Well that could mean that Bonnie has the potential to be season 2 protagonist because she always goes with Tavia .
Or she could potentially be the first character to be scripted to die no matter what, since she always goes with the camp. I hope it doesn't come to that though, she has potential to be an interesting character.
Because I find it hard to play as females in roleplaying games. I can't immerse myself while playing as a different gender. But that's just my personal preference, I in no way have anything against the idea of female protagonists.
Same here, I won't complain if telltale will make a female protagonist, because I'm sure they will make a good character, but I really prefer to play as male. It's a lot easier for me to relate to character that is same gender as me.
Same here, I won't complain if telltale will make a female protagonist, because I'm sure they will make a good character, but I really prefer to play as male. It's a lot easier for me to relate to character that is same gender as me.
What about all the female fans who played as Lee? Do you think they couldn't relate to him just because he was a man?
A character can be likeable or hateful to me depending on their actions. Their gender is ultimately irrelevant, IMO. (Although this is coming from a guy who prefers to play as Female Shepard in the MASS EFFECT series...:o)
What about all the female fans who played as Lee? Do you think they couldn't relate to him just because he was a man?
A character can be likeable or hateful to me depending on their actions. Their gender is ultimately irrelevant, IMO. (Although this is coming from a guy who prefers to play as Female Shepard in the MASS EFFECT series...:o)
I didn't say that I can't relate to a female character, it's just harder for me. And if telltele makes a female protagonist, I will be fine with it. I just like playing as the same gender more.
I played as male Shepard, but I regret that, because female Shepard VA is much better IMO
I didn't play Femshep for the same reason I don't want to play a female in S2. And I also prefer MaleShep's VA. Anyway, I have no trouble playing a female in games with linear story, it's just the roleplaying games that prevent immersion for me. For my first playthrough, I always try to make the protagonist reflect myself, which is better for me if our genders match, hence why, given the choice, I always go male first. Later I might consider doing a playthrough roleplaying different characters, that are not mirrors of my own personality, then I consider picking female.
For my first playthrough, I always try to make the protagonist reflect myself, which is better for me if our genders match, hence why, given the choice, I always go male first. Later I might consider doing a playthrough roleplaying different characters, that are not mirrors of my own personality, then I consider picking female.
Yes, but that's MASS EFFECT, and we're talking about WALKING DEAD. We aren't allowed the option of picking genders. We're saddled with whomever Telltale ultimately chooses for us. The gameplay stresses character development over character creation, which has worked brilliantly...so far. If Telltale decides to roll with a female PC for S2, our only real choice would be to play or not to play.
Just to chime in here, I'm playing it no matter who the characters are...
I like the gameplay and storytelling to the point where it's one of my favorite games and I'm gonna play it regardless, am I the only one that feels this way?
Just to chime in here, I'm playing it no matter who the characters are...
I like the gameplay and storytelling to the point where it's one of my favorite games and I'm gonna play it regardless, am I the only one that feels this way?
No, you're not. I never said I wasn't going to play season 2. And nothing's gonna make me not to. I simply enjoyed the first season too much to ignore the second one, for whatever reason.
Sorry but I hate the idea of playing as Clem, it would ruin her personality. Where would be the chance to play as a good or bad character whilst playing as a little girl whose personality we already understand and love? Clem would not get into as many situations where she has to make major decisions compared to those that the de facto leader of the group (like Lee) would get into. And making those major decisions is like the main foundation of this game. Clem makes a great main character, but not a playable one. It would just be much better to see her as a more active part of the Season 2 group.
And having the two people in the hill being walkers would be the ultimate anticlimax lol.
Edit: I said this about the chance of Kenny being the playable character, people can deny it all they want but ultimately it would just insult their characters and possibly ruin them. If we can choose how to play them then they aren't the same character.
Edit: I said this about the chance of Kenny being the playable character, people can deny it all they want but ultimately it would just insult their characters and possibly ruin them. If we can choose how to play them then they aren't the same character.
You have a point about Clem, but in regards to Kenny, you'd be surprised at how much a near-death experience can change a man. Check out FEARLESS sometime if you want evidence.
Whether Kenny shoots Ben in the alley or rescues Christa inside the building, both scenarios have Kenny being surrounded by walkers, and I'd say that definitely qualifies as a near-death experience. Kenny's character would have undergone a "rebirth", so to speak.
Even though technically Lori never committed adultery- she thought her husband was dead and, at least in the TV series, as SOON as she discovered he was alive, she broke off her affair. She even was honest with her husband about it. Well, a little later, but better late than never. I don't understand why people call her a whore. If anyone, Maggie should be the first to deserve that nickname, for immediately agreeing to sleep with a guy she barely even knows.
Anyway, on topic, I want a new playable character. I certainly hope we won't be playing Clementine. After all, this is a roleplaying game, and it would be hard to roleplay a child- for that you'd have to think as a child. The decisions made by adult YOU would very likely not fit Clem's character, and if you try to stay in character, the decisions and the dialogue will not depict what you actually want to say. So no, I don't think they'll let us play as Clem. The protagonist will probably be another average adult character that most of the audience can relate to. Maybe a female this time, although I personally hope not.
Well, neither character deserves being called that. It's detestable. And let's be fair, if someone was to call either woman that, they need to also call Shane and Glenn 'sluts' too.
Well, Glenn only slept with one girl in his life and he wasn't the one to make the offer. Shane on the other hand is a manslut for sure. But hey, double standarts! By the way, we forgot Andrea, she seems to get called a whore by the community too, for sleeping with what, two guys?
Well, Glenn only slept with one girl in his life and he wasn't the one to make the offer. Shane on the other hand is a manslut for sure. But hey, double standarts! By the way, we forgot Andrea, she seems to get called a whore by the community too, for sleeping with what, two guys?
Ah, but Glenn was too 'eager'. Some might say he was gagging for it.
And, yes, Andrea, two guys over a nine-month ish period. Grab the scarlet A. Hell, the tar and feathers too.
There are many reasons one could give for disliking Lori and/or Andrea, I've given a few myself, but calling them whores for engaging in sexual activity is weaksauce.
I will feel free, however, to question Andrea's taste in men. Damn, girl.
What about all the female fans who played as Lee? Do you think they couldn't relate to him just because he was a man?
A character can be likeable or hateful to me depending on their actions. Their gender is ultimately irrelevant, IMO. (Although this is coming from a guy who prefers to play as Female Shepard in the MASS EFFECT series...:o)
i don't think women can relate to a male character in the same way a man can, I'm not saying women can't relate at all or even feel a deep connection to Lee as a character, i just feel like there are some things that are impossible to understand unless you have lived a similar life.
if the protagonist was a woman in season 2 of the walking dead i would still play it and i think i could relate to a female character, but ultimately i would be a man in a womans body while playing the game.
i don't think women can relate to a male character in the same way a man can, I'm not saying women can't relate at all or even feel a deep connection to Lee as a character, i just feel like there are some things that are impossible to understand unless you have lived a similar life.
if the protagonist was a woman in season 2 of the walking dead i would still play it and i think i could relate to a female character, but ultimately i would be a man in a womans body while playing the game.
Do you really think that the motives and conflict that a woman would face in a crisis would have to be so different from a man's?
I'm not a black 37-year-old college professor convicted of murder, but I had no issues with understanding Lee's motivation. So why should we have any problem with playing a female character?
Do you really think that the motives and conflict that a woman would face in a crisis would have to be so different from a man's?
I'm not a black 37-year-old college professor convicted of murder, but I had no issues with understanding Lee's motivation. So why should we have any problem with playing a female character?
I'm not saying it's a problem, but i just think there are so many things that a man automatically considers when deciding what to do in a situation, and these automatic considerations are different to what a woman would automatically consider, these things come from life experience and that makes the experience of playing a man or a woman different.
I'm not saying it's a problem, but i just think there are so many things that a man automatically considers when deciding what to do in a situation, and these automatic considerations are different to what a woman would automatically consider, these things come from life experience and that makes the experience of playing a man or a woman different.
You can't generalize everything that an individual is going take into consideration based on them being a man or woman.
Impulsiveness, compassion, pragmatism, etc. They aren't automatically synonymous with gender.
You can't generalize everything that an individual is going take into consideration based on them being a man or woman.
Impulsiveness, compassion, pragmatism, etc. They aren't automatically synonymous with gender.
that isn't what i am talking about, it's about being self aware, the impressions you make on other people and the automatic assumptions people make of you.
What I don't understand is why people worry about this. TTG has shown that they are VERY capable of creating believable, good characters that we can love and hate (and love to hate for that matter), so a new character shouldn't be dismissed becasue it is new.
Regarding Clementine, I think that even if she was raised by Lee she has a very large disadvantage: She is a child. That means you cannot have action scenes like where you can select to rescue or drop Ben for example, simply because a child isn't nearly strong enough - so a lot of action would get cut from the gameplay. Add to this the fact that a nine year old can not know as much as an adult, which means dumbing down decisions which would just frustrate people - Lee could chat about the UCW with Omid, where Clem would probably need to ask, "what is UCW?" In other words, the player wouldn't lead the game, but be led. And that is a major no-no.
When they developed Alyx Vance for Half-Life 2, it was initially decided that she would lead Gordon by nagging him to hurry up, shoot the rope, kill the bug, etc. However, game testing showed this was a major PITA so they decided she would be a more silent sidekick instead and be led. Which is a much better idea. The player plays and should by default be the one who leads and takes the decisions. But who would be led by a child?
This boils down to something very fundamental in game development: control. The player should always be in control of the situation, unless it needs to be taken away temporarily to advance the plot. This is one of the reasons Mass Effect 3 got so much flak, because Bioware had Shepard say things the players couldn't agree with - therefore, the players felt they lost control, which in turn caused the flak. I actually felt this a few times with Tavia (and Wyatt) during 400 days, which is one reason I wouldn't rate that DLC higher. If the player character starts talking without me choosing to do so, it's not my game, it's the developer's.
Which brings me back to the character for TWD2. Quite frankly, I don't care what kind of character it will be as long as it will be fully able to interact with everybody and the character is interesting enough.
But I fully expect to be in full control of that character, and that is my only demand.
Ah, but Glenn was too 'eager'. Some might say he was gagging for it.
And, yes, Andrea, two guys over a nine-month ish period. Grab the scarlet A. Hell, the tar and feathers too.
There are many reasons one could give for disliking Lori and/or Andrea, I've given a few myself, but calling them whores for engaging in sexual activity is weaksauce.
I will feel free, however, to question Andrea's taste in men. Damn, girl.
Nothing wrong with Shane at all, I'd say. He was my favorite character in Season 2 until he lost his shit in the end. He and Andrea could have made a good couple. The Governor, on the other hand... Damn, girl.
This boils down to something very fundamental in game development: control. The player should always be in control of the situation, unless it needs to be taken away temporarily to advance the plot. This is one of the reasons Mass Effect 3 got so much flak, because Bioware had Shepard say things the players couldn't agree with - therefore, the players felt they lost control, which in turn caused the flak. I actually felt this a few times with Tavia (and Wyatt) during 400 days, which is one reason I wouldn't rate that DLC higher. If the player character starts talking without me choosing to do so, it's not my game, it's the developer's.
Which brings me back to the character for TWD2. Quite frankly, I don't care what kind of character it will be as long as it will be fully able to interact with everybody and the character is interesting enough.
But I fully expect to be in full control of that character, and that is my only demand.
Problem is, there can also be such a thing as "illusion of control", i.e. where the player is forced along a narrative he/she has no means to greatly alter. Some of S1's episodes did a better job of glossing over this than others. Many fans, for example, find episode 3 the most dissatisfying, as a lot of shit goes down that the player simply cannot prevent. Likewise, even though Lee's death is arguably the defining moment of S1, many players are just as miffed they can't do jack-squat about Lee being bitten by that walker.
It's a fiendishly difficult situation, no doubt, and I don't envy the game developers at all.
that isn't what i am talking about, it's about being self aware, the impressions you make on other people and the automatic assumptions people make of you.
So, you're issue isn't on generalizations that you're making about women, it's the issue of what impression a woman is capable of making on other people? But how's that any better?
People can make whatever assumptions they want to about someone because of their gender/ethnicity/appearance, but it doesn't define who that person is.
So, you're issue isn't on generalizations that you're making about women, it's the issue of what impression a woman is capable of making on other people? But how's that any better?
People can make whatever assumptions they want to about someone because of their gender/ethnicity/appearance, but it doesn't define who that person is.
there is no point in denying that being a woman or being a man changes the way other people treat you, and because of that you have to act accordingly eg.
a man (a stranger) sees a woman with beautiful hair and tells her what he thinks, the woman will assume she is being chatted up.
a woman (a stranger) sees a woman with beautiful hair and tells her what she thinks, the woman will take it as a compliment and maybe assume she wants to know how she got her hair that way.
or
a man (a stranger) sees a parent with a child and he thinks the child is very cute, and he tells the parent, the parent will think "get away from my child"
a woman (a stranger) sees a parent with a child and she thinks the child is very cute, and she tells the parent, the parent may be slightly wary but will take it as a compliment
they are two very shallow differences that i could come up with, but the point is that these things shape the way people interact, so it makes a difference to a game if i am constantly having to think "how would my response and their reaction be different because i am playing a female character" i think if season one was about Leanne not Lee i would have had to interact differently with Kenny so he and his wife didn't get the wrong idea, and it would have made the whole experience very different.
there is no point in denying that being a woman or being a man changes the way other people treat you, and because of that you have to act accordingly eg.
*snip* but the point is that these things shape that way people interact, so it makes a difference to a game if i am constantly having to think "how would my response and their reaction be different because i am playing a female character" i think if season one was about Leanne not Lee i would have had to interact differently with Kenny so he and his wife didn't get the wrong idea, and it would have made the whole experience very different.
But you can apply that mindset to any type of character. I'm not actually a convicted murder, but with Lee I'm still forced into the mentality of dealing with how to reveal that kind of criminal history to other people. Lee may not have been the first archetype that came to my mind when thinking of what the protagonist of this game would be like, but I still grew attached to his characterization.
Try to look at it as "what would I do in this situation," rather than "I feel restricted to acting a certain way because I'm playing a man/woman." Look at Mass Effect. A few characters may interact differently based on whether you play a male or female, but it isn't a detriment to the story and its themes.
Problem is, there can also be such a thing as "illusion of control", i.e. where the player is forced along a narrative he/she has no means to greatly alter. Some of S1's episodes did a better job of glossing over this than others. Many fans, for example, find episode 3 the most dissatisfying, as a lot of shit goes down that the player simply cannot prevent. Likewise, even though Lee's death is arguably the defining moment of S1, many players are just as miffed they can't do jack-squat about Lee being bitten by that walker.
It's a fiendishly difficult situation, no doubt, and I don't envy the game developers at all.
Correct - the illusion is always present for a good reason: a game cannot encompass every single detail - what if Lee had gone to the right or left after having left the car wreck? What if he decided to leave Clem behind? What if he decided to go on foot from Herschel's farm? What if he never even made it to Herschel's farm but instead ended up at Anderson's farm? Rickett's Home for Homeless? New York?... And so on. The main story line or frame is always there - lee WILL find Clem, Lee WILL hook up with Kenny, Lee WILL be bitten. It's just as much part of the game as is the graphical style or that Lee isn't named John. We can't change that either. What we can change however is how these events play out. And to return to the point of 'control', the more we have (or rather the illusion of it), the better.
Correct - the illusion is always present for a good reason: a game cannot encompass every single detail - what if Lee had gone to the right or left after having left the car wreck? What if he decided to leave Clem behind? What if he decided to go on foot from Herschel's farm? What if he never even made it to Herschel's farm but instead ended up at Anderson's farm? Rickett's Home for Homeless? New York?... And so on. The main story line or frame is always there - lee WILL find Clem, Lee WILL hook up with Kenny, Lee WILL be bitten. It's just as much part of the game as is the graphical style or that Lee isn't named John. We can't change that either. What we can change however is how these events play out. And to return to the point of 'control', the more we have (or rather the illusion of it), the better.
The trick is to keep that frame invisible to the player, which WALKING DEAD has mostly succeeded at doing - except for Lee's bite. When Lee searches for Clementine outside the Savannah house, the game locks you into a fixed path from the door to the trash pile you can't deviate from in the slightest. That was one of the few times when the story's "frame" was shoved into plain sight, and I realized I was being forced along to a predetermined conclusion.
If Telltale attempts a similar scenario in S2, I hope they at least find a subtler means of going about it that doesn't make the player feel like a cheap chess piece.
we will have a new character because of the season 1 "Teams"
- They can't pick Kenny because not everyone likes him
- They can't Lilly because she got a lot of haters
-no christa to coz of her baby
-we didnt got to much info about omid
and we need a NUTURAL character..a character we wont have anything from S1 to say about her,that we dont know yet..so most likely new character it is
Nothing wrong with Shane at all, I'd say. He was my favorite character in Season 2 until he lost his shit in the end. He and Andrea could have made a good couple. The Governor, on the other hand... Damn, girl.
He was probably my favourite too, but I think he was losing it much earlier on. He had some massive frustration.
Spoilered for more boring show talk.
I think, far away from the group, they could have worked pretty well, but Andrea was well aware of the Shane/Lori situation, had a measure of how obsessed Shane was with Lori and that's why I was WTF? Andrea, stay away for your own piece of mind. She was like his little lapdog after the hookup and it's pretty obvious why; he's a powerful and influential guy in the group (despite moving to the outer) and actually gave her the time of day, unlike the others. Only thing is, he was also pretty manipulative.
But you can apply that mindset to any type of character. I'm not actually a convicted murder, but with Lee I'm still forced into the mentality of dealing with how to reveal that kind of criminal history to other people. Lee may not have been the first archetype that came to my mind when thinking of what the protagonist of this game would be like, but I still grew attached to his characterization.
Try to look at it as "what would I do in this situation," rather than "I feel restricted to acting a certain way because I'm playing a man/woman." Look at Mass Effect. A few characters may interact differently based on whether you play a male or female, but it isn't a detriment to the story and its themes.
it is only not very different in mass effect because 1) it is set in the future and there are aliens, so social things are going to be different 2) the game is made to be played as both male and female so to actually make the game different would basically be like making two games.
what i would do in a situation is what a man would do, just ignoring the fact that i am playing a woman would just cause social faux pas, i didn't say i would feel restricted or it would be a detriment to the game to play as a female character, you are just intentionally twisting what i am saying.
you know that you would have to make different social considerations if you are playing a man or a woman (if it is actually a realistic story), and you know that these social considerations come naturally to to whatever sex you are, and that playing as the opposite sex would take considerations that don't come naturally and would need more thought, and because you don't have a lifelong experience of being the opposite sex you would get it wrong a lot, it doesn't matter how liberal minded you are or if you think men and women should be treated equally (i do) the world is different for a man than it is for a woman and a realistic portrayal of the world (plus zombies) would reflect how different it is.
See I would really like Clem to be the new playable character. She's remembered everything that Lee taught her so it makes sense and it's a nice way to tie the seasons together but I'm fine with a new playable character also.
Comments
Or she could potentially be the first character to be scripted to die no matter what, since she always goes with the camp. I hope it doesn't come to that though, she has potential to be an interesting character.
Same here, I won't complain if telltale will make a female protagonist, because I'm sure they will make a good character, but I really prefer to play as male. It's a lot easier for me to relate to character that is same gender as me.
What about all the female fans who played as Lee? Do you think they couldn't relate to him just because he was a man?
A character can be likeable or hateful to me depending on their actions. Their gender is ultimately irrelevant, IMO. (Although this is coming from a guy who prefers to play as Female Shepard in the MASS EFFECT series...:o)
I didn't say that I can't relate to a female character, it's just harder for me. And if telltele makes a female protagonist, I will be fine with it. I just like playing as the same gender more.
I played as male Shepard, but I regret that, because female Shepard VA is much better IMO
Yes, but that's MASS EFFECT, and we're talking about WALKING DEAD. We aren't allowed the option of picking genders. We're saddled with whomever Telltale ultimately chooses for us. The gameplay stresses character development over character creation, which has worked brilliantly...so far. If Telltale decides to roll with a female PC for S2, our only real choice would be to play or not to play.
I like the gameplay and storytelling to the point where it's one of my favorite games and I'm gonna play it regardless, am I the only one that feels this way?
* Raises hand *
I do .
And having the two people in the hill being walkers would be the ultimate anticlimax lol.
Edit: I said this about the chance of Kenny being the playable character, people can deny it all they want but ultimately it would just insult their characters and possibly ruin them. If we can choose how to play them then they aren't the same character.
You have a point about Clem, but in regards to Kenny, you'd be surprised at how much a near-death experience can change a man. Check out FEARLESS sometime if you want evidence.
Whether Kenny shoots Ben in the alley or rescues Christa inside the building, both scenarios have Kenny being surrounded by walkers, and I'd say that definitely qualifies as a near-death experience. Kenny's character would have undergone a "rebirth", so to speak.
Well, neither character deserves being called that. It's detestable. And let's be fair, if someone was to call either woman that, they need to also call Shane and Glenn 'sluts' too.
Ah, but Glenn was too 'eager'. Some might say he was gagging for it.
And, yes, Andrea, two guys over a nine-month ish period. Grab the scarlet A. Hell, the tar and feathers too.
There are many reasons one could give for disliking Lori and/or Andrea, I've given a few myself, but calling them whores for engaging in sexual activity is weaksauce.
I will feel free, however, to question Andrea's taste in men. Damn, girl.
i don't think women can relate to a male character in the same way a man can, I'm not saying women can't relate at all or even feel a deep connection to Lee as a character, i just feel like there are some things that are impossible to understand unless you have lived a similar life.
if the protagonist was a woman in season 2 of the walking dead i would still play it and i think i could relate to a female character, but ultimately i would be a man in a womans body while playing the game.
Omid was the main character in Season 2...
I'm not a black 37-year-old college professor convicted of murder, but I had no issues with understanding Lee's motivation. So why should we have any problem with playing a female character?
I'm not saying it's a problem, but i just think there are so many things that a man automatically considers when deciding what to do in a situation, and these automatic considerations are different to what a woman would automatically consider, these things come from life experience and that makes the experience of playing a man or a woman different.
You can't generalize everything that an individual is going take into consideration based on them being a man or woman.
Impulsiveness, compassion, pragmatism, etc. They aren't automatically synonymous with gender.
that isn't what i am talking about, it's about being self aware, the impressions you make on other people and the automatic assumptions people make of you.
Regarding Clementine, I think that even if she was raised by Lee she has a very large disadvantage: She is a child. That means you cannot have action scenes like where you can select to rescue or drop Ben for example, simply because a child isn't nearly strong enough - so a lot of action would get cut from the gameplay. Add to this the fact that a nine year old can not know as much as an adult, which means dumbing down decisions which would just frustrate people - Lee could chat about the UCW with Omid, where Clem would probably need to ask, "what is UCW?" In other words, the player wouldn't lead the game, but be led. And that is a major no-no.
When they developed Alyx Vance for Half-Life 2, it was initially decided that she would lead Gordon by nagging him to hurry up, shoot the rope, kill the bug, etc. However, game testing showed this was a major PITA so they decided she would be a more silent sidekick instead and be led. Which is a much better idea. The player plays and should by default be the one who leads and takes the decisions. But who would be led by a child?
This boils down to something very fundamental in game development: control. The player should always be in control of the situation, unless it needs to be taken away temporarily to advance the plot. This is one of the reasons Mass Effect 3 got so much flak, because Bioware had Shepard say things the players couldn't agree with - therefore, the players felt they lost control, which in turn caused the flak. I actually felt this a few times with Tavia (and Wyatt) during 400 days, which is one reason I wouldn't rate that DLC higher. If the player character starts talking without me choosing to do so, it's not my game, it's the developer's.
Which brings me back to the character for TWD2. Quite frankly, I don't care what kind of character it will be as long as it will be fully able to interact with everybody and the character is interesting enough.
But I fully expect to be in full control of that character, and that is my only demand.
Nothing wrong with Shane at all, I'd say. He was my favorite character in Season 2 until he lost his shit in the end. He and Andrea could have made a good couple. The Governor, on the other hand... Damn, girl.
Problem is, there can also be such a thing as "illusion of control", i.e. where the player is forced along a narrative he/she has no means to greatly alter. Some of S1's episodes did a better job of glossing over this than others. Many fans, for example, find episode 3 the most dissatisfying, as a lot of shit goes down that the player simply cannot prevent. Likewise, even though Lee's death is arguably the defining moment of S1, many players are just as miffed they can't do jack-squat about Lee being bitten by that walker.
It's a fiendishly difficult situation, no doubt, and I don't envy the game developers at all.
So, you're issue isn't on generalizations that you're making about women, it's the issue of what impression a woman is capable of making on other people? But how's that any better?
People can make whatever assumptions they want to about someone because of their gender/ethnicity/appearance, but it doesn't define who that person is.
there is no point in denying that being a woman or being a man changes the way other people treat you, and because of that you have to act accordingly eg.
a man (a stranger) sees a woman with beautiful hair and tells her what he thinks, the woman will assume she is being chatted up.
a woman (a stranger) sees a woman with beautiful hair and tells her what she thinks, the woman will take it as a compliment and maybe assume she wants to know how she got her hair that way.
or
a man (a stranger) sees a parent with a child and he thinks the child is very cute, and he tells the parent, the parent will think "get away from my child"
a woman (a stranger) sees a parent with a child and she thinks the child is very cute, and she tells the parent, the parent may be slightly wary but will take it as a compliment
they are two very shallow differences that i could come up with, but the point is that these things shape the way people interact, so it makes a difference to a game if i am constantly having to think "how would my response and their reaction be different because i am playing a female character" i think if season one was about Leanne not Lee i would have had to interact differently with Kenny so he and his wife didn't get the wrong idea, and it would have made the whole experience very different.
Try to look at it as "what would I do in this situation," rather than "I feel restricted to acting a certain way because I'm playing a man/woman." Look at Mass Effect. A few characters may interact differently based on whether you play a male or female, but it isn't a detriment to the story and its themes.
Correct - the illusion is always present for a good reason: a game cannot encompass every single detail - what if Lee had gone to the right or left after having left the car wreck? What if he decided to leave Clem behind? What if he decided to go on foot from Herschel's farm? What if he never even made it to Herschel's farm but instead ended up at Anderson's farm? Rickett's Home for Homeless? New York?... And so on. The main story line or frame is always there - lee WILL find Clem, Lee WILL hook up with Kenny, Lee WILL be bitten. It's just as much part of the game as is the graphical style or that Lee isn't named John. We can't change that either. What we can change however is how these events play out. And to return to the point of 'control', the more we have (or rather the illusion of it), the better.
The trick is to keep that frame invisible to the player, which WALKING DEAD has mostly succeeded at doing - except for Lee's bite. When Lee searches for Clementine outside the Savannah house, the game locks you into a fixed path from the door to the trash pile you can't deviate from in the slightest. That was one of the few times when the story's "frame" was shoved into plain sight, and I realized I was being forced along to a predetermined conclusion.
If Telltale attempts a similar scenario in S2, I hope they at least find a subtler means of going about it that doesn't make the player feel like a cheap chess piece.
- They can't pick Kenny because not everyone likes him
- They can't Lilly because she got a lot of haters
-no christa to coz of her baby
-we didnt got to much info about omid
and we need a NUTURAL character..a character we wont have anything from S1 to say about her,that we dont know yet..so most likely new character it is
He was probably my favourite too, but I think he was losing it much earlier on. He had some massive frustration.
Spoilered for more boring show talk.
it is only not very different in mass effect because 1) it is set in the future and there are aliens, so social things are going to be different 2) the game is made to be played as both male and female so to actually make the game different would basically be like making two games.
what i would do in a situation is what a man would do, just ignoring the fact that i am playing a woman would just cause social faux pas, i didn't say i would feel restricted or it would be a detriment to the game to play as a female character, you are just intentionally twisting what i am saying.
you know that you would have to make different social considerations if you are playing a man or a woman (if it is actually a realistic story), and you know that these social considerations come naturally to to whatever sex you are, and that playing as the opposite sex would take considerations that don't come naturally and would need more thought, and because you don't have a lifelong experience of being the opposite sex you would get it wrong a lot, it doesn't matter how liberal minded you are or if you think men and women should be treated equally (i do) the world is different for a man than it is for a woman and a realistic portrayal of the world (plus zombies) would reflect how different it is.
What if I told you...
Omid was the protagonist of Season 2?
Dude, your face is ruined!!
My head wouldn't explode. Omid was a boring character to me, so I'd probably just...well, yawn.