Moral Difference
It's obviously been a long time since 2012 in which a lot of us played 'The Walking Dead' and loved it. However something I noticed when playing 'Season 2' is that have we changed? Well of course we've all grown since then and changed but I mean our mindset.
I hope I'm not the only one who's noticed this but during 'The Walking Dead' I was nice to people and tried to make my decisions based on what I thought was morally right. However when playing 'Season 2' I feel that I'm a much harsher person who tries to make decisions based on what I think has the biggest chance of my survival.
During scenes such as the random girl dying in the beginning of Episode 3 I was thinking 'I've got to put that girl out of her misery!" Even though it was a clear risk to both Lee and Kenny's survival.
However with scenes such as telling Walter whether Nick is a good man or helping Alvin I was thinking 'I've got to keep Nick and Alvin alive so they protect me in the future!' I feel that my morals have changed and thus I care more about my survival than what others go through.
Does anyone else feel like this or in general feel that their decision-making process has changed since the first season?
Comments
Tis' the reason for the second season!
Rhymes, dammit!
Well I think there was no right answer to telling Walter the truth. Nick was a good guy and killing Matthew was innocent, so lying to protect him is not morally wrong. I also surrendered to Carver because I thought he was going to kill Carlos. So I think I still try to be moral because what do in the game is probably what I would do in that situation in real life. It might get me killed but ... you know. The answer is probably different for everyone but for me I would say that my mind set is still the same.
I've noticed a small change in my decision making. In Season 1 I was a mediator during pretty much every argument, but in Season 2 I find myself speaking my mind and taking a side more, such as when Nick shot Matthew. I let him know he fucked up, and fucked up good. Also in Season 1, I was very pragmatic despite the mediation. I crushed Larry's skull, killed Danny so he wouldn't come after us, stuff like that, but in Season 2 I've been leaning more towards the morally right decisions, such as distracting the scavengers attacking Christa and going with Pete at the end of Episode 1 because he stood up for me, despite him being bitten. In Season 1, I likely would have left him to his fate because he was, for all intents and purposes, basically dead.
And goddamn, Pete's dead!
I essentially do what I did in S1, with some changes because its Clementine.
Things like saving Alvin and Nick are solely because they didnt deserve to die and in that moment Clem was able to do something to help.
In S1 though, I had Lee speak up for himself, but Clementine is a little girl, so Im doing what the adults tell her to do. Like when approaching the bridge, I just agreed with whatever Luke said, he should be making the plans, hes smarter and more experienced.
It's the moral compass: Clem acted as the moral compass that tells us when she thinks our decisions were right or wrong. There is no moral compass in this season, nobody telling us whether we are morally right or wrong.
I think that is the difference.
In season one Clem was Lee's moral compass.
Season two Clem has no such person, so she's pretty much free from any responsibility.
And "my Clem" is pretty much convinced everything will turn to shit anyway, so who cares?
Wish I had read your comment before posting. Could have skipped mine and be done with a like. :P
S1 the goal was to protect Clementine. She'd also act as the moral compass. And you wouldn't want to risk that by saying the wrong thing so you'd reason with them. With Clementine if you reason why would they listen to a little girl, she's gotta threaten people and be harsh so people won't take advantage of her.
Honestly, I'm still as much of a pushover as I was in S1. I haven't changed at all.
I've always played the same way. While I do decide upon what I find most morally correct and logical, I always keep in mind the well-being of the characters when making my choices. My focus in season two is to do what is best for Clem and the people she cares about. I don't take any unnecessary risks, and I focus like a motherfucker when someone's life, especially Clementine's, is on the line.
My decisions in S2 have been more guarded - what choice is the greatest benefit/chance of survival for me and/or those I care about even if morally gray. For example, I wanted to tell the truth to Walter not to be truthful, but because I feared the consequences if he found out on his own (he did figure it out anyway.) My motives lean more towards self-preservation and less towards teamwork.