bug's GameLog

Defcon (PC) - Wed, 08 Apr 2015 12:27:27

Wed, 08 Apr 2015 12:27:27 CST

I decided to spend my research time today as a spectator of online matches. As far as gameplay, I've apparently only scratched the surface of the complexity. There were several 2v2 and 3v3 games that lasted over an hour or two of in-game time (which is not the same as actual time, as the clock can be accelerated if all players agree). Even in such tense, crowded battles, the fact that practically all nukes can be destroyed in mid-air if anti-air turrets were well-placed can lead to a standstill. Unlike an actual "Cold War", it's simply a matter of each side having more than enough defense to thwart attacks from the other. At that point, I realized I might have to stop looking at the game model as an accurate representation of either reality or history. Later, I spectated a smaller 1v1 match. Player 1 complained about being assigned to small Europe while Player 2 had all of south Asia, and said "I've already lost; I'm just here for kicks and giggles." Europe then proceeded to defy expectation, shooting down every nuke launched at it due to its high density of defense units, and destroying several cities before Player 2 decided to quit. Before the match ended, I overheard this in the chat window: Player 1: Damn, I wanted to do what said and bomb Mumbai. He'll be disappointed :( Player 2: It will look better if you did. I think I'm done watching for today.

Defcon (PC) - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 18:30:33

Tue, 07 Apr 2015 18:30:33 CST

I tried a game against two computer opponents this time. Europe dominated the Atlantic. By maintaining a central position, and focusing on clearing out the North Atlantic sea, I was able to claim a crucial location for launching nukes from submarines, while also having destroyed most of the opponents' submarines. Europe survived with about half of its population untouched. It's clear that, if this game is trying to evoke any sort of pathos, it regards the sheer scale of nuclear warfare. Even though I won, 50 million of my citizens died, and on the losing end, entire nations were all but destroyed. Other touches include the menu screen, which displays facts about the effects of radiation on humans, historical miltary data such as "US Air Force Projected Losses", and info about the US's stockpile of nuclear weapons. It also shows the list of "Available Simulations" as printed by the mainframe from the movie Wargames, the message "How about a nice game of chess?" and a "Rolling Demo" mode, in which the game pits AI players against each other and runs the simulation on its own. At this point, I'm not sure how much of the game's ethos can be said to come from its own merits, and not the movie's. I'd very much like to play against human opponents in order to reflect on the personal and social outcomes.

Defcon (PC) - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 00:24:37

Tue, 07 Apr 2015 00:24:37 CST

(This was posted 11:25 PM April 6.) I've played this game before, but only briefly, and long ago... I completed the tutorial, and obliterated Asia 73 to -3. The points are directly related to civilian deaths: 2 points per million killed, -1 point per million lost. This is a game about killing on a genocidal scale. Unlike a typical real-time strategy game, all of your units are available from the beginning. It's therefore usually beneficial to deploy all units as quickly as possible, although it's possible that a higher-level strategy might dictate reserving some. DEFCON levels escalate from 5 to 1 automatically as time progresses, unlocking radar coverage, weaponry and aggressive actions. For example, DEFCON 3 allows air and naval combat, while DEFCON 1 allows nuclear launches. On a tactical level, it is not clear whether the game actually encourages the doctrine or practice of "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD). It's theoretically possible to defend your territory well enough to protect the majority of your citizens, then launch a counterattack once the enemy is depleted of weaponry. This is somewhat different than the actual state of nuclear stockades, in which multiple countries possess enough weaponry to render the human race extinct multiple times.

The Walking Dead: Season Two (PC) - Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:40:07

Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:40:07 CST

What I'm finding more and more is that many of the choices have to do with managing what information each character knows. This includes Clementine herself: for example, your choices can give the impression to others that she was alone, and at certain points, it seems that she believes the fact that Christa died. In other words, aside from the usual choices of telling the truth, withholding it, or lying, the player also sometimes has the option of creating a new truth, at least, as far as Clementine believes. Related to truth and information are the choices that involve making promises, such promising to look after Nick. In some cases, what that means isn't well defined, and whether your actions live up to that is up to interpretation. For example, when Nick shoots the man on the bridge, you can give your own account of the events, which might incriminate Nick. The situation is ambiguous: the man's intentions at that moment were never truly known. I answered that the man wasn't going to shoot, since that's what I believed, before I realized that saying so would put Nick in a bad light. Does relating my believed account count as betraying Nick? Would I have had to say something I didn't believe in order to truly keep my promise to Pete? In such a case, the game can't really answer that question objectively, since it has no knowledge of the player's view of the events.

The Walking Dead: Season Two (PC) - Tue, 24 Feb 2015 03:16:25

Tue, 24 Feb 2015 03:16:25 CST

Playing this without repeating leaves me guessing exactly how much the game's choices affect the plot. However, at the end of the episode, I'm presented with a selection of the choices that I made, compared to other players' choices. Some of these choices don't even have in-game consequences at all, such as the decision of whether to end the dog's life. Some of the captions on these choices (particularly: "Mercy", "Trust", "Generosity") are even rather moralizing. This, along with my causal intuition, leads me to believe that the plot doesn't actually have major branches that will lead Clementine to different locations and sets of choices, but instead that the choices are simply there to add layers of complexity to the single story-line. That isn't to say that I believe the choices don't have consequences, merely that said consequences are not enough to sway the plot beyond a sort of single, guiding continuity, unlike games with widely branching plot trees like Dragon Age: Inquisition. If I'm right in this guess, this may have been because of development scope, but I'd also like to think that the the design choice was very deliberate: barring completionists, players are free to consider each choice honestly, for its own sake, rather than for what content it will unlock.

The Walking Dead: Season Two (PC) - Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:51:04

Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:51:04 CST

Upon starting the game, I'm already given an interesting choice. The game is designed to build off of of the player's choices in Season One, so it provides both a link to buy the prequel, as well as an option to randomly generate a series of choices, which I choose, since I don't have the time to play both. A television-style recap of Season One's events plays, showing all the major choices. What's interesting about this choice is that the randomly generated choices (at least, what I can glean from the brief recap) immediately make me feel indignant, and that I would have chosen differently. I'm actually compelled to purchase and play Season One at a later date in order to experience Season Two from a more personal perspective, as well as to experiment with other choices. This is, if anything, a good marketing strategy from Telltale... It's nice that the choices that will be important later on are pointed out. I also appreciate that there are some choices that seem like they might be important, but end up being inconsequential, and are left only to reflect on the player, such as the choice of which fuel to burn: a photo, a drawing, or a damp log. The quicktime action system is a little overplayed, but it's not what makes the game interesting, anyway. (note: I submitted this on Feb 23, and not at 12:51 or any :51....this website's clock seems to be off.) (This entry has been edited1 time. It was last edited on Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:52:59.)

This war of mine (PC) - Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:39:09

Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:39:09 CST

Days 7-9: Raiders came in the morning and took more than a little. Due to my lack of gastronomical foresight, resources are starting to run thin. Someone is always sick or hurt, and medical supplies are indeed a rarity. Recovery is possible without them: herbal medicine, food, rest and warmth all help a bit. I've been lucky enough not to learn yet how hunger, sickness, or injury affects these characters' lives when they become severe... So far, I've managed to play it safe while scavenging, poking around the outskirts of dangerous areas, but I will need to start taking some risks. With considerable effort, I managed to upgrade a few workstations and build a couple weapons. Day 10: It's time. Health is deteriorating and I need to scrounge further. Night 10: ...Marko was shot trying to loot the supermarket. Reflection: While this was perhaps a foreseeable outcome, it raises a lot of questions. How do we view the demoralization that all these characters (PC and NPC) are facing? With sympathy? Pity? Judgement? Many philosophers would denounce the stealing and violence outright, but, for example, what counts as stealing, when it's an abandoned supermarket? Ripe for analysis. The game medium itself presents interesting choices, too: it's possible to redo a (game-time) day's worth of gameplay by reloading, including the results of the previous night (raids on the house, etc.). It's perhaps not an ethical issue, but one could ask whether this ability detracts from the player's ability to reason about the ethics that the game presents, i.e., by making it easier to go through the game without stealing or killing, thus avoiding the hard questions. Then again, the difficulty curve might be such that even that small advantage wouldn't be enough to bypass hardship-induced moral dilemma.

This war of mine (PC) - Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:09:23

Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:09:23 CST

Days 3-5: Things I learned: You can go a day without food just fine. A cooked meal is enough to go by for two days (even if that sounds like hell). I probably could have skimped on meals earlier on. Traders will appear at your door, as well as people asking for help. Bruno helped someone create a makeshift children's hospital, which didn't appear to give any material benefit, but lifted everyone's mood. Traders often place different values on items depending on their immediate needs, although certain rare items like moonshine and jewelry seem to be always valuable. Additionally, all the NPCs I've bartered with so far have been in dire need of bandages or medicine, and some will ask for them outright. Trading with those who ask for medicinal aid will improve your morale. Scavenging at certain areas can bring trade opportunities, others danger of gunfire, but some areas are simply private residences whose owners simply wish to be left alone. HERE COME THE BIG MORAL CHOICES: If you are discovered by a homeowner, even if they are not aggressive or particularly upset, everything worth scavenging from the house will suddenly be marked with "PRIVATE PROPERTY". I assume that this is a message from the scavenger PC's own conscience, since it does not appear until you have met the owners. They also really freak out if you start picking a lock. Whoops. I expect things to get a lot more complicated and difficult, in terms of these choices.

This war of mine (PC) - Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:59:22

Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:59:22 CST

(Please note: this entry was written for a play session of the game yesterday. In order to prevent data loss, I typically edit online posts like this in a local text editor before submitting, but I neglected to submit it last night.) Day 1: I'm immediately thrown into a burnt, half-collapsed building in the middle of a war-torn city, and put in charge of three lives. One of them is wounded, another sick, but at least we have a Good Cook, a Good Scavenger, and a Fast Runner. I start clearing out the rubble and collecting supplies from around the house, which I fashion into a bed to let Bruno, the sickie, rest. (The game helpfully hints that resting in beds does in fact help recover from sickness or wounds, and that clearing out debris is faster if one has a shovel. Good feedback.) Time passes very quickly. By nightfall, I'm only able to gather a handful of scraps and build a single bed, and when I go out at night to scavenge from an abandoned, burning building, my haul is limited by what a single person can carry in a backpack. Apparently, the strongest lifter is Marko, who is still wounded...I decide to send someone else and have him rest instead of risk worsening his injury. I foresee a pattern of barely scraping by... Day 2: The key is multitasking. By moving quickly between characters, I was able to clear out more rooms, pick a few locks, build another bed, a stove, and a heater. Bruno was also able to recover from his illness and cook enough food for everyone. I'm not sure how his "Good Cook" skill actually helps, but he's the obvious choice for preparing meals. (EDIT: the fan-made Wikia site tells me that he's able to cook more efficiently, using fewer resources when making meals and other consumables.) I sent Marko to scavenge, despite that his wound still hasn't healed, but the night was uneventful. The same building is still chock full of food and building materials. However, when he returns, I learn that the house was raided, and Bruno injured. The raiders took very little, but that injury will be a problem... It's at this point that I get a feel for the game's primary conflict: not between enemies in war, but between other survivors.