GameZone's Matt Liebl writes, "Let me preface this by saying I thoroughly enjoyed The Walking Dead. Heck, I even voted for it as GameZone's Game of the Year. However, I can't help but feel somewhat slighted by the promise that my decisions in The Walking Dead influence the story, creating a "tailored" experience."
The Walking Dead does not advertise that. "Tailored" means exactly what you'd expect from the verb. The overall shape of the garmet--the cut, the pattern, the style--remain the same, it's just "fitted" to player.
This is why basic reading-comprehension skills are among the most important for a(ny) gamer to cultivate.
If there's anything misleading to it, it'd be those little messages (He will remember that!) that pop up after certain dialogs that indicate there might be far-reaching consequences.
As for The Walking Dead it was much more linear in scope. I tried to do different things and that change would only be temporary. The path was still set no matter what. I didn't want certain people to die so I tried to save them and it may have only lasted a few scenes but they would die anyway.
The game was still great because the characters were good and so was the story. I guess I just didn't have my expectations set too high since it was a smaller type game without the funding from huge studios.
Paths--as in, those found in branching narratives--involve diverging narratives. Like in the Witcher 2, depending on your choices, you can experience one of two completely different Chapter 2s--different setting, different characters, different stories, different quests.
That is a branching narrative.
Using generic NPCs to "replace" dead NPCs is not the same thing, nor is it anywhere close to the same thing. And having a "pick your ending" button at the end of a game isn't any closer, either.
Ultimately, it is the emotional attachment that you have with the experiences those characters go through that matter and in that way the Walking Dead and Mass Effect 1-3 where huge successes. But none of your decisions actually mattered.
mattered or not, it's better than not choosing anything at all and just let the videos play.
They'd have to factor that into the script writing for every scenario and alternate endings mean that players will probably have a choice to go to radically different places and such. The production time would be immense for each episode
I'm content with the "choices affect character relations" approach they took though
VAGUEish SPOILERS AHEAD. DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS.
----------------------------- -------------
I enjoyed the series a lot, but pretty much every choice ended up railroaded. Out of 3 "Pick who lives and dies?" scenarios only one of them has an impact and that survivor only lasts a little over one full episode after and their. Then there's the one character in episode 4 you can save or let die who only lasts half an episode if you save him. And if you let him die another character gets arbitrarily killed off where he would later if he lived.
When it came to getting loyalty from the people with you at the end of episode 4 to go with you for the final stretch, the people who choose to not support you end up with you early on in episode 5 anyway due to new circumstances and it's pretty much identical onwards compared to if they backed you up earlier.
Yes the things you do are remembered and mentioned time to time and the people you save have their moments, but that pretty much ends up looking like what Mass Effect did. There are no branching paths and very few things you do have any substantial, lasting impact on the gameplay or story.
But in the end the story was good enough for me not to really care.