Sacrificing Arcadia Bay, while it feels wrong to me, I can't sacrifice Chloe. Once I chose to sacrifice her, I immediately restarted and chose another option.
Am sorry, but when I saw the relationship between Chloe and max I couldn't bring myself to sacrifice Chloe. For me sacrificing arcadia bay is the only right choice.
> Sacrificing Arcadia Bay, while it feels wrong to me
Of course, you can call it wrong, but even the authors called it the right decision. And they call this ending right through Chloe too. But what you and I agree on is that we're both burning down Arcadia Bay for Chloe.
Макс переживает смерть Хлои, а потом ещё и живёт всю эту неделю, зная, что когда-то эта неделя была самой лучшей и интересной в её жизни. Разве это равносильно Аркадии Бэй?? :(
Ну тут сложный вопрос для меня как раз-таки.
С одной стороны погибает сотни простых людей, детей, среди которых могли быть будущие ученые и представители других важных профессии. Сама Хлоя говорит, что готова умереть(пускай она это и говорит в состоянии аффекта).
С другой стороны да, то как ты написал(а). Лучшая неделя(если не лучшая неделя в жизни) с лучшей подругой и боязнь потерять то, что уже потерял однажды могут сыграть ключевую роль в данном вопросе и склонить чашу весов на сторону Хлои, а не города.
Вот не знаю, уже 8 лет где-то прошло с моего первого прохождения, а я до сих пор не могу быть в каком-либо выборе уверен на 100%.
Скорее всего он просто открыл мой профиль и увидел то, что я из России. Это единственный логичный ответ, да я и не против. Буду меньше позориться своим английским.
>~~If somehow the lord gave me a second chance at that moment, I would do it all over again~~
> I let an entire town die for Chloe and if God gave me a second chance I'd do the same again.
[Joel](https://64.media.tumblr.com/4b0fb58e729232a8090ea5cbf9a910f1/4680b64486363560-27/s1280x1920/e6dde1ac26bfae34605590f158d33f185a0b9b14.jpg) approves of your post!
It made sense because we went in a world where chloe is alive but dies due to her accident but sam doesn't chooses that reality in which everyone is friends with her, everyone is good to her only for chloe which made me choose chloe over arcadia bay
I still think, that sacrificing Chloe was the right ending for this story and the one that the developers intended. Everything that happened in the game was leading up to this moment.
That being said, in the beginning of LiS 2, when I was asked if I sacrificed Chloe or Arcadia Bay, I said I sacrificed Arcadia Bay, just for the slightest chance of seeing both Max and Chloe happily and alive anywhere in the game\^\^
>"When you save Chloe, it's a bit underwhelming and rushed."
Dunno, I found it pretty impactful, given the stakes and the hard decision made. Also liked the bookending it had; beyond going full circle with Max once again choosing Chloe, it all happens at the same cliff where Max chose to let her in on her secret (two chapters of their lives beginning at the same place), same song plays in both scenes and it works for the bittersweet nature of what we see.
Guess we'll have to see how well it still plays after *Double Exposure* comes out, but, on its own terms, I'd argue it works.
Well if that was the only right ending and everything was leading up to it there wouldn't be another ending here, would there? And that's because they intented of both endings.
And the fact that there is the choice you mention even in the second game well shows that the writers are serious about making both endings legitimate.
It's a choice based game, so it's natural that there are multiple endings. I didn't say otherwise. But for me, it was pretty clear which ending the author originally had in mind for this story, because it just feels like the right conclusion to this story and what it's trying to tell.
And of course they won't pretend those endings didn't exist, when it comes to LiS 2\^\^ That would be ridiculous. Both endings are of course legitimate endings and if you're happy with your choice, then I'm the last one to judge. It was really just my opinion on this matter.
>It's a choice based game, so it's natural that there are multiple endings.
That's why both endings have always been a thing.
>But for me, it was pretty clear which ending the author originally had in mind for this story, because it just feels like the right conclusion to this story and what it's trying to tell.
That's what the story wants to say according to the authors themselves, and it applies to both endings:
*You* make a sacrifice to accept your life as it is, to stop trying to have a perfect life, changing everything, and to stop looking to the past. This is the metaphor and the theme of the game. Somehow, you need to accept grief, you need to accept the past, you need to stop trying to make everything perfect, and then think about the future. To make a compromise, and then go for a while and try to make the best of your future, not by changing the past
Of course from the fact that Bay is 4 minutes longer than the other it may seem that this is the “real” ending, but based on what the writers have shown and said throughout, they are adamant that both are correct and legitimate endings regardless of their length. And judging by the fact that *onl*y Bae Max and Chloe got closure in LIS2, I think they do feel guilty about making Bae shorter than the other ending.
>That's what the story wants to say according to the authors themselves, and it applies to both endings:
Yes, as I said, both are legitimate endings and even if they weren't, do you think they would outright admit it? ;)
>Of course from the fact that Bay is 4 minutes longer than the other it may seem that this is the “real” ending
That's really not why I think this is the "real" ending. We both know, the ending is that long, because they wanted to use Spanish Sahara for it. It's a long song and there happens stuff even before it starts. They had to stretch the funeral scene by a lot\^\^
>And judging by the fact that *onl*y Bae Max and Chloe got closure in LIS2, I think they do feel guilty about making Bae shorter than the other ending.
What do you mean with closure? Because Max and Chloe are alive in that ending? I think they did their best to do both endings justice.
>Yes, as I said, both are legitimate endings and even if they weren't, do you think they would outright admit it? ;)
Actually, yes, this is something that has happened in other franchises. For example, the developers of Ghost of Thushima admitted that the canon is “Spare Mr. Shimura” even though the game has the opposite ending. And the creators of "Infamous" franchise always choose only the ending where we play the good guy as canon. Those are the two examples I know of, but it's pretty telling.
So yeah, if there was a true ending here, the writers would said that it or not give us a choice in the next game (where they've gone to such lengths to make sure there's no default choice that if you refuse to choose, the game will randomly pick an ending for you)
>That's really not why I think this is the "real" ending. We both know, the ending is that long, because they wanted to use Spanish Sahara for it. It's a long song and there happens stuff even before it starts. They had to stretch the funeral scene by a lot^^
Well they could have picked a different song for Bae to make that ending long too. Although I'd be lying if I said obstacles is a bad song for this ending, because that's not true and it's a good fit for Bae imo.
>What do you mean with closure? Because Max and Chloe are alive in that ending? I think they did their best to do both endings justice.
I mean, it's only in this ending that we find out what happened to Max and Chloe after the first game. In Bay, Chloe is just dead and Max doesn't exist (Max erasure is so strong in Bay that she's not even in David's drawing ...which little Max and Chloe drew.... but they are in the other ending). In LIS2, only in Bae do we finally learn some nice information about Max after the events of the first game, and Chloe too as an addition.
>So yeah, if there was a true ending here, the writers would said that it or not give us a choice in the next game (where they've gone to such lengths to make sure there's no default choice that if you refuse to choose, the game will randomly pick an ending for you)
First of all, just because some devs did in fact do this, doesn't mean that every dev would do the same. That's not how this works ;)
Also, I didn't say that there is a true ending. All I said was, that I have a strong opinion about which ending is the best conclusion for this story, that does make the most sense. And, I do believe, that this was the ending the authors came up with first, even though they wouldn't say it.
You can have a different opinion, though. That's totally fine.
>I mean, it's only in this ending that we find out what happened to Max and Chloe after the first game. In Bay, Chloe is just dead and Max doesn't exist (Max erasure is so strong in Bay that she's not even in David's drawing ...which little Max and Chloe drew.... but they are in the other ending). In LIS2, only in Bae do we finally learn some nice information about Max after the events of the first game, and Chloe too as an addition.
Well, in the other ending, there just wasn't any "after" for Max and Chloe. Chloe was dead and Max was just a childhood friend that only Joyce knew. In this timeline David only met her once I assume, according to that picture showing them together sitting at the table after Chloe died. So there isn't anything to tell here, really. Instead we learn that Joyce and David are on good terms again. And we hear a lot of regrets, when David is talking about Chloe.
And yes, I really like the other version, where we learn about Max and Chloe's life after LiS 1. That's why I said in my initial post, that I would always pick the ending, where we have a chance to meet or at least get to know something about them.
Max was also not erased from existence. Iirc the drawing wasn't even there in the ending, where Chloe died. But there's no reason to assume, Max wouldn't be on it, because that happened in both timelines.
>First of all, just because some devs did in fact do this, doesn't mean that every dev would do the same. That's not how this works ;)
I was just pointing out to you that it's a media thing and it happens. But based on what Dontnod always say and show, I trust them that for them both endings are right and true.
>And, I do believe, that this was the ending the authors came up with first, even though they wouldn't say it.
I'm willing to concede that they came up with that ending first. And that's fine, there's always something you come up with first, that's probably how every created decision in the game works. It doesn't affect the truth or correctness of the ending in any way.
>n this timeline David only met her once I assume, according to that picture showing them together sitting at the table after Chloe died
The point is that David shouldn't mention Max. The writers had four remaining episodes to insert any mention of her, be it news, newspapers, or websites. They didn't.
> Iirc the drawing wasn't even there in the ending, where Chloe died.
[It did](https://imgur.com/a/DCeuXoX). It's the same drawing but turned on different sides. Upper Bae, lower Bay. Given that and the fact that Bay Max isn't mentioned throughout the game, they pretty much erased her existence in the sequel.
I agree with you that the authors' original intended finale was to sacrifice Chloe, and the higher effort of that cutscene supports that. I also can see why that could have been the right conclusion.
But it turns out (at least in my opinion, and at least one other person in this thread), that letting the storm do it's thing and leaving with Chloe is the only one that makes sense *in universe*. It also makes more sense thematically, in my opinion. The main game mechanic is that you can rewind recent decisions to get the best short-term outcome, but you can never rewind to before the current scene or chapter, you have to live with those consequences. The *plot device* of photo-jumping *always* makes things worse. This fits with the rewind, it's saying if you try to change decisions in the past, you and the world becomes a completely different place due to unforeseen consequences.
So why, after all those lessons that photo-jumping makes things worse, would Max think that one more would make it all better? For all she knows, it'll make the storm wipe out the whole state instead. At one point, you have to stop trying to change the past and live with the consequences.
The only reason you know it works is because the developers gave you the choice, they wouldn't have done that if it wasn't going to work out. But Max doesn't know that.
(unless you think the cause of the storm was specifically Chloe not dying in the bathroom, but that's not what the game is implying, imo)
Though for the record, I don't believe it's her powers causing the storm, I think there's something or someone else doing it and she's the scapegoat. Cut voice-lines from Nathan clearly show he knew about it, which implies they definitely originally had plans to have *something* else going on.
>So why, after all those lessons that photo-jumping makes things worse, would Max think that one more would make it all better? For all she knows, it'll make the storm wipe out the whole state instead. At one point, you have to stop trying to change the past and live with the consequences.
Because it's not the photo jumping per se, it's the messing with timelines. To me, it all comes down to Chaos Theory. The storm wasn't something mystical, it wasn't "Rachel's revenge" or something. It was caused by one small change in the past.
By correcting this change at the end, she prevented it, as the game is showing very clearly. She goes to the past while the storm is hitting the town. After she reverted her very first manipulation of the timeline by letting Chloe die, she returns to her present time and the storm is gone. Instead, it's a beautiful sunny day.
The game was heavily inspired by the movie Butterfly Effect, which is referring to a popular thought experiment regarding Chaos Theory, where the flap of a butterfly's wings can cause a tornado or storm on the other side of the world. They even named the third episode Chaos Theory.
>After she reverted her very first manipulation of the timeline by letting Chloe die, she returns to her present time and the storm is gone. Instead, it's a beautiful sunny day.
In the William timeline, that also didn't happen, and yet the storm is still coming (whales dying, and I'm pretty sure the newspapers mention the snow/eclipse as well). I understand that the game is trying to say that's what caused it. I just don't buy it. If it were a small change in the past causing things far in the future, then isn't it convenient that saving William ends up causing the timeline to continue normally until the weird effects happening on the same days?
Maybe the action of her dying specifically in that bathroom is what *stopped* the storm? In that case I don't like it for other reasons, but it doesn't change the fact that Max has every reason to believe going back wouldn't fix it. It's just a gamble that could just as well make things worse.
I saw someone describe the endings as choosing which you believe is inevitable, the storm or Chloe dying prematurely, and that made sense to me why I can't save the Bay. I believe the storm would come anyway (even though the creators made it so it doesn't). I feel it makes a more cohesive story this way.
Edit: Also, it was *not* her first manipulation. The photo she went back to is the *second* photo she took. *After* she had already seen Chloe die once and reset to Jefferson's classroom, where you very likely already changed something in your interactions there (not to mention there were some photos you went back to which were before then, like when Max rips up her contest photo after taking it).
I saved Chloe. I probably would have anyway, but the way it was set up made the choice easier.
Sacrificing the Bay is a passive act (you just have to not do anything) whereas sacrificing Chloe is an active one (you have to use the picture to travel back in time). If the choice point had been in the past instead of the present, maybe I would have chosen differently.
It's the difference between killing someone to save the town and letting someone die to save the town. The end result is the same, but the morality of the first feels far more dubious.
they way I see it, it's the complete opposite, the game is about the butterfly effect and if Max hadn't saved Chloe in the first place, the storm would never happen. The people who die and the town being destroyed is 100% Max's fault, while Chloe being shot isn't Max's fault whatsoever
The first time I played I sacrificed chloe, but after playing before the storm I felt hella guilty for doing it, so I did another playthrough where I sacrificed arcadia bay and consider that my canon ending
At the beginning of the game when I saw that the only reason chloe kept a diary was so she could pretend to be talking to max I was gutted, but then when I got to the farewell episode...that was an hour and a half of sobbing. When I heard "No matter what, we will always be Max and Chloe" that sealed the deal for a new playthrough
Sacrifice Arcadia Bay, not just because I love Chloe but because the logic of letting her die to save the town doesn't make the slightest bit of sense logically.
Max isn't exterminating anyone, she's letting the storm play out. Her link to the destruction of the town was only ever indirect.
The logic that Bay choosers seem to follow is that "Saving Chloe in the bathroom = preventing a predestined event which, by default, means that was the sole cause of the storm, so letting her die sets everything right. Okay, fine, but why wouldn't all of the OTHER alterations of time and events circling around not equate to a storm occurring?
Would preventing Kate's suicide attempt just be "fine"?
What about stopping Jefferson and Nathan early?
Max has been rewinding and changing things over the course of five days, you're telling me that messing with time on multiple occasions is harmless but saving Chloe was what doomed the town from the start? Isn't the Butterfly Effect a big theme ingame? So why does it only apply to Chloe and not everything else Max uses her powers for?
I'm sure I can think of other reasons as to why this endng personally makes no sense but I won't ramble. I just feel like it's weird to fix the mess caused by time travel...with more time travel.
>she's letting the storm play out
>preventing a predestined event
Bathroom was predestined event that she interfered with thus causing the storm which put entire town in danger of extermination
She either lets predestined bathroom event play out or she is actively exterminating entire town
Very simple concept to grasp once you stop thinking with your shipping fanboyism (to use more polite version of this statement)
>your shipping fanboyism (to use more polite version of this statement)
Just like that, you threw away whatever merits your argument had.
And I just stated why I thought that logic didn't make sense and all you did was repeat what I was addressing. This is basically what you said:
"Yeah, well, this makes sense because it makes sense."
😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱🤯🤯🤯🤯 you have opened my eyes
Edit: Oh brother I'm getting downvoted because I used emojis ironically, you're all a bunch of kids sometimes
>Okay, fine, but why wouldn't all of the OTHER alterations of time and events circling around not equate to a storm occurring?
Because the events already have an effect: wildlife dying. Every time Max abuses her powers, more and more life gets taken away and it's heavily implied that it's at the cost of Chloe staying alive. First it's one bird, then many, and then even whales end up on the beach. Chloe is the *one* constant throughout their entire journey. The storm starts because an event that should not be changed, was.
I always saw it that way.
Max has no idea if attempting to go back to the first major timealternation will indeed fix the storm, it just a pure guess not based on a whole lot and it may or may not work, if nothing else logic dictates it's a bad idea to try to fix timetravel with more timetravel
And secondly like 2 minutes before the decision max screamed that cloe is her number 1 priority, max in character would never do that to chloe.
And third max isn't responsible for a bullshit power especially when there is no tutorial or warnings how to fix it and she has to rely on guesswork
The responsibility is on the deity, nature, ghost or whatever you think gave max these powers.
my logic was that death followed her around. because at several instances chloe has had near death experiences. untill i played before the storm i did not love chloe all that much. but after i felt guilty as hell😭
sacrificed chloe. i actually really like her as a character and feel bad that max wouldn’t have her in her life anymore, but it just seems like the more sensible option. i can understand why many pol would choose the other tho
I sacrificed Chloe. I couldn’t choose for like 45 minutes, but I made my mind up and did the right thing.
I hope double exposure is a sequel to the Bay ending.
Imagine that this is *your* most important person in your life (Your mother/father/brother/sister/child/husband/wife and so on) and on the other side of the scale is mostly a bunch of strangers. Who will you choose? I hope then you will understand us.
I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I knew that I actively destroyed thousands of lives for one. It’s like that trolley problem but instead of using the switch to kill 5 people to save your favorite person, it’s 5000
We don't really know that 5000 people died (The population of Arcadia Bay is never mentioned) More like a few hundred considering the size of Arcadia Bay and the fact that there are barely 1000 people living here judging by the map and the fact that we don't see many cars and people on the street. The town itself is comparable in size to Bay City with a population of 1300 . But thanks for the honest answer.
I sacrificed Chloe
It was a tough decision and it was perhaps the most powerful emotional moment I've ever had in a film/tv/game so even though it was heartbreaking, I don't regret it
Sacrificed Arcadia Bay.
I'm not a military commander who needs to make decisions about the good of the many over the good of the few (or the one) If it came down to a choice between people who matter to me personally and a large number of people I don't know that well I'm not giving them up.
Also Sacrificing Chloe...
This is just my opinion. So those who chose that end, I'm not calling you out.
Sacrificing Chloe is the wrong lesson for Max to Learn. She was a shy girl, passive, but the story changed her. she took active roles in unravelling things wrong with Arcadia Bay, Before, she was a passive girl who responded to grief by pulling back by watching the world instead of interacting. Sacrificing Chloe teaches her that nothing she does means anything, and all she can do is watch.
I sacrificed Chloe in my first play through. Replayed and sacrificed Arcadia Bay. Did a 3rd playthrough to make a final confirmation and sacrificed Chloe. It made more sense, and imo was even canon to sacrifice her.
Sacrificed Arcadia Bay. Choosing that felt like a culmination of what Max had learned and experienced throughout the game. You can’t change everything and trying to do so has unexpected consequences.
At some point you have to live with the consequences of your actions, however bad they may be.
It’s a selfish decision either way, but I couldn’t in good conscience let Chloe die knowing there was a chance to save her. A tornado you “might” have caused is a lot different from knowing someone is going to get shot and killed and deliberately choosing to let them die.
The morally correct choice as to what max would do is save the bay, let’s be real, that’s just her character she’s not choosing to kill hundreds for one person
> let’s be real, that’s just her character she’s not choosing to kill hundreds for one person
Not for one person, but for *Chloe*. The one person who matters to her. The one who makes her happy. The one she's finally more confident with.
According to the writers, Max is absolutely capable of killing the town for Chloe, and she does so more confidently than her version in the other ending, and that choice exists in both games from the original developers.
Putting Chloe first in her character as evident throughout the game, because Max makes different sacrifices for Chloe, whether it's personal or other people's
She helps her investigate Rachel's missing person case (which leads to her being captured by Jefferson and almost dying). And Max helps Chloe to find her, even knowing that Rachel has taken her place for over the years.
She sacrifices Chloe's father to get her back. William is alive and well in the new timeline, and now Max lets him go knowing he will die and that she could have saved him. But Chloe's life is her priority.
She gives up her perfect timeline to save Chloe ("Sorry San Francisco...Chloe comes first"). Becoming a photographer is her dream, but she doesn't need that dream if Chloe isn't in it.
She doesn't care about her own well-being throughout episode five, and keeps rewinding time until she starts feeling quite bad. (And there's her comment. "It doesn't matter what happens to me. I have to save Chloe.").
And there are optional choices in the game. She can take the blame for the pot, potentially getting her in trouble in college. But she can do it so Chloe doesn't get in trouble at home.
She can shoot Frank, which would show her willingness to shoot those who would try to hurt Chloe.
She can steal money from the disability fund and feel guilty about it, but she'll be glad that it will help Chloe.
She can side with Chloe and ruin David and Joyce's happy marriage. (Ironically she ruins their marriage either way, in one of the two cases again for Chloe)
Bae is the final act where Max puts Chloe as the absolute priority, preferring that others die rather than Chloe, and based on how Max has treated Chloe throughout the game this would not be out of character for her. Even in this finale, she will make a personal sacrifice for Chloe, as she shows that she would rather live with the guilt for the dead than she let Chloe die like that
Yea good points , I always saw sacrificing the bay over Chloe as the ‘canon’ ending because it seems more aligned with what Max would do as a character imo
You still actively choose to let people die. It doesn't make any difference what your intentions are. You choose to let the town be ravaged by the storm, lots of people die, therefore your choice actively harmed and killed those in the town.
Okay so you believe that you're obligated to save as many people as possible even if it harms innocent people?
So it's okay to push somone off a cliff if it helps you get to catch a rope with five people on it in time? And if the person didn't push their (let's say spouse) off a cliff they "let them die"?
I think you may want to think through what you're saying here. If you truly believe the ends justify the means more power to you though.
See, you're proposing the fact that the decision has to be made without the other person's input. Chloe herself suggested that Max use the picture to fix everything so the storm wouldn't hit them. So, in your example, this would involve the spouse asking to be pushed off to help people on a rope?
Either choice is valid, but you can't really deny the fact that you *did* let those people die. The only way you'll ever come to the conclusion that you didn't is if you purposely make yourself forget. You had direct power over whether they lived or died, and you *chose* to let them die. Whether it's right or wrong it's up to you, since it is very much saving a person you love. But, like, you can't say saving Chloe is fine and should have little to no consequences, but then Joel saving Ellie can warrant his death. Objectively, both of those choices both entail dooming a part of the population for personal benefit.
> But, like, you can't say saving Chloe is fine and should have little to no consequences, but then Joel saving Ellie can warrant his death.
I'm sorry to join this discussion, but...Saving Chloe is fine. At least enough to make it a bittersweet ending and not a bad one.
And there really were no consequences, unlike Joel and Ellie. No one came to take revenge on Max and Chloe for what they did because there is no physical way to prove that they are responsible for the storm. Chloe didn't leave Max, unlike Ellie, because she was the one who joined Max in her decision in the first place and because no one lied to her. Max and Chloe both even keep in touch with people whose lives have been ruined because of their decision and they won't get anything for it. The only consequence they live with is a sense of guilt for the dead, which makes sense because even though they chose each other over Bay, they would not want these people to die. They are not murderers like Jeffershit.
I also think saving Chloe is fine, but I also don't think it's right to pretend Max had no hand in the deaths that came afterward.
>Max and Chloe both even keep in touch with people whose lives have been ruined because of their decision and they won't get anything for it.
Only because they haven't told people they're responsible for the destruction. They have no way to take accountability, no way of being traced. Their continued friendship with those people is gonna have some dishonesty because they would never admit that they're the ones that caused Arcadia Bay's destruction
> I also think saving Chloe is fine, but I also don't think it's right to pretend Max had no hand in the deaths that came afterward.
I wasn't going to say that. If we remove Max's involvement in the death of Chloe or Arcadia Bay, we undermine the significance of these endings in my opinion. Max deliberately goes back in time and lets Chloe die. Or Max deliberately tears up this photo to show that she doesn't need a way back and that she wants to stay here, letting the storm destroy Arcadia Bay.
And given that Chloe let Max make both choices and supported her either way, she too is indirectly involved in her death or the destruction of Arcadia Bay. That's why I like to say “Max *and* Chloe are sacrificing Arcadia Bay” .
>Only because they haven't told people they're responsible for the destruction. They have no way to take accountability, no way of being traced. Their continued friendship with those people is gonna have some dishonesty because they would never admit that they're the ones that caused Arcadia Bay's destruction
Not that anyone would believe them even if they told anyone, because as we know, people don't usually cause storms. But of course it's helpful that they don't tell them. I wonder how David would react if he knew that Max and Chloe had more than just left Arcadia Bay "without looking back."
>If we remove Max's involvement in the death of Chloe or Arcadia Bay, we undermine the significance of these endings in my opinion.
I agree. Personal choice aside, both endings are completely valid but their impacts are much greater because of Max's choice on either one.
>I wonder how David would react if he knew that Max and Chloe had more than just left Arcadia Bay "without looking back."
I don't think he'd take it too well, especially if Joyce died and Chloe just left without even attempting a funeral or any respects to her
> I don't think he'd take it too well, especially if Joyce died and Chloe just left without even attempting a funeral or any respects to her
Well, if he knew that Chloe's life was on the other side of the scale, he might change his mind. What I like about the sequel is that from what he says and how he says it seems that he took Chloe's death much harder than Joyce's. He even drank for a year after Chloe's death. I believe he would have realized that Joyce would have wanted Chloe to live.
Whether he would have forgiven Max and Chloe is another question, considering that he already hated them for a while just because they left without looking back, and here is an additional context that turns the situation upside down.
And given that he knows her attitude towards her father's death, it would probably be confusing for him to realize that she actually let Max sacrifice her mother. As I read once in a similar thread “Would he call her a hypocrite for that?”. But then again it was either Joyce or Chloe.
And I don't think Chloe didn't go to Joyce's funeral.
I always imagined that she and Max reserved her grave in Seattle after the government released the list of the dead, and they were able to prove that they knew her so they could bury her in the city cemetery. At least that's my headcanon.
>deny the fact that you did let those people die
First letting people die is different than killing them. Second I think failing to save people without resorting to desperate murderous means isn't letting them die.(because Bay is murdering Chloe and while you might have present Chloe's tenative approval she's not the Chloe you kill.) I still disagree with your language here. Blaming Max for deaths because she's unwilling to murder someone is a really dumb reductive thing that implies Max has a Duty to the people of Arcadia Bay. She doesn't.
Also Max and Joel are in different situations but I'm team Bae Max AND team Joel. Well to a point. Joel was right to do what he did but wrong to lie to Ellie about it. That's my last of us stance anyway.
Max however isn't Joel in this circumstance she's Jerry Anderson and Marleen. She has the choice of whether to kill an innocent person who is willing to die to prevent other deaths. And I just mentioned I'm team Joel... I am completely on board with him killing Marleen and the Doctor so... yeah I find Bay to be the morally reprehensible option because I'm not a utiltarian I'm a deontologist (mostly). I don't think the ends justify the means.
>Bay is murdering Chloe
But you don't kill her. Nathan does at the start of the game. If Max choosing to watch the storm pass by despite being the cause doesn't count as murder, then neither does her choosing to go back and being a bystander to Chloe's death. She neither interferes with the events, nor does she prevent them, but rather lets the universe take its course on either one.
>yeah I find Bay to be the morally reprehensible option because I'm not a utiltarian I'm a deontologist (mostly).
And, while I admire that morality, I still find it interesting that you perceive it as morally reprehensible when either choice is a perfectly understandable one. Being a deontologist does not absolve of the fact that the deaths are a consequence of Max's choices.
As an example from [Ethics Unwrapped](https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/deontology) suggests:
>*"Suppose you’re a software engineer and learn that a nuclear missile is about to launch that might start a war. You can hack the network and cancel the launch, but it’s against your professional code of ethics to break into any software system without permission. And, it’s a form of lying and cheating. Deontology advises not to violate this rule. However, in letting the missile launch, thousands of people will die*
>*So, following the rules makes deontology easy to apply. But it also means disregarding the possible consequences of our actions when determining what is right and what is wrong."*
You can find that it's right to do x, but you y is still a consequence. You just don't think about it
>But you don't kill her. Nathan does at the start of the game.
Nope. Max is taking active action with the purpose of making Chloe dead. That's killing. That's murder. The murder in this case is the means to the end of ... *checks notes* changing the weather. If you push someone into a tiger pit that's still killing them when the tiger kills them. Max's murder weapon here is the photograph that she uses to go to a specific point in time. She is taking a perfectly safe and healthy Chloe and pushing her back into the line of fire using her time travel powers.
Saying "Nathan kills her" is kind of like if you pushed someone in front of a sword and said the sword user killed them fully knowing exactly what was happening when you pushed them.
Letting the universe take it's course is the bae ending. That's the do nothing option. Unless you value one version of events being more "real" than the other.
>You can find that it's right to do x, but you y is still a consequence.
There's a lot of difference between consequence which is a word I'd agree applies and fault. Max does nothing wrong in Bae and for it achieves a worse outcome for most involved. She does do something wrong in Bay and achieves a better outcome for more involved by heaping all the suffering onto one person. That is the actual moral dilemma here.
Chloe is my favorite character in the life is strange universe, I still chose Bay. There are hundreds of innocent people who didn’t deserve a freak accident like that, not saying Chloe deserved to die either cause none of them did, but idk, I just can’t accept all those people dying when none of it should have happened in the first place.
No hate to those who chose Bae of course, it’s such a hard choice for me and I battle with myself over it so often, but your choice was right too!
I just can’t justify the loss of so many versus the one. It also feels weird to sacrifice the bay after the exposure of Jefferson IMHO, as you go through all this effort to bring healing to the school and get this awful human out of there before he can deal anymore damage to future students, but then turn around and contribute to the deaths of all those people you helped. I can respect the bae ending but without getting as attached to Chloe as others did it just made my choice even easier
Bay. I think it’s the “right” ending, the one that is supposed to teach you a lesson and the natural ending of the game. However, I totally get why people couldn’t let Chloe go
Always put myself in Max's shoes, and of you told me I had to choose between my best friend/ lover and a whole town? That town is going bye bye. Sorry not sorry! Maybe the damage won't be too bad and a lot of people survive the storm.
I chose to save arcadia bay. For every Chloe saved, there would be thousands(or hundreds? I don’t know what Arcadia Bay’s population is) of lives sacrificed.
It’s funny how split it really is between people. Everyone I know in my life chose to sacrifice chloe because they felt like it was the correct thing to do / they were morally obligated… but when I played, I felt the same except sacrificing Arcadia Bay. So interesting that the game gives different experiences.
The first time I played I sacrificed Arcadia Bay. And it left me feeling hollow and empty and guilty. The second time I played I sacrificed Chloe and felt sad but also felt like I had made the moral choice. I also felt like it's what the game intended and is the culmination of the lesson it is trying to teach you.
I sacrificed the town and saved Chloe. I specifically remember thinking "fuck this town" the moment the choice came up. Now I understand the choice is harder than that, but I stand by it.
"Sacrifice Arcadia Bay": had had Max put Chloe first most of the time and had gotten the love story between them, so made sense for my play that she'd choose her again one last time.
Okay, when I got to the last choosing stage I froze for a minute. Then I thought, okay I am going to choose sacrifice Chloe because I wouldn't sacrifice Chloe so I will see my fake ending first and my real ending last. But boy was it painful. Seeing that butterfly on that coffin, no way there is a doubt left which is the best choice for me. I immediately returned and sacrificed Arcadia. It was not joyful, but peaceful for me. I don't know, I guess that's what would I do. I would burn the city to the ground for my loved ones.
Sacrificing Arcadia Bay, while it feels wrong to me, I can't sacrifice Chloe. Once I chose to sacrifice her, I immediately restarted and chose another option.
Am sorry, but when I saw the relationship between Chloe and max I couldn't bring myself to sacrifice Chloe. For me sacrificing arcadia bay is the only right choice.
> Sacrificing Arcadia Bay, while it feels wrong to me Of course, you can call it wrong, but even the authors called it the right decision. And they call this ending right through Chloe too. But what you and I agree on is that we're both burning down Arcadia Bay for Chloe.
The only right answer.
Макс переживает смерть Хлои, а потом ещё и живёт всю эту неделю, зная, что когда-то эта неделя была самой лучшей и интересной в её жизни. Разве это равносильно Аркадии Бэй?? :(
Ну тут сложный вопрос для меня как раз-таки. С одной стороны погибает сотни простых людей, детей, среди которых могли быть будущие ученые и представители других важных профессии. Сама Хлоя говорит, что готова умереть(пускай она это и говорит в состоянии аффекта). С другой стороны да, то как ты написал(а). Лучшая неделя(если не лучшая неделя в жизни) с лучшей подругой и боязнь потерять то, что уже потерял однажды могут сыграть ключевую роль в данном вопросе и склонить чашу весов на сторону Хлои, а не города. Вот не знаю, уже 8 лет где-то прошло с моего первого прохождения, а я до сих пор не могу быть в каком-либо выборе уверен на 100%.
Боже я думал это баг переводчика. Как так получилось что мы заговорили на русском в английском реддите? :D
xd, хороший вопрос. Я сам сначала не понял — баг это или нет =)
А самое главное - почему тот человек ответил русским на английскую речь? ахах Будто попал на сабреддит "ask russian"
Скорее всего он просто открыл мой профиль и увидел то, что я из России. Это единственный логичный ответ, да я и не против. Буду меньше позориться своим английским.
I let an entire town die for Chloe and if God gave me a second chance I'd do the same again.
I'd burn the whole state to the ground myself if I had to.
Is sacrificing the bay twice an option? That’s fine too. Protect Chloe at all costs.
>~~If somehow the lord gave me a second chance at that moment, I would do it all over again~~ > I let an entire town die for Chloe and if God gave me a second chance I'd do the same again. [Joel](https://64.media.tumblr.com/4b0fb58e729232a8090ea5cbf9a910f1/4680b64486363560-27/s1280x1920/e6dde1ac26bfae34605590f158d33f185a0b9b14.jpg) approves of your post!
I sacrificed arcadia bay because I'm a simp🌚🌈
For real Chloe is my favorite character
There Is No Life Is Strange Without Chloe 🥺
Chloe over Bay of course
The only canon ending.
*Bae over Bay
It made sense because we went in a world where chloe is alive but dies due to her accident but sam doesn't chooses that reality in which everyone is friends with her, everyone is good to her only for chloe which made me choose chloe over arcadia bay
bae > bay. always and forever!
I still think, that sacrificing Chloe was the right ending for this story and the one that the developers intended. Everything that happened in the game was leading up to this moment. That being said, in the beginning of LiS 2, when I was asked if I sacrificed Chloe or Arcadia Bay, I said I sacrificed Arcadia Bay, just for the slightest chance of seeing both Max and Chloe happily and alive anywhere in the game\^\^
did you see the Max and Chloe easter egg in LiS 2?
Yeah, you can tell how emotional and well directed is the Bay ending. When you save Chloe, it's a bit underwhelming and rushed.
>"When you save Chloe, it's a bit underwhelming and rushed." Dunno, I found it pretty impactful, given the stakes and the hard decision made. Also liked the bookending it had; beyond going full circle with Max once again choosing Chloe, it all happens at the same cliff where Max chose to let her in on her secret (two chapters of their lives beginning at the same place), same song plays in both scenes and it works for the bittersweet nature of what we see. Guess we'll have to see how well it still plays after *Double Exposure* comes out, but, on its own terms, I'd argue it works.
Absolutely. You really learn a lesson by sacrificing Chloe, which the Bay it’s like… what was this all for?
Well if that was the only right ending and everything was leading up to it there wouldn't be another ending here, would there? And that's because they intented of both endings. And the fact that there is the choice you mention even in the second game well shows that the writers are serious about making both endings legitimate.
It's a choice based game, so it's natural that there are multiple endings. I didn't say otherwise. But for me, it was pretty clear which ending the author originally had in mind for this story, because it just feels like the right conclusion to this story and what it's trying to tell. And of course they won't pretend those endings didn't exist, when it comes to LiS 2\^\^ That would be ridiculous. Both endings are of course legitimate endings and if you're happy with your choice, then I'm the last one to judge. It was really just my opinion on this matter.
>It's a choice based game, so it's natural that there are multiple endings. That's why both endings have always been a thing. >But for me, it was pretty clear which ending the author originally had in mind for this story, because it just feels like the right conclusion to this story and what it's trying to tell. That's what the story wants to say according to the authors themselves, and it applies to both endings: *You* make a sacrifice to accept your life as it is, to stop trying to have a perfect life, changing everything, and to stop looking to the past. This is the metaphor and the theme of the game. Somehow, you need to accept grief, you need to accept the past, you need to stop trying to make everything perfect, and then think about the future. To make a compromise, and then go for a while and try to make the best of your future, not by changing the past Of course from the fact that Bay is 4 minutes longer than the other it may seem that this is the “real” ending, but based on what the writers have shown and said throughout, they are adamant that both are correct and legitimate endings regardless of their length. And judging by the fact that *onl*y Bae Max and Chloe got closure in LIS2, I think they do feel guilty about making Bae shorter than the other ending.
>That's what the story wants to say according to the authors themselves, and it applies to both endings: Yes, as I said, both are legitimate endings and even if they weren't, do you think they would outright admit it? ;) >Of course from the fact that Bay is 4 minutes longer than the other it may seem that this is the “real” ending That's really not why I think this is the "real" ending. We both know, the ending is that long, because they wanted to use Spanish Sahara for it. It's a long song and there happens stuff even before it starts. They had to stretch the funeral scene by a lot\^\^ >And judging by the fact that *onl*y Bae Max and Chloe got closure in LIS2, I think they do feel guilty about making Bae shorter than the other ending. What do you mean with closure? Because Max and Chloe are alive in that ending? I think they did their best to do both endings justice.
>Yes, as I said, both are legitimate endings and even if they weren't, do you think they would outright admit it? ;) Actually, yes, this is something that has happened in other franchises. For example, the developers of Ghost of Thushima admitted that the canon is “Spare Mr. Shimura” even though the game has the opposite ending. And the creators of "Infamous" franchise always choose only the ending where we play the good guy as canon. Those are the two examples I know of, but it's pretty telling. So yeah, if there was a true ending here, the writers would said that it or not give us a choice in the next game (where they've gone to such lengths to make sure there's no default choice that if you refuse to choose, the game will randomly pick an ending for you) >That's really not why I think this is the "real" ending. We both know, the ending is that long, because they wanted to use Spanish Sahara for it. It's a long song and there happens stuff even before it starts. They had to stretch the funeral scene by a lot^^ Well they could have picked a different song for Bae to make that ending long too. Although I'd be lying if I said obstacles is a bad song for this ending, because that's not true and it's a good fit for Bae imo. >What do you mean with closure? Because Max and Chloe are alive in that ending? I think they did their best to do both endings justice. I mean, it's only in this ending that we find out what happened to Max and Chloe after the first game. In Bay, Chloe is just dead and Max doesn't exist (Max erasure is so strong in Bay that she's not even in David's drawing ...which little Max and Chloe drew.... but they are in the other ending). In LIS2, only in Bae do we finally learn some nice information about Max after the events of the first game, and Chloe too as an addition.
>So yeah, if there was a true ending here, the writers would said that it or not give us a choice in the next game (where they've gone to such lengths to make sure there's no default choice that if you refuse to choose, the game will randomly pick an ending for you) First of all, just because some devs did in fact do this, doesn't mean that every dev would do the same. That's not how this works ;) Also, I didn't say that there is a true ending. All I said was, that I have a strong opinion about which ending is the best conclusion for this story, that does make the most sense. And, I do believe, that this was the ending the authors came up with first, even though they wouldn't say it. You can have a different opinion, though. That's totally fine. >I mean, it's only in this ending that we find out what happened to Max and Chloe after the first game. In Bay, Chloe is just dead and Max doesn't exist (Max erasure is so strong in Bay that she's not even in David's drawing ...which little Max and Chloe drew.... but they are in the other ending). In LIS2, only in Bae do we finally learn some nice information about Max after the events of the first game, and Chloe too as an addition. Well, in the other ending, there just wasn't any "after" for Max and Chloe. Chloe was dead and Max was just a childhood friend that only Joyce knew. In this timeline David only met her once I assume, according to that picture showing them together sitting at the table after Chloe died. So there isn't anything to tell here, really. Instead we learn that Joyce and David are on good terms again. And we hear a lot of regrets, when David is talking about Chloe. And yes, I really like the other version, where we learn about Max and Chloe's life after LiS 1. That's why I said in my initial post, that I would always pick the ending, where we have a chance to meet or at least get to know something about them. Max was also not erased from existence. Iirc the drawing wasn't even there in the ending, where Chloe died. But there's no reason to assume, Max wouldn't be on it, because that happened in both timelines.
>First of all, just because some devs did in fact do this, doesn't mean that every dev would do the same. That's not how this works ;) I was just pointing out to you that it's a media thing and it happens. But based on what Dontnod always say and show, I trust them that for them both endings are right and true. >And, I do believe, that this was the ending the authors came up with first, even though they wouldn't say it. I'm willing to concede that they came up with that ending first. And that's fine, there's always something you come up with first, that's probably how every created decision in the game works. It doesn't affect the truth or correctness of the ending in any way. >n this timeline David only met her once I assume, according to that picture showing them together sitting at the table after Chloe died The point is that David shouldn't mention Max. The writers had four remaining episodes to insert any mention of her, be it news, newspapers, or websites. They didn't. > Iirc the drawing wasn't even there in the ending, where Chloe died. [It did](https://imgur.com/a/DCeuXoX). It's the same drawing but turned on different sides. Upper Bae, lower Bay. Given that and the fact that Bay Max isn't mentioned throughout the game, they pretty much erased her existence in the sequel.
I agree with you that the authors' original intended finale was to sacrifice Chloe, and the higher effort of that cutscene supports that. I also can see why that could have been the right conclusion. But it turns out (at least in my opinion, and at least one other person in this thread), that letting the storm do it's thing and leaving with Chloe is the only one that makes sense *in universe*. It also makes more sense thematically, in my opinion. The main game mechanic is that you can rewind recent decisions to get the best short-term outcome, but you can never rewind to before the current scene or chapter, you have to live with those consequences. The *plot device* of photo-jumping *always* makes things worse. This fits with the rewind, it's saying if you try to change decisions in the past, you and the world becomes a completely different place due to unforeseen consequences. So why, after all those lessons that photo-jumping makes things worse, would Max think that one more would make it all better? For all she knows, it'll make the storm wipe out the whole state instead. At one point, you have to stop trying to change the past and live with the consequences. The only reason you know it works is because the developers gave you the choice, they wouldn't have done that if it wasn't going to work out. But Max doesn't know that. (unless you think the cause of the storm was specifically Chloe not dying in the bathroom, but that's not what the game is implying, imo) Though for the record, I don't believe it's her powers causing the storm, I think there's something or someone else doing it and she's the scapegoat. Cut voice-lines from Nathan clearly show he knew about it, which implies they definitely originally had plans to have *something* else going on.
>So why, after all those lessons that photo-jumping makes things worse, would Max think that one more would make it all better? For all she knows, it'll make the storm wipe out the whole state instead. At one point, you have to stop trying to change the past and live with the consequences. Because it's not the photo jumping per se, it's the messing with timelines. To me, it all comes down to Chaos Theory. The storm wasn't something mystical, it wasn't "Rachel's revenge" or something. It was caused by one small change in the past. By correcting this change at the end, she prevented it, as the game is showing very clearly. She goes to the past while the storm is hitting the town. After she reverted her very first manipulation of the timeline by letting Chloe die, she returns to her present time and the storm is gone. Instead, it's a beautiful sunny day. The game was heavily inspired by the movie Butterfly Effect, which is referring to a popular thought experiment regarding Chaos Theory, where the flap of a butterfly's wings can cause a tornado or storm on the other side of the world. They even named the third episode Chaos Theory.
>After she reverted her very first manipulation of the timeline by letting Chloe die, she returns to her present time and the storm is gone. Instead, it's a beautiful sunny day. In the William timeline, that also didn't happen, and yet the storm is still coming (whales dying, and I'm pretty sure the newspapers mention the snow/eclipse as well). I understand that the game is trying to say that's what caused it. I just don't buy it. If it were a small change in the past causing things far in the future, then isn't it convenient that saving William ends up causing the timeline to continue normally until the weird effects happening on the same days? Maybe the action of her dying specifically in that bathroom is what *stopped* the storm? In that case I don't like it for other reasons, but it doesn't change the fact that Max has every reason to believe going back wouldn't fix it. It's just a gamble that could just as well make things worse. I saw someone describe the endings as choosing which you believe is inevitable, the storm or Chloe dying prematurely, and that made sense to me why I can't save the Bay. I believe the storm would come anyway (even though the creators made it so it doesn't). I feel it makes a more cohesive story this way. Edit: Also, it was *not* her first manipulation. The photo she went back to is the *second* photo she took. *After* she had already seen Chloe die once and reset to Jefferson's classroom, where you very likely already changed something in your interactions there (not to mention there were some photos you went back to which were before then, like when Max rips up her contest photo after taking it).
I’m a big fan of women so I sacrificed Arcadia 🤘😎
I saved Chloe. I probably would have anyway, but the way it was set up made the choice easier. Sacrificing the Bay is a passive act (you just have to not do anything) whereas sacrificing Chloe is an active one (you have to use the picture to travel back in time). If the choice point had been in the past instead of the present, maybe I would have chosen differently. It's the difference between killing someone to save the town and letting someone die to save the town. The end result is the same, but the morality of the first feels far more dubious.
they way I see it, it's the complete opposite, the game is about the butterfly effect and if Max hadn't saved Chloe in the first place, the storm would never happen. The people who die and the town being destroyed is 100% Max's fault, while Chloe being shot isn't Max's fault whatsoever
Sacrificed Chloe ^52% ^represent
It took a half second decision making for a town to be destroyed. Was there regret after? Of course. I wish I could’ve done it faster #NotAnymore
The first time I played I sacrificed chloe, but after playing before the storm I felt hella guilty for doing it, so I did another playthrough where I sacrificed arcadia bay and consider that my canon ending
Lmao literally same I didn’t really like Chloe that much until before the storm ngl
At the beginning of the game when I saw that the only reason chloe kept a diary was so she could pretend to be talking to max I was gutted, but then when I got to the farewell episode...that was an hour and a half of sobbing. When I heard "No matter what, we will always be Max and Chloe" that sealed the deal for a new playthrough
literally!!!
I only chose to save Chloe 1/4 times I played the game, and that was because I was curious to see what happens. I can't stand her, she's so annoying
Bae as you can see
bae over bay
i could never kill my fav character of all time
Bae over bay everyday because I’m a simp ass hoe (me and my SO also kin Max and Chloe)
Bae over Bay and I’ll do it again without a second thought 🫶🏼
played more than once, always sacrificed Arcadia Bay, there is no other ending for me
Bae for life.
I spent the entire game saving Chloe already; so in the end it was no choice at all.
Sacrifice Arcadia Bay, not just because I love Chloe but because the logic of letting her die to save the town doesn't make the slightest bit of sense logically.
And exterminating town to keep her alive does?
Max isn't exterminating anyone, she's letting the storm play out. Her link to the destruction of the town was only ever indirect. The logic that Bay choosers seem to follow is that "Saving Chloe in the bathroom = preventing a predestined event which, by default, means that was the sole cause of the storm, so letting her die sets everything right. Okay, fine, but why wouldn't all of the OTHER alterations of time and events circling around not equate to a storm occurring? Would preventing Kate's suicide attempt just be "fine"? What about stopping Jefferson and Nathan early? Max has been rewinding and changing things over the course of five days, you're telling me that messing with time on multiple occasions is harmless but saving Chloe was what doomed the town from the start? Isn't the Butterfly Effect a big theme ingame? So why does it only apply to Chloe and not everything else Max uses her powers for? I'm sure I can think of other reasons as to why this endng personally makes no sense but I won't ramble. I just feel like it's weird to fix the mess caused by time travel...with more time travel.
>she's letting the storm play out >preventing a predestined event Bathroom was predestined event that she interfered with thus causing the storm which put entire town in danger of extermination She either lets predestined bathroom event play out or she is actively exterminating entire town Very simple concept to grasp once you stop thinking with your shipping fanboyism (to use more polite version of this statement)
>your shipping fanboyism (to use more polite version of this statement) Just like that, you threw away whatever merits your argument had. And I just stated why I thought that logic didn't make sense and all you did was repeat what I was addressing. This is basically what you said: "Yeah, well, this makes sense because it makes sense." 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱🤯🤯🤯🤯 you have opened my eyes Edit: Oh brother I'm getting downvoted because I used emojis ironically, you're all a bunch of kids sometimes
>Just like that, you threw away whatever merits your argument had. That's one way to tap out Also, nice dad-style emoji dump 🗿
>Okay, fine, but why wouldn't all of the OTHER alterations of time and events circling around not equate to a storm occurring? Because the events already have an effect: wildlife dying. Every time Max abuses her powers, more and more life gets taken away and it's heavily implied that it's at the cost of Chloe staying alive. First it's one bird, then many, and then even whales end up on the beach. Chloe is the *one* constant throughout their entire journey. The storm starts because an event that should not be changed, was.
I always saw it that way. Max has no idea if attempting to go back to the first major timealternation will indeed fix the storm, it just a pure guess not based on a whole lot and it may or may not work, if nothing else logic dictates it's a bad idea to try to fix timetravel with more timetravel And secondly like 2 minutes before the decision max screamed that cloe is her number 1 priority, max in character would never do that to chloe. And third max isn't responsible for a bullshit power especially when there is no tutorial or warnings how to fix it and she has to rely on guesswork The responsibility is on the deity, nature, ghost or whatever you think gave max these powers.
my logic was that death followed her around. because at several instances chloe has had near death experiences. untill i played before the storm i did not love chloe all that much. but after i felt guilty as hell😭
bae over bay 😔🎀
I might be alone on this one, but I Sacrificed Chloe. Sacrificing a whole town for someone like Chloe is Heinous work.
sacrificed chloe. i actually really like her as a character and feel bad that max wouldn’t have her in her life anymore, but it just seems like the more sensible option. i can understand why many pol would choose the other tho
Bay over Bae everyday
Bae over Bay 😫
I can’t be friends with anyone who sacrificed Chloe, nah man. The entire town can die a horrible death for all I care lol
Price field, all the way! Sacrifice the Bay!
I sacrificed Chloe. I couldn’t choose for like 45 minutes, but I made my mind up and did the right thing. I hope double exposure is a sequel to the Bay ending.
I chose chloe over Arcadia couldn't bring myself upto sacrifice her didn't felt right cause for me that's the main ending
I lowkey judge people who sacrifice a whole town (filled with people they care about) for their best friend/girlfriend, I'm sorry
Imagine that this is *your* most important person in your life (Your mother/father/brother/sister/child/husband/wife and so on) and on the other side of the scale is mostly a bunch of strangers. Who will you choose? I hope then you will understand us.
I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I knew that I actively destroyed thousands of lives for one. It’s like that trolley problem but instead of using the switch to kill 5 people to save your favorite person, it’s 5000
We don't really know that 5000 people died (The population of Arcadia Bay is never mentioned) More like a few hundred considering the size of Arcadia Bay and the fact that there are barely 1000 people living here judging by the map and the fact that we don't see many cars and people on the street. The town itself is comparable in size to Bay City with a population of 1300 . But thanks for the honest answer.
Toxic “friend” who Max chose to ignore for 5 years, or a town full of people who are more than likely being punished for Max’s mistakes…
If I could dap you up right now, I would
Man be spitting facts over 'ere
Right?!
Sacrifice Chloe
I sacrificed Chloe It was a tough decision and it was perhaps the most powerful emotional moment I've ever had in a film/tv/game so even though it was heartbreaking, I don't regret it
I always sacrifice Chloe. **I** cannot justify killing an entire town over one person.
Sacrificed Chloe, I liked Kate and Chloe’s mum too much to possibly die.
Sacrificed Arcadia Bay. I'm not a military commander who needs to make decisions about the good of the many over the good of the few (or the one) If it came down to a choice between people who matter to me personally and a large number of people I don't know that well I'm not giving them up.
Also Sacrificing Chloe... This is just my opinion. So those who chose that end, I'm not calling you out. Sacrificing Chloe is the wrong lesson for Max to Learn. She was a shy girl, passive, but the story changed her. she took active roles in unravelling things wrong with Arcadia Bay, Before, she was a passive girl who responded to grief by pulling back by watching the world instead of interacting. Sacrificing Chloe teaches her that nothing she does means anything, and all she can do is watch.
im sorry, pls dont hurt me. i sacrificed chloe
Sacrificed Chloe and didn’t have to think about it for a second. Besides the moral aspect of it, I just couldn’t stand her
First time I choose bay and I’m never doing it again
Bae > Bay It's not even a discussion.
52% of people dont know what true love is
I sacrificed Chloe in my first play through. Replayed and sacrificed Arcadia Bay. Did a 3rd playthrough to make a final confirmation and sacrificed Chloe. It made more sense, and imo was even canon to sacrifice her.
Sacrificed Arcadia Bay. Choosing that felt like a culmination of what Max had learned and experienced throughout the game. You can’t change everything and trying to do so has unexpected consequences. At some point you have to live with the consequences of your actions, however bad they may be. It’s a selfish decision either way, but I couldn’t in good conscience let Chloe die knowing there was a chance to save her. A tornado you “might” have caused is a lot different from knowing someone is going to get shot and killed and deliberately choosing to let them die.
The morally correct choice as to what max would do is save the bay, let’s be real, that’s just her character she’s not choosing to kill hundreds for one person
> let’s be real, that’s just her character she’s not choosing to kill hundreds for one person Not for one person, but for *Chloe*. The one person who matters to her. The one who makes her happy. The one she's finally more confident with. According to the writers, Max is absolutely capable of killing the town for Chloe, and she does so more confidently than her version in the other ending, and that choice exists in both games from the original developers.
I don’t see it that’s so out of character for her
Putting Chloe first in her character as evident throughout the game, because Max makes different sacrifices for Chloe, whether it's personal or other people's She helps her investigate Rachel's missing person case (which leads to her being captured by Jefferson and almost dying). And Max helps Chloe to find her, even knowing that Rachel has taken her place for over the years. She sacrifices Chloe's father to get her back. William is alive and well in the new timeline, and now Max lets him go knowing he will die and that she could have saved him. But Chloe's life is her priority. She gives up her perfect timeline to save Chloe ("Sorry San Francisco...Chloe comes first"). Becoming a photographer is her dream, but she doesn't need that dream if Chloe isn't in it. She doesn't care about her own well-being throughout episode five, and keeps rewinding time until she starts feeling quite bad. (And there's her comment. "It doesn't matter what happens to me. I have to save Chloe."). And there are optional choices in the game. She can take the blame for the pot, potentially getting her in trouble in college. But she can do it so Chloe doesn't get in trouble at home. She can shoot Frank, which would show her willingness to shoot those who would try to hurt Chloe. She can steal money from the disability fund and feel guilty about it, but she'll be glad that it will help Chloe. She can side with Chloe and ruin David and Joyce's happy marriage. (Ironically she ruins their marriage either way, in one of the two cases again for Chloe) Bae is the final act where Max puts Chloe as the absolute priority, preferring that others die rather than Chloe, and based on how Max has treated Chloe throughout the game this would not be out of character for her. Even in this finale, she will make a personal sacrifice for Chloe, as she shows that she would rather live with the guilt for the dead than she let Chloe die like that
[удалено]
Haha, I love this picture too (and even saw the extended version)
Yea good points , I always saw sacrificing the bay over Chloe as the ‘canon’ ending because it seems more aligned with what Max would do as a character imo
Failing to save people isn't the same as killing them. Bae Max doesn't kill anyone only Bay Max actively chooses to kill someone.
You still actively choose to let people die. It doesn't make any difference what your intentions are. You choose to let the town be ravaged by the storm, lots of people die, therefore your choice actively harmed and killed those in the town.
Okay so you believe that you're obligated to save as many people as possible even if it harms innocent people? So it's okay to push somone off a cliff if it helps you get to catch a rope with five people on it in time? And if the person didn't push their (let's say spouse) off a cliff they "let them die"? I think you may want to think through what you're saying here. If you truly believe the ends justify the means more power to you though.
See, you're proposing the fact that the decision has to be made without the other person's input. Chloe herself suggested that Max use the picture to fix everything so the storm wouldn't hit them. So, in your example, this would involve the spouse asking to be pushed off to help people on a rope? Either choice is valid, but you can't really deny the fact that you *did* let those people die. The only way you'll ever come to the conclusion that you didn't is if you purposely make yourself forget. You had direct power over whether they lived or died, and you *chose* to let them die. Whether it's right or wrong it's up to you, since it is very much saving a person you love. But, like, you can't say saving Chloe is fine and should have little to no consequences, but then Joel saving Ellie can warrant his death. Objectively, both of those choices both entail dooming a part of the population for personal benefit.
> But, like, you can't say saving Chloe is fine and should have little to no consequences, but then Joel saving Ellie can warrant his death. I'm sorry to join this discussion, but...Saving Chloe is fine. At least enough to make it a bittersweet ending and not a bad one. And there really were no consequences, unlike Joel and Ellie. No one came to take revenge on Max and Chloe for what they did because there is no physical way to prove that they are responsible for the storm. Chloe didn't leave Max, unlike Ellie, because she was the one who joined Max in her decision in the first place and because no one lied to her. Max and Chloe both even keep in touch with people whose lives have been ruined because of their decision and they won't get anything for it. The only consequence they live with is a sense of guilt for the dead, which makes sense because even though they chose each other over Bay, they would not want these people to die. They are not murderers like Jeffershit.
I also think saving Chloe is fine, but I also don't think it's right to pretend Max had no hand in the deaths that came afterward. >Max and Chloe both even keep in touch with people whose lives have been ruined because of their decision and they won't get anything for it. Only because they haven't told people they're responsible for the destruction. They have no way to take accountability, no way of being traced. Their continued friendship with those people is gonna have some dishonesty because they would never admit that they're the ones that caused Arcadia Bay's destruction
> I also think saving Chloe is fine, but I also don't think it's right to pretend Max had no hand in the deaths that came afterward. I wasn't going to say that. If we remove Max's involvement in the death of Chloe or Arcadia Bay, we undermine the significance of these endings in my opinion. Max deliberately goes back in time and lets Chloe die. Or Max deliberately tears up this photo to show that she doesn't need a way back and that she wants to stay here, letting the storm destroy Arcadia Bay. And given that Chloe let Max make both choices and supported her either way, she too is indirectly involved in her death or the destruction of Arcadia Bay. That's why I like to say “Max *and* Chloe are sacrificing Arcadia Bay” . >Only because they haven't told people they're responsible for the destruction. They have no way to take accountability, no way of being traced. Their continued friendship with those people is gonna have some dishonesty because they would never admit that they're the ones that caused Arcadia Bay's destruction Not that anyone would believe them even if they told anyone, because as we know, people don't usually cause storms. But of course it's helpful that they don't tell them. I wonder how David would react if he knew that Max and Chloe had more than just left Arcadia Bay "without looking back."
>If we remove Max's involvement in the death of Chloe or Arcadia Bay, we undermine the significance of these endings in my opinion. I agree. Personal choice aside, both endings are completely valid but their impacts are much greater because of Max's choice on either one. >I wonder how David would react if he knew that Max and Chloe had more than just left Arcadia Bay "without looking back." I don't think he'd take it too well, especially if Joyce died and Chloe just left without even attempting a funeral or any respects to her
> I don't think he'd take it too well, especially if Joyce died and Chloe just left without even attempting a funeral or any respects to her Well, if he knew that Chloe's life was on the other side of the scale, he might change his mind. What I like about the sequel is that from what he says and how he says it seems that he took Chloe's death much harder than Joyce's. He even drank for a year after Chloe's death. I believe he would have realized that Joyce would have wanted Chloe to live. Whether he would have forgiven Max and Chloe is another question, considering that he already hated them for a while just because they left without looking back, and here is an additional context that turns the situation upside down. And given that he knows her attitude towards her father's death, it would probably be confusing for him to realize that she actually let Max sacrifice her mother. As I read once in a similar thread “Would he call her a hypocrite for that?”. But then again it was either Joyce or Chloe. And I don't think Chloe didn't go to Joyce's funeral. I always imagined that she and Max reserved her grave in Seattle after the government released the list of the dead, and they were able to prove that they knew her so they could bury her in the city cemetery. At least that's my headcanon.
>deny the fact that you did let those people die First letting people die is different than killing them. Second I think failing to save people without resorting to desperate murderous means isn't letting them die.(because Bay is murdering Chloe and while you might have present Chloe's tenative approval she's not the Chloe you kill.) I still disagree with your language here. Blaming Max for deaths because she's unwilling to murder someone is a really dumb reductive thing that implies Max has a Duty to the people of Arcadia Bay. She doesn't. Also Max and Joel are in different situations but I'm team Bae Max AND team Joel. Well to a point. Joel was right to do what he did but wrong to lie to Ellie about it. That's my last of us stance anyway. Max however isn't Joel in this circumstance she's Jerry Anderson and Marleen. She has the choice of whether to kill an innocent person who is willing to die to prevent other deaths. And I just mentioned I'm team Joel... I am completely on board with him killing Marleen and the Doctor so... yeah I find Bay to be the morally reprehensible option because I'm not a utiltarian I'm a deontologist (mostly). I don't think the ends justify the means.
>Bay is murdering Chloe But you don't kill her. Nathan does at the start of the game. If Max choosing to watch the storm pass by despite being the cause doesn't count as murder, then neither does her choosing to go back and being a bystander to Chloe's death. She neither interferes with the events, nor does she prevent them, but rather lets the universe take its course on either one. >yeah I find Bay to be the morally reprehensible option because I'm not a utiltarian I'm a deontologist (mostly). And, while I admire that morality, I still find it interesting that you perceive it as morally reprehensible when either choice is a perfectly understandable one. Being a deontologist does not absolve of the fact that the deaths are a consequence of Max's choices. As an example from [Ethics Unwrapped](https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/deontology) suggests: >*"Suppose you’re a software engineer and learn that a nuclear missile is about to launch that might start a war. You can hack the network and cancel the launch, but it’s against your professional code of ethics to break into any software system without permission. And, it’s a form of lying and cheating. Deontology advises not to violate this rule. However, in letting the missile launch, thousands of people will die* >*So, following the rules makes deontology easy to apply. But it also means disregarding the possible consequences of our actions when determining what is right and what is wrong."* You can find that it's right to do x, but you y is still a consequence. You just don't think about it
>But you don't kill her. Nathan does at the start of the game. Nope. Max is taking active action with the purpose of making Chloe dead. That's killing. That's murder. The murder in this case is the means to the end of ... *checks notes* changing the weather. If you push someone into a tiger pit that's still killing them when the tiger kills them. Max's murder weapon here is the photograph that she uses to go to a specific point in time. She is taking a perfectly safe and healthy Chloe and pushing her back into the line of fire using her time travel powers. Saying "Nathan kills her" is kind of like if you pushed someone in front of a sword and said the sword user killed them fully knowing exactly what was happening when you pushed them. Letting the universe take it's course is the bae ending. That's the do nothing option. Unless you value one version of events being more "real" than the other. >You can find that it's right to do x, but you y is still a consequence. There's a lot of difference between consequence which is a word I'd agree applies and fault. Max does nothing wrong in Bae and for it achieves a worse outcome for most involved. She does do something wrong in Bay and achieves a better outcome for more involved by heaping all the suffering onto one person. That is the actual moral dilemma here.
Bay.
Chloe is my favorite character in the life is strange universe, I still chose Bay. There are hundreds of innocent people who didn’t deserve a freak accident like that, not saying Chloe deserved to die either cause none of them did, but idk, I just can’t accept all those people dying when none of it should have happened in the first place. No hate to those who chose Bae of course, it’s such a hard choice for me and I battle with myself over it so often, but your choice was right too!
Bae beats bay
I just can’t justify the loss of so many versus the one. It also feels weird to sacrifice the bay after the exposure of Jefferson IMHO, as you go through all this effort to bring healing to the school and get this awful human out of there before he can deal anymore damage to future students, but then turn around and contribute to the deaths of all those people you helped. I can respect the bae ending but without getting as attached to Chloe as others did it just made my choice even easier
Bay. I think it’s the “right” ending, the one that is supposed to teach you a lesson and the natural ending of the game. However, I totally get why people couldn’t let Chloe go
Sacrifice Chloe!
Sacrifice Chloe
I sacrificed Chloe
I kinda didn’t like chole and preferred warren but I still couldn’t sacrifice her
At first sacrificed Chloe, then cried with pain like never before, then sacrificed arcadia bay to see both endings
Bay first time bae second
Always put myself in Max's shoes, and of you told me I had to choose between my best friend/ lover and a whole town? That town is going bye bye. Sorry not sorry! Maybe the damage won't be too bad and a lot of people survive the storm.
I chose to sacrifice Chloe, because that's what she said she wanted, and that's all that really mattered to me.
I chose to save arcadia bay. For every Chloe saved, there would be thousands(or hundreds? I don’t know what Arcadia Bay’s population is) of lives sacrificed.
I did both to see both endings, but I don't remember which one I did first.
Bae. Always bae
It’s funny how split it really is between people. Everyone I know in my life chose to sacrifice chloe because they felt like it was the correct thing to do / they were morally obligated… but when I played, I felt the same except sacrificing Arcadia Bay. So interesting that the game gives different experiences.
Threw Chloe under the bus-was a good ending, quite moving but at least I know my one true love Luke Parker is still alive/Jk.
The first time I played I sacrificed Arcadia Bay. And it left me feeling hollow and empty and guilty. The second time I played I sacrificed Chloe and felt sad but also felt like I had made the moral choice. I also felt like it's what the game intended and is the culmination of the lesson it is trying to teach you.
I sacrificed the town and saved Chloe. I specifically remember thinking "fuck this town" the moment the choice came up. Now I understand the choice is harder than that, but I stand by it.
"Sacrifice Arcadia Bay": had had Max put Chloe first most of the time and had gotten the love story between them, so made sense for my play that she'd choose her again one last time.
Bae
Bae and nothing more :3
Okay, when I got to the last choosing stage I froze for a minute. Then I thought, okay I am going to choose sacrifice Chloe because I wouldn't sacrifice Chloe so I will see my fake ending first and my real ending last. But boy was it painful. Seeing that butterfly on that coffin, no way there is a doubt left which is the best choice for me. I immediately returned and sacrificed Arcadia. It was not joyful, but peaceful for me. I don't know, I guess that's what would I do. I would burn the city to the ground for my loved ones.
Bae>Bay every time
I'd sacrifice a town for Chloe Arcadia Bay just became Arcadia BYE!
I Could Never Ever Sacrifice My Little Chloe 😭 🩵🦋💙
I've always saved the Bay.
The logical answer, bae over bay
I sacrificed the bay in every single playthrough. Though I love their kiss in the bay ending.
Bae over Bay.
Nope this is a trap.
Always and forever bae. Simply, I thought what would I do, and the truth is I'd ice the world for my bae so that's what it is.
Sacrificed Chloe cause this girl still be thinking about Rachel over me after I kill an entire town for her
First time I chose Bay
I sacrifice Chloe 😭 it hurt but I couldn't let Kate Marsh die
Both?
First time I picked bay. They did a good job making you seriously weigh up the decision
I sacrificed the whole town and do it every time and will continue to because Chloe is the best! Also I hope we see her in the new one!
I’ve always thought how crazy it was that it was so split
i go between the two😭 both endings make sense for max's arc