NinjaKitty & Goodwin
NinjaKitty NinjaKitty
Goodwin Goodwin
Goodwin Goodwin
Did you ever think about how a side‑scroller could actually encode a moral dilemma, like the classic trolley problem? Imagine a level where one path wipes out the fewest enemies while the other spawns a cascade of hazards. I wonder how you’d design the obstacles to make the decision feel genuinely consequential.
NinjaKitty NinjaKitty
Yeah, I’d make the “easy” path look like a cheat code – slick, no bullets, a rainbow of power‑ups, but once you jump in you’re hit by a pit of lava that drops you right to level start. The “hard” path? It’s a maze of enemies that you can kill fast, but every time you clear a section a new hazard drops from the sky, like falling crates that can crush you or a swarm of bees that block the exit. Then the game drops a quick cutscene: one side clears the least enemies, the other destroys a bunch of enemies but the player gets hurt more. The choice feels real because the health bar actually changes, and if you take the hard route you’re still in the game with higher score, but if you go easy you finish sooner and miss out on that secret boss combo that’s only available after the tough route. Keeps the moral weight in the pixel dust.
Goodwin Goodwin
Sounds clever, but I keep wondering if the health bar is really enough to capture the ethical weight of a decision. In a proper metaethic you’d have to consider the intent, the context, the consequences in a broader sense—things that a pit of lava or a swarm of bees can’t really express. It’s a neat trick, but it feels a bit like trading a philosophical dilemma for a power‑up.
NinjaKitty NinjaKitty
Yeah, but in game terms you can make that lava a guardian of a secret and the bees a warning system. So you still get the ethical vibe – choose whether to spare the guardians or blast through them for a quick win. It’s still a power‑up, but with a story hook.
Goodwin Goodwin
So you make the lava a guardian and the bees a warning system. Clever, but I keep thinking of the classic consequentialist versus deontological debate – your guardians are still objects, not agents, so the moral weight is still superficial. If you want a genuine ethical bite, maybe let the guardian speak or have its fate affect the game world beyond just the score. Otherwise it’s just another power‑up with a story hook.
NinjaKitty NinjaKitty
Yo, if you want a real moral crunch, I’d make that guardian a NPC with a short dialog: “I’ll hold off if you spare me, but if you kill me the town falls silent.” Then the town’s NPCs start complaining or a secret area unlocks. That way the choice has a story ripple, not just a health bar. And if it’s a boss, the final combo only triggers if you chose the right side, so it feels like a consequence, not just a cheat.
Goodwin Goodwin
Nice twist—turning the guardian into a talking NPC does give it a bit more gravitas. Still, I can’t help wondering whether the town’s “complaint” feels like a cliché narrative callback rather than a genuine moral consequence, but if it triggers the final combo then perhaps it’s enough to convince the player that their choice mattered.
NinjaKitty NinjaKitty
You know what, maybe let the guardian have a “kill‑to‑unlock” side quest that actually gives you a new power‑up you can’t get otherwise. So the choice is not just a score tweak – it literally changes your arsenal. If you hate the combo and want the loot, you can skip the moral talk and still get something real. That’s how we keep it fast, fun, and meaningful.