A right and wrong choice

edited August 2013 in The Walking Dead
400 days gave us the first example of an actual choice that was either a right or wrong decision.

The decision in Shel's story on the thief ends up with either Boyd alive or dead based on the decision.

I understand there are still arguments for letting him go seeing as what the group starts to become but am I the only one who would want to see more examples of there being a "better" decision in some choices in season 2 with people dying/surviving based on what you do.

I don't mean on every choice and certainly don't mean every "better" result coming from being a ruthless psycho

Comments

  • edited August 2013
    An example of a wrong choice in season 1 is to not bring Clem to Crawford which causes Molly to "Die".
  • edited August 2013
    Crixus wrote: »
    An example of a wrong choice in season 1 is to not bring Clem to Crawford which causes Molly to "Die".

    You can still save her if you don't bring her.
  • edited August 2013
    Maybe Boyd died, but i never made the wrong choice imo.
  • edited August 2013
    That1Guy wrote: »
    You can still save her if you don't bring her.

    True but it's really hard and most people on their first playthroughs at least wouldn't have been able to save her.
  • edited August 2013
    Crixus wrote: »
    An example of a wrong choice in season 1 is to not bring Clem to Crawford which causes Molly to "Die".

    False. I left Clem at the manor, at had no trouble saving Molly. That choice wasn't any more right or wrong than picking between Carley or Doug.
  • edited August 2013
    I saved Molly twice. Wasn't that hard.
    I don't think I get what you mean by "right choice". Killing the thief is the right thing for the group, but not for your moral integrity. Same as with kill Steph or leave.
  • edited August 2013
    Kaserkin wrote: »
    I saved Molly twice. Wasn't that hard.
    I don't think I get what you mean by "right choice". Killing the thief is the right thing for the group, but not for your moral integrity. Same as with kill Steph or leave.

    I know, I said there was still arguments; but you can't deny killing him was the right decision as he turned out to be bad and returned to kill Boyd
  • Omid's catOmid's cat Banned
    edited August 2013
    I know, I said there was still arguments; but you can't deny killing him was the right decision as he turned out to be bad and returned to kill Boyd

    No, it wasn't right. Don't forget about Becca. She is important part of story.
    Shel - "I don't want her to stop caring about people."
    Watch Becca's reactions when you help foreign guy and when you don't. Girl needs good examples.

    You couldn't know man will attack the camp. If you'll lose the faith in other man you'll have to murder every stranger. In my opinion - TWD is about staying human during zombie apocalypse. Not just physically.
  • edited August 2013
    The way I see it, there are consequences for every choice.
    Crixus wrote: »
    An example of a wrong choice in season 1 is to not bring Clem to Crawford which causes Molly to "Die".

    Eh, but Omid and Christa will come with you if you don't show your bite.
  • edited August 2013
    Zeruis wrote: »
    The way I see it, there are consequences for every choice.


    Eh, but Omid and Christa will come with you if you don't show your bite.

    You mean they won't come with you? Yeah I'd say not showing the bite would be close to a wrongish choice
  • edited August 2013
    Regards to Leaving Clem being a wrong choice I'm just going on what Gary Whitta said when he felt it was one of those times where the player was kinda punished for making the perceived "wrong choice" resulting in a likely Molly Death.
  • edited August 2013
    Crixus wrote: »
    You mean they won't come with you? Yeah I'd say not showing the bite would be close to a wrongish choice

    I meant if you left Clem at the mansion, Omid and Christa will come you if you hide the bite.
  • edited August 2013
    Zeruis wrote: »
    I meant if you left Clem at the mansion, Omid and Christa will come you if you hide the bite.

    Oh I understand,wow I didn't think there was a way to get them to come with you without showing the bite.
  • edited August 2013
    Omid's cat wrote: »
    No, it wasn't right. Don't forget about Becca. She is important part of story.
    Shel - "I don't want her to stop caring about people."
    Watch Becca's reactions when you help foreign guy and when you don't. Girl needs good examples.

    You couldn't know man will attack the camp. If you'll lose the faith in other man you'll have to murder every stranger. In my opinion - TWD is about staying human during zombie apocalypse. Not just physically.

    I'm talking in hindsight here, after we know both outcomes. I do get your point of view that humanity is important but you have to admit it's better for the group as a whole if Boyd lives and Becca dosn't have to witness an attack on the camp. Oh and I killed the guy mainly as he stole food and more from us; not just because he was a stranger I would have been more sympathetic if he hadn't done that.

    It's getting a bit off topic honestly I was basically asking if people were happy to see changes based on their decisions and using this choice as an example.
  • edited August 2013
    Did you kill Steph?
  • edited August 2013
    letting the guy go wasn't a right or wrong choice, there is no direct link from mercy to murder, obviously it's game so one choice makes one thing happen and the other choice makes the other thing happen, but murder is wrong in both circumstances.

    plus i think boyd is dies in the end whether you let the guy go or not
  • edited August 2013
    letting the guy go wasn't a right or wrong choice, there is no direct link from mercy to murder, obviously it's game so one choice makes one thing happen and the other choice makes the other thing happen, but murder is wrong in both circumstances.

    plus i think boyd is dies in the end whether you let the guy go or not

    I know it's not a complete right and wrong decision (I mentioned that). I was just was referencing how choosing 1 option leads to a better result for the group compared to choosing the other. I was thinking it would be interesting to have more examples of this in the future rather than some decisions just having the same result. I.E take food from the car which has people even if they don't take it get the food anyway.

    This discussion seems to have just gone into what you did with the intruder; I'm just using this choice as an example. I know there are other examples where there are different results ( I'm basiaclly asking would you like more examples where one decision gets you better results)
  • edited August 2013
    I know it's not a complete right and wrong decision (I mentioned that). I was just was referencing how choosing 1 option leads to a better result for the group compared to choosing the other. I was thinking it would be interesting to have more examples of this in the future rather than some decisions just having the same result. I.E take food from the car which has people even if they don't take it get the food anyway.

    This discussion seems to have just gone into what you did with the intruder; I'm just using this choice as an example. I know there are other examples where there are different results ( I'm basiaclly asking would you like more examples where one decision gets you better results)

    then no, i would like them to be equally bad either way, because else one choice would obviously be the better choice
This discussion has been closed.