Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=1788https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6135I've completed my third playthrough of Undertale, making it as far as the Tem Shop. From where I was with the last entry to here, nothing of huge interest happened. I went on a date with a skeleton, got chased down by the head of the Royal Guard, was attacked by a possessed training dummy, and met some very strange creatures. The date itself was...strange. The minigame was a lot like an encounter, but I felt I had little control over what was going on. Played as a series of yes/no questions with clear right and wrong answers it felt to me as if it didn't fit with the theme of the game. The date ends with Papyrus requesting a platonic relationship with the player - since clearly the player is in love with him for hanging out. The entire idea of a date was pushed throughout the Papyrus fight - Acting was either insulting or flirting with Papyrus only. I found this a little strange - why would flirting be the only option instead of something more platonic? My guess is the design is deliberate to mess with the player. Flirting has strong romantic overtones that most of us would not use in the context of interacting with someone we are not romantically attracted to. Yet the interaction does apply when making friends - small petty annoyances that we find endearing that eventually lead to feelings for a person. The interaction sequence through the date did make me a little uneasy, since I began with flirting then went on a date I felt a little off. I was constantly on guard for what was going to happen, and was put moreso when we entered Papyrus' bedroom to "do whatever it is people do on a date." My unease culminated when Papyrus asked me to find his 'secret' in the new outfit. This entire scenario made me uneasy because of cultural references for what a date is. A date is set up to be a romantic experience, not something one would use for two friends hanging out. Curious how this changes, children have play-dates with friends, then sometime around our teenage years it transitions from being innocent, to meaning something deeper. The game took advantage of that culture shift brilliantly. Very rarely has a game made me feel this uncomfortable.Wed, 06 Apr 2016 19:48:23 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6135&iddiary=10712https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6135I've completed my second playsession of Undertale and have made it to the Papyrus fight. Papyrus himself is an interesting character - projecting his own doubts onto the player, fighting to capture the player (despite liking the player) just to further his own reputation. Papyrus portrays in a very charming way our basic need for acceptance. Throughout the Snowdin area Papyrus has set up puzzles for the player to navigate. As the player solves puzzles, Papyrus grows more impressed while presenting cheesy villain dialogue about how the player will not solve the next puzzle. At the half way point, Papyrus leaves a plate of food for the player and a note stating the food will be too distracting for the player to be able to proceed. This simple gesture tells a different story: Papyrus is trying to express affection for the player. Papyrus' entire demeanor changes from cheesy villain to awkward and shy. He's boastful to a new face to try and impress them into liking him. But that facade falls with dialogue from his brother: Papyrus is a nice person but has been feeling down, solve the puzzles to humor him, and that his clothing is a costume he has been wearing since a party they attended. He's now shown as a sympathetic character who is only searching for a friend. Given that I am playing a pacifist, I will be befriending Papyrus and see what happens when he gets what he so deeply desires.Tue, 05 Apr 2016 16:48:29 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6135&iddiary=10703https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6135I've completed my first play session of Undertale and am enjoying the game so far. The combat system is new, with the player getting to decide whether to fight or engage in dialogue. I've decided to do a pacifist playthrough - only engaging in conversation and sparing the enemies rather than engaging in combat. When given the option, I usually take the "good" path first: in Fable I play white alignment, in Mass Effect I choose Paragon, and for this I chose pacifist. The pacifist path is far more difficult, I don't appear to be gaining any experience from engaging in combat, which means my stats won't scale as rapidly as the enemies. This may change later, or perhaps I am sparing the enemies too early in the encounters. This requires more testing later. For this playthrough I exited the ruins and began Snowdin. Through the Ruins area, Toriel is your guide. She lives alone in the ruins since the last human who fell left to try to get back to the surface. Starting she is lonely, then she finds a child who fell. Her loneliness compounded with her caring nature create what is essentially a helicopter parent personality in this character. Toriel begins by leading you through some simple puzzles, in a very direct way - chalk arrows on the wall, looking over your shoulder as you interact with the training dummy, asking you to solve a puzzle alone only to lead you through by the hand, and finally hiding behind a pillar in an area that has no puzzle to solve, just a long path. At the end of this, Toriel gives the player a cell phone, and asks them to wait for her to come pick them up. Throughout the Ruins, Toriel calls to check in with the player, asking what they like to eat, any allergies, and other fairly mundane questions. However, the player has the ability to call Toriel and ask for puzzle help, and she responds by asking if the player is still in the room where she left them. I found this more annoying than anything: I was abandoned and asked to have faith, constantly checked in on, and finally when I actually need some help, ignored. Her behavior culminates at the end of the Ruins area, where she intends to destroy the exit to the ruins so the player must remain behind with her, as the world beyond her house is too dangerous At the exit, the player must fight Toriel as she wants to show the player the world beyond is much too dangerous, and she is doing the player a favor by beating the crap out of them, clearly it is much safer with someone willing to abuse you in the name of teaching you a lesson...Tue, 05 Apr 2016 00:38:08 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6135&iddiary=10699https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6116For my last playsession, I managed to finish the campaign. The last two missions were quite difficult for me. Particularly the last one. In these types of tycoon games I tend to struggle keeping a net positive cash flow as I attempt to maintain and expand my areas. In this one, I found it particularly troubling as there is a massive moral consequence. This entire game is based off of the For-Profit prison industry. The worse the prisoners are treated or the longer their sentences, the more cash the prison generates. I find this extremely unpleasant. From the start I had a feeling the game was pointing out problems with For-Profit prisons, and that was confirmed in the G.A.B.O.S mission. I felt that the idea would be changing to something more idealistic - reform over retention with less of an emphasis on cost. I was incorrect. The last mission requires a net positive cash flow, meaning there are sacrifices that must be made in other areas - livable conditions, adequate medical care, safety, etc, in order to meet the requirement. I find this kind of prison system heavily flawed. When a prison is converted into a for profit system, it becomes an industry similar to what we find morally wrong about exploited workers in other countries. The argument could be made that the inmates don't deserve better treatment as they did something wrong to be placed in prison to begin with, yet this is a flawed argument as the prisoners are now being treated as a means to an end. To me prisons should not be an industry. These institutions serve a purpose - to keep those who are not fit for society out of the populace while attempting to reform them. I am not saying that prisoners should live off society as leeches, but they should not be exploited for monetary gain either. To me, a prison would work best as a system that generates just enough revenue to be self sustaining. Overall, I enjoyed Prison Architect. The game gave an interesting view on three (that I've noticed) moral flaws with some prison ideas we currently use. The death penalty, racist sentencing, and For Profit system were all well pointed out by this game.Thu, 03 Mar 2016 01:13:08 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6116&iddiary=10675https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6116Two playsessions into prison architect and I've noticed an interesting trend in scripted enemy characters. I've just cleared the chapter where the CEO dies and begun the next mission afterward. From mission one to this point there have only been two white enemies. The first is the man you execute in the tutorial. The second is the broken man in the mission I ended the playsession on. The others are minorities: itialian mobsters and black men. The game portrays the minorities differently than the white men. The first is shown to have regret over the premeditated double homicide. The second was partners with Benedict until the confrontation that got them both arrested, where he did not fire a shot at the officers. Meanwhile Benedict himself is portrayed as a thug. He is hyperviolent, cruel, and free of remorse for his actions. Similarly the Palermo family (including Nico Tamoretti) are mobsters. They're actively smuggling drugs and alcohol into the prison, and running a criminal organization from behind bars. The family is of italian descent, fitting with the mobster theme, and completely cold. Nico sets the prison on fire in an effort to kill his brother-in-law, but kills the Don instead. Later he hires another prisoner to kill his brother-in-law (Sonny Palermo), and succeeds. I found the difference in portrayal interesting. In the current American prison system this seems to be the general reasoning behind most inmates. The current climate, particularly in America, tends to be that minorities are viewed as more thug like than their white counterparts. This is fueled by stereotypes and the game does a wonderful job playing off these and portraying them in an interesting way.Wed, 02 Mar 2016 00:41:13 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6116&iddiary=10667https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6116Right off the bat Prison Architect hits you with an interesting delema: is execution moral? The first mission of the campaign is just teaching you the ropes: how to build basic rooms, how to hook up utilities. From the art the game looks tongue in cheek hilarious - simple graphics, with music reminiscent of the Tycoon games (Roller Coaster Tycoon, Zoo Tycoon, etc) and Theme Hospital. I spent the first few minutes, while the workers were building the new foundation, looking through the prisoners list of crimes, looking for differences in sentences based on skin color. I was wondering if the game played to the general trend of people of color getting longer sentences for lesser crimes. So far it seems fair, but that is only from the first chapter of the campaign. I was calmly watching the workers scurry around while they completed the foundation when the CEO calls. He had me build an Execution Area, with an imminent room and electric chair. The game still presented the same art style, up until the Polaroid picture giving you the backstory of the man scheduled for execution. The photos are similar to a comic book, and are much more serious than the game appears. The backstory of the man scheduled for execution was not what I expected. Instead of it being something fantastical, which would have matched my expectations given the art style, the story was dark. The man's wife was cheating so he followed her and killed her and her lover. Legally everything is in order and the man is to be executed. Then the priest enters. He briefly questions the chief about the morality of the action. The chief responded that we are not to decide whether the action is moral or amoral, the law already decided his sentence. To advance the story, the only option is to carry out the execution. This plays another cutscene where you see the priest comfort the man on his way to the chair. Then the guard throws the switch, the screen goes white, and the next chapter loads. This related to a story in Oklahoma a few weeks ago. A prisoner was sentenced to death for her role as mastermind in her husband's murder. By the time of the execution she was reformed, held a Master's degree, and was a model prisoner. Yet her sentence was carried out. I had to question, is this the best practice? I am generally for capital punishment. There are people who should not be part of this world. But if the reform is successful, which is the goal of the prison institution in the first place, should the sentence still be carried out or reconsidered in light of new evidence?Mon, 29 Feb 2016 23:42:41 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6116&iddiary=10664https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6090For the last entry on This War of Mine I went completely against my normal play style for these types of games. I generally try to play with some set of moral laws adapted to the world I am in - it is OK to scavenge and kill because that is the world I am in. This time though, I tried to play more Utilitarian. I would take what I needed in order to eliminate the greatest sources of unhappiness in order to increase the total happiness of the population. With this style, I allowed myself to fight for supplies I would need, kill other survivors, or make sacrifices 'For The Greater Good.' Overall I lasted.....5 days before my last survivor was over tired and starving. I believe this could have worked out better if I moved slower, scavenging from safe areas enough to build weapons, then challenge other survivors (my first survivor died looting a house) or the military (my second survivor died looting the supermarket). By the time the survivors died, I had a level 2 workshop and a level 2 metal work bench and was a single weapon part away from crafting a gun. If I was ranking progress on how much stuff I had and could craft, this would probably be the most progress I made over the course of this game. However, this attempt left me feeling...unclean. As I said earlier, I don't tend to play these games following a Utilitarian approach. I prefer to follow a stronger rule set for moral and amoral actions - more Kantian. What is even more interesting, I would classify myself as Utilitarian over Kantian in my real-life decisions. In the game though I get to step away from my choices into a world I would consider more ideal, with a generally clear set of moral right and wrong choices. While it is nice to imagine a rational system with a universal right and wrong for any action, but to me it is not that simple. The real world does not fit well into a strict classification of right and wrong, as there are many little details that are left out. For this reason [Western] society is more Utilitarian, as it allows for circumstances to alter the moral obligation. But sometimes it is nice to play a game that has an authority give you a strict set of moral laws - Mass Effect's Paragon and Renegade, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic with the Dark Side and Light Side, Black and White with the strict Actions are Good or Actions are Evil, and so on. In these strictly regulated environments I hold myself to stricter, more universal moral standards. In this environment, actions I would normally take have very slim, if any, moral footing. So in this playthrough I went off the deep end of Utilitarian morality. Sacrifices would be made so that the total happiness of the survivors was greater than any discomfort I would cause. Instead of having strict rules now, I performed the utility calculation as I was making decisions. For example, when I was stealing from other residents I had an end in mind: I needed parts to construct weapons/upgrades. I often found food and medicine in the places I was looting, but I would leave it. If I took the food, I would slightly increase my happiness - I had plenty of food this playthough, but would greatly decrease the targets happiness, so I left the food behind. However other items were available. Since I was trying to eliminate a great source of unhappiness (military occupying the Supermarket), and I needed crafting parts to make that possible, I would steal these. Often these materials were very common in the places I looted, meaning taking them would slightly decrease the happiness of the original owner, but moderately increase my happiness. So I would take them and leave. Unfortunately getting caught stealing never factored into my equation. When I was caught it greatly decreased the happiness of the person I was stealing from, to the point that they used murder as an equalizing force. Overall, I really enjoyed This War of Mine. I would strongly recommend it to anyone looking for something interesting to play. There is definitely more to explore in this game that my three brief playthroughs have accomplished. On my own time I am excited to see what else I can do. Perhaps continuing with my second playthrough rule set, or reattempting the Utilitarian approach to see if a slower, more controlled game works better.Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:40:37 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6090&iddiary=10631https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6090This playthrough I allowed myself to stand guard...so far it seems my fears were unfounded when I believed guarding would kill people. So far I have managed to drive off every raider with only minor injuries to my group, granted I am only using a kitchen knife to defend against looters. So far the three rules I set for myself seem to be working out. I have made it through day 9, gained a new survivor (Boris), and have traded enough materials for medicines, that I can then trade to another group of survivors for food at a really good price. Unfortunately success is less interesting to me for this game. If I am lucky enough to be able to survive with my supplies and never have to venture beyond my trading points, what is the point of being in a war-zone? Granted, picking up Boris put a strain on my limited resources, but I have managed to stretch my supplies to accommodate. Boris so far is my best scavenger. His 17 item carry capacity more than makes up for his slow running. I have yet to explore high danger areas, but even so I would be cautious my first time there, only running to save myself. The high carry capacity on Boris will also allow me to scout these areas and consolidates materials in places closer to the doors, away from any danger so I can enter over different nights and collect all resources quickly. So since nothing interesting happened in the game, I'll reflect a little on the choices I made. For example I went to scavenge the Garage and found the owner's son in dire need of medicine for his father, and willing to trade heavily to get a small ammount. I took advantage of this as I scavenged lots of medicine, but little food and other supplies. I was able to trade the medicines over in exchange for lots of materials and food, which kept my people fed, and he got medicine to help his sick father. I believe I violated Kantian moral law here. Despite the son offering me the deal willingly to get medicine, he was under extreme duress. His father is sick and he had no means to cure him, so he was offering outrageous trades for even a little medicine. This is not a rational decision as he is trading food to me as well as easily found scrap items. By taking advantage of it I used him as a means to an end, which violates Kant's second formulation. Yet the decision may not be completely amoral. From a very short sighted Utilitarian perspective, I acted well within my moral bounds. My not having food decreased my overall happiness as my survivors would start to starve; and his not having medicine decreased his overall happiness as his father was sick. If I set my forward view to the immediate future, my survivors would live another day with the food and his father would survive another day with the medicine. By making the trade I gain something that increases my overall happiness, while giving him something that increases his overall happiness, therefore I acted in a way that maximized total happiness and therefore morally. I had not intended to play using Utilitarian moral theory until my next play-through, but it seems I got a head start. For the final attempt I am going to apply Utilitarian theory. Simply act in the way that maximizes happiness. This is vastly different than my usual attempts to follow laws and avoid violence. With this theory I will try to ease the suffering of people living within the warzone. This sets my moral obligations as removal of any people that reduce overall happiness, making it my duty to act violently to kill occupying soldiers or looters.Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:07:15 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6090&iddiary=10625https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6090I've completed my first ever play session of This War Of Mine. So far I am liking the game a lot. The entire game is based around you controlling three people trapped in a ravaged city in the middle of a war-zone. You must make choices on how best to keep the three alive by scavenging resources used to build up your shelter. I decided to play the first time as if I was playing Fable or Mass Effect. In such games I always choose the good side as I believe it is what I would do in a similar situation. Perhaps I overestimate myself in these games, as I tend to subscribe to the Utilitarian morality more than Kantian. Still, when I play these types of games I tend to follow Kantian moral theory and abide by a set of moral laws which I believe are correct regardless of the consequences. I decided on three simple moral laws: Keep all three survivors alive, scavenge only from unoccupied locations, and never kill another person. For the first couple days this went well. Then the nightly raids started happening. Because I was very strict in never kill, I never kept guard at night, as the guard may kill some of the bandits or the bandits kill one of my people. I tried to reason around "Killing is wrong." I added "unless you are defending your possessions," however this did not fit with my law: the consequence of keeping my possessions has no bearing on the action of killing. I still killed someone, and the act of killing is wrong. As a result my survivors made it to day 7, when all my food and water was stolen and two of three were starving. In my opinion this game, so far, shows a great flaw with the Kant's first formulation: it only works if it can be applied to a rational system. In a crisis, such as the game depicts, survival takes precedence over rationality. Survival instincts are primal and do not often coincide with rational actions. As more and more people fall into survival mode, the rational system breaks down, leading to a breakdown of Kantian morality. Consider for example my stealing is wrong law. If everyone was acting as I was and only scavenging from unoccupied locations or bartering for their items, I would not have to worry about standing guard at night and possibly killing someone to protect my resources. However, bandits come around and steal from me every few nights. By Kantian theory, they are acting irrationally, and I am the moral superior. I could state that a person acting irrationally is not a rational being and thus my moral laws do not apply to them, but this violates Kant's second formulation as people are known to be capable of acting rationally. By opting out of my moral laws, I would deprive the person of the choice to act rationally, thus using them as a means to an end (that I could do as I pleased to them because they were irrational). So despite my best efforts I could not change how I played or rationalize doing anything to protect myself lest I accidentally violate one of my moral laws. As a result I lasted a week in the war-zone. At least I die happy knowing I hold the higher moral ground, except that dying violates my first moral law. Perhaps I am being too hard on Kantian theory, as the thought of universally applied laws is appealing. However, I find the system to be too rigid. Morals should not change easily, but when trying to overcome overwhelming adversity, morals should be allowed to adapt to the changing environment. In a pure survival situation, killing in order to steal objects may be morally wrong, but killing to protect your resources may be morally correct, rather than having a single universal moral law that says killing is wrong. For my next play-through I will alter my rules to fit more with the situation: Keep all three survivors alive, scavenge only from unoccupied locations, and only kill in defense of self or property. The change to the third law should add a more utilitarian approach. The formula is my three survivors and N bandits. If the raiders steal from me they get minor happiness, but they cause my survivors great unhappiness. By fending off the raid I cause the raiders minor unhappiness, while giving my survivors great happiness. I will discuss how this approach worked in my next game log.Mon, 25 Jan 2016 01:38:01 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6090&iddiary=10621