True. I really looked forward on interacting with Vince, but all I got was the urge to slap Becca in her bratty face.
(Still disappointed that they chose Bonnie as the main connector to 400 Days. I'm praying really hard that we will see more of the others - including Eddie, since we can already see him on the EP4 preview picture)
I really enjoyed this episode and it is one of my favorites, but it could have been so much better if it was longer so we could get some interaction with the 400 days characters and a longer showdown with Carver. Like Clem_is_awesome said we never found out about George (unless Rebecca tell us about him in episode 4) and they hyped the 400 days characters who only got brief cameos and hyped Carver up to be a scary villain but he we took him out relatively easy.
I have faith in Telltale to deliver two more great episodes but they do need to hear our views otherwise they will never improve their games. They take feedback into consideration while they are making the season so they could make some changes, so we shouldn't stay quiet if we are unhappy, they need criticism in order to make improvements.
Maybe Im a huge dumbass who's overlooking a lot but I think this was the best episode in recent memory, You cant just say its bad because it… more dropped story arks. The game isnt done yet when it is if they still havent completed those arks, then you can whine about it.
A) It was an awesome episode and a great deal of fun.
B) It could have been even better, and by a large margin, if they would just stop rushing things and give both characters and plot time to develop properly.
Maybe Im a huge dumbass who's overlooking a lot but I think this was the best episode in recent memory, You cant just say its bad because it… more dropped story arks. The game isnt done yet when it is if they still havent completed those arks, then you can whine about it.
There was little issue with the Carver character. He showed up and served his purpose quickly. The show could learn from him. He was definitely shown to be smart, and he's shown to have a propensity for brutal violence. Did you REALLY want a bad guy antagonist to stick around for 2 more episodes? This setting doesn't need antagonists. Even the Stranger was effectively a non character. I figure his purpose was to make the player want to see him dead. The whole episode was leading up to the stay or leave decision, and it was the first decision that really had an emotional impact on me this season, so I'd say it was quite well done in that regard.
As for the 400 days characters, I don't really mind the fact that they simply had minor cameos, the only thing I mind is the blatant lying from Telltale staff on Twitter about how much they would effect the story. It's unrealistic to expect *5* different determinant characters to have more than a few lines, or to stick around.
The 3rd point about plot points being introduced and promptly forgotten is what actually concerns me. I get the feeling that this season is going to end with a ton of unanswered questions, whereas season 1 was all neat and tidy, with the only questions being related to the final 30 minutes - as you'd expect from a good ending.
Also, the fact that there's no variance to the way characters react to the PC this time around. There's no Lily, Ben or Kenny, who can have vastly different relationships with the PC depending on what you do. Everythings the same. I'm OK with the fact that the protagonist needs to be consistent for the story to make sense, and it was the same with Lee - but that's why you change the way OTHER CHARACTERS react to the PC rather than the PC's personality. S2 just doesn't even try.
As for the 90 minute thing, that's just due to the lack of 'gameplay' portions. Season 1 would be about this long too if you eliminated all the walking around figuring out what to do. I'm totally OK with the lack of 'gameplay' because if I wanted gameplay I wouldn't be playing a game entirely based around its story.
> but that's why you change the way OTHER CHARACTERS react to the PC rather than the PC's personality. S2 just doesn't even try.
**(?) Carlos will remember that you are not to be trusted.** No, he won't. **(?) Rebecca will remember that you are a gonna be a fucking problem.** My ass. **(?) Alvin will remember that you blackmailed him.** Nah, he's glad you're with them, Clementine. **(?) Nick will remember where the fucking river is.** Huh, that is actually true.
I agree with that. For all the talk of choice and branching, your "relationships" with the cast are set for you, never to change. The only one who seems to react differently is Nick, after he shoots Matt and thanks you for having his back or is a tad mad you didn't. And that was back in Episode 2, when he was a character and not a piece of the scenery.
> I'm totally OK with the lack of 'gameplay' because if I wanted gameplay I wouldn't be playing a game entirely based around its story.
But don't you remember many of those gameplay portions was also the time we got to talk to our cast? Your previous point casts light on some of the problem, but I would argue that there is barely any kind of relationship between the cast and the protagonist other than acquaintances at this point, save for Kenny and maybe Luke and Nick. Part of the time in which you noticed the characters reacting to you and your actions was in those slow segments.
There was little issue with the Carver character. He showed up and served his purpose quickly. The show could learn from him. He was defi… morenitely shown to be smart, and he's shown to have a propensity for brutal violence. Did you REALLY want a bad guy antagonist to stick around for 2 more episodes? This setting doesn't need antagonists. Even the Stranger was effectively a non character. I figure his purpose was to make the player want to see him dead. The whole episode was leading up to the stay or leave decision, and it was the first decision that really had an emotional impact on me this season, so I'd say it was quite well done in that regard.
As for the 400 days characters, I don't really mind the fact that they simply had minor cameos, the only thing I mind is the blatant lying from Telltale staff on Twitter about how much they would effect the story. It's unrealistic to expect *5* different determinant characters to have more… [view original content]
> But don't you remember many of those gameplay portions was also the time we got to talk to our cast? Your previous point casts light on some of the problem, but I would argue that there is barely any kind of relationship between the cast and the protagonist other than acquaintances at this point, save for Kenny and maybe Luke and Nick. Part of the time in which you noticed the characters reacting to you and your actions was in those slow segments.
This is true, but I would argue that if dialogue that involves important character development such as the way a character perceives the PC is gated behind optional conversations, then that was the wrong place to put it. For example, if you saved Carley and then missed talking to her at the start of episode 3, then you would have no idea that she & Lee had a thing going.
There was at least one "walk around and talk to people" segment in episode 3, so that's a start at least. And none of the conversations there were significant - and that would be totally fine, because they should just be small bites of dialogue for those that want to see it. The character shifts should be developed in the main story, but unfortunately they're just not there at all, and I don't think the 90 minute format has anything to do with it.
> but that's why you change the way OTHER CHARACTERS react to the PC rather than the PC's personality. S2 just doesn't even try.
**(… more?) Carlos will remember that you are not to be trusted.** No, he won't. **(?) Rebecca will remember that you are a gonna be a fucking problem.** My ass. **(?) Alvin will remember that you blackmailed him.** Nah, he's glad you're with them, Clementine. **(?) Nick will remember where the fucking river is.** Huh, that is actually true.
I agree with that. For all the talk of choice and branching, your "relationships" with the cast are set for you, never to change. The only one who seems to react differently is Nick, after he shoots Matt and thanks you for having his back or is a tad mad you didn't. And that was back in Episode 2, when he was a character and not a piece of the scenery.
> I'm totally OK with the lack of 'gameplay' because if I wanted gameplay I wouldn't be playing a game entirely … [view original content]
> This is true, but I would argue that if dialogue that involves important character development such as the way a character perceives the PC is gated behind optional conversations, then that was the wrong place to put it.
Ok, how would you do it? Put conversation the way *All That Remains* did it after Carlos patched Clem's arm up? A series of encounters with the cast presented in the cutscene? I guess that could work.
Of course, putting more emphasis during main story points on how a character perceives you is important, ala Kenny/Lilly scene in the meat locker "You've always had my back Lee..."
> For example, if you saved Carley and then missed talking to her at the start of episode 3, then you would have no idea that she & Lee had a thing going.
I saw that as a reward for players caring about the characters they were surviving with, but ok. I think that sense of freedom to talk to whoever you wanted to was good. Maybe you did not want to hear your current foil's shit at the moment (be it Larry, Lilly, Kenny), but wanted to have a chat with a good friend, or check up on Clementine. Or maybe you did want to hear it all. There was a choice.
The point that I am trying to make here is: That small measure of interactivity was in itself a choice that was presented to you, and that in some cases served to change your perspective on some characters or simply made you appreciate them more as characters. None of those conversations were forced upon you (save for *A New Day*), you had the freedom to choose who to talk to and your playthrough was almost always richer for it.
I do believe that Telltale is underestimating the subtle but present, what to call them, I guess benefits or potential of the simplest of interactive elements, and how can they help players' immersion. Of course, I seem to be in the minority, and cannot speak for everyone.
>There was at least one "walk around and talk to people" segment in episode 3, so that's a start at least. And none of the conversations there were significant - and that would be totally fine, because they should just be small bites of dialogue for those that want to see it.
If reduced to that, let them at least be substantial bits of dialogue. You had like 4 options per character back in S1, I would personally like that.
> But don't you remember many of those gameplay portions was also the time we got to talk to our cast? Your previous point casts light on… more some of the problem, but I would argue that there is barely any kind of relationship between the cast and the protagonist other than acquaintances at this point, save for Kenny and maybe Luke and Nick. Part of the time in which you noticed the characters reacting to you and your actions was in those slow segments.
This is true, but I would argue that if dialogue that involves important character development such as the way a character perceives the PC is gated behind optional conversations, then that was the wrong place to put it. For example, if you saved Carley and then missed talking to her at the start of episode 3, then you would have no idea that she & Lee had a thing going.
There was at least one "walk around and talk to people" segment in episode 3, so that's a start at least. A… [view original content]
I just thought I post something here that's relevant to Carver and how choices matter.
In the office when talking to Carver it would be… more interesting if he asked Clem who her caretaker was, since he knows that Clem was never a part of the cabin group before. Here's your choices...
a) There was this man named Lee.
b) A woman named Christa.
c) It doesn't matter.
d) ...
If you choose a) Clem would describe Lee to Carver, and depending your actions when being as Lee, her description of his character is different, with Carver either liking the sound of him or say he's "interesting". For b) she will talk about Christa and learn about the baby a little, and if you mentioned Christa back at the Cabin, Carver will make note of that. If it's c) Carver tells Clem that everything matters, the choices those people made influenced her, mad her strong. For d) Carver will respond that she's gotta learn to speak up if she wants to fit in.
Yeah just something I felt would've made the office scene more interesting.
I just thought I post something here that's relevant to Carver and how choices matter.
In the office when talking to Carver it would be… more interesting if he asked Clem who her caretaker was, since he knows that Clem was never a part of the cabin group before. Here's your choices...
a) There was this man named Lee.
b) A woman named Christa.
c) It doesn't matter.
d) ...
If you choose a) Clem would describe Lee to Carver, and depending your actions when being as Lee, her description of his character is different, with Carver either liking the sound of him or say he's "interesting". For b) she will talk about Christa and learn about the baby a little, and if you mentioned Christa back at the Cabin, Carver will make note of that. If it's c) Carver tells Clem that everything matters, the choices those people made influenced her, mad her strong. For d) Carver will respond that she's gotta learn to speak up if she wants to fit in.
Yeah just something I felt would've made the office scene more interesting.
let me just put this out. I thought that maybe this guy lasted till episode 4, carver, but this is the type of villain you cant just take a half measure you half to go full. and lets be honest how can there be much hubs when you have bitches like troy watching your ass every damn second. you couldn't roam much since you were mmmmmhh....... what did tavia said???? prisoners. you cant really do much. yes fucking 90 mins sucks and hopefully TT does whats right and gives us at least 2 hours worth.
I couldn't give less of a rat's ass about Borderlands, but Game of Thrones is a perfect fit for Telltale and I can't wait to play it. I just… more wish it was based on the Song of Ice and Fire books and not the TV show.
On the other hand, I'd be much more excited about it if I thought it would resemble the gameplay and length of TWD Season 1 rather than TWD Season 2.
Known history? Really? Besides screwing up on release dates you mean? That's not lying that's just not using their time wisely. They said about 7 months ago on Reddit that they were currently only working on TWAU and TWD. Game of Thrones hasn't been started on yet and Borderlands has a tiny, tiny team working on the foundations of the project so as soon as the previous two games are done they can move people to that project to finish it.
Besides, Telltale has about 120 or so people right? Why would they lie about that? Also can you specifically name a specific instance where they lied? Again, that FAQ was never made by Telltale that was a fan thing so don't link to that.
The only thing that i disagree are about the things that "should be solved". We don't need all this answers. We just need well-developed things. I don't really care who killed Roman and those "thugs" and many other things, but, like u said, i care for the complete change of attitude of Rebecca. Not a well-developed thing. A thing that just changed from one episode to the other.
I agree on most of the points you make here, however i do have hope that we get to see the 400 days characters again considering Eddie clearly is on the cover art of Episode 4 and i have the feeling he wont be alone there. Anyhow, the length of the episodes are simply not cutting it for me, i mean the lack of hubs is actually not game breaking in my opinion because we still get to make these developing conversations but only in a more let's say forced way, but i don't mid it. The problem with the length however, i remember playing episode 3 and 4 in season 1 for ages the first time i went through it, maybe it was just the hubs? Maybe the actual content within was the same. I still feel like these episodes are over before they really start, they feel somewhat rushed and events just happen right after each other, there is no quiet moment. Anyway, hopefully telltale gives us some of those hefty hubs in episode 4, along with 400 days characters and we will be all set.
I did not know whether to post this here or on the "90 min revolution" thread, but here goes.
Something to consider, regarding hubs, from someone of the TT staff.
> **@bubbledncr wrote:**
> The thing about hubs is we still need to give the player a goal and purpose. Not all players want to just wander around and talk to everyone. For example, your morning after idea - the previous scene was entirely a dialog of talking to people and getting to know them. What does opening up the cabin the next morning to walk around get you? Sure, you can talk to people and get to know them even more if you want, but what if you don't? You already snooped through all their stuff searching for supplies, and none of them really trust you enough to assign you a task.
> You'll notice most of our Season 1 hubs also had a task assigned during them - hand out food, find a way into the pharmacy, search for missing supplies, etc. If you look at your ideas, ask yourself what the players' non-talk-to-people goal would be. And then ask yourself if it makes sense with the story's pacing at that point, or if it's an interesting enough task to not feel like busy work.
As much as I want hubs back for reasons stated above, and in other threads all throughout the damn forum these past couple of months, that was something I had not considered. What do you think of this? Counterarguments, opinions, agreements?
I feel like they tried to do a little bit of that with the "proto-hub" the first night in camp, by having you poke around, look for ways to escape. That is a start, but it still feels like a weak one.
Were the best hubs in S1 born out of natural situations from the writing, or made with both a narrative and gameplay purposes in mind, equally? Maybe the latter, when it was still considered a good design choice. When they work,- like the great intro of *Starved For Help* - they work, but when they don't... well, you end up with Crawford; one of the favorite arguments for those who would not like them back.
Just one more post in this thread, regarding the branching of the storyline.
Branches were the argument that many were using to defend the new length and lack of other features.
The reduced length is, - if TT's to be believed - actually a conscious design choice so that player get to experience the content in "one sitting".
As for the branching paths argument, well... Perhaps it will come into play more prominently in the last two episodes, but right now the branching that is supposed to happen from the 400 days characters (hyped up to hell, even though I understand that it is probably difficult to incorporate all of them in a meaningful way, considering the number of variables) and our two determinant characters is pretty basic.
We all know that apart from the odd line here and there, Nick is relegated to Luke's yes-man this episode and that Alvin dies no matter what (In what is still a good death scene). There was a change done there, your story certainly branches, but does it do it enough to sacrifice other things that benefit the episode? I would not know, but do they really take up that much time from development? If the answer is affirmative, then I really respect them for trying to make things more varied in the long run, with the relative short time they have to put everything together, even though I am not particularly impressed with the result.
If the answer is negative, which I think it is not, hope that is not, then I see no reason to incorporate some of the stuff the community requests.
There is also the lack of what I call "social branching", which is what @zyoxo describes on the fourth paragraph of his post above in this same page, and on a thread he/she created today. Perhaps it is, again, the inconvenience of Clementine's age, relevance and voice within her new group what the problem is. The cast does not change its attitude towards you, whatever actions you take and whatever words you say to them.
Season one's (I wonder just how many people are annoyed at me making comparisons to S2's predecessor. It is still the best frame of reference both fans and developers can and sometimes *should* look up to) relationships between PC and cast changed based on your attitude and choices. Hell, even if the changes were not as radical as Lilly/Kenny after the meat locker, characters would still comment on what you had been doing. It made the illusions of choice and of the "tailored narrative" seem all the more real.
I agree with Clemisawesome almost 100%, there are just a couple of things in this post I am confused about.
1) Why the lack of quality? I feel as if most people here are wondering if not enough time is being devoted to WD compared to the other projects lined up for telltale, when I think it's clearly that the writers who are now no longer with telltale, were more competent writers than the ones we have now. I don't know how this new guy (he wrote 'faith' and this past episode) got his job; I feel like I could have put together a better script than him, most people in this forum probably could have, based on the ideas I've seen.
2) Unanswered questions? I think some people here are thinking a little too hard about this one. It's heavily implied Carver shot the people at the lake and probably offed Pete. It's not at all far-fetched knowing he was in the area. I understand the want for confirmation, but is that really something to worry about when we have much larger problems at hand.
I guess mostly I'm just disappointed considering I went back and played Season 1, and holy shit, it's like night and day between the two.
For me, this sounds awfully convenient. They can justify the hub's exclusion or inclusion based on the 'pace of the story' or the 'narrative', but you then question 'why were they in the 1st season then'? For example, @bubbledncr references the handing out of food as a task that required the use of a hub, but surely telltale could've left that bit out? They could've just had Lee hand the food out to people, or had the food dished out on a 1st come 1st served basis. But instead they cleverly built a whole discursive event, involving several characters, choices and consequences, from a relatively menial task, something I don't think would be beyond them in this season. While I accept a lack of trust in Clem MIGHT have been good enough a reason to avoid setting similar tasks for the player this season, that argument is quickly negated when you consider the fact she's been volunteered by the group to do literally everything else.
What bothers most people about the lack of hubs is that it seems to have directly contributed to the dreadful lack of character development this season. People associate the hubs with getting to know other characters, the knowledge from these encounters then influenced a player's choice over who to save, who they liked, who they formed bonds with. A lack of connection in this sense completely eliminates one of the main reasons why the game was so enjoyable. While the response you've cited from the TT staff may sound plausible, it appears to me to be condescending. The staff member is basically implying (in my opinion anyway) that the player doesn't understand the negative effects a hub could have on the pacing or narrative of the game, ergo their exclusion is for the player's benefit. From what s/he has said, I am still unable to discern an actual fundamental reason why hubs (and character development) have been so lacking in this season, and given the shortened episode time (looking at a 7.5 hour running time in total, compared to just over 10 for the 1st season) I can only conclude that it's either because telltale are completely abandoning the principles that made TWD so good (which would be bizarre) or they're doing it to save time and money, and hoping hype generated from the previous season is enough to maintain success for an inferior product.
I did not know whether to post this here or on the "90 min revolution" thread, but here goes.
Something to consider, regarding hubs, f… morerom someone of the TT staff.
> **@bubbledncr wrote:**
> The thing about hubs is we still need to give the player a goal and purpose. Not all players want to just wander around and talk to everyone. For example, your morning after idea - the previous scene was entirely a dialog of talking to people and getting to know them. What does opening up the cabin the next morning to walk around get you? Sure, you can talk to people and get to know them even more if you want, but what if you don't? You already snooped through all their stuff searching for supplies, and none of them really trust you enough to assign you a task.
> You'll notice most of our Season 1 hubs also had a task assigned during them - hand out food, find a way into the pharmacy, search for missing supplies, etc. If you … [view original content]
For me, this sounds awfully convenient. They can justify the hub's exclusion or inclusion based on the 'pace of the story' or the 'narrative… more', but you then question 'why were they in the 1st season then'? For example, @bubbledncr references the handing out of food as a task that required the use of a hub, but surely telltale could've left that bit out? They could've just had Lee hand the food out to people, or had the food dished out on a 1st come 1st served basis. But instead they cleverly built a whole discursive event, involving several characters, choices and consequences, from a relatively menial task, something I don't think would be beyond them in this season. While I accept a lack of trust in Clem MIGHT have been good enough a reason to avoid setting similar tasks for the player this season, that argument is quickly negated when you consider the fact she's been volunteered by the group to do literally everything else.
What bother… [view original content]
For me, this sounds awfully convenient. They can justify the hub's exclusion or inclusion based on the 'pace of the story' or the 'narrative… more', but you then question 'why were they in the 1st season then'? For example, @bubbledncr references the handing out of food as a task that required the use of a hub, but surely telltale could've left that bit out? They could've just had Lee hand the food out to people, or had the food dished out on a 1st come 1st served basis. But instead they cleverly built a whole discursive event, involving several characters, choices and consequences, from a relatively menial task, something I don't think would be beyond them in this season. While I accept a lack of trust in Clem MIGHT have been good enough a reason to avoid setting similar tasks for the player this season, that argument is quickly negated when you consider the fact she's been volunteered by the group to do literally everything else.
What bother… [view original content]
I'd send them an email, but I would not know where, plus it would probably be ignored. I still this is our best chance for them to notice *anything* at all.
Comments
(Still disappointed that they chose Bonnie as the main connector to 400 Days. I'm praying really hard that we will see more of the others - including Eddie, since we can already see him on the EP4 preview picture)
I have faith in Telltale to deliver two more great episodes but they do need to hear our views otherwise they will never improve their games. They take feedback into consideration while they are making the season so they could make some changes, so we shouldn't stay quiet if we are unhappy, they need criticism in order to make improvements.
A) It was an awesome episode and a great deal of fun.
B) It could have been even better, and by a large margin, if they would just stop rushing things and give both characters and plot time to develop properly.
The two views are not mutually exclusive.
As for the 400 days characters, I don't really mind the fact that they simply had minor cameos, the only thing I mind is the blatant lying from Telltale staff on Twitter about how much they would effect the story. It's unrealistic to expect *5* different determinant characters to have more than a few lines, or to stick around.
The 3rd point about plot points being introduced and promptly forgotten is what actually concerns me. I get the feeling that this season is going to end with a ton of unanswered questions, whereas season 1 was all neat and tidy, with the only questions being related to the final 30 minutes - as you'd expect from a good ending.
Also, the fact that there's no variance to the way characters react to the PC this time around. There's no Lily, Ben or Kenny, who can have vastly different relationships with the PC depending on what you do. Everythings the same. I'm OK with the fact that the protagonist needs to be consistent for the story to make sense, and it was the same with Lee - but that's why you change the way OTHER CHARACTERS react to the PC rather than the PC's personality. S2 just doesn't even try.
As for the 90 minute thing, that's just due to the lack of 'gameplay' portions. Season 1 would be about this long too if you eliminated all the walking around figuring out what to do. I'm totally OK with the lack of 'gameplay' because if I wanted gameplay I wouldn't be playing a game entirely based around its story.
**(?) Carlos will remember that you are not to be trusted.** No, he won't. **(?) Rebecca will remember that you are a gonna be a fucking problem.** My ass. **(?) Alvin will remember that you blackmailed him.** Nah, he's glad you're with them, Clementine. **(?) Nick will remember where the fucking river is.** Huh, that is actually true.
I agree with that. For all the talk of choice and branching, your "relationships" with the cast are set for you, never to change. The only one who seems to react differently is Nick, after he shoots Matt and thanks you for having his back or is a tad mad you didn't. And that was back in Episode 2, when he was a character and not a piece of the scenery.
> I'm totally OK with the lack of 'gameplay' because if I wanted gameplay I wouldn't be playing a game entirely based around its story.
But don't you remember many of those gameplay portions was also the time we got to talk to our cast? Your previous point casts light on some of the problem, but I would argue that there is barely any kind of relationship between the cast and the protagonist other than acquaintances at this point, save for Kenny and maybe Luke and Nick. Part of the time in which you noticed the characters reacting to you and your actions was in those slow segments.
This is true, but I would argue that if dialogue that involves important character development such as the way a character perceives the PC is gated behind optional conversations, then that was the wrong place to put it. For example, if you saved Carley and then missed talking to her at the start of episode 3, then you would have no idea that she & Lee had a thing going.
There was at least one "walk around and talk to people" segment in episode 3, so that's a start at least. And none of the conversations there were significant - and that would be totally fine, because they should just be small bites of dialogue for those that want to see it. The character shifts should be developed in the main story, but unfortunately they're just not there at all, and I don't think the 90 minute format has anything to do with it.
Ok, how would you do it? Put conversation the way *All That Remains* did it after Carlos patched Clem's arm up? A series of encounters with the cast presented in the cutscene? I guess that could work.
Of course, putting more emphasis during main story points on how a character perceives you is important, ala Kenny/Lilly scene in the meat locker "You've always had my back Lee..."
> For example, if you saved Carley and then missed talking to her at the start of episode 3, then you would have no idea that she & Lee had a thing going.
I saw that as a reward for players caring about the characters they were surviving with, but ok. I think that sense of freedom to talk to whoever you wanted to was good. Maybe you did not want to hear your current foil's shit at the moment (be it Larry, Lilly, Kenny), but wanted to have a chat with a good friend, or check up on Clementine. Or maybe you did want to hear it all. There was a choice.
The point that I am trying to make here is: That small measure of interactivity was in itself a choice that was presented to you, and that in some cases served to change your perspective on some characters or simply made you appreciate them more as characters. None of those conversations were forced upon you (save for *A New Day*), you had the freedom to choose who to talk to and your playthrough was almost always richer for it.
I do believe that Telltale is underestimating the subtle but present, what to call them, I guess benefits or potential of the simplest of interactive elements, and how can they help players' immersion. Of course, I seem to be in the minority, and cannot speak for everyone.
>There was at least one "walk around and talk to people" segment in episode 3, so that's a start at least. And none of the conversations there were significant - and that would be totally fine, because they should just be small bites of dialogue for those that want to see it.
If reduced to that, let them at least be substantial bits of dialogue. You had like 4 options per character back in S1, I would personally like that.
Besides, Telltale has about 120 or so people right? Why would they lie about that? Also can you specifically name a specific instance where they lied? Again, that FAQ was never made by Telltale that was a fan thing so don't link to that.
Something to consider, regarding hubs, from someone of the TT staff.
> **@bubbledncr wrote:**
> The thing about hubs is we still need to give the player a goal and purpose. Not all players want to just wander around and talk to everyone. For example, your morning after idea - the previous scene was entirely a dialog of talking to people and getting to know them. What does opening up the cabin the next morning to walk around get you? Sure, you can talk to people and get to know them even more if you want, but what if you don't? You already snooped through all their stuff searching for supplies, and none of them really trust you enough to assign you a task.
> You'll notice most of our Season 1 hubs also had a task assigned during them - hand out food, find a way into the pharmacy, search for missing supplies, etc. If you look at your ideas, ask yourself what the players' non-talk-to-people goal would be. And then ask yourself if it makes sense with the story's pacing at that point, or if it's an interesting enough task to not feel like busy work.
As much as I want hubs back for reasons stated above, and in other threads all throughout the damn forum these past couple of months, that was something I had not considered. What do you think of this? Counterarguments, opinions, agreements?
I feel like they tried to do a little bit of that with the "proto-hub" the first night in camp, by having you poke around, look for ways to escape. That is a start, but it still feels like a weak one.
Were the best hubs in S1 born out of natural situations from the writing, or made with both a narrative and gameplay purposes in mind, equally? Maybe the latter, when it was still considered a good design choice. When they work,- like the great intro of *Starved For Help* - they work, but when they don't... well, you end up with Crawford; one of the favorite arguments for those who would not like them back.
Branches were the argument that many were using to defend the new length and lack of other features.
The reduced length is, - if TT's to be believed - actually a conscious design choice so that player get to experience the content in "one sitting".
As for the branching paths argument, well... Perhaps it will come into play more prominently in the last two episodes, but right now the branching that is supposed to happen from the 400 days characters (hyped up to hell, even though I understand that it is probably difficult to incorporate all of them in a meaningful way, considering the number of variables) and our two determinant characters is pretty basic.
We all know that apart from the odd line here and there, Nick is relegated to Luke's yes-man this episode and that Alvin dies no matter what (In what is still a good death scene). There was a change done there, your story certainly branches, but does it do it enough to sacrifice other things that benefit the episode? I would not know, but do they really take up that much time from development? If the answer is affirmative, then I really respect them for trying to make things more varied in the long run, with the relative short time they have to put everything together, even though I am not particularly impressed with the result.
If the answer is negative, which I think it is not, hope that is not, then I see no reason to incorporate some of the stuff the community requests.
There is also the lack of what I call "social branching", which is what @zyoxo describes on the fourth paragraph of his post above in this same page, and on a thread he/she created today. Perhaps it is, again, the inconvenience of Clementine's age, relevance and voice within her new group what the problem is. The cast does not change its attitude towards you, whatever actions you take and whatever words you say to them.
Season one's (I wonder just how many people are annoyed at me making comparisons to S2's predecessor. It is still the best frame of reference both fans and developers can and sometimes *should* look up to) relationships between PC and cast changed based on your attitude and choices. Hell, even if the changes were not as radical as Lilly/Kenny after the meat locker, characters would still comment on what you had been doing. It made the illusions of choice and of the "tailored narrative" seem all the more real.
1) Why the lack of quality? I feel as if most people here are wondering if not enough time is being devoted to WD compared to the other projects lined up for telltale, when I think it's clearly that the writers who are now no longer with telltale, were more competent writers than the ones we have now. I don't know how this new guy (he wrote 'faith' and this past episode) got his job; I feel like I could have put together a better script than him, most people in this forum probably could have, based on the ideas I've seen.
2) Unanswered questions? I think some people here are thinking a little too hard about this one. It's heavily implied Carver shot the people at the lake and probably offed Pete. It's not at all far-fetched knowing he was in the area. I understand the want for confirmation, but is that really something to worry about when we have much larger problems at hand.
I guess mostly I'm just disappointed considering I went back and played Season 1, and holy shit, it's like night and day between the two.
What bothers most people about the lack of hubs is that it seems to have directly contributed to the dreadful lack of character development this season. People associate the hubs with getting to know other characters, the knowledge from these encounters then influenced a player's choice over who to save, who they liked, who they formed bonds with. A lack of connection in this sense completely eliminates one of the main reasons why the game was so enjoyable. While the response you've cited from the TT staff may sound plausible, it appears to me to be condescending. The staff member is basically implying (in my opinion anyway) that the player doesn't understand the negative effects a hub could have on the pacing or narrative of the game, ergo their exclusion is for the player's benefit. From what s/he has said, I am still unable to discern an actual fundamental reason why hubs (and character development) have been so lacking in this season, and given the shortened episode time (looking at a 7.5 hour running time in total, compared to just over 10 for the 1st season) I can only conclude that it's either because telltale are completely abandoning the principles that made TWD so good (which would be bizarre) or they're doing it to save time and money, and hoping hype generated from the previous season is enough to maintain success for an inferior product.