Walking Dead: The Aftermath.

[georgetownhoya]

Er, Walking Dead has dumb logic like that, in spades. Remember how you got that brick to throw at that window to attract the zombies in Ep. 1?

I don't remember that at all; My Lee never asked for help in that fight iirc.

Heh. "My Lee." The game railroads your choices to fit its narrative too much for the character to truly be yours. Even in Ep. 5, the climactic decision of telling Kenny to leave the party is overruled by the game like 10 minutes later. It just never stops. "My Lee" has so little agency it hurts -- that right there kills any hope of me identifying with the character.

I am positive what you do in the basement impacts whether Kenny helps you -- not sure if it's when you're up against the fence, or in the barn with the cannibal brothers. Regardless -- disagree with him, and he leaves you to die.

[Kadayi]

"Got nothing?" What is this, a schoolyard fight? If you cannot accept these statements as true:

A) It is unreasonable for a character like Kenny, however brash, to try to kill you for not helping bash in some old man's head in a basement;

B) It is reasonable for a character, like Lilly, to try to kill you after you bash in her father's head in said basement,

Then there is no way to have a logical discussion with you. You are hell-bent on justifying even the most schizophrenic, unrealistic character behavior.

Apparently you do appear to 'have nothing' (beyond an inability to not answer direct questions), because Kenny doesn't try and kill you (he just doesn't intervene)and you don't kill Larry (Kenny does). How you couldn't know that, coupled with the fact that you thought Kenny was called Lenny a few posts back makes me begin to suspect you've not actually played the game yourself, but just watched youtube footage of other people.

[GameCat]

Even in Ep. 5, the climactic decision of telling Kenny to leave the party is overruled by the game like 10 minutes later.

Damn. Since when Lee is a super-human who can control other peoples brains to make them do thing he likes? Kenny came back, because HE want it.
It's one small great thing about this game. You don't know about everything more than Lee knows. If he doesn't see something - you doesn't see it either. You can't control other characters. You can't save everyone. You're not superman. Other peoples would behave like they want and no one will be listening to you if he don't want to. Like in real world.

[georgetownhoya]

Apparently you do appear to 'have nothing' (beyond an inability to not answer direct questions), because Kenny doesn't try and kill you (he just doesn't intervene)and you don't kill Larry (Kenny does). How you couldn't know that, coupled with the fact that you thought Kenny was called Lenny a few posts back makes me begin to suspect you've not actually played the game yourself, but just watched youtube footage of other people.

More cheap shots. He sits by and watches as Lee nearly dies. He even bites his lip as if to say "You deserve what you get." That's pretty much trying to get Lee killed, which is totally absurd given the circumstances.

And the details of who exactly kills the old man are irrelevant to the argument - the choice is to intervene or not, and Lilly is justified in letting you die if you fail to intervene to save her dad, for obvious emotional reasons. Kenny, by contrast, is not justified in wanting you dead simply because you thought the old man deserved some quick CPR.

I did play the game, but it was so crappy and Ep. 2 was about five months ago that I've kind of lost memory of some of the minor, stupid and irrelevant details. Sorry. God, what a horrible game.

[Sketch]

Kenny is indecisive, because despite helping him in the past you did something which he considered potentially threatening to his family, who understandably come first a foremost. He doesn't outright declare he want for you dead, he just doesn't act quickly enough to help because he's balancing up his options. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that.

[georgetownhoya]

Damn. Since when Lee is a super-human who can control other peoples brains to make them do thing he likes? Kenny came back, because HE want it.
It's one small great thing about this game. You don't know about everything more than Lee knows. If he doesn't see something - you doesn't see it either. You can't control other characters. You can't save everyone. You're not superman. Other peoples would behave like they want and no one will be listening to you if he don't want to. Like in real world.

For the love of god -- I'm not advocating that Lee be able to 'control' others. I want him to have agency, like a real person would in a small group of people during real zombie apocalypse. I want his big decisions to matter and affect things, like a real person's would.

Example: In the game, you are offered the choice to go to the cannibal farm. Lee CANNOT REFUSE THIS. He MUST GO. The game, however, asks you if you want to go -- as if to taunt you. What a joke. In the real world, I don't have to go.

[georgetownhoya]

Kenny is indecisive, because despite helping him in the past you did something which he considered potentially threatening to his family, who understandably come first a foremost. He doesn't outright declare he want for you dead, he just doesn't act quickly enough to help because he's balancing up his options. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that.

No, he definitely gives you the stank eye from afar and grimaces, like he can't wait to see you die. It's hard to understand because it's completely retarded. Telltale wrote the scene with Lilly in mind -- it makes sense for her to want you dead after allowing her father to be murdered in a basement. It doesn't work with Kenny.

[Kadayi]

More cheap shots. He sits by and watches as Lee nearly dies. He even bites his lip as if to say "You deserve what you get." That's pretty much trying to get Lee killed, which is totally absurd given the circumstances.

By your twisted Logic I guess everyone else that stands there there kills lee as well then yes?

And the details of who exactly kills the old man are irrelevant to the argument - the choice is to intervene or not, and Lilly is justified in letting you die if you fail to intervene to save her dad, for obvious emotional reasons. Kenny, by contrast, is not justified in wanting you dead simply because you thought the old man deserved some quick CPR.

Simply repeating a lie doesn't make it any more viable. I'll repeat 'You don't kill Larry'. If Lily was going to have it in for anyone it would be Kenny.

I did play the game, but it was so crappy and Ep. 2 was about five months ago that I've kind of lost memory of some of the minor, stupid and irrelevant details. Sorry. God, what a horrible game.

Like Kenny's name? Given the final episode was out barely a week I'm finding this 'lost memory' thing hard to believe.

[georgetownhoya]

By your twisted Logic

Simply repeating a lie

I'm finding this 'lost memory' thing hard to believe.

Heh, ok. I think you're a bit more interested in picking fights than debating -- which is fine, but I'm going to stop responding to you now. Talking to you is not very interesting to me anymore.

One of the principles of charity in arguments is to assume the person you are arguing with is doing so in good faith, and responding to the main thrusts of their point. You have consistently shown no interest in doing either of those. These are important skills to learn if you want people to take you seriously in future arguments in more important settings.

[Lambchops]

For the love of god -- I'm not advocating that Lee be able to 'control' others. I want him to have agency, like a real person would in a small group of people during real zombie apocalypse. I want his big decisions to matter and affect things, like a real person's would.

Example: In the game, you are offered the choice to go to the cannibal farm. Lee CANNOT REFUSE THIS. He MUST GO. The game, however, asks you if you want to go -- as if to taunt you. What a joke. In the real world, I don't have to go.

I didn't want to go either, however I think you are being a bit harsh on the game georgetownhoya. Not going to the farm would be a major branch point which, for a team working on delivering monthly(ish) episodes would just not be feasible, what with the assets required to sustain that branch (sure they could keep using the motel location but that doesn't account for additional voice over, soundtrack. animation etc.) and the jiggery pokery required to bring the narrative back together for the next episode (which based on what you've been saying so far you would no doubt be unsatisfied with, despite not being able to know it comes back together without, y'know, reading it elsewhere or talking to someone). So assuming that for these reasons you always have to go to the farm then at least the game gives you a choice to dissent and be overuled. I sense again, that because of your oft stated desire for "agency" being able to say absolutely nothing at all would have pissed you off even more.

Could the illusion of choice be better carried off? Maybe. Will different people be more or less willing to accept the illusion? Certainly. For me I twigged in episode 3 but I found the game was engrossing enough that it didn't matter so much as I was too busy wondering about things like "what will this make Clementine do in the future?" that I didn't really care that decision X would lead me to point Z just the same as decision Y.

Basically, I think you're a bit unwilling to accept the limitations that the developers are under (perhaps riled a bit by the fact they made a point of saying the story changes, which seems to have irked a few people, including yourself). The game you can see them making in your head may well be better but I'm not sure if it's practical, though I'd love to play it. In that sort of vein you should (if you haven't already) go and play Masq (http://www.alteraction.com/), which I mentioned earlier in this thread. At the very least it gives you an appreciation of just how convoluted things can get if you allow yourself a simple aesthetic, but even then the man hours involved must be immense. I'd also love at this stage to recommend some interactive fiction, but I could never really get into it myself, inputting verbs was never for me.

Incidentally the farm bit (along with another later section I mentioned) was among my least favourite bits of the game because I felt it got a bit over the top and silly and away from the personal interactions/tragedy of episode 3 or human nature examination of the Crawford section in episode 4. I've never read the comics and I assume that this sort of thing perhaps carries through from there which is sensible enough but didn't appeal to me quite so much.

[Kadayi]

One of the principles of charity in arguments is to assume the person you are arguing with is doing so in good faith, and responding to the main thrusts of their point. You have consistently shown no interest in doing either of those. These are important skills to learn if you want people to take you seriously in future arguments in more important settings.

I posed a number of straight forward questions in good faith earlier on, yet you've steadfastly refused to answer them without explanation. Here they are again (the ones in Bold are outstanding): -

I mean, for god's sake, the whole first episode is just meeting survivors and fixing a radio until one arbitrarily dies, then the second episode there's a totally unrelated trip to a cliched maneating creepy farm where Lenny acts insane. Then he becomes super changed when his RIDICULOUS looking wife dies and finally behaves honorably.

One arbitrarily dies?

Whose lenny?

You don't think the sudden death of a wife and son might not have an impact on a characters personality?

What's the appearance of the wife got to do with anything exactly?

You even said yourself Lenny has a "character arc" like it's something special. Those have been around since 2,000 years ago.

Not in games though. So you're point is what exactly? That games shouldn't have narrative? Shouldn't have character arcs? That somehow character arcs are bad things and are not a stable ingredient of storytelling?

Yes, Walking Dead uses plot devices. But it uses them poorly. And until videogamers recognize that, they will continue to get shit and call it steak.

Poorly how? Poorly because? How is it that you see the walking dead game is somehow a negative for the industry? You just want more CoD? Or tactical sandboxes?

Not videogame cliched. Story cliched. As in, you've seen it a zillion other times. Just not in this medium.

Name them.

Also what exactly is the problem you have with game narrative? The rules on narrative are fairly well established. Albeit interactive media is a new arena, it can hardly evolve it's own language overnight without recourse to referencing the existing structure.

Do you think it is fair to say this is more of an interactive story -- told in a novel way -- and that maybe the novelty of it helped you overlook shortcomings that you might not have if, say, it were a TV season?

Hows it any more novel than any other game exactly? DA:O has a story and is interactive. How can we assess it Vs that of a passive medium like Television?

I think gamers should seek to have a game that merges story and gameplay. After all, if you're just in it for the story, why not read a book or watch a movie -- media that are both far better suited to telling in-depth stories, with far better writers?

So you're entire criticism of storyline in games comes down to people not being very good at it at this point in time (in your view?). With an attitude like that we'd still be living up trees. How long would you give an infant before you tell it to stop trying to walk exactly? compared to Books or films, as far as mediums go computer games are still very much in their infancy. This idea that developers should somehow give up is laughable.

What gamers should push Telltale for is the ability to actually fluidly shape the narrative in ways only games can.

And how exactly would you hope to achieve that? Outline how it can be done. With any form of branching dialogue the dialogue has to be written. If you're after a sandbox game with emergent game play though, it already exists it's called The Sims 3.

Knock yourself out. Let's see the mettle to your beliefs.

[georgetownhoya]

Basically, I think you're a bit unwilling to accept the limitations that the developers are under (perhaps riled a bit by the fact they made a point of saying the story changes, which seems to have irked a few people, including yourself). The game you can see them making in your head may well be better but I'm not sure if it's practical, though I'd love to play it. In that sort of vein you should (if you haven't already) go and play Masq (http://www.alteraction.com/), which I mentioned earlier in this thread. At the very least it gives you an appreciation of just how convoluted things can get if you allow yourself a simple aesthetic, but even then the man hours involved must be immense. I'd also love at this stage to recommend some interactive fiction, but I could never really get into it myself, inputting verbs was never for me.

Thanks for the recommendation. I will check it out.

I don't think the game should necessarily have to record all-new dialogue or make all-new graphics for each choice. I think you're still in movie-mode, when I'm more in novel-mode. Good interactive fiction doesn't necessarily need to be flashy, with the movie-like cuts and camera effects that are in TWD.

I guess I'm imagining something more like Rebuild, graphically, just with a little less strategy and far more dialogue and choices.

But not meaningless choices. For example, the game should not ask Lee whether he wants to go to the cannibal farm if his choice has no bearing on whether the group goes. This kind of irrelevant choice was dumb when Mass Effect did it, and it's still dumb and insulting now. The QTEs and button mashing is even worse. Just..ugh.

[Kadayi]

I mean, for god's sake, the whole first episode is just meeting survivors and fixing a radio until one arbitrarily dies, then the second episode there's a totally unrelated trip to a cliched maneating creepy farm where Lenny acts insane. Then he becomes super changed when his RIDICULOUS looking wife dies and finally behaves honorably.

One arbitrarily dies?

Whose lenny?

You don't think the sudden death of a wife and son might not have an impact on a characters personality?

What's the appearance of the wife got to do with anything exactly?

You even said yourself Lenny has a "character arc" like it's something special. Those have been around since 2,000 years ago.

Not in games though. So you're point is what exactly? That games shouldn't have narrative? Shouldn't have character arcs? That somehow character arcs are bad things and are not a stable ingredient of storytelling?

Yes, Walking Dead uses plot devices. But it uses them poorly. And until videogamers recognize that, they will continue to get shit and call it steak.

Poorly how? Poorly because? How is it that you see the walking dead game is somehow a negative for the industry? You just want more CoD? Or tactical sandboxes?

Not videogame cliched. Story cliched. As in, you've seen it a zillion other times. Just not in this medium.

Name them.

Also what exactly is the problem you have with game narrative? The rules on narrative are fairly well established. Albeit interactive media is a new arena, it can hardly evolve it's own language overnight without recourse to referencing the existing structure.

Do you think it is fair to say this is more of an interactive story -- told in a novel way -- and that maybe the novelty of it helped you overlook shortcomings that you might not have if, say, it were a TV season?

Hows it any more novel than any other game exactly? DA:O has a story and is interactive. How can we assess it Vs that of a passive medium like Television?

I think gamers should seek to have a game that merges story and gameplay. After all, if you're just in it for the story, why not read a book or watch a movie -- media that are both far better suited to telling in-depth stories, with far better writers?

So you're entire criticism of storyline in games comes down to people not being very good at it at this point in time (in your view?). With an attitude like that we'd still be living up trees. How long would you give an infant before you tell it to stop trying to walk exactly? compared to Books or films, as far as mediums go computer games are still very much in their infancy. This idea that developers should somehow give up is laughable.

What gamers should push Telltale for is the ability to actually fluidly shape the narrative in ways only games can.

And how exactly would you hope to achieve that? Outline how it can be done. With any form of branching dialogue the dialogue has to be written. If you're after a sandbox game with emergent game play though, it already exists it's called The Sims 3.

[Bhagan]

Finished it this morning, great stuff. Oh man Oh man Oh man, I don't believe I have sobbed after a video game before.

[aceofspudz]

I just finished the game.
-Chopped Lee's arm off (to slow the progress of the infection)
-refused to be disarmed (although I was not rewarded OR punished for this, as is the game's MO--just another pointless decision)
-killed the Stranger (didn't realize he was a psycho, though. I just thought he was dangerous)

The bad:
I don't think it brings anything new to the zombie fiction genre. There were some interesting characters but too many of them were unlikable. Much of the game dialog consists of angst and beyond cultivating a sense of dread and hopelessness, it was not pleasant to listen to. Characters were having heart to hearts in every room they walk through and I was leaving a lot of dialog options on the table because I was sick of their moping. I was extremely indifferent to their survival, because they didn't seem like they really WANTED to live. The only death in the game that I really cared about was Lee's. No survivor was interested in group unity at all. The group constantly losing cohesion had no impact because they were never cohesive and didn't deserve to live in the first place.

There were lots of decisions I was asked to make that I had no idea what it was asking me to decide. Note that I don't mean Lee didn't know what he was deciding, I mean I didn't--Lee did. The gameplay was braindead and the QTEs were some of the worst QTEs ever. There was no way to do better or worse.

I wanted to take aggressive action on Ben when it became obvious that he was a commiserate fuckup, but I had to wait it out and drop him like a coward. This dynamic of powerlessness was repeated over and over throughout the series. Lee was never given the opportunity to become a leadership figure or to get any genuine respect. Everyone's opinion of you is based on whether you told them they had a good haircut on wednesday. This group had been around for months by the end of the Ep2 and the group dynamics were as undeveloped as if it were 3 days.

The good:
It was an emotionally powerful storyline. Clementine was lovable--granted, making you feel attached to a 9 yo girl is hardly a great achievement in writing. Due to my pragmatic choices the stranger had good reasons to hate me and the confrontation wound up being memorable.

[DWZippy]

I'm catching up! Hoping to finish episode 5 by the middle of next week, starting episode 4 over the weekend, if I can push Far Cry 3 aside for a short while.

(feel free to comment on the Blog, I'm fascinated to hear how different peoples playthroughs were going at the episode 3 point.)

[duff]

My friend played this and cried at the end. What a loser.

[SirDavies]

My friend played this and cried at the end. What a loser.

To be fair, it was quite a great ending. I think if an artistic creation has the power to make a person cry, that's a merit of the cration, not a demerit of the person.

[Krathor]

I intend to read this thread in its entirety at some point, but I have recently finished The Walking Dead and so wish to express my opinion without it being swayed too much by others:

For me, this series hit its pinnacle with Episode 2. It had perfect story points, was grotesque enough to be memorable (even for a videogame) and although your choices didn't really matter, they sure as Hell felt satisfying - everything from killing Larry to leaving the brother stuck in a bear trap and not outright murdering him, yet killing his sibling with a kick to the face and electric shock... superb!

I'm sad that Chuck died so quickly and from my research, it seems that there is no way to prevent that. He literally enters halfway through Episode 3, exits at the start of Episode 4. It's a shame, because he seemed to be the only one with his head on straight in a depressing way.

Additionally, I'd also say that the closing scenes in the hotel room are fantastic. Some of the writing in that conversation with 'The Stranger' (who reminded me a lot of Steve Buscemi) were moving and actually helped to flesh out Lee's character a little more - which is important because it made me actually care when he died a few scenes later.

My big problem was that none of my choices seemed to matter so much and, upon reviewing the wiki, it seems that everyone you take action to save (such as Ben - although I let him go in the bell tower following his confession to the group) end up pointlessly dying anyway. Kenny's last stand was sort of satisfying, if not a little... forced. And no matter where I tell the couple to meet me when I split up from them just before the hotel, the ending scene with Clem remains identical.

I was one of the few who decided not to show Lee's bite initially, BTW. And I sure as Hell didn't let his arm get cut off.

[jnx]

This was a unique experience and a great ride. In my opinion, the last episode was actually the weakest. It was good, but least so. Think I liked first and third the most.