Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=1828https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6353This episode is pretty much what brings at least one death to a head. It always breaks my heart that Ichabod callously gets rid of Lilly's body, depriving Holly of the ability to fully mourn her sister's death. It shows how little this world values its non-human citizens, or any citizen that wouldn't normally pass for human. It's the one time where I was more inclined to lean towards the more tender side to Bigby's personality due to his family history. He didn't really get closure for his mother's death, so I think that he would feel bad that Holly didn't really get the same for her sister. Of course, no matter how delicately I attempted to handle things, the funeral still turns into a shit show because of the Tweedle brothers. I think that the confrontation with Aunty Greenleaf is an important point to show Bigby's character malleability as well. He could go really strict, or he could go and force her to obey the law through employing her. I think he would go with the latter because it would help society in the long run. It's very utilitarian, rather than just cracking down on her and loosing the tree. She is also kind of an outcast like Bigby, so he may have an extra bit of sympathy considering that she's entirely alone too. I love the sequence with Bloody Mary at the end of the episode. It seems to be a very Telltale thing to produce games with strong and interesting women. She is a lacky of the Crooked Man and she is rather nasty herself. She isn't quite like the rest in that she is a demon that was manufactured by newer generations. Her entire purpose is to maim and kill without remorse and she does so with a strange efficiency. She takes Bigby down with little effort when two mercenary men couldn't do it together. She, however, isn't without scruples. She checks with her boss to see if Icabod is allowed to be exchanged for Bigby's life. This is a defining moment for Snow too. She loves Bigby enough to undermine her own moral principles in order to protect him.Wed, 05 Apr 2017 16:55:48 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6353&iddiary=11108https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6353I forgot what a trip episode 2 is. This is where we really get into the meat of how Fabletown works as a society. We have the fantastical racism between the "ugly" non-human people and the humans. We also see how little remorse humans in power have for the non-human people. We have the introduction to the Pudding n Pie. Georgie is a horrid individual that apparently keeps his employees under his thumb. It was really tempting to trash his place, but I'm not sure if that is entirely within Bigby's character, so I elected not to. This is partially due to some sort of spell/curse that they are under that keeps them from talking about their work. Also it is discovered that Icabod is like the epitome of the creep in power. He is so desperate that he had a prostitute glamour herself to look like Snow White. It makes me feel nauseous because of what all goes into creating a duplicate of another person. He had to acquire her hair and a photo, or a personal possession. He had to steal those things from her. This glamour was completely unethical to make because it created a situation where Snow had no autonomy over her own body. This goes against Kantian and Social Contract Theory. It also goes against simple common decency because this glamour is supposed to be a near perfect copy.Tue, 04 Apr 2017 16:46:53 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6353&iddiary=11090https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6353I've played The Wolf Among Us once before, but I thought I'd try it again from a different angle. In this game, players take on the role of an established comic character named Bigby Wolf. He is the star of the Fables series and comes with his own set of historical baggage and cannon traits. He, like Geralt, has a sort of "right" and "wrong" way to play him according to cannon. In a previous play through I elected to play him in a non-cannon fashion by being kind to everyone. I'm going to see if I am capable of playing Bigby by his cannon "rule of the law" personality. This title is good at giving the players compelling reasons to take a kinder approach to characters breaking trivial rules. Most of the rule breakers are familiar faces, well, depending on your age. And most are destitute. The first couple of difficult choices I had to make in my cannon Bigby play involved pressing Collin (one of the three little pigs) and Toad (from The Wind in the Willows) to get glamoured. The law of Fabletown states that any non-human in the town has to have a glamour to pass as human. This has to be done for the sake of preserving the identities and the autonomy of the Fable denizens in the real world. Both tend to guilt trip Bigby for forcing them to abide by the rules because of his former reputation as the Big Bad Wolf. I, however, can't do much about that because this is within Bigby's character and I need to stick to it despite the negative outcome of making Toad and Collin stick to the rules. The next difficult decision for me was choosing between Toad's call for help and the Magic Mirror's reveal of Prince Lawrence. Bigby has to go with Lawrence for the sake of the investigation, even if he is miserable and suicidal. Toad and his son end up on the back-burner and getting roughed up by one of the Tweedle twins. It sucks because Lawrence, in the moment, is more significant to the investigation into Faith's death. The last difficult choice was to rip Gren's arm off during the bar fight. Due to Bigby's nature, I can't see him not taking the arm off. In the comics he maims and kills a handful of characters for various reasons. It's kind of sickening that Bigby is this way, but it is also partially my call due to my own interpretation of his cannon character traits. Snow White is pretty much my only reprieve from the lawful/mean side of Bigby. She is his cannon love interest and he tends to be a bit softer in his interactions with her. Though there are times when he is a downright creep. There's an instance where he asks the Magic Mirror to spy on her, in a way, when she is in the same room as him. It kind of rubs the the wrong way similar to that of Edward Cullen or Jacob from the Twilight series. It is an action that is overly interested/possessive of Snow. Unfortunately this is probably somewhat within Bigby's character since he is capable of knowing her location and moods just by her smell. He would check up on her during this stressful situation, though the means is kind of dubious. I don't remember if there's anything similar, but I suppose I'll document those instances when I find them.Mon, 03 Apr 2017 21:55:08 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6353&iddiary=11085https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6310Finally we get to a little more world exploring. I'm starting to feel some world tension via politics. It seems as though this world is going through war. We also get to know how old Witchers get to be. Oh, and we get to see how Geralt employs his powers. The player can extract answers from people using Witcher powers. It's kind of disturbing that we can do the Witcher version of the Jedi Mind Trick, but it seems rather useful rather than starting bar fights or getting info through more dubious means. It's interesting how populated this world is with all sorts of different characters. My personal favorite so far has been the guy that teaches Geralt how to play Gwent. I can see why they're making a stand alone game of it. This silly strategy card game is addicting. I also enjoy the quest system in this game. Unlike most games of similar caliber, there's a certain amount of story built into side quests. There's one where Geralt has to find an arsonist that burnt down a blacksmith shop that's run by a dwarf. In a way, it kind of reflects real world issues. The fact that there's an element of fantastical prejudice and stupidity makes me believe in this place more. Most fantastical stories tend to veil these sorts of elements to create some sort of perfect escapist bubbles. The Witcher spares the audience no jabs at society. It's even realistic that Geralt could take a bribe and screw over the guy that got his shop burnt down. I really can't do that though, my moral compass tells me that the arsonist needs his comeuppance. (This entry has been edited1 time. It was last edited on Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:29:53.)Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:16:41 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6310&iddiary=11013https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6310I spent most of my time exploring around. The environment is rich and has a limitless feel to it. This creates a level of immersion that I haven't really felt with other games that have this open world gimmick. Geralt is fantastically sarcastic with a dry sense of humor. I'm starting to think that the people at the beginning have never really met a witcher. The running joke about the unicorn will leave my brain in a bizarre condition of scarred yet amused for the duration of my natural life. (This entry has been edited1 time. It was last edited on Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:24:10.)Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:58:37 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6310&iddiary=11000https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6226Episode 4 forces the player to finally face up to the consequences of their actions and boy oh boy does it sting. After catching up with alt!Chloe, Max/the player is given a very serious decision to make. Chloe asks for us to participate in assisted suicide to both relieve her own pain and to release her parents from the financial burden of caring for her. To be honest, I had a hard time with this because there are several layers to it. My first thing is, on the surface Chloe, of sound mind, is asking the player to kill her via drug overdose. Now the idea of helping someone, who wants to die, painlessly kill themselves is something that I am fine with. BUT, and this is a really big but, it is not necessarily legal for Max to do this. In fact, there is no way for Max to prove that she killed Chloe at Chloe's behest. There is no suicide note, no proof, only a dead best friend with incriminating evidence that Max did it. Why should the player care though? It's not like they will suffer any consequences for that. Well, they should care because this is a new and permanent timeline that Max creates due to her selfishness. Main!Max is just inhabiting alt!Max's body. After main!Max jumps back to her own timeline, who is to say that alt!Max won't suffer jail time for a crime that she didn't even know that she committed? That isn't fair for her to suffer for crimes that she didn't commit. Another problem that I have is that main!Max may possibly do this for selfish reasons. Dead whales wash up on the shore. The storm is still coming because Chloe is still alive when she isn't supposed to be. It is still fiddling with fate. It is still diverting responsibility for Max's mistakes. This time it is for saving Chloe's dad, which thereby saves Chloe from being murdered by Nate in a roundabout way. It is a double wrong in this timeline. Lastly, it is a wrong against Chloe's parents. They should have agency in this situation. They should have a shot at talking with Chloe about this decision. They should also have the ability to say their goodbyes to their daughter as she passes away instead of the rude awakening that they probably get when they discover their daughter is dead in her room. But then again, does Chloe deserve to suffer in a body that no longer functions? Doesn't she get some say in this situation as well? In the end, that's the argument that won me so that I could help her die. But does that justify going against all the other reasoning? Probably not. In that instance, I could label myself as being as selfish and irresponsible as Max. (This entry has been edited1 time. It was last edited on Wed, 25 Jan 2017 01:17:26.)Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:57:44 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6226&iddiary=10916https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6226Episode 3 is one that seems to throw a lot of morally questionable things in the player's way. Max, in the name of sleuthing, does several activities that read as very criminal that range from breaking and entering to outright theft. There are justifications for all of it, but not all of them truly stand up. The biggest possible decision that stood out for me was the possibility to steal the money, that would go to the handicap fund, to help pay off Chloe's debt. It is back to the dilemma of the good of one vs the good of many. And Chloe has already shown a certain amount of disregard for that demographic by parallel parking across the handicap parking spots in episode 1. The ability to take the money feels like a test to see if the player holds similar values. Max even admonishes herself/the player for taking the money if the player chooses that. I'm not quite sure how I feel about Max feeding the player her moral opinions though since that results in a skewed influence. The player can also choose to continue bailing Alyssa out of her troubles. This is starting to feel more and more wrong though because it is falsely changing her opinion of Max. If not for her time powers, Alyssa would have to suffer the consequences of her missfortunes. In no scenario would Max have been able to prevent the football, toilet paper, or splash because her reaction time would simply not allow for it. Is it really okay to change a person's life, even for the better, if it means they have a false perception of you? Lastly, we have the dilemma of changing the past for the "better". This ultimately results in Chloe becomeing a quadriplegic. Is it morally wrong to try and save someone that is fated to die? This is a question that applies to Chloe as well. For every percieved choice, depending on the severity, results in an equal punishment to the player and the world around them. (This entry has been edited1 time. It was last edited on Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:44:57.)Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:09:02 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6226&iddiary=10882https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6226I had nearly forgotten what a trip episode 2 of LIS is. I took more time with this episode (about an hour and a half or more) since number 1 is more or less an intro to game mechanics with a little intro into the story. In episode 2 the player is faced with moral delemmas surrounding Max's friend/possible romantic interest, Chloe, and her friend Kate Marsh. The player is oftentimes pitted between the two of them as Max attempts to reconcile the past with Chloe and fixing the present with Kate. I, personally, choose Kate over Chloe most of the time because my own reasoning said that she exhibits strong signs of depression. That plus the pressure from rumors and family would push her to do something drastic. With Chloe, as much as I wanted to give her my attention, her needs read as being petty and impulsive, which made the choice fairly easy for me. That, i believe, speaks to the writing because her motivations read like someone suffering from PTSD, but the writing falls flat on its face due to a certain lack of depth in the situations where Chloe exhibits symptoms. So, I'm not sure if my decisions were influenced more by Kate's urgency, or the lack of understanding the writer's have for Chloe's particular ailments. We also return to the moral part of changing outcomes through time manipulation. The game is now punishing the player more for decisions. Specifically ones that can't be taken back and ones that are simply due to player inaction. To save Kate, the player must make the right choices, or mostly right ones. If they don't Kate will die and the player will not be able to stop it. This is actually an interesting element from many standpoints because if a player values Chloe over Kate, they will not only lose a character, but they'll lose an entire section of gameplay in a later episode. That is a pretty steep punishment for making, what the writers tailored to be, wrong choices. It makes me curious if it is ethical for game makers to force a player to choose between two mentally unstable character and then having a victim of sexual assault kill herself as a result. Is that poor writing? Or is that the fault of the "butterfly effect" theme that they're going for? (This entry has been edited3 times. It was last edited on Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:02:21.)Thu, 19 Jan 2017 09:58:41 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6226&iddiary=10858https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6226Today I started playing Life is Strange. I haven't touched this game since the last episode was released back in 2015, so this is going to be an experience with a whole new level of scrutiny. I was able to complete episode 1 in about 40 minutes and in that time I asked myself a couple of questions: 1. Is the whole concept of altering people's fates and perceptions of you through time travelling and redoing things a morally sound thing? 2. How solid are the depictions of the characters? Could I say any of them is problematic in how they're representing themselves and their demographic? 2 is something that I'll examine throughout the episodes since there are a fair number of characters throughout the game that don't necessarily get equal screen time. So, I guess question 1 is the only one I can really work on right now. I think that from a real world moral standpoint, the choice to use time travel as a hack to fix mistakes without suffering any immediate consequences is wrong. The forcible change of events or perceptions surrounding other characters removes their agency in the situation. It also removes any outcomes, be they positive of nagative, from the timeline, thusly completely altering the way that a character may have wanted to move through life. It also gives the main character a fale upperhand in situations where she shouldn't have an advantage that she didn't work for. For example, the classroom scene where Max doesn't have the answer and literally steals it from Victoria because she already lived in the timeline where Victoria gave the right one. She not only chated, she did it by taking away a moment for Victoria to exhibit her knowlege on the subject. Max also helps Chloe cheat death. This, if I remember correctly, is a constant thing throughout each episode. With each diversion of fate, she makes the world around her worse. The experience seems to tailor around the idea of diverting the player's attention from the obvious world changing consequences because they are not affecting Max/the player on an intimate level. That is a moral line that is going to be a balancing act. Is one person really worth the cost to the people and animals that have to suffer the consequences?Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:58:59 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6226&iddiary=10840