|
Wednesday 28 October, 2009
This time I geared up and began the “massacre”. I think it was an interesting choice to put the control of the killing in the hands of the player, I was expecting a more scripted style where the people who died in the actual event would be inevitably killed, with fewer player made choices. The way it was done though provided a very intriguing conflict of interests. The game itself pretty much pushes you into trying to kill people, but so far as I can tell it doesn’t actually have any effect on your ability to finish the game. Thus I have been trying my best to avoid everyone, against the game’s wishes. Or is it?
I feel like this is one of those important distinctions that puts this game in the “serious” category, as well as pushing itself into the realm of art. Most games on some level function via a system of challenges and rewards. This creates the engaging and pleasurable experiences that we are so accustomed to using as a form of escapism. This game toys with that system, using it to challenge our sense of good. The challenges that the game encourages me to participate in provide rewards I do not desire. It almost feels like the game has a "good" and "bad" path built in, without even explicitly defining it.
I came across some interesting situations while playing. In either of the bathrooms there are characters doing special things, and I figured (rightly so) that there would be special and possibly relevant dialogue involved if I killed those people. I did because I have a desire to experience as much of the game as possible so I can best evaluate it, but at the same time the feeling that I did something wrong is ever present.
|
