Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=1841https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6354The Talos Principle, PS4, Game Log April 4, 6:24-7:55 (91 minutes) In this last playthrough I played through a few more sections and 100%ed the first 5 “worlds”. These trials have been complex, but the more I play the game the more I feel I am able to do. The results of the questionnaire I had mentioned earlier that was analyzing how I respond to questions have finally come in. Apparently, my answers contradicted each other and I was considered “not human” so I have no admin rights. How are robots supposed to pass the Turing Test when I, (at least I thought I was human) fail it. I found another email that talked about citizenship with AI. Is AI at that point when we should be considering this? Should AI even be given citizenship and treated like people? Do you have to be humane to something that technically isn’t alive? The same email argues that corporations could be considered a “person”, so it isn’t uncommon to personify objects or ideas. The game seems to, at least at the beginning, make us question humanity. The email also points out how many people might use a slippery slope argument, like why can’t an elephant be considered a citizen because of its intelligence? An interesting thing I noted on one of the last texts was that the different creators of this project referred to the test subject as “life” instead of AI. Are they playing God? Would our world backlash a similar project?Wed, 05 Apr 2017 18:39:23 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6354&iddiary=11111https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6354The Talos Principle, PS4, Game Log April 3, 7:50-9:17 (87 minutes) In this playthrough I started by spawning next to a beeping computer. I pulled up a text called TheTalosPrinciple.txt. This finally gave me a clear premise of what the game was all about. Talos was a sculpture that had all the functions of a human, i.e. liquid gold flowed through his veins like blood does. Is he a human, then? If he has all of these aspects, what makes a human a human? In this game, you, the player, are essentially Talos. You have the mind of a human and you act like a human, you just aren’t biologically human. Another question was posed in the same transmission: If humans are people, and some humans have the intellect of animals, and animals have the intellect of some humans, are some animals people? Should we treat people with less intellect like animals, or should we treat animals like people? I think most people would want to treat animals humanely, but not as equals. Again, using this question, it makes me think that being a person might just mean our intellect, and not our DNA. The game also assesses a personal questionnaire that you take to prove that you are human, essentially a Turing test. The game also makes it clear that this world is made out of “words” (programs), but to us it seems real. The actions in this world don’t ultimately matter, other than a teaching tool.Tue, 04 Apr 2017 19:23:18 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6354&iddiary=11095https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6354The Talos Principle, PS4, Game Log April 2, 8:55-1:00 (65 minutes) The Talos Principle started off by introducing me to the game world, and that there was someone named Elohim (God in Hebrew). I knew nothing of the game, and I was just mashing buttons until my robot arms showed up. I assumed I was like an Adam character until I realized I was a robot. The game puts you into an interesting position because you act as an android, but you have your own intellect. To truly play the part, through virtue ethics, to play the best android you should use your own thought. This intended style of play and thought is interesting because it is like a robot with human thought processes. Is AI life the same as human life? The game had me asking many questions about what exactly being a human actually means. Is it our minds, or is it our bodies? Whenever you die in this game, you are rewinded to a previous point and this “experiment” is restarted. Is this humane? Does AI life have value? Before I played this game, I was unsure about this, but after playing this hypothetical situation I am even more unsure. Elohim has created trials, and these trials are deadly. You learn from your mistakes, and it is assumed you are deleted and updated with this knew knowledge. This would be seen as highly unethical if something similar was used on humans, but it is only questionable to test AI. There are also several computers around the maps, and this is mostly where you can find some sort of communication other than Eloheim. This seems to be a research institute trying to create AI because there might be a possibility that life will end on earth, from what I deduced. Would transferring yourself to AI still be you. If you were alive while the AI was, would there be two “you”s?Mon, 03 Apr 2017 23:13:24 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6354&iddiary=11086https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6309Shadow of Mordor, PS4, February 22nd, 2017, 5:53-6:50 (57 minutes) This playthrough I simply released more slaves and I unlocked more and more missions. Saving slaves in this game is very rewarding because the more slave rebellions you cause, the more xp and xp opportunities are created. This gives the game an interesting dynamic, because you do not have to engage in these missions, and it is seen as the moral thing to do in this game world. Is this teaching the player to only fight for others if you gain greatly from it? As for the narrative I experienced this game, I had another main story mission with Ratbag. We are introduced to something called warchiefs, basically captains that affect Sauron’s army even more than a regular captain. You need to kill these for the story, so it is partially out of your hands. As you kill them, they all become stronger, but you also become stronger. You act selfishly by killing the warchiefs, because ultimately you are making the world a darker place just so you can have a better chance in defeating Sauron. Anyways, in that mission, you are called to kill a warchief and then passing it off as Ratbag’s kill. You are basically a hitman for Ratbag, just so you can learn of your past. Is being a part of this corruption ethical? Is helping Ratbag actually going to help you, or are you creating a monster?Wed, 22 Feb 2017 21:25:04 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6309&iddiary=11009https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6309Shadow of Mordor, PS4, February 20th, 2017, 6:47-8:34 (1 hour 47 minutes) On this playthrough I simply did one mission and I used it’s open world to learn new game mechanics. The mission I did was to find more about Talion’s past and to learn about Sauron’s army. I started out by actually freeing an orc, Ratbag the Coward, from being imprisoned. Through a win-win scenario, the game eventually has the two of you team up. This world pits you against killing this species so much that there are even mini games where you have to kill as many ureks as you can until the time runs out. Why, then, is one of these orcs able to be all buddy buddy with you, if he is inherently evil? Why does Ratbag the Coward get special treatment while other orcs are treated as simple obstacles? Is it ethical to kill these orcs if you are friends with one of them? What if they are good, and their intent is like Ratbag where they aren’t fighting solely for Sauron, why does the game blindly pit these people on you. After that mission, I messed around in the open world of Middle-Earth. I learned of a mechanic that makes this game very unique-- When you die or when you kill a captain, several Ureks take their place, making them all stronger. Is it an ethical decision to kill these captains because it gets you closer to stopping Sauron, or are you causing more pain in the world? Looking at this from a Utilitarian perspective, the decision to kill these captains is a bad idea because in the end more captains are waiting to take their place and they all get stronger. The only way I could see this work in this framework is if Talion actually does stop Sauron through getting stronger by killing captains. Stopping Sauron is a daunting task, and if you use the LOTR series, you see that Talion is definitely not the one that stops Sauron. Does Talion help enough in the cause against Sauron for his escalation of Evil to be worth it, or does this narrative make all of his actions pointless? The end is what is emphasized in a Utilitarian framework, so all of this evil he is directly bringing into the world needs to be less than the evil he ends up taking out in the end of his journey. In a Kantian perspective, Talion is doing everything he can, and the outcome isn’t up to him. Other than Ratbag and for self-defense reasons, this game world incentivizes killing ureks, and it is impossible to play as a pacifist in this game. Talion killing these captains is still killing Sauron’s captains, and it isn’t his fault that other captains might benefit from that interaction. Talions intentions are good in this game, he wants peace for middle earth, but the necessary game mechanics. might actually create a worse situation for the world.Mon, 20 Feb 2017 23:05:19 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6309&iddiary=10989https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6309Shadow of Mordor, PS4, February 19th, 2017, 4:39-5:41 (1 hour 2 minutes) It opens on a man, Talion, and he is teaching his son how to fight Sauron’s army. His efforts against Sauron ends up destroying his family, and his son’s and wife’s throats are cut. Could his open fighting of this cause his family to be killed? Should he have fought for his family, or for his people and the reign of Sauron? His wife makes it clear that she is okay in dying for a cause like Sauron. The gameplay is also centered around killing Uruks, orc like creatures. They are combative, but you can move through the game without killing all of them. Are they worth as much as human life? Who is the actual good side? Why not attack the source, not the pawns? We ended up interrogating an uruk and killing him for information. If we have to kill these people to end Sauron, is using a game mechanic like this very ethical? A different gameplay mechanic is the use of grabbing them and dragging them around. Is this an inhumane way to fight someone? Another mission I went through was to hunt down Gollum. He was innocently walking along, and we had to hunt him down and stalk him. Eventually he was forced into helping us find Sauron’s servants. They threatened him, even though he did nothing wrong. Are the means that Talion takes to stop Sauron justified by the end? Will he even succeed? If he doesn’t succeed, his actions could be seen as unethical. If he does, by a Utilitarian perspective, he was acting ethically.Sun, 19 Feb 2017 20:42:58 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6309&iddiary=10982https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6239The Last Of Us, PS4, Game Log January 21st, 7:35-8:08 (33 minutes) I fought a few more of Robert’s men and then finally caught him and ended him. The woman tortured him in order to get an answer out of him, and then shot him. They followed a firefly and I assisted in killing some more men before I stopped. This section taught me about being stealthy, in order to save bullets and cause little noise. I would creep up on these men, sometimes by diverting them, and then strangle them or shiv them. Is it unfair for me to do this, by not giving these men a fighting chance and just tricking them? I mentioned this last time, but I really gave it a second thought if it is very ethical to slowly strangle them, hit them with bricks, or another method, rather than ending their misery slowly. Something that the woman did that I wish the player had the choice in was the decision to torture and then kill Robert. This choice could make the game more dynamic and worth contemplation. A common practice seen as usually unethical is the physical torture of someone to get information from them. Should you spare them, kill them, or not even torture him at all? Is the moral framework in the game world say that in these circumstances, or it is simply a “dog eat dog world”? After that, we talked with the supposed queen of the fireflies, and attempted to negotiate a deal for them to help her in breaking the law and smuggling something out of the city. I don’t even know who the fireflies as a player, so should I trust them? Are they the “bad side” or are they simply a side where the government is the aforementioned “bad side”? Why should I help them, for personal gain or gain from them? Is smuggling this item going to be harmful to other people, and do they matter?Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:30:12 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6239&iddiary=10900https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6239The Last Of Us, PS4, Game Log January 20th, 10:50-11:22 (32 minutes) This session of game had myself and the woman attempt to find this “Robert” to “deal with him”. We took a bit of a shortcut through secret tunnels to find a market like area, where I eventually killed a few infected and some men working for Robert on the way. A few things had me questioning the ethical implications that the developers were trying to instill on the player. The first thing that could be seen as unethical is the premise of the mission, them using a shortcut that the government has most-likely seen as illegal. Using the principle of legality, the player is forced into doing something bad, even if it is good if they are using it as self-defense. The player also takes the self-defense to another level by killing infected and men along the way to get even with just one person. The men were not being threatening, they were just following orders. If it wasn’t even just to go on this journey, the character’s decision to find Robert through a shortcut could be seen as unethical. In my journey to where Robert supposedly is, I came upon a “spore room”. One man had become infected, and he pleaded me to shoot him. This was quite literally “assisted suicide” in an apocalyptic world. I really didn’t want to be the one to pull the trigger, but the struggling was quite traumatic. The game never taught me how to shoot a gun until this point, so the game was basically treating this infected person as a tutorial, instead of a grave decision. I attempted to see what would happen if I let the man live, but the game made it clear that I was the one to kill him in order to progress. I shot him in the head in the end, and I wasn’t sure if his blood was on my hands or not, because he might’ve not been infected yet. After shooting him, I was thrust into a room full of infected people. I had about a magazine in my gun, so I had enough to finish them all. The game is very careful in not giving the player very much ammo, so the woman I was with encouraged me to sneak up behind the person and strangle them to death. Can these infected still feel, and if they can, should I be taking that into consideration? Is there life worthless because of who they are that their pain is negligent to the situation? Should I opt for shooting them in the head for instant death, slowly strangling them, or should I attempt to avoid them and let them live as they were?Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:44:56 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6239&iddiary=10892https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6239The Last Of Us, PS4, Game Log January 19th, 5:21-6:07 (46 minutes) The Last Of Us was recommended to me by my friend back in 2013 by a close friend. He acclaimed the game because of its rich story and almost cinematic direction. I tried to play a few years ago, but now that I have restarted I feel like this is going to be a game that really gets me thinking. I’ve experienced the beginning before, but now that I am a bit older, it got to me. I started with his daughter and I ended just as the fireflies had attacked the soldiers after the title sequence. The first thing that impressed me about the game was that the daughter was being treated like an adult. I’d assume that the father had a strong relationship with her, because they joked about some adult themes. As news of the infection reaches them, they drive past a family in need of desperate help. They do not stop to help them because they feel they have their own problems to deal with. Why is your family’s lives more important than theirs? Is the little amount of trouble to go through in bringing them worth saving their lives? How would you feel if you were with your brother and little girl and someone just drove past you, left for dead? These were questions that I was keeping in the back of my mind as I continued looking at the ravished landscape. The next ethical problem I had with the game was when the brother (I’m sure his name will be ingrained in me the next few times I play) was driving through the street very fast as other citizens were trying to flee the city. It would have only taken seconds to let some people pass, but the brother still put their lives at risk. How are their lives worth more than the lives of the main characters? Later in the playthrough, the brother was killing these infected people willy nilly. He didn’t understand the virus yet, so why should he be shooting at them? What is human? Where is the line between a live worth saving and a life to be killed? The game has been very careful as to not use the term zombie, perhaps to make the player ponder about killing them. This game is much more than a “shoot em’ up” zombie game, and that is made clear from the get-go. As I had mentioned before, I ended the playthrough as they were in the safe zone. Should the father be in contempt with the government because they killed his daughter, or is he in a position where he can’t make a choice? Why are the fireflies being painted as bad, and the government isn’t if they are both killing healthy and infected? Hopefully many of these questions get answered the further I play, but I also hope that some stuff is open-ended so the player can decide what course of action to take. As far as my thoughts on the narrative of the game go, I would say that so far, this has been very emotionally investing to me. I wanted to do all I could to save the girl, even though it was just a cutscene. I assume that as I play I will be making decisions mostly on emotions, instead of logic, but only time will tell as I delve deeper and deeper into this supposed masterpiece.Thu, 19 Jan 2017 20:17:53 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6239&iddiary=10863