Oscillatory design for systems-based ethical gameplay

<p dir="ltr">A spectrum of approaches exists in designing serious games for moral engagement, ranging from systems-driven to scripted methods. Systems-driven designs manage technical aspects by simulating interactions between low-level processes, while scripted scenarios craft moral dilemmas with predefined choices and narrative paths. Academically, systems-driven design is often preferred for providing players with greater agency, fostering deeper engagement. However, the game industry tends to favour scripted design for easier development and perceived narrative control.</p><p dir="ltr">This research was conducted in three stages. Stage 1 involved extracting key design concepts from existing literature to form a preliminary Moral Engagement Model (MEM). This initial model was then tested through an industry study involving a survey and semi-structured interviews with game design professionals. The insights gained—such as the industry’s preference for scripted designs due to development ease and perceived control over narrative outcomes—informed the refinement of the MEM.</p><p dir="ltr">Stage 2 consisted of two parts. First, an oscillatory framework was developed to address issues identified in systems-driven design during the literature review. This framework aimed to integrate the strengths of both systems-driven and scripted approaches. Second, two versions of a game set within a hospital cybersecurity context were developed: a scripted text adventure and a systems-driven card/resource management game. Both the refined MEM and the oscillatory framework guided the game development process, with the MEM responsible for integrating morality and the oscillatory framework directing the creation of the two distinct versions. Both games were developed using human-computer interaction (HCI) practices, iterative development, and extensive playtesting to ensure effective moral engagement.</p><p dir="ltr">In Stage 3, an empirical study with 50 participants was conducted to compare the efficacy of these two game versions in promoting moral engagement. Using a mixed-methods approach, including pre- and post-game surveys, in-game choice recording, and semi-structured interviews, the study measured how well each version engaged players with moral dilemmas.</p><p dir="ltr">Results revealed distinct differences between the two versions. The scripted text adventure resulted in higher levels of immersion and ethical reflection, with participants noting a stronger connection to the storyline and characters. However, it also constrained player autonomy, sometimes making moral outcomes feel predetermined.</p><p dir="ltr">The systems-driven game provided greater player autonomy and allowed broader exploration of moral decisions, leading to higher autonomy scores. However, the complexity of managing multiple systems sometimes resulted in cognitive overload, causing players to prioritize efficiency over ethical reflection.</p><p dir="ltr">However, the results presented an increased moral engagement with gradual increase of mechanical competency.</p><p dir="ltr">The study suggests that systems-driven design through scripted scaffolding still requires a robust game system capable of supporting moral dilemmas. For systems-driven versions, two important components emerged: firstly, a feedback system which consistently brings the player’s attention back to the morality of the gameworld; and secondly, strategic use of mechanical complexity to allow the player to ease into the game before increasing moral complexity. These findings offer concrete strategies for balancing player agency, narrative coherence, and ethical clarity in systems-driven moral games, providing a foundation for developing more nuanced and engaging ethical gameplay experiences.</p>