Loyalty; Who did you save?
Calvalcade of Junkfood: Who would you choose?
In the choice based gameplay of TWDG, players are often asked to choose between two or more options, often with the theme of siding with another character. Two of the most iconic choices in this regard are A New Day's "Who would you save?" choice with Carley/Doug and the Loyalty choices throughout Season 2, the most trendy of which being a major plot element that the writers/develops intentionally hyped up people during the production of Season 2 later episodes by hinting at something using the term "Pizza or Ice Cream," with Kenny and Luke being the obvious assumption.
This thread has actually been in the works for several months now, but I'm only just now getting the drive to actually post it. And because of that, I think it's fair to give some backstory as to what I've felt about these concepts over time. To be blunt, I felt that deliberately hyping Season 2 up with a fight for the sake of controversy was cheap and stupid. Primarily because it's a recurring problem with many things in these newer games: instead of truly testing your mindset as an ethical person or tailoring the experience to your gameplay choices, it's just there for the sake of easy drama and because it's iconic.
I mean let's look at them:
"Should you go help Pete even though he's bitten or do you go to Nick for your own safety?"
"Are you Team Luke or Team Kenny?"
"Do you want to rattle Carver's cage with Kenny or is cooperating with Reggie the smarter option?"
"Do you want to help the Cabin Group or join the dark side of Howe's Hardware?"
"Who deserves to be Clementine's girlfriend more: Sarah or Jane?"
"Is Mike wrong for wanting to leave or has Kenny gone too far?"
"Who will Clementine decide should ride or die for her: Kenny or Jane?"
However, as time went on, I started to see some legit merit and potential for interesting stories behind using such a concept in this game series, particularly after finally getting to see Captain America:Civil War. At the very least, having such a conflict in this type of story means there is this "in-house" debate over which form of leadership and survival is the best, as well as an indirect attempt at a personal conflict on Clementine's part--not to mention both having followers inside the same group to support and potentially add to the idea of it being political alongside ideological.The problem with many of the either/or choices, particularly "Pick this character over the other because Controversy for the sake of controversy" recurring theme in Season 2, is that they tend to just be cheap popularity contests rather than a story-relevant dilemma for the player. Honestly, Pete or Nick is probably the only good example of that in Season 2 because it's not relying exclusively on internal conflict and it actually affects something. So with all that in mind, I thought it would be interesting to have a thread dedicated to talking about our thoughts, feelings, and opinions about the concept.
Who did you pick and/or side with in certain situations?
When did you find yourself conflicted over picking a side?
Why did you prefer one choice over the other?
How could the story have better utilized these conflicts?
Where did the opposing side have points that seemed appealing despite their flaws?
What are some hypothetical dichotomies you think would've been interesting to see?
Feel free to get creative!