Inside the Magic Circle: Using Digital Games to Teach Ethics

by Andrew Dixon

http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/andrews

Computer games are a valuable tool when it comes to teaching and learning. This is particularly true for the teaching and learning of ethics, as games create an isolated virtual context where players can experiment with their behaviour and actions in a safe environment. This isolated context is referred to by the historian Johan Huizinga as a “magic circle”, which, in their role as the game character, players cannot leave until all of their in-world obligations have been discharged. All the elements of digital gaming such as design, contemporary social standards, the learner’s pre-existing value system and the technology itself allow players to explore and develop their own ethical systems and experiment with alternative ones.

Why Games are Valuable

In her review of Grand Theft Auto III, journalist Joanna Weiss describes digital gaming as “a way to shrink the distance between the part of us that wants to break rules and the good sense that keeps us in line” (2002) While this may seem problematic, it allows the player to explore ethical dilemmas in a safe virtual world and therefore has the potential to play a critical role in the moral development of the player, and particularly where the player is an adolescent with a fluid sense of self and ethical identity (Fitzgerald, 2011). However, in order to capitalise on this potential, it is essential that games contain well-constructed scenarios that challenge players and encourage them to identify with their in-game character and allow them to operate within the context of the game as they would in a real-world environment (Schreiber, 2000)

Games are unique in that they allow the player to simultaneously play two roles: that of the performer and that of the audience (Zagal, 2009). This is particularly true of digital games as, thanks to modern technology, they are creating a more realistic and immersive environment than ever before, and thus becoming, as Weaver writes, “no longer the childhood curiosity of the few, but central to the developmental experiences of many (2011). Although Huizinga’s concept of a “magic circle” predates the advent of digital gaming, his assertion that the process of playing both informs the culture and is a part of it (1949) is remarkably prescient. This strong connection between gaming and reality makes digital games an essential tool when it comes to the teaching and learning of ethics.

Choosing the Game

However, the fact that digital games are so efficient at replicating real-world scenarios, as well as having a real emotional impact on the player (Schreiber, 2000) means that games must be carefully assessed in order to determine if they are suitable as a learning environment. This may even mean a drastic change in the way we define and select games for the teaching of ethics and value systems (Monnens, 2011). In regard to considering digital games as a means to teach and promote ethics there are two main considerations: the actual content of the game, and how it is viewed by society. The incorporation of content that explicitly teaches ethics is difficult, but digital games as “creative objects”, are capable of generating ethical experiences for the participant  (Sicart, 2010).  Games with educational potential can be divided into two categories: “Edugames” like Mathletics, which are primarily designed to teach without an emphasis on entertainment, and “serious” games, such as the SimCity series, which both teach and entertain (Taylor, 2008). Both of these types of game explicitly provide the participant with knowledge regarding education, business and simulation modelling (Zyda, 2005), but “serious” games also manage to impart ethical lessons through their formal and informal structures (Taylor, 2008).

While many of these lessons are explicitly laid out, the potential for digital games to impart ethical messages without the player being aware that this has occurred means that it is important for game designers and those teaching through gameplay to dictate how the player interprets the game experiences (Gee J. P., 2008) In games such as Papers Please, a hapless official at a chaotic border checkpoint is constantly forced to make decisions regarding politics, corruption and romantic relationships which will have a direct impact on the characters within the game. These decisions, all of which are based on problem-solving and values, determine which of the multiple endings the player will achieve. There is no obvious “educational” agenda to the game and the consequences of the player’s decisions cannot be known (without cheating) until after the decision is made, although the ethical consequences are not so obscure as to be unpredictable. The range of ethical possibilities available to the player as well as the temptation to predict the outcomes of the player’s actions or “game the game” provide a valuable learning context (Consalvo M. , 2004) provided that players are guided toward particular realisations as part of the learning process (Gee J. P., 2008). It is therefore important to carefully evaluate a game that is intended for an educational purpose, and particularly for the teaching of ethics.

Withholding Moral Judgement

Another factor to be considered when choosing a game for the teaching and learning of ethics is how the values of the in-game world align with those of contemporary society. While this is unavoidable, one potential pitfall is that those involved in the selection of games often fail to take into account the “real and changing social norms”, and this leads to games being rejected unnecessarily  (Reynolds, 2002). Another potentially problematic issue is violence in games, about which people have tended to be overly cautious despite the lack of scientific evidence to suggest that real-world violent behaviour can be caused by violence in games (Elson, 2013). Indeed, it is possible for a game to be more violent than current social standards would accept while still containing a pacifistic message. One such example is the 2009 game Bang! You’re Dead, in which players are given the option to violently kill in-game characters, but are then shown extended flashbacks to emotional moments in their victims’ lives, a mechanic designed to encourage empathy and discourage excessive violence (Monnens, 2011). For obvious reasons such an experience would be, at best, difficult to attain in real life, and the value of this sort of game comes from it providing the player with an opportunity to experience educational but uncomfortable situations with no real-world consequences (Schreiber, 2000). If all games containing situations which would be forbidden in real life were overlooked in educational contexts, a number of valuable opportunities to teach and learn about ethics would be sacrificed (Consalvo, 2004). It is therefore essential, when evaluating games for their educational potential, to take into account factors other than contemporary social values, although these should of course be included in an assessment of the games’ merits.

Playing the Game

There can be little debate regarding the ability of digital gaming to teach both generic and specific skills within a game design (Gee, 2008). However, in using digital games as a means of teaching an ethical framework it is essential to draw the distinction between the compulsory ‘choices’ that need to be made by the player in order to progress within the game, and the real ethical dilemmas faced by the player (Zagal, 2009). For a decision to be truly moral in its nature, it must offer more than “a dichotomous choice” with no ethical considerations (Consalvo M. , 2011), but must be based on a system of rules and distinguish “right” actions from “wrong” ones (Schreiber, 2000). While acknowledging that the inclusion of such dilemmas is difficult to achieve as part of the game mechanics, a game is guided by both its formal and the unwritten and informal rules within the “magic circle” and, as such, may be directed toward a particular purpose that is tangential to the primary goal of the game (Taylor, 2008). Sandbox games such as Minecraft, for example, are particularly effective in imparting ethical lessons because there is no specific quest or requirement that the player must fulfil beyond basic survival. There are, however, informal dynamics within the game which compel the player to use their empathy, imagination and ethical judgement (Schreiber, 2000). The mining of elements and construction materials is a central mechanic of the gameplay, although the player has almost unlimited options when it comes to their use. It may be difficult to envision ethical dilemmas in such an unrestricted game, but one that frequently arises is the decision to either survive on a vegetarian diet, or to kill and eat animals, the latter of which provides greater health and experience. [1] Although the majority of players are unlikely to dwell upon ethical considerations like this as they play the game, this type of choice can alter our ethical outlook and practice, both consciously and unconsciously (Briggle, 2011). Sandbox games that provide realistic ethical decisions are therefore invaluable to the teaching and learning of ethics.

The Player Experience

However, it is not just that players adapt their behaviour based on in-game decisions; the choices that they make inside the game are also influenced by their real-world value systems. Digital gameplay does not exist in a vacuum (Consalvo M. , 2004), and games are fluid and ergodic texts in which a player his or her external value system to the choices that he or she faces inside the game (Aarseth, 2004). Exactly what the player brings into the circle is difficult to ascertain, as are its influence on the decisions they make within the gaming environment. The traditional idea of the player interacting with the game in “predetermined, sanctioned ways” must be balanced against the idea of a player with genuine agency, who brings both their previous experience as gamers and their real-world value system to their in-game decision making (Sicart M. , 2011). It is certainly the case that the majority of game players, when faced with a choice between an explicitly ‘good’  and an explicitly ‘evil’ option, will choose the ‘good’ option as though by default (Consalvo M. , 2011). One implication of this is that, when players come to make decisions in the context of the game, they are clearly taking ethical considerations into account just as they would in the real world  (Spence, 2011). For the players who choose the ‘evil’ or unethical option, the decision appears to be consistently conscious and deliberate (Consalvo M. , 2011), but this does not mean that the player has failed to internalise the ethical lessons contained within the game. Conversely, it is likely that the player has learned from experience to view the game environment as a safe context for ethical experimentation, and an arena which offers the player experiences unavailable to them in the real world (Sicart M. , 2011). This, indeed, is one of the main goals of game-based ethical teaching, and should be regarded as such.

Gaming as a reflection of the learning process

The final point which must be made concerning the use of games as an ethical learning and teaching aid is that games are so effective because they are designed to reflect the human learning and decision-making experience. Recent pedagogical research has established that people learn primarily through personal experience, as opposed to ROTE or abstract learning (Gee J, 2009). Digital games provide experiences that feel real to the player, but that are condensed into an accessible form where simplified game play elements represent real complex ethical dilemmas. This involves the incorporation and simplification of a “complex interrelation of needs, emotions, rational thinking and moral thinking,” all of which contribute to the gameplay experience and affect what the lessons the player takes away from the game (Sicart M. , 2011). Although these elements may seem less ‘legitimate’ than real-world experience, games have repeatedly proven extremely effective projecting the  “user experience” onto gameplay and therefore teaching players lessons that translate to their behaviour in the real world (Sicart M. , 2011). These lessons are particularly effective when they relate to a player’s ethical outlook and practice, and due to their condensed form are able to directly alter how a player views and interacts with the real world after playing a game that has been effectively designed and implemented (Briggle, 2011). The ability of digital games to emulate and condense a real-world situation into an educational experience makes them extremely important to any learning process related to ethics.

Conclusion

Digital games are exciting and valuable tools in the teaching of ethics as they allow the player to become immersed in a safe, entertaining world where they can experiment with their behaviour and decision-making without any serious real-world consequences. However, it is important to select a game with particular design elements in order for the player to be both educated and entertained, and to ensure that the ethical lessons being taught are appropriate for the learner. In saying this, it is also beholden to designers to ensure that genuine ethical dilemmas are incorporated effectively and meaningfully into the games themselves.

It is essential for educators intending to implement digital gaming into their lessons to understand the complex relationship between the player’s in-game context and values and those of the real world, and how the player’s experience in a game can influence their real-world attitudes and behaviour. With this knowledge, digital games can and will be effectively used to enhance the teaching and learning experience of ethics in an enjoyable, memorable way.

Footnotes:

[1] I did kill some sheep to make a bed. In all other aspects I have maintained a lacto-ova diet. I still feel guilty about the spiders.

References:

Aarseth, E. (2004). “Quest Games as Post-Narrative Discourse”. In M. (. Ryan, Narrative Across Media. (pp. 361-376). University of Nebraska Press.

Briggle, A. (2011). The Ethics of Computer Games. In K. &. Schrier, Designing Games for Ethics: Models, Techniques and Frameworks (pp. 159-174). New York: IGI Global.

Consalvo, M. (2004). Rule Sets, Cheating, and Magic Circles: Studying Games and Ethics. International Review of Information Ethics.

Consalvo, M. (2011). Quick Takes on Ethis and Games: Voices from Industry and Academia. In K. &. Schrieir, Designing Games for Ethics: Models, Techniques and Frameworks (pp. 2-6). New York: IGI Global.

Elson, M. &. (2013). Violent Digital Games and Aggression – A Review. European Psychologist.

Fitzgerald, R. &. (2011). Leveraging Digital Games for Moral Development in Education: A Practitioner’s Reflection. In K. &. Schrier, Designing Games for Ethics: Models, Techniques and Frameworks. (pp. 234-251). New Yor: IGI Global.

Floridi, L. (2007). A look into the future impact of ICT on our lives.Retrieved from The Philosophy of Information: http://www.philosophyofinformation.net/publications/pdf/alitfioiool.pdf

Gee, J. (2009). Deep Learning Properties in Good Digital Games: How far can they go? In Theories and Mechanisms: Serious Games for Learning. New York: Routledge.

Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and Games. In K. (. Salen, The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. (pp. 21-40). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. London: Routledge & Keagan Paul.

Monnens, D. (2011). War and Play: Insensitivity and Humanity in the Realm of Pushbutton Warfare. In T. a. Designing Games for Ethics: Models, Schrieir, K. & Gibson, D. (Eds) (pp. 83-97). New York: IGI Global.

Reynolds, R. (2002, October). Playing a “good” game: A Philosophical Approach to Understanding the Morality of Games.IGDA. Retrieved from http://www.ren-reynolds.com/

Schreiber, I. C. (2000). Ethical Dilemmas in Gameplay: Choosing Between Right and Right. In K. &. Schrier, Designing Games for Ethics: Models, Techniques and frameworks (pp. 72-82). Pennsylvania: IGI Global.

Sicart, M. (2010). Values Between Systems: Designing Ethical Gameplay. In K. Schrier, Ethics and Game Design (pp. 1-69). Hershey PA: IGI Global.

Sicart, M. (2011). Digital Games as Ethical Technologies. In K. &. Shrier, Designing Games for Ethics: Models, Techniques and Frameworks (pp. 101-123). New York: IGI Global.

Spence, E. (2011). Virtual Rape, Real Dignity: Meta-Ethics for Virtual Worlds. In K. &. Shrier, Designing Games for Ethics: Models, Techniques and Frameworks (pp. 126-142). New York: IGI Global.

Taylor, L. (2008). Gaming Ethics, Rules, Etiquette, and Learning.Information Science Reference, 1057-1067.

Weaver, C. (2011). Video Game Ethics 1.01. In K. &. Shrier,Designing Games for Ethics: Models, Techniques and Frameworks (pp. 14-16). New York: IGI Global.

Weiss, J. (2002, January). Connecting with your Inner Thug. Boston Globe, p. E1.

Zagal, J. (2009). Ethically Notable Videogames: Moral Dilemmas and Gameplay. Proceedings of the 2009 DiGRA International Conference: Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. Brunei: Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA).

Zyda, M. (2005). From visual simulation to virtual reality to games.Computer 38(9), 25-32.

Referenced Games

Mathletics (2012)

SimCity (Maxis 2000)

Papers Please! (Lucas Pope 2013)

Minecraft (Mojang 2009)

Bang!: You’re Dead (2009)

Grand Theft Auto III (DMA Design 2001)

Master of Education (Knowledge Networks and Digital Innovation).
Developed by the School of Information Studies, Charles Sturt University, 2015.

Contact Us.