Persona
One thing that is perplexing for me, is the role of identity and ethics in games. Some people find it perfectly acceptable to ignore social or self-imposed rules because it is only a game. This extends to meta-game aspects as well, such as cheating at a game, especially in consideration of the way it affects other players. I think it's fair to say that if someone is cheating at a game, it will not be viewed favorably by other players. But the reaction, I suppose depends on what people are expecting to receive from playing the game. Some people, like me, are serious game players, who expect that winning a game (aside from elements of luck) is achieved through playing a best strategy. There are others though, who seem to enjoy a game for its entertainment or fun value.
The point is, that if rules can be so casually bent or broken, why have rules at all? Why play the game at all? Is it an obsession with winning? An obsession with crossing a line? And how can one ignore the lengths that some people will go in order to win, and not wonder if this extends to other parts of their lives as well?
I play a wide variety of games, but I especially have a hard time with those games that require you willfully screw another player, such as choosing someone to lose points or set back in some fashion. I would not willfully do something harmful or spiteful to another person in real life, and I try to keep that aspect with me, even though it is only a game. I find it difficult to be anyone other than myself. Ironically, I enjoy a lot of role playing games, but still I find it difficult when it comes down to it, to do something I find morally objectionable, even in the context of a game. If I lose, or am otherwise set back for it, then so be it.
This applies mostly to games involving other people. In single player games, I am a bit more relaxed with my standards. One game that I really enjoy is civilization, but it involves a lot of things that I detest in real life, such as war. I prefer to play a peaceful builder style, but the politics and diplomacy of the game don't always allow you this option. I usually play under a personal policy that I can never declare war, but if war is declared on me, then I can go on the offensive. A convenient shade of gray.
It really makes me think about how we justify crossing lines - it's okay in this context because . . .
The point is, that if rules can be so casually bent or broken, why have rules at all? Why play the game at all? Is it an obsession with winning? An obsession with crossing a line? And how can one ignore the lengths that some people will go in order to win, and not wonder if this extends to other parts of their lives as well?
I play a wide variety of games, but I especially have a hard time with those games that require you willfully screw another player, such as choosing someone to lose points or set back in some fashion. I would not willfully do something harmful or spiteful to another person in real life, and I try to keep that aspect with me, even though it is only a game. I find it difficult to be anyone other than myself. Ironically, I enjoy a lot of role playing games, but still I find it difficult when it comes down to it, to do something I find morally objectionable, even in the context of a game. If I lose, or am otherwise set back for it, then so be it.
This applies mostly to games involving other people. In single player games, I am a bit more relaxed with my standards. One game that I really enjoy is civilization, but it involves a lot of things that I detest in real life, such as war. I prefer to play a peaceful builder style, but the politics and diplomacy of the game don't always allow you this option. I usually play under a personal policy that I can never declare war, but if war is declared on me, then I can go on the offensive. A convenient shade of gray.
It really makes me think about how we justify crossing lines - it's okay in this context because . . .