People finally starting to wake up and accept that working on 4 games at once is hurting TWDSeason2?

1456810

Comments

  • I agree on most of the points you make here, however i do have hope that we get to see the 400 days characters again considering Eddie clearly is on the cover art of Episode 4 and i have the feeling he wont be alone there. Anyhow, the length of the episodes are simply not cutting it for me, i mean the lack of hubs is actually not game breaking in my opinion because we still get to make these developing conversations but only in a more let's say forced way, but i don't mid it. The problem with the length however, i remember playing episode 3 and 4 in season 1 for ages the first time i went through it, maybe it was just the hubs? Maybe the actual content within was the same. I still feel like these episodes are over before they really start, they feel somewhat rushed and events just happen right after each other, there is no quiet moment. Anyway, hopefully telltale gives us some of those hefty hubs in episode 4, along with 400 days characters and we will be all set.
  • edited May 2014
    I did not know whether to post this here or on the "90 min revolution" thread, but here goes.

    Something to consider, regarding hubs, from someone of the TT staff.

    > **@bubbledncr wrote:**

    > The thing about hubs is we still need to give the player a goal and purpose. Not all players want to just wander around and talk to everyone. For example, your morning after idea - the previous scene was entirely a dialog of talking to people and getting to know them. What does opening up the cabin the next morning to walk around get you? Sure, you can talk to people and get to know them even more if you want, but what if you don't? You already snooped through all their stuff searching for supplies, and none of them really trust you enough to assign you a task.

    > You'll notice most of our Season 1 hubs also had a task assigned during them - hand out food, find a way into the pharmacy, search for missing supplies, etc. If you look at your ideas, ask yourself what the players' non-talk-to-people goal would be. And then ask yourself if it makes sense with the story's pacing at that point, or if it's an interesting enough task to not feel like busy work.

    As much as I want hubs back for reasons stated above, and in other threads all throughout the damn forum these past couple of months, that was something I had not considered. What do you think of this? Counterarguments, opinions, agreements?

    I feel like they tried to do a little bit of that with the "proto-hub" the first night in camp, by having you poke around, look for ways to escape. That is a start, but it still feels like a weak one.

    Were the best hubs in S1 born out of natural situations from the writing, or made with both a narrative and gameplay purposes in mind, equally? Maybe the latter, when it was still considered a good design choice. When they work,- like the great intro of *Starved For Help* - they work, but when they don't... well, you end up with Crawford; one of the favorite arguments for those who would not like them back.
  • It is kind of funny, because The Walking Dead is what made Tetalle so famous in the first place. I mean, it's kind of stupid no to give it priority.
  • I upvote him. i could not resist, my finger just clicked the like button..
    goodcop2 posted: »

    This!

  • edited May 2014
    Just one more post in this thread, regarding the branching of the storyline.

    Branches were the argument that many were using to defend the new length and lack of other features.

    The reduced length is, - if TT's to be believed - actually a conscious design choice so that player get to experience the content in "one sitting".

    As for the branching paths argument, well... Perhaps it will come into play more prominently in the last two episodes, but right now the branching that is supposed to happen from the 400 days characters (hyped up to hell, even though I understand that it is probably difficult to incorporate all of them in a meaningful way, considering the number of variables) and our two determinant characters is pretty basic.

    We all know that apart from the odd line here and there, Nick is relegated to Luke's yes-man this episode and that Alvin dies no matter what (In what is still a good death scene). There was a change done there, your story certainly branches, but does it do it enough to sacrifice other things that benefit the episode? I would not know, but do they really take up that much time from development? If the answer is affirmative, then I really respect them for trying to make things more varied in the long run, with the relative short time they have to put everything together, even though I am not particularly impressed with the result.

    If the answer is negative, which I think it is not, hope that is not, then I see no reason to incorporate some of the stuff the community requests.

    There is also the lack of what I call "social branching", which is what @zyoxo describes on the fourth paragraph of his post above in this same page, and on a thread he/she created today. Perhaps it is, again, the inconvenience of Clementine's age, relevance and voice within her new group what the problem is. The cast does not change its attitude towards you, whatever actions you take and whatever words you say to them.

    Season one's (I wonder just how many people are annoyed at me making comparisons to S2's predecessor. It is still the best frame of reference both fans and developers can and sometimes *should* look up to) relationships between PC and cast changed based on your attitude and choices. Hell, even if the changes were not as radical as Lilly/Kenny after the meat locker, characters would still comment on what you had been doing. It made the illusions of choice and of the "tailored narrative" seem all the more real.
  • Characters aren't a problem, it's the lack of character development.

    It lacks 98% of what made Season 1 so great. The rest 2% are Clem and Kenny which are already present in Season 2

  • I find lacking both the amount and the level of it.
    SonEdo posted: »

    Characters aren't a problem, it's the lack of character development.

  • edited May 2014
    I agree with Clemisawesome almost 100%, there are just a couple of things in this post I am confused about.

    1) Why the lack of quality? I feel as if most people here are wondering if not enough time is being devoted to WD compared to the other projects lined up for telltale, when I think it's clearly that the writers who are now no longer with telltale, were more competent writers than the ones we have now. I don't know how this new guy (he wrote 'faith' and this past episode) got his job; I feel like I could have put together a better script than him, most people in this forum probably could have, based on the ideas I've seen.

    2) Unanswered questions? I think some people here are thinking a little too hard about this one. It's heavily implied Carver shot the people at the lake and probably offed Pete. It's not at all far-fetched knowing he was in the area. I understand the want for confirmation, but is that really something to worry about when we have much larger problems at hand.

    I guess mostly I'm just disappointed considering I went back and played Season 1, and holy shit, it's like night and day between the two.
  • edited May 2014
    For me, this sounds awfully convenient. They can justify the hub's exclusion or inclusion based on the 'pace of the story' or the 'narrative', but you then question 'why were they in the 1st season then'? For example, @bubbledncr references the handing out of food as a task that required the use of a hub, but surely telltale could've left that bit out? They could've just had Lee hand the food out to people, or had the food dished out on a 1st come 1st served basis. But instead they cleverly built a whole discursive event, involving several characters, choices and consequences, from a relatively menial task, something I don't think would be beyond them in this season. While I accept a lack of trust in Clem MIGHT have been good enough a reason to avoid setting similar tasks for the player this season, that argument is quickly negated when you consider the fact she's been volunteered by the group to do literally everything else.

    What bothers most people about the lack of hubs is that it seems to have directly contributed to the dreadful lack of character development this season. People associate the hubs with getting to know other characters, the knowledge from these encounters then influenced a player's choice over who to save, who they liked, who they formed bonds with. A lack of connection in this sense completely eliminates one of the main reasons why the game was so enjoyable. While the response you've cited from the TT staff may sound plausible, it appears to me to be condescending. The staff member is basically implying (in my opinion anyway) that the player doesn't understand the negative effects a hub could have on the pacing or narrative of the game, ergo their exclusion is for the player's benefit. From what s/he has said, I am still unable to discern an actual fundamental reason why hubs (and character development) have been so lacking in this season, and given the shortened episode time (looking at a 7.5 hour running time in total, compared to just over 10 for the 1st season) I can only conclude that it's either because telltale are completely abandoning the principles that made TWD so good (which would be bizarre) or they're doing it to save time and money, and hoping hype generated from the previous season is enough to maintain success for an inferior product.

    I did not know whether to post this here or on the "90 min revolution" thread, but here goes. Something to consider, regardi

  • Well said, I agree for the most part.

    For me, this sounds awfully convenient. They can justify the hub's exclusion or inclusion based on the 'pace of the story' or the

  • bump
  • Great post.

    For me, this sounds awfully convenient. They can justify the hub's exclusion or inclusion based on the 'pace of the story' or the

  • Would be nice to see some of these addressed, like they did last time... Then again, maybe we have collectively scared the TT staff off the forums. :P
  • Nah, they probably just too busy working on so many games lol

    Would be nice to see some of these addressed, like they did last time... Then again, maybe we have collectively scared the TT staff off the forums. :P

  • I'd send them an email, but I would not know where, plus it would probably be ignored. I still this is our best chance for them to notice *anything* at all.

    Nah, they probably just too busy working on so many games lol

  • They're going the Bioware path of fucking up as a gaming company.

    For me, this sounds awfully convenient. They can justify the hub's exclusion or inclusion based on the 'pace of the story' or the

  • edited May 2014
    As long as they don't make a bare bones streamlined sequel and an MMO, we should be fine...

    They're going the Bioware path of fucking up as a gaming company.

  • edited May 2014
    Oh my gosh, hubs hubs hubs. What is it about hubs that make them so appealing? It's literally walking around. No meaningful choices, no meaningful puzzles, no meaningful reason to have them. The last game was by itself linear, and hubs didn't change that linearness. It placed you in an enclosed space and had you walk around till you finally figure out how to get to the next part, if you're done with all the pointless puzzles that make no difference to the story, of course.

    I agree that Carver should have lasted one more episode, made him more menacing the fourth one and killed him off in the fourth one. It still doesn't mean they can't take this to a good direction.

    400 days I can see, but we shouldn't expect much. I mean, I expect WAY more than a few sentences of dialogue in some sort of easter egg type thing, but not much more. I expect more in episode four from them. I didn't get the DLC, I am waiting for this season to be complete to see if it is worth it, and so far, I'm not going to pay 4 bucks for a few determent sentences of dialogue. I mean, come on, they made entire backstories with these characters, and they are just going to say one line of dialogue? No. We need more from Telltale.

    I thought some of those things were explained. The people at the lake were shot up by Carver in search for the Cabin Group. I want to know more about George. Rebecca changed to make amends to Clem, remember? She thought Clem was with Carver, and we saw how much she feared him.

    Anyway: the season is good, but there is so much missing potential that can be put in. If more unnf was put into this game, it would be polished and perfect. However, their schedule is pretty big. I give them the benefit of the doubt a lot, but that was because I thought they would add a bit more story branching with characters. Even if this season doesn't end up the way I think it will, I wont regret spending that twenty bucks to enjoy it. For what it is, it's good; for what it could be, it falls a bit short.

    They are biting off a bit more than they can chew. Hopefully, they can swallow and start eating in smaller bites.
  • "As long as they don't make a bare bones streamlined sequel"

    Isn't that what already seems to be happening now?

    As long as they don't make a bare bones streamlined sequel and an MMO, we should be fine...

  • ...the MMO, then? :(

    "As long as they don't make a bare bones streamlined sequel" Isn't that what already seems to be happening now?

  • edited May 2014
    > Oh my gosh, hubs hubs hubs. What is it about hubs that make them so appealing? It's literally walking around. No meaningful choices, no meaningful puzzles, no meaningful reason to have them.

    I most respectfully, but oh so strongly disagree. As always, on this.

    @drewtheman68 wrote:

    "People associate the hubs with getting to know other characters, the knowledge from these encounters then influenced a player's choice over who to save, who they liked, who they formed bonds with. "

    Also what I wrote one page back:

    "The point that I am trying to make here is: That small measure of interactivity was in itself a choice that was presented to you, and that in some cases served to change your perspective on some characters or simply made you appreciate them more as characters. None of those conversations were forced upon you (save for *A New Day*), you had the freedom to choose who to talk to and your playthrough was almost always richer for it."

    It was not necessarily the puzzles that make me look back so fondly on those areas, although some people liked even those; they make some more traditional players feel more involved in what is going on, what they are trying to achieve. I can do without puzzles, but not to what they were attached to. I stand by what I and others say; they are helpful tools in the telling of the story because that exposition and hearing what our cast had to say about their situation and about *you*, the protagonist, made them feel more human.

    > I agree that Carver should have lasted one more episode, made him more menacing the fourth one and killed him off in the fourth one. It still doesn't mean they can't take this to a good direction.

    Menacing and nuanced, methinks. I do think that his death will play an important part in Clementine's development as survivor and character, depending on what you chose and what she saw the man do, in the name of survival of the fittest.

    > I mean, come on, they made entire backstories with these characters, and they are just going to say one line of dialogue? No. We need more from Telltale.

    It is all the more disappointing when you see what an interesting concept 400 days was. The backstories are done well enough, and to see those characters "wasted" in a sense is... frustrating. It probably is too much work to put all those variables into the story, but still.

    > I give them the benefit of the doubt a lot, but that was because I thought they would add a bit more story branching with characters.

    It would certainly make replays and it overall feel more fresh, but story branching should be accompanied with "social branching", too. Not just have a death or determinant moment affect the plot, but the perception of the cast towards you, their situation, etc. Going back to hubs, these segments could vary from playthrough to playthrough, depending on what you did. The ideas are not that incompatible, to me.

    > For what it is, it's good; for what it could be, it falls a bit short.

    Bottom line for most of us.

    EDIT: Sorry for the long ass post, but if you read it, I love you. :D If not, I don't blame you.

    Oh my gosh, hubs hubs hubs. What is it about hubs that make them so appealing? It's literally walking around. No meaningful cho

  • he's a good cop by the way, try do downvote and you will deal with a bad cop

    HOW IN THE FUCK! Did you get twenty three upvotes for this?!

  • Hurting? Seriously?
  • A+, OP. Agree 100%

    You know what makes the whole thing worse? The basic characters they have started are already SO COMPELLING on their own that with just a bit more fleshing out, I could easily be as attached to them as season 1 characters. I mean, Luke has already amassed a fanbase for a reason and same with Nick. Can you imagine if we had more fleshed out relationships with them or more character development and background information? People would be absolutely enamored with them. They have these characters that have SO much potential and to see it thrown aside for more Kenny development or focus on how "dangerous" their situation is gets so frustrating.

    If it was season 1 caliber writing with these characters, I may just have enjoyed this season even more than the last (except for Lee, of course. Lee is in a league of his own). As for keeping up hope, well it's hard when we're already more than halfway through the season.
  • edited May 2014
    Exactly.

    Actually, having Clem as such a young girl opens up a lot of doors as to how characters will talk to her. Feasibly, they might open up to her more easily than they would open up to Lee. They could have done so much with this, had her remind characters of younger sisters or nieces. Have them relieved to see another child still alive in this brutal new world and have protective feelings develop beyond the bit we have with Luke. Having the protagonist be so young could have been such a boon to character interactions but they've wasted that potential by never having those hub moments and having all the adults treat Clementine purely like an adult even when it's a bit unbelievable.

    For me, this sounds awfully convenient. They can justify the hub's exclusion or inclusion based on the 'pace of the story' or the

  • 100% agree. I was really let down by episode 3's lack of character focus/development. The fact that we only have 2 more episodes before they will all inevitably DIE makes it that much worse!
    Rynna posted: »

    A+, OP. Agree 100% You know what makes the whole thing worse? The basic characters they have started are already SO COMPELLIN

  • Exactly, who cares. But yet he rants about it everywhere.
    ravensep posted: »

    GOUSTTTT is a nice guy, dont hold anything against him. As much as downvotes expresses disagreement it also is an instrument for t

  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited May 2014
    The Bone license gave Telltale their first popularity boost and, so to speak, their life. Yet Telltale isn't prioritizing Bone, isn't that strange? The Sam & Max license then was indeed what Telltale became famous for among the traditional adventure gamer crowd, and that for four consecutive years and 16 full episodes. Yet there are no Sam & Max games any more, interesting. Another boost was added when Telltale acquired popular licenses such as Monkey Island or Wallace & Gromit, and then in 2011, the first massive popularity increase with Back to the Future and Jurassic Park. Only from that great position of fame were they even able to acquire the Walking Dead license - and the creative freedom only a trusted developer would get from an IP holder. Time for Telltale to say: "Oh wait, now TWD, that is what REALLY REALLY REALLY made us famous, let's stick with that until the end of time"?

    From a realist perspective, what's actually true is this: Telltale is always only made more famous by their NEXT license.

    When Telltale finds a license that promises better sales, they will abandon The Walking Dead. That might not be happening after Season 2, maybe not even after Season 3, but of course it will happen eventually. And of course then the TWD fanbase will protest and proclaim that "TWD has made Telltale what it is today". Those are the very very same arguments I've heard four years ago when it slowly became clear that Telltale wouldn't use the traditional adventure game mechanics any more: the very same sense of entitlement, the same tone of the demand, the same feeling of being insulted or screwed over. None of which were justified.


    Both currently running series deserve to be released according to a 4 to 6 week release schedule.

    Both currently running series deserve a good story, lots of hubs, lots of interactivity.

    The players of both currently running series deserve to be taken seriously.

    None of the currently running series deserves "priority" over the other.

    And no series deserves to go on forever. Sure, I know that hurts. :(
    Abloodyday posted: »

    It is kind of funny, because The Walking Dead is what made Tetalle so famous in the first place. I mean, it's kind of stupid no to give it priority.

  • Very true. Thanks for posting this Vainamoinen. And you are right, TWD won't last forever sadly. :(
    Vainamoinen posted: »

    The Bone license gave Telltale their first popularity boost and, so to speak, their life. Yet Telltale isn't prioritizing Bone, is

  • edited May 2014
    Hasn't TWD been a MASSIVE cash cow for Telltale though? It seems more likely they'd set up different teams to work on the game, being able to hire more staff with the extra revenue.The whole "more than 1/2 games" thing only started when TWD S1 was finished which due to its exploding popularity meant they could expand.

    Each team works on their own game it seems more likely to me. Heck that's what just about any other game development company do.

    I'm NOT saying I don't agree with the OP's points, I just don't think working on multiple games is the reason.
  • edited May 2014
    OP very neatly summed up all of my problems with Episode 3. I enjoyed it very much while playing it, but as soon as it ended I felt like something major was missing from the experience. Lack of development for Carver, plot holes regarding the cabin group, wasted characters from 400 days, and a relatively short running time all added up to make a disappointing experience, in retrospect. The things that I loved in previous episodes are still good, though; Clementine is still awesome, Kenny is still awesome, and the gameplay is still fun and exciting. But plotwise, so many things were missing from this episode. And sure, I had some problems with Episode 1, but nothing like this. Episode 1 was still a great reintroduction to the game, despite the gripes I had with it. And Episode 2 was incredible, and built up Episode 3 to be such an epic installment. And while I had fun as I was playing it, as soon as it ended I felt like there were things left out. And OP's post definitely covers what I feel was missing. Here's hoping that Episode 4 somehow makes up for it.
  • We can not know for certain about this, but it is what it looks like to many.

    I can't put the "blame" of what I perceive as lack of quality on their other projects, but it looks like it, at times. Hell, maybe it isn't even the recently announced GoT and TftB, but *Wolf* that's "harmed" TWD (and vice versa). Or maybe it has been the new conscious new development approach, or the change in writers. Who can say for sure?

    Whatever it is/was, we just want what's left to be as good as it can be.

    Hurting? Seriously?

  • I'm beginning to notice that, since Season Two came out, a lot of people are treating Season One like it's Jesus when it had its own faults as well.

    We can not know for certain about this, but it is what it looks like to many. I can't put the "blame" of what I perceive as l

  • Actually I don't, You just won't shut up about it.

    Exactly, who cares. But yet he rants about it everywhere.

  • You're my man! I don't like hubs.

    Oh my gosh, hubs hubs hubs. What is it about hubs that make them so appealing? It's literally walking around. No meaningful cho

  • I liked this episode...
  • Yes, but not as many as season 2.

    I'm beginning to notice that, since Season Two came out, a lot of people are treating Season One like it's Jesus when it had its own faults as well.

  • I like Episode 3, too. It just has a lot of problems that I honestly didn't expect from TWD and TTG. Up until this point, this has been a damn near perfect game, and I really don't want that to change because of poor writing.

    I still enjoyed the episode, and TWD is still my favorite game of all time.
    stitch123 posted: »

    I liked this episode...

  • Aye, it had, but as I mentioned before, it is still the best frame of reference we all (and that includes TT) have. Comparing one another and pointing out that, in our opinion, S1 is the superior product is not us asking for a clone of S1, or denying it had flaws, but rather to take the best of it to fundamentally improve the new product.

    Perhaps we should *also* point out the flaws from last season to make the comparison more complete and neutral, I guess; make clear what we want back and what we don't?

    I'm beginning to notice that, since Season Two came out, a lot of people are treating Season One like it's Jesus when it had its own faults as well.

  • I have never seen him rant about it anywhere.

    Exactly, who cares. But yet he rants about it everywhere.

Sign in to comment in this discussion.