Papers, Please and the systemic approach to engaging ethical expertise in videogames

"A Game that Makes You Question..."

“…Moreover, several participants did report that games prompted them to draw parallels to real life, and even reflect on ethical and societal matters. There are similarities here to the concept of the 'morally reflective player' who, during play, "factors moral considerations into their decision-making" ( [20], p. 213). Though there was some evidence that players engaged in this sort of process by considering the ethical nature of their actions (e.g., P10's grappling with utilitarian philosophy), this was rarely extended outside the confines of the game.…”

Gaming and the Arts of Storytelling

“…A version of this analysis appears in (Mawhorter 2016), but a more thorough analysis of the game and its themes has also been undertaken by Paul Formosa, Malcolm Ryan, and Dan Staines (Formosa et al (2016)); for a critical perspective, see also Alexander (2013), which Formosa et al cite themselves). Formosa, Ryan, and Staines' excellent analysis of the game and its moral dimension largely agrees with our conclusion that the game uses ambiguity as a mechanism to encourage complicity, and in fact they even quote personal correspondence with Lucas Pope, the game's designer, to the same effect: "On some level I want players to reach a point of self-realization-about how good people can be turned into uncaring cogs" (Pope quoted in Formosa et al (2016)). We find these congruences encouraging, because they show that choice poetics can produce conclusions that are not only echoed by other analyses but which also seem to have been intended by the designer themselves.…”

Choice Poetics by Example

“…A version of this analysis appears in (Mawhorter 2016), but a more thorough analysis of the game and its themes has also been undertaken by Paul Formosa, Malcolm Ryan, and Dan Staines (Formosa et al (2016)); for a critical perspective, see also Alexander (2013), which Formosa et al cite themselves). Formosa, Ryan, and Staines' excellent analysis of the game and its moral dimension largely agrees with our conclusion that the game uses ambiguity as a mechanism to encourage complicity, and in fact they even quote personal correspondence with Lucas Pope, the game's designer, to the same effect: "On some level I want players to reach a point of self-realization-about how good people can be turned into uncaring cogs" (Pope quoted in Formosa et al (2016)). We find these congruences encouraging, because they show that choice poetics can produce conclusions that are not only echoed by other analyses but which also seem to have been intended by the designer themselves.…”

“…A central part of the game is unresolved ambiguity, both about the identities and claims of those seeking entry and about the motives and legitimacy of the government and opposing revolutionary forces. Alexander (2013) gives a nice overview of the game from a critical perspective, and Formosa et al (2016) provides a detailed analysis of its systemic engagement with a variety of moral issues.…”