User Avatar Image

Hints From The Panel

posted by Master of Aeons on - last edited - Viewed by 430 users

If you watched the most recent Playing Dead episode, there's a lot of subtext to read into. You can get a lot of information from the video, which is here ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QngiVxj3RZU ) if you haven't seen it. This - video and the analysis here - will contain spoilers, so this is your final warning.

Endings:

Walking Dead will have one ending. This has been set in stone from the start and it was stated in the video that it is not going to changed. So, while Jurassic Park had two (or three endings, if you count dying at the very end as another), it sounds like Walking Dead will have one set, unavoidable ending.

Perverse Events:

Gary Whitta states that he pushed for the most messed up and foul scenarios he could imagine, and caused everyone - including Dave Fennoy - to recoil. While I didn't think so at first, I now believe that the man over the radio is a lecherous rapist. Let's all have a tub full of bleach for when we're done with episode 4 ready.

Tailored:

In the panel, the designers give a more clear definition of what "tailored gameplay" means. You have a game that fits with you, but you aren't "making clothes yourself", in a way that allows your choices to dictate everything. The game is "handed to you" to put in the final bit of input. This means that your choices will never matter in any way deeper than how it resonates with your own morality. But it also goes against another quote from the panel about the big mysterious choice that's been long rumored in Episode 4. Episode 4's choice is described as "so crazily consequential and branching" by Gary Whitta at the 30 minute mark.

What does that mean about choice? That this is the biggest break in the storyline and can change the story in a distinct way? Are all choices still small offshoots that quickly close back to the same inescapable plotline in the way that choices do in Mass Effect and Heavy Rain?

Is there anything else you picked up from the panel?

44 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @BlankCanvasDJ said: I'm guessing the big choice was whether or not to save Ben. Not only does it effect who stays with Lee at the end, but it may have huge consequences on the events of episode 5.


    Hehe...

    Yeah... you either save Ben and lose, or you "discard" him and win... darn... why did I save him then????? :eek: :D

  • @8Bit_System said: Yeah... you either save Ben and lose, or you "discard" him and win... darn... why did I save him then????? :eek: :D



    It would be a Walking Dead game that gives you a bad ending for doing the right thing.

  • @Master of Aeons said: In the panel, the designers give a more clear definition of what "tailored gameplay" means. You have a game that fits with you, but you aren't "making clothes yourself", in a way that allows your choices to dictate everything. The game is "handed to you" to put in the final bit of input. This means that your choices will never matter in any way deeper than how it resonates with your own morality.



    Thank god they explained it, a lot of people used to complain about not being able to change the story. When you make a choice, it later makes you feel that you made that happen, even when you didn't change the story at all, the game made you feel like your choices did in fact have an effect.

    I'm completely fine just having one ending to the game, because it will still make everyone feel different to that ending. Besides, it will make writing season two's story less complex. They would need to make about four different stories if we had four different endings, and so on.

  • @Ghositex said: Thank god they explained it, a lot of people used to complain about not being able to change the story. When you make a choice, it later makes you feel that you made that happen, even when you didn't change the story at all, the game made you feel like your choices did in fact have an effect.

    I'm completely fine just having one ending to the game, because it will still make everyone feel different to that ending. Besides, it will make writing season two's story less complex. They would need to make about four different stories if we had four different endings, and so on.



    I think I'd prefer a story that you can radically impact and influence and then just have season 2 with an entirely new bunch of characters.

  • I'm pretty sure that was Oberson hanging from the school bell. I suspect he hung himself when Crawford fell.



    How come he didn’t shoot himself in the head in order not to turn?

  • @Chris-Sabian said: How come he didn’t shoot himself in the head in order not to turn?



    Perhaps it was the Crawford residents who hung him after they got overrun. He was an ass anyway, throwing out kids and sh*t..

  • @Chris-Sabian said: How come he didn’t shoot himself in the head in order not to turn?



    It's likely that not everyone knows that everyone becomes a zombie. Especially those in safe zones.

  • @Master of Aeons said: It's likely that not everyone knows that everyone becomes a zombie. Especially those in safe zones.



    Well, they kicked elders, kids and sick people because they knew they had less chances of survival, probably, because they knew they would reanimate after death. I don't think they'd just kick out people for fun, I forget how them dying would affect their survival chances, other than being a *waste* of food.

    Edit: anyway, it has been three months and two weeks after the zombie outbreak, I think they would have noticed already.

  • @8Bit_System said: I personally will let her keep morality by giving something, taking something... instead of having something taken, to be given something.



    It's purely a matter of perspective. If the dick doctor had the insulin, she shouldn't have had to make a "deal" to begin with. Who else would use it other than a diabetic?

    @8Bit_System said: Perhaps it was the Crawford residents who hung him after they got overrun. He was an ass anyway, throwing out kids and sh*t..

    I don't think they were "throwing out" kids. As for Oberson, maybe he wasn't brave enough to shoot himself and really didn't care if he reanimated, despite his preaching otherwise.

Add Comment