|
[This is a repost of my original article on gameranting.blogspot]
What is morality in games and which conditions must be met to speak of a successful implementation of morality in games. In general terms morality means that players are facing a moral question when playing the game and have to answer that question.
First of all we must define what a moral question is: "it is a question where at least one of the answers leads to an ethical conflict within the mindset of the player, and where the player never turns back on the answer he gives."
In order for a question to meet this definition two conditions must be met:
- The player must lend moral weight to the question and accept it as real, hence the required ethical conflict.
- Whatever the answer given by the player to the question, its effects can never be interpreted as a reward or punishment by the player.
Both conditions must be met to produce a game with a moral question. The first condition depends completely on the player so can't be controlled by the game designer. The second condition however, lays entirely in the hands of the game designer.
Lets illustrate this with the game bioshock, which I consider as a good example of a game with a moral question. In it the player stumbles upon girls (called little sisters) protected by heavy armored divers (called big daddies). These little sisters are girls deliberately infected with a parasite, to harvest an energy fluid from their body called adam. If the player manages to kill the big daddy. he gets the choice to kill or save little sisters:
a/ kill the little sister and obtain some adam
b/ cure the little sister and obtain adam but less then if he had killed the little sister
The moral question offered to the player is then: "if faced with an ill child, would you try to safe it, even if you might get killed in the process?" If the player now chooses his answer as if dealing with a real child, the first condition is met.
But what with the second condition: would the player not interpret receiving more adam for killing a child as a reward? Not necessarily, because although curing a little sister will return less adam, saving several little sisters will result in an extra gift from another character within the game, negating the initial difference in received adam.
The game also contains different endings, based on the choice made by the player, so does those not count as a reward? They don't since most players should not be aware of these possible endings just until they finished the game. At that stage the ending has no impact anymore on the choices made by the player.
Now there are a number of behaviors that the player could display which need further explaining as they seem to contradict the definition of a moral question.
- The player might choose to ignore the little sisters: If the player still meets the first condition, but judges the risk for his own life (to low on health) to high then the question still remains moral. If he ignores the little sisters because it's to much of a hassle to safe them, then the question turned into a game play question (how fast can i finish this level, how much time and effort does it cost me to save this child)
- What if the player, after learning the of the different endings, decides to replay the game and alters his behavior to see the other ending? Then he proves that the question has no moral weight for him, either because the effect of his initial choice acts as a reward or punishment towards him, or because be he turns back on his first answer simply for the sake of seeing another ending.
In conclusion, whether a game contains morality, depends completely on the views of the player (first condition). Game designers can try to strengthen this view (by omitting any possible reward/punishment interpretation) or disrupt this view (by offering immediate rewards/punishment for the choices the player makes).
|
I would hold that the reverse it actually more the case: the first condition is significantly more important than the second, and where the majority of your efforts should be placed. As you said: "If the player now chooses his answer as if dealing with a real child, the first condition is met." The question for a designer is then, "how can I make the player treat this as a real child?" This is a much wider ranging question, and could involve changes to the game in its entirety, but done well you significantly increase your chances of the player taking the decision seriously. A truly masterful designer has the ability to significantly shift the players beliefs and opinions; of course, this can never be 100%, but it's important, and arguably it's the game designer's main role (I'd suggest Jesse Schell's "The Art of Game Design" as an excellent book on the subject).
Your points about the second condition are really valid though, and I think as designers we need to take some responsibility for the decisions that have been offered to the player in the past too. Over time, I think many gamers have been trained to view each game decision as having a "better" and "worse" choice (or multiple along that axis), which turns the choices into "how do I get the most benefit from this decision?" This tends to kill meaningful moral dilemmas. It's not always enough to have the kinds of choices you mention though, I think we often need to make sure that the players know their preconceived way of looking at choices do not apply. Fallout 3 had this effect on me (minor spoiler warning): early on, through trying to do the right thing, I inadvertently got the sheriff killed. Of course, the game had autosaved a few times between the choice and the consequences, so I had no way of easily undoing it (another easy way to kill meaningful choices). That one event significantly changed the way I looked at every other decision in that game. Other people I've spoken to have had similar experiences at different points in the game, all resulting in that shift in how they relate to the choices in the game.
"saving several little sisters will result in an extra gift from another character within the game"
Doesn't that statement point out a requirement of pre-knowledge of a later event?
A more important point however is:
"where the player never turns back on the answer he gives"
That's not a moral choice, that's more like a multiple ending plot choice.
The morality of anyone changes with the situation.
Just because somebody does something "evil" does not make then an evil person.
Just because somebody does something "good" does not make then a good person.
There are two stages of (or three?) of morality:
What a person privately believes, what other people believe he is, and what the stituation makes available.
Mass Effect is probably one of the better examples of this. There is no morality system,
rather there is a "harsh" and "soft" approach to all situations.
Where does the morality fall into that? Well, it's individual situations, because in Mass Effect 2, if you where mean to a character in Mass Effect 1, then that character's actions or encounter in Mass Effect 2 will be completely different.
Heck in Mass Effect 2 it's possible for the main protagonist to die as part of the actual story, what happens after that and into Mass Effect 3 I have no idea (new protagonist? I have no idea)
Mass Effect trilogy focuses on harsh and soft approaches, every action has a cause and effect repercussion either later in the game or carrying over into the sequel in the trilogy.
Unless BioWare manage to screw up the trilogy, I think that the Mass Effect trilogy might end up a as case study in Good/Evil/Morality/Cause&Effect in interactive entertainment.
And I truly hope they are starting a new trend with this.
Because morality is not Good vs Evil actions, even BioWare's Knights of The Old Republic suffered from the Saintly vs Evil Bastard personality disorder in it's Good/Evil morality.
Knights of The Old Republic 2 begun to slightly move in the direction that Mass Effect now is experimenting with, I truly hope the Mass Effect trilogy succeed as it will set the stage for a new way of thinking about cause and effect, even for games that will not have sequels.
If you do good things when people see you, but evil things when people do not see you. (or you get rid of all evidence, living or not) then no characters in the game world will know you are evil.
They will think you are good, but the player is purely dark in their motives and morality.
It's also possible for a good moral player to do the wrong things at the wrong time, and despite being good, the characters in the game would perceive them as being evil.
And depending on the game world it's also possible for a region to praise the player as a hero, while another region they think he's a demon, but the player themselves simply made rational and neutral choices.
But how many games like this have we seen?
Mass Effect trilogy seems to move into this territory in certain aspects.
And the Fable games are dabbling in this area as well, but beyond that I can't really think of any others.
What would have made this decision morally interesting, for me, would be to change the simple, binary nature of the decision. Imagine that the player is able to control how much Adam is extracted from the little sister, and that the more Adam is extracted, the greater the probability of the little sister not surviving. Assume that the game makes this clear to the player beforehand, and offers them the chance to decline to take any Adam and just let the little sister go.
This then becomes a question of how greedy the player is, how far they are willing to go in order to get what they need, and how guilty they may feel as a result. An interesting side effect of this random death mechanic is that a player who has taken only a small amount of Adam may still have to deal with the fact that they killed a little sister.
Greed and guilt - now that's a moral issue for the player to deal with.
I'll leave you with this.
Because she worked for the Nazis, was Hitlers secretary good or evil?
It is the rendering of ideals real that leads to unified, exalted dramatic action. From Star Wars to The MAtrix to Lord of The Rings, this is true, It is a mystery why gaming comapnies scoff at thsi notion which Aristotle first noted in his poetics; and which Homer set down.
The Hero's Journey naturally happens when a character strives to render ideals real in action--to serve truth and liberty as opposed to tyranny and opression.
Fill a game world with temptations, and only allow the more moral character(s) to win.
Right there you would be able to render Dante's Inferno and Homer's Odyssey, as well as the American Revolution.
More here: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/author/DrElliotMcGucken/1169/
Imagine you are standing in Best Buy. There are two versions of Gears of War. In one, the Locust Horde can be reformed and brought over to your side by quoting excerpts from the US Constitution--by engaging in moral dialogue--and where, in order to win, you are going to need to win/exalt their moral minds/hearts and souls. In the other version, you can only shoot them in campaign after campaign. Which would you buy? Imagine you walk into EB Games, and you have to decide between two versions of GTA. In one, you can only hire and shoot hookers--there is no chance of reforming them nor talking them out of it. In the "Gold 45 Revolver" version of GTA, you can engage in dialogue with the Hooker and hand her copies of the Constitution and Bible, as well as Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, and thus enlist her in your moral struggle against the fiatocracy, the decline of freedom, and the growth of the corporate-state. She in turn would hand those works to her Pimp who would join you. Which version of GTA would you buy? Obviously the one wired with the novel moral technology found in "System and method for creating exalted video games and virtual realities wherein ideas have consequences." --http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090017886
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/author/DrElliotMcGucken/1169/
I would posture this, why do they have to answer the question? At the very least why do they have to answer it in game? Why not present the player with moral and ethical dilemmas which force them to start a dialog in their own lives, with themselves and with others. Why put end points in for them?
As for the, doesn't that require pre-existing knowledge, well it's a bit of a false argument. Lets assume out of personal distaste for harming young girls a player saves them. After a while the game will get harder, as the player is under-equipped by the game's standard. But all of a sudden boom, a gift. Now rather than being encouraged to adopt the objectivist approach, and play the game the way the game intends, the other player can make the assumption that more gifts will be forthcoming. It lessens the moral conflict of the player. The player should be torn about which path is the right path, or should be tricked into taking the objectivist approach. As it's that approach that gives this game it's meaning.
I'd also say that Zaid is correct in his statement that the designer has a lot to do with the amount of morale weight a player will give a situation. For instance often having no outcome to a choice, so no tangible reward, dialog, cutscene etc, often discourages players from engaging in that encounter because it will not affect them personally. This simply indicates that something needs to affirm the result of their action, simply needs to show the player that their choice had meaning in the game world. Not to mention the formation of the scenario is important as well, it needs to feel natural, well paced, the art must be poignant, and the music and dialog appropriate, because any dissonance will distract the player from the decision at hand.
It also seems far too many people are taking away good/evil from this. Morales are considerably more complex than good or evil, they're more about forming a way of life. Sure many games take such a bland approach to it. Mass Effect is one of these, with answers that are embarrassingly nice, or answers that are wholly evil (there is no, harsh or soft, it's all, I'll help you, or I'll kill you styled responses). The neutral questions are often far more "renegade-ish" than the evil questions, and the outcome is obvious from the start. Mass Effect never really poses a morale question, it really just asks the player to pick renegade or paragon and then pick the answers that coincide with it to max out their points.