« Ye Olde Disciplinary Punch-and-Judy Show | Main | Reality Check »

Sep 11, 2004



In this sense if there is any danger, it is already present in a public frightened that the game format implicates the user as a moral agent in the game experience. A documentary or X-Rated film however can contain far more controversial content, but because the user isn't a decision making operand, they aren't morally implicated as a result of using the medium.

I wonder how much of this can be tamed by explicitly acknowledging the moral choice within a game world. Would Knights of the Old Republic be somehow more or less controversial (not that it was particularily, but an example) should it have shipped without the player choice of walking on the light or dark side. In other words, a game world which allows the participants to choose to be "lawful evil" rather than assuming it might be able to get away with more? Thoughts?


An interesting thought, as though one prepares other players to expect the best or worst as a function of alignment.

However, this of course largely applies to in-game social dynamics. From the perspective of censorship more generally, it's the fact that role-play can occur at all that is controversial, and this is a game external phenomenon. Popular opinion is that all games are a form of role-play, and that by doing so we are experimenting with alternative expressions of a moral or performative nature. For this reason games are still considered dangerous contexts for the generation of dissenting cultures, as 'laboratories of being'.

I remember how my local church reacted so badly to Pen and Paper games, something I played alot. It seems the same neuroses find anchor with MMO's and games generally. However as games become more ubiquitous these fears seem to be increasingly relaxing..

The comments to this entry are closed.