 |
|
Mar 3rd, 2016 at 00:46:04 - Prison Architect (PC) |
2nd entry:
This time I played through chapter two. The player is transferred to oversee a new prison, and the introduction to this one is pretty intense: the prison's dining area is totally ablaze. The player must first deploy emergency fire crews to subdue the blaze. After that, a character -- who turns out to be a mob boss -- is discovered grievously wounded in the wreckage. He is taken to the medical wing and his story is revealed. Two other characters (his son and step-son, if I recall correctly) come to see him, and the mob boss says that he suspects that one of the two is responsible.
The player then goes through the process of clearing the wreckage and rebuilding the two destroyed facilities. After that, the player is then told that numerous narcotics have been discovered in the storage area. The game then reveals the story of Anthony, the mob boss's son. Turns out that he was the one who was sleeping with the wife of the guy executed in chapter one. This was an interesting feature. It connected the experience of these two seemingly disparate facilities; in fact, the death of the son sets up the conflict between the two rivals responsible for the destruction of the cafeteria and kitchen. Without the good-looking heir to the family business around, these two goons are the potential next-in-lines.
The rest of the story plays out as the two fight for supremacy. One attempts to ambush the other in showers, attacking him with a knife. The potential victim, however, anticipates the move and hires an assassin to strangle his enemy with some piano wire. The assassin succeeds, but in the process both the assassin and his target die, and the other potential heir is seriously wounded by a slash across the chest.
This part of the story really highlighted how dangerous the prison system is. Many people in the facility are there for violent crimes. At the same time, there are all sorts of people there for non-violent crimes too. In the game, you can house all sorts of prisoners at a single facility, ranging from minimum-security to super-max security, which in reality is sort of ridiculous -- but at the very least, this highlights something interesting. In reality, violent and non-violent offenders may be housed in the same facility, and for non-violent offenders, this seems like a bit of unjust punishment.
There are two prevailing theories about what prison time means: it can either be punitive (punishing someone for breaking the law) or palliative (helping someone become a better person who will not break the law again). Most definitely the US has a punitive system. Over the years, prison sentences for all sorts of offenses have been increased -- with the intent to dissuade people from committing crimes in the first place -- resulting in a large prison population (around 3% of national population). Violent and non-violent offenders are housed together with little to do. Many prisons don't provide funding for educational programs, with the emphasis being on the bottom-line. It's easier and less expensive to have a single facility, and many prisons are run for profit. Those corporations don't care whether people are rehabilitated ... in fact, the more likely they see recidivism, the more likely they are to stay in business.
add a comment  - read this GameLog  |
|
Mar 1st, 2016 at 21:43:42 - Prison Architect (PC) |
First entry:
To start off, I played this game a little bit differently than I did "This War of Mine". I researched the former a little bit before getting started. This time, I just jumped right into it.
The game throws the player into a campaign mode, in which he/she (he) takes over administration of a prison that is already up and running. The game introduces the player to some of the basic mechanics through a tutorial. In general the game follows the patterns/expectations of a resource management game, with the primary resource being money. Money is used to construct buildings (cells, cafeterias, guard towers, walls, etc) that allow for the efficient management of both prisoners and personnel. Now, to be fair, in the campaign mode, money seems to be fairly trivial. The player starts with an enormous stash in chapter one. I think that the campaign probably has a different focus than the resource management aspect.
The game's art is fairly generic and lighthearted. The characters (inmates and staff) look akin to Lego characters, bobbing up and down as they walk around the prison. They don't have much detail as everything is portrayed from an overhead-45-degree perspective, mostly zoomed out to keep an eye on everything.
Pretty quickly, though, shit got real. The first "mission" for the player is to construct an execution chamber for an inmate convicted of a double homie. Yikes. Through a series of polaroids the player is given the story of the murderer: correctly suspecting his wife of infidelity, the man returned home to find the woman and her lover. And he brought his loaded gun! He blasts the two of them in their faces before fleeing the whole situation (this scene, and the others in the story, are depicted simultaneously through polaroids and scripted actions on the part of the little Lego NPCs -- with almost comedic gore in my mind). He goes and confesses his crimes to his priest, who advises the man that he must turn himself in; although the law may not forgive his actions, God would, so long as he came clean. As the group travels to the execution chamber, the security chief opines that there would be no forgiveness for his crime, that the man knowingly and intentionally went there to kill the two.
Possibly the game here is trying to make some moral claim about the entire judicial system, the punitive measures inherent to incarceration. The game starts with the most extreme instance of that system, in which the state takes the life of one of its citizens. Interestingly, this didn't really feel like a player-driven decision ... the entire experience of building the execution chamber and killing this guy was directed by the tutorial. This may have reflected the detachment of the system as a whole. But ... I don't know. I'm not convinced that was exactly the message. The characters involved in the actual exection -- the priest, the chief, the murderer -- all express heartfelt sentiments ... but as tiny, goofy Lego people. I felt it detracted from the overall message and made the experience feel more flippant.
Next time ... chapter two?!
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Jan 28th, 2016 at 13:36:45 - This War of Mine (Other) |
Day 3 Entry:
At this point, I've actually gotten very near to the end of the game. Not quite there, but close. For this play session, I started a new game with Marko, Pavle, and Bruno, and I subsequently added Katia to my group of survivors. This set of people, it turns out, are fairly bad-ass. Marko has the scavenger perk, giving him 15 storage slots (up from Pavle's and Katia's 12). This makes him incredibly valuable.
At the beginning of the game, I played quite cautiously, avoiding conflict as much as I could. I also prioritized getting an axe, which turns out to be an incredibly useful tool, allowing the player to chop up useless furniture both in the sanctuary and outside of it. Furthermore, the axe is a useful combat weapon, so I had the dual advantage of keeping my scavenger armed and allowing him to break down materials he encountered. I still looted the Quiet House for its easy resources (a morally dubious decision), but this time did not murder the elderly couple -- keeping my group relatively happier. Happiness, as I played it, was treated as another resource -- if I could afford to sacrifice a little to gain another valuable resource, I would. I treated theft throughout the game as a double-edged sword; if the group was feeling low, I would avoid it -- otherwise, I might take the opportunity.
The game really turned once I managed to reach the warehouse. This place was, from the outset, incredibly dangerous, containing three armed soldiers. On my first visit, I managed to sneak attack and kill one of the soldiers after he started chasing Marko. The soldier had an assault rifle and a bulletproof vest. I then managed to take high ground to kill the other two soldiers as they came to investigate the noises they had heard. Now I had enough weapons to arm my scavenger and my base at once. The rifle proved exceptionally useful for other locations loaded with resources and controlled by enemies that the game deemed OK to kill, such as St Mary's Church and the construction site. It was amazing how dramatically the difficulty of the game diminished once I had a real weapon. It's not that Marko was never wounded in any of these encounters, but he was never critically wounded. I had stocked enough medical supplies to allow him to recover from any wound.
The radio also proved an invaluable asset. It made me aware of shortages, the items which I could sell at great exchange rates. I saved most of the tobacco I gathered in unrolled form, and I would make cigarettes only on the actual day that the trader visited (which was conveniently predictable). Bruno, being sort of a louse, would crush cigarettes if left to his own devices, so I needed to limit his consumption. The radio also gave important weather warnings, allowing me time to build heaters and prioritize consumables. The visiting trader also was incredibly important for providing basics in exchange for the valuable but useless items I collected while scavenging. I unloaded gems, shotguns, and cigarettes in exchange for building materials, water, and food.
Self-sufficiency, at least to a limited extent, proved invaluable. I built 2 animal traps early on, and I always kept them operational. I eventually also upgraded my garden to be able to grow vegetables, but the intensive water requirements were problematic. With four mouths to feed, there were times that food became somewhat scarce -- those were the times that I was driven to steal from innocents. Again, due to the penalty to the general well-being of the scavenger in particular, I would try to avoid stealing, but if it came down to survival, I had no qualms about it.
Oddly enough, it was ultimately water that became the greatest challenge, but that was a function of running out of construction materials, leaving me unable to make water filters. Part of this was maybe mismanagement on my part -- the real shortage happened at the time that I upgraded my garden and then had to build heaters to deal with the winter -- but part of it was an issue of communication within the game. The requirements of the garden, for instance, included 10 units of clean water, an enormous investment in scarce times. The requirement of "clean" water for the garden didn't make intuitive sense either.
One last thing that I will mention is that this game did an incredible job taking relatively flat characters and building player investment in them through mechanics. The time investment and commitment ensures cautious and rational play to avoid danger and death. Now, at Day 35 and having received news of the arrival of international aid about a week ago, I am close to escaping the war. But this didn't happen without a fairly cutthroat attitude about survival.
read comments (1)  - add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Jan 28th, 2016 at 04:01:11 - This War of Mine (Other) |
Ok, so for the second day of play, I had my bearings set more effectively. The game taught some punishing lessons in my first day, and now I had a better feel for the strategy and the potential pitfalls I might encounter.
In terms of making building priority, I focused on the necessities: food, water, and a place to sleep. I played cautiously at the beginning as well, focusing my scavenging on the abandoned house, which appeared to be a low risk option. The map warnings of "caution" and "danger" seemed more legitimate after realizing how easy it is to die in this game. What's more, the game has the incredibly punishing mechanic of auto-saving your game, as well disallowing multiple save files. Deaths in this game are therefore permanent. The longer that I played, the more invested I became and the more carefully I played, knowing that I could lose everything with a single mistake.
I also tried to test the moral system of the game a little bit. Early on, I gained access to "Quiet House," a place largely untouched by the ravages of war and occupied by an elderly couple. I opted to murder and rob them with Pavle. Really, I just wanted to rob them, but the old man threatened to call the police, and I acted to protect my character. Upon returning, Pavle was depressed and Katia was sad at the news -- meanwhile, Bruno remained unaffected. This was an interesting glimpse into their personalities. Pavle, as the murderer, felt the weight of the deaths most heavily. Katia seems to be an empathetic figure, saying that she felt sad for the people who died. Bruno, meanwhile, seems mostly egoistic, instead talking about how Pavle did what was necessary. As a result of the interface, I could tell that sad/depressed was likely a dangerous state for the characters.
The very next day, however, two children came by the house, asking for medicine. I had just collected a bunch from the elderly couple I'd offed, so I decided to help them. Predictably, Katia and Pavle responded positively, while Bruno reacted negatively. One thing that bothered me, though, was how dramatically Pavle was impacted. After opting to share the medicine, he felt sad rather than depressed, nearly cancelling the impact of the double homicide he had committed by beating two people to death with his bare hands. Really?!
Several nights later, I was attempting to scavenge at a supermarket when I encountered a soldier and a scavenging girl. I went about my business in secret, hearing the situation between the two escalating as the soldier attempted to rape the girl. I opted to bust through the door as he attacked her, stabbing him with the kitchen knife I had crafted in my shelter. The decision to do this was motivated by the assumption that it would improve the moods of my characters and -- more importantly -- that I could probably loot a gun off of the soldier. While I did manage to stab the soldier, it wasn't enough: he turned around and shotgun-blasted Pavle to death. And that was the end of my second day.
I will say that the game promotes behavior that is egoistic more so than anything else, and it follows roughly a consequentialist moral system. For every decision, there are consequences. For every action, there are consequences. And often those consequences are severe. The save-feature, in particular, promotes gameplay that is at once cautious and highly self-interested. It only takes a couple of scavenging trips going poorly (as in not finding necessary resources) to put your entire group in mortal peril, and so every move must be planned and optimized.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
|
 |
| Cheesus's GameLogs |
|
Cheesus has been with GameLog for 8 years, 9 months, and 26 days |
view feed xml
|
| Entries written to date: 9 |
|
