Should there be, Dead end choices?

edited January 2014 in The Walking Dead

1 thing I think is lacking in ur choices counts games are choices that leads to possible ends.

take Clem's time in the hut. Should have a choice to stay put and see the results. If it leads to death, don't fade out. Show a proper ending to that choice.

maybe some people can end their story there...

EDITED:
How about this, retain the same fadeout, but got a choice to click, stay dead (end the game)

Then we'll have the cinematic results...
:)

Comments

  • They could do a set of different endings and choose one ending to be the "canon ending", so they don't have to work 2000 different storylines, but still allowing more choices for the players.

  • Well, it'd definitely add replayability to the game, but could also break the immersion in the game; dying and having to restart because your choice wasn't the 'right' one.

  • Sounds like a prolonged Game Over screen if the impact couldn't carry over to the rest of the season.

  • A nice skip button could solve that. :)
    which is what most fadeout deaths r like, the Arkham series for example
    :)

    Mikejames posted: »

    Sounds like a prolonged Game Over screen if the impact couldn't carry over to the rest of the season.

  • I wouldn't mind these, but I get the feeling that we'd see a zombie Clem sooner or later and that wouldn't sit well for many.

  • How about this, remain the same fadeout, but got a choice to click, stay dead (end the game)

    Then we'll have the cinematic results...
    :D

    Mikejames posted: »

    Sounds like a prolonged Game Over screen if the impact couldn't carry over to the rest of the season.

  • edited January 2014

    Making a mistake and reloading is different for an action segment.

    I think it'd diminish the weight of making choices if too many were there for the sake of having you reload to decide again.

    Vold posted: »

    A nice skip button could solve that. which is what most fadeout deaths r like, the Arkham series for example

  • By not providing dead end choices, the developers are denying the player control and that is incredibly bad form. Someone described FPS games as essentially corridors dressed as war, and I think that is a very accurate description of them when you think about it - player control is limited to what you can shoot and where you can take cover. This method is great for creating fantastic backdrops and scripted events, but for player freedom it is death.
    I'm leaning towards that TWD is an even narrower corridor where the player has even less control over events and decisions. Lee MUST go look for Clem. Duck MUST be bit. Clem MUST leave the shed. Compare this to say Skyrim or Fallout 3 or New Vegas where there's a very wide freedom to do things.

    In some cases the corridor works, in others, it don't.

  • Yeah, it wouldn't seem like the game is being tailored to how you play, it would be more like the game is already tailored and you should follow it or die instead

    Well, it'd definitely add replayability to the game, but could also break the immersion in the game; dying and having to restart because your choice wasn't the 'right' one.

  • Yes that could work, but it would still require them great amount of work. Maybe releases could spam to additional 2 more months of production, tweaking and finalization

    CTCCoco posted: »

    They could do a set of different endings and choose one ending to be the "canon ending", so they don't have to work 2000 different storylines, but still allowing more choices for the players.

  • I like the idea of bad ends outside of quick-time events. Realistically, some choices should get Clem killed in a non-immediate way... Like putting her trust in someone who's shown instability in the past and being betrayed somewhere along the line as a result.

    Of course, I also really like games with permadeath... So some may have more issues with losing hours of gameplay than I do.

  • Well, there have been dead-end choices in a minor way... like yelling "put the gun down, bitch!" to Brenda St. John.

    On the whole, I think I prefer things the way they are. This way, I'm thinking "what would I do here?" instead of "which choice have the developers decided is the 'right' one?"--it's much easier to immerse myself in the game.

  • We've had that once before, with the Kenny / Duck situation if you fail to convince Kenny to stop the train.

    I was expecting some sort of bad end with the first episode here as well.

    Maybe getting caught in the house, or having the choice to stay in the shed.

  • There weren't many of these in season 1 (and they where all dialog choices) so as not to diminish the importance of what the player chooses, which makes sense to me. But every time I play S1 E2, the first thing I tell Brenda is "put the gun down, bitch!" for a quick laugh. Basically, I think they should use it, but not abuse it.

  • edited January 2014

    I appreciate our options being diverse, but I don't see how having multiple choices lead to insta-death with one choice being the correct choice you're forced to go with equates to having more "freedom." It's a rewind button, not a feeling of consequence that we're forced to live with.

    Games like Skyrim can give more freedom of literal exploration, but their whole focus is quantity over quality, not characterization.

    Warge posted: »

    By not providing dead end choices, the developers are denying the player control and that is incredibly bad form. Someone described FPS games

  • Who says it has to be 3 deaths and 1 correct?
    it can be 3 correct with diverse result and death.

    and the death choice can be obvious to the player
    as clementine put it, if she do nothing her arm will get worst. Either she dies or needs amputation.
    making it as 1 of the npcs said, harder for her.

    Mikejames posted: »

    I appreciate our options being diverse, but I don't see how having multiple choices lead to insta-death with one choice being the correct choi

  • edited January 2014

    I never said I had a problem with more diverse choice outcomes. Just the idea of too many choices being definitively wrong, to the point where they'd have to immediately railroad you through the scene again.

    It'd be like if Lee immediately died because players weighed their options and chose not to smash Larry's head in. Yes, Larry dies regardless of your choice, but the different results are more personal than the idea of one option ending in a game over and telling you to backpedal on your decision.

    Vold posted: »

    Who says it has to be 3 deaths and 1 correct? it can be 3 correct with diverse result and death. and the death choice can be obvious to th

  • It doesn't need to. I can actually imagine a game with the same freedom as Skyrim but the same characterization as TWD. That would combine the best of two worlds, and best of all, it would give at least the illusion of more control to the player.

    For example, the showdown at the farm: Lee MUST approach Brenda via the front door and have a dialogue duel with her. That's good, that's fantastic - and totally out of the player's control on how the do things. What if I (the player) would have preferred to leave right there? Or sneak up behind her via som open window? Toss in a burning fuel can?

    Mikejames posted: »

    I appreciate our options being diverse, but I don't see how having multiple choices lead to insta-death with one choice being the correct choi

  • edited January 2014

    Choices to tackle a situation in different ways are great, but an option like leaving everyone altogether? I could appreciate having more consequences, but the characters aren't so unimportant that we should be able to abandon any of them on a whim.

    Don't get me wrong, variability is what makes the story feel personal, but if you're being realistic it can't lose all structure for the sake of having countless outcomes. It doesn't matter if you kill, ignore, ditch, or rob random people in Skyrim, because most of the characters have no real impact on you or any overarching story.

    Warge posted: »

    It doesn't need to. I can actually imagine a game with the same freedom as Skyrim but the same characterization as TWD. That would combine the

  • Yes and no.

    Yes: It would be nice to be able to do all given options you would expect in a situation like that, we need more choices and actual differences in those choices, your example is perfect in that sense, either try to get out and fix your arm, or stay put until tommorow, more dynamic choices would be nice, though i imagen it would take even longer to make episodes and release them, but i would be ok with that.

    No: No choice you make should lead to an early ending, if the story ends in episode 1, then whats the point in continueing the next 4? the main character dies and there is no game left unless they simply make you switch to someone else, but nothing would have that same impact.

    So yes, we need more choices, but we shouldn't get an early death as a result.

  • Feels like Deus Ex Ina building choice to rescue the hostage or "someone" or leave them to their fate.
    :)

    Warge posted: »

    It doesn't need to. I can actually imagine a game with the same freedom as Skyrim but the same characterization as TWD. That would combine the

  • It'll be an actual shock to see a playthrough where someone ended abruptly...
    if u want to see all the way, watch another play through. :)

    Yes and no. Yes: It would be nice to be able to do all given options you would expect in a situation like that, we need more choices and ac

  • edited January 2014

    Yes but due to how the community is this could misslead people into thinking that, that was the actual ending and it would make them angry. They can add multiple choices, and results of those choices without needing to end the game, this would be better from both a story telling and a gameplay perspective,

    Vold posted: »

    It'll be an actual shock to see a playthrough where someone ended abruptly... if u want to see all the way, watch another play through.

  • If this were back in mid season 1, I would have agreed, any more choices are better

    But now, its not really about the choices making a differences. Choice matters... to YOU. Telltale have managed to make a good story much more engaging by the involvement your given in the story. If you make dead end choices, I think it would be less engaging, because of the whole "well I could have done this and this wouldnt have happened" It makes it seem more like there was a "right" thing to do and people would just make those choices and use walkthroughs and such for the game.

    Its a lot like the Ben choice at the end of Ep. 4, i remember after it came out people were angry that there was no consequence to not dropping Ben, other than Kenny being upset. But thats the idea, youre not supposed to know if theres going to be a consequence, you just have to do what you think is right. I think multiple endings would work for me, but I think there would be a lot of complaints by the masses for making "wrong" decisions.

  • I think that's where the misunderstanding comes in. It's not about wrong choices.
    its choices YOU know will lead to an end, to end it or surprisingly it still goes on even if u thought u should be dead.

    Apples posted: »

    If this were back in mid season 1, I would have agreed, any more choices are better But now, its not really about the choices making a diff

  • In season 1, there were a few that would kill you, staying silent during the bandit raid (where you have to distract him for Lilly) gets lee shot in the face, same goes for if you threaten them. Staying silent when you enter the train car with Kenny leads to the Duckpocalypse.

    I would say that dead end choices have already found a comfortable place in the walking dead, Basically, if you make a huge mistake, you die, and it disrupts the story flow. Fair enough. There is no point for Telltale to put work into obvious game over sequences, such as 'do you want to fix Clems arm by stealing supplies, OR: Stay in the shed and die of an arm infection and blood loss'. WOW WHAT A CHOICE. The point is dead end 'choices' aren't choices at all. They are just mistakes that cause game overs. Hence why Telltale only puts few of them in the game, and only where appropriate. I mean, you COULD 'chose' to let Winston catch Clem. I mean he just shoots her in the face, but there you go, you have dead end choices. TL:DR, Why would you want shitty unforeseeable game over sequences which interrupt story flow because you couldn't foresee the arcane future consequences of your actions, like in archaic adventure games of the past, when this game actually has a good story?

  • Indeed. It's not a "choice" at all for me. It would just me another annoying death that I couldn't see coming. The reason why Telltale makes the better adventure games is because they rarely ever waste resources and time on pointless and frustrating "options" like this.
    Telltale already has "choice" deaths: two of them: duckpocalypse and staying silent when the EP3 bandit makes demands. These at least make perfect sense, and are caused by obvious mistakes when looked at in hindsight, or even in the moment. There's also only two of them (neither of which I saw) because Telltale knows how to allocate it's time and resources properly.

    Gengar posted: »

    Yeah, it wouldn't seem like the game is being tailored to how you play, it would be more like the game is already tailored and you should follow it or die instead

  • Why do you wan't Clementine to die pointlessly as a "canon" death? What could possibly justify splitting Telltale's resources to justify this bad decision?

    Vold posted: »

    How about this, remain the same fadeout, but got a choice to click, stay dead (end the game) Then we'll have the cinematic results...

  • Well said, sir.

    Qipoi posted: »

    Indeed. It's not a "choice" at all for me. It would just me another annoying death that I couldn't see coming. The reason why Telltale makes t

  • Ah, but there you have a kind of a cool feature (which was borrowed from a lot of previous games), namely plot armor, which means a character won't die until it's time or if the player fucks up royally (this was handled very well in Mass effect 2 where the team mates wouldn't die unless they were a) not loyal or b) placed in the wrong role for their character.

    That little thing put the player in total control over events and when he screwed up, someone died. For real.

    The same principle could be applied to a free roaming TWD game without much problem: you have the people willing to join the group, you have the people you need to help or they might bite the dust next time something goes wrong, you have the people in other groups running around and which you can meet, interact with - or go full bandit on. For example.

    The only problem as I see it is that a game like that couldn't be developed by TTG. They are specialized in this kind of interactive story games, not large scale productions of CRPGs.

    Mikejames posted: »

    Choices to tackle a situation in different ways are great, but an option like leaving everyone altogether? I could appreciate having more cons

  • edited January 2014

    Both series had pivotal points to choose whether a character lives or dies, just on a different scale; though Mass Effect has its share of issues as well.

    I loved Mass Effect, but it's a different style of story. And the tradeoff for making so many characters optionally killable was giving a lot of them a nonessential part of the plot, which either had great payoffs (like with Tali and Mordin) or some missable cameos. Telltale went with a more inevitable conclusion for their story, but it was one of the best finales I've ever seen for a game.

    Warge posted: »

    Ah, but there you have a kind of a cool feature (which was borrowed from a lot of previous games), namely plot armor, which means a character

  • edited February 2014

    One time something was wrong with my computer and it kept on freezing on the bandit raid scene. By the time my computer unfroze, the bandit said "Do you think this is all a joke?" and shot me. I don't know how many times I got shot before my computer started working right.

    Qipoi posted: »

    In season 1, there were a few that would kill you, staying silent during the bandit raid (where you have to distract him for Lilly) gets lee s

This discussion has been closed.