The increasing complexity of video game technology has correlated with a surge in game play freedom. More powerful processors have enabled programmers to dispense with many of the rigid structures common to older games in favor of an "open world" environment. The result of this nonlinear approach has been a surge in the popularity of decision-based plots.
Moral dilemmas make up an increasing share of these plot decisions, demanding that the player evaluates questions of right and wrong. Most players shrug off any significant implications to such choices, but a growing number of observers argue that moral decisions in games may leave lasting effects on players. For video game players, moral engagement may be unavoidable when playing decision games, making moral reflection more important than they would wish to admit.
The speculated effect is prominent in the most violent video games. Indeed, the strongest science in all of gaming is a correlation between game violence and real-world aggression. This implies a strong likelihood that games can influence their players' behavior, naturally aggressive players prefer violent video games, or some combination of the two.
Either possibility casts doubt on the ability of gamers to separate their real-world personalities from their gaming morality, and the possibility that games could influence acceptable behavior is startling. One study cites considerable research that most gamers tend to consider non-playable characters social beings, and mistreatment of social beings unavoidably impacts the parts of the brain that govern morality.
The same study explains how this works in terms of moral activation and disengagement. A choice in keeping with the player's sense of right and wrong activates the portions of the brain that prevent wrongdoing; this is moral activation. Moral disengagement is just the opposite, as players cannot enjoy making an unethical choice unless they emotionally distance themselves.
Researchers fear, in short, that violent video games encourage gamers to adopt a habit of moral disengagement, making them more comfortable with emotional distance in the real world as well as the game.
Even in the absence of more concrete proof, the possibility should be concerning enough to motivate players and developers to think more deeply about their games. Fortunately, there are several solutions that would at least mitigate this worry.
From a developer's perspective, the first solution is to make players' choices less simplistic. Some players enjoy playing the part of the thoughtful villain, but many games make this difficult through cartoonish dialogue or through incentives skewed in favor of the immoral choice.
If developers expect players to apply genuine morality to video game dilemmas, those choices cannot be morally disengaged before the player has a chance to make them. Bethesda's Skyrim allowed players to progress more quickly as villains than as heroes, and the anger of NPCs was too inconsistent to feel like a consequence of misbehavior; BioWare's Knights of the Old Republic infamously offered a choice between offering a poor woman charity and murdering her in cold blood. This writing style must be tweaked.
For players, the answer is simple in theory but difficult in practice. They need not stop playing the villain, but they cannot pretend that there is no relationship between the game and external morality. If an act is wrong in reality but common in entertainment, players have a duty to themselves to be honest about their discomfort.
Video games began as a form of entertainment completely removed from reality, but greater freedom has transformed them into a microcosm of reality. The industry would be well-advised to remember the human impact of that fact.
