The Ethics of computer games: Miguel Sicart
Notes taken from Miguel Sicart's book 'The ethics of computer games" in which he discusses aspects of ethical practices portrayed in games and interactive media. Whats right? how do we as the player react in these situations and is there a right or wrong answer? should there be? He touches on some major points in which i want to discuss in my written work such as 'player responsibility' and the portrayal of important events/factors from real-world situations.
--"Deus Ex is a critically acclaimed first-person shooter, in which players explore a dystopian world as a super-soldier. The aim is to stop the spread of a plague by retrieving the vaccine from the "terrorists". But who is the real terrorist, and what does it mean? its not as simple as good Vs evil. In many combat games, " following orders" means "doings the right thing". Deus Ex breaks that expectation and forces players to reflect on the meaning of their actions. Ethical thinking is as powerful as a handgun, and ethical responsibility the most adequate gameplay strategy."--
Notes:
There is a really interesting little indie game coming out in February of 2017 called '911 operator' created by a kickstarter campaign from a company from poland called PlayWay. The premise of the game is you play as an 911 operator from a city of your choice, answering the calls to 911 and responding to the caller, giving first-aid instructions, advise, send our dispatches or even ignoring calls altogether (if you was so inclined to do so)

But here is an example of how situations explored in games can maybe have a controversial backlash due to the subject matter. about a year ago a small game created by a 6 person team designed for the VR system caused major backlash with various amounts of people on the subject matter the game was based around. It was called '08:46' named after the exact time the very first plane crashed into one of the twin towers during the 9/11 attacks. Gamers plays as an office worker trapped on the upper level of the world trade centre during the attacks and has to make decisions on what to do next in order to survive. I would view this as less a game and more an interactive experience, there is no overall goal to this apart from experiencing the happenings around you and listening into the conversations and calls of your various co-workers, you cant win. no matter the choices you make, and its not intended to be something which you 'win'. The main goal of making the game the creators said was to create a simulation in which players could emphasise and better understand the situation the victims of the attack where in, some people have called out that people don't need a simulation of the events in order for people to emphasis with the victims. This brings up another aspect i want to touch on in my research. In games are there some situations and topics that should not be recreated? and if so, why not? does this not all come under creative freedom? what topics are seen as "too sensitive". When people are perfectly fine with playing a game such as grand theft auto, which has portrayals of abuse on prostitutes or games such as Call of Duty and other warfare games which highlight the horrors of war most people don't blink an eye, but being put in the position of a powerless victim of a terror attack has people calling out in disgust? Does it have something related to the fact that even in today's age, games are still seen as purely an entertainment media as apposed to facilities in which to touch on more important issues, does that trivialise the subject matter at all in the views of the public?
