Just a thought

In an article I recently read about realism in videogames, the author brought up the point that a simulation does not only refer to how an object in a virtual world is represented, but in its behavior as well. He gave the example of a car engine not just looking like a car engine in a virtual world, but also behaving like an engine. Herbert Zettl, in “Back to Plato’s Cave: Virtual Reality,” states that the goal of computer graphics is “not to simulate the real environment, but the lens-generated one” (107). So I guess, in a sense, it simulates the behavior of a wide angle lens or a telephoto lens, as he explains, but what about things that are more than just the physical appearance? How would virtual reality be viewed if someone threw an object and the virtual environment followed the laws of physics? Many videogames already incorporate physics into their game engines to make their games more realistic. What I’m wondering is how realistic does virtual reality have to be to be considered realistic enough for the possibility of someone getting too caught up in it and then being unable to distinguish the real from the virtual world. Would it be worth following the laws of physics or any natural laws in a virtual reality world. Or how much importance should be put into creating a world that simulates more than just the aesthetic aspects. Though I suppose it is more important to put an emphasis on the ethical issues that could arise in the “perfect existential world” (108) since it leaves so much freedom and room for experimentation. A bunch of computer games whose graphic quality isn’t as realistic as some are now already have been presenting audiences with moral and ethical decisions. I guess it’s only natural for people to worry about this since technology is making virtual reality more realistic every day.

Grand Theft Auto in Plato's Cave

Herbert Zettl's and Charles Larson's chapters in Communication and Cyberspace focus on virtual reality and how it can effect the human understanding and even human behavior. Zettl states, "...virtual reality provides a perfect existential world, in which we can exercise free will and make any number of decisions, however extreme, without ... the underlying anxiety of accountability." [Pg. 108]. While things like Second Life or simming have not moved beyond very basic levels, Zettl's vision of "...operating in an amoral environment...whose virtual character liberates us from feeling any existential angst when making choice" [108] can be seen in video games like Grand Theft Auto, Bully or World of Warcraft. In these games, players are able to choose missions to take on which can run the gamut from moral ambiguous to downright evil and dirty. Many a researcher has tried to argue that these immersive games with questionable moral ground have an effect on children and violence, though most research into the subject matter has not revealed a strong argument either way. In fact one could if the game invites anyone to act out in the way in which they choose.

Larson points out that "In objective reality, the agent must choose to act and follow or not to follow the path implicit in the scene. In virtual reality, the interactent must decide to look left, look right..." [119, sic]. In a virtual world you decide on a path and take it, it frees you from a moral sense of guilt/angst over, say, taking out a mob hit man or blowing up a car in a video game. The player is not choosing the past for them self, they are just deciding on what makes the game more interesting. To Larson, VR is influenced by the setting: A mob game will make you think like a mafia don and act thusly, a game about solving puzzles will make you think analytically, etc.

Larson and Zettl illustrate how virtual reality is a great tool for training, and even gameplay, but that there are still moral issues that needed to settled. If cyberspace remains an amoral place of escapism, how will that, in turn, change us?