Moral Choice In Video Games (Blog Entry of My Choice)

        I have been playing videogames for a very long time. Ever since I had the hand-eye coordination to hold a controller. However, I never remember there being a grey area when it came to good and evil. Take Super Mario Bros., for instance; it was obvious that the tiny plumber you were controlling was good, and the dinosaur-looking guy throwing hammers and fire at you every fourth level was clearly evil. Sadly, this aspect of videogames hasn’t changed at all in the last twenty years, and several popular videogames of today emphasize a degree of moral choice through gameplay.

                This isn’t to say story is needed for a legitimately fun experience. One of the first games I ever played was The Legend of Zelda for the Nintendo Entertainment System. I can sum up the plot of ninety percent of those games with six words:  princess in trouble; guy saves princess (Nintendo is pretty damn good at this). That being said, I have played every game in the series, and there are several. It’s a fun and challenging game to play.

                However, I’ve grown up to favor, nay, expect a branching story that depends on my actions. This has been the case ever since I played Civilization for the PC. In it, you rule your own nation and play as you see fit. You can rule as a benevolent king, a tyrant, or whatever in between. Sure, there’s no true story at work here, but it’s entirely dependent on how you play. I’ve yet to see another game handle moral choices to this degree.

 

               Games today, however, generally attempt to insert moral choices as a primary gameplay mechanic. In the first-person shooter Bioshock (one of my favorite games in the genre today), the rate you acquire experience for attacks is determined by what you do with creatures called “little sisters.” Once you take out their protectors (who are all massive problems; this gets bloody, by the way), you are given a moral dilemma; should you save them for a little experience, or slaughter them for all their experience?

This wouldn’t be a problem for me if the game had some kind of grey area. Instead, we only get two endings. One makes the main character out to be a saint while the other makes him a cross between Adolf Hitler and Skeletor.

This leads me to believe that the player truly has limited control over the main character’s destiny, there-by making me feel detached from the story. Inevitability absolutely kills narratives for me, especially when you don’t understand the game’s rationalization. Take Fable 3, for instance; like in Civilization, you play the young ruler of a nation, only you’re actually defending your kingdom from an evil force that is approaching in a year’s time around the game’s second half. However, when you make decisions that would make more money in effort to combat the oncoming threat, the game dubs your choices as “evil.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t a year of high taxes and general douchebaggery better than being consumed by a giant monstrosity?

Bottom line:  don’t think for a second that I dislike moral choice systems that drive the plot in videogames. It can be an involving experience for the player and work wonders regarding storytelling. However, I believe that the industry has yet to fully grasp the concept. Here’s hoping that a game will someday get it right. This is that one nerdy kid signing out.