April 9, 2009

Counterpoint: Should developers be held to moral responsibility within their games?
By: Steven Hopper

A counter argument to Michael Lafferty’s suggestion that the gaming industry be held morally accountable for the content within their games.

Within the past few years, mature content within videogames has been a firestorm of controversy, with mainstream media coverage of high-profile cases such as the “Hot Coffee” scandal from GTA: San Andreas more often than not overshadowing actual coverage of the industry itself by a substantial margin. It has become a real hotbed of discussion from those within the industry as well as those from the outside, leading to more discussion as to what position the industry has in terms of responsible content within their games. Last week, GZ writer Michael Lafferty posted an editorial that questioned whether or not game developers have an ethical obligation to show the consequences of illicit activity, and be generally more responsible for the content that they show within their titles.

I do agree with a lot of what the article says and I do think that if the video game industry is to be taken seriously as an artistic medium like the film and literature industries, they'll have to grow up a bit and realize that while mature content has a place in gaming, shock value and sophomoric attempts at gross-out humor and gore (I'm looking at you Postal) only serve to fuel the fires of the special interests that want to scapegoat and demonize gaming.

Should games like Scarface be held accountable for their immoral subject matter?

However, to call games like GTA wrong because they don't adhere to a moral obligation feels a bit too hasty of a judgment. The bottom line isn't so cut and dry as "they do it to make money". In fact, the reason why games like that make money is because they are capable of crafting compelling gameplay and huge worlds to explore, and are ultimately fun. While the subject matter may not be everyone's cup of tea, the old adage comes to mind; "if you don't like it, don't buy it".

As a venue for escapism, it can’t be argued that people turn to games to get experiences outside what they’d experience in normal day-to-day life. Be it shooting aliens as a space marine, taking out zombies, or yes, even crafting a drug empire, games provide the means to have an escape from the norm, and to do things that many sane individuals would never consider doing in a realistic context. When I was a kid playing Cops n’ Robbers, I never once got the desire to run out and rob a bank for fun, and nor would I consider selling drugs just because I did so in Scarface.

Titles like Oblivion offer a pretty deep system of consequences for crimes.

That being said, there are quite a few mature games that employ some structure of law and order within their gameplay boundaries. For example, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion immediately comes to mind. In that game, if you kill someone, steal something, or do something illegal, then the law comes down on you quite heavily, requiring some degree of financial remuneration or something more severe, like prison time (or even your death should you mess up on a high enough scale). Fallout 3 also does a similar thing.

But not to beat a dead horse with the same argument that’s been handed around for years now, the issue falls with the parents. The parent should be the ultimate judge when it comes to the games their kids play, as they should be when it comes to the movies they watch, books they read, music they listen to, etc. and no one else. There are plenty of safeguards to help parents make educated decisions, from in-game parental controls, ESRB ratings and box descriptions, to online game reviews and so on. There’s no reason that anyone couldn’t make a well-informed decision on a game, be it for their children or for themselves.

Share | Digg This | Glink It

---