Researching Morality Through Video Games

Recently there has been a spate of articles and online discussions regarding the study of morality in video games. Wide open spaces allowing a seemingly endless array of options in open-ended environments such as those offered in the Grand Theft Auto series let players do pretty much what they want to do, within the confines of the game. So, what do folks do? Do the straight-laced and moral types go on virtual killing and stealing sprees? Do the morally ambiguous in RL stick to codes of honor in games? Or do folks try different things, within a safe “playground” environment where their actions don’t harm anyone?

Alexander Gambotto-Burke writes in today’s online Guardian that gamers want a panoply of choice within the three dimensional environments they roam. He focuses on Ken Levine, president of Irrational Games, with key title System Shock 2, and the forthcoming BioShock.

Levine calls the type of environment in which BioShock players will engage, “emergent spaces.” Things become a lot more interactive in emergent spaces than the three dimensional gaming environments of yore. For instance, games renowned for their AI capabilities such as Half Life or Call of Duty were programmed for NPC events to occur within specific areas. But, “in a game like BioShock, AIs will wander around and follow you around.”

One becomes intrigued with the possibilities. This advanced programming creates a much richer open-ended environment, one in which players can do “good” things, “bad” things, or perhaps nothing of much use at all (or task neutral activities). This wide open arena has benefits for exploration of touchy issues.

Indeed, one of the videogaming’s greatest strengths is its ability to construct “moral playgrounds” - safe arenas in which people can explore different philosophies, principles and personalities. This has, however, also attracted most of the criticism and controversy surrounding the games industry in recent years.

Gambotto-Burke then pulls Mike Jaret, chief designer for Postal 3, into the conversation. Jaret makes an interesting point regarding ratings of games versus ratings of movies. The latest Die Hard installment goes light on swear words, but is heavy on action, with violence, things blowing up, car chases, etc. It received a PG-13 rating from the MPAA. Postal 2 was likewise low on swear words, but heavy on action and violence. It received a rating of MA from the ESRB, or the equivalent of an R rating for a movie. There is apparently a double standard with newer forms of entertainment.

***

Researchers are curious regarding the moral playground possibilities within these types of games. The burning question is, if a game provides opportunities to do morally bad things, like killing people, will this trigger homicidal tendencies in people? The short answer is no, but with the caveat that an emotionally unstable person may decide to go on a killing spree following any number of stimuli … a perceived slight from someone on the street, a bad day at work, a jilted lover, etc. All the blame for all the killing in the world can’t be laid at video games’ doorstep.

On another note, props to Chris Kohler over at Wired for pointing out a couple posts on the topic of moral studies through games that Henry Jenkins put up this week. Dr. Jenkins, everybody’s favorite gaming academic (certainly one of the better writers out there) points out the work of one of his grad students, Peter Rauch, who has been researching and thinking about the use of the game Fable as a Petri dish for studying the moral decisions people make.

Peter Rauch came to CMS with a strong background in Philosophy; what he wanted from our program was the chance to employ those tools to think deeply about games, trying to explore in what sense it was appropriate to think of games as ethical and moral practices.

You can read Rauch’s thesis excerpts here and here. On a side note, Fable caught my eye when I was looking at the possibilities for higher order thinking in video games.

References
Gambotto-Burke, A. (2007, August 16). Real moral choices in virtual game worlds. The Guardian. [Online]. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/aug/16/
guardianweeklytechnologysection.games4