Trying to be a good guy in Season Two should screw you over
For example: Shooting girl in street but having consuequences you can shoot the girl and still get a lot of supplies, or meat locker situation where if you save larry , lilly gets bitten.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Look, there's a difference between showing a universe that's indifferent to human cruelty, and a universe that actually rewards human cruelty. I really wouldn't be too interested in playing a game that tells me every act of humanity or warmth I commit will ultimately be punished in some fashion by invisible malevolent forces.
Sometimes, being a good guy is the smart decision. Sometimes, being a "dick" is the smart decision. It can't be all one way or another, it needs to depend on the situation.
With the girl on the street, leaving her to die is the smart, rational decision. You can shoot her without suffering any real consequence, but I believe that choices like this should reward rationality. Perhaps there could be some surprise consequences, later, though.
I agree. Good and Bad kinda go out the window in apocalypse. To shoot the girl in real life if she was dying/cant be saved would be mercy. In lees situtation its stupidity to shoot her. The risk alone is reason enough not to shoot.. Doing the "Good Thing" can get you killed. Does it make you bad if your tryin preserve your and possibly others lives? Good and Bad blurr in TWD. More like Heart and Smart.
This.
As I said in another thread, a lot of choices basically boil down to whether you want your poo sandwich on wheat or white bread.
The meat locker was a clear example of that: I figured that realistically, helping crush the head of somebody's last remaining family member without even attempting to save them was a great way to end up as a friendly fire casualty at some point in the future... between the two, I saw a potentially undead Larry as a lesser threat since the undead can't use firearms.
Sort of like the strangers car in episode 2. Doing the pragmatic decision means taking the food, but this bites you in the rear when the owner of that food pretty much single-handedly kills off what remains of your group. If Lee survived the season finale because he didn't take food from the car and thus the stranger spares him and Clementine, that could really cause people to think twice about their choices(though this would have probably cause much backlash)
Personally i think morals matter in a zombie apocalypse even more than they do in normal situations. It starts off with small things such as stealing food from a car or leaving a stranger to die, but as the snowball gets bigger you become more and more barbaric until you're eating human meat, raping women in the woods and kidnapping their children. The question is whether you will accept being someone like that.
10/10
Would read again.
I agree... until the very end... There is a difference between being a survivalist and being a sicko
Exactly. This is a big part of the game's morality.
The first two, agreed. For the third, however, if it is the only source of food and everything and anything edible has been exhausted, it will keep you alive. There are people who will do anything to keep living and if something like that is the only way for them to do so they'd probably take it. There have been worse people in the Walking Dead universe....
Yeah, but it wasn't that far into the apocalypse yet. 3 months isn't that long. Meat can last till then. They shouldn't need to resort to cannibalism just yet.
They definitely did.
Rewarding you for cruelty will just warp everyone's experience
Ah, so THAT'S where Terry went. Mystery solved :eek:
Hahaha, where was Robin when you needed him? xD
Hunting would become less viable as time went on as well, since it shows that the walkers eat animals as well as humans. The more humans that die, the more walkers arise, the less game there is. 3 months into the apocalypse the group is already struggling to find food to hunt, so with potentially millions of zombies roaming the forests it's probably the same anywhere near cities.
Well, yes and no. It depends on the animals, etc. I'd actually expect wild animal populations to increase as time went on.
Animals like the American Alligator (formerly on the endagered species list) are a very good example of the fact that humanity didn't drive animals to the brink of extinction (or beyond it) by chasing after them and biting them.
Considering that walkers also won't differentiate between dangerous predators and prey, their numbers should be reduced by those predators. Since animals like rabbits or deer can outrun people, I don't see walkers having better luck. By contrast, animals like bears probably won't retreat... and considering bears are on record as crushing the skulls of 400 lbs. lions and breaking the necks of full-grown bulls with single swipes, a bear wouldn't really need to retreat unless it's up against a herd.
However, walker meat is tainted meat, so any animal that eats it would die. Right? And outrunning walkers only work until they surround the prey or they run out of energy.
1st, zombies mostly stay in large cities. Moving herds are a rare phenomenon.
2nd, zombies don't "reproduce". Sure, people die, but after afew years they'll rot until they become dust.
Especially if you consider that they move around a lot, making it even more likely that their limbs fall off and things
Going by the evidence, animals aren't affected. The fact that animals don't turn upon death is a pretty good reason to think it's unlikely they'd die from consuming dead walkers.
Outrunning walkers isn't that hard due to how slowly they move. We've seen that people can do it, and considering that deer (for example) have a top speed of over 30 MPH the undead's chances are no better there. An animal's likely not going to obligingly travel in a straight line that can be easily followed and it's not going to take that animal all that long to get out of the line of sight.
The creatures that can pull off persistence hunting need to actually be fast enough to keep up with their prey. So for walkers, that basically leaves sloths and tortoises.
Walkers seem fairly quiet, I've seen them sneak up on animals and humans alike. Like wtf? Where'd you come from? The walkers have caught rabbits and deer before.
I think it was actually 2 years, or maybe I'm just remembering it wrong. Either way, if we also go on the assumption that nearly the entire human race has become walkers, we're talking 6 billion corpses against the wild kingdom. That is certainly a scenario where strength in numbers truly matters. Animals must sleep, and the dead never rest... it's a war of attrition.
"I, uh... What? Really?"
"Totally!"
Duck thinks you're extremely cannibalistic.
There's no proof they die from the infection. None. That doesn't stop them from dying of blood loss or what have you. However, the fact there's no undead animals is a pretty big indication that whatever the walkers carry doesn't cross species lines.
And to reiterate, if ordinary people can outrun and evade walkers, there's no way something like a deer couldn't. It doesn't matter if walkers don't get tired when their target's moving atleast ten times faster than they can, there's literally going to be miles between them within a matter of minutes.
Persistence hunting has been done by people, is currently done by animals like hyenas, etc. the thing they have in common? They can run and actually keep up with their prey. Walkers can't, except for the aforementioned cases of tortoises and sloths.
False. We've never seen walkers actually catch rabbits or deer. The rabbit we see being eaten at the beginning of Episode 2 was already dead, and it's implied the group were the ones that managed to catch it or bring it down "that's another meal lost"; ditto for the deer in the television show - Daryl shot that deer with his crossbow (the whole bit about how he had tracked it down over a couple of days).