Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
PAX Prime 2012 - On the Ethics of Mind Control
PAX Prime 2012: On the Ethics of Mind Control
At PAX Prime 2012, we presented three mini lectures as part of Short Subjects in Gaming on Friday in the Wolfman Theater.
"On the Ethics of Mind Control," the third and final of these, and discusses the possibly uncomfortable questions surrounding the ethical considerations of game design. Is it truly ethical to design a game to be addictive, or is "addictiveness" simply a sign of good design? Do games change us in more ways than we might realize? Is regulation on the horizon, a good idea, or even possible? How are games different from other media (or are they different at all)?
Source Link
Comments
1) Freedom is a red herring
2) I'd say it wouldn't be a bad idea to use a game to teach what are socially considered "positive" skills or lessons, as this is essentially the education system except in a different medium. Of course I'd worry about people losing some cool skills like reading and/or communication ability.
3) Personally, my big concern with the sort of "mind control" that goes on w/r/t video games or other media is the extent to which it coopts and/or hijacks the formation of identity. I think one of the weirdest things these days is how (within the first world at least) people just completely accept that buying certain things, playing certain games, or listening to certain musics or whatever is both a signifier of and a component of your particular identity. Like the way you interact with goods and services is a key component of your being. In this way, the mental method you use to form your identity mirrors the process by which you're statistically lumped into a Demographic. It's essentially self -prescription of identity by means of purchasing "I bought this, so I am this."
SO I guess I'm saying I'm more concerned/interested in how game companies appease/exploit/create demographic groups. And when it comes down to it, I'd say that level of involvement with consumer identity has way more power than the Skinner Box of JPGs. The latter can only really control when you get a reward, the former controls what you will consider to be a reward.
Also just for a relevant example, the argument that happened in the What Games You Playin thread works. Rym listed a bunch of games that he says a person needs to have played for him to consider that person a Credible Game Critic. That's the sort of identity prescription I'm talking about; Rym's saying that these particular products hold social weight, and adequate interaction with these products is how you become able to have the Credible Game Critic identity.
Go to PAX and find a dude playing Warhammer the whole time. That is his primary hobby. That is his identity. Warhammer guy. He is identified by the thing he consumes.
Now look at Bill Gates. He owns a lot of Porsches and loves to drive them all the time. You will never hear anyone say "There goes Bill Gates, Porsche man." That's because he made something. By accomplishing great things in real life, he becomes defined by his creations and not by his consumption.
That is why making things is so important. It is the easiest way in which you can control how you are thought of in the minds of others.
But yeah, I'm definitely talking about the consumer class here, which I'll also claim is the majority of people. That's not something I can really prove, but hey whatever. I also think this is the sort of thing that can be mad subtle, like it's not just "Yeah I'm a Legend of Zelda kind of guy", it's also present in those un-thoughtful decisions you make; especially in purchases.... the interplay between gender identity and product packaging being one of the most obvious examples.