"Sparing" people

[-{SALT}-]

I might be discussing several spoilers, but this game has been out for a while now, so don't act surprised. For many parts of the game, if you are going to get the "good" ending, you'll have to earn all the moral points, by listenting to certain conversations, giving bullets to beggars, and going through whole segments without killing people (not every segment requires you to be a pacifist). However, there are segments where even though you chose to spare people, they logically should have died not too long afterwards.


For example, during the level "Contageon," you find that the Reds have used weaponized Ebola stolen from D6 to test on a neutral station. Soon afterwards, they came through to burn the station down as a means of "protecting the metro," when in reality, they were just speeding up the deaths. To gain a moral point at the end of the level, you have to go through without killing anyone, meaning either you ghost the whole level, or you knock everyone out. Though you may still get the moral points, some enemy NPCs do later on act like you killed everyone, even if you knocked out most of the opposition (I didn't knock out everyone, I left a few clusters alone).


Later, when you're on the surface with the Dark One, and come across a team of Reds who are looking to you, lead by a Red spy who worked with the Rangers, you have the option of knocking him out or killing him. Morals aside, even if you did spare him, he's still going to die given how you leave him lying there in game. He's out in the open, exposed to ash-filled air with no gas mask on, unconscious, and his men are unaware that you attacked him, or are all dead/unconscious themselves and also choking on toxic air, so they are in no way able to save their commanding officer. So, why was it more moral to spare him and leave him with the slower death than it would've been to simply kill him on the spot, prevent more deaths at his hand, and save him the trouble of choking to death?

[Just a horse]

They probably didn't have enough time in development to record different dialogue for a pacifist run though it would have been a lot better for the immersion if they had because it creates plot holes.

Also I just assumed the spy survived you knocking him out. I don't really remember if he was in a gas mask required area but if so it's really weird they didn't have you at least put one back on him.

I have two problems with sparing bad guys in games like this. The first is that they're usually people who have been the root cause of the unnecessary deaths of a lot of people and show no real sign of not being a danger in the future. They deserve it and it would be better for everyone if you just end them but you don't. The spy falls into this catrgory. You're red friend I feel like is more justified because there's like, a shared experience? You saved eachother's lives? There's a connection there ya'know.
The second problem Metro actually didn't commit which I thought was neat. In fallout 3 especially you're givin the option to spare the big bad guys but all the grunts up until that point you're just supposed to slaughter with no consequences. They're humans too and actually have a lot less to do with the bad stuff you're usually trying to stop but you get no negative moral score for killing them. But Metro gives you moral points for not killing any humans, grunts included. Sorta gives the message "we're all just trying to get by" instead of "we'll pretend human lives matter for about the next cutscene or so but after that it's back to kill kill kill."

Actually, Metro lets you kill the bandits straight up so they even took my first problem to mind when designing the moral system. Neat.

[Wobb the Great and Terrible!!!!!]

You don't even nearly need all the moral points.
I have played this redux version like three times, and the original version countless times before that.
When I play a "role-play" run, I kill people who I think deserve it. The only exceptions to this that I had to make to ensure the "good" ending was Pavel and Lesnitsky. When given the option to kill or spare, you kind of have to spare them, basically because the little dark one is right there and judges you on the spot.

I spared the nazi camp at the start. I figure they are just doing their job.
I spared the communist camp when escaping their base, because again they were just doing their job.
I did kill the reds in contagion, because they seemed to be enjoying their job. And their job was to wipe out a whole camp of innocent people testing a weaponised virus they were planning on using to take over the whole metro.
I killed every single one of the bandits in the bandits level, because they were just nasty evil sonsabitches
Obviously you have no choice but to kill the reds when Pavel sends them after you in red square. I have never found a way to get through there without killing. Maybe if I wasn't playing on survival ranger hardcore it may be possible?

Basically, I think that donating money to the needy whenever possible, finding all the ranger stashes scattered throughout the whole game, and then sparing Pavel and Lesnitsky, will pretty much guarantee you the "good" ending.

However, personally I prefer the "bad" ending. It makes it a nice complete story then, with Artyom dead but the metro saved from the reds, and the dark ones saved and moved away, having found something to like about humans, but still seeing the violence inherent in people in general sometimes.
That ending feels much more real to me. And definitely more moving and emotional. Artyom and the rangers gave their lives to save the metro. Which is what they had promised to do when signing up for the order I believe.

[Carmac]

Managed to get good ending in original by killing Lesnitsky, but otherwise spared almost all I could, aside few exceptions. I guess it helped to collect all other available moral points there was along the way.

[Wobb the Great and Terrible!!!!!]

I just played through again and got the bad ending.
I killed anyone I thought deserved it. This included Pavel and Lesnitsky, some communist and fascist soldiers (like the one's killing the civilians with the virus, or in the nazi prison camp where they loved making the prisoners suffer), and the bandits.
I saved the bear though, because no matter how hard I try I just can't really be cruel to animals.
I also donated to about 2/3 of the people who were asking.

[Arrrtyom]

Originally posted by Just a horse:

I have two problems with sparing bad guys in games like this. The first is that they're usually people who have been the root cause of the unnecessary deaths of a lot of people and show no real sign of not being a danger in the future. They deserve it and it would be better for everyone if you just end them but you don't. The spy falls into this catrgory. You're red friend I feel like is more justified because there's like, a shared experience? You saved eachother's lives? There's a connection there ya'know.

Agreed, though the argument is that this isn't really about "good" or "bad" endings, it's supposedly about forgiveness and vengeance. The little dark one sees what you do and follows your example; he either decides to forgive you ('good" ending) or to leave you to your fate as punishment for what you did before ("bad" ending).

Iirc the devs didn't really talk about good and bad endings, but people naturally thought that the one where Artyom dies is the bad one.

Mind you, I wasn't happy at all when I got the "bad" ending, and I replayed several chapters back and spared Lenitsky, hah. Luckily I had enough moral points to get the "good" ending after that (despite murdering every single guard, hm)

[Kuruseida]

Ok, the first 'example' I don't get it and dont remember something like that...
second one, if that one is Pavel you actually put a gas mask on him, if not him then I don't remember. Anyways since you don't care about spoilers: If that's true what you say they're not 'actual plot-holes' since the Dark-one probably didn't assume some thing the kid won't realize about it, the point is that even if that guy is going to die 1h later or the day after today, it matters not cause the kid know that you saved him, you're the good guy blablablah = Good Ending

[Kuruseida]

Btw, you don't need to be really careful with the 'moral points' & stuff, if you save Letsnisky, Pavel, the mother-bird mutant & her eggs, and spare the mutant teddy bear you're doing it great. Just don't kill half of the total of killable guys available on the game and you're done, no sidequests no ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ beggars just shot them in the *** face GG easy



Fun fact: you did have to be REALLY careful with all the moral points on vanilla game ;_;