🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Morality in Game Design
This issue depends on your point of view, what you''re trying to accomplish. If you''re trying to sell, I''d say yeah, of course, don''t make anything TOO offensive to large chunks of the populace, or you''re going to be wading in the result (and I think you can guess what that is). But if you''re just looking to make a fun game (read: original), I would say do whatever. I''ve never seen any evidence, published or firsthand, that suggests that a game has influenced anyone to the point of seriously immoral activity unless they were already pretty damn unstable. And there will ALWAYS be people like that out there, puddles of gasoline waiting for something (song, movie, tv show, rumor, possibly even video game) to spark their twisted imagination. If we set out to accomodate the mental instability of every fruitcake on the planet, we''ll end up with nothing more interesting than a padded room version of pong. In reality I am a very moral person, and I do care about issues. Entertainment is an entirely separate subject. In a game, I could care less who dies, who mutilates who, what laws/moralities/human decencies are broken. If a Nazi death camp makes for an original/fun game, make it (and yes, I hate Nazis as much as the next guy, I live relatively near a whole frickin hive of them). If it offends people, tough crackers (unless sales are you goal). The whole "your morals aren''t my morals" is precisely what freedom of speech is about. What I personally create and distribute is my choice, just as is it your choice to be or not to be offended by it. If you don''t like the idea of playing a Nazi death camp game, don''t play it. Censorship is exactly the kind of thing Hitler used to gain enough power to bring about death camps in the first place, not by somehow coercing people into playing "evil games."
They keep telling me that this is for the best - you are too fragile and stupid to understand - and we will deny you this and that...
I do not accept that someone(s) should have an authority to ban ideas, storylines, games or visual material from me. I get angry thinking about that somebody watches movies and decides that I (an adult, born 1977) should never see this. With the logic of the corruption of mind shouldn''t these censors themselves be locked up?
Today when games are not made of merely text or pixels one inch wide, there looms the danger that the same biggots will come and trample the game industry.
About the concentration camp example:
The idea is a bit ridiculous also when you look it from the Nazi point of view. It is not a good example because there is no challenge or glory. Much better game would come of any event in WWII were there was something hard to achieve. And killing of non-armed is not hard.
I think that good war games should be quite neutral about the events and maybe also allow gameplay on both sides.
It is boring to always use the Nazis as an example of evil, do mention sometimes the Russians too...
WWII witnessed many terrible things not all committed by Axis countries. The late-war bombing of the civilians in Germany were accepted as a revenge during that period, but looking back now they seem to be too late, too big and cruelly made. And please sometimes mention also the atrocites done by WWII US ally the Soviet Union. (I am from Finland)
Instead of the prohibition of violence in games I would like to personally choose the games I buy. I do think that it is better to have items that I think morally incorrect in the shop - than that they would be away and away would be also some items that I do accept but someone else does not...
-Osmo
("Beware of the one who would deny you information ... in his heart he dreams of being your master" AC/Sid Meyer)
I do not accept that someone(s) should have an authority to ban ideas, storylines, games or visual material from me. I get angry thinking about that somebody watches movies and decides that I (an adult, born 1977) should never see this. With the logic of the corruption of mind shouldn''t these censors themselves be locked up?
Today when games are not made of merely text or pixels one inch wide, there looms the danger that the same biggots will come and trample the game industry.
About the concentration camp example:
The idea is a bit ridiculous also when you look it from the Nazi point of view. It is not a good example because there is no challenge or glory. Much better game would come of any event in WWII were there was something hard to achieve. And killing of non-armed is not hard.
I think that good war games should be quite neutral about the events and maybe also allow gameplay on both sides.
It is boring to always use the Nazis as an example of evil, do mention sometimes the Russians too...
WWII witnessed many terrible things not all committed by Axis countries. The late-war bombing of the civilians in Germany were accepted as a revenge during that period, but looking back now they seem to be too late, too big and cruelly made. And please sometimes mention also the atrocites done by WWII US ally the Soviet Union. (I am from Finland)
Instead of the prohibition of violence in games I would like to personally choose the games I buy. I do think that it is better to have items that I think morally incorrect in the shop - than that they would be away and away would be also some items that I do accept but someone else does not...
-Osmo
("Beware of the one who would deny you information ... in his heart he dreams of being your master" AC/Sid Meyer)
... and about this "responsibility":
I think that the wide-spread idea of resposibility because of the causality is stupid.
It is sensible in extreme cases, but it is just not correct to blame raped girl for attracting rapists being pretty or to blame McDonalds if someone is stupid enough to burn himself with their coffee with no warning printed on the surface of the liquid. Same applies to games - it does not matter if the games causes violence, because they are not _responsible_ but the violent inviduals themselves are. Even if the effect of a game would be terrifically violence causing - the game would not be responsible. Maybe it would be correct to control it, but there is no guilt.
-Osmo Suvisaari
I think that the wide-spread idea of resposibility because of the causality is stupid.
It is sensible in extreme cases, but it is just not correct to blame raped girl for attracting rapists being pretty or to blame McDonalds if someone is stupid enough to burn himself with their coffee with no warning printed on the surface of the liquid. Same applies to games - it does not matter if the games causes violence, because they are not _responsible_ but the violent inviduals themselves are. Even if the effect of a game would be terrifically violence causing - the game would not be responsible. Maybe it would be correct to control it, but there is no guilt.
-Osmo Suvisaari
quote: Original post by Osmo Suvisaari
... and about this "responsibility":
I think that the wide-spread idea of resposibility because of the causality is stupid.
You seem to be saying that if you cause something to happen, you are not responsible. With no offence intended, I am assuming that you are not understanding the words the same way I do, as pretty much ''responsible for'' and ''cause'' are almost the same thing. The difference is that it is possible to take responsibility for something you didn''t cause, perhaps by allowing something to happen. But when you cause it, you are responsible unless you did it under duress or unwillingly. Making a computer game where you get to shoot jews or black people or homosexuals cos you think it is fun doesn''t generally count as being done unwillingly, therefore you are ''responsible'' for it. Maybe not wholly responsible, but at least in part.
quote: It is sensible in extreme cases, but it is just not correct to blame raped girl for attracting rapists being pretty or to blame McDonalds if someone is stupid enough to burn himself with their coffee with no warning printed on the surface of the liquid. Same applies to games - it does not matter if the games causes violence, because they are not _responsible_ but the violent inviduals themselves are.
I''m not quite understanding the analogy, but that''s ok. If I hire a hitman to kill someone, am I not at all responsible merely because I didn''t pull the trigger? I think not. I would share part of the responsibility. Anything which plays a significant part in the ''chain'' of events is at least partly responsible.
You are assuming an individual is already either violent or not before they set eyes on a game. This is not necessarily true. Nearly all personality traits are learned, at least to some extent. So, how did that individual get violent in the first place? Maybe it was the game. Probably not. But maybe. And therefore the game could have caused the violence.
People learn from their surroundings, their environment, and other people. Pretending it isn''t so won''t change this fact. Technically, an adult is responsible for their actions, but psychologically, 99% of what anybody does is what they''ve learned from the people around them.
quote: Even if the effect of a game would be terrifically violence causing - the game would not be responsible. Maybe it would be correct to control it, but there is no guilt.
I really don''t understand this. I personally don''t believe a game could be -terrifically- violence causing, but if it was, I think there would be some guilt! If you knowingly teach or inspire someone to doing something, and they do it, you are partially responsible for that. Of course, the -intent- of the maker will play a part, but pretty much anyone who makes a widely-selling game these days knows the supposed potential effects, and therefore naivety can''t really be claimed.
Don''t fall into the trap of thinking that when someone hits the age of 16/18/21/some arbitrary birthday that they suddenly acquire 100% free will. This has never been the case and never will. Adults succumb to peer pressure, they are easily led and influenced, they are stupid. Just witness the size of the advertising industry for proof. By definition, half the population is of below average intelligence. We all exert influence over those around us. When you start making choices about what kind of influence you are going to make, you have to accept responsibility if you are going to push people over the edge. I don''t necessarily agree with censorship for adults - what I agree with is some sort of self-imposed restraint.
If gamedevelopers are not "responsible by law" then they might well feel responsible for themselves, because the fact is, that if someone <18 shoots 5 kids after playing your 18+ game, it is easy to say that their parents weren''t there for them and that the store shouldn''t have sold the game to them. Fact is, that those 5 kids would still be alive if you hadn''t made the game that violent. And is that what you are going to say to their parents? And will you go to work the next day and say at the coffee : "Ah, well so someone shot 5 people after playing our game, but he shouldn''t be buying it anyway because he is too young, thus we aren''t responsible and we shouldn''t bother too much about it and just continue with our work." And what are you going to say to the press? How will such an incident affect future games coming from you?
I think there is a switcharound in mentality regarding responsability as soon as any of the power of disgression is taken away from the developer/publisher.
What I mean is that the second you have a governing body deciding the age legitimacy of a game they''re taking away the question of morality from the developer/publisher/seller. They become a catch all net that makes sure that, whatever game you produce or sell, you can feel no responsability towards it''s content because if it''s sold to someone underage (or even if it''s released when it shouldn''t be) someone else made the decision, your hands are clean.
I don''t like the idea that people shirk their moralities and ethics because they presume someone else is there doing it for them and doing it correctly (often a fallacy). You should produce games that you''re happy about whether or not their is a ''parent'' figure telling you whether it''s right or wrong. We''re all still adults (at least those of us producing/publishing games are) and we all still make these moral choices.
On a personal note though, I doubt very much that any game could contribute to the psychological state of an individual enough to turn them from a rational human being into one who picks up his Dad''s Uzi and mow''s down his classmates. I don''t think a game can even come close to tipping someone over the edge. It might, just possibly might, give them an idea of how to wreak carnage if they had already made the decision they wanted to hurt people but playing multiplayer FPS has never given me any desire other than to frag the Hell out of my workmates at that FPS. It''s never even crossed my mind that doing anything more would, in any way, be fun.
Maybe I''m just not screwed up enough yet :0)
Mike
What I mean is that the second you have a governing body deciding the age legitimacy of a game they''re taking away the question of morality from the developer/publisher/seller. They become a catch all net that makes sure that, whatever game you produce or sell, you can feel no responsability towards it''s content because if it''s sold to someone underage (or even if it''s released when it shouldn''t be) someone else made the decision, your hands are clean.
I don''t like the idea that people shirk their moralities and ethics because they presume someone else is there doing it for them and doing it correctly (often a fallacy). You should produce games that you''re happy about whether or not their is a ''parent'' figure telling you whether it''s right or wrong. We''re all still adults (at least those of us producing/publishing games are) and we all still make these moral choices.
On a personal note though, I doubt very much that any game could contribute to the psychological state of an individual enough to turn them from a rational human being into one who picks up his Dad''s Uzi and mow''s down his classmates. I don''t think a game can even come close to tipping someone over the edge. It might, just possibly might, give them an idea of how to wreak carnage if they had already made the decision they wanted to hurt people but playing multiplayer FPS has never given me any desire other than to frag the Hell out of my workmates at that FPS. It''s never even crossed my mind that doing anything more would, in any way, be fun.
Maybe I''m just not screwed up enough yet :0)
Mike
Interesting topic - I thought I''d pick up on the McDonalds "Hot Coffee" lawsuit.
It''s a typically american thing to sue the hell out of everyone else, but McDonalds LOST this particular case. I guess the reasoning is that the coffee was indeed hot, and there was no external indication of this being the case because the styrofoam containers hide the temperature. In this case, McDonalds SHOULD have put a warning on the container, warning it contained a HOT liquid.
It''s similar to Wolfenstein, back in the day... ( I think ).
It had a VOLUNTARY PG-13 rating , a huge warning plastered all over it saying - THIS STUFF IS GRAPHICALLY VIOLENT.
If after that warning, you''re still playing, it''s not the developers fault. They warned you.
Just like now, with the container marked "HOT" in McDonalds, if someone throws a full mug of coffee at someone else, McDonalds can no longer be sued ( hey, it SAID it was hot ), because the person throwing it obviously KNEW it was hot.
Do you understand what I''m trying to say? If you inform the users of your product about its possible consequences, then you have done your work right.
#pragma DWIM // Do What I Mean!
~ Mad Keith ~
**I use Software Mode**
It''s a typically american thing to sue the hell out of everyone else, but McDonalds LOST this particular case. I guess the reasoning is that the coffee was indeed hot, and there was no external indication of this being the case because the styrofoam containers hide the temperature. In this case, McDonalds SHOULD have put a warning on the container, warning it contained a HOT liquid.
It''s similar to Wolfenstein, back in the day... ( I think ).
It had a VOLUNTARY PG-13 rating , a huge warning plastered all over it saying - THIS STUFF IS GRAPHICALLY VIOLENT.
If after that warning, you''re still playing, it''s not the developers fault. They warned you.
Just like now, with the container marked "HOT" in McDonalds, if someone throws a full mug of coffee at someone else, McDonalds can no longer be sued ( hey, it SAID it was hot ), because the person throwing it obviously KNEW it was hot.
Do you understand what I''m trying to say? If you inform the users of your product about its possible consequences, then you have done your work right.
#pragma DWIM // Do What I Mean!
~ Mad Keith ~
**I use Software Mode**
Angelfish and MikeD - I think you are seeing what I am trying to say, which is nice 
As for this...
I still don''t think this is going far enough. A warning/disclaimer/etc is not taking responsibility - in fact, it''s just explicitly shirking it. It may work for fulfilling your legal obligations, but legal doesn''t necessarily equal moral (although it''s often a good guide.) Consider:
a) A parent cannot possibly monitor everything a child buys or does. It is a common excuse to blame the parents, and sometimes at least partially founded, but there are numerous other aspects. Parents are just part of the environment a child grows up in. Not to mention this: parents are human too - they make mistakes of judgement. Does someone deserve to die just because a child''s parent made a mistake?
b) A shopkeeper cannot know that when he sells a game to a 21 year old, that the 21 year old isn''t just gonna hand it to a 12 year old in the street. Age limits help, but don''t prevent. Not to mention that there are plenty of well-balanced 12 year-olds and plenty of psychotic 30 year-olds. Ages are arbitrary measures - they give an indication of maturity, but are not perfect.
c) Not everyone will believe any warning you give them. After all, who''s to say that the person giving the warning knows their stuff? Maybe they think your ''warning'' is just an exaggeration to cover your legal liability. This is, of course, justified, cos 99% of the time, it -is- just a legal disclaimer.
d) You can''t assume that everybody is intelligent and well-balanced enough to make decisions on what is suitable for themselves, or indeed for their children. 99% of people are. But 1% or so are not. And that''s where the danger lies.
There are no easy answers. Censoring the material adults can legally acquire only has a minimal benefit, and infringes the rights of the well-rounded majority of individuals who could cope perfectly well with the material. And since violent (and other ''immoral'' acts) would generally result from -numerous- influences, maybe some of the other ''negative'' influences in society could be treated. Example: if you take your son deer-hunting, and get him to shoot a deer dead, are you lessening his respect for other life? Or, if you endorse keeping a weapon handy for self-defence, does that extend to defence of ones property, or even of one''s pride? Sometimes there is a thin line between ''right'' and ''wrong'', and it may be beneficial to stay as far from that line as possible, in case it is misunderstood.
As for this...quote: Original post by MadKeithV
Do you understand what I''m trying to say? If you inform the users of your product about its possible consequences, then you have done your work right.
I still don''t think this is going far enough. A warning/disclaimer/etc is not taking responsibility - in fact, it''s just explicitly shirking it. It may work for fulfilling your legal obligations, but legal doesn''t necessarily equal moral (although it''s often a good guide.) Consider:
a) A parent cannot possibly monitor everything a child buys or does. It is a common excuse to blame the parents, and sometimes at least partially founded, but there are numerous other aspects. Parents are just part of the environment a child grows up in. Not to mention this: parents are human too - they make mistakes of judgement. Does someone deserve to die just because a child''s parent made a mistake?
b) A shopkeeper cannot know that when he sells a game to a 21 year old, that the 21 year old isn''t just gonna hand it to a 12 year old in the street. Age limits help, but don''t prevent. Not to mention that there are plenty of well-balanced 12 year-olds and plenty of psychotic 30 year-olds. Ages are arbitrary measures - they give an indication of maturity, but are not perfect.
c) Not everyone will believe any warning you give them. After all, who''s to say that the person giving the warning knows their stuff? Maybe they think your ''warning'' is just an exaggeration to cover your legal liability. This is, of course, justified, cos 99% of the time, it -is- just a legal disclaimer.
d) You can''t assume that everybody is intelligent and well-balanced enough to make decisions on what is suitable for themselves, or indeed for their children. 99% of people are. But 1% or so are not. And that''s where the danger lies.
There are no easy answers. Censoring the material adults can legally acquire only has a minimal benefit, and infringes the rights of the well-rounded majority of individuals who could cope perfectly well with the material. And since violent (and other ''immoral'' acts) would generally result from -numerous- influences, maybe some of the other ''negative'' influences in society could be treated. Example: if you take your son deer-hunting, and get him to shoot a deer dead, are you lessening his respect for other life? Or, if you endorse keeping a weapon handy for self-defence, does that extend to defence of ones property, or even of one''s pride? Sometimes there is a thin line between ''right'' and ''wrong'', and it may be beneficial to stay as far from that line as possible, in case it is misunderstood.
A developer has the right to offer any game they wish. But they also have a responsibility to place warnings and notices on their game if it can be misconstrued in any way.
Age certification isn''t perfect -- it doesn''t take mental age or mental maturity into account, for instance -- but is as good as we''re going to get for the moment. If a certificate states explicitly that a product is unsuitable for 8-year-olds, then *whoever allows the 8-year-old to access it* is the guilty party. That could be the retailer, the parent or an idiot, but as long as that notice is there in plain sight, it is NOT a developers'' responsibility to act as parents or guardians of your child.
Yes, parents can make mistakes. So what? The fault still lies with the parents. You''re supposed to *learn* from your mistakes, not cop out and blame them on someone else. It''s not our fault if a father leaves a large, loaded rifle on their bed and their bedroom door unlocked so their toddler can walk in and play. All it takes is common sense; something that appears to be in increasingly short supply.
Should countries like the UK be deprived of first-person shooters just because the citizens of the USA can''t be bothered to keep their artillery under lock and key?
Every time a censor removes a choice from you, it means a wall is replacing a door. That door gives freedom of choice: you can open it if you want to see what''s on the other side, or leave it closed if you don''t like the sound of all that screaming.
Art is about creating new doors. Nobody is forcing you to open them.
--
Sean Timarco Baggaley
Technical Author
Criterion Technologies
Age certification isn''t perfect -- it doesn''t take mental age or mental maturity into account, for instance -- but is as good as we''re going to get for the moment. If a certificate states explicitly that a product is unsuitable for 8-year-olds, then *whoever allows the 8-year-old to access it* is the guilty party. That could be the retailer, the parent or an idiot, but as long as that notice is there in plain sight, it is NOT a developers'' responsibility to act as parents or guardians of your child.
Yes, parents can make mistakes. So what? The fault still lies with the parents. You''re supposed to *learn* from your mistakes, not cop out and blame them on someone else. It''s not our fault if a father leaves a large, loaded rifle on their bed and their bedroom door unlocked so their toddler can walk in and play. All it takes is common sense; something that appears to be in increasingly short supply.
Should countries like the UK be deprived of first-person shooters just because the citizens of the USA can''t be bothered to keep their artillery under lock and key?
Every time a censor removes a choice from you, it means a wall is replacing a door. That door gives freedom of choice: you can open it if you want to see what''s on the other side, or leave it closed if you don''t like the sound of all that screaming.
Art is about creating new doors. Nobody is forcing you to open them.
--
Sean Timarco Baggaley
Technical Author
Criterion Technologies
Any child that goes off and kills people BECAUSE OF a violent game they played is so maladjusted that they should have been institutionalized a long time prior.
I put it to you that eliminating all violence in computer games will not stop school or any other form of actual violence.
I put it to you that eliminating all violence in all media will not stop school or any other form of actual violence.
If people can''t take responsibility for their actions (and note that this includes the act of having a child), then we''re collectively screwed. Every time an institution is charged with exercising responsibility on behalf of the people, the people suffer.
$0.02
I put it to you that eliminating all violence in computer games will not stop school or any other form of actual violence.
I put it to you that eliminating all violence in all media will not stop school or any other form of actual violence.
If people can''t take responsibility for their actions (and note that this includes the act of having a child), then we''re collectively screwed. Every time an institution is charged with exercising responsibility on behalf of the people, the people suffer.
$0.02
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
