a clean or bloody death?
a little curious here, as most people consider a "good run" to be people surviving as long as possible, would it make you second guess your choice to kill a character off early if it meant they'd have a nicer/quicker/cleaner death.
for example, in episode 2, if you let kenny take a shot at carver, alvin takes a quick shot to the head and dies. you can save him, but what if his fate in episode 3 were to be ripped to bits by walkers? would you consider letting kenny take that shot, knowing it meant alvin wouldn't face what would come next? i suppose we could also use examples like the st john brothers, where you have the option to finish them, or leave them to the horde, but we don't actually see what the walkers do to them after we've left. hell, what happens to nick could be alot better than how he may yet go out.
i'm not completely sure how i'd go with this, and i suppose it would depend on the person, but i think i'd probably kill them sooner, unless i really hated them or they went out like a champ
edit: i'm not asking about a person or situation, but in general using those as examples. knowing a persons choices were a quick end, or an extra ______ of life at the cost of a gruesome death, do you think giving them that time would be worth the price, or would it better if they didn't suffer such a fate, or would you have no regrets about either choice? if you've seen Final Destination, think about the deaths like that.
Comments
That's the beauty of this game. You don't know whether saving someone is good or if it leads to a much worse event, like in the possible case of Alvin. For all we know, he could survive this season.
Well the problem is we never know. So I would consider saving a person always the better choice because at least they have a 'chance' for a better outcome. The only time I might consider saving someone a lesser act of kindness compared to saving them is if I knew they were going to be painfully tortured and executed.
my question is more based around that 2nd or 3rd play through. you've played 1 path, you've seen what happens if you go the other way, so what do you do, knowing what will happen should you choose that way? on your "perfect/main run" do you consider it a better run if a person lived a little longer and died horribly, or is it better they got snuffed out quickly and early on and were essentially saved from that fate?
I don't consider the affects of my later play throughs to be honest. I really only do them to see the actions/reactions of different options and how characters interact differently from the options. To be honest I would only choose to kill them earlier in later play throughs to see how the narrative changes, not because of my feelings of the known outcome.
The first play is the only real one. It's why I refuse to rewind.
I guess how I view the game makes it impossible for me to answer the question as intended. Sorry
Proactive violence and death is always 100% the right answer.
Carver's wound will make him easier to murder later and Alvin was worthless anyway.
Unless the person's in a guaranteed position of fatal suffering ( e.g. Ben, or the girl in the streets in Macon), I think mercy killing's best to be avoided.
I want to keep Nick alive in the hope that he'll find some way to redeem himself. Maybe he will have a horrible death, but it might be worth something.
that sounds more like an answer of "no, you wouldn't have any regrets about your choice, no matter how it could have turned out.", i've found this question is really hard to phrase just right...
i typed out this whole big thing here like three times tryin to reexplain it, but i've come to the conclusion that there's no decent example within the game, and i can't find the words to explain it just right. the woman in episode 3 and the removed alternate end for mark are the closest i can think of, but, while the order of events is right, there's no time in between to work with to make those choices a viable example...
You sick sadistic bastard! You're perfect to lead our group!!!