 |
|
Sep 23rd, 2018 at 19:57:32 - HITMAN (XBONE) |
I continued playing Hitman today, but rather than progressing the story like I had planned to, I actually wound up exploring the user generated content, which presented some interesting moral dilemmas. In yet another bid to add to Hitman’s replayability, the game includes the ability for players to create their own contracts and submit them for other people to try and complete and get the best score on. When creating a contract, the player gets to decide who the targets will be and can also force the player to complete said contract in a certain outfit and/or with a certain weapon.
The moral conflict comes into play once the player realizes they can not only tag known criminals for assassination, including those not originally part of the contract, but a number of seeming innocent civilians and workers. Whereas the campaign gives you a briefing before every mission explaining all of the terrible things the target(s) have done to warrant an assassination contract, not such justification is offered for player created contracts. You can be required to take out the bartender for no further reason than because another player told you to do so. In many ways, this actually feels like a more authentic portrayal of a hitman’s job. No fancy organization telling you to kill all these awful people who arguably deserve their fate. Just an anonymous person telling you to kill some person because they want you to. This in turn, however, raises the question of whether Hitman’s allowing player’s to select seemingly innocent people for assassination is morally justified because it is an accurate representation of a hitman’s job. Or is it perhaps justified in that it is all in the name of player choice and other players are not required to complete the contracts to complete the game?
I had a great time with my second day of Hitman. The game has really started to open up and embrace the sandbox roots of the franchise. In addition, the inclusion of the contracts mode is both a fun diversion and presents an interesting moral dilemma to examine for the purposes of this class. I remain interested to see if the story goes in an interesting direction in terms of its portrayal of a Hitman, or if it goes anywhere at all beyond supplying reasons to sneak about and perform assassinations in a variety of impressive levels with a tantalizing number of options for completion.
add a comment  - read this GameLog  |
|
Sep 21st, 2018 at 23:51:46 - HITMAN (XBONE) |
I started Hitman today and complete the first two training missions. I found them to be overly guided, especially for a Hitman game, but it did a good job kind of showing off how the game works and some of the possibilities, and the missions open up a lot more to play like regular, albeit more condensed, Hitman levels upon a second playthrough. I thought it was interesting starting a Hitman game out without having the player actually killing, as both training missions are simulated scenarios and don’t actually involve any casualties. Not to say that there aren’t interesting ethical issues to examine within these opening hours.
The game makes a big deal within its brief cutscenes of Agent 47 being a completely emotionless, brutally efficient killing machine, to the point where he intimidates some of his potential employers. Does taking the uncomfortable emotions and moral dilemma out of violence and casting the player as a complete sociopath with no trouble killing make it more problematic and less morally responsible than a realistic portrayal of violence within the media? Does having violence for entertainments sake without also showing the harsh and upsetting realities of violence put it more in the wrong than similar games that show the darker side of violence? The game also gives you a plethora of ways in which you can take out your target. While this makes the game more engaging and entertaining to play overall and adds to the replayability, it also really gets the player involved in the process of the violence and how they want to go about. Where violence is no longer portrayed as something necessary for the greater good, like a military shooter, is it ethical for the game to get the player so involved in the process of murder.
Overall, I had a decent time with Hitman’s introduction, but as a fan of previous games, I am definitely looking forward to getting into the more meaty, open ended levels that makes Hitman what it is. I will also be interested to see if the story goes anywhere interesting, as it seems to be trying to set certain plot points up while still letting the gameplay be the focus.
This entry has been edited 1 time. It was last edited on Sep 25th, 2018 at 00:34:00.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Aug 30th, 2018 at 17:32:52 - Little Nightmares (PC) |
I was finally able to finish Little Nightmares today, and wow, what an ending. The fifth and final chapter sees you confronting the character of that chapter and ultimately killing her. Once this is completed, you walk back through the area from the previous chapter, sucking out the life force and ultimately killing anyone who gets too close to you. The last shot is of you walking up a long flight of stairs into sunlight and thus presumably the outside world. This raises an ethical dilemma similar to the last chapter.
Whereas the last chapter tricked the player into performing a morally questionable action with forcing them to kill the creature instead of taking the presented sausage, this time there is no question as to what will happen if the player walks up those stairs. The main character has become a living embodiment of evil, killing indiscriminately those who draw too close. Letting this abomination up those stairs and into the outside world will undoubtedly result in untold death and destruction. Yet the only way to beat the game to walk up those stairs and release this monster onto the outside world. Is it ethical for a game to force the player to perform actions they know to be morally wrong?
This character arc also raises further questions about ethical dilemmas presented from the start of the game. Earlier I asked the question of if it was ethical for a game to portray a seemingly child protagonist in peril and, in several cases, show said protagonist dying. Is it possible this moral dilemma is solved knowing what we know now about the protagonist. Is it ethical to show a young character in violent situations if said character is evil? Is it moral to seemingly portray such an evil character as so young in the first place? Would these moral dilemmas of playing an evil character shown in violent situations be resolved if the character appeared to be older, thus infringing less upon the inherent innocence of childhood?
Overall, I very much enjoyed my playthrough of Little Nightmares. While the game can be somewhat repetitive at times and the gameplay a little clunky, the entire package is absolutely worth a look. The atmosphere is top notch, and the decision to make the player character appear so young really works in favor of the game’s horror elements and helps tell a surprising and difficult narrative make the player that much more uncomfortable and on edge. The game certainly provided plenty of fun moral dilemmas to examine for the purposes of this class and provided an enjoyable experience.
read comments (1)  - add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Aug 27th, 2018 at 20:20:52 - Little Nightmares (PC) |
Finished another two levels of Little Nightmares today and I must say I’m impressed. The thematic themes of consumption and the surprising arc for the main character have really improved my outlook on the game, which was already positive. Plus, being chased by a flood of morbidly obese monsters clearly wanting to eat you is an excellent adrenaline rush. Once again, however, there are some interesting moral questions to explore here, particularly with the arc the main character goes through over these first four levels.
While at first you would be mistaken for believing the central character to be a scared and seemingly innocent boy, he is revealed to be a monster himself by the end of the fourth level. Throughout the game there are sections where your character is overcome with hunger and acquires food to resolve this in a matter of ways. Things take a dark turn, however, at the end of the third level, where the only available food is a rat which is still alive but trapped. The only way to proceed is to go to the rat and begin to eat it while it is still alive. This is both shocking and disturbing, but it is arguably understandable as this is the character’s only option for survival. Things get even worse, however, when at the end of the fourth level, you are overcome with hunger once again. Throughout the game you have been able to find mysterious creatures who you have been able to hug and befriend who will follow you around until you leave their little area. This effectively attaches the character to these creatures, who are always presented as innocent and sweet and are only ever seen running away from danger. One such creature is found at the end of level four, and seeing you are clearly very hungry, offers you a sausage. The main character, however, ignores the sausage and proceeds to eat the innocent creature, turning the main character into a monster themselves.
Is it ethical for a game to trick a player into doing something immoral? Is it ok for a game to force a player to do something immoral in the first place? Should a game be allowed to trick the player into playing a monster, or even have the playable character be a monster in the first place? Overall, I have continued to enjoy Little Nightmare’s oppressive atmosphere and fantastic visuals. Furthermore, I have been pleasantly surprised by the game’s initially subtle narrative and not so subtle themes. I can’t wait to finish it and see how the story wraps up and what demented monsters I will be confronted with next.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
|
 |
| dstrope15's GameLogs |
|
dstrope15 has been with GameLog for 5 years, 8 months, and 1 day |
view feed xml
|
| Entries written to date: 9 |
|
