So we should just shut up and quit complaining in the company's forums, that we didn't got that what they promised and we paid for?
No, you should never stop whining. It's a great thing to do, as long as some constructive criticism comes along. Just saying how bad and stupid everything is, where it is not, would be plain stupid. At least we are far from the BSN standards.
@red panda: the subject of this discussion is not the character but choices and impacts in the STORY of the game. Not the dialogues or little event. STORY, no matter which side you are, results are always the same at the end of the chapter 3, you have the same characters living, the same dead. No difference.
And i don't have the courage to read the thread ^^
Edit:
@ 8 bit system: i agree with you, this board is largely better than the BSN
No, you should never stop whining. It's a great thing to do, as long as some constructive criticism comes along. Just saying how bad and stupid everything is, where it is not, would be plain stupid. At least we are far from the BSN standards.
I love this:
You should never stop whining. It's a great thing to do, as long as some constructive criticism comes along.:)
I really can't help you out here, don't preorder something if you're not sure what you are getting. Wait for the game to come out, take a read, take a look, and then decide.
I hear you, but its not like 25 dollars broke me. I just don't feel like sitting back and saying nothing while the company does not deliver what was promised. Saying nothing is what makes these companies think they can do it.
what the difference in between being either team kenny or team lilly?
You should know, you posted there. We not only experienced the story in different ways but even the logic behind our choices feels different. It's like everybody has his own adventure and his logic looks sound to him but it doesn't to the rest.
If that's not an example as to why the choices matter, I don't know what then.
I hear you, but its not like 25 dollars broke me. I just don't feel like sitting back and saying nothing while the company does not deliver what was promised. Saying nothing is what makes these companies think they can do it.
But isn't this comment far more helpful than just saying "false advertisement"?
You should know, you posted there. We not only experienced the story in different ways but even the logic behind our choices feels different. It's like everybody has his own adventure and his logic looks sound to him but it doesn't to the rest.
If that's not an example as to why the choices matter, I don't know what then.
So true!
I used to be a Lilly fan, then she shot someone... now I think it's time for Lee to step up. No fandom anymore.
You should know, you posted there. We not only experienced the story in different ways but even the logic behind our choices feels different. It's like everybody has his own adventure and his logic looks sound to him but it doesn't to the rest.
If that's not an example as to why the choices matter, I don't know what then.
but the thing is i am playing a character with the super power to retry things if he dies, the ability to go back in time and redo things and also predict the future.
plus i only picked sides because i believed there would be consequences
@ yami raziel: okay... Explain me what is the difference at the end of the third chapter between the teams ? What difference in the survivors who are ith you ? How your choices tailored the story ? (idon't speak of dialogue but the STORY ^^)
The results are always the sames, Lilly go away, Carley/Doug die, Katjaa and Duck die. So what's your point ?
And to finish, i've two saves, one for each camp and i don't see any difference between the saves at the end... I don't want to make a fanfic, i don't want to explain my choices, i just want to see them tailor the STORY.
Edit: could you explain why (it will be impossible in the game for obvious reason) why lilly go without you i you want to go with her ? Yes you can with headcannon. We are not here to do that, we are here to speak of choices, impact and consequences. Cordially
You should know, you posted there. We not only experienced the story in different ways but even the logic behind our choices feels different. It's like everybody has his own adventure and his logic looks sound to him but it doesn't to the rest.
If that's not an example as to why the choices matter, I don't know what then.
Good that someone is happy with the the whole "freedom" of the game, I wouldn't even bother to discuss with someone some decisions during the game when they are completely meaningless. Otherwise I would have done it as well but too bad it's not the case.
@ yami raziel: okay... Explain me what is the difference at the end of the third chapter between the teams ? What difference in the survivors who are ith you ? How your choices tailored the story ? (idon't speak of dialogue but the STORY ^^)
The results are always the sames, Lilly go away, Carley/Doug die, Katjaa and Duck die. So what's your point ?
And to finish, i've two saves, one for each camp and i don't see any difference between the saves at the end... I don't want to make a fanfic, i don't want to explain my choices, i just want to see them tailor the STORY.
Edit: could you explain why (it will be impossible in the game for obvious reason) why lilly go without you i you want to go with her ? Yes you can with headcannon. We are not here to do that, we are here to speak of choices, impact and consequences. Cordially
I definitely agree that the impacts of our decisions were oversold. I'm definitely on your side of the fence when it comes to the debate here. If I give TTG the benefit of the the doubt on the issue, there's still the possibility that who we sided with will have an impact in the remaining episodes--not because Lilly is around, but because siding with Lilly meant spurning Kenny. Again, this is a large stretch trying to be as generous as possible to the writers, and we'll have to wait to be certain, but if the direction of episode 3 is any indication, there's not a lot to hold out for.
but the thing is i am playing a character with the super power to retry things if he dies, the ability to go back in time and redo things and also predict the future.
Interesting. My character has no rewind, what I decide, be it bad and stupid or unbelievably smart is cannon to my playthrough.
Interesting. My character has no rewind, what I decide, be it bad and stupid or unbelievably smart is cannon to my playthrough.
yeah i have a save i wont change, but for my others, and future plays, its the super power that every player character in a game has, and people that make games should/do know this
@ yami raziel: okay... Explain me what is the difference at the end of the third chapter between the teams ? What difference in the survivors who are ith you ? How your choices tailored the story ? (idon't speak of dialogue but the STORY ^^)
The results are always the sames, Lilly go away, Carley/Doug die, Katjaa and Duck die. So what's your point ?
And to finish, i've two saves, one for each camp and i don't see any difference between the saves at the end... I don't want to make a fanfic, i don't want to explain my choices, i just want to see them tailor the STORY.
Edit: could you explain why (it will be impossible in the game for obvious reason) why lilly go without you i you want to go with her ? Yes you can with headcannon. We are not here to do that, we are here to speak of choices, impact and consequences. Cordially
Go to my Lilly appreciation thread. I've explained there somewhere why I feel she left me although I wanted to go with her.
The difference is how I feel about the characters. I still support Lilly and although I understand why she had to leave me. I still dislike Kenny because of the things he has done in my playthrough. That will define how I react towards him in ep 4 and 5.
If it was so easy for one guy to influence others and impact his own story then I guess we would be doing it in real life too.
The results are always the sames, Lilly go away, Carley/Doug die, Katjaa and Duck die. So what's your point ?
You know.. they will all probably die in the end. What's the point of playing then?
You, pal, are not looking for choices that affect the story, you're looking for RESULTS. That is something entirely different.
Go to my Lilly appreciation thread. I've explained there somewhere why I feel she left me although I wanted to go with her.
The difference is how I feel about the characters. I still support Lilly and although I understand why she had to leave me. I still dislike Kenny because of the things he has done in my playthrough. That will define how I react towards him in ep 4 and 5. If it was so easy for one guy to influence others and impact his own story then I guess we would be doing it in real life too.
You know.. they will all probably die in the end. What's the point of playing then?
You, pal, are not looking for choices that affect the story, you're looking for RESULTS. That is something entirely different.
@yamiraziel: oki, i'll repeat, it seem necessary: i'm not here to headcannon, i 'm not here to write a (perhaps) fascinating story on a character psychology, i'm here to play and i can't see any results of any choice, no consequences. in the third episode, i can't change anything, not even the simplest thing.
Yes i'm looking for results because when i play a game where my choices tailor the STORY (note: this is the important word here) ilook at the results, not oneor two dialogue or cutscenes (for that we have already ME lol) look at all the saves: there are the same now. The characters's death are not the point here, yeah i know "welcome to TWD world" yadayadayada.
What are the differences between your saves: NONE (at last, none we can see). You can't change ANYTHING on the third chapter, the story is great, i can say it was not, but it was not an interactive story, no; it was a comic, nothing more and you can't do anything to change a comic when you read it. In fact i don't care why Lilly leave the group, she leave, no matter what i do, what i say. It's that point the main problem and you have the same problem with all the points of the chapter.
And your question summarize all this topic:
What's the point to playing now ? And you don't answers to my question :
The results are always the sames, Lilly go away, Carley/Doug die, Katjaa and Duck die. So what's your point ?
@yamiraziel: oki, i'll repeat, it seem necessary: i'm not here to headcannon, i 'm not here to write a (perhaps) fascinating story on a character psychology, i'm here to play and i can't see any results of any choice, no consequences. in the third episode, i can't change anything, not even the simplest thing.
I would say lets just wait for ep4, there are still some choices which could have impact on story and it still could be amazing:) Or they will just only probably kill it totaly:D
@yamiraziel: oki, i'll repeat, it seem necessary: i'm not here to headcannon, i 'm not here to write a (perhaps) fascinating story on a character psychology, i'm here to play and i can't see any results of any choice, no consequences. in the third episode, i can't change anything, not even the simplest thing.
Yes i'm looking for results because when i play a game where my choices tailor the STORY (note: this is the important word here) ilook at the results, not oneor two dialogue or cutscenes (for that we have already ME lol) look at all the saves: there are the same now. The characters's death are not the point here, yeah i know "welcome to TWD world" yadayadayada.
What are the differences between your saves: NONE (at last, none we can see). You can't change ANYTHING on the third chapter, the story is great, i can say it was not, but it was not an interactive story, no; it was a comic, nothing more and you can't do anything to change a comic when you read it. In fact i don't care why Lilly leave the group, she leave, no matter what i do, what i say. It's that point the main problem and you have the same problem with all the points of the chapter.
And your question summarize all this topic:
What's the point to playing now ? And you don't answers to my question :
The results are always the sames, Lilly go away, Carley/Doug die, Katjaa and Duck die. So what's your point ?
I'm sorry you feel that way. I couldn't care less about results. I can see the results in all the other games I play. I fight evil, I defeat it and I'm victorious. It's funny and unrealistic.
I'm very fond of the way the stories in TWD unfold because they are really mimetic of the real life. You can't always control everything, you can't solve every problem. It allows for psychological profiling of the characters because they are deeply established and motivated by their own demeanour. I really like Lilly's and Kenny's characters. Even though I dislike Kenny's personality his character is written so well that it fascinates me. I did some predictions of how he is going to behave back when we were discussing ep.2 and for the most parts I was right. Lilly was always a difficult character to read and I might have been able to predict that she would snap, had I not been so fond of her. I knew she would do something extreme, I just didn't want her to. If I was given the chance to decide how the story unfolded I would've run with Lilly or made her stay. Even though I would've liked to do that it wouldn't be better and more realistic than what she did. To me Telltale know exactly how much power Lee needs to have.
I'm sorry to all Carley fans but I will go as to say that the most useful thing she ever did was die and shock me. She wasn't interesting anymore, she was minor character with not much of a story. I'm sure that if given the chance most would save her and have their dreamed romance with her.. but would it really be better? I don't think it would've been.
The Walking Dead franchise has always been a way of showing character's inner world and the relationships they build in extreme environment. This game has always been about the decisions and how they affect the people around you, not the result.
Just because the end is the same it doesn't mean that the story is also the same. Some changes are more subtle than others but there are still differences.
What makes people think they have free will and choices in life? The topic has been debated for over 2,000 years. It's not going to solved in this forum, with this game.
It could be argued people have more free will in the game than in real life.
Basically to keep the illusion intact, dont replay the game, play it one time and accept the choices. When you replay it, the whole illusion feels apart imho
I agree but you have to look at it from the development stand point. This isnt COD or FIFA where there is an annual release giving the respective teams a year plus to make the game.
This is a monthly game and tt is trying to make the decisions matter but they physically cant make everyones game so different where there is a different outcome. Hopefully, they pull a few strings in episode 5 since you dont have to worry about decisions carrying over but until then they HAVE to make your chocies marginal.
What makes people think they have free will and choices in life? The topic has been debated for over 2,000 years. It's not going to solved in this forum, with this game.
It could be argued people have more free will in the game than in real life.
I would say that sleeping with Carley, saving her from Lilly and killing the latter would probably satisfy most and give them the illusion their choices matter
As much as I love to read walls of text, can I ask a question to those that think choice doesn't matter?
What would the game look like or how would the game play if choice did matter?
carley and doug would have some different game play and a different death for a start, there may be new locations based on choice, items or characters you can only get/meet by certain choices, if someone doesn't like you, you or someone else might get hurt, to make a choice on your ultimate goal, things like that
carley and doug would have some different game play and a different death for a start, there may be new locations based on choice, items or characters you can only get/meet by certain choices, if someone doesn't like you, you or someone else might get hurt, to make a choice on your ultimate goal, things like that
That's vague. Start small. How would Carley's death been different if you had choice as you define it?
if they had advertised it as "TWD game an interactive story based on TWD comic"
but had not said that it was tailored by your game play and that choices matter, i would not have expected any more than an interactive story
Considering this is an adventure game crowd I expected a higher level of reading comprehension. What does everybody think "tailored" means? When you tailor a suit you don't swap it out with a T-shirt and shorts, you just trim it to fit you. If you play Lee one way you get a different experience than if you play him another way. If you save one character instead of another you get a more tailored experience. Tailored does not now imply, nor has it ever implied, that you get to make huge branching narrative decisions.
On the issue of 'meaningful' player choice you could throw the word meaningful around all day and not find two people who agree on what it means. It should also be considered that your save file still has every flag you tripped from episodes 1 through 3 and we've got two more to go where they can still play with your decisions, so prematurely assuming that nothing you've done to this point matters is self-defeating as well as unfounded. If what you wanted was a different game for every character you rescued you had unrealistic expectations, and since we've already discussed the widely misused word 'tailor' I'm not sure any of the advertising actually promised anything to that effect.
There are two major issues right here dragging a chunk of the community down on forums all over the internet right now. People are spending too much time looking behind the curtain trying to break the game down to its raw mechanics to justify their purchase, and people are obsessively discussing every possible outcome for every decision in the game. It's Mass Effect all over again and the game is only 3/5ths complete. A game like The Walking Dead isn't designed to be played 7 times to gorge ourselves on every ounce of content they pushed into the thing. Heavy Rain isn't designed that way either. These games are really convincing, personal experiences, when you play them in a vacuum. Even when the outcomes end up the same, unless somebody tells that to you, and/or you take it upon yourself to become upset with the gameplay decision to make it that way, you're going to have a tailored, awesome experience. As soon as you go digging up what the actual effects are for every decision you've immediately and irreversibly destroyed the game for yourself. This is true for heavy rain, this is true for mass effect, this is true for LA Noir, this is true for the Walking Dead, and this will continue to be true until the end of video game design as we know it. There aren't enough resources on the planet to make the video game that branches into a new video game every time you make every decision.
TL;DR-> The word 'tailored' does not mean what you think it means, obsessing on web forums about a game's programming is going to destroy that game for you every time. Enjoy the ride and don't get on the 'nothing worked out as promised' train until they actually finish the goddamn series.
carley and doug would have some different game play and a different death for a start, there may be new locations based on choice, items or characters you can only get/meet by certain choices, if someone doesn't like you, you or someone else might get hurt, to make a choice on your ultimate goal, things like that
You mean like a standard RPG where there's is a right and wrong choice based on that which reward is better?
When things are equally rewarded like Carley/Doug death, people complain.
When things are not equally rewarded like being pro-Lilly and having to stick with Kenny as opposed to being pro-Kenny and having to stick with Kenny, people complain again.
Even in real life people constantly complain of what's happening to them, of missed opportunities and unrewarding experiences...
Sonic Boyster, great post and welcome to the forums!
That's vague. Start small. How would Carley's death been different if you had choice as you define it?
i actually thought carleys death was really good, she was tough she was good with a gun, how else could she die, except a really shock ending, maybe doug could have died earlier or later, maybe on his own mission that he has because thats the kind of thing new characters should have
You mean like a standard RPG where there's is a right and wrong choice based on that which reward is better?
When things are equally rewarded like Carley/Doug death, people complain.
When things are not equally rewarded like being pro-Lilly and having to stick with Kenny as opposed to being pro-Kenny and having to stick with Kenny, people complain again.
Even in real life people constantly complain of what's happening to them, of missed opportunities and unrewarding experiences...
Sonic Boyster, great post and welcome to the forums!
i would like every choice to be equally as bad, but more different
i actually thought carleys death was really good, she was tough she was good with a gun, how else could she die, except a really shock ending, maybe doug could have died earlier or later, maybe on his own mission that he has because thats the kind of thing new characters should have
Okay, so if you had choice you would be able to control Doug and when he dies? Is that what you're saying?
You can give an example and I can try to identify where people like yourself would complain
well, depending on who you choose to save, you speak to them and they tell you about some supplies they spotted and that we should go and get them, you could maybe have different locations for each person or the same one.
but when we get to the place there is a locked door or some obstacle blocking the supplies.
doug would fix some wiring or something technology based and somehow a zombie would kill him but you get the supplies
carley may climb over the obstacle(or do whatever is in her location) or find another way, maybe be attacked by zombies but she shoots them and you get the supplies (later, lilly kills her)
That's vague. Start small. How would Carley's death been different if you had choice as you define it?
Here's a few examples that I've posted elsewhere:
Here's something that wouldn't require a lot of change, but would add that extra touch that's currently missing. At the beginning of episode 2, you're faced with the decision to cut off the foot of the band director, David. If you don't, Travis, the other student, freaks out and winds up getting shot. He dies on the operating table, so to speak, and serves as a lesson to the group about the reality of infection.
If you do save David, Travis is rather clumsily dispatched from a writing perspective by inexplicably tripping and being devoured. This immediately synchronizes the outcomes of your choice, creating a symmetrical gameplay experience that's easier to write, but less meaningful to the players.
A nice touch that probably wouldn't have added a ton to development time or cost would have been to have Travis survive if you cut David free, and join you on the trip to the farm with Ben. At that point, he would join you and Mark as you clear off the zombies from the fence, but is killed by the first volley of arrows from the bandits. He then becomes one of the zombies chasing you during the tractor escape scene.
Or if I decide to shoot the girl at the beginning of episode 3, for example, maybe that prevents me from getting any supplies in the pharmacy, instead resulting in a frantic escape through the back alleys of Macon from the undead. And if I don’t shoot, I can take my time in the pharmacy. No long term impact, other than a frustrated Lilly when we get back to the motel, but it’s a little fissure that spices up gameplay. This requires developing a few extra areas and quick time events, so maybe that is asking a lot, but it would definitely add to the asymmetry of the game without dramatically altering the story.
Another example: If I decide to help Kenny kill Larry, maybe he steps up to save me in the barn and kills Danny, eliminating that decision entirely. Some might argue that that robs the player of a key moral moment in Lee’s development, which I won’t deny; but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. The stories we could tell about our experiences would be that much richer if some people were never confronted with that choice at all while others were. I’d certainly want to fire my game back up and see how the story plays out knowing I might be confronted with different choices in another play through. And for something like this there are minimal development costs and no changes to the story, but it adds a greater variety to our individual experiences. Something like Lilly coming to our aid in the final fight with Andy if we help her with her father, rather than her just watching us struggle on our own is a step in the right direction, albeit a very minimal one.
For Carley and Doug's deaths, change it up a bit. A nice touch would have been for Carley to have died at that point in episode 3 regardless, while in a Doug game to have Ben be killed instead (or maybe a choice between the two, dependent upon your actions). In a Doug game, I wouldn’t know that Ben was the traitor, and that would be fine—it’d be great, in fact, because that sort of asymmetry creates replay value and adds depth to my choices. From this point on, Ben and Doug could serve the story in a functionally synonymous way, outside of cosmetic dialogue differences, much like Carley and Doug do now This would probably result in a richer, more asymmetrical experience, and very likely without onerous additions to development cost and minimizing the impact on the overall direction of the story. Obviously it's hard to say how effective or easy this would be, given that we don't know what the writers have planned for Ben's role in the story, but something like this would be welcome.
I would say that sleeping with Carley, saving her from Lilly and killing the latter would probably satisfy most and give them the illusion their choices matter
with an answer like that, you can be a good member of the BSN.
I prefer to let it down... I'm not playing to dissert why i do my choices but to see what come with them, Sandmole make a very good point. Read his posts and you will see want a guy like me want; it's totally realistic, but making a post like the one i quote, i can respond only one thing: Don't feed the troll...
And if i look to the others one, with red panda's one, we 'll complain no matter what Tellatale do... It's not that and you will know this if you read the last pages of the topic.
The discussion was adult, civil, polite witout mockery.
For Carley and Doug's deaths, change it up a bit. A nice touch would have been for Carley to have died at that point in episode 3 regardless, while in a Doug game to have Ben be killed instead (or maybe a choice between the two, dependent upon your actions). In a Doug game, I wouldn’t know that Ben was the traitor, and that would be fine—it’d be great, in fact, because that sort of asymmetry creates replay value and adds depth to my choices. From this point on, Ben and Doug could serve the story in a functionally synonymous way, outside of cosmetic dialogue differences, much like Carley and Doug do now This would probably result in a richer, more asymmetrical experience, and very likely without onerous additions to development cost and minimizing the impact on the overall direction of the story. Obviously it's hard to say how effective or easy this would be, given that we don't know what the writers have planned for Ben's role in the story, but something like this would be welcome.
I don't know what happened in your games but in mine, Lilly did help me with both brothers. The ultimate decision to finish them off or not was mine, but she did save my ass back there.
Regarding your Doug/Carley idea, I can already see the problem for most people that complain.
All the people that started this thread and keep saying that choices were irrelevant would start a new thread called "You said there were no right and wrong choices - you lied". In that thread they will be thoroughly explaining how saving Doug resulted in killing the traitor (they will know from the Carley saves) and this resulted in +1 member -> Doug
Those that saved Carley would feel that they're punished for their choice because Carley dies and Doug doesn't. They will be left with Ben whom they will hate because he killed their precious Carley.
That will start an entirely new trend of measuring choices and rewards which is something Telltale doesn't want at all. Choices should be done from a moral side, not because one will lead to one thing and the other to another thing. You do them because they feel right, not because that will prevent a member of the group to be killed.
Plus, this idea doesn't allow for equal development of Ben's story and faith and if they've planned something great it won't reach all the people.
There's absolutely no way that Telltale will manage to please everybody, not matter how hard they try.
malcom155, first of all I read replied to Sandmole's post.
Now you go and read Sonic Boyster's post.
I don't know what happened in your games but in mine, Lilly did help me with both brothers. The ultimate decision to finish them off or not was mine, but she did save my ass back there.
Regarding your Doug/Carley idea, I can already see the problem for most people that complain.
All the people that started this thread and keep saying that choices were irrelevant would start a new thread called "You said there were no right and wrong choices - you lied". In that thread they will be thoroughly explaining how saving Doug resulted in killing the traitor (they will know from the Carley saves) and this resulted in +1 member -> Doug
Those that saved Carley would feel that they're punished for their choice because Carley dies and Doug doesn't. They will be left with Ben whom they will hate because he killed their precious Carley.
That will start an entirely new trend of measuring choices and rewards which is something Telltale doesn't want at all. Choices should be done from a moral side, not because one will lead to one thing and the other to another thing. You do them because they feel right, not because that will prevent a member of the group to be killed.
Plus, this idea doesn't allow for equal development of Ben's story and faith and if they've planned something great it won't reach all the people.
There's absolutely no way that Telltale will manage to please everybody, not matter how hard they try.
I don't want to be pleased somehow or whatever. I want a single element, single, that is relevant for the story to be different at the end. I don't want from the game to make me feel somehow. If this is the goal of the game they should have written "The decisions u make affect the way u feel" not that they influence the story. Because they have zero impact on the outcome, zero. Not a SINGLE element is different at the end.
Edit : and by the way I don't have any problem with the death of Carley if that is your argument why ppl are whining about the choices.
Considering this is an adventure game crowd I expected a higher level of reading comprehension. What does everybody think "tailored" means? When you tailor a suit you don't swap it out with a T-shirt and shorts, you just trim it to fit you. If you play Lee one way you get a different experience than if you play him another way. If you save one character instead of another you get a more tailored experience. Tailored does not now imply, nor has it ever implied, that you get to make huge branching narrative decisions.
On the issue of 'meaningful' player choice you could throw the word meaningful around all day and not find two people who agree on what it means. It should also be considered that your save file still has every flag you tripped from episodes 1 through 3 and we've got two more to go where they can still play with your decisions, so prematurely assuming that nothing you've done to this point matters is self-defeating as well as unfounded. If what you wanted was a different game for every character you rescued you had unrealistic expectations, and since we've already discussed the widely misused word 'tailor' I'm not sure any of the advertising actually promised anything to that effect.
There are two major issues right here dragging a chunk of the community down on forums all over the internet right now. People are spending too much time looking behind the curtain trying to break the game down to its raw mechanics to justify their purchase, and people are obsessively discussing every possible outcome for every decision in the game. It's Mass Effect all over again and the game is only 3/5ths complete. A game like The Walking Dead isn't designed to be played 7 times to gorge ourselves on every ounce of content they pushed into the thing. Heavy Rain isn't designed that way either. These games are really convincing, personal experiences, when you play them in a vacuum. Even when the outcomes end up the same, unless somebody tells that to you, and/or you take it upon yourself to become upset with the gameplay decision to make it that way, you're going to have a tailored, awesome experience. As soon as you go digging up what the actual effects are for every decision you've immediately and irreversibly destroyed the game for yourself. This is true for heavy rain, this is true for mass effect, this is true for LA Noir, this is true for the Walking Dead, and this will continue to be true until the end of video game design as we know it. There aren't enough resources on the planet to make the video game that branches into a new video game every time you make every decision.
TL;DR-> The word 'tailored' does not mean what you think it means, obsessing on web forums about a game's programming is going to destroy that game for you every time. Enjoy the ride and don't get on the 'nothing worked out as promised' train until they actually finish the goddamn series.
tai·lored
adjective /ˈtālərd/
(of clothes) Smart, fitted, and well cut
- a tailored charcoal-gray suit
(of clothes) Cut in a particular way
- her clothes were well tailored and expensive
Made or adapted for a particular purpose or person
- specially tailored courses can be run on request
if game designers don't think people play games more than once or reload saves they are wrong
Here's something that wouldn't require a lot of change, but would add that extra touch that's currently missing. At the beginning of episode 2, you're faced with the decision to cut off the foot of the band director, David. If you don't, Travis, the other student, freaks out and winds up getting shot. He dies on the operating table, so to speak, and serves as a lesson to the group about the reality of infection.
I like the ideas. When it comes to choice, I don't think you're adding anything radical.
You're really making a value argument. You're point is that life and death is more important than what is said so choices that impact life and death and real choices or important choices while ones that change dialogue and attitude aren't. They're superficial.
In the end, a choice is a choice. You put value on what choices are more important are less important and when you think TTG isn't aligned with that you complain about lack of choice. There is plenty of choice, just not the choice you want.
And to be fair, I think you have great ideas, but in the end it is a business so there are limits. I think you recognize that.
Personally, I think there have been plenty of life or death choices.
saying something and doing something are very different, saying something is superficial and meaningless unless it causes someone to do something.
so in the game dialogue choices (and peoples opinions of you) are meaningless, unless some action happens because of it
also actions with only short term affects are superficial and meaningless
First, saying something is doing something thing: you're talking. Now, doing something doesn't mean you're saying something.
Second, when you say "saying something is superficial and meaningless" you are making a value statement and it doesn't make sense. Words are all about meaning. It's about communication. You wrote that reply with the idea in mind we share the same understanding of certain words and therefore I can come to understand what you're thinking through this shared meaning.
But lets even look at an example of words doing something without causing someone to do something. Let's a meeting. The person heading the meeting declares "the meeting is adjourned." Guess what, the meeting is over. Saying that sentence was an action.
But before this gets too abstract, let bring it back to the game. You say "so in the game dialogue choices (and peoples opinions of you) are meaningless, unless some action happens because of it." The thing is, forming an opinion of you or talking back is an action so your point is not well taken.
The issue with your whole position is you aren't articulating what is meaningful and why. You're not even doing a good job of articulating what is not meaningful: if words have no meaning, why talk? What is the point of speech? You talk, you write, you do all of that because you expect and action. You want people to think, to react, to engage. Your logic is inconsistent with what is easily observed.
Philosophers have been talking about this stuff for over 2,000 years. You're not saying anything groundbreaking. Neither am I.
Comments
And i don't have the courage to read the thread ^^
Edit:
@ 8 bit system: i agree with you, this board is largely better than the BSN
I love this:
You should never stop whining. It's a great thing to do, as long as some constructive criticism comes along.:)
I hear you, but its not like 25 dollars broke me. I just don't feel like sitting back and saying nothing while the company does not deliver what was promised. Saying nothing is what makes these companies think they can do it.
You should know, you posted there. We not only experienced the story in different ways but even the logic behind our choices feels different. It's like everybody has his own adventure and his logic looks sound to him but it doesn't to the rest.
If that's not an example as to why the choices matter, I don't know what then.
I think you are right by the way!
So true!
I used to be a Lilly fan, then she shot someone... now I think it's time for Lee to step up. No fandom anymore.
but the thing is i am playing a character with the super power to retry things if he dies, the ability to go back in time and redo things and also predict the future.
plus i only picked sides because i believed there would be consequences
The results are always the sames, Lilly go away, Carley/Doug die, Katjaa and Duck die. So what's your point ?
And to finish, i've two saves, one for each camp and i don't see any difference between the saves at the end... I don't want to make a fanfic, i don't want to explain my choices, i just want to see them tailor the STORY.
Edit: could you explain why (it will be impossible in the game for obvious reason) why lilly go without you i you want to go with her ? Yes you can with headcannon. We are not here to do that, we are here to speak of choices, impact and consequences. Cordially
Good that someone is happy with the the whole "freedom" of the game, I wouldn't even bother to discuss with someone some decisions during the game when they are completely meaningless. Otherwise I would have done it as well but too bad it's not the case.
I definitely agree that the impacts of our decisions were oversold. I'm definitely on your side of the fence when it comes to the debate here. If I give TTG the benefit of the the doubt on the issue, there's still the possibility that who we sided with will have an impact in the remaining episodes--not because Lilly is around, but because siding with Lilly meant spurning Kenny. Again, this is a large stretch trying to be as generous as possible to the writers, and we'll have to wait to be certain, but if the direction of episode 3 is any indication, there's not a lot to hold out for.
yeah i have a save i wont change, but for my others, and future plays, its the super power that every player character in a game has, and people that make games should/do know this
Go to my Lilly appreciation thread. I've explained there somewhere why I feel she left me although I wanted to go with her.
The difference is how I feel about the characters. I still support Lilly and although I understand why she had to leave me. I still dislike Kenny because of the things he has done in my playthrough. That will define how I react towards him in ep 4 and 5.
If it was so easy for one guy to influence others and impact his own story then I guess we would be doing it in real life too.
You know.. they will all probably die in the end. What's the point of playing then?
You, pal, are not looking for choices that affect the story, you're looking for RESULTS. That is something entirely different.
games are better than real life
Yes i'm looking for results because when i play a game where my choices tailor the STORY (note: this is the important word here) ilook at the results, not oneor two dialogue or cutscenes (for that we have already ME lol) look at all the saves: there are the same now. The characters's death are not the point here, yeah i know "welcome to TWD world" yadayadayada.
What are the differences between your saves: NONE (at last, none we can see). You can't change ANYTHING on the third chapter, the story is great, i can say it was not, but it was not an interactive story, no; it was a comic, nothing more and you can't do anything to change a comic when you read it. In fact i don't care why Lilly leave the group, she leave, no matter what i do, what i say. It's that point the main problem and you have the same problem with all the points of the chapter.
And your question summarize all this topic:
What's the point to playing now ? And you don't answers to my question :
The results are always the sames, Lilly go away, Carley/Doug die, Katjaa and Duck die. So what's your point ?
I would say lets just wait for ep4, there are still some choices which could have impact on story and it still could be amazing:) Or they will just only probably kill it totaly:D
I'm sorry you feel that way. I couldn't care less about results. I can see the results in all the other games I play. I fight evil, I defeat it and I'm victorious. It's funny and unrealistic.
I'm very fond of the way the stories in TWD unfold because they are really mimetic of the real life. You can't always control everything, you can't solve every problem. It allows for psychological profiling of the characters because they are deeply established and motivated by their own demeanour. I really like Lilly's and Kenny's characters. Even though I dislike Kenny's personality his character is written so well that it fascinates me. I did some predictions of how he is going to behave back when we were discussing ep.2 and for the most parts I was right. Lilly was always a difficult character to read and I might have been able to predict that she would snap, had I not been so fond of her. I knew she would do something extreme, I just didn't want her to. If I was given the chance to decide how the story unfolded I would've run with Lilly or made her stay. Even though I would've liked to do that it wouldn't be better and more realistic than what she did. To me Telltale know exactly how much power Lee needs to have.
I'm sorry to all Carley fans but I will go as to say that the most useful thing she ever did was die and shock me. She wasn't interesting anymore, she was minor character with not much of a story. I'm sure that if given the chance most would save her and have their dreamed romance with her.. but would it really be better? I don't think it would've been.
The Walking Dead franchise has always been a way of showing character's inner world and the relationships they build in extreme environment. This game has always been about the decisions and how they affect the people around you, not the result.
What would the game look like or how would the game play if choice did matter?
It could be argued people have more free will in the game than in real life.
This is a monthly game and tt is trying to make the decisions matter but they physically cant make everyones game so different where there is a different outcome. Hopefully, they pull a few strings in episode 5 since you dont have to worry about decisions carrying over but until then they HAVE to make your chocies marginal.
I would say that sleeping with Carley, saving her from Lilly and killing the latter would probably satisfy most and give them the illusion their choices matter
carley and doug would have some different game play and a different death for a start, there may be new locations based on choice, items or characters you can only get/meet by certain choices, if someone doesn't like you, you or someone else might get hurt, to make a choice on your ultimate goal, things like that
That's vague. Start small. How would Carley's death been different if you had choice as you define it?
Considering this is an adventure game crowd I expected a higher level of reading comprehension. What does everybody think "tailored" means? When you tailor a suit you don't swap it out with a T-shirt and shorts, you just trim it to fit you. If you play Lee one way you get a different experience than if you play him another way. If you save one character instead of another you get a more tailored experience. Tailored does not now imply, nor has it ever implied, that you get to make huge branching narrative decisions.
On the issue of 'meaningful' player choice you could throw the word meaningful around all day and not find two people who agree on what it means. It should also be considered that your save file still has every flag you tripped from episodes 1 through 3 and we've got two more to go where they can still play with your decisions, so prematurely assuming that nothing you've done to this point matters is self-defeating as well as unfounded. If what you wanted was a different game for every character you rescued you had unrealistic expectations, and since we've already discussed the widely misused word 'tailor' I'm not sure any of the advertising actually promised anything to that effect.
There are two major issues right here dragging a chunk of the community down on forums all over the internet right now. People are spending too much time looking behind the curtain trying to break the game down to its raw mechanics to justify their purchase, and people are obsessively discussing every possible outcome for every decision in the game. It's Mass Effect all over again and the game is only 3/5ths complete. A game like The Walking Dead isn't designed to be played 7 times to gorge ourselves on every ounce of content they pushed into the thing. Heavy Rain isn't designed that way either. These games are really convincing, personal experiences, when you play them in a vacuum. Even when the outcomes end up the same, unless somebody tells that to you, and/or you take it upon yourself to become upset with the gameplay decision to make it that way, you're going to have a tailored, awesome experience. As soon as you go digging up what the actual effects are for every decision you've immediately and irreversibly destroyed the game for yourself. This is true for heavy rain, this is true for mass effect, this is true for LA Noir, this is true for the Walking Dead, and this will continue to be true until the end of video game design as we know it. There aren't enough resources on the planet to make the video game that branches into a new video game every time you make every decision.
TL;DR-> The word 'tailored' does not mean what you think it means, obsessing on web forums about a game's programming is going to destroy that game for you every time. Enjoy the ride and don't get on the 'nothing worked out as promised' train until they actually finish the goddamn series.
You mean like a standard RPG where there's is a right and wrong choice based on that which reward is better?
When things are equally rewarded like Carley/Doug death, people complain.
When things are not equally rewarded like being pro-Lilly and having to stick with Kenny as opposed to being pro-Kenny and having to stick with Kenny, people complain again.
Even in real life people constantly complain of what's happening to them, of missed opportunities and unrewarding experiences...
Sonic Boyster, great post and welcome to the forums!
i actually thought carleys death was really good, she was tough she was good with a gun, how else could she die, except a really shock ending, maybe doug could have died earlier or later, maybe on his own mission that he has because thats the kind of thing new characters should have
i would like every choice to be equally as bad, but more different
You can give an example and I can try to identify where people like yourself would complain
Okay, so if you had choice you would be able to control Doug and when he dies? Is that what you're saying?
but when we get to the place there is a locked door or some obstacle blocking the supplies.
doug would fix some wiring or something technology based and somehow a zombie would kill him but you get the supplies
carley may climb over the obstacle(or do whatever is in her location) or find another way, maybe be attacked by zombies but she shoots them and you get the supplies (later, lilly kills her)
Here's a few examples that I've posted elsewhere:
Here's something that wouldn't require a lot of change, but would add that extra touch that's currently missing. At the beginning of episode 2, you're faced with the decision to cut off the foot of the band director, David. If you don't, Travis, the other student, freaks out and winds up getting shot. He dies on the operating table, so to speak, and serves as a lesson to the group about the reality of infection.
If you do save David, Travis is rather clumsily dispatched from a writing perspective by inexplicably tripping and being devoured. This immediately synchronizes the outcomes of your choice, creating a symmetrical gameplay experience that's easier to write, but less meaningful to the players.
A nice touch that probably wouldn't have added a ton to development time or cost would have been to have Travis survive if you cut David free, and join you on the trip to the farm with Ben. At that point, he would join you and Mark as you clear off the zombies from the fence, but is killed by the first volley of arrows from the bandits. He then becomes one of the zombies chasing you during the tractor escape scene.
Or if I decide to shoot the girl at the beginning of episode 3, for example, maybe that prevents me from getting any supplies in the pharmacy, instead resulting in a frantic escape through the back alleys of Macon from the undead. And if I don’t shoot, I can take my time in the pharmacy. No long term impact, other than a frustrated Lilly when we get back to the motel, but it’s a little fissure that spices up gameplay. This requires developing a few extra areas and quick time events, so maybe that is asking a lot, but it would definitely add to the asymmetry of the game without dramatically altering the story.
Another example: If I decide to help Kenny kill Larry, maybe he steps up to save me in the barn and kills Danny, eliminating that decision entirely. Some might argue that that robs the player of a key moral moment in Lee’s development, which I won’t deny; but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. The stories we could tell about our experiences would be that much richer if some people were never confronted with that choice at all while others were. I’d certainly want to fire my game back up and see how the story plays out knowing I might be confronted with different choices in another play through. And for something like this there are minimal development costs and no changes to the story, but it adds a greater variety to our individual experiences. Something like Lilly coming to our aid in the final fight with Andy if we help her with her father, rather than her just watching us struggle on our own is a step in the right direction, albeit a very minimal one.
For Carley and Doug's deaths, change it up a bit. A nice touch would have been for Carley to have died at that point in episode 3 regardless, while in a Doug game to have Ben be killed instead (or maybe a choice between the two, dependent upon your actions). In a Doug game, I wouldn’t know that Ben was the traitor, and that would be fine—it’d be great, in fact, because that sort of asymmetry creates replay value and adds depth to my choices. From this point on, Ben and Doug could serve the story in a functionally synonymous way, outside of cosmetic dialogue differences, much like Carley and Doug do now This would probably result in a richer, more asymmetrical experience, and very likely without onerous additions to development cost and minimizing the impact on the overall direction of the story. Obviously it's hard to say how effective or easy this would be, given that we don't know what the writers have planned for Ben's role in the story, but something like this would be welcome.
with an answer like that, you can be a good member of the BSN.
I prefer to let it down... I'm not playing to dissert why i do my choices but to see what come with them, Sandmole make a very good point. Read his posts and you will see want a guy like me want; it's totally realistic, but making a post like the one i quote, i can respond only one thing: Don't feed the troll...
And if i look to the others one, with red panda's one, we 'll complain no matter what Tellatale do... It's not that and you will know this if you read the last pages of the topic.
The discussion was adult, civil, polite witout mockery.
@Sandmole: again a great post !
I don't know what happened in your games but in mine, Lilly did help me with both brothers. The ultimate decision to finish them off or not was mine, but she did save my ass back there.
Regarding your Doug/Carley idea, I can already see the problem for most people that complain.
All the people that started this thread and keep saying that choices were irrelevant would start a new thread called "You said there were no right and wrong choices - you lied". In that thread they will be thoroughly explaining how saving Doug resulted in killing the traitor (they will know from the Carley saves) and this resulted in +1 member -> Doug
Those that saved Carley would feel that they're punished for their choice because Carley dies and Doug doesn't. They will be left with Ben whom they will hate because he killed their precious Carley.
That will start an entirely new trend of measuring choices and rewards which is something Telltale doesn't want at all. Choices should be done from a moral side, not because one will lead to one thing and the other to another thing. You do them because they feel right, not because that will prevent a member of the group to be killed.
Plus, this idea doesn't allow for equal development of Ben's story and faith and if they've planned something great it won't reach all the people.
There's absolutely no way that Telltale will manage to please everybody, not matter how hard they try.
malcom155, first of all I read replied to Sandmole's post.
Now you go and read Sonic Boyster's post.
I don't want to be pleased somehow or whatever. I want a single element, single, that is relevant for the story to be different at the end. I don't want from the game to make me feel somehow. If this is the goal of the game they should have written "The decisions u make affect the way u feel" not that they influence the story. Because they have zero impact on the outcome, zero. Not a SINGLE element is different at the end.
Edit : and by the way I don't have any problem with the death of Carley if that is your argument why ppl are whining about the choices.
tai·lored
adjective /ˈtālərd/
(of clothes) Smart, fitted, and well cut
- a tailored charcoal-gray suit
(of clothes) Cut in a particular way
- her clothes were well tailored and expensive
Made or adapted for a particular purpose or person
- specially tailored courses can be run on request
if game designers don't think people play games more than once or reload saves they are wrong
I like the ideas. When it comes to choice, I don't think you're adding anything radical.
You're really making a value argument. You're point is that life and death is more important than what is said so choices that impact life and death and real choices or important choices while ones that change dialogue and attitude aren't. They're superficial.
In the end, a choice is a choice. You put value on what choices are more important are less important and when you think TTG isn't aligned with that you complain about lack of choice. There is plenty of choice, just not the choice you want.
And to be fair, I think you have great ideas, but in the end it is a business so there are limits. I think you recognize that.
Personally, I think there have been plenty of life or death choices.
so in the game dialogue choices (and peoples opinions of you) are meaningless, unless some action happens because of it
also actions with only short term affects are superficial and meaningless
First, saying something is doing something thing: you're talking. Now, doing something doesn't mean you're saying something.
Second, when you say "saying something is superficial and meaningless" you are making a value statement and it doesn't make sense. Words are all about meaning. It's about communication. You wrote that reply with the idea in mind we share the same understanding of certain words and therefore I can come to understand what you're thinking through this shared meaning.
But lets even look at an example of words doing something without causing someone to do something. Let's a meeting. The person heading the meeting declares "the meeting is adjourned." Guess what, the meeting is over. Saying that sentence was an action.
But before this gets too abstract, let bring it back to the game. You say "so in the game dialogue choices (and peoples opinions of you) are meaningless, unless some action happens because of it." The thing is, forming an opinion of you or talking back is an action so your point is not well taken.
The issue with your whole position is you aren't articulating what is meaningful and why. You're not even doing a good job of articulating what is not meaningful: if words have no meaning, why talk? What is the point of speech? You talk, you write, you do all of that because you expect and action. You want people to think, to react, to engage. Your logic is inconsistent with what is easily observed.
Philosophers have been talking about this stuff for over 2,000 years. You're not saying anything groundbreaking. Neither am I.