What is one thing you would change about the story?

It's clear the story has some divisive moments, not nearly as much as Walking Dead season two, but still. Because of this what is the one thing you would change, if it were a character, a plot twist, or an entire arc?

For me I'd go with Asher and Rodrik spending a little more time together before getting killed off just to see what their chemistry would entail. My other choice would be to completely erase Mira as a character since she did nothing but steal screen time from characters that were actually getting stuff done.

Comments

  • The traitor. Should've been maester or idk, just not what we got in the game.

  • edited January 2016

    Like Pipas, I would change the traitor. However, I wouldn't make it the Maester, I'd make it more than just who you didn't choose as sentinel. I'd do something like what they did with Kenny in Season 1, establish a sort of point based system that will determine who the traitor is, and it would be decisions that we made as both Ethan and Rodrik throughout the game and who we listened to more. It doesn't make sense for Duncan to be sentinel if you sided with him most of the time, nor should Royland. Make it a series of decisions that determines who it is.

  • I'd do something like what they did with Kenny in Season 1, establish a sort of point based system that will determine who the traitor is, and it would be decisions that we made as both Ethan and Rodrik throughout the game and who we listened to more. It doesn't make sense for Duncan to be sentinel if you sided with him most of the time, nor should Royland. Make it a series of decisions that determines who it is.

    Have it be both of them if you went straight down the middle. "Sorry my Lord, but you're an indecisive halfwit."

    Like Pipas, I would change the traitor. However, I wouldn't make it the Maester, I'd make it more than just who you didn't choose as sentine

  • If it did go straight down the middle, then the determining choice would be who you didn't pick as sentinel. However, it would be funny if both of them were traitors.

    dojo32161 posted: »

    I'd do something like what they did with Kenny in Season 1, establish a sort of point based system that will determine who the traitor is, a

  • I would make the opening of episode 5 and declaration of war more realistic.

    Ramsay shouldn't even have known we kidnapped gryff (Ludd literally found out a few hours before we got back) much less had time to get to Ironrath.

    I would've had him come there to complain that the Forresters weren't providing their half of the ironwood, then later on declare that since two houses harvesting clearly wasn't working, he was going to remove one of them. Last House standing.... wins!"

  • The only thing in the story that I wished happened differently was Arthurs death. They could've done a lot more with him. I'm pretty happy with the rest of the story. Except maybe Finn's death, I think he should've survived the season. It would've been interesting to see how he'd react to Cotter's death.

  • I would love a game based on Ethan, where the story was centered more around him keeping the house, peasants and soldiers, in order. Having the main antagonist be the problems in Ironrath, instead of the Whitehills.

  • I wished stealing Margaery's key had more of an affect on the story than what it actually did.

  • Yeah, I get that his death was supposed to be a WHAM moment, but it seems like such a waste of a character to just kill him off when there are plenty of other characters that would've served the purpose just as good coughOrtengryncough.

    Draagedeh posted: »

    I would love a game based on Ethan, where the story was centered more around him keeping the house, peasants and soldiers, in order. Having the main antagonist be the problems in Ironrath, instead of the Whitehills.

  • Having the main antagonist be the problems in Ironrath

    Well spoken. An antagonist doesn't need to be a bad guy. An antagonist can also a problem that the Forresters needs to overcome. I think the scene where Ethan have to deliver judgement in Episode 1 felt more involving because it was a problem among his people. I wished that the story's main antagonist wasn't the Whitehills, but the chaos and disunity from deaths of their lord, lost of soldiers and etc.

    I wished that the game focused more on ruling, delivering judgement, holding council meetings and other stuff.

    Draagedeh posted: »

    I would love a game based on Ethan, where the story was centered more around him keeping the house, peasants and soldiers, in order. Having the main antagonist be the problems in Ironrath, instead of the Whitehills.

  • I wouldn't change anything actually, well, maybe making the whole traitor scene a little more convincing but other than that I wouldn't change anything.

    People will always complain, someone is always gonna hate/criticize.

  • I think Ramsay came to Ironrath on his own volition, and the timing of everything was just really unfortunate. Ludd didn't just tell Ramsay what happened and to go fix it, it'd be kind of silly if Ramsay was Ludd's henchman.

    Blockb0ys posted: »

    I would make the opening of episode 5 and declaration of war more realistic. Ramsay shouldn't even have known we kidnapped gryff (Ludd li

  • Yeah I agree with this. While I did like how they played his death, it did feel like a missed opportunity to tell a possibly more interesting story.

    Draagedeh posted: »

    I would love a game based on Ethan, where the story was centered more around him keeping the house, peasants and soldiers, in order. Having the main antagonist be the problems in Ironrath, instead of the Whitehills.

  • I wish the contract mattered more, either it helped your family or you got caught with it and got in trouble. And convincing Eleana should have given you some sort of advantage.

  • Right on, Gared.

    Kateis posted: »

    I wouldn't change anything actually, well, maybe making the whole traitor scene a little more convincing but other than that I wouldn't change anything. People will always complain, someone is always gonna hate/criticize.

  • I think that'll come into play if Rodrik is alive. If Asher is alive then who knows.

    TaleTellFan posted: »

    I wish the contract mattered more, either it helped your family or you got caught with it and got in trouble. And convincing Eleana should have given you some sort of advantage.

  • edited January 2016

    The Traitor. It makes no sense for Duncan/Royland, they're both loyal men. I think it should have been Maester because not everyone seemed to care for him, It makes a little bit sense. I'd also probably change Finn's fate, Telltale just wanted to remind us how they handled a wasted determinant character in previous games.

  • Making Gryff and the rest of the Whitehills less one-dimensional. That would've made the 'Taking Back Ironrath' scene much more emotional, feeling the pain that Gryff was feeling when you beat him (determinately). They made them look like savages with no morals, and the story took the fall for it.

  • I'd make Duncan/Royland being traitor to be based on more than just the sentinel choice, and have Arthur survive if you took the Glenmore soldiers with you to Highpoint.

  • Going to add my voice to the rest and say the traitor is something I'd have liked to see changed or developed better. It's an interesting twist on paper, but I don't think it works when you consider both Royland and Duncan as characters-- two men who up until that point where loyal members of the house for years (maybe even decades? I'm not sure about the timeline). It's their motivation that I don't accept; you're told that they can't stand watching you ruin the house, so .... they went off and sped up the process for you by going to your enemies? It doesn't make sense. It goes beyond understandable pettiness that comes from hurt. And yeah, I understand people don't always do things that make sense, but generally there are a set of beliefs and opinions that inform your choices, and Royland/Duncan's betrayal doesn't really connect with everything else that we know about them.

  • edited January 2016

    I think she's planning on marrying Rodrik at the end of episode 5 either way, and after that you either have to shout that she doesn't belong her or she gets dragged off and raiped. So maybe she won't be happy about it in season 2. But my point is that she ends up pretty set on marrying Rodrik in episode 5. And even if she's not in bed with him, that's not because of what happened in episode 2

    Ethan Ricks posted: »

    I think that'll come into play if Rodrik is alive. If Asher is alive then who knows.

  • I can kind of rationalise Duncan's goals. He thinks your aggression will cause a war you aren't ready for and kill everyone... so he feeds the Whitehills unimportant secrets and (relatively) unimportant information so they can keep you locked down and unable to strike down. Tbh he robs could have prevented a war that way i Elaena hadn't shown up. To be fair to him, in that play through my Rodrik was a reckless bastard so I can't blame him.

    Royland.

    Well...

    He's clearly not the sharpest sword in the armoury....

    cellorocket posted: »

    Going to add my voice to the rest and say the traitor is something I'd have liked to see changed or developed better. It's an interesting tw

  • I hadn't played with Duncan as my traitor yet -- that definitely does make more sense, especially if you're playing Rodrik as reckless. But (from what I've read) you can play a character that should align with your traitor's views -- you can follow their suggestions to the letter and they'll still sell you out to your enemies. Now that I think about it a little more, maybe making the traitor determinant was the problem -- it might have worked better if it was set as Duncan, who thought that managing the conflict through flow of information would keep it under control, who had done this misguided thing out of loyalty. Even as your Sentinel, he might feel like it was his responsibility, to do whatever he could to keep the house alive (even if it meant keeping it weak).

    But like you said, Royland isn't really cut out for these intrigues, nor do I think he'd have the patience for them even if he was. He's a passionate man with a hot temper, who routinely labels Duncan's tactics as weak or underhanded, so I can't really see him sneaking off to the enemies of his house and then keeping up the facade right to your face. Even if he thinks you're an idiot.

    Blockb0ys posted: »

    I can kind of rationalise Duncan's goals. He thinks your aggression will cause a war you aren't ready for and kill everyone... so he feeds t

  • I think you're completely right. It would make more sense if it was set as the Maester or Duncan, because Royland makes no sense at all.

    I agree that Duncan keeping it under control no matter what makes a lot of sense... but I think that people who'd sided with Duncan the whole game might be a bit annoyed (myself included)!

    cellorocket posted: »

    I hadn't played with Duncan as my traitor yet -- that definitely does make more sense, especially if you're playing Rodrik as reckless. But

Sign in to comment in this discussion.