I couldn't agree more! I feel like Abel will be completely fine tho for the story's sake. But I really hope not because it's quite stupid if he does- the odds of surviving being pushed on a bunch of walkers seems pretty slim to me ;-;
And also, I feel like the the twist of surviving a close death by walkers and not knowing whether the victim survives (Kenny) has already been covered, so hopefully Telltale wont go down that path again. Either way tho it would be interesting to see how the story plays out if he is alive.
I couldn't agree more! I feel like Abel will be completely fine tho for the story's sake. But I really hope not because it's quite stupid if… more he does- the odds of surviving being pushed on a bunch of walkers seems pretty slim to me ;-;
And also, I feel like the the twist of surviving a close death by walkers and not knowing whether the victim survives (Kenny) has already been covered, so hopefully Telltale wont go down that path again. Either way tho it would be interesting to see how the story plays out if he is alive.
Did nobody notice the walker on the chair also had different color eyes?
Able was obviously related to them, probably their son so the fo… moreod was his to begin with, if you tell AJ to lower his gun he's actually really reasonable because he only takes two jars or so and let's you have all the rest of it.
I couldn't agree more! I feel like Abel will be completely fine tho for the story's sake. But I really hope not because it's quite stupid if… more he does- the odds of surviving being pushed on a bunch of walkers seems pretty slim to me ;-;
And also, I feel like the the twist of surviving a close death by walkers and not knowing whether the victim survives (Kenny) has already been covered, so hopefully Telltale wont go down that path again. Either way tho it would be interesting to see how the story plays out if he is alive.
Except there is a 0.0% chance you would encounter two people with the same eye color mutation in the same place during a zombie apocalypse, it's no coincidence.
I let him go due to my proclivity for negotiation and defusing situations, and I also feel it's morally wrong to simply kill someone over cans of food.
There are less people in the world every single day, the constant infighting with the remaining survivors helps no one, and because almost all the food this many years in to the apocalypse needs to be farmed, harvested, fished or hunted, there is no reason for not wanting more people around, especially since its less about sharing limited resources, and more about lots of people putting in hard work and earning their share. Animals are shown to have adapted and evolved to survive with walkers around, meaning the food cycle will continue, and with the lack of automation, population and pollution, natural foods are likely much more plentiful.
He also seems more nuanced and less cartoony, if you tell him you don't like him asking questions, he actually backs off from his line of questioning. He clearly had no strong intent to kill either of you (keep in mind failstates are sometimes rushed oversights such as with Conrad), and even if he turns out to be part of a group later assumptions are no justification for murdering people.
You actually don't even get any less food either, since you don't have time to grab all of it with either choice. It actually reminded me of the situation in the first Michonne episode, where you get lumped in with Samantha and accused of stealing no matter what options you choose, and then later on you are forced to side with her, and it ignores choices attempting to negotiate or be pragmatic. Plus, when you get back, they say the food will last them "a few days at least", which is not even slightly sustainable, especially with winter coming around, so in the scheme of things, it matters very little.
Abel is definitely in the wrong, and it does remind me of the situation with Arvo's group, so maybe death isn't entirely unjustified, but they were literally trying to take all of the resources from a group of starving near death survivors in the middle of a freezing winter, where as Abel is trying to get a can of beans for dinner.
I feel like killing people so casually is a really bad idea, it takes a very long time for people to be born, let alone grow into an adult. The way New Frontier took an action movie approach to endlessly mowing people down didn't make any sense to me, people aren't disposable resources, there are very few people left, and childbirth is extremely unsafe, why are people being so callous about murder?
This kinda makes me worried he didnt actually die, and Ill be pretty mad if he is still alive because he should be very much fucking dead
… more
You know, for what it's worth, one of the walkers that pulls him out is jawless. I'd say that moderately improves his chances of not getting bitten, unless the walker manages to aggressively poke him with its upper teeth hard enough to break the skin.
I think having him return with an amputated arm or hand or something would be a good middle ground, actually. He didn't die, but he didn't get away unscathed either.
I let him go due to my proclivity for negotiation and defusing situations, and I also feel it's morally wrong to simply kill someone over ca… morens of food.
There are less people in the world every single day, the constant infighting with the remaining survivors helps no one, and because almost all the food this many years in to the apocalypse needs to be farmed, harvested, fished or hunted, there is no reason for not wanting more people around, especially since its less about sharing limited resources, and more about lots of people putting in hard work and earning their share. Animals are shown to have adapted and evolved to survive with walkers around, meaning the food cycle will continue, and with the lack of automation, population and pollution, natural foods are likely much more plentiful.
He also seems more nuanced and less cartoony, if you tell him you don't like him asking questions, he actually backs off from his line of questioning. … [view original content]
What if he's so chill and doesn't even hold a grudge for almost killing him, and respects the balls on this girl to stand up to someone with a gun in this crazy dead world?
I also thought it was clever that they made what would usually be a binary 1/2 choice integrate into the normal dialogue tree. It makes players make a more instinctual choice, and provides a greater examination of their impulses and thoughts on the fly. It might also provide info on how people make these decisions if they are given the illusion of more options. And how they will play in the future with the risk of death from saying the wrong thing more prevalent.
That's not a very strong argument, it's also unlikely for a school of kids isolated from a town or city could have survived for several years in the apocalypse and only now are suffering from low resources yet that's the plot of TFS.
Except there is a 0.0% chance you would encounter two people with the same eye color mutation in the same place during a zombie apocalypse, it's no coincidence.
Comments
pushed him, at this point ive had enough of cunts wrecking any luck we got
I couldn't agree more! I feel like Abel will be completely fine tho for the story's sake. But I really hope not because it's quite stupid if he does- the odds of surviving being pushed on a bunch of walkers seems pretty slim to me ;-;
And also, I feel like the the twist of surviving a close death by walkers and not knowing whether the victim survives (Kenny) has already been covered, so hopefully Telltale wont go down that path again. Either way tho it would be interesting to see how the story plays out if he is alive.
Well only 2 grab him and one of them doesn't even have a jaw
Not everyone with different colored eyes are related...
If he survives that than we'll know how kenny survived that herd of walkers in season 1
Except there is a 0.0% chance you would encounter two people with the same eye color mutation in the same place during a zombie apocalypse, it's no coincidence.
I let him go due to my proclivity for negotiation and defusing situations, and I also feel it's morally wrong to simply kill someone over cans of food.
There are less people in the world every single day, the constant infighting with the remaining survivors helps no one, and because almost all the food this many years in to the apocalypse needs to be farmed, harvested, fished or hunted, there is no reason for not wanting more people around, especially since its less about sharing limited resources, and more about lots of people putting in hard work and earning their share. Animals are shown to have adapted and evolved to survive with walkers around, meaning the food cycle will continue, and with the lack of automation, population and pollution, natural foods are likely much more plentiful.
He also seems more nuanced and less cartoony, if you tell him you don't like him asking questions, he actually backs off from his line of questioning. He clearly had no strong intent to kill either of you (keep in mind failstates are sometimes rushed oversights such as with Conrad), and even if he turns out to be part of a group later assumptions are no justification for murdering people.
You actually don't even get any less food either, since you don't have time to grab all of it with either choice. It actually reminded me of the situation in the first Michonne episode, where you get lumped in with Samantha and accused of stealing no matter what options you choose, and then later on you are forced to side with her, and it ignores choices attempting to negotiate or be pragmatic. Plus, when you get back, they say the food will last them "a few days at least", which is not even slightly sustainable, especially with winter coming around, so in the scheme of things, it matters very little.
Abel is definitely in the wrong, and it does remind me of the situation with Arvo's group, so maybe death isn't entirely unjustified, but they were literally trying to take all of the resources from a group of starving near death survivors in the middle of a freezing winter, where as Abel is trying to get a can of beans for dinner.
I feel like killing people so casually is a really bad idea, it takes a very long time for people to be born, let alone grow into an adult. The way New Frontier took an action movie approach to endlessly mowing people down didn't make any sense to me, people aren't disposable resources, there are very few people left, and childbirth is extremely unsafe, why are people being so callous about murder?
Was hoping that if he does come back he has something amputated, if he returns without a scratch that would be really dumb.
inb4 he has a hook hand LeAKs WeRe RIghT
My kinda guy, couldn't agree more.
Attacked him. Nobody points a gun at Clem and AJ and gets away with it.
What if he's so chill and doesn't even hold a grudge for almost killing him, and respects the balls on this girl to stand up to someone with a gun in this crazy dead world?
I also thought it was clever that they made what would usually be a binary 1/2 choice integrate into the normal dialogue tree. It makes players make a more instinctual choice, and provides a greater examination of their impulses and thoughts on the fly. It might also provide info on how people make these decisions if they are given the illusion of more options. And how they will play in the future with the risk of death from saying the wrong thing more prevalent.
I let him go. I didn't want to get unnecessary attention of the walkers and he was taking only one bag, leaving plenty of food behind.
That's not a very strong argument, it's also unlikely for a school of kids isolated from a town or city could have survived for several years in the apocalypse and only now are suffering from low resources yet that's the plot of TFS.