You might have come across the thought experiment known as 'The Trolley Problem' before; so how about a game based on the same premise to test your morals? This is exactly what solo dev team ReadGraves' Trolley Problem, Inc proposes and you will get to finally play a game that tells you if you're a bad person or not when it launches later this month.

​

With scenarios that challenge opinions on vaccinations, war, immigration, corporate espionage, religion… even the nature of decision making itself, Trolley Problem, Inc. will take players on a journey that could ultimately change how they view the world, themselves and ultimately the concept of free will.

Players are initially assessed as new recruits to Trolley Problem, Inc. – their suitability for employment determined through some initial introductory problem solving which only affects the lives of a few people and a dog. Two choices are offered – then a countdown begins. Pick the option you feel is right – but justifying your decisions to any family or friends watching you? Well, that’s your problem.

Trolley Problem, Inc. features:

• 55 intensely thought-provoking multiple-choice questions across a 90-minute playtime
• Streamer mode allows content creators to engage with a live viewing audience
• Multiple profiles allow local players to compare and discuss their choice – whilst global statistics reflect the choices players across the world have made
• References to the original philosophical papers
• A host of unlockables to discover throughout the game
• The strangest ‘Achievements’ ever featured in a video game
• Voice acting by Dead Ringers, Spitting Image and Skins actor, Jan Ravens
• Support in 10 different languages: English, French, German, Spanish, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, Simplified Chinese, Arabic

Trolley Problem, Inc. will be available on PC on 21 April 2022 priced at £8.99 / $10.99 / €10.99.

SOURCE: GBAtemp Inbox

 

[tabzer]

Life might be a stretch* but it has been used to resolve disagreements on courses of action before, ones in which the livelihoods of many people, companies and more are on the line. Granted in those scenarios I do switch off the rock paper scissors logic ( https://wrpsa.com/rock-paper-scissors-game-theory/ ) other than maybe looking for a source of randomness (second hand on a clock is a good one)

*I could see it happening but in cases where it is time sensitive (thankfully few mass triage and "shit gone down let's get out of here" in recent years) and I respect someone enough to follow them/consider them in a debate it is generally easier to have a leader and go with that.

Might as well be in the EOF at this point so song

Okay, I should have been more consistent with making my point. Admittedly it has passed the point of becoming convulated and I haven't done my part in keeping the parallel intact.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

I would love to see some of the people here play "rock-paper-scissors"...

"I kick the other player in the head and win by default. The whole situation where I'm limited to only three hand gestures is too unrealistic and too simplistic and contrived, there is no situation in real life that can be reduced to one choice between three possible outcomes that has to be made in split seconds, AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON CHESS"

You can still do damage with those three hand gestures alone. Scissors poke out the eyes, hand slaps the face, and rock punches the balls!

 

[Veho]

Lol. I get that it's just a game. One in which you can help Tyrone confront his fear of trains by pushing him into the path of one. But when is the last time you played paper-rock-scissors with someone's life on the line, or even as a basis for moral evaluation? The trolly problem is a philosophical exercise with the premise betraying the supposed intention.

It's simple. The question is, would you kill one person to save five? That's it. That is the premise. Everything else is just fluff. The "trolley" is a theoretical example but, alas, as soon as you introduce examples people can't see the forest for the trees and get hung up on particulars. Would you kill one person to save five. That's it. "How would I ever find myself in such a position?" Doesn't matter. The question is very simple, anything else is just haggling. Five was selected because it sits in the middle, large enough to give the choice the moral ambiguity, small enough to not be a no-brainer. That's all there is. And it seems to me everyone is trying really hard to weasel their way out giving a straight answer.

 

[Clydefrosch]

The baseline one could be answered that way, though I would say that is still debatable and you can't dismiss actions vs inaction that easily either. However the curveball ones (which I did see briefly flash up in the video) wherein the would be splattered are less desirable members of society (I did see the popular fat guy curveball one in that too*) are where the real fun comes in.

*various times it is run it is noted that being fat is over a population of tested a death sentence compared to an identical non fat person.

doesn't matter. 1 thin guy vs 5 fat guys or 1 fat guy vs 5 pedophiles.
all the same. you are a damnable murderer who doesn't get to pat himself on the back for either choice, no matter how subjectively or even objectively 'better' one choice is over the other. the only right choice you can do in all pull the lever or don't scenarios is to not be self-righteous about it.

of course everyones individual choice is still interesting, but it's not like we'll be very surprised about the hellscape of a picture of (sampled) humanity this is going to paint if there's like collected statistics about this.

 

[tabzer]

And it seems to me everyone is trying really hard to weasel their way out giving a straight answer.

There is no straight answer when forced to choose between gay and super-gay.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

And it seems to me everyone is trying really hard to weasel their way out giving a straight answer.

Okay, here's my straight answer: burn everybody on planet earth because I'm a fucking mad man! Is that clear enough?