When it comes to video game controversy, we typically hear about how Little Jimmy shot someone by acting out a scene he saw in a game. Though once in awhile something comes up that really makes you scratch your head because you're not sure if the person's arguement is legitimate or if they're just closed minded.
Today I stumbled upon an article where MUD creator, Richard Bartle, had shown his disliking for a quest (The Art of Persuasion) in Wrath of the Lich King. I did a bit of research on the quest since I'm too low of a level to do it myself, but apparently the quest is a level 71 chain quest that basically has you abducting someone, holding them prisoner, and then torturing them to gain information.
Bartle states that his issue with the quest is the fact that you have to torture the prisoner. If you want to progress through the chain, you have to do this quest and there were no alternatives to gain information; there wasn't a way to compromise with the prisoner or reach an agreement.
"I'm not at all happy with this," he had stated in his blog. "I thought that surely the quest-giver would step in and stop it at some point? It didn't happen, though. Unless there's some kind of awful consequence further down the line, it would seem that Blizzard's designers are OK with breaking the Geneva convention."
He goes on to explain that he doesn't necessarily mind that a torture quest is in the game, but it is the fact that the designer did not give the player the option to choose between 'good' or 'evil'. He feels that if the designer has pressured a belief on him- that the designer has no problem with torture.
Knowing that this is WoW, I'm assuming that the quest isn't very graphic. Bartle does explain that you're given a 'cow poke-like' item and use it to zap the prisoner until he speaks. While being poked, he might say things like, "Aahhhh! Release me! I am of no use to you. I swear it!", "Stop! I beg you, please stop. Please...", and "Enough! I've told you all that I know. Your continued abuse is senseless". He continues to say that he knows that it is just a game and that you're not really hurting anyone, but it still strikes a nerve. (Which makes me wonder what his views are about the Death Knights since the first hour of gameplay is basically slaughtering a whole village with people running around screaming and begging for mercy.)
But this brings me to the purpose of my post: Where is the line drawn between what might be a logical arguement and what is thinking too deeply into a situation regarding a game?
The concept of being given a choose in a game- especially one where you are the main character - sounds like a relevant arguement. If you do not wish to be so hostile, then shouldn't you be allowed to pick a less aggressive option? Yet, it is just a game. You are truly not harming anything and if you already feel like torture is wrong,chances are you aren't going to do it in real life which makes you question why hitting a button in a game can be seen as being so cruel.
Many games, especially these days, are full of senseless killing yet we're not all cold, blood-thirsty murders from playing them. Games before have also featured torture scenes- like The Darkness where Jackie is tied to a chair and then has a drilled used on him or the Metal Gear Solid series which features multiple torture scenes throughout its life or recently the opening to World at War or the Locus camps in Gears of War 2. Perhaps these scenes aren't seen as being quite as horrible since you're often portrayed as the victim whether than the master mind.
Which brings us back to the idea of what is the developer's right when it comes to creativity with their work and what is crossing a moral line. Many novels and films have featured tortured scenes that were put there by their creator. Regardless if the novel or story is based on a true story or is just the creator trying to express brutality, torture is still a disturbing thing either way. While people might complain about how graphic the scenes might be in a book or in a movie, they typically let them slide; maybe because you are passive during the event by just reading or watching it. Yet with games, you are the one performing the act, which is what the arguement is currently about.
So let me ask you: Where is the line drawn between the developer's right and the player's? What does the developer- or writer - have the right to do since the game is basically their creation? And what right does the player feels he/she should be given if the developer is telling them to portray themselves within the game?
Posts
