Installer Steam
Logg inn
|
språk
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (tradisjonell kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tsjekkisk)
Dansk (dansk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spania)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latin-Amerika)
Ελληνικά (gresk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (nederlandsk)
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasil)
Română (rumensk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et problem med oversettelse
Diskusjonsregler og retningslinjer
0 
Rapporter dette innlegget
It's not about apples and pears.
Like every game like it it's like this:
http://www.gameone.de/tv/113
skip to 12:16.
Here's a thing, it's nice to have the illusion that your choices do matter. For example, you have a choice of leaving Ramsay's men behind the barred gate outside your castle. If you do that, those men will magically teleport into your castle, and force the ending. Stuff like that is what annoys people horribly.
Except Ramsay introduces his men in a way that leaves room to speculate that somebody betrayed you. People need to stop assuming it makes no sense for his men to get through anyways when it's completely logical if somebody betrayed you.
We have to wait until the next episode to see if there is an explanation. Just because you tried to prevent something doesn't mean it would be impossible for it to happen.
Of course it would be very interesting if there were wildly different outcomes each time, but it isn't so terrible if there are unavoidable plot points that do make sense.
That would mean that EVERYONE in the castle betrayed you. Lord Ethan publicly says "Only you (Ramsay) can enter". If you were betrayed by a few people, that means that the gate opened, Ramsay's men entered and marched through your castle, into your throne room ignored by everyone.
No it wouldn't. People, it's not that hard to understand, you're all just trying to find something to criticize. Ramsay probalby threatened to flay anybody that tried to warn anybody in the hall. It's not hard to understand.
In 2016 we should expect more....Simple Visual Novel from 2000 had more meaningful choices - AND they not discard or diminish character development. You can and YOU SHOULD have both kind of choices.
P.S I know I'm posting it in 2016, but it's still relevant because i still don't see any telltale games that follow above mentioned suggestion.
Except everyone is there. There is not chance for betrayal. It's frickin daylight, the corrtyard is full, and no one mentions a betrayal or reacts like there was one for the entire rest of the season. Ramseys men just teleport via power of plot hole. And it's not the only time he teleports via power of plothole.
I didn't know it for certain at the time, but I took the "traitor" with me to the whitehill jamboree and left Arthur and his men back at my castle to guard. When I got home they'd opened the doors and gotten aurthur and perhaps serveral other of themselves flayed. And was there any question of betrayal? In my mind as a player, yes, but the characters never acted as if this was an issue.
But if you want a comparison, I'll go copy and paste, yet again, my comparison of GoT and TWD and how there is a difference in how choices are handled even in those cases where you end up in the same exact position.
If you want a recent better game, I just finished Banner Saga 2. Both it and the first Banner Saga have their issues with limitations on choice: The route your caravan goes is set and you cannot deviate from that plan. But you can get major characters killed off or saved depending on your choices. You can save the lives of unnamed but numbered in the hundreds of background characters who act as your clansmen, Varl, and fighters. And, at least in the first game, the number of fighters you have actually affects the successfulness of your battle tactics. You can't exactly "lose" Banner Saga, but you can fail as a clan leader and kill off all of your numbered people through poor management. Again, I had my issues with that game here and there, but in the second chapter of that game, I actually had a real option to kill off a major villain of the tale (equivalent to Ludd/Gryff). Whether or not I did so was based entirely on my choice and was not preprogramed. It had ramifications within the game, and I hope those ramififications continue to ripple out in the next , final part of the saga.
Anyway, that story is also, thus far, a tragedymere struggle to survive, and yet I have found it far more fulfilling despite my losses since there have also been those little things known as victories here and there amidst the death and destruction.
Anyway, here's my now standard boiler plate for how the choices in GoT stack up against those of the walking dead. Have fun
[q]In topic Lot of hate for this game?
Originally posted by XxXSILLISXxX®™:
Originally posted by Giants With Class:
And I don't understand why it's so hard for people to see the difference between this and Walking Dead, for example.
In GoT, if you choose to meet Ramsy in the throne room as Ethan, he kills you. If you choose to meet him at the gate, you meet him at the gate, teleport to the throne room for no apparent reason, and then he still kills you.
In TWD, when you have the choice of saving the red shirt or Duck, if you save Duck, Kenny is grateful and it affects your relationship with him and gives you one scene of leaving the farm. If you save the red shirt, the red shirt (sorry, don't remember his name at all) still dies, but Kenny remembers what you do and say and it actually affects your relationship for the entire rest of the game. Compile enough negative relationship points and you have entirely different conversations.
And it makes sense: of course Kenny values his family above other people, and of course you need to move the tractor if you want to save the red shirt (ie you would have to move Duck first anyway), so it's no surprise he dies either way. The story and characters make a realistic sense within the context of that world.
In GoT, I don't have an issue with Ethan dying either way, but I do have an issue with weirdly teleporting into the throne room and getting the exact same scene no matter what you do with the same relationship results (death) whether you tried a show of force or politeness. Your choice also has no impact on your relationship with anyone (as shown by the traitor situation later on which is based on a bracelet rather than player relationships to characters).
Let's take the end of the story now. In TWD, Kenny will eventually join up with you and endanger himself for other members of the party. If you have a good to neutral relationship, he does this because he's your friend. However, if you have a bad relationship, he does this because his boat was stolen (happens no matter what) and his family is dead (happens no matter what) and his wife's final conversations with him were about him being more selfless for other members of the group rather than always focusing on her and Duck (something he will talk about with you). He has nothing else to do and no purpose to his life, so this is his way of making his life mean something. No matter which path you choose to get there, Kenny's motivations for the end make sense.
In GoT, we have Tom the coal boy as an aide for Mira. If you treat him well, he helps you retrieve your documents and sacrifices himself to the guards in the end. If you treat him poorly, he still helps you. BUT, not only does he still help you, which he might justify by the fact that even if you're a ♥♥♥♥♥ he's being paid, BUT he gives you the same wink as he sacrifices himself to the guards. Your relationship to him has no changes or variation or justification for why he puts up with so much grief from you and still apparently thinks that you're friends.
These are just two points in the entire six episode arc where GoT FAILS at telling a story because the characters are horribly inconsistent and the plot makes no sense unless you just happen to pick the path the writers wanted you to follow in the first place. There *isn't* any illusion of choice. There's just the plot railroad that you cannot escape.
And the plot railroad is even more of a problem when you're proclaiming that people will get to play the Game of Thrones for the survival of their house. This implies that there's a sequence of choices that you can follow that would actually save your house if you can just find it. It implies that even more than other Telltale Games, your choices will matter here because in the game of politics, it's all about choice and how others react to those choices.
Telltale set the bar for this game higher and didn't even hit the basic level that it had been hitting previously. That is why this game is garnering so many complaints as a game.[/quote]
A lot of what you said is almost identical to situattion in GoT. Kenny sacrifices himself no matter what. The coal boy helps you no matter what. You pretty much just listed the ways in which the games are similar.[/quote]
Ah, and now I see why some of my old responses were popping up, they got copied and pasted here.
As the person who originally wrote the bit comparing TWD and TGoT, the point was to look at things that were similar and see how they had failed to have the same impact.
Ethan dies/the red shirt guy dies: In TWD, though the red shirt is ultimately unimportant to the tale no matter what, his death vs. saving Duck is referenced 2 or 3 times by Kenny and your choice to do one or the other changes Kenny's reaction to your character, in some cases drastically depending on how many other things you did or did not do that Kenny liked or disliked. Whole swathes of dialogue were different depending on if you were friendly with Kenny or antagonistic with Kenny. By contrast, the choice that leads to Ethan's death changes nothing. The magic teleport to the throne room essentially destroys your agency as the player since you're not allowed to keep Ramsey at the gates and you're left as helpless as if you'd tried to be polite. With pretty much the same dialogue and no difference to the story. It doesn't change Ramsey's later interactions with your family, making him hate you more or like you better. Nor do the death scenes differ, as they should if your choice were to have any impact. I'm not going to argue that Ethan shouldn't die. Just that he should have had two different deaths so that in terms of storytelling, the point that the choice was ultimatley meaningless and neither politeness nor a show of force stopped Ramsey was illustrated. You shouldn't have had your legs cut out from under your choice if you picked show of force. If there's a gate between you and Ramsey, and guards, that should be taken into consideration in how things play out. As things stand, I, as a player, don't feel like Ethan's death was inevitable and my choices couldn't change things. Instead, I feel cheated because I made one choice, and the game let me think I was allowed to have options and choices, and then suddenly Ethan was teleported via plothole to the throne room to die. That's not illusion of choice, that's bad writing.
As for the Kenny/coal boy issue: You end up with the exact same ending to the game in both cases. Kenny will help you. But your dialogues will be different depending on if you're friends or antagonists (can't really say enemies because even if you hate each other, Kenny is not as deadly to you as zombies). Meanwhile, the Tom the coalboy's dialogues and actions are exactly the same in the ending whether you're friends or foes. Even taking into account that someone else is paying him to do this job, his actions and words don't make sense because he often acts like you're friends even if you treat him poorly. He shouldn't give you a "got this covered friendly wink" if you've been a ♥♥♥♥♥ to him. He should have far more dialogues of resentment about choosing to help you, not a lobotomized reset to bestest friends.
I can come up with all sorts of similar points where the storytelling is just crap unless you happened to make the choices the author wanted you to make (be polite to Ramsy, save the coal boy and be buddies, always blindly follow the advice of whoever you pick as sentinel, kill the traitor and don't learn about the ambush ahead of time, etc).
This game essentially feels like the writer making a fan fiction story that he wanted to write rather than a game where players are free to make their own choices.[/quote]
And why in the hell would I even trust this guy in the first place? He's an annoying ********, a stalker, and obviously a spy working for someone else...