The Good, the Good and the Good
Overall I like the writing in both seasons and enjoy the story, though it annoys me how ridiculous and inconsistent the scenario gets at times. It seems as if the writers only gratify those being the Good, no matter how naive that would be in a real-world scenario, rather than cold minded and reasonable when there's a difficult decision to be made.
Let's take the Arvo situation for example. You've got severely injured people and a woman who is just about to give birth in your group, meaning they’re all in dipsheet without medicine, and then you stumble across a guy carrying a bag with a ER inside. What do you do? Any reasonable person would just take the bloody bag, then probably get rid of the Russkie to avoid any hard feelings from his comrades. However, since the player is well aware that it’s not what the game expects him to do, he’d rather pick the 100% lawful good variant than face the potential consequences – as is always the case when you choose not to be Mother Teresa.
The reason why a character like Jane is given a hard time, even though she didn't do anything even half as retarded as overpraised Kennymeh, is because she’s the only person in the group that has common sense. But since the game teaches you that to get the cake you must nice to everyone, the player automatically assumes she’s evil. Because man, she said that it’s better to let go on a poor girl (Sara), what a horrible and mean person is she? I mean, it’s not like 2 people already died because of Sara, 3 other almost died saving her, or that she’s completely f. useless in a world full of zombies and only endangers useful party members that have some slight chance to survive all this mess.
Also, Luke’s death. You can either try helping him by a)trying to reach his sorry ass on foot, or b)by shooting the zombies behind his back. Being the Discovery and National Geographic guy I am, I know that stepping on thin ice (there's even a saying, you know) and putting more weight on it is not the brightest option. Not to mention how insanely stupid is the idea that a little girl can pull a big guy out of water – while STANDING on a surface that’s about to collapse!!! The proper way to help a person in such circumstances is to lie f. down to reduce the pressure on the ice, crawl closer and hand him/her a stick, belt, or anything long-range. Since you can’t do that in the game, I picked the more logical of the two: shoot teh zombieh and don’t put more weight on the ice because you CAN’T possibly help him anyway. But of course, that’s not heroic and epic enough, so the game punishes you right away by either killing one of the characters, or turning her against you. To hell with any logic!
The fact that the game rewards only following the white knight way, no matter how idiotic that would be in a real world scenario, renders any choices and moral dilemmas non existent – because it’s better to be good than to be sorry. Just look at the charts at the end of every episode: vast majority of players always pick the exact same options. Of course because they’re all wonderful human beings capable of doing only good!
Please TT, embrace shades of grey in season 3.
Comments
Are you serious? This is probably the game I've played with the most morally grey choices.
You're not punished for taking the medicine any more than you are for not taking it. It leads to the same result.
This is not about the game punishing you. This is about a character reacting to a person she cares about dying in a human way. She feels guilty, so she lashes out at the only other person she feels she can blame.
This is not punishment. Luke dies either way. This is just the games writing.
Seems like you just want there to be no consequences for being a douche.
Can't really see how they force you to choose the good paths at all. Quite the contrary, I more often than not feel that I shouldn't choose the "good" choice because I'm scared of being screwed over.
Good example of this is people sending the family away in the end.
I agree.
Also, they should make Clint Eastwood the main character in the next game.
Meaning it's better not to steal because there's no profit in that option and taking the bag only renders Arvo and his friends more hostile. Difficult choice indeed.
Someone disliking or blaming you is always the only potential consequence of making pragmatic choices.
No, I want consequences for both being good and douche.
Well, a Clint Eastwood like char wouldn't hurt.
There is profit in taking it. You get medicine that you can later give to either Rebecca or Luke.
But this doesn't have to do with shades of grey though. This is simply the way the game is written. If there were to be larger consequences than that (people dying), TT would have to do considerably more work because of the huge number of variables there would be. It's simply not optimal.
And someone disliking or blaming you can also come from making the so called "good" choice. Not saltlickin' Larry comes to mind.
As I said before, I think there are plenty of scenarios where there are consequences for being good. Another example is shooting the girl in S1E2, you get less supplies as a result.
On Luke's death.
You're playing as Clementine. Not a player who read national geographic about the frailty of ice and what to do.
Alot of the other points are more debatable and aren't as completely biased. So I won't touch on them.
Which changes absolutely nothing, it's an empty option. Being good at least gives you better reactions from other party members.
Not necessarily large, but any consequences at all would be nice - and by any I mean some differences in scenario.
Larry hated you no matter what.
I doesn't take a rocket scientist to imagine that a little girl would be unable to pull out of water an adult while standing on fragile ice.
'Kennymeh'
Dat nickname
If you wanna look at it like that, the whole game is empty. Nothing changes anything. The only choices that have any effect whatsoever are the ones you make in the final 10 minutes of the game.
You give Rebecca meds, she says thanks. That's a positive consequence. What more do you want? Do you want them to save her life?
As I said before, these large consequences that results in different scenarios are simply not possible with this type of game. Too many variables that will create a butterfly effect. If Rebecca lives, their situation would unfold in a vastly different way. There would be no confrontation in the end. The game would need a huge amount of work.
That's not what I said. I said that not saltlicking Larry could be seen as the "good" choice as you call it, though that has huge consequences with your relationship with Kenny later on.
For the above stated reasons, I can't really see how you can say that choosing the good options have no consequences, as they clearly do. Whether or not those are empty consequences is a matter of perspective. If you look at it like that, every single thing you do in this game is empty, as it always ends up the same way.
Actually, I'd say the Luke one is the only one that wasn't completely biased. He just brought up the logical problem with the group doing what they did. The other points are basically defending being a selfish asshole and painting it as "reasonable" and "common sense"... stealing and killing people to avoid consequences from their victim's friends like a petty bandit, or letting people die for bullshit reasons (Sarah never got anyone killed) because they deem them "useless", so basically being Crawford or Carver.
Ultimately, if people want their characters to be their personal outlets for their bullshit worldview, there are plenty of games that deal with "moral choices" where they, in the words of the Spoony One, "boil most ethical dilemmas down to being the paragon of sunshine and goodness, or a petty, baby-strangling maniac".
I generally agree about realistic decisions being thought of as "the worse choice". But, (and I hate using this phrase), this is just a game. Though some people may play it as if it were a real situation, I think a lot of players want to play as the white knight and choose the more heroic decisions, maybe because in real life, it's just not that easy to be the white knight. We might not be able to be a hero in real life (just because it's not always feasible to be), but we can in the game; it's wish-fulfillment. Jane was definitely the most realistic and logical of the characters. It really pains me to see so many people hating on her, or seeing the writers make her out as the villain in some situations when she doesn't need to be depicted that way, or it doesn't makes sense for her to be depicted that way.
And you're 1000% right about walking across the ice thing; logic be damned in TWDG!!!