The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

NegativeZero — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:40:44 GMT

(Note: this kind of ended up being longer and more rambling than I intended, sorry)

While the concept is interesting, the issue that I see with what you're proposing re: Bioshock is that it would require a fundamental rethinking of the entire game. Would I feel anything if the game kept a list of every splicer I've killed in an attempt to give them personality? Frankly, no, not if the game is still presented in the same manner that it currently is. The splicers are annoyances. They're obstacles that I, as a player, have to somehow defeat. If I don't kill them, then they will kill me - game over. The game doesn't offer any meaningful alternative. I can't talk my way through encounters. Presenting that sort of material to me would just frustrate me. It's not like, say, Deus Ex, where if you wanted you literally could sneak up behind every enemy in the game, stick an electroprod into them, and knock them out cold.

It's interesting that people get hung up on Bioshock's Little Sister dilemma. To harvest, or to rescue? Notice that it's presented as a binary choice. You need Adam, and they are your source. The actual decision you're making is whether you wish to get lots of Adam immediately, or to get some now with the promise of a bonus later. The game never offers you the third option: leave them and their metal-clad daddies alone entirely. I'm reasonably sure that it's not even possible to avoid the 'choice', as in order to proceed through the game you must either harvest or rescue the first little sister you encounter (I can't verify this, unfortunately - I intended to on my third play through but was unable to even complete my first as my copy of the game disc was defective, preventing Port Prometheus from loading properly). It is presented as a moral choice, however how moral is it really, given that the game actively encourages you to hunt down and murder the creatures who's single purpose (as far as we can tell) is to protect the little sisters, and in so doing obtain their prize for your own? Note that you're also not penalised if you kill all the big daddies and leaving the little sisters unprotected for the other splicers to have their way with, which is probably morally the worst possible thing you're actually able to do in the game.

I think something that games must somehow achieve is making you feel responsible for your actions. It is very rare to find a game where the decisions you make ever seem to have much in the way of substance. A part of this is obviously because of the horrendously complex nature of choice. In order for a moral choice to carry true gravitas, it must have consequences, and keeping track of those consequences and how they mesh together is a nightmare.

Additionally, the way that gamers tend to approach choice in a game is a very interesting thing. We are confronted by a lot of choices - it's up to us to decide how to play the game. Will I specialise in swords or axes? Do I put my points into strength or agility? Do I want the Hypnotize Big Daddy plasmid or not? We ascribe some kind of utility value to each choice, and choose the one which will benefit us best. The way we calculate the utility of a choice is abstract, as we know that choices are often tradeoffs. We might miss out on things in the game because of our choice. Bioware's recent RPGs are an interesting example of this, where the player early on will be encouraged to adopt one of two opposing philosophies - the Light Side or the Dark Side, the Way of the Open Palm or the Way of the Closed Fist, etc. This practically guarantees that the majority of players will want to replay the game following the opposing perspective. An interesting aside here is that most people I know found playing the 'evil' side of those games much more engaging than playing the good. But I digress. Our tendency to give some kind of abstract 'goodness' value to choices tends to mean that our choice itself is completely one of self-interest. We are aware that we are playing a game, and we are trying to gain the maximum utility from our choice. I know that I'm not the only one who when playing Knights of the Old Republic on the Dark Side would deliberately look through the possible conversation options and try and find the options which were most 'evil'. I was presented with what in reality would be moral choices, but in the context of that game my mind boiled them down into "will the game give me 'badness' points for doing this, making me progress further towards the dark side so that I can get the 'dark' ending to the game"? Bioshock presents the same problem. Harvester or Savior? You must commit to one path or the other - if you change your mind halfway in then you won't get those precious, precious achievement points, and who knows which ending you'll end up getting.

I personally think we need to move away from this binary good-or-evil choice. It speaks volumes that Shadow of the Colossus is brought up as an example of art when it *doesn't* present us with a choice. We hunt the Colossi. We can choose not to do so, but all we can do in that case is explore a vast, desolate wasteland. Hunting the Colossi is clearly an evil act, however Wander is doing it for a simple and altruistic reason. The reason the game is so poignant I believe is because of this duality. His... your intentions are good, but your methods are evil. It highlights one of the oldest and strongest moral conundrums of them all: can the ends justify the means? I would argue that a game which challenges you to truly think about the morality of what you're doing is far more compelling than a game that offers you a choice between opposing moral philosophies and then declares you to be moral or immoral when you make that choice.

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

N'Gai Croal — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:17:51 GMT

@NegativeZero: Long is our specialty here at Level Up (Hopefully not rambling, though!)

You've made good points all round. You may want to read the Vs. Mode installment Stephen Totilo and I did on BioShock--just follow the link in the fourth paragraph of the above post--because I think it addresses a lot of the points that you've raised, including the way that players "game" the morality systems that developers put in their titles. I will say in BioShock's defense that the game is clearly built around the player experimenting with plasmids, tonics, weapons, bots, environmental hazards and enemy behaviors, with plasmids chief among those elements. To give players the option to avoid harming the Big Daddies or the Little Sisters would have meant those players would not make use of the plasmids, thereby throwing 2K Boston/Australia's carefully planned Adam economy out of whack. That's not an unsolvable problem, but properly supporting that option--both in terms of the narrative and the gameplay--would have created a challenge for the development team, and it would have made for a different game. If I had to guess, I'd say that BioShock's success, and the generally positive feedback for the game's crude-but-effective portrayal of a moral dilemma will encourage the developers to both push that aspect of the game more aggressively in the sequel and refine it as well, perhaps even including the third way you're seeking.

Still, I don't have the same problem that you do with BioShock presenting us with a binary choice because the question the game asks players is this: In a Hobbesian environment, how far are you prepared to go in order to survive? The binary choice clarifies the fact that the developers want you to make the best of a bad situation, not let you opt out of it entirely. I'm not convinced that games handle genuine complexity as well as other media, because too much choice and/or too much subtlety tends to come across as muddled and undifferentiated in interactive media. A far better option is to carefully layer a finite set of clearly delineated choices on top of one another--some binary, like the Little Sisters, and others more varied, like the plasmids and tonics--in order to create the sensation of genuine complexity without the difficulties caused by the real thing.

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

NegativeZero — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:51:48 GMT

Just to clarify, I personally have no problem with the approach that Irrational took, Bioshock is an excellent game. I just disagree that the choice presented is as meaningful as a lot of people have suggested it is. I guess I would have liked a bit more flexibility in allowing me to play the way I wished to.

While I admit I haven't finished the game, I played through the bulk of it, and if the goal was to make plasmids and integral part of the gameplay then I'm afraid that it didn't quite work out for my session. While I did get some plasmids, I found the only ones I actually used were electrobolt in the early stages of the game, incinerate because I was forced to, and telekenesis for grabbing some out-of-reach loot and the hypnotise plasmid once to get some valuable backup in one section towards the middle of the game. The rest of the time I was using weapons. I was finding myself buying plasmids simply because I had adam and there were no useful tonics left to buy.

I guess what I'm saying is that if the question is 'how far would you go to survive', I'd like to be able to weigh everything up and come to the Global Thermonuclear War answer - the only way to win is not to play at all. You're never given that option, though. You become a splicer at the start of the game whether you like it or not, and you will end up either harvesting or rescuing a sister whether you want to or not.

After the first sister, all the others are optional. It would make the game much harder not to have their adam, but there's no reason why you'd have to deal with them. I guess that I was a bit disappointed that the game wasn't a bit more like Deus Ex, which had the flexibility to be played in radically different ways.

I don't have to have the 'third way' at all. They can offer me a binary choice, but I want it to be a meaningful choice, which as you rightly pointed out in your exchange with Mr Totilo is not really what we're given in Bioshock. We're given a choice between endings, and if we choose the 'right' path we're rewarded with an extra plasmid. Other than that, the payoff ends up being pretty much identical (though I believe if you're a harvester, taking photographs of the sisters will result in you receiving more Adam than a savior?). The characters will tell you that you're doing the right/wrong thing. I don't think this is as powerful as it could be. It's sort of like having the game present you with an angel-on-one-shoulder, devil-on-the-other conscience. I suppose I'd have liked something more subtle. To be shown the consequences of my decision and give my own conscience a chance to reflect, rather than simply being told whether it's good or bad by the game's conscience. Perhaps I could have had the daddies hunt me for harvesting their wards. To have the splicers ridicule me for saving the sisters, or to lament the fact that you can't save them in the same way. I think removing the periodic rewards for being a savior would have made the distinction much stronger. You would have been slightly penalised for doing the right thing, making harvesting more seductive. If this was balanced by a substantial reward provided that you rescue them all, even if the overall numbers added up the same it would have felt like the decision carried more weight. In reality, having the conviction to do what's right is most of the time much harder to do. Tenenbaum herself says something similar when you choose the path in the first place.

Maybe for Bioshock 2!

And to be more on topic with the actual content of your post, I think that having people harass me online because of the way I'm playing a single player game would be a good reason for me to disconnect my console from the internet. The whole point of a game is that they project an artificial world which we can interact with, within the rules that the game's designers have laid out. It is, in essence fantasy. The ability to be able to do things that I would not normally be able to do in reality, free from the rules that society would normally put on those actions. After all, I'm not hurting anyone (assuming single player). On what grounds would they complain? What I do in my game doesn't affect them at all. What I choose to do in a game should not be taken out of the context of that game. They'd be no different from people like Jack Thompson, trying to push their moralistic worldview onto me and the way that I spend my free time.

On the other hand, if people want to get together and agree to play their game a certain way, more power to them. Just don't try and make me do it too.

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

Chro — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:03:54 GMT

In order for games to put moral weight on our actions, and make us feel good or bad about what we're doing, they will need to become much more flexible, and stop 'rewarding' evil actions. In addition, they will need amazing storytelling.

Bioshock and other games that provide 'good' and 'evil' routes all reward the evil route by providing alternate endings and play experiences for the evil side. As has been said, many people will play the game through as a good (or evil) 'player', and then go back and play the other half. Even more complex systems still boil down to 'will this action lead me down the path I want?'. If the path you want requires an evil choice, most gamers will make that evil choice without a second thought to achieve their goals.

In fact, many such games can make a player regret being good! For example, I played through Tales of Symphonia by choosing dialog options I thought were appropriate to my personality (and I'm something of a goody-two-shoes). I learned halfway through the game that the dialog and ending changed based on which character was your 'best friend'. Unfortunately, the game was HEAVILY slated toward the naive, upbeat initial heroine being your best friend. Basically, if you wanted any of the other half-dozen characters to come out on top, you had to be an abusive jerk to her throughout the whole game. I ended up quitting that game in frustration because there were two other characters I wanted to interact with more, but was unable to because I behaved in a realistic manner early on.

For a game to tap into our morals, it must reward positive choices and punish negative ones. You should be able to get through the game by positive (or at least neutral) choices alone, and every time you make an 'evil' choice, you must face the consequences (or at least go out of your way to avoid getting caught.) Sometimes, these consequences are immediate (you get thrown in jail), and sometimes they won't show up until later (you kill someone early in the game, and that prevents you from accessing an area later in the game, or the victim's brother/sister/uncle/barber attacks you later on out of vengeance.) Alternate endings, even if they spend the whole time scolding you, are still a reward because they provide additional content.

Implementing such punishments is not the end of it, though. All it does is provide us with a more realistic world, where we aren't driven to perform evil actions for the sake of seeing more of the game. Once we are in this environment, only THEN can we be made to feel shame, remorse, and regret. These emotions can only be brought out of us through emotional storytelling and meaningful characters -- rarities in any medium. Fantastic writers are required, and they must push your buttons at the exact right time.

I look forward to a game that can make me cry, because I will know that I am experiencing a truly realistic and moving story.

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

Buckethead — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:40:07 GMT

Really? Being labeled as a "child killer" in your profile when you were just curious? This is a terrible idea. Because, just like the acheivement system bastardizes the enjoyment of a game by quantifying it with points, this idea bastardizes "morality". Anything you feel from being labeled as a virtual "child killer" will be because your parents/friends might chide you for it. The feeling of shame, for example, won't come from playing the game. If we want our desicions in the game to be based, at least partially, on morality or emotion and not just on "point" economy, then its going to come from good narrative and clever player-character interaction- just like in an excellent movie. A good movie does all of these things, engages the viewer ("player"), and makes us feel something as a result of what is going on on screen. The idea of "punishments" or any system that extends beyond the game itself seems like a gimmick tome, a way to make up for the bad story telling and laziness in game development.

Instead of trying out these gimmicks, why not actually try to have a good narrative, script, plot. By the way, I think non of these things require good graphics. A book has no graphics (!) but still can tell one hell of a story.

I mean any form of entertainment that tries to tell a story must be engaging by itself, it shouldn't need an external system that forcibly changes how a player plays their games or stop a player from "satisfying their curiosity". A well told story can do anything and everything. And lets remember that in videogames, the interaction is the story. A clever system will inspire stories in the player and it will make the game better then it really is.

Shadow of the Colossus spoilers ahead if you care.

At the end of Shadow of the Colossus, I didn't want the character to die so I held on as long as possible when he was being sucked into the pool. That is an example of clever story telling because the player makes up their own story. And because so little is known about the main character, I found myself thinking that I was the Wanderer.

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

ColbyCheese — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:30:42 GMT

I'd have to disagree with this statement of yours Chro:

"For a game to tap into our morals, it must reward positive choices and punish negative ones. "

I actually believe that for games to more deeply and accurately tap into our morals as a society, we need to actually have less discreet "endings". No blatantly "good" and "bad" endings. As N'Gai pointed out, what keeps many/most people on the straight and narrow is not the selection of choices presented to them, but the consequences they face for pursuing those choices. Since it's really difficult to convey "consequence" in a very "deep" or meaningful way ina game, you can only reward or punish players so much before they get tired of playing. After all, people have chosen to give you $50-$60, so their tolerance levels and expectations are skewed because of that consumer relationship.

Additionally, your statement assumes that there is a black and white distinction between what's moral and immoral. How should we classify drug dealers???

I have known a handful of people who's primary means of self-support has been through the trafficking of illegal substances. Questions of legality aside, does that make them bad people? For the most part, they weren't bad people. Personal failings aside, they loved their kids and their mom just as much as anybody else. If you didn't know about their questionable business ethics, you might think they were all "stand up guys".

I'll be ambiguous and answer by saying "Not necessarily". Much of the verdict depends on the specific details of the situation. Is it better to sell drugs to adults than children? What if you only sell drugs to other drug dealers? The "grayness" of these types of questions is what makes them compelling to simulate from an entertainment perspective, and also why they are the subject of such heated arguments.

Additionally, what would be the point of condemning a gamer as "immoral" in a game like GTA? Who wants to play a game where you are determined to be 100% immoral? Nobody wants to spend $50 for a guilt trip. The reason that people enjoy playing games like GTA is very similar to the reason that it's considered morally OK to sell drugs in some social circles: It all depends on the specifics of the situation the subject finds themselves in.

In GTA, for the most part, you're interacting with crooks and killers, so it's not a noticeable deviation from the norm to shoot people and kill hookers and pedestrians. Similarly, if you find yourself living in a high crime area, it's not uncommon to see people doing illegal things, so it's alot easier to fall into the patterns you see around you. Just as, in reality, people are at least somewhat a product of their environment, so too are our video game avatars a product of teh game universe they come from.

I guess, basically, I don't think think it's about black and white moral choices as much as it's about APPROPRIATE choices. Morality, guilt, and things of that nature are all created and incubated in the human mind. We can't force people to feel bad, we have to lure them into doing things that they would feel guilty of in real life.

It's that slippery, seductive approach that hasn't been executed very well yet that will get the job done.

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

the brothers mcdonough — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:39:46 GMT

N’Gai (and staff),

I can’t say I agree with your proposition, but you are a terrific writer and bring up interesting and challenging subjects. In regards to:

What if your Gamertag were designated “Child Killer” for having murdered the Little Sisters or “Good Samaritan” for having saved them?

I am not too keen on the idea of being held morally responsible for the actions I take in videogames, because of the very clear distinction, politicians be damned, between a game and the real world. Treating an animal inhumanely tells you something about a person’s character, whereas the killing of a game character does not. I would no sooner seek to be judged for things that cross my mind, or furthermore, for things of which I am capable. I can’t help but see shades of Minority Report.

What if the game maintained a list of everyone you killed in the game, including their names, ages, pre-Adam pictures and a description of how you killed them, for all of your friends to peruse at their leisure?

Information overload…this is entirely too much obsessive compulsive behavior for me. Personally, a developer simply supplying a depth of character information would not translate into an increased emtional attachement.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between, and as fans of virtual experimentation, we’re genearally not in favor of systems that would inhibit players’ testing of virtual boundaries.

I second that.

But our proposal would be voluntary, an optional choice for those gamers who want to give developers more ways to make them feel bad.

I think the very idea of the proposal being voluntary undermines the power of social sanction…and I am not sure how many gamers want to be made to feel bad about themselves, so much as people enjoy being able to sympathize with characters.

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

Chro — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:59:48 GMT

Colby - You are right that very few decisions are clearly black and white. However, you and I do agree on one thing:

"Just as, in reality, people are at least somewhat a product of their environment, so too are our video game avatars a product of teh game universe they come from."

The issue here is that in video games, the environment is such that morals are trivial and often nonsensical. You don't think twice about shooting someone in a video game because there are no (or few) consequences, no depth, and the world is temporary and disposable (by switching the console off.) In truth, nothing we do by pushing the buttons on a console controller could possibly be immoral (unless someone hooked up a real nuke to the A button somehow.) Therefore, to make a person feel immoral, we must temporarily make them forget that it's all just a game. While this might seem scary, every other media tries to do the same thing, evoking emotions in the consumer by exploiting their empathy.

Our society has established that there are distinctly 'good' actions (risking your life for others), and distinctly 'evil' actions (killing someone just to watch them bleed), and these are most easily rewarded and punished. The 'gray' actions you describe are harder to place, and are likely the ones that would morally trouble us in real life. But before we can make someone feel guilty about these decisions, we must put them in an environment where good and bad actually matter, and are not just means to reach alternate endings.

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

ColbyCheese — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:47:13 GMT

Chro - I think I understand what you were trying to say a little better now. Thanks for the clarification.

That said, It IS a tough nut to crack. I can remember when I was playing through both KOTOR's, thinking "Well, what do I care if I go to the darkside. All I have to do is turn off the console or revert back to my last save. Big Whoop! Bring on the cool force powers!" Or do you remember that one "cat woman" character that you have to find out in the desert who was contemplating suicide? "Hmm. I wonder if they will even let her do it...Let's see how far the developers have gone down this road..." The lack of meaningful consequence really skews people's reactions. But I have an idea.

Do you remember some of those old Sierra point-and-click games from back in the 80's and 90's? Specifically, I'm thinking about the "Quest for Glory" games. They had this feature that allowed you to import your character from the previous game and play through the series with the same character. Considering how much storage we have at our disposal, and the fact that so many game companies are trying to get into the game trilogy business, I don't understand why no one has picked that ball back up and run with it again.Think of the possibilities! The one thing that all gamers ar willing to invest across the board is TIME. Use that as a way to force players to REALLY think about the consequences of their actions.

In a recent blog posting by Mr. Jaffe (of God of War fame), was talking about getting tired of playing the new Ratchet and Clank, because it wasn't worth the trouble. Would it be worth the trouble if he could keep all his cool inventory and abilities (or whatever you have. I've never played the game) and carry them over to the next game?

What if you decide to spare a boss at the end of a battle in a game like Resident Evil 5. Wouldn't it be pretty cool if, out of nowhere, right when you're about to get killed by some boss in Resident Evil 6, the boss character you spared previously comes back and repays his life debt by saving your hide? Does he decide to join you in your new journey as a ally? Maybe he decides that you're fair game next time he sees you now that his debt has been paid.

With the coming "Age of Episodic Content", we have some really interesting possibilities if our game auteurs would just flex a little creative and technical muscle. Jaffe was right about one thing for sure: Many developers think of certain aspects of games as if they were stuck back in the Nolan Bushnell era. Switch things up guys! Think Big!

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

tilt3daxis — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:30:37 GMT

This idea of tearing down the fourth wall by dealing out "real life" consequences based on in-game actions begs for a discussion on Johan Huizinga's concept of the magic circle. The magic circle bounds all forms of play. Actions taken within the magic circle have no repercussions outside of the magic circle. This makes "play" inherently safe, and it's one of the main reasons that mammals engage in play. If you had to worry about your "real life" (I hate that term) reputation while playing BioShock -- if the magic circle was at risk of breaking down -- would you still play it? Would it still be a game?

It might help to look at the movie Saw. In Saw, the antagonist, Jigsaw, kidnaps a group of individuals and forces them to play a series of his twisted "games." If the players lose, they usually end up dying. Now imagine if Saw were a video game. Life is cheap in a video game. If you were to lose, and your avatar died, it really wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things. You could easily reset the game or load a previous save and try again. The experience is bounded by the magic circle. If, on the other hand, you were a player of Jigsaw's game in "real life," and your life was truly at stake, I doubt you would continue to view it as a game, or even a playful activity. As soon as there are "real life" consequences to your action in-game -- as soon as the magic circle is removed -- the experience becomes completely different.

I completely understand what you're saying about creating a larger emotional impact on the player -- creating a greater sense of risk for the player -- but I think in breaking the magic circle games lose a great deal of their appeal, namely the safety in exploring the various possibilities in the game world.

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

Chro — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:40:42 GMT

Colby - There are actually a few games that let you import characters from previous games -- most notably RPGs like Baldur's Gate II and the .hack series. But these are just extensions of how long the game is. You could accomplish the same repercussions from your decisions in one game -- by having the player make a choice in the beginning of the game and having the effect come in later in the game.

Indigo Prophecy did an INCREDIBLE job at this. Just doing something as innocuous as taking a cab instead of the subway meant that later in the game, the cops would say, 'Ha! We have records of the murderer taking a cab from the murder scene to this guy's apartment!"

In some sense, Indigo Prophecy was a game that came closest to making you feel guilt for your actions. It influenced you to make moral decisions, because if you didn't, your character actually got depressed (and if you did a lot of horrible things, committed suicide!) But even then, the ups and downs in your emotions became too artificial and 'gamey': "Wow, my ex girlfriend called and now I'm depressed. I know! I'll to take a piss and drink some orange juice! That will cheer me up!" I did like other scenes, though, like when you were the only one that could save a kid from drowning, but by doing so you put yourself in view of the police looking for you. It did a good job of making you (and the main character) feel guilty of you decide to let the kid die.

Perhaps, in the end, that's the first step in evoking such emotions in the player: evoke them in the protagonist. Make their actions have an effect on the main character, and the player may start empathizing and regretting what they've done. After all, the player won't be dissuaded from doing 'evil' things if afterwards the protagonist goes on like nothing happened, or even cackles maniacally to himself! To make us 'feel' while playing a video game, developers will have to do the same thing writers and directors do: make us empathize with the main character and bringing us into their world.

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

harrison25 — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:44:05 GMT

I know many people in america that are ashamed of being gay.

in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with it, so why should they feel bad?

it's simple. Morality is defined by what the majority decides.... there is no concrete good or bad act, merely hordes of people waiting to punish you for an act that they define as right or wrong.

300 or so years ago, the declaration of independence declared all men free, and accidentally left out women, immigrants, slaves, etc....

Ultimately, if society defines what is wrong and right, then the rewards and punishments reinforce those belief systems...

in a videogame where there is no lingering consequence for 'misbehavior', is it possible to reinforce rules?

escaping said consequence is as simple as turning the machine off... except in an mmo :)

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

Chaote Imagicka — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:53:06 GMT

Actually a very minor form of this is already there. When another gamer is online you can see a brief description of what they're currently doing. This can have repercussions.

I was playing Crackdown a while back and messing around. Someone on my friends list sent me a rather rude message asking why exactly I was killing civilians as my current activity was listed as doing that. My response in a voice message that I was trying to build a big stack of female corpses to have my character jump up and down on, resulted in him requesting to join my game. I, assuming he too wanted to jump up and down on dead cel shaded women, allowed this only to have him repeatedly try and kill me until I went back to doing normal missions.

I also have vague recollections of seeing someone else on my friends list billed as "Harvesting Little Sisters in Neptune's Bounty" but I'm uncertain as to how I reacted.

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

Ma1agate — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:41:38 GMT

Regarding Tilt3daxis' point about the fourth wall, there is at least one game (I know there are more) that attempted to bring "real life" consequences to bear on the player: Steel Battalion. When critically damaged, if the player did not eject from their mech in time, the pilot (the player's character and thus their game save) would die, and their game save would be deleted.

Now in this case, technically the consequences are all still in the game, so the 'magic circle' isn't exactly broken, but the player's investment of time is lost. I think one way to get players to truly care, at least in an RPG or MMORPG-style game, or other games with a narrative of considerable length, is to take this approach. Of course the designer will have to put more boundaries on gameplay than the average gamer is used to; after all, one wouldn't want to lose a character they've spent 40 (or even 5, possibly) hours developing just because they took one misstep off a cliff.

Now for my main point:

I think this issue of morality in games lies very close to Ebert's distinction of games not qualifying as art. One can look at a painting, read a book, view a film, or watch a play without knowing what they will experience. The person experiencing the art has merely one choice: Experience it or do not experience it. One can expereince the full range of emotions through these works: Joy, sorrow, fear, disgust, and hate being just a few. Disgust, in my opinion, is the most important of these. I'll tell you why.

Games are the same as the other forms I've mentioned in the broader strokes: There is music, there is visual art, there are choreographed motions. There are stories with concepts large and small. A key difference, in my opinion (not the only one, mind you), is that in many cases the user can decide not to experience parts of the work. If a player doesn't want to see the Little Sisters harvested, he or she can just choose not to address the issue by avoiding the choice, or simply choose to save them all. The user can effectively edit out things that he or she finds repellent, and thereby color their experience.

Sure, many will say that that is one of the great things about games; that when people come together to share their experiences, they literally have had completely different experiences I actually wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. However, I think that it is one of the things that keeps games from truly entering the realm of art. I think that games exist as collections of art, but not whole works of art in and of themselves. Can you read a book, skipping every third chapter, and then talk competently about it with someone else? Could you look at the left half of a painting, or catch the second half of a play and say you understand it? Take a Choose-your-own-Adventure book, for example. Such works, in my mind at least, can't be considered art. They can be considered entertainment, sure, but not art. That's where I think games fall, currently.

They are an entertainment product. You can't tell me there won't be someone in the production chain that will balk at the idea of a designer "forcing" disgust on the player when without such an experience the game would likely see more sales. Consciously gauging marketability or a target audience is another thing that I think keeps games as a whole from being considered art. Your average summer blockbuster can't really be considered art for the same reasons, IMHO.

I suppose there must be something about giving the person experiencing the work control over their experience that takes away their emotional investment. One can watch a movie and feel what the director/screenwriter/cinematographer wants them to feel, but the option for a player not to experience a particular emotion in a game by behaving a certain way almost guarantees that a player will miss something at some point.

Of course this raises the question of how much should people worry about this kind of thing. Does anyone out there care that there are people that didn't react to reading American Psycho (or watching the film) in the way the author intended?

This idea of social sanction in games does break the 'magic circle', as has been said already, but if such an idea were implemented, wouldn't that drive some people away from playing such games? The heck with the Minority Report comparison, where are the 1984 and Bladerunner comparisons? You'd essentially be punishing someone for not reacting (or in order to make them react) 'properly' to a fictional situation.

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

Chro — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:46:12 GMT

Ma1agate - Just because a game is interacted with doesn't mean that a user can choose to avoid parts of the artistic experience. Take Shadow of the Collossus, for example. Along the way, most people realize that the Collossus aren't that bad, and they're effectively slaughtering them for their own needs. But they cannot avoid the fate of the main character, unless they stop playing the game (just like one would stop watching a movie.)

Then again, gamers get most frustrated when they CAN'T affect the outcome of a game, and criticize it for being too linear and railroaded. Sometimes this leads to the disgust you mentioned.

But the games as art discussion is going to go on endlessly, just like religion and politics, because everyone has their own opinion about something as intangible as art.

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

Pyrmont — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:17:39 GMT

I think Level Up raises an interesting dilemma facing video game designers and that's how to incorporate consequences into games. The problem with the suggestions outlined is titl3daxis' point that they all break down the 'fourth wall'. If I'm playing GTA IV and constantly thinking about the consequences of my in-game actions on my real-world profile I'm being pulled out of what will most likely be a very immersive game world.

An alternative solution is for some of those social sanctions to operate in the game. If I am running around mindlessly killing civilians why not have a negative reaction to this? And not just the simplistic, cops come chasing after you. Why not have other characters regard you with a mixture of fear and distaste? Why not have that affect what missions you can do? Why not have that affect what people will assist you? Why not have it not just be negative? Maybe it produces a positive reaction in some people?

For those interested, I've written about this in a little more detail on my own blog (http://www.inqk.net/weblog/2007/11/18/anti-social-behaviour-and-video-game-design/). Here's hoping designers start incorporating more complex consequences into their games in the future.

re: The Edge of Reason: Why It Might Be a Good Idea to Incorporate Social Sanction Into Videogames

kadayi — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:10:36 GMT

Whomever comes up with the tags is effectively making the judgment as to what is right or wrong, and there in lies the problem, because your arbiter is external. In a game world it is very easy to have black and white distinctions between good and evil (fable, mass effect), in real life it's often a matter of perspective. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. I'd say one of the more interesting games of last year was probably The Witcher, because the game forces the player to make judgment calls based upon their assessment of events within a context. There really are no obvious right or wrong/good or bad decisions, and the consequences of your calls don't necessarily play out straight away after you make them. The game doesn't punish you for making certain choices over other ones either, it just means that the story unravels in a different manner.