Questions around ethics and morality of gaming often are raised around the games themselves. But perhaps the better direction is to point the question directly at the people the make games:

Do video game developers have ethical responsibilities when building games?

While a complex issue, some interesting themes and solutions to this question emerged through the discussion.

Up front, we should question whether games should be considered separately from other creative forms—movies, books, painting, photography, etc. If games are art, then they should be considered alongside other art forms. In the case, the real question to answer would be—do artists have ethical responsibilities when creating art?

The reason rephrasing the question in that manner has force is because unlike video games, more established art forms have a presumption that they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Even when ethical questions swirl around a piece of art, censors are kept at bay while criticism conduct serious consideration of the work at hand. Mapplethorpe’s photographs may have ignited the indignation and disgust of some people. But the reaction of a few was not enough to exclude his work from public consumption or even have a chilling effect on the work of other artists. Without even asking the question of whether Maplethorpe might have crossed some ethical or moral boundary, a defense raised questions of freedom of speech and expression and fought against the notion that a work of art should face any sort of censorship.

Video games, on the other hand, are typically considered a popular culture medium, and the defenders of art do move as quickly to counter act the censorship reflext.

So, clearly, at the heart of the question of ethics and video games lies the two critical questions of whether games are art and protections from censorship they may deserve as an art form.

But even if games are art, and do deserve a high level of protection from censorship, there still is the lingering question of whether game developers have an ethical responsibility.

On one hand, there was a feeling in the group that they did not. Games, it has been shown time and time again, do not cause anti-social behavior. They may influence a player, but that influence is filtered through layers of experience, social norms, common sense and a player’s own ethical sensibilities. So, arguing that game developers have a responsibility the same way makers of cigarettes or revolvers might owe society some accountability for creating the means to destroy lives, game makers seem to lack the basic means to directly cause social harm.

But does the lack of a casual link between games and anti-social behavior let developers off the hook? Not really.

In a game such as Grand Theft Auto III, players can run over innocent by-standers, shoot pedestrians, take drugs and solicit prostitutes among other illicit pursuits. Is this game an ethical mistake? Probably not. Because people who have played the game can point out several features that actually allow the game to live up to an ethical standard.

First, the game has consequences. Perhaps the consequences are not pre-programmed to encourage the “right” behavior. But there are consequences none-the-less. As the game progresses, you may assassinate a mod boss, but ever after the mafia goons patrolling the city will open fire on your character on sight. Steal a car in front of the police, and they will attempt to arrest you. So, a relevant feature of an ethical gaming system is consequences.

Second, although the game puts the player in the position of guiding a petty criminal through paces of enriching himself through crime, and in the process by-standers get maimed or killed and hundreds of cars are stolen, there is a clear context in the game—everyone is a bad. The streets are filled with prostitutes, toughs and gang bangers. Steal a car from an innocent old man, and he’ll make an attempt to retake his car through force. Radio ads for products produced by slave labor and pitched by sleazy gigolos underline the notion that the populace that fills Liberty City may be by-standers during your crimes, but are anything but innocent. In this urban jungle, everyone has a date with fate. Underlining this point, despite the diversity of characters in the town, there are no children—because you cannot strip the innocence from children.

Finally, the game places its tongue in its cheek and keeps in there. The game is not meant it inspire or glorify random crime or violence. But rather, through ample use of satire, it is meant to be enjoyed because of its anti-social context. Not because it looks to inspire anti-social behavior.

Interestingly, this analysis of GTA III actually shows a connection to an ethical perspective rather than relying on the excuse that games do not cause violent behavior,

On the other hand, an example of a hunting game produced by neo-Nazis that featured the sport of hunting ethnic minorities clearly offended the sensibilities of the same people how found GTA III’s violence comical and entertaining. Using the same palette and of violence, the neo-Nazi game seems to have crossed a boundary that GTA chose not to cross. And what was that boundary?

In the case of a game where you shoot minorities, the intent—artistic or otherwise—is to incite hatred and possibly even violence against a real group of people. Despite some of its more violent moments, GTA never crosses the boundary and encourages the player to act or feel in the real world the way you act and feel in the game.

This last example provides particularly illuminating because it appears to answer the question—yes, game developers do have an ethical responsibility. And as a medium that can influence people, it’s responsibility less in the particulars of the content or the interaction with the content, but more with the intent of the designer. Video games may not have the power to cause someone to kill or hate or even adopt a surly demeanor. But when a designer builds a game intentionally to foster those behaviors, they have crossed a line. As an art form, perhaps they deserve protection. But as individuals, game designers have an ethical responsibility to the people and communities around them.

This essay's central question, and much of the discussion covered here was a part of a conversation held during the monthly meeting of the Colorado Game Developers.