Should Season 2 analyse the consequences of telling truth and lies more?

edited August 2013 in The Walking Dead
I noticed that telling the truth almost always pays off while telling lies had dire consequences in Season 1 and the DLC episode.

What if the next game encourages you to become an expert in lying in situations where consistently telling the truth would become a danger to you and your group? Perhaps your character is taken hostage by a villain, and telling the truth of your groups whereabouts would mean the death of a party member or so, and you need to be a convincing liar to fool your captives?

I'm not saying that the next game should encourage all players to lie every time, but rather explain to players that sometimes telling the truth isn't always the best option.

Your thoughts?

Comments

  • edited July 2013
    Not all the time, in 400 Day's if you tell the truth to Leland he stays behind and gets killed.
  • edited July 2013
    Not all the time, in 400 Day's if you tell the truth to Leland he stays behind and gets killed.

    When? When you accidentaly kill Dee?
  • edited July 2013
    Yes, if you don't lie about killing Dee he will stay behind in a rage and will be shot by Roman, and I think in Shel's story they talk about getting the supply's back.
  • edited July 2013
    if you tell leland you need him after telling the truth he comes with you.

    yeah i think telling lies could sometimes be a good idea, like in episode 2 i though maybe telling them who the leader was would put a target on their back so lying could be good (depending on who you liked more) and it was a bit silly of Mark to tell brenda about katjaa without knowing if you could trust them first, but it's the walking dead so every choice has to be equally as bad
  • edited July 2013
    I figured that out on my second playthrough, I think I said get over it and he stayed behind.
  • edited July 2013
    There's points where staying silent is more powerful than saying anything.

    I never lied to Leland, and treated him as a friend, and he still followed me out. I said nothing when he went for the supplies on his wife.
  • edited July 2013
    RichWalk23 wrote: »
    I noticed that telling the truth almost always pays off while telling lies had dire consequences in Season 1 and the DLC episode.

    What if the next game encourages you to become an expert in lying in situations where consistently telling the truth would become a danger to you and your group? Perhaps your character is taken hostage by a villain, and telling the truth of your groups whereabouts would mean the death of a party member or so, and you need to be a convincing liar to fool your captives?

    I'm not saying that the next game should encourage all players to lie every time, but rather explain to players that sometimes telling the truth isn't always the best option.

    Your thoughts?

    I think this would be a good idea, though I think it would need a whole mechanic to work.

    I mean, lying and people instantly believing you would be stupid, especially as villians would never trust hostages as they would be dicks.

    Good idea, but I would like to see a reply to this comments explaining how the whole thing would work!:confused:;)
  • edited July 2013
    Not all the time, in 400 Day's if you tell the truth to Leland he stays behind and gets killed.

    If you say it nicely and that it was an accident he still comes
  • edited July 2013
    True, but I guess I picked something that I thought was nice but it was clearly not, because he stayed behind and died.
  • edited July 2013
    I think this would be a good idea, though I think it would need a whole mechanic to work.

    I mean, lying and people instantly believing you would be stupid, especially as villians would never trust hostages as they would be dicks.

    Good idea, but I would like to see a reply to this comments explaining how the whole thing would work!:confused:;)

    Sure, why not? :)

    The hostage situation was just an example, probably a bad one since it does sound complicated in hindsight.

    What I had in mind was simply an option to lie to someone and not be punished for it. Season 1 appears to reward players for telling the truth, and punishes for lying. What I was hoping in Season 2 is for Telltale to mix the consequences up a bit. Sometimes telling the truth gets you into more trouble than lying, and we should be allowed to get away with telling white lies if the opportunity came along.
  • edited July 2013
    I am sure they will do it, logically it would be a good addition.
  • edited July 2013
    I think I'd like telltale to experiment even further with the idea of not everyone being trustworthy and mentally stable, because of the things they've gone through prior to meeting you. Especially when it isn't obvious they pose a danger to the group. The family of cannibals bit was really interesting to me because it was the moment when there was a genuine desire to find something that would feed your suspicions that they were a threat. Which could have easily been a situation that would have gotten much worse if the player didn't respond to the danger before it was too late.

    If they could throw in more tough group decisions, that would reward you for thinking critically about a situation; the "We have a lot of people protecting the Motor Inn" option for example that was based on the chance that the brothers were only asking because they were planning to use a larger group to take what we had, felt to me like something that could have been worked into a lie that would have helped everyone.

    It'll be good to see in season 2 if they decide to show the player that the moral choice isn't always the one with the least cost. Might be easy for some people to lose immersion if narrowly saving someone from zombies, or telling the truth to strangers doesn't carry its own risk as long as the consequences are told to you before (like keeping the girl alive to buy time rather than killing her).

    TL;DR: Positive/negative impacts on your position in the group or loss for choosing either the moral choice or the safe bet would be interesting.
  • edited July 2013
    I think this would be a good idea, though I think it would need a whole mechanic to work.

    I mean, lying and people instantly believing you would be stupid, especially as villians would never trust hostages as they would be dicks.

    Good idea, but I would like to see a reply to this comments explaining how the whole thing would work!:confused:;)

    Whether they believe you would depend on the person you're lying to and you'd have to think about whether they'd trust you on it. Most of them wouldn't call you out on anything you say directly to avoid confrontation, but if they do then that's just their character in the way Hershel was deliberately trying to catch you out because he doesn't trust strangers.

    Penalty response for making the wrong choice would probably be added dialogue that makes it harder to argue your point, or something that stacks up with other things to make people less likely to depend on you as much. Or an even worse punishment being a character dying because you gave away information you shouldn't have.
  • edited August 2013
    Definitely in some cases, I don't think anything should be black or white in season 2.
  • edited August 2013
    Not much was Black and White, but the few things that are should be made gray in season 2.
  • edited August 2013
    Not all the time, in 400 Day's if you tell the truth to Leland he stays behind and gets killed.

    Not really, I convinced him to go with me by telling the truth (it was not a mistake, in the Epilogue Becca even mentions that Bonnie always tells the truth, instead of mentioning how she lied to Leland).
This discussion has been closed.