Playing as a Community Leader
I doubt it'll happen but I think it would be an interesting idea. It would be pretty cool if we had the chance to play as someone in a position of authority similar to the Carver or the Crawford Oberson and had to make major decisions that could make or break your community. It's a shame the nearest DLC is focusing all episodes on Michonne instead
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
plot twist: Clementine is the community leader
I would find that enjoyable, though I'd have a lingering concern that my community would be doomed regardless of my choices. Or, that is what I'd tell myself as an excuse when my community is inevitably overrun.
Maybe Michonne can boss people around. She certainly can assert her authority.
I would love to be responsible for activities that involve community expansion, inventory management, human resources practices, and planning strategic operations.
"The Walking Dead: Business Tycoon Edition"
She must have taken cues from this kid:
Someone should program a TWDG sim city type game and sell it on steam for 30 bucks.
Oh yeah I forgot. Their is a game similar to what you want. It's called The Escapists: The walking Dead. You play as Rick leading his group. Granted it's not like TT choice system game and it's 8-bit (something like that). Check it out, it's certainly interesting.
I think it'd be interesting to play someone in a leadership position, not necessarily leader, where the accumulation of all the choices over the course of the season would ultimately determine the fate of both you and the community.
One idea I've tossed around in my head is if you play a super ruthless route, you eventually lose the support and loyalty of your friends and fellow survivors, including the ones that have been around since the beginning, ones that you might even consider to be good friends, leading to a Caeser-esque situation where they decide to take you out, as your actions put everyone, including the community, in danger. It'd be a way to really make the choices you've made have a definite impact. Not to mention that it turns into a dying by your own sword type of deal. However, showing too much compassion and mercy could also seal your fate. In an apocalyptic scenario, being too nice is most definitely a possibility. The idea being, swaying too far to either end of the spectrum will cause problems. Think of it like hot and cold: make it too hot, you'll burn yourself. Make it too cold, you'll freeze.
Alternatively, playing with the right mix of pragmatism and compassion can lead to sustained survival of both you and the community. and trying to be the best you can leads to the survival of both you and the community. Then perhaps you could have a more 'neutral' ending, which is probably the hardest one to describe. It'd require playing in such a way that you are practically 50/50, straight down the middle. No one in particular is against you, but no one's exactly on your side, either. Perhaps this route would lead to you getting demoted or removed from power by the decision of the community. I can't think of an adequate way to describe it, other than that you'd have had to have played super ambivalently throughout the season.
Determinant characters could play into this whole ordeal, too. Saving a person's life could potentially lead to them becoming a loyal ally to you, which may just end up being able to determine your ultimate fate, as they'd either vouch for you, or turn against you all the same. On the flip side, showing the wrong person mercy could just lead to them ultimately killing or injuring someone else.
It would be cool if your choices determine whether or not the community survives, but unlikely.
Would be a cool way to switch things up. Especially if Telltale played their cards right with the choices in it.
I hope its a alot more complicated than simply making compassionate choices to get the best ending and making ruthless choices to get the worst ending. Being compassionate all the time shouldn't get you the best ending. One of the reason why Caesar got assassinated is because he showed mercy to the people who eventually killed him. There needs to be a proper balance between ruthlessness and compassion. Being a boy scout all the time doesn't sound like the best path to lead everyone to survival in a post apocalyptic world. A little bit of pragmatism is needed. I mean, what if someone betrays the group and you decide to be a little lenient with them because that's what a compassionate leader would do? That could lead to tensions within the rest of your group, and cause some people to lose respect for you. On the flip side, being too cruel to the traitor could also cause some people to fear or mistrust you.
It seems like the neutral route (mix of pragmatism and compassion) should be the path to the best ending, instead of just picking the same moral route each time. Being too compassionate should be just as devastating to your group as being too ruthless.
I was putting it in pretty heavy perspective in my post, but yeah, I do agree that it needs a be a more intricate system than what I described. I only described it as such because it's the easiest way to explain what I meant. In fact, let me go ahead and edit my post to reflect that better.
Your bit about whether or not to punish a traitor is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind that I'd like to see. Those very grey situations where there's no clear winning. Where doing the 'right' thing could end up being your undoing, or going too far or acting too harsh can just as easily turn people against you. The real challenge comes from trying to strike a balance between the two ends of the spectrum, and then maintaining that balance as subsequent events and situations continue to weigh on you.
Above all, I agree with the idea of 'punishing' the player for playing too nice. So far, I feel that the game has a tendency of being a bit too cut and dry when it comes to playing good vs playing bad. Look at the stranger confrontation with Lee; if you played the good guy route, that scene honestly starts to fall apart. It's trying to chastise the player over previous choices, but the problem is that almost all the 'good' choices never have any kind of drawback to them worth criticizing the player for. Shooting the girl in the street is one of the few instances where an action one would perceive to be the 'good' action has the potential of putting you and your friends in more danger. On the other hand, sparing the St Johns has no real repercussions to it, or at least, no negative repercussions, despite the fact that you left a potential threat alive. I mean, it's not like they have to have one of the brothers come back and kill someone, but having someone in the group bring up their concerns about you leaving them alive would be good enough to suffice.
I like the detail you put in her hat.
It would only be workable (having your decisions be decisive, that is) if it was the last installment of the series, or at least of those characters.
Agreed I'm tired of Clementine at this point. Playing as a kid is lame
Holy crap I love this idea.