While wandering around the Catholic blogosphere I encountered Basilian Father Chris Valka discussing video games. Fr. Valka's concern is that games erode one of the cardinal virtues, Fortitude. As you know from your Catechism (see Para. 1808), Fortitude "strengthens the resolve to resist temptations and to overcome obstacles in the moral life." As Fr. Valka has come to understand videogames, they seem to allow anyone to costlessly restart at any time. In real life, of course, there is no SaveGame. Mistakes, once made, create problems that cannot be avoided. Fr. Valka worries that coming generations won't be very good at overcoming obstacles in the moral life. Instead they will give in, on the (false) assumption that it will always be possible to go back and start over.
Forgive Fr. Valka for being like so many others in misunderstanding a cultural phenomenon from which he remains distant. It will not be that way forever. In 2010, though, his judgments raise important questions that only we who have experience in games can address. I'm particularly struck at the reliance of his thinking on the patterns of single-player games. In multi-player games, as in real life, there is no save button. Moreover, reputations in MMOGs take months and years to build up, and surrendering them is costly. I wonder if he is commenting on a rather transient feature of gaming.
Are the features of games, generally and over the long haul, conducive to the development of virtue? If a boy plays World of Warcraft instead of hiking in the woods or rebuilding old cars, is he more or less likely to develop prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance, as well as faith, hope, and charity? What features of games and virtual worlds contribute or detract from the virtues?
Yeah... this is very much a non-gamer view of what "save game" means. It's like arguing that the backspace key on a computer keyboard, White Out for typewriters or even pencil erasers are morally suspect because they allow us to "costlessly revise our errors."
You don't win a game by winning a game. You win it by playing it. Dying in a game isn't death. Dying isn't even failure. Dying is part of the learning/fun experience. If you never die, it's probably a kinda sucky, easy, wee-little-kid game that's teaching mouse skills rather than really being "gamey."
Are sports morally suspect because you can lose a game (or a point) and then play the game again? In real life, if I "strike out" at something important, I may not ever be able to "go to bat" again. You get one chance for lots of things (dating, job interviews, etc.). Not three. And certainly you don't get to into extra innings.
What you learn from dying and reloading in a game is how to better interpret the rules for the game and play. Same as what you learn from falling off a horse is how to not do that as much.
Posted by: Andy Havens | Jan 19, 2010 at 14:55
I disagree. If anything, "massive" multiplayer games has taught us to be even more careless of how we interact with other players.
WOW: I'm in a random group, I don't know who these guys are... hey, I'll just roll "need" on everything and leave at the end. In fact... I will purposely pull a few packs of monsters and draw them all onto the healer, then I will leave group.
XBL: where calling people names and teabag'ing people is the norm.
Games allows us to live lives and make choices without regard of possible consequences. It doesn't teach us what the consequences are, nor does it encourage us to behave good.
WOW: You have achievement to win something by rolling 100 in "need". But why is it that there is no achievement for passing on an item that is a side-upgrade for you, for a fellow party member where it's a huge-upgrade?
I remember with much fondness when I was playing MUD... and it's always the same 20-30 people that you see everyday. That was when I had normal interactions, and what I said, and did, made a difference.
"Reputation" in massive multiplayer games barely makes a dent on anything.
Posted by: Sousily | Jan 19, 2010 at 17:36
Indeed, the more "massive" a MMO really is, the less reputation actually means, and the easier it is to get away with bad behavior.
Posted by: Tesh | Jan 19, 2010 at 18:33
At least in single player games - you are only behaving badly towards ... arguably, a program. It's like... playing chess and you are a bit upset at losing so you are slamming the pieces on the board a bit harder. (raging against the equipment)
In MMOs... we are behaving badly towards fellow people... You can't exactly get upset at your opponent during chess and start commenting creatively about his or her ancestry.
Yet that seems to be where MMO is taking this generation.
Posted by: Sousily | Jan 19, 2010 at 18:44
Reputation" in massive multiplayer games barely makes a dent on anything
Posted by: ye | Jan 19, 2010 at 23:50
This is a bit rich, coming from a religion that allows you to "costlessly restart" your standing with your deity merely by confessing your sins to a priest.
Reloading is just a form of absolution.
Richard
Posted by: Richard | Jan 20, 2010 at 03:48
"I remember with much fondness when I was playing MUD... and it's always the same 20-30 people that you see everyday. That was when I had normal interactions, and what I said, and did, made a difference."
I think you need to stop soloing MMOs and join a guild. A WoW guild gives the exact feeling I used to have logging onto a small MUD, seeing the same people, building those trust relationships. PUGging in an MMO is not a substitute, but guilding is!
I find this topic fascinating though. Perhaps Fr. Valka should play Demon's Souls - it's pretty much less forgiving than real life :D
Posted by: Chris Proctor | Jan 20, 2010 at 04:36
Also, great comment from Richard :)
Posted by: Chris Proctor | Jan 20, 2010 at 04:37
"PUGging in an MMO is not a substitute, but guilding is!"
Agree, although if you aim for the high end content, bad reputations might keep you from getting into "reasonable" PUGs.
On the other hand, even if people care about how they are seen by others there are many ways to reset and start over. Realm change, name change and charachter change.
So I would say, that keeping that in mind, taking the risk and making some abd decisions is very likely to happen
Posted by: Mat Kaz | Jan 20, 2010 at 11:02
You should have called this post "Virtuous Worlds"
Actually, I was wondering, when I was considering the etymology of virtual, how much virtue there can be in games and virtual worlds.
Sports are ostensibly about building character. At least they are sold that way in some cases. Today, we have these notions that we include sports in the school curriculum to help kids learn "team spirit" and "good sportmanship" -- but I really wonder what those concepts become in practice. I played sports and I learned things from them, but I'm not sure that those who play sports have any special claim to virtue.
I guess, for me, something about virtuous leisure just seem inherently conflicted. (Too much Prot. work ethic, perhaps.)
Vile forms of sport exist, sure, and we can spot them. But I'm not sure I see much to say, in term of superior morality, about the permadeath or no PD choice.
Posted by: greglas | Jan 20, 2010 at 13:45
This reminds me of a fight I had with my mom at one point in my teens. After I told her that one of my favorite characters is a rich philanthropist, she framed her blatant anti-internet/anti-gaming bias with concern that this meant I wouldn't ever actually go into charity work or philanthropy, because I'd be too busy pretending I was doing it.
I now am writing this from my Peace Corps assignment in Swaziland. So there, Mom.
Posted by: Lydia Laurenson | Jan 20, 2010 at 15:38
My specific knowledge when it comes to the bible is pretty sketchy, but I thought it was big on giving people "second chances"?
Posted by: Verilazic | Jan 20, 2010 at 23:11
@Sousily: In the MMOs or OLGs you mention, the phenomena you describe (which WoWs random, cross-server instancing makes worse), it's the anonymity, the lack of human connection that's the root issue. Gaming is a layer on top of that, or the thing happening in that context. -Yes, in the end, they're wrapped together, but online multi-player games need not be so anonymous, even on a server with 2000 players.
Posted by: Tripp | Jan 21, 2010 at 10:39
How gratifying to see Professor Bartle and others commenting on doctrinal issues. How exciting! Let's go once again to our Catechism. In paragraph 1422 and following, we learn than the Rite of Reconciliation is not a cheap re-start. You are supposed to adopt a stance of contrition and regret, as well as a commit yourself to go and sin no more.
Thus while this religion does offer second chances, they are not on the cheap. In contrast, a game restart is always no-questions-asked.
Posted by: ecastronova | Jan 21, 2010 at 13:28
Ted>we learn than the Rite of Reconciliation is not a cheap re-start. You are supposed to adopt a stance of contrition and regret, as well as a commit yourself to go and sin no more.
Sounds cheap to me. Plus, as no-one ever does go and sin no more, it's not exactly effective. Reboot, resave. You can even wait until your deathbed before repenting, which is utterly costless.
>Thus while this religion does offer second chances, they are not on the cheap. In contrast, a game restart is always no-questions-asked.
No questions asked, but not costless. I recently discarded 3 days' worth of play in Mount and Blade because I hadn't realised quite how expensive helping a usurper take over the throne would be. Three days of play down the pan, a feeling of regret, I won't be doing that again ... yes, sounds just like your Rite of Reconciliation with a different label stuck on it.
Richard
Posted by: Richard | Jan 22, 2010 at 07:46
Ted:
Interesting subject... but in calling single player games "transient", aren't you buying into this belief many MMO researchers have that the multiplayer form will replace the single player videogame?
It's not very likely this is the case, as far as I can ascertain. It's more likely these are two very distinct marketplaces; revenue may be higher for successful titles in the multiplayer, but competition is likely to remain more viable in the single player market, where experiences can be better tailored to individual tastes.
All the best,
Chris.
Posted by: Chris | Jan 25, 2010 at 05:47
This sounds a lot more like Calvinism or Lutherean dogma than Catholicism. I'd think the Catholics would love the restart button, while the Protestants would insist that salvation can be won only through hard labour and clean living.
Posted by: Torill | Feb 02, 2010 at 08:04
It seems to me that the games teach fortitude for exactly the reason he fears they do not. In a game where you can "hit reload" you must persevere even in the face of defeat, refining your virtue and skill with each try. Even if you take 120 hours to play a 40 hour single player game, you have learned from your mistakes, returned to the problem at hand, and stuck with the problem.
If anything, this builds confidence in risk-assessment and would seem to me improve risk-taking success in the face of unknowable factors in real life too. At least, developing a mindfulness around "simulating" possibilities in my own life was certainly aided by being able to model situations with skills derived from gaming.
Thy mileage may vary...:)
This concept, of course, excludes MMOs, where a persistent multiplayer world doesn't really let you "hit reload" at all. You can't do anything more than die for your mistakes and run back and try again -- far more Buddhist than Catholic).
Heh.
Posted by: Shava Nerad/Shava Suntzu in SL | Feb 15, 2010 at 02:48
I'm not sure about my waking life, but playing computer games has definitely had an effect on my dreams. Now, if something bad is happening in a dream, it is easy to go back to a save point and replay the dream. Much easier than trying to actively control what is happening in the dream.
Posted by: CherryBomb | Mar 03, 2010 at 13:13