I'm not arguing over whether Larry was revivable or not. The fact that he could have been brought back from the heart attack has nothing to do with whether or not the initial decision making was right or not. It was a long shot to bring Larry back with simple hand compressions. Just because it may have ultimately ended up working doesn't mean it was right to take that risk. That would be like riding on airplane that has an 80% chance of crashing, safely landing after your flight, and then declaring that it was safe to have ridden on the airplane. I'm not arguing that it was impossible to save Larry, only that trying to save him wasn't worth the risk, again regardless of whether or not he can ultimately be saved.
We know, if we're meta gaming, that Larry was revivable.
Kenny does not know that for certain. He was also under a lot of stress and so c… moreouldn't think properly. Therefore his assumption that Larry's brain must 100% be destroyed was perfectly understandable, just as Lilly being upset was understandable.
He made the decision that seemed best to him. It turns out this decision was wrong. I understand why he made the decision. That doesn't stop it being, objectively, the wrong call in the end.
You can't just look at the fact that the compressions may have worked and then declare that trying to revive him wasn't a long shot. That doesn't make any sense. "Just because it may have ultimately ended up working doesn't mean it was right to take that risk. That would be like riding on an airplane that has an 80% chance of crashing, safely landing after your flight, and then declaring that it was safe to have ridden on the airplane."
The fact remains that it's unlikely to bring someone back from a heart attack of the magnitude that Larry suffered. It can be argued that it wasn't worth taking chances on a long shot, considering that it put everyone else at great risk, and even if successful it wouldn't have kept Larry around long term anyway. With this in mind, I think what Kenny did was rational.
How can the chances of resuscitating be low if he could be resuscitated within only four measly chest compressions? He was taking a breathe,… more that means the CPR obviously worked to revive him... if for at least the time being.
The risks did not outweigh the unlikely rewards in this instance.
I'm not arguing over whether Larry was revivable or not. The fact that he could have been brought back from the heart attack has nothing to … moredo with whether or not the initial decision making was right or not. It was a long shot to bring Larry back with simple hand compressions. Just because it may have ultimately ended up working doesn't mean it was right to take that risk. That would be like riding on airplane that has an 80% chance of crashing, safely landing after your flight, and then declaring that it was safe to have ridden on the airplane. I'm not arguing that it was impossible to save Larry, only that trying to save him wasn't worth the risk, again regardless of whether or not he can ultimately be saved.
I take correct decision to mean the one which is shown to be correct.
If in a maths test, you are stuck between saying the answer is 7 or 8, and the answer actually is 8, then picking 8 would be the 'correct choice', even if you had just as much motivation at the time to pick 7.
Are we not looking at this in the sense of the "correct" decision making being ambiguous..? That's how I perceived the topic, and I would gu… moreess that's how Clem_is_awesome addressed it as well. That thought would be independent of whether or not Larry was totally, 100% savable.
You're kind of missing the point here. Going off on whether or not Larry was savable is an independent thought to what Clem_is_awesome was saying. That's all I'm saying here. Argue all you want over Larry being savable, that in itself doesn't change the logic of the original post that you responded to. In other words, explaining the fact that Larry was savable doesn't disprove anything by itself.
I take correct decision to mean the one which is shown to be correct.
If in a maths test, you are stuck between saying the answer is 7 or… more 8, and the answer actually is 8, then picking 8 would be the 'correct choice', even if you had just as much motivation at the time to pick 7.
You're missing my point as much, it seems, because I haven't been debating with you whether or not it was a breath on this thread.
I am not talking about the question of whether he was alive or dead.
I'm talking about the definition of a 'correct decision'.
The only thing we're disagreeing on is that I think 'correct decision' means correct decision, i.e. a decision which turned out to be correct in the end, whereas you think 'correct decision' means correct decision, i.e. the decision which seemed most likely to be correct at the time.
You're kind of missing the point here. Going off on whether or not Larry was savable is an independent thought to what Clem_is_awesome was s… moreaying. That's all I'm saying here. Argue all you want over Larry being savable, that in itself doesn't change the logic of the original post that you responded to. In other words, explaining the fact that Larry was savable doesn't disprove anything by itself.
I don't think Kenny thought that Larry was totally unreviable either. He actually says "we know this guy isn't going to make it", implying that he doesn't technically think the guy is 100% gone, only that the chances of being able to bring him back are very low. He acted the way that he did according to this, as did I.
I guess I'm not really trying to say that his decision is the proven right one, I was only trying to justify the decision making.
I know the first bit.
I'm saying that while we know now he was revivable, Kenny didn't know it at the time, so I understand why he acted … morehow he did.
But that this doesn't make Kenny's decision the objectively, proven right one. Only one that is justifiable.
Up above you had responded to Clem_is_awesome's original comment by trying to explain that Larry was savable, with that sentiment alone being an aside to the point that he was making. I said as much to some other poster, and that is why we are having this discussion. You responded by saying that your points were not an aside to his opinion, and I went on to explain how they were independent of what he was trying to say on the topic. I was never specifically talking about what is a correct decision and what isn't, not really sure how you got on that subject.
Also, I should say that I wasn't randomly trying to criticize or anything. I was only explaining why the two of you didn't seem to be on the same page.
You're missing my point as much, it seems, because I haven't been debating with you whether or not it was a breath on this thread.
I am n… moreot talking about the question of whether he was alive or dead.
I'm talking about the definition of a 'correct decision'.
The only thing we're disagreeing on is that I think 'correct decision' means correct decision, i.e. a decision which turned out to be correct in the end, whereas you think 'correct decision' means correct decision, i.e. the decision which seemed most likely to be correct at the time.
Yes, I did say that to Clem_is_awesome, because the implication of him speaking about reanimation happening was that this is relevant in whether the choice is ambiguous, when the thread is speaking about the meta game rather than the game, as it mentions the fact that Larry was revivable in the OP.
Up above you had responded to Clem_is_awesome's original comment by trying to explain that Larry was savable, with that sentiment alone bein… moreg an aside to the point that he was making. I said as much to some other poster, and that is why we are having this discussion. You responded by saying that your points were not an aside to his opinion, and I went on to explain how they were independent of what he was trying to say on the topic. I was never specifically talking about what is a correct decision and what isn't, not really sure how you got on that subject.
Also, I should say that I wasn't randomly trying to criticize or anything. I was only explaining why the two of you didn't seem to be on the same page.
And I said the decision making was justified right above your comment.
Although I think it's important to realise that Kenny isn't thinking straight anyway. He refuses to acknowledge whether he would do the same if Katya was passed out which implies he doesn't really think he would (one of the first hints in the game that compassion and empathy aren't exactly his strong point).
Kenny is stressed and this causes him to oversimplify the problem in his mind, leading to drastic and overimmediate action.
I don't think Kenny thought that Larry was totally unreviable either. He actually says "we know this guy isn't going to make it", implying t… morehat he doesn't technically think the guy is 100% gone, only that the chances of being able to bring him back are very low. He acted the way that he did according to this, as did I.
I guess I'm not really trying to say that his decision is the proven right one, I was only trying to justify the decision making.
And I said the decision making was justified right above your comment.
Oh, I know. I'm glad we're in agreement on that.
Although I think it's important to realise that Kenny isn't thinking straight anyway. He refuses to acknowledge whether he would do the same if Katya was passed out which implies he doesn't really think he would (one of the first hints in the game that compassion and empathy aren't exactly his strong point).
This is kind of natural in my opinion. Of course it would be a lot more difficult for him to be rational in the case of a dying family member. That's pretty much true of everyone. Can't say I'd fault the guy, just as I don't really fault Lilly for not wanting to give up on her father.
And I said the decision making was justified right above your comment.
Although I think it's important to realise that Kenny isn't thinki… moreng straight anyway. He refuses to acknowledge whether he would do the same if Katya was passed out which implies he doesn't really think he would (one of the first hints in the game that compassion and empathy aren't exactly his strong point).
Kenny is stressed and this causes him to oversimplify the problem in his mind, leading to drastic and overimmediate action.
Yes, I did say that to Clem_is_awesome, because the implication of him speaking about reanimation happening was that this is relevant in whether the choice is ambiguous, when the thread is speaking about the meta game rather than the game, as it mentions the fact that Larry was revivable in the OP.
I understand why you said it, but again, it was an aside to the actual specific point he was making. That's why the two of you were not on the same page. I mean, it was relevant in the fact that it had to do with the whole Larry situation, but the idea of Larry being savable or not is an aside to what the guy was saying. Whether Larry is savable or unsavable, that alone doesn't change what he was saying in his original comment. If he thought the infection was starting the process of taking control, and thus thought Larry needed to be dealt with because of this, that is independent to whether or not the guy was savable. That's all I'm trying to say here.
You spoke about correct decisions below.
Alright, but that's kind of a totally separate conversation.
Yes, I did say that to Clem_is_awesome, because the implication of him speaking about reanimation happening was that this is relevant in whe… morether the choice is ambiguous, when the thread is speaking about the meta game rather than the game, as it mentions the fact that Larry was revivable in the OP.
You spoke about correct decisions below.
I've examined the scene once. There's two audio files in the game files of Larry exhaling. The first one is a normal breath and the other is zombie-like. The breaths are in fact used in the game if you listen closely. Because of this, I think both choices were reasonable and unreasonable at the same time. Helping Larry seemed like the reasonable thing to do, but upon doing that, you'll find out that he was turning, which made Kenny the reasonable one.
That would be like riding on airplane that has an 80% chance of crashing, safely landing after your flight, and then declaring that it was safe to have ridden on the airplane."
The question here though isn't "what is the solution," the question is "what are our options?" All we knew at the time was that Larry was susceptible to hear attacks, most likely mild ones seeing as though we're wavered a task to collect medication for them that alleviate the symptoms.
Secondly, we know that people that die take an undetermined amount of time before they turn. However, we also know that an indicator of this was that they have blotchy dilated eyes, pale skin pigmentation, and appear to have no blood circulation. Larry didn't have any of these yet. And I know Kenny wasn't thinking straight which brings me to my next issue with the way the choice is presented. You aren't allowed to take precautions.
This was a delicate matter that ending with absolute disaster and saying otherwise is quite callous to the brevity of the situation. Larry obviously was alive and saying 80% or 99.9% doesn't change the fact that in the situation Larry was only 100% alive. No "if's, and's, or but's." He was alive.
And with that in mind, CPR was the best choice in that situation in order to keep things calm and maintain civility. Not swerving everyone and immediately crushing a man's head in without the consent of anyone present.
You can't just look at the fact that the compressions may have worked and then declare that trying to revive him wasn't a long shot. That do… moreesn't make any sense. "Just because it may have ultimately ended up working doesn't mean it was right to take that risk. That would be like riding on an airplane that has an 80% chance of crashing, safely landing after your flight, and then declaring that it was safe to have ridden on the airplane."
The fact remains that it's unlikely to bring someone back from a heart attack of the magnitude that Larry suffered. It can be argued that it wasn't worth taking chances on a long shot, considering that it put everyone else at great risk, and even if successful it wouldn't have kept Larry around long term anyway. With this in mind, I think what Kenny did was rational.
I don't think you're following me here. I have said several times now that I'm not arguing over whether Larry could be called officially dead or not. That has nothing to do with the decision making. I agree that saving Larry was possible. Like I said above though, the chances of doing so were incredibly low. Even if he was miraculously, successfully resuscitated by hand, that alone would not actually keep him alive following a major heart attack. The fact that there was a very small chance of resuscitating the guy doesn't change anything in regards to the decision making that led to making sure that he couldn't come back and potentially kill someone.
As far as the situation being "delicate" goes, that really doesn't have any rational bearing on what needed to be done or not.
That would be like riding on airplane that has an 80% chance of crashing, safely landing after your flight, and then declaring that it was s… moreafe to have ridden on the airplane."
The question here though isn't "what is the solution," the question is "what are our options?" All we knew at the time was that Larry was susceptible to hear attacks, most likely mild ones seeing as though we're wavered a task to collect medication for them that alleviate the symptoms.
Secondly, we know that people that die take an undetermined amount of time before they turn. However, we also know that an indicator of this was that they have blotchy dilated eyes, pale skin pigmentation, and appear to have no blood circulation. Larry didn't have any of these yet. And I know Kenny wasn't thinking straight which brings me to my next issue with the way the choice is presented. You aren't allowed to take precautions.
This was a delicate matter that ending wit… [view original content]
Kenny didnt want to kill Larry for the group, he wanted him dead because of what happened when they first met (Larry wanting to throw duck out after larry assumed he was bitten) Kenny wanted Larry dead first chance he got..
I don't think you're following me here. I have said several times now that I'm not arguing over whether Larry could be called officially dead or not.
But you are saying that Kenny's call was the right thing which directly conflicts with what you're stating above. If Kenny's call is to murder Larry because he was unconscious, and you think that Larry could be officially alive. Then by that omission alone, you and him are wrong.
I agree that saving Larry was possible.
So then everything else is moot. He was salvageable, why agree with Kenny's actions then? Besides him having "instinctive response" to the situation? Cause as we know, Lee's determinant instinct is to resuscitate Larry.
Like I said above though, the chances of doing so were incredibly low
But they weren't though, the chances couldn't have been much higher considering he's had a history of mild heart attacks and resuscitating him would've been mildly easy in that situation.
Even if he was miraculously, successfully resuscitated by hand, that alone would not actually keep him alive following a major heart attack.
But it most likely wasn't a "major" heart attack though when you can easily be resuscitated in four chest compressions. Plus, him having a history of them would imply that he's had them and survived many times.
The fact that there was a very small chance of resuscitating the guy doesn't change anything in regards to the decision making that led to making sure that he couldn't come back and potentially kill someone.
There you go again. "Very small chance," I think you meant to say "very high chance" since that's what it clearly is.
As far as the situation being "delicate" goes, that really doesn't have any rational bearing on what needed to be done or not.
Yes, it does. He was unconscious, easily revivable, and no immediate threat to anyone in that meat locker. The fact that only four compressions gets him to breathe is a huge indicator that the risk of CPR working was extremely low.
I don't think you're following me here. I have said several times now that I'm not arguing over whether Larry could be called officially dea… mored or not. That has nothing to do with the decision making. I agree that saving Larry was possible. Like I said above though, the chances of doing so were incredibly low. Even if he was miraculously, successfully resuscitated by hand, that alone would not actually keep him alive following a major heart attack. The fact that there was a very small chance of resuscitating the guy doesn't change anything in regards to the decision making that led to making sure that he couldn't come back and potentially kill someone.
As far as the situation being "delicate" goes, that really doesn't have any rational bearing on what needed to be done or not.
But you are saying that Kenny's call was the right thing which directly conflicts with what you're stating above. If Kenny's call is to murder Larry because he was unconscious, and you think that Larry could be officially alive. Then by that omission alone, you and him are wrong.
You're still not following me. First of all, simply labeling Larry as "unconscious" is a massive understatement. The guy wasn't breathing, and he had no heartbeat. The only reason why I'm not calling him straight up dead is because it was ever so slightly possible to bring him back. Second of all, you're still completely ignoring the reasoning here. Considering it was a long shot to try and bring Larry back, it made sense to destroy his brain before he could come back as a walker instead, which would obviously put everyone in danger considering the circumstances. Instead of taking the time to try and bring Larry back, it made sense to finish him off so he couldn't come back in a different, obviously far more dangerous manner. We're talking about rational, preventive measures here. Kenny recognized the situation for what it was, and decided that it was important to act fast to ensure that Larry couldn't reanimate and kill someone.
So then everything else is moot. He was salvageable, why agree with Kenny's actions then? Besides him having "instinctive response" to the situation? Cause as we know, Lee's determinant instinct is to resuscitate Larry.
As has been said many times now, the fact that Larry was somewhat savable at that current moment is totally irrelevant. Everything else is not moot. I seriously have no idea what logic you think you're trying to use there. You don't need to try and save someone for the simple fact that they are savable. That isn't necessarily the right choice for any given situation. Considering the context of the situation, it was arguably best for the protection of others to make sure Larry wasn't going to come back and kill someone.
And I mean, is it even worth the insane risk just to bring him back for a short period of time before he would inevitably die anyway? They had no medical equipment, nor did they have medicine. You can't possibly just walk away from a heart attack of the magnitude that Larry had simply by bringing him back with a handful of chest compressions. He belonged in a hospital.
But they weren't though, the chances couldn't have been much higher considering he's had a history of mild heart attacks and resuscitating him would've been mildly easy in that situation.
You're honestly showing that you really don't know what you're talking about here. It's not "mildly easy" to resuscitate someone from a full blown severe heart attack just because they have had a history of heart problems before. Heart attacks damage heart muscle/tissue. If anything, it would be harder to treat him considering his history. It's not as if your body builds a resistance to heart attacks from having heart attacks.
It's unlikely to bring someone back from a severe heart attack/ cardiac arrest with chest compressions. You've been having this discussion for such a long time now, I honestly don't know why you don't just do some quick research on the subject..
But it most likely wasn't a "major" heart attack though when you can easily be resuscitated in four chest compressions. Plus, him having a history of them would imply that he's had them and survived many times.
You seriously think that wasn't a major heart attack? What qualifies as a major heart attack to you? The guy had no heart beat, and he wasn't breathing. That's about as major as it gets. If Telltale legitimately had him resuscitated with four chest compressions, then they were being hilariously unrealistic. You don't seriously believe that someone can be brought back from cardiac arrest with four chest compressions.. right?
There you go again. "Very small chance," I think you meant to say "very high chance" since that's what it clearly is.
Again, it's pretty apparent that you don't know what you're talking about here. There isn't a "very high chance" of bringing anyone back from cardiac arrest with CPR alone.
Yes, it does. He was unconscious, easily revivable, and no immediate threat to anyone in that meat locker. The fact that only four compressions gets him to breathe is a huge indicator that the risk of CPR working was extremely low.
He was an immediate threat, in the sense that the infection could take control of his brain soon, which would then turn him into a very obvious immediate threat in the sense that he would be trying to eat other human beings.
I don't think you're following me here. I have said several times now that I'm not arguing over whether Larry could be called officially dea… mored or not.
But you are saying that Kenny's call was the right thing which directly conflicts with what you're stating above. If Kenny's call is to murder Larry because he was unconscious, and you think that Larry could be officially alive. Then by that omission alone, you and him are wrong.
I agree that saving Larry was possible.
So then everything else is moot. He was salvageable, why agree with Kenny's actions then? Besides him having "instinctive response" to the situation? Cause as we know, Lee's determinant instinct is to resuscitate Larry.
Like I said above though, the chances of doing so were incredibly low
But they weren't though, the chances couldn't have been much higher considering he's had a history of mild heart attacks and resuscitating him would've been mi… [view original content]
I think when deciding what's right, we need to look at the available evidence at the time the choice is made, nothing after should be considered. Another example is the "should you kill Andy StJohn" choice. We know as players that letting him live has no adverse impact on anyone, Clem is happier with you, the group doesn't look at you like you're completely insane, and he dies anyway most likely (walkers break in seconds after you make the choice). However, if we back up a bit, this was EPISODE 2, in the very last episode a choice we made led directly to the death of a main character, the whole "illusion of choice" wasn't as obvious then as it is now. It seemed completely reasonable to me that Andy could have arrived in Episode 5 and shot Clem in the face before anyone had a chance to react.
Maybe I'm overly cautious and a little pessimistic, but I thought everything Kenny said in the meat locker was completely logical. I had just thrashed around like a madman to keep a smallish one legged walker off me at the motel, the thought of a zombie Larry, with no weapons and no escape route, with Clem right there, no way I was taking the chance. If I knew the outcome beforehand (ie Kenny will do it anyway), then yeah why not, play the hero and try to save him, there's no danger anyway. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me that Larry could dive on Kenny and bite him, meaning even if I stop Larry I've basically lost Kenny and Lily, effectively meaning it's me vs an armed family. Although I kind of knew Clem would survive at lease longer than Episode 2, I was so absorbed by it that I was considering the fact she could be killed too, (or at the very least someone is killed who would later save her- effectively triggering her death for a later episode).
One thing I don't see mentioned very often is about what if Larry did die and turned.. Let's say we helped Lilly and did 50, 100, 200 chest compressions but in the end, without any doubt, Larry dies. Then we wait, see how long it takes for him to turn.. Then, once someone turn's they do not suddenly pop up, they are mindless and slow, it would take perhaps 30 second to a minute if not more for walker Larry to get to his feet.
In all that time, we could wait and watch and have Mr. Salt lick at the ready the moment he turned and opened his eyes. So really, to me, the argument about fighting a zombie Larry isn't really very valid. It would be easy.. Just wait for him to turn, open his eyes to see he has turned, then salt lick him before he had a chance to stand.
How can the chances of resuscitating be low if he could be resuscitated within only four measly chest compressions?
To be completely fair, it wouldn't technically be 4 chest compressions, as Lilly has been doing them for at the very least a minute prior to the player being able to make that choice.
Let's do some hypothetical math here: from the moment Lilly first starts doing CPR to the moment that you are given the choice of who to help, roughly 1 minute and 15 seconds pass. Now, Lilly looks to be doing 2 compressions per second, which would round her total amount to 150 compressions. Now, factor in an extra 8 or so compressions before Lee takes over as he makes his way to Lilly. Then add the final 4 that Lee does, bringing our total to 162 compressions.
But even the exact number of compressions is determinant. If you let all of the timers run out, including when you actually choose who to help, you add an extra 30-60 seconds of time to the total amount of time dependent on the length of the individual dialogues themselves, which in turn increases the total possible amount of compressions to an upwards of 192 to 200+
How can the chances of resuscitating be low if he could be resuscitated within only four measly chest compressions? He was taking a breathe,… more that means the CPR obviously worked to revive him... if for at least the time being.
The risks did not outweigh the unlikely rewards in this instance.
Ah yes, Lilly had been doing CPR prior. Thanks for the correction.
However, it wasn't 2 compressions per second though. I've taken the liberty of looking back over the scene and saw that she was giving him a chest compression per second to maybe a bit under a second which is roughly 60 to 100 compressions a minute. Which is the recommended amount for resuscitating someone.
And in any rate, hypothetical math doesn't really mean a whole lot when the end result of the discussion is the same. Larry was revivable whether that equals 4 or 400 compressions, he took a breathe.
How can the chances of resuscitating be low if he could be resuscitated within only four measly chest compressions?
To be completely… more fair, it wouldn't technically be 4 chest compressions, as Lilly has been doing them for at the very least a minute prior to the player being able to make that choice.
Let's do some hypothetical math here: from the moment Lilly first starts doing CPR to the moment that you are given the choice of who to help, roughly 1 minute and 15 seconds pass. Now, Lilly looks to be doing 2 compressions per second, which would round her total amount to 150 compressions. Now, factor in an extra 8 or so compressions before Lee takes over as he makes his way to Lilly. Then add the final 4 that Lee does, bringing our total to 162 compressions.
But even the exact number of compressions is determinant. If you let all of the timers run out, including when you actually choose who to help, you add an extra 30-60 seconds o… [view original content]
One thing I don't see mentioned very often is about what if Larry did die and turned.. Let's say we helped Lilly and did 50, 100, 200 chest … morecompressions but in the end, without any doubt, Larry dies. Then we wait, see how long it takes for him to turn.. Then, once someone turn's they do not suddenly pop up, they are mindless and slow, it would take perhaps 30 second to a minute if not more for walker Larry to get to his feet.
In all that time, we could wait and watch and have Mr. Salt lick at the ready the moment he turned and opened his eyes. So really, to me, the argument about fighting a zombie Larry isn't really very valid. It would be easy.. Just wait for him to turn, open his eyes to see he has turned, then salt lick him before he had a chance to stand.
For me, there was no counter argument. What Kenny said, whichever way you want to look at it was true. Larry was a dead man. It didn't matter if Lilly got him breathing again or not. The fact remains the guy had a bad heart, one that was going to give out sooner or later and put them all in jeopardy.
Yes Kenny could have argued his side with a little more compassion, but that isn't Kenny. To use an old Northern saying, he calls a spade a spade.
And he does remind me of Northerners in another way. If you help them, or their family you're friends for life. Cross them, even once and/or put their family in danger and they will never forgive you.
Having lived with a Northerner for many years, I know exactly how they tick and therefore knew how Kenny would react if you didn't help him.
But I did help him, because I knew what he was saying was correct and I wasn't putting Clementine in danger on the slightest of slim hope that Lilly could save him.
Sorry, but the salt lick had to have a date with Larry's head.
Larry's such an irredeemable asshole that helping Kenny kill him felt like the right choice. It was better than risking a giant zombie comin… moreg back to life while 3 others, including a child, are trapped in there.
That said, though, since apparently most people chose to help Lilly from what I recall in the choice statistics, many people probably felt conflicted about committing murder in such a brutal way. It is a gray choice, but I still think helping kill Larry is the better choice. Why would anyone WANT such a short-tempered angry old asshole around anyway? Especially since he was more than willing to leave us for dead in a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE, after we risked our necks getting the freakin' pills he needed to live. Ungrateful bastard deserved it.
"was the Larry choice too black and white and lacking in ambiguity, or was it adequately presented as a grey choice?"
Unfortunately, the heightened ambiguity is pretty much what made Kenny act as fast as he did and believe he was justified. As for Lee and your choices, you were working with the same information, but I personally erred on the side of caution because there was no evidence to suggest Larry was going to turn within the next minute. I have no idea how long it takes for someone to die of a heart attack, or how long it takes for the brain to shut down so that the "walker virus" takes over. Not to mention I was thinking that other things could have been done to restrain Larry as a precaution, such as tie his arms to his legs or stack a bunch of salt bricks over his head and body so he couldn't sit up (or both).
Because we never actually see Larry turn, I can only believe that Kenny murdered Larry in that moment, even though the situation itself can be used just the same to justify Kenny's actions, mainly because Larry doesn't "readily and apparantly" become a walker In other words, it was quite and intentionally grey situation. Like most things in life, it seems people are only able to focus on what's good and bad while they're wearing blinders. Take them away and we see all the complications that make us feel out of control and uncertain, so we sometimes ignore whatever it takes to get our confidence back.
On a side note, when I played that part for the first time I recall thinking that I was going to have an option to use Larry (as a walker) as a distraction for the St. John brothers, but to no avail.
White, Black, Grey, Ambiguous.. to me are all meaningless.. I helped Kenny kill Larry for one simple reason. Survival!
I see so many peo… moreple question if Larry actually took a breath or not, I don't care.. Was he already dead? Was the CPR working and he was going to live? I don't care! Why? Because Larry tried to kill Lee. I told myself at the end of episode one, after that scene in the drug store and the talk with Larry and his "you watch your ass" comment, that Larry had to go the first chance Lee got.. In the Meat Locker, was the first chance.
I was not going to allow Larry another chance to try to kill Lee again.
Honestly, as an alternative, I think it'd been interesting to see Larry come back as a walker.
I think it would have made things even more dramatic, than they already were.
It would've been dramatic, but the point was to gain the favor of either Lilly or Kenny..so only one of them would want to help you fight the St. Johns. If Larry had b/c a walker Lilly wouldn't have had reason to side against Lilly; given Lilly's character, it wouldn't make sense that she hold it against Lee and Kenny for saving everyone. I think she probably would've killed Larry herself
Honestly, as an alternative, I think it'd been interesting to see Larry come back as a walker.
I think it would have made things even more dramatic, than they already were.
Comments
I'm not arguing over whether Larry was revivable or not. The fact that he could have been brought back from the heart attack has nothing to do with whether or not the initial decision making was right or not. It was a long shot to bring Larry back with simple hand compressions. Just because it may have ultimately ended up working doesn't mean it was right to take that risk. That would be like riding on airplane that has an 80% chance of crashing, safely landing after your flight, and then declaring that it was safe to have ridden on the airplane. I'm not arguing that it was impossible to save Larry, only that trying to save him wasn't worth the risk, again regardless of whether or not he can ultimately be saved.
You can't just look at the fact that the compressions may have worked and then declare that trying to revive him wasn't a long shot. That doesn't make any sense. "Just because it may have ultimately ended up working doesn't mean it was right to take that risk. That would be like riding on an airplane that has an 80% chance of crashing, safely landing after your flight, and then declaring that it was safe to have ridden on the airplane."
The fact remains that it's unlikely to bring someone back from a heart attack of the magnitude that Larry suffered. It can be argued that it wasn't worth taking chances on a long shot, considering that it put everyone else at great risk, and even if successful it wouldn't have kept Larry around long term anyway. With this in mind, I think what Kenny did was rational.
I know the first bit.
I'm saying that while we know now he was revivable, Kenny didn't know it at the time, so I understand why he acted how he did.
But that this doesn't make Kenny's decision the objectively, proven right one. Only one that is justifiable.
I take correct decision to mean the one which is shown to be correct.
If in a maths test, you are stuck between saying the answer is 7 or 8, and the answer actually is 8, then picking 8 would be the 'correct choice', even if you had just as much motivation at the time to pick 7.
You're kind of missing the point here. Going off on whether or not Larry was savable is an independent thought to what Clem_is_awesome was saying. That's all I'm saying here. Argue all you want over Larry being savable, that in itself doesn't change the logic of the original post that you responded to. In other words, explaining the fact that Larry was savable doesn't disprove anything by itself.
You're missing my point as much, it seems, because I haven't been debating with you whether or not it was a breath on this thread.
I am not talking about the question of whether he was alive or dead.
I'm talking about the definition of a 'correct decision'.
The only thing we're disagreeing on is that I think 'correct decision' means correct decision, i.e. a decision which turned out to be correct in the end, whereas you think 'correct decision' means correct decision, i.e. the decision which seemed most likely to be correct at the time.
I don't think Kenny thought that Larry was totally unreviable either. He actually says "we know this guy isn't going to make it", implying that he doesn't technically think the guy is 100% gone, only that the chances of being able to bring him back are very low. He acted the way that he did according to this, as did I.
I guess I'm not really trying to say that his decision is the proven right one, I was only trying to justify the decision making.
Up above you had responded to Clem_is_awesome's original comment by trying to explain that Larry was savable, with that sentiment alone being an aside to the point that he was making. I said as much to some other poster, and that is why we are having this discussion. You responded by saying that your points were not an aside to his opinion, and I went on to explain how they were independent of what he was trying to say on the topic. I was never specifically talking about what is a correct decision and what isn't, not really sure how you got on that subject.
Also, I should say that I wasn't randomly trying to criticize or anything. I was only explaining why the two of you didn't seem to be on the same page.
Yes, I did say that to Clem_is_awesome, because the implication of him speaking about reanimation happening was that this is relevant in whether the choice is ambiguous, when the thread is speaking about the meta game rather than the game, as it mentions the fact that Larry was revivable in the OP.
You spoke about correct decisions below.
And I said the decision making was justified right above your comment.
Although I think it's important to realise that Kenny isn't thinking straight anyway. He refuses to acknowledge whether he would do the same if Katya was passed out which implies he doesn't really think he would (one of the first hints in the game that compassion and empathy aren't exactly his strong point).
Kenny is stressed and this causes him to oversimplify the problem in his mind, leading to drastic and overimmediate action.
Oh, I know. I'm glad we're in agreement on that.
This is kind of natural in my opinion. Of course it would be a lot more difficult for him to be rational in the case of a dying family member. That's pretty much true of everyone. Can't say I'd fault the guy, just as I don't really fault Lilly for not wanting to give up on her father.
I understand why you said it, but again, it was an aside to the actual specific point he was making. That's why the two of you were not on the same page. I mean, it was relevant in the fact that it had to do with the whole Larry situation, but the idea of Larry being savable or not is an aside to what the guy was saying. Whether Larry is savable or unsavable, that alone doesn't change what he was saying in his original comment. If he thought the infection was starting the process of taking control, and thus thought Larry needed to be dealt with because of this, that is independent to whether or not the guy was savable. That's all I'm trying to say here.
Alright, but that's kind of a totally separate conversation.
I've examined the scene once. There's two audio files in the game files of Larry exhaling. The first one is a normal breath and the other is zombie-like. The breaths are in fact used in the game if you listen closely. Because of this, I think both choices were reasonable and unreasonable at the same time. Helping Larry seemed like the reasonable thing to do, but upon doing that, you'll find out that he was turning, which made Kenny the reasonable one.
The question here though isn't "what is the solution," the question is "what are our options?" All we knew at the time was that Larry was susceptible to hear attacks, most likely mild ones seeing as though we're wavered a task to collect medication for them that alleviate the symptoms.
Secondly, we know that people that die take an undetermined amount of time before they turn. However, we also know that an indicator of this was that they have blotchy dilated eyes, pale skin pigmentation, and appear to have no blood circulation. Larry didn't have any of these yet. And I know Kenny wasn't thinking straight which brings me to my next issue with the way the choice is presented. You aren't allowed to take precautions.
This was a delicate matter that ending with absolute disaster and saying otherwise is quite callous to the brevity of the situation. Larry obviously was alive and saying 80% or 99.9% doesn't change the fact that in the situation Larry was only 100% alive. No "if's, and's, or but's." He was alive.
And with that in mind, CPR was the best choice in that situation in order to keep things calm and maintain civility. Not swerving everyone and immediately crushing a man's head in without the consent of anyone present.
where was this confirmed?
I don't think you're following me here. I have said several times now that I'm not arguing over whether Larry could be called officially dead or not. That has nothing to do with the decision making. I agree that saving Larry was possible. Like I said above though, the chances of doing so were incredibly low. Even if he was miraculously, successfully resuscitated by hand, that alone would not actually keep him alive following a major heart attack. The fact that there was a very small chance of resuscitating the guy doesn't change anything in regards to the decision making that led to making sure that he couldn't come back and potentially kill someone.
As far as the situation being "delicate" goes, that really doesn't have any rational bearing on what needed to be done or not.
Kenny didnt want to kill Larry for the group, he wanted him dead because of what happened when they first met (Larry wanting to throw duck out after larry assumed he was bitten) Kenny wanted Larry dead first chance he got..
But you are saying that Kenny's call was the right thing which directly conflicts with what you're stating above. If Kenny's call is to murder Larry because he was unconscious, and you think that Larry could be officially alive. Then by that omission alone, you and him are wrong.
So then everything else is moot. He was salvageable, why agree with Kenny's actions then? Besides him having "instinctive response" to the situation? Cause as we know, Lee's determinant instinct is to resuscitate Larry.
But they weren't though, the chances couldn't have been much higher considering he's had a history of mild heart attacks and resuscitating him would've been mildly easy in that situation.
But it most likely wasn't a "major" heart attack though when you can easily be resuscitated in four chest compressions. Plus, him having a history of them would imply that he's had them and survived many times.
There you go again. "Very small chance," I think you meant to say "very high chance" since that's what it clearly is.
Yes, it does. He was unconscious, easily revivable, and no immediate threat to anyone in that meat locker. The fact that only four compressions gets him to breathe is a huge indicator that the risk of CPR working was extremely low.
You're still not following me. First of all, simply labeling Larry as "unconscious" is a massive understatement. The guy wasn't breathing, and he had no heartbeat. The only reason why I'm not calling him straight up dead is because it was ever so slightly possible to bring him back. Second of all, you're still completely ignoring the reasoning here. Considering it was a long shot to try and bring Larry back, it made sense to destroy his brain before he could come back as a walker instead, which would obviously put everyone in danger considering the circumstances. Instead of taking the time to try and bring Larry back, it made sense to finish him off so he couldn't come back in a different, obviously far more dangerous manner. We're talking about rational, preventive measures here. Kenny recognized the situation for what it was, and decided that it was important to act fast to ensure that Larry couldn't reanimate and kill someone.
As has been said many times now, the fact that Larry was somewhat savable at that current moment is totally irrelevant. Everything else is not moot. I seriously have no idea what logic you think you're trying to use there. You don't need to try and save someone for the simple fact that they are savable. That isn't necessarily the right choice for any given situation. Considering the context of the situation, it was arguably best for the protection of others to make sure Larry wasn't going to come back and kill someone.
And I mean, is it even worth the insane risk just to bring him back for a short period of time before he would inevitably die anyway? They had no medical equipment, nor did they have medicine. You can't possibly just walk away from a heart attack of the magnitude that Larry had simply by bringing him back with a handful of chest compressions. He belonged in a hospital.
You're honestly showing that you really don't know what you're talking about here. It's not "mildly easy" to resuscitate someone from a full blown severe heart attack just because they have had a history of heart problems before. Heart attacks damage heart muscle/tissue. If anything, it would be harder to treat him considering his history. It's not as if your body builds a resistance to heart attacks from having heart attacks.
It's unlikely to bring someone back from a severe heart attack/ cardiac arrest with chest compressions. You've been having this discussion for such a long time now, I honestly don't know why you don't just do some quick research on the subject..
You seriously think that wasn't a major heart attack? What qualifies as a major heart attack to you? The guy had no heart beat, and he wasn't breathing. That's about as major as it gets. If Telltale legitimately had him resuscitated with four chest compressions, then they were being hilariously unrealistic. You don't seriously believe that someone can be brought back from cardiac arrest with four chest compressions.. right?
Again, it's pretty apparent that you don't know what you're talking about here. There isn't a "very high chance" of bringing anyone back from cardiac arrest with CPR alone.
He was an immediate threat, in the sense that the infection could take control of his brain soon, which would then turn him into a very obvious immediate threat in the sense that he would be trying to eat other human beings.
Seeing as you have "always been back and forth about this scene" it seems like it was well done, at least to you.
I can't remember what my original choice was. I think I smashed his head in.
Great thread, my favourite choice in the game!
I think when deciding what's right, we need to look at the available evidence at the time the choice is made, nothing after should be considered. Another example is the "should you kill Andy StJohn" choice. We know as players that letting him live has no adverse impact on anyone, Clem is happier with you, the group doesn't look at you like you're completely insane, and he dies anyway most likely (walkers break in seconds after you make the choice). However, if we back up a bit, this was EPISODE 2, in the very last episode a choice we made led directly to the death of a main character, the whole "illusion of choice" wasn't as obvious then as it is now. It seemed completely reasonable to me that Andy could have arrived in Episode 5 and shot Clem in the face before anyone had a chance to react.
Maybe I'm overly cautious and a little pessimistic, but I thought everything Kenny said in the meat locker was completely logical. I had just thrashed around like a madman to keep a smallish one legged walker off me at the motel, the thought of a zombie Larry, with no weapons and no escape route, with Clem right there, no way I was taking the chance. If I knew the outcome beforehand (ie Kenny will do it anyway), then yeah why not, play the hero and try to save him, there's no danger anyway. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me that Larry could dive on Kenny and bite him, meaning even if I stop Larry I've basically lost Kenny and Lily, effectively meaning it's me vs an armed family. Although I kind of knew Clem would survive at lease longer than Episode 2, I was so absorbed by it that I was considering the fact she could be killed too, (or at the very least someone is killed who would later save her- effectively triggering her death for a later episode).
One thing I don't see mentioned very often is about what if Larry did die and turned.. Let's say we helped Lilly and did 50, 100, 200 chest compressions but in the end, without any doubt, Larry dies. Then we wait, see how long it takes for him to turn.. Then, once someone turn's they do not suddenly pop up, they are mindless and slow, it would take perhaps 30 second to a minute if not more for walker Larry to get to his feet.
In all that time, we could wait and watch and have Mr. Salt lick at the ready the moment he turned and opened his eyes. So really, to me, the argument about fighting a zombie Larry isn't really very valid. It would be easy.. Just wait for him to turn, open his eyes to see he has turned, then salt lick him before he had a chance to stand.
To be completely fair, it wouldn't technically be 4 chest compressions, as Lilly has been doing them for at the very least a minute prior to the player being able to make that choice.
Let's do some hypothetical math here: from the moment Lilly first starts doing CPR to the moment that you are given the choice of who to help, roughly 1 minute and 15 seconds pass. Now, Lilly looks to be doing 2 compressions per second, which would round her total amount to 150 compressions. Now, factor in an extra 8 or so compressions before Lee takes over as he makes his way to Lilly. Then add the final 4 that Lee does, bringing our total to 162 compressions.
But even the exact number of compressions is determinant. If you let all of the timers run out, including when you actually choose who to help, you add an extra 30-60 seconds of time to the total amount of time dependent on the length of the individual dialogues themselves, which in turn increases the total possible amount of compressions to an upwards of 192 to 200+
Ah yes, Lilly had been doing CPR prior. Thanks for the correction.
However, it wasn't 2 compressions per second though. I've taken the liberty of looking back over the scene and saw that she was giving him a chest compression per second to maybe a bit under a second which is roughly 60 to 100 compressions a minute. Which is the recommended amount for resuscitating someone.
And in any rate, hypothetical math doesn't really mean a whole lot when the end result of the discussion is the same. Larry was revivable whether that equals 4 or 400 compressions, he took a breathe.
I am here
For me, there was no counter argument. What Kenny said, whichever way you want to look at it was true. Larry was a dead man. It didn't matter if Lilly got him breathing again or not. The fact remains the guy had a bad heart, one that was going to give out sooner or later and put them all in jeopardy.
Yes Kenny could have argued his side with a little more compassion, but that isn't Kenny. To use an old Northern saying, he calls a spade a spade.
And he does remind me of Northerners in another way. If you help them, or their family you're friends for life. Cross them, even once and/or put their family in danger and they will never forgive you.
Having lived with a Northerner for many years, I know exactly how they tick and therefore knew how Kenny would react if you didn't help him.
But I did help him, because I knew what he was saying was correct and I wasn't putting Clementine in danger on the slightest of slim hope that Lilly could save him.
Sorry, but the salt lick had to have a date with Larry's head.
Not only that, but if its any consolation, he openly states that, were the roles reversed, he wouldn't hesitate to kill you.
"was the Larry choice too black and white and lacking in ambiguity, or was it adequately presented as a grey choice?"
Unfortunately, the heightened ambiguity is pretty much what made Kenny act as fast as he did and believe he was justified. As for Lee and your choices, you were working with the same information, but I personally erred on the side of caution because there was no evidence to suggest Larry was going to turn within the next minute. I have no idea how long it takes for someone to die of a heart attack, or how long it takes for the brain to shut down so that the "walker virus" takes over. Not to mention I was thinking that other things could have been done to restrain Larry as a precaution, such as tie his arms to his legs or stack a bunch of salt bricks over his head and body so he couldn't sit up (or both).
Because we never actually see Larry turn, I can only believe that Kenny murdered Larry in that moment, even though the situation itself can be used just the same to justify Kenny's actions, mainly because Larry doesn't "readily and apparantly" become a walker In other words, it was quite and intentionally grey situation. Like most things in life, it seems people are only able to focus on what's good and bad while they're wearing blinders. Take them away and we see all the complications that make us feel out of control and uncertain, so we sometimes ignore whatever it takes to get our confidence back.
On a side note, when I played that part for the first time I recall thinking that I was going to have an option to use Larry (as a walker) as a distraction for the St. John brothers, but to no avail.
Many would do the same if in contact with a murderer. I'm pretty sure he didn't intend to harm Lee after Ep1, the dialogue shows it
Honestly, as an alternative, I think it'd been interesting to see Larry come back as a walker.
I think it would have made things even more dramatic, than they already were.
It would've been dramatic, but the point was to gain the favor of either Lilly or Kenny..so only one of them would want to help you fight the St. Johns. If Larry had b/c a walker Lilly wouldn't have had reason to side against Lilly; given Lilly's character, it wouldn't make sense that she hold it against Lee and Kenny for saving everyone. I think she probably would've killed Larry herself
The devs said they put the twitch in in order for the scene to be ambiguous, but the way it was done it actually proves that he could be revived.
but when/where did they say this?
i dont think the twitch proves that he could've been revived, but thats b/c im biased and am inclined to think it looks like a glitch