Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=1821https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6358This third session of the witcher was again interesting. While the ethical issues of the witcher were less present in this interaction there was one scene in particular that was interesting. Vessemir remarks that times have changed, that it used to be a simpler world where monsters were bad and humans were good. Now it isn’t so black and white. Geralt disagrees saying things were always like this and Vessemir just remembers things differently. The double sidedness of the captain illustrates the point Geralt is making, even the “kind” captain who limited the required tax arrested and tortured the deliveryman who gave the soldiers rotten grain. While the peasant pleads ignorance and begs for mercy, the captain dismisses him as insulting them on purpose and orders him lashed repeatedly. This seems to be the overarching theme of all characters in the universe of the Witcher. Whatever is on the surface is simply a façade of the truth. Kind and benevolent people seem to harbor secrets. The herbalist seems to have a long and troubled past that she has hidden away. Even the emperor and Yennefer are not all they seem to be. Within this world, it seems that right and wrong are more subjective than in our own. Many of the problems faced by the people are vastly different, though related to the suffering of people in the real world. One major difference though is that our world does not contain Witchers, they can be a great equalizing force, and can bring much good or much ruin to the world based on their choices. It is implied that during the events of The Witcher 2: Assassin of Kings Geralt played a role in shaping the entire world with the decisions he made. Entire nations were affected because of the choices he made. I think CD Projekt does a fantastic job of exploring how the choices we make may not necessarily have a right or wrong answer, but the choice nevertheless affects the world in a tangible way.Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:45:38 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6358&iddiary=11129https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6358In this second session of The Witcher 3, I was able to get a little bit better of a glimpse into the world of the Witcher and the various struggles the people experience on a day to day basis. As I approached the Nilfgardian captain in the barracks, I was able to hear a conversation about the taxes the farmers were expected to pay to the army, mainly bushels of wheat. Though the captain was generous in requiring significantly less than the peasants were expecting to have to give, it is difficult to see the upside in paying taxes to an army that has recently conquered you. The peasants at the inn clearly still had strong ties to the Temerian crest, and these peasants can’t be too happy about garrisoning and feeding the conquerors of their lands. The captain does seem like a genuinely kind person, willing to barter with you in order to stop the griffin from murdering more villagers. While this is also a military advantage he gains by removing a potential threat to his soldiers, he also genuinely seems to want to save as many innocent lives as he can. The herbalist he sends Geralt to in order to find the herb to lure the griffin into a trap is less optimistic about the state of the world. When Geralt expresses his intentions to kill the griffin and that it would stop the bodies from piling up, the herbalist says it won’t do any good. She explains that as soon as the griffin is gone more monsters or more men will take its place and cause more bodies to pile up. That is simply the nature of the harsh and unforgiving world in which they live. When Geralt asks then what he could do, she simply replies “Ply your trade, but don’t think it changes anything” While the monsters Geralt defeats are a threat to the humans around them, and killing them may save lives, those lives aren’t truly saved, merely prolonged in this harsh reality. Eventually another man or monster will kill everyone. It truly does seem that no one dies of old age in the Witcher, its either a monster, sickness, starvation, or assassination. If you’re lucky it might even be a fair fight with another human. The ethics of facing this harsh reality and whether what you do as a witcher is really worth anything at all is actually not entirely clear. I’ll need to think on it more in my next session.Wed, 05 Apr 2017 19:44:15 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6358&iddiary=11112https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6358The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is a game of the year winning Action RPG from Polish studio CD Projekt. The game revolves around the protagonist Geralt of Rivia, a Witcher by trade, and his search for Ciri, a girl he raised at Kaer Morhen. While I am still barely scratching the surface of the game after an hour of play, The Witcher has an incredibly rich world and the choices presented to the player are complex in both their immediate ramifications and from what I understand have a long term impact on the world around you as you play. Within the first half hour or so, most of which is a tutorial, you are given a few small dialogue options, most of which it seems are only slightly affecting the story around you. For instance you can choose to be a kind and caring guardian, playfully instructing Ciri during her training in the dream, or you can choose to be harsher, the only real difference this makes is the reaction and voice lines you get to hear. On the other hand some dialogue options have more immediate effects on the gameplay and story. Shortly after the tutorial you are given the option of requesting a reward from the merchant who was attacked by the griffin. Asking for a reward is not something a hero would generally do, but Geralt is not actually a “hero” in this sense of the word. Geralt is a Witcher, which means he is a monster hunter mercenary. He doesn’t fight monsters or men for the sake of glory or to save the common people, he does it as a job, for money. Vessemir even mentions that it is unfortunate there isn’t a contract on the griffin that is terrorizing the town. If there was they could do something about it… but not for free. Even magic plays into the conversations you have. After a disagreement in a tavern you are given the option to use a Witcher mind trick to pacify an agitator. While this causes one of the three men attacking you to bend to your will, the other see your magic and attack you for doing it. While you can’t kill these men (only knock them unconscious) the game still does a fantastic job of making your ethical decisions have real weight. I don’t know what would have happened if I had tried to deescalate the situation in another way, but the fact that I want to replay the scenario and see how it would have happened if I had chosen differently is an exemplary indication of a game that gets the way it presents a moral choice right. I cannot wait to get back into The Witcher!Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:51:06 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6358&iddiary=11092https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6301This session (the final journal entry for Middle Earth) was interesting for me. Shadow of Mordor is an extremely fun game. The nemesis system, in which enemies rise up through the ranks and grow more and more powerful, is one of the most clever and well made game mechanics in the last few years. Adding a personal flair and all of the strengths and weaknesses to each enemy you target in the orc army makes each session of the game unique to each player. While one player may take out an Uruk commander named Dush who is afraid of fire and immune to ranged attacks, I took out Golgoroz, who feared beasts and had an enormous contingent of orcs that accompanied him everywhere he went. This makes my experience playing this game unique in some small ways to literally every other player who ever picked up a controller. Integral to all of this is the relationship between Talion and Ratbag the Coward. Despite being an orc, Talion uses Ratbag to gain intel and works to maneuver Ratbag inside the upper ranks of the orc army. By working with an orc, Talion is sacrificing his moral superiority. Talion is willing to do whatever it takes to draw out the Black Hand of Sauron. This makes me wonder, do the ends justify the means? Is Talion taking Ratbag’s offer and helping this murdering scheming orc to rise in power worth it if in the end Talion is able to take out the Black Hand? If the ends truly justify the means then by all means Talion should use every advantage he can to exact his revenge, but where does the line stop? While the game doesn’t let you do anything to harm slaves or innocents, would Talion as a character be willing to in order to meet his goals? Would there be anything stopping Talion from performing even more heinous acts if it meant getting what he wanted? The fear of death is a powerful motivator for men to not do immoral acts. Today if you are caught murdering someone, even if that is for the greater good of the world, you will likely face life in prison or the Death Sentence. Talion has no such restrictions. If he is killed he will simply come back. If that is the case, what motivates Talion to do the “right” thing. He seems to be an honorable man, and he certainly would have done anything to save his Wife and Son, but with those lost to him is there anything he wouldn’t sacrifice or do to get his revenge and break his curse? This game has been immensely fun to play and I look forward to diving into more ethical frameworks and ideas for the One Page Analysis.Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:39:17 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6301&iddiary=11032https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6301This session was a bit longer than previous sessions, mostly because I am really enjoying the combat and stealth gameplay of Shadow of Mordor. I’ve always been partial to stealth games, but appreciate when the out of stealth combat is good enough that you don’t have to restart a mission if the stealth option goes south. The story progressed quite well in this session and I was left with a few more intriguing things to wonder about in regards to morality and ethics. As we can see and hear all throughout Mordor, Talion’s newfound powers are something the orcs have quickly come to fear and dread. While some of the higher ranks of orcs display bravado and boast that they can kill you easily, many lower orcs run away from you after a display of power. In a short amount of time, Talion has already slain several orc captains, rescued dozens of slaves from their cruel masters, and helped stem the ever growing tide of orcs killing Gondorians. While Talion was a skilled ranger before, his newfound undeath and his wraith powers give him an incredible advantage in fighting evil. Even if he is defeated in combat, Talion is banished from death. He will simply come right back and continue to wreak havoc on the forces of evil. The amount of good that Talion can do in this form is nigh infinite. He is an immortal orc-massacring machine. So then should Talion be trying to lift the curse that binds him to the world and keeps him from dying? As a player that is the task we have been given and it is the only way to progress the story. Shadow of Mordor’s gameplay system however shows us that we do not have to necessarily make forward progress to have fun. In most games there is only so much you can do in any given area, once the missions are complete and the enemies defeated and the loot plundered, the only way to continue playing the game is to progress the main story. In this game however you can be content to stay the way you are indefinitely. For each Orc you slay, 5 more take their place. For every warchief and captain you slaughter another rises to power. In a Sisyphean fashion, you could slay each and every orc you come across one by one. While that may not progress the plot and lead to the eventual defeat of the hand of Sauron, for each slave you free and each orc you kill, some small increase in the happiness of the humans in the world of Middle Earth has happened. In and of itself that should be good enough to justify not wanting to remove the curse and instead try to use this new power to exact a change on the world around Talion.Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:12:44 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6301&iddiary=10975https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6301When Transitioning from my previous game for this class, The Last of Us, I wasn’t quite sure what ethical dilemmas or moral quandaries I would experience in Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor. While TLOU is a very morally ambiguous game with many shades of gray in every character, Shadow of Mordor is a little more black and white in its morality. Orcs in this game are not the multi-dimensional characters of Warcraft or the humans of TLOU making the best of an apocalyptic situation, the orcs of Mordor are bloodthirsty, cruel, and seek to inflict as much pain on the world as they can. For this first section of the game that remains largely unchanged, though as I was completing my play session things started to come a little more into the gray area. The tutorial of the game is very well made and introduces they player to a light-hearted sparring match with your son to demonstrate melee combat. In what is easily the most touching moment of Shadow of Mordor, the stealth tutorial has you sneaking up on your wife to surprise her with a kiss. These light-hearted memories are immediately supplanted by brutal uses of both the combat and stealth mechanics in an attempt to save the lives of both your wife and son. The way the game strikes a balance between the skills you need to play the game and their delivery to the player is incredibly intriguing. For the characters, though not the player, a little bit of an ethical dilemma is portrayed in the background of the game. During a loading screen you hear a conversation between Talion’s wife and her father about the murder of a Gondorian nobleman. Talion killed the nobleman as he assaulted Talion’s wife. She claims that if her father attempts to turn in Talion, she will lie and claim it was she who killed the nobleman instead. In compromise it seems Talion was allowed to join the Rangers defending the black gate and was placed into exile there with his family. It would be hard to argue the morality of killing the nobleman, even if he was clearly in the wrong for attempting to rape Talion’s wife. However, given the circumstances is it wrong for the wife to lie about the events to mitigate the sentence of her husband? It would seem that despite the extenuating circumstances, Talion would be executed. While that hardly seems fair for defending his wife (as I would do in a heartbeat), is it also fair that the death of the nobleman would go unpunished? This is a hard line to walk and I am not entirely sure either way what is morally correct. The final thing that I touched on when playing was the way your wraith companion Celebrimbor tortures and burns the orcs for information. Despite the evil nature of the orcs and the atrocities they commit, is stooping to the level of torture to defeat evil worth the cost? Do the ends justify the means? Certainly the orcs are not above torture and evil methods to make their plans come to fruition, but if we stoop to the same level what makes humans any better than the orcs they despise and fear?Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:08:52 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6301&iddiary=10973https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6227From Gameplay Session on 1/18/17 I can’t think of a better way to celebrate my birthday than by playing the Last of Us with my wife. The character interactions and environmental storytelling are just so good. After the discussion in class today (1/19) I have begun to formulate the different philosophies of the characters in The Last of Us. Joel falls very very squarely into the viewpoint of the “Law of the Jungle”. Survival for him is perhaps the most important thing in the world. Every action he takes is determined by this desire for survival. Taking out Robert, agreeing to smuggle Ellie, even his arrangement with Tess is about maximizing his potential for survival. Human connections are not the motivating factor for Joel, but if human connections can help him to survive then they are worth investment. Despite his clear emotional attachment to Tess and his anger at her death, he pushes it away until their survival is assured after escaping the capitol building. This isn’t exactly unexpected for Joel to feel this way. Unlike normal everyday life before the cordyceps outbreak, survival of the fittest is a very real tangible thing in this world. If you do not do everything you can to survive, you’ll likely end up dead, or worse infected. Tess also believes in the Law of the Jungle, but not necessarily to the same extent as Joel. Despite being perhaps even more hardened and callous than Joel, as soon as she sees that Ellie is immune, her perspective shifts. Getting Ellie to the Fireflies isn’t about getting paid anymore. She seems to know that getting a cure for the cordyceps virus is more important than their survival, even going so far as to sacrifice herself to save Joel and Ellie and use Joel’s feelings for her to convince him to get Ellie to the Fireflies, no matter how far or difficult that journey may be. This utilitarian viewpoint of doing what makes the most sense for the most people is not as much about “Survival of the Fittest” and is more about “Survival of the Largest Number”. This begs the philosophical question of moral choices. Having played this game before I know the ending and I know what happens to Ellie and Joel in Salt Lake City. Knowing whether to sacrifice the one to save the many (or in Tess’s case sacrificing yourself to save the many) is a difficult decision. I honestly do not know what decision I would have made. In this respect having a linear narrative without player choice is actually to the credit of the game. I love the fact that I don’t get to choose whether Joel chooses Ellie over the cure, ESPECIALLY when finding the cure is not guaranteed, though Ellie’s death at the hands of the scientists would be guaranteed. This give the player only two choices, follow Joel’s rampage through St. Mary’s Hospital and rescue Ellie, or turn the game off. I chose the first, which I guess means that my choice as a player is to save Ellie over the rest of the world. Then again after losing Sarah, I can’t exactly blame him. Some people when discussing the game actually say Joel is the villain of the game. While I can’t agree with this entirely it is only because the world of The Last of Us is not at all black and white. The entire world is shades of darkness and light mixed together. (Note: This session contained all play from when the trio enter the Capitol Building until Joel and Ellie arrive at Lincoln in search of a car, I have played the rest of the game before)Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:11:50 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6227&iddiary=10883https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6227From Gameplay Session on 1/17/17 Having fought my way back into the city past infected I was met with a somewhat scarier enemy, other humans. This is the point in the game where I as a player was offered a choice on how to interact with my enemies. By waiting and playing carefully you have a chance to hear banter from the thugs Robert has hired to protect himself. Because I like to conserve ammo and play carefully (I play this game like its Metal Gear), I heard their lamentations about how trade has dried up and their contacts have disappeared so they are forced to take menial protection jobs where they aren’t even sure they will be paid. While this is sad to hear, they are also unquestionably enemies in our path. A lot has been said about agency in videogames. The original Bioshock played with this in an interesting way in that you as the player were mind controlled into doing what Fontaine told you, which happened to coincide with the objectives onscreen and the only way to advance the narrative of the game. This game doesn’t have the mind control aspect, but it does limit player choice in a similar way. The only way to progress the game in your first encounter with Roberts henchmen is to murder them, either through shooting or bludgeoning. Violence is the only way to solve the problem and there is no ethical non-violent way to resolve this dispute. Despite the player’s inability to choose in this situation, that will not always be the case. For the next few sections of the attack on Robert, the player is given the opportunity to play using stealth (which although it isn’t explicitly non-lethal, it seems to be knocking out guard rather than killing them). While there is a practicality to stealth, meaning that you save ammo and health by defeating enemies in a non-lethal fashion, there can also be a moral choice to attempt to do so. This prerogative to take an ethical approach to finding Robert is on the player however and is not explicitly indicated by the game. On the contrary Marlene later says that sneaking “isn’t your style” indicating that Joel as a character is less concerned with the moral implications and more concerned with the survival aspects of a stealthy approach. I choose to disregard this comment and believe that I as a player have the right to choose that the actions the game lets me take are for a multitude of reasons, morality being one of them. This makes some sense in the context of the gameplay as well. Once you are discovered by an enemy, they don’t give you another chance to do things in a non-lethal fashion. Guns are drawn and death is the only solution. In this way Joel can take a small moral high ground in this conflict (the validity of which isn’t necessarily guaranteed). “My” Joel doesn’t kill unless he has to, unless he has no choice. Whether this can remain a facet of Joel’s character remains to be seen as he makes his way across the country with Ellie. (Note: This session contained all play from when Joel and Tess re-enter the city until they and Ellie reach the Capitol Building in the Boston Quarantine Zone)Thu, 19 Jan 2017 08:12:16 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6227&iddiary=10856https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6227From Gameplay Session on 1/16/17 The Last of Us is in my opinion a pinnacle of ethical and emotional storytelling in games. While this session was not particularly long, I still encountered a myriad of ethical and moral choices faced by the characters in the game. While the linear narrative of The Last of Us does not allow for as much player choice as a game like Mass Effect, the characters themselves face choices frequently. During the introductory scene in Texas, Joel and Tommy briefly argue over whether they should stop their car to let in the family walking down the road. We are barely 10 minutes into the game and the characters already must face down a tough ethical dilemma. Because of their choice to leave the family by the wayside as they drive past we assume that that family will not survive the Cordyceps outbreak. Joel already from this moment demonstrates that he does not hold the utilitarian viewpoint of doing what is best for the greatest number of people. Rather even just a few minutes later we see him urging Tommy to move the vehicle forward despite the crowd of pedestrians ahead. Joel’s family is in danger, and he will do what he needs to in order to save his family. The first time Joel sees an infected, he has to make the choice of shooting their next door neighbor in the head in order to protect Sarah (and himself) from a threat. Once the car crashes and the player assumes direct control of Joel for the first time, the player is given their first substantial choice. While the game encourages the player to run and carry your daughter to safety, players have the option to fail for the first time. You “can” stand there and not move you “can” try and save others, but doing so simply ends in Joel’s Death at the hands of infected. In essence, any choice the player makes that goes against saving Sarah and escaping the infected is “wrong”. After Tommy makes the selfless choice to hold back the infected so Joel can outrun them, we see another quality of ethical dilemma, is sacrificing yourself for the good of others the right choice to make? While this will certainly come back up across the game, here is the first of many times we encounter it. This is not a trait unique to Tommy however. Joel also faces the same choice when the soldier is given an order to kill Joel and Sarah (which is another ethical dilemma about the greater good given that they might be infected for all the soldier knows). Joel turns his back to the soldier trying to shield Sarah from the gunfire. While this has the opposite effect Joel intended, we can see that Joel does not see himself as more worthy of living than those he cares for. He is also willing to sacrifice himself for Sarah, and later Ellie. Finally, I want to discuss the first real “player choice” that presents us with an ethical dilemma. Up until now most all the choices have been handled by the narrative, but this one is strictly in the hands of the player. Shortly after descending into the tunnel to leave Boston, Joel and Tess find several corpses emitting contagious spores. One human has been trapped by Debris and his mask is broken, leaving him exposed to the spores and likely infected. He begs Joel to shoot him in the head, to put him out of his misery and keep him from becoming a clicker. There are a myriad of reasons Joel may not want to kill this man, for one is it morally wrong to kill someone even if they are asking you to. Secondly, ammunition is a scarce commodity and spending it to put this man out of his misery might leave Joel in danger later with no ammo to save himself. This dilemma is difficult to wrap your mind around. Is Joel endangering others if he doesn’t kill the man before he turns? Is Joel wrong for “wasting ammo” as we see later by Ellie’s immunity how can we be sure that he won’t also be one of the exceedingly rare immune humans? I would be interested to see how many others made the same choice I did (to put the man out of his misery). I’m looking forward to any comments and hope to find more to write about in my next session.Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:30:49 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6227&iddiary=10841