 |
|
Nov 8th, 2018 at 16:04:51 - Hitman (PS4) |
In my last play session of Hitman, I completed a mission in the game and found the result of completing one to be quite interesting. As I’ve discussed, the aim of the game is to assassinate certain people, all while doing so undercover and escaping afterwords. After completing a mission, the game rewards the player for their performance and certain actions that were taken during the mission. These rewards are mostly based on actions taken directly related to the murder that is committed. However, something I also found interesting is that the game deducts points for kills that are not the target of the mission. This suggests a few things, namely that the player is meant to perceive that the targets are negative forces whose deaths will result in a positive outcome for the rest of the world, and that all non-targets are innocent people whose deaths would impact the world negatively or substantially to justify killing. It’s important to note that this is presumably what the organization that Agent 47 is working for wants.
This whole scenario brings up multiple questions. One, will killing the targets actually prove beneficial? If so, then this game would be perfectly ethical from a Utilitarian perspective. Two, does the organization have the right to determine who should and should not be killed, and can they know for sure of the impacts their deaths will have? Three, are assassinations the only method by which this organization can influence the world? These are all questions that important to consider.
Back to the mission complete reward system. Most of the challenges present in the game incentivise killing the targets. While this makes complete sense considering it is the entire point of the gameplay, it’s still questionable from an ethical perspective as killing is generally seen as immoral. A philosopher such as Kant would immediately point to this game is immoral, as the act of killing itself would inherently be considered wrong, but the game chooses to incentivise it, going as far as to reward the player.
Outside of the act of the assassinations I found interesting in my play session was how this game handles it’s suspension of disbelief. During the mission I played I chose a route that involved impersonating a famous runway model. I chose to subdue said model and use his clothing as a disguise. I was seen and his body was found, but I was able to make a retreat without being caught and proceeded the mission as planned. Naturally, I was afraid of actually continuing from this point, as I assumed all the guards would be on the lookout for a man wearing this models clothing, but I was able to complete the mission no problem, which I found particularly unrealistic and broke my suspension of disbelief. From a gameplay perspective, this could potentially create a more fun experience, as it makes the assassinations more manageable for people who presumably aren’t actually assassins, but whether this was the correct choice from a moral perspective from the developers is questionable.
read comments (1)  - add a comment  - read this GameLog  |
|
Nov 4th, 2018 at 18:47:27 - Hitman (PS4) |
In my previous play session of Hitman, my experience was similar to that of my original play times, but there were a few things here and there that I found to be quite interesting, and a bit on the confusing side. Continuing my job as an assassin, I found myself in a situation where I had to disguise myself as a body guard. I assumed that in order to play up the disguise well, I would also need the gun that the bodyguards were using, a rather large model that would need to be slung on my back. However, I later needed to go into an area that was crowded with people at the event this story sequence was taking place. I was unsure if the gun I had was arouse suspicion, but I knew I could load a save so I went ahead anyway. After entering the crowd of people, I found that there was no problem with having the gun on my back, presumably because I was perceived as body guard. Naturally, I thought that disguise was sufficient in this regard, yet the game would seem to show otherwise. I later proceeded to the area in which the next objective was located, which involved going through a room in which there were also many people. However, unlike the previous area, the game decided that I my character was considered suspicious for reasons I was unsure of. As far as I could tell, it was because I had a large weapon on my back, but that would contradict what the game had shown me earlier in the mission. Granted, different people would likely react differently to this sort of situation realistically, but ethically speaking, I believe that these sorts of situations should be handled the same within the space of this type of video game, being one that is heavily reliant on specific rules and trial and error. Otherwise, a player will be unsure about the rules present, and feel as though they have been unfairly deceived, which may be considered unethical.
As far as the story is concerned, I've learned that my aim is to assassinate those with large amounts of power, which stand to be at opposition of the organization that my player character is working for. However, regardless of their precise motive, they are using Agent 47 as a means to an end, which according to Kant is immoral, so their actions could be considered unethical.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Nov 3rd, 2018 at 00:29:34 - Hitman (PS4) |
Based on my first play session of the game, the ethical morality behind Hitman are already questionable. The game sees the player playing as an Assassin with supposedly no moral compass. This character has supposedly also been involved with assassinations in the past, but may not have memory of any of it. So far, what I've played through are training situations designed for this character, so they presumably not actually assassinations or legitimate life or death situations. Regardless, the implications are questionable. From a Kantian perspective, murder is wrong, therefore the entire premise of this game makes the players actions wrong. However, depending on the characters' motives, of which I am not sure of yet, these assasinations may be very moral from a Utilitarian perspective. As far as I'm aware, my character is also willingly being employed to partake in these assassinations. Social contract theory states that because killing someone is my job, doing so will be completely moral.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Sep 27th, 2018 at 16:12:33 - Little Nightmares (PS4) |
In my final play session of Little Nightmares, in which I completed the game. Several interesting things came up. For one, I confronted the character with the long arms that I described in my last entry for the last time. In the final encounter, it was my objective as the player to remove a cage from a door that was closing in order cut off his arms, all while avoiding being caught. This brings up an interesting question of whether or not cutting his arms off was ethical. Sure, as the player, most people will think, “of course it was ok to do so, that’s the bad guy that kills you if you’re caught.” While I would have to agree, the game never explicitly shows what happens the the other children present in the game, or the events that occur when the player is caught. What is known is that these children are put into cages, and that, alongside many other pieces of evidence, the player can infer that what’s happening is bad, but there is a layer of uncertainty.
Later in the game, throughout ‘The Kitchen’ portion, I ran into a few chef characters. In one particular instance where I was caught, the character brought me to a chopping table. The game cut to black just before he was about to attack my character with a butcher’s knife which, counter to my points above, was proof that getting caught is bad and results in death.
After progressing to the next section, I came across a rather interesting set piece in the game. One of several unnaturally large people boarding an incredibly large ship. A short while later I found that these people were doing nothing but eating uncontrollably, as if this is their sole purpose on this ship. Which caused me to think several questions; why are these people boarding the ship? Why are the children in the ship being treated this poorly? Who is in charge?
During this portion of the game, I was also with a friend who was watching me play through the game. It only happened one time, but at one point she suggested something to do in a room, before I even had the time to process and try everything I could think of. Her idea was also one that likely would have taken much longer try, yet it was the correct solution to the puzzle. This begs the question of backseating and developer intentions. On the developer end, if I had to guess, they are likely okay with, and might even encourage players thinking to puzzles together. What they probably wouldn’t want, and may be considered unethical as a result, is for players to simply look up the solutions to puzzles online without even trying, as that defeats some of the purpose of the puzzle. On my end of things, I generally wouldn’t want someone to backseat while I play, especially in a puzzle based game, as I feel as though that defeats the purpose of the puzzle being a puzzle. It only happened once so I didn’t mind, but it brings up the question of the ethics behind backseating, and when it would and wouldn’t be okay.
As I progressed further into the game, a segment occurred where my character became hungry, I believe this was the fourth time this happened in the game. One of the child like creatures came up to me holding a sausage. By this point I had grown a sort of affinity for them, as they didn’t seem to want to hurt me and they were just as scared of the big creatures as I was. So naturally I was quite upset when my player character chose to eat it instead of the sausage. From a developer perspective, is it ethical to build up this kind of relationship with a race, so set them up almost as equals to player, only to betray the possible relationship by the end? In a way it seems similar to a supporting character in any media betraying the main character, but in this case it feels as if it’s the player character doing the betraying. It’s an interesting turn that’s for sure.
The last point I’d like to bring up revolves around the ending. After killing the final, and only, boss(in the traditional sense) the player character gets some kind of dark power and uses it to kill several of the passengers of the ship. I should also note that this boss is likely in charge of the whole ship using these powers, and they tried to kill the player, killing in self defense is a whole other topic here. Regardless, yes these passengers are incredibly disturbing and carnivorous, but is it right for the character kill them all? It’s essentially revenge killing. It’s also hard to say how much control the character has over the power, so the ending as a whole is hard to judge. What if they could use that power to help these people? It’s hard to say.
read comments (1) - add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
|
 |
| Hugo_Alvarez's GameLogs |
|
Hugo_Alvarez has been with GameLog for 6 years, 2 months, and 27 days |
view feed xml
|
| Entries written to date: 9 |
|
