Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
http://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/1621724915819620598/
From an ethical standpoint, I simply can't see how I can justify sacrificing so many lives to save a single person whom I love.
I'm not a big fan of applying utilitarian logic when it comes to dealing with human lives. But that is when the numbers conflict with some other moral principle, not when it does with such selfish motives like personal attachment to a specific person.
Undoubtedly, among the many casualties that my choice would incur can be found another 'Chloe' or 'Kate' to some other people. And many children must be denied their future by the choice as well.
I simply can't think that the fact I don't know their individual faces would make it any more morally acceptable, trading their lives to save just one person I like.
On a side note, I was surprised to see how many others have chosen the 'Bae' ending and also believe that it's the most logical one.
When I first finished the game, I was like "how can anyone choose otherwise?", so I simply assumed they were overcome with emotions and made such a choice despite of their best judgement, until I came here to read their posts.
I'm not trying to criticize those people or claim their choice was wrong, as they must have their own reasons with which I might or might not agree.
But it's surely interesting to see how much differently people think and feel from each other.
Honestly though, if I were to indulge myself in imagining the best possible outcome regardless of what the writers might have intended with their story, I'd rather argue that Max must have many other photographs than the one she tore apart, considering her attachment to the camera.
So, she will regret her decision after the funeral and decide to try it again. And this time, she will jump into some arbitrary past and simply call Chloe over the phone and warn her not to meet Nathan.
Then she can just make another call to the police or newspaper, warning them about the storm and persuade them to evacuate people to the lighthouse when it happens.
Of course, they will think her to be mad at first. But with her rewinding power, it'd be easy to prove she can indeed 'predict' the future, like "imagine any number between 1 to 100", and so on.
Maybe the storm is just a one time thing, or maybe not. But it does not matter as long as Max's taking sufficient number of photos so she can revive Chloe as many times as she likes.
So, nobody dies, Max and Chloe will live happily ever after. The grand happy ending for all.
I believe though the people that are picking this scenario are also not developing quite the same attachment to Chloe as others who are picking the Sacrifice Bay ending. Those people are not only sympathetic, but empathetic to Max's decision to keep Chloe alive. Maybe having a desire to redo a decision in their own lives that could of possibly save someone close to them.
I'll use an example in my own life. Although, I have used many other examples of why I picked the Sacrifice Bay ending (had a lengthy discussion with Fender in his link), this is the biggest. I just have avoided using it as my justification until now.
One of my friends, Jason, was killed by a drunk driver, along with his girlfriend and their two year old daughter about six years ago. For a long time I thought if there was something I could of done to prevent it. Anything at all! Even something as simple as just calling him up, delaying the point in which he would meet that other vehicle at the intersection when this "guy" ran a stop sign. I have come to terms with it over the years, but playing this game made me think about it again.
What if I had the type of power Max had? Would I use it to save them? Of course I would! Now throw in a similar twist the game had...what if my saving my friend resulted in this guy killing not only another family, but more people? Say a father, mother and four of their kids. I did think about this for a long time and asked myself could I live with that? Six people for three? People who have loved ones who will miss them as well?
The answer I arrived at was...yes I could sacrifice them. I would have guilt about it for a while, that I have no doubt, but just being with my friend again and watching his kid grow old would all be worth it.
Not saying everyone who picked Sacrifice Chloe has had a traumatic event like the one above happen or worst, or people who picked Sacrifice Bay haven't lost anyone close to them. I'm just saying everyone's individual real life stories are factoring into the ending choices.
I do think a lot of people who picked Sacrifice Bay saw Chloe in the end of the game as someone close to them in real life. Their best friend, a sibling, boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife, their child, or someone who is the most significant person in their life in Chloe's place, picturing themselves going through all the things Max had to, and asked themselves "Could I really watch them die again?" I said no to that. Even picturing Arcadia Bay as the little town I grew up in. My answer was still no. Not saying I wouldn't have some remorse, but still would let the storm come.
Actually, that was my understanding at first, of so many people have chosen the 'Bae' ending. That is, Chloe has become Max's 'number one priority' to borrow her own words, so she simply couldn't let her go no matter what.
I think it's quite plausible explanation storywise, and I believe that's actually what the writers intended with the sacrifice Chloe ending. Of course, I prefer the other ending personally for the reason I stated in another thread, but at least I can agree with the interpretation and understand why some people prefer that ending to the one I chose.
What I found to be interesting though, was those who think that the 'Bae' ending to be not only something Max had to choose because of her emotions for Chloe but also something more logical, or that which is better suited for the overall theme of the story than the other ending.
Though I can't agree with such a view personally, but I found it to be quite interesting to realize how people have so much different ways to interprete the same story and still love it like I do anyways.
I feel it like to be such a situation when there are two people seriously ill from being poisoned with certain fatal venom and you only have one vial of antidote.
While it makes sense to argue that it would be unfair to blame you for not being able to save both of them, it doesn't really absolve you from the moral responsibility to choose which person to save and which to sacrifice with the best of your ability.
If one claims one doesn't need to 'sacrifice' anyone simply because one's giving the vial to one person is an act of 'saving', I have to say it's simply an euphemism since whatever it is called doesn't really change the fact that the other person needs to die because of the choice.
That's a little too much. First of all, we cannot be sure that Joyce is dead. And even if she is, I think that Chloe, especially a new, grown-up Chloe we see in Bae ending is even stronger than she was. And she's got Max. So in my eyes Chloe's suicide is very, very unlikely.
And even though we can't be sure that Joyce was actually dead as you said, but at least it is clear that it's a very likely outcome. Otherwise, Chloe's pleading to Max that her mother and even David have more reasons to live than herself would lose much of its meaning.
It was a very heartfelt moment for me because it was the first time Chloe called David 'father', and acted in such a selfless manner. It shows like Max, she has become more mature, more responsible through the time they spent together since they were reunited.
I've seen some people trying to justify the 'Bae' choice by saying "we don't know how many people were dead because we don't' see too many bodies" or things like that, but it's only lessening the dramatic impact of the story, because if the stake weren't so high with the final choice, there's nothing really dramatic about it.
Chloe's final speech can be felt so emotional only because she knew very well that if she didn't sacrifice herself, many innocent people including Joyce and David would likely die. So she decided to act selflessly for the first time, in her own words.
If we are to fool ourselves in thinking that the storm didn't mean to be that bad, Chloe's action would only be interpreted as stupid, if she decided to sacrifice herself for nothing, or something exaggerated and needlessly hysterical if she made all that fuss even when she knew that the storm woulnd't cause too many casualties.
But once again, I totally respect your choice and your argumentation, but will ask to treat my thoughts the same.
If I express my disagreements, it's only to offer my own opinion and maybe persuade others, rather than to dictate my own choice over other people's.
Everyone has a right to interprete the story in whatever manner he or she may see fit. And probably that's what makes such choice based games so interesting to play, or why I'm still lurking in this forum when I already finished the game quite long ago.
Amen. I would sign every word.
I just dont see what Max gets fro this experience if she sacrifices Chloe....there is not reason to get her powers and all she ends up with is more pain than she would have.
if Max never got her powers then Chloe would still die, Nathan (then Jefferson) would get caught, Rachel would be found and the storm wouldnt happen.