Do you think there will even be consequences to our choices?
Sure choices like standing up to Gryff in episode 3 as Rodrick may seem like tense situations but we all know what would of happened if this game followed suit with the traditional medieval nature of GoT. If people chose to stand up to Gryff, most likely Talia Forrester would of been quartered and pulled apart by horses or worse yet Elissa Forrester dragged off and raped by Gryff Whitehill and his men becoming pregnant with a bastard, something horrible to set the example for the reality of the Forrester's predicament.
Instead the only difference choices make are 2-3 different lines of dialogue of a character's personal opinion.
This game feels way to soft core to be a game of thrones game. Where is the danger?
Do you think there will even be consequence to our choices?
Comments
Not until the final episode and even then minimum, if they have alternating paths now I feel development times would be a lot longer and episodes would cost more to churn out. So no, I don't see choices making any difference.
On the contrary, the world of Game of Thrones is not sadistic, but realistic. Yes, choices have consequences, but not every character we are pitted against is a cruel bastard. They are CHARACTERS, with their own motivations and weaknesses. Gryff Whitehill, while a bitch, is no Ramsay Snow, neither are his men. Oh they enjoy bullying the Forresters in their own house, sure. With Gryff being a fourthborn son, this might be the first time he was given any kind of authority. And it's quite clear he doesn't really know how to handle it, i.e. making threats he's not willing to follow through. There are similar examples that have happened in the books.
As for choices, well... That's Telltale for you. Illusion of choice we players like to call it. Your choices may affect small things, bits of dialogue here and there, maybe change the scene order, add or remove one, or maybe it means that a determinant character gets to survive an episode longer. But eventually you will arrive at the same point as the other players. Personally, I think they might make different endings based on some major final choices (kinda like they did with TWD S2 ending). But I don't expect any more than that. It's never happened before.
Theres more political stuff going on behind the scenes and Gryff cant get away with everything. So might as well stay defiant
It's Telltale, so... Mostly not.
They sayed that 400 days to die will count in s2 but it hasn't a lotta still almost same gameplay.
Its one of these threads...
When people act like the consequence of choices are a huge deal in these games...
Like all TT games, the ultimate fate of the Forresters will be decided by the last decision made in the last episode.
You have to keep in mind that while having consequences for every choice made would be great for players, it would be a nightmare for video game designers. They would have to factor in every choice in one episode, then design consequences in the next episode, then compile the choices from the previous episodes for consequences in the next episode, and etc. We would have to wait MUCH longer for episodes to be realesed if all our choices affected the outcome throughout the entire season.
Oh You do not understand, what it is not realistic are characters suddenly turning into bitches when clearly they out number and can overpower someone. Especially someone of a different house when it can be beneficial to their own house to do so.
Not everyone is a Ramsey snow but you still have people coming into power dishing out brutal punishments to the houses and people they rule over in the book all the time to set the example of what happens when you don't give into their rule:
This is Got there are a ton
The only case in the book of character with a higher rule making empty threats to the character of a lower rule and not follow through with them was in the case of Joffery. Vs. Tyrion. But in that context there's a number of reasons why Joff can't kill or punish Tyrion. If it was anyone from another house or lower class Joff pretty much would of made one of his men punish them since he was to much of a bitch to do it himself.
Unlike that case there is nothing really stopping the whitehills from having their way and setting an example. It would be more understandable if gryff was written to have Samwell's no need for violence type of character with a timid side of malice towards Forresters. But his antsy demeanor his character has to "get what I want now" most likely would do something to try to make Roddick regret getting back up and if he could not do it himself he could just have easily command his men to do it.
Punishment wouldn't be sadistic it would just be the logical reaction of the character.
I agree with everything you say. And that means a lot cos I don't even agree with everything I say.
I understand your reasoning but your points are horribles.
Karstark murdered 2 Lannisters boys prisoners under the protection of Robb and potential hostages if there ever was negotiations between the Starks and the Lannisters.
They just had to think about it before crucifying children.
Janos Slynt refused a direct order from his superior, that's desertion. He had to be punished.
The only person burning random prisoners is Melisandre, i don't even remember Stannis burning someone.
Can't argue with Cersei being crazy, sorry
Life is Strange wants to talk to you.
Well, In tales from the borderlands our choices changed the episodes quite a lot. So I would assume that the same would happen with GoT.
yup
?
Life is Strange factors in choices and their consequences every episode and even THAT is a bi-monthly developed episodic game. That lets you even rewind time to see both choices and make an informed decision. Ontop of enthusing exploration for "out of the way" choices.
Telltale has no excuse.
No. I am willing to bet my entire house that standing up/staying down will have no real consequence and game will proceed as usual
I know LiS. But that game has meaningless choices either.
I don't understand what you mean by "out of the way" choices.
I disagree. There were a lot of meaningless choices in that game too. Doesn't make it a bad game per say since it will do the same thing as Telltale has and have dialogue added/different or something would play out slightly differently. Same system, different game.
It's TellTale so nope. No.
But you never know.
Depends on your definition. Personally I'm satisfied with the way it is right now, I don't need multiple endings.
When I completed both episodes, I noticed there was always choices I had no clue about. Like helping a school friend in episode 2, or "saving a bird" in episode 1, or signing a petition in episode one for example
No, but y'see Telltale have gotten worser. I was researching the impact of choices from The Walking Dead earlier, and I remember alot of thoose choices had a bigger impact than what's being shown in later games. Choices built relationships with other characters, and killed some off, or influenced your choice in other choices.
This? not so much. everyone gets the same outcome and dialouge no matter what.
Janos Slynt was also executed by Jon wasn't he? The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword?
Well, it's the exact opposite, Telltale Games always have multiple endings, it's just that the way to those endings is mostly the same for everyone, regardless of what choices you made.
Nah telltale doesn't do that.
If you're looking for choice and consequence games, try life is strange or dream fall chapters; they succeed far better in this respect.