In The Stanley Parable, developed by Galactic Cafe, you play as the main character, Stanley. Stanley is a worker at a classic 9-5 corporation who sits on his computer receiving and carrying out orders. One day, he finds that nobody has showed up at work, and as the player you engage with the environment to figure out why. Interestingly, however, is that you can hear the voice of the game narrator commentating over the actions you take. The commentating of this first-person exploration game creates an interesting dynamic in that it prompts you to engage in a form of ethical thinking that is always progressing forward.
In “Defining Ethical Games” in Beyond Choices by Miguel Sicart, Sicart introduces the idea of “ethical games” which force players to think about choice, consequence, and personal ideas of morality. Ethical games are empathic, intimate, and personal experiences that cause players to think about the game beyond just the mechanics. An interesting point Sicart makes is that: “The problem is that games are often designed to allow players to save a particular state, test a solution to a problem and, in case of unsatisfactory outcome, reload the previous state” (Sicart, 108). By allowing a game to have choices with multiple save points, it allows the player to step out of the depth of ethical games because it detaches them from the consequences of their choices, thus giving the player an escape from, difficult to grapple with, concepts.
In The Stanley Parable, the narrator’s commentary plays a large role in preventing this save/reload phenomenon that Sicart describes. The narrator’s comments provide a guidance as to what you do in the game playing Stanley. For example, the commentator may make a statement like: “Stanley went left to the staff meeting room” when presented with two doors to go through, one on the left and one on the right. It is moments like this where the player then chooses where Stanley goes. However, depending on the choice you make, the commentator will have a different dialogue with you and your actions. This changing dialogue is significant because it prevents the player from having the desire to stop the game and start over in order to get a “more desirable” outcome. The way the commentator changes his dialogue based on your choices makes you want to engage in your relationship with the commentator by furthering through the game instead of reloading a certain point. By engaging in the relationship with the commentator you begin to think deeply about the game in terms of manipulation, control, and free will. Thus, the player engages in this game as the ethical game it was made to be. The dialogue from the narrator in The Stanley Parable results in a relationship with the narrator that pushes the player to further grapple with the ethical concepts of the game, instead of engage in the save/reload mentality that Sicart describes.
I love the observation about how the player will detach themselves from the consequences of their decisions when playing a game. I can attest to this from experience, where I would choose to sacrifice myself or another player among other things, just to learn what happens, knowing that I will be able to start again. This really causes many players to choose unethical paths when they are aware from the start that they will just start again from the beginning.
I thought that the idea of "progress" within the game was especially interesting. The Stanley Parable is definitely a game with great replay value, not only because of the different endings and achievements, but also because of our accumulated knowledge. After playing the game once, you have a newfound understanding for the significance of Stanley's obedient character and of the nature of the game itself. As your experience accumulates, you begin to feel more independent and less obedient, which leads to different choices and different outcomes. But is this really independence, or are we just wandering around in our newfound freedom like Stanley?