PDA

View Full Version : What exactly was that??!! [SPOILERS]



DisFanJen
21st Oct 2015, 02:26
Ok, I'm trying not to vent but Episode 5 feels like a total gip!

Not only did a large section of the episode feel like an acid trip but they totally did a 'Telltale Games' on us and made all the decisions before feel totally meaningless.

In every episode I've felt emotionally wrung out by the episode, and that was a good thing. The content really spoke to me in a way other games haven't before. Episode 5 just didn't do that. It went from confusion to frustration to finally anger. If fact angry enough to finally register so I could post this.

DONTNOD, I'm sorry but you guys screwed us. As a lot of other people have said this is epically bad, LOST & Mass Effect 3 bad.

If you want people to buy your next episodic product, you need to fix this pronto.

KristaD
21st Oct 2015, 09:33
Maybe you are fuzzing too much over this, I found this game to have plenty of meaningful things / choices that influenced me future choices, even though there wasn't a solid game mechanic build around it.

Just remember that you are the one with the exceptions here and maybe they where way too high ?

PinkFrog
21st Oct 2015, 09:41
I'm completely heartbroken and angry about the horrible feelings that the game send me off with.
But in all fairness I have to defend the writings against ME3 comparisons. It's not badly written, not at all. It's a very well crafted story in my opinion unlike ME3 which wasn't even even a cohesive narrative at the end.
Lost, i dont know, havent watched it.

Robsolo
21st Oct 2015, 10:20
I love Telltale's Walking dead/ Wolf among us and of course Life is Strange but none of the games have any real choices and never will I bet.

PinkFrog
21st Oct 2015, 10:32
I'm ok with that.

1.) A choice will always feel like a choice, even if it will all point to the same ending. That is because you can select what kind of character you interact with. E.g. if Max has the choice between hugging or ignoring another character in the game, it doesn't have any impact on the overall narrative, but it impacts my gameplay experience when I'm immersed into the experience.
2.) Small details are also relevant. Games can't afford to branch off to far because assets, voice overs, cinematic sequences are incredibly expensive to create. It's just not making a business case and also it would have a negative impact on the story for sure if you have to tell various completely different stories for all branches. But that's ok, even small details can make a huge difference to the narrative.

OHWceta
21st Oct 2015, 14:13
It didnt even have to be multiple endings. Keep the same ending but depending on how you treated other characters they would appear or not in the ending.

Examples: (I'm going with the sacrifice Chloe for these since a lot of characters would have died in the other ending.)
At Chloe's Funeral - If Kate died she wont be at the funeral. Alyssa will be there too if you saved her in each episode. Warren will be there to comfort Max if you kissed him in the Diner and "went Ape" with him. If not he'd be standing with the Blackwell students. Depending on how you treat David he would either be comforting Joyce or more distant at the funeral. Frank watching the Funeral, only including that scene if you made amends with him. If he was injured or killed he wouldnt be there.

After the Funeral you'll see either Jefferson in his cell in prison or you'll see a newspaper article detailing his death (If David shot him) Depending on how you treated Nathan there would be a bonus scene with Nathan talking to a psychiatrist, if you were nice to him he'd look remorseful, if not he'd look angry.

Then it would show Max returning to school. As she walked through the hall she'd wave to a group of students. Depending on who you were nice to and who you were rude to would depend on who appeared. (As well as Kate )
First Group: Brooke, Stella, Alyssa, Evan, Kate, Daniel and Warren
Second Group: Taylor, Courtney, Victoria (If you helped Victoria she'd give Max a little smirk, if not she'd ignore her)
Third Group: Dana, Trevor, The skater guys.
Then Max would walk past the teachers, David would cross his arms if you signed Ms. Grant's petition.

Finally we'd see Max returning to her dorm where she would throw away Lisa (if you let the plant die) or Water Lisa if it's alive. Then Max would lie down on her bed and look at a picture of Chloe.


Yeah, I know some of those things wouldnt happen do to changing reality. But it's just an example how they could keep it the same ending but add in a few CGI models depending on the data from the game.

DisFanJen
27th Oct 2015, 22:07
It didnt even have to be multiple endings. Keep the same ending but depending on how you treated other characters they would appear or not in the ending.


And this would have been enough. Something, anything that made your previous actions seem more important than a 'red pill\blue pill' choice at the end.

Even if there were only two choices, there should have been some acknowledgement of our previous actions. People surviving or dying in the storm, etc.

And I really think there should have been at least one more option, and that option changed depending on previous actions. So Save Arcadia Bay, Save Chloe, XXX (And XXX is the one that is chosen based on what you have done so far).

Now maybe I had high expectations but that's because all the episodes up until now gave me those high expectations. It really felt like they phoned in this last episode... :(

Dire87
27th Oct 2015, 22:15
Not to mention that the last episode was also vastly different from all the other episodes. I mean it had great buildup and psycho trip stuff, but there really were no choices involved in this last one at all, save the final choice. It's not a bad experience, it just isn't in line with the other 4, really great, episodes.

JohnnyPepsi
28th Oct 2015, 07:16
Episode 5... is bad. There is no way around this. By any standard for storytelling, Polarized is a disaster to the extent that the Red Cross should be here, handing out coffee and blankets.

For one, it dropped storylines that were intriguing and appeared to be going somewhere, like what David's connection to the Prescotts was, or what the Prescott family's deal was at all. How is this going to affect replay value? You're rummaging through all these rooms, reading notes and newspaper clippings and it all... goes... nowhere. That is how bad Episode Five is. It means Episodes One through Four are now a little padded. A little overwritten. A little pointless. A little... worse.

And those endings... Look, I have no problem conceptually with the Sacrifice Arcadia Bay ending. You can at least say that it's a choice Max would conceivably make, that the story backs her up, and it arcs Max's character. But it's executed atrociously. It was under-produced to the extent that it couldn't have told me that "This is the unofficial ending that Dontnod didn't want you picking" if it had tried. And before anyone comes in saying that Dontnod ran out of money and time and couldn't devote resources to the ending and I shouldn't blame them: Why the hell can't I? They prioritized a nightmare sequence with internet memes and forced stealth sections that ate up a quarter of the episode's run time over the ending of the damn game. Blaming Dontnod is wholly appropriate. They made their problem my problem.

And the Sacrifice Chloe ending shatters Max's character, does damage to Chloe's character, and completely contradicts everything that came before it. If Chloe had to die, why did Max get a vision of the storm that would have been prevented had she not had the vision in the first place? Why did she get rewind powers if she wasn't supposed to use them? If Chloe was supposed to die to stop the storm, why did she die at the end of Episode Four and the storm came anyway? If Chloe was to die specifically in the bathroom on Monday, why is the universe trying to get her on Tuesday at the junkyard? Why does Chloe bring that up at all in Episode Five? Are they trying to point out the plot hole? Given what we've seen, and how cause-and-effect is falling into place, why doesn't Max offer to sacrifice herself in Chloe's stead? Even if its not an option, why didn't she say anything for, y'know, dramatic effect?

So it came to pass that the main takeaway from Life is Strange is "If a boy goes into the girl's bathroom, bad stuff will happen if you tell him to leave."

And before anyone says anything, no I will not follow my heart over my head on this one. Up until Episode Five, Life is Strange was entire magnitudes better than "Turn off your brain to enjoy it." I refuse to do the same thing to get something out of Life is Strange that everyone else has to do to enjoy a Michael Bay movie. Life is Strange was at one point, in my estimation at least, the best game since Silent Hill 2. Now it's not even the best episodic adventure game to release a fifth episode that day. Everyone, from Dontnod on down to us, deserved better than what we got.

Xeva-q
28th Oct 2015, 07:37
Given what we've seen, and how cause-and-effect is falling into place, why doesn't Max offer to sacrifice herself in Chloe's stead?
I'd say, how they was even able to reach that conclusion in any form, in the light of the fact that all previous events directly contradicted it

Tataboj
28th Oct 2015, 10:34
And the Sacrifice Chloe ending shatters Max's character
So you mean that making a choice she doesn't like for the good of people goes against Max's character? Come on.

JohnnyPepsi
28th Oct 2015, 11:28
So you mean that making a choice she doesn't like for the good of people goes against Max's character? Come on.

I'm pretty sure I covered that, but just let me double check... ah, here we go:

"Given what we've seen, and how cause-and-effect is falling into place, why doesn't Max offer to sacrifice herself in Chloe's stead? Even if its not an option, why didn't she say anything for, y'know, dramatic effect?"

The Sacrifice Chloe ending is founded on two principles. 1. That Chloe has to die to stop the storm. And 2. That each successive rewind makes the storm worse.

The first principle is literally, provably untrue, as Chloe is dead for the first half of Episode Five and the storm comes anyway. But if every rewind makes the storm worse (and this is supported in the game), then taking Nathan's bullet could have solved everything. If Max dies in that bathroom, there are no rewinds, and if there are no rewinds, there is no storm. Or at least, as the game tells us, it wouldn't nearly be as bad as it wound up being. If all it takes to save my best friend and my hometown is my death and a little light rainfall, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

And it never occurs to her. Even if it wasn't an option, then Max could have at least made the offer to tug on the heartstrings a little more. What happens instead? "Bye, Chloe!", gunshot, funeral.

Before the Sacrifice Chloe ending, Max was developing from a mousy and shy student into someone who could take chances to put wrong things right. After the Sacrifice Chloe ending, Max is a cowardly fool no matter what. At least the Sacrifice Arcadia Bay ending showed a maturation of the character.

Tataboj
28th Oct 2015, 12:02
It is very likely writers thought of it as "Chloe has to die in the bathroom to prevent the storm." Even Max and Chloe thought that. So running from the cover would be really stupid, don't you think? Also, what is more mature about Sacrifice Arcadia Bay ending? You mean "Oh Gawd, they're all dead!"

Xeva-q
28th Oct 2015, 12:04
The problem as i see it is this: all logic behind the storm is broken and conclusion that was made by Chloe is illogical and random as... well, pretty any other conclusion.

Let's do a little recap.

1. Saving someone's life is not what causing the storm - since William being alive would not cause it.
2. Changing the past by itself is not what causing the storm - after all, Maxine in the end of the game heavily alter time, and yet, storm still was canceled.
3. Chloe being alive is not what causing the storm - since her death won't prevent it.
4. Storm wasn't caused by workings of chaos theory. Simply because it does not work that way. If there is no cause-effect correlation between to events, chaos theory won't bring such correlation into existence.
5. It is impossible to understand what caused the storm in alternative reality.

With all that in mind it would be safe to conclude, that ONLY logical explanation behind the storm is this:

Storm wasn't caused by time travel at all, and thus, can not be prevented.

And since this conclusion turn out to be wrong... The all reasoning pretty much makes no sense, and the story of this game is broken on it's very core.

Lehkeri
28th Oct 2015, 12:13
The problem as i see it is this: all logic behind the storm is broken and conclusion that was made by Chloe is illogical and random as... well, pretty any other conclusion.

Let's do a little recap.

1. Saving someone's life is not what causing the storm - since William being alive would not cause it.
2. Changing the past by itself is not what causing the storm - after all, Maxine in the end of the game heavily alter time, and yet, storm still was canceled.
3. Chloe being alive is not what causing the storm - since her death won't prevent it.
4. Storm wasn't caused by workings of chaos theory. Simply because it does not work that way. If there is no cause-effect correlation between to events, chaos theory won't bring such correlation into existence.
5. It is impossible to understand what caused the storm in alternative reality.

With all that in mind it would be safe to conclude, that ONLY logical explanation behind the storm is this:

Storm wasn't caused by time travel at all, and thus, can not be prevented.

And since this conclusion turn out to be wrong... The all reasoning pretty much makes no sense, and the story of this game is broken on it's very core.

Hmm, I wonder what people have thought if, at the end of the funeral scene when the butterfly lands on the coffin, a lightning strike/storm was heard from the distance? Would that have worked?

Xeva-q
28th Oct 2015, 12:18
Hmm, I wonder what people have thought if, at the end of the funeral scene when the butterfly lands on the coffin, a lightning strike/storm was heard from the distance? Would that have worked?

That would be much more logical for sure. But most of the players would hate that.:)

JohnnyPepsi
28th Oct 2015, 12:26
It is very likely writers thought of it as "Chloe has to die in the bathroom to prevent the storm." Even Max and Chloe thought that. So running from the cover would be really stupid, don't you think? Also, what is more mature about Sacrifice Arcadia Bay ending? You mean "Oh Gawd, they're all dead!"

If that's true, then what the game is telling us gravely contradicts what it's showing us, which is infinitely more important in a visual medium. If Chloe had to die in the bathroom, then why does Death (who is a character in the game now, apparently) try to kill Chloe so many times in Episode Two? And if accidentally shooting herself, antagonizing a knife-wielding Frank, and getting stuck on railroad tracks can be attributed less to Death and more to Chloe's general recklessness, then why does Chloe herself bring it up in Episode Five as justification that she needed to die in the bathroom four days earlier? It just goes in a circle. It makes no sense.

Because Max saying to herself "I've broken so many other things in the name of fixing one thing, maybe I should stop now." shows a hell of a lot more introspection and personal growth than "I'm going to let my friend die in a bathroom, even though there's another option in front of me, and it's quite literally the only thing I haven't tried yet."

Xeva-q
28th Oct 2015, 13:39
If that's true, then what the game is telling us gravely contradicts what it's showing us, which is infinitely more important in a visual medium. If Chloe had to die in the bathroom, then why does Death (who is a character in the game now, apparently) try to kill Chloe so many times in Episode Two? And if accidentally shooting herself, antagonizing a knife-wielding Frank, and getting stuck on railroad tracks can be attributed less to Death and more to Chloe's general recklessness, then why does Chloe herself bring it up in Episode Five as justification that she needed to die in the bathroom four days earlier? It just goes in a circle. It makes no sense.

Because Max saying to herself "I've broken so many other things in the name of fixing one thing, maybe I should stop now." shows a hell of a lot more introspection and personal growth than "I'm going to let my friend die in a bathroom, even though there's another option in front of me, and it's quite literally the only thing I haven't tried yet."

You answered your own question.


It makes no sense.

I am trying to say, that, since nothing of it makes any sense, this argument pointless on it's basis.

Lehkeri
28th Oct 2015, 14:29
They might say "that's just the way it is" about all this debate of things not making sense :/

Xeva-q
28th Oct 2015, 14:43
They might say "that's just the way it is" about all this debate of things not making sense :/

which indicates some poor writhing. :)

Tataboj
28th Oct 2015, 16:14
Because Max saying to herself "I've broken so many other things in the name of fixing one thing, maybe I should stop now." shows a hell of a lot more introspection and personal growth than "I'm going to let my friend die in a bathroom, even though there's another option in front of me, and it's quite literally the only thing I haven't tried yet."
Umm... Do you know that can be said in both ways?
"I've broken so many other things in name of fixing one thing (Chloe's life), maybe I should stop now and let that one thing go for the sake of others."
Or: "I'm going to kill the whole town, even though there's another option in front of me and it's the only thing I haven't tried yet.

JohnnyPepsi
28th Oct 2015, 18:24
Umm... Do you know that can be said in both ways?
"I've broken so many other things in name of fixing one thing (Chloe's life), maybe I should stop now and let that one thing go for the sake of others."
Or: "I'm going to kill the whole town, even though there's another option in front of me and it's the only thing I haven't tried yet.

Well, I was speaking in the context of the potential Sacrifice Max ending, in which case, no you can't, because the one thing she hadn't tried yet would have saved the town anyway.

Even if I wasn't though, it still wouldn't denote more maturity, because it reduces Chloe, a character Dontnod spent so much time developing, into nothing more than a chess piece to be taken off the board in order to get to an ideal moral win-state.

Yet another problem with the Sacrifice Chloe ending. Has anyone here ever noticed Max never bets with her own chips?

Tataboj
28th Oct 2015, 19:53
Well, I was speaking in the context of the potential Sacrifice Max ending, in which case, no you can't, because the one thing she hadn't tried yet would have saved the town anyway.

Even if I wasn't though, it still wouldn't denote more maturity, because it reduces Chloe, a character Dontnod spent so much time developing, into nothing more than a chess piece to be taken off the board in order to get to an ideal moral win-state.

Yet another problem with the Sacrifice Chloe ending. Has anyone here ever noticed Max never bets with her own chips?

Well, if that thing works, then it isn't that a bad idea to do it and maybe it doesn't go against her character, if it works, why not to do it?