skip to main content
10.1145/3235765.3235779acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Moral engagement in interactive narrative games: an exploratory study on ethical agency in the walking dead and life is strange

Published:07 August 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

The present paper focuses on moral choices in interactive narrative games. Particularly, it investigates factors that contribute to moral engagement in short-term decision making in games; as opposed to the somewhat better understood factors that underlie moral disengagement in games. To this end, the paper proposes factors for assessing moral engagement in games, that build upon (1) the general aggression model, (2) the moral disengagement model, and (3) self-determination theory. The paper reports on two case studies that explore the factors in actual interactive video games; it investigates meaningful choices in the games Life is Strange and The Walking Dead Season 1.

References

  1. Adorno, Theodor W and Horkheimer, Max. 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment., 94--136 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, Craig A and Bushman, Brad J. 2002. Human Aggression. Annual Reviews Psychology 53, 4 (2002), 27--51.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Sam Kabo Ashwell. 2015. Standard Patterns in Choice-Based Games. https://heterogenoustasks.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/standard-patterns-in-choice-based-games. {Online; accessed 04-07-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Albert Bandura. 1999. Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review 3, 3 (1999), 193--209.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Bandura, Albert, Barbaranelli, Claudio, Caprara, Gian Vittorio, and Pastorelli, Concetta. 1996. Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, 2 (1996), 364--374.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Richard Bartle. 1996. Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs., 193--209 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumeister, Roy F., Masicampo, E.J., and DeWall, Nathan. 2009. Prosocial Benefits of Feeling Free: Disbelief in Free Will Increases Aggression and Reduces Helpfulness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35, 2 (2009), 260--268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Ian Bogost. 2007. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames., 3--46 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jeanne Funk Brockmyer. 2015. Playing Violent Video Games and Desensitization to Violence. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics 24, 1 (2015), 65 -- 77.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Carnagey, Nicholas L, Anderson, Craig A, and Bushman, Brad J. 2007. The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43, 3 (May 2007), 489--496.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1997. Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Anna Dechering. 2017. Moral Engagement in Interactive Narrative Games. https://tiu.nu/moralengagement M.Sc. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Deci, Edward L. and Ryan, Richard M. 2000. The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11, 4 (2000), 227--268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Julian Dibbell. 1994. A Rape in Cyberspace or How an Evil Clown, a Haitian Trickster Spirit, Two Wizards, and a Cast of Dozens Turned a Database into a Society. Ann Surv Am L.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Engelhardt, Christopher R, Bartholow, Bruce D, Kerr, Geoffrey T, and Bushman, Brad J. 2011. This is your brain on violent video games: Neural desensitization to violence predicts increased aggression following violent video game exposure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47, 4 (April 2011), 1033--1036.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Jonathan Haidt. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion., 12--180 pages. Penguin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Hartmann, Tilo and Vorderer, Peter. 2010. It's Okay to Shoot a Character: Moral Disengagement in Violent Video Games. J. of Communication 60, 1 (2010), 94--119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Klimmt, Christoph, Schmid, Hannah, Nosper, Andreas, Hartmann, Tilo, and Vorderer, Peter. 2006. How players manage moral concerns to make video game violence enjoyable. Communications 31 (2006), 309--328.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Brice Morrison. 2013. Meaningful Choice in Games: Practical Guide and Case Studies. http://www.surfermag.com/features/maldives-controversy. {Online; accessed 2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Janet Murray. 1998. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace., 126--151 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. n.k. 2015. doug/carley. http://steamcommunity.com/app/207610/discussions/0/490125103641618457/. {Online; accessed 10-08-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. n.k. 2015. Frank Bowers: Episode One - "Chrysalis". http://life-is-strange.wikia.com/wiki/Frank_Bowers. {Online; accessed 07-08-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. n.k. 2015. What are consequence if I take the money? (Spoiler topic) in episode 4 and 5? Thank you :). https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/458604254422386985/. {Online; accessed 2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. n.k. 2016. Life is Strange: General Discussions. https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/. {Online; accessed 10-08-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. n.k. 2016. The Walking Dead: General Discussions. http://steamcommunity.com/app/207610/discussions/. {Online; accessed 10-08-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. n.k. 2017. Just Finished 1st Playthrough. Loved it until Ep. 5. https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/2592234299567039820/. {Online; accessed 12-08-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. n.k. 2017. *SPOILERS!!!!!!!* last choice too easy? https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/135512305398639981/. {Online; accessed 19-08-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Kevin Ohannessian. 2014. 'Walking Dead' game episodes sell 28 million, will have season 3. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/11417/20140728/walking-dead-video-game-telltale-games.html. {Online; accessed 2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Peters, Vincent, van de Westelaken, Marleen, and Bruining, Jorn. 2014. Simulation games as a safe environment - considerations for game designers and facilitators.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Przybylski, A. K., Weinstein, N., Murayama, K., Lynch, M. F., and Ryan, R. M. 2012. The Ideal Self at Play: The Appeal of Video Games That Let You Be All You Can Be. Psychological Science 23, 1 (Jan. 2012), 69--76.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Rothmund, Tobias, Bender, Jens, Nauroth, Peter, and Gollwitzer, Mario. 2015. Public concerns about violent video games are moral concerns: How moral threat can make pacifists susceptible to scientific and political claims against violent video games. European Journal of Social Psychology 45 (2015), 769--783.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Miguel Sicart. 2009. The banality of evil: designing ethical gameplay. Ethics Information Technology 11 (2009), 191--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Smethurst, Toby and Craps, Stef. 2015. Playing with Trauma: Interreactivity, Empathy, and Complicity in The Walking Dead Video Game. Games and Culture 10, 3 (2015), 269--290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Murray Smith. 1994. Altered States: Character and Emotional Response in the Cinema. Cinema Journal 33, 4 (June 1994), 34--57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Vohs, Kathleen D. and Schooler, Jonathan W. 2008. The value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating. Association for Psychological Science 19, 1 (2008), 49--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Moral engagement in interactive narrative games: an exploratory study on ethical agency in the walking dead and life is strange

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        FDG '18: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
        August 2018
        503 pages

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 7 August 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        FDG '18 Paper Acceptance Rate39of95submissions,41%Overall Acceptance Rate152of415submissions,37%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader