If you haven't yet, go play the episode and enter through the window instead. You see a lot more of the massacre, and it's exceptionally more morbid than if you go through the ladder entrance. You don't even see the half of it if you chose the ladder.
I think it could go both ways. Randall and his group seem more than capable of doing this, and you do find the zip ties and all. But on the other hand, there is the possibly of a third party being involved, like the scavengers Sam mentions.
I'm not really sure, but seriously, if you took the window path, whoever did it ain't exactly right in the head.
When I first saw The Governor, I thought he was creepy and was probably a bad dude, which he turned out to be. Norma on the other hand, seemed to be painted in a light where she seemed like a straight, down-to-Earth kind of person.
Also, this is a little off-topic, but since we're on the subject, I never got why everyone latched on to Nick as a screw up or the new Ben. I mean, what did he even really do? He's fairly aggressive when he meets Clementine, but given his past experiences, he's probably the most justified out of the entire cabin group for not trusting her, and he shoots Matthew, which in all fairness isn't that unjustified to begin with. He saw someone he thought was a threat to his friends (for good reason, given they're being chased by Carver), and he took care of the threat. Yeah, it turned out he was wrong, but I don't think he is any less justified because of it. He probably had about as much, if not more reason than Kenny did for killing Larry.
Think of it from his perspective for a minute: you go out to the bridge, and in the distance, you see your friends being approached by a stranger with a gun. You know people are after you, and you just lost someone you cared about only days ago. For all intents and purposes, it makes sense for Nick to consider this a potential threat to his group, his friends, and even himself.
And furthermore, Nick's able to own up to his mistake later on. He shows obvious regret about it, and he's all for telling the truth, even at the risk of Walter possibly doing something.
Shooting Matthew was completely justified from his perspective.
Did you notice, though, that in "All That Remains" it's said several times that Nick "can't shoot for shit", and in "A House Divided" he gains perfect aim and successfully shoots Matthew from a long distance?
Or what about Sarah?
Also, this is a little off-topic, but since we're on the subject, I never got why everyone latched on to Nick as a s… morecrew up or the new Ben. I mean, what did he even really do? He's fairly aggressive when he meets Clementine, but given his past experiences, he's probably the most justified out of the entire cabin group for not trusting her, and he shoots Matthew, which in all fairness isn't that unjustified to begin with. He saw someone he thought was a threat to his friends (for good reason, given they're being chased by Carver), and he took care of the threat. Yeah, it turned out he was wrong, but I don't think he is any less justified because of it. He probably had about as much, if not more reason than Kenny did for killing Larry.
Think of it from his perspective for a minute: you go out to the bridge, and in the distance, you see your friends being approached by a stranger with a gun. You know people are after y… [view original content]
I wonder if Randall killed them and then lied to his sister, saying it was bandits, and that he killed the bandits in retribution. It's pretty clear that Norma wasn't there, and only had her brother's word for what happened. She and Zachary both say Randall goes too far.
I don't trust Norma as far as I could throw her (which is zilch) but maybe she doesn't know just how "extra" shitty her brother is when no one is watching?
Or what about Sarah?
Also, this is a little off-topic, but since we're on the subject, I never got why everyone latched on to Nick as a s… morecrew up or the new Ben. I mean, what did he even really do? He's fairly aggressive when he meets Clementine, but given his past experiences, he's probably the most justified out of the entire cabin group for not trusting her, and he shoots Matthew, which in all fairness isn't that unjustified to begin with. He saw someone he thought was a threat to his friends (for good reason, given they're being chased by Carver), and he took care of the threat. Yeah, it turned out he was wrong, but I don't think he is any less justified because of it. He probably had about as much, if not more reason than Kenny did for killing Larry.
Think of it from his perspective for a minute: you go out to the bridge, and in the distance, you see your friends being approached by a stranger with a gun. You know people are after y… [view original content]
You know, I'd argue against it being perfect aim. I mean, he shot him in the neck, after all. The neck is not usually a spot you would shoot on purpose. Not to mention that after he shoots, Nick runs up asking if he even hit him. He says the same thing to Walter, that he didn't even know whether he hit him or not. Interestingly enough, during the lodge attack, you can actually see Nick shooting and missing a few shots in the background, so it's not like they forgot that Nick was a bad shot. It just turned out that the one time he actually hit something was the one time you wish he didn't.
Like, look at it this way; even if you can't shoot worth shit, at least one shot will eventually hit what you're aiming for. Unfortunately, that ended up being Matthew.
Shooting Matthew was completely justified from his perspective.
Did you notice, though, that in "All That Remains" it's said several time… mores that Nick "can't shoot for shit", and in "A House Divided" he gains perfect aim and successfully shoots Matthew from a long distance?
The point is, if Randall exacted revenge, then why would they let Sam and Greg live? It's been said that it was not their first time that they've been caught.
Norma already said before that Sam is a very convincing liar, so it would be pretty easy to believe that she made that story up to make Norm… morea's group seem like the worst. I believe that while Norma's group did the executions, Sam's friends were the ones to open fire first and then Randall exacted revenged. The whole 'they killed those people for the fun of it' story Sam told is absolute bullshit, and her group open fired on them, and she escaped with her brother.
Yeah, that makes sense. I like that they included Nick in the background and made him miss a few shots. It's a relief that they didn't forget about that aspect.
You know, I'd argue against it being perfect aim. I mean, he shot him in the neck, after all. The neck is not usually a spot you would shoot… more on purpose. Not to mention that after he shoots, Nick runs up asking if he even hit him. He says the same thing to Walter, that he didn't even know whether he hit him or not. Interestingly enough, during the lodge attack, you can actually see Nick shooting and missing a few shots in the background, so it's not like they forgot that Nick was a bad shot. It just turned out that the one time he actually hit something was the one time you wish he didn't.
Like, look at it this way; even if you can't shoot worth shit, at least one shot will eventually hit what you're aiming for. Unfortunately, that ended up being Matthew.
Hey! I just finished the episode. really good!! can't wait for the next one!
I'm inclined to believe in Sam but there is still much to be said.. something happened between these two groups. but I don't think Norma is the villain of all this.
The point is, if Randall exacted revenge, then why would they let Sam and Greg live? It's been said that it was not their first time that they've been caught.
If you haven't yet, go play the episode and enter through the window instead. You see a lot more of the massacre, and it's exceptionally mor… moree morbid than if you go through the ladder entrance. You don't even see the half of it if you chose the ladder.
I think it could go both ways. Randall and his group seem more than capable of doing this, and you do find the zip ties and all. But on the other hand, there is the possibly of a third party being involved, like the scavengers Sam mentions.
I'm not really sure, but seriously, if you took the window path, whoever did it ain't exactly right in the head.
There's an entire room of dead people. A child dead in her mother's arms, a row of what appear to be teenagers lined up and gunned down, blood and bullet casings all over the place, rotten plates of food, and a ton of scattered bodies of various people of different ages.
There's an entire room of dead people. A child dead in her mother's arms, a row of what appear to be teenagers lined up and gunned down, blo… moreod and bullet casings all over the place, rotten plates of food, and a ton of scattered bodies of various people of different ages.
It really sucks that they made that part determinant, but I think they did it so that people would have different opinions on the massacre and wouldn't figure out why the other one feels that way.
Think about it, there is no way of knowing the other person saw something different unless you ask for graphic details.
There's an entire room of dead people. A child dead in her mother's arms, a row of what appear to be teenagers lined up and gunned down, blo… moreod and bullet casings all over the place, rotten plates of food, and a ton of scattered bodies of various people of different ages.
Hey! I just finished the episode. really good!! can't wait for the next one!
I'm inclined to believe in Sam but there is still much to b… moree said.. something happened between these two groups. but I don't think Norma is the villain of all this.
.. and hey! I saw Clem in my gameplay:
()
I chose the window because why would people expose themselves in full view in a place where they had just recieved a distress call? Anyway, ive watched the ladder gameplay and both are interesting. They both offer different clues that the other does not, you shouldn't feel like you missed anything, instead gained an insight that half of players did not
It really sucks that they made that part determinant, but I think they did it so that people would have different opinions on the massacre a… morend wouldn't figure out why the other one feels that way.
Think about it, there is no way of knowing the other person saw something different unless you ask for graphic details.
The bright side is there, I guess. The ladder players learned that Rashid and Vanessa were a couple and had two kids—we found a picture of them—and Michonne has a flashback about her daughters.
I chose the window because why would people expose themselves in full view in a place where they had just recieved a distress call? Anyway, … moreive watched the ladder gameplay and both are interesting. They both offer different clues that the other does not, you shouldn't feel like you missed anything, instead gained an insight that half of players did not
I think it is going to be one of those situations where no one is the clear cut good guy. All affected parties will have some sort of negative qualities that will make the player feel uneasy. It is a situation needed in the Walking Dead game series. Put the player in a situation where they have to choose between two sides. All options will leave the player feeling unhappy with their choice because there is no right answer, just pure perspectives based on gameplay.
Comments
If you haven't yet, go play the episode and enter through the window instead. You see a lot more of the massacre, and it's exceptionally more morbid than if you go through the ladder entrance. You don't even see the half of it if you chose the ladder.
I think it could go both ways. Randall and his group seem more than capable of doing this, and you do find the zip ties and all. But on the other hand, there is the possibly of a third party being involved, like the scavengers Sam mentions.
I'm not really sure, but seriously, if you took the window path, whoever did it ain't exactly right in the head.
She has some anger issue for sure
What about the One syllable names that havent been screwups though? :P
True, but I don't think that she's that evil of a person.
Or what about Sarah?
Also, this is a little off-topic, but since we're on the subject, I never got why everyone latched on to Nick as a screw up or the new Ben. I mean, what did he even really do? He's fairly aggressive when he meets Clementine, but given his past experiences, he's probably the most justified out of the entire cabin group for not trusting her, and he shoots Matthew, which in all fairness isn't that unjustified to begin with. He saw someone he thought was a threat to his friends (for good reason, given they're being chased by Carver), and he took care of the threat. Yeah, it turned out he was wrong, but I don't think he is any less justified because of it. He probably had about as much, if not more reason than Kenny did for killing Larry.
Think of it from his perspective for a minute: you go out to the bridge, and in the distance, you see your friends being approached by a stranger with a gun. You know people are after you, and you just lost someone you cared about only days ago. For all intents and purposes, it makes sense for Nick to consider this a potential threat to his group, his friends, and even himself.
And furthermore, Nick's able to own up to his mistake later on. He shows obvious regret about it, and he's all for telling the truth, even at the risk of Walter possibly doing something.
I think the true antagonist has yet to be revealed. Hopefully it's someone who makes Randall look nice
Shooting Matthew was completely justified from his perspective.
Did you notice, though, that in "All That Remains" it's said several times that Nick "can't shoot for shit", and in "A House Divided" he gains perfect aim and successfully shoots Matthew from a long distance?
I wonder if Randall killed them and then lied to his sister, saying it was bandits, and that he killed the bandits in retribution. It's pretty clear that Norma wasn't there, and only had her brother's word for what happened. She and Zachary both say Randall goes too far.
I don't trust Norma as far as I could throw her (which is zilch) but maybe she doesn't know just how "extra" shitty her brother is when no one is watching?
Didn't Luke tell him not to shoot?
You know, I'd argue against it being perfect aim. I mean, he shot him in the neck, after all. The neck is not usually a spot you would shoot on purpose. Not to mention that after he shoots, Nick runs up asking if he even hit him. He says the same thing to Walter, that he didn't even know whether he hit him or not. Interestingly enough, during the lodge attack, you can actually see Nick shooting and missing a few shots in the background, so it's not like they forgot that Nick was a bad shot. It just turned out that the one time he actually hit something was the one time you wish he didn't.
Like, look at it this way; even if you can't shoot worth shit, at least one shot will eventually hit what you're aiming for. Unfortunately, that ended up being Matthew.
The point is, if Randall exacted revenge, then why would they let Sam and Greg live? It's been said that it was not their first time that they've been caught.
Yeah, that makes sense. I like that they included Nick in the background and made him miss a few shots. It's a relief that they didn't forget about that aspect.
Hey! I just finished the episode. really good!! can't wait for the next one!
I'm inclined to believe in Sam but there is still much to be said.. something happened between these two groups. but I don't think Norma is the villain of all this.
.. and hey! I saw Clem in my gameplay:
(
)
Because they want to know where the rest of their supplies are, and Greg and Sam just might know where it is.
I chose the ladder..So how much more morbid?
There's an entire room of dead people. A child dead in her mother's arms, a row of what appear to be teenagers lined up and gunned down, blood and bullet casings all over the place, rotten plates of food, and a ton of scattered bodies of various people of different ages.
Jesus, that actually sounds really screwed up. Now I feel like I missed out on a big piece of the puzzle.
I think its because of kids, some group killed all adults and took the children to do who knows what to them.
It really sucks that they made that part determinant, but I think they did it so that people would have different opinions on the massacre and wouldn't figure out why the other one feels that way.
Think about it, there is no way of knowing the other person saw something different unless you ask for graphic details.
Except that they shot the kids aswell.
EDIT: Oh, he's banned. Ah well.
no one is safe in TWD's thread.
I was searching the community to see if anyone else noticed.
I chose the window because why would people expose themselves in full view in a place where they had just recieved a distress call? Anyway, ive watched the ladder gameplay and both are interesting. They both offer different clues that the other does not, you shouldn't feel like you missed anything, instead gained an insight that half of players did not
xD
The bright side is there, I guess. The ladder players learned that Rashid and Vanessa were a couple and had two kids—we found a picture of them—and Michonne has a flashback about her daughters.
I think it is going to be one of those situations where no one is the clear cut good guy. All affected parties will have some sort of negative qualities that will make the player feel uneasy. It is a situation needed in the Walking Dead game series. Put the player in a situation where they have to choose between two sides. All options will leave the player feeling unhappy with their choice because there is no right answer, just pure perspectives based on gameplay.