Quote:
Originally Posted by shedim
For instance, I saw the bite coming and I wanted to approach the cartboard from the left, to see if there's a walker behind it, but the game simply didn't let me. Same with the invulnerable walkers when you save Clementine. I was fast enough to kill qute a bunch of walkers and then all of a sudden they went like WoW-Paladin bubble, so that Chuck can die a pointless death. That's just lame.
|
Your inhabiting Lee's character, not a character you made up. You control his actions and responses to a certain extent, but by no means is this a game where you can do things on your own accord in complete freedom. It isn't that type of game. It's "interactive" not "free-roam", you interact with what is put there in front of you.
I agree with you on both points regarding the bite and Chuck, and there are many more examples of what I would have done differently to how Lee did it. Hell, I face palmed on many occasions when Lee would walk by a perfectly good natural weapon, or leaving Clem's house without getting supplies.
And Chucks death felt very cheap, yes he saved Clem, but it didn't have the impact it should have had. It was like he was simply a placeholder character for that moment, and Chuck to me felt like a very interesting character to get to know. So having no decision impact in Chucks case left a sore mark for me.
But again, this isn't a game where you can make decisions that you make. They have to limit your responses, and it has to be railroad to a certain extent because if it didn't, the guys at Telltale would be overwhelmed with all the possible scenarios left open and in the end, what would happen? Pulling a lost would happen, that's what.
Carley/Doug have to die, because it's their fate. Because having them lived removes the emotional impact. You and lots of others wouldn't be posting on the forums giving out if it didn't have impact. That is a success for Telltale. Having players even outraged over it is a success. If they simply gave you the option to save her (for the second time) then what impact would there be if you could simply select for someone else to die?
Sometimes the harder decision is to give the player no decision in the process, let it play out. That's what happened, and that's what needs to happen in certain cases. Chuck dying? I felt I wanted more decision in that, that felt cheap. But again it has served its purpose for the shock value it had, but you just have to move on. Carley dieing I was completely shocked, more so than Lee getting bitten, but I accepted it because that needed to happen for the impact it left.
This is a story telling game. I know a mate of mine purchased it thinking it would be a survival type game with free roam, and he did buy it without asking me. Now he's completely pissed off but more fool him for thinking he can act things out the way he wanted too himself.
It is all about the journey and choices, yes, limited choices, but choices regardless and how they impact the story. Your being told a story, and your playing in it with limited interactivity, that's enough for most people.