We want your ideas for a book on video game philosophy!

[Socrates]

Dear all forum-goers,

My name is Craig, and I am an honors graduate at the University of Tasmania who specializes in Applied Ethics and Modern Philosophy. On top of this I am also an avid gamer, something that is shared between myself and many of my colleagues at the university. Several of us are looking to create a book on philosophy in video games. We would be exploring broad and specific philosophical themes, and we would like your help choosing the included topics.

Just to give an idea of what we are trying to do here are some of our suggested chapters:


Do We Have Free Will? -> The Elder Scrolls Series

Nihilism and Angst -> God of War Series

Deus Ex Machina -> Deus Ex 1 (badoom tish)

Death and Ending -> Space Invaders, Asteroids and Missile Command

The Meaning of Life -> Combined Bioware titles and other titles with good/evil dichotomy (Star Wars KOTOR I & 2, Dragon Age Origins, Bioshock etcetera)


We will be looking to present complex philosophical and logical ideas in an entertaining and informative way - whilst also being able to play a lot of games and argue about what certain things mean. Lets face it us philosophical types sure like a good argument.

So what is in it for you? Anyone who suggests an idea that is included in the completed book will have their name included in the chapter's introductory page and in the acknowledgements. It also must be said that this is a project for our own amusement and we are not trying to make any money. The book would be in full colour once completed and we would do a limited print run if anyone is interested. We will also provide a free black and white PDF to anyone who wants a copy. If it is a long enough book we may do a kickstarter to get our copies printed, but beyond that we haven't discussed much. More than anything it is an opportunity for a bunch of young graduates to write something interesting and keep our hand in over a long summer break. A section also forms a component of one of my colleagues PHD project - basically whether killing in a video game is morally wrong - so in a very distant way you could affect thought on an interesting philosophical topic.

So, what do you think are video games that present a real philosophical perspective on their own virtual world? What themes are present in certain games that you think really should be explored? We would like to know!

 

[Keoul]

The worth of a human life - extracted from Full Metal Alchemist.
You could debate the whole "sacrifice for the greater good" and all that good stuff.
That's all I can think of right now I'll edit as I come up with more.

 

[Nouw]

Spoiler: Bioshock has some strong ideas about free-will and choice. Do not open this tag if you haven't finished the game, would you kindly?

Sure, it would have worked better if we had actual choices but we didn't think twice when he asked us did he? We just did it by instinct. Bioshock cleverly deconstructed the concept of free-will in videogames and hopefully in the future, another game can do it with an even better execution.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

Whether or not the ends justify the means. Performing evil, illegal or otherwise frowned upon acts in order to get the job done. Which can be taken from any number of open world rpg games. The Elder Scrolls, Dishonored, Dragon Age: Origins, even Fable. Games where you're allowed to be as much of a jerk as you like.

My personal vote is Dishonored. Sure, you can go through he game being the most vicious killer ever. But does the ends of retrieving, protecting and getting Emily back onto the throne, however you can actually justify the needless manslaughter?

 

[Full]

I agree with the above Bioshock comment, I'd say pick that for the free will subject. Elder Scrolls is not the most prominent of examples to suggest philosophy in Video Games. I believe a games writing or objectives can show that off better than the size of the world itself.

 

[Beautiful End]

There's a reason why I enjoy the Dragon Age world so much: It takes a lot of hints from the real world, our world. Let me warn you, though. I might make some religious comments and...well, we all know someone might get offended. That's not my purpose, though. But there's that warning.

First of all, the Maker from Dragon Age. The Maker is meant to represent God from various religions. "Thank the Maker!" or "Maker's breath!" are some common expressions found in the game. Andastre is meant to represent some sort of prophet, like a combination between...Mother Theresa and Jesus. Here, this explains it better:

"The Maker is the entity worshipped by the Chantry. He is referred to as a male, and the prophetess Andraste, who inspired the foundation of the Chantry, is considered to be His wife. While the Chantry believes that the Maker is all-powerful and created all things, He has also turned away from them. The Chantry believes this to be because of the faults of His creations. He will not answer prayers, or grant wishes or anything of the sort, until humanity proves itself worthy of His attention again."

At the same time, in the game, you can find certain texts that look a lot like the Bible, such as:

"There was no word
For heaven or for earth, for sea or sky
All that existed was silence
Then the Voice of the Maker rang out
The first Word
And His Word became all that might be
?Threnodies 5:1?8 "

I find it fascinating that the developers decided to come up with their own religion that could be a criticism of the most popular religions in real life. But what really interests me is the in-game ideology that the Maker won't show up or help the world unless the entire world repents. So in other words, that's never gonna happen. Every single human being would need to believe in the Maker, even those who don't practice that religion. The Chantry would literally be forcing their religion onto other people and, let's be honest, isn't that what some people do in real life? Their intentions might be good but still. And aren't some people lying to themselves when they have blind faith on something, kind of like how the Chantry is waiting for the world to repent? I honestly find it funny that the developers came up with such folklore because, let's face it, under different circumstances, the Chantry and the Maker and all of that could have become a religion itself. In real life.

There's also other small details revolving around this, such as when people give you "the Maker's blessing". You can chose to accept it or ignore it. People will either see you as compassionate or as an ungrateful character. In reality, your response has no consequences other than affecting what your companions think of you. You don't get a health boost or 1+ Vitality or whatever. And once again, this is a reflection of our life.
In other games like InFamous or Fable that claim to give you free will, your actions are either punished or rewarded according to the game's standards. If I believe a NPC should die because they've done something wrong but the game sees it as me taking an evil path, I can't go with what I think if I want to remain "good". And vice versa. But in Dragon Age, praising or cursing the Maker really doesn't affect your character's life. You might get along with someone people better depending on your actions but that's about it.

Anyway, that's what I think. I think I'm getting carried away.

 

[Luca72]

How about Failure as a Feature? I've been interested in the reactions people have to XCOM for this very reason. If you take a general video game narrative, even one with choice, there's no real "failure" state. Link can never fail to save Hyrule, as long as you keep going there's only one logical progression. Even in a game like KOTOR that offers a "bad" ending (bad for other people) it's still presented as a success for your character.

So being used to automatically succeeding if I keep going, XCOM has occasionally disturbed me deeply. If you play on Ironman, sometimes you'll replay that last move you made that got your captain killed over and over in your head, thinking of all the ways you could have done it differently. But you have to accept it and move on. Video games often give you the illusion of consequence, but rarely actually make you accept it. You can say "the world is in danger" but the player only believes it if he or she wants to believe it. But to take away your hard earned progression and not give it back? That is a consequence that is absolutely real.

I can't think of many other games that fit this description. The original XCOM certainly fits, and FTL does too.

 

[Jingle Fett]

I think Majora's Mask should be your #1 game for Death and Ending.

Majora's Mask really is one of (if not THE) deepest game I've ever played and death is pretty much the main theme in Majora's Mask. In fact the game reeks of death. Most of the major plot points and sidequests tend involve death in some way.



Not only is the game literally about the end of the world, you get to see how different people react to their impending doom. You're shown how people react to their own death after they've died, or to the death of others. For example Darmani laments he couldn't save the gorons. The zoras are oblivious to Mikau's death. The deku butler mourns the death of his son.

The crazy thing though is you also get to see many of the characters when their situation has changed. Since you go back in time you can change the outcomes of different events. So for example you get to see the differences between Anju and her family seeking refuge at the Ranch vs Anju reunited with Kafei.
You also get plenty of chances to help the dead rest in peace. For example you have the ghost dancer who never had a chance pass on his moves. The skeleton captain Keeta wants Link to tell his soldiers the war is over. And so on..

Then there's the fact that when you think about it, when you finally do stop the moon from falling, you didn't actually help/save everyone, even if you've helped them before, because you probably went back in time at some point afterwards. For example you can win the game while Ikana is still cursed, Anju never seeing Kafei again, the goron elder remaining frozen etc. You may have helped them before but unless you actually go ahead and do all that stuff again just before winning, it's like you never helped them at all because when you go back in time, everything gets reset. Basically even though it's a happy ending, it's not a happy ending for everyone.

Which also incidentally brings up the whole idea of alternate universes. When you went back in time, it's like you never helped the people at all, you went back in time before you helped them. Yet you're still able to carry around evidence that you did help them at some point. Which means that in another universe, they're all happy and had their problems solved, even if they have their problems now.

And when you bring in the time manipulation element, the whole topic of death in Majora's Mask raises some interesting questions about the meaning of life(and even free will). For example, if a character dies in one universe but survives in another, what happens to the person's spirit/ghost in the game? Are there two separate spirits? And which universe is the "right" one? Is there a right one? Should a character be worried about the outcome of their universe when in another universe everyone survives? Should any of the characters even fear death at all? There are a lot of things to think about in this game...

Anyways, yeah Majora's Mask, add that to your list lol.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Identity. STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl, Planescape: Torment.

 

[Distance_warrior]

Legions loyalty mission in Mass Effect 2 I think is a good one because of it looks at what it means to be human and whether the preservation of life is worth destroying what it stood for. Also To The Moon dear god you need to check that out. Very much what is important in life all the way from start to finish.

 

[Squilookle]

A player's worth in the world- contrast 'it's all about you' games like western RPGs, Halo and older 'waves of enemies' shooters with games like Operation Flashpoint, Battlefield, and Mount and Blade, where the in-game universe couldn't care less about you and could go on functioning just fine if you weren't even in it. An interesting study of the necessity -if there is one- for a game player to have self-worth or a sense of importance in a game world would be a fascinating read.

 

[Danzavare]

My suggestion would be to focus on a specific issue or theme and explore it across multiple video games. Any one aspect of philosophy has multiple competing schools of thought to it and generally writing an essay about any particular issue involves putting forward one main argument while examining counter-arguments and alternative answers. I figure you could do a similar thing with a book on video game philosophy, where you compare and contrast different games and the sides of an issue they seem to advocate. For example, a book on morality would have chapters based on specific types of morality, like Utilitarianism as explored in RTS games (Age of Empires?)where basic gameplay relies on leading many units to their deaths for some greater (and usually unseen) collective of people. You'd then weigh this brand of morality against a different school of thought, game and/or genre of games in the next chapter and so on, so forth, making sure to reference back and forth between chapters.

This way you could really delve deep into an issue and into the various video games of your choice, rather than spreading yourself thin (Any one issue should have a wealth of articles to draw on).

I am really excited to hear about your idea though. After Honours next year I'm hoping to focus my PHD on video games as literature (I have a smaller collaborative project I want to start these holidays) so I'm happy to hear there are other Australian academics trying to incorporate video games into their work (Outside of digital cultures, which seems to have a pretty sterile way of doing so). Whether you take my advice or not, I'd love a chance to eventually read your book.

[sub]I wish I kept philosophy as my second major. ;_; [/sub]

 

[KissmahArceus]

I'd like to see this book, buy it then read it.

 

[LongAndShort]

Why would I give you ideas? What happens when I go to write a similar book and discover you took my fantastic advice and wrote it first?

In all serious, the construction of moral justification and codes of ethics within video games is something that I find really interesting and while I think it is often well touched upon in film and literature(I ended up writing an essay on it a couple years back in a studies of religion class), videogames take it to a whole new level because the audience is also the actor, and the protagonist is almost always self-aware of the fiction almost by default (since we know we're acting within a work of fiction). I'd recommend Red Dead Redemption, cause it's good and morally conflicting.

 

[Voulan]

The great philosopher Socrates is writing a study on video game philosophy from the grave? Oh, I am so there!

May contain spoilers in each example:

In seriousness, I think one of the best examples is from the Deus Ex series, and in particular Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The entire game is a conflict between the mind/body dichotomy and how far the body can go before it is no longer counted as human. Does it make you less human to modify your body to include machine parts? Do you have the rights to allow these modifications and choose for yourself, or to avoid them (look in particular to the prostitute mission in Heng Sha, where the girls are forced to take augments for their clients, or how Tai Yong employees all have augments because the job market considers them more capable than normal, leaving many people without jobs)? Are you allowed the same rights if you are more machine than human?

Another series I would look at is, believe it or not, the Kingdom Hearts series. It's basically an extended analysis of human nature, and the desire for power, and what that basically is - friendship, love, fighting ability, etc. Human nature is a particular focus. The idea of darkness and light in the hearts of people and how this affects their actions is the most basic plot of the series, as well as the actual nature of darkness and light. I believe it was King Mickey who actually stated that darkness is not inherently evil, but is merely the opposite to light; so therefore, in order for light to exist, so too must darkness. A basic philosophical concept of everything having an opposite. So to is the idea of human nature being a mixture of both of these elements, and what drives people's actions. Morals are also important when it comes to Organization XIII - their only desire is to regain their hearts and to become whole again, but the methods they use are cruel (probably because they are incapable of emotions) - overturning other worlds to darkness so they may capture more hearts, and eventually have one of their own. This brings forth another question - what does it mean to truly exist, and what defines one as being a person? The body, or the soul? Nobodies are the same person as they were before, except now they've lost their hearts, and cannot feel. Does it make them less than human because they are incapable of morals? Look at Roxas, and his desire to exist, despite his only being the Nobody of Sora, and essentially being only a puppet. Also Xion, since she really is just a puppet made up of other people's memories, which brings yet another question, a particularly well-explored concept of false memories in sci-fi, and how a personality is created.

Since Kingdom Hearts is my favourite gaming series ever, I can obviously gush and read a lot into it. But to simplify it, it looks at human nature and existence.

With the Elder Scrolls series, free will is brought into question based on its concept of the player's actions being dictated in the actual Elder Scrolls, and most of their quests being pulled by the whims of the Nine Divines and of course, the Daedric Princes. You can look at the whole Dragonborn issue, the Oblivion Crisis with Mehrunes Dagon, and even the idea of Nocturnal with the Thieves Guild.

I'll shut up now. Is that the kind of thing you're looking at?

 

[alimination602]

Why must there be a single ?Chosen One??

Allot of games seem to latch upon the idea that, even if they don?t give the player a special title of ?The Chosen One? or ?Champion of...? etc, there is usually one and only one who can do anything to change this situation and is given the seemingly unlimited ability to change things as they see fit.

It seems that in allot of games the people of these worlds are consigned to their fate until their chosen hero steps up to the plate (See Mass Effect) or more frequently gets dragged from their normal life into abnormality through either some tragedy befalling their idyllic community (See Fable) or simply the oldest and most secluded member of the group finally speaking up and revealing your true origins/ability and sending you on the way (See Ocarina of Time).

And the protagonist doesn?t even have to be anyone special or have any special powers. The hero can simply be someone who stumbles into the situation that affects the world by chance (See Skies of Arcadia) or rises through the ranks to become the best chance this group has of prevailing (See Fallout).

While on the topic both Fallout 3 and New Vegas show an interesting set up of ?The One? rising from nothing to becoming a major driving force that changes the shape of the world as they know it despite not having any particular strength or influence. This is despite, in all honesty, your character in F:3 should have had some kind of mental breakdown the moment they stepped out into wasteland (Imagine spending your entire life in a box and then being instantly thrown out into an empty field, i would not call someone sane after that) and your character in NV should have had some kind of lasting trauma from being shot point blank in the head but now I?m drifting off topic.

My point is that in all these games it falls to a single individual with some kind of divine or otherwise selected attribute that allows them to change the entire shape of the world as they see fit. Sometimes they may mix up the formula by giving you a small number of close party members but it still falls to you to do the heavy lifting. There are very few examples where you as the player are unable to change anything on your own and must seek the support of others before you can do anything. Fable III came close by having you gather support for a revolution but then you instantly get the ability change things as you see fit because you have ?The King Genes?.

One great example of this is Pikmin where you as the player character alone are pretty much useless. Your only way forward is to rely upon your little creatures to fight monsters and clear paths that you yourself have no chance of overcoming on your own. You become reliant on the others for your very survival and if you fail them you doom yourself.

So referring back to my question. Why must there always be a single ?Chosen One?, why are there rarely an opportunity for you/your small party to act as part of something bigger than yourself rather than as an invincible driving force or be a conduit for others to bring about the change you want to see in the world?

 

[Curratum]

The Pleasure Principle - Sources of pleasure/enjoyment in games.

I planned to do a non-academic essay on this topic for some time but never got round to doing it.

Basically the core idea I had is that people draw pleasure from games they play based on several main sources that every game should be classifiable into.

Skill/dexterity-based achievement - games like Tetris, Pong, Beat.Trip series, AaaAAAA Reckless Disregard, other abstract games, where enjoyment comes primarily from mastering a certain degree of dexterity and skill which leads to higher scores / gratification.

Storytelling - most adventure games, RPG games to an extent, where the primary source of gratification is the slow and interactive unfolding of an intriguing story.

Exploration - all open world/sandbox games, most RPG games, some adventure games, where a major degree of the pleasure derived from playing comes from exploring new parts of a world and seeing new sights and places that bring some sort of aesthetic enjoyment.

Community - most multiplayer games, especially MMO games, where a large part of the gratification comes from being an active part of a community of people.

Dominance - all multiplayer shooter games, enjoyed primarily for the opportunity to prove and exert one's dominance over the enemy/enemy team.

Exercise of the mind - all puzzle games, from P.B. Winterbottom and Braid-like action puzzlers to full-on puzzlers like Incredible Machine and Sokoban.

I had a couple of more or less clearly formulated concepts to cover most strategy games and horror games but I can't remember them now.

Obviously, this is a very non-scientific approach to the matter, based more on general knowledge concepts and not on philosophy but I suppose it may be of some help.

 

[Ekim Takusan]

For research into your project you might want to consider reading Gamer Theory by McKenzie Wark. Order it, or read it free on http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/ this is a great book for everyone that is both a gamer and a philosopher. I really hope this is helpful and your project continues to draw input as I would love to read another book like this one.

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

I guess you could say that the Half-Life series also addresses free will. Your path is perfectly linear--granted it's a very interesting and winding linear path, but no matter how much you screw around or poke around for other paths, you still eventually have to make your way in that same direction. You still cause the Black Mesa incident, you still visit the alien planet, you still get employed by the G-man, you still aid in the rebellion 10 years later...your path is set, from beginning to end. You're the hero, and you have no choice in the matter. Hell, you can't even say "No" or verbally express any sort of grievances. You just keep going until the job is done.

Bastion gives you a very interesting choice at the end. I'm not sure if it's philosophical, but it's interesting. I'll put it in spoilers in case you haven't played the game (which you should, by the way. It's not long and definitely worth your time).

Spoiler

The "Bastion" is a place that the people of Caelondia (the area of the world the game takes place in) were instructed to go in case of a great emergency. One day, your character wakes up (only known as "The Kid" by the narrator, an old man named Rucks) and a calamity has occurred. The world is falling apart, so you run to the Bastion and come across Rucks. Rucks tells you that you have to gather crystals in order to restore the Bastion--which has also suffered damage in the Calamity. On your adventures, you come across a young man named Zulf and a young lady named Zia (who was also a singer), both of a race known as the Ura who are not native to Caelondia. The Ura and the Caels had fought in terrible wars against each other, but at the time the game begins they are at peace (though a bit of an uneasy peace).

Long story short, Zulf learns that the calamity was actually planned by the Caelondia military to destroy the tunnels the Ura who lived in Caelondia resided in. However, it had backfired and destroyed Caelondia as well. He plans to take his revenge and re-damages the Bastion.

This is important because at this point, Rucks explains to the Kid that he was the one who designed the Bastion. While the Bastion was to be used in case of emergency and could be used basically as an enormous airship to evacuate Caelondia, it also had a secondary emergency function which could turn back time. If the Kid could gather enough crystal shards to restore the damage Zulf did, he would have to choose--does he turn back the clock, or fly away to a new land? Turning back the clock would save everyone who died in the calamity, but also nobody will remember what happened so there is no guarantee it it won't just happen again (and also the Kid's brave deeds will be forgotten). Flying away would allow the Kid and Rucks and Zia to retell the story of the calamity and all their deeds so the same bloodshed can be avoided in the future, but that means choosing to not save all of the lives that were lost.

The Kid gathers the shards, and has to go to the Ura homeland to retrieve the last one, which has also been devastated by the calamity. Zulf had recruited his people to fight the Kid and prevent him from restoring the Bastion, but they suffered terrible losses due to the Kid's superior fighting skill. They blamed Zulf for the loss of life, and so they turned on him and nearly killed him. The Kid is given the choice to either save Zulf or leave him to die.

After that, the Kid leaves the land with the crystal (and Zulf, if you so choose) and returns to the bastion where you're given the choice--restore or evacuate. If you restore, the credits show that Rucks and the Kid were left to their old tasks they were doing before the calamity struck (Rucks designing stuff and the Kid guarding an enormous wall that surrounds Caelondia), Zia was alone and had nobody to sing for, and Zulf ended up being happy. However, there is a game mode called New Game + in which you can play the game again but the the levels, abilities, and equipment you had from the first time you played through are preserved. In this mode, there are some new lines of dialog that hint that restoring did not prevent the calamity.

If you choose to evacuate, you fly away to a new land with the Bastion as your ship. Rucks sort of becomes the "captain" of the ship and a surrogate father to the Kid, and if you saved Zulf he ends up down in the galley making food. He looks a bit morose, probably still angry about the calamity, but he's on the ship and cooperating so that must mean something. And Zia has an audience to hear her sing.

So, yeah. There are also lots of subtleties and lore that you witness along the way, which I'm sure you can have fun divining philosophical value from ;-)

 

[Griffolion]

-snip-

Self Actualisation: Processes of leveling up or seeing a character finding their potential or accomplishing what they are meant to do. How this can translate over to us as players as we seek to self-actualise in our own lives. You can use more or less any game for this, so long as it has a bit of story and preferably RPG elements of leveling.