Gamasutra - Features - "Question Of The Week Responses: Moral Responsibilities of Game Creators"

No creator has a moral responsibility in anything other then the act of creation. The more types, methods, processes, and all facets of and even experiments in creation that exists (subjectively then labeled as good creations or bad), allow a greater pool from which natural order [the ying and yang of entropy and order] will conclude the next successful and socially adopted level of acceptance that new creations will then evolve from or tear down and replace.

Quality [and value(s)] is entirely subjective under the eye of the beholder, even so as the evolving mind and intelligence [i.e. the being] continues to build knowledge and understanding based on experience from interaction with all created things (both good and bad.)

For the acceptance of something to be deemed of positive 'moral value' there must equally exist [by sheer nature] a definable counter of demeaning or negative 'moral value' to weigh against. And as reflections in a mirror, both are interchangeable depending on perspective (which side of the mirror are you on?)

This subjective quality [and value(s)] cannot exist without the creation itself, and the interaction with the creation to then form an opinion on quality. The creators 'responsibilities' in this process purely reside only with the act of creation, not with the audience (or lack of) experiencing the creation. Everything else is just make believe... The quality [and value(s)], and associated moral ethics are merely an effect of the philosophical prism, lens, mirror [or whatnot] through which the creation is viewed.
- Jon Galloway, Rockstar Games

A religious person who would not agree to medical attention unless it was spiritual in nature would probably strongly object to playing a computer version of Milton Bradley's Operation. Does Operation lack 'Values'? You really can't create a content advisory sticker for 'Values' even though it is a hot political word. The same applies for 'Moral Responsibility'.

My answer is NO. In regards to the audience, game creators should set their responsibility of content to meet the guidelines of the system that has been put in place by the ESRB. The responsibility of this issue is more in the hands of what the ESRB feels is socially responsible rather than what the developer/consumer feels is moral or immoral.

With my company's target audience of "E" (Everyone: Ages 6 and older) and "EC" (Early Childhood: Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate), we definitely fit the guidelines for our target audience in regards to the ESRB rating system. They have let us know this by awarding us the rating, and that is what the system is in place for.

If a developer specifically wants to limit its audience by either making a religious game (which excludes gamers of other religious/spiritual beliefs), or a morally objectionable title (which excludes those who would morally object) then that is their prerogative as a developer.

The ESRB will sort out what is socially responsible with either type of title through an approved system of guidelines. This is the great trust developers have put in the current system, and the important responsibility that the ESRB has to bear.
- Eric Kinkead, www.gametitan.com

You need to answer one basic question first; who determines what the right values are for consumption? Just looking at North America, this homogenous society is a melting pot of values. Some of these values are the same across the board and some are different. Some games out there appeal to a general sense of values whether or not it's intentional.

The Legend of Zelda franchise is one of these examples (for me at least). When I play the game I get the sense of true heroism, one that is unconditional. Casting a young child in the role of hero solidifies this even more, the burden of such a huge responsibility resting on the shoulders of Link is very inspiring. Was this an intentional design choice by Miyamoto? Maybe or maybe not but this is an example of a game that has broad appeal when it comes to values.

As game creators, our responsibility is always to our consumers, our gamers, some of which are children. I don't think we should be morally obligated to teach values. What we should do instead is understand our target audience better and craft an experience that is suitable for them, let their own value system (be it from their family or cultural background) take over from there.
- Anonymous

I am truly shocked that this question is being given any consideration at all, but since the response is so easy, here it is. No, game companies have no such responsibilities, moral or otherwise. We are an entertainment industry in a capitalist society. Our responsibilities lie in producing enjoyable products for our consumers and doing it in a profitable manner.

Would you think to ask this question of Hollywood, network TV or HBO? It's the same question. Does an entertainment industry have a moral responsibility to teach values? No. We don't. CBS doesn't. The NBA doesn't. Hollywood doesn't.

The responsibility to teach values lies with your parents or whoever is raising you. That's it. You may try to argue churches and schools, but those are ultimately the choices of the parents which schools and churches you will be exposed to, if any.

If a game comes out that you feel would be a bad influence on your child, don't allow it in your home. I don't. I also talk with the parents of my child's' friends and I know if they have any of those games in their homes. I also speak with my child about these things.

We self regulate very well. People only have to spend 5 seconds looking at the cover to a game to know exactly what kind of content it has. If you are unwilling to take that time for your children, don't blame us.
-Anonymous

Morals are not the responsibility of games. This is not an endorsement of amoral games, I simply think that the morality of a game is not something which is universal. A game rated M by the ESRB is under no responsibility to provide a moral game, in any sense of the word.

Further, morality itself is relative. I there are simply to many moral codes in the world. Further, many moral codes conflict as to what one's responsibilities in certain situations are. In American Christian traditions, we have traditions of nonviolence on the other hand we have other groups who believe in the use of force in certain situations. Which moral code does one ascribe to? This is a question which each individual answers.

Therefore, I cannot see a responsibility, as my moral code would be amoral to some one else. The simple truth is that the audience for games is far too diverse to attempt to force it into a global moral framework.
- Lee Brunjes

Absolutely. More so than ever. Especially for young gamers as the target audiences. Today's game creators place more emphasis on graphics, physics, hardware prowess, rather than stories, creativity, and most importantly embedded value (what we can learn from the game) in their titles. A game creator can choose zero embedded value (Doom 4 comes to my mind), but should never go for negative one.

The games are just like other media that we, adults or kids, women or men, old or young, can reach every day. We watch TV, listen to music, and play games. No matter what form the media is using, they deliver values and teachings. Supposedly games should deliver good values, not bad ones. Nowadays, the bad game values and teachings are disguised under the "fun" camouflage, however.

Typical example: Grand Theft Auto (GTA), a title with negative embedded value, worse than a porno movie. The game should be marketed along side with porno media for adults, never should reach Wal-Mart or Costco or Fry's. All the games involving killing innocent people and outrage social behavior should be reclassified to the same class of adult entertainments and be marketed in the same manner, as required by related laws.

By doing so, game creators can really seriously think about what they are doing, adult/porno entertainment industry, or video game industry. By doing so can game creators think very hard about their titles, stories, embedded values on top of flashy video effects and stunning graphics.
- Kojen Ku

No more than the creators of films, television shows, music, commercials, magazines, websites, or any other medium that the public is exposed to. That's not to say that they don't have a responsibility, but rather that games should not be treated any differently than other forms of entertainment. Modern gaming is still largely in its infancy, and as a result it is still widely misunderstood. The non-gaming public still sees violence in games as being much more influential in society than it really is, if it is at all. The only sure thing that violent video games influence is the groups of people who oppose them. In reality, there is no solid proof that interactive entertainment is the driving force behind violence in society. Sure, there are a handful of people who claim to be driven to violence by games, but those people are already inclined to such behavior. The Son of Sam said his dog made him kill. Does that mean dog breeders have a moral obligation to only produce kind, benevolent canines? Or that dogs should adhere to a self-imposed ratings system? Hardly. In reality, nothing influences everyone but everyone is influenced by something. It is part of the fabric of human nature, and games are no more of a key player than anything else.
- Robert Bierley, Prizm Productions

In the "Time of Mario," you were an abstract Italian guy in overalls hopping around on mushrooms and monsters. It's difficult to imagine children romanticizing a game like that and hoping they, too, could one day do the same. Picture a group of kids with a market-bought bag of mushrooms hopping up and down on the mushrooms. Probably not going to happen.

However, such is no longer the case. Character aren't abstract, they're very realistic. Now a player can be any of hundreds of high-quality anti-aliased concrete "heroes." I say "heroes" in quotes because it is also no longer the case that games are about magnanimous heroic actions. As an example, the Grand Theft Auto series (yes, I know, it's being beaten to death, but the shoe fits...). You play a character who is known to be a thug, and the game permits you, specifically, to kill cops.

I am from a small town in Washington, a fishing/logging community. I eventually lived in Seattle, Washington, and also Kirkland, near Microsoft's Redmond campus. Those areas aren't known for heavy gang activity. Folks who live there don't have to worry about it as folks near where I used to live in southern California. I imagine the same is true for the majority of players of such games.

However, there are people who play such games for whom the depraved sociopathic actions depicted in the games aren't far from reality. They've seen similar things on the news and maybe on their streets outside their home. These games idealize those actions and make those actions more acceptable. Social theorists will tell you that reinforcement is what makes actions good or bad in a person's eyes. These games make those socially bad actions seem to be alright by constant positive reinforcement of them.

Because the line between fantasy and reality is hard to distinguish in these games, I believe those game makers have a responsibility to reinforce behavior that will not result in the real life acting-out of the in-game actions. A game where you play a psycho-killer who suffocates people with plastic bags is probably not the most socially responsible thing, nor is making a game where a good deal of the gameplay focuses on either avoiding or killing local or federal agents that uphold the peace.

While most folks may play those games, eventually put them down, and know to distinguish what is right from what is not, that is not the case for everyone. There are people walking among us for whom gunning down a cop is a fantasy. Maybe they're toying with the idea of suffocating their neighbor's five-year-old daughter with a plastic bag. Game companies who romanticize these actions in their products do us all a disservice.

In summary, the negative actions I've described here must necessarily be seen by members of society as negative actions. If society as a whole had no problems with actions such as these, we would have a much harder life, as we'd constantly have to watch our backs to make sure nobody killed us. Games such as those described here endanger the moral fiber of our society. The responsibility lies in the hands of the makers.

If you're going to make a game, make it one in which the theme of the game and the ongoing gameplay is not something that could disrupt our everyday lives. Make it fantastic enough that it's distinguishable from real life and make it reinforce good behavior traits.

It is unfortunate that it is more likely that such quasi-realistic games are more likely to be realized as a reality than other, more positive, fantasy-based games. If it was as equally likely that any game's contents could come to pass if a player worked hard enough, then I would simply become a light-side Jedi and travel into gang territory to combat this blight. However, such is not the case.
- William Henry

Yes! Games are not just entertainment, they (like other media) are powerful forces that shape our culture, whether we want it to or not. Will one game cause civilization to crumble? Of course not, but the media as a whole has a strong impact on what our culture considers "the norm." We in the media can easily get caught in "edginess creep." What I mean is this: a developer can get increased sales with lower quality work by pushing the edge of what is acceptable: things that are almost shocking. This success causes other developers to imitate that success. After time, the public gets used to it and it's no longer shocking; it's normal. The "edge" has now moved. Shortly, someone else has another concept even further out, and the cycle repeats. This only happens because our culture has been changed by what we produce. This effect is hard to control because we are in a very competitive field and "edginess" creates an advantage. We (in the game industry) could help slow this by concentrating on innovative game play rather than making the "same old same old" with bigger explosions, bloodier guts, creepier NPCs, etc. This will really take self control on the part of publishing execs (riiight...)! They need to be willing to take chances on really innovative games, rather than cranking the same game, only bigger and grosser.
- Stone (Michael) Engelbrite, Inspired Idea

Why should we put video game developers on the spot to teach gamers moral values? It's true that some people may act out violently based on a video game, but how is that different than someone acting out violently because of a movie they've seen. Games have ratings. Movies have ratings. Why isn't the movie industry being targeted in the same way as video games? How can we blame the video game industry for a person's violent actions and not the makers of movies like Pulp Fiction and Natural Born Killers. I think it would be great if ALL forms of popular entertainment taught moral values, but I see no reason to single out one form as "the cause" and not the other.

Contrary to popular beliefs, as they are held by IGDA in particular and those publishers with a very large budget for producing and or publishing new titles, the answer is "yes".

I am clear on one thing, and that is this, entertainment is one thing, but when it comes to the blurred line between editorializing the consumer and entertaining the consumer, there is a clear demarcation that must be honored; that being, humans are the most easily impressed and manipulated creatures on the face of this planet. The proof of this can be seen every single day on any television broadcasts, cable or otherwise. US consumers, in particular, are most easily impressed by apparent opportunities to fantasize and play out their darkest fears within the supposedly "safe" context of a video game (console or otherwise).

Do not misunderstand, there is nothing wrong with entertainment for entertainments' sake, but when what was once considered "entertainment" begins to manifest itself in the world we live in, one must think twice about the moral and ethical implications of what one does (corporate or otherwise).

A couple of examples that come immediately to mind are the so-called action games being published by various arms of the US DOD. These games are geared to influence and change ones perception of war, ones perception of what it means to go to war (and the corresponding killing of real people) in an attempt to recruit the typically game entranced youth of the USA who are barely old enough to know what hazards lie within the context of sexual interaction, yet are allowed to play M or A games. I do not need to reference the games in question as anyone reading this will already be aware of which games I am referencing. If you choose to deny that you know what I am referencing, then you are clearly unconcerned about the moral or ethical implications of various games that are available on the market today.

At this point, I am almost certain that many of you are saying, "Oh, look there is one of those 'bible thumping' parents of someone who lives in the so-called 'Bible Belt' of the US." I am not. I was, in fact, kicked out of the so-called "Christian Church" because I was unwilling to be passive about my feelings or what those feelings guided me to understand and/or express within the context of the so-called "Christian Belief System".

That activity was, and still remains a violation of Christian protocol, and, such an attitude is beginning to be adapted more and more by the major game publishers; i.e. if you do not think the way that we want you to think, in order to buy our games, then we do not want anything to do with you. Conspiracy? No, quite the contrary. It is clearly an attitude that is beginning to pervade the game industry, and the game industry itself needs to take responsibility, not just for themselves or their profit margins but for the impact and control they are clearly exercising over the U.S. Video Game Consumer. If you can prove that attitude is not what controls any of the U.S. Game Manufacturers/Publishers, then please feel free to speak up.

Do game creators have any moral responsibilities in teaching values to their audience? An utmost generic question, which has no single answer. No. This is clearly one of those questions that raise more questions when seriously thought about. Questions like: which game creators? What is their general aim? What is their audience? Does the game in question asks or even permits pushing of values? Whose values? And more of the like.

I think in this regard the last two questions are the most interesting. Does the game warrant or even permit pushing of values? One can imagine a lecture about values, regardless of content, would quite distract in a game like Tetris. Trying to teach values in a game of that kind could well end up in some cheesy listing of quotes, not really adding to the game-experience. Then there's the obvious catch: whose values? Personally I'm a pretty liberal Dutch person. The last thing I'm looking for in a game is to be harassed by some gun toting right-wing Christian's ideas about abortion. Advocating the right to bear arms while at the same time trying to convince me of the sacredness of life. And yes, these do exist.

Now, this of course is an extreme example but the statement still stands: Values are not universal, far from it, and those who talk loudest about their values often have a hard time understanding this simple fact.

So the question then becomes: do game creators have the right to bother their audience with their own personal values? One would think that those game developers who create games for kids do have a certain moral obligation towards their audience. But even there it should be done with the utmost care: shield them from the horrors of violence? Yes. Make violence non-existent? No. Violence is something common, a part of everyday life, making it non-existent would only create more problems for the kids once they are set loose in the real world. Shield them from pornography? Preferably yes. Alienate them from the naked human body? Preferably not. And where does one draw the line? That's as personal for the audience as for the creator.

Then the question automatically becomes: Do game creators have the psycho-social backing to actually decide on a set of values for their target-audience? Then there's the obvious "Violence in games" discussion. I vehemently believe this is a diversion. Since communication is more often then not a reflection of the real world, violence is to be expected in any form of communication. To only take out one communication-form, in this case games, and start discussing the merits or dangers of its content is really missing the point. Apparently there's a desire from the human population to be entertained with violence, until that is addressed I don't think talking about the "moral responsibilities" of just one group of content providers, in this case game creators, is getting us anywhere.

Turning the question in: Should game creators be singled out to provide some sort of value-teaching type of entertainment? No. I don't really think the question serves any purpose but enticing discussion. Which is really great, don't get me wrong, but a straight, black and white, cut and dried answer? Hardly.
- Patrick Kanne

I believe it is reasonable to assume that games that express values can influence in some ways the culture that is exposed to them. As a game developer, I think it is reasonable to assume a certain level of responsibility for the games that I help to create. The morality of that responsibility is related to the morality of the expressed values.

As a Christian, my understanding of morality is informed by my belief in a personal creator God. I believe that I am ultimately responsible and accountable to Him for everything that I do. That would include whatever influence the fruits of my labor may have on society and culture.

No, they do not, no more than authors of books or movie scriptwriters or even artists do. They often don't, nor is it their job/responsibility/duty to do so, that duty lies with your custodians (i.e. parents) or your own senses. Besides, the bigger question is whose moral responsibility do you want to teach? Morality means different things to different people and different races. The fact that there is no standard is the beauty and richness of the human race (and for those having funny ideas, Law is not morality, law is the mechanism that protects your life, liberty and property). Any time a society 'imposed' its morality and values upon others BAD things have happened! Just like you shouldn't impose your way of thinking on your friends but you are welcomed to share it. Remember dictators routinely use the morality argument when oppressing their constituents and limiting their freedom of speech or production.

If you disagree with a product/painting/movie/game because it infringes on your morality or what you hold dear then simply don't buy it, you don't even have to look at it. You do have a choice, make your choice and take responsibility for it. And more importantly, don't prevent other from buying it, because they should have the choice to do so (just like you have the choice not to purchase). Choice equals freedom (with some realistic limits). If we handicap ourselves with trying not to offend anyone then the 'producers' in society will quickly fade (it's impossible not to offend people sometimes… especially when they want attention - or force you out of your money). The responsibility of morality should lie on the consumer (i.e. the 'would-be-offended') not to purchase or endorse a product if they are not Ok with it, since, the producer (in this case game developer) cannot possibly take into account what would infringe on every possible consumers morality (i.e. anyone that can walk into the store and buy the game).
- Jake Wolf, CleverDesign Entertainment

Bonus Answers

[Article illustration by Arjan Westerdiep @ drububu.com]