The Walking Dead: The Game

Guess they're going back to the Badass and Child Duo dynamic.

I'm up for that. It'll be a nice evolution of the Clementine we saw in Season One. Plus, gender-inverted Badass and Child Duos are rare enough that I always enjoy seeing them.

I wanted something like that for a long time. Took them an entire season to do it.....

I really hope they don't give us an option to abandon AJ. Or if they do, they can no longer have a villain like Carver, Randall, or Norma. Because if the player is so obsessed with their survival they'd sacrifice anything, there is no difference between them and the villains.

Or if they do, really prod the player for being a hypocrite. But I hope they don't.

edited 23rd Jul '16 10:10:52 AM by SilentColossus

I can see leaving AJ with another group of survivors at the end of episode 5, as a choice.

I'm hoping for larger survivor communities, like Alexandria.

edited 23rd Jul '16 12:10:20 PM by SilentColossus

The option to leave A.J. with another community or keep him would be thematically appropriate. It would reflect both the decision Lee was deprived of making in season one as well as the conflict never fought between Jane and Kenny's endings; Jane insists on keeping Clem as close to her as possible and trying to shun other survivors, while Kenny drops to his knees and begs the secure city of Wellington to take her so she won't have to die in the wilderness with him.

Since Lee first picked up Clementine, the question has been repeatedly asked: what matters more? Being taken in by a community that can take care of and raise her, or staying with the people that love her? The concept of family, or the individuals that make up her family?

Now that Clem's older, passing that question on to A.J. feels appropriate.

I mentioned this before, but I really think we need to go beyond the whole "wandering around barely surviving" narrative, at least for a while. I'd like to see Telltale's depiction of survivor settlements (outside of the villains like Carver and Norma) and the politics inside them and with other settlements. Like, to quote Nick: "We'll just march to some new place and somebody else will die," will result in it being less grim and hopeless and more boring. This doesn't mean less death per say, just done differently.

I'm hopeful since apparently trying to rebuild is a big theme this season.

edited 23rd Jul '16 6:16:34 PM by SilentColossus

Yeah, I've also been hoping we get to see some larger-scale settlements and communities, because that would open up a lot of new story opportunities. Might help keep things fresh.

Wellington looked pretty big, but since that only appeared in a few of the endings, that probably won't be making much of an appearance.

I still don't get what's so bad about Norma.

Beyond the torture thing, y'know.

She wasn't so bad, really. But she was a villain.

That's fair. I don't think you can call anyone in the game wholly sympathetic, however.

I don't think anyone comes out, even dies, entirely a goody-goody.

Oh I agree. But the villains should represent the worst of the survivors, and what the player characters can become. But not what they are: they're a warning, something to prevent you from going over the edge.

If you're going to allow a Villain Protagonist, you need to rework the entire narrative.

edited 24th Jul '16 7:02:02 AM by SilentColossus

Ah.

In that case, I'd like to argue that she doesn't deserve the epithet "Worst of the survivors; villian". She's an antagonist, yes, but I do not recall anything she did that pushed her beyond the horizon.

Her worst sin is abiding by her brother.

Norma who?

Norma bad lady of the Michonne mini-series.

Oh, the spin-off was forgettable to me.

Fair enough. You're up for some good ole' morality debate?

On what?

Norma is an exception as one of the more sympathetic villains. Carver his minion Troy are not, and the player abandoning AJ to die would basically put them at their level.

Edit: Wait nvm.

Abandoning AJ. Yes or No? Why?

edited 24th Jul '16 8:24:48 AM by pblades

Would leaving A.J. to be raised by a secure society like Wellington be a good idea? Probably, yes. Giving a baby to a place with the resources to take care of him and a reduced chance of being eaten by zombies is pretty clearly the logically correct thing to do.

But logic does not rule over people. The better question is, would Clementine do it? My Clem wouldn't for the same reason she read Kenny the riot act when he tried to do the same for her. Because he's family and family stays together. And also some abandonment issues because f*ck if she hasn't lost a lot of people that were supposed to be there for her.

edited 24th Jul '16 8:32:50 AM by TobiasDrake

Should "family stays together" have such a literal definition, however? Should it not, in fact, means that family should tries to do what is best for each other?

The old adage, "love is letting go" comes to mind.

On paper, maybe, but love is rarely logical. The reason adages like that have to exist is to encourage people to make choices they wouldn't make otherwise.

Oh no, I'm seeing people who want to leave him to die. Because liability or whatever. I just hope Telltale doesn't listen. So, I'm not talking about leaving him with other people. But my Clementine wouldn't leave AJ with other people because she doesn't trust other people to do it.

A community like Wellington would be better for AJ, but he only stays if Clem can stay to look after him. Maybe Kenny is wiser in that regard.

edited 24th Jul '16 8:42:07 AM by SilentColossus