The idea of following authority is ingrained into us when we are very young. Do as your parents tell you, do as your teachers tell you, do as your boss tells you, they know best. But do they really? As the generations grow older there has been an undeniable discontent with following authority, as it has become clear that this authority very rarely has the common person’s best interest in mind. Enter The Stanley Parable, a game about authority. It would be easy to reduce The Stanley Parable’s gameplay to dreaded phrase, “walking simulator,” but the game is so much more than that. The game is a series of choices given to the player by the narrator and choosing to disobey can result in radically different outcomes, some far better or more interesting than if they have just done what the narrator, the authority figure that is, tells them to do. The game opens up a question, and in doing so, it creates a play environment that represents “one or more questions about the aspect of human life” (Flanagan 6).
Is it always correct to follow authority? Is it always correct to disobey authority? The answer is not simple, as it depends on the situation. It is up to the individual to use the context of the situation and their own morals to hopefully make the right call. In the Stanley Parable, a simple good ending can be achieved by just doing what the narrator says, but that leaves mountains of additional context and answers hidden under the games code that the player will never see. Ultimately, the game does not ask a question on rather following authority is right or wrong, but the very nature of what it means to follow authority. To give up your autonomy because someone may know better, they may be benevolent and guide you down a better path, or they may betray the trust you give them by following their orders.
Flanagan, M. (2013). Critical play: Radical game design. In Critical play: Radical game design (p. 6). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
