Something I'd Like to Point Out
If you dislike Season 2 that is perfectly fine, good even. I love to see some diversity in the human race, and you are just as amazing, unique and awesome as someone who likes Season 2, or maybe feels it's okay or maybe didn't play it, or whatever. However there seems to be one criticism that I hear for almost all Telltale Games but mostly for Season 2 which drives me crazy.
"Your choices DON'T MATTER at all!" This argument normally needs some context. But in both common context (either comparing to Season One or just stating flaws of Season Two), it is still downright wrong and these people know it. It's not an opinion if it's wrong. If you said something such as: "In my opinion, I believe Season Two should have had more choices and results". That is FINE, like I said GREAT even. But saying "The choices don't matter at all" like it's a fact, is wrong and here's why.
Okay so let me break this down into why this is wrong when comparing to Season One and why it's wrong when just pointing out flaws in Season Two.
When Comparing to Season One
This doesn't work, mainly because Season One had much less choices and results. That doesn't mean it's bad, but let's be honest our choices didn't really seem to matter all too much.
For example, in Season One there are a total of three determinant characters who were: Ben, Carley/Doug (counting as one) and Molly.
Ben: You can either save him from the church bell tower, or drop him.
Carley/Doug: You have a choice to save either Carley or Doug.
Molly: You can either bring Clementine to help rescue her from a walker. You can rescue her, or you can shoot her/not help/miss and Molly will flee the scene. I'm only including this because her chances of survival are affected depending on what occurred.
Now let's look at Season Two:
Those determinant characters are: Pete, Nick, Alvin, Sarah, Sarita, Bonnie, Jane and Kenny.
Pete: You can either help him, only for him to die (as he's implied to either be shot by bandits or Carvers group). Or you can not help him, and he gets eaten.
Nick: You can convince Walter to spare Nick or even make him angrier and let Nick die in revenge for murdering Matthew. Or he dies in Episode Four trying to find some help for Luke and Sarah.
Alvin: You can get Kenny to stop shooting or Kenny can shoot only for Carver to shoot Alvin. Either that or Alvin will sacrifice himself for Clementine.
Sarah: You can leave her in the motor-inn, as she's mauled to death or You can escape with her, only for her to fall when the deck breaks and be mauled to death.
Sarita: You can chop her arm off, causing her to panic and be mauled to death by zombies or you can kill the zombie and simply have her die later.
Bonnie: If you don't help Luke, and Bonnie does. You can try and break the ice to help Luke, only for him to freeze to death and Bonnie to get out. Or You can not break the ice and both Luke and Bonnie drown.
Jane: You can save her by shooting Kenny.
Kenny: You can save him by not letting him murder Jane.
As well as this there were some tough choices such as watching Carver get murdered, sticking your neck out for Sarah, convincing Alvin for supplies, etc.
Either way it's a given that Season Two definitely had more choices and consequences than Season One. Which isn't a bad thing, as we all loved Season One for its rich narrative and it still provided a very good and immersive illusion of choice.
Now onto the next context: When pointing out flaws in Season Two
Well like I said previously, it's quite clear that you can move choices and have consequences. They say your choices are TAILORED by the story, and not only that but this is the Telltale Game with the most endings. Therefore I don't see this argument as valid whatsoever. It's quite clear the choices do matter, and no one really wants a story (except all of us) where every single thing we say affects every single thing. That'd simply be way TOO ambitious and way too much hard-work, it would take a phenomenal amount of years to pull off a series with that big of a scope with a great story to match.
Either way in conclusion, this is something I'd like to point out. Stay awesome and keep critiquing things for their valid flaws.
Comments
Choices are better this season in terms of effects. However for me the determinant characters in season 1 were more succesful, Carley/Doug especially though this is due to it being a one or other thing
Actually season 1 did have a few more determinant characters than that.
Season 1:
Chet
David Parker
Travis
Danny St. John
Andy St. John
Gary
Drew
400 Days:
Danny
Justin
Leland
Roberto
Boyd
These ones just didn't affect people as much.
I enjoyed Season 2 as much as Season 1. While some criticism is valid I think people nitpick at almost everything these days...
That's what some don't seem to understand. Those of us who really enjoyed Season 2 know there are some very valid criticisms, but some of the nitpicking is insane. Here are a few of my fav ones.
"They only just turned and now their skin is super weak"
"Clementine is only a little girl how can she kick down a door?"
It's a video game, it's not real. That's what makes Games, Games. The entire series has never been super realistic, so the fact that some are only complaining about it in season 2, are seemingly just complaining for the sake of complaining.
Ah-hem. I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get across. The determinant characters I saw, were people with choices that we could make that would either be dead at that given point (or later) or could totally make it out.
Chet: Barely counts, it wasn't a situation where we could make the choice to save him or leave him. It was just the fact that he's dead or not, based on what time of day we go out. But I'll count it.
Travis: Once again doesn't count, we don't see him alive from our actions he just dies later or dies sooner and never see him alive or interacting with us in between.
Gary: That isn't determinant in the terms I'm speaking of, they die either from Carley or Lee.
Drew: I guess, but we don't really have interaction with him either. But I guess that counts, if you want.
400 Days doesn't count, as it's a standalone episode that is not part of Season One. So you've added Chet and Drew, yet my point still stands I'm afraid.
The Doug/Carley choice actually did matter a little bit, if you count the fact choosing Doug means that you can't reveal your past to people in episode 3 and Kenny gets pissed that you said nothing, after Lilly spills the beans.
Pretty much this.
Dead people walking around isn't something you see every day. If I came to play this game under the notion a super unrealistic thing was going to be on it I sure don't mind that Clementine can kick down a door or chop arms off. She's Clementine, not any little girl.
I never said the Doug/Carley choice didn't matter. I simply stated that in Season 2 there are a lot more available choices and consequences, so the criticism of "Your choices don't matter in Season 2" is not valid.
Don't worry, I actually agreed with what you said. Just pointing out to people the choice mattered a little more than people usually give it credit for.
Oh don't worry I understand. :P
The illusion of choice was better implemented in the first season and the first season did a MASSIVELY better job with it's detrimental characters. Yes, having your choices affect every little thing is definitely a big gamble, but in game development, you kind of have to expect to try and take big risks, especially for an indie company like Telltale, it takes ALOT of hard work with these games and Telltale really are just going to have to deal with that if they keep considering developing choice based games instead of taking the easy way out, which is why I feel like "let's work on 4 different games at the same time," was a really dumb move on their part.
I'm unaware of where you're getting either of the examples you provided, so some context would be appreciated.
That being said, I fail to see how either of these arguments are in any way nitpicking.
The idea of Clementine kicking down a door does sound far-fetched and stupid. Kicking down a door is an already hard, if not impossible task for your average joe, so what makes you think a little babby could do any better?
Pointing out this inconsistency in a game that aims to be somewhat based in reality isn't nitpicking. If it affects the story and could have been handled differently, it makes sense to bring it up and critique it. But seriously, that idea just sounds silly.
It'd be nitpicking if someone complained about how none of the teenage characters have any acne.
Anyway, your counter-argument "It's a video game, it's not real" irks me as well.
All stories aren't real.
What's your point? Just because TWD is a little stylized, that automatically exempts it from taking common sense into consideration when developing it's plot?
Hell, rolling with your logic, movies aren't real either. Does that mean it's okay to have huge plot holes and inconsistencies littered throughout? That logic makes no sense, man.
I agree, I really like S2 choices better.
First you're comparing my point about video games to movies, when I never once compared the two in relation to detail. That would be redundant because they are two completely different things eg: Call of Duty - you get shot and blood sprays on the screen and goes away and you're fine. In a movie, a character get's shot and they are wounded severely etc.
I'll try and reiterate what I meant in more detail. (I'm not the best writer, so please bear with me)
Games are by definition unrealistic, but a lot of the nitpicks I hear about In The Walking Dead aren't out of the realm of human possibility, take the kicking down a door scene. Kicking down a door is not that hard (Depending on how it's structured). The paneling that holds the door in place is often times not that strong and doesn't take much force to knock out. Not only that, but humans can do pretty amazing things in times of great distress, because they are forced to, and have no other choice.
If Clementine picked up a house and threw it into space and I was defending it, than it would be stupid.
I hope this got my point across a little better.
Sorry, but I'm gonna have to disagree with your statement that season 2 offered more choices and consequences than season 1. Defining consequence as the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier, there were really only a handful. Most choices in this season changed nothing of importance; a line of dialog here and there.
Let me use some of your examples;
-Nick/Pete choice: It affects who you spend the night with hiding from walkers, but there is no effect on the story. No matter who you go with, Pete ends up dead, and Nick gets depressed. Your choice affected nothing.
-Nick and Walter: You can defend Nick's character, and Walter will save him, or throw Nick under the figurative bus and Walter will let him get eaten. Nick then becomes a lawn ornament and does nothing for the story. He spouts a few lines that add nothing to any conversation, making his presence entirely pointless. If convincing Walter to save Nick ends with Nick being pointless, then the choice is pointless. The consequence is the same, no matter which choice you made; Nick exits the story.
-Alvin: Convincing Kenny not to shoot, thereby saving Alvin has the same effect as convincing Walter to save Nick. Alvin becomes pointless. He no longer contributes any meaningful information in conversations (the one or two he was around to participate in). He takes the gun that Clem could use against Carver, but that gun has no effect on anything either, so having it or not is pointless. The consequence is unaffected, making your choice not matter.
-Sarah: I'm a broken record at this point. Saving her in the trailer does nothing to the story. She does nothing. No one acknowledges her presence. The choice had no consequence.
-Sarita: She is the textbook definition of a weak character (in reference to her involvement in the story, not her capability). She does nothing to affect anything beyond how Kenny feels. Cutting off her arm or killing the walker that aggro'd to her does nothing to change how Kenny responds to you, only the words he uses.
Now, I'm guessing someone will posit that season 1's choices didn't change anything, so therefore the consequences were unaffected as well. To that I say, not quite. Season 1 did something far more subtle than season 2 did in regards to choices. It changed the characters, rather than events. Well, events changed a bit too, but not in the grand scheme. Lee's actions changed how the characters thought of him, their responses and attitudes. Take a side in the Kenny/Lilly debate and see how each of them treat Lee. See how Christa reacts to your treatment of Omid when he's incapacitated. And of course, who could forget Clementine? Many of the big choices were based around what you would do in front of her and how she saw Lee as a result.
Season 2 had none of that. I went out of my way to piss Carlos off and he still treated me like his daughter's best friend. Speaking of which, I purposely brushed her off and chastised her as much as I could and she still liked Clem. I tried to distance myself from Luke and he insists on playing big brother.
All of the big choices you mentioned, except for Bonnie, and the fight have no impact on anything. No matter what choice you make, all characters respond the same way in each scenario. Save Alvin, and Rebecca still wants Carver dead. Save Sarah and no one even speaks to her. Luke doesn't react to his friend of 20+ years getting eaten. Arvo confronts your group whether you steal his meds or not. Kenny hates you for Sarita getting hurt. Carlos trusts you with his daughter's safety. None of it will fuckin' matter (/Larryvoice)
I don't know how often I can go down this route, but the worst offense in regard to player choice is Kenny. Until the very final moments in episode 5, you cannot make a choice whatsoever. You are his friend... Okay, so that's a bit of an exaggeration. You get to choose which type of friend you want to be; non-committal, or unquestioning. Heck, even the final moments with Kenny all play out very similar with Kenny getting his tearjerker speech whether you shot him, left him, accepted his advice to go into Wellington, or stuck with him. There was absolutely no option to oppose Kenny prior to the fight. Sure, you can disagree with him, but that's not the same thing as you end up doing what he wants either way... So, I guess even in the end, you can't affect whether you are Kenny's friend or not. Clem cries no matter what happens to him.
/tantrum
Getting back to the actual topic, I will give credit where it's due. Episode 5 managed to work a bit of what I'm talking about back in. How you respond to Luke's situation affects how Bonnie speaks to you... for the two short bits she remains with the group. Then of course, the fight. You end up in different environments depending on your choice. Unfortunately, it was too little, too late by that point for me to feel like this was a true successor to season 1. The prime aspect was too weak.