Separator

Red Dead Redemption and the Morality of Games

Profilepic
Friday, June 04, 2010

Editor's note: I couldn't stand Grand Theft Auto 4. I thought the game was a complete tonal mess. On the one hand, Rockstar tried to get you to care about their take on the immigrant story, but on the other, they battled the legacy of their sophmoric humor. While Red Dead Redemption is a bit more cohesive, the issue is still present. Cameron argues that this problem is becoming a hallmark of Rockstar products. -James


One of the most obvious areas in which games are experiencing growing pains is the morality of the situations and characters that they ask players to inhabit. While Nathan Drake’s borderline split personality in Uncharted 2 recently brought this problem to light, it’s an issue that’s been dogging Rockstar for years.

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas's "hot coffee" sex mini-game got the mainstream media’s attention despite being relatively tame. But Grand Theft Auto 4 managed to raise even gamers’ eyebrows, with a scripted scene in which the player, in the role of the supposedly repentant Niko Bellic, kidnaps and beats a woman in order to progress the story. And now, Red Dead Redemption continues the tradition with an achievement called “Dastardly,” which the game awards the player for tying a woman to some train tracks and watching as an oncoming locomotive crushes her. At this point, it seems ridiculous to go on pretending that video games never have moral implications. -- especially Rockstar’s games.

 

Whenever a potential controversy in games comes to light, a chorus of defensive gamers always leap to their feet and cry “Don’t take it so seriously. It’s just a game!” Normally, I think this is one of those uniquely terrible arguments that actually devalues what it sets out to defend. But in this case, it may be slightly less awful than usual. Media that tell stories inevitably develop their own storytelling conventions. Like action movies, comic books, and pulp novels before them, games have developed a convention that their characters resort to violence far more quickly than people in the real world.

The fact that a game lets you kill nearly anyone you want isn’t necessarily a sign that it has a broken moral compass. While I still take issue with the “it's just a game” defense, it's not a completely misguided sentiment here. Nevertheless, I think the Dastardly Achievement is one of the clearest cases yet of a mainstream game making an immoral statement.

Now before you tell me I have a stick up my ass, let me plead my case. I don’t necessarily have a problem with players being rewarded for senseless acts of violence. And I get that the reason the victim in Dastardly has to be a woman is because Rockstar is playing with a specific silent-film cliché. But there are two major reasons Dastardly still bothers me. First, it’s inconsistent with how Red Dead Redemption wants us to view its protagonist, John Marston. Quite simply, Rockstar throws Marston's character and the game’s main plotline under the bus for the sake of a sophomoric laugh. An outlaw trying to reform for the sake of his family wouldn’t do this sort of thing. Worse, it’s a continuation of Rockstar’s obnoxious, binary portrayal of women: They are either manly stereotypes or helpless victims.

This is why I say Dastardly is immoral and not merely stupid. Rockstar not only victimizes women for a laugh -- at the expense of the game's plot -- but they also reward players for doing it. The fact that it’s not the first time Rockstar has encouraged the abuse of women suggests that it's more than a momentary lapse in judgment.

I’m sure Rockstar’s defenders will be glad to offer all the usual excuses: The developer is showing the world as it is, not as as it should be. It’s meant as satire. They want to give players as much freedom as possible. Writers don’t endorse everything their characters do. And these all might be legitimate arguments, except as I said above, Dastardly is only the most recent example of what looks more and more like a virgin/whore complex with each game Rockstar puts out.

OK, so the hero can’t sleep with prostitutes to regain health this time around, but that's kind of a hollow victory when he can treat women like animals before murdering them for an Achievement. Even if Rockstar is just giving their audience what they want (and the fact that Dastardly is only a five point achievement suggests that the developer isn’t really sure if that’s the case), it hardly justifies them. It simply indicates that they’re willing to pander to the lowest common denominator in order to sell a few more games.

For the most part, Red Dead Redemption is a good game. And on the whole, Rockstar’s games have some of the best writing on the market. But I think it’s impossible at this point to argue that their portrayal of women doesn’t point to misogynistic tendencies among at least some of their writers. It's more than just an aesthetic issue: It’s a moral issue. And it’s all the more depressing because Rockstar has the potential to be one of the developers whose games we could be proud to compare to any other mainstream media. But until gamers start holding them accountable for their offensive treatment of women, Rockstar will never shed their reputation as childish provocateurs.

Follow me on Twitter: @cambot3000

 
Problem? Report this post
CAMERON PERSHALL'S SPONSOR
Comments (18)
Default_picture
June 03, 2010

Bonnie MacFarlane was about as close as Rockstar has gotten to creating a female character that I cared about; until, that is, her "finale," in which she becomes a damsel in distress for John to save. It ruins what was at least initially a great character.

As for the Dastardly achievement itself, I understand that rewarding something so out of character is bothersome, but I don't think whoever thought up the achievement -- and subsequently those who approved it -- gave the thing more than thought than "Hey, we're doing a western, and it would be funny if this happened."

I agree that it's ill-advised to at once attempt a thoughtful story and have the player want to engage in actions that entirely devalues the story, but I think they intended that achievement to be entirely disjointed from the story -- something to do after you've beaten the game and are messing around in the world.

Lance_darnell
June 03, 2010

Does it have to be a woman that you tie to the tracks? Can it be a man?

My comment would echo what Suriel said in his second paragraph, but I would add that you are right about things like this holding Rockstar back. But, is it cool when it happens?

Profilepic
June 03, 2010

@Lance - I'm not 100% certain that it has to be a woman. I tried to find details about the achievement before posting this, but I couldn't. I've heard a few people who have it say it has to be a woman, though. If you can get it for killing a man, then I'll have to take back my "immoral" complaint and just call it dumb.

Anyway, I don't think this can be excused by saying "They probably didn't think that much about it." That's my entire point: they should be thinking about it. If their main concern is telling a story, then they need to learn some restraint and not fill their games with stupid crap that sabotages the characters. If they want to be South Park, then they need to stop wasting time on serious plots and come up with better jokes. Either way, I want to see them learn how to write women as something other than "woman who's strong because she's taken on a traditional male gender role" or "object for male protagonist to abuse." 

Default_picture
June 03, 2010

The thing that makes it acceptable to me is the fact that it's separate from any kind of story-related context; the fact that it isn't forced upon you makes its periphery aspect stupid fun rather than objectionable. If you had to do commit the same act in order to advance the storyline -- like it was in GTA4 --  it would a different story and would make me much more concerned.

Default_picture
June 04, 2010

You do realize that it's a secret achievement right?  A secret achievement that I didn't even know about until this article since I don't care about achievements.  A component of the game that someone playing through the story would never uncover, or frankly, care about.

 

Just wondering.

Me
June 04, 2010

I think you make a compelling argument.  Well done!  But what would you say to the old "If you don't like it, don't play it" line? 

Brett_new_profile
June 04, 2010

I think Rockstar did a good job with the female characters in Red Dead Redemption. Sure, they did take on "male" roles, but I think that's fairly consistent with the time period. You could call it a fault of Rockstar's, but in this context, it actually fits.

Jamespic4
June 04, 2010

@Chris I think what Cameron is trying to say is that if you frame the Dastardly Achievement within the greater context of Rockstar's history of female representations, then you begin to see it as part of a larger ongoing pattern of male chauvinism. I tend to agree.

Jayhenningsen
June 04, 2010

Though I haven't played the game, and probably won't purchase it any time soon, this particular achievement didn't really strike me as immoral or offensive. The lady on the railroad tracks is almost iconic to westerns, so much so, I figured it was only a matter of time before we saw it in a video game.

Rockstar certainly didn't invent this scene. You'd probably come closer to the mark if you blamed the writers of early western movies. To take it a step further, how many strong female leads do you remember in classic western movies? To me, it seems that Rockstar was just staying true to the source material. Again, I think you'd do better trying to vilify the genre than to blame Rockstar specifically for this content.

Also, the last line of this piece:
[quote]But until gamers start holding them accountable for their offensive treatment of women, Rockstar will never shed their reputation as childish provocateurs.[/quote]
is strangely ironic, given that you seem to admit you were trying to provoke a response as well by writing this:

Jamespic4
June 04, 2010

@Jay I think the difference is that Cameron's provocation is the result of some thought. Rockstar takes a really uninspired and lazy approach to satire and parody these days. Characters like Lazlo and Tommy Vercetti were edgy and interesting in 2001 and 2003, but they're kind of tired now.

Blog
June 04, 2010

What I love about columns like this one is that it violates a lot of the rules of good scholarship.

There are all these references to how "gamers" felt as a group--about eyebrows being raised and so on, but in reality these sound more like isolated complaints made by a relatively small group of gamers.  In terms of weighing moral choice in GTA4 or Red Dead vs. moral choice in--say--Halo, there's clearly no comparison.  Halo has almost zero opportunity for moral reflection or self expression of character.

I'd love to see some links or actual quotes to these buckets of opinions being quoted or referenced rather than just a gesture towards what seems to be an imaginary list of complaints.  Especially complaints that are so convenient to the thesis of the current article.

Further, a someone else mentioned, this achievement is secret so the only people who SHOULD know about it are the people who trophy/achievement hunt on forums or in the strategy guide (unless you just got the idea to try it out which seems less likely overall).  That makes this column a bit of a spoiler on one hand, but completely counter to itself on the other.  See, since Rockstar doesn't tell you about it, they're not encouraging you to do it and go against your own moral notions.

In fact, moments like this seem perfect for a player who's been playing an outlaw version of the character.  I played through the game one and a half times.  The second time through I wanted to try making all the mean choices.  Once, along the way, I heard a woman shout for help and rode over to kill everyone--but then she wound up being in on it, so consistent with my character's attitude, I carried her over to the tracks and left her.

However, if I had gone out of my way to do it in the midst of a moral campaign, it could easily be seen as a break from the narrative.  A pocket of sandbox behavior that wasn't part of how I thought of my character in the larger narrative.

I also think it's very dangerous, especially in the context of one short piece, to try and tackle morality in gaming, the criticisms of GTA4 (imaginary?) and the plight of women characters in narrative media all at once.  Especially since you could make the same complaints about Steven Spielberg's body of work.

Profilepic
June 04, 2010

@Chris - I don't know what to say, except that I don't have the achievement, and I knew about it. It was getting a lot of attention last week. If you don't care about it, great. I think it's an interesting subject.

@Ryan - I'm not sure if you mean "don't like the game" or "don't like the achievement." I actually do like the game, I'm just calling out something I'm starting to see as pervasive in Rockstar's releases. If you mean "don't like the achievement," well of course--part of the game is playing John how you want to play him. But in a post-Mass Effect world, it feels lazy for your actions to have so little impact on the game's main story.

@Brett: I'm trying to look at a broader context than just this one game. Bonnie is just the most recent example of Rockstar's weird treatment of women. It's not entirely negative, but I'd like to see them at least try to write a woman who is both feminine and strong.

@Jay: That was intentional irony. Apparently I suck at humor, too.

Profilepic
June 04, 2010

@Steven: Point taken on not citing sources. I assumed that, since I've heard this issue discussed on podcasts and among gamer friends, it was being talked about pretty widely. The Giant Bombcast and the former Four Guys 1Up both had pretty lengthy discussions of it in the past week, and a video of the achievement was even posted here on Bitmob. As for the criticisms of GTA4's disconnect between its story and what the player could make Niko do (which you seem to suggest I might be imagining), that's a conversation I've  been hearing, again largely on podcasts, since that game came out. I understand if you're not willing to take my word for it, but I can't go back and find every one of those conversations now to provide a reference.

But assume I'm the only person who's ever thought about Rockstar's tendency to offer the player choices which have extremely limited impact on the stories their games tell--does that invalidate the main thrust of what I've written here? 

As for the achievement being secret, I believe Rockstar didn't think it would go public about it as much as I believe they thought nobody would discover "hot coffee". Making an achievement secret doesn't mean it's no longer a reward for the people who get it.

Finally, I have no idea what you're getting at in the last paragraph. It sounds like you're saying I shouldn't discuss this issue at all if I'm not going to be absolutely comprehensive, which seems a little unreasonable.

Blog
June 04, 2010

I think it's just a little irresponsible to throw it in.  It's like writing the entire column and going, "Never mind the impact of blood diamonds in Africa."

Yes, it's probably worth talking about, but probably not in this context.  I don't think there's a direct correlation between morality in games and whether or not Rockstar uses strong female leads.  If a company is known for something and continue to sell millions of copies and knock it out of the park critically (while improving consistently) then I don't think it's the problem of the company.  They know what they do well and they focus on that.  If you buy their stuff and you're looking for something else--isn't that your fault at this point and not their fault?  Seems like it.

There are thousands of respected novelists, film makers etc that focus on a single gender.  This makes sense--as people often feel most comfortable writing about something they know about.  Red Dead has two fairly strong female characters--which seems like a huge concession considering that the west wasn't exactly the kindest place for women and the world of gaming is still primarily male dominated.

I think the problem with the tone and content of this op-ed is that it echos the types of critiques you hear more often from non-gamers who nit pick and accuse and not of seasoned gamers with a more nuanced sense of the hobby. In reality it's probably just as you said--an attempt to provoke--but that should hardly be the best reason to bridge a topic.

100media_imag0065
June 06, 2010

Well, you completely failed to mention all the times in the game where you SAVE women. I can not even begin to count the amount of times a women screamed for help, and I turned around to see some swine carrying her away or chasing her. I then pull out my trusty rifle, kill her attacker, and wait for her heartfelt thank you. It seems you only want to focus on the negative, but completely ignore the counter arguments in favor of your own views.

Not to mention one of the first main female characters you meet in the game saves your life, and is written as a strong, smart, active, and witty character. However, you failed to mention that as well. She is by far the most level headed and well written character in the game.

37893_1338936035999_1309080061_30825631_6290042_n
June 09, 2010

This point has been made by Suriel and a couple others in this comment thread, but I just wanted to toss my two cents in as well.

The reason I'm fine with Dastardly is because it's an achievement and has no canonical reference or push in the plot of RDR.

When I learned about the achievement (on Bitmob, in fact) I decided to forfeit my canonical moral high road experience in exchange of satiating my achievement whoring thirst. If there was a mission where Marston willingly put a women on the tracks (by the way, it does have to be a woman. I checked,) I would feel very differently.

The reason people (and just for Steve, when I say people, I mean Garnett Lee and others on an episode of Listen Up,) had a problem with Niko's battery of that woman was that they were given no choice in the matter. If you were playing the game a certain way, it could completely destroy the illusion of the story.

In RDR, you do have the choice. Even better, you have the choice in an insignificant situation (relative to the plot of the game anyway.) This makes it a bit of a non-issue in my mind.

I'd much rather have the discussion of why Rockstar omitted the sex with prostitutes (though to be clear, I don't find that to be an issue either. I just think it's more valid than this one.)

Don't get me wrong, I think you did a pretty decent job at crafting a point of view, which is why I voluntarily decided to write a response.

I will say, your intentional irony might need a bit of work though...

Default_picture
May 25, 2011

fuck rockstar i admit they did good on red dead but your disagreement about how red dead is and how rockstar makes their games is pointless they will never listen or acknowledge that and who really cares i mean thats how the old west worked and they made the game historacly correct and they follow the facts i mean its all true and im not taking rockstar's side i hate them if they hadn't made red dead i wouldnt care who they are or what your rambling about but thats how they put the game and thats how it will stay and thats what really happened if you ask for more and complain your a bitch you might as well complain about how much water is on earth i mean it wont change anything

Photo3-web
May 25, 2011

Cole, I didn't read past your first "line" (I say "line" because this is really one big sentence) because of all the egregious misspellings and grammatical foul-ups. I don't know if you signed up just to comment on this story (sure seems that way), but I'm guessing I'm not the only person who dismissed your comments out of hand. A spell checker is your friend.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.