I was actually reading Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy and playing Red Dead Redemption around the same time for a while, and aside from the obvious Western theme, I noticed some similarities. I won't list everything, but here's a half-formed comparison between the book and the game on the topic of amorality.
In Blood Meridian, McCarthy crafts a world that is free of order; moral, social, legal, you name it, but with particular emphasis on the moral order. The character of the Judge remarks at one point that "moral law is an invention of mankind." RDR, despite having a narrative, is largely open world (which, if Blood Meridian were a game, would be this) where the player can have John Marston commit both "good" and "bad" deeds - even within seconds of each other. Though the game does not directly intervene with your actions (so, in this way it's as amoral as the world of BM), you receive immediate feedback on them through the game's "Honor" system. The player nets negative honor for "bad" actions and positive honor for "good" actions. Morality is often very black and white in video games, especially when it's tied into a game mechanic; there is usually no grey area and uncertainty like that which permeates BM. Is it the need for feedback in video games that prevents this ambiguity? Or, since your position on the Honor spectrum only affects Marston's social interactions rather than anything within Marston himself (like abilities), does RDR avoid this convention, and the Honor system is only a reflection of this "invention of mankind"?
Sooo...do you guys think I'm onto something with this, or am I just clutching at straws?
No comments:
Post a Comment