Zombies are scientist?!?!

[Bek]

(09-29-2010 12:37 PM)Nycticorax Wrote:  You have a point, but then how to account for the fact Swanson guides you through the Shelter without showing the slightest disturbance?

Perhaps because she is infected (like Red) she can tell where you are? As for the voice I thought the other professor was fine?

[Nycticorax]

(10-09-2010 01:20 PM)Bek Wrote:  As for the voice I thought the other professor was fine?

I didn't.

[Bek]

I wonder if I have a savegame there.. For memory I thought it was just because it was coming through a door?

[Nycticorax]

I'd be glad to have you confirming that.

[Bek]

Damnit, I don't. To youtube!

(here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDKjczwJG...=1&index=6 )

Skip to 4.20, he sounds normal before he starts screaming.

[Nycticorax]

Then we still have to account for the fact Swanson guides you through the Shelter without showing the slightest disturbance.

[Bek]

Guides you same way as red did? Or do you mean why did she help you?

[Nycticorax]

(10-16-2010 08:07 AM)Bek Wrote:  Guides you same way as red did? Or do you mean why did she help you?

I mean Why did she help us. But for the sake of clarification, notice first that two questions must be disentangled:
(1) Is Swanson alive by the time you reach the Research Lab?
(2) Is Swanson infected by the time you reach the Lab?
(2) only makes sense if the answer to (1) is yes. Suppose then that (1) makes sense. Then (2) is problematic, for both answers seem to commit us to give a hard explanation:
Yes: Then why is Swanson perfectly normal and sympathetic each time she contacts you via video chat from the Research Lab?
No: Then why does Swanson attack you in the Research lab?
(2) is related to a third question:
(3) How deep are the Player mental states penetrable by Clarence?
This relationship is acute, for as a soon the creature in the Lab hits the ground, you see her as Swanson, whereas you saw her as an Infected until then. Taking this last remark onboard, let's look at the implications for (2):
Yes: Swanson is infected; you now see the creature as Swanson because Clarence is now altering your vision to make you think she wasn't and force you to feel (inappropriate) guilt.
No: Swanson is not infected; you didn't see the creature as Swanson because Clarence was altering your vision in an attempt to make you kill an innocent and now reveals the fact to enjoy your feeling of (appropriate) guilt.
With this consideration, I must say I've changed my mind. Infected cannot alter their voices and Clarence never shows to be able to alter your ear, and although Clarence never alters your seeing of dead people. And Clarence has not the power to kill you (you get killed if you don't kill the creature) at will. So I think (2) is no meaningful question.
To solve the dilemma, I then simply reject (1) above. Swanson has been killed before you reach her, and her corpse eaten out by the murderer. And the woman we see is not in any way related to Swanson, but a mere figment of imagination.

[hollowleviathan]

I'm curious why you think Clarence cannot make you feel as though killed. I also suggest the get out of jail free card that death by Swanson is just not canonical. The developers simply spawned a monster there with the expectation that you would not die from it, and taking mortal damage is an easter egg, of sorts. See that: everyone posting had to go back to even see if you could get hurt.

[Nycticorax]

(10-16-2010 08:38 PM)hollowleviathan Wrote:  I'm curious why you think Clarence cannot make you feel as though killed.

Because in the fictionClarence is a proper part of your conscious. He cannot hit you, as the creature appears to do.

Quote:I also suggest the get out of jail free card that death by Swanson is just not canonical. The developers simply spawned a monster there with the expectation that you would not die from it, and taking mortal damage is an easter egg, of sorts. See that: everyone posting had to go back to even see if you could get hurt.

Then the fiction is flawed. It surely can be, but any attempt to make a good interpretation, i.e. 'Zombies are scientist?' is commited to rely on the assumption the fiction is not flawed. Games are like books: if something is not said, then it is either implied or indeterminate. As it is surely not indeterminate (you really die when hit), it must be implied. So I take it to imply that (1) above is not true, because otherwise what is implied in not amenable to a satisfactory explanation. For more about this, see this post.