Monstrous winds were blowing along the coast in Kuwait last week, these winds seemed like they have one goal in mind; get as much water from the ocean over to the main land as possible. Such a phenomena strikes many as a sign, a sign that nature runs it’s course no matter how hard man tries to counter it (the fortified beaches cannot do anything to the waves that trampled them).
Earlier also, a post was written on games and wether or not they affect ethics, and in that post, a simple drawing aimed to illustrate the rivalry between both games and ethics:
That post showed the ethics as the monster, the unstoppable force of nature, the whale that the tragic fisherman (games) tried to slay. Nature does always run it’s course, I mean just look at the Kuwait coast now… But who is truly the monster in that article? Who is the natural force? Was it truly the whale, or was it the fisherman? (well… the fisherman does look evil… But let us look at it more objectively)
Play has always been an integral part not just in our lives, but also in the lives of most living creatures. Look at the offspring of any animal and how they use play to learn about the environment and survival…
But what about ethics? Ethics are laws and rules we teach our children to have them better integrated in society.
So, who is the monster? And who wants to tame who? Should the roles be reversed? Are ethics really the intruders here and games (or play) are the natural force that drives life?
Or course play is natural, but if play is all natural, does that mean that play rules all? No guidelines or restrictions should govern play? (and thus should’ve been on the evil fisherman’s boat instead of the other way around?) I believe the answer is also no…
What is interesting here is that both phenomena (Play and Ethics) are natural and are apart of our build as humans (having a brain that distinguishes right from wrong is what makes us human after all, doesn’t that define ethics?)
An interesting article examines the process in which players make choices in games. Like for example if given the choice; should I kill an innocent bystander if it meant that I get a specific reward?
Such topics are worth exploring especially since games are those environments were people act without fear of consequences, either due to the anonymous vale they wear in them, or the distances games cover between players, or both.
But issues such as these are only recently being examined (from the early 2000s), and starting at the bargaining in a field means distinguishing the parameters and categorizing the players in that field and their attributes.
So determining the attributes of play, the choices players take while playing and how ethics play into these choices is best explored by looking at the relationship between play and ethics.
In a game, what should take the front row and call the shots? The gameplay, or ethics?
Put in another way: Game and ethics are indeed connected, but how…?
Recent Comments