The Walking Dead - Season 2

Zero-Cool

So, Season 2 will be out 'In the Fall' so just another couple of months.

SPOILERS from Season 1 and 400 Days!!









It's been confirmed that 'Clem will definitely be part of it' and Kenny's fate 'will be explored'

Apparently there is a teaser image of Clem sitting beside another young girl. It was shown at comic con but can't find it on the net. Anyone else see it?

Here is the panel from comic con. They talk about season 1, Vita release and even have a great question on why Lee was killed off :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rouavPVIfqw

Will be interesting to see how the group from 400 days will play into it. If the community Tavia wants you to join is Woodbury, then chances are we will meet up with Lilly and as good as it would be to see a Governor in all his brutal glory comic style, that character might have been done a bit so would be good if they found a different group of people.

Also read on the games wiki that season 2 will be loosely tied in with the tv show. Don't like the sound of that but have faith in Telltale so will wait and see.

Telltale plans to tie Season 2 in closer with the television adaptation of
The Walking Dead, and is investigating the possibility of creating ties between
characters in the television show and those in Season 2.

Sand

The only part of Kenny's fate that I would be happy to explore is Kenny's horrifying death being eaten alive by a zombie horde. If you came across his remains (maybe his cap in the stomach of a walker?), or some sort of photographic/video recording of his demise ... that would be as far as I'd like to take it. The guy was a complete and total git and I'm truly puzzled by the fanbase he appears to have on the telltale forums.

As for Clementine - I think including her again is a major mistake. We have had to the Lee and Clementine story. It was brilliant. The ending was incredibly poignant. Why not leave it at that? Tell us another story instead of reheating an old one. I just cant see her role exceeding a cameo "Hi, I'm Clementine. You might remember me from such Walking Dead season one episodes as one, two, three, four and five".

Penn

I think the whole point of Kenny is that it depends on your choices and dialogue whether or not he's a good guy or a tool. Throughout the game, I saw him as a guy who was trying and sometimes struggling to do his best to try and lead the group and keep everyone safe, worrying about his family and knowing he might have to make the hard decisions. I thought he was one of the best-written characters. I can easily see how he could come across as being an arrogant, selfish bell end though, but it all depends on how you interact with him.

I'm conflicted about

him possibly reappearing in Season 2. In my story he had such a perfect ending by sacrificing himself to put Ben out of his misery (given their conflict with each other) and allowing himself to be killed by zombies instead. Or so I thought anyway

Grimebox

I hope its separate from anything else bar a cameo or two. Clem or anyone else doesn't need to be visited imo

Tony EH

I don't care who's in the next lot, but it better take a huge step forward in terms of gameplay, that's for sure.

I've just finished the first 5 today and came away with the knowledge that no matter what I said to anybody, or whom I saved, it made absolutely no difference whatsoever...

...so what was the point?

I saved Carley, because I thought she'd be good in a scrap, but Lilly wastes her. If I saved Doug, he gets killed in the exact same spot. I told Lilly to get on the RV, but she just buggered off with it anyway, negating any point in not simply leaving her on the road in the first place.

...all of which is a perfect example of why the players decisions mean absolutely nothing.

Essentially what 'The Walking Dead' was was the conversation parts of 'Oblivion' / 'Skyrim', but without the rest. The player is really just clicking a "next" button and that's really about it.

It really isn't beyond Telltale's ability to allow the player's decisions to actually mean something and truly affect how the game plays out. The old 'Blade Runner' PC game managed to do this in the 90's. Such gameplay would increase the enjoyment of 'The Walking Dead' 100 fold, without tampering too much with the existing product as it stands.

For example, the player's decisions could have had an impact on Lee's fate, on whether he lived or died, or whether Clementine lived or died. The final outcome could have had a real impact on the conclusion of the first 5 episodes of "season" (I hate that term) One.

'The Walking Dead' as an interactive split off of the series (both Comic and TV show) is a good idea, and could be something really special, with a genuinely long life. But if the same redundant methods of "game" are implemented like they were the last time out, I cannot see it continuing for too long.

I certainly don't believe that it deserved "Game of the Year", by any stretch of the imagination and a "slow" year went a really long way to it's eventual victory, but it is a good idea...just one that needs more game.

Penn

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't care who's in the next lot, but it better take a huge step forward in terms of gameplay, that's for sure.

I've just finished the first 5 today and came away with the knowledge that no matter what I said to anybody, or whom I saved, it made absolutely no difference whatsoever...

...so what was the point?

I hugely disagree with this criticism of the game

Yes, the game walks you along a set path and some things happen whether you choose for them to happen or not. However, that's more real than Lee suddenly having the ability to make everyone do what he wants. All the characters are individuals, and they might decide to do something even though you've tried to persuade them not to. The whole point is that some things are outside of your control and it's how you deal with them and respond to them that matters. The game isn't about the events, it's about the relationships with the other characters. Yes, Lily

shoots either Carley or Doug

. But you're not controlling Lily, you're controlling Lee. If Lily decides to do something, you can't stop her.

How much control over what happens were you expecting? At the end of the day, it's still a game. It has to walk you down a certain path and it has a specific story (as with most games). The game is about the relationships you build, the choices you make (why choose A instead of B? Why decide to save one person and not the other? etc) and the conclusion of the story. Not having a fairly set storyline and conclusion throws up so many different possibilities and dialogue options that it would be an impossible game to make.

Zero-Cool

Yeah, if you could save everyone, even Lee, that means there would be right & wrong choices and everyone would be trying to just pick the right choices. What I liked was seeing the stats the end of the episode. Most decisions were really 50/50 showing there were hard decisions to make no matter the outcome and these affected your own story as you played. Even though it ended more or less the same for everyone, everyone had differently tailored relationships with the group and made you feel differently about people. Not many games can do that.

On a side note, Bladerunner on PC was unbelievably good!

I absolutely hated Kenny on my 1st playthrough but definitely warmed to him on the 2nd and treated him differently even though I was trying to keep all my original decisions.

Penn

sheehy83 wrote: »

I absolutely hated Kenny on my 1st playthrough but definitely warmed to him on the 2nd and treated him differently even though I was trying to keep all my original decisions.

Exactly. He can either be 'the tool you're stuck with' or 'your best friend' depending on how you treat him and agree with him.

Tony EH

Penn wrote: »

I hugely disagree with this criticism of the game

Yes, the game walks you along a set path and some things happen whether you choose for them to happen or not. However, that's more real than Lee suddenly having the ability to make everyone do what he wants.

Nowhere did I say that the player should be able to make "everyone do what he wants".

However, the players decisions and path should have consequences, both positive and negative, on how the game turns out, even in a strict linear narrative like 'The Walking Dead'. This will give a very real point to having the player make his/her choices and thus give relevance to the actual game mechanic.

At present, it makes no real difference if the player chooses a positive, negative or neutral response, or even if their is no response at all. The player could simply hit the square key ( - ) for the whole game and say nothing and it would make no real difference.

There's no "game" in that. It's just the illusion that the player is doing something, when really all they're doing is hitting a "next" button.

Penn wrote: »

All the characters are individuals, and they might decide to do something even though you've tried to persuade them not to.

As it stands, there's no "might" about it. 'The Walking Dead' is so linear, that they WILL follow their extremely limited path, no matter what the player says or does. The case with Carley/Doug/Lilly is a perfect example of that, in that it makes no difference what the player did, or said. The player could have been whistling "Dixie" and the outsome would have been the same.

So, there is no point whatsoever in the player exercising any decision...or even hitting any buttons.

Penn wrote: »

The whole point is that some things are outside of your control and it's how you deal with them and respond to them that matters.

But, that's the issue...it doesn't matter, because no matter what you do, or what buttons you press, it still ends up the same. An improvement to the current game mechanic would be for the players decision to have an actual impact on the future's course, like decisions do in real life. That's not to say that every single decision that the player makes should have a universe altering outcome. Obviously, some things should happen regardless and in linear adventure game, I wouldn't expect anything less. But, in 'The Walking Dead' as it currently stands, the only thing the player can do is hit a camouflaged "next" button and engage in a few simple puzzles and QTE's.

Penn wrote: »

The game isn't about the events, it's about the relationships with the other characters. Yes, Lily

shoots either Carley or Doug

. But you're not controlling Lily, you're controlling Lee. If Lily decides to do something, you can't stop her.

But YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TOO, there's no reason why the player cannot talk Lilly down.

Sure Doug or Carley may get killed later

. As it stands, the player is just being fooled into thinking his/her responses have anything to do with anything. As said earlier, Lee could just whistle "Dixie", play the banjo, or just hit ( - ), instead of responding to anything, because it makes no difference what Lee actually says.

A simple twist in the mechanic can make the player hitting the triangle, circle, square or x button actually have a point.

Penn wrote: »

How much control over what happens were you expecting? At the end of the day, it's still a game. It has to walk you down a certain path and it has a specific story (as with most games). The game is about the relationships you build, the choices you make (why choose A instead of B? Why decide to save one person and not the other? etc) and the conclusion of the story. Not having a fairly set storyline and conclusion throws up so many different possibilities and dialogue options that it would be an impossible game to make.

In any game that's built on the player making choices, there is only a limited amount of outcomes that's technically possible at present. But, they're still possible. As said earlier, in the first 5 episodes, Lee should be able to make choices that impact his future,

whether he lived or died at the end of the game for example

. Such outcomes are very possible and would go a huge way to creating a more enjoyable and a more rewarding experience. It's also possible for the player's choices to have an impact on whether an NPC stays or leaves the group.

For instance, the player's responses could determine whether Molly stays or leaves

.

It could be little things like that that would add a lot to the gameplay. The game will still obviously rail you down a certain path, but it completely possible to implement a mechanic whereby if the player says something, that it can have an effect, desired or otherwise.

Tony EH

sheehy83 wrote: »

Yeah, if you could save everyone, even Lee, that means there would be right & wrong choices and everyone would be trying to just pick the right choices. What I liked was seeing the stats the end of the episode. Most decisions were really 50/50 showing there were hard decisions to make no matter the outcome and these affected your own story as you played. Even though it ended more or less the same for everyone, everyone had differently tailored relationships with the group and made you feel differently about people. Not many games can do that.

On a side note, Bladerunner on PC was unbelievably good!

I absolutely hated Kenny on my 1st playthrough but definitely warmed to him on the 2nd and treated him differently even though I was trying to keep all my original decisions.

But that kind of dynamic could be expanded. Your responses to Kenny, or series of reponses over the course of the game could determine whether he lives or dies at the end.

It could be possible for theplayer to be able talk sense into him in the alleyway during the help Ben sequence.

In any case, the player is still trying to make the "right" choices, even as the game stands. But it just an illusion. The player could hit any combination of buttons, or none at all and still arrive at the same place.

Penn

Tony EH wrote: »

But that kind of dynamic could be expanded. Your responses to Kenny, or series of reponses over the course of the game could determine whether he lives or dies at the end.

It could be possible for theplayer to be able talk sense into him in the alleyway during the help Ben sequence.

In any case, the player is still trying to make the "right" choices, even as the game stands. But it just an illusion. The player could hit any combination of buttons, or none at all and still arrive at the same place.

But again, that choice isn't always up to you, and shouldn't be. You can't decide if you live or die at the end, or if other characters live or die. Things are outside your control. The whole point of the game is why make the choices you make and how does that affect things. You say it doesn't and that you could simply do nothing and the game would still end the same way, but there's a difference between the storyline and the gameplaying experience. Sheehy83 didn't like Kenny the first time round. Second time, he did. Why? Different dialogue changes people's responses to you and affects your relationship with them.

But no matter how much you try to persuade him to do something, it doesn't mean he'll do it. That's the whole point. You can try to persuade people not to do something but you're only controlling Lee, not them. If they want to do something, they'll do it. Same with Molly. You can try and persuade her to stay, but if she wants to go, that's her choice. That's storyline and can't be changed. It's how you react and respond to the choices of other characters as well as your own choices that changes the gameplaying experience. It changes your relationships with the characters.

Your choices only effect the story to a minimal extent, but your choices change your experience in the game drastically.

If I was a dick to Kenny and kept arguing with him, I wouldn't have cared if he died. But because I was friendly with him, liked him and generally supported him, I tried to make sure he didn't die, but when he did anyway, I felt sad that he died. He would have died either way, but your choices in the game affects your feelings when something happens, even if you can't affect the story itself.

Grumpypants

I feel you might have not only missed the point of the game but of the whole Walking Dead experience.

The decisions you make are not about who lives or dies or in what order but how it effects the relationships Lee has with those around him.

The most obvious ones are around Kenny, do you go for duck first when they are on the tractor, do you stand up for Kenny when the old man thinks the boy is bitten etc and how that changes Kenny's relationship with Lee.

The story is a set path, the writers have to take you along that path so you get through the game and it delivers the story but you are in control of building or destroying the relationships which in turn have an impact on your story.

The idea that you could have saved Lee by making different choices fills me with horror, it would have totally ruined the whole thing. Lee dying was one of the most important parts of the game for creating that hopelessness for Clem. at the end. And for the player that no matter what you did none of it mattered as they all died anyway. That is what was so good about it and why it wasn't just another "game"

Penn

Grumpypants wrote: »

The idea that you could have saved Lee by making different choices fills me with horror, it would have totally ruined the whole thing. Lee dying was one of the most important parts of the game for creating that hopelessness for Clem. at the end

Agreed.

I don't even know how it's possible you could have chosen not to be accidentally bit by a walker you couldn't see.

Grumpypants

Penn wrote: »

Agreed.

I don't even know how it's possible you could have chosen not to be accidentally bit by a walker you couldn't see.

Well I was saying don't do it there is going to be a Zombie behind there while it was happening ! I would have chosen to just run away

Tony EH

Penn wrote: »

But again, that choice isn't always up to you, and shouldn't be.

I'm not saying that it should be on a universial level. It doesn't have to be such a binary implementation. The player obviously shouldn't be Space Jesus.

Penn wrote: »

You can't decide if you live or die at the end, or if other characters live or die. Things are outside your control.

Again, you're missing the point. I'm not saying that the player's choices should be A. Live or B. Die in every single circumstance. But over the course of the it certainly is possible to create a situation whereby the players can influence the actions of the NPC's ( or some NPC's) and affect the outcome.

For example, if the player chooses to be cool with Kenny 80% of the time, it could be possible to be able to talk sense into Kenny and change his fate in Ep5. But if the player's responses to Kenny have created a rift between the characters, then Kenny should be more likely to ignore the player's repsonses at the crucial moment.

That's really not that hard to do.

Put it like this, if someone if going to jump off a bridge, no matter what you say to them, then why bother saying anything at all.

That's the situation we have in the current game mechanic.

Penn wrote: »

The whole point of the game is why make the choices you make and how does that affect things.

But that's the issue!!! Your choces don't affect anything at all at present, so the choices you make are meaningless. There's no real impact with them.

Penn wrote: »

You can try to persuade people not to do something but you're only controlling Lee, not them. If they want to do something, they'll do it. Same with Molly. You can try and persuade her to stay, but if she wants to go, that's her choice.

But you CANNOT persuade ANYBODY to do ANYTHING. That's the point. It would be a fantastic leap forward for 'The Walking Dead' if such a simple mechanic was designed into the game.

Grimebox

Tony EH wrote: »

There's no "game" in that. It's just the illusion that the player is doing something, when really all they're doing is hitting a "next" button.

This is the crux of the argument imo. All games that have apparent player choices that influence the game are ultimately linear. Once the illusion of choice is taken away, they appear stale. If you didn't know that the Carley/Doug/Lilly situation occurs regardless, the illusion would still be there. Name me one multi-choice game that doesn't suffer from this

Grimebox

Tony EH wrote: »

Put it like this, if someone if going to jump off a bridge, no matter what you say to them, then why bother saying anything at all.

I'll put it like this, if you don't know that they're going to jump off no matter what, you should try your hardest to influence whatever outcome you want. I believed my decisions were affecting the world. I guess this game doesn't lend well to replay

Tony EH

Grumpypants wrote: »

I feel you might have not only missed the point of the game but of the whole Walking Dead experience.

The decisions you make are not about who lives or dies or in what order but how it effects the relationships Lee has with those around him.

On the contrary, I understand the point of the "Walking Dead experience" very well. Well enough to be critical about the games' basic mechanics. You give give examples in your spoiler tags, but I'd like to see those examples taken a bit further and it's possible to do.

Why are people being so binary about this. I'm not saying that Live or Die is the only way that the player can try to influence things. There are a number of areas where the players actions could have a direct effect on what the NPC's do in the game.

I don't understand why people are so opposed to what I'm saying. I'm not asking for a total revamp of the entire game or even the basic approach.

Tony EH

Penn wrote: »

Agreed.

I don't even know how it's possible you could have chosen not to be accidentally bit by a walker you couldn't see.

That may the be the case,

However, the player can then be given the immediate choice on whether to chop off the bitten arm, or leave it...

...thus having a direct effect on their fate at the end of the game.

Both ending are very possible to implement. The one we have now and one where Lee and Clem head off into the unknown.

Cue the next series of games...

Tony EH

Grimebox wrote: »

This is the crux of the argument imo. All games that have apparent player choices that influence the game are ultimately linear. Once the illusion of choice is taken away, they appear stale. If you didn't know that the Carley/Doug/Lilly situation occurs regardless, the illusion would still be there. Name me one multi-choice game that doesn't suffer from this

'Blade Runner' offered muliple endings based on what the player did during the game and that was in the 90's.

But, as I've said the tech isn't there to implement a truly future altering experience yet, but 'The Walking Dead' is a perfect example of a game that could implement a game mechanic where the player's choice of response could have a very real effect on the NPC's. It not open world, it's not dynamic, so the processing power could be used to allow some of the players choices to a point. Sure, there will be things that will happen regardless of what the player does, just like real life. However, the player can also try to influence a characters actions through their words...just like real life.

That stuff happens every day.

We're even doing it now.

Grumpypants

Tony EH wrote: »

On the contrary, I understand the point of the "Walking Dead experience" very well. Well enough to be critical about the games' basic mechanics. You give give examples in your spoiler tags, but I'd like to see those examples taken a bit further and it's possible to do.

Why are people being so binary about this. I'm not saying that Live or Die is the only way that the player can try to influence things. There are a number of areas where the players actions could have a direct effect on what the NPC's do in the game.

I don't understand why people are so opposed to what I'm saying. I'm not asking for a total revamp of the entire game or even the basic approach.

But you do have a direct impact on what the NPC do in the game, all the time. People die because of your choices, people join you or leave you, people fight your corner or they go against you. This is all tied into your choices. All you can do is try to influence the people around you. Which you can do if done correctly, I don't know why you think you can't.

We are against it because you want it to be just like every other game where you can win. There are no right or wrong choice in the game just choices. The idea that you think you have control of the game but in reality you don't is very well crafted into the game and very powerful at the end.

Everyone expects a certain story ark in games, where the hero saves the day. This is why the game works.

Tony EH

Grimebox wrote: »

I'll put it like this, if you don't know that they're going to jump off no matter what, you should try your hardest to influence whatever outcome you want. I believed my decisions were affecting the world. I guess this game doesn't lend well to replay

Yes, but I KNOW in 'The Walking Dead' that my words mean **** all...so a future game means nothing to me. I'll just be clicking a masked "forward" button.

That's my point in saying that the game mechanics should be changed slightly to allow the player's actions and responses to possibly have an effect.

It really would make for a much better game.

Tony EH

Grumpypants wrote: »

But you do have a direct impact on what the NPC do in the game, all the time. People die because of your choices, people join you or leave you, people fight your corner or they go against you. This is all tied into your choices. All you can do is try to influence the people around you. Which you can do if done correctly, I don't know why you think you can't.

It's EXTREMELY limited impact. I would like to see a situation where it's tweaked a little.

A good example is this:

Say the player lets Ben drop to his death. That decision could open the way for Kenny to survive at the end of EP5, because he doesn't jump down to try and save him. But say the player chooses to save Ben at the earlier point, that could indirectly lead to the death of Kenny, if the player has been rubbing him up the wrong way with his responses. If on the other hand, the player has formed a close bond with kenny, there may still be a chance to influence him to do the sensible thing and mercy kill Ben in the alleyway and leave with Lee.

The possibilities are open and are very doable without a amssive revamp of the existing game architecture.

Grumpypants wrote: »

We are against it because you want it to be just like every other game where you can win.

Where the hell have I said that? I've said no such thing...and frankly as someone who has immersed themselves in all things zombie since the early 80's, I am well aware that there is no "winning" in the "zombie apocalypse". There's just trying to stay alive...

it's not about "winning".

Grumpypants wrote: »

There are no right or wrong choice in the game just choices. The idea that you think you have control of the game but in reality you don't is very well crafted into the game and very powerful at the end.

What's the point in making the "choice" when the outcome is the same all the time? It allows for no player regret at the choices they made, or rejoice in helping to make the situation better, or even any meaningful replay value.

Grumpypants wrote: »

Everyone expects a certain story ark in games, where the hero saves the day. This is why the game works.

Again, I am not talking about being Space Jesus, nor am I saying that everything the player says or does should have an impact. I am simply saying that allowing the player to TRY and have an influence over what an NPC does or how things may turn out would be a fantastic addition to the basic game mechanics...and not hard to implement.

As it stands in the game at present, the player is only fooling themselves. I am aware of that now, so the next instalment is as meaningless to me as any of teh decisions I made in the current 5 episodes.

Zero-Cool

Grimebox wrote: »

I guess this game doesn't lend well to replay

I thought the 2nd playthrough was just as good as the first and that wasn't even trying different decisions which would open up the game more and give you a fresher look. I was expecting the 2nd playthough to be a slog but the story and characters are so brilliant, I got wrapped up in their lives all over again. Even though I knew the outcome, I still panicked at decisions that needed a quick response or anytime Clem got grabbed and that's why it was my GOTY, no other game sucked me in like that regardless of what the gameplay was like.

Either you like this type of game or you don't.

Zero-Cool

Telltale announced in IGN interview that Season 2 will release around the same time as The Wolf Among us which has a wiki release date of October. Soon.....

Kiith

I doubt it will be that soon, given the Wolf Among Us is out in the next month. I'd expect a bit more notice before they do.

Either way, i'll be waiting till all the episodes are out before buying it.

Zero-Cool

Telltale tweeted

October. Big news on #TheWalkingDead Season Two later this month & the Big Bad Wolf in #TheWolfAmongUs. Who's ready? pic.twitter.com/nueE0XsSry

So....highly unlikely it will be out this month, just a release date, hopefully November anyway.

SeantheMan

YYYYYYYeeeeeeessssssssss !!!!!!!!!


Is it a reveal, or actual game is out tomorrow ?
I can't find any info on their site, and there is no STEAM Store page...but...but...so excited !!!! YYuuuussssss

J. Marston

That's Clementine's hat, isn't it?

If they've killed her off, I swear I'll.....I'll be sad and bitch about on the internet .

Kiith

I'd assume it'll be a trailer, and a release date. Looking forward to seeing if they can keep the quality as high as the 1st season.

SeantheMan

Did you play the 400 days thing ? I thought it was brilliant and am looking forward to continuing with some of them characters