i think i now understand what you are getting at, but i think choices with permanent consequences are always gonna be better than ones that just reset the game to the previous save, but maybe in the times where they don't give you 4 choices they should make ones that do get you killed because then it wouldn't be removing a permanent choice.
because that would be my biggest problem with the resetting choices is that it would take away a permanent choice, but i do remember there were a few time where they only gave you 2 choices (plus silent) and on those occasions it wouldn't be taking away anything to add a dying choice
It still showed the pc (Lee) wasn't capable of getting away with saying anything he wanted simply because he was the pc. He could die just l… moreike every other person in twd in this scene. Also the point of it wasting a valid option would only be a viable argument if it did it in any level which could be considered repetitive, immersion breaking, etc. 1 option per episode (roughly) is hardly that.
I agree that permanent choices are more important to the story. But one option per episode is a very small price. Also let's not forget that a large chunk of dialog choices that continue the story actually have no influence on any characters or the environment, they are pretty much filler as this would be. Also back to your point, there were a few times less than 4 options were given. You would never even miss the 'one option' per episode if it was never given. It would be like missing a dog you've never met before.
i think i now understand what you are getting at, but i think choices with permanent consequences are always gonna be better than ones that … morejust reset the game to the previous save, but maybe in the times where they don't give you 4 choices they should make ones that do get you killed because then it wouldn't be removing a permanent choice.
because that would be my biggest problem with the resetting choices is that it would take away a permanent choice, but i do remember there were a few time where they only gave you 2 choices (plus silent) and on those occasions it wouldn't be taking away anything to add a dying choice
I would not compromise the story like that just to force scenes in with verbal choice. If the story calls for it then put it in. Theres a lot of new things they have tried this season and Im liking it so far I would not mind another verbal choice secession if it comes up. They are fun though.
While I do see what your saying, I think they handled this in some sense with how quite a few characters could have died this past episode, … moreor lived. I mean most games wont let the main character die, or its a restart. The story is centered around Clemintine's experience to the world she is surrounded by, I cant think of a game where if the main character you control dies, the story goes on. I am sure there are probably some out there but its definitely in the minority.
I feel if Clem were to die in the last episode or even next one, then the story would have an emptiness to it. I like the characters, especially Luke, but if all of a sudden Clem were to have gotten shot last episode and we took over Luke, I'd lose some enthusiasm towards playing.
One option per episode compromises the story on such a marginal level it is nearly incomprehensible, the return on characterization and feeling of mortality is far, far superior. All scenes are forced with verbal choice, it is a dialog driven, choice based, point and click puzzle game. I also love what they are doing with this season, more optional conversations with characters and the op are the only game mechanics I wish would be implemented/used more often.
I would not compromise the story like that just to force scenes in with verbal choice. If the story calls for it then put it in. Theres a lo… moret of new things they have tried this season and Im liking it so far I would not mind another verbal choice secession if it comes up. They are fun though.
Well, in EP3 last season we had that scene where if we fail to make Kenny stop the train, we get a bad ending.
Maybe since next up is an … moreEP3 as well, we'll get one of those again.
Also possible scenarios where this could have happened in the past EPs:
Decide to stay in the shed during EP1 = bad ending
Run into Carver to save Alvin = bad ending
i acknowledge that most of the chosen lines of dialogue actually have no influence on the game ( a lot of them are just different ways of saying the same thing) but it feels like it matters to choose the way we say things, but dying would not feel like it mattered because it rewinds the game back to before you say it.
however, i wouldn't be against a death from a bad choice of words, but honestly, who is going to kill a little girl, even carver wouldn't have shot clementine at the end of episode two no matter what she said, so even having one believable conversation that would get clementine killed per episode would be extreme
I agree that permanent choices are more important to the story. But one option per episode is a very small price. Also let's not forget that… more a large chunk of dialog choices that continue the story actually have no influence on any characters or the environment, they are pretty much filler as this would be. Also back to your point, there were a few times less than 4 options were given. You would never even miss the 'one option' per episode if it was never given. It would be like missing a dog you've never met before.
I disagree, if you are so sure he wouldn't kill clementine then Kenny would have to believe the same thing. From either perspective that was a useless scene in its entirety. We knew he wouldn't shoot her, we knew Kenny wouldn't shoot at her, Kenny knew he wasn't going to shoot and (if you came to the conclusion Carver wouldn't shoot) knew Carver wouldn't shoot. So what was the outcome of the situation? Completely uninteresting and already known.
i acknowledge that most of the chosen lines of dialogue actually have no influence on the game ( a lot of them are just different ways of sa… moreying the same thing) but it feels like it matters to choose the way we say things, but dying would not feel like it mattered because it rewinds the game back to before you say it.
however, i wouldn't be against a death from a bad choice of words, but honestly, who is going to kill a little girl, even carver wouldn't have shot clementine at the end of episode two no matter what she said, so even having one believable conversation that would get clementine killed per episode would be extreme
i am talking from a narrative perspective when i say that carver wouldn't have killed clementine, obviously if i were kenny i wouldn't have taken the risk, also I'm not kenny so we don't share the same knowledge or perspective, so what you said makes no sense.
but for a person to kill clementine from just a conversation they would have to be completely insane, really scared, or basically be in very extreme circumstances, it was the same for Lee except he posed a significantly bigger threat (even unarmed) than clementine, plus killing a child no matter what the circumstances is a much bigger deal and less likely to happen than killing an adult, even in a zombie apocalypse.
I disagree, if you are so sure he wouldn't kill clementine then Kenny would have to believe the same thing. From either perspective that was… more a useless scene in its entirety. We knew he wouldn't shoot her, we knew Kenny wouldn't shoot at her, Kenny knew he wasn't going to shoot and (if you came to the conclusion Carver wouldn't shoot) knew Carver wouldn't shoot. So what was the outcome of the situation? Completely uninteresting and already known.
You can't switch from "who is going to kill a little girl, even carver wouldn't have shot clementine at the end of episode two" (contextually speaking of Carver himself' not the narrative taking place) to a narrative situation as in "i am talking from a narrative perspective when i say that carver wouldn't have killed clementine," you can't play both sides of the board.
Intense fear, anxiety, and hatred are all almost omnipresent. To assume a crazed person wouldn't kill a threat is ludicrous. Lee was a bigger threat due to his physical attributes, Clementine is still a major threat. She is smart, environmentally aware, and resourceful. It would be a bigger deal to kill her vs Lee, which would make the select few occurrences more important.
i am talking from a narrative perspective when i say that carver wouldn't have killed clementine, obviously if i were kenny i wouldn't have … moretaken the risk, also I'm not kenny so we don't share the same knowledge or perspective, so what you said makes no sense.
but for a person to kill clementine from just a conversation they would have to be completely insane, really scared, or basically be in very extreme circumstances, it was the same for Lee except he posed a significantly bigger threat (even unarmed) than clementine, plus killing a child no matter what the circumstances is a much bigger deal and less likely to happen than killing an adult, even in a zombie apocalypse.
Comments
i think i now understand what you are getting at, but i think choices with permanent consequences are always gonna be better than ones that just reset the game to the previous save, but maybe in the times where they don't give you 4 choices they should make ones that do get you killed because then it wouldn't be removing a permanent choice.
because that would be my biggest problem with the resetting choices is that it would take away a permanent choice, but i do remember there were a few time where they only gave you 2 choices (plus silent) and on those occasions it wouldn't be taking away anything to add a dying choice
I agree that permanent choices are more important to the story. But one option per episode is a very small price. Also let's not forget that a large chunk of dialog choices that continue the story actually have no influence on any characters or the environment, they are pretty much filler as this would be. Also back to your point, there were a few times less than 4 options were given. You would never even miss the 'one option' per episode if it was never given. It would be like missing a dog you've never met before.
I would not compromise the story like that just to force scenes in with verbal choice. If the story calls for it then put it in. Theres a lot of new things they have tried this season and Im liking it so far I would not mind another verbal choice secession if it comes up. They are fun though.
Heavy Rain, since we're naming games in which the story goes go on even if the main character(s) die.
Oh and Walking Dead. You know, Lee. Anyone? Eh? Eh?
Well, in EP3 last season we had that scene where if we fail to make Kenny stop the train, we get a bad ending.
Maybe since next up is an EP3 as well, we'll get one of those again.
Also possible scenarios where this could have happened in the past EPs:
Decide to stay in the shed during EP1 = bad ending
Run into Carver to save Alvin = bad ending
One option per episode compromises the story on such a marginal level it is nearly incomprehensible, the return on characterization and feeling of mortality is far, far superior. All scenes are forced with verbal choice, it is a dialog driven, choice based, point and click puzzle game. I also love what they are doing with this season, more optional conversations with characters and the op are the only game mechanics I wish would be implemented/used more often.
Indeed, those two situations are the ones that came to my mind also.
There was also the scene where calling Brenda a bitch would get you capped. in season 1.
i acknowledge that most of the chosen lines of dialogue actually have no influence on the game ( a lot of them are just different ways of saying the same thing) but it feels like it matters to choose the way we say things, but dying would not feel like it mattered because it rewinds the game back to before you say it.
however, i wouldn't be against a death from a bad choice of words, but honestly, who is going to kill a little girl, even carver wouldn't have shot clementine at the end of episode two no matter what she said, so even having one believable conversation that would get clementine killed per episode would be extreme
I disagree, if you are so sure he wouldn't kill clementine then Kenny would have to believe the same thing. From either perspective that was a useless scene in its entirety. We knew he wouldn't shoot her, we knew Kenny wouldn't shoot at her, Kenny knew he wasn't going to shoot and (if you came to the conclusion Carver wouldn't shoot) knew Carver wouldn't shoot. So what was the outcome of the situation? Completely uninteresting and already known.
i am talking from a narrative perspective when i say that carver wouldn't have killed clementine, obviously if i were kenny i wouldn't have taken the risk, also I'm not kenny so we don't share the same knowledge or perspective, so what you said makes no sense.
but for a person to kill clementine from just a conversation they would have to be completely insane, really scared, or basically be in very extreme circumstances, it was the same for Lee except he posed a significantly bigger threat (even unarmed) than clementine, plus killing a child no matter what the circumstances is a much bigger deal and less likely to happen than killing an adult, even in a zombie apocalypse.
You can't switch from "who is going to kill a little girl, even carver wouldn't have shot clementine at the end of episode two" (contextually speaking of Carver himself' not the narrative taking place) to a narrative situation as in "i am talking from a narrative perspective when i say that carver wouldn't have killed clementine," you can't play both sides of the board.
Intense fear, anxiety, and hatred are all almost omnipresent. To assume a crazed person wouldn't kill a threat is ludicrous. Lee was a bigger threat due to his physical attributes, Clementine is still a major threat. She is smart, environmentally aware, and resourceful. It would be a bigger deal to kill her vs Lee, which would make the select few occurrences more important.