User Avatar Image

I think it needs to happen

posted by Viva-La-Lee on - Viewed by 11.1K users

Wrong choices and dialog.

It's to the point I don't fear anything in the game. Clementine can't die (excluding qtes)so there is no reason to take caution or exercise restraint in situation which would normally be dangerous. SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER When Carver has a gun at Alvin head it never crossed my mind the repercussions running at Carver might entail. Ni repercussion would lead to clementine deaths because it couldn't lead to her death. All I'm saying is when the fear of any terrible repercussions is off the table then there is no reason to consider them and they have no effect on the final decision. Even if they added one or two to each episode tops it would at least reinforce the premise that this is a real world situational story with real world situational after effects. Too many would ruin immersion with constant (or minimal with proper sensible reasoning) breaking and restarting but it wouldn't feel completely staged and give the impression Clem is invincible.

Anyone else feel the same way? If you disagree let me know why :)

  • You mean like when Lee was talking the bandits down and if you say nothing you get shot.

  • While I do see what your saying, I think they handled this in some sense with how quite a few characters could have died this past episode, or lived. I mean most games wont let the main character die, or its a restart. The story is centered around Clemintine's experience to the world she is surrounded by, I cant think of a game where if the main character you control dies, the story goes on. I am sure there are probably some out there but its definitely in the minority.

    I feel if Clem were to die in the last episode or even next one, then the story would have an emptiness to it. I like the characters, especially Luke, but if all of a sudden Clem were to have gotten shot last episode and we took over Luke, I'd lose some enthusiasm towards playing.

    • State of Decay. It's a zombie game where if a character dies, they stay dead. You just take control of another survivor in your camp.

      • Yeah havent played that one. I think TWD though is more story based, I mean last season was based off of Lee, and this season Clem. It would be a different experience thats for sure if they were to die, but it would be less meaningful if Lee died the first episode of season 1 rather then the last.

        Who knows though? Maybe it could be pulled off without missing a beat, Its an intriguing idea.

    • We aren't discussing a game that continues if the main character dies, just one that allows the main character to die via choices which would innately lead to that characters death. Again the scene at the farm comes to mind with it being obvious Brenda was on edge and already insane and not afraid of killing people and still being able to choose an option that killed the character (even if any sensible person wouldn't say those things in a real life situation identical to that one). It reinforced the notion that Lee is a normal person with the same mortal flaws as everyone else in the world (or made up story)

      They did a good job with optional character death yes, but that doesn't put the fear of self death in the situations.

      Again to reiterate considering the last part of your response I don't think she should die and the story will continue just that there well be deaths via wrong choices and dialog. Like qtes failures only different since they are caused by sensibility failures not a lack of response time.

    • Heavy Rain, since we're naming games in which the story goes go on even if the main character(s) die.

  • I know what you mean bro but I think clem might die episode 4 or 5 jus saying what do u think

    • Well that is pretty off topic considering the op has little to do with that scenario other than Clem physically dying (one is a major plot point one is a game play mechanic and story booster) and even if tour idea did happen the game play mechanic I am talking about would be applied to the new pc.

      But no I don't think she will die in episode 3 or 4 or 5. It's a terrible idea from a narrative standpoint and would decimate everything the game is based on (Clem's survival). Everything that happened in S1 and S2 has baleen based on this sole idea, and while it might be possible to pull this off in a manner OK with fans at the very end of the season (doubtful for many reasons ranging from the previously stated point to the fans would strongly dislike the game) episode 4 is just... out of the question.

  • I think the same thing may happen that happened in season one. Here's what I mean....when you're at the farm in s1e2, when you're in the house and fat old whatsherface is holding Katjaa hostage, if you piss her off or approach her too quickly, she shoots you. You get a game over screen and get to retry the scene. In that situation, there was a wrong choice - pissing off the person with the gun, acting like you're invincible. xD

    I think something like that in season 2 would work just fine.

    • Yep that's exactly what I was trying to convey. A choice that is obviously wrong should have an extremely negative outcome (death). It shows the pc isn't invisible and you choices actually matter, saying the wrong thing can get you killed in this world...

      • Of course. Telltale will probably add some of those, but for now the choices seem to be leaning more towards lasting effects instead of game over screens - instead of Clementine dying, her group members die and there's no retry(unless you rewind lol). There's quite a lot of death scenes though. Granted they're from fights and not choices, but still.

        Though I don't think choices that result in permanent game overs(you have to rewind or make a new save file to play again) would be a good idea, if that's what you're talking about.

        • No that's not at all what I'm talking about lol. Just a death scene like any other qte but based solely on terrible decision making and not a lack or reflexes. They may add some, but I think they were even lacking in S1 and we have had none in S2 yet, which leads me to believe they will be even more lacking or even completely absent this season (I use the word even too much). I'm just tired of feeling like Clem is a god and nothing I/she can possibly do/say will lead to any non - environmental repercussions of import.

  • No offense, but I'd like to see you write an incredible episode like that

    • How does this have negative tendensies?

      • I think it was meant to be a little bit more hostile than it might seem. Like "It's harder than it looks, how about YOU try it?"

        • Yes I misinterpreted the meaning behind "like that." I thought he was implying like that was directed at trying to make an episode good while still implementing the above game mechanic (which is why I responded by asking how implementing it would have negative results) not a mundane, uninteresting, off course, and irrelevant statement meant to belittle me by saying I can't make an episode as good as they have so my points are invalid. I guess I just thought there was more to the post than was actually present. But I thinking looking for the best is better than automatically assuming the worst :p

          But thanks for clearing that up for me!

    • User Avatar Image
      K0t0 BANNED

      I cant cook worth **** and I can still tell if the food a chef makes sucks or not. Damn apologist

      • That sounded very intelligent. I wish I understood the terminology and derogatory sentiments....

        • User Avatar Image
          K0t0 BANNED

          Try again

          • Not sure how I can try again. I wasn't guessing or doing anything that could be redone and altered in order to receive another outcome.

            Do you know the definition of insanity?

            • User Avatar Image
              K0t0 BANNED

              So twice you failed to see that my response wasnt under your post, and that it was defending you.

              Insanity indeed.

              • I noticed that from the beginning, which is why I was inquiring what you were saying. I called you intelligent and then ask what you meant. I wasn't passively aggressively responding to you, simply asking what it meant.

                • User Avatar Image
                  K0t0 BANNED

                  Lol come on now Lily...which is why you used the term.insanity

                  realise that in playing dumb, instead of looking like you misread a post you ow look likeyou cant decipher a preschool analogy

                  • I used the term insanity (or more so the entire quote you dismissed) only referring to my "retrying" as you suggested I do.

                    The definition of insanity is repeating the exact same experiment and expecting different results. (Paraphrase)

                    -Albert Einstein (I believe)

                    You not understanding a question vs a hostile response makes you look like an imbecile, but seeing as this conversation is leading to nothing of importance and you obviously can't gather your wits enough to reply in a civilized manner I am going to leave.

  • Umm... Perhaps you should have looked at the episode more closely. If you make the wrong choices talking to Walter, then it can lead to Nick's death. Telling Kenny to take the second shot on Carver leads to Alvin's death. There are repercussions for what you say in this episode, something that it was praised for.

  • User Avatar Image
    KCohere BANNED

    I cant say I agree. I was afraid for everyone, excluding Clementine but that's because she is the only playable character (not to say that I didnt die plenty, sigh). The repercussions felt real to me.

    • But the repercussions were environmental and not clementine herself, which is what you said. "Excluding clementine because she is the only playable character," which is the root of the problem I see. We don't fear for clementine herself, her Life Is Sealed Up In A Nice Neat Bow (why is my phone capitalizing all my words?). She is completely safe and no matter our actions or choice of words (no matter how malicious or vile or mean or cruel or incentavative (my new word)) her life is not on the line

      • User Avatar Image
        KCohere BANNED

        But does it need to be? There is plenty of danger to be had but you're saying you would only feel it if Clementine could be killed? She may still be but that obviously wouldnt happen until the end. We didnt really fear for Lee until he got but at the very end of season 1. I really dont know what could be done about this unless they switch playable characters halfway through the season.

        • Of course it should be. In a game where life is the main priority the lack of the possibility of death clearly diminishes the point the game makes. There is plenty of danger to be had and what I'm saying is none of those dangers are dangerous to the person we are playing. Why does a game based on realism not regard that character as moral as the others? We didn't fear for Lee until events such as Brenda suddenly brought us back to the realization that the pc can't get away with everything simply because we have a back seat view from their perspective. There is a lot that could be done about this without switching pc's (each they had better not switch pc's).

          • User Avatar Image
            KCohere BANNED

            What do you think could be done because Im at a loss.

            • Simply put add more situations like the St Johns farm and the train. Where the wrong decision (an obviously correct choice and an obviously incorrect choice) will result in a restart. Not enough to break immersion, 1 to 2 per episode or even per 2 episodes would be fine/plenty. It supports the fact the pc isn't able to do anything they want and get away with it.

              • I think I understand what you're trying to say. You don't want quick time event deaths. You want decision making deaths.

                For an example:

                Carver is bringing the captured back to their community through the forest. Suddenly, they get distracted by lurkers.

                [Run] [Stay]

                If you 'run' then they shoot you and you die and you have to restart to that decision again, but if you 'stay' then you continue with the story.

                • Not that I don't want qte deaths, just incorporate a few decision deaths to reiterate the fact that even though we are following the pc they are still a normal human being.

                  That example is alright The right choice is a bit more ambiguous in this example which could be a bit breaking for people who considered it a good idea to get away from the mad men, so I'd rather have a clear good choice and a clear bad choice. To make your example a bit less ambiguous perhaps someone else tries to escape before you get the chance and they are shot without question and without hesitation and then you are informed that running means death, which is also confirmed by the other people in your group telling you to "NOT RUN" While i don't consider even this event perfect it would wit better with me

                  • User Avatar Image
                    KCohere BANNED

                    Hmm, I thought we were already getting that. Clementine can die and the game restarts. Its happened to me plenty of times and we've seen someone executed with no hesitation so she understands the danger she's in. I guess we're just not on the same wavelength on this one because I just dont understand what you want so I guess I'll leave it at that.

                    • We aren't getting that, the deaths you experienced were from a lack of reflexes or bad game recognition (blame it on lag am I right?) not because you chose to do or say something that would obviously lead to the death of the pc.

                      You didn't understand my example and that is fine. I was just saying the right and wrong decision in the actual event should be as non - ambiguous as possible.

  • While you are in that hostage situation, if you just ask carver to stop, or say nothing, Alvin eventually winds up with a bullet in his head.

    I think that counts as a "bad dialogue option"

    • He basically wants the main character to die, he will probably reiterate this fact. He understands that other characters can die, but he wants a dialogue option so the actual main can die, so you have to think thoroughly before you decide to avoid a restart.

    • Indeed but that isn't the point. The point is that Clem is never in danger, even while charging an armed mad man shooting his hostages at (seemingly) random (excluding Rebecca and mayhap leaving his exgroup members (seeing as Clem was neither). And it want even so much that she wasn't in danger at that point (since it could be argued that Carver wouldn't shoot a kid or whatever) but rather that it didn't feel like she was in danger. The fact she is the pc and they gave us the option to do it solidified it as a viable option. The fact they never allow her to fuck up on a level so bad resulting her her demise means she can fuck up as royally as she wants with no possible cost to her life.

Add Comment