For clarification, are we talking about the ethics presented by the content or by the form? If we're just talking about content, then I'd like to point out that violent video games exist because violence exists in real life. Part of the value of art is that it reflects the world in some way. Games are an artistic and imaginative medium - to constrain them to only depicting ethical behaviour would be like constraining novels or paintings or films to only depicting ethical behaviour. If we're talking about form and presentation, I refer you to Ravyne's post above.

Almost every human civilization treated women as sex toys and brood mares for most of our history. Does that mean that's a natural part of the human condition? Slavery was a universal cultural thing more or less, existing in most nations in some form and on every continent. Is that also natural?

The examples of other violent games was just to show that violence in entertainment is common, so an argument as to why video game devs should avoid violence should apply to sports/cards/tabletop/TV/books/film/etc as well.
Video games are a neat meeting point of all of those listed media, sharing all their issues.

People who enjoy these things [football, etc] are... wrong.
People die, they get brain damage, many athletes get permanent back/leg/arm/etc. problems. The popularity of this stuff tends to tie into tribal identity issues. Do you think people would care as much if the teams weren't assigned to specific cities? They wouldn't.

Who are you tell those people that their lives are wrong. If they're making the informed choice to risk life and limb, that's their problem. Others climb mountains or jump out of planes... Which is stupidly dangerous, but it's some people's dedication. I don't understand them, but to flat out tell them they're wrong?? Wow.

As far as proving a negative, you are requiring us to prove a negative, unethical is the negative. You would only have to prove a positive, that it is ethical.

The 'un' prefix is grammaticaly negative... Thats go nothing to to with whether arguing on the side of right or wrong is the positive or negative side.

Violence is media is commonly acceptable at the moment. If you're arguing against it, you're arguing for change. You have to tell people why they should change
change.

Its cool though, your identity is tied up in violent sports and games. So having an argument with you is mostly pointless. Its almost impossible to dissuade people from their bad behavior because saying that such and such is bad, when they identify as a person who does such and such, implies something about them as a person, and people don't want to feel like a bad person. Even if they have to fall back on arguments of tradition instead of having an actual defense for their behavior.

That's just ridiculously unnecessary.
I don't watch football, or boxing, or any violent sports. I don't make violent videogames at the moment either. The last year's of my life have been dedicated to trying to find a way to inject fun/drama into a collisionless and weaponless racing game.
The next game to launch that I've worked on is Wander, a non-combat, non-competitive MMO.
It's ok to accept and even present ideas that you don't personally believe in.
I have no idea why people choose to be boxers or footballers, and no idea why people watch it! But I can still defend their freedom to make those choices, as they're not harming me at all.
But sure, if you think that defending them means that my identity must be tied up in bloodsport, then you're not insulting me with that jab at all, you're only telling us about yourself with those words.

Well I never said they can't do that, only that its bad and they shouldn't. You didn't really come across as defending a point of view you didn't believe in, I don't read minds. You did say you approved of GTA and didn't really mention beyond that that you didn't agree with what you compared it to. People make informed decisions about drugs all the time that are way less dangerous that various extreme, or even mainstream sports. I suppose if I ask if you support legalizing extreme drugs you will just say yes, given that follows from your logic about extreme sports.

As far as telling people why they should change, did you even read my post? The whole part about identity which you clearly commented on was about the pointlessness of getting people to change. The amount of pressure society would have to bring to bear, which would be impossible since conservatives approve of this stuff and liberals are all about free to be you and me, would be relatively equivalent to the pressures against sexism and racism, and after over 150 years, we can see how great women and minorities are treated now. There's no way people would go through that effort for something like dangerous sports.

As for unethical vs ethical, both sides are effectively negatives because ethics are arbitrary. "Proving" anything to people who don't want to be convinced is equally pointless for either side. In that its completely [expletive] impossible.

For clarification, are we talking about the ethics presented by the content or by the form? If we're just talking about content, then I'd like to point out that violent video games exist because violence exists in real life. Part of the value of art is that it reflects the world in some way. Games are an artistic and imaginative medium - to constrain them to only depicting ethical behaviour would be like constraining novels or paintings or films to only depicting ethical behaviour. If we're talking about form and presentation, I refer you to Ravyne's post above.

You're post makes no sense. The problem with games like GTA isn't that they display and simulate negative behavior to and for the player, its WHY they do this. For instance Hodgman's defense that GTA is super clever satire. That's a ridiculously indefensible decision for anyone not invested in believing that so that they can play it without feeling bad about themselves, better to just admit they like GTA for what it really is, but at least it is made with an understanding of the topic. COD serves no artistic purpose. Games can be art, as movies can be art, but not all movies and games or drawings are art in the sense that they convey a deeper meaning. Bodice-rippers are an old and popular genre of book but they aren't art just because someone also wrote an erotic novel that was art. Gone Home is art, though whether its good or bad art is up for debate. But GTA is not art.

For clarification, are we talking about the ethics presented by the content or by the form? If we're just talking about content, then I'd like to point out that violent video games exist because violence exists in real life. Part of the value of art is that it reflects the world in some way. Games are an artistic and imaginative medium - to constrain them to only depicting ethical behaviour would be like constraining novels or paintings or films to only depicting ethical behaviour. If we're talking about form and presentation, I refer you to Ravyne's post above.

You're post makes no sense. The problem with games like GTA isn't that they display and simulate negative behavior to and for the player, its WHY they do this. For instance Hodgman's defense that GTA is super clever satire. That's a ridiculously indefensible decision for anyone not invested in believing that so that they can play it without feeling bad about themselves, better to just admit they like GTA for what it really is, but at least it is made with an understanding of the topic.

Okay, which part makes no sense? I thought it made perfect sense when I wrote it in that it is clear English, asks a concise question, and attempts to concisely present a coherent and consistent point. So which of those things does it fail at? Are you saying it's off-topic?

Furthemore, why, in your own words, does GTA simulate negative behaviour? It seems clear to me that you think you know what the (one and only) meaning of GTA is. What do you think the purpose of GTA is and with what authority do you claim to limit GTA's meaning in that way?

COD serves no artistic purpose. Games can be art, as movies can be art, but not all movies and games or drawings are art in the sense that they convey a deeper meaning. Bodice-rippers are an old and popular genre of book but they aren't art just because someone also wrote an erotic novel that was art. Gone Home is art, though whether its good or bad art is up for debate. But GTA is not art.

I take it you're not up on your Roland Barthes. Otherwise you would surely understand that the meaning of a work to individuals in the world at large is independent of its creator's intent. COD may serve no "artistic purpose" (if that is a meaningful term) to you - it doesn't to me, either, and perhaps not to its creators - but that's irrelevant. If COD means something to someone, somewhere, then it has acted as art. The same is true of GTA - its status is art is based on perception, and some perceive it as satire, so for them that is what it is, and their experience is just as valid as your own not-experience. Furthermore, I'd argue that the very fact that we can argue about what the "meaning of GTA" is, and have that actually be a meaningful argument in and of itself, makes it art.

How much do you designers think about the effect your games will have on they people who play them?

I don't think you can call yourself a designer if you don't constantly think of the players when making games.

True a game is art and thereby it's a expression of the developer, but unlike books, pictures, audio and even videos thy need players for there existence.

If you searched what a game is right now you will find that within it's descriptions that it isn't a game if there are no players, then it's meat or a disability.

For example my young nephew has a pretty decent idea for an ipad/android RTS WW2 themed game maybe in 3D. Now this got me thinking do we really need anymore violence in games out there. There has obviously been a pretty decent debate on the effect of violence in games even if it's in a cartoon style, see here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversies, there are mixed results as to what the scientists conclude. The more graphically realistic the game then arguably the more potential negative effects it can have.

If you chose to use a WW2 setting simply because you need some place and time when people where fighting, that is just disappointing.

There are a lot of good reasons to chose a WW2 setting, you want to show how hard it was to live in that time, you want to show how valiantly everyday people fought against a hostile takeover, you want to show how the new technology at that time shifted the war, wanting to show how violent it was even "because it's war." is a better reason than none.

The reason better graphic games have more of a lasting impact is because your brain can mistake the onscreen image as a memory, this happens more with television than games.

Most people don't store memories as frame by frame events, instead only key frames are stored and the in-between made by our minds based on the rules it knows. This means we can, and often do make our own memories.

If you use a computer to write, where you only have to press Ctrl+Z to undo, then it can happen that when you write with a pen on paper that your mind remembers it can fix things with Ctrl+Z when it cant.

The same happens in real life when facing a problem, if you could solve a similar problem in a game with violence then it could happen that your brain remembers the game and for a brief moment thinks it is a acceptable solution. It's here where you hope the person understands the consequence of this action, before taking the action.

Unfortunately people don't need games to use violence as a solution, it just a good excuse.

I do know that I find the GTA games to be pretty crude, GTA3 was exciting and novel at first however if I ever play a GTA game now I find it pretty sick to be honest

Originally GTA was made with the idea of pointing out the flaw of society, that breaking rules is more fun that following them.

This was enforced with satire in later releases, at least I cant really remember any satire in the first GTA.

Unfortunately as thy released sequels using there new found data, thy focused more on what players liked instead of why players liked it.

Now GTA still has that backbone of breaking rules, the reason why we would like to do so is lost in content.

NOW for the big question is violence in games a bad thing, NO it isn't.

Playing games is how advanced animals learn simple basic things thy need for life, it's the same for us.

Fighting in games reminds the player that you will never gain any thing in life if you don't fight for it, that is the job of the mechanic.

Reminding the player that there are thing worth fighting for, that is the job of a developer.

The rest of this is just my own opinions on what the rest wrote.

First natural and ethical doesn't mean moral, we use different words for a reason.

Gambling can be both natural and ethical while still being immoral to some religions, what is moral depends greatly on the person.

It becomes an issue of bad parenting if someone is giving restricted products to their kids.

I agree.

If we place the responsibility at the hands of the parents we should accept that thy have the right to remove games from stores, no point in responsibility with out power to take action.

I think that this is just too easy. If a child want to play a game, especially if it is forbidden for him, then he will play it, and not even most good parents are IT experts, who are able to control what their children consume.

I believe if a child is so smart that thy know how to find and play a game that is banned, thy are at a point where thy should be thought about actions and consequence.

If a child with that level of intelligence doesn't understand how thy impact the world, thy could sell the game to others.

Adults may play GTA be we all know that its not marketed towards adults. It makes it profits off from being "edgy" to attract the standard teenage to college male demo.

We as developers also hold responsibility, we should not market games to a unintended audience.

Greed kills games.

Does that mean that's a natural part of the human condition? Slavery was a universal cultural thing more or less, existing in most nations in some form and on every continent. Is that also natural? No.

Slavery, rape and killing is in fact natural,there are many insects and animals that do these things , what it isn't at this moment is moral and ethical.

What is moral and ethical changes, that is why the Romans had there games of murder and rape.

Where these games bad, not in a mechanical way no. These games entertained thousands and thy thought a lot of valuable lessens at the time, don't mess with the Romans, thy are insane.

Where the Roman games morally and ethically correct, no again. That is why people who believed that these games where immoral and unethical stopped them.

Where do I stand?

I believe murder is wrong, but violent sports and games are necessary. There is no need for people to die in games but fighting is a important part of games, it's the basic form of games that a animal learns first.

I also feel it isn't wrong to make money out of games, being greedy will result in poor decisions that will in the end destroy a game, still making a game to make money isn't wrong if the game is still a proper game.

BTW, contrary to common belief sex does not sell In practice, making games ethically correct brings more money With few exceptions, as usual.

Oh dear, someone inform the porn industry.

I understand what you mean, but I believe the only reason there hasn't been a good sex game is because no one has made real attempt at it.

Games don't over much for sex games at the moment, so a developer would have to focus on things around sex and why it drives people.

In my opinion the big problem right now is the mobile gaming market that encourages children to buy "gold" in freemium games, and encourages compulsive behaviour and addiction.

Unfortunately games teach with reward and punishment, yes that right the way you learn any thing from a game is by being conditioned.

It stands that if a developer want's cash thy would abuse this, but we Need it. If a player doesn't get punished for falling into a pit, how will thy know to jump over it?

COD serves no artistic purpose.

I recommend: COD world at war.

For clarification, are we talking about the ethics presented by the content or by the form? If we're just talking about content, then I'd like to point out that violent video games exist because violence exists in real life. Part of the value of art is that it reflects the world in some way. Games are an artistic and imaginative medium - to constrain them to only depicting ethical behaviour would be like constraining novels or paintings or films to only depicting ethical behaviour. If we're talking about form and presentation, I refer you to Ravyne's post above.

You're post makes no sense. The problem with games like GTA isn't that they display and simulate negative behavior to and for the player, its WHY they do this. For instance Hodgman's defense that GTA is super clever satire. That's a ridiculously indefensible decision for anyone not invested in believing that so that they can play it without feeling bad about themselves, better to just admit they like GTA for what it really is, but at least it is made with an understanding of the topic.

Okay, which part makes no sense? I thought it made perfect sense when I wrote it in that it is clear English, asks a concise question, and attempts to concisely present a coherent and consistent point. So which of those things does it fail at? Are you saying it's off-topic?

Furthemore, why, in your own words, does GTA simulate negative behaviour? It seems clear to me that you think you know what the (one and only) meaning of GTA is. What do you think the purpose of GTA is and with what authority do you claim to limit GTA's meaning in that way?

COD serves no artistic purpose. Games can be art, as movies can be art, but not all movies and games or drawings are art in the sense that they convey a deeper meaning. Bodice-rippers are an old and popular genre of book but they aren't art just because someone also wrote an erotic novel that was art. Gone Home is art, though whether its good or bad art is up for debate. But GTA is not art.

I take it you're not up on your Roland Barthes. Otherwise you would surely understand that the meaning of a work to individuals in the world at large is independent of its creator's intent. COD may serve no "artistic purpose" (if that is a meaningful term) to you - it doesn't to me, either, and perhaps not to its creators - but that's irrelevant. If COD means something to someone, somewhere, then it has acted as art. The same is true of GTA - its status is art is based on perception, and some perceive it as satire, so for them that is what it is, and their experience is just as valid as your own not-experience. Furthermore, I'd argue that the very fact that we can argue about what the "meaning of GTA" is, and have that actually be a meaningful argument in and of itself, makes it art.

We can have a meaningful argument about whether the browning on a piece of toast is in fact an image of the virgin marry. I guess toast is art now, too. I guess we are just going to define art in the broadest possible sense, which makes the term pointless but w/e. As far as know THE only meaning of GTA, I'm talking about the intended and the majority opinion. Which may or may not be the same. I'm not going to accept the fucking stupid idea that anything anyone thinks about anything is equally valid with everything anyone else thinks about anything. Why the fuck would you ever talk about anything at all given that that was the case. I can think up a zillion ways to interpret anything all on my own, what do I need you for then? The same with Hodgman's stupid shit about anything a grown adult consents to being okay. Are they legally allowed to do it? Yes. Do we follow this principle because otherwise we are afraid someone else could declare our hobbies illegal? Yes. This is basic political shit here guys. Consent based legality exists so that we can avoid having random things declared illegal every time the party in power or the majority opinion shifts, its not an endorsement of any and all activities you have to be a legal adult to consent to. I don't have to know the name of some random post structuralist to be aware of the kinds of ideas he puts out there. Yes, I know that some people think all opinions about all things are equally valid. Those people are called idiots.

But hey, I can't stop you from sucking at the teat of total relativism man, its a free country, and furthermore its probably more productive to write you off as someone with anything valuable to say, even if I COULD somehow stop you.

Just to be clear, I understand the argument, made by plenty of people besides Barthes, that anyone CAN derive any meaning from anything, even say, the eyeball being proof of god, quite serious argument made by Christian apologists referred to as irreducible complexity, while at the same time determining that these people have no idea what they are talking about. However I was clearly under the mistaken impression that people posting in a thread called game ethics, actually believed that it was possible to make an unethical game. I could make a game about murdering Jews in the Holocaust where you roleplay a dedicated Nazi officer, and by your definition, that's like, art. Or something. I'm sure you would totally play that as wicked satire if I included, like GTA, just a slight bit of faux self-awareness to give you an excuse. Because otherwise you would just be admitting that you like GTA because you like robbing fake banks and murdering fake people and not because of its oh so clever satire. Yet I suspect that the reception of this game, purely because of its topic, in a hypothetical world where its "quality" was equivalent to GTA, would not receive nearly the same reception. Much like Hatred didn't. Because as much as you want to shield yourself with relativism when talking about GTA, a post-hoc rationalization in the case of the majority of people that make it, the irony of most extreme relativists is that they are secretly deontologists using relativistic arguments to make themselves seem less hypocritical.

I mean, maybe you are part of the .1% of actual relativists but I've confronted the satire argument 1000 times, whether about GTA or something else and in the end my picture of reality ends up more accurate by dismissing claims of relativism as fake. I would be irrational to accept your argument without the sort of evidence Hodgman insists he needn't provide because he is on the status quo side of the argument. Well its technically true Hodgman, and/or Oberon, that you don't have to defend the status quo, not for theoretical reasons but for practical ones, a position of power needs no defense beyond itself. But such an argument says something about your character.

This probably constitutes some sort of temporary ban offense, if so, go ahead and make it permanent. Because right now you guys disgust me. If I were you, I'd go wash off the slimy shield of faux-relativism quick, lest someone catch its stench on you.

We can have a meaningful argument about whether the browning on a piece of toast is in fact an image of the virgin marry. I guess toast is art now, too.

I think toast can be art, just like lattes can be art. It's just that most toast isn't art because most browning patterns on toast are not created intentionally (but are a byproduct of random chance) and the browning patterns on the vast majority of toast are not meaningful to anyone.

I guess we are just going to define art in the broadest possible sense, which makes the term pointless but w/e.

How does that make the term pointless? If art is definable in the broadest possible sense, then a definition that excludes those things that are included in that "broadest possible sense" definition is (by definition) wrong. Besides, the definition I've given is sufficiently restrictive to cut off silly things. Consider, for example, an anecdote I heard about a modern art museum in which a glove was dropped by a visitor in the midst of the gallery. The other visitors avoided touching the glove for fear that it was an art piece! This seems obviously silly to most people, and it is - the glove was not dropped intentionally. But I think wouldn't be so silly to label it "art" if a person had intentionally thrown the glove on the ground, particularly for the purpose of putting the glove on display.

As far as know THE only meaning of GTA, I'm talking about the intended and the majority opinion. Which may or may not be the same. I'm not going to accept the fucking stupid idea that anything anyone thinks about anything is equally valid with everything anyone else thinks about anything. Why the fuck would you ever talk about anything at all given that that was the case.

Of course not everything anyone thinks about anything is equally (logically) valid - validity requires that a persons' thoughts be self-consistent. Furthermore, validity is not soundness - it's perfectly possible to have an interpretation that is valid (because it is consistent with its premises), but not be sound (because its premises are false, ie. the facts of the art being analyzed don't support them). But when I used the term "validity," I was referring to experience - not only "thoughts", but also emotions and general mental state. Are you saying there are cases when an emotion is invalid?

I can think up a zillion ways to interpret anything all on my own, what do I need you for then?

Reality checks. As you rightly believe, not all interpretations are valid or sound - you need us to point out any logical flaws your interpretation might make and any premises that might turn out false. Sometimes our emotions tell us that an interpretation is valid when in fact it isn't - that makes the interpretation invalid, but it does NOT make the emotion itself invalid, and the fact that the emotion is there blinding us means that we need somebody else to point out that we are blinded.

The same with Hodgman's stupid shit about anything a grown adult consents to being okay

Why is that stupid? Why shouldn't people do things that are dangerous, or strange, or even kinky, if their behaviour affects only themselves? You're going to have to do better than a derisive assertion if you want to convince anyone that this particular, very conventional moral axiom is "stupid" or "wrong." That's a whole separate discussion to this one, I think.

However I was clearly under the mistaken impression that people posting in a thread called game ethics, actually believed that it was possible to make an unethical game.

Of course it is possible to make an unethical game. Nobody is denying that as far as I can see. The argument I am making is that an "unethical game" refers to unethical behaviour on the part of the developer.

Games that exploit players' psychology for their money without providing value are unethical.

Games that intentionally damage players' property (via DRM and the like) are unethical.

Games that spy on players personal information are unethical.

Games that depict unethical behaviour are NOT "unethical" - their content is unethical. I distinguish between the two, and it appears others here agree with me.

I could make a game about murdering Jews in the Holocaust where you roleplay a dedicated Nazi officer, and by your definition, that's like, art.

Of course it could be art, just as paintings of events of the Holocaust are still art. Or are you saying that paintings and films depicting the Holocaust are not art? ;) I still wouldn't play it, because that's not an experience I'd particularly like to roleplay. Furthermore the concept of glorifying actual genocide is offensive to me, and on the face of it your notion of a game about murdering Jews in the Holocaust is that. I'd probably send funny looks at anyone who did play it. But "offensive" is not "unethical" and makes no sense to dismiss something as "not art" merely because it contains content that offends you. Of course, if nobody can present a sound interpretation of any kind of deeper meaning from the game - that is, the game doesn't "say something" either intentionally or not - then it isn't art.

Now, a game like that done well could very well be art and still feature that sort of gameplay. Suppose the game were built in such a way that players came to understand how the Nazis came into that mindset in the first place - how the monsters came into being, as it were. Then the game would have an educational function, and therefore would be "saying" something and therefore would be "art" according to my definition. I recall hearing of a classroom experiment that worked somewhat along those lines....

I'm sure you would totally play that as wicked satire if I included, like GTA, just a slight bit of faux self-awareness to give you an excuse. Because otherwise you would just be admitting that you like GTA because you like robbing fake banks and murdering fake people and not because of its oh so clever satire. Yet I suspect that the reception of this game, purely because of its topic, in a hypothetical world where its "quality" was equivalent to GTA, would not receive nearly the same reception.

A game like that could be satire. Very, very offensive satire that would be walking a very thin line of acceptability. From your description alone I would say that it isn't "satire", since that term is not a label that can be applied arbitrarily. I'll leave it to players of GTA to explain why it's satire, it's not a game that I play so I don't have all the facts in front of me.

I mean, maybe you are part of the .1% of actual relativists but I've confronted the satire argument 1000 times, whether about GTA or something else and in the end my picture of reality ends up more accurate by dismissing claims of relativism as fake. I would be irrational to accept your argument without the sort of evidence Hodgman insists he needn't provide because he is on the status quo side of the argument. Well its technically true Hodgman, and/or Oberon, that you don't have to defend the status quo, not for theoretical reasons but for practical ones, a position of power needs no defense beyond itself. But such an argument says something about your character.

Well, I for one would like to hear this evidence myself, if only to use it in my own arguments. But I think the point being made there isn't the one you think it is. Surely you know what a null hypothesis is? Or are you one of those who advocates for abolishing methods of analysis that use null hypotheses?

I'm not sure what you mean by ".1% of actual relativists". So far as I am aware, the number of people worldwide (and particularly in Western cultures) who ascribe to some sort of moral relativism is far greater than .1%. At least where I'm from, and among people of my generation, reaching some sort of moral nihilism (and having the resulting existential crisis) is a fairly regular occurrence in one's teen and early adult years.

Because right now you guys disgust me. If I were you, I'd go wash off the slimy shield of faux-relativism quick, lest someone catch its stench on you.

First you accuse me of sucking from the teat of total relativism, now you say I'm a faux-relativist? Which is it? With all that effort going into the derision in your post I'd have thought you'd at least be consistent, though if your arguments are driven by emotional prejudice concerning the subject matter that would explain it. You certainly are being awfully derisive of rather conventional ideas, though that in itself doesn't make you wrong. I find it a little concerning that you are so easily disgusted by ideas alternative to your own.