Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=1985https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6861In my last play session of Hitman, I completed a mission in the game and found the result of completing one to be quite interesting. As I’ve discussed, the aim of the game is to assassinate certain people, all while doing so undercover and escaping afterwords. After completing a mission, the game rewards the player for their performance and certain actions that were taken during the mission. These rewards are mostly based on actions taken directly related to the murder that is committed. However, something I also found interesting is that the game deducts points for kills that are not the target of the mission. This suggests a few things, namely that the player is meant to perceive that the targets are negative forces whose deaths will result in a positive outcome for the rest of the world, and that all non-targets are innocent people whose deaths would impact the world negatively or substantially to justify killing. It’s important to note that this is presumably what the organization that Agent 47 is working for wants. This whole scenario brings up multiple questions. One, will killing the targets actually prove beneficial? If so, then this game would be perfectly ethical from a Utilitarian perspective. Two, does the organization have the right to determine who should and should not be killed, and can they know for sure of the impacts their deaths will have? Three, are assassinations the only method by which this organization can influence the world? These are all questions that important to consider. Back to the mission complete reward system. Most of the challenges present in the game incentivise killing the targets. While this makes complete sense considering it is the entire point of the gameplay, it’s still questionable from an ethical perspective as killing is generally seen as immoral. A philosopher such as Kant would immediately point to this game is immoral, as the act of killing itself would inherently be considered wrong, but the game chooses to incentivise it, going as far as to reward the player. Outside of the act of the assassinations I found interesting in my play session was how this game handles it’s suspension of disbelief. During the mission I played I chose a route that involved impersonating a famous runway model. I chose to subdue said model and use his clothing as a disguise. I was seen and his body was found, but I was able to make a retreat without being caught and proceeded the mission as planned. Naturally, I was afraid of actually continuing from this point, as I assumed all the guards would be on the lookout for a man wearing this models clothing, but I was able to complete the mission no problem, which I found particularly unrealistic and broke my suspension of disbelief. From a gameplay perspective, this could potentially create a more fun experience, as it makes the assassinations more manageable for people who presumably aren’t actually assassins, but whether this was the correct choice from a moral perspective from the developers is questionable.Thu, 08 Nov 2018 16:04:51 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6861&iddiary=12304https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6861In my previous play session of Hitman, my experience was similar to that of my original play times, but there were a few things here and there that I found to be quite interesting, and a bit on the confusing side. Continuing my job as an assassin, I found myself in a situation where I had to disguise myself as a body guard. I assumed that in order to play up the disguise well, I would also need the gun that the bodyguards were using, a rather large model that would need to be slung on my back. However, I later needed to go into an area that was crowded with people at the event this story sequence was taking place. I was unsure if the gun I had was arouse suspicion, but I knew I could load a save so I went ahead anyway. After entering the crowd of people, I found that there was no problem with having the gun on my back, presumably because I was perceived as body guard. Naturally, I thought that disguise was sufficient in this regard, yet the game would seem to show otherwise. I later proceeded to the area in which the next objective was located, which involved going through a room in which there were also many people. However, unlike the previous area, the game decided that I my character was considered suspicious for reasons I was unsure of. As far as I could tell, it was because I had a large weapon on my back, but that would contradict what the game had shown me earlier in the mission. Granted, different people would likely react differently to this sort of situation realistically, but ethically speaking, I believe that these sorts of situations should be handled the same within the space of this type of video game, being one that is heavily reliant on specific rules and trial and error. Otherwise, a player will be unsure about the rules present, and feel as though they have been unfairly deceived, which may be considered unethical. As far as the story is concerned, I've learned that my aim is to assassinate those with large amounts of power, which stand to be at opposition of the organization that my player character is working for. However, regardless of their precise motive, they are using Agent 47 as a means to an end, which according to Kant is immoral, so their actions could be considered unethical.Sun, 04 Nov 2018 18:47:27 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6861&iddiary=12210https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6861Based on my first play session of the game, the ethical morality behind Hitman are already questionable. The game sees the player playing as an Assassin with supposedly no moral compass. This character has supposedly also been involved with assassinations in the past, but may not have memory of any of it. So far, what I've played through are training situations designed for this character, so they presumably not actually assassinations or legitimate life or death situations. Regardless, the implications are questionable. From a Kantian perspective, murder is wrong, therefore the entire premise of this game makes the players actions wrong. However, depending on the characters' motives, of which I am not sure of yet, these assasinations may be very moral from a Utilitarian perspective. As far as I'm aware, my character is also willingly being employed to partake in these assassinations. Social contract theory states that because killing someone is my job, doing so will be completely moral.Sat, 03 Nov 2018 00:29:34 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6861&iddiary=12203https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6799In my final play session of Little Nightmares, in which I completed the game. Several interesting things came up. For one, I confronted the character with the long arms that I described in my last entry for the last time. In the final encounter, it was my objective as the player to remove a cage from a door that was closing in order cut off his arms, all while avoiding being caught. This brings up an interesting question of whether or not cutting his arms off was ethical. Sure, as the player, most people will think, “of course it was ok to do so, that’s the bad guy that kills you if you’re caught.” While I would have to agree, the game never explicitly shows what happens the the other children present in the game, or the events that occur when the player is caught. What is known is that these children are put into cages, and that, alongside many other pieces of evidence, the player can infer that what’s happening is bad, but there is a layer of uncertainty. Later in the game, throughout ‘The Kitchen’ portion, I ran into a few chef characters. In one particular instance where I was caught, the character brought me to a chopping table. The game cut to black just before he was about to attack my character with a butcher’s knife which, counter to my points above, was proof that getting caught is bad and results in death. After progressing to the next section, I came across a rather interesting set piece in the game. One of several unnaturally large people boarding an incredibly large ship. A short while later I found that these people were doing nothing but eating uncontrollably, as if this is their sole purpose on this ship. Which caused me to think several questions; why are these people boarding the ship? Why are the children in the ship being treated this poorly? Who is in charge? During this portion of the game, I was also with a friend who was watching me play through the game. It only happened one time, but at one point she suggested something to do in a room, before I even had the time to process and try everything I could think of. Her idea was also one that likely would have taken much longer try, yet it was the correct solution to the puzzle. This begs the question of backseating and developer intentions. On the developer end, if I had to guess, they are likely okay with, and might even encourage players thinking to puzzles together. What they probably wouldn’t want, and may be considered unethical as a result, is for players to simply look up the solutions to puzzles online without even trying, as that defeats some of the purpose of the puzzle. On my end of things, I generally wouldn’t want someone to backseat while I play, especially in a puzzle based game, as I feel as though that defeats the purpose of the puzzle being a puzzle. It only happened once so I didn’t mind, but it brings up the question of the ethics behind backseating, and when it would and wouldn’t be okay. As I progressed further into the game, a segment occurred where my character became hungry, I believe this was the fourth time this happened in the game. One of the child like creatures came up to me holding a sausage. By this point I had grown a sort of affinity for them, as they didn’t seem to want to hurt me and they were just as scared of the big creatures as I was. So naturally I was quite upset when my player character chose to eat it instead of the sausage. From a developer perspective, is it ethical to build up this kind of relationship with a race, so set them up almost as equals to player, only to betray the possible relationship by the end? In a way it seems similar to a supporting character in any media betraying the main character, but in this case it feels as if it’s the player character doing the betraying. It’s an interesting turn that’s for sure. The last point I’d like to bring up revolves around the ending. After killing the final, and only, boss(in the traditional sense) the player character gets some kind of dark power and uses it to kill several of the passengers of the ship. I should also note that this boss is likely in charge of the whole ship using these powers, and they tried to kill the player, killing in self defense is a whole other topic here. Regardless, yes these passengers are incredibly disturbing and carnivorous, but is it right for the character kill them all? It’s essentially revenge killing. It’s also hard to say how much control the character has over the power, so the ending as a whole is hard to judge. What if they could use that power to help these people? It’s hard to say.Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:12:33 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6799&iddiary=12145https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6799In today's play session of Little Nightmares, I thought about what's happening in the while looking at it from a matter of perspective. I think to most people who play this game, the player character, as well as the other similarly sized NPCs found in the game, are innocent creatures who are being treated horribly in context to the game. The larger life forms seen in the game, who have also been shown to have disproportionately long arms, big heads, and generally small and stock body structure, would likely be considered to be grotesque and monstrously evil creatures. This makes sense when considering this is a horror game, and the developers most likely did this intentionally to strengthen the unsettling tone in the game. However let's say, hypothetically, the developers intended the player character to be part of a species that proves to be a danger to every other form of life present in this games world. Would it be right for players to demonize the 'antagonists' like this while helping a creature that could potentially cause problems for the rest of this games world? It's interesting to think about, as a similar mindset could be applied to other games. Most of the time, the developers likely don't expect players to think about their games ethically quite like this, but it brings about interesting questions in relation to the current philosophy's of game design.Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:18:25 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6799&iddiary=12067https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6799In my playtime of Little Nightmares, a horror game that strives upon being making the player uncomfortable, I found that various real world ethical boundaries were broken for the sake of brilliantly capturing the unsettling feeling it is aiming. Among these unsettling images are someone he seems to have been hung, strange parasite like creatures falling from the ceiling, an environment that overall seems cold, dangerous, and unhealthy to be living, blood on the walls, to name a few things. The environment in the game seems to present itself as manipulative of children to the point of harming them. There are several unnamed child like NPCs who seem lost or scared. In my playtime I came across a room with what looked to children in uncomfortable beds. A large shadowy and ominous figure walked in to scope the area. In my first attempt of the room, a failed to get by unnoticed and was immediately killed. It gets the player thinking about what is really going on in this fictional space, while also doing a good job of being unsettling. When comparing situations such as these in a video game as opposed to say, a movie or a book, I personally find it to be further on the unsettling as the player themselves has control over what happens in the game. Seeing someone being hung in a movie is one thing, but actively controlling my character to walk underneath someone, whose presumably been hung, while pushing a chair felt ever more uncomfortable. While the game is called "Little Nightmares" and these scenarios do an excellent job at selling the horror, it begs the question of how much is too much? Technically speaking, this game could be argued to be much tamer than many others, particular those that have the player gunning down countless of NPCs, yet the presentation here is something else entirely. I look forward to what the game will continue to throw at me.Sun, 23 Sep 2018 00:30:04 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6799&iddiary=12048https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6723Today's play session of This Is the Police ended in an unexpected way. I was playing through the days as I had normally been doing. Then on the last day that I played, I hit the 'X' button to go to work, and my character, Jack, was shot through the window, which promptly ended the game and sent me to the title screen. This experience taught me a few things about the game. The most important being that there is more depth to the game that I had realized. My decisions made during certain cutscenes and during the work day had more weight than I had realized, to the point where it greatly impacts the length of the game. For reference, I did some research and learned that this is roughly a 20 hour game from what I've seen, but I've only put in about three. Ethically speaking, having the player play through a game again for the sake of a better outcome is an interesting dilemma. As someone who has played a variety of games, this concept is not new to me, and I am not opposed to, but it begs the question of whether certain people will be comfortable with that idea. Some consumers may feel as though they wasted time playing the game if it their experience prompted them to receive a premature or unsatisfying ending. It also depends on the marketing the game received. If the developers ever stated that the game takes a certain amount of time to complete, but a scenario such as my experience occurs, is that ethical of the developers? Should they have to specify that the game can end at various points, so as not to unexpectedly disappoint the consumer? One thing about the game I have yet to address directly is the process of sending cops out to stop crime, a rather important mechanic in the game. When sending officers out, the game designates a certain number of cops you are allowed to send out for any crimes. While this is very useful from a gameplay perspective, as it allows for the player to gauge the severity of a crime, but ethically speaking, should the game be allowed to make a decision like that for me? In a game largely about sending cops out to fight crime, should it be the player's responsibility as an officer to gauge how dangerous a crime is? This would more accurately simulate what it might be like being an officer with this kind of responsibility. Of course, other compromised such as this were most likely made for the sake of the gameplay experience, but was it ethical to do so?Thu, 30 Aug 2018 19:39:24 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6723&iddiary=11992https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6723Today's play session of This Is the Police brought with it a couple of concerns. The first that I came across was the game showing me a depiction of several people's decapitated heads being hung from a ceiling fan. Granted, the image wasn't particularly grotesque, but it still came up without warning, at least as far as I recall. The ethical question here is of course, should video games be allowed to show grotesque imagery such as this passively with little warning. That's not to say there was no warning. After all, the game is rated M for mature, but that brings the question of rated M games should be excused at all. Should video games in general be allowed to have such grotesque imagery. The other ethical concern in my playtime today came up as a result of me choosing not to fire any of my black officers yesterday. The gave me a message that implied that my decision will result in something detrimental to me, though it is not exactly clear what. Regardless, this is simply a continuation of my previous observation, in which this can be taken as a racist agenda. However, this time I was more directly told by the game that choosing not to be racist would result in bad things for me, the player.Sun, 26 Aug 2018 23:44:27 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6723&iddiary=11896https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6723In my initial playtime of This Is the Police, I ran into a number of in occurrences that could be seen as ethical dilemmas. One of these was when the game was teaching me how to fire people, it defaulted on firing my best man on the shift. At first, I was under the impression that I had to fire him, and I tried hitting various buttons on my controller, which ended up resulting in the game softlocking(oops). I later learned I didn't have to fire that character, it simply defaulted to him, but it brings up the question of whether a game should be able to make a choice for you in a situation where you can normally make the decision yourself. Another ethical issue actually arose as a result of me having to restart the game. Since I had already gone through part of the work day before the game taught me about firing, I had to restart game, and thus redo some of my progress. However, I learned from my failures on the initial attempt to do better in the second. The ethical dilemma here is that the developers most likely didn't not intend on players getting second attempts in their first playthrough. Is it wrong for me as the player to play differently for the sake of doing better, or should I have tried to recreate my first attempt for the sake of preserving my first experience of the game. The other major ethical concern presented was when the game told me to fire all of my black cops as an in game objective. Before I touch on the issue of race, I'd like to tackle this dilemma by discussing that the game explicitly told me to do so, where everything has previously been a choice given to the player. Granted, the player still has the choice to do so or not, but I yet to play enough to see the consequences of my actions. For the record, I chose not to fire them. This objective was also related to an election that is happening in game, which the police happens to have connections to. I also feel as though this is an interesting portrayal of the police force. In theory, the police shouldn't have bias in any way, so is it ethical to portray them in this way? Of course in real life, there have been examples of the police having this kind of bias, but should a game do so, or should it be an upstanding example of the police? There is also the matter of race in this situation. I'm not sure of the exact time frame this game takes place in, and if the game told me I'm failing to remember, but it's clear to see that a takes place in a time several years ago, or at least a time that mirrors such a time period. Regardless, although I have yet to play the entirety of the game yet, if someone were to put the game down at around this point, it's easy to see how this could be misconstrued as pushing a racist agenda. Is it ethical to have this in a video game, or should there be a disclaimer upon starting the game stating whether or not the game is representative of the developers ideals?Sat, 25 Aug 2018 16:49:20 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6723&iddiary=11888