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
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The answer here is extremely simple, but overly complicated. Simple when one can think, but gets complicated if one can't. The reason why the one who should actually be able to do it, can't do it, lays in “emotional vs. logical”.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/1734336452564701447/?ctp=228#c5446505912990657255
As long as one doesn't understand what is going on, and that implies understanding of how our brains work and exactly why do we decide, what we decide in certain situations, it'll all end up at this level ...
https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/1734336452564701447/?ctp=209#c3003297945118300601
That's exactly “emotional vs. logical”, “rational vs. irrational” thinking problem and why it is important to understand how our brains work, before we act. The very same process applies to every of our decisions, no matter how trivial.
Even in the case where one would say, X is a “love of my life” and I prefer X over Y, the process itself isn't done.
X is a “love of my life” — true — today. Will it still be in 6 months, in 1 year ... will that X still see it as of today on a day Z? We all know how many people marry the “love of their life”, and a couple of years later, they're divorced.
The game was made to make people start thinking of the decision-making process, and it's worth, about the choices that we have to make and their consequences, and it does it very well.
That's also why there's only the choice between “bad” and “even worse”.
Either one feels guilty because of one, or one feels guilty because of 5'000. One always must feel guilty, and it's only the matter of the own conscience — which one weights heavier. And the one who does not feel any guilt in such a situation ... it should/would get locked in, and never ever released out while too dangerous.
On a side note: No need to worry about sacrificing Chloe or the town ... you can't get rid of the thing even if you really, really want. How could you get rid of the digital drawing?
Probably the only way would be to remove the game from all stores where it ever appeared, destroy all the copies of it on every computer where it was ever installed and get rid of all those who made it, to minimize the risk of them remaking it, and for the good end, one would also have to get rid of all the others which have the capabilities to remake it, just for the case that nobody even comes to idea.
Not very practicable. 😉
Some chose to stay with Chloe out of emotion. But there are also some who claim to have chosen to stay with Chloe out of logic.
For some, staying with chloe can be seen as technical 'game-logic'. You are saving Chloe 80 percent of the games time. Your mission is to save Chloe. So, to end it by chosing for Chloe would be a logical ending as that was what the game constantly reminded you to do. It's cold. But that is logic at times. As it can be seen emotional to opt for saving Arcadia Bay. Or logical. It truelly depends.
So to answer with "Who the hell sacrifices..."
The answer is: Me. And every else who did that and believed they had their own perpective of why of how. There aren't wrong answers here. Just like those who saved Arcadia because of their reasons. My reasons... I had many. Don't want to waste explaining. because it is not my mission to make you want to change your perpective. I respect that.
My counter-question would be: Who the hell judges others for their own perspective of this story, and who are you to think what is right or wrong?
No, it can not be vice versa and in my link, it was clearly to be seen exactly why.
Since the correct logical conclusion depends on the correct premise, manipulating premises (reasoning fallacy) will imminently lead to the wrong conclusions, that seemingly make sense, even if they don't. That's called pseudo-logic. Every psychiatrist should be able to explain to you how it works. Pseudo-logic is what many people here do, when they try to excuse their decisions (epistemic justification).
Logic is never wrong, however the premises often are and that's why 80 ~ 95 % of human population is incapable of logical thinking.
If you are interested in learning more about it, please check the validity part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
https://www.essaysforstudent.com/essays/Thinking-and-Decision-Making/19923.html
The logic behind is the same, only the example used is little different.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/1734336452564701447/?ctp=244#c3094509155620349860
And on another tangent, I didn't really buy the bit about Max causing the storm. Max had the vision of the storm before even using or knowing about her powers, and if there was an entity (God or whoever) who gave Max her powers to save a town by NOT using them to save her friend, then I very much felt like throwing in the spanners into such sick, perverted schemes. Just don't gimme those powers and save the town yourself, jerk. :P
(Is that really so illogical?)
That's the exact thing with absolutely every decision that you ever made in your real life and that's the exact thing to learn — your decisions are unimportant and the best decision you can make is just “the seemingly best at the given moment”, since nobody will ever know how any decision will end up. Seemingly best right now can easily be fatal a few seconds later.
I also wouldn't feel comfortable saving Chloe instead of the town, just to find out that she eventually found a “real love of her life” half a year later. If you deny that possibility, then it has a name — “belief”. 😉
However, your reasoning is wrong in one other important point — if it had been a real situation instead of a game, it wouldn't even be no warranty that the Chloe would end up dead, because Max could have changed her mind in the very last second and press the alarm knob and Chloe would get shot or not, Max could have picked up the broom beside and try to hit Nathan from behind and Chloe would get shot or not, or Max would get shot instead of Chloe, or nobody at all would get shot ... it's not even sure if Max would be able to make one more time-jump and survive it ... remember her nose bleeding during rewinding? That could have resulted in a stroke just as well. Hope you get what I mean. 😉
Whatever you decided in the game is OK — if you understood why exactly you choose whatever you choose.
Max didn't have any powers, so no need to worry about that part — she didn't get any, she didn't lose any.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/2793874853441406420/?ctp=2
Well, yes and no.
Because in the moment you decide, the whole reason for going back in time is to _not_ save Chloe. Whether or not you can change your mind is a bit moot.
The decision is (a) either go back and try saving the town by unsaving Chloe or (b) leave things as they are in that moment and do nothing more.
And while in either case you could argue that you're not actually killing anybody, because you just have to do nothing (either do nothing to save Chloe from Nathan or do nothing to save Arcadia Bay from the storm), not saving Chloe is actually more active on your part, because you already DID save her. Now you have to actively go back to unsave her. That is more like pulling the trigger on Chloe than just doing nothing to save the town, when you don't even know if having Chloe dead _would_ actually stop the storm.
So, actually, the only thing that weighs on my conscience a little (oh, and btw. my Max and Chloe aren't lovers, "just" besties) is that Chloe actually wanted to sacrifice herself. She's really the only person who can decide that and I didn't do what she asked me to that time around ... but sorry ... couldn't kill off my best friend again ... sue me :P
I agree, though, there are valid reasonings for both choices, so there's never going to be a winner in this argument (which is incidentally part of the beauty of the game). I'm just arguing for the sake of showing, that it's not just a lovey-dovey-emo decision. For me, it was part loyalty as a friend, part one-in-the-hand-is-worth-two-in-the-bush reasoning, part giving fate or the powers that be the finger and doing the opposite of what they expect of me, just because :P
Of course it's way easier to sacrifice just one human for the sake of the whole town if you don't have that strong feelings toward that person. That would make sense.
It's all in the feelings. Not the logic or sense.
AND WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SONIC HAIR???!
There's a catch in this one — “VALID reasoning”.
“Valid reasoning” can easily be misunderstood — “Valid reasoning” implies “must be rational and CAN NOT be emotional”! That's why the importance of how the brain works.
Now, if we can agree that any of both choices are OK, without categorically claiming how ONLY the choice “A” or ONLY the choice “B” is the “only right choice” — everything is fine.
Whatever you chose will only have a consequence for your own conscience. Nobody else is going to judge you. If you say, I prefer Chloe over the town it's perfectly fine — it's your own conscience which will judge over you, and you'll either live happy until you're 120+ or you'll jump from the roof, because you suddenly realized that what you did was wrong.
As of the rest, no not really ...
This here has two different parts.
The first part is what we started to discuss inside this thread.
This one is a fact.
Beside the things I already wrote above, this one has almost infinite number of possible variations ... anything that can go wrong after Murphy's law. The catch in this one is pretty simple: even if Max survives one more time-jump and none of previously brought as an example happens, there are still too many other things that could have happened — the catch is due to the exact timing.
Even going back to the exact same time and place, with an intention to do nothing this time, is not a warranty that the action will succeed, because of the timing.
Another example: Max, as clumsy as she was, touches that broom in the corner and Nathan hears it, lets his fist kiss Chloe's face and looks around the corner ... that brings the whole assortment of new possible endings, in some of which Chloe dies, or not, Max dies, or not, Nathan dies or not ... and it's all about a second or three, or a step or two!
The other one ...
Active vs. passive acting was in fragment discussed here, the long writing about it probably got deleted at some point ... or it's maybe still dig somewhere there, but I was unable to find it ...
https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/1734336452564701447/?ctp=206#c3003297945113680715
https://steamcommunity.com/app/319630/discussions/0/1734336452564701447/?ctp=207#c3003297945116722959
Just super short: the important here is to understand that doing nothing at all is also doing something (passive acting)! Namely, if you have a possibility to prevent somebody else getting shot WITHOUT putting your own life in danger, you MUST prevent it according to the law, according to existing ethics & morality standpoints and according to your own conscience (this is now without time-travel on purpose, because you know the future, and you try to change it).
Now imagine the situation where you are standing beside a red button, and you see the tied up person struggling on a sinking platform the emerges water ...
Doing nothing means you are passively killing that person, which is making you an active killer (let jurisdiction name it properly — the result is the same) by not acting in a situation in which you could have easily prevented somebody's death. Now, if there was some eye-witness around, you are clearly legally doing something wrong, ethically & morally obviously too, but if there was nobody who could see it, it's only up to you and your conscience to choose the “right” solution for you.
The game itself is a pretty bad example for such a discussion, because the game itself always suggest that Max IS responsible for the tornado and those responsible for the death of whomever. As soon as one changes any given premise, the things start getting (too) complicated ...
True, but my point was that there are differences by degrees.
If somebody shoots somebody else out in the street and you don't stop it, it's still the person with the gun who carries most of the responsibility. You failed to help, that's terrible, but the killer is still the killer. Or if a blackermailer threatens to kill somebody and you don't pay the ransom ... terrible, but the one who kills the victim is still the blackmailer.
If a storm wipes out a town and you didn't stop it, you didn't stop it, but you didn't bring it about, either.
If you actively turn back time so that Nathan can kill Chloe again in the past, it is _you_ who does it. Without you, it couldn't happen.
There's a difference in degrees of responsibility. Doesn't make it all alright, but there's a difference.
As for the game suggesting Max is responsible for the storm, well, Warren does, but he might just be wrong. Personally, I don't think Max has any conclusive evidence, and I can't see why she has to act on such a fragile theory, or because some people try to guilt-trip her.
And on another note ... if my best friend was seriously pondering killing me off for some other people ... well, let's just say I'd hope my friends don't have a price tag on my head, like they'd sacrifice 124 other people for me, but starting at 125 they'll kill me instead. (In all fairness, though, Chloe practically asked Max, soooo that's a difference, too.)
I agree on different types and that's why “let jurisdiction name it properly”.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-criminallaw/chapter/9-2-murder/
Makes little difference for the end result if Max is doing a “murder” by letting Chloe die, or a “manslaughter” for letting Arcadia Bay getting wiped away.
I wrote that the game is a bad example for that discussion and I constructed a simple example just for the sake of better understanding of that “passive vs. active” acting, since this understanding is crucial for the understanding of the scene in the game.
The term “passive acting” is fluid and not a fixed term, and it transforms according to the given situation into active, or it stays passive. It depends on the facts/premises.
Example:
Max (actively) decides to go back and let Chloe getting shot (passive).
Max (actively) decides not to go back and let the town getting wiped out (passive).
The jurisdiction, lawyers and the courts need to agree on the exact naming and the degree of her crime, but it makes a little difference to Chloe or the town, what jurisdiction term “deleted” them.
1. The game suggests it all the time. You are free to interpret it as you wish. It's just a game.
2. “If your best friend was seriously pondering killing you off for some other people”, it would do it because of “logical” or “rational” thinking.
“If your best friend was seriously pondering killing some other people off for you”, it would do it because of “emotional” or “irrational” thinking.
The “price tag” will be paid by his conscience.
Why?
A. NOBODY has the right to judge over the worth of HUMAN LIFE. 1 vs. 125 HL's.
If your friend choose you, it would break the rule 125 times.
If your friend choose the others, it would break the rule 1 time.
Breaking the rule 1 time is better than breaking the rule 125 times.
Breaking the rule 1 time is easier on conscience than breaking the rule 125 times.
His conscience will have to deal with that “worth of human life” 126 times. His conscience will have to judge your worth — are you worth 2 HL's, 5, 10, 50 ... 125 HL's?
Every single person in AB is one Chloe and every single person in AB has (at least one) its own Max — you shouldn't doubt it, because nobody (incl. you) has a right to judge over the worth of other people's worth.
And then, you can also think of it the other way round.
Charly, the poor fishermen from Arcadia Bay, or a student, policeman ... Do you want to die just because some dork decided that her loser friend is more worth than you and the rest of the town together?
B. “Logic” (and those “rational thinking”) does not have friends or enemies, it does not care for the right or wrong, for ethics or morality, ... you name it. It cares of logic.
Imagine it as a rain. Does the rain ask you, or does it care for your wishes, opinion, feelings, emotions ... And if you would ask the whole planet at the same time, if it should start raining in 5 minutes, the half of the planet would want it to rain, and the other half wouldn't.
Because everybody would have the own emotionally based logic explanation, and because everybody would prefer own selfish wish over the wishes of others.
Even if there would be some ALMIGHTY God up there, who would have a final word over the rain / no rain, it couldn't make everybody happy at the same time, from the obvious reason.
Almighty, but despite, can't make everybody happy? That's called “paradox”.