Grasping At Immorality: A Tale of Two Games

[The Rogue Wolf]

I think one of the reasons that Far Cry 2 got more of a free pass from the (American, at least) media was because, in the context of the game, almost everyone you faced was a "combatant", and we all know how certain segments of American society view "enemy combatants". Hell, you never saw a single civilian in its fictional African country unless you did Underground missions by bringing false passports to help civilians escape, for the not-quite-selfless payment of more medication for your malaria. (And note that in every building you enter with civilians, your weapon is automatically holstered.) Sure, your character is an amoral, warmongering asshole causing misery for money, but so was everyone you worked for and went up against, and that makes them all "fair game".

Contrast that with this controversial scene from Modern Warfare 2. The ability to kill actual civilians, whatever the leadup may be, probably strikes too close to home for some people. Innocents are sacrosanct, even in escapist media, and any work of fiction that somehow shows harming them as being allowable or justifiable in any way is simply "evil". It's an extension of real-world fear of terrorism and unexpected violent death, carried over by those for whom there are no boundaries betwen reality and fantasy.

Why does a game like Prototype, then get a free pass? Well, look at the circumstances the two games present. When was the last time you read in the New York Times about terrorist virus monsters attacking urban centers? You haven't- it's an outlandish premise, and so there is no "sting" to the innocent deaths that occur in the game. However, you need not look far into the past to see news of terrorist gunmen invading public places and staging bloody shootouts with egregious civilian casualties.

 

[Xanadu84]

I think the real difference between the 2 is how in FC2, you are an amoral bastard killing innocents. In MW2, you are Military personnel, working under order of the government, killing civilians despite your severe reservations. When your playing a bastard to begin with, you can put tongue firmly in cheek, but presenting a scenario where a patriotic military person mows down innocents, it undermines a lot of basic assumptions about America.

This is part of why I think that, even if it was an accident on the designers part, the Airport scene was a moment of dark artistry in the midst if a (Lets face it, even if you liked it, as I did) generic Hollywood action story. There's a surprising number of angles to look at the scene from.

 

[mattag08]

And maybe there are some real-world prejudices at work here too, which is a nice way of saying that nobody gives a shit what happens in Africa as long as it stays in Africa. But in the end, isn't it just a little hypocritical - or even a lot - to get so worked up over a game that dares to portray complex heroism, yet not even notice one that turns us into unrepentant monsters?

Which is why any media outlet, politician, or bureaucrat trying to make something evil out of a videogame's plot is out of touch with reality. There are a lot of TV shows, movies, novels, comic books, paintings, songs, plays, and any other medium I've forgotten with as bad or worse themes and plots as the raciest videogames (which have existed almost as long as the medium itself).

If the fact we have to have this discussion isn't a big, glowing, neon sign pointing to our gradual fall into retardation, I don't know what is.

 

[Carnagath]

When I actually played that mission myself, I ended up laughing at how horribly over the top it was for no apparent reason. I mean, noone would actually allow something like that to happen just to maintain a cover, or well, at least they or the agency would come up with some other way to stop it, like, I don't know, warn the Russians? They surely wouldn't go "fuck 'em". After about the 200th person that gets killed I was like "Hahahaha, yeah ok, whatever Infinity Ward, you provoked and stuff, congratulations", and after the even more ridiculous ending of the mission I actually did a facepalm, and quite a noisy one too. People take some things way too seriously, there is no moral dilemma in MW2, something like that would need really terrific writing skills and the writing in that game is more "8th grade" than "Philip Dick".

 

[BlueberryFalacy]

Oh no an American that doesn't seem to shit sunlight and vomit rainbows...wait a second no-one can do that. Morality in games is not something that should really ever be looked at too deeply, especially as morality is relative. Even some of my teachers at school taught this. Just because one person views it as wrong (ok in this case both examples are viewed as morally wrong by the majority of the world) doesn't mean every single other person on the planet shares their views (I'm not even deluded enough to believe anyone will agree with what I'm saying here). In MW:2 (which I admit I haven't played yet) I'd say the character (not necesarily you, thus the option to skip the mission) was meant to feel morally repulsed, even though they were doing it for the good of a nation. Anyone who looks on this as anything beyond a work of art or a social commentary (albiet one that is a tad hazy round the edges) is just deluding themselves. Entertainment and Art is exactly that and nothing more and should never be used as a political platform. Enjoy your games and the unreality of them and if that fails then don't play them at all.

 

[Chipperz]

Prototype bothered me on a deeper level than Far Cry 2.

*snip*
In Prototype, you're carving up and consuming humans for the hell of it. I once caught myself grabbing some innocent as a quick snack, just in case I took damage. "Lunch," escaped my lips before a wave of guilt struck me. As I played, I felt my moral compass go south and drop into the ninth level of Hell. And there was an insidiousness to it, as well... a slow descent I recognized, but did not resist. By the end, you aren't redeemed. You're just a thug that gained revenge for personal purposes. A monster and nothing more.

*snip*

Is... Is this a joke? Are people really getting so sensitive that they're finding [PROTOTYPE] disturbing on moral grounds? The game which, let's be very, very honest here, doesn't give a shit about your morals so long as you kill everything on the screen? If that's really the case, surely inFamous was worse because it actively kept track of how many random civilians you killed for the hell of it? What about Saints Row 2, which gave you a score for it? I know "it's just a game" doesn't fly for everything, but at some point, no matter what you're doing, you have to step back and remember that what you do with a controller in your hands has no bearing on you as a human being. Just because you destroyed Megaton/shot the civilian/made the old guy wet himself in the game for funsies, doesn't mean you'd do it in real life.

If it does, then that's a problem with you, not the game.

 

[ThreeKneeNick]

Can someone explain this to me?

Its easy. No one really cares, beyond any random internet discussion. I think everybody realizes that you are murdering pixels and thats about it. Why there is a media frenzy about MW2 has less to do with the actual game and its 'controversies' and more about how mass media work - everybody joins the bandwagon of praising or trashing the game untill interest dies. It doesnt matter what the game is about, what matters is that everyone wants a peace of the action, you said it yourself in the article. The goal is to just wite about it. As you would write about anything other, except now you dont really have to think how to stand out, you have a popular subject that lends itself to exploitation and you jump at it to meke the most out of it, with the least ammount of creative effort. It has little to do with how moral the game is and noone really cares about it.

 

[Andy Chalk]

When I actually played that mission myself, I ended up laughing at how horribly over the top it was for no apparent reason.

I got kind of the same feeling myself. I watched a video of the No Russian mission (no, I haven't played it) and after maybe 30 seconds or so I began to wonder if this was meant to be some kind of sick slapstick. Don't the Russians have cops? Hell, even in Canada the major airports are relatively heavily patrolled (to my eyes, anyway) with armed police and I really don't see Russia as the sort of nation where low-profile law enforcement is a major consideration.

MW2 is no doubt a far more sophisticated game than Far Cry 2 but I think the way FC2 leaves things to your imagination, much like classic horror movies did before the advent of torture porn, goes a long way toward balancing the scales. The consequences of your actions are never portrayed on-screen; you're simply aware of them and live with them. So is it just the depiction of horrific actions and outcomes that's the problem? If so, then I hardly think the cartoon-like violence of MW2 is worth worrying about; if not, well, that takes us back to hypocrisy, doesn't it?

 

[stompythebeast]

its funny how i felt horrible when i "accidentallyed" a zebra, like, really really horrible. Then when i was first played through the MewTwo mission, i was laughing my ass off, because its hilarious how obnoxiously they ( the developer) try to invoke a feeling of wrong and evil out of you.

 

[DTWolfwood]

once again a point that Gamers are all too familiar with, yet anyone not in the loop sees as something horrible. Bless them for bringing awareness to "No Russian" but dear lord the Outcry is ridiculous. Just like them imbeciles bitching about Barack Obama bowing to the Japanese Emperor, EMPEROR!

O wells IW and Activision is surely cashing in hard on all this publicity. Like the old saying "No Publicity is Bad Publicity."

 

[Otterpoet]

Prototype bothered me on a deeper level than Far Cry 2.

*snip*
In Prototype, you're carving up and consuming humans for the hell of it. I once caught myself grabbing some innocent as a quick snack, just in case I took damage. "Lunch," escaped my lips before a wave of guilt struck me. As I played, I felt my moral compass go south and drop into the ninth level of Hell. And there was an insidiousness to it, as well... a slow descent I recognized, but did not resist. By the end, you aren't redeemed. You're just a thug that gained revenge for personal purposes. A monster and nothing more.

*snip*

Is... Is this a joke? Are people really getting so sensitive that they're finding [PROTOTYPE] disturbing on moral grounds? The game which, let's be very, very honest here, doesn't give a shit about your morals so long as you kill everything on the screen? If that's really the case, surely inFamous was worse because it actively kept track of how many random civilians you killed for the hell of it? What about Saints Row 2, which gave you a score for it? I know "it's just a game" doesn't fly for everything, but at some point, no matter what you're doing, you have to step back and remember that what you do with a controller in your hands has no bearing on you as a human being. Just because you destroyed Megaton/shot the civilian/made the old guy wet himself in the game for funsies, doesn't mean you'd do it in real life.

If it does, then that's a problem with you, not the game.

Actually, it was not that my 'moral reaction' made me find Prototype disturbing (although there were several 'ewww' moments), but that I couldn't connect to the game because the character is so thoroughly unlikable and the story lacks any true emotional closure. And because the violence and amoral behavior is so over the top, it always remained 'just a game' to me. Indeed, I find it funny that they even /tried/ to have a emotional plotline (the sister) in a game like that. And, as such, Prototype was thoroughly forgettable.

Far Cry 2, however, wove a subtle story that drew you in, allowed you to connect to the character/s, and had a solid exposition. Sure, I was doing some highly questionable things, but they had purpose and form... and they made sense on a human level. I connected with game and had emotional reactions as the story progressed; ranging from being appalled to down-right hate. And the ending? Hell, I'll remember that for years to come.

I mean, I am the guy that laughed himself to tears as my 300-pound, red-haired chick was working people over with a bat in the city of Stilwater (Saint's Row 2). And I am the same guy that was 'shopping' for just the right body to wear in Prototype. Games like these don?t ask moral questions, they just offer up gruesome (but forgettable)fun.

So, it's not so much sensitivity, as what makes me respond to a game on an emotional level. The games that engage me are the ones I remember. But either way... it's still just a game.

 

[Chipperz]

So, it's not so much sensitivity, as what makes me respond to a game on an emotional level. The games that engage me are the ones I remember. But either way... it's still just a game.

Ahhh fair. Sorry, considering the article, I assumed you were talking about [PROTOTYPE] bothering you on moral grounds, which I feel compelled to shout down on (ironically) moral grounds.

Totally my bad, carry on, citizen.

 

[Gyrefalcon]

I really enjoyed your review! I don't suppose you would follow it up with a comparison of games with actual, supposed "morality systems"? Dragon Age: Origins is said to have a good morality system in that your actions have consequences. Perhaps compare it to Fable/Fable 2 or Knights of the Old Republic perhaps?

It would be a different aspect of morality in games and I'd love to see your take on it since this read was so interesting. I look forward to more of your work.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

While Alex Mercer might be an amoral psychopath who unleashed a horrific plague on New York, only to die and have the virus wear his personality and form like a meat suit, he did help stop Manhattan from being nuked wholesale. True, they were only going to do that because of events he set in motion in the first place, but I'm sure the random non-infected citizens appreciated not being blown up all the same.

Personally I always tried to avoid eating civilians that weren't Web of Intrigue targets since that meant I'd just have to go eat another soldier afterward to get my military disguise powers back, but the designers shouldn't have made the pedestrians so darn suicidal if they didn't want me to run them over while driving tanks (they dive into your path while running around screaming). I don't think it's even possible to not run dozens of people over each time you're driving one, heh.

 

[rmx687]

I find it really hard to believe that the author Andy Chalk could construe MW2 as "a game that dares to portray complex heroism" and FC2 as "one that turns us into unrepentant monsters."

This is due to the biggest failure of "No Russian" mission in MW2: it has no substantive purpose to the plot, and fails to stand as anything other than shock value to facilitate its buzz. Makarov completely evaporates as a villain throughout the rest of the story, the conflict with his organization is never resolved, you even ask him for his help at the end of the game to take out a villain with even less evident motives. There is no meaningful value a player can extract from the level. I challenge anyone on this site to explain how MW2 portrays complex heroism as the author Andy Chalk suggests, outside of their own, reaching rationalizations.

Far Cry 2, quite adversely, has all of the action supplement the message, theme, or ideas they're trying to get across about development in third world nations, and answers why Africa can't get out of debt. Essentially places like Africa are told to modernize, and the only way to do it is to bring in foreign advisers (the mercenariy officers in the UFLL and APR) and foreign businessmen (the targets in Assassination side missions) who only facilitate the chaos and make things worse. Over the course of the story, you deal with both of them.

Throughout the game, the worst you can do is help the factions get a one up on eachother and take a quick paycheck.

However, if you subvert the missions with a buddy, you isolate the factions in their conflicts, and deprive them from terrorizing the civilian population. What's striking is that not only is this the moral choice, but the game is designed that subverting the missions largely expands the scope of a mission and makes it that much more epic. At the end of the day, FC2 puts the player in an already morally amibguous setting and acts you to make real decisions that aren't always easy.

At the end of the day, MW2 is a game about good guys who are good b/c they're American and British and bad guys who are bad because they're imperialist Soviets (who are bad). Far Cry 2 however, is the story of a group of mercenaries who "quarantine the patients," the diseased in Africa. By this you isolate the ones causing the conflict alone with eachother to let them wipe each other out, and end up leading the civilians on an exodus to leave the country and blocking the path so the factions cannot follow.

Far Cry 2 is not nearly as amoral or immoral as this article suggests, the worst you can possibly be is an indifferent soldier of fortune who kills other soldiers to get his check, but even then you still save the civilians of a small nation tearing itself apart.

Too Long, Didn't Read:

I'm shocked and disappointed that the author Andy Chalk could have such a misconstrued conception about Modern Warfare 2 and Far Cry 2. It suggest that he either spent little time playing these games and paid even less attention during the latter, or simply hasn't played either. In the end this just seems like an arbitrary attempt to talk about the game everyone is talking about in order to gain more readers/free stuff from Activision, by using unsupported defenses of a game that largely doesn't deserve them.

 

[Skytorn]

The first thing that sprang to mind? Joker's speech to Harvey Dent during the hospital scene in The Dark Knight.

"If I announced tomorrow that I was going to shoot a gangbanger...or blow up a truckload of soldiers...nobody bats an eyelash. But if I try to shoot one little mayor, well, everybody just loses their minds!!"

In Far Cry 2, whether you're destroying freshwater pipelines or malarial aid stations, the people you kill are always armed, always out to kill you, and so it feels no different than anything else really. But when you're placed in front of a group of unarmed civilians with a 100-round clip machinegun, people are bound to get a little worked up about things.

Agreed with Rmx above though that Andy seems to have more or less COMPLETELY missed the point of Far Cry 2. The whole game was designed to make you ask questions about your morality while offering absolutely no benefits or detriments gameplay-wise; there are no alternate endings, no secret upgrades, whether you choose to blow up that malaria station or give your dying buddy a mercy-kill is entirely up to your own moral compass.

The only exception to that might be the arms dealer missions (you unlock more guns with them) but that once again goes back to Joker's point; if you traffick weapons of death, I think it's expected that you'd die under the smoking barrel of one.

Andy approached Far Cry 2 probably like he did with most games, which was the lack of consequence becoming interpreted as encouragement to go wild. Oh and also with a short attention span. I like how he conveniently forgets to mention the conflict diamonds used to buy the freedom of refugees, too--THOSE WERE MISSIONS REQURIED TO PROGRESS, HOW DID HE MISS THEM?!

In that regard, it might less be a failing of Andy to appreciate FC2's nuances, and instead be FC2's inability to convey its messages to the average FPS gamer.

Calling it a run-of-the-mill shooter hurts, by the way.

 

[Melvic Lilith]

Well I don't have much to add to this that hasn't already been thoroughly abused, raped, and plastered to the street thinner then the average Alex Mercer victim. But I do remember the MW2 scene had some narrative purpose...even if it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

*Spoilers, be warned fairly ye fan boys*

The solder selected at the end of the first mission is the adopted into the CIA (formerly America's dirty hand/black-ops) and told he's going to be stuck next to this heartless arms dealer. Now supposedly you are to stick with this ass as a mole and feed America information he tells you about up coming plots and deals...presumably to give the stock market a heads up. Your character finds himself dragged into the airport massacre without forewarning. You play along with and then finally into Malkrov's hands. He expected America to spy on him and he used THAT to start a war, from which he could profit. Without the end of the Airport scene you have no idea why America is under attack from both coasts, and from the Russians at that. Now to be clear; this doesn't excuse the rest of the disjointed plot, but the airport level is the explanation as to why you fight in the American solders side of the game. I haven't played the game without the level in question so I'm not sure if they sum in up to you in between, but other then a brief flash in the back ground of a cut scene you have no idea what started the war. It could have easily been a cutscene itself, yes....but the whole idea of MW is to see things thru the invovled peoples eyes and get a sense of just what...if anything....lies beyond the trenches.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Interesting opinions, but I think both RMX and Skytorn are the ones missing the point here.

Throughout the game, the worst you can do is help the factions get a one up on eachother and take a quick paycheck.

Really? I thought murdering a man because he sold a merc buddy of man a crappy used car a couple years back was the worst thing I could do. Or close to it, at least; I kinda lost track after awhile. I wonder how exactly that helped the revolution?

Andy approached Far Cry 2 probably like he did with most games, which was the lack of consequence becoming interpreted as encouragement to go wild. Oh and also with a short attention span. I like how he conveniently forgets to mention the conflict diamonds used to buy the freedom of refugees, too--THOSE WERE MISSIONS REQURIED TO PROGRESS, HOW DID HE MISS THEM?!

Oh, you mean the very last mission in the game, when you suddenly, for no apparent reason, agree to save the country and then commit suicide because the guy you were sent there to kill in the first place says you have to? Where I come from, we call that a half-assed, hastily-tacked-on ending designed to give the thing a false feeling of gravitas. I thought it was actually quite a let-down, a cop-out really; a way to make gamers feel better about spending 95% of FC2 being the worst human being on the face of the planet.

It's a very simple matter: Modern Warfare 2 has players doing bad things for good reasons, while Far Cry 2 has players doing worse things for terrible reasons. Unless someone can come up with a better explanation (and that'd take some convincing) it's either hypocrisy, stupidity or gross ignorance.

unsupported defenses of a game

One other thing, even though I don't really want to turn this into an off-topic conversation: What exactly am I defending?

 

[rmx687]

One other thing, even though I don't really want to turn this into an off-topic conversation: What exactly am I defending?

You said Modern Warfare 2 "portrays complex heroism."

I forgot about the side mission over the car...

 

[mattag08]

Meh, screw the whole thing. Go watch Generation Kill. You'll get far more entertainment and social commentary than CoD:MW2 and FC2 combined.