If you want a masterclass in moral game design, then you can't do better than Brenda Romero's game Trains[1]. You are unlikely ever to get to play this game (i

If you want a masterclass in moral game design, then you can't do better than Brenda Romero's game Trains[1]. You are unlikely ever to get to play this game (it is more art piece, than game), but there are spoilers below and in the linked article which render the game unplayable. In short, this board game has you managing the logistics of moving a large number of people by train. As you play the game you slowly realise that the destination is Aushwitz, and each meeple represents 100,000 Jews. The entire game is built around this moment of realisation that you have been complicit in genocide. Another example, which I've never been able to rediscover (and would be grateful to anyone who remembers is) was a small videogame which simply presented you as a firing squad facing a condemned person. You knew nothing about what they had done, or if they were guilty. You were simply given the option to execute them or not. If you executed them, then this was written to the windows registry and would even persist afteer reinstalling. The choice you made was permenant, rather than being ultimately inconsequential as in every other video game. Another great example, was Moiria[2], was a very basic looking 3D game where you started in a village and explored a mine, chatting to people as you went. As you went into the mine to find a missing person, you would encounter a stranger leaving covered in blood. After a conversation with them, you would have a choice to let them go, or kill them in retribution for the assumed murder of the missing person. At the bottom of the mine you would find the missing person having attempted suicide and beyond rescuing. Upon leaving the mine you would encounter someone else entering the mine to find the missing person, adn would be prompted to give your answers to their questions to explain yourself. At this point you would realise that the answers you saw on your way in were the answers of the person who played before you, and your answers would be presented to the next player. You had misjudged, not a computer character, or a prewritten plot, but your own actions. Unfortunately, as with anything on the internet with a text box, it quickly succumbed to griefing and was taken offline. But the moment of realisation was extremely powerful. What I'm getting at is that you're wrong to think about how to tack moral consequence onto an existing game loop that denies it. If you sell a commercial game on a game loop - shoot more people, conquer more land, whatever. Then anything tacked on that says "You shouldnt be doing the thing you paid £50 to spend many hours enjoying" is going to fall flat as you describe. Even CoD4 mentioned in other comments didn't judge you for shooting ~people~ it judged you for shooting these particular people. You still got to enjoy the shooting you'd paid your money for in every other level. Moral ambiguity really needs to be baked into the core of the game and the associated game-loops, reward systems and framing. [1] https://venturebeat.com/2013/05/11/brenda-romero-train-board-game-holocaust/ https://venturebeat.com/2013/05/11/brenda-romero-train-board... [2] https://www.pcgamer.com/a-brief-history-of-moirai-one-of-pcs-most-disturbing-games/ https://www.pcgamer.com/a-brief-history-of-moirai-one-of-pcs...