To save the baby, or to shoot the cop. To thwart the evil villain, or to join with him to create a force no one can stop. In video games, such decisions are described simply as "moral choices," though they don't always necessarily play out as one might like. When asked about why this seems to be the case, Chet Faliszek of Valve replied that he believes that inherently, video games are unable to contain true moral choices.

There's never a real moral choice you're ever making in a game, because you're never going to have to live with that choice. We do things in our game to get you to behave better, to make you play together, to have this interaction in a game, but I don't think those are moral choices. I don't think games allow you to make moral choices. Games allow you to be evil, to do bad things. In Grand Theft Auto, I'm going around running people over, and guess what, I'm not doing that in real life.

So, in the context of games having moral choices, that's a weird thing to me. I don't think they have real moral choices when I think of that. They have something else, like strategic choices, choices inside their world, but to me a moral choice is something that would live outside of a game. I don't see that.

Destructoid argues that they see Chet's point as valid, that as long as there are no real-life consequences or guilt for one's actions in a video game, then there is no real issue of morality to it (and that if it ever came to that, then God help us all).

Personally, I've made decisions in a game that have bothered me for the duration, even if it wasn't something that directly affected my stats or progress (i.e. not doing something and receiving a particular reward). I think that if such effects occur, then there morality does exist to some degree in a game, even if it's only temporary, fleeting.

Perhaps "moral choices" could be best summed up as "virtual morality?"