Hints From The Panel
If you watched the most recent Playing Dead episode, there's a lot of subtext to read into. You can get a lot of information from the video, which is here ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QngiVxj3RZU ) if you haven't seen it. This - video and the analysis here - will contain spoilers, so this is your final warning.
Endings:
Walking Dead will have one ending. This has been set in stone from the start and it was stated in the video that it is not going to changed. So, while Jurassic Park had two (or three endings, if you count dying at the very end as another), it sounds like Walking Dead will have one set, unavoidable ending.
Perverse Events:
Gary Whitta states that he pushed for the most messed up and foul scenarios he could imagine, and caused everyone - including Dave Fennoy - to recoil. While I didn't think so at first, I now believe that the man over the radio is a lecherous rapist. Let's all have a tub full of bleach for when we're done with episode 4 ready.
Tailored:
In the panel, the designers give a more clear definition of what "tailored gameplay" means. You have a game that fits with you, but you aren't "making clothes yourself", in a way that allows your choices to dictate everything. The game is "handed to you" to put in the final bit of input. This means that your choices will never matter in any way deeper than how it resonates with your own morality. But it also goes against another quote from the panel about the big mysterious choice that's been long rumored in Episode 4. Episode 4's choice is described as "so crazily consequential and branching" by Gary Whitta at the 30 minute mark.
What does that mean about choice? That this is the biggest break in the storyline and can change the story in a distinct way? Are all choices still small offshoots that quickly close back to the same inescapable plotline in the way that choices do in Mass Effect and Heavy Rain?
Is there anything else you picked up from the panel?
Endings:
Walking Dead will have one ending. This has been set in stone from the start and it was stated in the video that it is not going to changed. So, while Jurassic Park had two (or three endings, if you count dying at the very end as another), it sounds like Walking Dead will have one set, unavoidable ending.
Perverse Events:
Gary Whitta states that he pushed for the most messed up and foul scenarios he could imagine, and caused everyone - including Dave Fennoy - to recoil. While I didn't think so at first, I now believe that the man over the radio is a lecherous rapist. Let's all have a tub full of bleach for when we're done with episode 4 ready.
Tailored:
In the panel, the designers give a more clear definition of what "tailored gameplay" means. You have a game that fits with you, but you aren't "making clothes yourself", in a way that allows your choices to dictate everything. The game is "handed to you" to put in the final bit of input. This means that your choices will never matter in any way deeper than how it resonates with your own morality. But it also goes against another quote from the panel about the big mysterious choice that's been long rumored in Episode 4. Episode 4's choice is described as "so crazily consequential and branching" by Gary Whitta at the 30 minute mark.
What does that mean about choice? That this is the biggest break in the storyline and can change the story in a distinct way? Are all choices still small offshoots that quickly close back to the same inescapable plotline in the way that choices do in Mass Effect and Heavy Rain?
Is there anything else you picked up from the panel?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I haven't gotten to see the full panel since I went to it at PAX, but I recall him talking about episode 3 with this. As far as I know, the dialogue for episode 4 hadn't been recorded yet, seeing as they had just finished episode 3. I could be wrong, though. I'd check the video, but it's a long video to try to scan through for that one bit, and I don't have the time to sit through the whole thing right now.
I'm certain we'll know what it was when we hear it. Better call my therapist and reserve an appointment...
...alright...fine,I just hope that they won't go to far as to make a player say "Alright,seriously now,what the hell is this...?" or that they will ruin the story...
But I have faith in the writers.
Fastforwarded PAX video
@Master of Aeons, why do you think walkie talkie guy is a lecherous rapist?
I thought that a lot of people think he may be a potential pedo.
Doesn't make a lot of a difference to me,either way, he gets thrown into the herd at the first available opportunity.
is there anyone else with them ? are they injured ?
as for dave not liking the dialogue i'll go with a pedo situation / rape
Obviously not Master of Aeons here.
I think people need a real villain, and after Larry died, Lilly departed and Kenny was broken, there is no one left except for Ben (not powerful enough), Chuck (just for being there), Christa and Omid (for no reason at all... again) and THE VOICE to really hate...
Wait! There is a mysterious voice talking to Clementine... MY Clementine. I will stop this murderous, child abusing rapist... now, and FOREVER!
That's about it, I guess.
There is also the theory that maybe he's a red herring and that ultimately he isn't the threat you initially perceive him to be in episode three.
I think Zombie Boy has revised his opinion if Gary Whitta is deliberately pushing boundaries.
Maybe it's somewhat along the lines of the Carley/Doug decision in episode one. Regardless of who you save, eventually it's almost like fate corrects itself and they do die.
This game is very much about perception. Perhaps the end result is inevitable but there are different avenues to get there and how you get there creates a different impression, somewhat like Lilly stealing the RV. When she looks back at Lee before driving away, the graphics are the same, but people interpret that scene differently depending on how they played.
As far as endings go, I want lots and lots of different endings. One ending sounds like a let down to me. But they refer to ending in the singular, which has me uneasy. Though I like Milo's take on the ending difference. Maybe past episode 4, Clementine gets sick of you making decisions for her and, while you need each other and stay together no matter what decisions you make, Clem stops trusting/liking Lee. That'd be a good launch for a different Season 2. Clem and Lee together through it all. She might love you more, she might hate you.
I hope 8Bit's Theory is right too. Having a larger scale enemy would bring a nice climax to the series. I hope he lasts longer than the other "one shot" villains.
They refer to the ending in singular because it will be the end to "your" Lee story. This could mean one, or a million (yaey) outcomes.
Hey, what made me become the villain now? :eek:
Did anyone think anything was perverted in this game? I mean, there was the sexual favors in the video by Molly, but that wasn't too big. There was the implication of kids being abandoned to die. But I didn't really see what was so bad in this episode that made Fennoy call out the writing. Any thoughts on that?
So, if the panel was right and episode 4 contains the single most diverging choice in the series, what would it have been? I liked that there was a culmination of choices paying off in who stays with you through the end, but I wouldn't have listed that as a choice, more like an evaluation.
What was the perverse event and what was the big choice?
Save Ben or not.... has to be.
That's something you have complete control over and clearly affects your end "group".
I think Dave was just bummed out that his character got bit (I am too). As for the "big" choice, I think it's just a cumulation of who came with you at the end of the episode. Now let's hope that this changes episode 5 drastically.
Molly prostituted herself to the doctor. For the United States of America this needs to be mentioned... nothing perverse has to go on for Americans to go amok, a referrence to illegitimate sex is enough, paid sex even more... so better say it beforehand.
Choosing the team you will enter Episode 5 with, is the most diverging choice I can think of right now, assuming it changes the next episode to a large degree.
No one ever said perverse sex would happen. The forum's community decided that a pervert was on the radio, the writers obviously didn't go along.
The events were prostitution and choosing your team
I'd believe that. You probably die surrounded by who you've kept alive, but the scene animates the same.
Which interview was that?
Prostitution on Molly's part or sexual exploitation on the doctor's part? Molly's reaction to the zombie doctor seemed a bit angrier than just quid pro quo.
Episode four has made me revise my opinion. The guy on the radio is definitely a sick twist, but not a pedophile. He's using Clementine to manipulate Lee for some purpose.
Clementine was kidnapped by Oberson, who is trying to amass new followers to make a new settlement after Crawford died out. By kidnapping and threatening Clementine he intends to blackmail you and your group into doing his dirty work for him. This probably includes something really terrible like killing innocent civilians so her can take their settlement, etc. Anyways, stuff happens and you get Clementine back (they wouldn't kill Clementine, would they?), and you get to decide how you'd like to die - suicide, having a particular member of the group kill you, or being left behind to turn into a walker. Then the final ending happens, which is probably a static, unchangeable cutscene that shows what happens to the remaining characters.
I'm pretty sure that was Oberson hanging from the school bell. I suspect he hung himself when Crawford fell.
Isn't Oberson the hanged walker that grabs Ben?
Oberson probably killed himself when his "utopia" went belly up, or maybe some members turned on him and lynched him.
But the list of people who Mr. Radio could be has dwindled down to very few options.
The part I was refering to is on page 2 of the second interview, I looked it up for you though.
Thanks a lot. I've been gone because of the release and a sudden rush of work to catch up on. I've got like 5 pages to read now. Urg.
I personally will let her keep morality by giving something, taking something... instead of having something taken, to be given something.
Totally true, but we can't judge on that, we can only assume. I stick to my interpretation, sexual exploit doesn't fit the way Molly is drawn. Just my world of course.
Yeah... you either save Ben and lose, or you "discard" him and win... darn... why did I save him then????? :eek:
It would be a Walking Dead game that gives you a bad ending for doing the right thing.
Thank god they explained it, a lot of people used to complain about not being able to change the story. When you make a choice, it later makes you feel that you made that happen, even when you didn't change the story at all, the game made you feel like your choices did in fact have an effect.
I'm completely fine just having one ending to the game, because it will still make everyone feel different to that ending. Besides, it will make writing season two's story less complex. They would need to make about four different stories if we had four different endings, and so on.
I think I'd prefer a story that you can radically impact and influence and then just have season 2 with an entirely new bunch of characters.
How come he didn’t shoot himself in the head in order not to turn?
Perhaps it was the Crawford residents who hung him after they got overrun. He was an ass anyway, throwing out kids and sh*t..
It's likely that not everyone knows that everyone becomes a zombie. Especially those in safe zones.
Well, they kicked elders, kids and sick people because they knew they had less chances of survival, probably, because they knew they would reanimate after death. I don't think they'd just kick out people for fun, I forget how them dying would affect their survival chances, other than being a *waste* of food.
Edit: anyway, it has been three months and two weeks after the zombie outbreak, I think they would have noticed already.
It's purely a matter of perspective. If the dick doctor had the insulin, she shouldn't have had to make a "deal" to begin with. Who else would use it other than a diabetic?
I don't think they were "throwing out" kids. As for Oberson, maybe he wasn't brave enough to shoot himself and really didn't care if he reanimated, despite his preaching otherwise.