4/23 | Christopher Bartel, "Criticizing Games," in Video Games, Violence, and the Ethics of Fantasy, 143-156

Summary Notes – “Criticizing Games” by Christopher Bartel

1. Ethics of Virtual Actions: Player-Focused Approach

  • Bartel argues that the morality of video games lies not in their content alone, but in the player’s engagement with them.

  • Performing a virtual action is morally wrong when it cultivates immoral desires.

  • Ethics should be player-focused (how players interact and fantasize), not just content-focused (what’s in the game).

2. Why Not Just Focus on Game Content?

  • Content-based criticism misses how different players interpret and respond to games.

  • Some games (like Call of Duty’s “No Russian”) may provoke moral reflection, not just glorify violence.

  • Still, content matters—because game designers help shape the range of fantasy and moral imagination players can explore.

3. Game Designers' Responsibility

  • Designers are not responsible for every individual’s interpretation (e.g., Breivik misusing Call of Duty), but:

  • They are responsible when games limit moral imagination to fantasies that should not be enjoyed (e.g., rape in RapeLay).

4. Fictional Incompleteness

  • Games, like all fiction, are inherently incomplete—players fill in the gaps.

  • Some gaps are:

    • Inferable (can be logically filled from what’s shown),

    • Filled by imagination (like voice or backstory),

    • Indeterminate (no right answer—like what’s in the Pulp Fiction briefcase).

  • Designers guide imagination but can’t control it fully.

5. Enactive Possibilities and Motivations

  • Video games are interactive, meaning players imagine how to act (enactive possibilities) and why the character acts (psychological motivations).

  • Example: BioShock Infinite allows players to shape how they see the protagonist’s moral values without game-imposed consequences.

  • Games like RapeLay are dangerous because they offer only immoral options and motivations—limiting imagination to harmful fantasies.

6. Moral Complexity and Narrative Context

  • Not all disturbing content is bad—some games like Mass Effect 2 pose tough moral dilemmas that spark reflection.

  • A game’s narrow moral choices can be valuable if they force reflection, not if they normalize harm.

7. Violence and Fantasy in Games

  • Not all virtual violence is bad—context matters.

  • Choosing between good and evil lets players explore moral identity (e.g., stealth vs. killing in Dishonored or Assassin’s Creed).

  • Playing as a villain (e.g., GTA’s Niko Bellic) can encourage understanding, not evil—if it’s reflective.

8. The Real Ethical Line

  • It’s not immoral to play violent games—but it can be if:

    • The player does so to satisfy immoral desires.

    • The game only allows fantasies that promote cruelty.

  • Ethical reflection is key: ask not just “What can I do?” but “Why do I want to do this?”


Key Takeaway for Class Discussions

  • Ethics in gaming is about intention and context.

  • Players should reflect on their motives, and designers should be mindful of the moral landscape they create.

  • Games are powerful tools for storytelling, moral exploration, and even empathy—but they can also promote harm if designed irresponsibly or consumed thoughtlessly.