Friday 20 January, 2017

Episode 3 is one that seems to throw a lot of morally questionable things in the player's way. Max, in the name of sleuthing, does several activities that read as very criminal that range from breaking and entering to outright theft. There are justifications for all of it, but not all of them truly stand up.

The biggest possible decision that stood out for me was the possibility to steal the money, that would go to the handicap fund, to help pay off Chloe's debt. It is back to the dilemma of the good of one vs the good of many. And Chloe has already shown a certain amount of disregard for that demographic by parallel parking across the handicap parking spots in episode 1. The ability to take the money feels like a test to see if the player holds similar values. Max even admonishes herself/the player for taking the money if the player chooses that. I'm not quite sure how I feel about Max feeding the player her moral opinions though since that results in a skewed influence.

The player can also choose to continue bailing Alyssa out of her troubles. This is starting to feel more and more wrong though because it is falsely changing her opinion of Max. If not for her time powers, Alyssa would have to suffer the consequences of her missfortunes. In no scenario would Max have been able to prevent the football, toilet paper, or splash because her reaction time would simply not allow for it. Is it really okay to change a person's life, even for the better, if it means they have a false perception of you?

Lastly, we have the dilemma of changing the past for the "better". This ultimately results in Chloe becomeing a quadriplegic. Is it morally wrong to try and save someone that is fated to die? This is a question that applies to Chloe as well. For every percieved choice, depending on the severity, results in an equal punishment to the player and the world around them.

I'm interested to hear more about your thoughts on false perceptions and ethical good--do you think one outweighs another? When?

I'm still trying to pick my own brain about that. I know that it improves Alyssa's life a little bit by bailing her out of trouble. At the same time it changes her opinion of Max to be one of an almost saintly moral high ground, which is far from the truth. It almost feels like the player is lying to Alyssa in order to gain some sort of savior brownie points with her. This false perception takes away Alyssa's agency in choosing whether to like Max as a person or not. In the first episode, she doesn't have more than a superficial relationship with Max because they aren't exactly in the same social circle or share many common interests. The only reason she has to like Max is the grossly disproportionate good luck/ appearant precognition the player has that results in her not being hit by a football, or toilet paper, or splashed by a passing truck. It's replacing the room for meaningful exchanges with a falsely earned gratitude.

Since this game is all about consequences, it makes me wonder if helping Alyssa is feeding into the severity of future misfortunes since each situation Alyssa is bailed out of gets worse and worse. Are we really making her life better, or are we making it progressively worse?

I think that, from an ethical standpoint, it is as wrong to remove Alyssa's agency to form her own opinion of Max as it is to save Chloe's dad.

Interesting!