No, I know they aren't levels of how good a person is. My example with Justin being at stage 1 is based on his use of consequences as his primary moral guide (He doesn't consider what he did wrong because "They got their money back...most of it.").
And stage 4 doesn't require that someone understands why swearing and stealing are wrong, only that they acknowledges those conventions. In fact, it's precisely because they don't acknowledge the reasoning behind the rules of "don't steal" or "don't swear" that people in stage 4 tend to be so rigid in their adherence to the rules. It doesn't take very much reasoning to be able to internalize and follow moral rules prescribed by others. Explaining why they're wrong is what requires more abstract reasoning capacities and it would fall under the stage 5 and 6.
We can agree to disagree on the definition of a moral compass but I maintain that many people take what Clementine thinks into consideration when making their choices, meaning they she does guide their--and by extension Lee's--moral reasoning.
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 ba… moresically 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
Yes, you might be in control of her, but you will not be in power (se my previous posts about that) - that is having a say (as a child) that adults will pay attention to as equal to them.
Sure Half-Life 2 is a very different game, but the psychology behind games are the same. I do not want to follow, no matter if I play as a child like Clem or an adult like Gordon Freeman. The exact game here is unimportant - this is all about game design.
I never felt like I was left without control in season 1. I could always add my two to any discussion and take a side, and no matter what I choose, it mattered. A child can always be overruled - no matter what you say to Clem at the car, the supplies would be taken.
Most players (when we played as Lee) took the supplies and explained why to Clem. Now put the player in Clem's shoes here: You (as Clem) doesn't want to take the supplies, but everybody, even the mentor says that the supplies needs to be taken. Congrats, you have just taken away control from the player (aka Clem) and that is IMNSHO a major no-no in game design.
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 t… moreo 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.
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]
This might work out, considering how Telltale made games and this team we would be playing as a mentally developed Clem, I think S2 is going to be great guys
I can't help but think that other characters will listen to Clem if certain events happen. Remember when you first met Christa and Omid and how Omid went nuts when he saw Clem? After episode 2 , a lot of players were suspicious of him. After he saved your life by pulling you away from the tanker, you immediately felt gratitude towards him. It doesn't mean you will do everything he says, but you'd at least listen to what he has to say.
If Clem saves an adult from a walker, that person is going to possibly feel some sort of obligation to her. I'm not saying they will do everything she wants, but they'd at least listen to what she has to say, and possibly give it some weight.
Yes, you might be in control of her, but you will not be in power (se my previous posts about that) - that is having a say (as a child) that a… moredults will pay attention to as equal to them.
Sure Half-Life 2 is a very different game, but the psychology behind games are the same. I do not want to follow, no matter if I play as a child like Clem or an adult like Gordon Freeman. The exact game here is unimportant - this is all about game design.
I never felt like I was left without control in season 1. I could always add my two to any discussion and take a side, and no matter what I choose, it mattered. A child can always be overruled - no matter what you say to Clem at the car, the supplies would be taken.
Most players (when we played as Lee) took the supplies and explained why to Clem. Now put the player in Clem's shoes here: You (as Clem) doesn't want to take the supplies, but everybody, even the mentor says that the supplies needs to be take… [view original content]
IMO the fact that she's a child would be being in a group of survivors more interesting as you need to manipulate people into doing what you want instead of magically taking charge as the alpha adult male you normally are.
IMO the fact that she's a child would be being in a group of survivors more interesting as you need to manipulate people into doing what you want instead of magically taking charge as the alpha adult male you normally are.
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!
I also think that we are going to get confronted with mistrust first, but only in the beginning of the season until she proved herself as being essential
I can't help but think that other characters will listen to Clem if certain events happen. Remember when you first met Christa and Omid and ho… morew Omid went nuts when he saw Clem? After episode 2 , a lot of players were suspicious of him. After he saved your life by pulling you away from the tanker, you immediately felt gratitude towards him. It doesn't mean you will do everything he says, but you'd at least listen to what he has to say.
If Clem saves an adult from a walker, that person is going to possibly feel some sort of obligation to her. I'm not saying they will do everything she wants, but they'd at least listen to what she has to say, and possibly give it some weight.
Here is a nice article about writing Clementines character and her role in Season 1. Maybe it helps to picture her character in the upcoming Season and for all the grumblers to understand why TellTale decided to continue with her story. A summary from the text:
Though Lee Everett is the character you control in The Walking Dead, he wasn’t the character that the game is built around. 'Clementine was literally the first idea,' says Vanaman, who planned Episode Fives’s outcome before writing a single line of dialogue.
IMO the fact that she's a child would be being in a group of survivors more interesting as you need to manipulate people into doing what you want instead of magically taking charge as the alpha adult male you normally are.
This didn't give us anything about how she will act in season 2, we know about this. I hope she will remember everything in season 1. As the game said alot."Clementine will remember this" hope that's fact.
Here is a nice article about writing Clementines character and her role in Season 1. Maybe it helps to picture her character in the upcoming S… moreeason and for all the grumblers to understand why TellTale decided to continue with her story. A summary from the text:
Though Lee Everett is the character you control in The Walking Dead, he wasn’t the character that the game is built around. 'Clementine was literally the first idea,' says Vanaman, who planned Episode Fives’s outcome before writing a single line of dialogue.
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/12/26/creating-clementine.aspx
As I said in my post in page 4, there's more options than surrogate mother of father figure to Clementine. We can play as a "peer" to Clementine, a kid of similar age. Clementine can be an "equal" or even better than our s2 kid character. This solves both your points at once. First, we will not trivialize Lee because we are not playing yet another surrogate parent of Clementine and second, we will not be guiding and rescuing Clementine again, we are more like peer now, adventuring together. She might even be better than our character, saving the s2 character several times. It will be more of a partnership instead of "father-daughter".
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]
Here is a nice article about writing Clementines character and her role in Season 1. Maybe it helps to picture her character in the upcoming S… moreeason and for all the grumblers to understand why TellTale decided to continue with her story. A summary from the text:
Though Lee Everett is the character you control in The Walking Dead, he wasn’t the character that the game is built around. 'Clementine was literally the first idea,' says Vanaman, who planned Episode Fives’s outcome before writing a single line of dialogue.
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/12/26/creating-clementine.aspx
I think we have major difference in viewing what is needed to enjoy a game. I can find joy in the challenge to use my "lesser power" to still change things with my means. I don't need power over the group. Also Lee really didn't have that much power. You could be against going to the dairy, you could be totally on Lily's side and want to stay in the Inn or find Kenny's boat idea the stupidest idea ever heard. YOu could think going to Crawfor is way to dangerous. Would that change the fact that the group goes to the dairy or that they leave the Inn? Would you not look for a boat? Would you not go to Crawford? So how does Lee have much power over events?
I don't see how the age of Clem will dramatically change the feeling of the game. You still make decision on how your character views things, like Lee did regarding staying or going. But the events that happen outside of the power of the player will still happen. That's true for Clem AND Lee.
So I like the change of view, to have a less powerful(?) character than Lee was. Clem's decisions will still have an impact on how the things are going. They even said "more story-branching". So maybe her influence on the story is even greter than Lee's. (That would be probably because of TTG gaining experience in that area, and not because of Clem being a more influential person )
My concern is still, that of "overwriting" Clems character with mine. But we'll see
edit:
Most players (when we played as Lee) took the supplies and explained why to Clem. Now put the player in Clem's shoes here: You (as Clem) doesn't want to take the supplies, but everybody, even the mentor says that the supplies needs to be taken. Congrats, you have just taken away control from the player (aka Clem) and that is IMNSHO a major no-no in game design.
Firstly, wasn't that decision almost split at 50%? Didn't that show how big Clems influence was, because otherwise the decision would be more like 90-10? (I think they said something like that in a Playing Dead episode)
Secondly: What power did the players have, that said, "We shouldn't take it"? They are just as powerless as Clem was. They rationalized it by finding an explanation why it's right to take the stuff, but they didn't not take the supplies.
Yes, you might be in control of her, but you will not be in power (se my previous posts about that) - that is having a say (as a child) that a… moredults will pay attention to as equal to them.
Sure Half-Life 2 is a very different game, but the psychology behind games are the same. I do not want to follow, no matter if I play as a child like Clem or an adult like Gordon Freeman. The exact game here is unimportant - this is all about game design.
I never felt like I was left without control in season 1. I could always add my two to any discussion and take a side, and no matter what I choose, it mattered. A child can always be overruled - no matter what you say to Clem at the car, the supplies would be taken.
Most players (when we played as Lee) took the supplies and explained why to Clem. Now put the player in Clem's shoes here: You (as Clem) doesn't want to take the supplies, but everybody, even the mentor says that the supplies needs to be take… [view original content]
I was hoping we'd play as Clementine at an older age (at least 15 y/o). Playing with her as a child is gonna be quite hard ... I doubt she's able to make tough choices or even fight/kill a bandit.
GIven the nature of the story, though, I don't think that would work. If Telltale brought in another child character, it would fall into one of two extremes: Either the kid would be so badass that it would strain credibility, or it would be so wimpy that no one would want to play as it. What with the zombie apocalypse and all, there's not a whole lot of room for middle ground. Plus, there would have to be a whole lot more definition in the way of backstory that Telltale would have to provide: They would be telling us EXACTLY who we're playing without a whole lot wiggle room for our own decisions. Not that Clementine doesn't have a lot in the way of backstory as well, but at least we helped define the kind of person she is, given her interactions with players as Lee.
As I said in my post in page 4, there's more options than surrogate mother of father figure to Clementine. We can play as a "peer" to Clementi… morene, a kid of similar age. Clementine can be an "equal" or even better than our s2 kid character. This solves both your points at once. First, we will not trivialize Lee because we are not playing yet another surrogate parent of Clementine and second, we will not be guiding and rescuing Clementine again, we are more like peer now, adventuring together. She might even be better than our character, saving the s2 character several times. It will be more of a partnership instead of "father-daughter".
I have a strong suspicion that a second kid who shares the spotlight with Clementine would attract such unimaginable levels of hate that it would become a true spectacle to behold. If it wouldn't ruin the second season, I would almost pay to see it happen just so I could read the Internet after and see the unbridled loathing, no matter how the kid was written.
GIven the nature of the story, though, I don't think that would work. If Telltale brought in another child character, it would fall into one … moreof two extremes: Either the kid would be so badass that it would strain credibility, or it would be so wimpy that no one would want to play as it. What with the zombie apocalypse and all, there's not a whole lot of room for middle ground. Plus, there would have to be a whole lot more definition in the way of backstory that Telltale would have to provide: They would be telling us EXACTLY who we're playing without a whole lot wiggle room for our own decisions. Not that Clementine doesn't have a lot in the way of backstory as well, but at least we helped define the kind of person she is, given her interactions with players as Lee.
Didn't people say that they were taking a big risk adding Clem to S1? Well, the role Clem had in the story itself anyway. I feel it was mainly because most kid characters in video games are annoying as hell.
I was hoping we'd play as Clementine at an older age (at least 15 y/o). Playing with her as a child is gonna be quite hard ... I doubt she's able to make tough choices or even fight/kill a bandit.
Power here is simply to overriding someone else's will (like in the case with Clem and the supplies). A child cannot (or should not) override an adult's power, simply because the adult is the one with responibility, not the least for the child's safety. A very common example here are children nagging their parents for candy in the store - nag, nag, nag, until the kid gets their damn candy just to shut them up.
In games, power is also control, and when control slips from the player, protests arise and rating pummel. In Mass effect 3 this was shown by having Shepard talking without input or prompting from the player for example and a lot of examples could be found in that game. One spot that did not get any complains however was the face off at the end with the Elusive Man, simply because the player had 100% control the entire time.
Clem's age will definitely affect the game - you can't build equal relationships with anyone else but another child - with any adult, the relationship will be just that. She won't know stuff for obvious reasons - she hasn't had much time to learn (doh), so a lot of know-how will be relayed to any adults in the group (which in turn takes away more control and some satisfaction ("yeah, get my MAD Civil war knowledge skillz!"). She won't be able to hold her own in a group - when the bullets in a gun runs out, what will she do - pick up Lee's fire axe? And another piece of satisfaction bites the dust.
I'm not saying playing as Clem can't be good - I'm saying it will be damn hard to pull through though.
I think we have major difference in viewing what is needed to enjoy a game. I can find joy in the challenge to use my "lesser power" to still … morechange things with my means. I don't need power over the group. Also Lee really didn't have that much power. You could be against going to the dairy, you could be totally on Lily's side and want to stay in the Inn or find Kenny's boat idea the stupidest idea ever heard. YOu could think going to Crawfor is way to dangerous. Would that change the fact that the group goes to the dairy or that they leave the Inn? Would you not look for a boat? Would you not go to Crawford? So how does Lee have much power over events?
I don't see how the age of Clem will dramatically change the feeling of the game. You still make decision on how your character views things, like Lee did regarding staying or going. But the events that happen outside of the power of the player will still happen. That's true for Clem AND Lee.
… [view original content]
The whole point of the end of Season 1 was precisely leading to this: Clem is strong and Clem is smart. She can take care of herself.
… moreThat's the point why I don't like the idea of playing as Clem. "She can "take caring of herself" but now she's even more dependent on the player than in the first season. We build her personality (sort of) with our decisions and what we said to her. And now we can make her do what ever we want, without regard of what we taught her in the first season? I was looking forward towards seeing how Clementine's character turned out after all that happened, and now it's the player's character - so mine and not Clementine's
My initial response is worrying how this will work out. We'll see...
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 'ro… morebbed' 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.
I was hoping we'd play as Clementine at an older age (at least 15 y/o). Playing with her as a child is gonna be quite hard ... I doubt she's able to make tough choices or even fight/kill a bandit.
At first I didn't like the idea of playing as Clem, my first thought was this is going to be stressful, but isn't that the whole idea. That life in a apocalypse as a child with no protection is stressful.
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.
You might be overthinking this just a tad. In season 2, you'll be a young girl trying to survive a zombie apocalypse. That's it. All the subtexts and hidden meanings will fall into place later.
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]
At first I didn't like the idea of playing as Clem, my first thought was this is going to be stressful, but isn't that the whole idea. That life in a apocalypse as a child with no protection is stressful.
if she was an npc again, how would it play it out ? EXACTLY the same as season 1, it would be kinda boring and cheap to have her tag along with a group who don't know her/trust her/ believe she is anything more than a child..
sorry harry your logic is flawed.
we the player are in control
we the player have a previous save to affect season 2.
there will be choices we have to make which will change depending on that save.
true some of us may need a season refresher so we remember if we're lucky maybe in an opening 'previously on' montage ?
I think for a game series that earned it's popularity based on how important player choice was, player choice should not be robbed.
This is w… morehy it was absolutely the wrong decision to cast Clementine as the player character. It either nullifies the importance of our decisions in season 1, or it nullifies the importance of our decisions in this season.
her role is to survive starting off alone then she finds people.
what is this leader thing ? Just because lee 'took charge' doesn't mean clem does..adults will not trust clem until she proves it to them obviously by not listening and doing what 'she/we' wants too.
adults will always try to lord it over kids 'for protection'
i hope we get the chance to put adults in their place as some point.
you talk of a relationship mismatch... but we saw in season 1 an adult and a child bonding.. so your theory is complete rubbish..
proof: 1 lee and clem
2 kenny and clem
3.lee and duck
4.christa/omid and clem
5. nate and russel
6. shell and he sister.
As for knowledge clem doesn't know, what is really relevant in this world ? how to shoot, how to kill walkers, how to clean wounds, how to survive on limited supplies ? how to make shelters ? how to defend her self ? how to make a fire ?
everything else is camp fire talk...oh and don't spoil other games please...
I need to keep this short unfortunately:
Power here is simply to overriding someone else's will (like in the case with Clem and the supplie… mores). A child cannot (or should not) override an adult's power, simply because the adult is the one with responibility, not the least for the child's safety. A very common example here are children nagging their parents for candy in the store - nag, nag, nag, until the kid gets their damn candy just to shut them up.
In games, power is also control, and when control slips from the player, protests arise and rating pummel. In Mass effect 3 this was shown by having Shepard talking without input or prompting from the player for example and a lot of examples could be found in that game. One spot that did not get any complains however was the face off at the end with the Elusive Man, simply because the player had 100% control the entire time.
Clem's age will definitely affect the game - you can't build equal … [view original content]
There is no collective "we" who need more female protagonists.
I'm certainly not against it, and on the contrary, have throughout my gamer ca… morereer 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.
Comments
No, I know they aren't levels of how good a person is. My example with Justin being at stage 1 is based on his use of consequences as his primary moral guide (He doesn't consider what he did wrong because "They got their money back...most of it.").
And stage 4 doesn't require that someone understands why swearing and stealing are wrong, only that they acknowledges those conventions. In fact, it's precisely because they don't acknowledge the reasoning behind the rules of "don't steal" or "don't swear" that people in stage 4 tend to be so rigid in their adherence to the rules. It doesn't take very much reasoning to be able to internalize and follow moral rules prescribed by others. Explaining why they're wrong is what requires more abstract reasoning capacities and it would fall under the stage 5 and 6.
We can agree to disagree on the definition of a moral compass but I maintain that many people take what Clementine thinks into consideration when making their choices, meaning they she does guide their--and by extension Lee's--moral reasoning.
Yes, you might be in control of her, but you will not be in power (se my previous posts about that) - that is having a say (as a child) that adults will pay attention to as equal to them.
Sure Half-Life 2 is a very different game, but the psychology behind games are the same. I do not want to follow, no matter if I play as a child like Clem or an adult like Gordon Freeman. The exact game here is unimportant - this is all about game design.
I never felt like I was left without control in season 1. I could always add my two to any discussion and take a side, and no matter what I choose, it mattered. A child can always be overruled - no matter what you say to Clem at the car, the supplies would be taken.
Most players (when we played as Lee) took the supplies and explained why to Clem. Now put the player in Clem's shoes here: You (as Clem) doesn't want to take the supplies, but everybody, even the mentor says that the supplies needs to be taken. Congrats, you have just taken away control from the player (aka Clem) and that is IMNSHO a major no-no in game design.
No, you are dead and shes sad about it and alone.
Lee was the moral compass. You just feel Clem is because Clems a cute little girl that's helpful .
This might work out, considering how Telltale made games and this team we would be playing as a mentally developed Clem, I think S2 is going to be great guys
I can't help but think that other characters will listen to Clem if certain events happen. Remember when you first met Christa and Omid and how Omid went nuts when he saw Clem? After episode 2 , a lot of players were suspicious of him. After he saved your life by pulling you away from the tanker, you immediately felt gratitude towards him. It doesn't mean you will do everything he says, but you'd at least listen to what he has to say.
If Clem saves an adult from a walker, that person is going to possibly feel some sort of obligation to her. I'm not saying they will do everything she wants, but they'd at least listen to what she has to say, and possibly give it some weight.
IMO the fact that she's a child would be being in a group of survivors more interesting as you need to manipulate people into doing what you want instead of magically taking charge as the alpha adult male you normally are.
That's exactly how I was thinking the next season will play out.
Lee did pass the torch , thats what the season 1 was about
I also think that we are going to get confronted with mistrust first, but only in the beginning of the season until she proved herself as being essential
Here is a nice article about writing Clementines character and her role in Season 1. Maybe it helps to picture her character in the upcoming Season and for all the grumblers to understand why TellTale decided to continue with her story. A summary from the text:
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/12/26/creating-clementine.aspx
Batman plays with my batarangs.
This didn't give us anything about how she will act in season 2, we know about this. I hope she will remember everything in season 1. As the game said alot."Clementine will remember this" hope that's fact.
As I said in my post in page 4, there's more options than surrogate mother of father figure to Clementine. We can play as a "peer" to Clementine, a kid of similar age. Clementine can be an "equal" or even better than our s2 kid character. This solves both your points at once. First, we will not trivialize Lee because we are not playing yet another surrogate parent of Clementine and second, we will not be guiding and rescuing Clementine again, we are more like peer now, adventuring together. She might even be better than our character, saving the s2 character several times. It will be more of a partnership instead of "father-daughter".
Thanks for the article.
I think we have major difference in viewing what is needed to enjoy a game. I can find joy in the challenge to use my "lesser power" to still change things with my means. I don't need power over the group. Also Lee really didn't have that much power. You could be against going to the dairy, you could be totally on Lily's side and want to stay in the Inn or find Kenny's boat idea the stupidest idea ever heard. YOu could think going to Crawfor is way to dangerous. Would that change the fact that the group goes to the dairy or that they leave the Inn? Would you not look for a boat? Would you not go to Crawford? So how does Lee have much power over events?
I don't see how the age of Clem will dramatically change the feeling of the game. You still make decision on how your character views things, like Lee did regarding staying or going. But the events that happen outside of the power of the player will still happen. That's true for Clem AND Lee.
So I like the change of view, to have a less powerful(?) character than Lee was. Clem's decisions will still have an impact on how the things are going. They even said "more story-branching". So maybe her influence on the story is even greter than Lee's. (That would be probably because of TTG gaining experience in that area, and not because of Clem being a more influential person )
My concern is still, that of "overwriting" Clems character with mine. But we'll see
edit:
Firstly, wasn't that decision almost split at 50%? Didn't that show how big Clems influence was, because otherwise the decision would be more like 90-10? (I think they said something like that in a Playing Dead episode)
Secondly: What power did the players have, that said, "We shouldn't take it"? They are just as powerless as Clem was. They rationalized it by finding an explanation why it's right to take the stuff, but they didn't not take the supplies.
I was hoping we'd play as Clementine at an older age (at least 15 y/o). Playing with her as a child is gonna be quite hard ... I doubt she's able to make tough choices or even fight/kill a bandit.
GIven the nature of the story, though, I don't think that would work. If Telltale brought in another child character, it would fall into one of two extremes: Either the kid would be so badass that it would strain credibility, or it would be so wimpy that no one would want to play as it. What with the zombie apocalypse and all, there's not a whole lot of room for middle ground. Plus, there would have to be a whole lot more definition in the way of backstory that Telltale would have to provide: They would be telling us EXACTLY who we're playing without a whole lot wiggle room for our own decisions. Not that Clementine doesn't have a lot in the way of backstory as well, but at least we helped define the kind of person she is, given her interactions with players as Lee.
I have a strong suspicion that a second kid who shares the spotlight with Clementine would attract such unimaginable levels of hate that it would become a true spectacle to behold. If it wouldn't ruin the second season, I would almost pay to see it happen just so I could read the Internet after and see the unbridled loathing, no matter how the kid was written.
Didn't people say that they were taking a big risk adding Clem to S1? Well, the role Clem had in the story itself anyway. I feel it was mainly because most kid characters in video games are annoying as hell.
Oh, she can kill people. She blew Campman's brains out in my game. Made me so proud, it nearly brought a tear to my eye.
Stranger: "She wouldn't hurt a fly."
Clem: [whacks him with meat cleaver]
I need to keep this short unfortunately:
Power here is simply to overriding someone else's will (like in the case with Clem and the supplies). A child cannot (or should not) override an adult's power, simply because the adult is the one with responibility, not the least for the child's safety. A very common example here are children nagging their parents for candy in the store - nag, nag, nag, until the kid gets their damn candy just to shut them up.
In games, power is also control, and when control slips from the player, protests arise and rating pummel. In Mass effect 3 this was shown by having Shepard talking without input or prompting from the player for example and a lot of examples could be found in that game. One spot that did not get any complains however was the face off at the end with the Elusive Man, simply because the player had 100% control the entire time.
Clem's age will definitely affect the game - you can't build equal relationships with anyone else but another child - with any adult, the relationship will be just that. She won't know stuff for obvious reasons - she hasn't had much time to learn (doh), so a lot of know-how will be relayed to any adults in the group (which in turn takes away more control and some satisfaction ("yeah, get my MAD Civil war knowledge skillz!"). She won't be able to hold her own in a group - when the bullets in a gun runs out, what will she do - pick up Lee's fire axe? And another piece of satisfaction bites the dust.
I'm not saying playing as Clem can't be good - I'm saying it will be damn hard to pull through though.
Maybe depending on how Lee taught her in ss1 Clem will have different choices to make.
maybe Clem will have different choices depend on how Lee taught her in the last season.
Clem killed Campman and someone she love Lee, just saying.
At first I didn't like the idea of playing as Clem, my first thought was this is going to be stressful, but isn't that the whole idea. That life in a apocalypse as a child with no protection is stressful.
She don't have to kill Campman. This all depends on Lee if he fails to strangle him.
You might be overthinking this just a tad. In season 2, you'll be a young girl trying to survive a zombie apocalypse. That's it. All the subtexts and hidden meanings will fall into place later.
Clem killed Campman
its not going to be stressful, because she knows how to take care of herself after season 1
Like I said, if you strangle Campman Clementine won't kill him. If Lee fails to strangle him, Clementine will shoot him.
Have you played Episode Five?
I just told you, she killed Campman.
Perhaps in your playthrough, yes. Maybe indeed she did. But not in mine, nor some others'.
exactly rach,
our season 1/400days saves will affect season 2...
ttg have said this so many times it amazes me how people still think other wise..
for me i am looking forward to the 'shit' lines from the barn smell back in ep1.
and any salt lick references
clem makes sense.. no one else does.
if she was an npc again, how would it play it out ? EXACTLY the same as season 1, it would be kinda boring and cheap to have her tag along with a group who don't know her/trust her/ believe she is anything more than a child..
sorry harry your logic is flawed.
we the player are in control
we the player have a previous save to affect season 2.
there will be choices we have to make which will change depending on that save.
true some of us may need a season refresher so we remember if we're lucky maybe in an opening 'previously on' montage ?
nothing is being 'nulled' here.
nope all season.
her role is to survive starting off alone then she finds people.
what is this leader thing ? Just because lee 'took charge' doesn't mean clem does..adults will not trust clem until she proves it to them obviously by not listening and doing what 'she/we' wants too.
adults will always try to lord it over kids 'for protection'
i hope we get the chance to put adults in their place as some point.
you talk of a relationship mismatch... but we saw in season 1 an adult and a child bonding.. so your theory is complete rubbish..
proof: 1 lee and clem
2 kenny and clem
3.lee and duck
4.christa/omid and clem
5. nate and russel
6. shell and he sister.
As for knowledge clem doesn't know, what is really relevant in this world ? how to shoot, how to kill walkers, how to clean wounds, how to survive on limited supplies ? how to make shelters ? how to defend her self ? how to make a fire ?
everything else is camp fire talk...oh and don't spoil other games please...
honourable mention of chell from portal.
joanna dark from perfect dark
tomb raider lara croft.