Obviously, Mr. Devereux has never played a BioWare RPG.

I find this silly...they cry foul of fiction and what not for corupting the "vaules" of people yet do not see their moralistic judgment and desperation for perfection as a problm.

People are indavendauls and will go where they will and think like they will to say people shouldn't think or be them selfs that individualistic fiction is more troublesome than domination by immature religious "idols" is sad and pathetic.

By the grace of god we are all already saved and we shall never more than sinners unless we are saints, thus in the end we are all simply human waiting for death to take us to the light.

"MacBoy Says:
January 6th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Obviously, Mr. Devereux has never played a BioWare RPG."

Exactly my thought when I read this. Play about an hour of Mass Effect and you'll definitely seen moral decisions with good or bad consequence depending on what you do. Same with either KOTOR.

From what I've experienced, most good RPGs employ this tactic somehow. Fallout is another good (albeit less contemporary) example of this.

@Kurisu

"Expecting a person ot have played one video game before condemning them as a whole? perish the though!!"

"The former Edge magazine staffer ponders the morality - or what he sees as a lack thereof - in video games"


If an article is too long to read after the third paragraph why bother to respond?

The problem with developing moral consequences in video games stems from the problem creating a real emotional attachment with in-game characters. When people really connect with characters in a game they will feel a moral responsibility to them - well, they'll be more likely to unless they're a sociopath.

He's complaining about the same sorts of issues you see in action movies - it's the "nameless" factor. When something happens or when someone dies it doesn't matter if they're not a named character. There may be more of an emotional connection because it's easier to relate to an actor playing a role then a (relatively) low fidelity virtual version of a human being, but the idea is the same. However created the fiction didn't concern themselves with people who do not matter to the plot.

This "moral compass" will assert itself as games become more realistic and deal with more complex issues. The challenge is going to find a way to work it into gameplay in a meaningful way.

I kind of agree, and some games should show some consequences of actions. Some not all. And I find it find that religion is preaching morals to everyone yet if you look at the churches, most have some of the most violent histories ever. That's just my take though, your mileage will, of course, vary.

@Dennis

Your mention of Oblivion and Fable as haveing "moral choices - with consequences" shows you have not played either.


Now for games that DO see Fallout, Fallout 2, Planescape Torment, Arcanum, and The Witcher.

@Luscan

Woops,didn't see that part.

I'm not seeing anything at all "anti-video game" here. Hideo Kojima himself said the exact same thing this guy is aiming for earlier this week.

http://www.destructoid.com/hideo-kojima-likes-assassin-s-creed-and-viole...

The whole "consequences of actions in games" thing makes for a thought-provoking way to look at video games as works of fiction. Every time you kill someone and nothing happens to you in a game and it seems like something should, it tests your suspension of disbelief in the game.

I mostly play Japanese RPGs and the way characters react to violence in those is often a core tenant of character development, particularly at the beginning of the game.

"Take, for instance, the idea of ruthless competition, that for every winner there are necessarily losers. Regardless of what game you're playing, the message is almost always the same: Do whatever it takes to win, even at the expense of everyone else.

"Imagine if that were the moral of every movie and TV show you ever watched. Would the world be a better or worse place? Would you let your children play a game that promoted such a dog-eat-dog mentality?"

People do it EVERY DAY. Have you ever watched a junior league soccer game, Mr. Devereux? Parents screaming at their children and their teammates from the sidelines, coaches who think they're suburbia's answer to Vince Lombardi, kids who are taught that it's NOT how you play the game and that winning is EVERYTHING.

I'm sorry, but it is STILL the parent's responsibility to teach that actions have consequences. The thought that you can leave the complete responsibility of educating your child to anyone or anything else - be it the classroom or a book or a video game - is absurd. Education begins and ends at home.

Why can't everyone leave Video Games alone?? Call me crazy but I THINK (not possitive) THERE ARE SOME BIGGER ISSUE THAN VIDEO GAMES!!!! How about Iraq or the Genocide in Darfur that no one seems to give a fuck about? People like these people need to stop going after stuff that really doesn't matter in the long run.

@GP
Actually, i think i might make a distinction between "consequences" and "moral consequences". Things like police officers going after you is a legal consequence of your actions but i wouldn't say its the moral consequences. A moral consequence of such actions, i would imagine, would probably be something more like seeing and feeling the pain you have caused to the victims or the loved ones of the victims... you feel bad for your actions because of the pain you caused not just because you receive some kind of actual physical punishment... Regretting your actions because you hurt others not because you got hurt as a result. i think that's what he might be referring to when he speaks of "moral consequences"

Though i do agree he is still off base in that this only refers to violent video games which make up only a small part of the market and not the larger majority of games.

@ Nick:

I understand what you're saying, but you're saying it at a site called Gamepolitics. What do you expect to be covered here? If you want to hear about Iraq and Darfur, both admittedly of more immediate importance then video games, there are other places to go for that.

In short, welcome to the niche and don't complain about Gamepolitics.com covering stories that could relate to games and politics.

@ monte'

Great point - there is a massive difference between general consequences and specifically moral consequences - but I think that the issue is that players who show a lack of regard for "moral consequences" are rewarded through practical consequences. Using GTA as an example oftentimes you do something immoral and you get cool stuff.

Where’s the moral ruthlessness in Mario Galaxy, Madden, Nintendogs and SimCity Societies?

Mario=when you jumpon/spin attack/shoot little stars at people
Madden=When you tackle that poor helpless dope with the ball
Nintendogs=when you forget to feed the dogs so they resort to cannibalism
SimCity=After creating a large city playing around with the disasters button.

Check and mate videogamers.

But seriously...Video games are hardly ever about senseless killing,Halo is about fighting off a freaking alien invasion and somehow it gets attacked on occasion. But it dosent matter and you know why? because people are idiots who believe what their told no questions asked, they take what they read as fact and dont even bother to look into it and their not likely to change.

Sorry If you didnt understand me.

The very first line contains three separate errors; man this guy is either grossly misinformed or wilfully ignorant.

Hey, a redeeming paragraph:

Conclusions vary, but I certainly don't need a panel of academics to explain to me that the teen across the street isn't going to attack me with a garden spade.

They guy isn't a complete tool after all...

Who thinks of that sequence in Austin Powers where they escape from the pit of "frickin sharks with frickin laser beams attatched to their frickin heads... oh wait just mutated seabass" when "nameless minion" gets killed and they call up his family who are all broke up about it

and then the bit where "john smith" is killed by the tarmac roller machine thingy and his mates are called at the bar where they say "it was his bachelor party tonight!"

That is the very reason we don't want to think about stuff in fantasy seriously, when I was a kid I took those scenes really seriously! (which was funny as heck now that I think about it) and thought very deeply about the consequences of my actions in GTA III, that lead to a semi-emo - semi buddhist phase, which I soon recovered from, but seriously I think it is probably best if we think about bad guys in movies and games as just that, the only time it should have any real meaning is in GTA story situations such as Asuka's despair over Kenji's death in GTA III or Big Smoke's Epiphany before dying in SA

I think people know the history.. Mary Baker Eddy right? Try http://www.allaboutcults.org/mary-baker-eddy-faq.htm

"Next week on GP, the mormons and jehovahs witnesses don't like games too."

Lol? has this guy even read the bible? wanton rape, mass murder\genocide, and remorseless and relentless evil perpetrated by or in the name of an imaginary sky god. Yea, Christian 'morality' is something that is a really, really good thing.

The Christian Science Monitor does not equal a newspaper for and by Christian Scientists!!!

The Christian Science Monitor is a quite well respected newspaper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Monitor

@ Sean

Yeah, we need developers who use more complex questions - questions of morality, society and philosophy - as fundamental gameplay elements. Otherwise it's all just window dressing.

I though it was a good article that asked some thought provoking questions. I wouldn't really consider it anti-gaming. The person in the article even said he/she doesn't necessarily believe violent video games will cause violent behavior in kids and he/she said the video game industry doesn't need more regulation.

This article isn't so bad as the headline or title may make it appear. Honestly I am shocked I am saying that. There are two flaws in the article, namely the opening paragraph on Manhunt 2 (wrong they aren't innocent victims already, read the damn script) and this section here:

"Take, for instance, the idea of ruthless competition, that for every winner there are necessarily losers. Regardless of what game you're playing, the message is almost always the same: Do whatever it takes to win, even at the expense of everyone else.

Imagine if that were the moral of every movie and TV show you ever watched. Would the world be a better or worse place? Would you let your children play a game that promoted such a dog-eat-dog mentality?"

Well I just finished watching the Raptors/Cavaliers basketball game on TV (damn Raptors can't hold a lead) the cavaliers "won" and the raptors "lost". In a competition there are ALWAYS losers. The NBA isn't going to cry out everyones a winner at the end of the season and give every team the championship like some stupid first grade spelling competition.

I think everyone knows how rough sports really are, they honestly have more to do with that first paragraph than video games. Players are hit, injured, and very rarely killed by others in a sport because of "ruthless" competition. I remember there was a story about an arena football player being killed as a result of a tackle, and a teenager in hockey dying of cardic arrest after being checked.

Now I know that it is almost never intentional and that both sides knew the risks of their actions from the start, but these people play to win and to achieve the glory of victory. And some sports stars, especially in baseball it seems, will even go one step further using their own "cheat codes" to reach superstardom. Everyone else can go pound sand or is just an obstacle.

Would I stop my child (if I had one) from playing sports or watching them, hell no. Or game shows, hell no. Or reality shows like survivor... umm maybe not although they do suck... maybe I shouldn't let them watch dog eat dog, although I don't even know if that is still on the air. :)

Video games have a similar mentality to competitive sports and other "competitions" like war, but there is one clear difference, video games will not injure or kill real people in order to achieve victory. The worst thing they can harm is someones ego, or maybe wrists from carpal tunnel. Yes you are forced to kill in order to complete 99% of videogames, but besides the fact they aren't real people, they are also trying to kill you. Think they have a second thought of cutting your head off or shooting you? Diplomacy or pacifism won't always get you very far.

I chose sports mostly for my argument not just because of the simple fact that they are on tv and even movies sometimes, but because they are also games in their own right, games where competition has reached an all new level. War is more of a competition than a game but it is even more ruthless and lots of people get killed daily while we see it every day on tv and movies too.

I won't rant on anymore, have a good day.

Also I'm sick of people telling me to "think about" or "ask myself" something. You don't need to tell me to think. I do that all the time. Look, I realize you have a deadline, and thought and research takes time. But if you are going to write an article, take a position. State precisely what's going on, why it is bad, why I should believe you, and what should be done about it. Leave the non-committal wandering in your notes.

"What games risk instilling, not just in kids, but in anyone who plays them, is a kind of sociopathy: a dearth of conscience."

I've played a lot of games with no consequences for actions. For example, GTA with cheats on so you can drive around killing everyone you like without fear of the cops. The same with Doom, killing with no risk to yourself. An issue I would like to bring up is why it hasn't instilled this "sociopathy" in me? Perhaps it's that I'm smart enough to differentiate reality from fiction? Perhaps it's because games don't look or act anywhere near realistic enough to be compared with reality. Or perhaps it's that fiction CAN'T instill sociopathy in normal people.

If you ever had the pleasure of using the Moai Statue in Nintendogs, you'd know where the moral ruthlessness in that game is.

@Marksman's 1st post:

Haha, you to?

@ Tom

I didn't mean no moral questions. The point I was trying to make was that some games wouldn't function if you had "moral" consequences for every action you make, take GTA SA for example:

I love sticking det-packs to peds or cars and blowing them up. I don't want to know that Mr Pixel whom I incinerated had two pixel daughters a pixel husband and a little pixel dog that all committed suicide because of his tragic immolation.

I understand that blowing up a car while its driving past a crowd of people isn't something people do in real life. If I wanted to hear about how I affected so many lives with my vicious car bombing I'd do it in real life instead =)

Moral consequences are an interesting addition to videogames (I'm don't have a 360 unfortunately, so I haven't played Mass Effect yet...) but most games don't need them.

If you want my theory on school shootings that doesn't blame videogames, click on my name. The page still is under construction, but you can see what I've got.

@Fesh
No, you're the one who hasn't read the Bible. What did you do, google for "Bible + kill", read a link or two, and decide that made you educated enough to comment? Hint: If you stopped at genocide, you might be able to ignore historical context enough to have a point. It's when you add the rape accusation that your ignorance shows.

Besides, "Christian Science" and "Christianity" are two different religions. Learn the difference before you shoot your mouth off again, bigot.

Hmm, that was

supposed to be quoted

wonder what I did wrong...

There we go... Sorry about all that crap...

I don't suppose it would matter to him that sociopaths aren't made by watching some videos or playing some games--they know when something is immoral or hurtful to others, they just don't care. The problem isn't one of moral judgment but of empathy. It's not an issue of people who don't understand the emotional consequences of their actions, but of people who couldn't care less how much others suffer as long as THEY have fun.

Nor do I know of any psychological studies which suggest that sociopaths are created through environmental influences (unless you want to count people denied all human contact), although many dissociative and attachment disorders can arise that someone simply spouting an opinion without any actual knowledge on the subject might discount as psycho- or sociopaths. But there's a huge difference between those who don't think about (or realize the impact on others of) consequences of their actions and those who just aren't wired to empathize or care about other people.

But I don't suppose it's surprising to any of us, anymore, that those who believe videogames do X harm don't actually do research before saying as much.

@
"Why can’t everyone leave Video Games alone?? Call me crazy but I THINK (not possitive) THERE ARE SOME BIGGER ISSUE THAN VIDEO GAMES!!!! How about Iraq or the Genocide in Darfur that no one seems to give a fuck about? People like these people need to stop going after stuff that really doesn’t matter in the long run."
Right, that's like saying that abortions and California's upcoming propositions for the election are lesser issues than say, Iraq or Darfur, and that we should completely ignore everything not as important as the latter.

Anyways...

Some examples of consequences for violent actions:

The Journeyman Project: If you kill an enemy robot the "non-violent" way (i.e. capturing his ship with a tractor beam instead of shooting him into pieces), you get bonus points.

Red Steel: When you defeat someone in a sword battle, you have the option of killing him or sparing his life for "respect points." You can also gain respect points by disarming enemies and making them surrender, instead of just shooting them silly. Sometimes if you spare someone's life they will help you out later on.

Metal Gear Solid 2: Some of your weapons don't kill the enemy, but instead knock him into sleep. If you finish the game without killing any enemies, I believe you get a special rank.
Also, Raiden once asks Snake if he's ever enjoyed killing anyone.

Castlevania - Portrait of Ruin (SPOILERS IN ROT13): Vs lbh xvyy Fgryyn naq Yberggn, lbh trg gur onq raqvat naq gur tnzr raqf. Gb cebterff, lbh unir gb hfr gur Fnapghnel fcryy ba gurz.

I just finished playing Tomb Raider Anniversary for the Wii, and one of the things I really liked about it (and I think one of the things Devereux is getting at) is that after you kill the Australian guy, you can really see Laura deal with the fact that she killed a person. You also see it in the cutscene with the huge black man trying th kill her.

Who else thought "Here it comes..." when they finished reading the first snipped paragraph?

imho, first post summed up my opinions precisely.
its because games dont have a broad enough look to their stories to incorporate this sort of thing, players play the main storyline. there is no 'behind the scenes' bits, with the characters interactions, friends, family, or w/e.

[...] The moral cost of video games [Christian Science Monitor via Game Politics] [...]

repeating "jccalhoun graduate student" here..
The Christian Science Monitor does not equal a newspaper for and by Christian Scientists!!!

The Christian Science Monitor is a quite well respected newspaper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Monitor"


so...
The minute I read the CSM name in the gamepolitics, I already knew what so many comments would say. 1. bash christianity 2. not take into account there is nothing really reliigious about the article, it's JUST AN OPINION. 3. bash the writer based on what is writing for, as if there opinion would change if this came from Newsweek or something. 4. and not take into account that perhaps some games can become more interesting if the game writers put more thought into thier writing by evoking an emotional response after your actions.

Makes me kinda embarrassed to be associated with the sterotypical, closed minded "gamer."

The problem here is that simply the thought that video games should be teaching morality at all. If games start teaching moral lessons then we get video games which no longer appeal to multiple cultures, and religions.

Morality isn't something that should be taught by video games, games can use it, but it's a parents job to teach their children their beliefs about what is right/wrong. Not a video game, not a movie, and not television.

If you let your kid play a violent FPS and never bothered to tell them that shooting someone in real life was "wrong" then honestly you been neglecting your job as a parent.

‘Unbridled competition combined with no moral consequence eventually leads to a lack of compassion. And without compassion, humanity is lost.’


.... This is very well applied to most major professional sports today.

For example Adam "Pac Man" Jones of the Tennessee Titans. He's gotten away with a lot, possibly murder, with no consequences because he performs well in unbridled competition.

It's not a video game issue. It's a socital issue.

Good point, lost because it tries to pin itself onto a hot button target.

I reccomend people vistit a slaughterhouse and compare it to the "violence" in games.
There is much more blood, mass killing, decapitating, and gutting than a silly cartoony video game. A slaughterhouse worker has highest turnover of any job...
You will never see meat in the same way again...
People call themselves christian while they eat meat 3 times a day, so they can't say they support non-violence. Its a paradox.

@ Funky J/gs68

While I agree that we can be quite reactionary at time, I would like to point out its not exactley a feature unique to any group or subset.

It doesn't help that our medium is under constant attack from people who are: misinformed, ignorant or just plain liars (the article writer strikes me as the former). I feel our strong reactions are more from being persecuted than from a complete and utter lack of intelligence or understanding

As for the "flaw" of free speech, some would see it as an asset rather than a burden.

How does anyone take Christian Science Monitor seriously???

Uh, there WAS a Jesus Christ in the 1st century. It's how he's perceived that is controversial to non-Christians.

@ gs68

If that was from me, I thought I had closed that. I think my browser might be having issues :(

As long as video game titles are approriately advertised and rated, there is no harm. Consumers should be aware of what type of experience they are in for before they pick up the controller. Parents or guardians are responsible for the frequency and type of exposure their dependents experience. Violence that is present in certain types of games is common in other popular more popular media types with less backlash (tv, internet, books, etc...). I think a lot of these types of opinions stem from lack of understanding and dangerously unintelligent blanket statements.

Andy Williams | Biz Dev
GameJobHunter, Inc.
www.GameJobHunter.com