Decisions that affect the story>Season 2

edited May 2013 in The Walking Dead
It's probably already been brought up before, but the "choices you make" affect the outcome of the game, that Telltale so heavily advocated, was virtually nonexistent. I mean sure you were able to choose between two choices, which then yielded a specific result, but as many players noted, and pointed out they were scripted. A perfect example of this is the Ben and Carley scenario that happens outside the RV, instead of it just being Carley who winds up with a bullet to the face, there should've been an opposite outcome involving Ben. I mean it's two choices, so there should be two different outcomes. Hopefully, should Telltale make the same statement for season two, it will be true.

Comments

  • edited April 2013
    Basically it's your choice of dialogue options that can take you down different paths that lead to the same outcome. An interactive movie maybe?
    That's fine by me as long as they can make another awesome story.
  • edited April 2013
    I'm all for TTG making an improvement and make the choices you make in season 2 much more meaningful. While a majority of the choices you made throughout season 1 didn't really effect the ending, I really did feel like my choices mattered prior to the ending. This is where TT could take full advantage and make several of the choices from season 1 affect season 2. For example, most people felt that deciding to go at night/day with Clementine during the first episode didn't seem to effect anything at all. What TT can do here is use either Chet or the other cop(forgot his name) and get one of them to appear, depending on who you met, of course. Another example is choosing to save either Duck or Shawn. Something that they can do is if you saved Shawn, maybe Hershel would appear in season 2 and offer you(main character) a place to stay. And if you saved Duck instead, Hershel would probably still appear but would have a much harder time trusting other people which could cause him to not even offer you a place to stay and you'll have to find your own shelter. I could go on, but you know where I'm getting at. These are just some of the situations that could come and make a huge impact on season 2.
  • edited April 2013
    I think that the reason our choices seemed limited in S1 is because they were setting the foundation for S2. Will Clem trust strangers, and, more importantly, will she trust those in her group? Will she consider taking things from seemingly abandoned cars and dwellings stealing or surviving? Will she take into consideration that there might be people out there who want her specifically? Will she have the fortitude to kill when necessary?
    These are choices that we made over the course of our gameplay in S1. As Lee, we didn't live long enough to see what impact these choices would make. I hope that in S2 or S3, we will see very different variations of Clementine.
  • edited April 2013
    Elements wrote: »
    Ben and Carley scenario that happens outside the RV, instead of it just being Carley who winds up with a bullet to the face, there should've been an opposite outcome involving Ben. I mean it's two choices, so there should be two different outcomes. Hopefully, should Telltale make the same statement for season two, it will be true.
    You're just a butthurt Carley fan, aren't yah? :p




    ... I'm in the same boat. :(
  • edited April 2013
    Me thinks i should not of told Clem to meet O&C at the train ,that could be a bad call :D hahaha
  • edited April 2013
    CarScar wrote: »
    You're just a butthurt Carley fan, aren't yah? :p




    ... I'm in the same boat. :(

    Aren't we all?
  • edited April 2013
    Clemmy1 wrote: »
    Me thinks i should not of told Clem to meet O&C at the train ,that could be a bad call :D hahaha

    Probably better than sending them in a futilely random direction in search of a replacement boat.
  • edited April 2013
    Mikejames wrote: »
    Probably better than sending them in a futilely random direction in search of a replacement boat.

    Hell, I was never a fan of the boat plan. I listed the problems with it pre-episode 3. Still, you're forced to go along with it no matter what.

    Among my reasons for being against the plan? Coastal regions have the highest population density in the world; in the U.S., over half the population (now living impaired) lives in a coastal area.

    Heading to the coast to get away from zombies is like heading to Death Valley to get away from the heat, it's pants on head stupid.
  • edited April 2013
    Rommel49 wrote: »
    Hell, I was never a fan of the boat plan. I listed the problems with it pre-episode 3. Still, you're forced to go along with it no matter what.

    Among my reasons for being against the plan? Coastal regions have the highest population density in the world; in the U.S., over half the population (now living impaired) lives in a coastal area.

    Heading to the coast to get away from zombies is like heading to Death Valley to get away from the heat, it's pants on head stupid.

    Well, if you get past the coast and actually get into deep water, it's probably one of the safer routes a surviving group can take. With how much those shambling corpses struggle to even stand, the thought that they could manage to swim around in an ocean is laughable. On the surface, you have nowhere to run.

    Think of it as heading through Death Valley to get to the shade behind it.
  • edited April 2013
    Mornai wrote: »
    Well, if you get past the coast and actually get into deep water, it's probably one of the safer routes a surviving group can take. With how much those shambling corpses struggle to even stand, the thought that they could manage to swim around in an ocean is laughable. On the surface, you have nowhere to run.

    Think of it as heading through Death Valley to get to the shade behind it.

    Like I said, among my reasons, not the only one.

    Hint, what's the population density of the ocean? The reason you won't find many zombies there is because people tend not to live there. There's a reason for that. By the same token, you probably wouldn't find many zombies on the Moon, either.

    Even if the plan "worked" (insofar as getting the group out to sea), you're still screwed, just for different reasons. A person trying to survive on just fish is looking at getting scurvy and Beriberi, but fortunately they wouldn't live long enough for that to be an issue because they'd die a horrible death from dehydration well before then, since they're surrounded by water they can't drink.

    And if you posit that the group could just return to the mainland to scavenge for supplies, they might as well not leave it in the first place; since by definition they'd have to return to the densely populated coast.

    As a survival plan, it sucked.
  • edited April 2013
    You could sleep without risk of getting eaten, just anchor near the shore and go on regular supply runs. When an area has run dry, sail to another one.
  • edited April 2013
    CarScar wrote: »
    You're just a butthurt Carley fan, aren't yah? :p




    ... I'm in the same boat. :(

    Its a big old boat. :p

    Anyway the problem with the Carley/Ben scenario is that there is a clear right and wrong. As a much more popular character 99% of the people who get Carley killed would just rewind and correct the "mistake", leading to them having to create a whole branch for the "bad" version that nearly nobody will use. Same thing where people want options to lead to Lee surviving, i really don't want the game to have a good ending and a bad ending. It annoys me when games pull that.

    Anyway on the main point i think it's a balancing act, Telltale probably couldn't of made such an emotional plot if there had to be 50 different versions of it, and to some extent its powerlessness that can help you really get into the story, you're a person doing their best and often being doomed to failure, rather than an omnipotent director type. On the other hand for the choices to have any real meaning and weight you need to have reason to believe it really will have an effect. As i said It's a balancing act, i think telltale were slightly too far on the powerless side of that in season 1, but it's important not to over-correct and create a different problem.
  • edited April 2013
    Rommel49 wrote: »
    Like I said, among my reasons, not the only one.

    Hint, what's the population density of the ocean? The reason you won't find many zombies there is because people tend not to live there. There's a reason for that. By the same token, you probably wouldn't find many zombies on the Moon, either.

    Even if the plan "worked" (insofar as getting the group out to sea), you're still screwed, just for different reasons. A person trying to survive on just fish is looking at getting scurvy and Beriberi, but fortunately they wouldn't live long enough for that to be an issue because they'd die a horrible death from dehydration well before then, since they're surrounded by water they can't drink.

    And if you posit that the group could just return to the mainland to scavenge for supplies, they might as well not leave it in the first place; since by definition they'd have to return to the densely populated coast.

    As a survival plan, it sucked.

    It did suck that can't be denied, it was always too focused on the next step, without any real long term vision. In their defense the abrupt and unplanned exit from the motel didn't help that, but even still they should have done better.

    I always imagined that the idea of the coast was to find a small island of some sort, not necessarily deserted of course, but with a much lower pop density than the mainland and no prospect of herds passing through (lack of boats leads to reduced risk from people as well). Obviously making a living at sea for ever more is fundamentally flawed.

    Leads back to the poor planning, the boat idea could work if they had any idea where they intended to go once they got out to sea.
  • edited April 2013
    Well, in the end... a boat plan sucks just as much as any plan on land will do for you.

    I hope Clem can survive well in Season 2. :(
  • edited April 2013
    You could sleep without risk of getting eaten, just anchor near the shore and go on regular supply runs. When an area has run dry, sail to another one.

    If going for the boat plan thats the way to go keep close to shore as possible when necessary go for supplies. Speaking of a small island if they shipped from Savannah and kept close to shore they would have ended up in the Bahamas :cool:
  • edited April 2013
    You could sleep without risk of getting eaten, just anchor near the shore and go on regular supply runs. When an area has run dry, sail to another one.

    Like I said, if you posit they could just return to the mainland for supplies, you might as well just remain there and go further inland. You can fortify against zombies; dehydration has zero fucks to give about high your walls are.

    If your zombie avoidance plan at any point requires multiple trips to the areas with the highest number of zombies, it's a bad plan.
    The Fallen wrote: »
    It did suck that can't be denied, it was always too focused on the next step, without any real long term vision. In their defense the abrupt and unplanned exit from the motel didn't help that, but even still they should have done better.

    I always imagined that the idea of the coast was to find a small island of some sort, not necessarily deserted of course, but with a much lower pop density than the mainland and no prospect of herds passing through (lack of boats leads to reduced risk from people as well). Obviously making a living at sea for ever more is fundamentally flawed.

    Leads back to the poor planning, the boat idea could work if they had any idea where they intended to go once they got out to sea.

    Hell, Chuck basically says as much when it came to that plan: "And then what?", I never heard an answer. :p Kenny's "plan" was basically 1.) Get boat. 2.) Go to Sea 3.) ???? 4.) Profit.

    Of course, given they're in the Southeast U.S., they could've ended up disembarking in Cuba just to get eaten by Castro's zombie or something. :p
  • edited April 2013
    What with the nature of the franchise and all, I don't think you could have a story feel satisfyingly complete and let the protagonist live.
    (I'm curious how Telltale will deal with it a second time without seeming repetitive, actually.)

    Other franchise spoiler:
    Sailing into the distance is fine for L4D, but Walking Dead is so focused on the day-to-day survival, that you'd be wondering how they'd get along on the boat, or whatever land they found.

    I really liked Clem (her voice actress is really good), but I think I'd prefer we just leave her fate vague. The ending I've watched was pretty satisfying. She parted with Lee and has to deal with the world on her own, influenced by what he's taught her. Not knowing what that was in the distance was a nice way to illustrate that. Zombies would have just meant DANGER, friends would have just meant HAPPY SAFETY, but unknown figures in the distance just means encountering a situation on her own.

    It'd be interesting to start with a clean slate, or maybe one that only loosely relates to the original the way the games did with the comics, like getting to see what happened at Save-Lots firsthand.
  • edited April 2013
    wellgolly wrote: »

    I really liked Clem (her voice actress is really good), but I think I'd prefer we just leave her fate vague. The ending I've watched was pretty satisfying. She parted with Lee and has to deal with the world on her own, influenced by what he's taught her. Not knowing what that was in the distance was a nice way to illustrate that. Zombies would have just meant DANGER, friends would have just meant HAPPY SAFETY, but unknown figures in the distance just means encountering a situation on her own.

    It'd be interesting to start with a clean slate, or maybe one that only loosely relates to the original the way the games did with the comics, like getting to see what happened at Save-Lots firsthand.

    If they'd remove Clem,then most of the choices you made won't have much weight onto the next season, because she's kind of a main device or source that absorbs everything you experienced in S1 and she will continue with that knowledge. Although thinking about new protagonists and characters isn't such a bad idea maybe some minor choices from S1 may have some influence for the new story.
  • edited May 2013
    Desmodus87 wrote: »
    I think that the reason our choices seemed limited in S1 is because they were setting the foundation for S2. Will Clem trust strangers, and, more importantly, will she trust those in her group? Will she consider taking things from seemingly abandoned cars and dwellings stealing or surviving? Will she take into consideration that there might be people out there who want her specifically? Will she have the fortitude to kill when necessary?
    These are choices that we made over the course of our gameplay in S1. As Lee, we didn't live long enough to see what impact these choices would make. I hope that in S2 or S3, we will see very different variations of Clementine.

    I haven't posted in a very long time because I was fed up with the whole choice/no choice debate. I am only breaking my silence because I came back to this board months after the fact to see what the sentiment was regarding the issue.

    I see not much has really changed and that is disappointing. Before the final epi was released, people kept saying just wait your choices matter and we'll see at the end.....now the new theme is just wait the choices will matter in the new season?

    I completely opted out of epi 5 personally and just watched a few playthroughs because imho, it was better spent time. I still don't feel like TTG delivered the game they hyped.

    They delivered a GREAT game but not what they said. It's like when you go to the restaurant and see food offered on the menu and order it and then they tell you that it is not available that day for whatever reason. You have to pick something else, and while it's good, you still wanted the first thing you saw.

    I have a very hard time believing that the next season will be reflective of anything meaningful that players chose in the first season. I also just hope they don't do that whole your choices will matter thing again.

    I'm sitting on the sidelines on Season 2 also.
This discussion has been closed.