Evil Can Be Cute: The Morality of 'Warp'

I acted like a monster, and the world treated me as one. Why was this surprising?

This post contains spoilers for each of the three endings to Warp.

Warp is a cute, challenging, and fun puzzle game. You play as a little alien who can warp a short distance. With this power, you must rescue a friend and escape the science facility where you’re being held captive and experimented on. You’re a weak creature -- get shot once and it’s game over -- so it helps that you can warp into people or barrels to hide… and then you can explode out of them with such a show of blood and gore that it would make the chestburster from Alien jealous.

My fist time through the game, I loved the explosion of gore. It was cathartic. The opening cut scene lets you experience the horror of live experimentation first hand; you feel the alien’s pain. Later on we see similar experiments performed on other aliens, scientists slaughter them just to see how they die, and then we’re forced to fight a fellow alien that’s been tortured to the point of insanity. These people, both the guards and the scientists, are not innocent bystanders in some large scale conspiracy. They’re out to kill you and your kind. So I killed them first. Over and over and over again.

Then I beat the game. The alien stepped out from a cave onto the rocky shore of an ocean. It was raining, which turned the alien grey and took away his warp ability. But this was okay, since he’s already escaped. After all, he shouldn’t need it. Then a laser sight appeared, and he was shot in the head. That’s what I get for beating the game.

It’s a sad, frustrating ending. Going through all that work to escape, to get proper revenge, only to have the adorable alien cruelly shot down in his moment of accomplishment. I was angry that this is how the game ended, but as I watched credits and reflected on the ending, it began to make sense. I wasn’t a good person, or rather, a good alien. I was a sadistic psychopathic being that literally killed every living thing in my path. I didn’t have to kill every living thing in my path, but I did. I was a monstrous force upon this virtual world, and so the virtual world treated me as such. Why was this surprising?

Games have a habit of always justifying players’ awful actions. Every Elder Scrolls game starts out by featuring us as a prisoner so that we feel less guilty about being bad. We play criminals so often it’s cliché. We fight for revenge more often than honor. We’re always war. And within these various forms of justification is the unspoken understanding that other characters -- hell, the whole virtual world -- will accept your awful actions without judgment.

Warp feels especially jarring after playing Skyrim, a game full of evil choices but with no negative consequences. I slaughter a city, then bribe one guard, and suddenly no one else cares about my wanton murder. I become the leader of the Thieves Guild, a group of people who pride themselves on their avoidance of violence, while at the same time being the leader of the Dark Brotherhood of assassins. The more powerful that I become, the more evil that I become because I know that I can get away with it. I can kill a city guard with a flick of my finger. I am a monster, but everybody loves me.

Shepard can be a total ass in Mass Effect, but everyone still loves her. The same goes for the characters in Dragon Age, Fable, and nearly every other game that has “evil” choices. The only other game in recent memory that gave players a bad ending (or a bad anything for that matter) in response to their bad behavior was Bioshock. I may be forgetting something, but I honestly can’t think of a game like that from the past few years.

Games are so dedicated to pandering to the player that the world rarely reacts realistically to the monstrous things that we do -- until Warp, that is. For a game with such a cute art style, it presents a deceptively complex world. The scientists may be harmless, but they’re not innocent. How do you judge someone like that when their life is in your hands?

This is a game that acknowledges the fine line between anti-hero and villain: If I kill only soldiers that shoot at me, I get an ending that portrays me as a badass killer, but not a monster. In that ending, the soldiers force my hand and I kill to survive. Heroic? Not really. Villainous? No. However, if I kill everyone regardless of their threat level, I get an ending that treats me as the monster that I am. A soldier takes advantage of my momentary vulnerability and kills me. If I don’t kill anyone, the alien escapes to a sunny green outcropping and does a happy dance that reinforces its image as a non-violent creature. Each ending makes sense considering my actions.

Warp acknowledges my actions in a way that few other games seem to do, despite the abundance of choices those other games present. It makes me wonder, does my unique path through a story really matter if my ending is ultimately the same as yours? Which is more important in making a story feel tailored to my experience: lots of choices throughout or a few different endings?

After playing Warp and Skyrim back-to-back, I’m leaning towards the latter.

The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.