I think it needs to happen
Wrong choices and dialog.
It's to the point I don't fear anything in the game. Clementine can't die (excluding qtes)so there is no reason to take caution or exercise restraint in situation which would normally be dangerous. SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER When Carver has a gun at Alvin head it never crossed my mind the repercussions running at Carver might entail. Ni repercussion would lead to clementine deaths because it couldn't lead to her death. All I'm saying is when the fear of any terrible repercussions is off the table then there is no reason to consider them and they have no effect on the final decision. Even if they added one or two to each episode tops it would at least reinforce the premise that this is a real world situational story with real world situational after effects. Too many would ruin immersion with constant (or minimal with proper sensible reasoning) breaking and restarting but it wouldn't feel completely staged and give the impression Clem is invincible.
Anyone else feel the same way? If you disagree let me know why 
Comments
Anyone?
You mean like when Lee was talking the bandits down and if you say nothing you get shot.
[removed]
I don't honestly remember that part, perhaps I never did it. I was thinking things more along the lines of when Lee is talking to Brenda when shit hits the fan at the St Johns farm.
Kay....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2qjQ9vWsy8
Lol yeah I wouldn't mind a couple of these here and there.
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, or 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.
State of Decay. It's a zombie game where if a character dies, they stay dead. You just take control of another survivor in your camp.
I know what you mean bro but I think clem might die episode 4 or 5 jus saying what do u think
[removed]
Well that is pretty off topic considering the op has little to do with that scenario other than Clem physically dying (one is a major plot point one is a game play mechanic and story booster) and even if tour idea did happen the game play mechanic I am talking about would be applied to the new pc.
But no I don't think she will die in episode 3 or 4 or 5. It's a terrible idea from a narrative standpoint and would decimate everything the game is based on (Clem's survival). Everything that happened in S1 and S2 has baleen based on this sole idea, and while it might be possible to pull this off in a manner OK with fans at the very end of the season (doubtful for many reasons ranging from the previously stated point to the fans would strongly dislike the game) episode 4 is just... out of the question.
I think the same thing may happen that happened in season one. Here's what I mean....when you're at the farm in s1e2, when you're in the house and fat old whatsherface is holding Katjaa hostage, if you piss her off or approach her too quickly, she shoots you. You get a game over screen and get to retry the scene. In that situation, there was a wrong choice - pissing off the person with the gun, acting like you're invincible. xD
I think something like that in season 2 would work just fine.
Yeah havent played that one. I think TWD though is more story based, I mean last season was based off of Lee, and this season Clem. It would be a different experience thats for sure if they were to die, but it would be less meaningful if Lee died the first episode of season 1 rather then the last.
Who knows though? Maybe it could be pulled off without missing a beat, Its an intriguing idea.
We aren't discussing a game that continues if the main character dies, just one that allows the main character to die via choices which would innately lead to that characters death. Again the scene at the farm comes to mind with it being obvious Brenda was on edge and already insane and not afraid of killing people and still being able to choose an option that killed the character (even if any sensible person wouldn't say those things in a real life situation identical to that one). It reinforced the notion that Lee is a normal person with the same mortal flaws as everyone else in the world (or made up story)
They did a good job with optional character death yes, but that doesn't put the fear of self death in the situations.
Again to reiterate considering the last part of your response I don't think she should die and the story will continue just that there well be deaths via wrong choices and dialog. Like qtes failures only different since they are caused by sensibility failures not a lack of response time.
No offense, but I'd like to see you write an incredible episode like that
Yep that's exactly what I was trying to convey. A choice that is obviously wrong should have an extremely negative outcome (death). It shows the pc isn't invisible and you choices actually matter, saying the wrong thing can get you killed in this world...
How does this have negative tendensies?
Umm... Perhaps you should have looked at the episode more closely. If you make the wrong choices talking to Walter, then it can lead to Nick's death. Telling Kenny to take the second shot on Carver leads to Alvin's death. There are repercussions for what you say in this episode, something that it was praised for.
Umm perhaps you shouldn't tell me what I have or have not done. As said in another post response I replied with
"They did a good job with optional character death yes, but that doesn't put the fear of self death in the situations."
Take for instance saving Alvin when Carver has a gun to his head: had I any speck of belief that Clem could die I may not had pressed the button to run to his aid. Seeing as I knew beyond any reasonable doubt that Clem was perfectly safe I didn't even consider what would happen, because I knew ultimately her life was never on the line at all.
I cant cook worth **** and I can still tell if the food a chef makes sucks or not. Damn apologist
Dude. We're already terrified enough that Clem won't live to see the end of this season. Please don't try to convince Telltale into pulling an Omid on her before we even reach episode 4.
That sounded very intelligent. I wish I understood the terminology and derogatory sentiments....
Is everyone misunderstanding what I am trying to say? Should I rewrite the op?
I hope most of the 9 down voters at least tried to voice their reasonings for disagreeing
I don't think anyone's misunderstood. What you seem to be trying to get across to us is just incredibly confusing.
Are you basically asking Telltale to kill Clementine in something other than a non-canon cut scene before episode 5? How would that even work? I'm a little baffled by your statement about feeling that Clem is never in danger, because to me, she feels CONSTANTLY in danger. I know I'm not alone with that opinion.
I cant say I agree. I was afraid for everyone, excluding Clementine but that's because she is the only playable character (not to say that I didnt die plenty, sigh). The repercussions felt real to me.
My bad I misunderstood. Yeah I can agree with what youre saying.
Honestly I'm not sure why people are even confused at this. The OP made it obvious that eventually the player no longer feels concerned because there are no choices that lead to a game over (which I personally disagree with, but that's another story). He is very simply saying he wants maybe one or two choices an episode where if you pick it, Clem dies and game over, restart at the checkpoint. Not sure where "Oh you mean you want a choice where Clem dies but the story continues anyway?" came from.
His example was: If you choose to give up in ep 2 instead of go find Kenny, you get an option when Carver is about to kill Alvin to rush at him or do nothing. In that situation, it would have made sense if Clem rushed at Carver then either he or one of his group would shoot her. Game over, then you restart and now know that choice was the wrong thing to do, which is more gamey than I find Telltale is going for.
Because she isn't in danger, ever. With any option you will ever choose in the entire game she cannot die (again excluding qtes). You can run up to a man shooting people at random, lie to a man grieving over his fallen lover but she can't die. In this world things you say and do can get you killed... unless you are the pc then fuck it, right? If we know she can't die then preserving her life doesn't matter because it is never a possibility to lose it.
Also your statement that no one is misunderstanding because it is confusing doesn't make sense. It makes sense that because it is a confusing subject that people would not understand (which I concur). But not that everyone understood even though it was confusing, which is false.
How would it work? Refer to the Brenda situation at the St Johns farm in S1. They did a perfect example of how it would work properly in that episode. I believe the video was linked in the thread earlier if you didn't accidentally (or even purposefully) find it when you played through season 1.
PS thank you for responding and explaining why you disagree instead of just disliking
But the repercussions were environmental and not clementine herself, which is what you said. "Excluding clementine because she is the only playable character," which is the root of the problem I see. We don't fear for clementine herself, her Life Is Sealed Up In A Nice Neat Bow (why is my phone capitalizing all my words?). She is completely safe and no matter our actions or choice of words (no matter how malicious or vile or mean or cruel or incentavative (my new word)) her life is not on the line
Thanks
But does it need to be? There is plenty of danger to be had but you're saying you would only feel it if Clementine could be killed? She may still be but that obviously wouldnt happen until the end. We didnt really fear for Lee until he got but at the very end of season 1. I really dont know what could be done about this unless they switch playable characters halfway through the season.
Try again
Of course it should be. In a game where life is the main priority the lack of the possibility of death clearly diminishes the point the game makes. There is plenty of danger to be had and what I'm saying is none of those dangers are dangerous to the person we are playing. Why does a game based on realism not regard that character as moral as the others? We didn't fear for Lee until events such as Brenda suddenly brought us back to the realization that the pc can't get away with everything simply because we have a back seat view from their perspective. There is a lot that could be done about this without switching pc's (each they had better not switch pc's).
Not sure how I can try again. I wasn't guessing or doing anything that could be redone and altered in order to receive another outcome.
Do you know the definition of insanity?
What do you think could be done because Im at a loss.
So twice you failed to see that my response wasnt under your post, and that it was defending you.
Insanity indeed.
While you are in that hostage situation, if you just ask carver to stop, or say nothing, Alvin eventually winds up with a bullet in his head.
I think that counts as a "bad dialogue option"
Simply put add more situations like the St Johns farm and the train. Where the wrong decision (an obviously correct choice and an obviously incorrect choice) will result in a restart. Not enough to break immersion, 1 to 2 per episode or even per 2 episodes would be fine/plenty. It supports the fact the pc isn't able to do anything they want and get away with it.
I noticed that from the beginning, which is why I was inquiring what you were saying. I called you intelligent and then ask what you meant. I wasn't passively aggressively responding to you, simply asking what it meant.