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
It's a pretty straight forward decision actually. Modern day science allows us the luxury to build a containment wing in a hospital and hope that there's a cure to patch up the sick. But two thousand years ago the responsible thing to do was to have every potential disease carrier put down permanently on the spot and burned. Kinda surprised the priest and the soldiers didn't catch whatever that was by coming into contact with the last survivors.
meet markus again
Aha! So I did make the correct decision with regards to the villagers then...
I keep thinking about restarting and letting the family die, but the binary option of 'kill innocent family' or 'let them live (with the implication they will freely mix with everyone else)' is a poor choice. Ideally one might say, quarantene the family for a time, and let nature take its course, for instance. The game also seems to say that letting the family live is the morally correct choice (the oracle criticises you if you let them die, I see - I haven't reached this but I watched a video on youtube where she does so) - despite it making your home a diseased zone.
I have read that this quest also has other consequences later on - that the plague reaches Athens because of your choice here?? Can anyone confirm if the quest's consequences stretch on like this?
Anyway, as I say this quest has cast a shadow over my experience and I am not playing the game as much as I was as a result, because I find it harder to enjoy the beautiful world. Curious what everyone else thinks.
Hard to implement, and this doesn't even touch on the dissonance of being concerned about one family vs the masses you slaughter in general gameplay.
But this sort of choice/consequence doesn't feel like an advancement in game writing to me.
I guess I have to go with a kind of headcannon in this situation, which is the scenario I described above and where, therefore, the likely situation is the island wouldn't get infected (so I choose to let the family die and kind of ignore that choice, pretending I'd done what I describe above, and just look at the outcome). It kind of feels like sloppy game design. But this criticism is to all games, I guess, where they insist on giving these catastrophic choices with limited options to deal with them.