Another attractive element of these games is the moral questions that sometimes arise. I know this is particularly true in "This War of Mine" (e.g. - choosing to take in a starving child that comes knocking on your door, but who also becomes a resource burden on your small tribe).

Questioning and reflecting on decision making, moral choice, and consequences of (in)action are a central focus of literature study, so I would love to know about additional games in this vein that I could potentially bring into my classroom as 'game-texts'.

Suggestions?

This War of Mine is the only time I've ever felt genuinely troubled by a moral choice in a videogame, and it was for an unscripted reason. Spoiler in ROT13:

Oehab gur pbbx jnf bar bs zl cnegl zrzoref. Ur jnf fubg va n enaqbz envq frireny qnlf ntb, naq jr'er bhg bs zrqvpvar naq onaqntrf. Vg vf irel pyrne gung Oehab jvyy qvr vs ur qbrf abg trg onaqntrq, cebonoyl jvguva 2 qnlf, juvpu zrnaf jr unir rknpgyl 1 avtug gb fpniratr fhssvpvrag pybgu gb znxr n onaqntr naq gura bar qnl gb perngr naq nccyl vg.

Hasbeghangryl, orpnhfr bs creinfvir erfbhepr fubegntrf, jr unir rkunhfgrq nyy bs gur pybgu va nernf juvpu ner fnsr gb fpniratr va, naq ner yrsg gb punapr Gur Fhcreznexrg, juvpu vf znexrq ba gur znc nf orvat envqrq ol fbyqvref. Jr fryrpg nabgure CP, urefrys nyfb zvyqyl jbhaqrq, gb tb gb gur fhcreznexrg.

Nsgre neevivat ng gur fhcreznexrg, fur ybpngrf fhssvpvrag pybgu gb onaqntr Oehab. Jr pna rfpncr gur Fhcreznexrg jvgubhg vapvqrag abj, ohg rkcybevat vf pbfgyrff nf ybat nf jr'er abg pnhtug naq jr zvtug svaq fbzrguvat irel hfrshy, yvxr zrqvpvar be pbssrr. Fb jr tb hc gb n qbbe naq yvfgra ng vg, gelvat gb qrgrezvar jurgure vg vf fnsr gb bcra.

Oruvaq gur qbbe vf n lbhat tvey orvat nffnhygrq ol n fbyqvre. Fur pevrf sbe uryc.

Guhf gur qvyrzzn. Va nal bgure tnzr, jr ohfg qbja gur qbbe, xvyy gur fbyqvre, naq onfx va bhe urebvp qrrqf. Va Guvf Jne bs Zvar, guvf nyzbfg pregnvayl erfhygf va bhe CP trggvat fubg. Vs gurl fheivir, jr jvyy unir gb hfr gur onaqntr ba gurz, naq Oehab jvyy pregnvayl crevfu. Jr unir n evfx-serr rfpncr ebhgr, ohg vg erdhverf nonaqbavat na vaabprag gb gur ubeebef bs jne.

Nsgre npghny erny-yvsr fbhyfrnepuvat nobhg gur qrpvfvba, V beqre gur CP gb yrnir.

Oehab vf qrnq jura jr erghea ubzr.

Gaming critic TotalBiscuit also cites that game as having made him feel genuinely troubled about his actions, also unscripted [1].

Juvyr rkcybevat n ohvyqvat sbe erfbheprf ur xvyyf jung ur gubhtug jnf n onaqvg fgnaqvat thneq. Vzzrqvngryl gur "onaqvg"'f fvfgre pbzrf nybat naq zbheaf ure fvoyvat'f qrngu, fb qvfgenhtug fur vtaberf gur xvyyre. Ur ernyvmrf vg jnf ab onaqvg, ohg whfg nabgure snzvyl gelvat gb trg nybat yvxr ur jnf.

[1] http://youtu.be/YNNAdTAM5os

I just wish the game didn't make it glaringly obvious whom you can kill without taking a morale hit. Overhearing some folks talk about how happy they are to have killed the drivers of a civilian supply truck was just a glaring "You can kill these people and not feel remorse" flag.

I would have loved it all the more if all the NPCs were shades of grey instead of more obvious blacks and whites.

That's heavy, and makes me seriously want to play This War of Mine; I'll have to check it out on steam when I get home.

Me too.

That may be the most compelling game review I've ever read.

And it is exactly unscripted moments like that which can provide interesting fodder for conversation. It is all too easy (as a poster below points out) for people to let their moral beliefs exist unchallenged, but when dealing with young people we need them to ask and answer tough questions. Even becoming comfortable with 'not knowing' is a huge task.

I suppose this is not a language, is some kind of cypher, how do I read it, please?

Paste the text here: http://www.rot13.com/index.php

I just had fun writing a goofy ruby script to rot13 this comment thread: https://gist.github.com/dpritchett/bfa3423dcab85ee46ddf

thank you!

"Moral" choices seem to be a trend lately, especially with BioWare RPGs and their ilk (Dragon Age, Mass Effect). Unfortunately, most of the consequences are fairly minor, mostly only revolving around the opinions of your in-game acquaintances. The events unfold a little differently sometimes, but the end result is almost always the same.

The worst of it is that they always main-line you into one moral extreme or the other. It's always obvious which choice is "good" and which is "bad", and once you've made that choice for the first time you'll always make the same choice later on, else you'll miss out on the in-game benefits of having a "pure" moral stance. Mass Effect and Infamous especially do this.

On your point, KOTOR II comes to mind. Taking Lucas' Black/White morality of The Force and turning it more Grey.

It's just a burden of the games of today. And that it was a lot easier to write out text in older Bioware games for possible branches and outcomes. As that was the main way to tell the story and what players expected.

Versus recording dialogue, creating cutscenes, etc that modern games tell their stories though.

edit: the constraints of modern asset creation being fairly clear with the ending of the last Mass Effect game. A series that was toted for its story and depth. Where your choices 'mattered' but were reduced to the same end cutscene with different hues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vjHXchR8pw

For an A-list game this is probably true, but there are very many indie/small games being developed which use 'archaic' game mechanics/stylistics.

I'm actually surprised to see the visual and mechanical simplicity of many games that have flared up in popularity among my students. Certainly, the processing limits of mobile phones play a role - but that doesn't stop these small games from passing through the student body like wildfire (and then burning out equally quickly).

This has been my experience as well. I am attracted to bringing games into the learning environment because they can offer unique opportunities for action/reaction/reflection (in addition to other benefits) - but I am indeed more interested in complicated decision making rather than simply choosing Red Team v. Blue Team.

For instance, I would love to see a game like "Papers Please" with a stronger element of consequences. Rather than simply being told you allowed a terrorist through the gates (with a brief cut-away) the consequences of this action (deaths, social destabilization, etc.) would impact the future game play. Perhaps, you decide to actively aid and abet these terrorists (by communicating to them that you will allow them and their compatriots to pass through) - but then you put yourself and your loved ones at risk, as well as increase social instability.

This is already a wonderful game, but I would like to see the premise taken even farther. Games could be a wonderful place to consider and critique decision making and moral choices that are analogous to those we face in real life (even if filtered through clearly fictitious events/circumstances).

To the opposite extreme, there's also The Stanley Parable. On the surface it's a humorous narrative seemingly about being a cubicle drone, but it's ultimately about the futility of choice.

One could argue that Bioshock Infinite is about the same thing.

The original BioShock was better in going meta on the futility of choice in video games as a medium. You're going to end up doing what the game designer wants you to do. This presumes a game designer has a vision of some sort, of course, but games that don't are either bad or seen as tech demos.

I liked that, but none of the player's choices purported to be very important, either.

Bioshock Infinite doesn't purport to give the player more than the standard illusion of choice, but I think it's more interesting how choice is handled in the narrative.

The characters think that they're making big, important decisions that reshape their world. It turns out that they weren't really.

Thank you. The name rings a bell, but I will have to check it out.

I think that this is why the ethics question is ill-formed in video games: it is used as a mean to an end (i.e. what should I do in order to get this). Translated to real life, it results in a quite hypocritical and cynical behaviour (I'm nice in order to get that). Playing with morality implies playing with the players feelings (or rather the player plays with its own feelings), which in turn implies that the game have to build those feelings in the first place.

I can't help but thinking that there should be an AI for this.

Papers Please does that. Depending on how you play the game, multiple different endings are possible. You can choose to assist resistance movements, rebel yourself, etc.

I think part of this is because few people tend to think of morality as a question. They know what's right and presume everyone else either agrees or is insane in some way. This makes it difficult to frame a morality decision as an actual choice; it becomes coercive instead.

I wonder what would happen if you surveyed game designers and offered them some trolley problem [1] variant and said, "Write up an explanation for which decision you choose." How many would discuss the pros and cons of both decisions? How many of them would look for a third option? How many of them would even be able to explain their decision? How many of them would be able to make a decision?

But the nuance and detail in their response, to me, would be the real indicator. If someone can dive deeply into the question, I think they'd be able to offer real moral choices in other situations, too.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I really don’t understand this obsession with consequences.

KRZ is extremely effective in letting you make very meaningful choice without those choices affecting anything at all, really. That’s possible, you know. There don’t have to be (big) consequences. The choice itself, even, can be meaningful.

One of the nice-but-sometimes-annoying things about the Stalker series was that the world was very grey, and lots of choices weren't even obviously choices at the time.

In Call of Pripyat, for example, how you treat a few characters in chance encounters can drastically change the late-game, and completely change the endings. Also, the choices aren't usually "Eat baby or save world", they're more "Do you help this guy, or this guy? We have only vaguely hinted what they're up to, so choose carefully."

Fallout 2 and Arcanum had some really well-done morality gameplay as well.

Witcher 1 and 2 are RPGs that do this the right way. No morality meter, just hard choices without full knowledge (so you can't be sure which choice is good, often neither) and with delayed consequences (so players don't just reload).

And in TW2 they made a whole chapter (+-20% of the game content) different depending on your choice, with different map, different NPCs you meet, quests, and you get to know different aspects of the story (if you play just one version you won't get the whole image).

There was an interesting critique of Mass Effect's morality system recently at http://www.avclub.com/article/mass-effects-universe-gets-ugl...

I agree with this, mostly, but I am also optimistic about what we'll see in the future. There are lots more little studios making niche games and trying out new ideas than there were just a few years ago. I bet we'll see some RPGs with less spoonfed choices in them.

I completely agree. The only thing holding any of those games back was the lack of desire, funding, or resources to make a truly non-convergent branching narrative.

A Dark Room is actually a counter example of this. It more or less mainlines you, but makes a point of it. You cannot reverse it. Yet, I was glad to find out that I was not the only one to try.

You might consider Kentucky Route Zero. It falls in the point-and-click adventure game category.

Discovering how masterfully its creators have handled the game-mechanical, cinematic, and literary elements that comprise a modern video game is part of the delight of playing it, IMO, to the point that practically any discussion of it spoils some part of the experience, but without giving too much away it doesn't contain story-branching moral choices so much as... well, they're still choices and still have a moral character and they still the affect the story in a major way, but... the choices manage to be simultaneously unimportant and of great, even supreme, import, I guess. Look, just go play it, if you haven't. Read as little as you can to convince yourself to play it, especially if you're looking for interesting angles on player choices.

Granted, it's in five acts and only three are out so far, but act four should be up before too long and the existing material will take some time to get through. There are short episodes between the five acts, so there are three of those to play as well—usually each of those comes out not long before the next episode is released, and the third one is out, which is why I'd guess act four isn't far off.

I think another influence that the article doesn't touch on much are games like Amnesia: The Dark Descent. Horror games in which you have no weapons and can't fight back against the monsters; your only defense is being terrified and running away and hiding, and the resources you do have (in Amnesia, light sources) are very limited.

> These games subvert the usual arc of heroic triumph by providing a basis for interesting, beautiful defeat.

I was half-expecting a nod to Dwarf Fortress.

Good. I am so bored of the whole power trip trope which is pervading most video games. At this point, ennemies would have to trip on my sword in order to make some games easier. Arcade games tend to be 'artificially unfair' in order to make sure that the player will die and have to pay to continue. Many modern mainstream games take the opposite approach and make sure that the average game will feel like a demigod. It is not without merits, especially with a hero battling against oversized ennemies. For example, it is very gratifying to fight enemies 10 times as big as the protagonist of Darksiders. I feel like it is reaching a dead end though. Parkour / scaling in Assassin Creed is a one button affair. You just look at your hero do these feats. Platforming is equally easy in that game series, you just have to find the designed path thought up by the developers and press the right button, which is even conveniently displayed on the screen. Ezio is able to take on dozen of guards and I usually flee only because I am bored of the easy kills. Skyrim goes out of its way to make you feel like 'yet another chosen one', and judging from the game quest, you are litteraly the only person able to get anything done in that world. Not to mention that very soon you become a walking demigod able to kill anything from liches to dragons. I can't shake the feeling that these games are very condescending to the player. They avoid giving the player a real challenge in order to make sure that everybody can feel powerful with minimal effort.

I don't think that games have to be as brutal as Dark Souls or even unfair like Banished. Avoiding the 'suddenly all powerful chosen one' trope would be a good start. Please let me play a random schmuck that is not going to defeat all the demons of Hell and save the world all by himself.

The author is making a big point of banished being a game of inevitable demise, but that's not how I found it.

To me, it's a game of hope and industriousness. Where he sees starving workers staving off inevitable death, I see villagers keen to make their new settlement work.

I think there's a lot of room for interpretation both ways, which is great for the games, but it means this article is quite shallow and offers no real insight, because it's trying to build on a foundation that is viewed differently depending on who you are.

This reminded me of Avalon Hill's Outdoor Survival. It was recommended for use as an outdoor "dungeon" in the old boxed D & D. Adventuring outdoors was kinda dull for us as kids, compared to indoor slaughter but we did play the actual board game fairly often.

Dying of thirst was not uncommon.

A long time ago (though admittedly in this galaxy) I made a computer game with moral choices a key element in the gameplay. I named it Legacy. It was a Java GUI app. Though a small game in terms of feature set and code size I always remember noticing how it was one of the more fun (to me) games I ever made. Had to do with mating, family and inheritances. It ended up influencing my more recent designs as well.

Is it available to play?

the code exists on one of my disks somewhere. If you email me your email address I could notify you when I find it and get it usable for you. my email in my profile.