sersafir

Yeah, I agree with that. But there's also another plot hole as a result. Also:

My previous computer died, and I was very far in. I think it was about ~2-3 years ago so tons of my data was lost. Anyway; I've noticed a massive change in the game. Prologue: A couple lost features I miss: First 4 chapters: Chapter 5: Ch 6: Another thing I recall that went differently: Erik's love letter quest ended in failure in my previous run. Honestly it feels like an almost entirely new game, which makes resetting feel much nicer! Much of the story so far is similar, but far less dark and gloomy. Each area feels a bit more episodic with how quick the pacing has changed. Personally I think it's mixed. For every reason I find that I might dislike the changes I find another reason that I like them. Overall I am definitely having fun and thanks for so many of the nice changes! How does everyone feel about the changes?

EDIT: I thought I was stuck and unable to proceed but the keyhole was slightly obscured from Clara's arm for the red key. My mistake.

I found mine in an empty town you should inevitably find if you progress the story.

You do if you wanna feel any real tension in these moral dilemmas. The game weights decisions between rational and irrational; an anime protagonist is usually completely irrational but sometimes rational, a normal person is... usually rational but yeah. It's not that I'm "imagining prejudice against logical philosophy." I'll admit I can't view the world from any lens other than my own, but neither can you am I right? If you felt the choices were well balanced I hope you enjoyed them. Everything above, should be noted as my opinion. I can only speak with my own personal experience behind the wheel. I assume I replied with the seeming context of arguing against your choice because I read you felt saving her was only slightly more correct than not. Either that or I misread it. Can't remember. Tactless? Sure, but I'd say also fairly accurate. It takes extreme faith to assume a corrupt cop will make amends when he's rescued from the consequences of his actions.. I hate to be that guy, but I'll start by pointing out technically avatar isn't anime; it's American origin. Next I'll say, you're right, it is entirely subjective opinion. I'm not arguing what I'm saying is objectively true. I'm arguing in my opinion it felt too one sided.

I tell you this; even outside of numbers I can agree we have irrational feelings of attachment. Let's say I have a kid and hold up a hospital to save her/him. It might mean I'm a fantastic father, but honestly I'd be a pretty bad person in general. Let's say in this example other people lose their own children. Am I not responsible? But at the very least in context here, you have little to no attachment to the major characters in imminent danger; you're not attached to Kreiss, the cop, or even the elder really. I agree mostly; but it effectively establishes a "right" choice and a non-choice. It's similar to real life, but in real life 99.9999% of all the "right" choices I make are automated. I'd dare to say the choice adds little to nothing from what we can tell so far, so it may be better to just automatically do it rather than being given a relatively pointless choice. Maybe I've watched too much action films, too much hostage crisis negotiations... maybe I'm just too cynical or distrustful... I concede the point that one is viewed as cold, the other being super-empathetic; either way I think you would need to effectively avoid thinking too much about it for both options to carry a fair enough weight to justify this as a dilemma. After all, the maid gives you very little reason to assume she'd generously let her hostage live, and seems to strongly view you as a pest interfering with angie's ressurection. I don't know how to describe it. I'll grant your indirect connection to Aelita might play some role here, but I really don't think sacrificing your adoptive family and assisting Angie just for the sake of your relationship with Aelita is particularly that strong an argument... if Aelita herself was the hostage I suppose it'd be a far more splendid dilemma, as the main character is strongly implied to care for her. The dilemma would be better if hypothetically speaking it wasn't implied that Melia was in danger and the cop showed signs of remaining corrupt. That's a serious decision. It would be hard to turn your back on someone, even a corrupt cop, knowing he'd be tortured to death, which would certainly not fit the punishment justice would have for committing manslaughter. The blind trust is pointlessly irrational in my opinion. Take this as an example: You're a doctor, your close friend and a criminal both need a heart transplant. Criminal is convicted of manslaughter, corruption, bribery, etc. Your friend has saved your life many times. The criminal's need for that heart is imminent, you could simply hope to save both by being patient and hoping another heart would make its way to you, which do you prioritize? It just feels too one sided. I've taken two philosophy classes so I'm going to go ahead and try to explain this simply as possible before I rant even further. -Deontological (Kantian) views is about not being a hypocrite, consequences be damned (never steal, kill, etc) -Consequential (utilitarian) views is about thinking about the consequences, the choices be damned (kill 1 to save 1,000) -Egoist (sometimes hedonist) views is about putting yourself above all others, doing whatever you really want -Virtue ethics is about your intent mostly. All of these are controversial, but no true winner exists in the human mind for what is "good" and "bad." Kantian views are very constricting, they would sooner let the world burn in fire than kill an innocent. Utilitarian ethics are extreme, as they would do anything, no matter how damning to optimize happiness and prosperity. Egoist aren't flatly wrong. Thinking about yourself and your wellbeing and your own happiness isn't morally wrong at all. Virtue ethics are fair, sincere intentions are alright. But I would not argue karma should be flatly assumed governed by intent alone.

The problem is, in order to see these choices as morally equal in right or wrong, you have to view them as a shonen protagonist would. If you look at them from a realistic, sensible, perspective it's usually extremely one sided. 1. You're half-right. The problem here as I've described is how it's unknown maybe the first time around, but after replaying the game you'd have no logical reason nor desire to leave him behind. Maybe in a future update he'll turn out to be evil? Otherwise why make a choice when one side is clearly without consequence? A big issue from this kind of choice is the player may simply reload. The only way Jan could've made this choice "equal" in moral measure is if he made some rule where unlocking his cage would also unlock a cage where an evil character would be set loose as well. There's no real consequences to one choice, and logical consequences to the other. 2. That's an issue a Shonen protagonist would consider a big deal. If someone dying is so important, maybe sell your house and all your possessions to feed starving kids in Africa or something. No, the issue you've brought up isn't the fact that this is a preventable death, but that this death is occurring right in front of you. You're effectively arguing the proximity between you and the death spells moral obligation to let people with more proximity but larger in number die/suffer. As I've already outlined, if we're hypothetically pretending we don't know the consequence; that she spares the elder regardless, we would have all the more obligation to not give her the stone, knowing full well she'd have no reason not to kill the elder, save for assumed obligation she'd feel from her terrorist negotiation. The issue here is not that there is no weight to one or the other, but that only irrational weight is applied to one, and rational is applied to the other, but we are to treat them as equal and are even given karma points for playing irrationally. 3. Then I'd hate to be in your group if you were acting as a leader. I can't imagine anyone would possibly prioritize the life of a corrupt irresponsible cop over someone who has your back. I guess a better point I'd make is if one of your best friends was willing to risk your life and safety on a corrupt cop's life, wouldn't you feel he owes you an apology? It's a childish naïve Shonen attempt to "save everyone!" For all you know the cop would continue to sell his badge without an interest in making amends; why have so much faith in a corrupt man? EDIT: I'm going to even go ahead and say I'm not fond of Melia as a character, but even so, you've saved each other time after time. You don't just leave someone like that behind for personal irrational moral need to rescue everybody. This is also a point, but not everything I meant to say. The choices aren't established with equal weight, their consequences seem to be trying to convince us they are (so far at least.)

can you reload from a previous save at least?

Great find. Think he's trolling or does it have a meaning behind it?

The only characters I think are particularly relevant with "M" is Melia/Maria/Marianette or Madam X (though there's no D so that's not possible), as for "E" I assume it's a location, the only character I'm aware of with any signifigance in the game is Eli, but he's a rando grunt for Xen. Another point to make is it could also be the very first letter in the sentence. Could be "Exit ____ Melia ___" or something.

Can anyone tell us how they're different? I'm the type that left no stone unturned. I remember bumping into characters like saki at the hotel and her interaction was very friendly at the prison, does anyone know if they make anything different, save for some dialogue?

Uhhh correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't blacksteep the place where the main character was imprisoned? What moral choice was there?

I can kinda understand that logic. The desire to "rescue everyone" has always seemed to be the "naïve hero" plotline to me. It's the reason I eventually stopped reading manga. There's far too much success for the irrational heroes. And I'll grant, we all want a hero who never gives up. Who tries his best to rescue everyone. Who won't quit. But I've slowly become more cynical with time, looking at the moral grey areas and big picture. No longer do these heroes impress me, instead I feel disappointment and dread. I try to put myself in this world and treat it as best and as realistic as I could, that's really just the way I roleplay these games. But if you like things this way, I say more power to you. We might have different tastes, but I hope you and those who agree with you continue to get enjoyment where you do.

This game is a masterpiece, drama, suspense, thrills, twists, quality nostalgia and fun. But the "right" choices are made all wrong.