Gaming is increasingly becoming a mainstream phenomenon, from Xbox or
eSports the gaming medium is gaining ground. Whether this is put down to
technology, a maturing generation that grew up with pc games, or an increasing
depth to the medium itself (though this I doubt), games are being played by
more people in more ways. As games take a more central role as a method of
telling stories or showing points of view, its time we, the gamers, do a bit of
introspection.
**
WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR MASS EFFECT 1
**
I just finished the first Mass Effect game (26 hours, medium difficulty),
admittedly a little behind the times given that the whole trilogy has been out
for some time, however, my initial exposure to the franchise lead me to
conclude it was a Knights of the Old Republic clone and it wasn't until I found
out Bioware were the developers that I made my peace.
Overall it's a reasonable RPG; the problem of why your character can gun
down hundreds of enemies from day 1 is sensible enough (you start out as a
special forces commander), and your license to wander round the galaxy sticking
your nose into things is neatly provided via initiation into a branch of the
galactic government with infinite authority.
((This is where the spoilers start))..
The ending is actually good enough to push the overall game from probably a
6.5 to a 7, if not a 7.5, and the reason for that is not just the poignancy and
cinematic potential, it’s that you, as a player, actually have to make a
difficult moral decision, interesting enough in fact to knock me onto a blog at
11pm to write about it.
We, as gamers, have got pretty used to having it easy in the morality
department. Despite all the games that try to present the player with 'good'
and 'evil' paths virtually none actually work. 'Good' acts normally mean
helping people; either by doing quests or giving up money and items, however,
since quests are the main reason we play the game, and the items and money and
always paltry; as an example I got asked to give a homeless person some money
towards the end of Mass Effect, the sum of 20 credits got me 8 "Paragon
points" (on a scale of 0 to 320ish). At the time I was sitting on a bank
balance of 2.5 million, with probably another half a mil in unneeded items.
'Evil' paths on the other hand tend to mean randomly killing plot-essential
characters (making the game short and tedious), or borderline-psychotic acts
like running over monkeys in a thirty ton combat vehicle. The choice therefore
boils down to attaining a saint like reputation for virtually no cost (that
freights with a heap of benefits), or having to work hard to make your game
less interesting by playing a homicidal maniac.
Mass Effect made me pause because the final choice is actually a real
dilemma. The situation is simple; a huge alien spaceship is about to take over
a space station and in doing so bring about the invasion of the galaxy by
gigantic killer robots that intend to purge all life from the galaxy (and this
is credible threat). The combined fleets of the main sentient races (humanity
not
included) are engaged in a desperate battle around the station to try and hold
back the alien, and rescue the Council (a political group standing for the
peaceful corporation of the most powerful races in the galaxy). You get to make
the call on what the inbound human fleet prioritises - do they ensure the
Council is saved and then move on to attack the alien ship, or do they leave
the 'friendly' alien fleets to their inevitable massacre, let the Council die,
and focus everything on bringing down the evil alien and thereby saving the
galaxy.
Since it’s a game you can probably act on the assumption that whatever you
pick you'll still save the day (much props to any developer who actually write
a game where you can lose right at the end!) and therefore save the friendlies,
however, with an 'in game' hat on the ruthless 'strategic' thing to do is to
let everyone else die so that the human fleet can destroy the enemy, thereby
saving the galaxy. Fleets can be rebuilt, Councils replaced, an invasion of
galactic mega-death-bots is a 'bigger picture' issue. So, I gave the order to
leave the council to their fate and focus on the main objective.
But this was a real choice - sacrifice many to increase the odds of saving
everyone else, or try to save everyone, and for forcing those 30 seconds of
reflection, of immersion, Mass Effect justifies its list price. Fingers crossed
the other 2 build on the strengths of the first instalment and tidy up some of
the issues (like the same three buildings on a dozen different worlds!)
<<END OF SPOILERS>>
The only people who actually seem to talk about morality in games these days
are the media and only then to blame games for every shooting, angry teenager,
or driving accident they can. Apparently shooting people on games makes you a
violent person. Having spent the last fifteen years killing everything from
demon rabbits to civilians with weapons ranging from bare fists to nuclear
submarine squadrons, and probably toting up kills in the hundreds of thousands
(not counting DEFCON), I would like to say my own failure to turn into a
rampaging madman puts the lie to the claim that games kill people.
However, games do seem to suggest a point of view where death and
destruction are just one of those things. Most game characters have no issue
with solving their problems with a bullet (or laser beam, or hyper-accelerated
paint chip) between the eyes, and as long as this execution is preceded with
the right conversation options we, the gamer, don't tend to get penalised. Does
this subconsciously rub off on those who play games a lot? Are we more willing
to accept death as a solution because we dish it out so readily in our virtual
alternate lives? Unfortunately I can't really judge this since I can't be both
control group and test group, but it's something I'd be happy to discuss with
anyone who has some input.
Death aside though, there is one aspect of gaming which I think really has
rubbed off - purpose. The characters we play in games are always part of great
events, central figures to epic stories and conflicts that stretch across the
worlds our e-selves wander. Play the Baldur's Gate games and you take on the
role of the son of fallen deity, growing in power and influence from a child
with an adopted father to a figure of dread and awe, carving your own fate onto
the world around you, in Mass Effect you act at the direction of a Council that
leads galactic affairs, on a quest to save all sentient life in the galaxy, in StarCraft
you are part of the wars and intrigues that determine the fate of dozens of
worlds and three races. Even in games such as Skyrim where you start off as
'just one of the people' you inevitably obtain great lineage and might as the
story progresses.
And then when the games are over we have to go back to our 'RL' lives, where
most of the time we (and everyone we know) spends their lives engaged in
largely pointless activities for the purposes of shuffling round vast amounts
of bits of blue, green and orange paper, or, increasingly, for the purposes of
moving numbers about on a spreadsheet. When you compare the lives our fictional
selves lead to those our actual selves lead the difference is
soul-sapping.
I once read (and I'm afraid I can't remember where) that we are in danger of
becoming a lost generation, why? - because we lack a great purpose. Over the
last century there have been events of such importance and impact that they
shaped the zeitgeist of a generation - the Great Wars (both of them), the Great
Depression in the US, the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Spanish Civil War
and so on. Events that perhaps gave a sense of meaning to the people living
their lives in them. But what do we have? The UK seems to have sunk into a mire
of 'greyness'. Out politicians are directionless and limp wristed, our wars
happen far overseas and largely consist of 'fire and forget' engagements, the commercial
dreams that drove men to risk their lives on the oceans of the world have become
little more than number-crunching by vast multinationals. Even the dream of new
lands and sunsets on unexplored coasts have gone, the world has been mapped and
divided up. Is it surprising then that to find purpose I have to turn to the
virtual?
Very few people ever get to make a 'great decision' that influences the
lives of millions and generations yet to come (politicians do not count since,
as far as I can tell from observation, they don't actually understand what
they're doing or why, and don't so much make decisions as pander to one roar of
the mob after another), and perhaps the lesson to take from that is that games
are good - why? Because they let those of us who wish for purpose in life to
find distractions from tedium of 9-5 existence.
/Z
