next »

[William Broom]

( continued from http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=14507.0 )

I know Paint by Numbers doesn't want us to discuss the ethics of the game in his thread, but it does seem a pretty popular subject, so I'd like to start a new thread about it. I do think this is an interesting issue that is worth discussing in more detail. Because I do think this game looks awesome, and I do think of myself as a moral person, but I'm not sure if those two things are compatible with each other.

How are the nitty gritty details the interesting part?  The only reason this game is interesting is because it lets you play as a serial killer and this is only interesting because of the moral and ethical issues of murder.  Chatting about the ethics of games and how they relate to society is still chatting about games.

I think you are making a mistake here in assuming that there is a dichotomy in what we're discussing: on the one hand are the "nitty gritty details", the game mechanics, and on the other hand are the ethical issues. But I think they are more closely linked than that. We are attracted to stories about serial killers because of the ethical issues surrounding them; and game mechanics are part of the way that games tell their stories. Thus, by talking about game mechanics, we are indirectly talking about ethics as well - or at least, our interest in the game mechanics is symptomatic of our interest in the ethical issues raised by the game.

I don't see much difference between gamers getting excited about a "you got blood on your clothes" mechanic, and TV-viewers getting excited when Doakes has almost discovered Dexter's identity. They're both narrative devices to increase tension. It's true that Dexter is viewed from the third person, not the first person, but I think that's quite a trivial difference. After all, we still want Dexter to get away with his crimes rather than be arrested (at least I do!), so our emotional investment is in the same place.

Unfortunately, all I've managed to convince myself of at this point is that if it is immoral to appreciate SKRL as a game, then it is probably also immoral to appreciate Dexter as a TV show, or American Psycho as a book, etc. I'm still not sure if they are all moral, or none of them are moral. I'd like to talk more about the 'serial killer' genre in general, but I've probably said enough for one post so I'll leave it at that for now.

[Melly]

It's the same thing as games like GTA, in my opinion. A lot of people enjoy playing GTA. In the game they steal cars, beat-up/murder random pedestrians, often in elaborate, disnecessarily complex ways just for the hell of it, run from the cops, etc. And still those people are most often just as civilized and level-headed as you and me (and indeed, I myself enjoy GTA and have never had the guts or interest to steal someone's car, and hate seeing others suffer for any reason).

Don't forget that people in general are perfectly capable of separating reality and fantasy in every regard. Those who have difficulty with that are in fact mentally diseased and should seek psychiatric help to deal with that.

It's not immoral to have fun with SKRL, just as much as we can probably all agree it's not immoral to have fun with GTA games. What you enjoy in your own time is your problem only, and what really matters is how you act with other people.

[unsilentwill]

I have some things to say on the matter, but it's late so I'll do it later. For now I'll just drop off some of the bigger points.

Is it an issue for kids or adults to take the active role of a (digital) murderer, and how is realism a factor?

Also I think this is related to the topic at hand somewhat: http://kotaku.com/5622872/super-columbine-massacre-pops-up-in-school-shooting-scare?skyline=true&s=i

[Absurdist]

SKRL is not glorifying the life of a serial killer, so I don't think that playing it is immoral. GTA does glorify random violence to some extent, but that game's cartoony and unrealistic nature are what make it fun, not the fact that it lets you murder people (in my opinion, if the violence was hyper-realistic GTA would suck.).

[Carrie Nation]

No matter how it makes other people feel, being sadistic and evil to a world of NPCs who I have complete control over appeals to some darker side of me. For example, I loved the Pint Sized Slasher level in Fallout 3 and still have a save set to right before it that I go back to every now and then. Just thinking of having a procedurally generated roguelike with tons of re-playability at my finger tips whenever I want it makes me all excited inside.

Maybe that sounds/makes me fairly fucked up. But oh well, I'm one fucked up person who looks forward to playing this fucked up game.

[Melly]

Is it an issue for kids or adults to take the active role of a (digital) murderer, and how is realism a factor?

As far as adults go, I don't think there's any issue. Like I said, any mentally healthy adult knows to differentiate real murder from simulated murder. It's a very distinct difference in one's mind between what's real and what isn't. Graphical and gameplay realism doesn't affect this much either, because the defining factor is the knowledge that the game is not real, not how real it tries to appear.

As far as chldren go, things may be a little different. I prefer to say responsability should fall to the parents to properly educate their child on what they should and shouldn't do, and what they should and shouldn't play.

Also I think this is related to the topic at hand somewhat: http://kotaku.com/5622872/super-columbine-massacre-pops-up-in-school-shooting-scare?skyline=true&s=i

The kid in question, if he was truly thinking of going ahead with it, would do so regardless of having played that game. He was probably looking for school-shooting related info on account of his issues to begin with.

[PGGB]

Feelings aren't moral, they're instinctive. True morality is shown in our actions.

If you look at Kant's idea of ethics, the best action is the one where we do something against our feeling, solely because of our reason. I feel this way too, morality is in my opinion a matter of decision-making in the specific moment. If you enjoy watching someone get tortured, there's something wrong with you and you probably have something to catch up with, but as long as you force yourself to intervene and do the right thing you are still moral.

[Gnarf]

If you enjoy watching someone get tortured, there's something wrong with you

Can the Lord cure me of these sinful feelings?

[Jonas Kyratzes]

I think that in a healthy society, in which people can separate fantasy from reality, games like this will not cause problems. In a demented society like ours, they might; but that is not their fault, and banning them or getting angry about them won't do much.

One difference in my personal enjoyment of such stories is their tone, however. When the tone is on the anarchic side, I can find them quite enjoyable - they aren't about killing, but about metaphorically smashing society's standards. When the tone is cold and realistic, on the other hand, all I can feel is disdain for a simulation of the real lunatics running around our world. (Which, to me, includes games about paid murderers, like Splinter Cell etc.)

So, I think it's not the setting per se that is ethical or unethical, but what is done with it, and what it can be taken to signify.

[PGGB]

If you enjoy watching someone get tortured, there's something wrong with you

Can the Lord cure me of these sinful feelings?

I'd recommend a psychologist first, but if you think that religion can help you that's also an option.

[J. R. Hill]

The violence in the Bible is more graphic than in these games.

Once again the Israelites did evil in the Lord’s sight, and the Lord gave King Eglon of Moab control over Israel because of their evil.  Eglon enlisted the Ammonites and Amalekites as allies, and then he went out and defeated Israel, taking possession of Jericho, the city of palms.  And the Israelites served Eglon of Moab for eighteen years.
  But when the people of Israel cried out to the Lord for help, the Lord again raised up a rescuer to save them. His name was Ehud son of Gera, a left-handed man of the tribe of Benjamin. The Israelites sent Ehud to deliver their tribute money to King Eglon of Moab.  So Ehud made a double-edged dagger that was about a foot long, and he strapped it to his right thigh, keeping it hidden under his clothing.  He brought the tribute money to Eglon, who was very fat.

  After delivering the payment, Ehud started home with those who had helped carry the tribute.  But when Ehud reached the stone idols near Gilgal, he turned back. He came to Eglon and said, “I have a secret message for you.”

   So the king commanded his servants, “Be quiet!” and he sent them all out of the room.

  Ehud walked over to Eglon, who was sitting alone in a cool upstairs room. And Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you!” As King Eglon rose from his seat, Ehud reached with his left hand, pulled out the dagger strapped to his right thigh, and plunged it into the king’s belly.  The dagger went so deep that the handle disappeared beneath the king’s fat. So Ehud did not pull out the dagger, and the king’s bowels emptied.  Then Ehud closed and locked the doors of the room and escaped down the latrine.

[Gnarf]

Well yeah, but if he was acting on behalf of the Lord then there is little reason to question the ethics of it. Obviously the Lord approved.

[SirNiko]

The game is controversial, extremely so. I personally think the benefits it provides over less controversial games are minor to the point of pointlessness. Therefore, I see no reason to play this. I'll stick to Metal Gear Solid and Bonanza Bros. if I get an urge to sneak around and try not to get spotted.

[AshfordPride]

I really don't see how this is any more controversial than something like Hitman.  In fact, it's not controversial, we're all just creating this made up hypothetical controversy about how the game may or may not be.

The game is controversial, extremely so. I personally think the benefits it provides over less controversial games are minor to the point of pointlessness.

How?  This looks like it has the potential to be a very interesting roguelike.  Those games aren't even the same genre!  This sounds like an incredible roguelike that you're dismissing simply because some dude is blowing a fit over the ethical herp derps of kill an @ that represents a human.  AND YES I KNOW ITS MORE COMPLEX THAN THAT I WAS UNDERSTATING THE SERIOUSNESS TO MAKE HIM SEEM FOOLISH THANK YOU PLEASE DONT QUOTE THAT AND TELL ME IM WRONG.   

[Akari]

SKRL is not glorifying the life of a serial killer

I think this is something people are overlooking quite a lot. Just because you play a serial killer, doesn't mean the game is glorifying it: As seen from the character creation etc, you choose various psychological issues your character has and these can make your life impossible, drive your deeper into madness, unless you keep murdering and go on about your crazy obsessions and disorders, which is a neverending spiral towards eventual destruction. I don't think the game will have a "victory" goal anyway, it just goes on and on until you get caught, aka the only end is a bad end.

[Nate Kling]

I think the issue is much broader than this game.  An interesting question in my mind, is if I believe that games are powerful and can effect people and move people then I think that forces me also to believe that games can cause people to become more violent.  I'm speaking in very broad terms though not specifically and only to this game.  People who constantly surround themselves in incredibly violent thoughts or media ,I believe, will have a harder time fostering things like compassion, gentleness or mercy.  These things already being hard enough to have them grow in ourselves.  So I think that games specifically created to absorb yourself in a destructive mindset are unhelpful to the world.  At the same time I would be partly hesitant but interested to play a serial killer game that took on the subject with maturity and taught me something new about life or about the minds of serial killers.

[s0]

SKRL is not glorifying the life of a serial killer, so I don't think that playing it is immoral. GTA does glorify random violence to some extent, but that game's cartoony and unrealistic nature are what make it fun, not the fact that it lets you murder people (in my opinion, if the violence was hyper-realistic GTA would suck.).

I said this in the other thread already, but I've always felt GTA uses humor and cartoonishness to cop out of the morality issue. Kinda like "What you do in this game is pretty fucked up, but  hey, it's all fine and dandy cuz it's all a big joke, right?". GTA is the Glenn Beck of video games. 

[Renton]

Well, it used to be. GTA4 was pretty serious fucking business.

[Brother Android]

SKRL is not glorifying the life of a serial killer

I think this is something people are overlooking quite a lot. Just because you play a serial killer, doesn't mean the game is glorifying it: As seen from the character creation etc, you choose various psychological issues your character has and these can make your life impossible, drive your deeper into madness, unless you keep murdering and go on about your crazy obsessions and disorders, which is a neverending spiral towards eventual destruction. I don't think the game will have a "victory" goal anyway, it just goes on and on until you get caught, aka the only end is a bad end.

Personally I don't see this distinction. You can say that the game doesn't condone murder, but I don't think you can say that its appeal does not come from the exploration of what it would be like to be a killer, and therefore you really are, as a player, getting your pleasure from murdering virtual people and not from getting caught (?). Now, to me the morality of murdering virtual people is not really an issue, and I don't think it's wrong to play this game any more than it's wrong to theorize about how, if one were a maniac, one would commit the perfect crime or something like that. But I do think there is some degree of exhibitionism in its appeal, and to deny this is dishonest. I generally don't prefer games that are like this - when I kill an innocent in an RPG I reload - but I don't think it is wrong to play them (and I don't think my squeamishness makes me a better person somehow, to be clear).

[Seth]

I posted this in the other thread, but maybe it should go in this one:

Personally, the game appeals to me because it is about serial killing, even if that makes me a little uncomfortable.  Sadism is a very human thing. I think this game has a chance to say something powerful about the subject.  It probably already has.  I mean, with the roguelike presentation, it's very easy for people to shut off their empathy for these at signs, and really focus on the intellectual challenges of the whole process, and the thrill of taunting police, etc.  I mean, isn't that how serial killers act?  Without empathy, and as though the whole thing was just a game?  This game could be a very interesting glimpse in how serial killers view the world.