Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=1885https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6479After playing through several other puzzles in the game, I found that several scripted events put the boy in situations where the only one who can save him is Trico, however, these situations are not the same with the armored guys where whether the boy is in danger or not, Trico is always going to be attacked by their spears, essentially painting a situation where the beast is obligated to help him in order to survive. These events are usually portrayed as jumping from a highly dangerous place and leading to certain death, unless Trico catches us. The first time this is done, the game cleverly omits any sort of indication of whether we will be saved by our 'friend' or not. Taking a leap of faith, I'm sure many players believed themselves to be dead, until Trico catches them with its mouth despite having no obligation to do so. I believe this is the turning point for many of us who thought of TRico as a simple slave, who would receive a negative reaction from the player if he doesn't obey. Scripted or not, this event is probably meant to portray the fact that Trico, in his own AI-restricted will, does wish to help us. Furthermore, this can be connected to the pov about Ethics of Care, in which the receiver of care also has a role. In The Last Guardian's case, it might be of thankfulness. Unconsciously, I found myself treating Trico differently, more so when this kind of situations came over and over again. I believe these instances in the game are meant to question the player regarding value of an NPC animal character in virtual media. An article regarding this sort of identity explained that the more related an animal is to a human or sentient being in the game (able to have a language, different actons, and meaningful backstory), the more it's likely to be portrayed and identified to a human, essentially bringing a more meaningful relationship. I would add that, in this sense, Trico's random actions support this notion in a different way. He is not only a regular robot who does everything we want him to do, which is usual in videogames and essentially brings the idea of bond to 0, but he behaves in ways we don't want, and sometimes in ways that turned out better than we intended, culminating in life-turning actions which may bring thankfulness out of the player, establishing a deeper connection between the two characters from his/her perspective.Wed, 08 Nov 2017 23:32:10 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6479&iddiary=11392https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6479Playing through the Last Guardian some more, I believe this game presents a complicated mixture between real friendship and simple, selfish gain. Throughout the game, messages appear where we can issue commands to Trico, but it leaves the part that we can also interact with him in less meaningful ways to proceed through the game, but nevertheless attempts to establish a more solid bond between the characters (at least in several player's perspective). This raises the question: Is the game trying to diminish the notion of treating other characters as meaningful, and support the other way around? So far, Last Guardian seems like a game with a lot of potential for driving away from the typical notion of simply seeing the other characters as mere means for an end, but it is hampered by the lack of information and how several levels are designed. Perhaps by adding more animations for Trico as a stealthy reward for those who chose to carve some time for "meaningless" actions between the boy and the beast might serve as an underground but noticeable mechanic which supports true friendship, rather than always focusing on reaching a goal.Tue, 31 Oct 2017 18:56:59 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6479&iddiary=11358https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6479One of the most interesting things that I noticed in TLG (besides the amazing environments or how good the character's look) is Trico's AI. Compared to other NPCs which help you out in overcoming obstacles, Trico seemed more realistic, more of a living being that does its own actions like a dog. This got me thinking: Everytime I raged because Trico did something that I did not intend, and when I gave him (or it) barrels when he did, made me feel like I was using him for my own means rather than respecting him as an end. Despite being an animal, something that Kant states it does not have the same benefits or rules as humans do, when a creature or character feels more alive, I think it makes certain players give it more importance despite what he/she is. With this, I think this moral dilemma of using characters for your own means became more prevalent in this game rather than nonexistent as it usually is.Thu, 26 Oct 2017 13:26:05 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6479&iddiary=11354https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6449This time I think I reached halfway of episode 3: Chaos Theory. Besides keeping a notorious choice framework that does keep track of everything you have done even from episode 1, I believe it also has quite a persuasive way to try to convince players to engage in some sort of utilitarian approach. Utilitarianism, as we saw in class, is a moral framework that mainly focuses on the consequences of your actions, and how much unhappiness or happiness they generate. In life is strange, every time you take an important decision, Max seems to have an inner argument with the choice you did, despite the one you take. She seems centered on choosing what might cause the best outcome, happiness, ease or pleasure from the two. In fact, the time travel mechanic itself seems to imply that the main reason you want to go back to take another decision, is to choose what is best for everyone's success. Max's thoughts and the rewind technique seem to try to convince a player to choose the decision that benefits the most people. In an utilitarian perspective, this notion can be greatly related with the philosophy, which, as mentioned before, puts the amount of happiness and unhappiness as the most important thing to consider.Tue, 26 Sep 2017 18:45:05 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6449&iddiary=11294https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6449Today I finished episode two of Life is Strange, and the choice system has demonstrated to keep a tight record on what you have done until that part. This is mostly seen with Kate Marsh and when you have to prevent her from committing suicide. Kate remembers all the actions you took on the first episode, whether to support her or not. This leads me to believe choices not only have short-term consequences, but long term even. Overall, it seems the game's ethical framework is really hard to decipher, due to all the grey areas representing the choices Max has to do (emphasized by her monologue after the choice is made). Only the long-term outcome for some characters really dictate whether or not you choose correctly. For example, If I hand't supported Kate as much as I did despite getting glared from David or other people, she would have probably killed herself. I believe this game perfectly ties with the vision of Rochard Garriott: Making you feel personal and responsible for the game's actions.Mon, 18 Sep 2017 16:09:24 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6449&iddiary=11278https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6449Life is Strange is a game that puts you in the shoes of Max Caulfield, a teen girl who suddenly discovers she can reverse time after seeing a girl get killed by another student. Immediately the game throws the question of what could happen if you could back to reverse the choices that you made? Would the choice lead to something better? Or worse? Furthermore, is actually every choice perfect? Sometimes the game feels like no matter what, every choice has a certain degree of negative and positive consequences. Furthermore, it brings me another issue that I noticed after I finished the first chapter: It seems there are certain actions that happen no matter what you choose. Examples are like going to the parking lot, leaving with Chloe, her step-father discovering she had weed in her room. I believe it raises the issue that whether we, as players, are able to truly control the outcome of the story, or are we held constrained to a type of subtle slavery from real outcomes thanks to the scripted story events?Mon, 11 Sep 2017 20:27:05 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6449&iddiary=11275https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=642208/30/2017 Today I am heavily convinced Dishonored 2 is meant to be played in a non-lethal way: Not only is low chaos useful for better interaction with characters over the playthrough, but the tutorial also explained that even the environment is affected if you keep a low kill rate. One major example are the bloodflies, which will come more frequently the more kills you make in the game. As I stepped in into the first infested apartment in the new city Corvo arrives, I quickly realized these flies are a pain in the rear to take care of, and sometimes they need flammable objects to destroy the nests. This does not only show how much the game "subtly" pretends to direct you in a good behavior, but it further enforces the moral framework that designers can make in their game, which can be a substantial modification to the entire experience, as mentioned in the "The Videogame Ethical Reader." Dishonored is a fantastic experience directing a moral dilemma, since when you think you can get away with a few kills without anyone noticing by using the crossbow, the game warns you no matter how well hidden your assassinations, it will have multiple repercussions, even with the ending.Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:22:47 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6422&iddiary=11244https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=642208/29/17 I beat the first mission of Dishonored 2 plus a dream session with a mysterious person and the recovery of Corvo's powers. I noticed a few features in the game that reinforced my previous concept about morality. One of them is the presence of many alternative ways to traverse a section in order to remain unseen, and the second one is the contribution of non-lethal actions to better stats, achievements, and low chaos, which I believe it should lead to a more favorable outcome. However, today's EAE 3020 class also made me question something about the violence in the game. This came in the part where Corvo picks up a heart to search for runes and other upgrades through the game, and the previous empress, who was also the lover of Corvo, has a heartfelt conversation with him that, as people say, "got me in the feels" since I played the first Dishonored a long time ago. It made me realize that videogames have the potential to create noticeable emotional impacts depending on the person, and it made me arrive at the conclusion that proving the claim "violent games make children go violent" is as hard to prove wrong as it is to prove right in my opinion. I can only portray my personal case, where even unconsciously, I see the vast majority of violent actions in games as mere non-real entertainment rather than something which causes me real life frustrations and doubts, yet when a story takes a turn where a character becomes deeply affected, it stays in my memory for days, weeks or more. Trying to determine what causes this difference is extremely hard for me, and I can only attribute that to my own attitude, but since each person is different, who knows what different impacts a videogame might cause?Tue, 29 Aug 2017 23:46:21 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6422&iddiary=11233https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6422The first time I played dishonored 2, I knew I had to do the tutorial if I wanted to get a handle of the controls and the mechanics overall. Besides the fluidity of the movements and combat, the most interesting aspect I noticed was that this game could be played either Rambo-style, guns blazing, or choose to be the next Snake and play stealthily. Furthermore, something that separates this game from others is that you can choose whether to choke someone, leaving them unconscious, or kill them. Choking someone has the benefits that it also plays on par with stealth to a certain extent, making fights more avoidable. In fact you can even just choose to slip by and avoid a fight altogether. These and many options seem to point out that Dishonored 2 is meant to be played stealth-mode rather than Call of Duty style. I believe this also connects to a certain extent with James and Stuart Rachels' Minimum conception of morality. This was made more noticeable after I got the pistol on the first mission. Part of me wanted to test out killing an enemy from distance. However, the repercussions were that everyone on the screen knew I was there and would come running unto me in seconds, making my playthrough much more difficult. As such, I resorted back to choking people or simply getting by. In my opinion, this perfectly connects with the words of Rachels about the minimum conception of morality: "To guide's one conduct by reason." It is well-known that in real life, killing someone has repercussions, but not so much in a videogame simply because its meant to be a type of entertainment at its core, however, when ethics and consequences touch the mechanics of a game, it can also have a more realistic twist (like everyone noticing when you shoot someone) without losing the inmersion. So far, the reasons behind "good conduct" in Dishonored 2 might not be as strong as the real life cases shown in the book, but they are still backed up pretty well by the mechanics and the unfolding of the next combat sequences.Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:55:20 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6422&iddiary=11209