It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionEver get upset by unethical behaviour a game forces you to?(146 posts)(146 posts)
(146 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Posted March 19, 2015
Just now I got upset by the things a game that I just started up forced me to do and I wonder if it's more common? When you do like a game for it's gameplay, it's graphics, it's historical setting or something other, but the things you need to do - to progress the plot - makes your stomach tighten, because you feel it's a terrible thing to do and you get really upset for that which the game forces you to do, cuts against the grain of your own ethical views and morals.

For me, that moment came when I started up Call of Duty: Black Ops on the Playstation 3. I brought the game because my cousin suggested I'd buy it so that he, my brother and I could play private matches online together, with each of us owning a PS3 and now all 3 of us have this game as well.

I still need to create a PS-account to be able to connect to them but I fired up the campaign to get to know the game in single-player mode.

Now this is what the campaign makes you play: assassins, in service of the CIA, who are part of the Bay of Pigs invasion and out to kill Castro. In the game, Fidel Castro is shot dead in the head in 1961 and you are the one who gets to pull the trigger. It makes my stomach turn.

Fidel Castro, though not democratic, is the one who ousted the dictator Batista, divided wealth more justly among the people and would have led it's country in to prosperity where it not but for the embargo by the US. The dictator that got ousted made the majority of the Cuban people live in property while all the money flew in to the pockets of US-owned companies, mostly plantations. And because Castro was a threat to that US wealth they illegally invaded the independent country of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, they were luckily repelled, but now this game forces you to take part of this invasion and shoot a bullet through this socialist leader's head, at the same time making the suggestion he is a brutal dictator who uses a woman as a human shield, instead of a leader who was beloved by his people for giving them a better living, free medicine and education.

Call of Duty Black Ops is the worst example of a trend in gaming where it's always the American point of view the story takes. Be it fictional wars in Central Asia (Operation Flashpoint), fighting a war in Afghanistan (Medal of Honor 2010), against terrorists by special forces (Medal of Honor Warfighter), war in the Middle East (Battlefield 3) or against China (Battlefield 4), it's always a story from an American viewpoint and though these games have mostly good gameplay and all of them graphics that are wonderful to behold (making you want to stroll through the jungle or drive around in the deserts and hills rather than fight an ugly war), I'm getting quite tired of that US-centrism.

The only exception I know of in a recent shooter in real-world contemporary or historical settings is 7554, made by a Vietnamese developer, in which you get to free Vietnam from the French and Americans playing as the Vietnamese army.

*edit: and thus I went off-topic in my own topic in the opening post already. Sorry about that, reactions about the issues at hand are welcome:

1. do you ever get morally upset by things a game forces you to do?

2. do you get upset in so many fps games it's only stories of Americans you get to play?
Post edited March 19, 2015 by DubConqueror
Posted March 19, 2015
Old Call of Duties allowed you to play as Americans, British, and Russian. (Call of Duty 3 allowed you to play a Polish Tank Squad and Canadian soldiers.)

The true protaginists of the Modern Warfare Trilogy were British SAS opratives with a Russian Ally.


1. I believe games should be allowed to explore all facets of the human condition, including the negative aspects.

2. Don't really care. I don't mind play either American or other nations.
Post edited March 19, 2015 by Elmofongo
Posted March 19, 2015
avatar
DubConqueror: Now this is what the campaign makes you play: assassins, in service of the CIA, who are part of the Bay of Pigs invasion and out to kill Castro. In the game, Fidel Castro is shot dead in the head in 1961 and you are the one who gets to pull the trigger. It makes my stomach turn.

Fidel Castro, though not democratic, is the one who ousted the dictator Batista, divided wealth more justly among the people and would have led it's country in to prosperity where it not but for the embargo by the US. The dictator that got ousted made the majority of the Cuban people live in property while all the money flew in to the pockets of US-owned companies, mostly plantations. And because Castro was a threat to that US wealth they illegally invaded the independent country of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, they were luckily repelled, but now this game forces you to take part of this invasion and shoot a bullet through this socialist leader's head, at the same time making the suggestion he is a brutal dictator who uses a woman as a human shield, instead of a leader who was beloved by his people for giving them a better living, free medicine and education.
You also know that the Castro you shoot in the game was a Double. And the real Castro is still alive in game.

(He joins with JFK, McNamera, and Nixon to fend off Zombies in the Pentegon lol)
Posted March 19, 2015
I only play super ethical in the spirit of professor Genki.
Posted March 19, 2015
I get upset when the game makes me be more good than I want to be.
Posted March 19, 2015
I find one of the strongest artistic assets that gaming has is its ability to challenge our reactions to a given situation. Film and literature are linear narratives and only enable a specific decision to be analysed and discussed, but gaming goes one step further - it enables first-person analysis of the decision-making process.

Some of those games may explore unethical behaviour, and indeed, many games might not offer a viable alternative within those gaming environments.

I do agree that the analysis of war situations in gaming has been rather lacking. While games like Hearts of Iron do help us to understand the mindsets of political leaders and why they took certain decisions, we've never seen a decent exploration of the mindset of a soldier. The closest that we've seen is Spec Ops: The Line - everything else focuses on military victory as opposed to the reasons for fighting.

I'd love to see a shooter where ethical objections play a role in the action - for example through storylines that branch out depending on whether you choose to act diplomatically (the hard route that pays dividends later) or using physical force (the easy route that turns out later to not be such a good choice).
Posted March 19, 2015
Well... Games tell a story, just as I can't be upset at a movie at trying to get a reaction out of me, I can't really be upset at a game for doing the same, albeit using a much more involved means.
avatar
jamyskis: The closest that we've seen is Spec Ops: The Line
And I think that even Spec Ops: The Line explores the crazy, twisted mind of a maniac who is able to rationalize everything he does as seen in other modern military shooters as opposed to actual mind of a real-world soldier.
Posted March 19, 2015
I have played a few games that tried to force me to do something I wouldn't do.
I said screw it, quit, uninstalled and never thought about them again.

More often then not, it's because it was something downright stupid, when there was (realistically) a much better alternative.
Posted March 19, 2015
avatar
jamyskis: I find one of the strongest artistic assets that gaming has is its ability to challenge our reactions to a given situation. Film and literature are linear narratives and only enable a specific decision to be analysed and discussed, but gaming goes one step further - it enables first-person analysis of the decision-making process.

Some of those games may explore unethical behaviour, and indeed, many games might not offer a viable alternative within those gaming environments.

I do agree that the analysis of war situations in gaming has been rather lacking. While games like Hearts of Iron do help us to understand the mindsets of political leaders and why they took certain decisions, we've never seen a decent exploration of the mindset of a soldier. The closest that we've seen is Spec Ops: The Line - everything else focuses on military victory as opposed to the reasons for fighting.

I'd love to see a shooter where ethical objections play a role in the action - for example through storylines that branch out depending on whether you choose to act diplomatically (the hard route that pays dividends later) or using physical force (the easy route that turns out later to not be such a good choice).
From a gameplay side I also find most Modern Military Games lacking. Witth obvious exception to Arma.

Back in the day we had games like Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon that treated you like a real soldier that can die in one or two shots.

The plots in the first 3 Rainbow Six were kinda interesting and considering that the Rainbow Six unit is an international counter terrorist squad.

In Rainbow Six 1 we had to deal with Eco Terrorist that was planing on spreading Highly Dangerous Viruses through food.

Rogue Spear A powerful Russian Mob managed to aquire nuclear weapon to sell it to the highest bidder.

Raven Shield: A faction of Neo-Nazies descendent from old Nazi officials were planing a revolution in South America to establish their own govenrment.
avatar
Fenixp: Well... Games tell a story, just as I can't be upset at a movie at trying to get a reaction out of me, I can't really be upset at a game for doing the same, albeit using a much more involved means.
avatar
jamyskis: The closest that we've seen is Spec Ops: The Line
avatar
Fenixp: And I think that even Spec Ops: The Line explores the crazy, twisted mind of a maniac who is able to rationalize everything he does as seen in other modern military shooters as opposed to actual mind of a real-world soldier.
What about the plots I mentioned in Rainbow Six.
Post edited March 19, 2015 by Elmofongo
Posted March 19, 2015
avatar
jamyskis: I'd love to see a shooter where ethical objections play a role in the action - for example through storylines that branch out depending on whether you choose to act diplomatically (the hard route that pays dividends later) or using physical force (the easy route that turns out later to not be such a good choice).
That would be an option. Or a cooperative or selfish way of playing the game. Selfish would make the character very powerful but lonely. But playing cooperatively - while having a weaker character - will have friends coming to your help in times of need (and of course the epic final battle).
Posted March 19, 2015
no not really

in the end they are just videogames
the lines between reality and fiction are not blurred

they are not real and i play them out of my own free will

if i object to a game i either wont buy it or not play it

the only exception to that is spec ops the line and thats because its heart of darkness run through a video game filter with a helping of apocalypse now
and i know what to expect anyway

( it is a great game but thats a discussion for another time )
Posted March 19, 2015
2 words: "No Russian".
Posted March 19, 2015
This may be the opposite of what you are talking about, but my wife stopped playing the entire fallout series, because she could not be a porn star as a female character in Fallout II. She thought it was stupid of the devs to make her be a fluffer only and has never played again even though she watched my play a bit of 3 and NV and thought that they looked great.

I is really hard to code in every choice, but when the game is like 'ok your character has been sacrificing him or her self for the last 40 hours of gameplay to save this group of people but now in the end you MUST turn your back on them to proceed' that is annoying. Or you play a stealth game for hours without harming anyone and then there is the YOU MUST KILL THIS GUY mission somewhere near the end. That one burns a lot of bridges, too.
Posted March 19, 2015
um.. well i get actually upset by ETHICAL behaviour games force me to!
Posted March 19, 2015
avatar
DubConqueror: 1. do you ever get morally upset by things a game forces you to do?
That's the reason why I've never played Lucius and I sure as all fucking hell won't touch Hatred with a ten foot stick and rubber gloves.

Also, that pretty much broke Spec-Ops: The Line's crucial moment for me. Because I was like "What? No! I– No! That's stupid. That's so stupid, it should warp in on itself and create a singularity of stupid! This punches one of the fundamental mechanics up to this point in the balls and sets them on fire!". I kept playing but had lost all connection to what happened in the game. It was just a "scientific" curiousity where the designers intended to take that.

Not much of an emotional impact after that...
Post edited March 19, 2015 by Randalator
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionEver get upset by unethical behaviour a game forces you to?(146 posts)(146 posts)
(146 posts)