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?”
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.