Character Interactions + Story Choices explained on Joystiq
Blind Sniper
Moderator
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/26/telltale-elaborates-on-the-story-and-choices-of-the-walking-dead/
"And there's one more thing about The Walking Dead that will make it stand out from the rest of Telltale's games. Previous titles were more or less episodically self-contained, but Rodkin said that episodes in The Walking Dead will 'be able to talk to each other.' Characters that die in one game in Episode 1 will stay dead, or if the player keeps them alive, they'll reappear in later episodes.
That extends to 'even the smaller stuff, where, in a conversation, we want the permanent feel of these things. If you're talking to someone, and they ask you what you think about this or that and you're like that sounds like the stupidest thing you've ever heard and they're like what an asshole. Well, you've just told that person something that makes them think you're an asshole, and the game logs that down and moves on.'
That persistence should increase game's sense of permanence, and pull the player into a world with real consequences for their actions. 'We want the conversation to feel much more like an actual conversation where when you say something, you can't just unsay it by re-exploring the same dialog tree.' "
Having seen the amazing art direction and now hearing this, it looks like The Walking Dead game is going in an interesting direction. Even though I haven't read the comics yet, I'll certainly be checking out the game.
"And there's one more thing about The Walking Dead that will make it stand out from the rest of Telltale's games. Previous titles were more or less episodically self-contained, but Rodkin said that episodes in The Walking Dead will 'be able to talk to each other.' Characters that die in one game in Episode 1 will stay dead, or if the player keeps them alive, they'll reappear in later episodes.
That extends to 'even the smaller stuff, where, in a conversation, we want the permanent feel of these things. If you're talking to someone, and they ask you what you think about this or that and you're like that sounds like the stupidest thing you've ever heard and they're like what an asshole. Well, you've just told that person something that makes them think you're an asshole, and the game logs that down and moves on.'
That persistence should increase game's sense of permanence, and pull the player into a world with real consequences for their actions. 'We want the conversation to feel much more like an actual conversation where when you say something, you can't just unsay it by re-exploring the same dialog tree.' "
Having seen the amazing art direction and now hearing this, it looks like The Walking Dead game is going in an interesting direction. Even though I haven't read the comics yet, I'll certainly be checking out the game.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I mean....if after playing an episode i replay it before moving to the next, would only the choises of the second playtrough be storaged?
That means that you can't replay anything until you finish all the episodes, if you want to keep track of your game?
...
If I end up getting this, I may play the part of crazy idiot.
If you happen to implement it in a similar way, please also implement the possibility for the player to properly name his savegames. "Slot 1,2,3" aren't really explicit when it comes to the choices a player has made, and you probably wouldn't want to summarize the choices made in the save slots. Also, if a player finishes the game once, that save slot would be "finalized" (so there's no sense to re-load it from the same episode). There has to be a far more intuitive approach than in previous TT games.
I'm not a big fan of this kind of interactivity, because there's always the suggestion: "You've done something wrong" when someone dies. So players would naturally aim towards saving everyone even remotely human instead of "doing their thing", making their own decisions and living with the consequences.
But after all, the possibility to do things wrong raises the suspense level and it's a zombie game, so people have to die. Ah well. I'll throw these intellectual thoughts overboard for the sake of the genre. For once.
That's a massive plus of course. The principle is explained here in its most blunt form, still I seriously hope it doesn't play out as blunt. If you make the conscious choice to piss people off, there has to be a damn good reason for it, and it should not be "I just don't want to be social". It's a zombie world, people have to work together. A simple good side/bad side Bioware-style gameplay just doesn't cut it.
Why, Rather Dashing, you seem intrigued. Good to see that. I really hope we won't be disappointed.
One more thing - the article repeatedly speaks of combat (which might be a necessity of the genre). We must assume that this will be done in a *gulp* ATE way, as TTG will have lots of experience with this kind of "interactivity" and lots of engine tweaks for them readily availabe by the time "Jurassic Park" goes live. I'd opt for a more Resident-Evil-2 approach... awww, I just hate ATEs.
And yet another edit: So up to now, "decisions" are confirmed. It's a nice start, but still rather comparable to Jurassic Park. Now we have to know about "traditional" puzzles (which would indeed fit for this franchise, I think) and combat (see above). I hope TTG lets us know about that before they announce a release window.
First time what comes to me naturally as a leader.
Second to be the worst leader possible, and believe me if you have seen me play pikmin, you know how bad a leader I can be.
Third to be the best leader in the Walking Dead universe and lead my men to greatness!
Seriously though, I also hope the action scenes are more dinamic, so to speak. While it QTE don't bother me, as a Jurassic Park fan I was kinda dissapointed at how you will be able to "play" the action scenes. Yes, they are brilliantly done and are a marvel to look at, with your heart stomping for these characters... But if it's a game, I want to actually be part of it.
Nevertheless, I'll wait for some actual footage of The Walking Dead before jumping to conclusions of how the game should or will be.
But dammit, I'm excited!
I'm sorry but "a name" has nothing to do with actual story/character relationship change.
But I think you should be aware, that THEY DID. It's just that for some reason, the system worked only for a few persons.
QTE is only a decent system when you have CHOICES. "action 1 or action 2 (or 3 , 4 ...)" like Heavy Rain. Having just one button to push just to get the cut scene forward isn't really interesting. (yeah i'm looking at you god of war ... and JP )
I don't agree with you about BTTF, as it is a different type of game, designed for a different audience.
Anyway I am liking the direction of the Walking dead. It sound more Rpg'ish with the decision making and the art style is certainly a step up from previous titles.
I wouldnt say karma since one decision could favor for one, but not the other.
As long as the game doesnt forwardly say "good" and "evil" in each discision Im fine.
And no "Rick" and "Governor" either, we would figure it out:D
I also would not use that term yet. It might well be exactly that, but I still hope that the player's one elementary decision "I want to be the good guy"/"I want to be the bad guy" at the beginning of the game essentially determines what he will do throughout the entire game. I want the moral dilemma; I want to open Pandora's box with every direction I take, decisions that just don't fit in a moral/immoral pattern, just like in real life.
That's what I found so compelling about the comic. There are very few times you can say that Rick or Tyreese or anyone really makes a "good" decision. It always seemed to comes down to choosing between "suck" and "suckier".
There was a lot of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" too. Spock would have been proud...