Quote:
Yes but we only know about the minor differences after fact. What I'm trying to say is that we don't know what the other side gets before we make the choice the first time around. So the initial playthrough still presents a worthwhile decision. Oh BTW, I should also note that I am making on HUGE assumption here... and that is simply that one will make a specific choice repeatedly (either always good or always bad).
And actually, I think the game asks one deeper question regarding the Little Sisters... that being "do you consider this thing before you to be human or not? And just how inhuman does it have to be before you stop caring about it and just kill it off?"
True. You don't know that killing the little sisters nets you the same amount of adam in the first playthrough. But does the game ever feel difficult because you choose to save the little sisters? Do you get any sense at all that you have made a sacrifice? Even in one playthrough there is no sense of altruism beyond this kind of arbitrary distinction: "I might not be getting enough of this arbitrary number of resource then I otherwise would".
Think about the alternative. Let's say that in Bioshock, you got a significant penalty in terms of adam for saving the little sisters. The game would get increasingly difficult as you play because of this deficit, meaning that each time you come across a little sister the temptation to murder them to get's more and more strong. Wouldn't that be a more interesting dynamic? Wouldn't that actually be a dilemma?
You can say that people simple don't want to be subjected to this kind of dilemma, that they play the game to escape the world. That's all well and good, and you can keep the game balanced to keep the player happy and safe, but don't call it a moral dilemma!
You suggest that there is an alternate morality - since we don't know if the little sisters are human or not. That's not really a moral dilemma, since you don't go around shooting dogs or animals just because they are inhuman. I don't think there is really ANY significant point at which we stop caring about killing something because it's inhuman - as in the example of the companion cube in portal, or a guilt you might feel if you started kicking a Sony AIBO to death.
Perversely though, almost every main character in a shooter game is a psychopath / mass murderer. The only major games that I have played which really grapple effectively with this idea are Bioshock (ironically enough) which cleverly teaches you something about blind obediance as a player, and hilariously, Saints Row 3, where the game absurdly repeatedly refers to you as simultaneously a mass murderer and a global superstar, which is a parody that makes most game morality seem perverse.
The potential for interactive games is to put players in positions of dilemma that they otherwise wouldn't have to make, but where the penalties for failure are NOT so bad that they would give you a significant psychological shock or penalty.
Think about games like Heavy Rain or The Walking Dead. In those games there are real dilemmas because there are actually consequences for your choices. It isn't simply a cost / benefit analysis when there are no good choices to make.
Quote:
adsfasfawe aewfadc awefadcea ewf dying from the cuteness of that statement.
How'd you find out?
Found them in the mail today, I'd assume they'd been in there for a while since I've left all month. Opened them up a few hours ago.
Blue looks gooooood. Also the sound is....just so much detail for the price it's really not funny. Albeit less treble-y than I'd thought they'd be. But that's a good thing considering what I had expected.
Lol. You sound like a yaoi fangirl.
I'm watching youuuuuuu.
I personally didn't like the CKN70 all that much, but maybe the cheap cable colours my perception. I'm wondering how they will compare to the RE-400 when it arrives.