A Study of Human Behavior

In an alien abduction sci-fi setting, this game takes on the Game Theory/Prisoner's dilemma, discussing ethics and morals. After a short interrogation, you are brought into a room with other abductees to take part into an experiment, where your actions could mean life or death (for you or others).

I managed to “save” everyone on my first play (maybe I'm too much of a goody-two-shoes, but it was pretty easy), but It is possible to reach a state where the others turn on you, or you are the only one left standing.

Though the game starts with quite a bit of text, it ends up pretty bare after the experiment starts. Out of the 11 rounds, I was asked only two questions (in the first two rounds), and the rest was met with little reactions. This imbalance of text amount makes it feel like the game is incomplete, especially since you can't do much aside from following the directives (pass the plate or press the button), and the background of the other prisoners does not ever come into play either (not sure if those descriptions were much needed?).

I'm really not sure what this is meant to be. I won on my first attempt, just by answering the questions (the interviewer's three, and the one question Josh asked me). The actual gameplay was tedious; mostly just (Spoiler - click to show)waiting and passing the plate when indicated.

I tried talking to the other characters, but they all just looked at me funny. In particular, they weren't interested in discussing the particulars of the experiment ... ? Maybe having a menu-based conversation system would help? I didn't talk much and still won, so ...

Are there really people who could (Spoiler - click to show)look three innocent people in the eye and murder them all for a plate of cookies? I mean I guess fascist aliens might, but the experiment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the interview!

(Spoiler - click to show)Cicero was killing his son as an example, performing an evil act to increase his army's efficacy. Nietzsche advocated creating one's own morality system guided by the will to power, but the selfishness of this doesn't extend to coveting very minor material gains. And the alien, while monstrously selfish and evil, was fighting for real temporal power and security. The aliens have things they could offer that the subjects might kill for -- freedom, greater privileges, the ability to send messages to loved ones, etc. -- but they are offering something worth barely anything. How could ANYONE come to the decision to kill for a trivial, transitory gain?

The experiment is faulty, it doesn't prove anything, and from the IF player's perspective it means you mostly just (Spoiler - click to show)keep typing Z and every few turns PUSH THE PLATE. That's Annoyotron level gameplay.

This parser game was written for Ectocomp.

In this game, you have been abducted by aliens for 3.5 years and are currently being held prisoner by them. They require you to do 2 tests: one with yes/no questions about historical views on morality, and then a practical test.

The yes/no questions are about scenarios from Cicero and Nietzsche, with a fictional viewpoint thrown in.

The practical involves a tense conversation between four characters pitted against each other.

The conversation in this game uses ASK/TELL, but I had trouble knowing what topics could be asked or told, and mainly just asked people about themselves.

Apparently it is possible to win, but I had difficulty doing so.

Interesting concept. It is a speed-IF, and could use more polish, and it is a little depressing, but it's also thoughtful.