2 replies to this topic

[opus]

The Idealistic World of Videogame Pacifists:

Quote

Daniel is just one of a growing number of virtual pacifists who are either frustrated or bored with videogames’ insistence on violence. Daniel understands that there are people in Skyrim that want him dead but “that doesn’t mean [they] deserve to die.” Certainly the way in which games tend to portray violence is conveniently consequence free and far too productive in terms of solving problems. In the real world violence lends itself to lasting consequences, it rarely solves problems and more often compounds them. So perhaps the noble course is to traverse the frozen tundra of Skyrim in peace.

I appreciate that videogame pacifism exists–it is a sign that videogames as a medium are biased toward creating situations where violence is the primary means of solving problems. Pacifism generally works in real life–in some of the most popular games it doesn’t. Certainly games are diversifying and providing players with a plethora of different game experiences but nonetheless violence still seems to function as the default problem solving mechanic. Does this mean that we should all be videogame pacifists? Is violent action ever noble?

[M. Leary]

Thanks for linking to this. It is a good read. I agree that "Pacifism in Skyrim is neither virtuous or immersive." Christian pacifism is in part based on the idea that those who commit injustice in this world will be judged by God, who is able to judge and punish evil much more effectively than we are. A game world like Skyrim lacks this eschatology, making pacifism an impossible moral choice.

[Jason Panella]

That was a good read, Jason. Thanks for posting.

It made me think of the Thief franchise, specifically the first game. If you play the game at the hardest difficulty, killing at all automatically causes you to lose — game over. I've always appreciated that, especially from a first-person game.