The Trolley Problem Game

A lot of the prompts felt very repetitive, where they felt like the same thing asked repeatedly. I think if there were fewer, but more interesting prompts this game would be more worth it.

It makes you think; sometimes it makes you laugh; sometimes you learn something. It was fun; it was cheap. There are a few minor gameplay annoyances, but nothing drastic. You won't always agree with the developer's position. I don't believe that matters, so I ended up not worrying that my 'score' wasn't great. I ended up focusing on trying to determine what I thought were the best responses given my personal priorities and beliefs. This forced me to clarify my own understanding of what I thought was really important. That's valuable to me!

I have a feeling this game will make some very delicate people very upset. 10/10

Interesting crash course in philosophy and ethics.

This game is absolutely ridiculous in the best way possible. I thought I was in for a simple moral dilemma simulator, but instead, I got a philosophy class taught by an unhinged Professor and a talking calculator. The problems start off as classic ethical scenarios but spiral into complete absurdity, and somehow, they just keep coming. Every time I think the game has run out of ideas, it throws something even wilder at me. Also, multi-track drifting might be the dumbest, most brilliant mechanic ever put in a game. I’m hooked.

It's a good game, but I wish there wasn't so much preaching - apparently the writer is a vegan who believes that two murderers in jail are more valuable than a random human. I understand that they may be just putting up the various philosophical arguments but it definitely came across preachy. Didn't like that I chose to let criminals/terrorists/etc die instead of animals a few times. Love the 'killemall' button! Came in handy a few times. Also I would have loved to see a summary with some placement on a scale or some achievements, no real reason to play it a second time from what I can see, Takes about 2 hours to run thru all 333 questions. I noticed several questions are duplicates, so more like 300 unique questions.

A simple enough game. Unfortunately American ideology centred and HEAVILY geared towards encouraging utilitarian decisions. Might be more useful if it gave statistics of player outcomes after every decision made, as well as expanding on the non-utilitarian viewpoints of each decision. e.g: The game dev clearly enjoys questioning the existence of "Free Will", without broaching the implications of determinism. The very model of the game provides a framework for either argument. (i.e: The player has their FREE WILL impacted by the fact that the scenario presents them with 2 options which are not of their choosing (possible determinism), as well as restricting their option for dealing with said scenario. However, it fails to recognise that the option of "walking away from the game" is always an option (albeit one that the game does not anticipate you'd choose, nor does it record metrics of players making these decisions). Yes, the premise of the game is to *make decisions*, but the framework is inherently limited by the utilitarian-centric as well as the nature of the game itself (the former is an issue, the latter can't really be helped). Additionally, some of the wording is vague (possibly due to American-centric viewpoint/local slang or terminology). e.g: "Terrorist Fighters" 1) Are these Terrorists? 2) Are these people who FIGHT Terrorists? At one point the game asks if you want to progress through UTILITARIAN MODE or FREE PLAY MODE. This is an interesting question to ask, and would be even MORE interesting if it gave option of playing by OTHER moral frameworks. Lastly, the data from this game has the potential of providing value to ethicists around the globe, so THAT is a massive point for why people SHOULD play this game. If it was developed to present and explore other theories of ethics, it would not only greatly improve the value of the information that it provides, it could also become a valuable learning tool. If the contexts of the dilemmas was able to be catered to particular industry themes, this program could also be used by businesses around the globe for educating staff on a variety of complex topics. e.g: 1) (As a healthcare worker) two people require medical treatment for the same illness and have the same prognosis. One person was assigned female at birth and continues to identify as a female (Cis-Female), while the other person is now a female after transitioning (Trans-woman). With everything else being equal, which one do you treat? a) Cis-Female b) Trans-Woman ANSWER: Any difference in treatment for these two women is discrimination. The correct choice is to treat both the patients equally. (Within the scope of The Trolley Problem this might be expressed by either multi-track drifting or walking away from the question as it's based on an invalid premise of a non-existent difference). 2) (As a gamer) There's a new indie-game released on the market. The sole developer seems to genuinely care about the betterment of humanity, and ultimately excercise their influence through the game they made. You wish to play the game, but cannot afford to purchase the game. a) Do you refrain from playing the game?- Depriving yourself of joy and depriving the world of the potential "betterment of humanity" you might initiate by playing the game. b) Do you illegally pirate the game?- Experiencing the joy of the game, the benefits of "Betterment of Humanity" (restricted due to pirated version not sharing with official server), and depriving the world of the player based metrics that the game shares around the world. ANSWER: The developer deserves the income rewards for their product as well as for any potential "betterment of humanity" that might come as a result of the game. However, the fact that the improvement of the world is restricted behind a financial barrier is the core issue that needs addressing. The "betterment of humanity" is the original purpose of every government/economy/organisation/religious body throughout all of Earth's history. Thus, once there is sufficient evidence that the outcomes are justified, it becomes the responsibility of these governments/economies/organisations/religions bodies to assume the burden of spreading the game to their respective population while ensuring the developer continues to earn compensation commensurate to the services they have provided.