A clear parallel of the still-hot-button Occupy movement, the True Patriots' methods are far less peaceful and more organized. The "True Patriots," as they call themselves, rail against the corporate psychology of the United States, the preservation of large, multi-national businesses that "streamline" jobs and take "bailouts" to improve their profit margins. Or should you co-opt your squad leader and attempt to disarm the bomb, potentially leading to the deaths of many more? Rainbow 6: Patriots puts the ball in your court, the decision in your hands.įurther, the terrorists in this game-as Rainbow 6: Patriots is still a squad-based counter-terrorism title-are designed to hit close to home. When a remote detonator activates and the bomb on his chest starts counting down, you are expected to toss him off of a bridge, saving the lives of countless civilians and condemning his family. The first choice they've demonstrated involves a man with a bomb strapped to his chest, his family held hostage unless he successfully suicide bombs Times Square. This attitude is apparent from the get-go. Fast-forward to 2011 and the reveal of Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6: Patriots, with which Ubisoft is hoping to add "an unprecedented level of humanity that will make an extremely tense and immersive experience." They intend to add this "humanity" by forcing the player's hand in lose-lose situations, forcing one to pick the lesser of two evils. As always, though, with time, the industry began to call for greater complexity in these morality systems, for more wiggle-room within a moral grey area rather than static "good" and "evil" options. It's not that there weren't games that judged you on your actions before then, but I'd argue that it was the incredible critical and commercial success of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic that cemented the idea that gamers wanted to be rewarded and punished for the decisions they made in games.
Morality has become this big thing in games over the last ten years or so.