 |
|
Sep 27th, 2017 at 00:44:39 - This is the Police (PC) |
Continuing the game, it wasn’t long before I got the consequences of the previous moral dilemma. The mafia drops off a letter with photos of Kendrick and his family boarding an airplane, subtly letting me know that they are in understanding that I’ve taken over the contract for Kendrick who is fleeing. I receive a phone call from Christopher Sand, the mafia boss of the city; he insists that we formally meet and that my corruption working for him formally begins now. From here on out, I need to decide how I will delegate duties out to the city: do I prioritize the safety of the general citizens? Or do I turn a blind eye to any crimes involving the mafia? Will I send out more officers to respond to incidences the mafia needs covered? Or do I delegate my officers in a Utilitarianism sense and choose the options that bring about the greatest good for the city? The game does a great job of giving the player different options to consider with many different lives at stake.
add a comment  - read this GameLog  |
|
Sep 20th, 2017 at 00:22:35 - This is the Police (PC) |
Starting the game This is the Police, the game revolves around the struggles of balancing your morality and ethics as you play the role of police chief Jack Boyd. The game begins with an introduction to your roles as Jack Boyd: after an investigation goes wrong, you must work to keep your job and make money for your retirement. Your tasks include keeping the city safe by solving cases, leading your task forces, and making moral decisions involving the mafia.
The first great moral dilemma I faced in the game was when an old colleague, Kendrick, comes asking me for a favor. Kendrick has gotten into trouble working with the mafia, and now needs assistance because he made a contract with them but isn’t able to pay them back the money he owes. If he doesn’t get someone to take over the contract for him, the mafia’s going to kill his family. At this point, I’m given the choice of assisting Kendrick or refusing him. I figured that since I’m already knee deep in with the mafia and my future as Jack looked bleak, I would save Kendrick and his family so I chose to assist him. There wasn’t an immediate consequence for my actions, but I’m sure I’ll be hearing
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Aug 31st, 2017 at 23:15:44 - Zero Time Dilemma (3DS) |
Something I’ve noticed about the way this game is played is that the individual parts of the game are all segmented and besides learning some background information about individual characters, there is always a moral and ethical situation at the end of each puzzle room. I’ve been playing through C-Team since the beginning of the game, but I decided to mix it up and play a scene from D-Team with members Diana, Sigma, and Phi.
The team wakes up inside a trash disposal room, with Phi locked inside the incinerator. After a series of events, Sigma is restrained to a chair with a revolver pointed at Sigma’s head. Playing as Diana, I am given the choice to play Russian roulette and pull the trigger on the revolver (which is loaded with three cartridges and three blanks) and release Phi from the incinerator, or refuse to shoot causing the incineration of Phi.
Perhaps it’s the fact that I had only been playing a majority of C-Team cuts since the beginning of the game which is why I didn’t feel a great emotional attachment to any members of D-Team, but it only made sense to me that I should try for the best possible outcome which would be saving both Phi and Sigma. It’s apparent that Phi and Sigma share a background and previous relationship, so both argue for me to make the decision that saves the other respectively. The way I reasoned with myself is that I had a 100% chance of saving Phi if I pulled the trigger, and 0% chance of saving her if I did nothing; there was a 50% chance of killing Sigma by pulling the trigger, 50% chance of shooting a blank which would save Sigma, and 100% chance of saving Sigma if I did nothing. When I thought about it, I had two decisions with a 100% chance of saving either Phi or Sigma, but the option of pulling the trigger gave me a 100% chance of saving Phi and 50% of saving Sigma. I concluded that pulling the trigger and taking the 50% chance on Sigma’s life was the best decision since it wasn’t fair for me to make a 100% decision on saving one life, when I would have a 100% chance of saving Phi’s life with an additional 50% chance of saving Sigma’s.
The few moments after I shot the revolver were tense, but I was confident in my decision and just had to pray for the best possible outcome. It seems as though luck was on my side when I pulled the trigger because the revolver shot a blank and I was able to save both Phi and Sigma. Sigma was released from the chair and Phi from the incinerator; however, immediately after her release, Phi angrily shouted at me for putting Sigma in danger and made the argument that it wasn’t fair of me to put his life on the line for hers. I don’t think it was reasonable of Phi to yell at me (Diana) because not only was I put on the spot to make a decision involving two lives, but the situation was made even more tense with the shouts of pulling or not pulling the trigger from both parties.
If someone were to make this decision in real life, it would definitely be a more difficult task since other variables would be present; for example: personal bias (affinity for one person over the other), mental fortitude, and of course personal morals and ethics. It’s obvious that there is a lot more to this particular decision than just moral and ethics, but looking at that side of things, one could have made the decision to save only one member since it would increase their own likelihood of survival (once again, a death would mean one more X Pass). This decision was probably the easiest decision I’ve made throughout the play-through of this game thus far, since it was made logically and without much extra biases present. I didn’t feel as though there was a better option involved, and I didn’t feel a great moral dilemma when I chose the option that would give the best possible outcome of saving both lives on the line.
This entry has been edited 1 time. It was last edited on Aug 31st, 2017 at 23:16:50.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Aug 30th, 2017 at 20:18:47 - Zero Time Dilemma (3DS) |
Continuing the game having not executed any team, I decided to play as C-Team with members Carlos, Junpei, and Akane. Introduced to the next chapter of the game, I find myself as Carlos stuck inside a decontamination room with Junpei and Akane. After revealing a little background information of all three members of C-Team, Zero voices the next game to be played: there is a red button on the wall that if pushed, will douse Q-Team and D-Team in hydrofluoric acid, allowing C-Team to escape since that would free up six X Passes. To heighten the gravity of the situation and decision, it is revealed that both Q-Team and D-Team are also locked in decontamination rooms with the same aforementioned choice, and that only the team who presses the button first will execute the other two teams.
Once again, similar to the first moral decision of the game, I am left with the choice to decide whether or not I pressed the button. Playing the role of Carlos, I had Akane pleading with me not to press the button and Junpei forcefully telling me to press the button. Unlike the first decision game, I was more invested and frenzied about this decision because not only had I learned more about all three characters of C-Team, but there was also a ten second countdown timer after I heard the arguments of Akane and Junpei. I realized I needed to quickly decide if I was going to play the game attempting to keep everyone alive, or playing for my individual team to survive (which means killing the other two teams).
Without time to think about my decision, the ten second time limit began and ran out without the press of the button on my part. Even though I felt fear that perhaps another one of the two teams had pressed the button which would in turn kill my team (C-Team), I didn’t feel much regret for my decision. I like to think that in real life, my morals and ethics would exceed my want of escaping death; however, I know that it would be a completely different playing field if I were in this scenario with my own (real) life in danger.
I struggled to argue within myself that the other two teams would hold the same morals as myself, which would in turn make the premises true that neither D-Team nor Q-Team would press the button. Immediately after the time limit had run out, once again, Junpei condemned my decision not to press the button and free our team, while Akane argued in my favor that my decision was the correct, moral and ethical decision. Although I had Akane’s reassurance that I had indeed made the correct decision and that we needed to trust in D-Team and Q-Team, Junpei’s condemnation of my decision made me more anxious and question my choices. What if the arguments that I made for myself weren’t true and my team was going to suffer the ultimate consequence of death all because I didn’t take into consideration the weight of the lives of my team members? I wanted to know as soon as possible the outcome of my choice; whether or not another team pressed the button and sentenced us to death. This knowledge would either validate my moral decision, or invalidate it and showcase my naivety in pressured life or death situations. Unfortunately, the game wasn’t black and white and didn’t give me an immediate response as to whether or not I made the “right or wrong” choice. Although there was no immediate death, Zero announced that we were going to be put to sleep and the consequence of my decision would take (or not take) route after the fact.
Although this outcome was irritating, neither an immediate validation or invalidation of my actions, in perspective this is more similar to real life decisions than if I had been given a quick answer as to whether or not I made the right decision. In life, when we are faced with moral and ethical dilemmas, the decision may also be a quick one with little room to stop and ponder options; however, the outcome of those decisions usually isn’t immediate. I feel as the discussion of morality and ethics throughout life is important because when the situation presents itself, you most likely won’t be given a great amount of time to ponder or pick apart your decisions. Life experiences and education are two pertinent influential factors in curbing the morals and ethics of an individual; I believe everyone has innate behavior when given a difficult choice, but it’s at the moment that the individual will show where their moral compass lies when given a moral dilemma because saying where their values lies is one conjecture, but putting their values into practice is evidence.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
|
 |
| Miranda's GameLogs |
|
Miranda has been with GameLog for 7 years, 2 months, and 23 days |
view feed xml
|
| Entries written to date: 9 |
|
