Did Telltale torture the wrong man?
I get it. It would be a shame to have Ramsay in the game, and not have him flay/torture one of the main characters. But apart from the effect it has on Elaena, I'm not sure whether having it happen to Arthur was the best choice. We only just met him last episode, and while he made enough of an impression to be well-liked, it still feels like wasted potential for a character. The fact that the only back story we really got for him was where his nickname came from is a bit unfortunate (and we didn't even find that out until after he was dead, because Elaena decided to shoehorn it in there and tell us as part of her grieving process apparently for some reason).
It seems like the point was to remove the ally we had just made in the Glenmores and lose their elite guard, so that the Forresters were back to square one. But Ramsay specifically sent the elite guard home anyway, so Arthur's death was superfluous to that. If Elaena had immediately said she wouldn't support/marry Rodrik anymore, because of Arthur's death, then that would've been effective enough for it to be worth it too, but she doesn't, and in some versions of the game she re-commits herself to the Forresters by sleeping with Rodrik for the next few weeks. So again Arthur didn't actually need to die. But obviously someone needed to 'pay the price' to raise the stakes, and so that Ramsay's visit wasn't largely pointless.
The fact that it doesn't matter whether or not you brought Arthur with you to Highpoint either, also makes this death problematic, too. Did Ramsay say to his guards, "Ok, everybody hide and when they get back, they'll probably have Arthur Glenmore with them, so wait until Rodrik has gone into the Great Hall alone, then grab Arthur, quickly take him to some predetermined spot in the grove and start torturing him and then I'll come and finish the job."? It doesn't really add up. So here's what I propose might have worked better.
Despite not personally liking the determinate Duncan/Royland traitor thing, I can see Telltale were pretty committed to it playing out that way, so that 'our choices mattered'. On the assumption that, because you were given the choice to execute the traitor, this means both Duncan and Royland, being determinate, will both probably be dead pretty soon, how about if it went like this:
In episode 4, Rodrik prepares to go to Highpoint. He's given the choice to take Arthur and the elite guard with him or leave them at Ironrath. Once that is decided, the Sentinel automatically says he will stay and defend Ironrath while you're gone. Meaning the other adviser (the traitor), automatically goes with Rodrik to Highpoint (this removes a choice from the player, but not an important one, and it's still determinate based on who your Sentinel is). Then, in episode 5, Ramsay takes Rodrik and Talia to the grove to reveal he has been busy torturing your Sentinel (Duncan or Royland). The idea of the Sentinel 'paying the price' for Rodrik's actions seems a lot more fitting and heartbreaking, and given as I said, they're probably going to be dead by the end of the season anyway, why not do it now?
If Arthur and the elite guard stayed to defend Ironrath, then he is there as well, badly beaten by Ramsay's guards, but alive and being tended to by Elaena. If he came with you to Highpoint, it's implied he's gone searching for Elaena and they arrive after Ramsay is gone.
So Ramsay kills your Sentinel and then other characters say the rest of his lines from episode 5 instead (Lady Forrester, Arthur, maybe the Maester). You could also have some dialogue between Rodrik, Arthur and Elaena about Ramsay sending the elite guard home and whether the Glenmores should continue allying themselves with the Forresters. Arthur could then be part of the final fight with the Whitehills in episode 6, and if he survives that, it sets him up to be a major, possibly 'playable', character in season 2.
Comments
I think he did it to ensure the possibility of Lord Glenmore sending the Forresters aid is removed?
A better way to handle it would have been, if we took Arthur to Highpoint, Eleana would have been the one flayed.
The way Arthur is captured and flayed somehow in the little timespan when you're talking to Ramsay when he was JUST walking by your side seconds ago is complete bs.
But I guess Telltale didn't want to torture women.
Ramsay really didn't need to ensure that. Lord Glenmore was already too cowardly to take any part in helping the Forresters and had surrendered his daughter to the Whitehills to marry Gryff, just to prove he wasn't affiliated with Ironrath. If anything, now that Lord Glenmore has actually lost a son to this conflict, he's more likely to fight back.
Possibly, but that obviously would have had a very different effect on Rodrik, and as a result they would probably have needed to make a lot more alternate scenes and dialogue to fit the narratives. A flayed fiance and a flayed friend/future brother-in-law wouldn't quite sync up. Whereas Royland and Duncan are largely interchangeable in terms of sentiment.
I think it would have been better if Gryff was the one he flayed. That would remove any chance at a Whitehill peace and Ludd would now have nothing to lose giving Ramsey the war her wanted.
But that would have changed the narrative entirely. That would almost read as a win for the Forresters and Ramsay would seem to sort of be on our side. The war Ramsay wants is already happening and I'm pretty sure there's little to no chance of a peace with the Whitehills anyway (only through Gwyn maybe, and that would have to be after Ludd was dead). The only way I can see Gryff being flayed working would be -
1) By excusing it as a form of fan-service for players who just wanted to see Gryff die in the worst way possible,
or 2) Flaying Gryff as well as flaying someone from the Forrester's side at the same time, as if to balance it out.
Also, yes, the timespan is complete bs.
He lost a son to Ramsay, though, not the Whitehills.
Sure, but he can't attack Ramsay, and Gryff Whitehill was why his son was in that position in the first place. Maybe he'd feel compelled to help now his family are unavoidably a part of it. Maybe not. Doesn't matter anyway. I doubt they'll introduce him in the final episode.
Even Telltale have their limits.
It would just be justice and equality for Ramsay to kill Gryff after killing Ethan. He doesn't give a f**k about it though.
It's more like Ramsay is taking the Whitehill side (which is pretty normal since they're his direct bannermen)
Yeah, well, exactly. So it's fairly unlikely that he would flay Gryff, even if it would show an interesting impartiality to his brand of chaos.
Makes me think of the Joker from 'The Dark Knight' killing criminals and cops alike just because he can and to see what happens.
Both have massive plot armor but one of them is MUCH more worthy than the other
Stopped reading at "wasted potential". Every single character death in telltale games history is "wasted potential" according to people on this forum. It's like none of you know what it means, just say it to sound forum-trendy (like ranting about Ramsey Snows "plot armor"). Keep that shit on reddit.
They didn't torture "the wrong man". The Glenmore garrison lead by Arthur interfered with Ramseys orders, so Arthur paid the price. Simple.
Thing is, from the point of view of someone JUST starting up the episode (not knowing Ludd wanted to ambush you) Gryff would have been a very good person for Ramsay to flay, as it eliminated the chance of getting Ryon back and it would have opened a way for you to GENUINELY make peace with the Whitehills. Not having Ramsay flay him was just a waste of potential in my eyes
How did we not have the option to say, right after Ramsay yells that we disobeyed his orders to share Ironwood equally, that it was Ludd who broke the rule first, hence the hostage situation?
Ramsay could have disregarded that anyway, but I felt that was the argument that made the most sense (more than any option we were given) and we didn't have this choice. It felt weird.
All we could say was that "the Whitehills... something", I don't remember exactly what it was but in any case this line didn't expose Ludd's original breaking of the rule, I know because that's what I picked precisely because it looked like the closest thing to this argument (and yet wasn't after all). Ramsay had to be informed of that, so he would have punished Ludd as well.
Stopped reading your comment after you said you'd stopped reading the post after the third line. Bye.
I think too many players would prefer the chance to kill Gryff themselves. And while you are right, I'm not sure if the writers would be interested in having you genuinely making peace with the Whitehills. Certainly not until Gryff and Ludd are dead anyway.
Wow. TT should really hire you.
I was expecting a choice to tell him that Ludd had literally just admitted to being unable to supply the ironwood whereas we can. I really thought that that should've been included. Who knows, it could've even saved our asses.
The fact remains that our choices don't matter and that somehow, as if by magic, Ramsey managed to have his invisible guards just take Arthur, who is surrounded by his ELITE guard, and torture him enough just in time for us to see him die. How could Ramsey possibly have known that Arthur would just so happen to be there? Can Ramsey suddenly see the future (of course this is from the view point of taking him to Highpoint)? And we don't have to leave anything on reddit. Ramsey DOES have PLOT ARMOR and we as CUSTOMERS have a right to vent and even complain.
Thanks. I appreciate it.
I guess he basically just doesn't care enough to go and punish Ludd as well, even if you did point it out. So there wasn't any point in correcting him. This relates to the suggestion that he should have flayed Gryff. I suppose given he's happy to just leave you and Ludd to fight it out, rather than supporting his bannermen the Whitehills anymore, is kind of a way of punishing Ludd.
Am I the only one who doesn't really care that Ramsay killed Arthur or Arthur at all? The only thing that stuck out for me was the brutality I wished to see in TWD
It's not surprising that you don't care about Arthur, because Telltale didn't do enough to make you care about him, given they only just introduced him. That's sort of my point. Would you have cared if Ramsay had killed your Sentinel instead?
Oh yeah, I didn't even think about the fact that the elite guard would have been right there next to Arthur, so it would have been even harder for Ramsay's men to take him in that short amount of time.
Doubtful.
[removed]
I gonna awake the dead thread but.
I really hate how Ramsay is portrayed in the game now aswell, he is a Mary Sue villian who is super natural, he is a scrawny little asshole who would been "Pushed" down a cliffside by now the way he acts. I cared about him since he was a old friend of Rodrik and the Forrester. I really hate how Telltale pulls this as all punishment and no rewards with the over the top psycho Ramsay. Why would they even let Ramsay in? Why not hide away as he come. Whatever, something. Fucking hate Ramsay and I want to kill him but oh no, Telltalle cannot kill him off or reward us with anything.
Their writing is also linear as any other game, simple illusion that our choices matter when the character you save at one time will die of screen (Nick in TWD) Or die episode after. Same with this game, Useless Glenmoores, all Telltale did was make em look worthless.
More options next time, Telltale, or you might aswell stop giving us a false sense of options. Ramsay is unkillable, Whitehills cannot be killed earlier for other consequences nor can a main person die when they are not supposed to, storywise. I would not expect more from Telltales overrated writing. It is the same in TWD Season 3,A certain character if you let him/her live for example, will die right away or early on if they keep with their old style.
I remember when I first played, I felt somewhat relieved I left him at Ironrath. I figured if he hadn't been there, Ramsay would have flayed Duncan who had stayed behind. Of course this was before I knew that it is Arthur no matter what, I'm still glad I left him because the scene is sort of illogical for Arthur to be with you one moment and then horribly mutilated and flayed less than five minutes later. And woops I just noticed this thread was just necro bumped from the summertime lol.
You're not supposed to do that.
I was gonna discuss something surrounding the traitor. No need to make a new thread.
Oooooh, Arthur being a playable character would be amazing.
Also, I rewound episode 3 just to change my choice about the Glenmore army, as I thought that they were dead by the time you arrive back at Ironrath. Huge disappointment that the same thing happens either way.
Wow the thread title painted an entirely different image for me than what it really turned was about.