Interesting read, but I think it's is not covering 2 major things:

- Power imbalances: How games pretending to have 'gray morality' suggest all characters has the same level of agency
- Ambiguity: How players access information about the characters or not

1/ https://twitter.com/Polygon/status/1290338042822242304

I think characters with dubious morals is great, interesting, has the potential for inner conflicts and external conflicts. What's disturbing in games in the 'gray zone' is that most of times, both sides (good and bad) have the same level of agency: it flattens everything

2/

It implies that in a system no matter which thing you do (good or bad) you'll be rewarded or punished the same way. With games trying to have depth in their storyline and world, this is wrong -- as a shorthand I'd say this is a privileged perspective on things

3/

I think it is critical to have black, white and grey characters -- the more variety on perspectives, the better, but the game systems should be fully aware on who gets the power in the end or not, who has real agency, and think deeply about what it means on a symbolic level

4/

Ambiguity: It's about how players (and characters) can access narrative content and when, within a game system that is almost never designed as being a 'moral system'.

e.g. You can be a mass murderer, but cutscenes will only highlight the emotional toll of specific deaths

5/

Games in the grey zone cherry pick which is 'emotionally relevant' and which is not 'emotionally relevant' and that's what feels arbitrary and disconcerting, compared to games with a more 'black-and-white' perspective (there's less clash between the game system VS characters)

6/

So to me the issue is less about 'black-and-white' vs 'grey', more like: It's a grey story within a game system/world that is fundamentally black-and-white without knowing, and where 'white' equals... power.

End/

(so many typos, darnit)