In contrast to the several people who named Papers, Please as their favorite video game on the first day of class, I knew nothing about the game going into it. I thought the meaning of the game was packed entirely into the passport screening itself (which is problematic for many reasons), and wasn’t expecting to be faced with difficult moral decisions about which people to let through the border. In particular, I was struck by the woman on day 4 who begged you to get past immigration so she could be reunited with her son despite not having documentation. I didn’t hesitate to let her through, and she gave me an achievement token as a thank you. At this point, I realized that Papers, Please is as much about human morality as it is about the politics of border control.
My experience with the level described above immediately reminded me of the Mattie Brice piece, “Play and be Real about It”, that we read for Tuesday’s class. She writes that meaningful games “bring a context that allows the player to create a connection beyond the rules of the game,” suggesting that a game that challenges its own rules (11). The rules of Papers, Please are simple: you validate people’s passports, and you get monetary penalties that affect the care of your family if you disobey your instructions. But as early as day 4 of the game, I felt compelled to do exactly what Brice calls for: to break the rules and let someone through security despite having insufficient documentation, because a combination of my own morals and the added emphasis on dialogue made a specific individual stand out to me. That’s the essence of Papers, Please: it gives you strict rules in the setting of an uneasy political climate, but personal reward and morality is found in breaking those rules.
I’m particularly interested in how these rule-breaking decisions of Papers, Please are incredibly different from those in the Stanley Parable. In the Stanley Parable, you’re almost encouraged to break rules - the narrator gives you instructions, but responds comically to disobedience, priming you to disobey more. Papers, Please, at least in its early levels, is void of any encouragement to break the rules outside of achievements. In fact, you are penalized through both warnings and pay deductions for breaking the rules. In addition, the achievement descriptions on Steam don’t make it clear that some of the tokens come from showing mercy on certain people, and therefore don’t encourage rule-breaking. The two games manage to present you with a very similar binary question - to obey or disobey - but in the Stanley Parable its almost required, while in Papers, Please it’s a deliberate risk.
The presence of an authoritative figure in Papers, Please in comparison to the Stanley Parable is also striking. In the Stanley Parable, the narrator is omnipresent and constantly commenting on your choices, yet you feel justified in disobeying him. In Papers, Please, you are supervised but not omnisciently and feel like you can get away with some exceptions, yet it feels more dangerous to break the rules. I feel like this must be a consequence of the setting of the games: the empty office building in the Stanley Parable feels like it comes with no consequences, while the crowded and high-security immigration control room feels weighted and overbearing. In this way, Papers, Please picks its setting well. It enables the game not only comment on the issues with both profiling and immigration, but also creates an environment that implicitly tests your morality under high pressure.
I would be interested to hear more of what people have to say about the relationship between the Stanley Parable and Papers, Please! I was surprised the games were simultaneously reminiscent of each other and nothing alike at all, and there must be other ways to compare them!
Comments