User Avatar Image

The Return of Hubs?

posted by Tyranitar on - Viewed by 8.3K users

Maybe they will bring hubs back since Episode 3 is 1.83 gigs. Idk how much space hubs would take up though. What do you think?

117 Comments
  • I think the extra data of Ep3 is because it's uncompressed or it has a seriously large cast of characters, as is rumoured.

  • I'm guessing it's a lot of new characters. Carver's community probably has a good number of people, so that's a lot of data in itself.

  • Well, I think y'all can tell just how happy that would make me...

    Whatever it is, let it be for the best of the game. If it's hubs, great; if it's branches, awesome; if it's a shit ton of cutscenes that show how Carlos lost his medical license, ok! Hopefully Telltale's been mixing all the ingredients to make an awesome new chapter.

    • One thing's for sure - we're gonna be real busy having fun with episode 3.

    • if it's a shit ton of cutscenes that show how Carlos lost his medical license

      I really want to see this!

      • Still waiting for someone to explain why he is a bad doctor.

        • More of an inside joke around here than anything else, really, but in my mind he really f'd up back in All That Remains. The size of the bite marks that were obviously larger than that of a human jaw has been mentioned by some people, but for me the worst was his moronic negligence of Clem's bite.

          A dog bite is one of the most infectious wounds there are, and Clem would have got a fever regardless because that's how bites work. His logic is as follows: "If she get a fever by morning, she's definitely been bitten by a lurker, even though she would show similar symptoms because of a dog bite left untreated. Nah, fever=lurker."

          I had an aunt bitten by a dog in a similar situation as when Sam bit Clem; she was taking care of the animal while the owners were on vacation and took away his plate because she had forgotten to add water. It wasn't pretty, and the doctor gave us a hell of an explanation on why it wasn't pretty.

          • Dog bites are vicious. Human bites, when not held back, are just as vicious and destructive. I have absolutely no doubt that the two would be hard to distinguish. Especially without wanting to waste supplies on her Wound (thinking it was a walker) and without taking proper time to inspect it (he looked for a few seconds). It is very hard to tell the difference between two open wounds so similar with all the tearing, flailing flesh, blood gushing out, and whatever else accompanies the wound.

            Onto your other point about his reaction to the situation. I agree that it was a bad choice to throw her in the shed (he even admits she could have a fever by morning from a dog bite (or something similar)) but that doesn't speak about his skills as a physician, only his lack of skills at being a good, moral person.

          • I have a theory he might've actually been trying to make sure Clem died by putting her in the shed, and knew it was a dog bite all along. If he didn't tend to her bite, she'd easily get an infection and die, thus having her out of the cabin group's hair. And they wouldn't need to expend any of their medical supplies on her either.

            It's the only explanation I've been able to come up with for how a trained doctor could think a bite mark as wide as the one Clem had could've possibly been made by a human jaw.

            • Have you personally seen a fullfledged, purposefully executed, vicious bite from a human? I doubt it. They are hard to differentiate from a dogs, even if the dog it bigger.

              • Not in real life, no. Aren't human jaws more crescent-shaped than a dog's jaw? I guess it depends on the dog, if it was a smaller breed with a short snout then I could easily see how someone could mistake a dog bite for a human one. But the one Clem had was pretty wide.

                • That's true, but it isn't so much about the size and shape, it's about the volatile jerking, snapping, twisting, pulling, rotating, and other movements that happen when you are bit. It doesn't just come straight down and leave an imprint in the skin, it's much more gruesome and.... explosive than that. Take small monkeys and apes as examples, they often have small mouths, but they can do major damage, so much so that it would be a hilarious waste of time trying to identify that animals bite vs a dogs (I use these animals because they have similar structured jaws and teeth and bite force).

                  • True. But if that had happened to Clem, I would've expected the wound to be a lot less uniform, her bite was one simple curved line going across her forearm, whereas if it had been a walker/human bite with lots of jerking and tearing I would expect the bite to appear more messy and inconsistent. I can't see how a human jaw could make a bite that wide without multiple open wounds and a bigger mess. It could be possible with just the right motion, but to the naked eye with no knowledge of how it happened, I'd say it was a dog bite.

                    While I realize it's better to be safe than sorry in the ZA, I think Carlos should've at least given Clem the benefit of the doubt and not tossed her out in the shed to get an infection and die. Even if it wasn't a walker bite, she'd still get a fever, so what would be the point?

                    • First- the picture doesn't even make sense. The dog bit her arm at a perpendicular fashion so automatically using that picture as reference doesn't work (since it shows parallel). That picture is more facetious than the idea of faster than light travel. I'm judging from real world applicable evidence.

                      I agree. But that speaks of him as a person, not his skills as a doctor.

                      • Alright, touché. The bite mark is inconceivable in real life circumstances, I'll admit that. It's pointless arguing about it since it isn't a factually accurate situation, so I'll back off.

                        I agree with you, but it's debatable. It depends on what you consider a good doctor. (whether or not the doctor in question upholds their medical ethics or whether they merely have the skills to treat an ill person) It also depends on how you perceive Carlos' motives, personally I think he simply didn't care about Clem and would've treated her had he actually given a shit. Had it been one of the members of the cabin group to get bitten, he would've given them the benefit of the doubt, surely.

                        The same ethical principles that are necessary for society to function now aren't the same as the ones in a situation like the ZA where your top priority is survival, so I personally don't think medical ethics would matter all that much anymore. Self-preservation and the survival of your family and group > being a good samaritan to strangers who may have ill-intent. It's a harsh subject.

            • I think he was just being a selfish prick that didn't give two shit whether if Clem would die or not. It wasn't so much that he's 'immoral' IMO (at least not on a sociopathic level), but that he's just really selfish, such that he would disregard the safety of a stranger. Yes, it was a child, but nonetheless, Clem was a stranger and a potential danger. Considering the death of Nick's mother due to their previous rescue of another stranger, I could at least see the inclination for selfish actions being taken at that moment of time.

              Could they have taken the proper precautions while keeping their guard up against this fellow stranger? Yes, that would be the unselfish thing to do. But would they? After what they went through? Human's selfish instincts say no, "Consequences be damned what happens to the little girl, for she's not even our problem." That's selfish, but not necessarily "immoral."

              • While I agree for the most part I don't agree on the questionably of "moral" as an applicable term. By all of my known accounts of the word (Oxford, Merriam - Webster, etc) the word basic breaks down to a (at least under one set definitin in each) concern for principals of right and wrong. By not caring for a child, even if a stranger, it's easy to classify that act as wrong, and therefore immoral.

                This conversation of discussing moral and right and wrong seems very familiar..... lol

              • PS- I exited our private discussion and lost the thread with the link to it. You mind tossing me another link? :)

                • Watch out Viva-La-Lee! Someone is downvoting your comments D:

                • Heh, sure. Here you go:
                  http://www.telltalegames.com/community/messages/1311

                  And yeah, this discussion seems very familiar indeed... :) Morality is especially flexible for myself personally, so I don't really consider something 'selfish' as necessarily something 'immoral,' probably because I consider the definition of 'moral' as 'right' and the definition of 'immoral' as 'wrong.' And being selfish can never be dictated as always wrong, because the contradiction here is that humans are always selfish. Thus, if being selfish is wrong, it equates to being human is wrong. There are often grey areas with this kind of things, and sometimes, people just have to what they have to do in order to protect what is important to them, even if it's selfish, even (as Pete says) "people hate you for it."

                  • But there is a personal decisive line which separates wrong and selfish. One must draw that line for themselves, but I have no quarrels with establishing the assumption the vast majority of people would consider purposeful endangerment to the life of a young girl as definitely bad, not selfish, though selfish is the cause of it being wrong/bad/immoral. In the end there can be no definitive answer if anything is immoral or moral, but by evaluative the masses it's easily identifiable what most view as immoral and moral. If one views it as moral to kill another for winking at his girl, then it's undeniably immoral to wink at his girl, while still completely moral to take the life of the imposer. But that doesn't mean that to most, and then in truth it is, the opposite is true.

                    • but by evaluative the masses it's easily identifiable what most view as immoral and moral.

                      Erm, that's not exactly a very safe (much less effective) way of determining what is immoral and what isn't... by evaluating the masses, that is. The 'masses' used to think that putting women on stakes was okay. And going by your logic of the masses, I have to say that if we're going by 'majority wins', Carlos is on the righteous side, because more people in the cabin agreed that Clementine was a threat to the family than those who disagreed.

                      Or maybe I misinterpreted your meaning. :S

                      • No you're right. But by our modern age, current state we have changed our masses outlook on putting people on stakes. And also I'm fairly sure it's been viewed as immoral to kill/threaten children for much longer than the persecution and torture of various groups through means of staking. In the future out outlook on moral and immoral will probably change, torture for wartime information or even war itself may be viewed as immoral and wrong (I hope so) but as it sits now they are prudent, important, justifiable, and needed.

                        We aren't speaking about the majority rule of a small, bias group, but the large, unbiased(er) one. (Even if people don't know of the game/Clementine they would view the decision to leave her to die as wrong and immoral)

                        • Ah, right. I had a feeling that was what you were trying to say. Okay then, let me take a step back and explain myself.

                          Yes, threatening a helpless young little girl is a very different thing compared to putting women on stakes. However, the argument here as it stands with your last post is whether if threatening a helpless little girl is immoral or not. Here's the thing... in the perspective of Carlos and his family, they didn't see Clementine as a helpless little girl, they saw her as a threat to the family. Here's the important thing you must realize - yes, rationally speaking, the act of threatening a helpless little girl can be considered wrong under such a circumstance, but the family wasn't being rational. They suffered a tragic loss due to a stranger outside and became irrational. And with the coming of the walker apocalypse, where things are even harsher than before, morality rules were taken to a more 'pragmatic' level, where a person must do whatever is necessary to protect himself and his loved ones. Don't get me wrong here, - was the act that Carlos had carried out morally right? No, it wasn't. However, did the immoral act make Carlos an immoral man, when we consider the pressurising circumstance of the apocalypse and the tragic death of Nick's mother? Well... now we're getting somewhere.

                          Does an immoral act make a man immoral? Humanity is full of contradictions when it comes to morality. We're hypocrites every single day, bending rules to serve our selfish needs. But would you condemn an irrational man as irredeemably immoral? Was it really something so black and white, so clear-cut that one could just slap a label that says "Immoral" on the forehead? Like I said, my morality system is very flexible, full of grey areas. In between the moral and immoral, there's something called 'being human.' And being selfish is very human. That's why when Rebecca sought to apologize to Clementine in the following morning for last night's behavior, and when Nick apologised on that very same night, I felt that I could let Clementine, who's always known for her kind heart, to forgive these two to a certain a extent - not because their acts were not considered immoral, but because the actors, the people carrying out the acts, were merely humans under a lot of circumstantial pressure. Still inexcusable, depending on how you want to see it, but nevertheless reasonable enough to qualify as merely a selfish human being, not an evil or immoral one.

                          Now, I only mentioned Rebecca and Nick, because Carlos, on the other hand... my memory's a bit fuzzy, but I couldn't really remember him apologising to Clementine. He merely entrusted Sarah to Clem on the following morning. The thing that made me forgive him a little bit was the explanation that Luke and Nick had given Clem, about the whole 'mother dying at the hands of a stranger' circumstance. I thought that Carlos was perhaps part of the tragedy as well, being a family with these people, thus I decided to overlook it. That's why I decided that Carlos might not be that bad of a person - a naive presumption, I'll admit - but not because I thought 'shooting/threatening a little girl' was excusable.

                          When it comes to determining the morality of people, it's a bit more complicated than determining the morality of actions. Actions are composed of practical hard-cold logic, and thus we could judge them accordingly. Humans are much more complicated than that. Selfish things are done out of love sometimes, and it's unfair to judge people solely based on their actions without considering the circumstances. A manslaughter, for example, is different from a homicide due to one thing - the intention to kill.

                          • I'll be honest. I didn't read the entirety of your post. I got about half way through and wanted to post my response. I hope you don't take offense to that. As I said the other day we do acts everyday which affect our moral standing, both good and bad, all affect it but none single define it. I don't imagine it as slapping an immoral stamp of moral stamp on their head, but more as a ever changing back and forth gage. With each action the gage moves until the demise of the person. That person may commit acts which limit his reach on the gage, making them forever unable to reach a certain position of higher (or, theoretically lower) moral standing (again returning to murder, rape, pedophilia).

                            I did not forgive Nick that night. His acts were more wrong than his apology would redeem for him. If we were looking at my gage he jumped from neutral, to red, to slightly less red. He was not an immoral character, far from it (his seemingly sincere apology proved this) but his action of nearly shooting clementine was an immoral action. I hope that better establishes my view of morality and judgement/labeling

                            • First of all, I didn't really take offense... but it does disappoint me a little, because there were a lot of things that I was trying to push along to let you understand my views. But never mind that; I'll try to make it short and straight to the point this time.

                              Human judgement is flawed. There is no way that any person could objectively determine the validity of human morality. Yes, there are certain things that are clearly immoral; accidentally shooting a kid isn't one of them. There's no evidence to prove that Nick had the intention to kill; if anything, by now we clearly know that he didn't, that he's just a trigger-happy idiot who would shoot anything that moves. He's an idiot, not a bad person.

                              Clementine's seen plenty of selfish people by the end of season 1, Kenny included. Even Lee. Yes, Lee, who killed Danny and Andy out of revenge in my version of the game, and he also abandoned Lilly out of spite for Carley's death. Thus I felt that Clementine, being the mature and smart girl that she is, would be able to see clearly that selfish people can be good people (or in Lee's case, a great father), and that was why I had her forgive Nick and Rebecca. The fact is, Clementine's yet to developed into someone who would condemn people like that, not unless he or she is irredeemably evil.

                              But what about me? Would I forgive Nick and Rebecca? No, I wouldn't. But would I think of Rebecca, Nick, or Carlos as evil? No, I wouldn't. I have not enough evidence to do that, and like Clementine, I could see that selfish people like Kenny could be, at the same time, good people as well. I think I'll just leave it as it is here for now. Bottom line is, Kenny was a selfish prick once, and Lee a potential mass murderer, but both of them were good people regardless, or at least Kenny is (my version of Lee's a great father, at least).

                              • Yes, there are certain things that are clearly immoral; accidentally shooting a kid isn't one of them. There's no evidence to prove that Nick had the intention to kill; if anything, by now we clearly know that he didn't, that he's just a trigger-happy idiot who would shoot anything that moves. He's an idiot, not a bad person

                                I find the readiness to shoot the kid while she was still alive (obvious from breathing) as immoral. If she had died then so be it, but she hadn't, so by his reaction the action is immoral as it threatened the life of the child. He obviously had the intention to kill, as his finger was on the trigger and the gun was aimed in her direction (also backed by the statements of other members (Rebecca) saying kill her, and his own statement saying something like "You were the one telling me to shoot her.")

                                Again you seem to think I place selfishness as immoral, I dont, I see selfishness as the cause of immoral acts, not selfishness being an immoral act. I didn't label Nick as an immoral person for almost shooting her, I labeled him as a danger and less moral for being selfish and committing the immoral act, therefore he hadn't redeemed himself with a simple apology. Condemnation is a strong word, I don't think she would condemn him either, but she would be weary and, at keast mine, would tell him the act was immoral and that he needs to check himself before he wrecks himself (take for instance Matt - by my Clem not forgiving him for almost shooting her, perhaps he would have considered the implication of shooting Matt and been more open minded about situations with strangers - perhaps him almost shooting Clem was even for shadowing for him shooting another friendly stranger later now that I think of it)

                                I would forgive neither also. But there is a difference in labeling someone as immoral/evil and being weary of immoral/evil. Again returning to my gage, each act changes the perspective of immoral/moral, and my Clem is piecing together this scale by each act she sees/learns. She didn't forgive Nick because the only three acts of morality she saw were 1- him almost shooting her 2.his readiness to put her in the shed and 3. His apology. That comes out on the negative side of the gage, and he didn't deserve to be reconciled with for 2 very immoral acts and one pretty moral act.

                                Again people can be selfish and moral, but often selfishness leads to immoral acts which leads to being immoral.

                                • "He obviously had the intention to kill, as his finger was on the trigger and the gun was aimed in her direction (also backed by the statements of other members (Rebecca) saying kill her, and his own statement saying something like "You were the one telling me to shoot her.")"

                                  ~~~~

                                  It could also be argued that they had the intention to kill a person - not just a young girl - who's possibly been bit a walker.

                                  Consider the situation: After Nick's mother had died from helping out a bite victim, here lies yet another person who's been bitten by something and threatening the family's safety. Deciding whether to keep a bite victim around could mean the difference between everyone ending up dead or everyone having to live another day. You know what any rational person in this situation would have done? He would have been afraid. He wouldn't have seen it as a dog bite, he would have dismissed it as a walker bite. I would personally have a knee-jerk reaction too if I see this potentially contaminated stranger coming here to infect my family, and I would definitely go, "What the f#ck were you thinking bringing her here?! Put her in the shed before she turns!" Emphasis on knee-jerk reaction. And need I remind you that walkers are essentially everywhere as of season 2 of the game, so it wouldn't be that far fetch of a logic to consider it a walker bite first before a dog bite. Or as Pete put it, "I didn't see no dog anywhere."

                                  Let me ask you this... what was Luke's initial reaction to Clementine when he saw the bite? He threw her on the ground. Did Luke go, "Oh, that's obviously not a walker bite so I shouldn't act like an idiot and say that you'd tear Pete's head off when he inspects your bite!" No, he didn't. He acted as afraid as everyone else would. It's very rational in TWD world to act the way that Nick and Rebecca would - put a bullet in his/her head to ensure survival. That's a pragmatic view, not a cruel one. If anything, the measure of one's cruelty in this new world of zombies/walkers is distorted at this point. A new cruel reality has been set in place and thus, arguably, a new set of morality.

                                  But that's beside the point. You've made it clear enough that you didn't 'condemn' Nick and Rebecca, that you were merely 'weary' around them, which is understandable from what Clementine had gone through. But I'd just hope that you could see it from the perspective of the family, see where they are coming from and what you would have done if it's your family's safety being threatened.

                                  • Consider the situation: After Nick's mother had died from helping out a bite victim, here lies yet another person who's been bitten by something and threatening the family's safety. Deciding whether to keep a bite victim around could mean the difference between everyone ending up dead or everyone having to live another day. You know what any rational person in this situation would have done? He would have been afraid. He wouldn't have seen it as a dog bite, he would have dismissed it as a walker bite. I would personally have a knee-jerk reaction too if I see this potentially contaminated stranger coming here to infect my family, and I would definitely go, "What the f#ck were you thinking bringing her here?! Put her in the shed before she turns!" Emphasis on knee-jerk reaction. And need I remind you that walkers are essentially everywhere as of season 2 of the game, so it wouldn't be that far fetch of a logic to consider it a walker bite first before a dog bite. Or as Pete put it, "I didn't see no dog anywhere."

                                    That's true, but it doesn't remake the fact that they were ready to shoot a child. I wouldn't have thrown her in the shed, at the very least I would have locked her in a room in the house. She is as dangerous there as she is outside, even less so if she were a spy, but more to the point it's the right thing to do. Leaving a child in the cold, in the dark, and alone is wrong. Even if she is theoretically a threat.

                                    He threw her on the ground, he didn't intend to kill her by the drop. Nick and Rebecca intended to end her life on the chance she was bitten (not a threat at the point of the shooting since she wasn't dead) or working for Carver (which wouldn't have helped their situation). Those are hardly comparable. And despite what you may think ending the life of an 12 year old is cruel, not only pragmatic.

                                    You are right, I didn't condemn them, only came to the realization that caution was needed. And I can see it from their perspective, it is understandable, but not justifiable, or reasonable, or a moral set of actions in my book.

                                    Hope this all makes sense, typed it fast and didn't proofread haha.

                                    • but more to the point it's the right thing to do. Leaving a child in the cold, in the dark, and alone is wrong. Even if she is theoretically a threat.

                                      See, that's your perspective. You've gotta stop seeing her as just a child. Whether age matters or not when it comes to treating bite victims in the zombie apocalypse is incredibly subjective, in case you haven't noticed. The zombie plague shows no discrimination for anyone at all; young little girls, old women, middle-aged men, whomever. You can't just say that putting down a child bite victim is entirely, definitively wrong. Right or wrong is very subjective in this case, subjected to each person's opinion of how a potential walker should be treated.

                                      Those are hardly comparable.

                                      Easily comparable, actually - they're both afraid. That's the fundamental logic of both cases. They were both afraid and they both reacted irrationally. Yes, Nick reacted much more irrationally than Luke, but that's just how Nick's personality is. To dictate that everyone should be treated equally regardless of their personality and background is unfair. It's condescending. It's patronising. It's all those words you would use when someone is judging you when he doesn't know you any better.

                                      In the end, determining whether if Nick's actions were justifiable or not, IMO, is highly academic. We could argue on for days and we still would arrive at a subjective conclusion at best.

                                      • See, that's your perspective. You've gotta stop seeing her as just a child. Whether age matters or not when it comes to treating bite victims in the zombie apocalypse is incredibly subjective, in case you haven't noticed. The zombie plague shows no discrimination for anyone at all; young little girls, old women, middle-aged men, whomever. You can't just say that putting down a child bite victim is entirely, definitively wrong. Right or wrong is very subjective in this case, subjected to each person's opinion of how a potential walker should be treated.

                                        First killing a child is most definitely different than killing an adult. That's hardly arguable. The infection doesn't decriminalized or know the difference, but it's impossible for a person not to. Also a prudent point is she wasn't bitten, and more to the important point - she wasn't proven to be bitten by the people about to throw away her life. I can't say killing a walker bit child is always wrong, there are always outliers, but in most situations (and most definitely the situation we saw) it's easy to come to the conclusion it is. Especially when it isn't proven they were bit by a zombie in the first place.

                                        They were both made out of fear. But the repercussions of each event were astronomically different. In fact I may go as far to say that the only similarity they shared was the com inanity of fear. That doesn't say much though, as fear drives many, many of our daily routines, but those situations are more often than not not comparable.

                                        Yes, we will only come to a relative conclusion, that's all you can do for the majority of human thought and realizations, but the fun part is arguing your perception of it.

        • Because he couldn't tell an obvious dog bite from a human walker one and after a few seconds of examination thought the best way to find out which it was was to throw a girl in a shed and wait to see if she'd have a fever from an infection or have a fever from an infection.

          That's like 4 counts of being a bad doctor Carlos established in maybe two minutes of screentime.

          • The identification was covered with other posts above. It's hard to identify bites especially when the range of difference is marginal at best (dog to walker comparatively).

            The later examples you gave are not examples of bad doctoring, only bad ethics/morals/etc.

            • Well, maybe if by "bad doctor" you only consider his skills, but one of the principles of bioethics is beneficence/non-maleficence. Granted, it's the apocalypse, that may not be worth shit for some, but still. I include causing harm consciously and willingly be it by action or omission to my definition of what makes a bad doctor.

              • I view it as blemishes on the doctors personality, not on his skills as a doctor.

                Because after all you can be a good doctor and be able to save people, but not doing so makes you a bad person.

            • Doctors have ethical codes. If you break them you're a bad doctor.

              The identification conversation was horseshit.

              Alt text

              What kind of bite could that be? If you say human/walker, you're a bad doctor.

              The other 2 ways he was a bad doctor, only looking at the bite for a few seconds and then applying a test that would end up with a similar result whether it was a dog or a walker, was just him being a stupid doctor.

              (Clarification: Stupid doctors are bad ones)

              • Doctors can have ethical codes. It isn't required and breaking something that isn't binding speaks about the person, not that persons skills as a physician. Again I'm not speaking about his person, only his applicable skills as a doctor.

                EDIT: If you said that bite was a dogs you would be a bad doctor. That picture looks nothing like the real thing would.

                • Ethics are tied to roles. If a doctor refuses to help a sick or hurt person for calculated, callous or dumb reasons then he's a bad doctor.

                  • I guess that depends on how you view being a good doctor. I believe a doctor can be good in that he has the skills to accomplish what other doctors can't, but if he chooses not to use those skills to help people then he is not a good person. It doesn't speak of his skills as a doctor.

                    • A good doctor is someone who doesn't let little girls die slowly in sheds for dumb reasons, hope this helps.

                      (This isn't Carlos, who is a bad doctor)

                      • A good person is someone who doesn't let little girls die slowly in a shed for dumb reasons (with, or without medical training). A good doctor can remedy the situation. So, he is a bad person, not a bad doctor.

                        • You don't know the difference between morals and ethics. Doctors have ethical codes and responsibilities much like civil servants or service providers. If they break them, they're bad in their role. Carlos is a bad doctor.

                          He's also without much talent and is stupid. In that way he is also a bad doctor.

                          He is a commensurately bad doctor.

                          • Ethics and doctoring abilities are separate matters. He can be a bad person and the best doctor (look at the old show House, the best doctor in the show had the worst ethics and personality).

                            We have seen nothing substantial to claim he is a bad physician.

                            • House wasn't a bad doctor because his methods didn't include throwing girls into a shed and leaving them to die.

                              Carlos threw a girl into a shed and left her to die because he couldn't tell that an obvious dog bite was an obvious dog bite.

                              Carlos is a bad doctor.

                              • He did other things which endangered the lives of his patients. He was as unethical as they come.

                                Obvious dog bite wasn't an obvious dog bite.

                                Carlos is a bad person.

                                • Worth repeating since you keep saying "bad person": You don't understand the difference between morals and ethics.

                                  Ethics are tied to the responsibilities of a role, not to the person. An SS soldier who follows his orders may be a Good Solider. He is not a Good Person. Hannibal Lecter may be a "skilled" psychiatrist. He is not a Good Psychiatrist, because he manipulates and eats his patients which isn't exactly in keeping with the primary duties of improving a patient's mental health. House on the other hand ultimately discovers the cause of an illnesses, successfully diagnoses patients and saves their lives or eases their pain, fulfilling the primary role and responsibilities of being a doctor.

                                  Carlos, in his capacity as a doctor, had his patient put in a shed to die because he couldn't identify what could only be a dog bite after spending all of ten or so seconds examining a wound.

                                  He's a bad doctor, which got to your original question. Trying to move the goalpost and say "oh but I want to talk about his 'skills as a physician' or his 'doctoring abilities'" is a lame dodge, especially considering his skill is also demonstrably terrible. That long gash could not have been physiologically caused by a walker bite. The only way something with a human shaped jaw could inflict that kind of wound would be if it bit and vigorously shook in an effort to pull it to the ground using only its mouth or was attempting to snap a neck or back through a whipping motion with its jaws, like Sam did and dogs do. Walkers don't do that.

                                  • An SS soldier who follows his orders may be a Good Solider. He is not a Good Person.

                                    Exactly. This is all coming back to how you define a person being good at their job. Actually being good at their job, or being a good person while being good at their job. Stalin was a terrible person, but he got his country moved into and industrial world power. He was good at leading, if not in a nice way.

                                    House does so in a manner that often endangers their lives, and by putting their lives on the line he is no different than Carlos. Carlos ended up suturing her Wound better ( or at keast checking it was adequit) and providing care, after endangering her life, as House often did. Yet House was the most skilled and "best" doctor they had.

                                    Again the bite isn't so easily identified. He should have looked at the wound more and shouldn't have thrown her in the shed, but that doesn't speak of his skills as a doctor.

                                    His skills as a physician is what makes him a good or bad doctor. Not his questionable morals, which speak to his personality. It isn't a dodge, it's a valid argument. Again we have no substantial evidence to come to the conclusion he is lacking is doctoring skills, so I don't understand why you are so dogmatic about it. The long gash (as seen in the picture) couldn't have been caused by the dog either, so that point is moot.

                                    • Stalin was a terrible leader for what he did, but that's neither here nor there.

                                      You can define a doctor being good at his or her job when he properly heals or physically aids people, which House did. Carlos on the other hand left his patient to die after performing a terrible once-over. You seem to think these scenarios are comparable in a way that invites an equivocation. They're not.

                                      I gave other examples of how Carlos was a bad doctor and how that wound could clearly be a dog bite but, conversely, it would be impossible for it to be a walker bite, which you ignored. You then set up the standard that a good doctor is tied only to "skills as a physician", a standard by which the aforementioned Hannibal Lecter would be a "good psychiatrist". I'll just let that marinate.

                                      In fact, the only things you offered in this argument were wrong: He didn't end up suturing her wound. He didn't provide care. He didn't display any "skill" as a doctor. He just got things wrong and actively contributed to the worsening of someone's medical condition.

                                      And finally, to put a cherry on top of all of this, you used the word "moral" in lieu of "ethical" in reply to a post where I said you didn't know the difference between morals and ethics.

                                      I mean really, Viva.

                                      • Again, it depends on what you view as doing good at your job. Stalin killed mercilessly and was a ruthless, horrible, disgusting person. But again, he moved his country from a bunch of farms to a militarized, industrial power house. What he did was good for his country and not good for his people. He was good at leading his country into the modern age.

                                        Sure they are. Carlos didn't care and after little thought he throws her in the shed to be serviced the next day. More than once House leaves his patients in situations where they could easily die and come back later to provide his services.

                                        You gave examples which I've dealt with before, in this very thread to be exact. It's nearly impossible to identify a dog bite from a human bite. With all of the tearing, flailing fkesh, blood gushing out, and other unidentifiables that accompany the open wound it's a shot in the dark. If he had taken the time to clean it and inspect it thoroughly maybe he could have identified it with more reasonability, but he didn't, and that's speaks of his personality and morals more than it does of his skills as a physician.

                                        Hannibal lector is a good physician. His skills in the art were phenomenal. The fact that he eats people makes him a terrible person, not a terrible physician.

                                        Carlos checked her after the shed, making sure her Wound was going to be ok, that's providing care. Also I said "( or at keast checking it was adequit)," in reference to the suturing, which is true.

                                        He didn't show much skill as a doctor, but nor did he show lack of skills. That's why I'm saying it's illogical to say he is a bad doctor when we have nothing to base it on.

                                        • This is what I see when I read your post:

                                          "No you see it all depends on how you view someone doing a good job I view a good doctor as someone who has a beard and wears pants, Stalin is a good leader because he treated his people horribly and leaders rule over large pieces of farm equipment! Carlos failed in every aspect of providing care to a patient and Clem would've died without taking matters into her own hands! Somehow this is just like House. Everything's very relative you see my good man?"

                                          "Let me not talk about the particulars of this specific instance concerning a dog bite but instead fall back on hypotheticals and generalities that were shown to not apply here, taking this argument in reverse and being specious as fuck."

                                          "Let me likewise repeatedly use the word 'physician' instead of what 'doctor' or 'psychiatrist' or what we're actually talking about because I can't manage to have an actual conversation without frantically moving goalposts and using weaselly argumentation."

                                          "I still seemingly don't understand the difference between morals and ethics, so I'm going to call people who don't fulfill the obligations of their role 'bad people' instead of accurately noting that they're not very good practitioners of their respective disciplines. Carlos looked at Clem's suturing to observe that it was performing the function of holding a wound closed and made useless observations such as 'she doesn't have a fever' that literally any layman would have noticed, so this proves something???"

                                          "I'll use the word 'illogical' now that I've ignored every bit of logical evidence presented because that's what you do in these situations ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm let's just say he's not a good doctor or bad doctor let's just say it's a wash."

                                          • "No you see it all depends on how you view someone doing a good job I view a good doctor as someone who has a beard and wears pants, Stalin is a good leader because he treated his people horribly and leaders rule over large pieces of farm equipment! Carlos failed in every aspect of providing care to a patient and Clem would've died without taking matters into her own hands! Somehow this is just like House. Everything's very relative you see my good man?"

                                            Reading comprehension got the best of you, eh?

                                            In conclusion - It comes down to how you view the statement 'good/bad doctor'.

                                            • Carlos is a bad doctor.

                                              Your question was answered succinctly in my first reply and you've spent ever since flubbing around with "well good and bad are inherently relative muhmuhmuh" like a freshman college student.

                                              Better luck next time.

                                              • And you look like the poster child for the stereotypical "Internet Idiot."

                                                Better luck next time.

                                              • You don't actually take much in when having a conversation with another person do you? He is a bad doctor is an answer, not the answer. It's pretty easy to see that.

                                                Better luck next time.

                                                • Oh look you made a worthless subjective/relativist non-argument after being proven wrong and backing down on every single point you've tried to raise, that's unsurprising.

                                                  Really Viva after being forced into concessions and defeat with every single conversation we've had can't you just trust that I'm right and you don't know what you're talking about? I'd hate to ruin whatever hot-tub travel experience you're currently having.

                                                  • Oh look you made a worthless subjective/relativist non-argument after being proven wrong and backing down on every single point you've tried to raise, that's unsurprising.

                                                    Because it is subjective and relativistic. I'm right and you're right, you're just to blind/stubborn/arrogant to admit it. Also I've not backed down, all my points are as valid as ever, I just don't see the point in arguing something that will continue in circles on the premise both sides are correct and incorrect. Seems silly.

                                                    As to the last part of your post...

                                                    Lol the disgusting augmentation of reality continues. But I'll play along, good boy. Keep up the hard work!

                • If you said that bite was a dogs you would be a bad doctor. That picture looks nothing like the real thing would.

                  Confirmed: No matter what Viva-La-Lee agrees that Carlos is a bad doctor.

    • "how Carlos lost his medical license"

      When the patient woke up, his skeleton was missing, and the doctor was never heard from again!

      Alt text

  • I sure hope so, one of the reasons that I personally haven't been able to connect with the new cabin group is the lack of optional conversations that S1 had in hub areas. There's no doubt in my mind that Carver's camp is going to be a large hub with lots of room to explore, and hopefully we'll get to interact with other characters too.

  • just for clarification can someone tell me what hubs are? I am assuming this means like kind of a rest area where you can just go around and talk to people?

  • If it's over 2 hours and hubs have returned I think I might faint with excitement.

  • Where was I? Oh, right:

    Alt text

    • We didn't choose the hub life, the hub life chose us.

    • I know it's off topic, but since the shed zombie is already pictured here, did anyone else think this zombie looked a lot like Winston?

      Granted, it's very unlikely it actually is, because of the supposed distance Clem traveled in the river and through the forest over rugged terrain (no way Walker Winston can hoist himself up onto the catwalk near the river), and Winston's face looks a bit more gaunt. Still, the similarity made me do a double take the first time I played through. Like, "now you can dispatch this guy again!"

    • I can see it now. Carver's explorable community has a motto: "You have a real good day now".

  • i just hope its past 2 hours. We need a really good and long mid season episode with hubs and character development and action.

  • I think there might be a lot of space because of the determinant characters.

    There seems to be six in total, since Nick and Alvin can be dead, and Vince, Shel, Wyatt, and Russel did or didn't join Tavia.

  • I'm going with a lot of new characters and probably an above average length episode. They probably want a very good setup for episodes 4 and 5, since the slide pictures for those 2 look epic, it's probably gonna be epic.

Add Comment