The Ethics of Videogames

[icycalm]

In other words: yet another lol thread.

it’s my god-given right to blow guys’ heads off if I want to in my videogames!

Nevertheless, I still think there is a certain social responsibility to not make things too violent. Fallout 3 is very violent, but the violence is cartoony. Sometimes you’ll shoot a guy in the head and it won’t explode; it takes the whole head off. Is it realistic? No, it’s funny, and it becomes cool because of that.

We’re grown-ups, we can make and play something like this. We think it’s funny, we think it’s fun and people have been agreeing with that.

http://www.edge-online.com/blogs/emil-p ... rites-edge

No need to think too much about it. Everything written on the subject of videogames and ethics is by definition funny.

[Okage911]

We had a talk recently at my school from one of the writers of Call of Duty 4 on social responsibility, specifically whether it was possible to indoctrinate the people playing. The example he gave was the sound made when an Alien was close by in Aliens vs. Predator for the PC. When you heard that noise you knew you'd have to fight for your life. He said that because he'd played the game for so many hours, if he hears a noise similar to the one from the game he gets really tense.

I know many games have some message that they want to get across, with some being more direct than others (i.e. the few army recruitment games and even Al-Qaeda's game), but do you think that indoctrination on a higher level is possible?

[icycalm]

What stupid questions. So Aliens vs. Predator players are "indoctrinated" by some fucking beeping noise. And Cave players are indoctrinated by purple bullets. Whenever I see purple bullets now, on the street for example, I feel a surge of panic.

Dumbasses.

Dude, people are STUPID. You know what that means? That means they can be "indoctrinated" by ANYTHING: a sound, a song, a picture, a fly on the fucking wall. What does that tell us about video games?

Abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING.

[new_pornographer]

Alex, this becks in my hand is for you. Cheers x

[Crazy Man]

It's a shame that Emil never commented on why all of the real world drugs in Fallout 3 like Morphine were removed. That, and how they:

removed several quests
renamed several weapons
removed several weapons
removed several NPCs
removed several particle effects

because they thought that the Japanese would be "insulted" by any nuclear references.

He could have just said that it wouldn't have been economically feasible due to the risk of an AO rating and potential butthurt politicians, but instead tried to pat himself on the back with some stupid moral and ethical shit to make himself look smart.

[Bradford]

because they thought that the Japanese would be "insulted" by any nuclear references.

Was that reported anywhere? I recall a number of articles about how Fallout 3 would be refused classification in Australia due to the drug references, and rather than do a censored version just for Australia they changed it for everyone. I didn't know they changed anything else or for any other reason.

[Magnum Apex]

Mr. Pagliarulo should have stopped at, "Let’s be clear, with the ESRB’s rating system, that’s not something that would fly anyway." He would likely be right.

What comes next is either bullshit, or a misconceived belief that Bethesda was "socially responsible" for putting kids in Fallout 3 that can't be killed by the Player's impressive arsenal of weapons. Not that solving this issue would automatically fix all inconsistency issues with the game, but at least the rest are victims of technical limitations and not the developer's misplaced moral compass.

[icycalm]

but at least the rest are victims of technical limitations and not the developer's misplaced moral compass.

It follows from the definition of morals that there's no such thing as a "misplaced moral compass". Morals are conventions. Any convention is just as valid as any other.