So it's been kind of a long month for me, between dealing with new assignments at work and gathering materials for a non-fiction deconstruction book on feminism in Studio Ghibli / Hayao Miyazaki movies. And in the midst of all this, the Christmas present that Husband ordered finally arrived in the mail: a Studio Ghibli video game called Ni No Kuni ("The Wrath of the White Witch", or so the English subtitle declares). So we thought we'd take turns playing through and seeing how the game holds up to the usual high feminist standards of Studio Ghibli. First impressions were initially a little disappointing, as I'd known in advance they would be. The reason for this is that the protagonist is a young boy named Oliver, instead of the usual Studio Ghibli tendency to star young girls as protagonists. I assume, without a shred of evidence whatsoever, that game partner LEVEL-5 insisted that the game had to have a boy protagonist in order to snag the all-important male gamer demographic. Because we all know that male gamers are just beating down doors to play cheery cell-shaded games where an innocent little boy (called "Pure-Hearted One" without a trace of sarcasm) helps citizens of a magical kingdom regain their lost emotions while searching for a way to save his kindly single-mother.
But! Getting past my disappointment that I'm playing Oliver instead of a theoretical gender-swapped Olivia, I've been tremendously enjoying the game, both from a gameplay perspective and a plot perspective. And then an exchange happened in-game that literally made my jaw drop, and in a good way. But first, some backstory.
Oliver is traveling through a magical alternate universe looking for a way to save his mother and defeat the local evil Big Bad Shadar. Shadar has an unusual method of terrorism that he holds over the local populace: anyone who defies him or becomes inconveniently threatening has pieces of their heart magically stolen -- these pieces include things like "enthusiasm".
Once a piece of your heart has been stolen, you become an emotional husk relative to what was stolen -- so if you had your "enthusiasm" stolen, you can't perform even the most basic of tasks because, you know, fuck it. And while that might not immediately sound like the worst thing an Evil Overlord could do, the game does a commendable job of pointing out how evil it is to screw with people's minds and emotions without their consent and to slam them with the equivalent of instant-onset clinical depression.
So now that all this has been established, Oliver is at the gate of a city he needs to enter. Only the gate guard won't let them in because he's had his enthusiasm stolen. It's a standard Broken Bridge, and it's up to Oliver to solve the problem with Magic. And this is the exchange we get:
Drippy: First off, what that guard's missing is a drop of good old-fashioned enthusiasm. Find some and give it to him, and he'll be right as rain!
Oliver: Okay. But... where do I find enthusiasm?
Drippy: Well now, feast youer eyes on that other guard by there. He's got more get-up-and-go than a sack of squirrels! If he hasn't got some enthusiasm to spare, I'm a monkey's uncle!
It's at this point that I looked at Husband and said, "Um... I'm not okay with this." And because Husband knows me so well and because he'd already played past this part so that he knew what was coming, he smiled and said, "Don't worry -- you ask his permission first." And lo and behold, it was so! And how.
Your support character tells you to go ask the guard if he will give you some of his enthusiasm. You then go up to the guard, and ask him outright if you can have some of his enthusiasm. The guard agrees, and you open your spell book to access the "Take Heart" spell and it explicitly says that the subject has to consent to the spell in order for it to work. Here is a screenshot and everything:
Take Heart
Liberates some of a consenting subject's emotional essence.
Consenting. Consenting. Oh my stars and garters, consenting.
This is not something that video games -- heck, that my entire culture -- has trained me to expect. I honestly expected the whole sequence to go from Drippy pointing out the Extra Enthusiasm Guard, to me walking up to him and casting the spell without his permission (with maybe some banal flavor text if I'd spoken to him first to establish that he's Very Enthusiastic Today!), and then seeing him shiver under the influence of the spell, and then watching him calm down noticeably to indicate the spell took effect. I also expected that very probably he wouldn't realize that I was the reason for his sudden change of heart.
I expected that sequence of events because I've played video games for as long as I can remember, and that's how these things usually go. In a protagonist-centered universe filled with nameless NPCs, I'm used to barging into people's houses to take their things and to barging into their hearts and minds via magic to take their thoughts and emotions. In a world of Fetch Quests and Broken Bridges, morality has to take a backseat to not merely convenience but actual narrative necessity, built into the game by the programmers.
Mind Reading example: Golden Sun
These aren't necessarily bad things; my argument is, as usual, a bit more subtle than This Game Is Bad And You Should Feel Bad. I have myself experienced the vicarious pleasure of tromping all over the entire world to brain-scan every NPC on the planet once the telepathy power enters my possession. And this can be fun because, when done properly, the process feels less like intruding on the minds of real people and more like tracking down little sticky notes left for the player by a dedicated development team. Back-tracking all the way back to That One Village isolated on the other side of a tedious dungeon for the reward of an unexpected Star Wars joke can be the moments that you remember as a gamer.
Star Wars Hilarity example: Lunar Silver Star Story
But those are the sometimes-silly games, the ones that don't mind leaning on the fourth wall hard enough to make it bulge. And that's not what Ni No Kuni is; it is -- or at least has been so far -- a serious game, with serious themes, and serious concepts. And to see it unexpectedly and unabashedly assert to the gamer community that Consent Matters -- that, indeed, it matters so much that it's literally the difference between a Good magician and a Bad magician -- is amazing to me. And very much appreciated.
Not everyone will take this lesson to heart because not everyone plays games for moral lessons and feminist themes. Some people just want to have a relaxing old-school RPG adventure, and for these people having a magic system that can't be min-maxed for player gain and requires "flow-breaking" conversations establishing consent each time will be unwelcome. In searching for screenshots and videos of this scene for this blog post, I found such a conversation, lamenting that it would have made for a better game if Oliver could have given and taken heart pieces at will as needed and without establishing consent each time:
Subject: Give/take heart could have been such a cool mechanic
monstre
Imagine if you could take and give whatever piece of heart you'd want from NPC and have different reaction. Like give kindness so that merchant just give you a discount, or have multiple way to get through story point depending on what piece of heart you give (I wont't list any possibility for spoiler, but you get the idea). Instead we got this super hand holding system where we don't even have to figure out what to use since it's labelled in big red letter.
jackstar_rock
Another minor gripe I have with NnK. It was fun and refreshing for the first few towns, but eventually without any variety or evolution in it, as TC suggested to influence merchant prices or even branching story paths, we ended up with a squandered opportunity.
cancerboy87
it would have been fine IMO if you didnt have to sift through the text and then wait for the spell menu prompt to give take the heart. If you could just walk up to them and cast the spell I would have liked it more because then it would be a less painful process at least.
SigmaHaciel
And then it would have blurred the line between what Oliver was doing, and what Shadar did.
"Oh, hey. Lets just take a piece of this woman's heart because she showed us some gratitude, and throw it into the merchant's body so I can get a discount." [emphasis mine]
I respect where the min-maxing gamers are coming from, because I'm a min-maxer myself at times. But when it comes to Ni No Kuni and whether or not the Give/Take Heart mechanics were a wasted opportunity, I fundamentally disagree. Any game mechanic that asserts basic feminist principles about bodily autonomy and the importance of choice and consent is something that I want to see more of in video games.
Even if it means I can't buy the Infinity Plus One sword at a magically-reduced discount. Because the +10 to Feminist Awareness bonuses are worth it, by far.
42 comments:
Dav: It looks like we are. Thank you for pointing that out. I've only played Deus Ex: Human Revolution, so that's the only one I have knowledge about, and from what I've played and read, you can theoretically play a nonviolent game, with the only violence being the boss battles you have no choice but to fight.
I don't know much of anything about Deus Ex and Invisible War and so forth. Just Human Revolution is the one I played.
Gelliebean: I've thought about playing that game! I tend toward sneak characters in an effort to either lesson the bloodshed (or avoid it altogether) or get the enemy before they get me (like you're kinda forced to do in games like the Elder Scrolls Series - Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim). So if there's ways for me to play it nonviolently, then I'm all for it.
Dav: It looks like we are. Thank you for pointing that out. I've only played Deus Ex: Human Revolution, so that's the only one I have knowledge about, and from what I've played and read, you can theoretically play a nonviolent game, with the only violence being the boss battles you have no choice but to fight.
I don't know much of anything about Deus Ex and Invisible War and so forth. Just Human Revolution is the one I played.
Gelliebean: I've thought about playing that game! I tend toward sneak characters in an effort to either lesson the bloodshed (or avoid it altogether) or get the enemy before they get me (like you're kinda forced to do in games like the Elder Scrolls Series - Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim). So if there's ways for me to play it nonviolently, then I'm all for it.
So if there's ways for me to play it nonviolently, then I'm all for it.
Nonviolent for a given level, I guess - you can use sleep darts or render someone unconscious from behind; you can also kill creatures like spitting plants or rats without it adding to the chaos score.
There is actually an achievement called "Ghost" that you get for completing the whole game without ever being detected. That's my ultimate goal, but it'll take a me while to get there. :-p Like you, I much prefer the stealth characters (or distance attacks; I don't much care for melee combat in games if I can avoid it).
So if there's ways for me to play it nonviolently, then I'm all for it.
Nonviolent for a given level, I guess - you can use sleep darts or render someone unconscious from behind; you can also kill creatures like spitting plants or rats without it adding to the chaos score.
There is actually an achievement called "Ghost" that you get for completing the whole game without ever being detected. That's my ultimate goal, but it'll take a me while to get there. :-p Like you, I much prefer the stealth characters (or distance attacks; I don't much care for melee combat in games if I can avoid it).
I used the word 'award' and meant achievements. There's a ton of achievements you can obtain playing the game, and I know that I - and a lot of other players - tend to find that very awarding when you get most if not all of them. One of the achievements is pacifist, which means not killing anyone outside of the boss fights.
like you said, there are ways to do it, but it can be hard at times in certain situations.
I used the word 'award' and meant achievements. There's a ton of achievements you can obtain playing the game, and I know that I - and a lot of other players - tend to find that very awarding when you get most if not all of them. One of the achievements is pacifist, which means not killing anyone outside of the boss fights.
like you said, there are ways to do it, but it can be hard at times in certain situations.
Dishonored is another game where it's theoretically possible to get through without killing anyone; the challenge alone is much more exciting than going in crossbow blazing. Since your opponents are pretty much all city guardsmen who have been convinced your character is an assassin (plus a few street thugs, plus a few more priest-type soldiers who may or may not know the truth) I will replay scenes over and over until I get through without killing any of them. Even for given quests to eliminate someone, there's always an alternative to murdering them, though it may be harder to find.
This is also supposed to affect the "chaos" score of the game, which I believe alters how many guards are out, how quick they are to jump on the alarms, how much freedom the citizenry is allowed, as well as changing the tenor of the ending (which I haven't reached yet).
Dishonored is another game where it's theoretically possible to get through without killing anyone; the challenge alone is much more exciting than going in crossbow blazing. Since your opponents are pretty much all city guardsmen who have been convinced your character is an assassin (plus a few street thugs, plus a few more priest-type soldiers who may or may not know the truth) I will replay scenes over and over until I get through without killing any of them. Even for given quests to eliminate someone, there's always an alternative to murdering them, though it may be harder to find.
This is also supposed to affect the "chaos" score of the game, which I believe alters how many guards are out, how quick they are to jump on the alarms, how much freedom the citizenry is allowed, as well as changing the tenor of the ending (which I haven't reached yet).
One series that I think does a good job with grey morality a lot of the time is the Geneforge series from Spiderweb Software. It's set in a world where the ruling class are biomages who specialize in genetic engineering, and in most of them you're given the option to side with the mageocracy who are your employers or with various factions of rebels (or indeed as a loner, though that's much much harder), but the decisions are far from clear-cut and you'll generally find yourself, regardless of whose side you've decided to be on, in a situation where you are making the choice between two ethically unpalatable options. They're pretty excellent games.
One series that I think does a good job with grey morality a lot of the time is the Geneforge series from Spiderweb Software. It's set in a world where the ruling class are biomages who specialize in genetic engineering, and in most of them you're given the option to side with the mageocracy who are your employers or with various factions of rebels (or indeed as a loner, though that's much much harder), but the decisions are far from clear-cut and you'll generally find yourself, regardless of whose side you've decided to be on, in a situation where you are making the choice between two ethically unpalatable options. They're pretty excellent games.
I know in Deus Ex, there's actually an award for you if you can finish the game without anyone dying by your hand (though the boss fights where the villain has to die doesn't count toward this achievement). I haven't finished it so I don't know how many of the few named villains you can spare, but I do know you can negotiate with some of the minor henchmen, get them to let their hostages go without violence, and still avoiding killing them. Which is super nice in my opinion. That's about as close to pacifist as you can in those types of games. It's actually fairly difficult at first to be all pacifist, but once you up your skills, it gets easier.
I think some of my most favorite games were the ones that didn't have any killing. The Longest Journey is a great example of an adventure game where the protagonist went on her journey, helped people, accomplished her tasks, and didn't kill anyone. It was a fascinating story, and it centered more around renewing the world and bringing people together instead of violence. I was disappointed when I learned its sequel included mechanics for fighting -- I liked the Longest Journey because it didn't have fighting and was still an awesome story with interesting puzzles. It's in the adventure genre.
I haven't finished Syberia yet, but from what I've played thus far, it has the same game mechanics as the Longest Journey, and so far it's centered on finding this one person, so the journey has no violence in it thus far. From what I've read on it, you ask a lot of questions, get permission for what you can, explore the world and find clues for your quest, and when there is a violent moment, your focus is on keeping people alive. I'll have to finish to see how it all plays out, but hopefully it'll be as fun and violent free as The Longest Journey was.
Consent in games is rare, sad to say. I wish I had more to say on this, but the main post covers all my thoughts really.
I know in Deus Ex, there's actually an award for you if you can finish the game without anyone dying by your hand (though the boss fights where the villain has to die doesn't count toward this achievement). I haven't finished it so I don't know how many of the few named villains you can spare, but I do know you can negotiate with some of the minor henchmen, get them to let their hostages go without violence, and still avoiding killing them. Which is super nice in my opinion. That's about as close to pacifist as you can in those types of games. It's actually fairly difficult at first to be all pacifist, but once you up your skills, it gets easier.
I think some of my most favorite games were the ones that didn't have any killing. The Longest Journey is a great example of an adventure game where the protagonist went on her journey, helped people, accomplished her tasks, and didn't kill anyone. It was a fascinating story, and it centered more around renewing the world and bringing people together instead of violence. I was disappointed when I learned its sequel included mechanics for fighting -- I liked the Longest Journey because it didn't have fighting and was still an awesome story with interesting puzzles. It's in the adventure genre.
I haven't finished Syberia yet, but from what I've played thus far, it has the same game mechanics as the Longest Journey, and so far it's centered on finding this one person, so the journey has no violence in it thus far. From what I've read on it, you ask a lot of questions, get permission for what you can, explore the world and find clues for your quest, and when there is a violent moment, your focus is on keeping people alive. I'll have to finish to see how it all plays out, but hopefully it'll be as fun and violent free as The Longest Journey was.
Consent in games is rare, sad to say. I wish I had more to say on this, but the main post covers all my thoughts really.
Right, absent a morality meter, I'm not sure that enough gamers would recognize good and evil in this context when they saw it
Game designers have trouble recognizing it. I growl a little under my breath every time SW:TOR tells me that [Force Persuade] is a Light Side option. Dude! Mind fuckery should not ever be "good." (Though it might be a comment on how sideways Jedi morality really is. Except that most of the time LS does = good. Except when it really, really doesn't. See also the random moments when one gets Dark Side points for what seem to me to be the more moral choices.)
I have mixed feelings about morality meters, but... Actually, scratch that, I have serious doubts that morality meters are a good idea, but I really like games making at least an attempt to address morality, which, unfortunately, usually involves morality meters. Most of the time (thinking of SW:TOR and its kin), I'd rather just have an accurate representation of what my character's going to say when I make the selection. (I also suspect that morality meters tend to result in cartoonish evil because more realistic evil would be really creepy to play. Though, since I can't stand playing evil, anyway, I might be the wrong person to comment on that.)
I know in Mass Effect, the morality meters are very gray. What counts toward renegade and paragon has some distinctions, where renegade options tend more toward violent solutions and coercion (heavens sometimes the renegade choice was just plain creepy), and paragon options toward negotiation, cooperation, and other nonviolent solutions. There's some choices that are more gray, where you need the information because entire species are at risk of extinction, but nonviolent solutions aren't working -- these choices often put points toward both renegade and paragon. You can actually fill up both meters, so at least in that world, there really isn't such thing as a perfectly good person or a perfectly evil person.
But it does try to hold distinctions between nonviolent solutions and violent solutions. I've played through the first game, and all the coercion choices were generally all renegade options, which made sense to me since for those possible solutions you were often trying to force someone to say or do something against their will. I feel like they handled it a bit more realistically than most games. I haven't played the second or third games, so I don't know how well the games hold up. I do like how they make a distinction between nonviolent and violent solutions. Both have their rewards and consequences, but I find the nonviolent solutions to be better overall when it comes to rewards, but that could be my own personal bias toward nonviolence too.
It's the only one I can think of that doesn't go the whole good/evil morality route, and it did try to avoid the whole mind fuckery being good somehow route.
[Possible spoiler (though I try to be vague to not give anything major away)] The big baddie of the series is all about mind fuckery, so your character actively fighting against that was actually a bit refreshing. The topic of having a person's mind messed up came up in several missions, and you were always the one to try to free the people from the mind control or trying to find a way to cure them if possible. It wasn't always possible, and some were way too gone to be saved, but you tried. The fact that the game made it clear this wasn't cool ever impressed me a bit. [/spoiler]
I'm trying to think of other games that were a bit more realistic with their morality, but can't really think of any. Far too many go the way of good/evil tropes, and it's rare to see any be more realistic, no matter how creepy. I often think it'd be better if they did. The more uncomfortable a person is with the more evil options, maybe the more they'll think about how maybe that option isn't good and think about the reasons why?
I know in Mass Effect, the morality meters are very gray. What counts toward renegade and paragon has some distinctions, where renegade options tend more toward violent solutions and coercion (heavens sometimes the renegade choice was just plain creepy), and paragon options toward negotiation, cooperation, and other nonviolent solutions. There's some choices that are more gray, where you need the information because entire species are at risk of extinction, but nonviolent solutions aren't working -- these choices often put points toward both renegade and paragon. You can actually fill up both meters, so at least in that world, there really isn't such thing as a perfectly good person or a perfectly evil person.
But it does try to hold distinctions between nonviolent solutions and violent solutions. I've played through the first game, and all the coercion choices were generally all renegade options, which made sense to me since for those possible solutions you were often trying to force someone to say or do something against their will. I feel like they handled it a bit more realistically than most games. I haven't played the second or third games, so I don't know how well the games hold up. I do like how they make a distinction between nonviolent and violent solutions. Both have their rewards and consequences, but I find the nonviolent solutions to be better overall when it comes to rewards, but that could be my own personal bias toward nonviolence too.
It's the only one I can think of that doesn't go the whole good/evil morality route, and it did try to avoid the whole mind fuckery being good somehow route.
[Possible spoiler (though I try to be vague to not give anything major away)] The big baddie of the series is all about mind fuckery, so your character actively fighting against that was actually a bit refreshing. The topic of having a person's mind messed up came up in several missions, and you were always the one to try to free the people from the mind control or trying to find a way to cure them if possible. It wasn't always possible, and some were way too gone to be saved, but you tried. The fact that the game made it clear this wasn't cool ever impressed me a bit. [/spoiler]
I'm trying to think of other games that were a bit more realistic with their morality, but can't really think of any. Far too many go the way of good/evil tropes, and it's rare to see any be more realistic, no matter how creepy. I often think it'd be better if they did. The more uncomfortable a person is with the more evil options, maybe the more they'll think about how maybe that option isn't good and think about the reasons why?
I wish video games weren't so enamored with violence-driven plots and unlikable, anti-hero protagonists.
Odd as it might sound, I'd like even - and suddenly terminology fails me because all I've played are MMOs and Deus Ex (which isn't typical of it's game genre*) - um adventure-movie-type games to be a bit more thoughtful when it comes to the violence aspect. It's kind of disconcerting to have the option to spare named villains, but not the masses of henchpersons you're expected to slaughter to get to the villain. Can't we at least make use of other adventure tropes like sneaking, sleep spells, bribes, getting intentionally captured, and whatnot to get access to the villain we want to talk out of their villainy?
Liking adventure tropes does not necessarily mean one likes the mass violence aspect. :/
*It is my understanding - I haven't played enough to know for sure - that Deus Ex is actually the other way around and one can avoid killing mooks no problem, but there are a few named villains you have to kill. Which is at least more sensible.
I wish video games weren't so enamored with violence-driven plots and unlikable, anti-hero protagonists.
Odd as it might sound, I'd like even - and suddenly terminology fails me because all I've played are MMOs and Deus Ex (which isn't typical of it's game genre*) - um adventure-movie-type games to be a bit more thoughtful when it comes to the violence aspect. It's kind of disconcerting to have the option to spare named villains, but not the masses of henchpersons you're expected to slaughter to get to the villain. Can't we at least make use of other adventure tropes like sneaking, sleep spells, bribes, getting intentionally captured, and whatnot to get access to the villain we want to talk out of their villainy?
Liking adventure tropes does not necessarily mean one likes the mass violence aspect. :/
*It is my understanding - I haven't played enough to know for sure - that Deus Ex is actually the other way around and one can avoid killing mooks no problem, but there are a few named villains you have to kill. Which is at least more sensible.
It's nice to see that this game takes such considerations into account. I wish video games weren't so enamored with violence-driven plots and unlikable, anti-hero protagonists. One of the best video game experiences I've ever had was in Okami; helping trees grow, feeding hungry animals, repairing structures and helping people. The literal fountains of praise and gratitude that would flow out of people were viscerally happy-making, uniting gameplay-side experience gathering with thematic enjoyment. Games where you play an utterly benevolent and heroic character are pure pleasures, and showcase the power of interactivity that video games have to offer.
It's nice to see that this game takes such considerations into account. I wish video games weren't so enamored with violence-driven plots and unlikable, anti-hero protagonists. One of the best video game experiences I've ever had was in Okami; helping trees grow, feeding hungry animals, repairing structures and helping people. The literal fountains of praise and gratitude that would flow out of people were viscerally happy-making, uniting gameplay-side experience gathering with thematic enjoyment. Games where you play an utterly benevolent and heroic character are pure pleasures, and showcase the power of interactivity that video games have to offer.
I think in a lot of games, consent is used a barrier, an excuse to send you on more quests. Random NPC refuses to sell you his precious heirloom, so you must do a series of sidequests to obtain this unfairly withheld consent, or else steal the object. If someone does not agree to your plans, the next step is to find some way to override their disagreement - almost never to rethink your plans. The problem is presented as "You must find a suitable gift," but the gameplay transforms it into "You must obtain Ms Obstacle's cherished necklace, by fair means or foul." No other gift will do. Refusal may be respected in one sense - off you go on a side quest to gain consent - but in the larger sense it isn't - you will get your way, no matter what it takes. "No" means "try harder" and trying harder isn't the same as honouring a "no".
I think in a lot of games, consent is used a barrier, an excuse to send you on more quests. Random NPC refuses to sell you his precious heirloom, so you must do a series of sidequests to obtain this unfairly withheld consent, or else steal the object. If someone does not agree to your plans, the next step is to find some way to override their disagreement - almost never to rethink your plans. The problem is presented as "You must find a suitable gift," but the gameplay transforms it into "You must obtain Ms Obstacle's cherished necklace, by fair means or foul." No other gift will do. Refusal may be respected in one sense - off you go on a side quest to gain consent - but in the larger sense it isn't - you will get your way, no matter what it takes. "No" means "try harder" and trying harder isn't the same as honouring a "no".
I played all three games in the Golden Sun Series, and that second element (the touching part) had me hesitating on mind-reading so many times in those games. It's creepy, and the randomly touching people to do it, just amps up the creepiness. In the end, I ended up using it more often mostly because it was helpful with the badguys, and there was some amusing quips hidden away in the random NPC's thoughts.
So not sure if they were doing a good job of making it clear it was a violation. When it's first introduced, yes, that made if fairly clear how creepy this can be, and yet, when you use it, far too often I'd risk a mind-read and discover an hilarious thought, which seemed almost like a reward. It'd make sense if it was helping me root out badguys, which it did to some extent, but when I read ordinary people unrelated to any badguy, there was too many amusing thoughts - and lots of mundane ones too - that made it somewhat rewarding. I could definitely see people wandering all over the places they've been to see what other interesting/amusing thoughts they could find, because the game has a lot of them.
It seems to me like they tried to make it clear it was a violation, but then offered rewards if you did it anyway. The conflicting message there is highly problematic, and one of the issues I have with the series.
I played all three games in the Golden Sun Series, and that second element (the touching part) had me hesitating on mind-reading so many times in those games. It's creepy, and the randomly touching people to do it, just amps up the creepiness. In the end, I ended up using it more often mostly because it was helpful with the badguys, and there was some amusing quips hidden away in the random NPC's thoughts.
So not sure if they were doing a good job of making it clear it was a violation. When it's first introduced, yes, that made if fairly clear how creepy this can be, and yet, when you use it, far too often I'd risk a mind-read and discover an hilarious thought, which seemed almost like a reward. It'd make sense if it was helping me root out badguys, which it did to some extent, but when I read ordinary people unrelated to any badguy, there was too many amusing thoughts - and lots of mundane ones too - that made it somewhat rewarding. I could definitely see people wandering all over the places they've been to see what other interesting/amusing thoughts they could find, because the game has a lot of them.
It seems to me like they tried to make it clear it was a violation, but then offered rewards if you did it anyway. The conflicting message there is highly problematic, and one of the issues I have with the series.
Agreed. Making every game into a morality sandbox would ruin the studio's ability to meaningfully explore themes or stories. I also agree with your earlier comment about morality systems making the the choices too extreme so that they venture into cartoonishly evil or good. It also denies them the ability to deal with the more... arguable grey areas of morality since everything has to be completely good or completely bad in order to work with the morality system, creating uncomfortably evil-feeling "good" choices. It is limiting to the story and themes, and doesn't seem like it would be a good fit in this particular game.
I'm not sure why people are wanting that sort of dual morality in this game unless they're just so used to it as the standard at the moment that they're not sure what to do in a game if they can't be "evil."
Agreed. Making every game into a morality sandbox would ruin the studio's ability to meaningfully explore themes or stories. I also agree with your earlier comment about morality systems making the the choices too extreme so that they venture into cartoonishly evil or good. It also denies them the ability to deal with the more... arguable grey areas of morality since everything has to be completely good or completely bad in order to work with the morality system, creating uncomfortably evil-feeling "good" choices. It is limiting to the story and themes, and doesn't seem like it would be a good fit in this particular game.
I'm not sure why people are wanting that sort of dual morality in this game unless they're just so used to it as the standard at the moment that they're not sure what to do in a game if they can't be "evil."
"I''m not sure that enough gamers would recognize good and evil in this context when they saw it"
Yes! So many other morally questionable things have been swept under the rug in games that it would be hard for long-time players to get back into the mindset of actively questioning the morality of the actions taken in game. Casual theft, invasion of privacy, random killing of animals/people, manipulation of NPC's, these actions are all "just part of the game" to an extent that most players don't really think about it when they barge into an NPC's house and root through their underwear to steal whatever trinkets may be hidden there. That's not even getting into the less recognized real-life decisions about things like consent. If players aren't considering theft as wrong inside the game they probably aren't picking apart social-interaction wrongs in it either. It would have to be pointed out in some very obvious way and reinforced with some sort of consequence-driven morality meter like you say.
*edited to change a word that I think made my meaning a little unclear
"I''m not sure that enough gamers would recognize good and evil in this context when they saw it"
Yes! So many other morally questionable things have been swept under the rug in games that it would be hard for long-time players to get back into the mindset of actively questioning the morality of the actions taken in game. Casual theft, invasion of privacy, random killing of animals/people, manipulation of NPC's, these actions are all "just part of the game" to an extent that most players don't really think about it when they barge into an NPC's house and root through their underwear to steal whatever trinkets may be hidden there. That's not even getting into the less recognized real-life decisions about things like consent. If players aren't considering theft as wrong inside the game they probably aren't picking apart social-interaction wrongs in it either. It would have to be pointed out in some very obvious way and reinforced with some sort of consequence-driven morality meter like you say.
*edited to change a word that I think made my meaning a little unclear
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant to state what you essentially just did much more cogently than I could have.
To wit: Changing consent affects the theme, but not the mechanics. Generally I think the mechanics of the quest was the point of contention, not themes.
Though, it is a little odd to talk about consent in a game. After all, all the npc's responses are preset.
*Minor Spoilers*
As far as I can recall in the game there is no point at which anyone refuses to give consent. Though there are a couple people that dither a bit on whether they should, but they are all convinced to give heart with little effort.
*End Spoilers*
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant to state what you essentially just did much more cogently than I could have.
To wit: Changing consent affects the theme, but not the mechanics. Generally I think the mechanics of the quest was the point of contention, not themes.
Though, it is a little odd to talk about consent in a game. After all, all the npc's responses are preset.
*Minor Spoilers*
As far as I can recall in the game there is no point at which anyone refuses to give consent. Though there are a couple people that dither a bit on whether they should, but they are all convinced to give heart with little effort.
*End Spoilers*
I was also surprised and delighted by the consent aspect of these quests as a long time gamer.
While I can't speak for them, I don't think that generally the people have a problem consent portion of the equation. The Heart quests while excellent thematically are rather uninteresting mechanically, being essentially little more than fetch quests. Scan map for dots, interact with dot, cast spell, find next dot, interact, cast spell. Changing the consent aspect of these quests would change almost nothing about the quests overall.
As for the choice between good and evil in a video game I can understand both sides. While it may seem abhorrent to have people enacting evil choices, I think that one of the main pillars of games is escapism. While there is still research going on, I personally think there is a benefit to allowing people to enact fantasies that they wouldn't do in real life, within limitations. Of course defining those limitations is rather difficult. Also, of course, some people do like to have the choice, even if they will choose the good choice regardless.
I was also surprised and delighted by the consent aspect of these quests as a long time gamer.
While I can't speak for them, I don't think that generally the people have a problem consent portion of the equation. The Heart quests while excellent thematically are rather uninteresting mechanically, being essentially little more than fetch quests. Scan map for dots, interact with dot, cast spell, find next dot, interact, cast spell. Changing the consent aspect of these quests would change almost nothing about the quests overall.
As for the choice between good and evil in a video game I can understand both sides. While it may seem abhorrent to have people enacting evil choices, I think that one of the main pillars of games is escapism. While there is still research going on, I personally think there is a benefit to allowing people to enact fantasies that they wouldn't do in real life, within limitations. Of course defining those limitations is rather difficult. Also, of course, some people do like to have the choice, even if they will choose the good choice regardless.
Changing the consent aspect of these quests would change almost nothing about the quests overall.
I think this is a point of distinction--removing the consent aspect would not notably change the 'fetch' nature of the fetch quests, but it changes the 'quest' in a meaningful way, as is being pointed out in this post. Consent is part of the RP here, and if we take the RP out of the RPG we end up with a mechanical and utilitarian set of stimulus-response tasks, which seems like a weird thing to aspire to.
I don't want to get too much into the broader concept of morality choices in RPGs because I would talk forever and it would probably go way off-topic, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with giving players the choice to do things in 'good' and 'evil' ways, or with the players who play the evil path, but I do think that there are assumptions about consequences that don't always get addressed, and if handled badly, then you end up with something that's basically Bender's position on good vs evil: "Eh, they're both fine choices."
Changing the consent aspect of these quests would change almost nothing about the quests overall.
I think this is a point of distinction--removing the consent aspect would not notably change the 'fetch' nature of the fetch quests, but it changes the 'quest' in a meaningful way, as is being pointed out in this post. Consent is part of the RP here, and if we take the RP out of the RPG we end up with a mechanical and utilitarian set of stimulus-response tasks, which seems like a weird thing to aspire to.
I don't want to get too much into the broader concept of morality choices in RPGs because I would talk forever and it would probably go way off-topic, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with giving players the choice to do things in 'good' and 'evil' ways, or with the players who play the evil path, but I do think that there are assumptions about consequences that don't always get addressed, and if handled badly, then you end up with something that's basically Bender's position on good vs evil: "Eh, they're both fine choices."
I find it fascinating that someone would rather have a mechanic that blurs the line between the hero and the villain than a mechanic that expresses the fundamental difference between the hero and the villain. Huh. I'm going to be thinking about that for a long time now.
[Edit because why not have further thoughts right now] On the one hand, it could just be a preference for more complicated morality--we're increasingly used to RPGs that give players a choice between doing the good thing or the evil thing, and I could probably go on forever forever about that, but I could agree that there's a certain amount of satisfaction to be had in being presented with the evil option and choosing to do the right thing anyway. On the other hand, I also wonder if this isn't also kind of reflective of a desire to ignore morality entirely and just be all 'I'm going to do whatever I want/need to do, and that's okay because I'm the good guy; check out my Team Good shirt.' (This comes up all the time in Fred Clark's writings, talking about people whose sole apparent distinction between Team Good and Team Evil is that Team Good wins.)
There is undoubtedly a large cohort who are very invested in the idea that doing things right (especially around consent) is super-inconvenient and also very confusing, and I wonder if a system like this (in which gaining consent is both mandatory and guided) wouldn't make them uncomfortable because it suggests that these things can be learned to be navigated, and can even be part of the fun. That is (but should not be) quite a radical position.
(Regarding the title, I think there might be some confusion here? 'Ni no Kuni' is best translated as something like 'Second Country', while 'Wrath of the White Witch' is a separate subtitle. Googling tells me that in Japan it was called 'Shiroki Seihai no Joou', which is something like 'Sacred White Ash Queen'.)
I find it fascinating that someone would rather have a mechanic that blurs the line between the hero and the villain than a mechanic that expresses the fundamental difference between the hero and the villain. Huh. I'm going to be thinking about that for a long time now.
[Edit because why not have further thoughts right now] On the one hand, it could just be a preference for more complicated morality--we're increasingly used to RPGs that give players a choice between doing the good thing or the evil thing, and I could probably go on forever forever about that, but I could agree that there's a certain amount of satisfaction to be had in being presented with the evil option and choosing to do the right thing anyway. On the other hand, I also wonder if this isn't also kind of reflective of a desire to ignore morality entirely and just be all 'I'm going to do whatever I want/need to do, and that's okay because I'm the good guy; check out my Team Good shirt.' (This comes up all the time in Fred Clark's writings, talking about people whose sole apparent distinction between Team Good and Team Evil is that Team Good wins.)
There is undoubtedly a large cohort who are very invested in the idea that doing things right (especially around consent) is super-inconvenient and also very confusing, and I wonder if a system like this (in which gaining consent is both mandatory and guided) wouldn't make them uncomfortable because it suggests that these things can be learned to be navigated, and can even be part of the fun. That is (but should not be) quite a radical position.
(Regarding the title, I think there might be some confusion here? 'Ni no Kuni' is best translated as something like 'Second Country', while 'Wrath of the White Witch' is a separate subtitle. Googling tells me that in Japan it was called 'Shiroki Seihai no Joou', which is something like 'Sacred White Ash Queen'.)
Aah this makes me so happy! I was doing the reading equivalent of walking on ice in reading this post because I put Studio Ghibli and video games together and assumed the worst. I was keeping my enthusiasm way back and sticking out one cynical toe at a time, creeping through the post waiting for the bad news to strike.
I am so, so, so excited to see a game addressing consent as not just important but absolutely necessary!
Aah this makes me so happy! I was doing the reading equivalent of walking on ice in reading this post because I put Studio Ghibli and video games together and assumed the worst. I was keeping my enthusiasm way back and sticking out one cynical toe at a time, creeping through the post waiting for the bad news to strike.
I am so, so, so excited to see a game addressing consent as not just important but absolutely necessary!
[CN: nonconsensual touching (nonviolent, nonsexual, but intent isn't magic, etc), invasion of privacy]
So, speaking of consent and lack thereof in games, the post also highlights Golden Sun, which I like more than it deserves due to great sentimentality (and the sheer quantity of fanfiction that my first girlfriend and I wrote for it). Specifically, the Mind Read ability, which (though this might not be obvious) has two levels of consent problematicness to it. First, obviously, is that the player is getting inside someone else's head and reading their current train of thought with no respect for their privacy. Second is that (although this is ignored through most of the game), the mind reader is stated to only be able to perform this particular trick while touching the person in question.
Now, the characters are Heroes, so they only use this ability to foil evil-doers and save the innocent, but that doesn't stop the player from roaming the world randomly grabbing strangers by the arm with no introduction or explanation. When the mind reader introduces himself to you, there's a whole scene that is pretty much intended to drive home how uncomfortable it is to have a stranger just randomly grab you. Without getting into the question of whether the psychic invasion of privacy is worse than the touching, I find it interesting that the programmers chose to add this layer. It's not really a handwave for anything (the game has lots of arbitrary range restrictions already), but where gamers might be used to the idea of freely and randomly mindreading whoever they feel like, it's a little less normal to physically accost people all the time. I wonder if there was any intent on the part of the writers to make the discomfort and lack of consent a little more concrete, and make the player think a bit longer about exactly what they're doing, and if there's value in doing that rather than leaving it out entirely.
The grabbing is creepy, but the mindreading is already creepy, so does it make sense to highlight that by compounding it, perhaps?
Sorry, I know you just had a post about being on topic, didn't mean to stray. I'll stop.
True, though you wouldn't necessarily have to remove the talking and establishing consent to streamline it. What if you automatically cast the spell after talking to a person, instead of having to select it from the book? I personally found it annoying to have to pick out give/take after you eventually get quite a few more spells. Even just having the right spell automatically selected so you can cast it quicker would have improved it in my mind.
What are you thoughts about player choice affecting thematic consent? Like how some people wanted to guess what to choose instead of being told or having a branching choices. I don't think Give/Take Heart was a wasted opportunity, but I do think it did have more potential.
I do hope that you do another post on this game once you get a bit further into the game since later portions do, somewhat tangentially, build on Oliver seeking consent.
[Edit to note: lol, crosspost.]
Granted, but then we're getting down to technicalities; e.g., if the problem is 'first you have to talk to them, then you get to cast the spell, and I only want this to be a one-step process', then the consent-respecting technical solution is 'the spell auto-casts after you gain consent'. Same mechanical result, theme untouched. I don't think it's coincidental that people think the easy route would be to ditch the consent side.
As for talking about consent in a game, that just leads us down the path of 'it's only a game', and it becomes equally pointless to talk about good evil, victory, or interesting characterisation, since none of it is real. Try telling an FF7 fan that the famous death in that story isn't tragic because it's a preprogrammed inevitability. =)
[Edit to note: lol, crosspost.]
Granted, but then we're getting down to technicalities; e.g., if the problem is 'first you have to talk to them, then you get to cast the spell, and I only want this to be a one-step process', then the consent-respecting technical solution is 'the spell auto-casts after you gain consent'. Same mechanical result, theme untouched. I don't think it's coincidental that people think the easy route would be to ditch the consent side.
As for talking about consent in a game, that just leads us down the path of 'it's only a game', and it becomes equally pointless to talk about good evil, victory, or interesting characterisation, since none of it is real. Try telling an FF7 fan that the famous death in that story isn't tragic because it's a preprogrammed inevitability. =)
Post a Comment