|
Saying Nothing Gets Us Nowhere
 My reading of Leo Tolstoy’s What is Art has greatly influenced my thinking on art and its application in the realm of videogames. Art of all forms (literature, music, painting, sculpture, theater and cinema) purposefully use their unique properties to communicate ideas and feelings of the artist to an audience.
These ideas and feelings, if conveyed by the tools of the medium with skill resonate with the audience. In a way, they are infected; they understand the same ideas and feel the same emotions of the artist. Audiences then reflect on what they think and feel in regards to their own lives and gain greater insight into their own humanity and the humanity of others.
Often during a conversation on videogames striving to be art, a point is made that to be considered art; games need to tackle more adult themes and content. Then someone chimes in that they would be OK with that, so long as the game isn’t didactic. That word has several meanings, one could be making a point too aggressively and another could be simply teaching a moral lesson.
Frequently people say they don’t want a game to point fingers and lecture to them an agenda. It seems many people want their games free of any sliver of teaching. Most of these people also think games should only provide them with pleasurable experiences and nothing else. Yet, if we are to make artistic games that mean something to players, some amount of teaching, i.e. expressing a point is necessary.
There’s a danger in avoiding any form of didactics. We’ll never make meaningful games if developers shy away from saying anything relevant and players aren’t willing to listen, even if developers have something to say. There needs to be a demand from the players and the developers need to confront their fears in delivering complex, deeply engaging and potentially uncomfortable, yet meaningful experiences.
Atomic Games’ president Peter Tamte recently spoke in defense of their new game, Six Days in Fallujah, “Every form of media has grown by producing content about current events, content that's powerful because it's relevant.” He continued, “Movies, music and TV have helped people make sense of the complex issues of our times.”
But apparently Tamte stressed that Six Days in Fallujah avoids sharing an opinion or comment on the morality of the Iraq war, “Six Days in Fallujah is not about whether the U.S. and its allies should have invaded Iraq,” Tamte said. “It's an opportunity for the world to experience the true stories of the people who fought in one of the world's largest urban battles of the past half-century.”
It’s not fair to say that Six Days in Fallujah won’t be art without having played it, but it is one example that developers frequently shy away from having something to say. Videogames will not become works of art without having the courage to make a point or sharing a challenging perspective. Otherwise, it’s pure escapism, a game to play and forget.
To have someone play videogames and then forget them is a tragic waste of the developer’s passion and effort. It’s not often that people have the opportunity to make art that infects others with their ideas and feelings. I want to seize the potential of my chosen art form and I think others have similar ambitions.
The question is how do we create more artistic games using the unique properties of our medium?
Games Asking Questions
I’ve heard developers talk about the idea of a game asking questions to the player, but anything can ask a question. A painting can ask, “What if people took care of the planet?” A song can ask, “Why do we hurt the ones we love?” A novel can ask, “Is exploiting the poor justified if it benefits the world’s economic growth?”
I’m not saying games shouldn’t ask questions; it’s fine if they do, but why stop there? The interactive nature of games enables them to pose questions to the player, give players the tools to answer and then interpret those answers and respond or ask deeper questions.
That is dialog. That is something unique to gaming. It’s worth exploring and it might be one path towards our own unique voice in the world of art.
A Path Towards Art: Games as Dialog
In an interview with Gamasutra’s Brandon Sheffield, Warren Spector said regarding narrative in games, “The end goal for me now isn't for me to allow players to play a movie, ride a roller coaster ride or provide a sandbox so they can do what they want, but is to find the compromise where I can have a dialog with each player virtually. That's what's exciting to me.”
Frank Lantz of Area Code had this to say during a Micro Tralk at GDC 2009, “Games are not a medium. They do not carry an idea from one place to another. Instead, they are a conversation between developers and players and game systems. And that is what will propel gaming into an age of meaning", he says.
Yes, an age of meaning. Games are about exploring. Whether it’s exploring 3D worlds, or gameplay mechanics and systems or exploring our own views about the world around us, videogames have an untapped potential to provide deep meaning for players.
I think having a dialog between a designer’s game systems and the player is important. It’s powerful. It’s something that no other mass media art form can do. This could be how videogames can embrace their unique property of interactivity to enter a new age of meaning and art.
The Age of Meaningful Games
What kinds of discussions can designers have with players? How do you design such a game to be engaging and meaningful? One approach is to take a topic that you are passionate about and through the game ask the player their opinions on the topic. When the player responds, using NPCs or system events, you comment on their views. Depending on their response and your agenda, you might try to persuade them to change their opinions.
 If this sounds all theoretical and useless, I’d argue that BioShock already attempts to engage players in a dialog through its gameplay. Though, the dialog isn’t particularly deep and doesn’t evolve to ask related questions.
BioShock uses characters that represent or oppose the philosophies of Ayn Rand to ask the player whether self-interest is good for people and societies. This question is posed every time the player is prompted whether they want to harvest or rescue the Little Sisters.
What’s unfortunate is that the game doesn’t challenge the players thoughts on the issue very much. If players rescue the Little Sisters, Dr. Bridgette Tenebaum gives them gifts and that’s pretty much it. If they harvest them instead, they get maximum ADAM. No new questions, characters or plot events are introduced to further question the player’s beliefs and values.
Speaking of Dr. Tenenbaum, she is contrasted with another character, Atlas. The two represent the two sides of the moral question related to self-interest. Dr. Tenebaum believes it is good to help others and Atlas believes that only the strong survive and if that means killing others, so be it.
If a game engages the player in a dialog on an issue, it’s key to use multiple characters that believe in one side or the other. This functions as a shortcut to educating the player about the issue if they are ignorant about it.
Conclusion
As the debate rages on and off like an inflammatory bowel disease, never knowing when or where it will flare up again and how long it will last, perhaps we should be talking less about if games can be art and instead about which paradigms can help us create art.
The various art forms all play to their unique strengths to communicate ideas and feelings that infect the audience. The unique aspect of games is that they are data driven and interactive. A game can ask the player a meaningful question and give players the opportunity to respond with what they believe in. By challenging the player’s beliefs, a dialog ensues. The player may question him or herself and become a more enlightened individual.
And that is what art does. It helps us to reflect on our experiences as human beings and the experiences of others so that we can create a more loving, empathetic and just world.
Also posted on my personal blog, Reiding...
|
Playing inFamous, you get to choose to be a good guy or a bad guy. But most people play through the game twice (or more times) so that they can play on both sides of the fence and unlock all of the trophies. And most people really stop to think about anything.
If every game with a moral tree attached trophies and achievements to the moral choices, then many gamers would play it all just to unlock them. I'm not sure how much thought would go into it.
I think the industry as a whole is suffering from this misled idea of favoring the aesthetic properties of the simulation without paying attention to the underlying systems. I'm going to use Bioshock as an example again but this applies to all first-person shooters and is a problem everyone is aware of, but that nobody has really faced. So you've got this game that's trying to express things about morality and humanity, but the entire system is based on the concept of the lone hero running around killing EVERYBODY. 2K Boston compensated for this by expressing that the inhabitants of Rapture have been twisted by ADAM to such a degree that they have lost their humanity and that it is no longer evil to kill them. This is a decent work-around, but I don't think it's a great way forward.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with all of this, but I think we need to look back at the definition of what a game is, and not what games are now (FPSs, RPGs, RTSs, etc), to get a fresh look at the basic principles of our medium. Gregory Weir gave a great definition of a game in one of his podcasts. He said that "a game is an interactive simulation that provides metrics to gauge ones' progress towards a goal." I think if we follow this up with Ian Bogost's definition of a simulation we might gain some insight into what games can and should do. Ian said "A simulation is a representation of a source system via a less complex system that informs the user's understanding of the source system in a subjective way." I don't think games are terribly different from other forms of media as far as their mimetic (imitative) nature, but I do think their ability to do it directly by simulating a source system is an amazing attribute, and an undervalued, underappreciated, and underdeveloped one at that.
David - Nice comments. I keep seeing conflicting info regarding which choice in BioShock benefited the player the most. The last info I read complete with graphs said that neither choice really mattered because both gave the same benefits in the end. Maybe I read it wrong. Regardless, if the altruistic choice is the better one, then you are right, the game design failed to honor the players choice in a sincere way and it is devoid of honest meaning.
You also said:
"So you've got this game that's trying to express things about morality and humanity, but the entire system is based on the concept of the lone hero running around killing EVERYBODY."
This is another article I'm working on. How to build a game around moral values and make it in such a way that the gameplay and story don't contradict each other, like they do in BioShock.
I'm also writing an article based upon my last paragraph. It's an article about abandoning tradition and convention and looking at the nature of games from a fresh perspective; we are too attached to design practices that invariably inhibit our expressive ability. I'll be interested in reading your article as I believe we will both attempt to posit methods of design that create harmonious and meaningful interactions, whether you're speaking of an explicit story or a more abstract narrative.
I do have a question for you though, in answer to your comments on developers being unwilling to make statements in their games. I assume they do this so as not to alienate or limit their audience so that the game appeals to the largest possible audience. Considering the large budgets of the average triple A game do you think that this kind of serious expression can occur in a game without a significant drop in appeal/budget/production value? I only ask this because if you think of what Jon Blow said of World of Warcraft, that one of the reasons so many people find that game appealing is that its design is very bland and uninteresting, and that the more you move towards something specific rather than keeping it generic you inherently limit the audience and user base. This brings up an interesting question as to whether artistic expression would limit the audience of a specific game in a serious way. I think there are some kinds of expression you could achieve without affecting the game's appeal but it would probably relegate these triple-A games into the category of popular and corporate art, but that it couldn't be very personal, which I feel is an attribute at the core of the best artistic expression.
Perhaps a game like Bioshock might have benefited from more NPCs who weren't splicers. People who would help you get from place to place avoiding the majority of combat, or should you get involved in combat, help you to escape. Your power hungry self on the other hand receives help from no one, forced to slog their way through the game. Effectively one play style would develop NPC friendships, and trust, it would revolve around avoiding combat and only engaging in it for self defence or the rescue of someone else (like a little sister). The other would show how self interest sequesters you away from other human interactions, people react negatively to you, perhaps the "non-splicer" NPCs would attack you, as you eventually mirror a splicer in your own regard. You would receive little help and the game would be more difficult as a result (although you would be better equipped to handle that).
Anyway's just a few ideas, it would have been nice for the game to involve one or 2 more NPCs that weren't out to kill you all the time. For a game that is supposed to challenge the player about societal concepts, it doesn't contain much opportunity for the player to actually be involved "in" said society, and because they form no meaningful human relationships, there's little to no ability to make the player feel the impact of their actions, thus rendering any message impotent.
In inFamous many of the altruistic choices aren't particularly helpful for Cole, the game's super-powered protagonist. Granted, doing the "good" acts moves Cole towards becoming a Hero. However, choosing the selfish paths moves him towards becoming Infamous. For those who are unfamiliar with the game, becoming a Hero or Infamous allows you access to good and evil super powers, respectively. There is no real reward for becoming a Hero, in fact, most folks playing the game so far tend to think the evil abilities are superior and are easier to beat the game with.
So, in addition to having abilities that are (arguably) less capable of winning fights, choosing the altruistic path also tends to give Cole a more immediate disadvantage (much like Cristopher's suggestion for when you choose the selfish path in Bioshock), Cole tends to be put into an unfavorable position in a fight when he chooses to put the people before himself.
One example is when he can either destroy a certain device at point blank or from a distance. Destroying it from a distance puts the people in danger, while destroying it at point blank guarantees the people's safety, but also guarantees that Cole is temporarily stunned and damaged, leaving him vulnerable to attack.
Trophies aside, I would say that inFamous does very well in having moral choices with both plot and gameplay ramifications. Its very comparable to Knights of the Old Republic, actually, which is the best I've seen in terms of the "evil" versus "good" path.
I think videogames need to explore long-term consequences more. Say, for example, you have the choice to do or not do something early on in the game. Doing the action may set you back temporarily at a stage in the game where you really could do with every little advantage you can get, so the game becomes harder. But, later on in the game, you are shown, maybe through a flashback, that the action you took then has a positive effect on you. Or otherwise, perhaps a small indulgence early on in the game nets you a harder enemy to overcome later in the game.
I want to write more on the subject, but I have to run. I'll check back later.
"What’s unfortunate is that the game doesn’t challenge the players thoughts on the issue very much. If players rescue the Little Sisters, Dr. Bridgette Tenebaum gives them gifts and that’s pretty much it. If they harvest them instead, they get maximum ADAM. No new questions, characters or plot events are introduced to further question the player’s beliefs and values."
I hear this often. Why does there need to be anything. Pretend for a moment that you are all powerful and you can kill innocent people to get what you want and no one will find out about it.
Given the above, and given that you begin to kill innocent people, how does that make you feel psychologically? Furthermore, what does it say about your character.
There doesn't need to be extra rewards, punishments, or preaching placed on such an act. If these items are attached, they are unnecessary.
Killing an innocent, will you do it? I think that the choice in Bioshock is sufficiently character revealing.
Looking forward to reading your article. I like the sound of it already. In general I think an explicit story helps give the meaning more context. The meaning can get lost if the game systems represent it in abstract ways.
It's hard to answer your question about artistic expression in games hurting profits without knowing what you think is a good example of personal artistic expression. I think the Iron Man movie and Crash are good commercial art. They have positive moral messages and Iron Man was profitable.
At the other end of the spectrum there is abstract personal art. It only makes the artist feel good for expressing themselves but it does no good for anyone else.
In the middle of this spectrum is maybe commercial personal art. A piece of work that is deeply personal to the artist but because it is based on universal themes and emotions, others can understand it and gain meaning from it. I can't think of any examples now so I can't answer your question.
@Kumar
I agree long term consequences in games would be nice. Challenging to design though.
The concept has been around for a while that bioshock's gameplay doesn't match it's message. It's a game that's supposed to demonstrate the kind of corruption that occurs when everyone is out for their own ends, except the player isn't involved directly in this corruption, and can seek personal power by both being good OR evil. Sure killing an innocent is telling in it's own right, but it's more telling of you as a player than anything else. The problem being that it rewards you for being good immediately as well, whereas in reality, helping others doesn't usually have an instant benefit , it's usually much more subtle (rather than a direct acquisition of power). The reason they included the rewards for being good is, I think, entirely for game balance reasons, as it would have been much more time consuming and complex to code a completely different method of reward.
In addition to this the game needs more interaction with others who can show approval or disapproval of your actions, if harming the little sisters exists in a vacuum then it's very easy to forget the emotion impact of what you've done, they become just another resource to abuse, thus lessening the impact the game could have on the player psychologically. At least towards the later stages of the game you meet all the little sisters once again and their reaction to you is different based on how many you save or harvest, though I'm of the opinion this is too little too late.
My previous point isn't well stated =( . I believe that the designers could have removed the reward for being good altogether, and simply replaced it with a penalty for being bad. By harvesting little sisters you would still become more powerful in the long run, but you would have something bad occur in the meantime. The impact of this is still negligible, as without some form of bonding with an NPC (and in this case you don't "bond" with two paragons of each side) you don't see the constructive side of forming relationships and helping others. Even having something as simple as having a little sister you'd saved show up and warn you of something dangerous, would help you realise that by helping someone else you've helped yourself without becoming any stronger individually (thus demonstrating the strength and order of society compared to the chaos that exists without it).
Also I'm inclined to think that there is or should be in fact a middle ground in this game, you could plausibly chose to not save or harvest any little sisters. You could pick the path of neutrality, of the person who doesn't wish to get involved with others negatively or positively, and the game should also have some meaningful impact on the player if this is their path.
"Good is it's own reward."
"Evil begets evil."
These two truisms illustrate a lot of what has been said in these comments. When a person does good, chances are they are not immediately rewarded for their actions - when you return someone's lost wallet, they don't usually pull out some cash from it and hand it to you. They are likely to remember that you gave them back their wallet and saved them a lot of hassle with cancelled credit cards and renewed licenses and social security numbers, and perhaps your heroic action will motivate them to do a good deed for someone else in return. Also, chances are, if you encounter this person later on in life, they will have an image of you as an upstanding person.
On the other hand, if you instead choose to keep the wallet, you get the instant kickback of whatever money is in there. It doesn't stop there, however. Chances are you now have very valuable information about this person. If you are the average person, chances are you're not going to try to max out their credit cards, steal their identity, or drive by their house if they happened to have a huge wad of cash in the wallet, to check out the security systems therein. However, if you're hard on your luck at the time, or if you're weak-willed, or even a bad person, chances are you will try or do some of the above. You are in a position of power over this person, and the advantage is yours as long as they are unaware of the loss.
What I'm trying to say is that good and evil in games should escalate, especially where evil is concerned. The whole spiel about how sadists or sociopaths tend to start off by killing or torturing small animals, and then escalate until they reach the point where they are doing horrible things to people is something that developers should look into.
I can't remember where, but I read a really interesting piece on good and evil gameplay. The example used had the player in the role of a sheriff that took over the duties of protecting a town, with the twist that he had been put there by an evil politico or other siniter figure. The game started out with a good/evil gauge that went up to 10. Performing sheriff duties went towards moving the pointer on the gauge towards the good side, while furthering the politico's agenda did the same for the evil side.
At a certain point, after completing a main story quest, the middle of the game opened up. This had the effect of increasing the size of the gauge from 10 to 100. Some of the quests from the first act remained available, but in the new scale their completion didn't have much of an effect, whereas the new mid-game quests had higher good/evil values. Similarly, in the final act of the game, again the gauge increased in size, up to 1000, and so forth. The idea was that, in the beginning, the player has loyalties to the politico for getting him the job, but also needs to do the job as sheriff. In the mid-game, the stakes are higher, as the politico's goals start to go against 'protect the locals', and the player must make choices that cement their position on the scale. Finally, in the end-game, the villain's true agenda is revealed, and the player must either follow through with his plans, or draw and line in the sand. The author also mentioned a dramatic plot twist for the evil campaign progression, I think it had something to do with killing a long-standing NPC that the player had been interacting with from the beginning of the game. Since the player has become familiar with this NPC, this is truly the make or break point of the game, since the player's choice dictates the outcome of the story - if they had been evil until this point, do they put their foot down and renege from their 'patron', or follow through and cement themselves as a crooked sheriff forever? If they have been good, do they stand by their convictions and put an end to the villain, or betray the friendship and trust of the good NPC?
While I probably butchered the nuances of the design aspects, the core message that I take away is one of escalation. The player begins as a blank slate, and their actions in the game reflect on the playstyle they want to pursue, and thus the game should give them more of the same. If the player does good, the game should give them the chance of doing more good deeds, perhaps others hear of the player's good deeds and seek him out for help with their own troubles. In the same vein, if the player chooses evil, then evil should come knocking at their door and lure them further down the path with promises of power, profit, or whatever.
This is why I feel that good and evil in games need a sense of escalation. Start small, build on what the player gives you, and reward them with greater glory and infamy as the game progresses, with at least one final twist at the end to allow the player a final chance at redemption or damnation.
Apart from the unfolding and opening up of questlines, the actions of the player should also be reflected in the way people treat the player's character. A good sheriff will cause the villain's henchmen to question his loyalty, chew him out, and threaten him. An evil sheriff will earn a reputation as crooked, and the local folk will not trust them or offer him any aid. As always, there would need to be exceptions to these rules (the local priest might offer to lead the player back to the righteous path, and have faith that deep down he is a good man, or one particularly grizzled henchman of the villain might see that the player isn't doing what the villain tells him, and explain in very reasonable and measured terms that the politico helped him out, and the player 'owes' the villain his current position, status, etc).
Great point about the game needing more NPC interaction to give the player more immediate feedback about their choice to rescue and harvest and give it more meaning. A lot of ppl believe cinematics are rewards for the player. I think the game world and NPCs simply acknowledging player actions/decisions can also be a "reward". Which means the reward doesn't have to be gameplay weapons or abilities.
@Kumar:
I want to play that game about finding the wallet and trying to decide what to do. Especially if the wallet belonged to someone who has power over me or a character I'm close to. Like a politician who has voted for/against laws that greatly affected others.
Escalation is important. It's key to the Hero's Journey story structure. As the hero attempts to solve their problem, the crises become larger, more complex. Games use this model for gameplay challenge. No reason ethical decisions can't also follow this pattern. Each one should further test the players' conviction for their values.
In fact, I think a game could probably be made based on making one single decision at the beginning of the game and then throwing twist after twist after twist at the player, to see what they do.
Nice way of summarising my ramblings, Reid! ;D
I would like to share some of my thoughts on your points. I only have time to respond to one post for now.
” Sure killing an innocent is telling in it's own right, but it's more telling of you as a player than anything else.”
What else should it be telling of? What more if not the player? I believe that the most powerful thing that it can reveal would be something about the person playing. (This is only my knee jerk response, so I may be missing something here)
Perhaps what you are meaning is that the event should also relate the games message, which I believe it does. It does so by asking the player if they will use another person as a means to their own ends, and then allows the player to answer with their choice. After that, as you have pointed out, the game doesn’t do much more to make a point regarding your actions. But I personally believe that the point has already been made once you choose to harvest or not. (Despite percentage of Adam given, the choice has been made for whatever reason)
“The problem being that it rewards you for being good immediately as well, whereas in reality, helping others doesn't usually have an instant benefit, it's usually much more subtle (rather than a direct acquisition of power). The reason they included the rewards for being good is, I think, entirely for game balance reasons, as it would have been much more time consuming and complex to code a completely different method of reward.”
I agree with you here somewhat. If the player is given nothing for saving a little sister, or is under the impression that they will not receive a reward, then the act of saving the little sister is more pure or altruistic. (something I think Rand doesn’t believe in, I may be wrong).But I have some reservations regarding your point about the nature of helping others in the real world. Helping others in the real world does have an immediate benefit, feeling good! Don’t you feel good when you help someone?
Yes, I know this is unlike Bioshock in which you are given a direct acquisition of currency. But there is nothing wrong with this, because the situation in Bioshock is unique. It’s perfectly fine that the circumstances don’t mirror most or any real world occurrences of helping someone. This is indeed a rare chance, and I doubt you or I will ever be faced with the decision to kill or not kill someone with currency rewards at stake.
So yes, in real life the reward for helping someone(if you get one at all) is more subtle, but in Bioshock it isn’t and this is ok as the moral point is still sufficiently made.
“In addition to this the game needs more interaction with others who can show approval or disapproval of your actions, if harming the little sisters exists in a vacuum then it's very easy to forget the emotion impact of what you've done, they become just another resource to abuse, thus lessening the impact the game could have on the player psychologically. At least towards the later stages of the game you meet all the little sisters once again and their reaction to you is different based on how many you save or harvest, though I'm of the opinion this is too little too late.”
I like what you are getting at here, however, my curiosity went off after seeing the word “needs”.
Does it really need these things to make the point?
The “vacuum” moral choice set up Bioshock lends itself well to revealing the true character behind the player. I’d say if there are too many rewards and punishments involved with the moral choice, it becomes diluted in purity. The motive behind why the player decided to kill or save the innocent child becomes more difficult to trace. When people are watching(rewarding you or punishing you) your actions your true motives/character cannot be revealed. Keeping this decision in a vacuum is what makes it so revealing! Our true characters are shown when no one is looking.
Yes, as you stated above, it becomes easy to forget the emotional impact of what you have done and it is easy to abuse the little sisters. This is wonderful IMO. Isn’t that how people get into the habits of doing bad things IRL? Nothing to loose plenty to gain.
If NPC’s begin to rebuke your actions or shower you with gifts your motives behind the choice become suspect.
I am not at all saying that more interaction with others to show approval/disapproval of your actions is absolutely bad, I’m just saying that it isn’t required to make a strong point regarding this specific choice in Bioshock.
“My previous point isn't well stated =( . I believe that the designers could have removed the reward for being good altogether, and simply replaced it with a penalty for being bad. By harvesting little sisters you would still . The impact of this is still negligible, as without some form of bonding with an NPC (and in this case you don't "bond" with two paragons of each side) you don't see the constructive side of forming relationships and helping others. Even having something as simple as having a little sister you'd saved show up and warn you of something dangerous, would help you realise that by helping someone else you've helped yourself without becoming any stronger individually (thus demonstrating the strength and order of society compared to the chaos that exists without it).”
I also like where you are going with this point. My main difference comes again from motives. I like the idea of getting nothing for saving a little sister and gaining much from harvesting one. One of these options is quite attractive, the only expense is your consciousness. This would be a true character reveal. IRL sometimes you do good and get nothing other than the feeling that you did the right thing.
“Also I'm inclined to think that there is or should be in fact a middle ground in this game, you could plausibly chose to not save or harvest any little sisters. You could pick the path of neutrality, of the person who doesn't wish to get involved with others negatively or positively, and the game should also have some meaningful impact on the player if this is their path.”
Totally agree.
After more thought on this I understand where you and others are coming from with this concept. With that said, however, I don’t think that the case of the little sisters is where the mechanics line up poorly.
If(And only if, I have no idea what the creators main point was) the point of Bioshock was to show how only seeking self interest leads to corruption, then I think the case of the little sisters positively shows this. The corruption is of the players character and moral integrity. Now, with regards to all other mechanics of the game, they are up on the chopping block as many other mechanics in the game do not reinforce this point. But again, in playing devil’s advocate I ask myself, do they need to?
Your right the little sister's is where the game makes good on it's message, it's directly after when it rewards you for being good that it muddles it. The reason it's muddled is because you can seek personal power by following an acceptable social norm. In fact, if you want all the abilities in the game you HAVE to be good (which really bollockses up the message). Rewarding us for something that is a social norm removes any direct challenge of the player's beliefs and morals. The player should be forced (when they encounter a little sister) to think to themselves, I can save this girl and feel good....or I can kill her and become more powerful. At some point the player should be confronted about this behaviour. Not necessarily immediately, it would be more effective for them to go along enjoying their new found power before you slap them in the face with the fact they've been killing little girls to further their own ends.
Ultimately the game isn't truly about individual corruption. The games message is about the concept of free will (rational self interest in practice...ooo philosophy debate go....). The game hinges strongly on the fact that rational self interest is a flawed philosophy, and that at some point it must be weighed against a strong an enforceable morale code. To prove this it uses the world of Rapture to set the scene, and uses the player to prove the fact. The little sisters are the primary mechanic to demonstrate the result of player's "free will". So ultimately feeling bad about killing an innocent isn't the point of the little sisters, they have a much more important place in a much broader message, emphasis on the players guilt and ethical decision should be a vessel for delivering the message, and not become the message itself.
My point about having NPCs is that your reward for helping people should be the reward it is in reality, it should be society and friendship. The entire point of society is that we ensure our own survival by receiving and giving aid when our own abilities falter, and by keeping in check those disruptive forces that threaten us a society. So if one choice represents a breach of societal norms, the other should represent the reason those norms are in place. Also there is another reason for more non-splicer NPCs. If a person like Tenebaum can survive the way she is, with her strong belief in helping others, why didn't others? Atlas being alone makes sense, even Ryan being alone makes sense, but Tenebaum does not. I find it hardly credible that every single person who followed Ryan's dream of a world free of societal controls, fell into corruption. Tenebaum proves the fact that they all didn't and considering the number of splicers there should be others.
Also as to, "And only if, I have no idea what the creators main point was", Levine has done a Liberal Arts degree and is quite familiar with Ayn Rand (as Reid mentions), and one of her works is titled "Atlas Shrugged", and Bioshock effectively acts like a 4th Part to that book (even if it doesn't directly follow the conclusions Rand may have drawn herself), showing the results of a society similar to the one who's formation is evidenced in Atlas Shrugged.
Anyways, hope that clears some stuff up.
Thank you for your time in this discussion. You have helped me add another angle to my own views on designing meaningful choices in games.
Btw, I had no idea that choosing to do good was basically the optimum solution. I agree, that does screw with the message quite a bit.
Again, thanks.
http://designrampage.blogspot.com/2009/06/designing-ethical-dilemmas-slides-and.
html
http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2009/06/ethical-decision-making.ht
ml