On Morality in Games

Here's a random forum post I left somewhere. I thought it was interesting enough to save.

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 in these games 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 in a 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 seller => 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 my own question by saying "Not necessarily". People who traffic illegal substances aren't necessarily bad people. 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 "moral grayness" of these types of questions/situations is what makes them compelling to explore from a narrative perspective. It's also why these questions of morality 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, to some extent, a product of their environment, so too are our in-game avatars a product of the game universe they come from.

I guess, basically, I don't 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 ashamed of doing in real life.

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