Kotaku has been following a
story (sounds contrived, but it’s true!) wherein Richard Bartle — the man who created Multi-User Dungeons — has decided to call out a
quest involving the subject of torture. Mind you it’s not the only torture quest in the game, (the Death Knight content has players murdering townspeople and harvesting human skulls) but his point is still relevant. Is it moral for Blizzard, even in jest, to more or less condone torture? The quest has you using a magical neural needle (guaranteed not to cause permanent harm!) to convince a member of the Beryl Mages to give up information on the whereabouts of a member of the Kirin Tor (the preeminent group of wizards in the Warcraft universe, and generally the good guys). The Kirin Tor has strict rules on torture, but you’re technically a free agent, so they’d rather have you do it for them. Bartle’s issue is that in order to complete the quest you must torture the Beryl Sorcerer, and there is no branching path where the player can choose not to use torture.
Now, as an act of reinforcement I agree it looks irresponsible. Is Blizzard teaching players that torture is necessary and effective? Yeah; no, that’s not good. But viewed through a different and more appropriate lense, I would have to disagree. As a commenter on Kotaku stated, you can just abort the quest and face the consequences of making the right choice; which is the loss of twenty some thousand experience — the usual experience reward. I might be playing the old school string a bit fervently here, but it would seem that someone from such nascent industry roots as inventing MUDs might have a hard time accepting that the game mechanic option of aborting the quest is a functional story element. One might, more traditionally, expect a branching story. Give the player more options. The idea that you can *actually* choose not to do the quest is quite foreign.
I’m no expert on MUD’s, but I’ve written some crude text adventures in Java. And in that situation you a) take the winding path or b) enter the cave. You’ve got to choose. From my perspective the option to organically eliminate roadblocks is more of an actual choice — that’s why it’s harder to make. You really want that experience. Sure it’s questionable, sure you may disagree with what your character is doing. But at the end of the day you need to get to level 80, because your boss isn’t going to believe you’ve been sick for more than a week. I would bet that even Bartle himself has completed the quest; I did. In fact I found the quest incredibly amusing if only for the insults slung my way by the detainee, especially as I thought back to one of the Death Knight quests that involved ‘persuading’ Scarlet Crusade soldiers to relinquish information by replacing your weapons with hot pokers and wading through huge blocks of insult text until they either spilled the beans or died.
My point is that it’s nothing new; it’s Blizzard humour through and through, and it’s done tastefully. I mean really, as much as I respect the right to get upset over something you view as irresponsible, what’s next? Accusing Monty Python of condoning torture because their Spanish Inquisition sketches were hilarious and didn’t end with a message saying ‘The actual Spanish Inquisition was really bad, don’t torture people’? I think, as Blizzard has proved with it’s quest vocabulary and subject matter, we have to respect the intelligence of the playerbase. Anyone who plays the quest and thinks torture is alright wasn’t convinced by the quest — not because it’s ‘just a videogame’ but because the subliminal pull isn’t there. I can tell when a religious informercial is trying to convince me that their faith saves or whatnot; there isn’t someone at Blizzard championing torture and hoping to convince others of its wonderful uses, and it’s easy to see that. If anything the quest text makes the Kirin Tor seem unwilling to get their hands dirty, and willing to keep some skeletons in the closet — which is called story development; it gives the Kirin Tor more character. The whole thing seems to be much ado about nothing.
By the way, the topic option on Destructoid for PC content is "Games for Windows"? Really? Jeese, maybe the PC really is dead.
* The quest isn't mandatory - you can proceed without ever doing it
* The reward isnt' all that great, so you're not actually missing out on anything.
* Blizzard has commented that the quest is a test, going along with the theme of hard choices and self perception in Wrath of the Lich King
* They're doing more and more with blurring the idea of a hero's perceived nobility. Looting long dead corpses of their clothes and faction banner, slaughtering crazed poachers, burning a famous hunter in effigy whom you considered a sort of friend/ally, etc.
Its interesting to stop and think about what they're setting up in the expansion, as you work toward taking down the most fallen of "angels", Arthas.
I don't even think Bartle is taking the whoel thing extremely seriously. He's stated that he's not really a fan of the attention (And he's also not trying to sell anything at the moment . . .)
"> I might be playing the old school string a bit fervently here, but it would seem that someone from such nascent industry roots as inventing MUDs might have a hard time accepting that the game mechanic option of aborting the quest is a functional story element.
You are playing it a bit fervently. I may have started with MUD, but I’ve been involved in the industry ever since. Actually, in my experience it’s the people with the longer backgrounds who have a better idea of what’s going on than those who have only spent 5 years playing MMOs.
That’s the case here. You misunderstand what it is I’m complaining about. It’s a meta-design point: if you’re going to put in a quest that shocks players out of their comfort zone, you have to mark it. Otherwise, they won’t necessarily realise it was put there deliberately, and any point you were trying to make is lost.
OK, so you abandon the quest. Fair enough, you lose XP, and you miss out on a quest chain. However, you also realise that you’re not playing the same game that you were playing before: there’s been a shift in its ethical structure. Whereas previously you might have been able to justify your actions on the grounds that they were morally justified, now you find yourself being asked to do things which aren’t morally justified. It’s as if you were watching The Simpsons and it suddenly changed into South Park. So what was previously a fun game with a vague cover that all those killings you were doing were acceptable because those bad guys would have killed you if you hadn’t killed them, now you’re being asked to go beyond the pale.
What if you do the quest, though? It runs just like every other quest - there’s no indication that it was anything out of the ordinary. So where’s the story element? There is none. If players aren’t told somehow, “you might want to reflect on what you just did”, they’ll think it’s just part of the game. They won’t recognise it as a story atom; they’ll just think Blizzard is OK with torture.
The design principle is that if you push people over a boundary, you have to provide a context to justify it, or immediately pull them back. Blizzard does know this: there’s a quest in Teldrassil where some satyr asks you to kill things you know you’re not supposed to kill, and if you do them then you get in the bad books of the dark elves and have to do another quest to redeem yourself. That’s fine: it tells people that if they want to step over the line, they can expect consequences. There’s no such response in the WotLK torture quest, and that’s what I’m complaining about.
>I would bet that even Bartle himself has completed the quest
Yes, but then I’m a designer, not a player: I had to complete the quest to see how Blizzard handled it.
Richard"