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
The game is supposed to make you question your motives.
If you played Warhammer 40k, you'd know that the righteous would be cleansed if they opposed you, and so with faith as your shield and fury as your conviction, you
well. that may be going too far. But I think that would be totally worth it to be able to mix the extremes of both paths. I don't know if it would fit in the genre if the Dreadnoughts were really automatonic sarcophagai, though.
You don`t have to. Maybe that is what you are missing. To clarify - i mean you don`t have to go far down the hole. Its not like someone is forcing you to sign laws all the time
You're right, you don't have to, it's simply do or die. You have that choice. However should you choose to live then yes you have to.
As for the statement that it isn't suggested. When it says "did we go too far" Just that question is suggestive. It's like saying. "We cooked the tuna, and we ate the tuna....did we go too far?" The question is rediculous because you did what was expected not if for example "We killed all the tuna in the world, and we ate some, did we go too far?" That would be an appropriate question.
The game is designed to sow the seeds of doubt and encouragement at similar intervals, to disrupt things as they are progressing with something that is relatively meaningless only to later have it instigate something else, etc.
It would seem that going to the extremes is OK for some people, because the option was there to do so. Maybe it feels unfulfilling to leave some sort of unlockable option unlocked? again, that's human condition stuff being tested by the game.
let's just hope they don't sell everyone's initial choices out to facebook cambrigica for the next election season.
We're all aware that you can choose to not choose. So your statement is very condescending, however that's the worst option not only in the game, but also in reality. Having faith in something unifies people. This is how Socalist Nazis can gain in power as easily as any religion.
In an extreme scenario like we're presented in Frostpunk, or in any extreme you need to believe in something greater than something. In less extreme scenarios we inately want to believe in something greater than ourselves. That is a part of human nature.
Well usually there are laws that one ought to sign to aid in survival such as more rations/overcrowding to help out the sick. Amuptations or sustain life though I've never understood the purpose of just sustaining life when you could get them abled body again. Also the hardest decision may be child labor. The extra workforce could be essential for survival however children are more accident prone, weaker, and more fragile than adults.
However once you get through the usful ones then you come up with to the extra useful ones. The ones that have a strong moral tilt to it. Such as becoming the supreme overlord god of your kingdom. Sure people will die, but then you can work them to the bone without complaint. I call it extra useful not because it is more useful, but as an additional item that isn't strictly necessary. There are a few like that, and when weighing those leftovers to be of greater benefit to society or not don't meet the standard more often than not. I'd only use them as a roleplaying too or for acheivements.
Right, but every one defines extremes differently, even for the same circumstances. Then, some can get results with their definitions and some can`t.
On the point of your OP, i kind of agree with you its confusing. The thing is - game doesn`t really differentiate between many choices you`ve made and shows mostly the same texts. Still i think the question "Did we go too far, was it worth it?" by itself is fine. But don`t question yourself - you did what you had to and survived - that is my answer for any outcome, because it is better that doing nothing.
If you can handle the initial Medical Post capacity issues, the Sustain Life law will get the (would-be) amputees able-bodied again for much less research and resources investment. It also prevents unncessary amuputations any time you hit full capacity later on.
I think it pairs best with unlocking Houses of Healing early, since you can put off (or skip) research into the Factory, Infirmary, and Prosthetics (9 techs total) in favor of quicker Resource upgrades. That combination also allows you to completely remove demand for Engineers on anything except research or quest-related assignments, which is a huge benefit for the Fall of Winterhome.
About the laws, as was mentioned here, choosing either faith or order does not mean, that you have to become dictator. If you stick with low tier laws only, you can get good ending with either one. Faith is better imo, as it provides you more options to raise hope, productivity, heating and healing + temple effect can convince londoners to stay, while order gives you option to better solve thefts (with faith you cannot do much, as faith keepers are considered bad by ending) and if you manage to build guard stations near most of houses, you can benefit from lower cooldown of patrol. Hovewer its somewhat easy to forget about it.
Bottom line is, you can reach good ending with either order or faith, you just must not activate certain laws and dont make harsh decisions.
Ahhh, so there is a "good" ending. I didn't consider faithkeepers as anything other than monks. Apparently they're sort of like law enforcement, which also I don't see as a bad thing finding theifs and whatnot. So long as they aren't persecuting people for herasy and the like.
Stalin's Socialism? Really? Because newsflash, you're basically socialist anyway, because that's how societies in a struggle for survival like this fundamentally work.
Both Faith and Order start out benign and then get increasingly authoritarian and despotic the farther down you go the rabbit hole. By any means, Faith Keepers (ie a de facto police force) or a Prison system or some mild propaganda is all benign enough. But when you start creating Stasi-esque informer networks and beating up prisoners/using violent public penance, you're starting down a pretty dark path. And The New Order/The New Faith is pretty clearly you using the extreme situation to establish yourself as a full-blown dictator. So it's up to you how far you go down either path.
PS: And of those options only one makes sense? Erm, what? Because order, ideology, and political propaganda can be tools just as powerful as religious fervour when it comes to organising the masses. Hell, "Stalin's Socialism" is what allowed Russia to survive and triumph in the most apocalyptic war in human history.
Sustain Life means you keep the gravely ill in medical posts or care houses until you have an infirmary or house of healing, which can heal the gravely ill with no risk of amputations.
Faith Keepers aren't considered bad. I repeatedly got "We didn't cross the line" with them active.