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
Make me feel the need to make the choice first, if you give me time to think about it then I am going to find all the flaws with this handfisted move. They failed hard by not forcing any sense of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ urgency in the scene >_> Honestly the game was doing fine untl that part.
PS: The hand prints in the glass and the injuries on 'mom' makes me think the mutant six grader took advantage of her.
Thankfully [massive end game spoilers please don't mouse over until you're finished] it doesn't matter since the timewarp undoes it.
I chose the dad since for some reason i thought it would be less gross than pulling off mom's arm.
If I killed dad, I'd risk to lose both parents. If I killed mother, I'd be certain my dad is alive.
From a behavioural economics perspective, it's a very well-constructed dilemma. Gamers are constantly complaining that they want their choices to matter, but this one doesn't. It makes literally zero difference. And yet, it is still one of the hardest choices I've ever seen in a game.
At its core, its a variant of the trolley problem. The trolley problem is a common ethical dilemma: a trolley is about to hit some people on the tracks. You can throw a switch to put the trolley on a different track, but then it will kill a single person on the other track. How many people need to be on the first track before you will throw the switch?
This scene, however, alters things a bit. You have a switch that will kill a helplessly restrained but uninjured person with a laser, or you can fatally mutilate a heavily injured person with your bare hands.
But that's just the theoretical construct: the reality is that no matter what you do, it is "walk over there and press A." It's just a question of whether you press A on the left, or on the right. But you don't get to just sit and watch the trolley plow into someone, then claim your hands are clean. You HAVE to be the agent of destruction.
If this is just a game, your choice makes no difference at all. It has to be more than a game for your choice to matter, and even then your choice only matters to you. It's a test of how moral and ethical you are. There's no right answer; both answers are wrong. There's no better answer; both answers are EQUALLY wrong. And the consequences of your answer are absolutely identical, so you can't even use the principle of greatest benefit to make your decision.
That's what makes it so hard. It's the proverbial worst choice ever, between a Snickers bar and an identical Snickers bar. The only way you can justify it is by inventing a reason that has no basis in reality.
So the question is, given a choice that nothing can help you make, how quickly and easily can you just choose arbitrarily?
Human beings simply aren't designed for that. It literally never happens in nature.
never have i seen a more pointless "choose one because video game" and no amount of 2deep4u is going to make it any less pointless or dumb