Major moral controversial features in a game.

[Aukustus]

In general I'd wonder what's wrong with the developer (not the case with you) and why would the developer want to put the possibility of pointless violence or sadism in games. But it's a good thing that those things would not be glorified.

Raping and torture in real life is also worse thing than killing, maybe that's why they are disliked in every form. Maybe also that they inflict more mental pain than outright killing.

[Endorya]

Personally, I wold love to see a roguelike with rapping. Demoralize your opponents and gather followers with tight rhymes and wicked flow.

And you are not the only one.

Endorya...it's something that is very likely to happen either to them or someone they're close to, they're not really being unreasonable, don't discount what they're saying just because you disagree with it)

It is not about agreeing or disagreeing with what they say but listening to their answers based purely on emotion and not logic; there is no point having an argument based on emotion. I've come to realize that one shouldn't condemn others for having different points of view 2 decades ago, probably because there is a fine chance I might just be older than you.

And that's really the question you have to ask yourself: Why do you want to portray rape in a game? What purpose would it serve? Are you trying to make a larger point? If it's just to be "realistic," because, you know, someone could rape someone else, I don't really think that's a good reason. Are you going to include pissing and shitting too?

Do you really believe that I've never ponder about it? Do you think that one day I just woke up and screamed: "WHAT IF?!". I've already stated here that this discussion had already happened in another forum, with family members, with friends of mine and with co-workers. You should ask yourself instead if those questions of yours were really necessary. I might add pissing and shitting and call it the Rickton skill: "You feel very Rickton, it is time to take a dump". Sorry, but stupid questions do require stupid answers. It seems like you just fire a full burst at me without actually aiming. For the most of time, a single aimed shot is more effective than a full magazine fired at the waist.

Is it just because nobody else is doing it? That's not necessarily a reason either. There are reasons nobody else is doing it. Now, I don't think that it's impossible that a game could handle rape well, but I find it pretty unlikely that putting it as an optional feature in a roguelike is going to be handling it well.

I've mentioned the reasons about it a few times now, it is just a matter of you reading everything I've typed so far. But I'll just repeat myself; I want to offer freedom of choice giving the audience a chance of playing with a true good or a true evil character. This is the main reason for me and I don't expect anyone to agree with it, this is the best part of being the author of something, because you get to do what you want the way you wat. And remember: "don't discount what they're saying just because you disagree with it".

For the record, Fallout II actually has a rape scene, it is not exactly explicit but from the dialog available you can choose to rape that female NPC.

[Endorya]

In general I'd wonder what's wrong with the developer (not the case with you) and why would the developer want to put the possibility of pointless violence or sadism in games. But it's a good thing that those things would not be glorified.

Well, if a game would be just about torturing and raping I would wonder that myself. Anyway, bad actions should always bring bad consequences. I'm still deciding what to do about evil characters. What I have so far is having bad actions setting bounties over your character which will, as a consequence, having him being reject by society. You will no longer be able to enter civilized cities and you will have bounty hunters over your ass.

Raping and torture in real life is also worse thing than killing, maybe that's why they are disliked in every form. Maybe also that they inflict more mental pain than outright killing.

I actually believe that torture is the worst, then killing and lastly raping. There are tons of raped victims that manage to recover and still live normal lives; I actually have an example of this in my own family. Taking the life of someone is completely destroying any hope of having that person recovering from anything.

[Rickton]

Endorya...it's something that is very likely to happen either to them or someone they're close to, they're not really being unreasonable, don't discount what they're saying just because you disagree with it)

It is not about agreeing or disagreeing with what they say but listening to their answers based on emotion and not logic; there is no point having an argument based on emotion.

Whether the arguments are "logical" or not, I think that it's saying something if every woman (or most women) you talk to about it has a problem with it.
And I don't think it's a good idea to discount people for their arguments being based on emotion when you're dealing with a very emotionally loaded subject like rape (not to mention it sounds like you're saying women can't be logical because they're too emotional, at least when it comes to this subject if nothing else, which comes across as a little sexist).

I've come to realize that one shouldn't condemn others for having different points of view decades ago, probably because there is a fine chance I might just be older than you.

Maybe you are, maybe you aren't, but what's the point of bringing it up? Even if I am younger than you, does that make what I have to say invalid? (I'm 25, if it matters)

And that's really the question you have to ask yourself: Why do you want to portray rape in a game? What purpose would it serve? Are you trying to make a larger point? If it's just to be "realistic," because, you know, someone could rape someone else, I don't really think that's a good reason. Are you going to include pissing and shitting too?

Do you really believe that I've never ponder about it? Do you think that one day I just woke up and screamed: "WHAT IF?!". I've already stated here that this discussion has already happened in another forum, with family members, with friends of mine and with co-workers.

Sure, I hope you've thought about it. And sure, you've said the discussion has happened before, but none of us were there for that so we don't know what was said in those. So I'm sorry if you've already answered them before, but calling them "stupid questions" is just hostile.

You should ask yourself instead if those questions of yours were really necessary.

Maybe it wasn't necessary that I ask them, but I don't know what you've already thought about. I think those questions are questions that you should think about if you want to include rape in a game. If you have thought about them already, then great.

I might add pissing and shitting and call it the Rickton skill: "You feel very Rickton, it is time to take a dump".

Yeah, that's a personal attack, and there's really no reason for that. I think I'm starting to have an idea why your other thread didn't work out so well.

Is it just because nobody else is doing it? That's not necessarily a reason either. There are reasons nobody else is doing it. Now, I don't think that it's impossible that a game could handle rape well, but I find it pretty unlikely that putting it as an optional feature in a roguelike is going to be handling it well.

I've mentioned the reasons about it a few times now, it is just a matter of you reading everything I've typed so far.

I did read what you wrote, but thanks for talking down to me again. I just said "realism" rather than "freedom of choice," which was my bad I guess.

But I'll just repeat myself; I want to offer freedom of choice giving the audience a chance of playing with a true good or a true evil character. This is the main reason for me, but like you said: "don't discount what they're saying just because you disagree with it".

OK, you said that before, but that still doesn't really answer the question. Sure, you want to offer freedom of choice, and that's fine, but no game will ever truly have complete freedom of choice. Some things will be doable, some things won't, just due to limitations of what's programmed in. Why is it so important to specifically have rape in the game, when you know it's likely to cause problems, rather than some other immoral action?

Like I said before, I'm not discounting the inclusion of rape in a game, and none of this is intended as an assault on you or your ideas, so cool it on the hostility a bit (I think you might be getting a little emotional rather than logical ). If you want to have a discussion, let's have a discussion, if you just want to be told you're right, that's probably not going to happen, this is roguetemple, for every 5 users there's 6 diametrically opposed opinions.

[AgingMinotaur]

w00t? No need to flame Rickton for replying in your thread, Endorya. He raises some questions which are extremely pertinent in my opinion (and I was programming computer games and developing rpg settings before he was born, if that means anything to you I must say I always found the argument that "I'm your elder, so I must be wiser" very rude and frankly counterproductive) – in any case, I can't see what in his post warrants such hostility on your end.

Having said that, I think it's a very interesting topic. May not have time to post a long reply right now, but will try to scratch the surface a bit. First of all, there are no topics that are "off limits" for games, I think. On the contrary, games can provide really interesting ways to handle difficult themes. I do think that controversial topics like those mentioned must be handled with great care: the developer/team needs to do it in a sensitive as well as intelligent way. I was always a bit iffed out by the "scroll of genocide" that shows up in Nethack et al., for instance. Then again, "Smart Kobold" features a take on genocide that I think is intelligent/respectful, while managing to remain in the lighthearted spirit of the genre: After you've defeated the hostile kobolds, there are still some scared kobold children running around in the caves, and the details of your win screen depends on whether or not you exterminate them.

I need to "hang up" now. Will come back with some more feedback soon.

As always,
Minotauros

[Omnivore]

There is a fear factor involved, the fear that the media we watch can desensitize us, can erode our barriers, make us jaded.  In an interactive media, where we take an active role and are the instigators of objectionable behavior, there is the fear that it lessens the barrier between thought and action in real life as well as virtual.

There is some degree of truth behind the fears, at least with certain personality types.  For games I would guess that it somewhat depends on how realistic the virtual environment is.  Consider that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appear in the FBI's records of serial rapists and murderers.  At what point does doing so in a virtual environment equate to doing so in the real world?  Does this only affect minds that are already unhinged?  Quite a few questions here and a subject of serious study.

Personally I'd rather play a more goal oriented game than one where mass killing predominates, but as those are few and far between, I do play games which have mass slaughter.  Does this make me more likely to commit mass slaughter in real life?  Not really, but that may well be in part because in real life there are rather severe consequences and at least some barriers to obtaining the means.

When I play games where other repugnant (to me) behavioral options exist, I tend not to exercise those options, preferring the good guy/gal role.  If those repugnant options are overly rewarded or seem to be the optimal path, I probably won't play the game long.

As a game designer, there are far too many other more interesting and more profitable portions of a game I can spend time on.  Adding in the commands, methods, rendering, dialogue, etc for rape or torture is completely unappealing to me.  I far prefer to concentrate efforts on making the game fun to play and just don't see morally objectionable behaviors adding to the fun factor, at all.

I will freely admit that I would view a player who spent all their gaming time being a rapist and torturer of small animals as someone to stay far away from.  Just in case.  I would also tend to place the developer of a game promoting objectionable moral behavior in the same class as a producer of pornography or dealer of illegal drugs.   That is, people I choose not to associate with.

However, if I understand the OP correctly, he is not addressing the idea of promoting questionable behaviors but merely making them available.  I do not understand why. 

[Endorya]

Whether the arguments are "logical" or not, I think that it's saying something if every woman (or most women) you talk to about it has a problem with it.
And I don't think it's a good idea to discount people for their arguments being based on emotion when you're dealing with a very emotionally loaded subject like rape (not to mention it sounds like you're saying women can't be logical because they're too emotional, at least when it comes to this subject if nothing else, which comes across as a little sexist).

A good leader makes rational decisions based on logic and not on emotion. Ask Spock. When I ask something I expect a logical answer, I think that we all do. Something I'm not is a sexist person and you could witness this if you actually knew me. I'm actually quite protective of women but when it comes down to logic they don't have a chance, heck even my wife and most of my female co-workers agree with this. I hope the women discussion is now closed.

Maybe you are, maybe you aren't, but what's the point of bringing it up? Even if I am younger than you, does that make what I have to say invalid? (I'm 25, if it matters)

The fact I'm 11 years older than you, can contribute to the fact that I might have learned that lesson sooner than you. The lesson where people have opinions and that one shouldn't be against those whose point of view differs from yours; this is what I meant and not that I'm wiser.

Sure, I hope you've thought about it. And sure, you've said the discussion has happened before, but none of us were there for that so we don't know what was said in those.

Sorry, I can't simply believe that you think I haven't thought about this issue nor in the consequences it may bear. You should know better of programmers, we live in the future; we code thinking of what will happen from our writings, until we test the code to see it wasn't exactly what we were expecting (now I'm simply messing with you)

Maybe it wasn't necessary that I ask them, but I don't know what you've already thought about. I think those questions are questions that you should think about if you want to include rape in a game. If you have thought about them already, then great.

See my previous typing.

Yeah, that's a personal attack, and there's really no reason for that.

You can't simply ask about pissing and shitting with loads of sarcasm and expect people to react well to it. Some people might ignore it, some may not. It also depends on the mood; my mood today is not that great.

I think I'm starting to have an idea why your other thread didn't work out so well.

Is there a thread of mine that didn't work well? Which one? I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I'm actually being serious about it. Which thread?

I did read what you wrote, but thanks for talking down to me again. I just said "realism" rather than "freedom of choice," which was my bad I guess.

I honestly didn't talk down to you. People sometimes do post directly based on the OP's opening post without reading through all the after comments. I did get the impression you didn't read all my comments because you were asking questions about things that I believed I have answered already.

OK, you said that before, but that still doesn't really answer the question. Sure, you want to offer freedom of choice, and that's fine, but no game will ever truly have complete freedom of choice. Some things will be doable, some things won't, just due to limitations of what's programmed in. Why is it so important to specifically have rape in the game, when you know it's likely to cause problems, rather than some other immoral action?

Ok, I'll try to give you a deeper explanation having into consideration roguelike mechanics. There are games that give you freedom to change your character's alignment throughout their gaming time, allowing you to become a good or an evil character. I think we all have seen what playing good char is all about; good characters can be filled with personal sacrifice, loosing loved ones, performing incredible deeds, wining battles and changing the course of realms affecting thousands of lives, yeah, we have all seen that. But what can you actually do with a playable evil character? Well, for the most of it you can lie, steal and kill, and that's it. I want evil characters to be truly evil. I want the player to feel what being evil is really all about and have him dealing with its consequences accordingly.

If you just want to be told you're right, that's probably not going to happen, this is roguetemple, for every 5 users there's 6 diametrically opposed opinions.

I did this thread to see how everyone would react to it, to see how do you think and how vulnerable you are over sensitive topics because I might bring new ones. I've discussed this subject to exhaustion outside the forum and I truly have nothing left to think about it. Still, I find it a rather nice exercise, once a while. People initially tend to be against it, but as we discuss it they end up changing their minds. I can say that males have a greater success rate over females for the reasons I've mentioned previously, regarding changing their views on this topic. I've also acknowledged that when someone is truly against torture or raping there is nothing you can say to change their way of thinking, no matter how logical your argument might be.

[EDIT]
I don't need people saying that I'm right or wrong because this ends up just being something about personal preferences. Those who enjoyed playing Postal will probably find this good news while those who hated the game will probably ask: "Why?!". Personally, I didn't enjoy Postal, I find it very repetitive and dull. Ok, the pissing feature was funny, for a moment.

[Endorya]

w00t? No need to flame Rickton for replying in your thread, Endorya. He raises some questions which are extremely pertinent in my opinion (and I was programming computer games and developing rpg settings before he was born, if that means anything to you I must say I always found the argument that "I'm your elder, so I must be wiser" very rude and frankly counterproductive) – in any case, I can't see what in his post warrants such hostility on your end.

If you are much older than I'am (36) than there is a high probably than you have learned that: 'we shouldn't discount what others say just because we might disagree with them' before I did. This type of knowledge is something we teach to kids, at least this is what happens from where I come from. I think now you understand why I reacted the way I did. Being called a kid is not exactly a compliment.

[Endorya]

I will freely admit that I would view a player who spent all their gaming time being a rapist and torturer of small animals as someone to stay far away from.  Just in case.

My wife's kid played Postal II when he was about 12 years old finishing the game and replaying it a few times. He laughed his ass off killing people and dogs and setting them on fire with gasoline, then he would decapitate the dead bodies with a shovel and play soccer with their heads, exactly the way Postal II dev's team intended it to be played.

Now he is 20 years old. He loves dogs with passion (his favorite animal actually) and he is a truly loving young man with a kind heart, adored by everyone and by his teachers. Never got into fights nor into trouble with anyone.

One shouldn't simply label someone as evil because he might play violent games. It is like saying that metal fans are all a bunch of drug addicts and killers because they all listen to demonic music. The same thing could be said about the producers of the SAW movies, they are all evil and sick bastards.

I hope one everyone will recognize what playing a video game truly means, what role-playing means.

[Omnivore]

Wow, just how do you turn this:

I will freely admit that I would view a player who spent all their gaming time being a rapist and torturer of small animals as someone to stay far away from.  Just in case.

into this:

One shouldn't simply label someone as evil because he might play violent games. It is like saying that metal fans are all a bunch of drug addicts and killers because they all listen to demonic music. The same thing could be said about the producers of the SAW movies, they are all evil and sick bastards.

I hope one everyone will recognize what playing a video game truly means, what role-playing means.

Seriously?

You submit a single case where a person engaged in a behavior and later exhibited no signs of detrimental effects.  I submit a single case where a person engaged in role playing antisocial characteristics and when subsequently exposed to severe stress, acted out those same characteristics in real life.  What is proved?  Nothing.

If you are truly interested in the subject:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/media-spotlight/201304/can-video-games-cause-violence

The last paragraph is very interesting:
"As for the question of whether video games are really harmful, the lack of a clear answer after decades of research suggest that the real problem may well lie with our not being able to ask the right questions."

You don't know, I don't know, the experts don't know. 
I happen to prefer placing my bets on the safe side.

[mushroom patch]

Really, a large part of that is because rape hits a lot closer to home for more people. There aren't any murder victims playing games (by definition), but there are a lot of victims of rape and sexual assault (I think the statistics are 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men? Which is part of the reason women react more negatively to it [... ).]

This is pretty lame. I'm not a big fan of the thread in general, as it's pretty obvious why people would be uncomfortable with a game that features child molestation and animal torture, but you just know asking a question like "why shouldn't I include the possibility of being a rapist in my role playing game?" is going to lead to someone posting "hookup culture = rape culture" talking points from their Android device. And there it is.

[tuturto]

What about if those choices were in the plot of the game? Splinter Cell: Double Agent had player to make difficult choices through the game: do I kill the prisoner to gain the trust of terrorists (player is a double agent, as the title implies), do I blow up a passenger ship to maintain my cover. There weren't that big consequences though (maybe you got beaten up some or either organization started to trust you less, but there was always the next choice or other ways to remedy it).

If the actions were part of the plot, then they maybe would not be so gratuitous? But on the other hand, player would be confronted with these things regardless if he wanted or not.

[Krice]

Take Skyrim as example, you can just go to town and start slaying its citizens just in the name of fun. People are simply fine with this, but why shouldn't they?

The player's actions are justified because he has a goal. Which often is to save the world... from enemies. So it's a lot like war and as we know in war killing is ok.

[rust]

there are a lot of victims of rape and sexual assault (I think the statistics are 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men?

That's entirely impossible, unless sexual assault means asking for someone's number when they don't want it.


Back to the topic. Emotional response to such things in games will only happen when the game is immersive and/or descriptive. Imagine a game featuring a big red button which shows the text "You just raped someone. Hurray!" when it's clicked. I doubt anyone would get offended by it.
The opposite of the red button game is DEFCON, which is focused on being immersive. Launching my first nuke, seeing it explode on the world map, hearing a faint sound of distant explosion and seeing "London hit, 5 mln dead" was one of the few disturbing experiences I had in games, because the whole game makes you believe that you're really a part of it and not just a person from outside that interacts with it.
This level of immersion is achievable in roguelikes, but it's entirely up to player. If player puts his imagination to work when playing a roguelike then it's going to be a convincing experience, and the other way around. Of course you can help their imagination with descriptions (procedurally generated rape scenes? now that's something you'd never expect to see).

Overall, I get where your idea comes from and have nothing against it, after all it's just a game.

[Endorya]

You submit a single case where a person engaged in a behavior and later exhibited no signs of detrimental effects.  I submit a single case where a person engaged in role playing antisocial characteristics and when subsequently exposed to severe stress, acted out those same characteristics in real life.  What is proved?  Nothing.

You didn't submit any case, you just mentioned how would you feel about someone spending his free time playing a game based in vile actions; my response was connected to this. Seriously.

If you are truly interested in the subject:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/media-spotlight/201304/can-video-games-cause-violence

Thanks for the link. I found it really interesting.

The last paragraph is very interesting:
"As for the question of whether video games are really harmful, the lack of a clear answer after decades of research suggest that the real problem may well lie with our not being able to ask the right questions."

It doesn't make any sense in my head whatsoever saying that we might be asking the wrong questions, when these questions are the subject themselves. If the answers are not conclusive, I just think they should remain open until a conclusion is found.

You don't know, I don't know, the experts don't know.

I do know that virtual vile actions doesn't harm me and many others. They might harm someone without a shadow of doubt, that's why viewer discretion is advised and none of us should be forced to endure through stuff we might not be comfortable with.

My opinion on how violent games can affect persons is quite simple, some people are simply more open to suggestion and more influenced than others; some people simply possess a deeper predisposition to execute evil acts while others may prefer to make a stand through peace. Hence these type of studies often resulting in inconclusive results because each one of us experiences life in different ways. You can't simply have the manual: "Human Behavior for Dummies" and expect to understand the whole mankind.

I happen to prefer placing my bets on the safe side.

Which makes total sense.