buttfishfan

108 posts

I Do Agree That David Cage Did A Pretty Poor Job Writing Out Some Of Connors Scenes, And I Think This

I do agree that David cage did a pretty poor job writing out some of Connors scenes, and i think this is a really good analysis of one of those instances. At the same time i think it wouldn't really make a lot of sense in a choice and story based game to be creating different outcomes in the already many choices you're making in Detroit. Like the game wouldn't just stop and ask you if you're sparing Chloe because you have ulterior motives. Plus if you're playing the game for the first time you wouldn't even know having a good relationship with Hank comes in handy later on (not that it even really matters since you dont need Hank's distraction to get to the evidence room).

Though I'm obviously not trying to say that it being a video game is an excuse for poor story planning and writing. I do think this scene could've been written better but i think this is very minor compared to a lot of the other things in Detroit.

I am six years late to this conversation, but I recently bought Detroit Become Human and just got through the big “Kamski Test” scene. And while many people consider it to be one of Connor’s iconic scenes, I left it absolutely infuriated and now hate it with a passion.

For reference, I managed to befriend Hank extremely early on in the game and continue to maintain a very good working relationship with him. Hank, if he is alive for it, will always come into the house with Connor and will always get upset when Kamski poses his stupid little “test”.

This test is presented to Connor as having one of two choices, with one of two outcomes:

Kill Chloe and show that you believe androids are machines, or

Spare Chloe and show that you believe androids are living beings.

I think this logic works fine if Connor is alone, but it becomes fatally flawed when used in Hank’s presence, especially if you're playing a Connor that has a neutral-to-good relationship with him. This is because Hank's presence and subsequent negative reaction creates another completely logical reason as to why Connor might choose to spare Chloe:

Spare Chloe not because Connor believes she is a living being, but because Hank seemingly does.

No matter whether Conner ends up going deviant or staying a machine, killing Chloe in Hank's presence will severely negatively impact their relationship—potentially even to the point of ruining it. Ruining his relationship with Hank would mean losing access to future help and cooperation, both of which are something I think some versions of Connor would use as part of his strategy. So these Connors would be understandably wary of doing things that he knows will piss Hank off and potentially jeopardize future investigations. After all, Kamski could end up lying to them or going back on his word. The information he gives them could end up being useless, negligible, or stuff they already know.

Connor is a walking super processor—the most advanced model ever made by Cyberlife—so I don't think it's realistic that he would view a situation like a Hank-present Kamski Test as so black and white. It's possible to arrive at the Spare Chloe conclusion without bringing one's own emotions into it: that's thinking strategically, potentially even manipulatively. That's understanding consequences and weighing your options.

Similarly, I think it's unrealistic that Kamski, the supposed super genius, wouldn't realise Hank's reaction presented a problem to the logic of his perfect little test.

I can excuse the other mostly unsubtle, sometimes questionable writing, but this was such a glaring logical hole that I actually had to take a break to cool off from this scene. It is mind-boggling to me that this was never given as a post-event debrief dialogue option, and Connor just goes straight into freaking out.

I Do Agree That David Cage Did A Pretty Poor Job Writing Out Some Of Connors Scenes, And I Think This

More Posts from Buttfishfan