Being aggressive towards Sam when you first talk affects her dialogue when Michonne starts seeing her daughters. She'll be more passive-aggressive. Instead of saying "Are you okay? Is there something I can do?" she'll say "You're freaking me out"
While Michonne is hallucinating inside Monroe's store room and creepily looking at a wall, Sam will either say "this is freaking me out. You're freaking me out right now!" or "do you need help? Is… is there something that I can do?" depending on how you have treated her throughout the episode.
Additionally, if you pick the dialogue choice "I'm so sorry!" Sam will reply "It's-- fine!" or "I… I know."
Being aggressive towards Sam when you first talk affects her dialogue when Michonne starts seeing her daughters. She'll be more passive-aggressive. Instead of saying "Are you okay? Is there something I can do?" she'll say "You're freaking me out"
While Michonne is hallucinating inside Monroe's store room and creepily looking at a wall, Sam will either say "this is freaking me out. You… more're freaking me out right now!" or "do you need help? Is… is there something that I can do?" depending on how you have treated her throughout the episode.
Additionally, if you pick the dialogue choice "I'm so sorry!" Sam will reply "It's-- fine!" or "I… I know."
Just a tad late.
But it's great that you notice it too, LOL!
So in Give No Shelter, there's a particular exchange towards the beginning between Norma and Randall that I didn't pay much attention to until recently
Randall: I'll get 'em to talk. Don't worry.
Norma: I have to worry. After last time--
Randall: It won't go down like that. I swear.
Norma: It can't.
This is them talking about trying to get Michonne's group to talk. So what we can gather from this exchange is that something happened that involved another group of people, something that Norma really didn't like. And whatever that 'something' is, Randall likely had something to do with it, given the way he cuts Norma off and "promises" that it won't happen again.
Perhaps they're talking about whatever happened on the ferry? Maybe Norma knew more about the Mobjack than she was letting on, if this little conversation was any indication. Or maybe it's completely unrelated. Who knows? Either way, it's an interesting exchange looking back at it.
@Deltino, you've raised even more questions about the damned ferry situation! I used to keep track about everything that a character has said about it, and posted the list somewhere, but there's an overwhelming amount of vague evidence that you could choose to consider or not to consider.
Seriously though, nice find. This kind of shows that Telltale really thought through everything that is related to the ferry scavengers and such. Makes me wonder why they wouldn't come here and make a post, right?
So in Give No Shelter, there's a particular exchange towards the beginning between Norma and Randall that I didn't pay much attention to unt… moreil recently
Randall: I'll get 'em to talk. Don't worry.
Norma: I have to worry. After last time--
Randall: It won't go down like that. I swear.
Norma: It can't.
This is them talking about trying to get Michonne's group to talk. So what we can gather from this exchange is that something happened that involved another group of people, something that Norma really didn't like. And whatever that 'something' is, Randall likely had something to do with it, given the way he cuts Norma off and "promises" that it won't happen again.
Perhaps they're talking about whatever happened on the ferry? Maybe Norma knew more about the Mobjack than she was letting on, if this little conversation was any indication. Or maybe it's completely unrelated. Who knows? Either way, it's an interesting exchange looking back at it.
You know, I actually payed more attention to that exchange as well. It made me look back to episode 1 of the miniseries. In episode 1 when Michonne gets a chance to talk to Norma about Samantha getting second chances, you have an option to say to her "Did the people on the ferry get a second chance?" When asking her this question, she gets nervous and says "it didn't go down that way!" Then explains what happened on Randall's side of the situation. How she explains Randall's side sound more like a lie, as if she is covering for him. What I was thinking was that Randall really did kill those people on the ferry(because he's crazy), and Norma, knowing how reckless he really is, had to cover for him.
You also notice this in episode 3 when you hold Randall hostage. Over the radio with Norma, you have the option to tell her that Randall killed John. Then Norma will say, something along the lines of "I'll make sure he's sorry," something like that. But I'm getting the same sort of deal here, where she seems to cover for his reckless actions.
So in Give No Shelter, there's a particular exchange towards the beginning between Norma and Randall that I didn't pay much attention to unt… moreil recently
Randall: I'll get 'em to talk. Don't worry.
Norma: I have to worry. After last time--
Randall: It won't go down like that. I swear.
Norma: It can't.
This is them talking about trying to get Michonne's group to talk. So what we can gather from this exchange is that something happened that involved another group of people, something that Norma really didn't like. And whatever that 'something' is, Randall likely had something to do with it, given the way he cuts Norma off and "promises" that it won't happen again.
Perhaps they're talking about whatever happened on the ferry? Maybe Norma knew more about the Mobjack than she was letting on, if this little conversation was any indication. Or maybe it's completely unrelated. Who knows? Either way, it's an interesting exchange looking back at it.
How she explains Randall's side sound more like a lie, as if she is covering for him. What I was thinking was that Randall really did kill those people on the ferry(because he's crazy), and Norma, knowing how reckless he really is, had to cover for him.
First of all, before I forget to, I'll remind you that Randall said that the scavengers had Monroe on their scope and planned to take over. This doesn't necessarily exclude Sam and Norma's versions of the story. By the way, this isn't directed at you in particular, just as a general reminder for anyone reading.
Now, Samantha did say that Randall was with "his whole crew" when he committed the scavenger massacre on the ferry. I am assuming that his crew were Gabby, Zachary and Cam, since we see the four of them together yet again in "In Too Deep." If Norma had to cover the murder from the rest of the colonists, then she also had to convince these three not to say anything, right?
This is proven to be especially conflicting, since Zachary would either have to lie to Jonas, or Jonas would have to lie to other colonists. And Gabby would have to keep quiet too, when her facial expressions in regard to Norma's lack of acknowledge toward her in the first episode suggest that they aren't particularly best buds, and in "Give No Shelter" she even flat-out says that she would lie to Norma if she killed Michonne. In "What We Deserve," she also disregards Norma's orders and Randall's potential death. Gabby, however, was seen accompanying Randall on multiple occasions, as her right hand woman. That leads us to the question—why would she have a generally bad relationship with them and also cover up the Mobjack massacre? Perhaps, did her relationship with the siblings worsen after this incident, because she was forced to lie?
You know, I actually payed more attention to that exchange as well. It made me look back to episode 1 of the miniseries. In episode 1 when M… moreichonne gets a chance to talk to Norma about Samantha getting second chances, you have an option to say to her "Did the people on the ferry get a second chance?" When asking her this question, she gets nervous and says "it didn't go down that way!" Then explains what happened on Randall's side of the situation. How she explains Randall's side sound more like a lie, as if she is covering for him. What I was thinking was that Randall really did kill those people on the ferry(because he's crazy), and Norma, knowing how reckless he really is, had to cover for him.
You also notice this in episode 3 when you hold Randall hostage. Over the radio with Norma, you have the option to tell her that Randall killed John. Then Norma will say, something along the lines of "I'll make sure he's sorry," something like th… [view original content]
If Norma had to cover the murder from the rest of the colonists, then she also had to convince these three not to say anything, right?
True, she could have convinced them to both: not speak of the incident, and to disregard Randall's action. Maybe cover wasn't the right word. What I was trying to say was that Norma knew of what he did on the ferry (whether he killed those people intentionally, which is the theory that I proposed) and...hm..I guess I could say, she let Randall get away with it, as did the other colonist, if that makes sense to you? Like, I'm trying to say she knows how crazy he is, but she lets him get away with his actions. Another example being in episode 3 is if you decide to keep Randall alive and hand him over to Norma. Once Norma unties him outside of the gate, Randall charges at Michonne and tries to choke her. Norma doesn't try to stop him at all here, but the minute Michonne shoots him to defend herself, Norma orders her colonist to kill Michonne and her crew. Randall here could have killed Michonne in this scene and Norma would have let him get away with it.
How she explains Randall's side sound more like a lie, as if she is covering for him. What I was thinking was that Randall really did kill t… morehose people on the ferry(because he's crazy), and Norma, knowing how reckless he really is, had to cover for him.
First of all, before I forget to, I'll remind you that Randall said that the scavengers had Monroe on their scope and planned to take over. This doesn't necessarily exclude Sam and Norma's versions of the story. By the way, this isn't directed at you in particular, just as a general reminder for anyone reading.
Now, Samantha did say that Randall was with "his whole crew" when he committed the scavenger massacre on the ferry. I am assuming that his crew were Gabby, Zachary and Cam, since we see the four of them together yet again in "In Too Deep." If Norma had to cover the murder from the rest of the colonists, then she also had to convince these three not to say anything, right?
… [view original content]
Something really interesting to point out. I can't tell if this was an actual hint or just a joke, but in this video, Job mentions that in Walking Dead Season 1 Episode 3, Telltale included Duck's Batman/Robin joke with Lee at the Motor Inn as a hint to players that they knew were working on a Batman game and "Telltale had been waiting since then."
Partially, yes. It is like Randall carried out the massacre without Norma knowing, or even against her orders, but she opted to put it aside rather than, I don't know, exile him from the colony. Although, it is important to note that she appears shocked nonetheless when Randall charges at Michonne. She didn't do anything to separate them, though, but everyone—on both sides—was busy dealing with walkers, so I see why she would cease to act. Do you have any idea about what Norma was thinking?
You have a great point!
If Norma had to cover the murder from the rest of the colonists, then she also had to convince these three not… more to say anything, right?
True, she could have convinced them to both: not speak of the incident, and to disregard Randall's action. Maybe cover wasn't the right word. What I was trying to say was that Norma knew of what he did on the ferry (whether he killed those people intentionally, which is the theory that I proposed) and...hm..I guess I could say, she let Randall get away with it, as did the other colonist, if that makes sense to you? Like, I'm trying to say she knows how crazy he is, but she lets him get away with his actions. Another example being in episode 3 is if you decide to keep Randall alive and hand him over to Norma. Once Norma unties him outside of the gate, Randall charges at Michonne and tries to choke her. Norma doesn't try to stop him at all here, but the minute Michonne shoot… [view original content]
Do you have any idea about what Norma was thinking?
probably like "He's at it again.." XD
But in all honesty, I don't know. She did appear shocked, but what do you think would have happened if she let Randall kill Michonne there?
but she opted to put it aside rather than, I don't know, exile him from the colony.
That is true, if it were anybody else in her colony, then she would have exile them, but since it's her brother she sort of....gives him another chance.
If you think about it, she could be kind of hypocritical: she claims that people don't deserve a third chance, yet she gives her brother more chances than he deserves(killing John, (possibly) killing people on the ferry, etc.(because I'm sure he's done more than that). Or this could be irony.
Partially, yes. It is like Randall carried out the massacre without Norma knowing, or even against her orders, but she opted to put it aside… more rather than, I don't know, exile him from the colony. Although, it is important to note that she appears shocked nonetheless when Randall charges at Michonne. She didn't do anything to separate them, though, but everyone—on both sides—was busy dealing with walkers, so I see why she would cease to act. Do you have any idea about what Norma was thinking?
enter link description here
Something really interesting to point out. I can't tell if this was an actual hint or just a joke, but in thi… mores video, Job mentions that in Walking Dead Season 1 Episode 3, Telltale included Duck's Batman/Robin joke with Lee at the Motor Inn as a hint to players that they knew were working on a Batman game and "Telltale had been waiting since then."
The hatchet that Clementine has in season 2 was Lee's hatchet that he left behind in Crawford. You can also see the hatchet in 400 days when you play as Shel.
Kenny was supposedly planned to be the antagonist character for the second season. Gavin Hammon revealed this during his OMG!Con 2015 Q&A Panel alongside Melissa Hutchinson. He said that Kenny was supposed to be the leader of the community Luke and the cabin survivors fled from, but this idea was scrapped in favor of creating an antagonist in Carver.
Here's a thing people are missing.
CLEMENTINE IS 14 AND JAVIAR IS OBVIOUSLY IN HIS 20'S. STOP SHIPPING THEM YOU PERVERTS! Just because it's the apocalypse doesn't mean it's not pervy for an adult to have a romantic interest in a minor.
Here's a thing people are missing.
CLEMENTINE IS 14 AND JAVIAR IS OBVIOUSLY IN HIS 20'S. STOP SHIPPING THEM YOU PERVERTS! Just because it's the apocalypse doesn't mean it's not pervy for an adult to have a romantic interest in a minor.
Here's a thing people are missing.
CLEMENTINE IS 14 AND JAVIAR IS OBVIOUSLY IN HIS 20'S. STOP SHIPPING THEM YOU PERVERTS! Just because it's the apocalypse doesn't mean it's not pervy for an adult to have a romantic interest in a minor.
I don't think that Norma consciously decided to give Randall a second chance, but more like, ah, crap. I'm gonna go talk to him now, because in all honesty, I can't see her punishing his brother, let alone banning him from living at Monroe.
But in all honesty, I don't know. She did appear shocked, but what do you think would have happened if she let Randall kill Michonne there?
Technically, she didn't do anything to stop the fight. But I figure that if Randall managed to kill Michonne, Pete would shoot and kill him, and then be killed by Norma, Rich, or Janey. Then everyone would've moved into the house and probably massacre the Fairbanks and the remaining crew of The Companion, seeing that Gabby or Jonas, and Randall, were already dead. Perhaps they'd even take the house over as their new base, as Samantha predicted.
Do you have any idea about what Norma was thinking?
probably like "He's at it again.." XD
But in all honesty, I don't know. She d… moreid appear shocked, but what do you think would have happened if she let Randall kill Michonne there?
but she opted to put it aside rather than, I don't know, exile him from the colony.
That is true, if it were anybody else in her colony, then she would have exile them, but since it's her brother she sort of....gives him another chance.
If you think about it, she could be kind of hypocritical: she claims that people don't deserve a third chance, yet she gives her brother more chances than he deserves(killing John, (possibly) killing people on the ferry, etc.(because I'm sure he's done more than that). Or this could be irony.
Here's a thing people are missing.
CLEMENTINE IS 14 AND JAVIAR IS OBVIOUSLY IN HIS 20'S. STOP SHIPPING THEM YOU PERVERTS! Just because it's the apocalypse doesn't mean it's not pervy for an adult to have a romantic interest in a minor.
because in all honesty, I can't see her punishing his brother, let alone banning him from living at Monroe.
As punishment, she shouldn't ban him, but she should at least take the freaking gun away from Randall. I mean, you'd think she'd do that to prevent any more trouble coming from his end. And yeah, that's a good theory for what would have happened if Michonne was killed.
I don't think that Norma consciously decided to give Randall a second chance, but more like, ah, crap. I'm gonna go talk to him now, because… more in all honesty, I can't see her punishing his brother, let alone banning him from living at Monroe.
But in all honesty, I don't know. She did appear shocked, but what do you think would have happened if she let Randall kill Michonne there?
Technically, she didn't do anything to stop the fight. But I figure that if Randall managed to kill Michonne, Pete would shoot and kill him, and then be killed by Norma, Rich, or Janey. Then everyone would've moved into the house and probably massacre the Fairbanks and the remaining crew of The Companion, seeing that Gabby or Jonas, and Randall, were already dead. Perhaps they'd even take the house over as their new base, as Samantha predicted.
This two character dynamic between Clem and Javier is something we've really wanted to hone in on and makesuper special, and you're going to be playing as two characters that have some common goals, and common enemies, but they might not always see things the same way. Role playing as both at the same time and having both learn from each other.
enter link description here
Something really interesting to point out. I can't tell if this was an actual hint or just a joke, but in thi… mores video, Job mentions that in Walking Dead Season 1 Episode 3, Telltale included Duck's Batman/Robin joke with Lee at the Motor Inn as a hint to players that they knew were working on a Batman game and "Telltale had been waiting since then."
…Now I'll surprise attack you and ask, if the last choice of the game determined whether Clementine or Javier lives—which is what I predict—what would you do?
This two character dynamic between Clem and Javier is something we've really wanted to hone in on and make super special, and you're going t… moreo be playing as two characters that have some common goals, and common enemies, but they might not always see things the same way. Role playing as both at the same time and having both learn from each other.
@ABigBadWolf
Wolf, tie to me a chair and keep me away from this game, I beg of you. I won't be able to control myself! They're playing on my weaknesses!
I am so sorry, Lilacsbloom.
…Now I'll surprise attack you and ask, if the last choice of the game determined whether Clementine or Javier lives—which is what I predict—what would you do?
It would not work just by saying it, yes. But I believe that the context and situation can be conditioned in a way that it prompts people to think the decision rather than instantly saving Clementine. I will explain it shortly below, hopefully in a way that isn't too confusing.
Let's say Clementine, Javier, and other characters are trapped in an overrun building together with some of the antagonists. We play as Clementine as she hacks down walkers left and right, while also avoiding any possible encounter with an antagonist. At some point, she looks aside, and Javier is being pinned down by a large walker, and have them be a reanimated antagonist for dramatic purposes. Now we see everything in slow motion. Clementine looks behind her, and one of the major antagonists is about to go off with an assault rifle, with a walker soon to take a chomp out of their shoulder. Looking aside again, a second walker is heading for Javier, so he doesn't have much time before he is devoured.
[RUN AWAY] [HELP JAVIER]
Clementine can either head for Javier and kill the two walkers, but she will be gunned to death with an assault rifle, and the antagonist will be devoured. Or she can make a break for the outside of the building, and will make it in time before being shot, but Javier, and the antagonist, will be devoured.
We'd have to make AJ fit in and make the scene more tense.
I am writing this off the top of my head as I go along.
And I'll totally read that book. J-Just in case, you know?
It won't, because Clementine and Javier will have read this book, and would've averted such decision making doom to begin with:
Anyways, it wouldn't work. Everybody would go for Clementine.
Comments
Being aggressive towards Sam when you first talk affects her dialogue when Michonne starts seeing her daughters. She'll be more passive-aggressive. Instead of saying "Are you okay? Is there something I can do?" she'll say "You're freaking me out"
Just a tad late.
But it's great that you notice it too, LOL!
That's a huge spoiler compared to the Glenn one.
He didn't have the spanish accent, so either he has been on the USA for the whole apocalypse or just got that shirt from a store or something :P
Man... I went through all the comments I hadn't read and somehow still missed yours.
Omit has a cat....
...who is a member of this forum @1367283
There's a Star Wars reference in "Around Every Corner"
Lando said the same thing to Han about the Millennium Falcon in "Return of the Jedi".
Maybe he is Cuban? or Half Cuban?
So in Give No Shelter, there's a particular exchange towards the beginning between Norma and Randall that I didn't pay much attention to until recently
This is them talking about trying to get Michonne's group to talk. So what we can gather from this exchange is that something happened that involved another group of people, something that Norma really didn't like. And whatever that 'something' is, Randall likely had something to do with it, given the way he cuts Norma off and "promises" that it won't happen again.
Perhaps they're talking about whatever happened on the ferry? Maybe Norma knew more about the Mobjack than she was letting on, if this little conversation was any indication. Or maybe it's completely unrelated. Who knows? Either way, it's an interesting exchange looking back at it.
Rip Omid's cat.
In the trailer Clem is missing a finger and the walker has a marking that Javier has, also AJ is missing
I wonder why he was banned
@Deltino, you've raised even more questions about the damned ferry situation! I used to keep track about everything that a character has said about it, and posted the list somewhere, but there's an overwhelming amount of vague evidence that you could choose to consider or not to consider.
Seriously though, nice find. This kind of shows that Telltale really thought through everything that is related to the ferry scavengers and such. Makes me wonder why they wouldn't come here and make a post, right?
@emilybuckshot… @puzzlebox… [insert Job's username here]
I think Javier is left handed. You can tell by how he's holding the shotgun.
You know, I actually payed more attention to that exchange as well. It made me look back to episode 1 of the miniseries. In episode 1 when Michonne gets a chance to talk to Norma about Samantha getting second chances, you have an option to say to her "Did the people on the ferry get a second chance?" When asking her this question, she gets nervous and says "it didn't go down that way!" Then explains what happened on Randall's side of the situation. How she explains Randall's side sound more like a lie, as if she is covering for him. What I was thinking was that Randall really did kill those people on the ferry(because he's crazy), and Norma, knowing how reckless he really is, had to cover for him.
You also notice this in episode 3 when you hold Randall hostage. Over the radio with Norma, you have the option to tell her that Randall killed John. Then Norma will say, something along the lines of "I'll make sure he's sorry," something like that. But I'm getting the same sort of deal here, where she seems to cover for his reckless actions.
This was just something that I noticed. ^^
AJ is obviously not there because you usually don't take babies on rescue missions. I'm sure he's fine with someone else.
First of all, before I forget to, I'll remind you that Randall said that the scavengers had Monroe on their scope and planned to take over. This doesn't necessarily exclude Sam and Norma's versions of the story. By the way, this isn't directed at you in particular, just as a general reminder for anyone reading.
Now, Samantha did say that Randall was with "his whole crew" when he committed the scavenger massacre on the ferry. I am assuming that his crew were Gabby, Zachary and Cam, since we see the four of them together yet again in "In Too Deep." If Norma had to cover the murder from the rest of the colonists, then she also had to convince these three not to say anything, right?
This is proven to be especially conflicting, since Zachary would either have to lie to Jonas, or Jonas would have to lie to other colonists. And Gabby would have to keep quiet too, when her facial expressions in regard to Norma's lack of acknowledge toward her in the first episode suggest that they aren't particularly best buds, and in "Give No Shelter" she even flat-out says that she would lie to Norma if she killed Michonne. In "What We Deserve," she also disregards Norma's orders and Randall's potential death. Gabby, however, was seen accompanying Randall on multiple occasions, as her right hand woman. That leads us to the question—why would she have a generally bad relationship with them and also cover up the Mobjack massacre? Perhaps, did her relationship with the siblings worsen after this incident, because she was forced to lie?
You have a great point!
True, she could have convinced them to both: not speak of the incident, and to disregard Randall's action. Maybe cover wasn't the right word. What I was trying to say was that Norma knew of what he did on the ferry (whether he killed those people intentionally, which is the theory that I proposed) and...hm..I guess I could say, she let Randall get away with it, as did the other colonist, if that makes sense to you? Like, I'm trying to say she knows how crazy he is, but she lets him get away with his actions. Another example being in episode 3 is if you decide to keep Randall alive and hand him over to Norma. Once Norma unties him outside of the gate, Randall charges at Michonne and tries to choke her. Norma doesn't try to stop him at all here, but the minute Michonne shoots him to defend herself, Norma orders her colonist to kill Michonne and her crew. Randall here could have killed Michonne in this scene and Norma would have let him get away with it.
Does this make a little more sense?
enter link description here
Something really interesting to point out. I can't tell if this was an actual hint or just a joke, but in this video, Job mentions that in Walking Dead Season 1 Episode 3, Telltale included Duck's Batman/Robin joke with Lee at the Motor Inn as a hint to players that they knew were working on a Batman game and "Telltale had been waiting since then."
Partially, yes. It is like Randall carried out the massacre without Norma knowing, or even against her orders, but she opted to put it aside rather than, I don't know, exile him from the colony. Although, it is important to note that she appears shocked nonetheless when Randall charges at Michonne. She didn't do anything to separate them, though, but everyone—on both sides—was busy dealing with walkers, so I see why she would cease to act. Do you have any idea about what Norma was thinking?
probably like "He's at it again.." XD
But in all honesty, I don't know. She did appear shocked, but what do you think would have happened if she let Randall kill Michonne there?
That is true, if it were anybody else in her colony, then she would have exile them, but since it's her brother she sort of....gives him another chance.
If you think about it, she could be kind of hypocritical: she claims that people don't deserve a third chance, yet she gives her brother more chances than he deserves(killing John, (possibly) killing people on the ferry, etc.(because I'm sure he's done more than that). Or this could be irony.
Ooh, I didn't catch that, nice one
That made me wonder whether there are more hints like that hidden in the episodes. If I am not taking a joke more seriously than I should, it is.
The hatchet that Clementine has in season 2 was Lee's hatchet that he left behind in Crawford. You can also see the hatchet in 400 days when you play as Shel.
Kenny was supposedly planned to be the antagonist character for the second season. Gavin Hammon revealed this during his OMG!Con 2015 Q&A Panel alongside Melissa Hutchinson. He said that Kenny was supposed to be the leader of the community Luke and the cabin survivors fled from, but this idea was scrapped in favor of creating an antagonist in Carver.
Here's a thing people are missing.
CLEMENTINE IS 14 AND JAVIAR IS OBVIOUSLY IN HIS 20'S. STOP SHIPPING THEM YOU PERVERTS! Just because it's the apocalypse doesn't mean it's not pervy for an adult to have a romantic interest in a minor.
IKR!!!
Then who is Aj with?
Someone we haven't met yet. Clem and Javier might be part of a larger group.
Agreed! if anything he is a brother type figure. Some people's minds are in bizarre land.
I don't think that Norma consciously decided to give Randall a second chance, but more like, ah, crap. I'm gonna go talk to him now, because in all honesty, I can't see her punishing his brother, let alone banning him from living at Monroe.
Technically, she didn't do anything to stop the fight. But I figure that if Randall managed to kill Michonne, Pete would shoot and kill him, and then be killed by Norma, Rich, or Janey. Then everyone would've moved into the house and probably massacre the Fairbanks and the remaining crew of The Companion, seeing that Gabby or Jonas, and Randall, were already dead. Perhaps they'd even take the house over as their new base, as Samantha predicted.
[removed]
Well sure, if you're into little children.
Some people are and that's disturbing. But what can we do?
As punishment, she shouldn't ban him, but she should at least take the freaking gun away from Randall. I mean, you'd think she'd do that to prevent any more trouble coming from his end. And yeah, that's a good theory for what would have happened if Michonne was killed.
This two character dynamic between Clem and Javier is something we've really wanted to hone in on and make super special, and you're going to be playing as two characters that have some common goals, and common enemies, but they might not always see things the same way. Role playing as both at the same time and having both learn from each other.
@ABigBadWolf
Wolf, tie to me a chair and keep me away from this game, I beg of you. I won't be able to control myself! They're playing on my weaknesses!
I am so sorry, Lilacsbloom.
…Now I'll surprise attack you and ask, if the last choice of the game determined whether Clementine or Javier lives—which is what I predict—what would you do?
It won't, because Clementine and Javier will have read this book, and would've averted such decision making doom to begin with:
Anyways, it wouldn't work. Everybody would go for Clementine.
It would not work just by saying it, yes. But I believe that the context and situation can be conditioned in a way that it prompts people to think the decision rather than instantly saving Clementine. I will explain it shortly below, hopefully in a way that isn't too confusing.
Let's say Clementine, Javier, and other characters are trapped in an overrun building together with some of the antagonists. We play as Clementine as she hacks down walkers left and right, while also avoiding any possible encounter with an antagonist. At some point, she looks aside, and Javier is being pinned down by a large walker, and have them be a reanimated antagonist for dramatic purposes. Now we see everything in slow motion. Clementine looks behind her, and one of the major antagonists is about to go off with an assault rifle, with a walker soon to take a chomp out of their shoulder. Looking aside again, a second walker is heading for Javier, so he doesn't have much time before he is devoured.
[RUN AWAY] [HELP JAVIER]
Clementine can either head for Javier and kill the two walkers, but she will be gunned to death with an assault rifle, and the antagonist will be devoured. Or she can make a break for the outside of the building, and will make it in time before being shot, but Javier, and the antagonist, will be devoured.
We'd have to make AJ fit in and make the scene more tense.
I am writing this off the top of my head as I go along.
And I'll totally read that book. J-Just in case, you know?