Stellar Jockeys has a problem with moralizing. The studio behind the mech-and-sim hit Brigador recently launched its sequel, Brigador Killers, into early access, and the brothers behind it — Hugh and Jack Monahan — are not shy about it. They want their game to teach you things without ever telling you to feel bad.
Their argument, simply stated, is that the ’90s PC classics did ethics better than modern games do. Instead of lectures, those games let systems speak for themselves. XCOM sold alien corpses to the black market to fund its war. Crusader: No Remorse let a civilian press an alarm button and then get shot for it. Both taught lessons without a single character saying, “Violence is bad.”
The Case Against Moralizing
Hugh Monahan is blunt about the hypocrisy of violence-themed games that preach against it. He points to Spec Ops: The Line as a prime example. That game’s famous white phosphorus scene is designed to make the player feel complicit, but Hugh sees it as a flaw.
“I think Spec Ops: The Line is a great game,” he says, “but the particular beat of the famous/infamous white phosphorus scene is saying, ‘Look what you did,’ and I go, ‘I didn’t do that, you, you did that!’ I’m just here. I’m just playing the role that you gave me. Don’t tell me I’m feeling bad.”
He also notes that the scene is delivered as a lecture, not a system. “There’s never a cutscene where a character goes, ‘I can’t believe you’re selling these alien corpses,’ and you go, ‘We got to keep the lights on.'”
Hugh’s solution is to avoid moralizing altogether. “I don’t think moralizing makes for a good story, and I don’t think it makes for good games,” he says. “I think interesting systems tell you—and possibly teach you—a lot more than a story is going to.”
The XCOM Example
The XCOM example is the clearest illustration of what he means. In the original game, soldiers sold alien corpses under the table to the black market. The game never explained it in dialogue. It just presented the mechanic, and players had to decide whether to sell or not.
Hugh describes the moment of realization. “Ticking buttons in a spreadsheet, I go, ‘Holy shit, this is kind of crazy.’ But that’s a natural consequence of working through the mechanics.”
The lesson, he says, comes from doing, not hearing. “We tried to deal with these sorts of questions. Yes, there are characters, and there is a story, but I don’t think moralizing makes for a good story, and I don’t think it makes for good games.”
Crusader’s Alarm Button
Jack Monahan tells a personal story about Crusader: No Remorse, a game that heavily inspired Brigador Killers. He played it as a kid, loving the Boba Fett-like protagonist and the shooting. Then he played it again at age 13 or 14, and the game changed him.
“I played through it for the first time, and I was too young to really understand any of the political or thematic elements of the game. It was just cool, Boba Fett-looking guy running around, shooting people, very satisfying. I was about 13 or 14 when I went to play it again, and this time I was just old enough that I’m actually thinking about the actions and everything.”
He installed the game and started the first mission. There was a security guard, who he took out. Then there was a civilian who put his hands up and said, “You’re not supposed to be here.”
Jack chose not to shoot the civilian. The civilian then pressed the alarm button. Jack reacted immediately and killed him anyway. “I went, ‘You son of a…’ And I turned, whipped around, and, like, entirely involuntarily took him out, and then I just went, ‘What have I done?'”
He quit the game and uninstalled it. He could not touch it for another couple of years. The moment hit him at the right age, when he could process the weight of his own actions.
Systems Teach Better Than Stories
The Monahans are not against storytelling. They are against the kind of storytelling that tells you what to think. Their games include characters and narratives, but the systems are meant to do the work of meaning.
Jack points to the lineage of games that added civilians to the mix. Brigador itself drew on Crusader and Syndicate, but the Monahans chose to let the player deal with the consequences without commentary. “The only metric is that you gain $50 for every civilian kill, and we had people reporting it as a bug.”
That silence is the point. The game does not judge you for killing a civilian. It just gives you money. The player has to decide whether that trade is worth it.
Spec Ops, Crowds and Guilt
The Spec Ops: The Line example is instructive here too. The game is heavy-handed, but it contains a moment where the player can choose to act with restraint. When surrounded by an angry crowd, the game encourages the player to fire. But the crowd scatters when the player fires over their heads or at their feet.
Hugh agrees with Jack’s point about the white phosphorus scene. “I pretty much agree with Jack’s point to a T: I hate being railroaded then made to feel bad for it.” But he also notes that the guilt over that particular moment is what sticks with him from the game.
The difference is information. The white phosphorus scene is a lecture. The crowd-scattering moment is a choice hidden in the mechanics. The latter feels worse because the player had an option and ignored it.
What Brigador Killers Does Differently
Brigador Killers is an ambitious follow-up that adds on-foot gameplay to the mech combat of the original. The challenge of that addition is central to their approach. They are not trying to please everyone.
The demo showed a bracing, laconic sense of ethical ambiguity. The full game will extend that. The question is whether the systems can carry the weight of the story without the story leaning on them.
The Broader Case
Hugh’s argument extends beyond Brigador Killers. He is making a case for a whole generation of games. The ’90s PC classics, he believes, taught ethics through systems, not through dialogue. The player saw the consequences and drew conclusions.
That approach has fallen out of favor. Modern games tend to spell things out. They want the player to feel the weight of their actions, so they make sure the player understands the stakes. The irony is that spelling things out often makes the lesson weaker.
Hugh’s point is that the player should have to work for the lesson. The game should present the mechanics and let the player connect the dots. The moment of realization is more powerful when it comes from doing, not from being told.
Key Facts Box
- Brigador Killers is in early access, developed by Stellar Jockeys
- Lead developers: Hugh and Jack Monahan, brother duo
- Inspired by ’90s PC classics, including XCOM and Crusader: No Remorse
- Spec Ops: The Line cited as an example of moralizing storytelling
- Crusader: No Remorse mentioned as a major inspiration for Killers
The Monahans are betting that systems can do the work of stories. Whether Brigador Killers proves their point remains an open question. But the game already shows a bracing, laconic sense of ethical ambiguity. That is a promising start.
Source material: “Brigador devs: 'The '90s PC classics often taught really special things, but not because the story said, Wow, violence is bad!',” PC Gamer.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.