Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=1757https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6000The two ethical issues I see people having with the game is the taboo nature of the subject matter and the actions the player takes with the tools provided. Creating a game about genocide where the score is counted in megadeaths is something we have been taught is wrong. When given a simulation despite being relatively non representational the player still feels as though they are wiping out most of the human race. The question thats raised, are there subjects which are too taboo to create a game about? I am a firm believer that nothing is too taboo and that creating a game about something as taboo as nuclear holocausts allows players to explore and imagine the possibilities of such scenarios. After playing a series of multiplayer games I also realize there's level of diplomacy and subterfuge that also happens between players. There's always some distrust between allies. Or the thought process in placing units in order to misdirect your opponent. Theres also something to be said for the slow pacing of the game which is both quite enjoyable but also allows a level of meditative play as you thoughtfully deploy units. Overall I think Defcon is a great game giving players the tools to feel like they are in control of giant nation-state.Wed, 08 Apr 2015 14:23:40 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6000&iddiary=10475https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6000Multiplayer in Defcon feels like your playing an interactive board game. I found this aesthetic to be refreshing from the usual action based games or games that dont take advantage of this beautiful simplicity. My first multiplayer game I wound up as South Asia. I attempted to make allies with Russians in the north. This proved useful for a time and seemed like a good idea as then I could focus my attention on the American dogs. I built massive fleet and began to send towards the Pacific coast. I ended up sneaking the fleet right past their fleet which they had sent to attack my mainland. The tension level was high and there's an ever-present level of anxiety as to whether the choices you're making are the right ones. Once it came time to launch nukes I launched everything in a giant volley carpet bombing the West and East Coasts of the US. I intentionally built no defenses from Russia assuming my ally would hold. It didn't and I found myself being attacked on two fronts. I ended up taking second place as I managed to kill most of the US in my opening volley from Silos, Bombers, and Subs.Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:23:41 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6000&iddiary=10467https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6000Defcon is a game where you try and destroy the opposing player through nuking everything they hold dear. At first I was quite frustrated by the game as its an older title and refused to work on my computer. After two days of troubleshooting on and off I finally got it working. Apparently the game isnt designed for ultra high res displays. I also had a bug where my mouse was frozen in game but fine on the desktop. So my first impression of the game wasn't the best as I was already judging it based on the fact it didnt work on my state of the art super-gaming PC. However after I got it working and completed the tutorial I was far more impressed by the game. I appreciate the intercontinental war between nations and the zoomed out view reminiscent of Dr Strangelove. It felt very cold-waresque. The fact you measure success in megadeaths was also both hilarious and added another level of drama. Next multiplayer.Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:16:38 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6000&iddiary=10466https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5975I want my money back. 118 minutes of playtime where most of it involved simple to script events and voice acting was not enough content. Choosing to help Nick resulted in an end game cinematic and trailer for what would happen NEXT season. If the developers wanted to mimic a TV series they should have had at least 12 hours of content. Something closer to an actual TV series. Instead the game fails at both being a game and being a TV show. Right now I'm watching the credits and not sure what to think about this game, its devs, and peoples ‘critical’ reactions to it. I’m hoping I missed something that there's actually a whole game that I missed and that an hour and half of gameplay wasn't the entire game. My gameplay experience resulted in so little gameplay that I don’t even know how to fill up three game logs much less write a paper about the ethical issues involved. At this point I think the biggest ethical issue is on the part of the devs with over promising and over charging for such little content.Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:04:45 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5975&iddiary=10433https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5975The illusion of choice which I mention in the previous game log only continued, this time with Clementine having to find tools to stitch up her arm after she's locked in a shed by a group of survivors. Sneaking into the house is straightforward with no real penalty for trying to break in. Once inside the house its almost impossible to get caught. Trust me I tried. This is where I feel the game simply plays off the illusion of choice and the idea the player won’t test the system. I also encountered Anna, a mentally challenged little girl, whom my character decided to be best friends with. Later her father scolds the player for taking advantage of his daughter, I felt that if I had made a different choice I would have merely been rewarded with a slightly different dialogue option. The first real choice I felt I had to make was to choose between Pete or Nick. Clementine goes to collect fish from some fish traps with Pete and Nick, they stumble onto some zombies and Clem must choose to help one side or the other. This all happens turned a quick time event so the player is forced to make an instinctual choice less they just push ‘esc’. Despite Nick being a dick and almost shooting the Clem I chose to save him. Thus letting Pete, Nicks uncle, whom had been bit by a zombie die. In my mind it was whats a little kid going to do anyways? One of the things I keep thinking about is how the game tries so hard to be a TV show, yet fails to capture the emotion of the actors resulting in unintentional comical moments which are meant to be serious. On the flip side it tries to be a game but comes off as one giant quick time event which is usually considered a bad design tool, like invisible walls.Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:27:30 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5975&iddiary=10427https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5975The Walking Dead: Season Two by Tell Tale Games is an interactive-ish narrative where you play through one long never ending quicktime event guiding a child through a zombie infested post apocalyptic world. To be honest I really wanted to like this game, I’ve heard great things about Tell Tale Games. The game starts by introducing you to the player, Clementine a little girl no older than 14. It then guides you through a series of choices that are essentially set on rails, I took this as being the game introducing me to its systems and showing me what I could expect down the line. This was the whole scene with Omid and Krista, and then with Krista in the woods. As the game introduced all its major mechanics, push buttons when prompted, click on objects, and test players reading comprehension through timing dialogue choices. These felt to me like workings of an extended quick time event, which for me are one of the most insidious design creations ever. The game does try and create moral dilemmas through and setup choices which make you wonder if you are choosing the right path, this does lend to some intrigue. For example while looking for food my character meets a stray dog, when food is found I offered to share the food. This resulted in the dog attacking my character for the food. Clementine proceeds to kill the dog and this sets up the next part of the story getting tools for stitches. After doing some poking around it seemed to me that there no matter what choice you make the dog will attack and thus the designers only create the illusion of choice.Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:16:00 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5975&iddiary=10426https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5951Did I let Picasso die? Or at least the equivalent game version of Picasso. While rummaging through an abandoned squat for supplies I found a poor starving man begging for food. All of the clues so far indicated that a talented artist lived there. Normally you don't bring food scavenging as it just takes up useful space. The man informed me he would surely die if someone didn't help him in the next few days. I left the squat with plenty of construction supplies for myself and headed home. My group wasn't in the best of shape either with food running low at that time, so I proceeded to scavenge for food elsewhere the following nights. I number of days later I returned to to the squat to collect supplies and feed the starving man if he had made it this far. He was dead. Another scavenger had covered the body and spoke some harsh words for me however never directly said I was responsible for the poor mans death. Did I let Picasso starve to death? With the lack of a save system there’s no easy way to see the alternate possibilities without restarting the entire game which at day 20 and nine hours of game time just isn't feasible. The lack of a robust save system raises the stakes and gives the player a sense of consequence to their actions. This in turn adds more intrinsic value to the moral dilemmas the player is faced with.Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:36:06 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5951&iddiary=10388https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5951All I wanted was some food and I ended up with an assault rifle, ammo, and a warm fuzzy feeling for doing ‘the right thing’, the downside I was covered in a dead soldier's blood. At night you scavenge the city for supplies and I chose the Super-Market which was clearly labeled ‘Danger’. Upon entering the grocery store my character overheard a conversation between a soldier and young woman looking for food. It became clear this soldier was looking to rape the young woman and it was up to me to either stop it or go about my business rummaging in freedom since the soldier was occupied. I chose the former and when the soldier was marching the woman away I sneaked up with my recently crafted kitchen knife and murdered the soldier. The young woman ran off terrified. When I went back to the store the following night, as its impossible to loot an entire location in a single evening, I was greeted by a friendly scavenger. This friendly informed my character that the young woman made it home and is safe all thanks to some stranger. Now I must point out I got extremely lucky as there are no save games and the soldier could have easily killed my character with a single volley of bullets. The game pits doing the right thing against large amounts of risk and consequence. It captures the moral difficulty of decisions people must make when placed in extraordinary situations. This blurring of right and wrong are backed up by the path of least resistance being the utilitarian path where the needs of the people whom are dependent on the player come first. (This entry has been edited6 times. It was last edited on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:03:07.)Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:47:38 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5951&iddiary=10381https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5951This War of Mine is game where the player takes control of civilians trapped in besieged city. The game does little to inform the player of what to do or how to play, your characters in game needs are expressed in status windows, with such things as very hungry, or content. The goal seems to be survive and manage a finite amount of resources. Off the bat I noticed the game presented a number of ethical choices such as who gets food, whether you should trade crafting supplies so your characters can die with full bellies or meds when they are sick. Even the choices of what household objects to craft have effect on your characters. Feeding one character results in the others expressing in their journals, which the player has access to, that they wish they could help the hungry one. When I first play a game to examine the morals and ethics boundaries the game developers may be trying to communicate I push everything to the extreme. The key to these extremes to find where the moral lines are drawn, what will they let you do? and not let the player do? The answers to this question can aid in discovery of the games inherent moral code. For example, my survivors were starving and someone came to the door looking for shelter. Dont ask me why, but my first instinct was that food just walked to my doorstep. However I quickly discovered there was no way, that I could find, to murder and eat one of your characters to save the others. Hence the game’s inherent moral code implies cannibalism is just too wrong by omitting such a mechanic. Before you jump, I do realize that the game developer may not have thought of this scenario and therefore didn’t omit cannibalism due to a moral reason. Or it may be yet to come, which is what I’m hoping for.Mon, 26 Jan 2015 23:35:59 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5951&iddiary=10379