User Avatar Image

Decisions Going Too Good

posted by Red Panda on - last edited - Viewed by 1.1K users

It's the ZA. It's natural for people to be darker. But in a misguided attempt to balance things, most players are a good guy and that's wrong. It doesn't make sense.

I think the best example for the tone of the game's decisions is the St. John's brothers. A lot of players killed the first one. They didn't kill the second one, Andy, because of Clem guilting them. And I think that's real.

Look, people should be growing darker. When at the end of ep 2 a vast majority of people aren't stealing the food then you've failed as a story teller to convey how dire the situation is b/c no human alive would do that. Our brains won't allow us to starve.

I think the job of the writers should be to try to subtly keep people from growing too dark but as a trend people should be bad if not full blown crazy. There is too many good guys. People should not be so much shocked as hating themselves for the terrible things they've done to survive.

55 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Gman5852 said: But there needs to be some way to show that. I think the best way would've been in episode 3 at the scavenging scene, Lee can have a moment where he pauses from hunger if you didn't take anything from the car, and you lose precious time to scavenge.

    Good idea. Another thing that they could do is show Clem getting weak and asking you when she can eat with those doe eyes of hers. I'd imagine people would be having second thoughts about not taking the food then. @Gman5852 said: The story is tailored to everyone, but is still the same story. Also getting a game over for not being a bro with kenny with ep is kind of detrimental to your point as that would mean there would be a "right" way to respondI don't think I have a problem with there occasionally being a right way and a wrong way to do something but I did say that someone else should save you if you've been nice/a bro to them. As it is now Kenny's character is inconsistent, why would the man who would save you in the first episode even if you've been a d-bag to him the whole time and sided with Larry to kill Duck then do a complete 180 and can't resist abandoning you at the drop of a hat if you don't help him kill Larry in the second episode even if you've sided with him everytime before that moment?

  • I think I was going fine. I killed both ST. Johns, and sided with Kenny in the locker thing. I also stole from the car.

  • @Red Panda said: I think that was a bad decision period b/c it's hard to get players to understand what starvation feels like. They are starving and despite all the references in the beginning of the episode it still didn't sink in people's brain.

    That's basically one example why I find the people on their high horses morons when they say the game "reflects you" lol.

    Heck, even the fact that a starving Lee who hasn't eaten anything in well over a day somehow having the strength to beat both st john brothers who obviously eat well and even just finished filet of mark is laughable at best.

  • There isn't a set way people /should/ act. People act in different ways in different situations.

    I find it weird that a load of people agreed with lilly, saying stealing from the group was basically the same as killing them, but they had no problem doing that to someone else.

  • I'm Always a good guy. As I am in real life, Of course.

  • @Phoenix VII said: Good idea. Another thing that they could do is show Clem getting weak and asking you when she can eat with those doe eyes of hers. I'd imagine people would be having second thoughts about not taking the food then.I don't think I have a problem with there occasionally being a right way and a wrong way to do something but I did say that someone else should save you if you've been nice/a bro to them. As it is now Kenny's character is inconsistent, why would the man who would save you in the first episode even if you've been a d-bag to him the whole time and sided with Larry to kill Duck then do a complete 180 and can't resist abandoning you at the drop of a hat if you don't help him kill Larry in the second episode even if you've sided with him everytime before that moment?

    My only guess is because its the start of the apocalpyse, he like everyone else doesn't really know what they are up against. If you remember its about 3 months till episode 2, hes becoming more ruthless over time.

  • I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Sure, maybe people aren't being "realistic", but TWD isn't very "realistic" either. No one has to really worry about hunger, thirst, sanitation, disease, etc. Other than rationing some food (which really made no difference), people realize it's just a game and their characters are going to live or die based on what the game wants to do, and the player really doesn't need to worry about it too much.

    For the car scene, it's not like Clem was particularly hungry or weak. If she had been as hungry as you say, she wouldn't have given a speech about how it's wrong. She would have taken the food. So ... they must not have been that desperate yet.

    Regardless of the writing for that scene, TWD knows that many people will be good guys. So, TWD creates many opportunities for players to lose their humanity and go down a darker path. And people crack at various points.

    Ben is a great example. People, maybe people who spared cannibals and murderers and refused to take supplies from a mysteriously abandoned car and clung to their humanity elsewhere, murdered Ben because they could, because they hated him, he was useless, or they wanted to revenge for their bro Kenny. It's true that some thought it was too dangerous to save him, but they still didn't put their life on the line for one of their group. And it took a lot of work for TWD to convince people to make that choice. TWD had to make Ben more and more unlikable, then finally give people an opportunity to kill him ... and 1/3 people did.

    That's pretty good. Most people consider themselves a good person, and yet TWD convinced 1/3 of them to murder someone.

    Another example is that 60% of people let a women be eaten alive by zombies when they could have helped her.

    So ... I think it's better to look at the stats as though people are going to resist being bad guys, and then give TWD credit for convincing them to go dark sometimes. Also, TWD has to balance the opportunities with going dark with getting people to play the game. If every episode of TWD was simply 2 hours of the most dark and depressing material, not many people would want to play it. There has to be a balance, or you lose your audience. Whereas people couldn't escape a real ZA if they were sick of it, people can always stop playing TWD if it's just one continual downer.

  • i didn't consider shooting a woman in the head "good" or letting her get eaten "evil", to me shit just happened and you have an opportunity to make the best out of a bad situation

  • @IndigoHawk said: I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Sure, maybe people aren't being "realistic", but TWD isn't very "realistic" either. No one has to really worry about hunger, thirst, sanitation, disease, etc. Other than rationing some food (which really made no difference), people realize it's just a game and their characters are going to live or die based on what the game wants to do, and the player really doesn't need to worry about it too much.

    For the car scene, it's not like Clem was particularly hungry or weak. If she had been as hungry as you say, she wouldn't have given a speech about how it's wrong. She would have taken the food. So ... they must not have been that desperate yet.

    Regardless of the writing for that scene, TWD knows that many people will be good guys. So, TWD creates many opportunities for players to lose their humanity and go down a darker path. And people crack at various points.

    Ben is a great example. People, maybe people who spared cannibals and murderers and refused to take supplies from a mysteriously abandoned car and clung to their humanity elsewhere, murdered Ben because they could, because they hated him, he was useless, or they wanted to revenge for their bro Kenny. It's true that some thought it was too dangerous to save him, but they still didn't put their life on the line for one of their group. And it took a lot of work for TWD to convince people to make that choice. TWD had to make Ben more and more unlikable, then finally give people an opportunity to kill him ... and 1/3 people did.

    That's pretty good. Most people consider themselves a good person, and yet TWD convinced 1/3 of them to murder someone.

    Another example is that 60% of people let a women be eaten alive by zombies when they could have helped her.

    So ... I think it's better to look at the stats as though people are going to resist being bad guys, and then give TWD credit for convincing them to go dark sometimes. Also, TWD has to balance the opportunities with going dark with getting people to play the game. If every episode of TWD was simply 2 hours of the most dark and depressing material, not many people would want to play it. There has to be a balance, or you lose your audience. Whereas people couldn't escape a real ZA if they were sick of it, people can always stop playing TWD if it's just one continual downer.

    I think the woman being eaten alive is another good example. That's how should be reacting. It was a case of my life or your life and player chose their own life, most of the time, but it wasn't so skewed.

    The problem is Clem. When she isn't around, like in that case, people tend to have less qualms with going into survival mode. Further evidence of this is how many killed the first St. John brother but not the second, after seeing Clem's reaction.

    I'm curious of those that left Clem behind, how many let Ben die. If I'm right, people would be more likely to kill Ben.

  • i am/Lee is the moral compass that is the example that Clementine should be following, not the other way round, if clementine was there when the woman was screaming on the street it would have been one more reason to leave her (safety of clementine) not shoot her, i left clementine at the house (for safety) and saved ben because he was wrong when he thought everybody would be better off if he was dead, he was just depressed

Add Comment