You didn't press it quick enough, I attacked marlon and died, so I did it again and pressed it faster and put him on the ground.
Also what do you think is gonna happen if you AJ to shoot someone who's pointing a gun at him anyway
Context is the key here dude.
AJ drew a gun on him when he was mainly there to grab a little bit of food for himself and he redirected his … moreown at him in kind to convince him that trying to shoot him wasn't gonna work out.
You gotta be smarter about that sort of thing.
Because. You. Get. Killed, and it's a game over screen, your choices don't matter in the future, you just have to go back and choose something you don't want to. The choice does not affect the game, because you go back in time and choose another one so the game continues.
How is that your choices not mattering? It's the exact opposite, if you choose something and get killed because of it, I think that's a pristine example of consequence.
Exactly. You're just being forced to restart and choose something that you didn't want to choose in the first place. It's immersion breaking and takes me completely out of any scene.
Because. You. Get. Killed, and it's a game over screen, your choices don't matter in the future, you just have to go back and choose somethi… moreng you don't want to. The choice does not affect the game, because you go back in time and choose another one so the game continues.
I mean you can die for failing a QTE or get someone else killed for it.
Is this through dialogue options so different? I dunno, I did not encounter any deaths by dialogue options in this episode, so it was not an issue for me.
Yeah it's different than failing the quick time events because the game is taking away the premise that every dialogue is a valid option and is instilling this rule that some dialogue options are correct and some are not. I'm not opposed to suffering consequences for my dialogue options but it shouldn't be an immediate game over where I have to go back and pick the "right" dialogue.
I mean you can die for failing a QTE or get someone else killed for it.
Is this through dialogue options so different? I dunno, I did not encounter any deaths by dialogue options in this episode, so it was not an issue for me.
Seems like the only options that lead to a game over are the ones I'd stay away from at all cost anyway. Maybe reserve for an alternate playthrough to see what would happen.
"AJ, shoot!"? "AJ, run!"?
Might as well say "AJ kys"
Honestly, I liked being on the edge of my seat sometimes, I didn't know you could even die during dialogue, but it felt like you could. As long as you don't pick really suicidal options, it seems you're fine.
Sure it doesn't have a lasting effect but there is still a short term direct drastic result if you pick a certain direct drastic choice. If you think about it, it matters more than all the other options since they all lead to the same conclusion. This is still a video game and video games have game overs, like it or not. It's no different than failing QTEs or messing up in the new combat. You die, what's the difference? (Thank you Lilly) Just treat it as a potential bad ending. I dunno maybe we just see this differently but the same thing happened in S1 and nobody had a problem with it. If you could just waddle through the game without choosing carefully or not pressing QTEs, would that be any fun? Like I said, you can't please everybody, look at Batman S1 E1 where you could die maybe once or twice the entire episode even if you failed most of the QTEs - people complained even though nobody ever died because of QTEs. Telltale's damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Because. You. Get. Killed, and it's a game over screen, your choices don't matter in the future, you just have to go back and choose somethi… moreng you don't want to. The choice does not affect the game, because you go back in time and choose another one so the game continues.
I had a problem and complained about it in S1. Since the first time I played it in 2013 I complained about having a game over in a choice. A game that tells you that the story is based around your choices shouldn't have literal WRONG CHOICES, obviously, yes things that lead to bad results, but not literal "Oops you're wrong, game over, try again". It shouldn't even be a choice based thing, just leave the scene like it is with no choice, the worst part is how this is always inserted in important or climactic moments, and if you actually choose sincerely the "wrong" option, it ruins all the inmersion and epicness.
Sure it doesn't have a lasting effect but there is still a short term direct drastic result if you pick a certain direct drastic choice. If … moreyou think about it, it matters more than all the other options since they all lead to the same conclusion. This is still a video game and video games have game overs, like it or not. It's no different than failing QTEs or messing up in the new combat. You die, what's the difference? (Thank you Lilly) Just treat it as a potential bad ending. I dunno maybe we just see this differently but the same thing happened in S1 and nobody had a problem with it. If you could just waddle through the game without choosing carefully or not pressing QTEs, would that be any fun? Like I said, you can't please everybody, look at Batman S1 E1 where you could die maybe once or twice the entire episode even if you failed most of the QTEs - people complained even though nobody ever died because of QTEs. Telltale's damned if they do, damned if they don't.
If you had a problem with it in S1, you must have chosen really stupid and reckless choices, no offence. And stupidity and recklessness gets you killed in the real world and sure as hell in the apocalyptic world. So now you have a choice of design - either let the player get away with anything even if it is completely nonsensical or put a kill lock on one of the choices and a game over. That's just how it is, they never said every choice is valid and safe, just that they have consequences. Getting killed for picking a wrong choice seems like consequence enough to me. There's really not THAT many choices that get you killed, maybe 2 or 3 that anyone would actually choose, so as long as they don't cram them in every conversation, I think they should keep the mechanic.
I had a problem and complained about it in S1. Since the first time I played it in 2013 I complained about having a game over in a choice. A… more game that tells you that the story is based around your choices shouldn't have literal WRONG CHOICES, obviously, yes things that lead to bad results, but not literal "Oops you're wrong, game over, try again". It shouldn't even be a choice based thing, just leave the scene like it is with no choice, the worst part is how this is always inserted in important or climactic moments, and if you actually choose sincerely the "wrong" option, it ruins all the inmersion and epicness.
Brody confirmed they had "History" with him so it's obvious. I agree the encounter didn't exactly reflect that he was a raider but I just don't buy it.
Does Clementine describe him in the other options? Cause otherwise, that just seems like paranoid speculation/assumption on her part, however accurate it may eventually be.
Brody confirmed they had "History" with him so it's obvious. I agree the encounter didn't exactly reflect that he was a raider but I just don't buy it.
Clementine said that they met a creep with different colored eyes and Brody freaked out. Now, there are two options.
1) It is Abel. He has different colored eyes, he is a creep. He is a part of a group of raiders that attacked Marlon, Brody and Tenn`s sisters on the run, so they gave the sisters up and told everyone that they were killed by walkers. Now they are back, and after our encounter Abel will be back with his people either to get revenge for trying to kill him or to get more food from us. This is most likely to happen.
2) Another theory I thought about is a bit far-fetched, so no reason to take it too seriously. This is all a big coincidence. The walker at the train station has different colored eyes. Maybe, before he died, he was the creep that Brody thinks of when Clementine mentions Abel. Maybe he was a part of the bigger group (explains the amount of supplies the train station has) of "raiders" and maybe the reason the man wanted to take two kids was that he and the woman (another walker at the train station) lost their own kid (empty crib at the train station). Now that both Brody and Marlon, the only people from the group who saw these raiders in person are dead, when Abel comes at the gates the conflict between his group and the kids will inevitably arise (either because Clementine tried to kill him, or because kids will believe that he and his group are the raiders). While in reality, the bad guys are already long gone/dead.
I dont know why I came up with that theory, its just that the way Abel was acting at the train station if you let him just take the food. He is not at all hostile, he just takes the food and leaves. He also leaves most of the food to the kids (two bags versus just one that he takes).
Does Clementine describe him in the other options? Cause otherwise, that just seems like paranoid speculation/assumption on her part, however accurate it may eventually be.
Another theory is that Abel is a "changed man" and has deserted the raider
but let's be honest here he's very likely a raider and he asks a lot of questions and if we have a group.
Clementine said that they met a creep with different colored eyes and Brody freaked out. Now, there are two options.
1) It is Abel. He has… more different colored eyes, he is a creep. He is a part of a group of raiders that attacked Marlon, Brody and Tenn`s sisters on the run, so they gave the sisters up and told everyone that they were killed by walkers. Now they are back, and after our encounter Abel will be back with his people either to get revenge for trying to kill him or to get more food from us. This is most likely to happen.
2) Another theory I thought about is a bit far-fetched, so no reason to take it too seriously. This is all a big coincidence. The walker at the train station has different colored eyes. Maybe, before he died, he was the creep that Brody thinks of when Clementine mentions Abel. Maybe he was a part of the bigger group (explains the amount of supplies the train station has) of "raiders" and maybe the reason the man wan… [view original content]
What a stupid idea. Not only that, the silence option can also get you killed. So Telltale included both filler options for dialogue in a game about immersive choice.
Seems people are actually pretty divided on this, which is interesting. I personally fall in the camp of being okay with these game over dialogue choices, as long as it's for something that is very clearly ridiculous to do. I'd say the infamous example is the good old "Put the gun down, bitch!". Because threatening the obviously unhinged woman holding someone hostage and pointing a gun at your face is clearly a reasonable course of action. I think telling AJ to shoot Abel would be a good example too, because you're telling AJ out loud, directly in front of Abel, who would very clearly hear you say it, to shoot. Honestly, if that scene continued to play out if you chose the shoot option, I think it'd be dumber than a game over. If the scene somehow continued, that would mean that this grown adult man either conveniently goes deaf, develops the reaction time of a snail stuck in syrup, or forgets he has a gun in order to allow AJ enough time to actually shoot him. It'd just make Abel look cartoonishly incompetent and turn the scene into something borderline comedic.
I do think they overdid it in this episode, though. Like I said, the Abel one makes sense, and so does trying to attack Marlon the first time you get the option (he has the gun pointed directly at you, for crying out loud). But the rest of them feel a bit shoehorned in.
Seems people are actually pretty divided on this, which is interesting. I personally fall in the camp of being okay with these game over dia… morelogue choices, as long as it's for something that is very clearly ridiculous to do. I'd say the infamous example is the good old "Put the gun down, bitch!". Because threatening the obviously unhinged woman holding someone hostage and pointing a gun at your face is clearly a reasonable course of action. I think telling AJ to shoot Abel would be a good example too, because you're telling AJ out loud, directly in front of Abel, who would very clearly hear you say it, to shoot. Honestly, if that scene continued to play out if you chose the shoot option, I think it'd be dumber than a game over. If the scene somehow continued, that would mean that this grown adult man either conveniently goes deaf, develops the reaction time of a snail stuck in syrup, or forgets he has a gun in order to allow AJ enough time to … [view original content]
Comments
If you threaten him and don`t take the gun when the promt tells you to.
There are two times when Clem can attack Marlon, the first one leads to death and the latter can lead to both, which one are you referring to?
He's still a raider who was part of the gang who took Tenn's sisters and probably others before them.
Because. You. Get. Killed, and it's a game over screen, your choices don't matter in the future, you just have to go back and choose something you don't want to. The choice does not affect the game, because you go back in time and choose another one so the game continues.
Exactly. You're just being forced to restart and choose something that you didn't want to choose in the first place. It's immersion breaking and takes me completely out of any scene.
I mean you can die for failing a QTE or get someone else killed for it.
Is this through dialogue options so different? I dunno, I did not encounter any deaths by dialogue options in this episode, so it was not an issue for me.
Yeah it's different than failing the quick time events because the game is taking away the premise that every dialogue is a valid option and is instilling this rule that some dialogue options are correct and some are not. I'm not opposed to suffering consequences for my dialogue options but it shouldn't be an immediate game over where I have to go back and pick the "right" dialogue.
Yes
Seems like the only options that lead to a game over are the ones I'd stay away from at all cost anyway. Maybe reserve for an alternate playthrough to see what would happen.
"AJ, shoot!"? "AJ, run!"?
Might as well say "AJ kys"
Honestly, I liked being on the edge of my seat sometimes, I didn't know you could even die during dialogue, but it felt like you could. As long as you don't pick really suicidal options, it seems you're fine.
Yeah, if you stay silent he pops a cap right in Lee's head
Sure it doesn't have a lasting effect but there is still a short term direct drastic result if you pick a certain direct drastic choice. If you think about it, it matters more than all the other options since they all lead to the same conclusion. This is still a video game and video games have game overs, like it or not. It's no different than failing QTEs or messing up in the new combat. You die, what's the difference? (Thank you Lilly) Just treat it as a potential bad ending. I dunno maybe we just see this differently but the same thing happened in S1 and nobody had a problem with it. If you could just waddle through the game without choosing carefully or not pressing QTEs, would that be any fun? Like I said, you can't please everybody, look at Batman S1 E1 where you could die maybe once or twice the entire episode even if you failed most of the QTEs - people complained even though nobody ever died because of QTEs. Telltale's damned if they do, damned if they don't.
I had a problem and complained about it in S1. Since the first time I played it in 2013 I complained about having a game over in a choice. A game that tells you that the story is based around your choices shouldn't have literal WRONG CHOICES, obviously, yes things that lead to bad results, but not literal "Oops you're wrong, game over, try again". It shouldn't even be a choice based thing, just leave the scene like it is with no choice, the worst part is how this is always inserted in important or climactic moments, and if you actually choose sincerely the "wrong" option, it ruins all the inmersion and epicness.
If you had a problem with it in S1, you must have chosen really stupid and reckless choices, no offence. And stupidity and recklessness gets you killed in the real world and sure as hell in the apocalyptic world. So now you have a choice of design - either let the player get away with anything even if it is completely nonsensical or put a kill lock on one of the choices and a game over. That's just how it is, they never said every choice is valid and safe, just that they have consequences. Getting killed for picking a wrong choice seems like consequence enough to me. There's really not THAT many choices that get you killed, maybe 2 or 3 that anyone would actually choose, so as long as they don't cram them in every conversation, I think they should keep the mechanic.
Oh, interesting.
And here I thought he was too much of a doctor to do it.
It makes sense, though.
We don't know that for sure yet, but like I said, be smarter about that kind of setup.
Clementine in episode 4: Can I please finish a sentence without someone dying!
It shows how stupid you can be.
Brody confirmed they had "History" with him so it's obvious. I agree the encounter didn't exactly reflect that he was a raider but I just don't buy it.
Yup he can i don't blame you for not knowing
Does Clementine describe him in the other options? Cause otherwise, that just seems like paranoid speculation/assumption on her part, however accurate it may eventually be.
Clementine said that they met a creep with different colored eyes and Brody freaked out. Now, there are two options.
1) It is Abel. He has different colored eyes, he is a creep. He is a part of a group of raiders that attacked Marlon, Brody and Tenn`s sisters on the run, so they gave the sisters up and told everyone that they were killed by walkers. Now they are back, and after our encounter Abel will be back with his people either to get revenge for trying to kill him or to get more food from us. This is most likely to happen.
2) Another theory I thought about is a bit far-fetched, so no reason to take it too seriously. This is all a big coincidence. The walker at the train station has different colored eyes. Maybe, before he died, he was the creep that Brody thinks of when Clementine mentions Abel. Maybe he was a part of the bigger group (explains the amount of supplies the train station has) of "raiders" and maybe the reason the man wanted to take two kids was that he and the woman (another walker at the train station) lost their own kid (empty crib at the train station). Now that both Brody and Marlon, the only people from the group who saw these raiders in person are dead, when Abel comes at the gates the conflict between his group and the kids will inevitably arise (either because Clementine tried to kill him, or because kids will believe that he and his group are the raiders). While in reality, the bad guys are already long gone/dead.
I dont know why I came up with that theory, its just that the way Abel was acting at the train station if you let him just take the food. He is not at all hostile, he just takes the food and leaves. He also leaves most of the food to the kids (two bags versus just one that he takes).
Got one while playing. It does kinda ruin any tension in the scene
Another theory is that Abel is a "changed man" and has deserted the raider
but let's be honest here he's very likely a raider and he asks a lot of questions and if we have a group.
Bump for approval.
What a stupid idea. Not only that, the silence option can also get you killed. So Telltale included both filler options for dialogue in a game about immersive choice.
As if our choices weren't binary enough.
Seems people are actually pretty divided on this, which is interesting. I personally fall in the camp of being okay with these game over dialogue choices, as long as it's for something that is very clearly ridiculous to do. I'd say the infamous example is the good old "Put the gun down, bitch!". Because threatening the obviously unhinged woman holding someone hostage and pointing a gun at your face is clearly a reasonable course of action. I think telling AJ to shoot Abel would be a good example too, because you're telling AJ out loud, directly in front of Abel, who would very clearly hear you say it, to shoot. Honestly, if that scene continued to play out if you chose the shoot option, I think it'd be dumber than a game over. If the scene somehow continued, that would mean that this grown adult man either conveniently goes deaf, develops the reaction time of a snail stuck in syrup, or forgets he has a gun in order to allow AJ enough time to actually shoot him. It'd just make Abel look cartoonishly incompetent and turn the scene into something borderline comedic.
I do think they overdid it in this episode, though. Like I said, the Abel one makes sense, and so does trying to attack Marlon the first time you get the option (he has the gun pointed directly at you, for crying out loud). But the rest of them feel a bit shoehorned in.
The Abel one should have been the only one.