Essays on Empathy Reviews

Okay so, I just played 'Zen and the Art of Transhumanism' and... What the hell is that?? CW: medical violence, breach of consent, chemical castration - Here's the pitch: your character works as a "human upgrade crafter" at H+Corps, a firm that makes specialized implants for private clients. Your job is to make and install the appropriate implants based on the clients' requests. After consulting the client files and the implant designs at your disposal, you quickly realize there are basically two implants you can offer each client: one simply fulfills their initial demand (let's call it "option A"), while the other changes their personality in such a way that they don't want it anymore (let's call it "option B"). Not subtle, but hey, this is a mini-game with a (reasonably fun) pottery gameplay, not a Ghost in the Shell RPG. I decided to experiment with different ways of answering the clients' requests: I gave some the option A, some the option B, and I tried giving one client an implant that wasn't obviously related to her request, but that I thought could yield interesting results in case the game had more open storylines. Here were the results: - First off, unrelated implants don't lead to different stories, they're just considered mistakes and the client comes back to get the right implant. - "Option A" choices systematically get morally questioned by the game's textual narration, and the clients later come back: the implant made their situation better, but they're still unsatisfied and keep asking for more. - "Option B" choices are heartily congratulated by the game, and you get a positive feedback / moral of the story from the client. It's pretty obvious where this is going: playing the game right means overriding the clients' requests, which, according to the scenario, only ever bring them the endless unsatisfaction of material longings. And since we can't talk to clients, help them in any other way, or refuse to serve them, we're left with the only option of implanting them the "wise" upgrade without their consent. So, when we're faced with a 52-yo virgin who's asking for help in finally starting a sex life, we find that increasing his sex-appeal will only make him disappointed that he can't get *all* women (we have to trust the game on this). The only solution we have, then, is to install him the implant that "cancels any carnal impulses". Well, this heart-rending dilemma seems to be the game's obvious first choice: "Sex without purpose makes any existence dysfonctional. Good job." - Initially, I wanted to say that I didn't resent the game's philosophy in itself, nor the fact that it takes position on the clients' situations. And yes, what I actually find terribly wrong is rather the way we're encouraged to, and congratulated for, violating our clients' trust, basic consent, and autonomy, in order to fix their problems "the right way", in a mini-game that obviously doesn't offer any room to navigate such complex issues and find creative solutions. But the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the philosophy of the game and the things it makes the player do are not that separate: sure, you can totally have a more nuanced game that criticizes materialism and promotes spiritual awakening. But you can't do that when you're showing such contempt for your characters' stories and preoccupations. You can't help people when you have no interest for why they want what they want. It's not "zen" to think you can just "remove any type of ambition" from a 28-yo game designer because you find him pretentious (and no, I don't care that this one's a self-deprecating joke from one of the creators). It's not "enlightened" to forcibly suppress the libido of someone because you don't see the point in having casual sex. If you think of a 19-yo girl with less than 1000 followers as a "clickbait writer", you're not competent to meddle with her sense of self. And this is called "Essays on Empathy"?? - It might seem like I had very high expectations for what is, after all, a very small game. I don't. I would have been completely okay, for instance, with some kind of amoral, dystopian mini-game where you can either do your best or be an a**hole, and it doesn't matter that much in the end 'cause there's no ethical transhumanism under capitalism. I would even have been okay with a more moralistic version, where some situations just require that you take the initiative of choosing another implant to prevent specific consequences. I don't know. There were options. If it's too small a game for gray areas, just don't do it about transhumanism, damn.

Unfortunately refunding and do not recommend. I liked the idea but I just can't get over how bad some of the mechanics are. None of the buttons in the main game appear to work (volume, fullscreen(?), exit). Each minigame launches in a new window that cannot be resized. I don't even have a 4k monitor but reading text and actually seeing the games was difficult. Those windows also do not have sound or graphics settings either. The mechanics of each game are not explained well and it makes even just interacting with things difficult... which for interactive fiction games isn't a good thing. I wish I could comment more on the gameplay but unfortunately immediately being launched into a tiny window BLASTING music doesn't make for a good gaming experience no matter how cool the game is.

I must admit, I didn't enjoy the games all that much. However, I'm giving a thumbs up to this particular game because it beautifully highlights a crucial aspect often overlooked—these games we play to pass the time are rooted in 'real' stories and real people. This game brings to the forefront the most genuine connection between the two parties, the consumer and the developer. It's a tribute to the true essence of gaming. Just don't skip the videos; they are as important as the games themselves.