Hm, I don't know, I would feel uncomfortable with being evil, games or not. Just being a terrorist for some stupid story... sounds fishy. At least nothing I regard as fun time entertainment.
I play terrorist side on Counter-Strike ~50% of the time I play. I dont feel bad at all or think its "fishy".
People need to get over themselves. Games and movies are made to interact with a different level of thought than reality.
Even bring religion into it. How many people of a monotheistic religion play games where the character worships other god(s)?
i had that " do they really want me to shoot these people flash" and then proceeded to not only shoot the injured people on the floor but the people running away/ hell i even replayed the mission a few times cause i had never seen a game where this was a mission and i thought it was hilarious and awesome. maybe to some of you that makes me sick but it is jjust a game and i think its pretty safe to say that im never going to walk through and airport shooting people.
Originally posted by Venomzer0 About virtual worlds, indeed immoral actions will ruin you in a virtual world, when the community turn their back on you, exile is the worst form of punishment a virtual society can give, and an effective one when no-one is buying your goods or spending time with you. Though ofcourse, troll communities also thrive, it's an interesting mirroring of real societies, and honestly, it helps make the place more colourful.
As long as the infrastructure itself is solid (balanced, that holy grail of system design), I don't think players should have so many restrictions, let the players have the tools to police themselves and watch a society blossom...
I agree with this , and actually think very much in the same lines, unfortunately we have not seen any games since a very long time which give the tools to the players to police themselves and at the same time have a design that is conducting to an in game community blossoming within the virtual world.
Honestly, i haven;t experienced it in any game after UO, which I played from 1997 for 5 years thereafter before moving on not that long post Trammel.
The problem with Trammel is not really the fact that it reduced PvP in Feluca, the ramifications of Trammel were felt on a social level within the Virtual world, in one stroke the Virtual world seized to be a World and the tools the players had at their disposal were removed from them.
At the same time, the moral responsibility and accountability that every player had in that virtual world vanished as well.
At that moment, the dynamics of the game changed, the game itself changed, and it lost its appeal and beauty in the process, at least for me and many of my friends.
The point in relation to the OP here remains, that Themepark Games do not give their players the opportunity to make moral choices, and can only offer to their players immoral actions (such as developing a mass murderer).
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
i had that " do they really want me to shoot these people flash" and then proceeded to not only shoot the injured people on the floor but the people running away/ hell i even replayed the mission a few times cause i had never seen a game where this was a mission and i thought it was hilarious and awesome. maybe to some of you that makes me sick but it is jjust a game and i think its pretty safe to say that im never going to walk through and airport shooting people.
I'm like you, except I didn't have the flash. My first thought was, "They went there, ok", and I then proceeded to shoot the place up. It's a game, it's not real life. Games are there so we can do things that we normally wouldn't. I will never walk into an airport (or anyplace) and start to shoot people at random in real life, but I'll do it in games...numerous times.
Given choice, such as in Fable, I generally choose to be good. Sometimes it's just fun to be bad though.
This is the exact thing the writer or the article was talking about I believe. All too often gamers hide behind the excuse "It's only a game", well guess what, even games, especially games, have RULES. And whether anyone likes it or not, there are players, real people playing other characters they interact with in mmo's and eventually the online community is going to get so desensitized from amoralistic violence or debauchery that the government will have to step in and start throwing rediculous laws and restrictions on what people can say or do on the internet. Don't believe it? The senate has been trying to pass laws since the day the internet went public to try to restrict it but yes, it always gets shot down...for now.
The easy solution is for gamers to show some responsibility for their own behavior online and act like they have a little bit of common sense. The reason games get designed the way they do because gamers right now have no control over their own desire to be as disrespectful to others or even themselves. Otherwise, it's all downhill from here but the ones who revel in the chaos won't even see it coming because they enjoy being insensitive to their surroundings.
I love mmo's, played them for a lot of years but that doesn't mean I play them "as intended" or buy every shooter or rpg that comes out. MW2 is one that I would never buy for example; I don't buy modern warfare or warefare sims in general because I have been a soldier in RL and I know what that is all about and have moved past it since I got out. It's not my place to judge those who do llike those kinds of games, but many like them for the wrong reasons. Many I hear talking about it because they "like being the bad guy" they say, they like killing and watching someone die. Those are usually people who have never seen it for real or they wouldn't get so excited about it as much. Yet those same gamers wonder why the government is trying to restrict violent video games...
It is sad because so many people in this world are racists, bigots, fascists, discriminatory, selfish hate-mongers. The internet and mmo's in general could easily be a gathering of human-beings behaving in an environment that should make it easier to show what the world could be like without all the negativity but yet most choose to use the internet for the opposite. To hate, to harass, to discriminate against anyone who doesn't give them what they want immediately. Those gamers hide behind the anonymity of game characters to act out what's in their mind, their true personality in RL. They always use the same line "It's only a game" because they have no other defense to deny the reality of having to actually think about how they behave online.
My problem with the 'No Russian' mission is that the game will not let you do the morally right choice: defending the civilians. If you attack the terrorists, you lose. If you want people to think of the choices you make then you have to give them real choices with real consequences and not just shoehorn them into paths that you want them to go on. It creates a binary setup that excuses any number of immoral or evil choices. ....
I am glad someone mentioned this.
(For the record - I haven't played MW2 yet)
The original article says:
Then suddenly, with little fanfare, your character, who is supposedly an undercover agent working with a Russian nationalist terrorist named Makarov, is given the following instruction for the next mission, in its entirety, with no other explanation: “Follow Makarov’s lead.”
And, as you watch, Makarov and his men proceed to calmly massacre everyone in a crowded airport before your eyes, while you stand behind them, with a large machine gun at the ready.
You are given no prompting as to what to do next. You are only penalized for doing one thing: shooting your murderous erstwhile comrades. (If you do, the level ends immediately with the warning “You blew your cover.”)
You can, if you choose, do nothing. Or you can shoot wildly, blowing out glass and computer monitors and the like. Or you can shoot the wounded, screaming people trying desperately to flee from you. The game doesn’t care. As far as it is concerned, your job is to make it to the end of the level. How you do so is up to you.
So, where's the moral choice?
Regardless of what you do - you are still an 'undercover agent' and so (presumably) always on the 'good side'.
So even if you shoot the civilians it is presumably so you can 'maintain your cover' in order to save many more?
And I would presume at the very end of the game you deal with Markov and his terrorist buddies? (Good on you - see you were a goody all along! The civilians were just collateral damage.)
And shooting the riot police is okay too - because you must maintain your cover. Your still a goody - after all I have no doubt you are trying to locate a stolen nuke or bio weapon or some other WMD?
And if THAT gets used then many more will die? Right?
My point is that the game has set it up so even when you are bad... you are still good.
A moral choice would be allowing the player to join the 'terrorist' cause - totally.
Betray the 'goodies' and join the 'baddies'?
Maybe even discover that the goodies are behind the baddies and the whole situation is just one big grey area?
Maybe provide endings that have very different possible futures?
Join the 'terrorists' to establish a new state for example which goes on to have a benevolent government and is a beacon of peace?
Stay with the 'goodies' and see a police state emerge with a dictator?
From what I am reading though - the moral 'choice' presented to the player really isn't one.
Wow, there certainly are a lot of would-be moral policemen in this thread making a lot of baseless accusations and ridiculous claims. You would think that violence was invented the day video games hit the market by the some of these people talk. But talking to people like this is like talking to a wall. Most people who think violent video games cause violence in kids just believe it because they've heard it somewhere, and it's a convenient explanation. We certainly wouldn't want to probe too deeply into the real issues that cause violence: Wealth disparity, Resource problems, Uncontrolled population growth, Religion, and Ignorance. Then we might actually have to blame ourselves rather than pixels on a computer screen and the programmers behind them. What people are really upset about is being put in a situation where concepts like "good" and "bad" become fudged and moral decisions are turned on their heads. People are so hilariously uncomfortable with taking on an "evil" persona or seeing the world as something besides black and white that they cower in the corner and scream how morally depraved the people are who show them a different perspective on the world. It would be funny if these people didn't have so much political power in real life. This is all just scapegoating. All the moral police can go sodomize themselves with pine cones as far as I'm concerned. Their scapegoating hurts our economy, it hurts our species, and it detracts from the real issues at hand.
They're afraid of true empathy and thinking of others because then they might have to change and admit to things they aren't willing to admit. They're like that complete moron several posts above that wants the terrorists to be arabs. White, English-speaking mass murderers can't possibly exist.
Every time an issue like this comes up in this forum, I see this horde of intolerant assholes circle-jerking throughout threads and making the world even worse than what it already is. I do hope they grow up someday, though, and learn to think instead of holing themselves up in an illusory bubble of reductionism.
Unlikely. One, such types are rather easy to control due to their petty hatreds, fears and envy, which is exactly how control is maintained. Two, absent that knee jerk ignorance and lack of thought, they might look around and realize just how screwed up things are, and that might require them to actually do something about it. FAR better from both perspectives (controlled/controller) if they stay as they are. People don't want the truth, or anything even close to it. They want to be told comforting lies, so that they don't have to think about reality. Ask any soldier who has been foolish enough to speak openly and honestly about the real horrors and terrors of war, what their audiences reaction has been.
This is the exact thing the writer or the article was talking about I believe. All too often gamers hide behind the excuse "It's only a game", well guess what, even games, especially games, have RULES. And whether anyone likes it or not, there are players, real people playing other characters they interact with in mmo's and eventually the online community is going to get so desensitized from amoralistic violence or debauchery that the government will have to step in and start throwing rediculous laws and restrictions on what people can say or do on the internet. Don't believe it? The senate has been trying to pass laws since the day the internet went public to try to restrict it but yes, it always gets shot down...for now. The easy solution is for gamers to show some responsibility for their own behavior online and act like they have a little bit of common sense. The reason games get designed the way they do because gamers right now have no control over their own desire to be as disrespectful to others or even themselves. Otherwise, it's all downhill from here but the ones who revel in the chaos won't even see it coming because they enjoy being insensitive to their surroundings. I love mmo's, played them for a lot of years but that doesn't mean I play them "as intended" or buy every shooter or rpg that comes out. MW2 is one that I would never buy for example; I don't buy modern warfare or warefare sims in general because I have been a soldier in RL and I know what that is all about and have moved past it since I got out. It's not my place to judge those who do llike those kinds of games, but many like them for the wrong reasons. Many I hear talking about it because they "like being the bad guy" they say, they like killing and watching someone die. Those are usually people who have never seen it for real or they wouldn't get so excited about it as much. Yet those same gamers wonder why the government is trying to restrict violent video games... It is sad because so many people in this world are racists, bigots, fascists, discriminatory, selfish hate-mongers. The internet and mmo's in general could easily be a gathering of human-beings behaving in an environment that should make it easier to show what the world could be like without all the negativity but yet most choose to use the internet for the opposite. To hate, to harass, to discriminate against anyone who doesn't give them what they want immediately. Those gamers hide behind the anonymity of game characters to act out what's in their mind, their true personality in RL. They always use the same line "It's only a game" because they have no other defense to deny the reality of having to actually think about how they behave online.
Sure, let's suspend the first amendment to restrict violence in video games.
This is the exact thing the writer or the article was talking about I believe. All too often gamers hide behind the excuse "It's only a game", well guess what, even games, especially games, have RULES. And whether anyone likes it or not, there are players, real people playing other characters they interact with in mmo's and eventually the online community is going to get so desensitized from amoralistic violence or debauchery that the government will have to step in and start throwing rediculous laws and restrictions on what people can say or do on the internet. Don't believe it? The senate has been trying to pass laws since the day the internet went public to try to restrict it but yes, it always gets shot down...for now. The easy solution is for gamers to show some responsibility for their own behavior online and act like they have a little bit of common sense. The reason games get designed the way they do because gamers right now have no control over their own desire to be as disrespectful to others or even themselves. Otherwise, it's all downhill from here but the ones who revel in the chaos won't even see it coming because they enjoy being insensitive to their surroundings. I love mmo's, played them for a lot of years but that doesn't mean I play them "as intended" or buy every shooter or rpg that comes out. MW2 is one that I would never buy for example; I don't buy modern warfare or warefare sims in general because I have been a soldier in RL and I know what that is all about and have moved past it since I got out. It's not my place to judge those who do llike those kinds of games, but many like them for the wrong reasons. Many I hear talking about it because they "like being the bad guy" they say, they like killing and watching someone die. Those are usually people who have never seen it for real or they wouldn't get so excited about it as much. Yet those same gamers wonder why the government is trying to restrict violent video games... It is sad because so many people in this world are racists, bigots, fascists, discriminatory, selfish hate-mongers. The internet and mmo's in general could easily be a gathering of human-beings behaving in an environment that should make it easier to show what the world could be like without all the negativity but yet most choose to use the internet for the opposite. To hate, to harass, to discriminate against anyone who doesn't give them what they want immediately. Those gamers hide behind the anonymity of game characters to act out what's in their mind, their true personality in RL. They always use the same line "It's only a game" because they have no other defense to deny the reality of having to actually think about how they behave online.
Sure, let's suspend the first amendment to restrict violence in video games.
The US First Amendment only applies to government.
Great article. I am one who understands the lines of reality and video games. I approched the scene of that level as just that a video game, I felt no guilt nor remorse as I gleefully skipped throught the pile of bodies shooting in too the running crowed knowing full well its a game and something I'd never do in real life at any point in my life.
I just now want too bring up, What changes this from a scene in a movie where something like this happens? do you stop watching it and push it off as a bad movie or do you keep watching too see how it turns out. Look at it how ever you want peoples perceptions of events will always be different.
Great article. I am one who understands the lines of reality and video games. I approched the scene of that level as just that a video game, I felt no guilt nor remorse as I gleefully skipped throught the pile of bodies shooting in too the running crowed knowing full well its a game and something I'd never do in real life at any point in my life. I just now want too bring up, What changes this from a scene in a movie where something like this happens? do you stop watching it and push it off as a bad movie or do you keep watching too see how it turns out. Look at it how ever you want peoples perceptions of events will always be different.
One of the differences is one is passive, while the other is active participation. That is where choice comes in. Sure its "only a game". Just as some *choose* to "follow orders". Thats typically the safer personal choice.
Originally posted by SnarlingWolf There was a movie made with a fairly graphic and long rape scene. People actually got up and left the theatre because they just couldn't handle it. The director was asked about it and said something to the effect of "I wanted it to be painful to watch, I wanted people to see how horrific an act this is since when it is talked about in the news it is easy to dismiss since a person who hasn't gone through it would not understand how truly awful the experience is." And the director talked more about it and how she felt many people act like it isn't that terrible of a thing and it was just sex and she wanted to show those people how wrong they were.
I think you are talking about "Irreversible" there.
The largest difference between games and films is audience participation. A film will have the audience sit passively to watch the story, a video game will have the player actively take part. A scene such as the one in "Irreversible" if it appeared in a game would either be a passive cutscene or would require the player to actively involve themselves in order to progress / get the ding gratz. In the latter case, the game actively rewards you for taking part in an abhorrent act. There certainly would be moral concerns about players sexually assaulting virtual characters.
That is part of the problem with MW2: there is no moral choice, just participation (same with most MMOs, actually). Now, the intent could be to show how 'just following orders' leads to some horrible atrocities or the pointlessness of mindless warfare, but forcing players to take part - sure, it's optional but sight unseen you don't know what you are opting out of - to progress is certainly a questionable design decision.
As a general observation, I think people need to be very careful in the use of "It's just a game", because that basically says it is unimportant and shallow. If that's the case, it makes it very easy for an argument to be made that these unimportant and shallow pieces of entertainment need to be better regulated and certainly don't need to be as violent and graphic as they are now. After all, it's just a game - who cares if we cut it down to something more publicly palatable?
While most of the games, and MMOs, we play have a large emphasis around killing, or otherwise harming, there is still a disconnection between the game, and reality. But this gap has increasingly become smaller as graphics, sound, animation, and other such things advance the immersion into the gaming experience.
Take a game like World of Warcraft. Yes we kill hundreds, thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of pretend monsters and people. But it's presented to us in a stylized manner, which helps to remind us it's just a game. It's set in a fantasy world of elves and magic, and most often the case, what we fight would either attack us first or fight back.
Yet I'm reminded of starting area for the latest class that was added to the game, Death Knights. While this area serves to not only teach you the basic functions of that class, it also serves as an introduction to the lore of that class. Part of this requires killing civilian NPCs. My first thought was "heh, well this is a little abnormal". I didn't really think about it, until I carried on with the quests. Many of the NPC civilians wouldn't fight back, they would instead shake in fear or flee in terror, and you could hear their screams in the sound of the game. This... was different. No longer was it simply killing yet another NPC, it started to feel like it was more.
Perhaps this was the intent of the developers, but I couldn't help but feel that tinge in my gut that I just didn't like it. I did keep pushing, and got through the starter area, and never had to worry about it again. But whenever I think about those quests, I can't help but remember the feeling I had doing them, to the point where if at all possible I would prefer to avoid doing them again, or in the least turn my sound off next time.
This is why I feel there is a line. It's different for everyone, but it always exists so long as you have some measure of empathy. The more realistic of a situation the game creates, the stronger of an emotional response it will elicit. Therefore the more realistic killing innocent civilians, even if they are not real, the more disturbing it will be. This is especially so if the setting of the game is based upon somewhere that exists in our world.
So whether or not our games contain violence or not is not what should necessarily be called into question. I would say that the degree we are immersed within games with such controversial violence that we should be worried about. Perhaps this game crossed the line for some, but not others, but I think it has tread a little too closely to be acceptable at all.
As long as the infrastructure itself is solid (balanced, that holy grail of system design), I don't think players should have so many restrictions, let the players have the tools to police themselves and watch a society blossom...
Blossom, or descend into anarchy?
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
i had that " do they really want me to shoot these people flash" and then proceeded to not only shoot the injured people on the floor but the people running away/ hell i even replayed the mission a few times cause i had never seen a game where this was a mission and i thought it was hilarious and awesome. maybe to some of you that makes me sick but it is jjust a game and i think its pretty safe to say that im never going to walk through and airport shooting people.
You probably won't (whether that is due to morality or cowardice), but you are more likely to do so than someone who is greatly offended by such game 'content'.
I honestly think that many people who enjoy such 'pretend' actions as games like GTA encourage would indeed perform in the real world if they knew they could get away with it. It's not morality that prevents RL atrocities from these people, but fear of repercussions and reprisal.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Originally posted by Kaneth I'm like you, except I didn't have the flash. My first thought was, "They went there, ok", and I then proceeded to shoot the place up. It's a game, it's not real life. Games are there so we can do things that we normally wouldn't. I will never walk into an airport (or anyplace) and start to shoot people at random in real life, but I'll do it in games...numerous times.
My question is: WHY won't you do that in real life?
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Yet I'm reminded of starting area for the latest class that was added to the game, Death Knights. While this area serves to not only teach you the basic functions of that class, it also serves as an introduction to the lore of that class. Part of this requires killing civilian NPCs. My first thought was "heh, well this is a little abnormal". I didn't really think about it, until I carried on with the quests. Many of the NPC civilians wouldn't fight back, they would instead shake in fear or flee in terror, and you could hear their screams in the sound of the game. This... was different. No longer was it simply killing yet another NPC, it started to feel like it was more. Perhaps this was the intent of the developers, but I couldn't help but feel that tinge in my gut that I just didn't like it. I did keep pushing, and got through the starter area, and never had to worry about it again. But whenever I think about those quests, I can't help but remember the feeling I had doing them, to the point where if at all possible I would prefer to avoid doing them again, or in the least turn my sound off next time.
Yeah, the DK starting zone is quite the trip in WoW. For one thing, you're a minion of the Lich King...true, not a mindless zombie or wight or something similar. You're not quite undead the way some plague of undeath sufferer is...which makes for an interesting time as a Forsaken DK. Still, you've got some degree of free will, which is why you're valuable to the Lich King, it allows you to be more flexible than a Stitches knockoff...and be given more challenging and interesting missions than being mere cannon fodder.
So, you're sent into the Scarlet Crusade's enclave and, yup, your going in there to deliberately terrorize Scarlet Crusade non-combatants, which is explicitly a quest objective. Some fight back, but most cower in fear. You're supposed to slaughter them to complete the quest. True, they're affiliated with the Scarlet Crusade, which is not a nice organziation, as we all learned when we visited the torture chambers in the Scarlet Monestary, but still...
Then you get to the chapel that's burning, and you are directed to kill a captive Argent Dawn NPC of your race who you apparently knew before you fell under the Lich King's influence, who pleads with you to remember your old self, the hero and do the right thing for your particular race, be it Night Elf, Tauren, Orc, Gnome...or Forsaken (you fought him off once, you can do it again!).
Of course, once you get to the battle at Light's Hope Chapel, you're liberated from the Lich King and you become, once again, a "good guy", although your homecoming to Stormwind or Orgrimmar is less than festive., unless you think being pelted with fruit is festive.
Still it disturbs me a bit that they were not able to keep the story going...how NPCs should be a bit wary and not quite sure about a Death Knight, even one vouched for by heroes of the Argent Dawn. The terrible things you did in the Scarlet Enclave should haunt your newly liberated psyche, but it's like it never happened at all. You just carry on like you started up in Dun Morogh or Mulgore, no big deal...
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
As long as the infrastructure itself is solid (balanced, that holy grail of system design), I don't think players should have so many restrictions, let the players have the tools to police themselves and watch a society blossom...
Blossom, or descend into anarchy?
More like ascend, for self government is the only real path to personal freedom. As technology progresses, its going to be ever more possible to set up games that have far fewer inherent limitations. That obviously has both positive and negative implications. The entire nature of entertainment may change within our life time, as different modes merge.
Originally posted by Kaneth I'm like you, except I didn't have the flash. My first thought was, "They went there, ok", and I then proceeded to shoot the place up. It's a game, it's not real life. Games are there so we can do things that we normally wouldn't. I will never walk into an airport (or anyplace) and start to shoot people at random in real life, but I'll do it in games...numerous times.
My question is: WHY won't you do that in real life?
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
Originally posted by Evasia Its just a GAME, nuff said.
There is something to be said about desensitization, however. Whether it's real or not, we're bombarded by images and concepts of violence more than we were even a decade ago. I'm sure if you went back further, of course things were far more bloody, but back to the point... As our minds are bombarded by all of these things, we become familiar with them, and we start to get numb to them. Realize that most games with violence in them, the player is inflicting harm towards a 'bad guy', from the role of the hero. When you flip it around and you're the bad guy causing harm to innocent people, it becomes more questionable.
Additionally, to say it's just a game is ignoring that it the differentiation of what is just a game, and what is reality is becoming more vague. As gaming becomes more realistic through graphics, sound, and genuinely more immersive, our brains have a harder time detaching the game from reality. Once we turn off our console or PC, we know it wasn't real, but in the moment our senses are experiencing a simulation, which is increasingly becoming more convincing. Who is to say that if things continue down this path, that there will not be long term consequences on not only our individual mental health, but on society as a whole as we essentially create true to life murder simulations?
Of course, that is a far stretch from where we are today, but it is still something to keep in mind. Reality is the sum of our senses, and our minds are shaped by our perceptions of the world. If we perceive realistic killing of innocent people as an okay and fun thing to do... who's to say for certain that there wouldn't be consequences?
Comments
I play terrorist side on Counter-Strike ~50% of the time I play. I dont feel bad at all or think its "fishy".
People need to get over themselves. Games and movies are made to interact with a different level of thought than reality.
Even bring religion into it. How many people of a monotheistic religion play games where the character worships other god(s)?
You just cant compare games with reality.
Stop
writing
about
modern warfare 2
"controversy"
...
i had that " do they really want me to shoot these people flash" and then proceeded to not only shoot the injured people on the floor but the people running away/ hell i even replayed the mission a few times cause i had never seen a game where this was a mission and i thought it was hilarious and awesome. maybe to some of you that makes me sick but it is jjust a game and i think its pretty safe to say that im never going to walk through and airport shooting people.
I'm Here. I'm Awesome. Get Used To It.
I agree with this
, and actually think very much in the same lines, unfortunately we have not seen any games since a very long time which give the tools to the players to police themselves and at the same time have a design that is conducting to an in game community blossoming within the virtual world.
Honestly, i haven;t experienced it in any game after UO, which I played from 1997 for 5 years thereafter before moving on not that long post Trammel.
The problem with Trammel is not really the fact that it reduced PvP in Feluca, the ramifications of Trammel were felt on a social level within the Virtual world, in one stroke the Virtual world seized to be a World and the tools the players had at their disposal were removed from them.
At the same time, the moral responsibility and accountability that every player had in that virtual world vanished as well.
At that moment, the dynamics of the game changed, the game itself changed, and it lost its appeal and beauty in the process, at least for me and many of my friends.
The point in relation to the OP here remains, that Themepark Games do not give their players the opportunity to make moral choices, and can only offer to their players immoral actions (such as developing a mass murderer).
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Personally I'm a WoW / Second Life / EVE veteran (and a shorter time in Anarchy online, Age of conan) , so that's where i'm pulling my opinions from.
SL can pretty barely be described as a game though since there is not content that isn't user generated. Virtual world in the purest sense I guess.
I do not like multi-server gaming really, splitting the community indeed makes it worth less, why care for your reputation if you can just reroll
<Welcome to my world>
I'm like you, except I didn't have the flash. My first thought was, "They went there, ok", and I then proceeded to shoot the place up. It's a game, it's not real life. Games are there so we can do things that we normally wouldn't. I will never walk into an airport (or anyplace) and start to shoot people at random in real life, but I'll do it in games...numerous times.
Given choice, such as in Fable, I generally choose to be good. Sometimes it's just fun to be bad though.
Bottom line is...it's a game.
This is the exact thing the writer or the article was talking about I believe. All too often gamers hide behind the excuse "It's only a game", well guess what, even games, especially games, have RULES. And whether anyone likes it or not, there are players, real people playing other characters they interact with in mmo's and eventually the online community is going to get so desensitized from amoralistic violence or debauchery that the government will have to step in and start throwing rediculous laws and restrictions on what people can say or do on the internet. Don't believe it? The senate has been trying to pass laws since the day the internet went public to try to restrict it but yes, it always gets shot down...for now.
The easy solution is for gamers to show some responsibility for their own behavior online and act like they have a little bit of common sense. The reason games get designed the way they do because gamers right now have no control over their own desire to be as disrespectful to others or even themselves. Otherwise, it's all downhill from here but the ones who revel in the chaos won't even see it coming because they enjoy being insensitive to their surroundings.
I love mmo's, played them for a lot of years but that doesn't mean I play them "as intended" or buy every shooter or rpg that comes out. MW2 is one that I would never buy for example; I don't buy modern warfare or warefare sims in general because I have been a soldier in RL and I know what that is all about and have moved past it since I got out. It's not my place to judge those who do llike those kinds of games, but many like them for the wrong reasons. Many I hear talking about it because they "like being the bad guy" they say, they like killing and watching someone die. Those are usually people who have never seen it for real or they wouldn't get so excited about it as much. Yet those same gamers wonder why the government is trying to restrict violent video games...
It is sad because so many people in this world are racists, bigots, fascists, discriminatory, selfish hate-mongers. The internet and mmo's in general could easily be a gathering of human-beings behaving in an environment that should make it easier to show what the world could be like without all the negativity but yet most choose to use the internet for the opposite. To hate, to harass, to discriminate against anyone who doesn't give them what they want immediately. Those gamers hide behind the anonymity of game characters to act out what's in their mind, their true personality in RL. They always use the same line "It's only a game" because they have no other defense to deny the reality of having to actually think about how they behave online.
I am glad someone mentioned this.
(For the record - I haven't played MW2 yet)
The original article says:
Then suddenly, with little fanfare, your character, who is supposedly an undercover agent working with a Russian nationalist terrorist named Makarov, is given the following instruction for the next mission, in its entirety, with no other explanation: “Follow Makarov’s lead.”
And, as you watch, Makarov and his men proceed to calmly massacre everyone in a crowded airport before your eyes, while you stand behind them, with a large machine gun at the ready.
You are given no prompting as to what to do next. You are only penalized for doing one thing: shooting your murderous erstwhile comrades. (If you do, the level ends immediately with the warning “You blew your cover.”)
You can, if you choose, do nothing. Or you can shoot wildly, blowing out glass and computer monitors and the like. Or you can shoot the wounded, screaming people trying desperately to flee from you. The game doesn’t care. As far as it is concerned, your job is to make it to the end of the level. How you do so is up to you.
So, where's the moral choice?
Regardless of what you do - you are still an 'undercover agent' and so (presumably) always on the 'good side'.
So even if you shoot the civilians it is presumably so you can 'maintain your cover' in order to save many more?
And I would presume at the very end of the game you deal with Markov and his terrorist buddies? (Good on you - see you were a goody all along! The civilians were just collateral damage.)
And shooting the riot police is okay too - because you must maintain your cover. Your still a goody - after all I have no doubt you are trying to locate a stolen nuke or bio weapon or some other WMD?
And if THAT gets used then many more will die? Right?
My point is that the game has set it up so even when you are bad... you are still good.
A moral choice would be allowing the player to join the 'terrorist' cause - totally.
Betray the 'goodies' and join the 'baddies'?
Maybe even discover that the goodies are behind the baddies and the whole situation is just one big grey area?
Maybe provide endings that have very different possible futures?
Join the 'terrorists' to establish a new state for example which goes on to have a benevolent government and is a beacon of peace?
Stay with the 'goodies' and see a police state emerge with a dictator?
From what I am reading though - the moral 'choice' presented to the player really isn't one.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
They're afraid of true empathy and thinking of others because then they might have to change and admit to things they aren't willing to admit. They're like that complete moron several posts above that wants the terrorists to be arabs. White, English-speaking mass murderers can't possibly exist.
Every time an issue like this comes up in this forum, I see this horde of intolerant assholes circle-jerking throughout threads and making the world even worse than what it already is. I do hope they grow up someday, though, and learn to think instead of holing themselves up in an illusory bubble of reductionism.
Unlikely. One, such types are rather easy to control due to their petty hatreds, fears and envy, which is exactly how control is maintained. Two, absent that knee jerk ignorance and lack of thought, they might look around and realize just how screwed up things are, and that might require them to actually do something about it. FAR better from both perspectives (controlled/controller) if they stay as they are. People don't want the truth, or anything even close to it. They want to be told comforting lies, so that they don't have to think about reality. Ask any soldier who has been foolish enough to speak openly and honestly about the real horrors and terrors of war, what their audiences reaction has been.
Activision is smiling all the way to the bank with this one. Such a pointless mission in an already lacking story.
This game's story is like something a half-baked Hollywood director would come up with.
Serves no purpose other than to create controversy and everyone is eating it up.
Ugh.
Sure, let's suspend the first amendment to restrict violence in video games.
Sure, let's suspend the first amendment to restrict violence in video games.
The US First Amendment only applies to government.
What about those of us who shave?
Err...hmmph....
What about those of us that don't HAVE balls?
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Great article. I am one who understands the lines of reality and video games. I approched the scene of that level as just that a video game, I felt no guilt nor remorse as I gleefully skipped throught the pile of bodies shooting in too the running crowed knowing full well its a game and something I'd never do in real life at any point in my life.
I just now want too bring up, What changes this from a scene in a movie where something like this happens? do you stop watching it and push it off as a bad movie or do you keep watching too see how it turns out. Look at it how ever you want peoples perceptions of events will always be different.
One of the differences is one is passive, while the other is active participation. That is where choice comes in. Sure its "only a game". Just as some *choose* to "follow orders". Thats typically the safer personal choice.
I think you are talking about "Irreversible" there.
The largest difference between games and films is audience participation. A film will have the audience sit passively to watch the story, a video game will have the player actively take part. A scene such as the one in "Irreversible" if it appeared in a game would either be a passive cutscene or would require the player to actively involve themselves in order to progress / get the ding gratz. In the latter case, the game actively rewards you for taking part in an abhorrent act. There certainly would be moral concerns about players sexually assaulting virtual characters.
That is part of the problem with MW2: there is no moral choice, just participation (same with most MMOs, actually). Now, the intent could be to show how 'just following orders' leads to some horrible atrocities or the pointlessness of mindless warfare, but forcing players to take part - sure, it's optional but sight unseen you don't know what you are opting out of - to progress is certainly a questionable design decision.
As a general observation, I think people need to be very careful in the use of "It's just a game", because that basically says it is unimportant and shallow. If that's the case, it makes it very easy for an argument to be made that these unimportant and shallow pieces of entertainment need to be better regulated and certainly don't need to be as violent and graphic as they are now. After all, it's just a game - who cares if we cut it down to something more publicly palatable?
While most of the games, and MMOs, we play have a large emphasis around killing, or otherwise harming, there is still a disconnection between the game, and reality. But this gap has increasingly become smaller as graphics, sound, animation, and other such things advance the immersion into the gaming experience.
Take a game like World of Warcraft. Yes we kill hundreds, thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of pretend monsters and people. But it's presented to us in a stylized manner, which helps to remind us it's just a game. It's set in a fantasy world of elves and magic, and most often the case, what we fight would either attack us first or fight back.
Yet I'm reminded of starting area for the latest class that was added to the game, Death Knights. While this area serves to not only teach you the basic functions of that class, it also serves as an introduction to the lore of that class. Part of this requires killing civilian NPCs. My first thought was "heh, well this is a little abnormal". I didn't really think about it, until I carried on with the quests. Many of the NPC civilians wouldn't fight back, they would instead shake in fear or flee in terror, and you could hear their screams in the sound of the game. This... was different. No longer was it simply killing yet another NPC, it started to feel like it was more.
Perhaps this was the intent of the developers, but I couldn't help but feel that tinge in my gut that I just didn't like it. I did keep pushing, and got through the starter area, and never had to worry about it again. But whenever I think about those quests, I can't help but remember the feeling I had doing them, to the point where if at all possible I would prefer to avoid doing them again, or in the least turn my sound off next time.
This is why I feel there is a line. It's different for everyone, but it always exists so long as you have some measure of empathy. The more realistic of a situation the game creates, the stronger of an emotional response it will elicit. Therefore the more realistic killing innocent civilians, even if they are not real, the more disturbing it will be. This is especially so if the setting of the game is based upon somewhere that exists in our world.
So whether or not our games contain violence or not is not what should necessarily be called into question. I would say that the degree we are immersed within games with such controversial violence that we should be worried about. Perhaps this game crossed the line for some, but not others, but I think it has tread a little too closely to be acceptable at all.
Blossom, or descend into anarchy?
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
You probably won't (whether that is due to morality or cowardice), but you are more likely to do so than someone who is greatly offended by such game 'content'.
I honestly think that many people who enjoy such 'pretend' actions as games like GTA encourage would indeed perform in the real world if they knew they could get away with it. It's not morality that prevents RL atrocities from these people, but fear of repercussions and reprisal.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
My question is: WHY won't you do that in real life?
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Yeah, the DK starting zone is quite the trip in WoW. For one thing, you're a minion of the Lich King...true, not a mindless zombie or wight or something similar. You're not quite undead the way some plague of undeath sufferer is...which makes for an interesting time as a Forsaken DK. Still, you've got some degree of free will, which is why you're valuable to the Lich King, it allows you to be more flexible than a Stitches knockoff...and be given more challenging and interesting missions than being mere cannon fodder.
So, you're sent into the Scarlet Crusade's enclave and, yup, your going in there to deliberately terrorize Scarlet Crusade non-combatants, which is explicitly a quest objective. Some fight back, but most cower in fear. You're supposed to slaughter them to complete the quest. True, they're affiliated with the Scarlet Crusade, which is not a nice organziation, as we all learned when we visited the torture chambers in the Scarlet Monestary, but still...
Then you get to the chapel that's burning, and you are directed to kill a captive Argent Dawn NPC of your race who you apparently knew before you fell under the Lich King's influence, who pleads with you to remember your old self, the hero and do the right thing for your particular race, be it Night Elf, Tauren, Orc, Gnome...or Forsaken (you fought him off once, you can do it again!).
Of course, once you get to the battle at Light's Hope Chapel, you're liberated from the Lich King and you become, once again, a "good guy", although your homecoming to Stormwind or Orgrimmar is less than festive., unless you think being pelted with fruit is festive.
Still it disturbs me a bit that they were not able to keep the story going...how NPCs should be a bit wary and not quite sure about a Death Knight, even one vouched for by heroes of the Argent Dawn. The terrible things you did in the Scarlet Enclave should haunt your newly liberated psyche, but it's like it never happened at all. You just carry on like you started up in Dun Morogh or Mulgore, no big deal...
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
Blossom, or descend into anarchy?
More like ascend, for self government is the only real path to personal freedom.
As technology progresses, its going to be ever more possible to set up games that have far fewer inherent limitations. That obviously has both positive and negative implications. The entire nature of entertainment may change within our life time, as different modes merge.
My question is: WHY won't you do that in real life?
My personal principles forbid it.
Its just a GAME, nuff said.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
There is something to be said about desensitization, however. Whether it's real or not, we're bombarded by images and concepts of violence more than we were even a decade ago. I'm sure if you went back further, of course things were far more bloody, but back to the point... As our minds are bombarded by all of these things, we become familiar with them, and we start to get numb to them. Realize that most games with violence in them, the player is inflicting harm towards a 'bad guy', from the role of the hero. When you flip it around and you're the bad guy causing harm to innocent people, it becomes more questionable.
Additionally, to say it's just a game is ignoring that it the differentiation of what is just a game, and what is reality is becoming more vague. As gaming becomes more realistic through graphics, sound, and genuinely more immersive, our brains have a harder time detaching the game from reality. Once we turn off our console or PC, we know it wasn't real, but in the moment our senses are experiencing a simulation, which is increasingly becoming more convincing. Who is to say that if things continue down this path, that there will not be long term consequences on not only our individual mental health, but on society as a whole as we essentially create true to life murder simulations?
Of course, that is a far stretch from where we are today, but it is still something to keep in mind. Reality is the sum of our senses, and our minds are shaped by our perceptions of the world. If we perceive realistic killing of innocent people as an okay and fun thing to do... who's to say for certain that there wouldn't be consequences?