Damn you, Yahtzee. (The Walking Dead spoilers--TellTale's, that is)

[Parker Chapin]

You said the choice to save Doug or Carley was an easy one, because he was being grabbed by several zombies and she was squaring off with one crawler. You said the choices in this game were "presented as equally sensible but really aren't," which implied that one choice had a noticeably better outcome than the other.

What I'm getting at is, you made it sound like if I helped Doug, then Carley would be fine.

Well, she wasn't.

You bastard.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

If it makes you feel any better,

Spoiler

both will die no matter what choice you make.

 

[Altorin]

that's not a spoiler tag

Spoiler: this

is a spoiler tag

quote me for the syntax

 

[Zhukov]

I think that's what he was complaining about. The game makes it seem like there's a correct choice to be made. Doug looks like he's in serious trouble, while Carly looks like she should be able to handle herself just fine. Except that isn't the case.

Also, there's so many people yelling at that point that I never realized that Carly was out of ammo (that's why she;s reaching for her purse) until I watched a Youtube video with the subtitles turned on. Still, you'd think she'd be able to stomp the zombie grabbing her ankle and be fine. But nope.

Well, that was my problem anyway. I may be projecting.

 

[Weaver]

TellTale it like it is, brother!

 

[porous_shield]

I think op misinterpreted what Yahzee said. He chose Carley because her chances of survival were higher because she had only only zombie on her compared to Doug who had many. I figured one person was going to die because I hadn't made either big choice with consequences that portion of the game yet.

 

[Evil Top Hat]

I tended to disagree with Yahtzee on both the decisions he listed.

1) Doug Or Carley: You have limited time to get out of that room. Carley has a gun and knows how to use it. Knowing how to program a machine is not as useful in a zombie apocalypse access to a weapon. I appreciate that this is a very cold way of thinking and I'm not sure I'd do it again, but that was my rationale at the time.

2) Duck or the Other Bloke: Duck will not plausibly survive a zombie apocalypse. He is highly likely to die, and adds nothing to improve the chances of survival for other people. The kid is nothing but a burden to everybody but himself and his family members, whereas a fully grown man has the potential to help other people and can have a kid of his own one day, if humans would be so successful at surviving as to justify doing so. Duck can claim neither of those things. Furthermore, the bloke was crushed under a fucking tractor. He needed the help rather more than Duck did.

 

[Altorin]

I tended to disagree with Yahtzee on both the decisions he listed.

1) Doug Or Carley: You have limited time to get out of that room. Carley has a gun and knows how to use it. Knowing how to program a machine is not as useful in a zombie apocalypse access to a weapon. I appreciate that this is a very cold way of thinking and I'm not sure I'd do it again, but that was my rationale at the time.

2) Duck or the Other Bloke: Duck will not plausibly survive a zombie apocalypse. He is highly likely to die, and adds nothing to improve the chances of survival for other people. The kid is nothing but a burden to everybody but himself and his family members, whereas a fully grown man has the potential to help other people and can have a kid of his own one day, if humans would be so successful at surviving as to justify doing so. Duck can claim neither of those things. Furthermore, the bloke was crushed under a fucking tractor. He needed the help rather more than Duck did.

Carley's a moronic radio news broadcaster that doesn't know how batteries work. I left her pretty much every time, because, fucking batteries.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

I didn't actually notice the disparity in danger between the two. When I saw the "Save Doug or Carley" prompt I immediately thought "Oh hey, they're pulling a Virmire" and picked the character I preferred most (Carley, for anybody interested).

This mentality came back to bite me in the ass later when Telltale started screwing my expectations later.

 

[Fox12]

That's the only issue I had with that game, none of your choices matter. Everything ends the same regardless, even ME did better. When all your choices are artificial, does it really make a difference? I kind of wish they'd just told a straightforward story instead of pretending to give you freedom of choice.

That said, the narrative was still great.

2) Duck or the Other Bloke: Duck will not plausibly survive a zombie apocalypse. He is highly likely to die, and adds nothing to improve the chances of survival for other people. The kid is nothing but a burden to everybody but himself and his family members, whereas a fully grown man has the potential to help other people and can have a kid of his own one day, if humans would be so successful at surviving as to justify doing so. Duck can claim neither of those things. Furthermore, the bloke was crushed under a fucking tractor. He needed the help rather more than Duck did.

Don't forget that Duck was the moron who ran him over with a tractor in the first place. Duck could have just run off too, but instead he just flailed his arms around like an idiot. The other guy was worth more. Then the idiots dad got mad at me. I'm sorry your sons basically forest gump or whatever man, but he's not worth much to me. Basically I'm a horrible person.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

That's the only issue I had with that game, none of your choices matter. Everything ends the same regardless, even ME did better. When all your choices are artificial, does it really make a difference? I kind of wish they'd just told a straightforward story instead of pretending to give you freedom of choice.

That said, the narrative was still great.

To be fair, even in Mass Effect, your choices really didn't matter in the grandiose sense.

Also, if you play through the game without spoiling yourself, it's pretty easy to not notice the "artificial" choices. And they hide it a lot better then ME (i.e. a character that gets optionally killed off isn't immediately replaced with a slightly more flawed copy)

I'd also argue that most of the choices not changing the ultimate outcome works well with TWD's setting. But I realize at that point I'm getting into "no you just don't understand it's actually really deep" territory.

 

[Fox12]

That's the only issue I had with that game, none of your choices matter. Everything ends the same regardless, even ME did better. When all your choices are artificial, does it really make a difference? I kind of wish they'd just told a straightforward story instead of pretending to give you freedom of choice.

That said, the narrative was still great.

To be fair, even in Mass Effect, your choices really didn't matter in the grandiose sense.

Also, if you play through the game without spoiling yourself, it's pretty easy to not notice the "artificial" choices. And they hide it a lot better then ME (i.e. a character that gets optionally killed off isn't immediately replaced with a slightly more flawed copy)

Maybe, but atleast your choices mattered with the Quarians and the Krogan. I'll never forget watching Legion die. I understand Telltale was working on a tighter budget, but I don't see the point of pretending to have choice when the entire original cast dies anyway. It feels slightly dishonest, as well as unnecessary. They clearly have crazy good writing skills, they should just stick to their guns.

I wonder what pop culture hit they'll work on next. I want to see them make Firefly. Oh my gosh, I would pay them all the money to make Firefly...

 

[Winnosh]

That's the only issue I had with that game, none of your choices matter. Everything ends the same regardless, even ME did better. When all your choices are artificial, does it really make a difference? I kind of wish they'd just told a straightforward story instead of pretending to give you freedom of choice.

That said, the narrative was still great.

To be fair, even in Mass Effect, your choices really didn't matter in the grandiose sense.

Also, if you play through the game without spoiling yourself, it's pretty easy to not notice the "artificial" choices. And they hide it a lot better then ME (i.e. a character that gets optionally killed off isn't immediately replaced with a slightly more flawed copy)

Maybe, but atleast your choices mattered with the Quarians and the Krogan. I'll never forget watching Legion die. I understand Telltale was working on a tighter budget, but I don't see the point of pretending to have choice when the entire original cast dies anyway. It feels slightly dishonest, as well as unnecessary. They clearly have crazy good writing skills, they should just stick to their guns.

I wonder what pop culture hit they'll work on next. I want to see them make Firefly. Oh my gosh, I would pay them all the money to make Firefly...

Choices mattered far more in Mass Effect than they did in Walking Dead. At least in Mass Effect I've met very few people who had the galaxy the same as someone else' after they were done. In Walking Dead it's not so much about having different journeys it's your reaction to the journey.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Maybe, but atleast your choices mattered with the Quarians and the Krogan. I'll never forget watching Legion die. I understand Telltale was working on a tighter budget, but I don't see the point of pretending to have choice when the entire original cast dies anyway.

It's funny you specifically mention Legion, since he dies no matter which route you pick in game.

Really, while I get what you're saying, it's more about how the characters react to you're choices then what the choices mean in and of itself. Is it a cheap way to have your choices matter in an emotional sense while skimping on development costs? Sure, but as I said if you're not the type to spoil yourself on the other choices you don't notice.

And even if you do spoil yourself, the impact of your choices still stand. Sometimes the impact of false control is still enough to carry an emotional punch.

I can understand walking into TWD and expecting a replayable choice-based adventure and getting something different though. But I don't think it's a fault unto itself.

 

[Winnosh]

Maybe, but atleast your choices mattered with the Quarians and the Krogan. I'll never forget watching Legion die. I understand Telltale was working on a tighter budget, but I don't see the point of pretending to have choice when the entire original cast dies anyway.

It's funny you specifically mention Legion, since he dies no matter which route you pick in game.

Really, while I get what you're saying, it's more about how the characters react to you're choices then what the choices mean in and of itself. Is it a cheap way to have your choices matter in an emotional sense while skimping on development costs? Sure, but as I said if you're not the type to spoil yourself on the other choices you don't notice.

And even if you do spoil yourself, the impact of your choices still stand. Sometimes the impact of false control is still enough to carry an emotional punch.

I can understand walking into TWD and expecting a replayable choice-based adventure and getting something different though. But I don't think it's a fault unto itself.

Legion may die no matter what happens but I think that there is a HUGE difference in experiences and in the universe as a whole in what happens.

In one person's game Shepard and Tali work together fighting the bias of their allies and in Tali's case her entire species to buy Legion time for him to do what he has and in the end give his life to bring freedom to his people and help them reconnect with their creators.

In another Legion tries to give his people an edge to survive and defeat the creators who launched a war against them and is killed by someone whom he thought a friend, and who saw him as one as well but simply chose her people over him and he dies along with them.

Legion dies in both stories but I Dare you to tell me that those differences do not matter and that the choices don't matter. And there are at least 3 other ways that can happen not even counting something where Legion didn't even survive to this point.

 

[Fox12]

Maybe, but atleast your choices mattered with the Quarians and the Krogan. I'll never forget watching Legion die. I understand Telltale was working on a tighter budget, but I don't see the point of pretending to have choice when the entire original cast dies anyway.

It's funny you specifically mention Legion, since he dies no matter which route you pick in game.

Really, while I get what you're saying, it's more about how the characters react to you're choices then what the choices mean in and of itself. Is it a cheap way to have your choices matter in an emotional sense while skimping on development costs? Sure, but as I said if you're not the type to spoil yourself on the other choices you don't notice.

And even if you do spoil yourself, the impact of your choices still stand. Sometimes the impact of false control is still enough to carry an emotional punch.

I can understand walking into TWD and expecting a replayable choice-based adventure and getting something different though. But I don't think it's a fault unto itself.

I don't think it makes it a bad game by any means, It was still probably game of the year to me. My only point is that the developers REALLY hyped up the choice system, and how personal the game would be due to your decisions, and I don't think they should have done that when it didn't really matter. They did so many things right, and they could have sold us on the aspects of the game that worked best, such as the revival of the adventure genre, or the brilliant writing, or the art style. Instead every interview I read really harped on the "choices matter" tagline. Even if you argue that artificial choices add emotion, which may be true, I find it dishonest on the part of the developers to make the choice system their primary selling point.

 

[Winnosh]

Maybe, but atleast your choices mattered with the Quarians and the Krogan. I'll never forget watching Legion die. I understand Telltale was working on a tighter budget, but I don't see the point of pretending to have choice when the entire original cast dies anyway.

It's funny you specifically mention Legion, since he dies no matter which route you pick in game.

Really, while I get what you're saying, it's more about how the characters react to you're choices then what the choices mean in and of itself. Is it a cheap way to have your choices matter in an emotional sense while skimping on development costs? Sure, but as I said if you're not the type to spoil yourself on the other choices you don't notice.

And even if you do spoil yourself, the impact of your choices still stand. Sometimes the impact of false control is still enough to carry an emotional punch.

I can understand walking into TWD and expecting a replayable choice-based adventure and getting something different though. But I don't think it's a fault unto itself.

I don't think it makes it a bad game by any means, It was still probably game of the year to me. My only point is that the developers REALLY hyped up the choice system, and how personal the game would be due to your decisions, and I don't think they should have done that when it didn't really matter. They did so many things right, and they could have sold us on the aspects of the game that worked best, such as the revival of the adventure genre, or the brilliant writing, or the art style. Instead every interview I read really harped on the "choices matter" tagline. Even if you argue that artificial choices add emotion, which may be true, I find it dishonest on the part of the developers to make the choice system their primary selling point.

The thing is that the choices do matter. They may not change the game world but they do change your experience in it. It doesn't matter that they both die. All that matters is how it felt to you when you made that decision. And how different it would have felt if you made another one.

 

[Link_to_Future]

Sorry man, but I think you read into his comment a little too much.

If presented with that situation objectively from Lee's standpoint, Carley would have been far more likely to survive than Doug. Being completely rational, it would be better to save Carley and ensure that you have at least one survive than to take a risk on Doug and have a chance of losing both. I think that's where Yahtzee was coming from.

But seriously, save Carley. I like Doug and all but it's just more interesting story-wise when episode 3 hits if Carley is the one around.

 

[Mikejames]

When I first got a chance to look at episode one I went for Doug as well, thinking that Carley could pistol-whip the walker at the very least. So much for that.

But seriously, save Carley. I like Doug and all but it's just more interesting story-wise when episode 3 hits if Carley is the one around.

Yeah.. Honestly I may have preferred Doug's personality in the first episode, but Carley's knowledge of Lee's case and her insight on the group makes for the more interesting story in the long run. Shame Doug didn't get his own sub-plot too.