No its not. My only gripes with it is that there wasn't much progress in Gared and Mira's plots and it was rather on the short side in terms of length. Otherwise it was a fine episode imo.
Alright, Im getting pretty tired of this so let's make it swift since you clearly won't accept that there are people with diffrent opinions … morethen yours Doug.
You are saying the traitor scene was horror. I am saying it wasn't. Which at least proves the "Choices don't matter" trend is bullshit.
You are gonna tell me that you as player in ep 1 believe in Duncan. But in ep 2 you change your mind completly and say F*** it im gonna do what you say Royland cause... I can? I don't think that has anymore logic then any of my arguments.
I could say the same thing.
Actually none of those advanced the plot in any way. The thing with Cersei probably will, but not significantly. Mira's story was heading the same way with or without Cersei (she's 100% screwed unless she gets a Margaery ex Machina)
Nah, Finn's death, Sylvi's backstory, Sera abandoning Mira, a deal with Cercei and Mira meeting Tyrion again definetly didn't advance the plot.
You serious?
Yeah. So what?
You're gonna sit here and whine about it?
I'd rather enjoy a good game with good characters, excellent voice-acting and ama… morezing story then sit here listening to you and wasting time at this pointless hate crusade. Now that I think about it I think im gonna do just now. Play. An. Amazing. Telltale. Game.
So, congratulation you did it. You manged to get a loyal Telltale Fan away from thes threads. Hope it was worth it. Good day.
Well, the episode certainly earned all one hundred of them.
I'm disappointed in all the people that say the whole game sucks now, I love the game because episodes 1-4 were great! This series has six episodes instead of the normal five, I don't see why having one poor episode ruins it all. As long as six is good I feel everything is somewhat okay and we can pretend episode five didn't happen.
I said I was getting tired of these long posts and didn't want to argue furthermore, I wasn't blindly following it. And stop acting like yours is the only opinion that matters. If that were true why didn't this episode get the "horrible reviews" like you say it deserves? As far as I know only IGN gave it 6.5 and we know what IGN does to penultimate episodes. So at its worst this episode is still only above average.
why didn't this episode get the "horrible reviews" like you say it deserve
We wernt talking about the whole episode, we were talking about the traitor scene, one scene from the whole episode.
Also I care very little what a bunch of companies think about things, they gave life of strange episode 4 and most of the other game of thrones episode simaler scores and I thought all those episode were pretty good while rating poorer episodes higher
I said I was getting tired of these long posts and didn't want to argue furthermore, I wasn't blindly following it. And stop acting like yo… moreurs is the only opinion that matters. If that were true why didn't this episode get the "horrible reviews" like you say it deserves? As far as I know only IGN gave it 6.5 and we know what IGN does to penultimate episodes. So at its worst this episode is still only above average.
Ok. Sorry, but that was directed at WhatEvenIsThis's comment below:
Well, the episode certainly earned all one hundred of them.
I'm disappointed in all the people that say the whole game sucks now, I love the game because episodes 1-4 were great! This series has six episodes instead of the normal five, I don't see why having one poor episode ruins it all. As long as six is good I feel everything is somewhat okay and we can pretend episode five didn't happen.
why didn't this episode get the "horrible reviews" like you say it deserve
We wernt talking about the whole episode, we were talking… more about the traitor scene, one scene from the whole episode.
Also I care very little what a bunch of companies think about things, they gave life of strange episode 4 and most of the other game of thrones episode simaler scores and I thought all those episode were pretty good while rating poorer episodes higher
Ok. Sorry, but that was directed at WhatEvenIsThis's comment below:
Well, the episode certainly earned all one hundred of them.
… more I'm disappointed in all the people that say the whole game sucks now, I love the game because episodes 1-4 were great! This series has six episodes instead of the normal five, I don't see why having one poor episode ruins it all. As long as six is good I feel everything is somewhat okay and we can pretend episode five didn't happen.
Im sorry, wrong post.
It was Pretty Late so sorry about "Hateing". And yes i agree with you that this is the best Got Game out there. But it says nothing, because the other got Game was totally crap. And about Mira and sera. She didnt left. We were taken to cersei by her guards. But we will See in Episode 6 if she Abandoned Us.
Oh really? Well you don't know that about Finn, I guess we will see. Sylvi's backstory is a completly optional matter that simply enriches … morethe lore. Ugh yeah she was there but then she left, she wasn't seen the entire rest of the episode implying she doesn't give a crap about us. And you get 2 outcomes with Tyrion- either he tells you that no-one will testify or he lies to you.
You are "hateing" (yeah that's not a word) because you want it to be good? It is far better then "good". It's excellent and currently the best GoT game to date.
Speaking as one of the people who defends the game, I'm personally fine with the critics being on forums as long as the arguments are contained to dedicated threads and that those threads are contained to a thread per issue / contention with the game (not multiple threads of just blind hatred). I also agree that everything can't be sunshine and rainbows and that it is better to correct bad behavior to make better future decisions rather than just let things slide, but to be honest your random capitalization throughout your post is really distracting me away from your argument.
And to all of you who Are defending this Game. You want Us (the Haters) to stop Hating the Game, but At the Same Time, you're Hating Us beca… moreuse we're "Hating" the Game. You want to stop Us opening Threads about how we Are "Hating" the Game, but you're Doing the same with how awesome this Game is! We "haters" want this Game to be As good As possible. Nothing more, nothing less. I Understand that this Forum can be toxic At times, but it's Not our fault. And sometimes it Needs to be that Way so TTG listens. It's like with your Child. Sometimes it does something wrong or stupid so you Need to Tell your Child what went wrong so it can learn from it. Because you want the best for your Child. Because we want the best for TTG.
Speaking as one of the people who defends the game, I'm personally fine with the critics being on forums as long as the arguments are contai… morened to dedicated threads and that those threads are contained to a thread per issue / contention with the game (not multiple threads of just blind hatred). I also agree that everything can't be sunshine and rainbows and that it is better to correct bad behavior to make better future decisions rather than just let things slide, but to be honest your random capitalization throughout your post is really distracting me away from your argument.
On the one hand, I can understand why Telltale chose to go the route they did from a development standpoint and from the perspective of trying to make choices matter. Unfortunately, when it comes to the choices mattering part, it's just led to people to complaining, though I'd argue that as long as the story and consequences make sense in the first playthrough, then it's working as intended because replaying exposes the magic tricks employed (not that we aren't used Telltale's stuff by now though, or games in general). On that note, I haven't gone through it with Royland as the traitor. So, I don't know how jarring I'd find it. I think I've personally made both aggressive and more-diplomatic choices as Rodrik, depending on the situation. And I really need to replay that talk with the traitor before giving more thoughts on it as to whether it fits or not.
Before tackling the problem I have with it and why I'm torn though, I do want to back up Firewallcano in one regard. It makes sense to pick Duncan, for instance, and to choose aggressive options at whatever points you think it fits. This is simply because you chose your sentinel as Ethan, then you're making choices as Rodrik, a different character. Also, situations evolve and warrant different responses. One situation might call for diplomacy, one may not. And then having a character fly off the handle emotionally might seem fitting. Thinking of the bits, in particular here, where you can strike Gryff or the Whitehill men. And this is coming from someone who chose to stay down. Of course, the other option is equally valid, where you try to show restraint etc. But just because you chose Duncan for your sentinel doesn't mean you should automatically choose the more peaceful/diplomatic options.
So, now I come to why I'm torn . . . As I said in the first paragraph, I understand why Telltale chose to go the route they did. For me, though, it is one of the rare instances where I actually agree with people citing poor writing. Duncan and Royland are two different characters, yet the plot, while it literally doesn't do so, essentially turns them into the same character (same character when it comes to moving the plot forward). And it also has the effect of making the reasons possibly seem contrived for whoever the traitor turns out to be. But then again, I really need to play the conversation again to know for sure, and I really should see what it's like with Royland as the traitor. Anyhow, I think a much better route would have been to pick different options for the traitor (if possible), where it fits like a glove for them to turn. Unfortunately, I can't really think of any though with the exception of the Maester, as he's never really involved with choices as to how to run things as far as I remember. So that leads me back to thinking there was only one good option for it to make sense unless other characters were created to fill the role.
Unfortunately though, unless new characters were created, I don't see this problem as having an easy answer. People want choices to matter, and Telltale tried to make them matter with the traitor choice. But, and I'm sure it's because of production costs, corners had to be cut with both characters serving the same role, even if it seems at odds with the characters themselves. Ultimately, having choices of significance to the overall plot always come with disadvantages with an episodic game series that's made 'live'. It's a case of 'you can't have your cake and eat it' if you want a good story and for the story to branch, as each branch exponentially increases the workload without corners being cut and narrative threads being rejoined. With story branching and choices that matter, especially if there's a tight schedule etc., there's a good chance the story might not be as good as it could be with choices that don't alter the overall course significantly, if at all.
If it was down to me, I would have personally done things differently, but . . . I work with text only. I also don't have a schedule or publisher breathing down my neck. I can only imagine how hard it is for Telltale to deliver what people want (and to be clear, it's hard enough for me as it is when simply working with text. There's also the balancing act of trying to make sure each branching thread is as good as the others, which is also the trap that Telltale seem to have ran into).
PS: Hope this has made some sense. I realise I've rambled and, to be frank, I can't really be bothered editing this. One thing I do want to make clear though, despite saying I can see where people coming from regarding the traitor part and poor writing, this has not ruined the episode or season for me. Honestly, it annoys me how people act like one miss-step or a few minor things ruin something when the overall product is good, instead of looking at the positives (though this only really applies to people who've enjoyed the season but claim episode 5 ruined it). It's not like the best tv series don't have the odd episode that isn't as good either.
Ok. Sorry, but that was directed at WhatEvenIsThis's comment below:
Well, the episode certainly earned all one hundred of them.
… more I'm disappointed in all the people that say the whole game sucks now, I love the game because episodes 1-4 were great! This series has six episodes instead of the normal five, I don't see why having one poor episode ruins it all. As long as six is good I feel everything is somewhat okay and we can pretend episode five didn't happen.
Im sorry, wrong post.
As plenty of people already know my opinion, yes, the episode is bad or the worst as I'd call it. Although I really wish we could all stop beating this beyond dead horse, it's very clear some like it and some hate it, can we just leave it at that or better yet if we're going to have these discussions, could we do them in the multiple threads that are already made?
No you misunderstand, i copied WhatEvenIsThis's comment, and tried to explain I was replying to it.
My comment above was as I was saying not directed at you. If you understand this, please don't reply to this comment.
I'm disappointed in all the people that say the whole game sucks now,
Who is saying that? The fifth episode isnt the best, the game … morecan still improve on that and overall the game is good
because episodes 1-4 were great!
That doesnt make episode 5 better in any way
I will look at the series overall, and judge in more then, however the one thread I made was overall problems with the whole game
No you misunderstand, i copied WhatEvenIsThis's comment, and tried to explain I was replying to it.
My comment above was as I was saying not directed at you. If you understand this, please don't reply to this comment.
even Cersei cannot be so lacking of common sense to left a guard outside cell where Tyrion could easily see the man, and the guard then ente… morering and scolding Mira...
About that, I'm starting to wonder if it was Lucan's doing and not Cersei's. I mean, maybe Cersei didn't tell him to give Mira the wine or to stand there the whole time. It is as you say, it wouldn't make sense for Cersei to do that, but maybe Lucan was so eager to get Mira in trouble that he did all of that on his own, since he couldn't get her for Damien's death.
actually episodes 1-4 were meh, while 5 was a complete joke. Why would that ruin the series? Because there is no way they can come back from episode 5 failure unless episode 6 is like 4 hours long and masterpiece value (good luck with that).
Well, the episode certainly earned all one hundred of them.
I'm disappointed in all the people that say the whole game sucks now, I love … morethe game because episodes 1-4 were great! This series has six episodes instead of the normal five, I don't see why having one poor episode ruins it all. As long as six is good I feel everything is somewhat okay and we can pretend episode five didn't happen.
Hopefully the very first scene of episode six is Gared stumbling into the North Grove. I'd also really like Beskha to become a playable character, if you chose to leave Asher behind. Then she can kill the Whitehills as Asher requested. She kills Harys, and Rodrick kills Gryff. That would be satisfying. Oh, and Beskha can kill Gwynn just for the heck of it.
Comments
No its not. My only gripes with it is that there wasn't much progress in Gared and Mira's plots and it was rather on the short side in terms of length. Otherwise it was a fine episode imo.
There's no logical way to argue the traitor wasn't terrible.
Yes.
Actually none of those advanced the plot in any way. The thing with Cersei probably will, but not significantly. Mira's story was heading the same way with or without Cersei (she's 100% screwed unless she gets a Margaery ex Machina)
Eh. Blindly following something is never good. Ever. Simply saying "Nuh uh. It's good! I'm leaving!" means you've lost.
If you have to resort to that then you've lost.
Well, the episode certainly earned all one hundred of them.
I'm disappointed in all the people that say the whole game sucks now, I love the game because episodes 1-4 were great! This series has six episodes instead of the normal five, I don't see why having one poor episode ruins it all. As long as six is good I feel everything is somewhat okay and we can pretend episode five didn't happen.
I said I was getting tired of these long posts and didn't want to argue furthermore, I wasn't blindly following it. And stop acting like yours is the only opinion that matters. If that were true why didn't this episode get the "horrible reviews" like you say it deserves? As far as I know only IGN gave it 6.5 and we know what IGN does to penultimate episodes. So at its worst this episode is still only above average.
We wernt talking about the whole episode, we were talking about the traitor scene, one scene from the whole episode.
Also I care very little what a bunch of companies think about things, they gave life of strange episode 4 and most of the other game of thrones episode simaler scores and I thought all those episode were pretty good while rating poorer episodes higher
Ok. Sorry, but that was directed at WhatEvenIsThis's comment below:
Im sorry, wrong post.
Who is saying that? The fifth episode isnt the best, the game can still improve on that and overall the game is good
That doesnt make episode 5 better in any way
I will look at the series overall, and judge in more then, however the one thread I made was overall problems with the whole game
It was Pretty Late so sorry about "Hateing". And yes i agree with you that this is the best Got Game out there. But it says nothing, because the other got Game was totally crap. And about Mira and sera. She didnt left. We were taken to cersei by her guards. But we will See in Episode 6 if she Abandoned Us.
Speaking as one of the people who defends the game, I'm personally fine with the critics being on forums as long as the arguments are contained to dedicated threads and that those threads are contained to a thread per issue / contention with the game (not multiple threads of just blind hatred). I also agree that everything can't be sunshine and rainbows and that it is better to correct bad behavior to make better future decisions rather than just let things slide, but to be honest your random capitalization throughout your post is really distracting me away from your argument.
Sorry Im on with a tablet and i cant turn off this damn autocorrection! I hate Apple so much....
I'm a bit torn regarding this.
On the one hand, I can understand why Telltale chose to go the route they did from a development standpoint and from the perspective of trying to make choices matter. Unfortunately, when it comes to the choices mattering part, it's just led to people to complaining, though I'd argue that as long as the story and consequences make sense in the first playthrough, then it's working as intended because replaying exposes the magic tricks employed (not that we aren't used Telltale's stuff by now though, or games in general). On that note, I haven't gone through it with Royland as the traitor. So, I don't know how jarring I'd find it. I think I've personally made both aggressive and more-diplomatic choices as Rodrik, depending on the situation. And I really need to replay that talk with the traitor before giving more thoughts on it as to whether it fits or not.
Before tackling the problem I have with it and why I'm torn though, I do want to back up Firewallcano in one regard. It makes sense to pick Duncan, for instance, and to choose aggressive options at whatever points you think it fits. This is simply because you chose your sentinel as Ethan, then you're making choices as Rodrik, a different character. Also, situations evolve and warrant different responses. One situation might call for diplomacy, one may not. And then having a character fly off the handle emotionally might seem fitting. Thinking of the bits, in particular here, where you can strike Gryff or the Whitehill men. And this is coming from someone who chose to stay down. Of course, the other option is equally valid, where you try to show restraint etc. But just because you chose Duncan for your sentinel doesn't mean you should automatically choose the more peaceful/diplomatic options.
So, now I come to why I'm torn . . . As I said in the first paragraph, I understand why Telltale chose to go the route they did. For me, though, it is one of the rare instances where I actually agree with people citing poor writing. Duncan and Royland are two different characters, yet the plot, while it literally doesn't do so, essentially turns them into the same character (same character when it comes to moving the plot forward). And it also has the effect of making the reasons possibly seem contrived for whoever the traitor turns out to be. But then again, I really need to play the conversation again to know for sure, and I really should see what it's like with Royland as the traitor. Anyhow, I think a much better route would have been to pick different options for the traitor (if possible), where it fits like a glove for them to turn. Unfortunately, I can't really think of any though with the exception of the Maester, as he's never really involved with choices as to how to run things as far as I remember. So that leads me back to thinking there was only one good option for it to make sense unless other characters were created to fill the role.
Unfortunately though, unless new characters were created, I don't see this problem as having an easy answer. People want choices to matter, and Telltale tried to make them matter with the traitor choice. But, and I'm sure it's because of production costs, corners had to be cut with both characters serving the same role, even if it seems at odds with the characters themselves. Ultimately, having choices of significance to the overall plot always come with disadvantages with an episodic game series that's made 'live'. It's a case of 'you can't have your cake and eat it' if you want a good story and for the story to branch, as each branch exponentially increases the workload without corners being cut and narrative threads being rejoined. With story branching and choices that matter, especially if there's a tight schedule etc., there's a good chance the story might not be as good as it could be with choices that don't alter the overall course significantly, if at all.
If it was down to me, I would have personally done things differently, but . . . I work with text only. I also don't have a schedule or publisher breathing down my neck. I can only imagine how hard it is for Telltale to deliver what people want (and to be clear, it's hard enough for me as it is when simply working with text. There's also the balancing act of trying to make sure each branching thread is as good as the others, which is also the trap that Telltale seem to have ran into).
PS: Hope this has made some sense. I realise I've rambled and, to be frank, I can't really be bothered editing this. One thing I do want to make clear though, despite saying I can see where people coming from regarding the traitor part and poor writing, this has not ruined the episode or season for me. Honestly, it annoys me how people act like one miss-step or a few minor things ruin something when the overall product is good, instead of looking at the positives (though this only really applies to people who've enjoyed the season but claim episode 5 ruined it). It's not like the best tv series don't have the odd episode that isn't as good either.
As plenty of people already know my opinion, yes, the episode is bad or the worst as I'd call it. Although I really wish we could all stop beating this beyond dead horse, it's very clear some like it and some hate it, can we just leave it at that or better yet if we're going to have these discussions, could we do them in the multiple threads that are already made?
Okay, then why? that's the point of this thread.
No you misunderstand, i copied WhatEvenIsThis's comment, and tried to explain I was replying to it.
My comment above was as I was saying not directed at you. If you understand this, please don't reply to this comment.
aManWhoLovesTelltale but not aManWhoLovestoActuallyReadWhatOthersSay
Go back to your grave, Stark.
Episode 6 has to be really long, because for Gared to not have found the North Grove by now is showing how doomed the Forresters are
That's definitely possible, I'm curious to see how Mira's story will unfold in the next episode.
actually episodes 1-4 were meh, while 5 was a complete joke. Why would that ruin the series? Because there is no way they can come back from episode 5 failure unless episode 6 is like 4 hours long and masterpiece value (good luck with that).
Hopefully the very first scene of episode six is Gared stumbling into the North Grove. I'd also really like Beskha to become a playable character, if you chose to leave Asher behind. Then she can kill the Whitehills as Asher requested. She kills Harys, and Rodrick kills Gryff. That would be satisfying. Oh, and Beskha can kill Gwynn just for the heck of it.