'Wading-In' is a satirical ranting on the topic of any given public issue, ordinarily published on PartGeek

The issue of 'Video Game Violence' is growing more with every big release. It's started in some pretty bizarre places, from the mind controlling allegations of the late eighties, to the Manhunt media sensation of a few years ago. Not wanting to get tied up with the hypocrisy of the media, nor wade in to the ongoing debate of 'Age Classification' (Two words: Bad Parenting), I'm keen to explore just what the media is now trying to do by linking in the video game with the claim we're all closet Husain’s.

I'm of course not referring to the England Cricketer (Personally the thought that we all take to standing around in fields with wooden sticks and pressed linen trousers scares the bejesus out of me) but to Warlords and dictators that commit global atrocities.

Now I can in no way what so ever claim to be a video game saint. Since turning the decade, I have for some reason taken to being a virtual bastard (many can and have argued that this is in no way limited to the 'virtual'). The mass market has finally caught up to the games of my youth by introducing the moral choice. Whilst the system is by no means as complex as older titles like Balders Gate or the social freedoms afforded by MMO's, games like Mass Effect, Fallout III and the Fable series have certainly delivered good representations of moral dilemma.

In the opening chapter of Mass Effect, you encounter a trapped civilian colonist and her 'batshit crazy' friend. Not yet stepping in to discuss the moral choice of the gamer by even getting involved in the situation, the game presents you with a choice mid conversation to stop the babbling fruit loop. Now the game operates on some pretty vague mechanics, conversation options often do not reflect what will be said and sometimes merge into one with two different options yielding the same result. I'll confess to starting the game with good intentions but having selected the option to 'shut-up' the crazy guy, assuming this would result in a very stern telling off from Commander Sheppard, I was wrong:



It's also fair to confess that after doing this, I laughed pretty damned hard. Now whilst were hardly encroaching on a 'virtual war crime' by punching a spastic (although when you put it like that...), but it represents the more direct choices that gamers are asked to make in Video Games. (If you want to Sheppard punch someone else, or just see how great of a bastard you can really be, follow me down the rabbit hole)

Fable II (and I give you fair warning, here be spoilers for those that have not played the game through in its entirety) asks you to make a much wider reaching moral decision. The game sees you play through the story of a hero whose quest is to overthrow an evil power that has enslaved the population, to rebuild a dark tower and worst of all, he kills your dog. With the successful defeat of Evil Shivago, the hero (and the player) is granted the power of the tower (Radio 1Extra here I come) and a wish. Unfortunately you are restricted in your wish to 3 choices:

1. The Sacrifice
"The Needs of the Many' has sacrificed loved ones so that many more will live". By choosing this option, those that died in the construction of the tower or lost their lives in The Claws evil operation are brought back to life and the land is restored to its edenic properties.

2. The Family
"The Needs of The Few' has condemned thousands to death so that loved ones might live". This decision results in the resurrection of your murdered family (and I'd got around in my play through) and more importantly, the second coming of Fido! However, by making this wish, you are committing a selfish act in denying thousands of others the return of their loved ones, over the return of your own.

3. The Egomaniac
"The Needs of the One' has condemned thousands to death for nothing but gold". A fairly self explanatory choice. Everyone who has died stays dead and you get filthy stinking rich.

None of these choices, in my view, are without morale objections. By electing to take the cash and run, you are of course selfishly engaging in an extreme capitalist act, acquiring vast sums of gold which you can comfortably rule the land with. In choosing to restore your family, you are selfishly restoring your own fairy tale and regaining man’s best friend. The Sacrifice appears to be the only choice you can make that is free from judgement, but really, is it? By restoring the lives of thousands, you really are upsetting a great deal of society. Those who are dead have been mourned for and everyone has moved on with their lives. A good example of this will be the Blacksmith, whom I murdered, bought his business and married his recently widowed wife, granting me also the deed to his lovely house which I then proceeded to redecorate to my own tastes. If we reintroduce Frank to the mix, well he's not really coming back to much is he. For one, by choosing to bring him back to life, my family, previously known as Frank's family, have perished. Frank returns to Albion alone, with nowhere to live and no penny to his name. I don't really think that this is the best solution to a problem that is only going to generate even more problems that will have to be dealt with by the Albion justice system and it's team of lawyers who are about to get a lot of work come it's way. Similarly, in saving the family, my wife (being the crazy hormonal bitch with her own deluded view on society), isn't going to love me anymore for condemning thousands to death, will file for divorce, take my house, the kids and probably gain control over most of my assets (the courts will favour her for the sheer lack of work), leaving me penniless, homeless and without a family. I will of course have my dog however who I will really need to work the sad eyes whilst I busk outside of various Taverns, playing my lute with the recently unemployed bards of the land (an excellent band title if I do say so myself). Really, the only logical conclusion is to kill everyone, take the money and establish a charitable foundation to ensure this will never happen again, earning the love of the remaining population with my humanitarian mission. Chicks dig a humanitarian and I can always buy a new dog.

Peter Molenyeux of course did not construct a game that is quite so complex. Whilst the choices above are a factual recountance of the games culmination, the argument I constructed afterwards is of course a morale interpretation and not in any way a feature of the games dynamics. Games sadly aren't at that stage, but certainly when I was presented with the choice at the end of Fable II, I struggled to choose where I stood. The option to take the money was of course appealing, I played the vast majority of the game like a total dick; it was only fair to end it in the dick-iest way possible. Ultimately though, playing the game like a dick had already made me very rich and with the bad guy out of the way, it was going to be a lot easier exploiting who was left. To restore the land and population was also tempting as it would atone for my sins and nourish my anti-heroes ego by making him the moral champion, gifting me thousands of grateful worshippers and a lot more people to exploit. The middle ground, the fence to sit on, the option I always hate to take, proved the most appealing. I got my Dog back, I loved that Dog. And I'm not talking from a game perspective but from the perspective of me, as the gamer. I was genuinely gutted when the Dog was killed, I have a Dog and I love him dearly, it made me quite upset to think that my hero had lost his dog because if it ever happened to me, I'd be gutted. In my eyes, killing a dog is far worse than killing someone’s daughter with mustard gas.

But this is where the issue of morality in a video game becomes a bit blurry. So far I have only demonstrated the moral choices a game forces you to make in order to progress and really the more important issue that the BBC and other arms of the media have recently began to raise is how the gamer makes those choices.

The biggest media frenzy that has been stirring around the press at present lies with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. During which, gamers take on the role of an undercover CIA operative who was tasked with infiltrating a Russian Ultranationalist group, leading him to join in a slaughter at an airport. Whether or not you actually engage in the shooting is up to you, you are prevented from killing the Russians however as this will result in the failing of the mission, you can't pull the white feather here. But it really is a scary piece of art:



A concern of the protestors and their lawyers, as noted in the BBC article, is that is difficult to gauge how much these acts encroach on 'War Crimes' as the context of global conflict is often absent. Shooting at people is one argument for the naysayers of the industry, but shooting at unarmed, innocent, citizens is one too many Turkeys up their steam pipes. The focus of the article isn't just Call of Duty (it's just been tacked on to draw attention), indeed the latest Call of Duty was not even subjected to this level of scrutiny, but really does extend to some odd choices. Brothers in Arms and Medal of Honor were amongst those played by the crack team, an odd choice considering much of the two series are created upon actual historical accounts. Follow that with Army of Two (A futuristic world at war that relies on the use of Mercenary super soldiers) and Metal Gear Solid (a series of games best surmised as 'Hollyoaks -so late at night you'll think its morning') and you begin to wonder where it is the lawyers are supposed to draw comparisons. Whilst there are titles on the list that represent modern day conflicts that the audience can relate too, much of the studied material is set in distorted realities, future envisioning or genuine history. Why waste money trying to cause a fuss over nothing?

It really is nothing new to persecute the morality of video games however, it's just that with the release of a hugely popular, massively selling mainstream title in the run up to Christmas, the media have decided it's time we wade -in on the matter. Games have asked gamers to do far worse than has been highlighted in Modern Warfare 2 and in the even more unsuspecting titles, games have given gamers the opportunity to go one better, whether the game was designed to permit it or not.

I'm fairly confident that as far as 'Evil bastards' go, I'm up there with Hitler, Stalin and The Backstreet Boys and I have a fair few friends that are just as cool. Turning back the clocks almost a decade, I had absolutely no objection in shooting Hostages in Counter-Strike. It's worth pointing out that I only really took to this whilst playing as a Counter-Terrorist, the team charged with rescuing the poor guys. It was discovered, late one night, that if you could rescue two of the four hostages and some misadventure would happen to the remaining captives, the CT's would win the round. This sometimes resulted in the rescuing of two hostages whilst the others would each receive .45 calibre rounds to the head, simply because it was both annoying and often tricky to lead four AI controlled hostages to a safe zone without losing a few to a misplaced wall or simply drawing too much attention. A situation often arose where two hostages had been rescued, the CT team had all but been eliminated and faced an overwhelming number of Terrorists who were quite happy to sit at the rescue points and wait for you to try be a hero. The solution was simply to fight the way to where the hostages were and throw as many grenades through the doorway as possible, not to harm the Terrorists of course, but to blow up the civilian hostages, gifting you the win.

By all means, this is morally appalling. Stepping once more into the virtual realm of consequence, I was tasked with saving the lives of hostages and when it was convenient, I was happy to blow their heads off and giggle my way to victory. This would result in a global inquiry, a military tribunal, outcry from the east and outrage from the right-wing, an international review of the rules of engagement which ultimately leads to end of Counter-Terrorist operations and a lot of 18-30s holiday camps getting one off visits from Abdul Smith. A systematic downfall of global society, all because people think it's not acceptable to shoot Hostages in the head to give the team a 'win'. Personally, I think they should put more emphasis on why, after having 'saved' the day, the Hostages are returned to their evil captors and the process repeats itself.

One of the listed crimes that caught my eye in the article was the reference to games permitting the destruction of "protected objects such as Churches and Mosques". I seem to recall one of my earliest, most evil act that completely spits in the face of morality, was the destruction of the holy centre of an organisation with its holy leader still inside, in fact I seem to remember using an unmanned Orbital Ion Cannon to do it, surely that only adds to the evil by not having the decency to pull the trigger myself. Yes, the Temple of Nod was the home to a global terrorist force, led by a crazy bald man. But clearly I have wronged the Swiss by deciding against writing Kane a sternly worded letter, denouncing his evil, instead engaging the religious outfit with a fucking big space laser. Very naughty!

If you rack up my virtual Kill/Death Ratio, I think I can comfortably claim to have slaughtered more than Hitler did, and I'm rather proud of that. It might not seem like something to brag about, but I think I can justify it.

Out here in the real world, my Kill/Death Ratio is at 0:0.

I have been alive for 23 years and haven't killed a sole. Virtually I have been alive for around 16 years and have killed a disproportionate amount, in comparison. I know what is right or wrong. I know that killing people is wrong. I know that war, is wrong though not at all avoidable. I know that Dogs are great.

The modern day video game is doing far more to raise awareness of the serious nature of warfare than any medium ever has. By engaging directly with the audience and forcing you to consider your actions, you begin to contemplate just what it must be like out here in the real world. The only problem that we have is that ignorant groups of society who wish to put an end to controversial video games or interfere with its artistry by complaining not enough is being done to actively restrain the players from committing these acts. By allowing the developers to produce titles free from this fear, the industry will grow to offer millions more the opportunity to explore these things. Living in fear that an unchecked video game industry will lead to the mass brainwashing of the youth and the complete de-sensitising of society is just absurd. Games that go out of their way to make bold statements to draw attention are ultimately not going to sell as it's far too expensive to be spending money on a game that lets you rape prostitutes but is otherwise, completely shit. If you’re that worried that your children are going to grow up playing mature video games that could turn them into evil, illiterate, well mannered fucks like me, stop buying those mature video games and pay more attention you lazy, ignorant, quim.


BBC News - Games 'permit' virtual war crimes.
-Full Article.