Thursday, March 03, 2005
Do game makers have a moral responsibility?
Gamasutra ran that question recently, and got a whole bunch of answer. I figure, for the sake of having something to write about, I'll toss my change in as well.
Short answer? Ye- N- There isn't one. The first step, however, is to recognize that games are inherently amoral. The dressing that surrounds them is not. To say that the Grand Theft Auto games are all about crime does a gross disservice to the game, and completely fails to recognize why the series sells millions. Yes, some people buy it just because you get to run hookers over, and they're somewhat twisted. Most people buy it because it gives you the freedom to do whatever you want. Because it gives you activity hooks scattered throughout a vast environment. The fact that it does all that in style is what pushes it from solid game to runaway success.
Nobody ever raises moral questions about Chess. Neither do they contest the message Tetris is sending to our kids. Those games have been reduced down to the barest elements of their existence - pure formal systems. They are abstract to the point where those systems have become the context in which they are viewed. The fact that Doom is viewed as a murder simulator simply illustrates those that are missing the forests for the trees. Would it be better if Doom or Counter-Strike were based on something other than space demons or terrorism? Yes. Would they sell? No. Ask anyone if "edutainment" sells. Ask how big the industry is for those saccharine Christian games. We as a global culture are obsessed with sex and violence. It's what makes the news and it's what sells the movies and the games. It's not the be-all and end-all of expression, but it certainly forms a cornerstone.
So now that we've clarified, do game dressers (being, the ones that decide the context in which one plays with the formal underlying mechanics) have a moral responsibility to make wholesome games that teach the right thing? No more than anyone else does. Yes, they should be sending the "right message", but so should everyone else. Sure, they have a wider audience, but individuals have more impact. On the flip side however, there is no reason whatsoever that game makers should limit their freedom to make whatever games they want to. You can't get a sense of perspective of what's right and what's wrong if you can't see both sides of the argument and get into both headspaces, and games can help out there admirably.
So again, short answer? There isn't one. If I were forced to pigeonhole myself into one of those equally precarious, claustrophobic answers, however, I say no. Given the choice of being a very moral, well brought up person in a cage vs. anarchy, I choose freedom. You can have the latter with the former, but not the other way around. ¶ 8:24 p.m.
Gamasutra ran that question recently, and got a whole bunch of answer. I figure, for the sake of having something to write about, I'll toss my change in as well.
Short answer? Ye- N- There isn't one. The first step, however, is to recognize that games are inherently amoral. The dressing that surrounds them is not. To say that the Grand Theft Auto games are all about crime does a gross disservice to the game, and completely fails to recognize why the series sells millions. Yes, some people buy it just because you get to run hookers over, and they're somewhat twisted. Most people buy it because it gives you the freedom to do whatever you want. Because it gives you activity hooks scattered throughout a vast environment. The fact that it does all that in style is what pushes it from solid game to runaway success.
Nobody ever raises moral questions about Chess. Neither do they contest the message Tetris is sending to our kids. Those games have been reduced down to the barest elements of their existence - pure formal systems. They are abstract to the point where those systems have become the context in which they are viewed. The fact that Doom is viewed as a murder simulator simply illustrates those that are missing the forests for the trees. Would it be better if Doom or Counter-Strike were based on something other than space demons or terrorism? Yes. Would they sell? No. Ask anyone if "edutainment" sells. Ask how big the industry is for those saccharine Christian games. We as a global culture are obsessed with sex and violence. It's what makes the news and it's what sells the movies and the games. It's not the be-all and end-all of expression, but it certainly forms a cornerstone.
So now that we've clarified, do game dressers (being, the ones that decide the context in which one plays with the formal underlying mechanics) have a moral responsibility to make wholesome games that teach the right thing? No more than anyone else does. Yes, they should be sending the "right message", but so should everyone else. Sure, they have a wider audience, but individuals have more impact. On the flip side however, there is no reason whatsoever that game makers should limit their freedom to make whatever games they want to. You can't get a sense of perspective of what's right and what's wrong if you can't see both sides of the argument and get into both headspaces, and games can help out there admirably.
So again, short answer? There isn't one. If I were forced to pigeonhole myself into one of those equally precarious, claustrophobic answers, however, I say no. Given the choice of being a very moral, well brought up person in a cage vs. anarchy, I choose freedom. You can have the latter with the former, but not the other way around. ¶ 8:24 p.m.
