an interesting scenario for a video game. crappy one for real life. you see people in video games are figments, same as a hat, so it is a choice of saving one piece of code over another. now for me i see the hat as a symbol of her learning how to live in the world, and thus saving the hat over doing what you should do would mean making the symbol worthless. so saving the person does save the important aspect of the hat. of course after saving the person, grabbing a crowbar and heading back in for the hat would be pretty badass.
now as most people treat the decisions as if it were real, we should see a certain amount of people saving the hat over other people. given that situations similar to that occur every day (a choice between a persons life and material possessions) and roughly 20% of people pick the hat when no one will hold them accountable. if shit hits the fan and people don't act better that number should go up, so i'd expect around 40% would save the hat. now everyone knows that they are supposed to save the person, and thus the image that they portray (to themselves and others) would be that of saving the person, >4% (standard statistical margin of error) for real life, and probably about 6% in the zombie apocalypse.
the first reply was the most honest one, you are supposed to get your ass chewed out for picking the hat. it isn't exactly wrong to save the hat though (based on the theory that once something is done by more than 10% of the population it is okay).
Well, I guess I'm not a true Kenny fan then. I'm ashamed of being a Kenny fan because 60% of his fans are complete weirdos, refering to a moustache as a "godly blessing" or whatever.
Obviously you're not a true Kenny fan if you're ashamed of being a fan of the best character of TWD. Come back when you've grown a godly mustache and beard then we'll talk.
It depends, which group member? If it was Kenny I'll fuck someone up to save him, if it's someone like Sarah I'll probably be like "Well there's my hat like right over there. I might as well grab it first. You got bit? I am sorry."
You're clearly given a choice between saving someone's life and.. a hat.
Yes, the hat has emotional value but it's not alive. It's not so… moremeone who cares for you or would be willing to save your life if you were in danger. It's not a bad thing to want to save someones life. A hat would do absolutely nothing for you in the long run, sorry.
What if you need to choose between supplies and her hat?
Like..you have walkers surrounding you and you only have time to grab one of the items....your hat or supplies for the group.
You are completely entitled to your own and I understand what you're saying, I do.
But this isn't a life or death situation for you. This is life or death for the person being attacked. In this scenario, you're guaranteed safety no matter what you choose. Why not save someone's life and retain your memories that make the hat so meaningful? You don't need the hat but you may need the person later on.
As for the chewed out part, there's no way you can justify keeping the hat over a person that would sit right with anybody in that group (and most people in general). Looking at it from their point of view: they've all been through a lot together by this point and consider each other family. How do you think they would feel if one of them needed help and the only person who could get to them in time... just ran away with her hat? That's still really insulting to them no matter what your personal reasoning is. If somebody just practically let my best friend or family member die, I would be angry too (like Luke was in the OP).
"Failing to see the big picture", objectively speaking, would be choosing an inanimate object over somebody who could actually do something for you if you were ever in a bad situation. That's just my personal opinion, though.
I have the utmost respect for your opinion, But don't start judging everyone and saying they deserve to be "Chewed out".
Things like this… more, The hat and everything carry more meaning to me than someone that I don't care about, Such as Rebbecca.
Blind idealism, Is wanting to save everyone regardless of your opinion of them. Failing to see the big picture.
Nope. Anyone who wants to save people even when it would be absurd to try to would be an idealist. If you wanted to save someone who was just shot and bleeding out with no medical supplies nearby you would be a blind idealist, but this is a situation where you can absolutely save someone's life. There is no reason to not save them if it is possible to save them.
It depends, which group member? If it was Kenny I'll fuck someone up to save him, if it's someone like Sarah I'll probably be like "Well there's my hat like right over there. I might as well grab it first. You got bit? I am sorry."
Nick almost shot my head, Carlos and Rebbecca locked me up and left me to die, Luke is too weak and can't make a stand... Etc.
I'm not saving anyone of them, Not a chance in hell. I really don't care about their families or so on, Only certain people have earned my respect in order to be helped.
You are completely entitled to your own and I understand what you're saying, I do.
But this isn't a life or death situation for you. This… more is life or death for the person being attacked. In this scenario, you're guaranteed safety no matter what you choose. Why not save someone's life and retain your memories that make the hat so meaningful? You don't need the hat but you may need the person later on.
As for the chewed out part, there's no way you can justify keeping the hat over a person that would sit right with anybody in that group (and most people in general). Looking at it from their point of view: they've all been through a lot together by this point and consider each other family. How do you think they would feel if one of them needed help and the only person who could get to them in time... just ran away with her hat? That's still really insulting to them no matter what your personal reasoning is. If somebody just practically let… [view original content]
Nope. Anyone who wants to save people even when it would be absurd to try to would be an idealist. If you wanted to save someone who was jus… moret shot and bleeding out with no medical supplies nearby you would be a blind idealist, but this is a situation where you can absolutely save someone's life. There is no reason to not save them if it is possible to save them.
They did it out of the safety and concern for their loved ones. We as players know that it was only a dog bite, but it sounds very suspicious to a group of people who have suffered losses before from bite victims and see no dog. Was it the best solution? No way in hell. But they didn't just do it because they hated her. As for the Luke thing.. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. The Carver thing in episode three?
You don't have to. I'm just saying that a human life will always be of more value than an inanimate object regardless of whether or not you are living in a ZA. If others can depend on you, you can depend on them.
Nick almost shot my head, Carlos and Rebbecca locked me up and left me to die, Luke is too weak and can't make a stand... Etc.
I'm not sa… moreving anyone of them, Not a chance in hell. I really don't care about their families or so on, Only certain people have earned my respect in order to be helped.
I found Luke a very weak character during the whole season that has a lot of potential to be an independent one.
I wouldn't have done the same. That's why they're a pretty stupid group, They can't think of alternatives beyond their entitled views. proof, When Carlos said, Quite Clementine, The adults are talking. So why should i save any of them from the first place?
They did it out of the safety and concern for their loved ones. We as players know that it was only a dog bite, but it sounds very suspiciou… mores to a group of people who have suffered losses before from bite victims and see no dog. Was it the best solution? No way in hell. But they didn't just do it because they hated her. As for the Luke thing.. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. The Carver thing in episode three?
You don't have to. I'm just saying that a human life will always be of more value than an inanimate object regardless of whether or not you are living in a ZA. If others can depend on you, you can depend on them.
Every single character in this game has flaws. Was Carlos patronizing in that scene? Yup. Was Rebecca unnecessarily rude during the whole first episode? You betcha. But I still don't believe any of that justifies letting them die when you have a guarantee of being able to save both yourself and them.
I found Luke a very weak character during the whole season that has a lot of potential to be an independent one.
I wouldn't have done the… more same. That's why they're a pretty stupid group, They can't think of alternatives beyond their entitled views. proof, When Carlos said, Quite Clementine, The adults are talking. So why should i save any of them from the first place?
Note: Alvin is an exception.
As i said before, that's the difference between idealism and neutrality. You want to save everyone and I respect that, But to me, I save who i deem worthy.
Every single character in this game has flaws. Was Carlos patronizing in that scene? Yup. Was Rebecca unnecessarily rude during the whole fi… morerst episode? You betcha. But I still don't believe any of that justifies letting them die when you have a guarantee of being able to save both yourself and them.
As i said before, that's the difference between idealism and neutrality. You want to save everyone and I respect that, But to me, I save who i deem worthy.
what ever you do it might come and bit you in the ass. give a dog some food, and it may end up eating you. give someone a gun to watch your back and they might shoot you. save someone at no cost, and they might lead bad people to your stash and provoke a gun fight (season 1 anyone?).
Leo8Skylar would rather be independent and safe, which isn't a bad or unreasonable thing. personally i view helping others a sign of strength, and their is no shame in knowing your limits (like anyone would have risked trying to save the stranger or carver, why take the long term risk?).
it all comes down to cost benefit probabilities, there is no good answer, just the one you are willing to live with.
somebody who could actually do something for you
or to you.
what ever you do it might come and bit you in the ass. give a dog so… moreme food, and it may end up eating you. give someone a gun to watch your back and they might shoot you. save someone at no cost, and they might lead bad people to your stash and provoke a gun fight (season 1 anyone?).
Leo8Skylar would rather be independent and safe, which isn't a bad or unreasonable thing. personally i view helping others a sign of strength, and their is no shame in knowing your limits (like anyone would have risked trying to save the stranger or carver, why take the long term risk?).
it all comes down to cost benefit probabilities, there is no good answer, just the one you are willing to live with.
Comments
an interesting scenario for a video game. crappy one for real life. you see people in video games are figments, same as a hat, so it is a choice of saving one piece of code over another. now for me i see the hat as a symbol of her learning how to live in the world, and thus saving the hat over doing what you should do would mean making the symbol worthless. so saving the person does save the important aspect of the hat. of course after saving the person, grabbing a crowbar and heading back in for the hat would be pretty badass.
now as most people treat the decisions as if it were real, we should see a certain amount of people saving the hat over other people. given that situations similar to that occur every day (a choice between a persons life and material possessions) and roughly 20% of people pick the hat when no one will hold them accountable. if shit hits the fan and people don't act better that number should go up, so i'd expect around 40% would save the hat. now everyone knows that they are supposed to save the person, and thus the image that they portray (to themselves and others) would be that of saving the person, >4% (standard statistical margin of error) for real life, and probably about 6% in the zombie apocalypse.
the first reply was the most honest one, you are supposed to get your ass chewed out for picking the hat. it isn't exactly wrong to save the hat though (based on the theory that once something is done by more than 10% of the population it is okay).
Well, I guess I'm not a true Kenny fan then. I'm ashamed of being a Kenny fan because 60% of his fans are complete weirdos, refering to a moustache as a "godly blessing" or whatever.
It depends, which group member? If it was Kenny I'll fuck someone up to save him, if it's someone like Sarah I'll probably be like "Well there's my hat like right over there. I might as well grab it first. You got bit? I am sorry."
If save the hat. I'd let someone get killed if the even touched the hat. My hat my rules.
Holy shit, this guy's serious!
I have the utmost respect for your opinion, But don't start judging everyone and saying they deserve to be "Chewed out".
Things like this, The hat and everything carry more meaning to me than someone that I don't care about, Such as Rebbecca.
Blind idealism, Is wanting to save everyone regardless of your opinion of them. Failing to see the big picture.
Check my comment above.
ya know if this happens in episode 4-5 then telltale wont let you go back but in real life i would pick BOTH save the guy first then the hat
What if you need to choose between supplies and her hat?
Like..you have walkers surrounding you and you only have time to grab one of the items....your hat or supplies for the group.
But wait, What if the group member is in a bad state of health and weak and cant survive much longer?
You are completely entitled to your own and I understand what you're saying, I do.
But this isn't a life or death situation for you. This is life or death for the person being attacked. In this scenario, you're guaranteed safety no matter what you choose. Why not save someone's life and retain your memories that make the hat so meaningful? You don't need the hat but you may need the person later on.
As for the chewed out part, there's no way you can justify keeping the hat over a person that would sit right with anybody in that group (and most people in general). Looking at it from their point of view: they've all been through a lot together by this point and consider each other family. How do you think they would feel if one of them needed help and the only person who could get to them in time... just ran away with her hat? That's still really insulting to them no matter what your personal reasoning is. If somebody just practically let my best friend or family member die, I would be angry too (like Luke was in the OP).
"Failing to see the big picture", objectively speaking, would be choosing an inanimate object over somebody who could actually do something for you if you were ever in a bad situation. That's just my personal opinion, though.
Nope. Anyone who wants to save people even when it would be absurd to try to would be an idealist. If you wanted to save someone who was just shot and bleeding out with no medical supplies nearby you would be a blind idealist, but this is a situation where you can absolutely save someone's life. There is no reason to not save them if it is possible to save them.
More interesting scenario would be:
Save photo of Lee or save a group member?
You would rather save a piece of wearable fabric over a fifteen year old girl?
I am a tf2 fanatic, hats are more important than life itself. A fifteen year old girl can wait, but a hat can't.
Oooooookaaaay......
Hat is love. Hat is life.
This would be so sad
Nick almost shot my head, Carlos and Rebbecca locked me up and left me to die, Luke is too weak and can't make a stand... Etc.
I'm not saving anyone of them, Not a chance in hell. I really don't care about their families or so on, Only certain people have earned my respect in order to be helped.
I'd do that. But it depends on my impression of the person. I have already said that I'd save Jane or Kenny, Anyone else can rot in hell.
I think It's pretty much of idealism to save a member of a group that locked you up and left you to die. But to me, it's about who i deem worthy.
They did it out of the safety and concern for their loved ones. We as players know that it was only a dog bite, but it sounds very suspicious to a group of people who have suffered losses before from bite victims and see no dog. Was it the best solution? No way in hell. But they didn't just do it because they hated her. As for the Luke thing.. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. The Carver thing in episode three?
You don't have to. I'm just saying that a human life will always be of more value than an inanimate object regardless of whether or not you are living in a ZA. If others can depend on you, you can depend on them.
I found Luke a very weak character during the whole season that has a lot of potential to be an independent one.
I wouldn't have done the same. That's why they're a pretty stupid group, They can't think of alternatives beyond their entitled views. proof, When Carlos said, Quite Clementine, The adults are talking. So why should i save any of them from the first place?
Note: Alvin is an exception.
Every single character in this game has flaws. Was Carlos patronizing in that scene? Yup. Was Rebecca unnecessarily rude during the whole first episode? You betcha. But I still don't believe any of that justifies letting them die when you have a guarantee of being able to save both yourself and them.
As i said before, that's the difference between idealism and neutrality. You want to save everyone and I respect that, But to me, I save who i deem worthy.
Who do you think is worthy?
Examples from Season 1: Carley, Doug, Omid, Lee, Clementine, Molly.
Examples from Season 2: Clementine, Alvin, Pete, Jane, Kenny.
Group member all the way.
You can't really weigh a human life against a hat, no matter how much emotion value it has.
But MAYBE, if it's Jane or someone you just can't trust (new guy, maybe?)
Jane is definitley a bitch, and only cares about herself, like she already said. So no, Jane can go die.
[removed]
I agree with everyone but Jane. I dont think we know her well enough yet.
Save group member.
WHY IS THIS CHOICE SOOOOO DIFFICULT?!
Well, I like her.
It really depends on who is in danger, if it's someone i don't like or someone who i can't trust, then i'll pick the hat.
But if it is someone we know well and trust with our lives, i would pick the group member
The hat. It has proven to be more useful.
Save the group member. This was probably already said but you can always go back later and get the hat.
Seriously. The hat? For real?
Btw my answer is save the group lol.
have clem ninja kill all the walkers and walk away with the hat
or to you.
what ever you do it might come and bit you in the ass. give a dog some food, and it may end up eating you. give someone a gun to watch your back and they might shoot you. save someone at no cost, and they might lead bad people to your stash and provoke a gun fight (season 1 anyone?).
Leo8Skylar would rather be independent and safe, which isn't a bad or unreasonable thing. personally i view helping others a sign of strength, and their is no shame in knowing your limits (like anyone would have risked trying to save the stranger or carver, why take the long term risk?).
it all comes down to cost benefit probabilities, there is no good answer, just the one you are willing to live with.
Exactly, mate.
You. Are. Brilliant.
hat...