I'm not asking for an essay: I'm asking for more than "Alvin did this here". I'm asking for investigation of things that the game doesn't already give us initially. It's not that much to ask.
So you're saying that Telltale shouldn't bring anything up about a character's back story unless they are willing to delve completely into e… moreach and every little detail? Sorry but that is just unrealistic and silly. You know that Alvin killed a guy named George, presumably while escaping Carver's compound. You don't need to know anything more than that. Some things are left up to speculation. Happens in every story.
You don't know that Alvin killing George had anything to do with Carver beating him up. I personally find it more likely that it had something to do with him being Rebecca's husband.
I'm not saying that you're asking for an essay, I'm simply saying that not every single little detail needs to be expanded upon. Some will be, some won't be. Its just the way it is. It would honestly feel really unnatural and forced if nothing was left to the imagination at all.
I'm not asking for an essay: I'm asking for more than "Alvin did this here". I'm asking for investigation of things that the game doesn't already give us initially. It's not that much to ask.
Not at one moment. The issue here is that not that the situation isn't explained to me all at once, it's that the chances of me learning more in episode four and five with both Alvin and Carver dead is next to null. Therefore, it is left open ended. When I write my stories, I give the amount of detail necessary, but in the end, the readers received all the information, nothing left open ended that wouldn't be at one point explained.
I don't see this being explained in further detail. I may be wrong, but I don't see why they couldn't do it in episode three where it made the most sense.
Don't you think you're kind giving readers less credit than they deserve when you have to describe every single detail of a character's back story when generalizing is enough for them to get the point?
Not at one moment. The issue here is that not that the situation isn't explained to me all at once, it's that the chances of me learning mo… morere in episode four and five with both Alvin and Carver dead is next to null. Therefore, it is left open ended. When I write my stories, I give the amount of detail necessary, but in the end, the readers received all the information, nothing left open ended that wouldn't be at one point explained.
I don't see this being explained in further detail. I may be wrong, but I don't see why they couldn't do it in episode three where it made the most sense.
Yea but atleast I am admitting my ignorance and apologizing for being a dumbass a lot of people would just edit the conversation out and write something completely different.
The writers are probably doing it on purpose. Just like the cabin group is keeping Sarah sheltered from everything around her just because she's a child. Clem being a child would give reason to withhold information from her because most adults don't think a kid would understand or don't care enough about her to tell her. They are making us feel like a child in a way, making us think about many questions and nobody giving us answers.
I'm most likely over thinking this and giving the writers too much credit lol, but that's the way I see it.
I'm not asking for an essay: I'm asking for more than "Alvin did this here". I'm asking for investigation of things that the game doesn't already give us initially. It's not that much to ask.
Yes, I understand that, but little things are like "How" or "Where". I don't need those details in most situations. What I want is things like "Who was George?" "Did George put Alvin in danger?" "Was it self defense?". Those things help me determine if Alvin is trustworthy or not: Episode Two was all about Bill taking advantage of your trust of these people, and those kinds of questions would add to that trust issue.
I'm not saying that you're asking for an essay, I'm simply saying that not every single little detail needs to be expanded upon. Some will b… moree, some won't be. Its just the way it is. It would honestly feel really unnatural and forced if nothing was left to the imagination at all.
Remember that you only find out that Alvin killed George at all if you choose to stay in the lodge. And even then, it's unclear if Clem even heard what Carver said because he just sort of whispered to Alvin as he was leading Alvin to be shot. So it's not as if this is some huge, unanswered question for Clem that's worth her "investigating" to find out.
If I have to find out these things by asking the right questions, that is in and of itself silly. I should be able to investigate these thi… morengs if I so choose.
I am holding it against the game that there is only one way to know this information: if Alvin dies and you ask Bonnie one correct question. THAT is silly. It makes way more sense to find out about this if I decide to investigate things like in Season One, and if I choose not to, I don't get that info. My investigation determined if I found out or not, not my choices in general. Investigation gives us more branching choices, and it gives the game better overall quality.
It should also be said that Lee didn't really say anything we didn't already know: we just hear it in more detail. We already knew the motive and such.
A plot hole in an unfilled space within the story that should have been explained, but never was. One example of a plot hole, thinking off the top of my head, is how the Stranger managed to get his station wagon to the Marsh House in Walking Dead Season 1. The fuel tank was empty, assuming the meter wasn't broken, and he was stuck in the middle of the forest. He had to drive to Savannah, assuming he managed to get a refill of gas, then figure out how to get through a city infested with zombies, AND other broken down cars, AND Molly constantly moving the herd around. We've seen the Stranger in episode 4, looking beyond the fence. If he had his car, wouldn't Lee have heard the engine start, assuming he didn't turn it off recklessly beforehand? I know the only way he could have arrived to Savannah in the first place was with the station wagon, but still, he couldn't have found a boat or something to sail the winds? Lee and Clem both took a train to get there, and Clem only knew they were going to Savannah while already on the train. How did the Stranger get there, and have enough time to warn them to leave the streets when Molly rang the bells? Was he already in Savannah by chance? This was left unanswered. Explainable, but unanswered in the game. A plot hole.
It's obvious that they didn't need to, because they are moving on from it, but it doesn't make the lack of my ability to know things any less annoying.
Example: In one of my stories, a man named Rodrick is convicted with murder and arson. He lit the fire to kill his former friend.
Do you not want to know more about that? Do you not want to know who that friend was, what he did wrong, why Rodrick choose to kill him that way?
What if I told you that that is all you will ever get to know about that? That would be a boring story. I don't need to explain anything there, but that doesn't make it any less stupid to leave out such details.
In a video game, especially a choice game, the ability to be able to investigate further would make this game better overall.
Yes, and I am telling you it is not necessary to know ;)
I wanted to know who George was too, but some things are just going to be left to the imagination. Just the way it is. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. Same thing for the bodies at the river bank back in episode one.
Yes, I understand that, but little things are like "How" or "Where". I don't need those details in most situations. What I want is things … morelike "Who was George?" "Did George put Alvin in danger?" "Was it self defense?". Those things help me determine if Alvin is trustworthy or not: Episode Two was all about Bill taking advantage of your trust of these people, and those kinds of questions would add to that trust issue.
If we heard it, then Clem heard it, end of story. We never followed anyone outside of Clem's perspective: Clem has always somehow been present.
And yes, I do know that, but it would make branching more interesting: If you stayed in the lodge, you hear that and you are able to later have the choice to find out more or ignore it. That would have been interesting.
Remember that you only find out that Alvin killed George at all if you choose to stay in the lodge. And even then, it's unclear if Clem even… more heard what Carver said because he just sort of whispered to Alvin as he was leading Alvin to be shot. So it's not as if this is some huge, unanswered question for Clem that's worth her "investigating" to find out.
Your example doesn't really mean much to me, because it lacks context.
The point of all of this is that it isn't fair to criticize the overall game just because you're unhappy that you didn't get more information about a particular little detail. Its one thing for you to be disappointed that you didn't get an answer to your questions, but its silly to think that nothing is going to be left unanswered. That's just unrealistic.
It's obvious that they didn't need to, because they are moving on from it, but it doesn't make the lack of my ability to know things any les… mores annoying.
Example: In one of my stories, a man named Rodrick is convicted with murder and arson. He lit the fire to kill his former friend.
Do you not want to know more about that? Do you not want to know who that friend was, what he did wrong, why Rodrick choose to kill him that way?
What if I told you that that is all you will ever get to know about that? That would be a boring story. I don't need to explain anything there, but that doesn't make it any less stupid to leave out such details.
In a video game, especially a choice game, the ability to be able to investigate further would make this game better overall.
What's the point of this being a choice game if, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter? That's the entire issue: last season, choice really didn't matter much. Now, Telltale has another chance to make choices have more impact: so far, not much other than Nick (another gripe: Nick should have talked more. Half the time I didn't even notice him there. I saved his life, but I don't feel like it... he just seems like he's kinda... there.) and Alvin's early death (with Rebecca being broken as a result). I have no problem with that, but I'm having less experience now that I can't investigate: not just in Alvin's case, but just in general. It's like Season One with a different story minus a lot of optional character interaction.
Nick's Mom? That was well done! If you completely ignore Nick (if you save Pete first), you wont hear his sob story about his mom. That is what I am talking about! More of that!
Yes, and I am telling you it is not necessary to know ;)
I wanted to know who George was too, but some things are just going to be left… more to the imagination. Just the way it is. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. Same thing for the bodies at the river bank back in episode one.
Your example doesn't really mean much to me, because it lacks context.
The point of all of this is that it isn't fair to criticize the… more overall game just because you're unhappy that you didn't get more information about a particular little detail. Its one thing for you to be disappointed that you didn't get an answer to your questions, but its silly to think that nothing is going to be left unanswered. That's just unrealistic.
What does a random character's back story have anything to do with the implications that come with making in-game choices? Its not the same thing at all.
And yes, the back story about Nick's mom was nice, but its silly to think that you're going to get that sort of thing out of every single detail.
What's the point of this being a choice game if, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter? That's the entire issue: last season, ch… moreoice really didn't matter much. Now, Telltale has another chance to make choices have more impact: so far, not much other than Nick (another gripe: Nick should have talked more. Half the time I didn't even notice him there. I saved his life, but I don't feel like it... he just seems like he's kinda... there.) and Alvin's early death (with Rebecca being broken as a result). I have no problem with that, but I'm having less experience now that I can't investigate: not just in Alvin's case, but just in general. It's like Season One with a different story minus a lot of optional character interaction.
Nick's Mom? That was well done! If you completely ignore Nick (if you save Pete first), you wont hear his sob story about his mom. That is what I am talking about! More of that!
I could argue, but let's just say it doesn't. Does that mean I can't be able to investigate? Investigating doesn't need to be meaningful to be satisfying for me. The whole purpose of investigating is if you want to learn more about something, for in-depth information. It gives the game more depth and content, which in turn will make the game longer and will make the episode seem more satisfying. It does nothing but improve.
What does a random character's back story have anything to do with the implications that come with making in-game choices? Its not the same … morething at all.
And yes, the back story about Nick's mom was nice, but its silly to think that you're going to get that sort of thing out of every single detail.
Call me a fool Kenny is cornered by walkers in a near impossible situation then returns and says I JUST GOT LUCKY" GTFO if TWD s2 is based more on story then S1 even more so as took away gameplay of course the story will be zoned in on more and analysed to a big degree. To create realism in fantasy have to explain major plot points in detail to truly appreciate the story for me.
Just because Clem is present in a scene doesn't meant that she has omnipotent awareness of everything that happens in that scene. The game isn't shown from a first person view. The view that the player has is different from the view that Clem has. Look at that scene again. It's very likely that what Carver said was completely out of earshot for Clem.
The way it ended up working out is also an interesting way to branch the story because it gives different, perhaps unreliable perspectives of the same event. If you stay in the lodge and Alvin lives, you only hear Carver's version of what happened. If you go to find Kenny and Alvin dies, you only hear Bonnie's version of what happened. If you stay in the lodge and Alvin dies, you hear both sides of the story. And if you go to find Kenny and Alvin lives, you don't hear the story at all. This means that different people in different play-throughs will have different interpretations of Alvin's character based on their choices in the game. That's interesting.
If we heard it, then Clem heard it, end of story. We never followed anyone outside of Clem's perspective: Clem has always somehow been pres… moreent.
And yes, I do know that, but it would make branching more interesting: If you stayed in the lodge, you hear that and you are able to later have the choice to find out more or ignore it. That would have been interesting.
If Clem didn't hear it, then we didn't hear it. If Clem heard, we heard. That's how this works in this POV. You can't point to one other situation that proves otherwise, sorry. Plus, Carver was hardly whispering.
Yeah, but again, it depends if you choose the correct choice in the correct scene. I don't find that interesting, I find that unnecessary. We are still no closer to finding out who George even was. I'm curious on who George was. It should be left up to the player on whether or not we investigate further or move on.
Just because Clem is present in a scene doesn't meant that she has omnipotent awareness of everything that happens in that scene. The game i… moresn't shown from a first person view. The view that the player has is different from the view that Clem has. Look at that scene again. It's very likely that what Carver said was completely out of earshot for Clem.
The way it ended up working out is also an interesting way to branch the story because it gives different, perhaps unreliable perspectives of the same event. If you stay in the lodge and Alvin lives, you only hear Carver's version of what happened. If you go to find Kenny and Alvin dies, you only hear Bonnie's version of what happened. If you stay in the lodge and Alvin dies, you hear both sides of the story. And if you go to find Kenny and Alvin lives, you don't hear the story at all. This means that different people in different play-throughs will have different interpretations of Alvin's character based on their choices in the game. That's interesting.
Ohyoupokedme I agree
Call me a fool Kenny is cornered by walkers in a near impossible situation then returns and says I JUST GOT LUCKY"… more GTFO if TWD s2 is based more on story then S1 even more so as took away gameplay of course the story will be zoned in on more and analysed to a big degree. To create realism in fantasy have to explain major plot points in detail to truly appreciate the story for me.
I'm not saying that it doesn't improve the game, but thinking that you should be able to investigate into every single detail is unrealistic (I feel like I'm saying that word a lot..).
Like I said before, when nothing is left to the imagination things can tend to seem forced.
I could argue, but let's just say it doesn't. Does that mean I can't be able to investigate? Investigating doesn't need to be meaningful t… moreo be satisfying for me. The whole purpose of investigating is if you want to learn more about something, for in-depth information. It gives the game more depth and content, which in turn will make the game longer and will make the episode seem more satisfying. It does nothing but improve.
In the first season, remember when Kenny smashes Larry's head with the salt lick? If you had Lee help Lilly, you knew it was coming but Lee didn't. He didn't see Kenny turn towards the salt lick and grab it because he was too busy trying to help Larry. The player had knowledge of what was about to transpire. The character did not.
What does it matter who George was? His role was just as a generic person at the camp who Alvin killed during his escape. Just like the senator was just a generic person who Lee killed for sleeping with his wife. Finding out who he is adds nothing.
You seem to be frustrated that your curiosity is not mirrored in Clem's actions. But that's something that's pretty common in choice-based dialogue games. They can't give players the option to investigate every single thing that the player might find interesting. I don't see why you think that this example is particularly egregious.
If Clem didn't hear it, then we didn't hear it. If Clem heard, we heard. That's how this works in this POV. You can't point to one other … moresituation that proves otherwise, sorry. Plus, Carver was hardly whispering.
Yeah, but again, it depends if you choose the correct choice in the correct scene. I don't find that interesting, I find that unnecessary. We are still no closer to finding out who George even was. I'm curious on who George was. It should be left up to the player on whether or not we investigate further or move on.
I agree with you OP, but that doesn't make the writing any less stupid.
My problem with the writing is WHY even bring up George or things like that if you aren't even going to take the time to explain who/what/why.
What's the point? It's like referencing a character we will never see/hear. I understand when Pete talked about his cousin because that had context to the situation but why even bring up killing George if we never learn who George is. It's pointless.
I meant I couldn't understand why anyone thought there were plot holes. I knew people were disappointed with situations that weren't further explored/explained (no specific detail was given) such as the examples you've given but when others said there were specific plot holes, I failed to see any. The examples you gave were not further explored but I don't think they're gaps in the story.
Well in a way they kind of did, even if they weren't what they were making them out to be.
- Alvin and George
- Nick's mom
- 400 Da… moreys conversations
- Luke and Nick
These are NOT plot holes. They're character relationships that weren't further explored. They had nothing to do with the story of this episode.
I meant I couldn't understand why anyone thought there were plot holes. I knew people were disappointed with situations that weren't further… more explored/explained (no specific detail was given) such as the examples you've given but when others said there were specific plot holes, I failed to see any. The examples you gave were not further explored but I don't think they're gaps in the story.
Jeez I hope I explained myself...
Pointless? Let me ask you this. Put yourself in ZA. You're meeting some group of survivors and later they're telling you about such situation like with George but they'll never explain you any details. Whether because they don't want to, they won't have enough time to do this or they'll end up dead before they could tell you anything. Maybe it's pointless but it depends on point of view. For me there is nothing wrong with that. For me it's usually thing in TWD. You met someone, they're telling you something but not everything.
I agree with you OP, but that doesn't make the writing any less stupid.
My problem with the writing is WHY even bring up George or things… more like that if you aren't even going to take the time to explain who/what/why.
What's the point? It's like referencing a character we will never see/hear. I understand when Pete talked about his cousin because that had context to the situation but why even bring up killing George if we never learn who George is. It's pointless.
No it's not. He didn't want to talk about it. His mom got bit by a walker. And seeing how long Luke and Nick have known each other, it was p… morerobably near the beginning of the apocalypse before the group went to Carver's camp. Explaining why no one know's Nick's mom from there except Luke (and Pete)
Comments
I don't see this being explained in further detail. I may be wrong, but I don't see why they couldn't do it in episode three where it made the most sense.
Everyone makes mistakes, no sweat.
I'm most likely over thinking this and giving the writers too much credit lol, but that's the way I see it.
Example: In one of my stories, a man named Rodrick is convicted with murder and arson. He lit the fire to kill his former friend.
Do you not want to know more about that? Do you not want to know who that friend was, what he did wrong, why Rodrick choose to kill him that way?
What if I told you that that is all you will ever get to know about that? That would be a boring story. I don't need to explain anything there, but that doesn't make it any less stupid to leave out such details.
In a video game, especially a choice game, the ability to be able to investigate further would make this game better overall.
I wanted to know who George was too, but some things are just going to be left to the imagination. Just the way it is. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. Same thing for the bodies at the river bank back in episode one.
And yes, I do know that, but it would make branching more interesting: If you stayed in the lodge, you hear that and you are able to later have the choice to find out more or ignore it. That would have been interesting.
The point of all of this is that it isn't fair to criticize the overall game just because you're unhappy that you didn't get more information about a particular little detail. Its one thing for you to be disappointed that you didn't get an answer to your questions, but its silly to think that nothing is going to be left unanswered. That's just unrealistic.
Nick's Mom? That was well done! If you completely ignore Nick (if you save Pete first), you wont hear his sob story about his mom. That is what I am talking about! More of that!
And yes, the back story about Nick's mom was nice, but its silly to think that you're going to get that sort of thing out of every single detail.
Call me a fool Kenny is cornered by walkers in a near impossible situation then returns and says I JUST GOT LUCKY" GTFO if TWD s2 is based more on story then S1 even more so as took away gameplay of course the story will be zoned in on more and analysed to a big degree. To create realism in fantasy have to explain major plot points in detail to truly appreciate the story for me.
The way it ended up working out is also an interesting way to branch the story because it gives different, perhaps unreliable perspectives of the same event. If you stay in the lodge and Alvin lives, you only hear Carver's version of what happened. If you go to find Kenny and Alvin dies, you only hear Bonnie's version of what happened. If you stay in the lodge and Alvin dies, you hear both sides of the story. And if you go to find Kenny and Alvin lives, you don't hear the story at all. This means that different people in different play-throughs will have different interpretations of Alvin's character based on their choices in the game. That's interesting.
Yeah, but again, it depends if you choose the correct choice in the correct scene. I don't find that interesting, I find that unnecessary. We are still no closer to finding out who George even was. I'm curious on who George was. It should be left up to the player on whether or not we investigate further or move on.
Like I said before, when nothing is left to the imagination things can tend to seem forced.
What does it matter who George was? His role was just as a generic person at the camp who Alvin killed during his escape. Just like the senator was just a generic person who Lee killed for sleeping with his wife. Finding out who he is adds nothing.
You seem to be frustrated that your curiosity is not mirrored in Clem's actions. But that's something that's pretty common in choice-based dialogue games. They can't give players the option to investigate every single thing that the player might find interesting. I don't see why you think that this example is particularly egregious.
My problem with the writing is WHY even bring up George or things like that if you aren't even going to take the time to explain who/what/why.
What's the point? It's like referencing a character we will never see/hear. I understand when Pete talked about his cousin because that had context to the situation but why even bring up killing George if we never learn who George is. It's pointless.
Jeez I hope I explained myself...