) will be reflected in the product they product. It is up to the market to the determine the worth of the product in the greater context. If the game has moral value *and* provides a worthwhile experience it will do well with specific market segments. A game with no moral compass but a good game experience will do well, albeit in a different market segment. If the game provides no value as a game, it should fail. Why do people expect this to be any different from book, film, music or the more traditional arts? From what I have seen there are quite a few successful games that I won't bring into my home. As there are with books, films and music. (Both from a "too harsh" to "too preachy" standpoint). If people go to such extremes that they cater to an incredibly narrow market segment they will still potentially be successful in the niche they choose.

    What I think this question is really trying to say: "Do we (for some hypothetical 'we') have the power to cause game developers to bend to our moral values and force them to teach what we believe." I hope the answer is a resounding no to that, no matter who is chosen for 'we'.
    • > The game creators have the same moral responsibility as any other media, which is nearly none except to the "market".

      Not even. Tolkien wrote LOTR for himself. That others also happened to enjoy it was a side effect.

      • That is true for many of the pure arts as well (creating works more for the self than for others). However, the *impact* of that work on the culture is still determined by those other than the creator. The impact of LOTR has much to do with the authors moral story (a clear battle between good and evil, with little room from shades between). Commercial intent or not, that resonating was the "side effect" that caused LOTR to be what it is today instead of some scribblings of a mad linguist that no one ever re
    • First you say they have the "morals" forced upon them by the group (the market).

      Then you say that the group has no right to force upon them any morals.

      This highlights the internal contradiction of the free market (there is no such thing, it's a model we use to describe the actual market and it's important to know the limitations of the model if you are to avoid conclusions which contradict reality).

      We do have the "power" (I think you meant "right") to impose our morals on others. That's never been the de
    • " The game creators have the same moral responsibility as any other media, which is nearly none except to the "market"."
      So why should entertainment companies have any less responsibility than any other companies? So no company should have any other other responsibly than to make money? If so Nike, WalMart, Microsoft, the oil companies, the member of the RIAA, and the MPAA are all just fine and dandy?
      Just asking?

  • Debt to Society (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blahlemon ( 638963 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @03:45PM (#11816055)
    I think everyone who contributes something to the general society/culture needs to consider the effect that contribution might have. I think parents and priests work on a smaller but more intimate scale then artists, sports stars, etc.

    • Re:Debt to Society (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bozzio ( 183974 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @03:52PM (#11816180)
      But keep in mind that these contributions aren't forced on to the society.

      I think that when it comes to video games, a balance is required. I think that Mortal Kombat, for example, was not a GREAT contribution to society. In fact, it was pretty gratuitous in many respects, but it wasn't forced on you. Since it wasn't exactly wholesome, it was the guardians'/parents' responsibility to see whether or not their children should play/see it.
      It's just like with R rated movies: It's up to the guardian to decide if the children can see them.
      • Well, for a lot of people Mortal Kombat was fun. I think entertainment is a very, very valuable contribution. Yet, for other people, it was a senseless gorefest. Should you care for them, or for the former?

        In a nutshell, IMHO, no, game designers should not have a moral responsability to their consumers, because morals vary wildly among them. You can't please everyone at once.

        They might choose to, but that's a whole different issue.
    • What effect a contribution may have is irrelevant. Game designers are after one thing: money. Sometimes fame, but usually money. If 90% of people love a game because it's a good game and 10% of people think it's atrocious because, say, the majority of the things you do involve killing Haitians...oh well. As a sibling post said, no one is forcing it on you. You are free to not buy a game you don't like. You are free to not look at art that offends you. And you are free to not watch the antics of sports stars
      • While I agree with the heart of what you are saying, in the context of what you are saying, I think you are ignoring the subject. It's not a question of "Do most people like/agree with it" but rather is there a *moral* obligation on the part of the developers. Moral obligation and societal acceptance, while not mutually exclusive are not the same thing. Just because a society agrees that killing your first born in the name of religion is acceptable, that doesn't make it moral. Having said that, of course, t
    • In my opinion, you really don't get a more of a moral obligation for being famous than you do as a regular Joe.

      If you're a tool in real life, and then you're a tool in the movies, a la Jay Mohr, I don't care to support you. If you think that people need to have some sort of decency and you neglect to display that in your published work, then you're basically a hypocrite.

      That's the way I feel on this whole bit.
    • The game industry in general does consider the effect that the contributions might have. This manifests itself in the ESRB ratings system.

      I heartily agree with the respondent from the article that said (I'm paraphrasing) that game makers have no responsiblility to make their content "moral," but they do have to make clear the contents of their creation so that consumers can make an informed decision.

      My answer to the question is that parents hold the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that their child
    • I think the word is "influence". Every action has moral influence - most of it very minor, or beyond the scope of the view of a child (we buy from amazon.com -> it is okay to buy from amazon -> amazon's business practices are, tacitly, acceptable).

      Responsibility is: "Something for which one is responsible; a duty, obligation, or burden." So says a dictionary [reference.com].

      Everyone seems to be discussing the influence on children although influence on adults could also be discussed, let us consider children.

      If w

  • parents? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wibs ( 696528 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @03:45PM (#11816069)
    Leave the morality lessons to the parents because they do a good job? I'd say that really depends on the parent, and a fair number don't do a good job. That doesn't give the government a free pass to define morality, though.

    • Re:parents? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Otter ( 3800 )
      That doesn't give the government a free pass to define morality, though.

      What I'm not getting is why every one here seems convinced that saying that "X has a moral responsibility to..." and "If X doesn't ..., the government oughta put him in jail." are interchangeable ideas.

      • Well said.

      • Re:parents? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by wibs ( 696528 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @05:28PM (#11817353)
        What I'm not getting is why every one here seems convinced that saying that "X has a moral responsibility to..." and "If X doesn't ..., the government oughta put him in jail." are interchangeable ideas.

        The two are just a step away from each other. If someone says Mr X has a responsibility to do Y, but Mr X says screw it, "responsibility" becomes a meaningless word without some method of enforcement. Where that comes from varies (could be a business association, etc), but provided that there's a strong enough push for "morality" it always comes down to one thing - a watchdog committee of some sort saying what is and is not kosher. I was overly glib in my first comment (trying to beat the rush), but this is what I meant by the term government.

  • forced morality (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OmniVector ( 569062 ) <se e m y h o mepage> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @03:46PM (#11816088) Homepage
    forced morality has always driven me nuts. some people, particularly those in high power, think they have the right to tell me and others what is and isn't wrong. quite frankly it makes me sick, because the people who force morality upon others are slimy hypocrites. what if i became president and deemed that christianity was morally wrong, then enlisted the pocket senators to enact laws banning the practice of that religion.

    look, fuckers, we fled england for a reason. we wanted freedom, and force morality is just another form of shackles regardless of the end. the means are simply not just.
    • look, fuckers, we fled england for a reason. we wanted freedom, and force morality is just another form of shackles regardless of the end. the means are simply not just.

      Uh... Maybe you could say that some 20th century immigrants came here for freedom "from forces morality", but holy crap you need to go back to civics class if you think that's why settlers came here in and before the 18th century. Most of the original European settlers of the US were Puritan and Calvinist sects that specifically desired t
    • Yeah morality is crap anyway. I mean who wants to teach people to do the right things and respect eachother. a world like that would suck /sarcasm
      • I think the parent referred specifically to certain morals that are being forced upon us, like the prohibition of gay marriage in some states, and some people's wanting to ban games like GTA. Besides which, "the right things" are very subjective. We can all pretty much agree that respecting other people and not stealing are Good Things, but what of the guy who works his way from the gutter, makes millions, and chooses to enjoy it rather than giving it to charity? Is he evil because he's keeping what he ear
        • Well borg hunter. I think it was the methodology not the message I took issure with. His statement seemed to me to be coming from some sort of righteous indignation which I simply did not identify with or feel was justified. my sarcasm what merely an attempt at noting that. I did not mean to offend your sensibilities
    • "forced morality has always driven me nuts. some people, particularly those in high power, think they have the right to tell me and others what is and isn't wrong"

      That is what ALL government legislators do when they pass laws. Laws are nothing more than government telling you what is and what is not wrong.

      "we fled england for a reason. we wanted freedom, and force morality "

      Are you an anarchist? I don't think the pilgrims were.

      • That is what ALL government legislators do when they pass laws. Laws are nothing more than government telling you what is and what is not wrong.

        Not exactly. Legal and moral are two different things. Laws may be immoral, moral obligations may be illegal.

        The theoretical purpose of laws is to provide guidelines for behavior (and punishments for transgression) in order to keep a society from breaking down into dysfunction.

        Take traffic laws for instance. There is no moral obligation to stop when you see a
    • Telling != Force.

      Various parties are out to brainwash you whether you like it or not. Hollywood, MTV, RIAA, MPAA, McD, The Corporates, NeoCons, Governments etc. They've all got their agendas.

      Example: Hollywood regular snips violent/mature movies enough so that they can sell them to kids and "that's OK". And then they pretend to wonder why it doesn't sell as well, blame pirates etc.

      Doh it's like watering down whisky enough so you can sell it to kids. The whiskey drinkers sure won't like it.

      Sure shows me
    • Of course some could argue that you preventing people from forcing their morality on you is in fact forcing your morality on them.

      Hypocrisy is the act of doing one thing and saying another. A person who wants to pass laws banning alchohol and still drinks himself is a hypocrite. Someone who wants to pass laws banning alcohol and smokes marijuana is not. While a drinker might say, "You have your drug. It is hypocritical of you to refuse me mine." That would not make the teetotaler a hypocrite because he agr

  • Content labels cover that responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)

    by miu ( 626917 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @03:46PM (#11816090) Homepage Journal
    A label that lets a concerned parent make a choice pretty much covers the moral responsibility. Even if we were to hold games to the same standards that movies and television are held to we can't expect any more than that.
  • I, personally, have obtained nearly all of my morals from video games, especially playing RPGs

    Wow.. Just Wow..

    • Re:Quote from one of the replies. (Score:5, Funny)

      by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @04:04PM (#11816333) Homepage
      Morals I've learned from video games:

      1) Killing people is bad.
      2) Killing people is good.
      3) Killing zombies is great.
      4) Killing zombies is bad if they've gone through substantial character development.
      5) Sacrificing yourself so that the team can make it over the lava flow to fight the Bad Guy is good.
      6) Something about not sucking the energy out of the Earth to power your city.
      7) Stealing is good, unless the chest is booby-trapped.
      8) Feed your pets well, or they will abandon you forever.

      That should be enough to get anyone through life, no?

    • Re:Quote from one of the replies. (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No, not just Wow..

      SW:Kotor and Morrowind too.
    • I, personally, have obtained nearly all of my morals from video games, especially playing RPGs

      Me too! From Ultima I learned the virtues of honesty, compassion, valor, justice, sacrifice, honor, spirituality, and humility. That's why I no longer steal crops or torches.
      • Me too! From Ultima I learned the virtues of honesty, compassion, valor, justice, sacrifice, honor, spirituality, and humility. That's why I no longer steal crops or torches.

        Yes, but you can always confess and make some small penance, all is forgiven, and you get to keep your loot. Hey, it really does work like the real thing.
    • I don't understand the parent comment. Are there still people left who are culturally literate enough to enter higher education and yet have had such limited contact with games that they are actually surprised at the idea that games (of many kinds, not just CRPGs) can explore complex issues such as morality?

      Ultima IV would be a good starting point.
      • No, I'm not surprised that games can explore complex issues. I'm shocked at the notion that someone out there has learned most all of their morals for RPGs. One must wonder why the examples of others in their younger years didn't contribute to their moral fiber. Generally most morals are learned by seeing others who set good examples. I read good examples of morals in books and rarly do they effect my moral structure. And I have never seen a moral issue played out in a game, that effected my moral structure

  • no morals (Score:4, Funny)

    by Arctic Dragon ( 647151 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @03:49PM (#11816138)
    I don't have any morals, you insensitive clod!

    Now excuse me, I'm busy playing GTA, drinking tequila, calling a 1-900 number while a hardcore porn movie is playing in the background.

  • Wrong question. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chemisor ( 97276 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @03:51PM (#11816166)
    It is improper to ask if game designers should be conveying moral values through their games, because they can not avoid doing so. Every game, be it Duke Nukem or Myst, orginates from the morality of its designers. They can not avoid it because they must make choices about the plot and player's possible decisions that can not be made in any other way.

    You can ask if which moral values are appropriate to include in games, and the answer would be that it is not possible to make any restrictions in this area without total censorship of all games produced. It is already being done in part through the ratings system. Whether it would be possible to impose further restrictions is somewhat doubtful. (though becoming less so every year)

  • Not any more than... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig DOT hogger AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @03:53PM (#11816194) Journal
    Do game creators have any moral responsibilities in teaching values to their audience?
    Not any more than writers or moviemakers or songwriters.
    • ROFL, did you even read the summary? Or were you just karma whoring, cause that's almost exactly what the summary says:

      Do writers have that same responsibility? Actors? ... NO.

  • Society cannot survive without absolutes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ridgelift ( 228977 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @03:55PM (#11816216)
    Do they have a MORAL responsibility? Oh man there's a can of worms! The problem is whose moral standard are we talking about?

    I like what Francis Schaeffer had to say "Art reflects culture". Art is a better reflector of culture more than history books, marketing campaigns or clever political speeches.

    So that begs the question: does art LEAD culture? I think most people here would like to say no because it would imply moral responsibiliy. But it's like trying to nail Jello to a tree, once you say someone is morally reponsible, if they don't want the responsibility they can slip away without a whole lot of effort.

    Okay moderators, mod me down :-)
    • Art has morals. Art is at it's greatest when it has morals. That is not to say that art should be bound by morals. "Crucifix in Urine" wouldn't exist in a moral vaccuum, but instead exists as a statement about a moral system by stepping outside of the traditional boundaries. Most corporate art exists in a moral vaccuum, in that it says nothing one way or another. A painting of Mickey Mouse nailed to a cross exists in a moral universe, in that what it is working with is definitions of morality.

      Art has
  • Who is to define Morality for the masses? The last time someone tried to put a hold on how people lived, and should live, ended up shooting himself with a luger during a board meeting. but calling them nazi's is kinda trolling, so in all fairness, while they dont have any real responsibility for teaching children to do things that they should know/have been told they shouldnt do, they should consider what could happen.

    • Government did (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AtariAmarok ( 451306 )
      "Who is to define Morality for the masses?"

      The government, that is who. All legislation ends up legislating morality.

      "The last time someone tried to put a hold on how people lived, and should live, ended up shooting himself with a luger during a board meeting."

      Sorry, that is what EVERY government does when you think about it. Not just that german with the silly 1/4-comb mustache you are thinking of. Go to your local law library and you will find shelves full of record of how government puts a hold on

  • Games that are explicitly targeted at the education market/for young children should teach good values. Of course, the flipside of this is that parents have a responsibility to only buy those types of games.

    Myself, I'll take Grand Theft Auto, where the only thing I've learned is that flamethrowers are joyful.

  • Good question. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jericho4.0 ( 565125 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @04:00PM (#11816274)
    Yes, to the point that anyone has obligations to society. I would have been proud to have worked on GTA, but not if I knew it was going to be marketed to kids. I know kids will play it, but that shouldn't stop it from being made for adults. Parents have that role.

  • No more or less than anyone does, I think. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Canthros ( 5769 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @04:03PM (#11816316)
    Ideally, we all have a moral obligation to uphold and to further positive moral values. Obviously, people disagree widely about these values, especially in the particulars. Furthermore, it ought be understood as a moral obligation, and not a legal one. Not because you can't legislate morality (in fact, we can, do, should, and must if law is to be meaningful), but because not all morality ought be legislated.
  • Yes, everyone has a moral responsibility to themselves and those around them. But it's not government's duty to enforce the responsibility we all have.

    Let's allow society to figure it out. I am very picky about what games and movies and TV shows I watch. I only choose entertainment from those who understand their moral responsibilities. Everyone else is kept out of my home and out of my head.

    I'm going to advocate that people should be morally responsible, but it is morally IRRESPONSIBLE for me to enforce my viewpoints at the point of a gun. That's not the way Jesus worked.

    So let's keep government out of this, because we can all handle it on our own.
    • At one time morality was both predicted by the media, and upheld by the media. The masses would not tolerate it otherwise. This has naturally declined as with all things. Both the media and the masses have been sliding down the moral slope over the years. This has happened both in the secularly and religiously, not to mention within public education.

      Media has given up moral responsibility in the name of "art" and "freedom of speech", forgeting that "freedom of speech" holds responsibility for that spee

  • why would it (Score:2, Interesting)

    by turbopunk ( 806995 )
    depends on the target audience. does rockstar ahve to worry about that when they work on gta4? no

    does a company working with a seasme street license have to worry about that? very much so

  • responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Master_T ( 836808 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @04:07PM (#11816367)
    Interesting that the story description compares suggesting that anyone other than parents and pastors having a moral responsibility to McCarthyism. People in this world are always demanding privelleges without responsibility.

    -I want freedom of speech... but I don't want to be responsible for the effect my words and deeds have on others-.

    lets be realistic with rights come responsibilities. If you want to reach a mass public audience, you could at least have the decency to consider the impact your ideas and products would have. Do you have some sort of incredible obligation to only make your games or art or whatever a certain way so as to satisfy some traditional moral standard? of course not.... But let's try consider the good of the world when we do things (not that video games necessarily should be designed to be good for the world). I don't think manhunt or BMXXX really did the world any good (more than that, they are frightening examples of what bad things human beings are capable of doing or making when they set there mind to it). They certainly have "the right" to make games like that, but wouldn't some moral considerations be nice? I get just as angry about the bible-toting, video-game-banning, harry-potter-is-of-the-devil-shouting mobs of people as anyone does. They turn questions of intent and desire into dogma. Into right and wrong. and that is stupid. however, People, lets at least realize what we do affects others and consider it when making art or music or games. You have the privellege of free speech, maybe you could balance that out with some healthy responsibility. Moral lessons? probably not, but.... RESPONSIBILITY.

    p.s. please don't accuse me of thinking doom or quake caused school shootings etc. that is not what I am getting at. we could benefit from a further ingrained, accurate sense of right and wrong in our society.

  • Do the creators of these games have it? No.

    But here's who SHOULD: editors.

    Let the creators create wonderful (and awful) things. Then, we can choose to either consumer those wonderful (and awful) things by making those judgements ourselves, or by enlisting the services of an editorial staff to do the majority of filtering.

    You don't like violent games? There should be someone out there maintaining a list of games that are not violent, that you can choose to refer to if desired.

    But that's just my take.
  • Perhaps it doesn't matter if game writers are moral, but whether or not the games are bought by a moral consumer.
  • Game creators certainly have a moral responsibility ... to teach those values they hold and wish to teach! Doh! They have zero responsibility to teach any values they do not hold, and really ought to refrain from doing so because they won't be very good at it.

    So I expect hard rock & caffeine. If the Bible Belt want to teach their morals, more power to them if anyone plays the games they program. But compelling people to accept and teach morals that are not theirs is utterly unAmerican and degrading

  • Don't take absence as prohibition... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @04:16PM (#11816489) Homepage Journal
    Don't take the absence of any moral obligation as prohibition.

    In other words, just because a game designer/movie director/author/actor/... is not obligated to place any moral values into their story does not mean they should be prohibited from doing so if they so choose.

    For example - I like the Myth series by Robert Lynn Asprin, precisely because RLA does put good "life lessions" into the stories.

    Too many slashbots will jump on this story saying "Yeah, those bastards ought not be allowed to put their morality into their work!"

    When the real point is "They ought not be REQUIRED to put SOMEBODY ELSE'S morality into their work."
  • Leave the morality lessons to the parents and the priests. They are quite good at their jobs.

    well, some of them are. some of them are [sptimes.com] not [timesunion.com].

    censorship imposed by the law is wrong. but that does not mean self-censorship imposed by moral concerns is wrong. some children have proper guidance, others do not. the question is, which is more important: catering to/reveling in the lowest common denominator, or not contributing to the negative inputs morally disadvantaged children receive. a pointless question
  • Ultimately, everyone is responsible for their influence on every single individual they come into contact with. That is why every individual should do their best to live up to a high moral code. After all, we're all created in the image of God and were created to live up to His example of righteous living and sinless nature. We just failed in the process, but it need not always be thus. :) We can overcome. In the meantime there is grace, and always room for improvement, but never room to shirk our duty

  • Plato would agrue yes, as well as writers, actors, and poets.

    Not that I agree with him, but he does make a good point as to why.

  • Games Are Culture (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thasmudyan ( 460603 ) <thasmudyan@opREDHATenfu.com minus distro> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @04:32PM (#11816689)
    Games are a part of culture and as such reflect all kinds of aspects of that culture. That includes the representation of concepts of morality, renderings that run contrary to the accepted value system, as well as work that exists outside of any recognizable morality system. Games reflect the interests and desires of our culture.

    Because games are both the "output" of our creative people, as well as a kind of cultural "input" for all people, they should effectively considered to be in the same category as literature or art.

    Does an artist or writer have a moral obligation to reinforce the value system of her society? Does she have an obligation to teach people about critical thoughts of that system? No, there are not, and must not, be any moral or ($entity forbid) legal obligations for a content creator to take a specific stance toward accepted social values.

    Seriously, who comes up with stuff like this? If you don't like the content that's out there, create your own and see how many fans you get. This is a frigging free society, or is it - ?

  • Lmao... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Morpeth ( 577066 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @04:34PM (#11816715)
    "Leave the morality lessons to the... priests". ?!?!?!

    Buwahahah! Scuse me while I wipe the coffee off my keyboard and monitor... Did the person saying that bother reading the paper, current events, or oh - follow history, even a little bit? You know, pesky things like the Crusades, the Inquisition, Salem, ad naseum... Sure there's priests with good intentions, but to leave morality in hands of people who ignore science, the fossil record, the laws of physics, and believe in magic (virgin births, coming back from the dead, walking on water?), and are highly vested in their own organization's power, is folly.

    As for people who think morality only stems from religion, esp Christianity -- you need to go back and read the pre-Socratics for starters.

    This is not flamebait, I'm being completely serious. I am utterly annoyed with the notion that morality is somehow owned by priests and organized religion, or that it didn't exist before the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity & Islam)

  • Too many people here are failing to distinguish between, "Is it moral to create games that teach bad values?" and "Should the government make it illegal to teach bad values?" I would answer that it is immoral, but that the government shouldn't be the enforcer of my particular view of morality.

    Basically, the immorality of an act is often much less than the immorality of stopping people from doing it. Jaywalking might be immoral, as the jaywalker recklessly disregards the safety of himself and those ar
  • Wait a second..aren't you making a moral judgement upon Falwell and McCarthy?

    I think that even the author of that comment would have a hard time claiming that the results of McCarthy's actions (if not the man himself) werre morally wrong.

    The answer to the question depends on your own sense of morality. Game developers have no more of a moral requirement than we all do when living our daily lives.

  • Takes me back (Score:3, Insightful)

    by qengho ( 54305 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @06:48PM (#11818171)
    Long ago, in an Internet far, far away (Compuserve), a game company that sold an air combat simulator floated the idea of allowing all human figures to be "strafe-able" (e.g., noncombatant civilian vacationers on a beach). The overwhelming response from the players was "That's sick! Don't you dare!" These days I hear that capping innocents is one of the hilarious features of programs like GTA. How times change...
  • to anyone except the game buyer, and possibly their bosses. If you have the brain of a fruitfly, it is hardly their business to guide you in the right direction. The role of games isn't to be good role models. Games generally sell well because they allow you to do something you can't do in real life, and more often than not it's because they let you do something bad (by society's standards). It is the job of the parents to, basically, shape a kid's sense of morality. Not even the church's, I find it de

  • Doesn't everyone? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Chuckstar ( 799005 )
    Doesn't everyone have a moral responsibility for everything they do?

    I believe game developers (and anyone else for that matter) have a moral responsibility to not teach children (or anyone else) "bad" values. Having said that, I find it unlikely that any games I've seen, even violent ones, teach "bad" values. I think people are pretty good about separating fantasy from reality.

    I could, however, imagine a game that, especially if targeted at young children, would at least confuse the understanding of rig

  • The eternal generation gap (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @03:32AM (#11821499) Journal
    Kids of today got no ....... We all know this line. We grow up hearing it and grow old saying it. It is how we work. Oh and those who claim they never say it because they are so in tune. Grow up.

    Each new generation will try to find their own way in life. This is nothing new. What is new that each new generation in the last two centuries has some amazing new toys to do it with. Before the technology of the father was the same as of the son and for that matter the same as that of the grandfather.

    Nowadays there are huge differences. My parents age had computers but they were like power stations. Used somewhere to do very important work but not something you ever expected to be working with. The idea that a major part of your freetime would be spend with it is alien to them. Same as say being glued to the tv was to their grandparents. Then again we can't see why our grandparents went to the movies to watch the news.

    Different generations. Different technologies. Different ways of spending our free time.

    The problem is that apart from not being able to see the value in the others generation toy is that each of the toys also has different morals.

    A feature film can do with just 1 murder and last 1.5 hours. TV you then already got 2 programs so 2 murders. A session of half-life or whatever and 1.5 hours will get you a body count that would shock a WW2 veteran.

    There are problems in the world but the world has always had problems. Youth gangs are nothing new but that doesn't make for gripping headlines. The media has for more influence in making us scared of loss of morals then in installing any morals.

    So do I think game creators should apply morals to their games?

    Well yes. I would dearly love to play RPG's were your moral choices really affected the game. An evil character will find progress easier and faster but pay the price of being hunted by the goverment and generally not being trusted by either lawfull and unlawfull people. But also were being a good character is HARD. Real hard. Of course this requires rpg's to get a decent economy first but lets make being good be something more then giving a few credits to some random npc when you are swimming in cash (my playstyle means I never spend on med packs and sell the med packs I find).

    But as a final note I do remember on recent racing game that was set in cities in wich civilians could be run over. Not for points or anything just that they were impossible to avoid. That I found totally ammoral. It also just ruined any fun. Sure it was a console port but wouldn't the game have been more fun if you had to swerve to avoid hitting people. Maybe that level of driving is to hard with a gamepad.

    But no. Games can't teach people morals. At a fundamental level I don't think morals can be thought unless at a very young age. Either you have learned that hurting other people is bad as a small child or you haven't.

    Then again we are all immoral anyway. We are here wasting resources on meaningless drivel about games while childeren are starving. How moral is that.

  • Responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PhotoBoy ( 684898 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @07:54AM (#11822277)
    When will this generation of lazy parents start actually teaching morals to their kids? It's rather poor of them to expect games developers to do it for them. And even if developers started adding morals to games, I'm sure parents would still sue them when their kids go on killing sprees by saying they didn't teach the "right" morals.

  • Ultima IV (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Flyboy Connor ( 741764 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @08:57AM (#11822596)
    I read in a book (which I don't have near me now) about Richard Garriott designing the Ultima games. After he did Ultima III, he discovered that some people spent dozens or even hundreds of hours in his games. Then he thought, that in that time, basically, he had an opportunity to shape people's thoughts. By that, he did not mean that he could brainwash people into becoming his slaves, but that he should carefully consider what he would put in the game. He then designed Ultima IV, which is, as the slightly older gaming-generation knows, a game that centers around the concept of virtues.

    An interesting story about that in the same book was about one of the rooms in a dungeon. Due to the engine, all creatures in a dungeon were enemies: you couldn't converse with them. Garriot had 256 special rooms, each taking op one screen. While filling these rooms, he was looking for interesting sprites to use. He had already filled two-hundred rooms with demons, zombies, dragons, and other critters, when he noticed a sprite he used in the villages, of a child. So he created a dungeon room consisting of cells, with a child in each cell. The player could simply walk through the room, not being bothered by the cells, but he had the ability to pull a lever and open the cell doors. The thing is, that after the player did that, the children were released and would attack the player -- they were monsters, because the game could only have monsters in dungeons.

    When the game was betatested, one beta-tester found this room, and was outraged. He sent angry letters that Garriott's new game required the killing of children. He even approached Garriott's parents, asking them if they could talk to their son, which they did. Garriott argued that the game didn't require killing children at all: you didn't need to go through this room, you didn't need to open the cells, and even if you did, you didn't need to kill the children -- you could put them to sleep, or just ignore them. His parents argued that it was just one room, and it wasn't important, so why wouldn't he take it out. But that only convinced Garriott more that the room should stay in. He knew many players wouldn't care, and would happily kill the children, but a few might be facing a moral dilemma, where they were hindered by the children, but didn't want to kill them. And that was exactly what Garriott wanted to achieve with Ultima IV, that players would THINK about their actions.

    All in the 1980s...

    • Nice post on Ultima IV. Great game. I've never heard that story before.

      Ultima IV had solid morals in addition to great gameplay. The eight virtues of the game are: Compassion, Justice, Humility, Honesty, Sacrifice, Valor, Honor and Spirituality. I was about twelve when I started to play and the game made me think about these issues.

      One great example was at the beginning of the game, you were asked questions in which one virtue was pitted against another: do you honestly claim your reward (for a good d
  • My opinion is that the a game designer shouldn't consider morality, because there are as many moral codes as there are people. It is a loaded question which means different things to different people. Instead, they need to make the game content match the game goals. If nothing is gratuitous in the game, based on the designed content, the game is properly labeled "game."

    So, if the game is meant to be an over-the-top pseudo-realistic gang warfare simulation aimed to allow the player to vicariously experie

  • No concept of morality... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CashCarSTAR ( 548853 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:43AM (#11823654)
    About 110 comments in and not one person really has a good concept of what morality really is. I'm currently writing a book about the subject, so I have a good idea what I'm talking about.

    Real morality, is how what you do affects other people. Simple as that. (And that is modified by your intentions.)

    Game design, like all art, is a VERY amoral activity. Amoral isn't necessarly a bad thing. It just means that it's fairly neutral. Because what you do on screen doesn't really affect other people, it's not intended to. The intention of GTA isn't for you to go out and kill people, for example. It simply is.

    There is pieces of art that ARE intended to have such an affect on people. Usually this takes the form of overtly racist propaganda. This is the sort of thing you can judge on a moral basis, but to say that game designers have a moral responsibility?

    No, they don't. It's nice when games have a good moral message, of course. But to be frank, in today's day and age, being morally neutral puts you ahead of the pack.
  • Legislating morality is a dangerous game that leads down the path the theocracy, but that doesn't mean that ALL PEOPLE don't have a moral responsibility. Athletes, musicians, and game developers are not exceptions to that rule. Each of us has an inherent moral and biological obligation to be a good person, do right, obey the law, respect others, and serve as an example.

    The question should therefore not be "do they *HAVE* a moral responsibility" but rather "How should that moral responsibility influence th

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close