Henry Jenkins quote February 13, 2008
Posted by nutheadgreg in Gaming ethics.Tags: ethics, philosophy, video games
1 comment so far
I have found a useful quote from the work of Henry Jenkins, it features in his book Fans, Bloggers, Gamers. This is going to be of use in the introduction section.
“We turn to violent entertainment for the same reason moral reformers turn toward apocalyptic rhetoric-because it gives us a sense of order in a world that otherwise can seem totally chaotic. We fantasize about a lot of things we’d never want to do in real life, and through fantasy we bring those impulses momentarily under control. What is bad about a lot of games isn’t that they are violent but that they trivialize violence. They tell us little about our inner demons because they fall back too quickly on tried-and-true formulas. Without fail, the works that moral reformers cite are not the ones that are formulaic but those that are thematically rich or formally innovative. It is as if the reformers responded to the work’s own provocation to think about the meaning of violence, but were determined to shut down that process before it ever gets started”
In this Jenkins demonstrates how violent games get a bad press, he suggests that the trivial manner that violence is used in games is the problem. This can be linked back to Brands ideas on game ethics surrounding violence, as in some video games such as Counterstrike you are rewarded for killing both a terrorist or a counter terrorist this blurring in what Jenkins is refering to when he suggests that bad games trivialize violence. This becomes all the more confusing when you consider that fact that Counterstrike is still the most popular online FPS game, however just becase a game is popular, its not necessarily a good game.
The second theme running through this is the moral reformers (parents, mass media, government officials) are only looking at violence through the view of sensation, and moral panic. They do not look below the surface, as a result their issues do not get resolved.
Rambling Brand: Video Game Ethics: Part One – Death November 17, 2007
Posted by nutheadgreg in Gaming ethics.Tags: delicious, ethics, philosophy, values, video games
add a comment
In this blog post the author deals with death in video games, he based this ideas upon Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto San-Andreas. He sets out the article by explaining the ethical conflict relating to death that is present within GTA: SA. In one mission he describes a situation where the character is asked to burn down a rival gangs house. Once this is on fire someone is screaming from a upstairs window, the player has to go and rescues here from the fire the gamer has created. This is the only character that is rescued out of the house, the others are left to burn. This demonstrates a complex ethical conflict within the game, that can often seem confusing to the player.
He suggests that 90% of all the games made involve murder, even those as simple as Mario and Space Invaders contain it. However, these games were based on sprites as characters (16×16 pixel beings), and the player was able to distance themselves from the ideas of killing. According to the authors in current games with high advanced 3d characters and lush environments the player has more difficulty distancing them-self from the heinous act of killing. With high vicerol and graphic was of dispatching people, such as the use of the plastic bag in Manhunt. This view has been taken up and applied by Rockstar to their games.
The author goes on to explain that other developers get over the problems of killing by disguising how it takes place, or making it seem morally right in the situation. This is often done by dehumanising the characters you murder by turning them into zombies or monsters, possibly the most popular though is to turn them into aliens. In this players don’t think of death in the same way, or don’t pay as much significance to the act of murder.
The post is concluded by a moral dilemma operationalised in the examples of the games of Mario World and Manhunt. One is where the character casually kills for the extra hundred points and the second is the character vicerally kills to protect his own life. He suggests that niether is less morally correct, they are both the same as each is concerned with murder.
To me this arguement that is structured in the form of a blog post demostrates how games have been constructed around the notion of killing and murder. This is to the extent that if it were taken out of the game, it would undermine the whole playing experience.
Here is the link to the original blog post:
http://brandg.blogspot.com/2004/11/video-game-ethics-part-one-death.html
Morality Play – Creating Ethics in Video Games November 12, 2007
Posted by nutheadgreg in Gaming ethics.Tags: ethics, philosophy, research, values, video games
add a comment
The author of the article describes himself as a New Media Developer, he explains the pitfalls of the moral structure within specific games. Within the article he suggests that a number of games have fallen short in a number of measures in terms of their moral development. He explains the areas in which the development of such moral structures in games are lacking.
The first area is described as ‘Consistency’, in that players are rewarded for one deed and then aren’t rewarded for the opposite. Grand Theft Auto Vice City is an example where players are rewarded for “wrongs” like stealing cars, shooting gangs etc. but are not rewarded of “rights” like sticking to the speed limit on the roads, or driving the ambulance that features in the game.
The second problem is ‘Cause and Effect’, when a player commits a certain action or crime they should suffer for it. When playing GTA Vice City you can steal a car and not receive any punishment for it.
The next issue is relates to something know as ‘NPC Actions’, this stands for non-player character. I that if you draw a gun the people around the character who are not involved in the game play should react. This reaction however, does feature in GTA 3, as when you open fire in the street the NPC’s run away screaming and shouting. This only features in a few games though, so it can still be classified as a problem.
Another problem relates to the ‘Memory’ of the NPC’s who your character interacts with. He suggests that if you have mistreated a character at some point in the game, then when you see the same character later in the game then that character should fear and not trust you. This is has only just started to permeate into video games, with the release of Bio-Shock a few months ago.
The fifth problem relates to the lack of ethical ‘Alternatives’. The author explains that some games may require you to do things without having an alternative option. He uses the example of Deus Ex: Invisible War, where the only way to succeed in the game is through lying and deceit.
Finally is the issue of moral ‘Conflict’, in that it should be introduced into games. The player should have two specific routes that they can choose to follow through the game. Each choice should have different consequences.
This set of guidelines in some respect are rather presriptive, however some of the suggestions are good, and I think that some have already been integrated into more recent games. I do also believe that there are other qualities in games that are not related to ethics like teamwork.
Here is the link to the original article: http://www.adamjthompson.com/thought/CreatingEthics.pdf
Playing a “Good” Game: A Philosophical Approach to Understanding the Morality of Games October 23, 2007
Posted by nutheadgreg in Gaming ethics.Tags: ethics, gaming, philosophy
1 comment so far
This article by Ren Reynolds on the IGDA (International Game Developers Association), uses Grand Theft Auto 3 as an example to demonstrate how a game can be described as good or bad. He aims from the outset to stray away from the notion gamic/graphical quality, that guides whether a game is good or not. He focuses on whether the game is ethically good or bad. This is a result of the political or pressure groups ‘charging’ a game with being corrupting, immoral, and evil.
The first parts of the article are concerned with two polar points of view, one is a consequential and the other deontological. These are theories from normative ethics, thus aim to be rational and self consistent. However once one route is chosen points within the debate can only be derived from within that theoretical sphere.
The author looked at Grand Theft Auto 3 from the consquentialist postion, and he suggests that pleasure the game provides, far outweighs its potential harm. When looking at it from a deontological position he explains that the game, could not be considered as Immoral. However this idea according to Reynolds is open to a wider societal debate about games and the freedom of speech, which could place the game and others like it in a less clear cut postion. The final area of ethics that is exemplified is related to virtue ethics, in which you decided to do something based upon the vitues/morals it encompases. From this aspect Reynolds would play GTA, but suggests that if Socrates was still around he would not play such a game. As under his paradigm of vitue he would argue that the game is immoral.
I believe that the final area of vitue ethics for me, is a good way to look at a game from a philisophical point of view. This is due to the fact that I am making a conscious decission, based on my moral understanding and reasoning, and therefore I am being active as a member of the gaming audience.
Here is the link to the original article: http://www.igda.org/articles/rreynolds_ethics.php
Video Game Ethics October 4, 2007
Posted by nutheadgreg in Gaming ethics.Tags: delicious, ethics, philosophy, reflections, video games
1 comment so far
Having consulted my research adviser I have realised that the question I was wanting to answer was too vague, also I had fallen short in realising the complexities involved when researching issues of violence imitation from computer games. It was suggested to me that perhaps it would be better to look at gaming from the angle of moral philosophy. From this it was decided that I should get to grips with the basics of ethics. I found a very useful website http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/ which features an on-line guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy.
Within the subject there are three predominant areas: Metaethics, Normative Ethics and Applied Ethics. The first is concerned with the nature of ethics and discussing different ways of approaching it. It aims to show the limitations of moral philosophy and ethical thinking. The discipline of Normative Ethics is predominantly interested in determining what should be contained and what should feature in the moral behaviour of humankind. The third and final paradigm deals with moral issues that may occur within a specific situation/realm. It aims to apply ethical thinking to a specific situation where issues may need to be discussed. This area will be the predominant focus of my research as I aim to apply moral philosophy onto the structure of video games. Having glanced through a number of journal databases, there seems quite a rich source of information dealing with the issue of ethics in gaming.
Hardcore Uproar! June 10, 2007
Posted by nutheadgreg in Online Gaming.Tags: ethics, philosophy, religion, video games, violence
add a comment
On friday I was watching BBC news 24 when a story appeared about the use of Manchester Catherderal in a video game. This has cause an uproar within the Christian community, as there is a bloody gun battle in the naive in which hundreds of enimies are killed by the player. The Dean of the Catherderal explained that he was highly upset about this, and suggested that it is doing the city’s fight against gun crime no favours. The Church of England are getting ready to sue Sony creator of the million selling computer game, Resistance: Fall of Man. This game was released on the launch of the new Playstation 3 console. It is claimed that the game has recreated the inside of the Catherderal to almost photographic quality, thus creating a highly realistic feel to the game. Sony, however are defending the position that it is a game, and is not trying to portray reality.
From my point of view I do not agree with the hypodermic model that the Dean is referring to when he mentions about the game causing problems in gun crime. This is suggesting that the game is directly influencing people to commit acts of gun crime. As a result the audience are seen as passive, this cannot be the case as the audience is interacting and thus are active. However, from a religious perspective that this is upsetting for Christians, that a masacre is being carried out within the building in which the worship.
Gaming makes people violent??? May 31, 2007
Posted by nutheadgreg in Online Gaming.Tags: ethics, philosophy, values, video games, violence
add a comment
I spotted another piece of information relating to computer games being blamed for violence. This article was again on the Microsoft Network homepage http://www.msn.co.uk. The article suggests that the opinion some people share of games cause players to become killers, is somewhat misleading. The problem is considered to be much more complex societal issue, and cannot simply be pinned to one specific thing. The problem of blaming the game dates back to The Columbine Masacre, where it was found out that the shooters play Doom (first-person shooter game) extensively. As a result the media jumped on the opinion bandwagon, spreading this moral panic about the dangers of playing violent games. Blaming the media is just the same as blaming the problem on societal things such as gun culture, drugs or lack of value for life.
