Missed Opportunity To Prevent ******* Shooting ******* In The Games Design
So long story short in my second play through the main piece of advice I gave AJ when using a Gun was always save one bullet for yourself. Considering the revolver only had two bullets throughout the episode I made it my mission for him to fire it. However when I finally got to the point where AJ could shoot the stranger I ordered him to do it but choosing that option equals a game over screen...
Not only is that annoying but then in the end I get the screwed up line of AJ saying "what I saved one for myself" after shooting Marlon which sounds very suicidal haha. I can't be the only one that feels like this is a massive missed opportunity for a change based on the choices you make?
Mod edit; removing spoilers from title; original title was about AJ shooting Marlon - InGen
Comments
I agree, I didn't choose the "Save a bullet for yourself" option in the beginning, but I was wondering if this would make a difference-- my AJ said, "What, I aimed for the head," and I'm like you little shitbird, that advice was CLEARLY meant for walkers.
Agree. I think it would have been better if Marlons death was detriment based on the dialogue choices chosen, but telltales gotta get those 'shock' deaths in
I think Telltale finally realized that having a determinant character in the first episode (which is what they’ve done with every walking dead game besides TFS) is a mistake. Having a determinant character right of the bat is a problem because not only do you have to continue to develop an underdeveloped character in episode 2, but only some people will have him. What they should do is build up the characters so when it finally does come to a moment when u must decide who lives/dies, it makes the decision harder and sense it’s farther in the season they don’t have to worry as much about developing the character or keeping him around for 3 more episodes or killing him/her off in a meaningful way.
Telling AJ to shoot Abel is one of the stupidest things anyone can do. Abel is right there, he hears that too. Of course he's gonna kill AJ before AJ shoots and of course he's gonna kill Clem for trying to kill him.
Sorry, adding in the asterisks made it lose context. The thread was referring to AJ shooting Marlon.
Guess you can only hope that telltale utilises their once in a blue moon strategy where they mess around with the choices
It's still a flaw, a game over choice is just lazy
You can't tell a game design is bad by just calling it lazy.
I personally don't mind those types of dialogue options. It makes the player realise that their choices do play a role and that they should be careful in what they say to someone. At least that is how I interpret it
Very true, but if that's the case they shouldn't have tried to make it seem like you could save Marlon by teaching AJ differently
This is "The Final Season" they don't need to worry about these choices carrying over to future games so they clearly have the opportunity to go all out in terms of choice and I think you are clearly missing the whole point why Telltale games quality had been declining to the point they needed to lay off staff. Like look at "The Council" a low budget episodic game which has multiple endings for every single episode. I liked episode 1 but as I mentioned above, this almost clearly set up path to prevent AJ from shooting Marlon.. it is clearly a missed opportunity for more subtle player choice and consequence which is only revealed at the ending.
We need to see as much player choice as possible and more stuff like the Enemy Within's final episode if Telltale want to continue with their current narrative formula.
Was there a determinant character in Ties that Bind Part 1?
Kenny
Doesn't count.
Lonnie.
Lonnie was indeed supposed to be(as far as I can tell), but isn't.
I meant that driver that Javier can shoot or leave after the vehicle crash whatever was his name, sorry my bad.
EDIT: I remembered, it was Rufus.
the ending wouldn't be as good for people who didn't see him get shot plus there would be no cliffhanger for them
Oh yeah! Silly me.
No, but they do need to worry about future episodes. In case you forgot this isn’t a big budget 60$ experience like Detroit, it’s 20 dollars.
This was due to toxic management and workplace. The lay offs we’re done to fix that problem.
The budget for that game still isn’t as small as TWD. The Council also has a heftier price tag. While I haven’t played it myself, I’ve heard from multiple sources and people that the writing isn’t to great, especially in the most recent episode (3 I think).
I loved The Enemy Within. If you go back and play episode one again, you’ll notice that their isn’t a lot of changes that happen from choices. The multiple paths come in the later episodes (mainly 4 and 5). While the enemy within technically had a determinant character in episode 1, it was literally 2(or 3 I forgot) generic agent men who didn’t affect anything later. TFS has more intuitive gameplay segments, a way more unique/better visual appearance, and dare I say better writing/characters then TEW.
Their was in part 2. I really think ANF was planned to be 4 episodes. I mean Ties that bind part 1 and 2 came out at the same time.
Edit: Oh shit forgot about Lonnie. He was a throw away character.
The weird hangup with that theory is Marianna's death.
Now, in the game we got, she getting sniped was lead-in to the final choice at the very end of Part 1. However, she was originally intended to be found having died either sooner or with less screentime(ha) in either the junkyard or the slaughterhouse.
Yeah, pretty much.
Was gonna die in Part 1, but the animation and [unrecorded?] voice clips weren't used despite that still fairly clearly being the intent. And someone went "Hey, remember Lonnie--Max's ward who felt a little bad for Javier in the first episode? Let's bring him back to stab David in the back--when Javier's technically on his side as well!"