View Single Post

Default 

May 16th, 2013, 14:01
Morality is not set in stone, it is relative to different gamers with their diverse outlooks, beliefs and lifestyles, i would not expect to see a flexible morality system in any normal game, therefore in-game morality has to be 'fixed' with the flexibility elements being contained within the game-play and realised as a consequence.

For example, if you knew that a certain moral stance was critical to C&C outcome, would you still play to your own gamer choice or more reluctantly as the game requires you to? - or - going much deeper, would you look (search) for a morality direction in a game without knowing their was one built into the game?

In a game with a hidden morality massive consequence, how could you ever know if you were being moralistic in every step you take through the game both positively and negatively? - it would have to be unknown until realised, a testing of the gamer's own morality.

There is such a game, it remains unsolved to this day, it is beautiful, it has experienced well over a million play-throughs by gamers world-wide without consequence completion success and totally unknown to the gamers awareness - to the situation the word 'ignorant' would be fitting if a little harsh, but i think 'casually dismissive' might be more acceptable in todays world. Such a game comes only once in a lifetime, the "ultimate" moral alignment game.

Did the dev's fail or did the gamers fail?

I strongly suggest the article writer Sean Halliday takes a step back to reflect on his own subjective stance rather than blog on a subject he 'thinks' he is correct about and aligns himself to casuals by default.
Wulf is offline

Wulf

Wulf's Avatar
Inquisitor

#9

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North-West England
Posts: 1,107