Jonathan McIntosh

There’re no significant consequences to immoral player choices. Maybe different weapons, paths or cutscenes but nothing that hinders “fun."

If game designers want to include player choices with meaningful consequences they must be willing to significantly de-power the player.

If game designers are not willing to de-power players then their “moral choice” mechanics are reduced to basically meaningless "play style."

Meaningful “player choice” is severely limited (or non-existent) if the primary way players engage with the game world is by killing stuff.

Game developers seem to think that “to kill or not to kill” is some kind of deep and morally ambiguous choice for players. It’s really not.

The point here is that the “player choice" itself is an artificial construct that carries political messages no matter what players choose.

Games can and should tell political stories but if developers want to do that, they gotta have the guts to present a point of view.

At the very least game developers need to stop pretending their political allegories and analogies don't carry a political point of view.

All of the greatest science fiction *has something to say* about humanity, tech and society. It has a political point of view to convey.

Can you imagine if Kurt Vonnegut was like "After reading Slaughterhouse Five if you think war is awesome, that's perfect!"

How ludicrous would it be if Margaret Atwood was like "After reading A Handmaid's Tale, if you think misogyny is cool, that's perfect!"

A) All art has a point of view. B) The point of view is what makes it art. C) Pretending that it doesn't have one devalues the medium.

The gaming industry often presents an “apolitical prospective” on political issues as the height of sophistication, when it’s anything but.

This insistence on "moral relativism” or “moral nihilism” is a blight on public discourse. Game developers do us no favors by promoting it.