Possibly less determinate characters?
So, I was reading through a few post's here and it reminded me of a thought I have about how Determinate characters, in a way don't work for me.
Once we're given that choice of who to kill or save or let die, we immediately know,sometime in the future the other will die. I'll use the Kenny/Jane option for example.
Regardless of who you chose, in that moment, we all know that both will end up dead at some point which I think de-values the impact of making that choice.
What I would like to see is a future version where, the decision we make has a more lasting outcome. The one we save actually lives. We were given what? 5 possible outcomes, but we all know at some point they will all merge into one. I'm good with that as a future. Let's say we decided to let Kenny kill Jane, and Clem and Kenny go to Wellington. Clem get's in but Kenny has to leave. Later on, Clem could possible meet up with Kenny after a couple years, or, if you shoot Kenny and go to Howes with Jane, perhaps they live there a few years, this new guy comes along and he and Clem are out in the town (we see in the trailer) then they return to Howes later on to Jane and AJ both alive and well.
Now, I am not a video game designer and I know what I'm saying would require a lot more time and coding and whatever, but it would make our choices truly matter in the end.
What about Sarah, what if we could actually save her after the deck fall's. She Clem and Kenny reach Wellington and they let Clem and Sarah in. Maybe in season 3 Sarah doesn't have much of a role other than being there, but our choice to stand there or try to save her actually matters. (I'm using this as an example though in my play through I let the walkers get her in the trailer hehehe) Still I believe some character's should die no matter our intentions, but some choices shouldn't make one or the other determinate.
In the beginning, when having to choose Doug or Carley, it worked great for me because it was new, but as we're approaching season three, it's become common and takes away from the impact of the decision.
One more example.. The Michonne game. I have to say, I really did enjoy it overall however, knowing that Michonne would survive really made me indifferent to every other character and choices. I didn't care what kind of outcome would happen, who would stay with me, who would like me, who would die or live because in the end, Michonne (I, being the player) wouldn't die at the end and leave on her own to meet up with Rick. That left it sort of "bland" to me.
I'd like to see less determinate characters and maybe more possible outcomes.
Comments
Nearly everyone believes that a determinant status ruins a character, so why not have determinant ailments instead? Instead of choosing who lives and who dies, the person you save will be alive and well and the other will, instead of dying, wind up losing an arm or a leg or suffer some sort of effect. A great example of this is Malcom and Beshka from Game of Thrones, where they will both live no matter what you do, but one will get burned and become a bit bitter at your choice. If Telltale continues this trend, I think it'd be for the better.
I've thought of a similar idea. Having a character potentially get stabbed in the shoulder, which would change up some different aspects of them going forward. If they got stabbed, they'd use one-handed weapons like handguns or knives, and have a harder time using their injured arm, even for small stuff, such as them not being able to cross their arms. If they didn't get stabbed, they'd use two-handed weapons, and use their other arm more often.
Good idea. Like in the Carley or Doug choice, whoever you didn't help would get bit by a walker and have to have a limb amputated.
But we don't know if Jane and Kenny will inevitably die, that is an assumption although I can understand where people get that assumption.
I think that a character should be determinant if there are plans for that character to live and develop, at least to some extent. I like the determinants in games such as Mass Effect - a party member lived until the end and I loved seeing them develop more and become an active part of the story and there was another party member I saved in one of the games, although their fate ended up being death, the context of it was much different and they still developed and the second death had more impact on me.
I think we should have some determinants that still die regardless, since I feel that's needed for a game like The Walking Dead - where you can't save everyone but I do however, feel like there should be characters like Kenny and Jane who live until the end, even if they don't have the biggest roles. Although the more determinant characters they have, the more extra work they have to put in but the more choices affect the story-line. I just hope that Season 3 doesn't have the group dying off again.
You are right in that determinate characters are good for the story, I just think Telltale has gotten used to them ending in death most of the time. Like with Ben, I dropped him from the Bell Tower the second i could, but alot of people saved him and his fate was shown later when he fell from the balcony, Same general thing as Doug/Carley, Kenny/Jane..
But then again there are different scenes like Save Hershal's son or Duck, in the moment we don't know what's going to happen, it wasnt really a determinate choice in that no matter who you chose, he still dies and the outcome is only how Hershal and Kenny view you (Lee) to be used later. So, I get that and it's good. I just feel it kinda lessens the impact when we save one over the other then the other just dies later anyways, It becomes, so what! But yes, if you save one, I think having the other wounded, but still survives and maybe has some sort of conflict or blaming you for their wound, how they view you would be cool. Or save the other and they love you. Either way it gives that determinate choice more depth and possibilities than just waiting for the other one to die eventaully. Waiting to see how Telltale does it.
Still, it doesn't happen all the time but I hope they will take better care of determinants in the future, considering how they poorly handled characters like Sarah and Nick for two, although that is somewhat subjective. The difference with a character like Ben is that he didn't just lose development - he stood up against Kenny and can try to redeem himself to Lee and Clementine, plus we get to know him a bit more and it changes the story even if only by a small amount.
WARNING: The Wolf Among Us, Tales from the Borderlands and Game of Thrones SPOILERS BELOW
I agree it does lessen the impact but it, in my perspective, it makes you think more about who you want to save, what if one dies regardless and the other lives? How will the character I tried to leave behind react to my attempts in saving someone else over them? I know that isn't always the case but as the player, we don't always know what's going to happen. I did like how they treated some determinant characters: Prince Lawrence in The Wolf Among Us makes a reappearance in a couple of episodes and you can check on how he's doing and it feels like he's part of the town, part of the story and in saving his life you prevent a potential friendship between Bigby and TJ. Then there are other characters like Felix in Tales from the Borderlands - he adds more depth to his relationship with Fiona and Sasha and we discover that his motives aren't as clear as we thought. Then there's Game of Thrones where you have to choose between Asher and Rodrik and they change a pretty large portion of Episode 6.
HAHA you're right, it's determinant, but I've determined it's not worth the effort to go back and change all of my determinates to determinants.
It's mainly because once a character is determinant, telltale doesn't have to spend more time on them. I mean, look at the character change in characters who had important roles to after they were determinant :
I really hope they dont do that to kenny or jane, if they're going to get rid of them, have a time frame skip or say they got separated from clementine.
Kenny more so then Jane has been arguably the biggest character behind clementine and seeing how he was bought back from his original death in episode 5 , it would be weak to just kill him of at the start.