The story begins a second before a school bus is to hit an old man in the street, and we've got to do something. The natural thing to do seems to run over and save the old man, but this pushes us into another lane, where an oncoming truck swerves to miss us and barrels into the school bus instead, killing everybody. Apparently this is the trolley problem variant in which the alternate track seems clear and safe but actually isn't. (At which point it actually ceases to be the trolley problem: the dilemma isn't between killing the one and the many, but between killing the one and no one at all; the fact that the "no one at all" option actually results in many deaths cannot be part of it because it's not within our knowledge at the time of the decision.)

Outcome 1 of 51.

Ooooh! Is this going to be like "Rematch" where we have one turn to do something, and that one move gets increasingly complicated as we adjust for all the outcomes?

No. Three tries in, we're told that it might be "helpful to look around", though I'd have thought that the fairly detailed description of the situation DID constitute a good look around already. And when we do, we're told ... we have time to duck into a convenience store before the collision. What? We don't have time to pull an old man up onto the sidewalk, but we have time to go shopping? That really pulled me out of the moment. Not to mention certain parser issues, like how "examine shopping bag" is understood as "grab the gun from the shopping bag" (I didn't know there was a gun in there!) and "shoot tire" is understood as "shoot randomly".

As it turns out, this thing is all about supposed moral dilemmas, except that they don't really translate very well. We have a choice between sacrificing the bus driver or sacrificing ourself to provide the organs needed to save the hospitalised survivors, but it's hard to take this seriously: how is it down to just us two? We also run into the "sick violinist" dilemma, except that this time, the violinist is a painter -- but this also fails because we're put outside the kidnapped woman. The question ceases to be whether we are responsible for this one person's life and becomes a matter of choice between two people.

The piece has a rather didactic tone that leaves me with a distinct impression that it always disapproves of my decisions even as it justifies the logic behind them. Perhaps that's actually a good thing: after all, the real question might be whether it's worth doing what you believe to be good when all the world vilifies you for it. But I must admit that, as my disconnect with the game grew, so too did the tone grate on me more.

If this were breakfast, it would probably be a bag of carrot sticks and celery. It's earnest and just a bit too self-consciously "good for you", but I think it misses the mark.