Wasteland Wasteland 2 Thread - Director's Cut

[ArchAngel]

If you fail to save the AG Center, you end up with outbreaks because of that well-meaning jerk who decided to share seeds with his birds.

Meanwhile, if you fail to save Highpool, you can still go kill the Wrecking Crew.


"(food has water in it)"

The "drink 6-8 glasses a water a day" thing is unnecessary because a lot of the water you get comes from food.

Outbreaks happen no matter what you choose. That guy released birds before rangers arrive.

 

[Roguey]

Outbreaks happen no matter what you choose. That guy released birds before rangers arrive.

And you have the option of stopping 'em. When you save Highpool, you don't.

 

[SausageInYourFace]

Irrelevant, since its metaknowledge your rangers don't even have at that point in time.

 

[Roguey]

Irrelevant, since its metaknowledge your rangers don't even have that at that point in time.

It's "something unknown and freaky" versus "an attack by regular guys."

 

[Excidium II]

Better go agains the threat you're certain to be equipped to deal with then~

Plus there's the possibility of it becoming Red Skorpion territory right on your backyard.

 

[Zombra]

I don't like to weight the value of the life of a human being like this.

That's why this decision (marred though it is by the game's limitations) is so fascinating. Given that your small squad is the only one in a position to make a difference, and that no one else can make the decision for you, what's it gonna be? It's wonderful to see arguments in favor of short term "collateral damage" for long term benefit, or saying screw you to the "greater good" when innocent lives are at stake.

I agree with you Sausage, that thinking it through and "playing God" is unpleasant - in fact I'd say that only a real asshole could ever feel good about it - so, emotionally, I'm sympathetic to the point of view whereby you don't think about it too much, do the obvious thing, and save the most people; but deep down I have to agree with Kaivokz. Spider-Man taught us that when no one else can make the decision, you have to man up and do what's right. To refuse consideration of the future implications, just because you don't want to be responsible for the immediate consequences, is simply selfish.

 

[ArchAngel]

And you have the option of stopping 'em. When you save Highpool, you don't.

I don't remember you can. In both cases you get some cure and are told to go and put it into water in the place of outbreak. If you saved Highpool Kathy tells you this cure cannot save Ag Center anymore but it can help outbreak places.

 

[SausageInYourFace]

That's why this decision (marred though it is by the game's limitations) is so fascinating. Given that your small squad is the only one in a position to make a difference, and that no one else can make the decision for you, what's it gonna be? It's wonderful to see arguments in favor of short term "collateral damage" for long term benefit, or saying screw you to the "greater good" when innocent lives are at stake.

I agree with you Sausage, that thinking it through and "playing God" is unpleasant - in fact I'd say that only a real asshole could ever feel good about it - so, emotionally, I'm sympathetic to the point of view whereby you don't think about it too much, do the obvious thing, and save the most people; but deep down I have to agree with Kaivokz. Spider-Man taught us that when no one else can make the decision, you have to man up and do what's right. To refuse consideration of the future implications, just because you don't want to be responsible for the immediate consequences, is simply selfish.

Even if we leave the crucial issue of water out the equation, the difference would be that you guys can't even be sure in any way about the long term consequences of your decision. You'd condemn a whole city to slaughter on an educated guess that the scientific research may some day be of use and could potentially be valuable. Eventually. Perhaps.

You know for sure that you can rescue a whole village as opposed to some scientists whose worth is pretty much unclear. You have no sufficient information on the possible outcome to make moral decisions like this with confidence.

Say you have two burning houses in front of you. In one house are a bunch of kids and in another a renowed medical researcher, expert on cancer. Are you going to save the doctor just because he is educated and may or may not come up with a cure to cancer at some point in the future? Do you think my decision to rescue the kids would be irresponsible?

 

[Mystary!]

Kids are easier to replace, so, yeah.

Anyways, Rose > Vulture's Cry.

 

[Excidium II]

Anyways, Rose > Vulture's Cry.

No way. Vulture's Cry has way better skills.

 

[Bubbles]

Better for the final battle as well.

 

[Mystary!]

No way. Vulture's Cry has way better skills.

With 10 Intelligence Rose can have whatever skills you want.

 

[Xeon]

Yea, Rose is also apparently connected to the main plot or something from what I read. Vulture's Cry comments about nature stuff also from what I read.

 

[Excidium II]

True forgot bout that.

 

[Bubbles]

She also calls Kekkahbah a cigar store Indian.

 

[Zombra]

The difference would be that you guys can't even be sure in any way about the long term consequences of your decision.

Of course we can't be sure. If we could be sure, it wouldn't be a decision, it would just be picking the "right" choice.

Say you have two burning houses in front of you. In one house are a bunch of kids and in another a renowed medical researcher, expert on cancer. Are you going to save the doctor just because he is educated and may or may not come up with a cure to cancer at some point in the future? Do you think my decision to rescue the kids would be irresponsible?

I don't want to get bogged down in 1,001 hypothetical situations, but I'd say that yes, you are being irresponsible. Not because you chose to save the kids, but because you refuse to acknowledge that you're risking lives either way. "This guy might not cure cancer" or "Ag Center might not solve world hunger" are not acceptable reasons to discard them out of hand.

I mean, I get it - you're only one man (or one squad), and you can't predict the future, and you just gotta do what good you can - but that doesn't justify or excuse a philosophical policy of short-sightedness.

 

[SausageInYourFace]

How can it be short-sighted if I can't predict the future? And how do you know that no one from Highpool might become the next Jesus or Arnold Schwarzenegger? :D See, you can't possibly weight potentialities against each other, you gotta base these decisions on the facts you have at hand.

 

[Bubbles]

You don't even know that everybody in AG center or Highpool will die if you fail to save them, or that the seeds will all be irrevertably tainted, the water supply irreparably destroyed, etc. etc. There isn't really any solid information to base a decision on.

 

[Zombra]

Nobody can predict the future, but there's such a thing as a best guess. If you only act on what's already been proven beyond doubt, you may become a hero someday - but you will never be a leader.

 

[Excidium II]

My first short-lived playthrough I went Ag Center, because it's closer to Ranger Citadel so felt wrong walking past it

 

[Zombra]

Yeah, I went knee-jerk to Ag Center because it was a woman's voice on the radio and I was raised to help women first. Stupid reason, but there ya go.

 

[SausageInYourFace]

There isn't really any solid information to base a decision on.

You do know there are a lot more people in Highpool. And without getting into that argument again, I think we can pretty confidently say that water is more important than food. So thats what you go by. Well, me at least.

My first short-lived playthrough I went Ag Center, because it's closer to Ranger Citadel so felt wrong walking past it

I guess thats justifiable.

You may become a hero someday - but you will never be a leader.

Story of my life. :D

 

[Roguey]

I don't remember you can. In both cases you get some cure and are told to go and put it into water in the place of outbreak. If you saved Highpool Kathy tells you this cure cannot save Ag Center anymore but it can help outbreak places.

The ending slide says it lessens the number of outbreaks, it doesn't prevent them entirely, like what happens when you save the ag center and cure the outbreak places.

 

[Jimmious]

My opinion on the Highpool - Ag.Center debate:
It seems more logical for me that a Ranger team would opt for Highpool first since it's an actual community of people and not a research facility.
Plus they are actually attacked from some military force, they're not just saying holy shit, huge plants.

Gameplay wise also, I enjoyed Highpool a lot more than Ag.Center which I really found to be kind of a slog (but I did play through it in the original version, not in DC). Highpool was just more fun for me to play.

But yeah, Rose is better than Vulture's Cry if you metagame it.

 

[Excidium II]

Ag. Center still has those annoying exploding pods and bumrushing pod people everywhere so I bet the door "puzzle" is still there.