Choice and Consequence in 'Papers, Please'

Papers, Please is a game where actions do have consequences, but most of it relies on the emotional state and investment of the player.

Choices in video games are often given to us in a moment. The game slows down, highlighting that what is being presented to us right now is a choice. Most games effectively pause during these moments to give the player the chance to consider the scenario. Some, like The Walking Dead and The Wolf Among Us, up the pressure to choose by adding a timer. Still, though, the event is highlighted as a choice.

For choices to matter, they need consequences. But within the safe boundaries of a video game, creating a consequence by external means is an ineffective measure of making them matter, as the rewards in terms of the game itself often end up being considered more than the moral or narrative implications of the choice. Last week, I left off by asking if the player's own emotional state should be the measure by which we understand a game's consequences. Yet, such an attempt would have to be outside of those special moments. The player's emotional state is a continuous thing that is affected by the moment to moment play of the game. One game that was mentioned in response to the original post, in what has now become a series, that has created a real sense of emotional consequence to the player's action was Papers, Please.

Here we have a game whose entire mechanical concern is giving a pass or fail to the people coming through a border checkpoint. What the gameplay amounts to is essentially an information matching game. The people wishing to pass through, give you their papers, and the player matches the relevant information to what your little book says is permissible. And there is also a timer that represents the work day. At this level, there is no moral or ethical dilemmas to be explored. It is a purely skill based exercise. How fast and thorough can you be? Left to just this, the game becomes a high score chaser, but then Papers, Please complicates the situation. The player receives money at the end of the day for each successfully processed individual and gets docked pay for each mistake made past the first two. That money is then used at the end of each day to pay the living expenses for your family -- rent, food, heat and medicine.

Now you are working towards a goal and one that the game effectively resets each day. Satisfying the needs of your family becomes more difficult should you fail to make enough one day, leaving someone you love hungry or sick. Additionally, expenses pile up as their needs become greater. Also, the game is stacked in favor of not earning enough early on as you are still getting the hang of things. As time goes on, you'll have memorized many of the place names and international facts that you need to know through the sheer repetition of fact checking, but early on, you will end up looking everything up to make sure that all the people who pass through have paperwork that is in order. This learning curve will slow you down. As you get better at processing people, the game complicates your ability to do so, as the government will add new rules and regulations (almost arbitrarily at times) nearly every day -- something new that you have to watch out for or a new form that has to be processed or notarized.

Still at this point, the game continues to offer a skill based challenge. The fate of your family may be under threat, but it is still wholly predicated on your ability to do your job well. That fate is still a consequence of the player's work speed and attention to detail. The mechanics grind at the player and may even be demoralizing. The buzzer that sounds when the pink slip of a citation prints out to let the player know that that player has improperly processed someone can even cause irritation or dread. The moral considerations that the game presents you with are a result of the purely narrative elements that are placed upon rather rote mechanics.

Papers, Please attachs names, faces, and stories to the people passing through your little booth. Most are simply people that you process with little trouble or incident. Others upend the mechanical system in play by presenting circumstances that the rules have no consideration for. Without the right paperwork, the person could be a terrorist trying to take down the glorious country of Arstotzka or a drug smuggler or sick or a wanted criminal. If your paperwork isn't in order is the rationale for keeping people out, and all of these reasons are very real concerns. Yet, the game has no consideration for the person whose paperwork would have been in order had they made it to the front of the line the day before the rules altered. Or for the malicious character whose papers are all in order. See, the individuals that pass through your booth don't always just stand there. They talk.

One man comes through without trouble and says his wife is right behind him. Her paperwork is incomplete. The game never pauses or highlights the moment, but it has created a choice whose consequences are born from the layered systems that your actions are built around. Maybe you've been skillful enough up to this point in the day that letting her through won't be a problem at all. Suffer a warning and move on. But then a woman comes through saying the man behind her is selling her into sexual slavery and to please not let him through. If we take the woman at her word (and we have no reason not to, since her paperwork is fine), he is a criminal, but as far as immigration is concerned, he is free to pass. These are the two most often cited examples of Papers, Please confronting the player with challenges of being someone with power and authority governed by a rulebook, even someone with the meager power and authority of a border inspection officer.

Why are these people remembered over so many other individuals? Well, these two incidents are immediate and emotionally charged. The implications of them are easily understood, and they also are moments of choice that come very early in the game. The thing is, we never see, nor hear from these individuals again. In their stories, we are simply serve as an extra that caused them relief or hardship. From our point of view, they are another of the many faces that pass before us every single day. They are the first moral challenge to our position, but regardless what the player eventually chooses to do in his or her playthrough, the consequences of these moments are disconnected from the stories, but they may affect ours. We commit a moral wrong while being protected legally, or we take the demerit and the potential pay loss for the day.

The pay loss per infraction is equivalent to processing a single individual. It may not sound like much, but if you aren't perfect in your work, those infractions add up. A single one could end up being the difference between eating tonight or going hungry for both you and your family. And then there are the circumstances outside your control. More than one day in the game ends prematurely because of a suicide bomber's attack that forces the border to close early. The first of these is a suicide bomber whose paperwork was all in order. However many people you managed to process that day will account for how much you made that day. I remember one day where the checkpoint was closed after two people came through. Hope you had some savings.

These two stories are immediate in both their implications and their impact. Though, lets be clear that these more emotionally charged situations keep coming up. No pressure. Later, the game presents us with some decisions that are less about the morality of a particular circumstance, but that deal with a larger issue. About halfway through the game a body scanner is introduced, much like the ones being forced into American airports that take nude photos of the subject. This is to verify that the person in question isn't hiding contraband when their weight doesn't match their passport. Put on a few pounds, get naked for the camera. Or to verify their gender matches their passport. The rules do not recognize transgendered people or non-binaries. About two thirds of the way through the game (for a reason that I cannot remember right now), you have to reject an international reporter for a big publication because her paperwork isn't correct. She threatens you with an expose on the poor treatment that she received at the border crossing if you reject her credentials. The matter of freedom of the press and freedom of information are for the moment in your hands. This particular situation adds another moral dimension into the mix because all you've said is "Papers, please" and "You are missing such and such" and she is being an asshole about it.

Personal dimensions are also added as another consideration for your decisions. There's an old guy, Jorji Costava, that appears first on day 3 and wants to enter the country, but doesn't have a passport. You turn him away. Then the next day, he comes in with an obviously faked passport that looks like it was drawn with a crayon. Finally on day 6, he comes with a valid passport, but not the now needed entry ticket. Eventually, he will get everything in order and can be let in without a citation. He appears several times later on as a drug smuggler. At one point, he offers you a bribe to let him through, and the last time that you see him he comes just to give you some money as a thank you for your help.

You build a rapport with him over time. It's difficult not to like the guy. He is always cheerful, and no matter what you do he always has a smile on his face. He may be a drug smuggler, but you get to know him over time. You may follow the rules and send him into the building that no one ever seems to come out of for criminal offenses or you could just let the nice man through. He'll even pay you double what your fine would be.

Another person that gains a bit of a rapport with the player is Sergiu Volda, a guard that appears a little over halfway through from your home town. He's been assigned to protect your station from further attacks, and you talk to him a for few days, which is nice break from the monotony of the job. Later on, if he's still alive (his aim isn't what it used to be), he will come to ask you for a favor. The love of his life, Elisa, is coming through the crossing soon and if you could please send her through -- despite her having no documentation. You aren't being offered compensation, just a sincere thanks from a friend. And honestly, the small little animation of her walking out of the booth and then running right into Sergiu's arms was all I needed to make me feel good about my choice.

We have moved from the legal, to the ethical, now to the personal. And again nothing ever changes about the game systems themselves. You are still an operator sitting in that booth, shuffling through paperwork, trying to beat the clock. The moral choices are layered on top of the action of the game not as a system of its own, but as a complication to the systems at play. This works because dealing with these moments challenges the system, and if you accept those challenges, you are financially hurt by them. If you reject the challenges and continue on as before, that weight and dread of the grind takes on a new dimension: guilt. Papers, Please is a game where actions do have consequences, but most of it relies on the emotional state and investment of the player. While there is sometimes monetary trickery (bribes and guard corruption) or unexpected changes in stature (your wife's sister dies and her daughter comes to live with you bringing along the family savings), most of it hinges on your personal situation and whims. Maybe that couple got lucky and wont be separated because you have been flawless so far. Maybe that woman is consigned to a horrible existence because your family is sick, and you cannot afford one more citation if you want to keep the heat on.

As a point of contrast I would like to briefly mention Watch Dogs.

In Watch Dogs, you can walk around the city with your smartphone out and alongside a picture of the person that it is aimed at, your phone will tell you the occupation, the annual income, the age, and a random factoid about every person that you pass. Some of these individuals will have hackable smartphones, which will allow you to listen in on their calls, to read their text message conversations, to steal their music, and (most notably) to hack their bank account. To steal or not to steal, that is the question. The only information that you have to work with is what they look like, what they do for a living, and a random piece of information about their life. In one of the earlier demos of the game, Ubisoft showed off some of the game's sandbox systems, one of which was looking into people's lives and stealing money from their bank accounts. The target in the demo was a well off man in a suit who was a "Tobacco Executive" making 6 figures and on the side was also a "Pro-Life Lobbyist." For a good number of people this is a perfect target. Only for a few would it not be acceptable to rob them of a couple hundred dollars.

I have not met Mr. Tobacco Executive/Pro-Life Lobbyist. And while I admit stealing from an "Objectivist" was somewhat satisfying, mostly who I encounter are 65 year old, $20,000 a year pensioners with two mortgages. The problem is not that I'm being offered two classes of people (and everyone in between) and being asked if I would steal from them for my own ends. That is simply a system in the game, and the information about these people is a complication. However, it really isn't. There is no consequence of any kind for my actions. The information isn't a complication. It is trivia. I don't know these people because they aren't people. They aren't the troubled war hero Sergiu waiting for his lady love. They aren't the affable Jorji come to make the drab day a little more entertaining with his antics. They are one dimensional ciphers that will neither notice nor react to my actions. I am not under threat of punishment should I take the moral high road and remain a little less wealthy. I am not under threat of punishment should I take the low road and rob them blind regardless of who they may be.

Money in Watch Dogs is for unlocking new outfits, new guns, new cars, nothing that puts pressure on the player if they don't have these things. The protagonist isn't under pressure because he can't pay for food or for his son's medicine. Money is just a number. Part of the set up in both games is allowing the player to fill in the gaps between the little pieces of information that is being offered. In Papers, Please, we don't know people's stories beyond our little booth, but we understand the implications of them. Also, the characters react -- if only for a few moments. You get called all sorts of things for rejecting people and wasting their time in line. Meanwhile, Watch Dogs requires the player to build an entire person from three data points that ultimately are meaningless in defining who they are. Maybe Mr. Tobacco Executive/Pro-Life Lobbyist is funding road construction and medicine distribution in Africa and just happens to hold a belief that I disagree with and an occupation that historically has been filled by assholes. I don't know him, not even a little. I never heard him speak or witnessed any behavior other than him walking past me on the sidewalk.

Both games are relying on the player to make a connection to the entities that they are effecting in their digital worlds. I say entities instead of characters because while those in Papers, Please could be described as characters, the random passersby in Watch Dogs cannot. Both rely on the player to feel something regarding how they act, but while Papers, Please makes the player feel guilty, Watch Dogs only creates ambivalence. Would you feel morally bad for taking money from a floating ATM machine? Trying to integrate moral meaning through choices made during the course of play and not as a singular special moment requires the player to make that moment for themselves. They have to care, and they have to understand what it is that they are doing.

I want to emphasize the reason the moral choices in Papers, Please work (and the very thing that I've been trying to convey over three posts now) is not because they are disconnected from external reward systems or actively balk at a simple black and white binary, but because they offer dimension and ambiguity to the process of choosing. The circumstances matter with Auntie Greenleaf and her magical tree in The Wolf Among Us because the specifics offer multiple facets to your options. The circumstances in games like inFamous and Fable fail to offer moral choices because there are no specifics to consider at all. And the circumstances matter in Papers, Please because what was supposed to be simple has been crushed by complexity and too many goods are weighed against one another. Morality is not black and white, good and evil, order and chaos, with us or against us. Morality is everyone is right about something and what you feel is more important. Complexity matters.

From genre-busting electronic music to new highs in the ever-evolving R&B scene, from hip-hop and Americana to rock and pop, 2017's music scenes bestowed an embarrassment of riches upon us.

60. White Hills - Stop Mute Defeat (Thrill Jockey)

White Hills epic '80s callback Stop Mute Defeat is a determined march against encroaching imperial darkness; their eyes boring into the shadows for danger but they're aware that blinding lights can kill and distort truth. From "Overlord's" dark stomp casting nets for totalitarian warnings to "Attack Mode", which roars in with the tribal certainty that we can survive the madness if we keep our wits, the record is a true and timely win for Dave W. and Ego Sensation. Martin Bisi and the poster band's mysterious but relevant cool make a great team and deliver one of their least psych yet most mind destroying records to date. Much like the first time you heard Joy Division or early Pigface, for example, you'll experience being startled at first before becoming addicted to the band's unique microcosm of dystopia that is simultaneously corrupting and seducing your ears. - Morgan Y. Evans

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

If The Prince of Nothingwood will popularly be remembered for celebrating the creative spirit of its star Salim Shaheen, it is equally an important communication on Afghanistan, it's culture and its people.

"Now I am just more tired and poor. So no, I haven't changed. I'm just older and more tired," says French radio journalist and documentarian Sonia Kronlund, as she looks back on the experience of making The Prince of Nothingwood (2017).

Joining Salim Shaheen, the most popular and prolific actor-director-producer in Afghanistan on his 111th no budget feature, Kronlund documents the week-long shoot and the events surrounding it. She crafts an insight into a larger than life persona, yet amidst the comedy and theatricality of Shaheen and his troupe of collaborators, she uncovers the heavier tones of the everyday reality of war and patriarchal oppression. If The Prince of Nothingwood will popularly be remembered for celebrating the creative spirit of its star, it is equally an important communication on Afghanistan, it's culture and its people. Alongside the awareness of the country cultivated by mainstream media news outlets, Kronlund's film offers an insight into a country that can humanise the prejudice and xenophobic tendencies of a western perspective towards Afghanistan.

In October of this year at the UK premiere at the BFI London Film Festival, Kronlund spoke with PopMatters about being driven by questions rather than inspiration. She also reflected on the subjective nature of documentary filmmaking, the necessary artistic compromises of filming in Afghanistan, and feeling a satisfaction with imperfections.

Why filmmaking as a means of expression? Was there an inspirational or defining moment?

Not really, no. I have always done documentary. I used to write scripts and TV series but I only make documentaries myself for radio and television. For this story, I figured out after a while that it deserved a bigger ambition and a bigger screen and that's why I don't very much believe in inspiration. To be honest, I made this film because I had to do something. I didn't have a big project where I thought: I want to make this. I went there and I found a little money and at the end the ambition and the inspiration came along the way. But there was not an urgent necessity to make this film. It fits with a lot of things that I'm interested in, like popular culture -- What does art stand for and why do we go to the cinema? What is the purpose? This is a question I'm interested in, but inspiration, not so much.

Has The Prince of Nothingwood provided you with the answers to those questions?

It has, and I hope it helps people to think about this question. It tells you that there is an urgent need to make images, to make films, even during war,and even if you don't have the money. And even if the films are not very good, they will find somebody who will like them. So something is going to happen, and I think that's very touching. I don't like Shaheen's films, I hardly watched them -- I paid somebody to watch them. But I'm very moved by all these people that do like his films, and it makes you think about the value of art and the purpose of why we make cinema. I used to study aesthetics in London, so it was one of the questions I had and while the film is lighter than this, that's what was in mind.

The film uses Shaheen as a doorway, beginning as a story about one man which becomes a story about Afghanistan, its people and culture.

Yeah, but it's not so much about Afghanistan and it's not my purpose is to say things about the country. There's one guy like him in Iran who makes cowboy movies in the Iranian desert and there's also a guy like that in Tunisia. I mean you have this person with an urgent need to film whatever they have under their hand and since it's war, then it tells you something about the war. But it's not so much interested in him.

There was a lot of editing, 148 hours that you haven't seen [laughs]. Making a documentary is really telling a story and I don't have any idea of objectivity -- it is my point of view on Shaheen. Some people say to me that they would like to show his films, that they really want to see his films, and I say: "You don't see how much I have edited. I show you the very nice parts of his films." People think he's a great filmmaker and that's the story I wanted to tell -- but I could have told another story.

To my mind, objectivity is a human construct, a falsity that does not exist.

Except mathematics maybe, and sometimes physics.

The purist opinion of documentary as objective is therein built on a faulty premise. From the subjective choices of the filmmakers that bleed into the film to the subjectivity of the subjects, it's not purely objective. Hence, it calls into question the traditional dividing line of the objectivity of documentary and the subjectivity of narrative fiction.

Totally! It's the editing, and why you chose this guy, how you film it and what you show, or what you don't show. It's not only subjectivity, it's storytelling. Not many people ask me about this, they take it for granted that it's the real Shaheen. But I'm not lying, I'm not saying things that aren't true, but I am telling a story, a fictional story out of what I filmed. I took scenes that happened one day and I put them with another story that happened three months later and that's why we had seven months of editing with three editors. So it was a lot of work.

One of the striking aspects of the film are the light and comedic moments offset by a darker and heavier sensibility, which include moments when, for example, Shaheen talks about arranged marriages.

We made 70rough cuts and there was one version we tested and you couldn't believe you were in Afghanistan. People would say: "Oh this is too funny. You don't see Afghanistan, it's just a bunch of crazy guys." I then said: "Let's put in a little more darkness." You then have to strike a balance and to me, if it's not perfect, I'm happy.

Shooting the film in a dangerous and volatile part of the world, was the approach that once you had enough footage you then looked to shaping the film in the edit?

It's not when you feel you have enough, it's finding a balance between security and artistic concerns. That's it. You have a plan and you have an agenda. There are things you want to do, but it has to be balanced with security concerns. The real story I was going to tell about Shaheen I found in the editing room and in the end, I only kept five days of the shoot. The whole film takes place in Bamyan (Province), nothing in Kabul, although I had weeks and weeks of footage there that I had to take away.

There's a moment when Shaheen asks if you are scared, which sees him verbalise our silent recognition of your boldness and courage to bring this story to the screen.

It's very difficult and it's not like you are walking in the street and there's a bomb. This is not what's difficult. The difficulty is to cope with your fear and to have rules and to follow or to not follow those rules. There are many foreign people that never go out at all in Kabul -- it is forbidden. You have British diplomats who do not even drive their car from the airport to the embassy -- they will take an helicopter that costs £2,000 each way. Then you have foreign people who walk in the street without a scarf -- these girls get kidnapped.

In between these you have Shaheen, who is telling me all the time that I'm too scared, because it's a man's value to be brave and he's a brave guy, there's no question about that. He was in an attack two weeks ago. There was a bomb in a Shia Mosque and he helped to carry out the bodies. So there's no kidding about the fact that he's a brave guy and he has to be because he's been fighting to make his films. But you are in the middle of this and I'm not a brave person at all and I don't think being brave is a very important question. It is, but I'm not brave, I'm very scared and so in the middle of all of this stress it's enough just to manage to not go crazy, or to not drink too much [laughs].

Salim Shaheen and Sonia Kronlund (courtesy of Pyramide Films)

Related Articles Around the Web

People aren't cheering Supergirl on here. They're not thanking her for her heroism, or even stopping to take a selfie.

It's rare for any hero who isn't Superman to gain the kind of credibility that grants them the implicitly, unflinching trust of the public. In fact, even Superman struggles to maintain that credibility and he's Superman. If the ultimate paragon of heroes struggles with maintaining the trust of the public, then what hope does any hero have?

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

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