Should Telltale abandon the idea of determinant characters altogether?
If there's one common criticism that's been directed at TWD season 2, it's the fates of Nick and Sarah, respectively. Up to that point, choosing to preserve characters like Pete or Alvin at least added some meat to the narrative.
But come episode 4, many fans felt Telltale unfairly gave Nick and Sarah rushed, sloppy conclusions to their arcs. The usual defensive position against a character's abrupt death - i.e. "this is THE WALKING DEAD, horrible things are always going to happen" - didn't seem to hold as much water this time. Carley/Doug received a similar treatment in season 1, and while the backlash to that infamous scene was potent, there was more readily available evidence on-hand to justify WHY Telltale chose to kill the characters the way they did.
With that being said, should Telltale ditch the notion of determinant characters completely, if the writers will only regard them as third wheels in later episodes?
Comments
No, if they did that then there would be even less choice then there already is which would just cause more complaining from the fans.
If they manage to get back to the spirit of Season 1's determinant characters they should continue with them. Carley/Doug's scene managed to shock because we got to know them over the course of two more episodes with them, and Ben's speech to Kenny remains as my all time favorite scene in the series. I just wish Nick and Sarah could have had the same kind of treatment.
They need to do it Mass Effect style or not at all, imo.
The determinant issue really kills the game for me. It makes every choice feel pointless.
No there literally the only real effect we ever get from choice.
They work if there's an alternative. Carley and doug worked well as they had to be in the story one way or another, they could have lasted to the end and to be fair I liked their death well enough in how it was done.
Ben and Alvin worked alone,as they were background in arguments to begin with and they got a slightly differemt sendoff.
Sarah almost worked for me, if shed simply freaked out again and died I wouldnt have minded rather than the random one she got
Nick failed I agree
This might be a novel concept, but why not just expand on the game to actually give it an Arcing storyline where you make choices ACTUALLY MATTER. The shitty determinant choices just aren't cutting it. The whole Sarah determinant was the last straw in my eyes.
I don't have any problem with how Nick and Sarah were treated.
I want to see determinant situations also in the future, because I like those situations where someone might die and it's up to you if they live or not.
BTW best determinant situations are the ones where two characters are in danger and you have to choose which character you will save.
Well, they did ditch the idea with the Wolf Among Us, but I think that's because the setting of Wolf is a lot better for determinant characters to live than for Walking Dead. So I say they should be more careful with it, but not ditch it altogether.
I thought it was pretty badly done though in Wolf, Prince Lawrence if you save him back in episode 1 all the way till episode 5 get's 2 tiny scenes, and Dum get's barely any recognition.
I was actually pretty happy with Lawrence. Its not like he was a major character, but it was nice getting to talk to him at Lilly's funeral and how he stood up to the CM at the trial was nice as well. It was better than what I expected from Telltale when it came to determinant characters.
True, what he did was better then expected :P
I can get behind this.
Yeah, but between episode 1 and 2 it appeared they ditched a whole scene of Lawrence. Remember in the "Next Time" scene? "Where's the rest of her?"
Yeah, but that was probably because of the major rewrite of the season after ep.1.
Yeah, I wonder what that scene was supposed to be?
You really should use spoiler tags if you're talking about TWAU plot points in TWD forum. There's probably plenty of people who have finished TWD Season 2, but haven't played TWAU yet and you're spoiling it for them.
My bad.
So what your saying is you want them to take even longer to release episodes then they already do? They are already taking 1-2 months in between episodes doing this would add a lot more complexity to the process of making the game which is prolly why telltale has been shitting the bed when it comes to determinant characters
I'm fine with determinant character dying later on, but at least have them last a few episodes and more dialogue.
Hire more people? its not hard. I worked in the corporate world, and understand how projects work.
@CrazyGeorge
Exactly how I feel.
I'm not sure who you picked Kenny/Jane if you did choose one of them, you got to know in the back of your mind the person you wanted to save is going to be killed off shortly later to "normalize" the timeline. Is it me or is this starting to sound like a bad Star Trek Voyager Time Travel Episode.
I stayed with Kenny, and that's exactly it. Once the initial excitement wears off and you think about it, you know that's how it's going to go down.
He's Kenny, maybe he will be lucky, real lucky.
No, it's fun to have a choice to save characters, to add on to the story, ie more dialogue. Like in A House Divided it was a really great aspect to see who saved Alvin, and Nick.
I'm thinking their going to "kill" him off screen and they might make mention of him maybe. Same with Jane.
No. But at the same time they should make the determinant characters actually matter. Tbh if they got rid of the determinant characters, there wouldn't even be much of a difference. Because as of now, the determinate statuses aren't affecting the game or outcome whatsoever.
Of course not. Getting rid of determinants is a bad idea in my opinion. It makes the game less interesting, and gives the players less choice, rendering it to feel extremely linear.
Telltale should just go back to the roots of determinant characters in S1. Determinants in season 2 were pretty weak. At least in S1, Carley/Doug and Ben actually mattered. They had a semi-big role in the game if they were kept alive, and completely different scenarios would happen if they were dead/alive.
Determinant characters is a test to see your point of view on a characther so no.
Determinant characters as a concept is fine, just make sure there's an actual point to them being determinants. Carley and Doug were effective because they were letting the player choose whatever character they liked more, only to make it more tragic when they're taken from you so suddenly. And in-between that you've got some good scenes where you get to talk to them, they come to your rescue a, and you get close to them, which makes it all the more dramatic when they're gone.
And Ben worked because both of his scenarios were well thought out. If he dies in Crawford, the other characters react to his death and it leads to a really emotional scene where Lee has to talk about what happened with Clementine. And if he lives, he remains part of the action as much as the remaining cast, he gets a moment to shine when he finally tells Kenny off which in the end leads to Kenny going from wanting Ben dead to actually facing certain death just so Ben won't have to face it alone.
The problem wasn't making Nick and Sarah determinant characters. The problem is it really doesn't matter what you choose since both situations serve no real purpose. Not plot wise, not thematically, not emotionally.
No. They should just make an effort to actually do better with them.
I don't have a lot of nice things to say about Mass Effect 3, but at least it treated the plethora of determinant characters it had at that point from Mass Effect 2 decently enough.
Yes. I understand that with limited resources, TellTale can't maintain both branches indefinitely. But, by now everyone expects determinant characters to die soon after you choose to save them.
I think determinant characters should be more rare. That would make it feasible to lengthen their screen time after the choice to save them. I'd like the determinant to continue till the end of the season, at which point they leave the group or die.
Nick survived episode and half. Alvin, Pete and Sarita survived to the next episode. And determinants of the final episode still live if you saved them.
Only Sarah died in the same episode where she was determinant. And Christa disappeared and her fate was left open, no matter if you saved her or not.
No; what they should do is improve on those aspects, not throw them out all together.
I was pissed that Dead Space 3 threw out online multiplayer. Dead Space 2 multiplayer was awfully unbalanced sometimes, but they should have improved the mechanics in the next game, not throw it out in favor of co-op.
I said "season", not "episode"
I don't think they should abandon it altogether, maybe just work on how they handle them
I was answering to part of your comment where you said that people die soon after they become determinants, but most determinants survived at least to next episode and Nick survived even longer than that. Besides I also mentioned that some determinants survived till the end of the Season 2.
I have absolutely zero problem with how Nick and Sara were handled. Both were depressing which fits the theme of the season.
I would like it if Jenny/Jane get a more "Urdnot Wrex" treatment though, where they are taken off screen for story reasons instead of just being killed, maybe to have a cameo or two later in the series.
I get the point that people want to see more of a story arc with some characters even if they are going to die. But my argument is that there is no way during a ZA to tell how or when someone will die. It could be your favorite character, or you may not like how they died but nowhere is it said that anyone has to die in a meaningful or glorious manner. Sure Nick or Sarah deserved better, but that doesnt mean they should get it. Poor Omid died so fast on a restroom floor. Not very glorious. Luke and Bonnie "in my game" suddenly were lost under the ice. In the blink of an eye, anyone can die in any manner regardless how much we may like them.
That's why it doesnt bother me. It's kinda realistic.
Some say it's poor writing, not enough character arc, but in a ZA you wont get what you want. S2E5 opening scene at the gun fight, could have began with Clem falling to the ground with a bullet in her head. Sure most of us would have hated that, but it would have been very possible that a major character was suddenly snuffed out without much fanfare.
As a fan of the game, I too would like to see some more character development, get to know some of them better, develop more of a relationship with them, have longer episodes and such, but that does not mean they all need to die in memorable way's.
I like having determinant characters for different things, but think it could be abused and undermine the tone of the game. For instance, if every character in the game was determinant and you could end up at the end alone or with a whole group of everyone alive, I'd hate that. I don't think it'd facilitate choice, it would be allowing an inappropriate happy ending for a franchise that doesn't need one. To compare it to something else, there is an unlockable ending for Max Payne 2 (the one where Max falls in love with a girl and she dies in the end) where Mona doesn't die. That translates, to me, as 'if you try hard enough, you overcome the stakes of the world'. You shouldn't be able to save Luke, Nick should die offscreen or at the cabin, Lily should murder someone when she cracks. That's the shitty world these characters live in. And having a choice to soften that is a little weak.
That said, there have been amazing things done with determinant characters, in Fables and in this game. I think both of Ben's outcomes are well done: either he dies admitting he was a burden and tries not to screw up for the first time, or he's the one to finally get through Kenny's whining and bond with him enough to make a final stand (arguably) beside him.
Uh, I guess my vote is yes and no.