I thought Sorkin was interesting at first, but then I realized...
A seemingly well-meaning woman complaining about the state of the world and is willing to do even worse things to stop it? Didn't Telltale do this plot twist already?
Yeah, they did a good job making Sorkin relatable. The way she argues her points, it's clear that even though she's not right, she's also not really wrong either.
I think the same can be said for all the villians. They all had their reasons for doing what they were doing.
Billy was upset about about the death of his friends and the lack of respect they got for being hired guns. You could hear it in his voice when he was yelling at Dr. Sorkin that the other guy ( the other mercanary: I forget his name) was worth a thousand of her. Then Nima was angrey after InGen took her home and turned it into a zoo. Now they were poor and she was worried about her daughter. So her motives are understandable.
So yeah, I would have to say all the characters, especially the villians, were done very well. Telltale did a really good job there with the story and everything.
I loved Sorkin. She's the reason I think that Jurassic Park might have worked as an actual biological preserve. Her idea regarding the gaps in the DNA sequence was brilliant. Sadly, the suits at InGen(I flat-out REFUSE to lay blame completely on Hammond) didn't think it was worth the time and money.
However, her nature would have ruined Jurassic Park as an attraction. Her solution for the Lysine Contingency notwithstanding, her decision to hide the Troodon brood would have screwed the park even without Nedry's meddling.
I agree with her about protecting the animals, but she completely lost it at the end.
I loved Sorkin. She's the reason I think that Jurassic Park might have worked as an actual biological preserve. Her idea regarding the gaps in the DNA sequence was brilliant. Sadly, the suits at InGen(I flat-out REFUSE to lay blame completely on Hammond) didn't think it was worth the time and money.
However, her nature would have ruined Jurassic Park as an attraction. Her solution for the Lysine Contingency notwithstanding, her decision to hide the Troodon brood would have screwed the park even without Nedry's meddling.
I agree with her about protecting the animals, but she completely lost it at the end.
Trouble is incompetence leads all the way to the top. Hammond was so pre-occupied on getting his flea circus working and it being aesthetically pleasing. While the board of directors and investors were so occupied in making money (remember Hammond says "this park was not built to cater only for the super rich. Everyone in the world has the right to enjoy these animals."
So I think not only from his mad dream of having a crazy version of his flea circus (but with real animals) and the drive for INGen to make money back. He was determined to get things done quickly and without much regard for the animals behaviour or biological accuracy. Or at least making Wu lead geneticist, who didn't care much for biological accuracy. He even bread *slightly* less dangerous/intelligent Raptors (it wasn't a very good attempt :P).
So Hammond's two mistakes were not keeping Nedry happy financially, and hiring Wu as lead geneticist. Even though with pressure to get things done quickly with say 85% accuracy was good enough. He also made the mistake of being swept up in showmanship rather than thinking what the implications of brining dinosaurs back to life!
PS:
Does anyone else think it was cool how Sorkin had no idea how Wu created the Mosasaur, and pointed out he probably created the creature from scratch using DNA from other animals until he got it right?
But yes the board of directors are heavily to blame too as they were constancy pushing for the park to open ASAP!
Yeah, they did a good job making Sorkin relatable. The way she argues her points, it's clear that even though she's not right, she's also not really wrong either.
See, here's the thing: it seems to me that the *game* wanted me to oppose Sorkin (when
she decides to try to stop the bombing, my only dialogue options were variations of "You're crazy!"
), but...wow, I really don't. I actually was surprised to find myself nodding in fervent agreement with her -- as someone whose politics are fairly right-of-center, a self-righteous animal-rights activist seems tailor-made to just drive me up the proverbial wall. I agree that the various species should never have been brought into existence, but now that we have a number of living, breathing creatures, I don't know that it's ethical for us to simply
carpet-bomb them back into extinction
. (In fact, I would argue that the fact that we brought them about makes us even *more* responsible for them.)
I'm not saying that I would do anything differently in Gerry's place -- I imagine my position would be "I want to get my daughter the hell out of here, and screw the consequences" -- but I wouldn't be trumpeting that position as some kind of moral triumph.
Even her dastardly plan of
releasing the mosasaur isn't all that dastardly -- despite Gerry's shrill warnings, I believe he is, as Sorkin observed, simply being dramatic. A single dangerous predator can cause some serious damage in a limited area (God knows I wouldn't want to be in proximity with one), but its ability to wreak global catastrophe is pretty freaking dubious.
What surprises me isn't her ruthlessness, but her naivete in believing that she really has an ace in the hole here. I would think that an experienced protestor would make the same assumption I would -- that they would
proceed with the bombing, and wipe out what are now clearly hostile witnesses.
@Penner: I like your point of view here-- and how you sided with Laura. It was intended that she be an antagonist at this point but that her reasons and resolve challenge the audience's morals. In fact, just about every major Gerry vs. Laura scene in the series tries to rattle your beliefs and get you to pick sides with out handing you a "right" answer.
I'm going to spoiler this next bit, though--
The only thing I disagree with you on is
the idea of the US military wiping out civilians because one of them is a hostile witness-- or even because of a "witness" being present. The military wasn't considered a force of evil here-- in fact, they would hold up the bombing as long as there were civilians at risk.
It took Billy assuring his handlers at InGen that they would be off the island at a certain time for the company to convince the military to be able to proceed. He needed the bombing to help obscure the evidence of his betrayal.
The military wasn't in any kind of wetwork cahoots with InGen to destroy witnesses. If Sorkin hadn't been so difficult, then the military would have sent in a rescue team of their own. And if Billy hadn't lied and gone rogue, then even InGen would have sent another team.
the idea of the US military wiping out civilians because one of them is a hostile witness-- or even because of a "witness" being present. The military wasn't considered a force of evil here-- in fact, they would hold up the bombing as long as there were civilians at risk.
Totally understand your point of view here, and certainly as the creators of the game you guys have the definitive in-universe answer. Wishing, with a hint of genuine longing, that I could share your optimism.
That said, the fact that this seems to be emerging as one of the major discussions about the game (I just saw another another Sorkin thread start up) suggests to me that you've achieved an artistic success with this particular moral quandary -- so, hey, kudos.
I think it's terrible that the game doesn't give you any choice on the carpet bombing matter. This would have been perfect if the game had given the player a choice whether to stop the bombing or let it happen. As a consequence to the second choice Sorkin would die trying to save a world she had helped to create.
Now I don't want to replay the game anymore because it totally ruins the story. Whenever I see the T Rex vs Triceratops fight, I'm gonna be thinking, it doesn't really matter who wins as both of them are going to die in horrible agony from napalm bombing. I totally wanted to go with Sorkin's view. When I first heard about the bombing I figured one of the game objectives was to stop it and I got really anxious to see the part where they stop it. Even when the surviving characters were on the boat, I was like, okay but how is the bombing going to get stopped, if they're already off the island... oh wait.......
And then the credits rolled and I realized the game wanted me to accept the final solution as it was. Real disappointment in my opinion.
The dinosaurs could not compete with other creatures in our ecosystem. They went extinct for a reason. Also bringing down a rogue T rex is not actually that difficult. Simply bombing an entire island full of innocent creatures seemed like murder to me. Especially since it was based on a bogus cover story and was actually motivated by InGen who wanted to cover their tracks.
I think it's terrible that the game doesn't give you any choice on the carpet bombing matter. This would have been perfect if the game had given the player a choice whether to stop the bombing or let it happen. As a consequence to the second choice Sorkin would die trying to save a world she had helped to create.
Now I don't want to replay the game anymore because it totally ruins the story. Whenever I see the T Rex vs Triceratops fight, I'm gonna be thinking, it doesn't really matter who wins as both of them are going to die in horrible agony from napalm bombing. I totally wanted to go with Sorkin's view. When I first heard about the bombing I figured one of the game objectives was to stop it and I got really anxious to see the part where they stop it. Even when the surviving characters were on the boat, I was like, okay but how is the bombing going to get stopped, if they're already off the island... oh wait.......
And then the credits rolled and I realized the game wanted me to accept the final solution as it was. Real disappointment in my opinion.
The dinosaurs could not compete with other creatures in our ecosystem. They went extinct for a reason. Also bringing down a rogue T rex is not actually that difficult. Simply bombing an entire island full of innocent creatures seemed like murder to me. Especially since it was based on a bogus cover story and was actually motivated by InGen who wanted to cover their tracks.
if jp4 doesnt change their ideas around maybe a site c!!!
site c would be milking it..but perhaps a story surrounding the unfinished park in the azores islands in europe...With InGEN attempting to correct there mistakes on a still viable amusment park.... using site B as a research area (via hot air ballon or arial photos) or even cordoning off a section to rebuild a small research station...
There is one thing Sorkin did I'm not too sure about. In Episode 3, while the gang is attempting to get into the room with the geothermal power and Jess and Gerry are arguing, you can have Sorkin look around suspiciously in some large tube (or something) behind Gerry. Yoder (or maybe it was Oscar...) inquires as to what she's looking for, and she quickly brushes it off. Her answer isn't too convincing. Does anyone know what the woman was doing?
There is one thing Sorkin did I'm not too sure about. In Episode 3, while the gang is attempting to get into the room with the geothermal power and Jess and Gerry are arguing, you can have Sorkin look around suspiciously in some large tube (or something) behind Gerry. Yoder (or maybe it was Oscar...) inquires as to what she's looking for, and she quickly brushes it off. Her answer isn't too convincing. Does anyone know what the woman was doing?
She was looking at a quarantine container, probably to see why it was open.
Comments
Edit: Nice avatar, by the way.
So yeah, I would have to say all the characters, especially the villians, were done very well. Telltale did a really good job there with the story and everything.
However, her nature would have ruined Jurassic Park as an attraction. Her solution for the Lysine Contingency notwithstanding, her decision to hide the Troodon brood would have screwed the park even without Nedry's meddling.
I agree with her about protecting the animals, but she completely lost it at the end.
Trouble is incompetence leads all the way to the top. Hammond was so pre-occupied on getting his flea circus working and it being aesthetically pleasing. While the board of directors and investors were so occupied in making money (remember Hammond says "this park was not built to cater only for the super rich. Everyone in the world has the right to enjoy these animals."
So I think not only from his mad dream of having a crazy version of his flea circus (but with real animals) and the drive for INGen to make money back. He was determined to get things done quickly and without much regard for the animals behaviour or biological accuracy. Or at least making Wu lead geneticist, who didn't care much for biological accuracy. He even bread *slightly* less dangerous/intelligent Raptors (it wasn't a very good attempt :P).
So Hammond's two mistakes were not keeping Nedry happy financially, and hiring Wu as lead geneticist. Even though with pressure to get things done quickly with say 85% accuracy was good enough. He also made the mistake of being swept up in showmanship rather than thinking what the implications of brining dinosaurs back to life!
PS:
But yes the board of directors are heavily to blame too as they were constancy pushing for the park to open ASAP!
See, here's the thing: it seems to me that the *game* wanted me to oppose Sorkin (when
I'm not saying that I would do anything differently in Gerry's place -- I imagine my position would be "I want to get my daughter the hell out of here, and screw the consequences" -- but I wouldn't be trumpeting that position as some kind of moral triumph.
Even her dastardly plan of
What surprises me isn't her ruthlessness, but her naivete in believing that she really has an ace in the hole here. I would think that an experienced protestor would make the same assumption I would -- that they would
I agree completely!
thnx:D
I'm going to spoiler this next bit, though--
The only thing I disagree with you on is
I didnt want to punch Sorkin in the face either.... I wanted Oscar to do it....
Totally understand your point of view here, and certainly as the creators of the game you guys have the definitive in-universe answer. Wishing, with a hint of genuine longing, that I could share your optimism.
That said, the fact that this seems to be emerging as one of the major discussions about the game (I just saw another another Sorkin thread start up) suggests to me that you've achieved an artistic success with this particular moral quandary -- so, hey, kudos.
Now I don't want to replay the game anymore because it totally ruins the story. Whenever I see the T Rex vs Triceratops fight, I'm gonna be thinking, it doesn't really matter who wins as both of them are going to die in horrible agony from napalm bombing. I totally wanted to go with Sorkin's view. When I first heard about the bombing I figured one of the game objectives was to stop it and I got really anxious to see the part where they stop it. Even when the surviving characters were on the boat, I was like, okay but how is the bombing going to get stopped, if they're already off the island... oh wait.......
And then the credits rolled and I realized the game wanted me to accept the final solution as it was. Real disappointment in my opinion.
The dinosaurs could not compete with other creatures in our ecosystem. They went extinct for a reason. Also bringing down a rogue T rex is not actually that difficult. Simply bombing an entire island full of innocent creatures seemed like murder to me. Especially since it was based on a bogus cover story and was actually motivated by InGen who wanted to cover their tracks.
"Thank God for Site B."
if jp4 doesnt change their ideas around maybe a site c!!!
site c would be milking it..but perhaps a story surrounding the unfinished park in the azores islands in europe...With InGEN attempting to correct there mistakes on a still viable amusment park.... using site B as a research area (via hot air ballon or arial photos) or even cordoning off a section to rebuild a small research station...
She was looking at a quarantine container, probably to see why it was open.
Ohh, so this