A better ending... (SPOILERS)

[darion350]

When Max rammed Chum into the Mover it left a bad taste in my mouth. Sure, Chum had betrayed Max by taking the Magnum Opus (he had his reasons, since Max had insinuated he was going to leave Chum by filling his space in the back with fuel tanks) and had betrayed Hope and Glory (by being tortured) but Max killing Chum like that just didn't feel right. Chum had been by his side the entire time (mostly) and even though he complained, he followed through even into places he was sure they shouldn't go. Not only that, but he gave Max the Magnum Opus and helped him throughout his journey with his amazing harpoon skills.

So did he really need to make Chum ride the Magnum into the Mover? No. I think it was way out of character. Here's how I think they could have ended it.

Instead of plowing the Magnum and Chum into the Mover (which he should have realized was a stupid move since he didn't know where his Interceptor was or if it was in one piece, and not only that but his original plan was to take the Magnum Opus with him to the Plains of Silence since he was going to fill the back with fuel tanks), he should have waited for Scrotus to appear. When he careened out the back in Max's newly modded Interceptor, appropriately named the Interscroter, an epic duel would have commence between Max's new and old vehicles. After Max destroys Scrotus, he takes back his prized Interceptor and after ripping off the mods Scrotus installed proceeds to drive off into the distance, leaving Chum and his Magnum Opus behind.

If anything, it would be a more fitting ending, in my opinion. Max isn't known for killing his allies, not matter what trouble they got him into.

[Brick Wallbody]

I can agree with that. Max spared the life of a non-ally in Beyond the Thunderdome even though it would further his journey simply because the man was disabled. Max is indeed mad but he isn't a savage. So how much more would he care for the life of a friend?

[Kain]

In the movies Max never kills unless absolutely necessary, even in Mad Max 2 he tries to spare most enemies he best. The only movie he's actually cruel is the first one, but you can understand that since he is on a revenge trip. The Max that spared Blaster would never kill Chum in that way, by that point Chum would be basically his friend, in the movies Max tries to stay distant, but he does have a soft heart when he's 'forced' to stay allied to someone, he never uses them like in the game at least not later once he gets to know them better and he most certainly doesn't kill them either.

But do like me, see this as a good game, not a good Mad Max game and you'll be fine with it.

[Dog_in_Car]

He didn't care about Chum after he showed he wasn't trustworthy. Chum ceased being an ally when he stole the car and left Max for dead

[Kain]

Stole the car? Chum BUILT the car, the car was his, Max was going to install fuel barrels on the car and ditch Chum, Chum did nothing wrong, Max was the bastard on that.

[Ghostwalker71]

I completely agree with the OP. the ending was just so out of character for max. the two scenes that I most dislike, were where max leaves the woman and child, he would have left but would not have acted the way the cut scene played out, and he would never have sacrificed the car or the best mechanic to ram the mover off the cliff.

[Kain]

The problem is when he's rescuing Glory and just LEAVES the other children behind, it makes no sense.

[Digby]

To be fair. At that point Max had gone completely off the deep end.
He was hallucinating and all sorts.

[Dog_in_Car]

Originally posted by Fenrir:

Stole the car? Chum BUILT the car, the car was his, Max was going to install fuel barrels on the car and ditch Chum, Chum did nothing wrong, Max was the bastard on that.

uh no? It was just as much Max's car as it was Chums. Max is the one who provided Chum with all of the parts, Chum just assembled them. In fact is was probably more Maxs car than Chums. And Chum still left Max and Glory for the buzzards which is inexcusable.

[FelixTheCrazy]

Toughen up Sally. Max is a hard man in a hard time. He is a man of singular purpose. At first it's to get the V8 to get to the plains of silence. Then in the end it's about revenge. I saw no issues with his actions based upon the world around him. Chum chose his death, Max only facilitated it. At least that's how I see it.

[Digby]

Originally posted by Ryuu-senpai:

Food for thought:

Trolley problem[en.wikipedia.org]
The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics. The general form of the problem is this: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?

There is no possibility for debate.
Based on available information the only option that you could choose is to pull the lever.
Anything else is blatant cowardice and/or sociopathic behaviour.

[Aegis]

Originally posted by Jet:

Originally posted by Ryuu-senpai:

Food for thought:

There is no possibility for debate.
Based on available information the only option that you could choose is to pull the lever.
Anything else is blatant cowardice and/or sociopathic behaviour.

Nope. That test is all about numbers. Basically you're suggesting that the lives of 5 unknown people are worth more than the lives of 1 unknown person. But a person's worth isn't measured by their mere existence - what if it were 5 criminals vs 1 innocent?

The only way to 'win' that game is not to play and rationalize that fate created the situation and fate will resolve it :D

[Hustler One]

Originally posted by Jet:

Originally posted by Ryuu-senpai:

Food for thought:

There is no possibility for debate.
Based on available information the only option that you could choose is to pull the lever.
Anything else is blatant cowardice and/or sociopathic behaviour.

You clearly didn't read/don't understand the dilemma. If you pull the lever, you're directly responsible for someone's death, making you a murderer. If you don't pull the lever, five people die, but you are not directly responsible. By doing nothing you save one, but murder none. By doing something you murder one, but save five.

[Aegis]

Oh, and re: the OT - I'm kinda torn - Max was on a revenge trip spurred on by guilt and the voices of Hope and Glory - Scrotus had to die and Chum (who'd left him to die in the Underdunes) was getting in the way.

It kind-of works but personally I'd have preferred to see Chum die at the hands of the bad guys and Max avenge him too. Given the corner Avalanche painted themselves into I'm not too dissatisfied but the writing was sloppy and the final battle against Scrotus was disappointing (mind you, all the boss battles were bad).

The game's at it's best when you're roaming the Wastelands as both the hunter and hunted making your own story up as you go - the scripted story really needed some more work but I still enjoyed the game immensely. Finished the main story now but I've still got some loose ends to tie up so after 60 hours I'm still having fun with it - hope we get some DLC!

[Digby]

Originally posted by Aegis:

Nope. That test is all about numbers. Basically you're suggesting that the lives of 5 unknown people are worth more than the lives of 1 unknown person. But a person's worth isn't measured by their mere existence - what if it were 5 criminals vs 1 innocent?

The only way to 'win' that game is not to play and rationalize that fate created the situation and fate will resolve it :D

The criminal/innocent factor is unknown information and there utterly irrelevant.
The scenario points out only that there five people on one track and only one person on another.
That one person could be Stalin.

Originally posted by Hustler One:

You clearly didn't read/don't understand the dilemma. If you pull the lever, you're directly responsible for someone's death, making you a murderer. If you don't pull the lever, five people die, but you are not directly responsible. By doing nothing you save one, but murder none. By doing something you murder one, but save five.

I perfectly understand the proposed scenario.
But inaction makes you just as much a murderer. If not more since due to your inaction five people are dead.

The fact of the matter is that killing one to save five is perfectly acceptable and indeed the moral thing to do.
Killing five to save one is utterly unacceptable.

[Kain]

This debate is completely pointless. As a member of the Dark Brotherhood I would pull the lever so I could kill the other five personally, surely one of them is my target.