|
Miranda's Zero Time Dilemma (3DS)
|
| [August 31, 2017 11:15:44 PM]
|
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 
|
| [August 30, 2017 08:18:47 PM]
|
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
|
| [August 30, 2017 01:20:33 AM]
|
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
|
|
|
 |
Miranda's Zero Time Dilemma (3DS)
|
|
Current Status: Playing
GameLog started on: Tuesday 29 August, 2017
GameLog closed on: Tuesday 12 September, 2017 |
 |
|
Miranda's opinion and rating for this game |
|
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.
The player plays as the leaders of each team in different timelines of the game, involving gameplay of moral and ethical dilemmas.
Rating (out of 5): |
|
