Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=1980https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6870I managed to commit the last sins of Wrath and Gluttony. It took me while to find the right dialog option, but in the end I only needed to kill a dude and eat all his pies. The confession and subsequent ending weren't terribly surprising given the timber of the game up to that point. I am glad that I gave away all my possessions to the beggar and apparently chose the right dialog options to have John give me the real talk, which felt like it probably doubled as the developer's manifesto. Despite the messages in the ending, I was paying more attention to the copyright element of the game, given the recent lectures. There are a few moments in the game, like when the character is talking to the lawyer and asking for legal advice, that allude to the difficulties and pitfalls of creating a game using clipped out pieces of classic artwork. Though I don't know the specifics of it, and honestly the legalities don't much interest me. The element I was piqued by was the fact that, while I did recognize a handful of the paintings used in the game, the vast majority were brand new. Though I suppose the original creators would have perhaps preferred a more flattering means by which to experience their work, the fact that I'm seeing their work at all is really only by virtue of the game. This is an element to the read/write cycle that is perhaps not always fully explored or given much credence. I like art well enough, but not usually enough to go to prestigious galleries or study the classic works in books or the like. However, having played this game I now have a passing familiarity and surface-level relationship with many artworks I would not have otherwise. Locking down works with copy protection and the like almost always means that it intrinsically remains within its home medium. As accessible as that medium may be, there will always be a contingent of people that do not engage with it for one reason or another. Having greater freedom of adapting and transposing work across mediums means that the messages encoded in those works can spread the their branches further. Surely some things are lost or changed during the transcription process, as is certainly the case in Four Last Things, but I do think there is still significant value in that use of existing works.Fri, 09 Nov 2018 00:06:42 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6870&iddiary=12325https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6870Today, after much wandering around aimlessly and helplessly clicking on the same things over and over hoping for different results, I managed to commit the sins of sloth, lust, and pride. I had underestimated the shrewdness and indifference with which the game hides the solutions to the puzzle of sinning. There are only a few areas in the game, but quite often I was at a loss for what to try next. Of course the solution is always obvious once I finally figured it out. Even still, it's a funny layer to the game that one should have such difficulty in sinning, which is typically thought of as a persistent looming temptation from which one must always be vigilant to abstain. So the comedy of struggling through convoluted methods by which to commit sin has a cartoony misadventure sense to it. Extending that thought, and having committed many of the sins already, I am also noting a pattern in what it takes to accomplish the task of sinning. Obviously the goals, the "seven deadlies", are considered the notable and most egregious sins, however it seems that the little old man must commit a plethora of other "smaller" sins in order to accomplish more of them. For lust, not only does he have to lie to a portrait painter to get a specific painting, but then also swap it to steal another higher quality painting. Then after that, using the painting to invoke the skills of poet for a poem which he then steals and passes off as his own to woo a lady for sex! To commit the sin of lust, he lies, steals, and plagiarizes. Perhaps it could be said that all these things are done for the purpose of lust, but it's a funny oddity that none of these other undesirable behaviors seem to matter. Though I'm not sure if that's a criticism of the game, or the point of the game's satire of this Christian morality. I'm more likely to believe it is the latter. As a last reflection for the log, I was amused by the short moment it took to commit sloth. It is in ludonarrative harmony to just have your character lay down then literally do nothing with the controls. It isn't even a long time, however, at least for me it was something of a struggle to keep myself from making some input. As much as games are stereotypically considered an idle task for the lazy, the case is likely to be the opposite. That it fills a fidgeting need in some people to whom low effort but consistent feedback is appealing. Like loosening a knot. Not necessarily because you need the length of rope for anything, but because it's something easy to fidget with and feel like you are progressing. So this moment in the game where to progress, you must do nothing, feels like having to set the knot down and let it loosen on its own for a moment. It seems counter-intuitive and creates friction against the habit of continuous monitored input. It's a fun moment that indulges in the visible humor while also creating an odd gaming-based sensation.Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:14:28 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6870&iddiary=12284https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6870From the very beginning, the way Four Last Things sets up its win condition against its moral framework really impressed me with its effective simplicity. The first thing I find out about my player character is that he is a man who has committed every sin and wishes to confess. However, due to the amusing bureaucracy of the "Bishops?" the man can't do so at that church until he's committed each sin again, but in their territory. This singular moment performs mechanical, narrative, and ethical work in setting up the game world and situation for the player. It establishes the mechanic that you need perform each of the seven types of sin before you can win. The narrative is just as I first said, your character desperately needs redemption. And more interestingly, from an ethical standpoint the game is telling player that in order to eventually be a good and ethical person (at least in the eyes of the player character and his world) you will first have to commit not just a few sins, but every sin. By giving such a requirement, the game allows the player to shirk any implicit obligation to be a good person and instead take on the ridiculous perspective of seeking out ways to do "bad" things. The recent lectures about what it means to "play well" fall closely in line with this game. So far, I don't have a clear idea of how much the choice options in the game flavor the overall experience, but at the very least it affords the player methods with which to imbue the player character with a certain quality. Despite the quest to sin, the player could choose many dialog options that are not necessarily that of a "sinner", to perhaps play the role of the man who really wants to do good and be cleansed of sin, but is simply in a bad situation. For me, I've been doing my best to embrace the absurdity and simply try everything. I've only so far committed envy and greed, but I'm looking forward to how the rest shakes out.Mon, 05 Nov 2018 21:54:41 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6870&iddiary=12218https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6806Having finished this game, as well as having had the lecture on utilitarianism, I am still perplexed by the question of how justifiable one's projections or aspirations for future consequences are for their actions. Specifically, in terms of the game, centering around the idea of protests and aligning oneself with a cause. The narrative of the game, and its subject matter, is rife with the interplay and juxtaposition of various political and social ideals. Through the course of the game I was presented with people and perspectives of communists, religious devotees, capitalism, and nationalists. Each believing that the consequences of their ideals provides the best way forward for their country, or even humanity. Really the only reason a subset of these are united in this circumstance is the mutual rejection of the current rule over the country. In such a situation, where there is clear need or indeed even inevitability for a current government to be unseated, how does or can one ethically align themselves with a political or social idea to replace it? The utilitarian perspective instantly gets thrown into generalities as everyone in your country, or even the world, would be affected by such a change, and wrangling the calculus of that utility would quickly become ungainly. The Kantian approach on the other hand requires a maxim with which to posit as a universal law, this borders on tautological when speaking about political and social causes. Trying to deduce the strengths and pitfalls of these causes and their maxims would likewise result in amorphous outcomes. Though I think maybe I am having a trouble of scale, or nesting the ideas of political and social causes with moral frameworks in a nonsensical manner. Political and social ideals are in many ways posited moral frameworks of their own, so trying to evaluate them using another framework would only cause circular thinking. I guess my assumption was that the game had asked me to take a particular affiliation, which I don't think is actually the case. Rather it purposefully kept Reza as an outsider so that I could judge the scenarios from a "purely" moral standpoint. It doesn't seem like a particularly revolutionary idea, it is common in stories to bring an unencumbered outsider to a developed and complicated situation. This is usually a device that creators use to slowly introduce the audience to the scenario, they learn as the character learns, and Revolution 1979 makes use of Reza in a similar way. But I feel this device is more pertinent given the subject matter and the fact it is an interactive experience. As mentioned, the game and time period is characterized by a complicated clashing of cultures, causes, and belief systems. Reza is invested by his identity as an Iranian, but has been gone a long period such that he is at first unconnected to the current situation. He has no prior affiliation with any of the causes or ideals save for that he does have and care for a family, one in which each member aligns with a separate cause. In this way, Reza, and by extension the player, are able to divorce themselves from making decisions by affiliation, and instead take each scenario at its base moral level. The game does not consistently ask whether communism, nationalism, or religion is correct or moral. Instead asks "do you forfeit the safety of your family for your own?", "are you blameless in the consequences of your published photos, whether or not you intended them to be published?", and "can violence be justified"? In this way, the game provides an independent, generalized perspective, one that can be colored by a lens like utilitarianism, kantism, communism, or any other, but can also shirk the necessity to do so. One can push the rhetoric to the background if they so choose and evaluate on a more "pure" ethical perspective, or one of their choosing. Therein is where I believe the majority of the game's power comes from. All this being said. I wish the game were more polished in its technology and presentation, because I have a strong sense of its message and worth, but it is clouded and obstructed by jarring interactions.Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:54:35 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6806&iddiary=12129https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6806I jumped back into the game at the protest where Abbas was speaking and I first see Bibi. When Ali and the soldiers show up I had an interesting crossover in my gaming experiences. Ali wanted Reza to join him in throwing rocks at the soldiers because they are agents of the Shah and therefore bad people to be given no quarter. Babak urged Reza to abstain, stating that the soldiers are captive to their position, needing the wage the job offers to support their family; they are not necessarily bad people, just in a no win scenario. This immediately conjured memories of my experience with "Papers Please" in which you play a conscripted border guard in a 1980s soviet-like country. Playing that game made me very aware of how such a circumstance, that of having to rely on a job which demands compliance to a system and authority with which you may not agree, has the power to persuade otherwise sensitive and compassionate people to be insensitive and callous. Through this lens, I opted to refrain from the violent acts against the soldiers. Having read the chapters on Utilitarianism today, it is hard for me to know exactly how to weigh the morality of that choice under that school of thought. Clearly the current Shah's rule is creating a huge amount of unhappiness, and protests appear to be efforts to achieve better happiness under a new rule. However, the game heavily implies that the soldiers are there to enact forcible silence and perhaps violence. Where Utilitarianism is concerned with the consequences of actions, discerning which layer of consequences is the most pertinent is hard. Is the immediate safety of the protesters (or soldier for that matter) paramount? Or does the success of the protest, which may be a critical moment to create peace, a more desirable outcome even if the soldiers succeed in harming and arresting more people; though the soldiers could also take it too far and create far more misery. Still further, is Ali's path of clear violent resistance ultimately something that would best communicate the unrest and sacrifice immediate safety for a clearer message and perhaps commutation of results preventing prolonged misery? This is what is difficult for Utilitarianism for me is that it is so hard to weigh outcomes against one another when each is so difficult to imagine with any real certainty. As an extension, in the later scenes of interrogation and conversations with the revolutionaries in the cinema, I opted to tell the truth under the utilitarian tenant that it is the preferable thing to do because it usually results in positive outcomes. However, in the case of the prison at least, this seemed to result in rather unfavorable behavior. Though I told my interrogator what I believed to be the truth, the game was interpreting it that I was uncooperative and so Hossein, my brother paid the price. I am not certain whether this rule got me into trouble, or this was again my misunderstanding of some contexts that I don't fully understand. Ending on that note, I am doing my best to give this game the benefit of the doubt despite its shortcomings in presentation, and I am very interested and engrossed in the material that it is presenting, however I can't help but feel that it is unfair to a player like myself. This game was clearly made by people intimately familiar with the subject, and appears to have been created for the purpose of teaching those unfamiliar about the events and what they meant on a more personal level. In some ways, I feel that I am likely right in the middle of the target audience. However, I often feel that the game is often punishing me for not having a large pool of prior knowledge about Iranian culture and the events of the revolution. This was most poignant in the first prison scene where the interrogator offers me tea, I was supposed to give a response within the given time, and at the same time a journal entry about tea etiquette culture in Iran popped up. I didn't know how to access the journal and certainly couldn't have accessed it in the time given to offer a response. So I just had to guess. Thankfully in that scenario I accepted the tea which is the polite response. But the point is that this was a highly culturally-charged decision with potentially heavy consequences. Allegedly the character Reza would have been aware of this social norm, and certainly the interrogator knew, it was only me who was left out but nonetheless had to decide what was to transpire. It feels unfair to ask me to bear the burden of choices I don't understand I am making, but the game assumes that I do. Perhaps the game's intention is to let uneducated players get a rough round, hoping that they will be inspired to play through again, being better educated and thus have a more fulfilling second go. But even this intention seems unfair, counterproductive, and creates a cultural schism between Iranian player character Reza, and me.Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:23:27 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6806&iddiary=12068https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6806Full disclosure, I knew next to nothing about this period in Iran. If I'm completely honest, I don't really know that much about Iran in general. So the fact that the game threw me in right away asking me to make an assertion through a single statement like: "peace is the best weapon", "violence justifies means", "freedom or death", or "not worth the sacrifice" was very intimidating. Being that this is about real events which have already transpired, I felt like the moment was asking me for my pre-formed perspective on the scenario. So the fact that I had none, I felt entirely unequipped to make such a statement. Nevertheless, a decision had to be made, so I selected "Freedom or death". The scene that followed in the prison was very similar. The interactions with the interrogator seemed centered around cultural norms and differences held at the current direction and state of cultural vectors. The game asks for responses in a short timespan so I usually don't understand the context of what is actually being asked until the consequence is being played out. This scene made me think about cultural relativism, not necessarily in assessing whether aspects of the culture was right or wrong, but moreso in the foreignness of the situation. As someone who knows almost nothing about the justice structure of the country, what various titles mean, what it means to accept or reject tea, all I can see is one person being violently interrogated by another. I can of course take dramatic cues from the situation as it plays out to understand the good guys from bad guys, the fact that I am "controlling" one of them is a good indicator as well, but I can't really understand the range of the situation. This wouldn't be so bad, if the game wasn't demanding me to make responses in such situations. I just felt that I was boiling the choices down to whether or not to be cooperative, though knowing full well there was deeper contexts at work. The following two chapters were far more helpful and illuminating. The act of snapping photos of pertinent events nearby and reading more information about that particular facet helped me develop a better picture of what is happening and for what reasons. It was also helpful that I could ask my boyfriend about details I couldn't sort out on my own such as the government structure and who some of the key figures were. Additionally, I can confidently say that I now know several times more about Iranian culture than I ever have. A point that stuck out to me about the chapter where you wander the streets, was that there is much written about cultural shifting from a very Western-influenced society to one which is staunchly western-opposed. These shifts seem to be helmed by the leaders which prevailed after the changes in power. Each seems to espouse a sort of a cultural relativism that the culture before and the insurgent culture that wishes to depose them are inherently worse mostly because they are simply not what is the current culture. I understand that it is Ayatollah Khomeini who historically comes to power after the period in this game. So it is interesting to see the way the game regards him. In the beginning he is the revolutionary voice whose propaganda is the lit torch for many of the young friend characters at this point. His speeches are aspirational for a free future and harsh to the current culture. I will be interested to see how this view shifts, as it seems it must given the events of the first two chapters.Mon, 24 Sep 2018 00:03:53 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6806&iddiary=12055https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6717While the last areas of the game give more insight to the context and location of these events, the game staunchly refains from making many firm declarations. The onboarding of guests to the behemoth the game takes place in, and the grotesque scenes of their feasting answered my previous question about who was eating all the food the cooks were preparing. My eventual failure to avoid one of these voracious guests also more firmly placed them as an objective threat, in that he ate me. This placed the player character more definitively in a survival and self-defense position in my mind. Conversely, in one of the more uneasing scenes of the game, the player character feeds on a gnome even though that very same gnome offers out a more than ample sausage. I felt vindicated in my earlier suspicions of the player character and their supposed implicit righteousness. It would seem that the events of the end, where the player character feeds on the shadow woman, that the player character is simply a monster. Exacerbated by the fact that when imbued with the shadow woman's power, it proceeds to directly kill several guests during the final scene. However, it could be argued that the compromises the player character had to make to reach this point somehow intoxicated it with some form of evil, culminating in its absorption of the shadow woman's darkness. The player character becomes infected, and is so overtaken. Trying to work from this perspective, I focus on the game's persistent theme of food, consumption, and eating. Eating is a necessary facet of life as we know it; nothing that abstains from food or water survives for very long. More often than not, one living organism must consume another living organism, whether plant or animal. In the same way, each time something is consumed in the game, something else loses. The figure in the beginning that gives up its plate is the most mild example. But the player character continues to escalate its apetite, going from necessity to a sort of preference. The action of the game ramps up as food becomes more present. From the complete lack of food in the beginning to piles of it later. While the game flirts with elements of imprisonment, torture, and despair, it seems to me that the game places the ethical question of consumption at its center and posits an escalating extreme. The player character is starving, and another person willingly gives up food for it; I thought it was tragic but sweet. The player is trapped by the long-armed enemy using food as a lure; a threat that takes advantage of this base need. The player character eats a rat caught in a trap; it is gross, but can be understood given dire circumstances. The player character feeds on the gnome despite easily accessible food; this crosses the line from survival to corruption. The player character feeds on the woman; this is wholesale voraciousness. Eating becomes less about survival as it does about dominance.Tue, 28 Aug 2018 20:37:18 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6717&iddiary=11919https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6717The fact that I, as the player, do not know the context in which the events of the game take place, there is an odd feeling that I am only spectating despite having direct control of a character. The sensation is much like entering a circle of people who are in the middle of a conversation where one of them is relaying an experience. They are at the point where pronouns replace proper names, the location is implied, and the most pertinent bits are coming to light. You can't really participate, so only listening is possible and you are keenly aware that the image you're developing in your mind is not likely to be accurate. You can only react as events transpire and the base quality of the action is relayed. Others in the conversation may "ooo" or "ahh" while you are left unaffected, being oblivious to some contextual plot twist. As I traversed through the kitchen level of the game, this feeling grew. Who is eating all this meat? Why are these creatures masquerading as mundane cooks? I still don't know where this is, maybe some kind of boat. It was this awareness and the fact that we left off in class about bad arguments, which many are rooted in some kind of ignorance or assumption of fact, to question what I assumed about the game. I think the base assumption most players make when starting a single-player game is that their player is the hero, the protagonist, the force for positive change, perhaps the most righteous. In this game, I continually find myself wondering if the little raincoat-clad character deserves that distinction. Sure, its design is charming and the gruesome creatures that lurk in these environments are repulsive and seem intent on detaining the character, but the only real redeeming quality I've yet seen is that it will hug the little gnomes. However, while the gnomes are charming in their own way as well, I have no real reason to believe that they are a positive force, or that hugging them suggests a righteous intent. Also, while being captured the large creatures results in a checkpoint reset for the player, it is curious that the enemies only capture the player character and do not invoke any real violence. But the player character cuts off the arms of the long-armed enemy and feeds on an injured but live rat. Coupling these with the self-centric behavior I noted in the first log, it paints an image of the player character that is not entirely flattering. These can certainly be explained as the necessities for survival, sure, but that assumes that being captured by the large creatures is in fact a terrible fate, and that the player character's goal is escape or prevailing over the evil. The level was to some extent less intense than the long-armed enemy level so it was a bit easier to think about these things. Games like this rely a lot on the faith of the player to fill in the gaps of reasoning and to intertwine the object of their control with moral justification. But so far, I've only been witness to a series of events in a vacuum of context. So I remain suspicious.Mon, 27 Aug 2018 15:14:59 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6717&iddiary=11898https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6717"Little Nightmares" does little to inform the player of the context of the action taking place. The game simply started with a short cutscene of a woman then gameplay began. The forboding atmosphere of the game and the excessively diminuitive player character made apparent to me that this game takes place in a location entirely hostile and foreign to the character. Thusly, the nature of the game has a distinct flavor of a survival story. The first level of the game was primarily about self preservation, in avoiding the black slugs and navigating the perilous spaces. Though there is a particular sweet moment when a small figure like the player character is eating in a cafeteria area. At this moment the player character appeared to be starving. The background character took notice and tossed its meal through the bars for the player character to eat. The environment and the presence of other small figures in varying states of confinement or pertrification leads to the assumption that they are victims of some malevolence. With that fact, and being that this was the first time I had seen food in the game, it struck me as particularly selfless that this character, a victim just as my player character, would offer me food that is this scarce. At that moment I had wished for some function to thank the figure, but the game did not appear to enable this behavior, which I thought was a shame. It seemed wrong to accept something so valuable without gratitude. Later, the player character is trapped in a cage by the long-armed enemy and stored in a room with other little figures who are also in cages. The player character is able to break out from its cage. Though, as a particularly sad eventuality, the player must use one of the other cages which houses a figure to pull a lever to exit the room. Between this and the earlier experience of taking the food without some gratitude, I felt that my player character lacked some compassion and had a self-centric mode of operation. As the first chapter of "The Elements of Moral Philosophy" mentioned, perhaps there is a "we should save as many as we can" perspective. Perhaps the other little figures are already lost in some manner. The ones in the cages could be on the verge of death, and the one the cafeteria may have had some awareness of its impending unavoidable end and chose to offer its only resource for the benefit of the player character who appears to be chasing some goal. Perhaps the player character is also aware of this fact. Though I am also viewing the game from a perspective that the player character's intent is escape. It could just as easily be that the player character is going to attempt to solve the larger problem and perhaps save all the others or at least stop the suffering. The game just doesn't offer that much insight so far.Sun, 26 Aug 2018 22:42:03 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6717&iddiary=11895