Keep AJ Out of Season 3
Alright, I've been thinking about it and I really don't see much AJ contributing much at all to the experience of Season 3. As far as I know, the comics have only reached a few years into the apocalypse, meaning that Telltale can't do that large of a time skip after Season 2. So at the start of Season 3, AJ will still be at most a toddler: helpless, requiring constant care, and not really having much of a personality to interact with beyond some cute babbling and a few brief utterances. He will barely be cognizant of his surroundings or what's happening and even if he did, he won't have the capacity to communicate much of anything to Clem other than simple emotive expressions. That's not really a character that I really care to have Clem interact with. There's nothing interesting he can do or say. I can't see his presence really adding any depth to the story.
He can't die or really even be threatened by death either because, aside from possibly Jane, he's the only remnant of Season 2 that Clem has left with her. His death would make the entirety of Season 2 completely pointless since he was the central plot device throughout the whole thing. And it's not like he could pull a meaningful sacrifice like Clem could or anything. His death can't really have much significance to it other than a giant middle finger to the entire Season 2 cast, including Kenny. From a narrative standpoint, AJ needs to be effectively immortal.
So if AJ is included in Season 3, what we'd have is someone with no personality, who can't die, and whom the main character (assuming it's still Clem) will constantly have to take care of and be pressured into protecting above all else. That really kinda sucks. I don't exactly know how Telltale would write him out of the game in a way that doesn't have him dying but they should do it because I really do think that his presence would be a detriment to the experience.
Comments
If telltale does the right thing and focus on clem and nj, nick jr would be the main thing they'd be focusing on.
No, AJ is mah boi, i want to protect him, and raise him
eh I feel they left the baby around for some reason , plus I'd like some connection between the seasons. I mean AJ is the only other survivor (un determinant). I do admit I dont care that much about the baby though, I mean Clem already seems to be overlyattached to it while I only sort of care.
I'd rather we focus on a different character altogether. Wouldn't count on Telltale killing off AJ though.
But that's the thing. He won't be at an age where you can really teach him anything about the world and have him understand. So you won't really be doing much to raise him. Your time will be spent just trying to keep him alive. It'll also be hard to care for him the same way you did for Clem when you were Lee because you just can't have those kinda of interactions with a 2-3 year old (at most).
We could perhaps have a choice to give AJ to a loving family, for them to take care of. If you want to continue taking care of him, you're given that choice. If you don't, you can do it without killing him.
I was hoping that we'd just be able to drop him off to some good caretakers and go off on our own...
Yeah I know they won't timeskip that far cause the comics, but I went to Wellington, and if it's a good place, and there's no guy like Carver robbing it, we should be good and might not have to think that hard about survival, but if there was an environment where i would have to be extreme survivaliast, i think i could still keep the baby safe, i would have to find formula though...
Well that's kind of my concern. I also suspect that they kept the baby around for a reason and my fear is that they're trying to emulate the same guardian-type relationship we had with Lee and Clem. But the problem is that that relationship doesn't work unless the player develops an emotional connection to the person he or she is tasked with protecting. Having S2 be his origin story just isn't enough. There has to be something intrinsic to the character. Clem was very carefully crafted to make her into someone that pretty much everyone wants to protect. It wasn't just that "Well, I have to save the kid." It was "Man, that kid is awesome, I want to make sure she's alright." I don't see how they would be able to pull that off until AJ is at least 5 years old, which is very unlikely to happen for Season 3.
Kidnapped by Nate (or some other convenient bad guy). The rest of the season could be about Clem attempting to track AJ down, while running into various obstacles along the way.
Yeah agreeing with this idea
That might work. It'd be a bit contrived as to why that convenient bad guy would want to kidnap a baby in the middle of an apocalypse, though. I mean, Carver thought that baby was his and wanted to raise it to be his successor or whatever. Can't really see them retreading those grounds.
He could still be in it. We'd just get Beth from the show to look after him.
So you want to throw all that happened in season 2 out the window?
You know, writing him out is just as much of a middle finger to Season 2 as killing him.
Man, I would opt for that choice so fast...Hell, if the game had let me, I would have left the baby with Kenny at the rest stop when we parted ways. I don't want Clem to have to raise a baby. Being a babysitter for it every once in a while is fine. Being a child parent in the zombie apocalypse? Fuck that.
Aj
Not really. They could always bring him back later on as long at they don't kill him. And like I said, he wouldn't be much of a character anyways so there wouldn't be much to write out. It's not like Clem can impart any wisdom to him at that age or show him the ropes as a survivor. So as long as you know he's safe and cared for, that's all that matters.
Eh, Nate's a crazy SOB. I almost see him being more along the lines of the Snoats brothers from RAISING AIRZONA in his attitude towards AJ. Not so much a heir, as a potential drinking buddy in a few years' time.
The only other possibility would be for the story to jump forward at least a decade to allow AJ sufficient time to grow into a reliable child, but time-skips are already unpopular enough among the fans.
I dissagre. Clem taking care of AJ is a big part of her development; they can´t just write AJ out or kill him.
I agree with you on this one, I think it should have been an option to leave AJ at Wellington, but Kenny would not probably allow it.
And as you said, AJ was a major plot in Season 2, removing him wouldn't make sence. But that is why I think you will meet up with other survivors in season 3 which will take care of him too. For example i believe we will meet the family in the Jane ending either way, unless the family is up to no good.
In the ending where Kenny kills Jane, there should have been an option to leave Kenny and let him keep the baby. Clementine on her own would be OK. But looking after a baby who spends a lot of time crying is a death sentence if you ask me.
When Clementine is standing on the hill with the zombies, covering herself in guts won't do shit once Alvin Jr starts crying which he obviously would do. Best thing given the options is to be with either of Kenny or Jane and not on your own.
The problem is that this turns the entire game into an escort quest where your charge is someone you can't really form an emotional bond with or teach anything. You're just given absolute responsibility to do everything you can for this thing that you don't really feel attached to. That's what Season 1 was trying to avoid by making Clementine as likable as possible and I would hate for them to undo that feat with Season 3.
I get what you are saying, but writting him off instead of working around the issue just fells cheap and underwhelming to me.
Unless they're douches. I agree you with, he should be kept out of the main plot carefully, but that players need a connection to help a baby is silly. I'd help because he's innocent and that's what the group in S2 wanted. For the cabin group and Kenny
Agreed. AJ would cause trouble for Clem, if she has to look out for him every second, starting to cry and bring walkers to her, where she has to focus on AJ and the walkers at the same time. The best thing to do, is let him stay at Wellington or some other good people who can take good care of him, instead of letting an 11 year old girl do it on her own, or atleast find a big group where they all can look out for him together.
Pretty much this decision will be good for people who want him safe but not with clementine and such could make this to end off my speech and rant overall this will make all the people who dont want the baby give it to someone who can keep it safe while clementine is wherever you chose this choice is most likely gonna happen
Players need a connection to help a baby and have it not feel like a chore. Season 1 wouldn't have had nearly the same impact if the player only felt that they needed to protect Clem because she was a kid and it was the right thing to do. The player should want to protect the other character because they like them and care about them, not just out of social responsibility. That just feels...weak.
I'd actually be interested in seeing how the game would turn out having to keep an infant safe while avoiding walkers and bandits. Being a father to a baby boy probably helps in that though. If I were in that position, there is no way I would give up my son out of convenience. I'd have to know that he is safe by seeing to it myself.
what? you expect him to just get killed off?
Well, it's your son, though. AJ isn't Clem's son or brother or nephew. And yes, Clementine wasn't Lee's daughter either, but this was remedied by the strong relationship we built up with her through our interactions and dialogue where we learned about her mannerisms and personality. Given that he's a newborn,there won't be opportunities to do that with AJ for quite a long while. Until then, AJ is just well...baggage. Really, really, really, really, precious baggage, but still baggage.
I'm pretty confident that season 3 won't revolve around Clem tbh. If they planned to have Clem be the protagonist, they wouldn't have given so many different, possible endings. It would be too difficult to create a story that is canon with all the possible endings without doing a timeskip. And I really don't want another timeskip, that's just lazy to me.
I agree, my only issue is that if they're going to reboot the story it will be strange to call it Season 3 and not a spinoff sort of name. Calling it Season 3 to me signifies continuity of the story, but at this point we can only wait and see.
I never thought about it like that. I just saw it as another season of the franchise, not necessarily a continuation of a certain story really. I can see how it would be seen like that though.
Sorry if this offends someone, but I do not like the forced relationship of A.J and Clementine. In fact, I do not like A.J.
I hope that he is not the main focus of Season 3.....If there would be a choice to give him away, I would give him away.
It could just be considered a continuation of the series and not necessarily the storyline itself, I never really thought about it like that. For Telltale's version I always figured they would just follow the same storyline. Either way I think it will be an interesting story. My one issue with them starting with new characters is that if they jump into a new story at the current 2-3 years into the apocalypse mark, I feel like any characters should already be pretty well established, and taking over one will be awkward. It'd be like taking over Jane or Kenny, I just wouldn't feel right as them.
before the release of episode 5.. i didn't expected that... i'm(clementine) gonna try to take care of AJ in the end... ;____;
or i thought i could give it to anyone who can take care of it...
I have a feeling that they'll continue with one of the 400 Days characters as their protagonist. Specifically Eddie or Nate. I think there is a reason they only showed up in their episodes and not in season 2.
I really hope it isn't Eddie. I really didn't enjoy his character at all. That would be an interesting idea though, and maybe they very specifically had Eddie in the 4th slide just as minor foreshadowing. I can't wait to find out... so long as I don't have to play as Eddie.
Same, I like Eddie, but not enough to want to play as him. I'm hoping for Nate more so, I think it would be very interesting to see the potential dialogue choices and storyline created for him.
I agree, and we're certainly in the minority there. Most people think Nate is the walking embodiment of a sexist and a rapist, amongst other things. I tend to disagree with this based on what we're shown of him, and I actually got into a few relatively large arguments on the topic a while back.