The player IS the leader. Just not the way you like. You're leading Clem. You're in control of her. I don't need to be the leader of a group to have an impact on how things happen. That would be like no one except that one guy who's the leader can change the course of things. Half-Life is quite a different kind of game, isnt it? I don't doubt TTG will have enough quiet moments where you can explore with Clem without someone nagging you. Lee couldn't alwas explore, could he? The game forced him to do stuff in a timely manner as well, in certain situations.
@TheMissus: As I am one of the sceptics regarding Clem as PC, I like the thinking of being her "inner voice" instead of her "controller". Makes it easier for me to accept that decision.
Two points here. First and foremost, the reason the player (aka the protagonist) should always be the leader is because of control: the player… more should always feel like s/he is the one in control of what's happening. One example here is Alyx Vance of Half-Life 2 fame. She was originally made as quite pushy, always wanting Freeman (aka the player) to hurry up. This was NOT appreciated by the test players who wanted to explore the world at their own pace, and thus she was remade as a follower instead of a leader.
A player always lead, otherwise its railroading. And in TWD, Lee (aka the player) led - you could take your time exploring stuff until you were ready to move on. Case in point: After the crash which set off Lee's adventure, you (aka Lee) could stand behind the car and shout at the dead cop for hours, and nothing would happen. When you actually did move forward, stuff happened because you were in control and had actually taken that decisio… [view original content]
Assuming that's Kenny in the photo, Clem could be regarding him suspiciously because he's half-crazed. After losing his family and almost bein… moreg eaten alive, I'd be surprised if Kenny wasn't a little...off. Maybe Clem is overjoyed upon seeing one other survivor besides herself from S1, only to find out Kenny's missing a few of his marbles, hence the look on her face.
Then again, it could be a different character altogether.
One other possible alternative I saw for season 2 was the player taking control of Kenny, and subsequently searching for Clementine. That way, Clem wouldn't have become a recurring presence in the episodes, and the player would be lead on by the mystery of what happened to her following the post-credits sequence. (Think Willard pursuing Colonel Kurtz in APOCALYPSE NOW.)
That being said, I agree turning Clem herself into the new PC was the only other scenario that could really work.
Let's all just sit back, take a breath, and realize that playing as Clementine was the only way this was going to pan out. Because if we play… moreed as yet another surrogate mother or father figure to Clementine, two things were going to happen.
The first is that it would trivialize Lee. If we become someone who once again has to guide Clem through an undead minefield, then Lee Everett becomes a man who is incomplete; his goal of either trying to preserve or strip away Clementine's principles in the face of certain death passed on to someone else after his demise. Lee Everett was a dynamite character, and having him function as a stepping stone to another protagonist would do him a disservice. Plus, having another protagonist would add a degree of removal. This way, WE have to be the people that Lee hoped Clementine would be. WE have to be as good as our words.
The second, and more practical outcome, is that if we have to keep guiding ad r… [view original content]
What?! Did you play the game? Maybe you were choosing silence option every time. I didn't.
I made choices, and they felt important, but I wasn't the group's leader. Like I said, you can interject your opinion, saying you don't want to go to the dairy, or you don't want to take from the RV, or you don't want to leave the motor inn to look for a boat. But in the end, you stay with the group's lead out of necessity and circumstance.
-Some other choices that felt meaningful to me were ones like the meat-locker decision, choosing Danny's fate, deciding who to tell your secret to, deciding the issue with your arm, etc. Those were all choices I made as a member of the group, as someone who was in the right place and right time, but not as a leader.
"I don't think Lee made too many decisions as an acting leader"?
What?! Did you play the game? Maybe you were choosing silence option every time. I didn't.
One other possible alternative I saw for season 2 was the player taking control of Kenny, and subsequently searching for Clementine. That way,… more Clem wouldn't have become a recurring presence in the episodes, and the player would be lead on by the mystery of what happened to her following the post-credits sequence. (Think Willard pursuing Colonel Kurtz in APOCALYPSE NOW.)
That being said, I agree turning Clem herself into the new PC was the only other scenario that could really work.
I was surprised and nervous when they announced Clementine would be the new protagonist. I initially thought that it would be hard to imagine her as Clem because the little girl we protected in season 2 was predictable (in the sense she would always choose the morally correct option). That's going to change in this season.
I'm on board with the idea now though. This isn't a game about being able to plow through walkers, this is a game about character development. It's been a long time since we've seen Clementine. She has probably been through a lot, and that will have made her much less innocent. She is probably a capable survivor by now, but if she faces too many walkers at any given time, that might be it for her. You will probably have to develop friendships (at best) and uneasy alliances (most of the time) in order to survive. The prospect of surviving without relying much on physical strength is so thing unique. I haven't seen many other games try it.
Anyways, I have faith in telltale to make an amazing game.
Clem ? Why not ?
I'll have a tough time identifying with her, but I think we do need more female protagonists in games and movies.
I only hope that the plot has more to offer than running from zombie attacks,
especially now that we already know Clem's past and a possible romance between the protagonist and
someone else is not an option with her in that role (she's 9 years old).
Let's see what Telltale Games has in store for us.
Lee was important group member. As Lee Everett you decide about peoples fates - Duck, Shawn, Doug, Carley, Lilly, Ben. Sometimes situation gets out of control (script) but you choose anyway. Everybody cares about your opinion. Now, how 10 year old girl would convince Ken to stop the train, beat Andy, or decide who should eat today? It's something different.
What?! Did you play the game? Maybe you were choosing silence option every time. I didn't.
I made choices, and they felt important, bu… moret I wasn't the group's leader. Like I said, you can interject your opinion, saying you don't want to go to the dairy, or you don't want to take from the RV, or you don't want to leave the motor inn to look for a boat. But in the end, you stay with the group's lead out of necessity and circumstance.
-Some other choices that felt meaningful to me were ones like the meat-locker decision, choosing Danny's fate, deciding who to tell your secret to, deciding the issue with your arm, etc. Those were all choices I made as a member of the group, as someone who was in the right place and right time, but not as a leader.
She not innocent no more, she saw Lee and her mom and die. I would be unrealistic for her to be the same girl in season 1. Sad people don't understand character development.
I was surprised and nervous when they announced Clementine would be the new protagonist. I initially thought that it would be hard to imagine … moreher as Clem because the little girl we protected in season 2 was predictable (in the sense she would always choose the morally correct option). That's going to change in this season.
I'm on board with the idea now though. This isn't a game about being able to plow through walkers, this is a game about character development. It's been a long time since we've seen Clementine. She has probably been through a lot, and that will have made her much less innocent. She is probably a capable survivor by now, but if she faces too many walkers at any given time, that might be it for her. You will probably have to develop friendships (at best) and uneasy alliances (most of the time) in order to survive. The prospect of surviving without relying much on physical strength is so thing unique. I haven't seen many other games try it.
Anyways, I have faith in telltale to make an amazing game.
Lets face it the only real way this could have been perfect was to continue as Lee but that's obviously impossible. I am sceptical about playing as a child as adults will treat her differently. However I'm wondering if we may not play as just her ... just a theory.
It is something different. It's a new idea, but that doesn't automatically make it bad. Regardless of how Lee handled different situations Clementine won't be going through the exact same circumstances that he did.
At this point we don't know what kind of people Clementine will be interacting with and how, but I'm not going to preemptively condemn it just because some people think that they should be playing a leadership position, or another Lee.
Lee was important group member. As Lee Everett you decide about peoples fates - Duck, Shawn, Doug, Carley, Lilly, Ben. Sometimes situation get… mores out of control (script) but you choose anyway. Everybody cares about your opinion. Now, how 10 year old girl would convince Ken to stop the train, beat Andy, or decide who should eat today? It's something different.
I'm not crazy about playing as Clem in Season 2. I'd hoped it was going to be someone new, or even one of the 400 Days crew. Still, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt because Season 1 was so good. Plus, I still have to find out what happened to Christa, Omid, Kenny, and the 400 Days guys who went with Tavia.
I'm not going to claim to read every single post in every single thread, but I haven't ignored the posts from threads I've read and posted in. Alot of users like Clem so I thought they would be pleased. Yeah she's young but she's not your average little girl, she's smart and been forced to grow up so I doubt the dialogue and the scenarios are going to be looked at with rose tinted glasses. Clem's been through a lot and really it was the only way to continue the story and I'm sure there will be pro's and cons in being a child and seeing things through their eyes.
There is no collective "we" who need more female protagonists.
I'm certainly not against it, and on the contrary, have throughout my gamer career enjoyed playing many female characters (Zanthia from Kyrandia, Grace Nakimura from Gabriel Knight immediately come to my nostalgic mind), but I don't want (even less need) female protagonists just for the sake of them being female.
Clem ? Why not ?
I'll have a tough time identifying with her, but I think we do need more female protagonists in games and movies.
I only … morehope that the plot has more to offer than running from zombie attacks,
especially now that we already know Clem's past and a possible romance between the protagonist and
someone else is not an option with her in that role (she's 9 years old).
Let's see what Telltale Games has in store for us.
I dunno, I've always liked him, even if he was an ass sometimes, he was just trying to do what he had to. But I know that on some commnity in France, he's still pretty much hated. It's the internet though.
I just hope we don't get a new wannabe Lee. Been there done that. If they wanted her to have a step father to care for her. They should have kept Lee. Why make something great like Lee and Clem father and child love, replace it so fast.
Lets face it the only real way this could have been perfect was to continue as Lee but that's obviously impossible. I am sceptical about playi… moreng as a child as adults will treat her differently. However I'm wondering if we may not play as just her ... just a theory.
To clarify on my last comment, the most important thing I wanted to see in season 2 was how Clem would be affected by Lee's decisions in S1. Now that we're playing as her, I don't see this happening. I feel like I'd be making the choices that I'd want S1 Clem to make, not necessarily making the same decisions that I would.
In season 1, you could pretty much make Lee an asshole, and it would paint him as part of his personality. Since Clementine already has a defined personality, I find it hard to see her making choices that she wouldn't in season 2.
I'm going to see how this plays out. Hey, Telltale got Bigby's character spot-on with the canon of the comics, so I'm still hoping that Telltale will get Clem's character right in S2 in relation to her PC role.
the most important thing I wanted to see in season 2 was how Clem would be affected by Lee's decisions in S1
Exactly. I kinda feel 'robbed' of my decisions... To think that by the end of the game, I chose every word so carefully because I already felt responsible for her in season 2... Until the final scene I was like "what's the most important advice to tell her ? Oh my god, oh my god, I don't want her to make a dumb move in next season".
Now it just seems it was useless, and I wonder what are those decisions from s1 that will have consequences in s2. I hope it will not just be about some cutscenes of Clementine having memories whose content vary depending on s1 playthrough...
I will give Telltale the benefit of the doubt for s2, because they're so f-ing talented and excellent at making awesome games, but I have a hard time getting over this decision of making Clem the pc. I feel like I raised a kid my best and will never know if she'd have done good by herself as an independent person.
To clarify on my last comment, the most important thing I wanted to see in season 2 was how Clem would be affected by Lee's decisions in S1. N… moreow that we're playing as her, I don't see this happening. I feel like I'd be making the choices that I'd want S1 Clem to make, not necessarily making the same decisions that I would.
In season 1, you could pretty much make Lee an asshole, and it would paint him as part of his personality. Since Clementine already has a defined personality, I find it hard to see her making choices that she wouldn't in season 2.
I'm going to see how this plays out. Hey, Telltale got Bigby's character spot-on with the canon of the comics, so I'm still hoping that Telltale will get Clem's character right in S2 in relation to her PC role.
Im not sure if telltales outstanding writing is enough to do justice to what the TWD universe stands for (gritty, realistic, brutal, non forgiving,zombie apocalypse) when their protagonist might be forcing them to stick to the the interactions of a 10 year old girl.
I mean, just try picturing clem cutting the proffesor's leg in S1 Ep 2, it just seems wrong and sadly i was hoping for more of those choices in S2.
Maybe we'll be playing as several characters throught the season.
To clarify on my last comment, the most important thing I wanted to see in season 2 was how Clem would be affected by Lee's decisions in S1. N… moreow that we're playing as her, I don't see this happening. I feel like I'd be making the choices that I'd want S1 Clem to make, not necessarily making the same decisions that I would.
In season 1, you could pretty much make Lee an asshole, and it would paint him as part of his personality. Since Clementine already has a defined personality, I find it hard to see her making choices that she wouldn't in season 2.
I'm going to see how this plays out. Hey, Telltale got Bigby's character spot-on with the canon of the comics, so I'm still hoping that Telltale will get Clem's character right in S2 in relation to her PC role.
Im not sure if telltales outstanding writing is enough to do justice to what the TWD universe stands for (gritty, realistic, brutal, non forgi… moreving,zombie apocalypse) when their protagonist might be forcing them to stick to the the interactions of a 10 year old girl.
I mean, just try picturing clem cutting the proffesor's leg in S1 Ep 2, it just seems wrong and sadly i was hoping for more of those choices in S2.
Maybe we'll be playing as several characters throught the season.
As the main player character, it's important that Clementine is able to perform what might be seen as an immoral action without it seeming out-of-character. But given how strong her morals were in Season 1, I find it difficult to imagine her engaging in morally questionable actions in Season 2 without it seeming unnatural. But I think there might be a way to deal with this.
In Season 1, you were playing as Lee and, knowing pretty much nothing about the game, you went into it with a more-or-less survivor mentality. Zombie apocalypse. All the rules are out. Prioritize survival above all else. That was your mindset at first. But then you met Clementine and she began to complicate things by serving as your "moral compass." You wanted to protect her innocence from the harshness of the world so you had to listen to her and balance what Lee knew was the smart thing to do with what Clementine thought was the right thing to do. That was one of the main tensions in the game. Without her, I'm betting that a lot of players would have chosen to do the morally questionable actions more often than they did.
Now, in Season 2, you're playing as Clementine, a character whom you know has very strong moral fiber. So if you play her according to how she was in Season 1, you'll tend to prioritize morality over pragmatism. This mindset somewhat limits the range of choices you'll make. That is, unless Clementine has a person in her group who does the opposite of what she did for Lee in Season 1. Someone who might push her towards more morally questionable, but extremely practical choices, acting as her "pragmatic compass" if you will. To ensure that Clementine has a reason to listen to him/her, this person would probably be an extremely capable survivor who's nice and friendly to Clem but just tries to convince her to "do the smart thing" in difficult scenarios to keep her alive. Basically, Lee, with more of a survival streak or Joel from The Last of Us. This way, the tension between doing the smart thing and doing the right thing will be maintained from Season 1, but flipped around and it would make sense for Clementine to follow her "pragmatic compass" and choose the smart option over the right option.
That could work. But it would be hard to do right. The guy could easily just come off as a complete asshole, so you would need to see both sides of him. He would have to be shown making morally positive choices that benefit people other than just Clem at some point or another.
I dunno. It's an interesting idea, and I'm sure some characters will be more pragmatic than Clem, but there might be a character like you talked about.
As the main player character, it's important that Clementine is able to perform what might be seen as an immoral action without it seeming out… more-of-character. But given how strong her morals were in Season 1, I find it difficult to imagine her engaging in morally questionable actions in Season 2 without it seeming unnatural. But I think there might be a way to deal with this.
In Season 1, you were playing as Lee and, knowing pretty much nothing about the game, you went into it with a more-or-less survivor mentality. Zombie apocalypse. All the rules are out. Prioritize survival above all else. That was your mindset at first. But then you met Clementine and she began to complicate things by serving as your "moral compass." You wanted to protect her innocence from the harshness of the world so you had to listen to her and balance what Lee knew was the smart thing to do with what Clementine thought was the right thing to do. That was one of the main… [view original content]
We could imagine a Christa whose motherhood through very tough times turned into an extremely practical and "selfish" or rather clannish person, a fierce lioness of a mother, ready to do anything (and I mean anything) to protect and feed her baby and family, even at the expense of other people in distress (Clementine being the only exception and integrated in the 'clan' because of previous very special bonds and common history).
Christa's remnants of former "nice person" would make her still want Clementine's agreement before doing bad-but-necessary things, because she wouldn't feel good without unanimous agreement : but she would not hesitate to put psychological pressure on Clem "would you condemn us all to death ? Look at the baby ! Look at the poor, hungry, scared baby !"
Yeah, this could work.
If we had, let's say, a new "abandoned car" situation, playing as Clem, except this time Christa was asking Clem to take and carry everthing she could because it could save "all of us" and especially the baby later, I doubt it would be easy for us as a player to reproduce Clem's choice from season 1.
(Yes, I totally want a similar situation and this time refusing to steal food would have eventual terrible consequences : the baby would die from starvation/weakness Oh my, that would be excellent)
As the main player character, it's important that Clementine is able to perform what might be seen as an immoral action without it seeming out… more-of-character. But given how strong her morals were in Season 1, I find it difficult to imagine her engaging in morally questionable actions in Season 2 without it seeming unnatural. But I think there might be a way to deal with this.
In Season 1, you were playing as Lee and, knowing pretty much nothing about the game, you went into it with a more-or-less survivor mentality. Zombie apocalypse. All the rules are out. Prioritize survival above all else. That was your mindset at first. But then you met Clementine and she began to complicate things by serving as your "moral compass." You wanted to protect her innocence from the harshness of the world so you had to listen to her and balance what Lee knew was the smart thing to do with what Clementine thought was the right thing to do. That was one of the main… [view original content]
As the main player character, it's important that Clementine is able to perform what might be seen as an immoral action without it seeming out… more-of-character. But given how strong her morals were in Season 1, I find it difficult to imagine her engaging in morally questionable actions in Season 2 without it seeming unnatural. But I think there might be a way to deal with this.
In Season 1, you were playing as Lee and, knowing pretty much nothing about the game, you went into it with a more-or-less survivor mentality. Zombie apocalypse. All the rules are out. Prioritize survival above all else. That was your mindset at first. But then you met Clementine and she began to complicate things by serving as your "moral compass." You wanted to protect her innocence from the harshness of the world so you had to listen to her and balance what Lee knew was the smart thing to do with what Clementine thought was the right thing to do. That was one of the main… [view original content]
Not to mention that we are playing as her. Personaly, my end of the world as we know it strategy is to find bandits (and their will be plenty), and take what they have by any means necessary. Help other people out within your ability, but prioritize your own survival as opposed to giving other people stuff. Suffice it to say I'd be a massive hypocrite if I robed people who weren't out to harm me or that I didn't know where bandits.
Something i noticed: on the cover art for season 2, clementine is holdng a hammer, at the start of season 1, clem gives lee a hammer to bash the babysitters head in.
Couldn't disagree more. One of the weaknesses of 400 days was precisely the shifting POV structure. We never had enough time to really get inside a character's head.
A normal season should see you playing a character from the very start to the very finish. Lee's story wouldn't have been half as effective if we had spent Episode 2 as Lilly and Episode 3 as Kenny. If they've decided on Clementine as our new protagonist, they need commitment to it.
You're comparing the entire season (around 10-12 hours of game time) against an extra "treat" 1 hour long dlc.
If the writing is good you can tell the story of several characters with no problems. Now it doesn't have to be 5 different characters like they did in 400 days, but only the story of clem and the one of a random survivor thats currently in a group.
Couldn't disagree more. One of the weaknesses of 400 days was precisely the shifting POV structure. We never had enough time to really get ins… moreide a character's head.
A normal season should see you playing a character from the very start to the very finish. Lee's story wouldn't have been half as effective if we had spent Episode 2 as Lilly and Episode 3 as Kenny. If they've decided on Clementine as our new protagonist, they need commitment to it.
i never saw clementine as a "moral compass" Lee was the moral compass because i was controlling him and clementine was a child, clementine was only 8-9 so she hadn't developed the "strong moral fibre" you claim she had, her decisions can still be believably immoral or immoral (whichever way you play it) children can be very immoral because they are still developing their own moral compass, so whatever way you play it immoral/moral pragmatic/idealistic will be plausible because a child is more flexible in terms of behaviour because they won't have a fully developed personality, and we as the player will be contributing to her development as a character and we will be her moral compass
As the main player character, it's important that Clementine is able to perform what might be seen as an immoral action without it seeming out… more-of-character. But given how strong her morals were in Season 1, I find it difficult to imagine her engaging in morally questionable actions in Season 2 without it seeming unnatural. But I think there might be a way to deal with this.
In Season 1, you were playing as Lee and, knowing pretty much nothing about the game, you went into it with a more-or-less survivor mentality. Zombie apocalypse. All the rules are out. Prioritize survival above all else. That was your mindset at first. But then you met Clementine and she began to complicate things by serving as your "moral compass." You wanted to protect her innocence from the harshness of the world so you had to listen to her and balance what Lee knew was the smart thing to do with what Clementine thought was the right thing to do. That was one of the main… [view original content]
Really? That's odd. I thought the whole Clementine = moral compass thing was pretty ubiquitous.
Anyway, Clementine may be young, but she's still old enough to have developed her own moral system based on how her parents raised her. I don't know if you've heard about Kohlberg's stages of moral development but he essentially posits 6 stages of human morality. I'd say Clementine is at around a 4 by time we meet her and stays there for most of the game. She staunchly holds on to rules like "don't swear" and "don't steal" and solely relies on the things that her parents and other authority figures have told her to inform her moral decisions. Remember how she kept talking about how her mother always said this or her father always told her that? It's why she's such a goody-goody and so inflexible in her moral beliefs.
But now, with everything that's happened and with her being alone, she is going to have to grow out of that and start thinking for herself a bit more. But unless some really dark stuff went down over the time-skip (which i suppose is always possible with the Walking Dead), she'll probably largely hold onto the good moral lessons that her parents and Lee taught her. But if a similarly authoritative figure starts pushing her to prioritize safety over doing the right thing, then she might start straying from the super-righteous path she's walked so far.
i never saw clementine as a "moral compass" Lee was the moral compass because i was controlling him and clementine was a child, clementine was… more only 8-9 so she hadn't developed the "strong moral fibre" you claim she had, her decisions can still be believably immoral or immoral (whichever way you play it) children can be very immoral because they are still developing their own moral compass, so whatever way you play it immoral/moral pragmatic/idealistic will be plausible because a child is more flexible in terms of behaviour because they won't have a fully developed personality, and we as the player will be contributing to her development as a character and we will be her moral compass
Never heard of that before. Thanks for posting that.
I'd expect by now Clem would be at stage 5. She could probably understand why the group stole from the car, etc. Even still, that doesn't mean she would do it herself.
Personally, Clem's moral compass is probably going to stay intact when I play season 2.
Really? That's odd. I thought the whole Clementine = moral compass thing was pretty ubiquitous.
Anyway, Clementine may be young, but she's … morestill old enough to have developed her own moral system based on how her parents raised her. I don't know if you've heard about Kohlberg's stages of moral development but he essentially posits 6 stages of human morality. I'd say Clementine is at around a 4 by time we meet her and stays there for most of the game. She staunchly holds on to rules like "don't swear" and "don't steal" and solely relies on the things that her parents and other authority figures have told her to inform her moral decisions. Remember how she kept talking about how her mother always said this or her father always told her that? It's why she's such a goody-goody and so inflexible in her moral beliefs.
But now, with everything that's happened and with her being alone, she is going to have to grow out of that and start thinking for … [view original content]
a character who isn't the protagonist can't be the moral compass in a computer game, that kind of thing works for a TV show/film, but in a game when you make the moral decisions you are the moral compass, clementine may have been true north but not the compass, and as i said she is a child and she hasn't developed her own morals, i would say she was more at stage 3
Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society's accordance with the perceived role. They try to be a "good boy" or "good girl" to live up to these expectations
but only just, because the Conventional stage is an adolescent/adult stage
Really? That's odd. I thought the whole Clementine = moral compass thing was pretty ubiquitous.
Anyway, Clementine may be young, but she's … morestill old enough to have developed her own moral system based on how her parents raised her. I don't know if you've heard about Kohlberg's stages of moral development but he essentially posits 6 stages of human morality. I'd say Clementine is at around a 4 by time we meet her and stays there for most of the game. She staunchly holds on to rules like "don't swear" and "don't steal" and solely relies on the things that her parents and other authority figures have told her to inform her moral decisions. Remember how she kept talking about how her mother always said this or her father always told her that? It's why she's such a goody-goody and so inflexible in her moral beliefs.
But now, with everything that's happened and with her being alone, she is going to have to grow out of that and start thinking for … [view original content]
First off, I gotta say I'm excited and sort of expected this since the end of episode 5 felt like passing the torch from Lee to Clementine. Now, I can't wait to play episode 1!
We haven't played yet so just wait before assuming anything. Maybe Clementine is shaped by Lee's advice and decisions and in certain situations, she may choice on her own based on how you played Lee in S1. Anyways, I like the idea of her being the PC. It makes the most sense.
To clarify on my last comment, the most important thing I wanted to see in season 2 was how Clem would be affected by Lee's decisions in S1. N… moreow that we're playing as her, I don't see this happening. I feel like I'd be making the choices that I'd want S1 Clem to make, not necessarily making the same decisions that I would.
In season 1, you could pretty much make Lee an asshole, and it would paint him as part of his personality. Since Clementine already has a defined personality, I find it hard to see her making choices that she wouldn't in season 2.
I'm going to see how this plays out. Hey, Telltale got Bigby's character spot-on with the canon of the comics, so I'm still hoping that Telltale will get Clem's character right in S2 in relation to her PC role.
I always thought of a moral compass is a character you can look towards to guide your moral reasoning. The key word here is guide. You don't have to follow what your moral compass tells you to do but it'll always be there pointing towards what it thinks is the morally correct way (so I suppose that absolute moral correctness might be considered "true north").
I never saw Clem as being driven by the approval of others in her actions. I mean, her decision not to take supplies from the car put her at odds with most of the adults in the group but she still stuck to her guns. I think Duck might actually be a better candidate for stage 3, seeing as how he's always seeking approval for the stuff he does.
As for the developmental associations with the stages, they're pretty flexible. The conventional stage is typical of adolescents and adults but you and I both know that Clementine is hardly a typical kid. Some adults might always be stuck in the first stage (Justin from 400 Days for instance) but a kid like Clem might be between 4 and 5.
a character who isn't the protagonist can't be the moral compass in a computer game, that kind of thing works for a TV show/film, but in a gam… moree when you make the moral decisions you are the moral compass, clementine may have been true north but not the compass, and as i said she is a child and she hasn't developed her own morals, i would say she was more at stage 3
Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society's accordance with the perceived role. They try to be a "good boy" or "good girl" to live up to these expectations
but only just, because the Conventional stage is an adolescent/adult stage
Every episode we play as someone other than the main character is an episode in which we lose identification with that character. We spent Season 1 as Lee, from the very start to the very finish, and every interaction we ever had involved us as Lee. As such, our identification in that season was completely with him. That was what made his death at the end so powerful.
You can make a game like Grand Theft Auto 5 where you jump between protagonists. But in the case of TWD, they really shouldn't. Season 1 was Lee's story, his journey to survive and protect Clementine. If Clementine is the protagonist of Season 2, and we now know she is, it should be her story seen through her eyes, not the story of Clementine and some-random-guy-who-we-inserted-because-we-want-a-more-conventional-protagonist.
They're taking a big risk in making Clem the main character. It could be either a very bad thing that limits the story or an extremely clever and interesting move, depending on the skill of the writers. But if they're going to do it, as far as I'm concerned they need to commit to it, not wimp out because it's tricky to write.
You're comparing the entire season (around 10-12 hours of game time) against an extra "treat" 1 hour long dlc.
If the writing is good you c… morean tell the story of several characters with no problems. Now it doesn't have to be 5 different characters like they did in 400 days, but only the story of clem and the one of a random survivor thats currently in a group.
no, i think you are giving (an 8-9 year old) Clementine too much credit and are overestimating a child's capability for moral reasoning and basically misunderstanding the stages, they aren't levels of how good a person is, they are stages of psychological development, you just won't have a child with adult reasoning capabilities, she couldn't explain why swearing or stealing is wrong just that it is wrong, she is a "good girl" not a fully developed adult.
as for the moral compass thing, the term just doesn't work for games, because you have your own moral compass which guides you and therefore the protagonist, it works when talking about characters in a TV show or film because you have no influence on what goes on, and it especially doesn't work if you say a child is a moral compass because children just don't have a fully developed one of their own
I always thought of a moral compass is a character you can look towards to guide your moral reasoning. The key word here is guide. You don't h… moreave to follow what your moral compass tells you to do but it'll always be there pointing towards what it thinks is the morally correct way (so I suppose that absolute moral correctness might be considered "true north").
I never saw Clem as being driven by the approval of others in her actions. I mean, her decision not to take supplies from the car put her at odds with most of the adults in the group but she still stuck to her guns. I think Duck might actually be a better candidate for stage 3, seeing as how he's always seeking approval for the stuff he does.
As for the developmental associations with the stages, they're pretty flexible. The conventional stage is typical of adolescents and adults but you and I both know that Clementine is hardly a typical kid. Some adults might always be stuck in the f… [view original content]
Comments
The player IS the leader. Just not the way you like. You're leading Clem. You're in control of her. I don't need to be the leader of a group to have an impact on how things happen. That would be like no one except that one guy who's the leader can change the course of things. Half-Life is quite a different kind of game, isnt it? I don't doubt TTG will have enough quiet moments where you can explore with Clem without someone nagging you. Lee couldn't alwas explore, could he? The game forced him to do stuff in a timely manner as well, in certain situations.
@TheMissus: As I am one of the sceptics regarding Clem as PC, I like the thinking of being her "inner voice" instead of her "controller". Makes it easier for me to accept that decision.
Probably not Kenny but that idea of a crazy Kenny is awesome.
One other possible alternative I saw for season 2 was the player taking control of Kenny, and subsequently searching for Clementine. That way, Clem wouldn't have become a recurring presence in the episodes, and the player would be lead on by the mystery of what happened to her following the post-credits sequence. (Think Willard pursuing Colonel Kurtz in APOCALYPSE NOW.)
That being said, I agree turning Clem herself into the new PC was the only other scenario that could really work.
I made choices, and they felt important, but I wasn't the group's leader. Like I said, you can interject your opinion, saying you don't want to go to the dairy, or you don't want to take from the RV, or you don't want to leave the motor inn to look for a boat. But in the end, you stay with the group's lead out of necessity and circumstance.
-Some other choices that felt meaningful to me were ones like the meat-locker decision, choosing Danny's fate, deciding who to tell your secret to, deciding the issue with your arm, etc. Those were all choices I made as a member of the group, as someone who was in the right place and right time, but not as a leader.
Wow, I can't imagine the reaction of some people if we had to play Kenny! He was hated by many of TWD players!
I was surprised and nervous when they announced Clementine would be the new protagonist. I initially thought that it would be hard to imagine her as Clem because the little girl we protected in season 2 was predictable (in the sense she would always choose the morally correct option). That's going to change in this season.
I'm on board with the idea now though. This isn't a game about being able to plow through walkers, this is a game about character development. It's been a long time since we've seen Clementine. She has probably been through a lot, and that will have made her much less innocent. She is probably a capable survivor by now, but if she faces too many walkers at any given time, that might be it for her. You will probably have to develop friendships (at best) and uneasy alliances (most of the time) in order to survive. The prospect of surviving without relying much on physical strength is so thing unique. I haven't seen many other games try it.
Anyways, I have faith in telltale to make an amazing game.
Clem ? Why not ?
I'll have a tough time identifying with her, but I think we do need more female protagonists in games and movies.
I only hope that the plot has more to offer than running from zombie attacks,
especially now that we already know Clem's past and a possible romance between the protagonist and
someone else is not an option with her in that role (she's 9 years old).
Let's see what Telltale Games has in store for us.
Lee was important group member. As Lee Everett you decide about peoples fates - Duck, Shawn, Doug, Carley, Lilly, Ben. Sometimes situation gets out of control (script) but you choose anyway. Everybody cares about your opinion. Now, how 10 year old girl would convince Ken to stop the train, beat Andy, or decide who should eat today? It's something different.
She not innocent no more, she saw Lee and her mom and die. I would be unrealistic for her to be the same girl in season 1. Sad people don't understand character development.
Lets face it the only real way this could have been perfect was to continue as Lee but that's obviously impossible. I am sceptical about playing as a child as adults will treat her differently. However I'm wondering if we may not play as just her ... just a theory.
It is something different. It's a new idea, but that doesn't automatically make it bad. Regardless of how Lee handled different situations Clementine won't be going through the exact same circumstances that he did.
At this point we don't know what kind of people Clementine will be interacting with and how, but I'm not going to preemptively condemn it just because some people think that they should be playing a leadership position, or another Lee.
Even by the end ?
I think his final actions in episode 5 redeemed himself in the eyes of many players who couldn't stand him until then.
I'm not crazy about playing as Clem in Season 2. I'd hoped it was going to be someone new, or even one of the 400 Days crew. Still, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt because Season 1 was so good. Plus, I still have to find out what happened to Christa, Omid, Kenny, and the 400 Days guys who went with Tavia.
I'm not going to claim to read every single post in every single thread, but I haven't ignored the posts from threads I've read and posted in. Alot of users like Clem so I thought they would be pleased. Yeah she's young but she's not your average little girl, she's smart and been forced to grow up so I doubt the dialogue and the scenarios are going to be looked at with rose tinted glasses. Clem's been through a lot and really it was the only way to continue the story and I'm sure there will be pro's and cons in being a child and seeing things through their eyes.
There is no collective "we" who need more female protagonists.
I'm certainly not against it, and on the contrary, have throughout my gamer career enjoyed playing many female characters (Zanthia from Kyrandia, Grace Nakimura from Gabriel Knight immediately come to my nostalgic mind), but I don't want (even less need) female protagonists just for the sake of them being female.
I dunno, I've always liked him, even if he was an ass sometimes, he was just trying to do what he had to. But I know that on some commnity in France, he's still pretty much hated. It's the internet though.
I just hope we don't get a new wannabe Lee. Been there done that. If they wanted her to have a step father to care for her. They should have kept Lee. Why make something great like Lee and Clem father and child love, replace it so fast.
To clarify on my last comment, the most important thing I wanted to see in season 2 was how Clem would be affected by Lee's decisions in S1. Now that we're playing as her, I don't see this happening. I feel like I'd be making the choices that I'd want S1 Clem to make, not necessarily making the same decisions that I would.
In season 1, you could pretty much make Lee an asshole, and it would paint him as part of his personality. Since Clementine already has a defined personality, I find it hard to see her making choices that she wouldn't in season 2.
I'm going to see how this plays out. Hey, Telltale got Bigby's character spot-on with the canon of the comics, so I'm still hoping that Telltale will get Clem's character right in S2 in relation to her PC role.
Seriously? Clem hater? No I like her character very much. I just question how you can play a child in a mature adult game and not feel limited.....
Exactly. I kinda feel 'robbed' of my decisions... To think that by the end of the game, I chose every word so carefully because I already felt responsible for her in season 2... Until the final scene I was like "what's the most important advice to tell her ? Oh my god, oh my god, I don't want her to make a dumb move in next season".
Now it just seems it was useless, and I wonder what are those decisions from s1 that will have consequences in s2. I hope it will not just be about some cutscenes of Clementine having memories whose content vary depending on s1 playthrough...
I will give Telltale the benefit of the doubt for s2, because they're so f-ing talented and excellent at making awesome games, but I have a hard time getting over this decision of making Clem the pc. I feel like I raised a kid my best and will never know if she'd have done good by herself as an independent person.
Im not sure if telltales outstanding writing is enough to do justice to what the TWD universe stands for (gritty, realistic, brutal, non forgiving,zombie apocalypse) when their protagonist might be forcing them to stick to the the interactions of a 10 year old girl.
I mean, just try picturing clem cutting the proffesor's leg in S1 Ep 2, it just seems wrong and sadly i was hoping for more of those choices in S2.
Maybe we'll be playing as several characters throught the season.
I really hope so.
As the main player character, it's important that Clementine is able to perform what might be seen as an immoral action without it seeming out-of-character. But given how strong her morals were in Season 1, I find it difficult to imagine her engaging in morally questionable actions in Season 2 without it seeming unnatural. But I think there might be a way to deal with this.
In Season 1, you were playing as Lee and, knowing pretty much nothing about the game, you went into it with a more-or-less survivor mentality. Zombie apocalypse. All the rules are out. Prioritize survival above all else. That was your mindset at first. But then you met Clementine and she began to complicate things by serving as your "moral compass." You wanted to protect her innocence from the harshness of the world so you had to listen to her and balance what Lee knew was the smart thing to do with what Clementine thought was the right thing to do. That was one of the main tensions in the game. Without her, I'm betting that a lot of players would have chosen to do the morally questionable actions more often than they did.
Now, in Season 2, you're playing as Clementine, a character whom you know has very strong moral fiber. So if you play her according to how she was in Season 1, you'll tend to prioritize morality over pragmatism. This mindset somewhat limits the range of choices you'll make. That is, unless Clementine has a person in her group who does the opposite of what she did for Lee in Season 1. Someone who might push her towards more morally questionable, but extremely practical choices, acting as her "pragmatic compass" if you will. To ensure that Clementine has a reason to listen to him/her, this person would probably be an extremely capable survivor who's nice and friendly to Clem but just tries to convince her to "do the smart thing" in difficult scenarios to keep her alive. Basically, Lee, with more of a survival streak or Joel from The Last of Us. This way, the tension between doing the smart thing and doing the right thing will be maintained from Season 1, but flipped around and it would make sense for Clementine to follow her "pragmatic compass" and choose the smart option over the right option.
That could work. But it would be hard to do right. The guy could easily just come off as a complete asshole, so you would need to see both sides of him. He would have to be shown making morally positive choices that benefit people other than just Clem at some point or another.
I dunno. It's an interesting idea, and I'm sure some characters will be more pragmatic than Clem, but there might be a character like you talked about.
We could imagine a Christa whose motherhood through very tough times turned into an extremely practical and "selfish" or rather clannish person, a fierce lioness of a mother, ready to do anything (and I mean anything) to protect and feed her baby and family, even at the expense of other people in distress (Clementine being the only exception and integrated in the 'clan' because of previous very special bonds and common history).
Christa's remnants of former "nice person" would make her still want Clementine's agreement before doing bad-but-necessary things, because she wouldn't feel good without unanimous agreement : but she would not hesitate to put psychological pressure on Clem "would you condemn us all to death ? Look at the baby ! Look at the poor, hungry, scared baby !"
Yeah, this could work.
Oh my, that would be excellent)
If we had, let's say, a new "abandoned car" situation, playing as Clem, except this time Christa was asking Clem to take and carry everthing she could because it could save "all of us" and especially the baby later, I doubt it would be easy for us as a player to reproduce Clem's choice from season 1.
(Yes, I totally want a similar situation and this time refusing to steal food would have eventual terrible consequences : the baby would die from starvation/weakness
Tell me why she wouldn't do questionable things when this evil world took people she love?
Because I taught her better than that.
Not to mention that we are playing as her. Personaly, my end of the world as we know it strategy is to find bandits (and their will be plenty), and take what they have by any means necessary. Help other people out within your ability, but prioritize your own survival as opposed to giving other people stuff. Suffice it to say I'd be a massive hypocrite if I robed people who weren't out to harm me or that I didn't know where bandits.
But yeah, I taught her better than that too.
Something i noticed: on the cover art for season 2, clementine is holdng a hammer, at the start of season 1, clem gives lee a hammer to bash the babysitters head in.
Couldn't disagree more. One of the weaknesses of 400 days was precisely the shifting POV structure. We never had enough time to really get inside a character's head.
A normal season should see you playing a character from the very start to the very finish. Lee's story wouldn't have been half as effective if we had spent Episode 2 as Lilly and Episode 3 as Kenny. If they've decided on Clementine as our new protagonist, they need commitment to it.
You're comparing the entire season (around 10-12 hours of game time) against an extra "treat" 1 hour long dlc.
If the writing is good you can tell the story of several characters with no problems. Now it doesn't have to be 5 different characters like they did in 400 days, but only the story of clem and the one of a random survivor thats currently in a group.
i never saw clementine as a "moral compass" Lee was the moral compass because i was controlling him and clementine was a child, clementine was only 8-9 so she hadn't developed the "strong moral fibre" you claim she had, her decisions can still be believably immoral or immoral (whichever way you play it) children can be very immoral because they are still developing their own moral compass, so whatever way you play it immoral/moral pragmatic/idealistic will be plausible because a child is more flexible in terms of behaviour because they won't have a fully developed personality, and we as the player will be contributing to her development as a character and we will be her moral compass
Really? That's odd. I thought the whole Clementine = moral compass thing was pretty ubiquitous.
Anyway, Clementine may be young, but she's still old enough to have developed her own moral system based on how her parents raised her. I don't know if you've heard about Kohlberg's stages of moral development but he essentially posits 6 stages of human morality. I'd say Clementine is at around a 4 by time we meet her and stays there for most of the game. She staunchly holds on to rules like "don't swear" and "don't steal" and solely relies on the things that her parents and other authority figures have told her to inform her moral decisions. Remember how she kept talking about how her mother always said this or her father always told her that? It's why she's such a goody-goody and so inflexible in her moral beliefs.
But now, with everything that's happened and with her being alone, she is going to have to grow out of that and start thinking for herself a bit more. But unless some really dark stuff went down over the time-skip (which i suppose is always possible with the Walking Dead), she'll probably largely hold onto the good moral lessons that her parents and Lee taught her. But if a similarly authoritative figure starts pushing her to prioritize safety over doing the right thing, then she might start straying from the super-righteous path she's walked so far.
Never heard of that before. Thanks for posting that.
I'd expect by now Clem would be at stage 5. She could probably understand why the group stole from the car, etc. Even still, that doesn't mean she would do it herself.
Personally, Clem's moral compass is probably going to stay intact when I play season 2.
a character who isn't the protagonist can't be the moral compass in a computer game, that kind of thing works for a TV show/film, but in a game when you make the moral decisions you are the moral compass, clementine may have been true north but not the compass, and as i said she is a child and she hasn't developed her own morals, i would say she was more at stage 3
but only just, because the Conventional stage is an adolescent/adult stage
First off, I gotta say I'm excited and sort of expected this since the end of episode 5 felt like passing the torch from Lee to Clementine. Now, I can't wait to play episode 1!
We haven't played yet so just wait before assuming anything. Maybe Clementine is shaped by Lee's advice and decisions and in certain situations, she may choice on her own based on how you played Lee in S1. Anyways, I like the idea of her being the PC. It makes the most sense.
I always thought of a moral compass is a character you can look towards to guide your moral reasoning. The key word here is guide. You don't have to follow what your moral compass tells you to do but it'll always be there pointing towards what it thinks is the morally correct way (so I suppose that absolute moral correctness might be considered "true north").
I never saw Clem as being driven by the approval of others in her actions. I mean, her decision not to take supplies from the car put her at odds with most of the adults in the group but she still stuck to her guns. I think Duck might actually be a better candidate for stage 3, seeing as how he's always seeking approval for the stuff he does.
As for the developmental associations with the stages, they're pretty flexible. The conventional stage is typical of adolescents and adults but you and I both know that Clementine is hardly a typical kid. Some adults might always be stuck in the first stage (Justin from 400 Days for instance) but a kid like Clem might be between 4 and 5.
Every episode we play as someone other than the main character is an episode in which we lose identification with that character. We spent Season 1 as Lee, from the very start to the very finish, and every interaction we ever had involved us as Lee. As such, our identification in that season was completely with him. That was what made his death at the end so powerful.
You can make a game like Grand Theft Auto 5 where you jump between protagonists. But in the case of TWD, they really shouldn't. Season 1 was Lee's story, his journey to survive and protect Clementine. If Clementine is the protagonist of Season 2, and we now know she is, it should be her story seen through her eyes, not the story of Clementine and some-random-guy-who-we-inserted-because-we-want-a-more-conventional-protagonist.
They're taking a big risk in making Clem the main character. It could be either a very bad thing that limits the story or an extremely clever and interesting move, depending on the skill of the writers. But if they're going to do it, as far as I'm concerned they need to commit to it, not wimp out because it's tricky to write.
no, i think you are giving (an 8-9 year old) Clementine too much credit and are overestimating a child's capability for moral reasoning and basically misunderstanding the stages, they aren't levels of how good a person is, they are stages of psychological development, you just won't have a child with adult reasoning capabilities, she couldn't explain why swearing or stealing is wrong just that it is wrong, she is a "good girl" not a fully developed adult.
as for the moral compass thing, the term just doesn't work for games, because you have your own moral compass which guides you and therefore the protagonist, it works when talking about characters in a TV show or film because you have no influence on what goes on, and it especially doesn't work if you say a child is a moral compass because children just don't have a fully developed one of their own