Episode 5 Disappointment (vent here) **SPOILERS**

[ZeroShoot]

My opinion:, (regardless of 20 pages of comments, sry couldn't read it all )
So in the initial post you say, you're disappointed. In a certain way I am too, and that is, that the game doesn't give me the chance to choose who's more important to me: Lee (myself) or Clem (My daughter figure).

I really really wish, there was a point where you, the gamer, could decide whether you sacrifice yourself for her, or her for yourself.

Because I know, there is no way, I would sacrifice her, so Lee could live, that's the ending Telltale gave me, and that's why I'm mostly satisfied with the ending, but I know, there are many people out there, who think completly different, and I am kinda sad, that this great game doesn't give them the opportunity to do, what they want to, but it gives them an ending, that completly contradicts the way they would've wanted the story to end.

The ending would be just so much more emotional for those, who would've chosen to sacrifice themselves, because it was their decision, not a story line preset decision.

If you read this Telltalegames, first thing I want to say is: thanks for this great game, no... awesome game, not many games are as epic considering the emotional deepness and great story. But my humble wish for season 2 is:
Please give us more alternate ways to determine the further story line, more decisions that actually change some things, and alternate endings.

In any way... I'm looking forward to season 2

[Mark$man]

I was satisfied, but I cried over Lee's death. I was disappointed at Ken's MIA or death status, because he really shouldn't have needed to sacrifice himself in those situations. Especially if Ben died. I mean over a walkie talkie? Seriously? You know where Clem is, just go get her. And yeah, I hated how you couldn't try to convince Clem her parents died, as it was extremely obvious. Also, I disliked how you couldn't save certain characters, no matter what. Like when Ben goes to jump, you couldn't have tried to help? Nobody tries to help people when they make a jump from a large building? When you saw the rim snap, you should have had the option to warn Ben, not stand there looking stupid. The fact Ben had to die so poorly in the alley also could have been better desired. I mean, carry him behind the gates, at least let him die peacefully and not get torn apart. And it would have saved Kenny a life and bullets. Also, I also think Christa's pregnancy should have been spoken about, for Kenny and Omid both knew, and I think Vernon would too. Lee seemed kinda... clueless. I would have liked better options when talking about Clementine, or talking about the past to Christa and Omid. Or how Clem never seemed to care about the others. Like she assumed Lee was the only one left? i didn't understand that. Idk, maybe I just would have preferred some things, but TWD game was phenomenal. I wouldn't ask for a better TWD game, even if some aspects weren't exactly perfect. If Telltale can make a sequel even close to as good as the first, I'd be happy. Hell, they can make as many as they like!

[MzEm1]

I agree, I feel the ending was a little disappointing.

[Web Head]

Just let me live the outbreak in real life...And you'll see the population of earth decreasing to 500 thousands instead of billions...

[zjs]

Originally Posted by thestalkinghead

listing every event would just be work for me, but here is a few:
(episode 1) you can chose to give Irene the gun so she can take her own life and not become a walker, (episode 5) you can tell Clementine how it was a hard decision but a good one because she didnt want to become a walker and Clementine would't want to see that and she should shoot him.

(episode 1) you can chose to save carley (episode 3) you can talk to carley and she will suggest telling everybody about your past then you can tell everybody or not

and then there is kenny, and the many things that can totally change how he treats you

these affect the relationships and dialogue in the game, to be honest these weren't the lasting consequences i was expecting, but if in the lord of the rings sauron was best buddies with gandalf and Boromir said "why cant we simply fly into mordor on those giant eagles?" i think people would say the story was changed

Personally, I feel the biggest two in the first series are whether or not you save Carley or Doug (whether or not people see this as being 'invalidated' later on, it still makes quite some difference for several episodes) and whether you choose to save Ben's life. If you save it, Kenny almost unequivocally sacrifices himself; if you don't, there's ambiguity and a distinct possibility of him being alive.

However, all the choices in the game beyond this are really dialogue options. The exceptions to this are perhaps whether or not you make Lilly leave the group, whether or not you shoot the girl and whether a minor character is a walker. Although it eventually makes no difference (Lilly goes anyway, the minor character never appears again and the supplies get stolen regardless), it still changes something beyond dialogue.

Every other choice, though, is purely related to dialogue and character's reactions. This isn't necessarily an awful thing, but it's patently not an actual choice which changes the outcome of the game. People are not arguing that absolutely nothing changes, but that choices themselves aren't actually choices as the outcome is on rails.

The perfect example of this is the girl in the motel. Choose not to give her the gun and she takes it. Either way she ends up dead. Now, this would be perfectly acceptable if the characters it influenced actually stayed for more of the game. What I mean by this is, taking the same example of this girl, only Carley and Glen see. Given that they're both gone an episode later, it's hard to see this decision as particularly impacting, beyond the impression it makes on you as a player. While this journey that the player takes really makes an impression the first time around, and makes the game special, it is not something which has replay value, given that almost everything will turn out the same way. Neither of these characters tell anyone what you did, and so the choice is lost.

If the characters who you agonise over choosing certain lines of dialogue survived longer, or died over a longer period, people would be less annoyed. That way, dialogue which is supposedly tailored would be, as they would remember what you said/did, or have a chance to relate it to the group. There are ridiculous elements such as Carley liking what you're saying or remembering it literally seconds before she's killed. Given that the dialogue is what we can all agree is the tailored element of the game, on-rails events such as this seem to devalue that somewhat.

There is also the fact that a lot of this dialogue and the choices that you really put thought and effort into just don't seem to matter. Take your example of Kenny's treatment of you. This is something that I would agree is an example of the game being tailored, and choices having an impact, but I can also see it from the detractor's point of view: that it actually means nothing. When you say a game is tailored to the choices you make, you expect more of the game itself - and thus the story - to mould to what you did. Kenny's attitude towards you means he will/won't come looking for Clementine, and his presence changes absolutely nothing. If the game was as tailored as it is billed, you might reasonably expect that keeping Kenny onside throughout the game and thus his coming to look for Clem actually rewards you with something, i.e. a different path, an unexpected slip-up which causes a character to die who otherwise wouldn't have etc.

[Jaded X Gamer]

Originally Posted by zjs

While this journey that the player takes really makes an impression the first time around, and makes the game special, it is not something which has replay value, given that almost everything will turn out the same way.

I gotta disagree, I've love replaying The Walking Dead game. I think I just started a tenth play through and I still enjoy trying out different dialogue options. I know you can't change the outcome but I find it fascinating to see how characters respond to what you say and love seeing their reactions. In particular seeing Kenny flip-flop between your bro or not is really entertaining and realizing that Lilly doesn't actually care about anyone really hurts.

Last playthrough I found out if you say you should keep moving at the beginning of episode four it leads to this extra argument between Christa and Kenny I hadn't seen before. And in Crawford when talking to Clementine I stumbled uonn a dialogue option to tell her to remember something Katjaa said in episode one. It also helps that a lot of the dialogue is really funny. Pretty much everything Larry says is a riot and things like suggesting splitting up to Kenny at the beginning of episode three produces a really funny result.

I do agree that they are some missed connections and some decisions lack the desired impact. For one example, I thought who came with you at the end of episode four felt wasted. (You guys couldn't at least help pull me up after I jumped from the belltower? ) But for the most part, I think the limited control over the actual story is one of the things that actually makes it so effective.

If you could simply control the outcome, then the story would basically just be another form of wish fulfillment. Which there's nothing wrong with, it's something video games excel at, but I don’t think you could make as strong a story without denying some degree of control to the player. And in the Walking Dead game’s case I think the incredibly limited story control is why people responded so strongly to it.

Take Lilly killing Carley (or Doug) for example. If the player could prevent that, if they could save Carley (or Doug) would the scene where she (or he) dies really be that tragic? If there’s a outcome where that could be prevented, would Carley (or Doug) getting shot being any more upsetting than any of the dozens of game over screens where you see Lee die when you miss a quick time event? Would it not just be a “bad outcome” people look up how to avoid?

Same thing with the actual ending where Lee dies. If there was another ending where he survives and escapes, where the ending where Lee dies be as emotional? Would it not simply be considered “The Bad Ending”. Wouldn’t it just feel like you made a mistake, and being a video game, wouldn’t you be compelled to go back and replay it so you don’t make that mistake?

I can’t speak for everyone else, but typically when games have multiple branching choices, I usually go back and play the game again to see what the other choices do. And that usually leads to me finding the outcome I like best. And that can be a lot of fun, but it doesn’t get me as emotionally involved as a story I can’t shape to my favorite outcome.

Even something like Fallout: New Vegas, a game I really love and would praise for the amount of impact a lot of your choices usually doesn’t feel as emotionally involving. It’s a ton of fun to play, but the most emotionally memorable moments were actually the ones I didn’t have much control over. Like finding out the truth behind Vault 11 or how Veronica’s sidequest always ends in tragedy.

The brilliant part of The Walking Dead game is it gives people just enough control over the story to really put themselves into it, but then repeatedly yanks it away to heighten the impact of what would have been otherwise static story points. The idea behind the decision to save Doug or Carley is to make Lilly snapping that much more shocking by killing whichever character you saved. And it usually is shocking because people typically save whoever they liked more, Doug or Carley. You have just enough influence over the story to see an impact (you get to talk and hang-out with Doug or Carley in the next two episodes) and then control is ripped out of your hands.

That still doesn’t mean I think the game is perfect or there isn’t room for improvement, but I actually think the concept of a story with a deliberately limited amount of control over it is actually a really genius idea. It allows the writers to craft a mostly consistent story without fear of having to subvert important story points for the sake of control but still gives players just enough influence to strengthen the existing emotional aspects.

I think the Stranger is a great example of how effective this technique is. His character really doesn’t change no matter what you do, but people’s opinions of him are all over the place. I’m a bleeding heart pansy so I was really sympathetic to him even though I thought he was wrong. If you acted cruelly he might make you question himself. Or if you didn’t it might make you just think he’s a hypocrite. Or maybe you just think he really is a villain who lied to a little girl to kidnap her.

The Stranger is consistent, but people’s feelings towards him aren’t, and the game let’s you project those feelings onto Lee to create a scene more effective than if the writers’ simply decided what the audience’s reactions to him should be. But it’s still a scene the writer helped craft, because if you could convince the Stranger he was wrong or your decisions convinced him you’re not a bad guy, it would be just another video game goal to strive for. A difficult level to traverse, and not a tense scene you’re put in.

We can all argue about the most effective balance between story telling and player control. I certainly believe there’s things in the game that could have been done better. But I think actually giving the player so little control was actually one of the things I think makes the story great. And I think the acclaim The Walking Dead game has received is strong evidence in favor of the design decision to deliberately limit but not outright remove story control and gaming elements in favor of creating the most compelling tale possible.

Think about this. If last year you were told that a downloadable tie-in game with the Walking Dead comic made by the same company who did Sam and Max was going to win over eighty game of the years awards, would you believe it? I wouldn’t have. Not before playing it anyways.

[Mark$man]

^I agree with Jaded, I think I've played it 5 times just to look at all the stuff I missed or overlooked, find eastereggs, develop different conversation relationships, and act differently. You can have an assholish Lee, a silent-but-deadly Lee, a friendly mediator Lee, a savior Lee, a moral Lee, a father Lee, a bro Lee, or somewhere in-between. I found this extremely interesting. For the amount of time put into the game, I am astounded by the results, and wouldn't be surprised if the first few episodes of season 2 were or are close to finished. I am interested to see Clem's actions and responses from what you taught her. I think season 1 was a test to see how people would react to the game and the roots for perhaps a long tree, while season 2 used the foundation of your earlier decisions to make a more-heavily impacted tailored game. Telltale could have mean't the game would be tailored to change the experience of the first season, or perhaps what would be seen afterwards. Either way, I am anxious for the next season!

[DreadMagus]

I've only played it twice (technically) and then have gone on to see parts of other people's playthroughs...... despite the similarities, at times it felt like I was watching a different game.

While the overall storyarc doesn't change, the way it's presented is.