|
RightClickSaveAs posted:Yeah, that's the Telltale experience in a nutshell. I love their games, but I'd be even more in love if they'd manage to work in good puzzles on top of that. I don't know why they still go through the charade of having an inventory, it's like they're teasing me at this point It's my first telltale experience too couldn't help but liken it too a digital age version of "Choose your adventure" books that I'd read as a kid.  Pretty much my feeling playing as the young Forrestor squire dude for the first hour or so of the game.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 13, 2024 21:42 |
|
|
Just started this. I forgot, what was house Forresters role in the red wedding? I thought it was just Starks/Frey.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
They're just a house loyal to the Starks fighting in their army. They aren't mentioned in the show, and only in passing in the books. this is the first time their story has been fleshed out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Cool thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
NESguerilla posted:I thought it was just Starks/Frey.  Minor correction: It was the Starks and Tullys and all the minor houses serving them (including Forrester) versus Frey and Bolton
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
The Red Wedding was about more than just the Starks; pretty much all the Northern houses sent the majority of their armies south with Robb and were present around The Twins when Frey and Bolton made their play. If they didn't ally with Bolton, then they were most likely wiped out and all they'd have left are the old, infirm and young back home. Houses like Forrester would effectively be crippled militarily after the wedding massacres.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Draxamus posted:What I'd like to see is more actual branching paths in these games. I want wildly different experiences depending on your choices. I think that's what Telltale is going for in the long term with this series. You make a lot of decisions in this episode that you didn't see the consequences for just yet, so we might seem them later on in future episodes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Would a guy like Ramsay Snow be able to get away with knifing a lord in his house, especially a child? Would there be no consequences? I know this is a lovely setting run by lovely people, but that seems like a lot for people to get over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Roman Reigns posted:
To get a very good idea of how many houses/lords etc there are and their location in Westeros, Crusader Kings 2 has an excellent mod (think it's close to canon )http://www.moddb.com/mods/crusader-kings-2-a-game-of-thrones-ck2agot that is fantastic at basically being a GoT2 murder simulator. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Spikeguy posted:Would a guy like Ramsay Snow be able to get away with knifing a lord in his house, especially a child? Would there be no consequences? I know this is a lovely setting run by lovely people, but that seems like a lot for people to get over. Yes. He and his daddy are pretty much the law now in the North. Even if the remaining Stark loyalists throw a fit, its going to mean gently caress all because the Boltons are in charge. As for him being a child...remember season 2 starts with a bunch of kids, even babies getting massacred and nothing is done about it because it was ordered by the king. Roman Reigns fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Spikeguy posted:Would a guy like Ramsay Snow be able to get away with knifing a lord in his house, especially a child? Would there be no consequences? I know this is a lovely setting run by lovely people, but that seems like a lot for people to get over. Yes. They have no allies left and the crown doesn't give a gently caress as long as they get their ironwood. The North is now run by Ramsay's daddy and is basically lawless at this point. If you've seen the last season of the show recall that everything outside of King's Landing or the other keeps is basically on fire and everyone with even the smallest amount of power is plundering and pillaging everything they can. The Boltons burned down Winterfell, why would anyone care about an even lesser lord getting iced? The fact that the Red Wedding happened without any retaliation from anyone should be proof enough that there's no help to be found. Hakkesshu fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Neif posted:It's my first telltale experience too couldn't help but liken it too a digital age version of "Choose your adventure" books that I'd read as a kid. I love those books so much... That said I think telltale needs to make these games take distinct paths with distinct endings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Agreed. Normally the excuse for not having branching content is the expense for something that a significant number of players won't see. But that's for games with some other form of gameplay. In Telltale games where the story is the gameplay, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to do it. Otherwise I feel like I'm getting most of the experience just watching someone else play these games
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Agreed. Normally the excuse for not having branching content is the expense for something that a significant number of players won't see. But that's for games with some other form of gameplay. In Telltale games where the story is the gameplay, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to do it. Otherwise I feel like I'm getting most of the experience just watching someone else play these games Here's the thing, Telltale have never actually done branching gameplay in any significant manner and anyone that came here expecting anything different this time around was naive as hell. They've always been lazy about it and as the original Walking Dead proved their games are good without it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Here's the thing, Telltale have never actually done branching gameplay in any significant manner and anyone that came here expecting anything different this time around was naive as hell. They've always been lazy about it and as the original Walking Dead proved their games are good without it. I wouldn't call it laziness so much as "expensive". They don't exactly have Heavy Rain sized budgets for these games, and most of them are made in less than two years. It takes a lot of planning to get the branches we do have working together across multiple episodes, hell I'm pretty sure half the reason they do episodic content is so they can cut routes that only a very small fraction of the playerbase would ever see so they can complete the other ones on time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
Roman Reigns posted:I think that's what Telltale is going for in the long term with this series. You make a lot of decisions in this episode that you didn't see the consequences for just yet, so we might seem them later on in future episodes. I think this may be wishful thinking. Because they've had the chance to do that before in other games, and haven't. Is this where they are going to change? No evidence that they can change, as far as I can see. Not to say I don't like them. I think telltale make interesting stories that you participate in a little.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
It seems like this discussion comes up for every Telltale game. But have they ever stated that your decisions would have long term consequences, or the games would have a lot of branching paths? Also, are there any games with a lot of branching paths with the story ending up very different depending on what you do? The only ones I can think of are The Witcher 2 and the Way of the Samurai games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Funso Banjo posted:I think this may be wishful thinking. Because they've had the chance to do that before in other games, and haven't. Is this where they are going to change? No evidence that they can change, as far as I can see. I won't deny that it is. Decisions that players have made in other games were just dropped as episodes went on. Spikeguy posted:But have they ever stated that your decisions would have long term consequences, or the games would have a lot of branching paths? Eh...they usually they have that blurb in the beginning of their games implying that they do but up to now everyone knows that's not really true. Honestly, any hope I have of seeing GoT being different from past Telltale games is based on what I've read about it. But even if it isn't I'm perfectly fine with that. As long as they tell a great story with great characters I'm A-ok.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Spikeguy posted:It seems like this discussion comes up for every Telltale game. But have they ever stated that your decisions would have long term consequences, or the games would have a lot of branching paths? No, not really. People put way too much stock in that, and granted, the little dumb disclaimer that pops up in every episode doesn't help, but it's a bit much to expect drastic narrative changes in what are essentially small independent episodic games. You don't necessarily change the story, but your choices do matter because they reflect how you view the characters and how they view you - I would like to see them take it a step further, but I think the context is important enough to make it a worthwhile addition. To me the only game that really did branching paths in a super interesting and complex manner is probably Alpha Protocol. Even The Witcher 2 is very binary when it comes to the overall progression, and while I love Way of the Samurai, that's more of an experiment in non-linearity and only deals with actual narrative in very basic terms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Here's the thing, Telltale have never actually done branching gameplay in any significant manner and anyone that came here expecting anything different this time around was naive as hell. They've always been lazy about it and as the original Walking Dead proved their games are good without it. I know they haven't done it. And I know it costs money to create content. I literally mentioned those exact two things in my post. I'm saying that Telltale doesn't even do puzzles anymore, and when the entire core of gameplay is now about the story and making decisions regarding the story, maybe it would be nice to innovate on the only gameplay element left. Edit: having branching content changes the experience, even if the player doesn't experience the content themselves. One of my favorite games is Colony Wars, which might be considered just an OK space shooter, but it blew my mind when it came out because it had four different endings, including an entire set of alternate final missions depending on your choices. Some people might never play them but they know they're there and so there's actually a material consequence to their actions. Like, in this GoT episode Ethan getting shanked is surely dramatic and shocking and affecting, but the fact that it happens no matter what you do also means it's sapped a little of its significance because it's not really affected by your actions. And the "Guys, content is expensive!" argument works both ways. If I'm seeing almost everything in the game (barring shifts in characterization and other minor things) by watching someone else play it, then I have little reason to buy it myself when pushing the buttons myself adds very little. CharlieFoxtrot fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:And the "Guys, content is expensive!" argument works both ways. If I'm seeing almost everything in the game (barring shifts in characterization and other minor things) by watching someone else play it, then I have little reason to buy it myself when pushing the buttons myself adds very little. Then stop complaining and just don't buy their games in the future. The Telltale formula is at this point so set in stone that over 75% of the metahumour in the Borderlands game was in-jokes about how carbon-cut the gameplay of Telltale games are. That's why I used the word "lazy", they clearly could do something deeper and more interesting but they've chosen not to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
I stopped watching the show a while ago but I really enjoyed the first chapter of this. Glad they got a good performance out of...... the guy who plays Tyrion (I forgot his name  ) after he phoned it in in Destiny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Then stop complaining and just don't buy their games in the future. The Telltale formula is at this point so set in stone that over 75% of the metahumour in the Borderlands game was in-jokes about how carbon-cut the gameplay of Telltale games are. That's why I used the word "lazy", they clearly could do something deeper and more interesting but they've chosen not to. Nah, I think I'm going to keep posting my thoughts in a discussion thread. I wonder how much Essos is going to be a part of things with Asher. It would be nice to see some new things like the other Free Cities, but I am assuming they have been avoiding showing anything not already seen in the show, which is why it's all North/King's Landing/Wall stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
paint dry posted:the guy who plays Tyrion (I forgot his name You'll never forget it after you listen to this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:I wonder how much Essos is going to be a part of things with Asher. It would be nice to see some new things like the other Free Cities, but I am assuming they have been avoiding showing anything not already seen in the show, which is why it's all North/King's Landing/Wall stuff. Unless Asher just loves being in Essos, I don't see him staying there for too long when Malcolm asks him to come back. Although it would be nice to get a glimpse of the few places Dany devastated on her liberation campaign to see what the after effects up close are like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Thanks, this was very helpful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Yes. They have no allies left and the crown doesn't give a gently caress as long as they get their ironwood. The North is now run by Ramsay's daddy and is basically lawless at this point. If you've seen the last season of the show recall that everything outside of King's Landing or the other keeps is basically on fire and everyone with even the smallest amount of power is plundering and pillaging everything they can. The Boltons burned down Winterfell, why would anyone care about an even lesser lord getting iced? The fact that the Red Wedding happened without any retaliation from anyone should be proof enough that there's no help to be found. You're wrong here man. The entire reason the Boltons were given the North was so Tyrion would have the support of the Northern lords when he got Sansa knocked up and claimed his and his son's birthright. They where selected specificlly because they where such assholes that eventually the North would rebel even after such a costly war. With Tyrion gone now, it's actually going to make the situation worse for the crown because none of the other Northern lords like the Boltons and they don't have a guy to replace him. There are still other contenders for the crown out there, and their position has been greatly strengthened by Tywin's death. Stannis, Greyjoys, and Danny all will run on the "Not a Bolton platform" and win handily.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:You're wrong here man. Exactly I can't imagine a situation in which the Forrester's don't declare for Stannis. Well.. aside from the Boltons and Whitehills completely wiping them out. In fact, I can't think of a lot of houses that won't declare for Stannis. Well.. assuming he is able to retake Winterfell. Which....... we will see. On another note... what do we think the North Grove is? My initial instinct is "omg it must have something to do with the north and the white walkers and the wildlings and omg it's way more important than this southron BS But then.. it's not like anybody aside from the reader understands the importance of what is going on north of the wall. So why would Lord Forrester be so insistent on it's survival. So.... what could it be. Their words are Iron from Ice. So maybe it's the central source of ironwood or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Spikeguy posted:It seems like this discussion comes up for every Telltale game. But have they ever stated that your decisions would have long term consequences, or the games would have a lot of branching paths? FNV
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
BlueBayou posted:On another note... what do we think the North Grove is? Pretty much what I'm thinking. Some sort of magical site that causes their wood to become "iron". The game does make a big deal of how unique it is. I also don't trust the Maester in relation to this. He seems pretty nosey about things, particularly about the North Grove.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
BlueBayou posted:
That's where I hope this is going. I understand Stephen Dillane isn't the easiest guy to get, but that'd be pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
I cannot wait for them to flesh out Asher's roll in this game. He's by far the most interesting character in this game even though he hasn't played a role yet. His background is intriguing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Rabid Snake posted:I cannot wait for them to flesh out Asher's roll in this game. He's by far the most interesting character in this game even though he hasn't played a role yet. His background is intriguing. In my first playthrough I was all about bringing him back home, but then his mom made him sound like a murder machine who won't know when to think. So I changed my mind. In retrospect, I think I need a murder machine to deal with Snow and the Whitehills.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
BlueBayou posted:Exactly quote:On another note... what do we think the North Grove is? Northern lords are some of the few that still sends second and bastard sons to the Wall. It's perfectly in character for them to care about what's going on with the Wall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Wait the North Grove is above the Wall? I figured it was near the "ironwood"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
I would not be surprised at all if the north grove was above the wall. Dude does tell Gared to try to be a ranger
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
I thought it was implied that Duncan was planning to bring back Gared soon to help the family out and that getting experience as ranger would help. I think he even mentions he'll need Gared's help eventually. But given how Northern lords actually give a poo poo about the Wall and the Night's Watch, I guess that makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
I was definitely under the impression the North Grove is part of the Forrester's share of woodland, and has some kind of mystical significance. A lot of Northern families have assorted mystic rituals associated with the Old Gods and so on, it wouldn't be too strange if it turned out the Forrester lords had some kind of secret passed down from father to son about some pact concerning protecting the North Grove. Maybe they're not meant to harvest wood from there without angering something supernatural. Regardless, sending Gared to join the Night's Watch is an obvious setup for his uncle to try and call him back when he needs help with something to protect the Grove and Gared has to pick between loyalty to the Watch and to the Forresters. Becoming a Ranger makes it easier to desert/go AWOL for a little without anyone noticing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Since Ethan dies Elissa is going to ignore his ruling in the first episode and send her brother to find Asher will eventually be called to the North anyways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 13, 2024 21:42 |
|
|
Holy crap I just didn't quite expect Ethan to die l, stupid me for not expecting GoT style plot changes at any moment Good stuff. Can't wait for February now 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 15:43
|
|