 |
|
Aug 30th, 2017 at 01:20:33 - Zero Time Dilemma (3DS) |
In the past two class periods, we discussed morality, ethics, and arguments, all of which are very prevalent in the scope of Zero Time Dilemma. A quick introduction to the game: there are three separate teams locked inside a facility which must all work within their groups to escape being killed by an entity called Zero. The teams are C-Team, D-Team, and Q-Team: the members of C-Team are leader Carlos, Junpei, and Akane; the members of D-Team are leader Diana, Phi, and Sigma; the members of Q-Team are leader Q, Mira, and Eric. Zero reveals that an “X Pass” (escape pass) will be revealed whenever someone dies, with a total of six X Passes needed to open the final door to escape. Discussing the first great moral dilemma, each of the three separate teams are presented with a chance to vote for the death of all members in another team; the only contingency is that there must be a majority vote to sentence a team to death. The teams aren’t able to speak to each other during the vote, however, through the use of a dog named Gab, the teams communicate with each other to spread out the votes to avoid the casualty of a team. The moral dilemma is given to the player when teams begin to discuss the possibility of not following a vote for the team they are assigned to vote for; in doing so, teams would gain a great advantage since three players would die from the vote, freeing three X Passes. In relation to our discussed topics in class, the teams bring up moral arguments and argue for a moral principle. While some members of a team use deductive reasoning to reason that another team will stick to their assigned vote, other members use inductive reasoning to conclude that sticking to the assigned vote isn’t a guarantee which makes changing their vote a greater advantage and benefit to their particular group. I quickly learned that each team members had one member arguing for the more ethical decision to stick to the pre-planned vote, and one member arguing for the decision that would increase the likelihood of escape for the team; however, in the end, the decision is made by the team leader which is played by the player. Ultimately, with arguments for both decisions, I as the player was given the decision of the vote. I played through each route: one where C-Team was executed, one where D-Team was executed, one where Q-Team was executed, and one where I followed the assigned votes. It was very easy to follow the assigned votes because I felt good about my decision and was immediately validated by my team member who argued in favor of the ethical decision; however, when I chose a different team than the team I was assigned, I was met with anger and disappointment from my team member. I thought this opening of the game was a really great way to showcase the moral and ethical decisions that would play into the routes of the entire game. Even though it’s just a game and the decisions I made wouldn’t necessarily be permanent, the empathy and conviction of the story were enough to rattle my own morals when it was my turn to make a decision.
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 |
|
