1. No characters from the show. Only original characters whose ultimate fate is unknown.

2. Scrap the "oil painting" aesthetic entirely. - Although, that was most likely due to TellTale running out of money, but being forced to make the games because one of the CEOs bought a lot of licenses.

3. Make choices actually matter, especially if making the "good" choices. Season 1 was more fun to play in a completely violent rebel fashion because the end results were always the same.

4. They kind of dug themselves into a hole making the player choose between Asher and Rodrik. Not sure how they could use them unless they keep the same story for both with the same branching paths.

5. Have Malcolm go back to Westeros, having chosen to abandon Daenerys due to her staying in Meereen longer than she should have. He should either be a playable character or a main character attached to another playable character's story.

6. Torrhen Whitehill should be involved somehow and have a different effect on Ludd/Gryff.

-

Of course, we're never getting a Season 2, but sometimes it's nice to think of what could've been.

Dongald Jeffreys님이 먼저 게시:

1. No characters from the show. Only original characters whose ultimate fate is unknown.

2. Scrap the "oil painting" aesthetic entirely. - Although, that was most likely due to TellTale running out of money, but being forced to make the games because one of the CEOs bought a lot of licenses.

No, just a stylistic choice based on the nature of the licence. CEO's don't buy licences personally and then hand them down to the staff.

MorningLightMountain님이 먼저 게시:

Dongald Jeffreys님이 먼저 게시:

1. No characters from the show. Only original characters whose ultimate fate is unknown.

2. Scrap the "oil painting" aesthetic entirely. - Although, that was most likely due to TellTale running out of money, but being forced to make the games because one of the CEOs bought a lot of licenses.

No, just a stylistic choice based on the nature of the licence. CEO's don't buy licences personally and then hand them down to the staff.

Yes... they do... How do you think deals work? They reach out to the owner of a franchise they like, talk to them about making a deal, make the deal, and then come back to the company and say "Alright, we acquired the rights to this, we're doing this now".

What, do you think they form a committee and ask their employees for permission or something? That would be stupid.

Doomsayer님이 먼저 게시:

MorningLightMountain님이 먼저 게시:

No, just a stylistic choice based on the nature of the licence. CEO's don't buy licences personally and then hand them down to the staff.

Yes... they do... How do you think deals work? They reach out to the owner of a franchise they like, talk to them about making a deal, make the deal, and then come back to the company and say "Alright, we acquired the rights to this, we're doing this now".

What, do you think they form a committee and ask their employees for permission or something? That would be stupid.

How I think deals work is that lengthy and multiple conversations happen between two different parties with their licensing. legal and finance departments occur until a deal is finalised and contacts are signed. Yeah, reiterating my original comment CEOs don't personallly buy licences and simply hand them out to their staff. You can claim that idea if you like but that would be ignoring all other people involved in that process.