Carlos is a bad doctor.
Your question was answered succinctly in my first reply and you've spent ever since flubbing around with "well good and bad are inherently relative muhmuhmuh" like a freshman college student.
Better luck next time.
kind of gross and real but I got 2 pictures of a human and dog bite.
WARNING! THE PICTURES ARE VERY GRUSOME
|
I warned you
I warned you
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ok I didn't post a pic of a dog bite because they were just all horrible. they don't look like a human bite at all. if you want go look it up on google. bit here is the shape of dog jaw.
True. But if that had happened to Clem, I would've expected the wound to be a lot less uniform, her bite was one simple curved line going ac… moreross her forearm, whereas if it had been a walker/human bite with lots of jerking and tearing I would expect the bite to appear more messy and inconsistent. I can't see how a human jaw could make a bite that wide without multiple open wounds and a bigger mess. It could be possible with just the right motion, but to the naked eye with no knowledge of how it happened, I'd say it was a dog bite.
While I realize it's better to be safe than sorry in the ZA, I think Carlos should've at least given Clem the benefit of the doubt and not tossed her out in the shed to get an infection and die. Even if it wasn't a walker bite, she'd still get a fever, so what would be the point?
You don't actually take much in when having a conversation with another person do you? He is a bad doctor is an answer, not the answer. It's pretty easy to see that.
Carlos is a bad doctor.
Your question was answered succinctly in my first reply and you've spent ever since flubbing around with "well good and bad are inherently relative muhmuhmuh" like a freshman college student.
Better luck next time.
Consider the situation: After Nick's mother had died from helping out a bite victim, here lies yet another person who's been bitten by something and threatening the family's safety. Deciding whether to keep a bite victim around could mean the difference between everyone ending up dead or everyone having to live another day. You know what any rational person in this situation would have done? He would have been afraid. He wouldn't have seen it as a dog bite, he would have dismissed it as a walker bite. I would personally have a knee-jerk reaction too if I see this potentially contaminated stranger coming here to infect my family, and I would definitely go, "What the f#ck were you thinking bringing her here?! Put her in the shed before she turns!" Emphasis on knee-jerk reaction. And need I remind you that walkers are essentially everywhere as of season 2 of the game, so it wouldn't be that far fetch of a logic to consider it a walker bite first before a dog bite. Or as Pete put it, "I didn't see no dog anywhere."
That's true, but it doesn't remake the fact that they were ready to shoot a child. I wouldn't have thrown her in the shed, at the very least I would have locked her in a room in the house. She is as dangerous there as she is outside, even less so if she were a spy, but more to the point it's the right thing to do. Leaving a child in the cold, in the dark, and alone is wrong. Even if she is theoretically a threat.
He threw her on the ground, he didn't intend to kill her by the drop. Nick and Rebecca intended to end her life on the chance she was bitten (not a threat at the point of the shooting since she wasn't dead) or working for Carver (which wouldn't have helped their situation). Those are hardly comparable. And despite what you may think ending the life of an 12 year old is cruel, not only pragmatic.
You are right, I didn't condemn them, only came to the realization that caution was needed. And I can see it from their perspective, it is understandable, but not justifiable, or reasonable, or a moral set of actions in my book.
Hope this all makes sense, typed it fast and didn't proofread haha.
"He obviously had the intention to kill, as his finger was on the trigger and the gun was aimed in her direction (also backed by the stateme… morents of other members (Rebecca) saying kill her, and his own statement saying something like "You were the one telling me to shoot her.")"
~~~~
It could also be argued that they had the intention to kill a person - not just a young girl - who's possibly been bit a walker.
Consider the situation: After Nick's mother had died from helping out a bite victim, here lies yet another person who's been bitten by something and threatening the family's safety. Deciding whether to keep a bite victim around could mean the difference between everyone ending up dead or everyone having to live another day. You know what any rational person in this situation would have done? He would have been afraid. He wouldn't have seen it as a dog bite, he would have dismissed it as a walker bite. I would personally have… [view original content]
Oh look you made a worthless subjective/relativist non-argument after being proven wrong and backing down on every single point you've tried to raise, that's unsurprising.
Really Viva after being forced into concessions and defeat with every single conversation we've had can't you just trust that I'm right and you don't know what you're talking about? I'd hate to ruin whatever hot-tub travel experience you're currently having.
You don't actually take much in when having a conversation with another person do you? He is a bad doctor is an answer, not the answer. It's pretty easy to see that.
Better luck next time.
Oh look you made a worthless subjective/relativist non-argument after being proven wrong and backing down on every single point you've tried to raise, that's unsurprising.
Because it is subjective and relativistic. I'm right and you're right, you're just to blind/stubborn/arrogant to admit it. Also I've not backed down, all my points are as valid as ever, I just don't see the point in arguing something that will continue in circles on the premise both sides are correct and incorrect. Seems silly.
As to the last part of your post...
Lol the disgusting augmentation of reality continues. But I'll play along, good boy. Keep up the hard work!
Oh look you made a worthless subjective/relativist non-argument after being proven wrong and backing down on every single point you've tried… more to raise, that's unsurprising.
Really Viva after being forced into concessions and defeat with every single conversation we've had can't you just trust that I'm right and you don't know what you're talking about? I'd hate to ruin whatever hot-tub travel experience you're currently having.
Oh look you made a worthless subjective/relativist non-argument after being proven wrong and backing down on every single point you've tried… more to raise, that's unsurprising.
Because it is subjective and relativistic. I'm right and you're right, you're just to blind/stubborn/arrogant to admit it. Also I've not backed down, all my points are as valid as ever, I just don't see the point in arguing something that will continue in circles on the premise both sides are correct and incorrect. Seems silly.
As to the last part of your post...
Lol the disgusting augmentation of reality continues. But I'll play along, good boy. Keep up the hard work!
Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. When they don't, it just feels like all they do is make you try to accomplish tasks that just feel redundant, monotonous, and a complete waste of time. Hubs aren't what made Season One a masterpiece.
The gameplay comes from how you play the story, how you connect with the characters, and how their choices affect you. I don't know about anyone else but after the ending, I didn't walk away from this game saying, "Those hubs were fantastic!"
This game is carried by the characters, their interactions and their reactions to the situations the new world throws at them. Hubs are not the main attraction; they are the means to an end. What end you ask? It ranges from character development -of which we've seen precious little this season IMO-, to adding extra length to the episode (which is almost always a good thing), it helps with the pacing and gives a moment for player to let the episode's moments sink in. People react differently to death and pain and sorrow, or even pstive events, and TWD is in part great because it doesn't just put its focus on the overall plot and action; it also deals with the people who carry the story.
Besides, I know the debate still rages on whether TWDG is actually a game, and I'm not going to address that unsaleable can of worms directly, but right now we are getting truly only a visual novel. A good one at that, but still. There wasn't much gameplay to begin with, but why strip a game completely of its game interactive parts that both serve the purpose of the story being told and add a sense of belonging, a sense of being there to the player beyond just choosing what our girl says or does in cutscenes?
I didn't walk away from this game saying, "Those hubs were fantastic!"
Starved for Help's intro still stands out to me as a great overall scene that made use of story, choice making and hub elements. It isn't just one ingredient that turns a meal into a delicacy, it's how the chef combines everything he's got to make it a great dish. Long Road Ahead's is also good, and despite being repetitive after the tenth time, the drugstore was a great intro to our cast. Good first impressions or not, you more or less got to know these people from the get-go. Small moments like Clem in Crawford add up to the brilliance of it all.
I do think that -as @bubbledncr and to an extent, you, pointed out- hubs without a task that is engaging are more or less sure to bore and bother players who want the next piece of the tale. As with all things, I'd suggest a balance between interactivity and storytelling. It's all in the execution, I guess. They've done it well in the past, so if they do put them in, let's trust they have learned how to make them work even better.
Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. When they don't, it just feels like all they do is make you try to accomplish tasks that just fe… moreel redundant, monotonous, and a complete waste of time. Hubs aren't what made Season One a masterpiece.
The gameplay comes from how you play the story, how you connect with the characters, and how their choices affect you. I don't know about anyone else but after the ending, I didn't walk away from this game saying, "Those hubs were fantastic!"
This game is carried by the characters, their interactions and their reactions to the situations the new world throws at them. Hubs are not … morethe main attraction; they are the means to an end. What end you ask? It ranges from character development -of which we've seen precious little this season IMO-, to adding extra length to the episode (which is almost always a good thing), it helps with the pacing and gives a moment for player to let the episode's moments sink in. People react differently to death and pain and sorrow, or even pstive events, and TWD is in part great because it doesn't just put its focus on the overall plot and action; it also deals with the people who carry the story.
Besides, I know the debate still rages on whether TWDG is actually a game, and I'm not going to address that unsaleable can of worms directly, but right now we are getting truly only a visual novel. A good one at that, but still. There wasn't much gameplay t… [view original content]
Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. When they don't, it just feels like all they do is make you try to accomplish tasks that just fe… moreel redundant, monotonous, and a complete waste of time. Hubs aren't what made Season One a masterpiece.
The gameplay comes from how you play the story, how you connect with the characters, and how their choices affect you. I don't know about anyone else but after the ending, I didn't walk away from this game saying, "Those hubs were fantastic!"
but more to the point it's the right thing to do. Leaving a child in the cold, in the dark, and alone is wrong. Even if she is theoretically a threat.
See, that's your perspective. You've gotta stop seeing her as just a child. Whether age matters or not when it comes to treating bite victims in the zombie apocalypse is incredibly subjective, in case you haven't noticed. The zombie plague shows no discrimination for anyone at all; young little girls, old women, middle-aged men, whomever. You can't just say that putting down a child bite victim is entirely, definitively wrong. Right or wrong is very subjective in this case, subjected to each person's opinion of how a potential walker should be treated.
Those are hardly comparable.
Easily comparable, actually - they're both afraid. That's the fundamental logic of both cases. They were both afraid and they both reacted irrationally. Yes, Nick reacted much more irrationally than Luke, but that's just how Nick's personality is. To dictate that everyone should be treated equally regardless of their personality and background is unfair. It's condescending. It's patronising. It's all those words you would use when someone is judging you when he doesn't know you any better.
In the end, determining whether if Nick's actions were justifiable or not, IMO, is highly academic. We could argue on for days and we still would arrive at a subjective conclusion at best.
Consider the situation: After Nick's mother had died from helping out a bite victim, here lies yet another person who's been bitten by somet… morehing and threatening the family's safety. Deciding whether to keep a bite victim around could mean the difference between everyone ending up dead or everyone having to live another day. You know what any rational person in this situation would have done? He would have been afraid. He wouldn't have seen it as a dog bite, he would have dismissed it as a walker bite. I would personally have a knee-jerk reaction too if I see this potentially contaminated stranger coming here to infect my family, and I would definitely go, "What the f#ck were you thinking bringing her here?! Put her in the shed before she turns!" Emphasis on knee-jerk reaction. And need I remind you that walkers are essentially everywhere as of season 2 of the game, so it wouldn't be that far fetch of a logic to consider it a walker bite first… [view original content]
See, that's your perspective. You've gotta stop seeing her as just a child. Whether age matters or not when it comes to treating bite victims in the zombie apocalypse is incredibly subjective, in case you haven't noticed. The zombie plague shows no discrimination for anyone at all; young little girls, old women, middle-aged men, whomever. You can't just say that putting down a child bite victim is entirely, definitively wrong. Right or wrong is very subjective in this case, subjected to each person's opinion of how a potential walker should be treated.
First killing a child is most definitely different than killing an adult. That's hardly arguable. The infection doesn't decriminalized or know the difference, but it's impossible for a person not to. Also a prudent point is she wasn't bitten, and more to the important point - she wasn't proven to be bitten by the people about to throw away her life. I can't say killing a walker bit child is always wrong, there are always outliers, but in most situations (and most definitely the situation we saw) it's easy to come to the conclusion it is. Especially when it isn't proven they were bit by a zombie in the first place.
They were both made out of fear. But the repercussions of each event were astronomically different. In fact I may go as far to say that the only similarity they shared was the com inanity of fear. That doesn't say much though, as fear drives many, many of our daily routines, but those situations are more often than not not comparable.
Yes, we will only come to a relative conclusion, that's all you can do for the majority of human thought and realizations, but the fun part is arguing your perception of it.
but more to the point it's the right thing to do. Leaving a child in the cold, in the dark, and alone is wrong. Even if she is theoretically… more a threat.
See, that's your perspective. You've gotta stop seeing her as just a child. Whether age matters or not when it comes to treating bite victims in the zombie apocalypse is incredibly subjective, in case you haven't noticed. The zombie plague shows no discrimination for anyone at all; young little girls, old women, middle-aged men, whomever. You can't just say that putting down a child bite victim is entirely, definitively wrong. Right or wrong is very subjective in this case, subjected to each person's opinion of how a potential walker should be treated.
Those are hardly comparable.
Easily comparable, actually - they're both afraid. That's the fundamental logic of both cases. They were both afraid and they both reacted irrationally. Yes, Nick reacted much more irrationally t… [view original content]
Hubs would take up very very little space as compared to basically anything else. What takes up space is graphics. Hubs use only one location and set of characters and and just have a lot of dialogue options and (hopefully) some puzzles. Dialogue options and puzzles do not take up enough space to even mention. They are just time-consuming to write.
he's a little full of himself when he praises his cooking by giving it a fancy name, then saying it's just peaches and beans (that was funny by the way)
he's a teacher, so you immediately get invested in his wisdom
you never see him with Matthew, but through the dialogue alone, you know how strong they're relationship was
he becomes slightly hostel after finding out what happened to Matthew (which was a fucking amazing scene by the way)
This is one of the best characters they have ever done, and his development was NOT explored through hubs.
I actually use Walter as an example of what went sort of wrong; you get to care and learn more from him than the group you have been with for nearly a week. Hubs are a tool for character exploration, but are not the only one.
I got one word for you: WALTER.
* a nice guy, maybe too nice
* he's a little full of himself when he praises his cooking by giving it … morea fancy name, then saying it's just peaches and beans (that was funny by the way)
* he's a teacher, so you immediately get invested in his wisdom
* you never see him with Matthew, but through the dialogue alone, you know how strong they're relationship was
* he becomes slightly hostel after finding out what happened to Matthew (which was a fucking amazing scene by the way)
This is one of the best characters they have ever done, and his development was NOT explored through hubs.
Comments
And you look like the poster child for the stereotypical "Internet Idiot."
Better luck next time.
ya carvers camp is probably HUUUUUUGE
kind of gross and real but I got 2 pictures of a human and dog bite.
WARNING! THE PICTURES ARE VERY GRUSOME
|
I warned you
I warned you
ok I didn't post a pic of a dog bite because they were just all horrible. they don't look like a human bite at all. if you want go look it up on google. bit here is the shape of dog jaw.
I don't want hubs. It was more dynamic now.
We don't know anything about the characters. Hubs gives you a chance to find out
You don't actually take much in when having a conversation with another person do you? He is a bad doctor is an answer, not the answer. It's pretty easy to see that.
Better luck next time.
That's true, but it doesn't remake the fact that they were ready to shoot a child. I wouldn't have thrown her in the shed, at the very least I would have locked her in a room in the house. She is as dangerous there as she is outside, even less so if she were a spy, but more to the point it's the right thing to do. Leaving a child in the cold, in the dark, and alone is wrong. Even if she is theoretically a threat.
He threw her on the ground, he didn't intend to kill her by the drop. Nick and Rebecca intended to end her life on the chance she was bitten (not a threat at the point of the shooting since she wasn't dead) or working for Carver (which wouldn't have helped their situation). Those are hardly comparable. And despite what you may think ending the life of an 12 year old is cruel, not only pragmatic.
You are right, I didn't condemn them, only came to the realization that caution was needed. And I can see it from their perspective, it is understandable, but not justifiable, or reasonable, or a moral set of actions in my book.
Hope this all makes sense, typed it fast and didn't proofread haha.
Oh look you made a worthless subjective/relativist non-argument after being proven wrong and backing down on every single point you've tried to raise, that's unsurprising.
Really Viva after being forced into concessions and defeat with every single conversation we've had can't you just trust that I'm right and you don't know what you're talking about? I'd hate to ruin whatever hot-tub travel experience you're currently having.
Because it is subjective and relativistic. I'm right and you're right, you're just to blind/stubborn/arrogant to admit it. Also I've not backed down, all my points are as valid as ever, I just don't see the point in arguing something that will continue in circles on the premise both sides are correct and incorrect. Seems silly.
As to the last part of your post...
Lol the disgusting augmentation of reality continues. But I'll play along, good boy. Keep up the hard work!
Aaaaand done.
Done?
Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. When they don't, it just feels like all they do is make you try to accomplish tasks that just feel redundant, monotonous, and a complete waste of time. Hubs aren't what made Season One a masterpiece.
The gameplay comes from how you play the story, how you connect with the characters, and how their choices affect you. I don't know about anyone else but after the ending, I didn't walk away from this game saying, "Those hubs were fantastic!"
This game is carried by the characters, their interactions and their reactions to the situations the new world throws at them. Hubs are not the main attraction; they are the means to an end. What end you ask? It ranges from character development -of which we've seen precious little this season IMO-, to adding extra length to the episode (which is almost always a good thing), it helps with the pacing and gives a moment for player to let the episode's moments sink in. People react differently to death and pain and sorrow, or even pstive events, and TWD is in part great because it doesn't just put its focus on the overall plot and action; it also deals with the people who carry the story.
Besides, I know the debate still rages on whether TWDG is actually a game, and I'm not going to address that unsaleable can of worms directly, but right now we are getting truly only a visual novel. A good one at that, but still. There wasn't much gameplay to begin with, but why strip a game completely of its game interactive parts that both serve the purpose of the story being told and add a sense of belonging, a sense of being there to the player beyond just choosing what our girl says or does in cutscenes?
Starved for Help's intro still stands out to me as a great overall scene that made use of story, choice making and hub elements. It isn't just one ingredient that turns a meal into a delicacy, it's how the chef combines everything he's got to make it a great dish. Long Road Ahead's is also good, and despite being repetitive after the tenth time, the drugstore was a great intro to our cast. Good first impressions or not, you more or less got to know these people from the get-go. Small moments like Clem in Crawford add up to the brilliance of it all.
I do think that -as @bubbledncr and to an extent, you, pointed out- hubs without a task that is engaging are more or less sure to bore and bother players who want the next piece of the tale. As with all things, I'd suggest a balance between interactivity and storytelling. It's all in the execution, I guess. They've done it well in the past, so if they do put them in, let's trust they have learned how to make them work even better.
In the end, I think the pros outweigh the cons.
I have an idea for a thread now...
well i think were getting alot of hubs and a longer episode.
in the amid the ruins slide eddie is in it. and the one person who everyone thinks is kenny isnt kenny. its vince
I CAN HANDLE THE HUUB
Thanks, but I already know that
ha k
no in some consoles it shows someone that looks like kenny and in others it shows someone that looks like vince
actualy what made season 1 a master piece was the caracter developement and that was brought to us by hubs
See, that's your perspective. You've gotta stop seeing her as just a child. Whether age matters or not when it comes to treating bite victims in the zombie apocalypse is incredibly subjective, in case you haven't noticed. The zombie plague shows no discrimination for anyone at all; young little girls, old women, middle-aged men, whomever. You can't just say that putting down a child bite victim is entirely, definitively wrong. Right or wrong is very subjective in this case, subjected to each person's opinion of how a potential walker should be treated.
Easily comparable, actually - they're both afraid. That's the fundamental logic of both cases. They were both afraid and they both reacted irrationally. Yes, Nick reacted much more irrationally than Luke, but that's just how Nick's personality is. To dictate that everyone should be treated equally regardless of their personality and background is unfair. It's condescending. It's patronising. It's all those words you would use when someone is judging you when he doesn't know you any better.
In the end, determining whether if Nick's actions were justifiable or not, IMO, is highly academic. We could argue on for days and we still would arrive at a subjective conclusion at best.
First killing a child is most definitely different than killing an adult. That's hardly arguable. The infection doesn't decriminalized or know the difference, but it's impossible for a person not to. Also a prudent point is she wasn't bitten, and more to the important point - she wasn't proven to be bitten by the people about to throw away her life. I can't say killing a walker bit child is always wrong, there are always outliers, but in most situations (and most definitely the situation we saw) it's easy to come to the conclusion it is. Especially when it isn't proven they were bit by a zombie in the first place.
They were both made out of fear. But the repercussions of each event were astronomically different. In fact I may go as far to say that the only similarity they shared was the com inanity of fear. That doesn't say much though, as fear drives many, many of our daily routines, but those situations are more often than not not comparable.
Yes, we will only come to a relative conclusion, that's all you can do for the majority of human thought and realizations, but the fun part is arguing your perception of it.
Hubs would take up very very little space as compared to basically anything else. What takes up space is graphics. Hubs use only one location and set of characters and and just have a lot of dialogue options and (hopefully) some puzzles. Dialogue options and puzzles do not take up enough space to even mention. They are just time-consuming to write.
The Walking Dead Episode 3: The Return of The Hubs
I got one word for you: WALTER.
This is one of the best characters they have ever done, and his development was NOT explored through hubs.
One in a cast of nine.
I actually use Walter as an example of what went sort of wrong; you get to care and learn more from him than the group you have been with for nearly a week. Hubs are a tool for character exploration, but are not the only one.
I can see it now. Carver's explorable community has a motto: "You have a real good day now".