The problem of morality in video games Part V: An incoherent outlook

The following article contain spoilers for the following games:

Assassin's Creed

Assassin's Creed 2

If you do not want these games ruined for you, stop reading. You have been warned.

***************************************************************************************

Most video games do not dwell on the particular motivation for performing actions in a game. Mario does not ponder the morality of stomping a Goomba's head. Link (the hero of the Legned of Zelda series) does not ponder his moral culpability in slaying a dragon.

Some games however strive to immerse us in the world that the avatar we control occupies. They attempt to weave a tale around the actions of the player character to give meaning and depth to the activities performed. Some games go further and allow the player to decide to take actions of various moral worth. In this article we will look at a straight narrative, where the actions are predetermined and the player plays a pre-determined role.

Given the attempt to create complex and meaningful stories by modern video games, it is imperative to have a consistent moral vision. The particular actions must reflect a consistent moral outlook, even one we may not particularly agree with. The moral precepts must also be consistent with one another, in order for the actions to make sense in the character's world. Without this, the complexity and meaning of the story are rendered impotent.

A perfect example of when these principles are not followed can be found in the game series Assassin's Creed (1 and 2). The games are known for their complex and immersive stories as well as excellent gameplay and presentation. However, the moral context of the stories are such that the world that the characters live in is to put it mildly, an incoherent mess.

Assassin's Creed's main protagonist is Desmond Miles, a bartender who is kidnapped by Abstergo Corp., a front company for the main villains of the story, the Templars. Desmond has the misfortune of being the descendant of a long line of men who belonged to a guild of Assassins. Through the magic of technology, Desmond is forced to relive the memories of his ancestors, as the Templars will use his memories to locate the Pieces of Eden, devices of unknown origin that can control the minds of humanity.

The premise is intriguing enough. The action is intense as Desmond relives the memories of his ancestors, first a man named Altair who lived in the Holy Land during the Third Crusade; and then Ezio Auditore, a man born to a noble family in 14th century Italy.

The first game suggests that all the leaders throughout history, from religious figures to political and industrial ones, have used the pieces of Eden thorughout history to manipulate and control people. While an interesting theory, the implications are left to the imagination. Also, the only people who profess such a view of history are the Templars. Only at the end, when Altair's mentor betrays him and tries to kill him using the piece of Eden in his possession does this view come to the foreground. Altair kills his mentor and is left with nothing to believe in.

Had this been the only mention of religion in the series, this would have sufficed. The whole "all religion is fake so let's roll with the story" would be annoying for religious people such as myself, but not necessarily important to the main thrust of the story. However the games themselves attempt to go deeper, and in doing so destroy any moral foundation for any actions partaken by the protagonists to have meaning.

The summary of the Assassin's Creed is "nothing is true, everything is permitted." In short, everyone is permitted to pursue his own development (as explained in the second game by none other than Machiavelli, yes "that" Machiavelli). Why this one principle should be honored is anyone's guess. And why the Templars are not allowed to pursue their goal of world domination is something also left unexplained. At it's core, the philosophy of the world of Assassin's Creed professes nothing, proposes nothing about the human condition or what is really good.

What we are left with is simply the competition of equal views, that of the Assassins and the Templars. When held up to the philosophy that the games present, there is no reason to assume that the Assassins fight for "good" and the Templars are "evil." It is true that the Templars are associated with actions that are traditionally evil, but then again the methodology of the Assassins differ little. Templars use murder to achieve their ends. Assassins.....you get the idea.

But it would be imprudent to simply speak ill of the games. There is one good thing that comes out of the wreckage of the philosophy of the Assassin's Creed games. It clearly illustrates what happens when man is severed from the concept of God and the objective moral law. By creating this world where all religion is false and everything is permitted, the players in the futile drama simply fight for their arbitrary values. My view vs. your view, and our swords decide which one prevails. It is a form of the dictatorship of relativism. For this we can be thankful to the creators of Assassin's Creed, and we should pray that God saves us from those who would "cleanse" the world of religion.

The problem of morality in video games Part IV : Situational ethics

This is the fourth in a series pondering morality in video games and the problems that come with this new factor in the entertainment industry. This article contains spoilers for the following games:

Infamous

If you do not wish to know more about the game in question, please refrain from reading further.

*************************************************************************************


Consider the following situation: You are a superhero with powers such as super agility and the ability to scale walls at a lighting quick rate. You are facing a super-villain who has no ethical limitations. He just detonated a device that has shattered the city you live in and the government has quarantined the city. This super villain has also captured the following:

1. Your girlfriend (as in serious relationship, not like you like you relationship)
2. Five doctors who are needed to help the sick and wounded in the city

You are only able to choose one to save, either the girlfriend or the doctors. Which do you choose?

Such is the moral dilemma posed by the best seller Infamous, a game where you play the role of Cole MacGrath, an ordinary guy who finds himself with super powers relating to electricity. The game's production values are excellent (visuals, gameplay, control, sound, etc.) Yet the world is gritty, people are suffering in the city after a terrible explosion, and everyday is a fight to survive. Therefore several extreme situations and difficult moral choices are common in this game. Related to this is the "morality rating" that dictates the access of powers that you can learn later. Be the hero of the city and you gain access to powers of healing and disabling your foes. Become a villain and receive access to powers of destruction.

The above situation occurs near the end of the game and like many others before it forces your character to make a difficult moral choice. Save the love of your life at the expense of the lives saved by the doctors? Or sacrifice her to save the doctors and in turn help the people of the city? The game rates the saving the doctors as the "good" choice, identifying you as making the "good" choice. Saving the girlfriend (while futile since the villain kills her anyway) is the "evil" choice.

The problem with this view is that it assumes a utilitarian view of humanity. It is for the "greater good" that while the girlfriend is sacrificed, the doctors are saved, and therefore more people can be saved. This however is an erroneous viewpoint. If one believes that every human being is truly unique, then every life is of infinite value, and the lost of that life is an infinite loss. Thus the girlfriend's life is just as important as the doctors' lives or of those they will save. To view people through the lens of contributing to society is to put a relative value on the life of a human being.

Another problem with this situation is the assumption of motivation. It is "selfish" to save the girlfriend because, well, she's your girlfriend, and as such the player is acting out of a selfish desire. Perhaps the player thinks it is possible to save both? Perhaps she is the closest person, and therefore saving her is more of a possibility? The presumption of motivation damages the ability to evaluate the "good" or "evil" of a particular action.

Sadly, games boasting of moral choices that attach a view of "good" or "evil" often have an unstated moral viewpoint. This moral viewpoint, either wittingly or otherwise, is expressed in how the game evaluates "good" and "evil" actions. Sometimes they are clear cut (killing civilians is wrong, saving civilians is good). But other times, such as the above situation, reveal at best an incomplete or at worst an incorrect view of humanity and a consequentialist/utilitarian viewpoint of humanity.

The problem created by the situation reveals a consistent and understated problem with current video games and their inclusion of morality. The correctness and consistency of a moral viewpoint is a very important factor to any story for two reasons. First, the moral ethic is the backdrop for why the hero/villain undertakes the actions and forms the ideas of why the person is a hero/villain. A consistent moral ethic is absolutely essential in order to understand what makes a hero a hero vs. a villain. The second is that people learn about morality through stories. It is why we tell them. It is why we read to our children. One must be cognizant of the moral lessons in the stories that our children are exposed to.

At this current stage of morality in video games I will attempt to argue that far from malice on the part of developers, the inconsistent or simply wrong ideas about morality stem from simply not thinking about a consistent moral ethic in their games. In the next few posts we will look at some games and how their stories show the moral philosophy (or not) that underlines the stories in the games.

The problem of morality in video games Part III: The progression of video game moral themes

In my previous post I briefly explained how the video game industry has evolved around the same pace as the technology (computers) have. Because of this rapidly evolving industry, there are outdated ideas of video games and in a lot of cases a lack of respect or thought toward the ideas and moral ideas that games convey today. In this post we will look at early video game morality (such as it existed), and then compare to more modern games.



Early video games more or less did either fell into two categories with regard to morality: the simplistic adventure where the objective was to survive hordes of enemies to get from point A to point B. Most games were linear, objective oriented, and story and world creation served merely as backdrop to the adventure and objectives. Early games didn't encourage much moral thought about the morality of stomping on a Goomba's head, saving the princess, or killing Dracula.



Even in such primitive origins however there were exceptions. Golgo XIII, a Nintendo game based off of the popular manga series, dealt with themes that one could find in a James Bond film, complete with easily seduced informants. Even with dealing with mature themes however much was implied, not shown. Very little in the way of bloodly violence or sexuality/nudity were present (at least in the U.S.). While such games were often outside the mainstream, they were the same simplistic linear scheme, often leaving a player to simply play out a role rather than influence the moral narrative.



As gaming grew up during the '90s so did the themes. While still limited in scope, moral dimensions began to develop in games as story elements and game worlds became more immersing. However, even this development was constrained to more adventure/role playing games, where the moral path was set and players simply played out the role they were assigned. Still, the moral themes dealt with in such games (war, death, loss, life) showed a trend toward more developed story narratives.



In today's world of video games we have come even further in the development of narrative and the ability to give players choices in how the moral narrative plays out. The development of story telling has grown in leaps and bounds, creating fleshed out story lines and development of characters. Another development is the expansive worlds which allow for a diversity of moral choices that affect how the story is formed. To list but a few:

Assassin's Creed series: A sci-fi series detailing the life of Desmond Miles and how he lives the lives of his ancestors through a machine. Deals with conspiracies, religion (in a negative sense) and the lives of fictional assassins.

Fallout 3: A post apocalyptic Washington D.C. where you play a wanderer searching for his lost father. A variety of moral choices, ranging from giving water to a beggar to saving or blowing up a town with an atomic bomb.

Dragon Age: Origins: A fantasy role-playing game where you play as a Grey Warden, a character whose destiny is to save the world from darkspawn, a race of monsters bent on destroying the world. Involves religion (specific to the game world), situational ethics, sexuality and violence.

Infamous: The semi-futuristic world of Liberty City is bombed using a package delivered by your character, giving you electricity based abilities. Choose to be a hero seeking salvation for the city, or a villain and seek revenge. Deals with life and death, survival scenarios, and choosing good or evil actions/missions.

It is in the context of these games (and others) that we will examine the current state of morality in video games. From these examples and others we can get see how morality is expressed in the medium as well as the limitations that video games currently suffer from.

The problem of morality in video games Part II : The computer model

In order to understand the difficulties inherent in adding morality to video games it is important to understand how the medium has evolved over the years. Those who grew up or think of video games in the vein of the original Nintendo and Super Mario Bros. have an '80s concept of video games. Both the technology and industry have evolved over the years, and with that evolution the games themselves from presentation to content have expanded and matured (a term used very loosely).

A computer (or console, which is essentially a gaming computer) for the sake of this discussion is basically a math machine with what is called Boolean logic. To those who know computers this is an oversimplification of sorts but for this discussion it will suffice. 1's and 0's. True or false. This is the nature of Boolean logic, and a computer's natural function knows very little beyond this. We refer to this as the "digital world" as opposed to our analog world, where things become more complicated than on-off. It is this machine that we attempt to "model" the world though software. Video games are no exception. But even this realization shows how the medium (the computer) renders it difficult to model complex real world ideas such as "morality."

Video games and computers have gone hand in hand since the existence of the computer. From text-based games to one of the first visual games "Pong," the games have grown with the technology. The first video games that are familiar to the older generation reflect the state of technology at the time. Often games such as "Donkey Kong" would push computers to their limit, and represented the full potential of the computer running the game. Even the original Nintendo gaming machine, while revolutionary at the time, were still very limited in their computation power. With games such as Super Mario Bros., Duck Hunt, and Frogger being the standard bearer for video games it is little wonder why most regarded video games as primitive and simple.

Of course computers have evolved since then, and with them the video games running on them. Gone are the restrictions of memory and processing power. The ability to render lush 3-D worlds and create complexity in video games is less limited by technology than in the past. Indeed most computers today have a specific part of the computer hardware devoted entirely to visual rendering, better known as a video card. This is not to say that technology is no longer a limiting factor, but more and more the true limits on video games comes from the imagination of the developers.

As the technology has evolved, so has the industry that creates video games. Once a small outfit on the verge of bankruptcy, Nintendo is now one of the giants in a multi-million dollar entertainment industry. With corporate giants Sony and Microsoft as direct competitors, the resources that are used to develop video games is staggering compared to only 20 years ago. For example, the development budget for the game Wing Commander 4 was 12 million dollars, a staggering number for 1995.

It is also worth noting that just as the video industry has expanded, so has the fan base. One the purview of technology enthusiasts, video games are becoming more mainstream every day. With the release of Nintendo's Wii console, using motion sensor input from a player moving the Wii remote to simulate motion such as swinging a tennis racket, the industry is pushing more and more into the mainstream market, and attempting to reach out to those who wouldn't normally buy a console. And not to be outdone, Microsoft and Sony are to release their own versions of motion sensor capturing peripherals.

As one can see the potential for video games today is staggering. With the technology to render entire virtual worlds, the resources of Hollywood, and an expanding market, the sky is the limit on what the future will bring. As the industry is still evolving and maturing, we can only wait to see if video games enter society on the level that movies do.

Now that we have the background for the discussion, in our next installment we will look at the problems of morality and the challenges of incorporating morality into video games. Afterward
we will look at how technology and morality intersect in the video game industry and the unique challenges that developers face when incorporating morality into video games.

The problem of morality in video games Part I

One topic that has come up every once in a while on gaming forums is the moral content in video games. Given the success and increasingly diverse world of video games, the moral content of video games is becoming more and more of a concern. From such games that teach lessons such as "Crime does pay" like in Grand Theft Auto, to the Da Vinci Code like atmosphere of Assassin's Creed 2, the content of video games is more of a concern of parents than ever before.

Clouding the issue even more are uninformed critics of games where the "objectionable" aspects of video games are blown out of proportion. From misconceptions of the context of a game that provides many moral choices, such as the recently released Dragon Age: Origins, comes this piece of, let's call it "incomplete journalism". The problem comes in that the article fails to acknowledge the diversity of choices in the game. This is but one path in a variety of choices that a player can encounter.

I intend to examine over the course of several posts the difficulties that morality in video games presents, from perspectives such as technical, moral and theological. I hope that by analyzing this growing form of entertainment that we are able to get a clearer picture of the evolving state of the video game industry and provide helpful analysis as to what questions to ask when evaluating the moral content of a game.

Overkill you may ask? Perhaps, but while I've seen parents who won't take their children to see a R-rated movie but will buy for their child the latest Dante's Inferno. It's this moral confusion that I hope to clear up and being to raise awareness of today's video game content, but for good and ill.