Decisions Going Too Good

[Red Panda]

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.

[KingOfTheDead]

We'll im one of those peoples no matter what has to be a good guy on the first play through. On others all do the choices i didn't make.

[Ninnuendo]

I think it's just the limitations of the story.
When it comes to the car at the end of Ep 2, there should be direct consequences to not taking the food, in Ep 3 they should be starving. Instead there are none, the group takes the food anyway and the choice becomes impotent. If you establish that there will be serious consequences to your actions, then you'll see what people really do. That to me is more interesting.

[Viner16]

I think it's cuz we can't actually feel the hunger, we aren't desperate ourselves as the player for food.

[Phoenix VII]

Yeah, I would like it if you get a game over for not being pragmatic enough or pissing off the wrong people. For example, in Episode 1, Kenny will save you even if you've been a d-bag to him for the whole episode and sided with Larry to throw Duck out yet he has no qualms about abandoning you in the future if you don't help him kill Larry...it would've been better if, under those circumstances, Kenny left you behind in the store which results in either someone else saving you if you've been nicer to them or getting a game over. I guess TTG wanted the first season to be easy, but I hope Season 2 is less forgiving if you don't prioritize survival and getting along with your group.

[Gman5852]

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.

[Red Panda]

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.

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.

[thestalkinghead]

it's more of a fictional idea that you can't be a good person and survive extreme circumstances, but obviously a story of people getting on and slowly but surely building a better life for themselves is too boring to the zombie genre.

Ninnuendo is right there should be consequences because it kind of made the choice pointless, i took the food because i didn't consider taking abandoned (and desperately needed) food to be stealing, i may not have taken it if we actually saw that it belonged to living people

[Milosuperspesh]

i think having that lee is slower would cause game design problems if people did loot the car.

true they did it anyway with the 'good bye she quietly says' section.

but to have the same thign twice in row would be a bit lame froma gameplay standpoint ?

considering how lame/repetative the gameplay was in ep4, how many times did we have to click on the dirt pile to bury the kid ? 4 or 5 times...

all the checking of the ground floor of the house...

constantly telling ben to do something only for him to shrug it of as no big deal and then giving us an bad tude for getting up is his face for not doing it..

then the search of the upstairs for clem, and no one can be bothered to help, yeah we care about clem yeah we'll watch out for her, oh when you need to find her we can't be bothered...

[Perfect_Cell]

Yeah, I would like it if you get a game over for not being pragmatic enough or pissing off the wrong people. For example, in Episode 1, Kenny will save you even if you've been a d-bag to him for the whole episode and sided with Larry to throw Duck out yet he has no qualms about abandoning you in the future if you don't help him kill Larry...it would've been better if, under those circumstances, Kenny left you behind in the store which results in either someone else saving you if you've been nicer to them or getting a game over. I guess TTG wanted the first season to be easy, but I hope Season 2 is less forgiving if you don't prioritize survival and getting along with your group.

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 respond

[funyahns]

If you are just worried about brute survival at any cost. Even ruining the children you have with you then what is the point? Yes you may survive for a while. The whole point of being alive as a species is to pass on knowledge and skills.

[Phoenix VII]

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.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?

[HiggsBoson2142]

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.

[BlackPaladin]

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.

[rachellouise85]

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.

[QuarterPounderVlad]

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

[BourbonTeacup]

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.

[IndigoHawk]

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.

[thestalkinghead]

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

[Red Panda]

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.

[thestalkinghead]

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

[Milosuperspesh]

but then after seeing clem lay witness to danny's execution how many didn't like it and rewinded the chapter ?

that would also change the results ?

[Viser]

After Episode 2, I think I've been taking the "keeping your humanity" thing more seriously. I, for one, believe you can still retain your humanity during a ZA even if it means making some choices that definitely aren't the best regarding survival.
And yes, it all had to do with the St. John brothers. Well, probably. I was one of the people who killed Danny but spared Andy. Clem seeing it made me realize I had done the wrong thing. And not killing Andy didn't have to do only with Clementine, really, but with the whole group. After the first punching sequence, when the group gathers around Lee, I just felt like they were judging me, watching as if Lee had become some sort of monster, so I just stopped there.
Probably had some big influence on making me try to keep my humanity a lot more seriously, especially because of that slip-up with Danny and the pitchfork.

Edit: not taking food from the car was sort of an attempt of trying to balance things after killing Danny. If I had spared both brothers, I would have gladly taken the food from the car.

[Ghositex]

I'm going to quote myself, I just wrote this a few minutes ago

It's quoted in my signature, it's an achievement from episode three, I also used the achievement as my forum avatar. I don't think Beatrice's death wasn't the saddest, but it was the one which I can't (and probably won't) forget. I can't say I "liked" the death scene, I mean, I did like it, but not that "LOL she died omfg lol yes" kind of like. Remembering how Kenny actually wants to let her alive (to buy himself some time) always makes me think about how sick it would be to live during a ZA.

I'm one of the ones that spared both of the St. Johns brothers on my first save file. I'm also playing as a Good Guy Lee, not because I "want" to, i mostly do the GGL choices because that's what I do in lee's place. I know it wouldn't be the best long-term survivor when it comes to fast-thinking choices, I would nearly always choose to do what I think is right completely forgetting about survival; but we're going to die anyways, Zombie Apocalypse or not. If we're going to die anyways, I'd like to die as the guy I was before the outbreak.

[Ghositex]

Also, I knew the food was going to be taken by our group, and clementine and Lee would still get to eat anyways. I just chose not to take it, because Lee is had turned into a father figure to Clementine, even without taking the food, Clementine still wouldn't starve.

[KingOfTheDead]

I'm going to quote myself, I just wrote this a few minutes ago



I'm one of the ones that spared both of the St. Johns brothers on my first save file. I'm also playing as a Good Guy Lee, not because I "want" to, i mostly do the GGL choices because that's what I do in lee's place. I know it wouldn't be the best long-term survivor when it comes to fast-thinking choices, I would nearly always choose to do what I think is right completely forgetting about survival; but we're going to die anyways, Zombie Apocalypse or not. If we're going to die anyways, I'd like to die as the guy I was before the outbreak.
A Killer?

[Ghositex]

A Killer?

What do you mean with that? (slow thinking, sorry :P)

[KingOfTheDead]

What do you mean with that? (slow thinking, sorry :P)

or a teacher you choose.

[Ghositex]

Sorry, but I still don't get the message I should get my brain tested

[KingOfTheDead]

Sorry, but I still don't get the message I should get my brain tested
Lee was sent to jail because he killed a senator and he was a proffesor before this all happened

[Ghositex]

Oh, that, I feel a bit stupid right now. I tought Lee said it was an accident, that he didn't want to actually kill the senator?

[KingOfTheDead]

Oh, that, I feel a bit stupid right now. I tought Lee said it was an accident, that he didn't want to actually kill the senator?

It was a "fight" thats all lee says

[Ghositex]

It was a "fight" thats all lee says

I remember at the beginning of Episode three, if you choose to tell Clementine about your past, lee explains it was an accident. I don't see why Lee would lie, if he (the players) got to trust Clementine about his past. It seems like we won't get to know what happened for real, anyway...

Edit: I just got -for real- what you meant with "a killer". I said I'd want to die the way I was before the outbreak.. And I (Lee) was a killer. Heh, I feel even more stupid right now.

[IndigoHawk]

After Episode 2, I think I've been taking the "keeping your humanity" thing more seriously. I, for one, believe you can still retain your humanity during a ZA even if it means making some choices that definitely aren't the best regarding survival.
And yes, it all had to do with the St. John brothers. Well, probably. I was one of the people who killed Danny but spared Andy. Clem seeing it made me realize I had done the wrong thing. And not killing Andy didn't have to do only with Clementine, really, but with the whole group. After the first punching sequence, when the group gathers around Lee, I just felt like they were judging me, watching as if Lee had become some sort of monster, so I just stopped there.
Probably had some big influence on making me try to keep my humanity a lot more seriously, especially because of that slip-up with Danny and the pitchfork.

Edit: not taking food from the car was sort of an attempt of trying to balance things after killing Danny. If I had spared both brothers, I would have gladly taken the food from the car.

Interesting. I don't consider sparing either of the brothers to be part of saving humanity or being a good guy, but rather being unwilling to stand out from others and do what's right when they won't. Saving humanity in that situation was standing against the St Johns, against how they preyed on other people, and saying that even though there are no cops, no justice system, that people cannot prey on each other. For that, and to ensure the brothers could never harm anyone again, Lee killed them.

I regretted that Clem saw it done, but not that she knew it happened. I knew people might judge Lee as a murderer, but everyone needed to see that there is no civilization to protect humanity, and that it's up to each person to take responsibility for protecting it. It's wrong to simply do nothing but watch humanity end, and it's wrong to abandon humanity and join the St Johns and Crawfords of the world.

Imagine if you had let the brothers live and the farm wasn't destroyed. Would you have still thought you were being a good guy if the St Johns had lived to lure in and kill more people? Assuming the farm hadn't been wiped out and the St Johns could have still lived there, how would you have punished them or would you have simply left, not caring what they did in the future? Would you have brought the St Johns along to keep an eye on them since you can't kill them but you also can't leave them alone to hurt more people? Would you trust your life to them when zombies attack your group?

It's interesting that people value the old world moral that killing is always wrong ... when that moral was designed for a world with law and order and a justice system, where people could be dealt with in meaningful ways besides forgiveness or death.

Still, maybe I'm wrong. Could you have dealt with the St Johns in a way consistent with old world morality and humanity?

[Red Panda]

^ To add to that, there is significant danger in letting them live. If they don't try to kill the group themselves, they'll sick the bandits to do it.

It doesn't make sense on any level to let them live. Nobody is going to escape death only to leave themselves in danger. If they don't think they'll be safe they'll kill them. What other choice is there?

I think TT can step it up in the writing. For sure they have room to grow. If they can make it more realistic and compelling then they'll have game of the year for sure.

[Phoenix VII]

Still, maybe I'm wrong. Could you have dealt with the St Johns in a way consistent with old world morality and humanity?In a world that has no court system to try them, no penal system to hold them for life, and no stable states that can even provide for the above, I really don't see how...not in an effective manner anyway.

[Red Panda]

This all goes back to my original point that TT needs to push players darker. Not they see dark shit go down but participate in dark shit. That's way more of a mind fuck than anything we've seen so far and will add to a level a realism, keeping it from some of the criticisms of the show.

They can argue that players can go that route but they're not because of that disconnect between the game and reality. So to minimize that I think they should be nudging players in that direction as story tellers.

If they could make us pull a Lilly then they've really done something amazing.

[BlackPaladin]

Even simply making it more realistic and making the "humanity" choices be more detrimental to the group than the "survivalist" choices, which often are darker. Instead of our choices truly having ramifications, so far it just made the story order slightly change. Like both carley and doug die, but you basically choose when which one does. If you don't kill the st johns, the walkers do moments later. If you don't steal from the car, your group does anyway. The choices don't matter in that it doesn't make a detriment to the group. Lily becomes unhinged whether you're nice to her or not. Ben is an idiot whether you try to help him or not. Etcetc

It's because of that fact you can assume that even though you can have 8 different groups for the start of ep5, it will all end up the same in the end. Sure your choices affect the characters personalities within the game (kenny as a complete dickwad vs your bff) but in the grand scheme of things it changes nothing. I wish our choices could have a resounding effect on the outcome instead of being more of a guiding light on characters personalities that TTG's has been wanting to do. It would improve the game even more dramatically and create something truly memorable.

[Red Panda]

I understand there are limits to what they can do but they can still do better within the limits.

One example is Katjaa's death. If the player didn't kill Andy St. John then he kill's Katjaa in the raid and Duck gets bitten. And if the player did kill Andy then things played out with her suicide.

Or a walker version of one of the St. John's bites Duck. That would rack the player with guilt.

[thestalkinghead]

i would have locked the family in the meatlocker and taken over their farm if it hadn't been overrun

[IndigoHawk]

i would have locked the family in the meatlocker and taken over their farm if it hadn't been overrun

That's an idea ... So in order to protect humanity, you would take on responsibility for imprisoning and provisioning 2-3 people who are threats to the group while you are also barely surviving. You'd probably need one person to stand guard on the meatlocker at all times, which means you'd need a rotation, so you'd effectively always be 1 person down for doing chores and defending the farm.

It's a high price to pay to try to maintain the old way of justice. It has some interesting ideas to explore ... How much are people willing to sacrifice to maintain a prison? There could be some arguments with people who want to kill them, exile them, and the moral implications of each. What happens if zombies attack ... do you free the prisoners or abandon the farm and leave them there? What happens if the prisoners escape during an attack and later confront the group? And what if someone (on their own) poisoned the prisoners or killed them so that they wouldn't be a resource drain?

[Red Panda]

In ancient Rome they didn't have prisons. You either payed a fined or you were were killed, basically. They thought jail was a waste of resources.

[Viser]

Interesting. I don't consider sparing either of the brothers to be part of saving humanity or being a good guy, but rather being unwilling to stand out from others and do what's right when they won't. Saving humanity in that situation was standing against the St Johns, against how they preyed on other people, and saying that even though there are no cops, no justice system, that people cannot prey on each other. For that, and to ensure the brothers could never harm anyone again, Lee killed them.

I regretted that Clem saw it done, but not that she knew it happened. I knew people might judge Lee as a murderer, but everyone needed to see that there is no civilization to protect humanity, and that it's up to each person to take responsibility for protecting it. It's wrong to simply do nothing but watch humanity end, and it's wrong to abandon humanity and join the St Johns and Crawfords of the world.

Imagine if you had let the brothers live and the farm wasn't destroyed. Would you have still thought you were being a good guy if the St Johns had lived to lure in and kill more people? Assuming the farm hadn't been wiped out and the St Johns could have still lived there, how would you have punished them or would you have simply left, not caring what they did in the future? Would you have brought the St Johns along to keep an eye on them since you can't kill them but you also can't leave them alone to hurt more people? Would you trust your life to them when zombies attack your group?

It's interesting that people value the old world moral that killing is always wrong ... when that moral was designed for a world with law and order and a justice system, where people could be dealt with in meaningful ways besides forgiveness or death.

Still, maybe I'm wrong. Could you have dealt with the St Johns in a way consistent with old world morality and humanity?

I don't know, there are a lot of possibilities around this. Assuming Lee spares both brothers but the walkers couldn't get into the farm, Danny was still badly wounded and stuck in the trap and unless Andy had good medical skills it would be just a matter of time before he died of blood loss. And then there are the bandits, they seemed pretty focused on raiding the farm after they found out they had been fed with human meat, so it's very likely they wouldn't leave the remaining St John's alone until they got their revenge.

In the events of Danny surviving, he and Andy would have to abandon the farm eventually because I doubt they were going to survive there much longer having to worry about bandits and walkers. And if they decided on pursuing revenge as well they're only two people against an armed group on a fortified place.

And that question is very tricky.. I don't know how you could deal with them based on the old world's morality and justice system, but I would have probably just have left them behind. If I had to deal with the consequences later on, then so be it. And I see how flawed that is because they could just keep eating people... but keep them in a prison and there's the constant threat of their escape. Killing them is by far the easiest way out of this, but is it wrong? Is it right? Is allowing their cannibalism to possibly continue so wrong? They're trying to survive like everyone else. I don't think there's a correct answer to that. Each person is gonna deal with those situations the way they see fit for their morality.

These discussions do make me think about the concept of humanity and justice on a world gone to hell. It'd definitely be interesting if Telltale tried to push the player into doing darker things in order to survive. This is a very interesting thread :D

[Ghositex]

I just rereaded my first post again, I wrote something extremely weird and confusing (I should stay away from Internet forums do late, I just smash my head to the keyboard and post it afterwards lol). I didn't mean that killing is bad. Actually... killing IS bad, sometimes, there's just no other choice. There will be some point <<in a ZA>> where we all will have to kill someone, not just to survive (or at least not directly). With "I'd like to die as the guy I was before the zombie outbreak", I meant that I wouldn't want killing (or looting, leaving someone behind, etc..) to change me as a human being.

Rick, in the comics, was wondering if he was a bad guy because of the things he had done. That was enough proof to show that he wasn't a bad guy. Evil people break rules just because they can, they like doing it because it makes them feel better with themselves. The governor, in example, actually enjoyed killing foreigns. (the "TVs" he had are enough proof of this).

I just spared the Brothers because they were no threat anymore, the chances of them surviving were really low, maybe if the farm wasn't getting overrun I would have done something else.

Going a little offtopic... I'm going to take a shower, I'm still sort of asleep, I don't want to post more blurry messages I will have to explain again later :o

[thestalkinghead]

i often turn up the contrast for grey area issues (if you get what i mean) and theorise the logical extreme of any thing, the logical extreme of killing the st johns is to kill anybody that could possibly be a threat (sort of crawford like) so when taken to the logical extreme that is clearly wrong, but the logical extreme of sparing their life, locking them up and caring for them is to lock any threat in a prison and care for them, its clearly not a great idea but it isn't as morally wrong as killing them all.

also it would be prison for rehabilitation, of the two brothers Andrew had the most potential to snap out of it and realise what he had done to survive and become an asset rather than a threat, so in conclusion the prison option would be a bit harder but it is the best of two bad choices and has the potential to help you in the long run but make it a bit harder in the short term.

[Milosuperspesh]

In ancient Rome they didn't have prisons. You either payed a fined or you were were killed, basically. They thought jail was a waste of resources.

or made slaves or sent to the collasium/gladiator arena...and yeah they actually did have 'prison cell like places to hold the aforementioned.

[thestalkinghead]

even in medieval England you had to pay to go to prison (pay the jailer/gaoler) and if you had no money you had to work for it, it is how it should work really, why should criminals get free food and a roof over their heads when innocent people have to pay (this is more related to now rather than a ZA)

[Viser]

I just rereaded my first post again, I wrote something extremely weird and confusing (I should stay away from Internet forums do late, I just smash my head to the keyboard and post it afterwards lol). I didn't mean that killing is bad. Actually... killing IS bad, sometimes, there's just no other choice. There will be some point <<in a ZA>> where we all will have to kill someone, not just to survive (or at least not directly). With "I'd like to die as the guy I was before the zombie outbreak", I meant that I wouldn't want killing (or looting, leaving someone behind, etc..) to change me as a human being.

Rick, in the comics, was wondering if he was a bad guy because of the things he had done. That was enough proof to show that he wasn't a bad guy. Evil people break rules just because they can, they like doing it because it makes them feel better with themselves. The governor, in example, actually enjoyed killing foreigns. (the "TVs" he had are enough proof of this).

I just spared the Brothers because they were no threat anymore, the chances of them surviving were really low, maybe if the farm wasn't getting overrun I would have done something else.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say (I kinda suck at expressing myself) when I said I was trying to retain my humanity! I don't want the ZA to change me (or in that case, Lee) as a human being, I want everyone to remember him as the guy who died without giving in to the temptation of making dark decisions (most of the time, at least). Wheter that's good or bad, it's up to debate.

[Red Panda]

Yes, that's what I was trying to say (I kinda suck at expressing myself) when I said I was trying to retain my humanity! I don't want the ZA to change me (or in that case, Lee) as a human being, I want everyone to remember him as the guy who died without giving in to the temptation of making dark decisions (most of the time, at least). Wheter that's good or bad, it's up to debate.

Have you ever had a moment when you questioned if you were a bad guy? I think TellTale should try to push players towards those moments and have them questioning themselves on that level. That's why I'm advocating it get darker.

Like I said, I think it would have been great if Andy killed a group member if you let him live. That would have been smart.

[thestalkinghead]

Have you ever had a moment when you questioned if you were a bad guy? I think TellTale should try to push players towards those moments and have them questioning themselves on that level. That's why I'm advocating it get darker.

Like I said, I think it would have been great if Andy killed a group member if you let him live. That would have been smart.

but then it would be like you get a reward for killing people, i don't know whether that would make me feel bad because i would have saved a life by killing someone

[Red Panda]

but then it would be like you get a reward for killing people, i don't know whether that would make me feel bad because i would have saved a life by killing someone

It seems like a no win situation to me.

On one hand, you kill somebody and have to live with people looking at you like a murderer and distrusting you potentially, especially Clem. That's hard. Even if you saved someone's life.

Then again, you let him live and you lose someone you and other's care about. Then you feel guilty for that. His life wasn't worth whomever's he took. Like, if he killed Carley that would be devastating. You let him live and lost someone you care for and you have to live with that.

[thestalkinghead]

It seems like a no win situation to me.

On one hand, you kill somebody and have to live with people looking at you like a murderer and distrusting you potentially, especially Clem. That's hard. Even if you saved someone's life.

Then again, you let him live and you lose someone you and other's care about. Then you feel guilty for that. His life wasn't worth whomever's he took. Like, if he killed Carley that would be devastating. You let him live and lost someone you care for and you have to live with that.

soldiers kill people to save lives and i believe they are good people, so really you could look at it as win win, because on one hand you don't kill somebody and are merciful (a good thing) and on the other hand you kill someone and save lives (a good thing)

[Red Panda]

soldiers kill people to save lives and i believe they are good people, so really you could look at it as win win, because on one hand you don't kill somebody and are merciful (a good thing) and on the other hand you kill someone and save lives (a good thing)

Soldiers come back with serious trauma. The suicide rate is crazy. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is common. Killing somebody, even if you think it's for a good cause, is never easy on the mind.

And losing somebody is just as hard.

It's a game so I don't think it will ever get that serious.

I guess the only way to know how people would feel is to have them go through it.

[thestalkinghead]

Soldiers come back with serious trauma. The suicide rate is crazy. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is common. Killing somebody, even if you think it's for a good cause, is never easy on the mind.

And losing somebody is just as hard.

It's a game so I don't think it will ever get that serious.

I guess the only way to know how people would feel is to have them go through it.

they train soldiers differently now, they used to emphasise the importance of killing bad people ( but that just makes people wonder if they were bad people) now they emphasise saving lives, that way even killing a good person but for a good reason is a lot easier to live with

[Ghositex]

It seems like a no win situation to me.

On one hand, you kill somebody and have to live with people looking at you like a murderer and distrusting you potentially, especially Clem. That's hard. Even if you saved someone's life.

Then again, you let him live and you lose someone you and other's care about. Then you feel guilty for that. His life wasn't worth whomever's he took. Like, if he killed Carley that would be devastating. You let him live and lost someone you care for and you have to live with that.

I get what you mean, I wish Carley/Dough got killed by Andy here, rather than having Lilly shoot her/him, if they were going to die anyways. Like, Andy takes you by surprise if you dont kill him, and will throw her/him to the electric fence, and the only way to stop him is to shoot him in the head; then, the "RV Lilly accident" could have taken place later in game, killing Carley/Doug, if you saved them from Andy in the earlier episode.. Just an example, anyway, I think it's too late for TT to let that happen this season, anyway :/

[aperose]

I have to wonder whether leaving them to be eaten and reanimated as zombies is really more merciful than killing them right there. Granted, you don't kill Danny through the brain so he will probably be stuck to that hay pile forever. Is it crueler to let Andy be turned by his own walker mother? Or are the lives of the living not really our choice to decide whether they live or die? I think that, as mentioned, we can't use an old world morality in this new world. That is why they had to die and that is why I also killed Ben (and would've left Lily but I mostly took her to see what would happen lol)