I just wish they had two optional scenes for that one bit. Like the choice in episode 4. when you're asked to crawl through the shutter window cause you're small, if you refuse, bonnie realises you're still a kid and tries it.
If they had this option in episode 2, with the both climbing the ladder bit and the bridge scene, things could of worked out better imho.
On the bridge scene, if you refuse, maybe Carlos and Luke or Nick and Luke scout on ahead and youwatch the scene play out with binoculars. Maybe the guy could of survived a little longer.
these are the sort of problems that were not brought up because it was such a good episode,but i agree with you.I suppose they wanted the player to have some action rather than keeping lookout.
But were you GIVEN the option to suddenly leave if you agreed? No.
Her sister was similar to Sarah How? Jane sure talks alot about Jaime yet we know nothing about her. How are they in any way similar except that they are both young girls and are not very strong survivalist? She stated Jaime OVER TIME lost the will to live. Sarah was given what? Half a day. barely any time to cope at all. That is barely giving her a chance. Also last i recalled she was Screaming for her father at the trailer (meaning she did in fact want to live) then BEGGING clementine to save her when the deck crashed on top of her. (meaning she surprise! did in fact want to live) So how is she suddenly similar to Jaime? Also Another point to call out her BS writing: suddenly Clem is too similar to her sister too? How? Clem didn't lose the will to live either.
She taught Clem to survive? I can only recall one that was particularly useful which is Kicking the zombie in the leg to get at its head. (which is still extremely dangerous for a child, i prefer Mike chokeslamming skills tbh). Her raiding zombie corpses has been done before in Episode 1 on her search for dog food and the possible usefulness of a nail file.
Oh yes. There we go: her purpose in the story was to give Clem a nail file that remember: reminds her of Jane's nonexistant vague notion and idea of a sister who she abandoned and was responsible for.
A+++ character writing, Molly was written a thousand times better.
She was shallow, but she also had no real ties to the group besides her plan. She spoke what was on her mind, I never did say it was right. … moreJane on her comments about Rebecca and Sarah were fairly just.
* She knew keeping the baby safe in the situation they were in was fucked. They had no real permanent shelter and no real competent leader who had no plans.
* Her sister was similar to Sarah and she knew that you can't save everyone. In the end she was right with Sarah dying regardless of what you did.
Also you can't say that she barely added anything, because she taught Clem that she can survive on her own and that she owes them nothing. Clem in most cases is the one saving them, so at this point it'd be better if Clem would leave the group.
just had a look on their FB page,i didn't even know they had one,...Wow them comments.shitstorm indeed,i feel sorry for the fans who are dealing with it with disabilities (Sarah issue) and also for Telltale a little...
i think they are rushing to get this episode 5 out as soon as possible to cap some of the comments off,really though they should just apologise to the people affected Like Greg did even if he backtracked.. It's going too far to have employers of the company acting like this,It makes me think if the same people who came up with the character of Sarah are now totally out of the picture at Telltale? i dunno?
I certainly hope Telltale is taking notice. If they choose to ignore this, there's no way they can possibly continue with the whole bs "the… more fan feedback counts". Did you see the Facebook page? Even people who aren't fans are starting to weigh in on this. They need to address it.
They know, but will they ever actually respond? So far as I've seen, Telltale is awful at interacting with their fans, offering people virtually nothing beyond empty PR fluff endlessly regurgitated on their twitter account. Actually stepping up to the plate and apologizing would be astonishing, unless this whole issue starts to hurt them in a big way..
the posts seem too much to ignore, there everywhere, ive seen posts like fans are not gonna be buying season 3 etc etc, i thought the episode 4 reaction was bad now this...but i don't see this as the fans fault,we just expected to carry on playing the great game.
They know, but will they ever actually respond? So far as I've seen, Telltale is awful at interacting with their fans, offering people virtu… moreally nothing beyond empty PR fluff endlessly regurgitated on their twitter account. Actually stepping up to the plate and apologizing would be astonishing, unless this whole issue starts to hurt them in a big way..
I think he works for Telltale still...( he posted story boards and teasers of S1 EP3) Not many people comment but he does respond to them...only on his art posts though.
the posts seem too much to ignore, there everywhere, ive seen posts like fans are not gonna be buying season 3 etc etc, i thought the episo… morede 4 reaction was bad now this...but i don't see this as the fans fault,we just expected to carry on playing the great game.
With everything that's happening lately, it gave me the idea to create this! Warning! Do not scroll down if you watch Game of Thrones and you haven't seen season 4 episode 10! Also, long post!
"15 year old hispanic child" - what does her being hispanic have to do with anything? I'm guessing you're going to say he hates hispanic people too?
And you're right, the game had heaps of other problems which is why the score wasn't so great on IGN.
The game's writing is so bad its difficult to take any of the characters' circumstances seriously since episode 3. Why? Because the lack of choice became clear when certain characters die regardless of what you do; for example, Nick dies regardless because he could have died in episode 2.
Which was why he was BARELY in episode 3. And then he dies in episode 4 offscreen without impact or realisation of his character. His screw-ups and being a liability to everyone's safety, and overall story progression is like Ben; he could've died at various times, was not actually helpful at all, and ultimately died to add to Kenny's character. Its because Telltale doesn't want to put resources into developing a character that 50% of people would not see. Which is a shame and is lazy.
And what about the forced moments of tension between Luke and Kenny? And how we have to choose between them? Oh no! So much drama! Its not obvious at all what Telltale is doing! (sarcasm)
Seriously, Luke slept with Jane? Even though he was super responsible and concerned about everyone's safety. Even though he got the crap beat out of him and had a broken rib and couldn't even pull himself or other people up without difficulty. Oh, and Jane was so shallow and unconcerned about safety and survival that she'd just do it with Luke when THEY JUST ESCAPED A ZOMBIE HERD!!! Which is still nearby!!! WTF Telltale??
So yeah, its hard to be angry at Greg when he's being angry at a badly written game and unrealised game character. If Sarah was fully realised, and redeemed herself by becoming stronger and helpful, like Clem did during season 1, then everyone would have loved her. But since we have Clem to look after, as well as other characters we like (Jane and Luke), would we sacrifice them for just her? Seriously, sacrifice Clem, Jane and Luke for Sarah? Hell, even though you do save her from that trailer park, she still dies from the collapsing platform, never getting a chance to grow as a character.
Jane was actually well characterised. Although she's essentially Molly v2.0, she brings up the themes of being the lone survivor in zombie apocalypse. Besides, she had risked her life for her sister's countless times, persuading her, even physically moving her to escape zombie hoards. But her sister never got better, and was not going to get better, and it was going to get them both killed. Why put to waste so much energy and risk your life for someone who essentially ceases the struggle for living for themselves? When its clear they don't want to fight for themselves anymore?
If there was a problem, it would be that Jane's and her sister's story kind of doesn't relate to Sarah's situation. Depending on how disabled Sarah was, then her inability to cope would be due to disability and not her own choice in giving up. Not the same as Jane's sister's situation.
If anything, it is Telltale's fault for such wonky storytelling. And I say wonky because episode 1 of season 2 was great.
Vent their frustration on the wrong person? This guy publically ridiculed and celebrated the death of a 15 year old hispanic child for doing… more nothing wrong. she never hurt anyone yet she deserves more death and hate than any of the other characters? Where's his long spiel against Jane and her abandoning her sister and then encouraging the abandonment of an innocent despite not knowing them at all? Or that Luke never even sniffled at Sarah and Nick's death despite the fact that these two practically looked up and idolized them?
I thought the first episode was okay up until you meet the cabin group, and after that it went downhill fast for me. I didn't like any of the characters because of how bad they treated Clementine. They were all either hostile or too cowardly to step up for Clem when she needed help. They were the total opposites of what I liked so much about Lee and Kenny in season one. Season one was about people who shared a common morality of being there for family and taking care of the kids. It was about the only thing Lee and Kenny had in common, but it made them easy to identify with because it's what most people believe. Taking care of the kids was a constant and well written theme throughout season one, and a lot of fans didn't like a seeing a group that acts like they came straight out of Crawford. The writing was bad even for those types of characters anyway. Breckon didn't write dialogue for an 11 year old girl. He wrote dialogue for adults talking to other adults. I don't understand why he decided to make every single character a complete contradiction to those in season one, but regardless It sounds so unnatural it takes all the realism out of the experience.
The adults telling Clem to do dangerous and unnecessary jobs as if she was an adult seemed to be attempting to show they respected her, but it just felt like child abuse to me after playing with the same more realistic view of people that I did in S1. I wanted adults to still acknowledged that she was a kid and treat her like one. I wanted to see Clem learn and mature and as the season played out, but instead we almost immediately get a strange and emotionless Clem who's somehow been traumatized into an unrealistic adult that doesn't develop at all from that point on. I wanted adults who acted more like those in season one, or at least as realistically. Men like Lee and Kenny, not men who tell a preteen kid to do dangerous things, or talk to her like they are going to lean in for a kiss at any moment. Instead of having a women like Katja or Carly in season one you have a woman like Rebecca who treats Clem like trash while warning her to stay away from her husband like she's jealous of her. Then later telling Clem that her baby isn't her husbands.
That kind of writing was so ridiculous and unrealistic it completely killed those first two episodes for me. It's completely inappropriate sounding for adults to talk to her the way they did in those episodes. They didn't seem to do any thinking about how they were going to write the story from Clementine's view prior to starting the season. They just wrote her as an adult who is seen by everyone else as an adult so they could give players information. That's just cheap and lazy in my opinion. I understand it's hard to write for her as a child, but they should have thought about that more before deciding on whether to make her the playable character or not.
The characters and dialogue are what turned me off of the game almost immediately so I never thought much about the story or anything else in the game beyond that. The reason I liked the last two episodes better is solely based on the fact that they changed some of the writing to make characters interact a little more realistically. That made a huge difference to me in being able to have any enjoyment while playing the game. That was such a huge flaw to me personally that it ruined the game to the point I couldn't look past it. Seeing the sudden changes in characters without explanation was okay with me, but I still don't think those episodes are very good. If the characters and interactions between Clem and the adults never bothered you then I can I understand why some players might not like the last two episodes as much as the first two. I know a lot of fans felt the same way I did about this season, but I think most of them stopped playing the game for good after episode one. I don't think all these changes that started with episode three will bring anyone who was turned off by the first couple of episodes back to the game though. My brother and nephew loved the first season but they hated episode one of S2 the same as I did, but unlike me they quit playing for good after that. I still wouldn't recommend for them to start playing again though.
I agree with you about the problems you point out in the last two episodes. They feel rushed and the story doesn't seem to be headed anywhere. It feels like they trashed the original story and rewrote it in the middle of the season with not nearly enough time to create a good story with such short episodes. I liked the last two episodes better based solely on one huge problem I had with the others, but they are a long way from being comparable to any episode in the first season. They are relying on Clem and Kenny because they are popular and well-developed characters from season one, but they aren't written any better than anyone else this season.
Its hard for me to hate S2 Ep 1-2 because they atleast had a DIRECTION. The characters that were introduced all had potential and fitting in… more and getting to know them, the game set that mood perfectly.
Being treated coldly by christa but then Lonely when separated from her.
The heated debate of the cabin folk yelling at you and the subsequent anguish and frustration of being thrown in a shed.
Being reluctantly trusted and finding out about Carver and why the cabin folk acted the way they did.
They weren't perfect but they were atleast steady and the direction was there.
Now we have a halfassed attempt at Crawford which could have been great but was woefully short and underwhelming, and then Ep 4 nuff said and then Russians.
I praise Sarah's characterization in S2 Ep 1 and 2 and her and Carlos being hispanic was like an extra bonus. She was not some saucy latina stereotype, she was a bookworm that was both incredibly friendly and curious (as well as neurodivergent) and her father was a respectable doctor (though rather ruthless when it comes to her daughter being threatened. I didn't quite forgive him for throwing us in the shed).
Greg's praise on her death was still a load of crock when he hates on her and wanted her dead when countless other characters were far more of a liability/threat. Also i call BS on Nick's death. Just because he had the option to be killed in Ep 2, doesn't mean he should be a throw away death later on. Even Alvin had more of a productive life (or what's left of it) in Ep 3. Teltale just got lazy. or Petty just got Lazy.
"15 year old hispanic child" - what does her being hispanic have to do with anything? I'm guessing you're going to say he hates hispanic peo… moreple too?
And you're right, the game had heaps of other problems which is why the score wasn't so great on IGN.
The game's writing is so bad its difficult to take any of the characters' circumstances seriously since episode 3. Why? Because the lack of choice became clear when certain characters die regardless of what you do; for example, Nick dies regardless because he could have died in episode 2.
Which was why he was BARELY in episode 3. And then he dies in episode 4 offscreen without impact or realisation of his character. His screw-ups and being a liability to everyone's safety, and overall story progression is like Ben; he could've died at various times, was not actually helpful at all, and ultimately died to add to Kenny's character. Its because Telltale doesn't want to put resources into de… [view original content]
Well, I will agree with you that episode 1 and 2 could have its own improvements. I imagine more Dialogue branches or private conversations with the cabin people would have been better to get to know them BUT i do think Breckon did a good job on his character choice of them being escapees of Carver's camp.
Hear me out:
This essentially is an already established conflict/ history that Clementine has stumbled into. These are fresh faces to Clementine but they already have relationships to each other which adds alot to their characters by giving them 1. Something/someone precious to have and to lose and 2. gives you a good Solid setting that these characters BELIEVABLY were surviving quite well until recently. and 3. You may not found them likeable but their actions have good reason behind them because of this established history.
i.e: Rebecca you disliked and that she didn't like how she didn't want you near Alvin. She may have been horrible to clementine but as a character she was in reasonable distress. They are low on food, they don't know to trust her or if she's associated with Carver, and she has a baby and doesn't want the baby to be born around a stranger they can't trust. Her fear and anger to clementine is justified and she was overprotective of Alvin because she was fully aware that Alvin has a soft spot for kids and is kind of a push over. (which is true, he gives you apple juice and bandages).
By throwing us into characters with history we had the option to discover more about their history. And BECAUSE they weren't like lee and Kenny, (but in fact they did have family and were protective) we're in that position where we're the outsider stuck in a difficult situation where we kind of WANT to be in it. This group may be jerks to us but they are good people and they care about family. (Pete and Nick, Sarah and Carlos, Alvin and Rebecca). Likewise meeting Kenny added that dilemma of: Do you go back to the familiarity of someone who was once part of your ZA FAMILY? Or work with the family you grew to trust you? with pro's and con's on both sides. This recipe was full of great themes.
at the bare base they had the ingredients for a great cast and Episode 3 would have been a GREAT reveal for all of them and what they were really on the run for/and added history. But we barely got that and thus started a downward spiral of potential thrown out the window. Although Episode 3 and 4 was definitely VIOLENT and action packed and fast paced. The delivery of these character's development was thrown Out the window completely. We learned barely anything about Carver and the Cabin group's stay in the base. Nor did we find any of their history beyond carver letting slip for 2 seconds that they escaped and caused a single death.
and Episode 4 decided to throw those characters away completely instead of clear the air and reveal just what they lost and left behind. It seems choppy.
I thought the first episode was okay up until you meet the cabin group, and after that it went downhill fast for me. I didn't like any of th… moree characters because of how bad they treated Clementine. They were all either hostile or too cowardly to step up for Clem when she needed help. They were the total opposites of what I liked so much about Lee and Kenny in season one. Season one was about people who shared a common morality of being there for family and taking care of the kids. It was about the only thing Lee and Kenny had in common, but it made them easy to identify with because it's what most people believe. Taking care of the kids was a constant and well written theme throughout season one, and a lot of fans didn't like a seeing a group that acts like they came straight out of Crawford. The writing was bad even for those types of characters anyway. Breckon didn't write dialogue for an 11 year old girl. He wrote dialogue for adults talkin… [view original content]
Like I've said before, I got frustrated because people somehow failed to see the faults in the past 2 episodes.
Just look at IGN's episode 4 review; 'cheap deaths' essentially summarizes the main problem with the game. And yet people defend it because "its the zombie apocalypse. People can die anytime, which is why the deaths this episode were justified and realistic". Thats why I got frustrated and how I found this page in the first place.
Funny thing is, I disagree with their episode 3 review. That was also terrible. Especially the cameos from the 200/300 days characters. Chopping Sarita's arm was shocking though.
Maybe its because people fail to remember much of the previous episodes as we have to wait month(s) between episodes; hence failing to see writing inconsistencies and poor character direction.
Thats why I think people are venting their frustrations at the wrong person. I've watched other various playthroughs of the previous episodes, and there are numerous commenters that also thought Sarah was just a liability because she was endangering Clem, and couldn't wait for her to be gone. If anything, its Telltale's fault for not writing her character better, portraying her better and writing a good story to encompass that. Instead, she became a game mechanic, a hurdle where we make decisions that actually don't affect the storyline that much.
I don't know Greg personally, but it just seems like everyone here, including the op, thinks he hates people with disabilities or whom are 'neurodivergent' in real life. I don't think this is the case. I think he's also had cancer, so I don't think he looks down upon people that are sick or disabled.
Then again, what do I know? I'm probably pure evil considering how many downvotes I've gotten and how much Bokor hates me.
I praise Sarah's characterization in S2 Ep 1 and 2 and her and Carlos being hispanic was like an extra bonus. She was not some saucy latina … morestereotype, she was a bookworm that was both incredibly friendly and curious (as well as neurodivergent) and her father was a respectable doctor (though rather ruthless when it comes to her daughter being threatened. I didn't quite forgive him for throwing us in the shed).
Greg's praise on her death was still a load of crock when he hates on her and wanted her dead when countless other characters were far more of a liability/threat. Also i call BS on Nick's death. Just because he had the option to be killed in Ep 2, doesn't mean he should be a throw away death later on. Even Alvin had more of a productive life (or what's left of it) in Ep 3. Teltale just got lazy. or Petty just got Lazy.
Nick was fan favourite? When? He was also barely in episode 3. I guess it was refreshing he wanted to tell red-sweater guy the truth that he killed his lover.
If anything, I thought people loved Kenny(nostalgia with Lee) or Luke(nice to Clementine, helpful guy). Which was why they kept pushing Luke v Kenny the past 3 episodes.
Nick was fan favourite? When? He was also barely in episode 3. I guess it was refreshing he wanted to tell red-sweater guy the truth that he… more killed his lover.
If anything, I thought people loved Kenny(nostalgia with Lee) or Luke(nice to Clementine, helpful guy). Which was why they kept pushing Luke v Kenny the past 3 episodes.
It wasn't as much about disliking the cabin group's actions as it was the way the dialogue and interactions are written basically the same way they would be if Clem was an adult. That's what killed the realism of the characters and ruined the experience for me personally. A lot of the conversations that Clem has with the adults in those episodes sound so unnatural and unrealistic to me that I can't move past them. The game has good voice acting and most of the writing would be decent if Clem was an adult, but since she's not it's cringe inducing for some players. Since none of the characters acted realistically I couldn't identify with them at all. It's not that they are bad people, but because they are badly written to interact with a little kid no differently than they would an adult which isn't how things work. That kind of writing is why people started talking about Luke and Clem having a romantic relationship. It's what makes Rebecca's behavior come off as just weird more than cruel. She talks like she's jealous of Clem stealing her husband, and then tells her about being pregnant by a man other than her husband. That's just bad writing.
There seemed to be a big shift in the game in episode three that made it feel like a completely new person took over the game and rewrote the story. I liked the way the new writers changed the dialogue and interactions between Clem and the adults even though it is far from being perfect, but I did notice they seem to abandon or change parts of the story that you wouldn't think they would have the authority to do without approval of the lead writer. I think they had bigger plans for Carver, but decided to turn him into a one dimensional bad guy so they could just end that story as fast as they could. It made me wonder if that was because they didn't have time to finish the story Breckon created, or if Breckon was pushed aside because of the direction he had taken in the first two episodes. I have a feeling it was a little bit of both. They obviously attempted to fix problems people had with the way the characters interacted with Clementine, but I think they also wanted to push out the episodes faster and needed to change the story to do that.
Well, I will agree with you that episode 1 and 2 could have its own improvements. I imagine more Dialogue branches or private conversations … morewith the cabin people would have been better to get to know them BUT i do think Breckon did a good job on his character choice of them being escapees of Carver's camp.
Hear me out:
This essentially is an already established conflict/ history that Clementine has stumbled into. These are fresh faces to Clementine but they already have relationships to each other which adds alot to their characters by giving them 1. Something/someone precious to have and to lose and 2. gives you a good Solid setting that these characters BELIEVABLY were surviving quite well until recently. and 3. You may not found them likeable but their actions have good reason behind them because of this established history.
i.e: Rebecca you disliked and that she didn't like how she didn't want you near Alvin. She may have been horri… [view original content]
What do you mean nobody cared? About Nick? My Clementine cared. Luke cared when he learned about it. Initially inside the trailer park, he might have been abrupt but he and everyone inside were dealing with more pressing matters at hand: zombies about to bust through and eat all of them alive. When the trailer park group arrives back at the ruins, Luke takes the time to tell Rebecca and they share their grief. The other characters did not know him all that well to be as emotional, which was understandable. As for Sarah? Again, my Clementine cared. My Clem stuck until the end as her friend. Luke spent hours chasing after her through the woods, and then some more trying to help her out of danger in that vulnerable trailer. And while her death was sudden, the group hardly had the time to mourn because they were still trying to fend off zombies and they also had Rebecca and her baby in their minds. Everyone was tired, cold, hungry, and the group was so fragile and vulnerable that at this point.... Survival, and especially of that baby is all that is on everyone's mind.
Disrespectful? What was so disrespectful about their deaths exactly? That they didn't get a burial? Emotionless? I was devastated to find Nick turned into a zombie and had no choice but to kill him. I was devastated to witness Sarah being eaten alive. I felt powerless, despair, and also more sense of urgency in ensuring the survival of my group.
And if any argument is to be made that the game wants or forces you to hate on poor ol Sarah who is vulnerable and has disabilities, I would say it is totally laughable. I had plenty of choices to make to ensure that I express my sympathy and willingness to help my friend. Jane's existence is just like any other..... Just another character except that she is a controversial character with an opinion that many people may disagree with. It is not uncommon to have such characters like this, and even with her insistence that Sarah is beyond saving, I still had the choice to tell her that I care for my friend, that I won't abandon my group, and that I won't give up on anybody. How satisfying is that?
If Nick and Sarah's deaths were handled in such shameful ways like you keep on insisting, I could, if I wanted to insist on stirring things up, make the same case for the characters I loved that died in which I felt did not get enough love and attention that they rightfully deserved because they were so lovingly crafted and developed: Carley in Season 1 comes into mind. Oh how people did not mourn her deaths enough, how her death was so pointless, and how Lilly, the sole person responsible for that atrocious murder did not get treated with the just punishment that she deserved.... I could practically write an essay on that subject. I don't see you complaining about that. Perhaps... Maybe... Because you didn't feel the way that I did? Should I parade around attacking the writers and anybody who might have felt differently from my perspective disrespectful?
It seems to me that you are just upset that your beloved characters died. You are upset that they didn't get enough love or the attention that you think they deserved. Guess what? It is Telltale's story. There is always someone else writing a story unless you yourself write your own story. Liking the story or not is up to you. But to call the writers shameful and disrespectful is going too far. It is not uncommon to have side characters in a story that some people may have strong feelings for. But this story, just like any others, is about the main character first and foremost. And it is not uncommon to have some characters get more screen time than others. That in no way represents lack of respect.
And no... Sarah is just like anybody else in the game world.... Just another person like everyone else who are trying to survive. Her having disabilities does not make her any more special or deserving of more. The fact that you still refuse to acknowledge that Sarah was a liability to the group says a lot about your mindset. Your argument seems to be wholly based from your infatuation with the fictional character ina video game.
Finally, please do not act as if you speak for the majority. You may have a lot of supporters in this thread, but there are other threads with people that do not share your point of view. Last I checked, this thread has less than 2,000 posts. Considering how many actual real world people bought and played the game, I'd say you are a very vocal extreme minority here acting as if you represent the gaming community. I have seen this way too many times in numerous other video game forums. The patterns have become all too predictable by now.... Accusing the writers, the game developers, and insulting and attacking anyone else who dares to disagree with you.
How dare they kill off your favorite characters and not give them the screen time and the amount of attention that you think they rightfully deserve? How disrespectful of them! You are never going to buy their products again! Telltale better do exactly what you ask them to do or they are doomed to fail! You represent the viewpoints of majority of the actual players and by not having your wishes granted, Telltale is a company that does not listen to the fanbase because you represent that fanbase!
I've been going through the same exact arguments so many times I'm just going to start copypasting.
I think it's pretty remarkable tha… moret Telltale has been able to elicit a response out of fans (whether negative or positive). I think that saying they should be ashamed of the product of their work is absurd. The fact that it was able to get a response out of people shows that it's engaging. I seriously doubt that everyone who is enraged at Telltale for killing of Sarah or Nick will stop playing the game. I'm assuming every single one of them will play the final episode.
We're not upset that these characters died. We're upset that they died and nobody cared. We're upset that they were thrown away in such an underwhelming and disrespectful and emotionless way. Their deaths were pointless to the story, they only minimally affected any of the characters; at best they only served to reflect weak themes that only show up in episode 4. Th… [view original content]
About the characters, the way they got rid of Nick... disappointed and saddened me.
We saw Nick Breckon started an amazing arc on him bu… moret the others writers didn't saw the same thing. And the reason why I'm pissed off about this is because without too much effort , Nick could have become one the most lovable and complex character of the Walking Dead game.
I think i found the last revision before it went wrong but i apologise if some bits are still missing as there was a lot of text to read through, i think you are starting to reach the limit on the amount of text in one post which is causing things to delete themselves.
I think i found the last revision before it went wrong but i apologise if some bits are still missing as there was a lot of text to read thr… moreough, i think you are starting to reach the limit on the amount of text in one post which is causing things to delete themselves.
Like i said in my other post it looks like you could be reaching the character limit so you might have to start giving long posts as replies rather than updating your op.
If you ever need to contact a mod again you can send a PM to me, @Blind Sniper, @Vainamoinen or @Jennifer and we should hopefully be able to help.
When I say nobody cared, I don't mean that the fans didn't care. I meant that the writing in the story didn't care. Like I said before, their deaths did not have the proper emotional weight. As you say yourself, there are very few times when anyone in the story is actually bothered that they died. Sarah's first death does have acknowledgment from Jane and Luke, but her second death and both of Nick's deaths are ignored by the cast.
When I say that it was disrespectful, I'm referring to how they were killed off. Killing off Nick and Sarah who were not only previously important but were also considered to be rare and important representation to many people was a disservice both to the fans and to Telltale's own previous writing.
And if any argument is to be made that the game wants or forces you to hate on poor ol Sarah who is vulnerable and has disabilities, I would say it is totally laughable.
Prior to episode 4, Sarah had been presented with both positives and negatives, but episode 4 presents her as nothing more than a liability. You are meant to abandon her simply because she was "useless". And when she finally dies, not even Clem can acknowledge if Sarah actually meant anything to her or might have been her friend. Her death at best only reflects on Luke and Jane.
If Nick and Sarah's deaths were handled in such shameful ways like you keep on insisting, I could, if I wanted to insist on stirring things up, make the same case for the characters I loved that died in which I felt did not get enough love and attention that they rightfully deserved because they were so lovingly crafted and developed
I've already explained many times where there's a difference there. The deaths of everyone in season 1 were extremely hard hitting. Their deaths had a purpose to the plot and to the themes, and the characters reacted accordingly. Nick and Sarah's deaths on the other hand show no such thing. At best they can only be seen as referring to themes of futility and hopelessness which were not even built up to in the first place. This isn't a result of conscious storytelling decisions, it's a justification of lazy writing.
It seems to me that you are just upset that your beloved characters died. You are upset that they didn't get enough love or the attention that you think they deserved. Guess what? It is Telltale's story.
it's Telltale's job to make a story purposeful. I wasn't upset when they died. I was taken out of the moment at what bad writing it was. I wasn't sad, I was mad.
Finally, please do not act as if you speak for the majority. You may have a lot of supporters in this thread, but there are other threads with people that do not share your point of view.
Not really sure what you're getting at here. I created the thread to express my honest reaction to the episode. If you're talking about my edit where I talked about Telltale letting down their biggest fans, this is also how I personally feel, and how many others feel as well. The fans who feel this way may or may not be the majority but numbers don't dictate the relevance of an issue.
You represent the viewpoints of majority of the actual players and by not having your wishes granted, Telltale is a company that does not listen to the fanbase because you represent that fanbase!
To my knowledge there isn't the slightest indication that they have incorporated any feedback whatsoever, whether I agreed with it or not. edit: Come to think of it, I can only think of a single case: when Telltale chose to cater to the "lol can't wait to kill Sarah cuz she's useless " crowd. In which case they're just insulting their own writing.
What do you mean nobody cared? About Nick? My Clementine cared. Luke cared when he learned about it. Initially inside the trailer park, … morehe might have been abrupt but he and everyone inside were dealing with more pressing matters at hand: zombies about to bust through and eat all of them alive. When the trailer park group arrives back at the ruins, Luke takes the time to tell Rebecca and they share their grief. The other characters did not know him all that well to be as emotional, which was understandable. As for Sarah? Again, my Clementine cared. My Clem stuck until the end as her friend. Luke spent hours chasing after her through the woods, and then some more trying to help her out of danger in that vulnerable trailer. And while her death was sudden, the group hardly had the time to mourn because they were still trying to fend off zombies and they also had Rebecca and her baby in their minds. Everyone was tired, cold, hungry, an… [view original content]
Glad i could help
Like i said in my other post it looks like you could be reaching the character limit so you might have to start giving… more long posts as replies rather than updating your op.
If you ever need to contact a mod again you can send a PM to me, @Blind Sniper, @Vainamoinen or @Jennifer and we should hopefully be able to help.
Many characters are flashed out and developed in many stories, and it is not uncommon for them to die a pointless death for stupid reasons. The main argument coming from you seems to be that you wanted an extra dialogue or two between characters acknowledging the deaths in some sort, While I don't disagree that having such extra dialogues could have been better, that by no means makes the writing bad or disrespectful in any way.
Where I do disagree with you is the fact that I, as the player, felt the heartless, cold, brutal, helpless nature of all these deaths and tore me apart to see beloved characters meet their doom for pointless and stupid reasons. After all, the story telling is meant to entertain and touch me, the player, emotionally. I think that is the most important part. So what if there weren't any acknowledgments between the characters? That doesn't change the way I felt about the whole ordeal. And the fact that the story succeeded in moving me emotionally makes the story work for me... a far cry from disservice and disrespect.
Never did I ever feel that the game was forcing me to hate on Sarah and abandon her. I never felt as though I was "meant" to abandon her because she was "useless." Yes, Jane does talk about that quite a lot, but I always had the choice to express my feelings that I would never abandon my friend and my group, and that we all are supposed to look after each other. Every instance where there was a chance, I had the choice to either talk to or show my concerns for her safety. Having to slap Sarah in the trailer park? Heck, I would do anything at that point to get that girl moving because slapping her in the face is better than allowing her to die, which is exactly what is going to happen if I don't do anything. Carrying her is not an option, talking to her is not an option, so what more can you do? Yes, it is terrible that I had to slap her, knowing the trauma that she had incurred back from that rotten place run by Carver.... that makes it all the more agonizing. And in it, the story succeeded in giving me just the level of emotional impact that I was looking for in a game like this.
You see.... Sarah was clearly a liability to the group's survival. The whole trailer park scene proves that. Now, my Clem, would look out for her group and never give up on anyone until the absolute moment where she has absolutely no choice. You do the best you can, but sometimes things don't pan out as we all would like to. And we, as players, were given the choice to follow through on that principle. And the fact that Sarah still died even after all that emotional effort on players' part makes it all the more devastating. And the story succeeds in portraying the hopelessness and despair that this fragile group of people must be feeling for themselves.
The nostalgia of Season 1 may have an effect on your analysis between the two seasons, but in my opinion, the character deaths in Season 1 was not that much better handled than Season 2. If anything, Nick and Sarah's deaths also had the purpose, and it was hard hitting for me, the player, the person that matters most. And not all deaths in Season 1 had the level of character reaction and acknowledgment that you think were so much better. Personally, if I had to nitpick on that issue, I am sure I could come up with many names.... including my beloved Carly. But I don't want to get into that.
I do acknowledge and agree however, in your assessment that the numbers don't dictate the relevance of any issues. Even the voices of a minority group is just as important as the vast majority. History has taught us that, I believe.
Finally, let me quote a couple of posts in other threads that I'd like to share:
First from DomeWing333:
So it seems like a lot of the hate towards Greg Miller is due to the fact that he found joy in seeing Sarah, a character he didn't like, die. But this is something that gamers and other patrons of fiction do all the time. Don't pretend like it's some cardinal sin that only "monsters" like Greg Miller are capable of. I think a lot of us, at one time or another, have found it enjoyable to see a particular character that we don't like and find annoying be killed off.
For those of you who are Star Wars fans, how many of you would react with outrage at a gleeful reaction towards the death of, say, Jar Jar Binks? Not many of you, I'm guessing. And it's not as if the character has done something evil or immoral. People hate him because he's annoying and cumbersome. People hate him for being who he is. People hate his character for existing. And I, personally, agree. I don't think that makes me a monster. I think it makes me a Star Wars fan.
For those of you who are less familiar with Star Wars, imagine there was a character like Greg Miller in the Walking Dead. In fact, imagine that the character was based off of Greg Miller. Now imagine that this character, after constantly talking about how annoying the other survivors are for being burdens and putting other people's lives at risk, sudden finds himself fallen surrounded by walkers, about to be torn apart, and yelling for someone to save him. Based on a lot of the posts I've read on here, I'm betting that a lot of you would find this sequence fairly enjoyable and cathartic.
Would this make you all monsters? No. Does this mean that you all would actually enjoy it if Greg Miller were, in real life, killed in a violent way in front of you? Fuck no. (At least I hope that's the case.) Because reactions to fictional events do not always match reactions to real life events. Even a relatively "serious" and "realistic" piece of fiction like The Walking Dead can be enjoyed on levels that aren't serious and realistic.
Now this is not to say that Greg's reaction to Sarah wasn't in some ways problematic. But I think it's important to look at the issue more objectively to really zero in on why we find his behavior so objectionable, rather than just reducing the outrage to "Oh my God, how could you have wanted to see a child die??!!"
And another one from Fredward:
Speaking as someone with a [physical] disability I can get your viewpoint. People with disabilities fight an uphill battle in all spheres of life. But that doesn't make your life mean more. Just because you need support or protection doesn't mean your life is worth more than those doing the protection. People died protecting/sheltering Sarah, or died because of her inability to act and function autonomously. Where do you draw the line? How many people die protecting someone before it becomes too much? I'm studying psychology so I get the reasons for Sarah's inability better than most but that doesn't change facts. Sarah did not just not contribute anything to the survival of the group she actively detracted from their chances of survival simply by existing. It's not fair and it's brutal and I felt terribly for leaving her behind in that trailer park [after trying to convince her to leave, again, against my better judgement] but I don't regret the decision for a moment. Cognitively anyway. Emotionally it feels kinda sucky.
Nick didn't have a disability. He was fine, actually. He screwed up sometimes, sometimes badly but not to the extent Ben did and he was still capable of contributing to the group, unlike Sarah.
In my opinion, in a survival situation like that, you need to be able to contribute in SOME way. I wouldn't be able to walk as far as other members of my group or do heavy lifting for extended periods of time but I'm smart, I'm a quick learner and I'm willing to make decisions [and take the flak] for decisions other people shy away from. I like to think that my pros outweigh my cons but if I found out people were dying to protect me I would hate myself. Unless of course they did it because they needed me for Y in which case it would be almost self preservation on their part, if the dying on my behalf was borne from them feeling that I needed protection then I'd feel shitty. I'm not noble enough to commit suicide in such a situation but I'd understand being left behind and perhaps even separate from the group willingly. If we assume all human life is equal then it makes no sense to keep someone around whose already cost lives and shows no signs of reformation.
So no, I don't think Telltale wanted us to hate Sarah and Nick. I think what they wanted to show was that sometimes people just aren't capable of adapting, no matter how you want them too or how much you encourage and build them up, sometimes they just can't. And no matter how long or how hard we cling to idealism the world won't slow down, the shit won't stop hitting the fan just because someone needs a break.
When I say nobody cared, I don't mean that the fans didn't care. I meant that the writing in the story didn't care. Like I said before, thei… morer deaths did not have the proper emotional weight. As you say yourself, there are very few times when anyone in the story is actually bothered that they died. Sarah's first death does have acknowledgment from Jane and Luke, but her second death and both of Nick's deaths are ignored by the cast.
When I say that it was disrespectful, I'm referring to how they were killed off. Killing off Nick and Sarah who were not only previously important but were also considered to be rare and important representation to many people was a disservice both to the fans and to Telltale's own previous writing.
And if any argument is to be made that the game wants or forces you to hate on poor ol Sarah who is vulnerable and has disabilities, I would say it is totally laughable.
Prior to episode 4, Sarah had be… [view original content]
I actually went down both choices to save nick and his uncle's route. It was ok...I guess.
In the past 4 episodes, I don't think he did anything that made me love or like him that much. I felt responsible for his safety, given what his uncle asked of Clem and because of his drunk confession. But besides that, what did he do besides killing that guy's boyfriend and feeling guilty and confess? I didn't even feel that bad when I saw him refuse to save Nick; it was kind of justified.
What about save red-sweater guy? I always thought he was really cool, considering he saved Nick in the route I'm running.
Where I do disagree with you is the fact that I, as the player, felt the heartless, cold, brutal, helpless nature of all these deaths and tore me apart to see beloved characters meet their doom for pointless and stupid reasons.
This is not real life. People in real life often die with no conclusion or purpose. Characters in a story do not. The writers consciously chose -whether by oversight or intentionally- to not give Sarah's death the gravity it deserved. If this is supposed to be some way of making us feel frustrated and the futility of life, it's the wrong way to do it. It's not effective. It's lazy and unsatisfying.
I always had the choice to express my feelings that I would never abandon my friend and my group, and that we all are supposed to look after each other. Every instance where there was a chance, I had the choice to either talk to or show my concerns for her safety.
I don't recall a single dialogue option showing actual regret for the loss of Sarah as a person. The only time anyone talks about it afterwards with Jane and Luke, who were like "I feel bad because her death says something about me". No one mourns her death as an actual person. No one expresses the unfairness or the brutality of it, the fact that they lost an innocent life.
Copypasting (Sarah's first death):
Afterward, Luke says "I didn't think you'd leave her." Clem's answers are "we didnt have a choice", "you left her too", or "what was I supposed to do". There is no option or dialogue about the fact that Sarah was her FRIEND, or that she is SAD that she died. "What was I supposed to do", the most emotional reply, is an expression of frustration, not sadness.
Then Jane starts in with her speech about her sister, and how neither of them could make it in this world. Luke then agrees, "I guess there was nothing we could do."
Clem's responses to this idea are iirc "Sarah wasn't Jaime", "I thought I could trust you," or "would you leave me behind?". Again, this makes the issue all about JANE.
Not only is Sarah obviously NOT the same as Jaime, this is the last that anyone has to say about Sarah's first death.
As for Sarah's second death, it's more or less the same. After she dies, no one reacts or cares, the only thing said about is Clem who has the dialogue options: "I know you tried," "It was hopeless", or "You didn't try hard enough."
Again, this makes it all about Jane.
No one ever expresses that it was sad that SARAH died. Sarah was built up to be so much more, but in the end they turned her into a weak device to expand on Jane's issues, and even that purpose was completely wasted when Jane walks away with no consequence.
The nostalgia of Season 1 may have an effect on your analysis between the two seasons, but in my opinion, the character deaths in Season 1 was not that much better handled than Season 2.
In other cases that may be a valid explanation. But throughout my argument I have been careful to avoid comparisons between the seasons if I can, unaffected by how much better/worse the writing is in comparison to the two.
But the fact is, one does not excuse the other. If season 1 deaths weren't impactful enough, that is not an excuse for this season's deaths to also be weak. If anything, Telltale should have learned from their mistakes and made the deaths this season more effective, not less.
I have been going through this argument over and over and over. And every time I do, I am arguing with those who by their own admission, either actively hated Sarah and wanted her gone, or thought that she was useless and should have been left behind.
I think it really says alot about the situation here. I have honestly not seen a single Telltale apologist who liked or was neutral toward Sarah defending the writing this episode. Everyone who liked Sarah and many who were neutral on her agree that the writing was lazy and unemotional. The only people who insist that her death was effective are either neutral or on Greg's "lol kill Sarah" bandwagon, poking fun at her "uselessness" or calling for her death.
Many characters are flashed out and developed in many stories, and it is not uncommon for them to die a pointless death for stupid reasons. … more The main argument coming from you seems to be that you wanted an extra dialogue or two between characters acknowledging the deaths in some sort, While I don't disagree that having such extra dialogues could have been better, that by no means makes the writing bad or disrespectful in any way.
Where I do disagree with you is the fact that I, as the player, felt the heartless, cold, brutal, helpless nature of all these deaths and tore me apart to see beloved characters meet their doom for pointless and stupid reasons. After all, the story telling is meant to entertain and touch me, the player, emotionally. I think that is the most important part. So what if there weren't any acknowledgments between the characters? That doesn't change the way I felt about the whole ordeal. And the fact that the stor… [view original content]
Didn't Trout say that he cared for and tried to save Sarah repeatedly? I may disagree with most of what he said, but he seems to have actually appreciated the character and find her death(s) meaningful. So did, like two other people, but yeah most of those defending Telltale seemed to care little for her character.
By the way, while I still disagree with you Trout (a lot) I do think those two quotes made your position easier to understand, even if I disagree with them both somewhat.
Where I do disagree with you is the fact that I, as the player, felt the heartless, cold, brutal, helpless nature of all these deaths and to… morere me apart to see beloved characters meet their doom for pointless and stupid reasons.
This is not real life. People in real life often die with no conclusion or purpose. Characters in a story do not. The writers consciously chose -whether by oversight or intentionally- to not give Sarah's death the gravity it deserved. If this is supposed to be some way of making us feel frustrated and the futility of life, it's the wrong way to do it. It's not effective. It's lazy and unsatisfying.
I always had the choice to express my feelings that I would never abandon my friend and my group, and that we all are supposed to look after each other. Every instance where there was a chance, I had the choice to either talk to or show my concerns for her safety.
I don't recall a single dialogue optio… [view original content]
Personally I wanted my Clem to be a selfish, ruthless, badass from the very start, which kind of happened, so I guess I didn't pay attention to the lack of emotion over peoples deaths, as I was roleplaying as an evil Clem. I was more disappointed I couldn't fully side with Carver and screw the rest of the group. But even then I noticed lots of inconsistencies.
OP (TT247) I like your analysis and writing, is there somewhere where I can find more of your work? If you don't do some kind of writing or journalism for a living, you should. I'd love to see quality articles like this from gaming sites, as this is far above what I've seen on most major gaming journalism sites.
I think that kind of depends on which death, cause Sarah's first death in the trailer park does kind of have some meaning behind it, as it's sort of an arc where Sarah couldn't cope with the apocalypse, the biggest issue is that once you have a choice to save her, her character arc has the potential going somewhere interesting, but that gets cut short by a rather poor and unsatisfying death which didn't really feel like a proper send off, unlike Ben's arc which worked BOTH ways if you killed him or saved him.
Didn't Trout say that he cared for and tried to save Sarah repeatedly? I may disagree with most of what he said, but he seems to have actual… morely appreciated the character and find her death(s) meaningful. So did, like two other people, but yeah most of those defending Telltale seemed to care little for her character.
By the way, while I still disagree with you Trout (a lot) I do think those two quotes made your position easier to understand, even if I disagree with them both somewhat.
While I do disagree with your position that the writing was so lazy and terrible, I do acknowledge that the writing/story would have been better and more emotionally touching had the writers chosen to include the acknowledgments and conversations between characters about Sarah and Nick's deaths. It is obvious to me and probably to you, that it didn't take much to satisfy me, and you obviously needed something more... which is understandable.
Your initial title of the thread with the words "Shame on you" came off as another rant thread initially, but at least you take your time to think things through and explain your positions thoroughly in a well organized manner, which is very hard to come by. For that, I applaud you for your dedication and enthusiasm in such a wonderful game as this. I do recommend though, that perhaps instead of "Shame on you," it could have been titled a bit differently as to not throw off people into making up their minds about what you have to say even before reading them.
But perhaps.... You may get what you wish for in the season finale... It may just tie up all the loose ends.
Where I do disagree with you is the fact that I, as the player, felt the heartless, cold, brutal, helpless nature of all these deaths and to… morere me apart to see beloved characters meet their doom for pointless and stupid reasons.
This is not real life. People in real life often die with no conclusion or purpose. Characters in a story do not. The writers consciously chose -whether by oversight or intentionally- to not give Sarah's death the gravity it deserved. If this is supposed to be some way of making us feel frustrated and the futility of life, it's the wrong way to do it. It's not effective. It's lazy and unsatisfying.
I always had the choice to express my feelings that I would never abandon my friend and my group, and that we all are supposed to look after each other. Every instance where there was a chance, I had the choice to either talk to or show my concerns for her safety.
I don't recall a single dialogue optio… [view original content]
Thank you for your feedback and acknowledgment. Where I disagree with the OP is his opinion on whether the writing was lazily and badly written, but I do think that the elements that he is looking for would definitely have made the game's story much more emotional impact.
As for Sarah....
There is a difference, in my opinion, of being "useless" and being a "liability." No human beings are useless. That would be too cruel and that is completely against my principles. Some people seem to think that these two words mean one and the same. I don't think they are. Sarah was a liability because she couldn't help or contribute in any sort of ways when it comes to basic survival of the group.... In fact, she did put other people in danger of deaths because of her condition. But does that make her useless? No... Because no matter who you are and what you can or cannot do, no human being is ever useless. Life is precious and should be respected.... That's my stance anyway.
Didn't Trout say that he cared for and tried to save Sarah repeatedly? I may disagree with most of what he said, but he seems to have actual… morely appreciated the character and find her death(s) meaningful. So did, like two other people, but yeah most of those defending Telltale seemed to care little for her character.
By the way, while I still disagree with you Trout (a lot) I do think those two quotes made your position easier to understand, even if I disagree with them both somewhat.
Yeah I originally titled the thread Shame on You after my initial reaction to the episode. I changed it later thinking that was a bit harsh but the Playing Dead interview convinced me to change it back. Telltale's response to this situation is not helping, they're ignoring all criticism and acting like they're the best and they listen to their fans blahblahblahblah while they just continue to completely ignore feedback. I mean I can hardly expect them to come out and apologize or whatever but they could at least acknowledge what's going on. They really can't do this whole "the fan feedback counts" if they ignore us like this.
& about the finale, I'm afraid there really is "no going back" for me at this point. Even if it's excellent, they still threw away all their potential in the writing before that, there's really no way to fix that now. And it really turns me off from feeling excited for the finale at all.
I am gonna make this reply as short as possible.
While I do disagree with your position that the writing was so lazy and terrible, I do a… morecknowledge that the writing/story would have been better and more emotionally touching had the writers chosen to include the acknowledgments and conversations between characters about Sarah and Nick's deaths. It is obvious to me and probably to you, that it didn't take much to satisfy me, and you obviously needed something more... which is understandable.
Your initial title of the thread with the words "Shame on you" came off as another rant thread initially, but at least you take your time to think things through and explain your positions thoroughly in a well organized manner, which is very hard to come by. For that, I applaud you for your dedication and enthusiasm in such a wonderful game as this. I do recommend though, that perhaps instead of "Shame on you," it could have been titled a bit diffe… [view original content]
To answer your question I don't do any formal writing no.. I do have stuff on my tumblr occasionally.. If you want you can pm me for the url? My stuff on there is usually alot less formal and more ranting/personal tho lol!
That was a great read, and I have to agree.
Personally I wanted my Clem to be a selfish, ruthless, badass from the very start, which kind… more of happened, so I guess I didn't pay attention to the lack of emotion over peoples deaths, as I was roleplaying as an evil Clem. I was more disappointed I couldn't fully side with Carver and screw the rest of the group. But even then I noticed lots of inconsistencies.
OP (TT247) I like your analysis and writing, is there somewhere where I can find more of your work? If you don't do some kind of writing or journalism for a living, you should. I'd love to see quality articles like this from gaming sites, as this is far above what I've seen on most major gaming journalism sites.
That interview was another typical scenario of Greg Miller being as annoying as he has ever been. I did not take it seriously, but that's another whole other topic.
Did you buy the Season Pass? If you did, then you might as well see this through to the end.
Yeah I originally titled the thread Shame on You after my initial reaction to the episode. I changed it later thinking that was a bit harsh … morebut the Playing Dead interview convinced me to change it back. Telltale's response to this situation is not helping, they're ignoring all criticism and acting like they're the best and they listen to their fans blahblahblahblah while they just continue to completely ignore feedback. I mean I can hardly expect them to come out and apologize or whatever but they could at least acknowledge what's going on. They really can't do this whole "the fan feedback counts" if they ignore us like this.
& about the finale, I'm afraid there really is "no going back" for me at this point. Even if it's excellent, they still threw away all their potential in the writing before that, there's really no way to fix that now. And it really turns me off from feeling excited for the finale at all.
Well anyway thanks for reading.
Comments
I just wish they had two optional scenes for that one bit. Like the choice in episode 4. when you're asked to crawl through the shutter window cause you're small, if you refuse, bonnie realises you're still a kid and tries it.
If they had this option in episode 2, with the both climbing the ladder bit and the bridge scene, things could of worked out better imho.
On the bridge scene, if you refuse, maybe Carlos and Luke or Nick and Luke scout on ahead and youwatch the scene play out with binoculars. Maybe the guy could of survived a little longer.
But were you GIVEN the option to suddenly leave if you agreed? No.
Her sister was similar to Sarah How? Jane sure talks alot about Jaime yet we know nothing about her. How are they in any way similar except that they are both young girls and are not very strong survivalist? She stated Jaime OVER TIME lost the will to live. Sarah was given what? Half a day. barely any time to cope at all. That is barely giving her a chance. Also last i recalled she was Screaming for her father at the trailer (meaning she did in fact want to live) then BEGGING clementine to save her when the deck crashed on top of her. (meaning she surprise! did in fact want to live) So how is she suddenly similar to Jaime? Also Another point to call out her BS writing: suddenly Clem is too similar to her sister too? How? Clem didn't lose the will to live either.
She taught Clem to survive? I can only recall one that was particularly useful which is Kicking the zombie in the leg to get at its head. (which is still extremely dangerous for a child, i prefer Mike chokeslamming skills tbh). Her raiding zombie corpses has been done before in Episode 1 on her search for dog food and the possible usefulness of a nail file.
Oh yes. There we go: her purpose in the story was to give Clem a nail file that remember: reminds her of Jane's nonexistant vague notion and idea of a sister who she abandoned and was responsible for.
A+++ character writing, Molly was written a thousand times better.
You are an amazingly ignorant creature.
When will you respond to the rest of us, Greg? Notice us too~
just had a look on their FB page,i didn't even know they had one,...Wow them comments.shitstorm indeed,i feel sorry for the fans who are dealing with it with disabilities (Sarah issue) and also for Telltale a little...
i think they are rushing to get this episode 5 out as soon as possible to cap some of the comments off,really though they should just apologise to the people affected Like Greg did even if he backtracked.. It's going too far to have employers of the company acting like this,It makes me think if the same people who came up with the character of Sarah are now totally out of the picture at Telltale? i dunno?
They know, but will they ever actually respond? So far as I've seen, Telltale is awful at interacting with their fans, offering people virtually nothing beyond empty PR fluff endlessly regurgitated on their twitter account. Actually stepping up to the plate and apologizing would be astonishing, unless this whole issue starts to hurt them in a big way..
the posts seem too much to ignore, there everywhere, ive seen posts like fans are not gonna be buying season 3 etc etc, i thought the episode 4 reaction was bad now this...but i don't see this as the fans fault,we just expected to carry on playing the great game.
Well...there is this guy.
I think he works for Telltale still...( he posted story boards and teasers of S1 EP3) Not many people comment but he does respond to them...only on his art posts though.
With everything that's happening lately, it gave me the idea to create this!
Warning! Do not scroll down if you watch Game of Thrones and you haven't seen season 4 episode 10! Also, long post! 
"15 year old hispanic child" - what does her being hispanic have to do with anything? I'm guessing you're going to say he hates hispanic people too?
And you're right, the game had heaps of other problems which is why the score wasn't so great on IGN.
The game's writing is so bad its difficult to take any of the characters' circumstances seriously since episode 3. Why? Because the lack of choice became clear when certain characters die regardless of what you do; for example, Nick dies regardless because he could have died in episode 2.
Which was why he was BARELY in episode 3. And then he dies in episode 4 offscreen without impact or realisation of his character. His screw-ups and being a liability to everyone's safety, and overall story progression is like Ben; he could've died at various times, was not actually helpful at all, and ultimately died to add to Kenny's character. Its because Telltale doesn't want to put resources into developing a character that 50% of people would not see. Which is a shame and is lazy.
And what about the forced moments of tension between Luke and Kenny? And how we have to choose between them? Oh no! So much drama! Its not obvious at all what Telltale is doing! (sarcasm)
Seriously, Luke slept with Jane? Even though he was super responsible and concerned about everyone's safety. Even though he got the crap beat out of him and had a broken rib and couldn't even pull himself or other people up without difficulty. Oh, and Jane was so shallow and unconcerned about safety and survival that she'd just do it with Luke when THEY JUST ESCAPED A ZOMBIE HERD!!! Which is still nearby!!! WTF Telltale??
So yeah, its hard to be angry at Greg when he's being angry at a badly written game and unrealised game character. If Sarah was fully realised, and redeemed herself by becoming stronger and helpful, like Clem did during season 1, then everyone would have loved her. But since we have Clem to look after, as well as other characters we like (Jane and Luke), would we sacrifice them for just her? Seriously, sacrifice Clem, Jane and Luke for Sarah? Hell, even though you do save her from that trailer park, she still dies from the collapsing platform, never getting a chance to grow as a character.
Jane was actually well characterised. Although she's essentially Molly v2.0, she brings up the themes of being the lone survivor in zombie apocalypse. Besides, she had risked her life for her sister's countless times, persuading her, even physically moving her to escape zombie hoards. But her sister never got better, and was not going to get better, and it was going to get them both killed. Why put to waste so much energy and risk your life for someone who essentially ceases the struggle for living for themselves? When its clear they don't want to fight for themselves anymore?
If there was a problem, it would be that Jane's and her sister's story kind of doesn't relate to Sarah's situation. Depending on how disabled Sarah was, then her inability to cope would be due to disability and not her own choice in giving up. Not the same as Jane's sister's situation.
If anything, it is Telltale's fault for such wonky storytelling. And I say wonky because episode 1 of season 2 was great.
I thought the first episode was okay up until you meet the cabin group, and after that it went downhill fast for me. I didn't like any of the characters because of how bad they treated Clementine. They were all either hostile or too cowardly to step up for Clem when she needed help. They were the total opposites of what I liked so much about Lee and Kenny in season one. Season one was about people who shared a common morality of being there for family and taking care of the kids. It was about the only thing Lee and Kenny had in common, but it made them easy to identify with because it's what most people believe. Taking care of the kids was a constant and well written theme throughout season one, and a lot of fans didn't like a seeing a group that acts like they came straight out of Crawford. The writing was bad even for those types of characters anyway. Breckon didn't write dialogue for an 11 year old girl. He wrote dialogue for adults talking to other adults. I don't understand why he decided to make every single character a complete contradiction to those in season one, but regardless It sounds so unnatural it takes all the realism out of the experience.
The adults telling Clem to do dangerous and unnecessary jobs as if she was an adult seemed to be attempting to show they respected her, but it just felt like child abuse to me after playing with the same more realistic view of people that I did in S1. I wanted adults to still acknowledged that she was a kid and treat her like one. I wanted to see Clem learn and mature and as the season played out, but instead we almost immediately get a strange and emotionless Clem who's somehow been traumatized into an unrealistic adult that doesn't develop at all from that point on. I wanted adults who acted more like those in season one, or at least as realistically. Men like Lee and Kenny, not men who tell a preteen kid to do dangerous things, or talk to her like they are going to lean in for a kiss at any moment. Instead of having a women like Katja or Carly in season one you have a woman like Rebecca who treats Clem like trash while warning her to stay away from her husband like she's jealous of her. Then later telling Clem that her baby isn't her husbands.
That kind of writing was so ridiculous and unrealistic it completely killed those first two episodes for me. It's completely inappropriate sounding for adults to talk to her the way they did in those episodes. They didn't seem to do any thinking about how they were going to write the story from Clementine's view prior to starting the season. They just wrote her as an adult who is seen by everyone else as an adult so they could give players information. That's just cheap and lazy in my opinion. I understand it's hard to write for her as a child, but they should have thought about that more before deciding on whether to make her the playable character or not.
The characters and dialogue are what turned me off of the game almost immediately so I never thought much about the story or anything else in the game beyond that. The reason I liked the last two episodes better is solely based on the fact that they changed some of the writing to make characters interact a little more realistically. That made a huge difference to me in being able to have any enjoyment while playing the game. That was such a huge flaw to me personally that it ruined the game to the point I couldn't look past it. Seeing the sudden changes in characters without explanation was okay with me, but I still don't think those episodes are very good. If the characters and interactions between Clem and the adults never bothered you then I can I understand why some players might not like the last two episodes as much as the first two. I know a lot of fans felt the same way I did about this season, but I think most of them stopped playing the game for good after episode one. I don't think all these changes that started with episode three will bring anyone who was turned off by the first couple of episodes back to the game though. My brother and nephew loved the first season but they hated episode one of S2 the same as I did, but unlike me they quit playing for good after that. I still wouldn't recommend for them to start playing again though.
I agree with you about the problems you point out in the last two episodes. They feel rushed and the story doesn't seem to be headed anywhere. It feels like they trashed the original story and rewrote it in the middle of the season with not nearly enough time to create a good story with such short episodes. I liked the last two episodes better based solely on one huge problem I had with the others, but they are a long way from being comparable to any episode in the first season. They are relying on Clem and Kenny because they are popular and well-developed characters from season one, but they aren't written any better than anyone else this season.
I praise Sarah's characterization in S2 Ep 1 and 2 and her and Carlos being hispanic was like an extra bonus. She was not some saucy latina stereotype, she was a bookworm that was both incredibly friendly and curious (as well as neurodivergent) and her father was a respectable doctor (though rather ruthless when it comes to her daughter being threatened. I didn't quite forgive him for throwing us in the shed).
Greg's praise on her death was still a load of crock when he hates on her and wanted her dead when countless other characters were far more of a liability/threat. Also i call BS on Nick's death. Just because he had the option to be killed in Ep 2, doesn't mean he should be a throw away death later on. Even Alvin had more of a productive life (or what's left of it) in Ep 3. Teltale just got lazy. or Petty just got Lazy.
Well, I will agree with you that episode 1 and 2 could have its own improvements. I imagine more Dialogue branches or private conversations with the cabin people would have been better to get to know them BUT i do think Breckon did a good job on his character choice of them being escapees of Carver's camp.
Hear me out:
This essentially is an already established conflict/ history that Clementine has stumbled into. These are fresh faces to Clementine but they already have relationships to each other which adds alot to their characters by giving them 1. Something/someone precious to have and to lose and 2. gives you a good Solid setting that these characters BELIEVABLY were surviving quite well until recently. and 3. You may not found them likeable but their actions have good reason behind them because of this established history.
i.e: Rebecca you disliked and that she didn't like how she didn't want you near Alvin. She may have been horrible to clementine but as a character she was in reasonable distress. They are low on food, they don't know to trust her or if she's associated with Carver, and she has a baby and doesn't want the baby to be born around a stranger they can't trust. Her fear and anger to clementine is justified and she was overprotective of Alvin because she was fully aware that Alvin has a soft spot for kids and is kind of a push over. (which is true, he gives you apple juice and bandages).
By throwing us into characters with history we had the option to discover more about their history. And BECAUSE they weren't like lee and Kenny, (but in fact they did have family and were protective) we're in that position where we're the outsider stuck in a difficult situation where we kind of WANT to be in it. This group may be jerks to us but they are good people and they care about family. (Pete and Nick, Sarah and Carlos, Alvin and Rebecca). Likewise meeting Kenny added that dilemma of: Do you go back to the familiarity of someone who was once part of your ZA FAMILY? Or work with the family you grew to trust you? with pro's and con's on both sides. This recipe was full of great themes.
at the bare base they had the ingredients for a great cast and Episode 3 would have been a GREAT reveal for all of them and what they were really on the run for/and added history. But we barely got that and thus started a downward spiral of potential thrown out the window. Although Episode 3 and 4 was definitely VIOLENT and action packed and fast paced. The delivery of these character's development was thrown Out the window completely. We learned barely anything about Carver and the Cabin group's stay in the base. Nor did we find any of their history beyond carver letting slip for 2 seconds that they escaped and caused a single death.
and Episode 4 decided to throw those characters away completely instead of clear the air and reveal just what they lost and left behind. It seems choppy.
Like I've said before, I got frustrated because people somehow failed to see the faults in the past 2 episodes.
Just look at IGN's episode 4 review; 'cheap deaths' essentially summarizes the main problem with the game. And yet people defend it because "its the zombie apocalypse. People can die anytime, which is why the deaths this episode were justified and realistic". Thats why I got frustrated and how I found this page in the first place.
Funny thing is, I disagree with their episode 3 review. That was also terrible. Especially the cameos from the 200/300 days characters. Chopping Sarita's arm was shocking though.
Maybe its because people fail to remember much of the previous episodes as we have to wait month(s) between episodes; hence failing to see writing inconsistencies and poor character direction.
Thats why I think people are venting their frustrations at the wrong person. I've watched other various playthroughs of the previous episodes, and there are numerous commenters that also thought Sarah was just a liability because she was endangering Clem, and couldn't wait for her to be gone. If anything, its Telltale's fault for not writing her character better, portraying her better and writing a good story to encompass that. Instead, she became a game mechanic, a hurdle where we make decisions that actually don't affect the storyline that much.
I don't know Greg personally, but it just seems like everyone here, including the op, thinks he hates people with disabilities or whom are 'neurodivergent' in real life. I don't think this is the case. I think he's also had cancer, so I don't think he looks down upon people that are sick or disabled.
Then again, what do I know? I'm probably pure evil considering how many downvotes I've gotten and how much Bokor hates me.
Nick was fan favourite? When? He was also barely in episode 3. I guess it was refreshing he wanted to tell red-sweater guy the truth that he killed his lover.
If anything, I thought people loved Kenny(nostalgia with Lee) or Luke(nice to Clementine, helpful guy). Which was why they kept pushing Luke v Kenny the past 3 episodes.
There was a topic which was ''Save Nick'' who got more than 185 likes, where a lot of people were praising their love for Nick
.
[removed]
Just as you take capslock way too serious[ly].
since when? I just read it.
It wasn't as much about disliking the cabin group's actions as it was the way the dialogue and interactions are written basically the same way they would be if Clem was an adult. That's what killed the realism of the characters and ruined the experience for me personally. A lot of the conversations that Clem has with the adults in those episodes sound so unnatural and unrealistic to me that I can't move past them. The game has good voice acting and most of the writing would be decent if Clem was an adult, but since she's not it's cringe inducing for some players. Since none of the characters acted realistically I couldn't identify with them at all. It's not that they are bad people, but because they are badly written to interact with a little kid no differently than they would an adult which isn't how things work. That kind of writing is why people started talking about Luke and Clem having a romantic relationship. It's what makes Rebecca's behavior come off as just weird more than cruel. She talks like she's jealous of Clem stealing her husband, and then tells her about being pregnant by a man other than her husband. That's just bad writing.
There seemed to be a big shift in the game in episode three that made it feel like a completely new person took over the game and rewrote the story. I liked the way the new writers changed the dialogue and interactions between Clem and the adults even though it is far from being perfect, but I did notice they seem to abandon or change parts of the story that you wouldn't think they would have the authority to do without approval of the lead writer. I think they had bigger plans for Carver, but decided to turn him into a one dimensional bad guy so they could just end that story as fast as they could. It made me wonder if that was because they didn't have time to finish the story Breckon created, or if Breckon was pushed aside because of the direction he had taken in the first two episodes. I have a feeling it was a little bit of both. They obviously attempted to fix problems people had with the way the characters interacted with Clementine, but I think they also wanted to push out the episodes faster and needed to change the story to do that.
What do you mean nobody cared? About Nick? My Clementine cared. Luke cared when he learned about it. Initially inside the trailer park, he might have been abrupt but he and everyone inside were dealing with more pressing matters at hand: zombies about to bust through and eat all of them alive. When the trailer park group arrives back at the ruins, Luke takes the time to tell Rebecca and they share their grief. The other characters did not know him all that well to be as emotional, which was understandable. As for Sarah? Again, my Clementine cared. My Clem stuck until the end as her friend. Luke spent hours chasing after her through the woods, and then some more trying to help her out of danger in that vulnerable trailer. And while her death was sudden, the group hardly had the time to mourn because they were still trying to fend off zombies and they also had Rebecca and her baby in their minds. Everyone was tired, cold, hungry, and the group was so fragile and vulnerable that at this point.... Survival, and especially of that baby is all that is on everyone's mind.
Disrespectful? What was so disrespectful about their deaths exactly? That they didn't get a burial? Emotionless? I was devastated to find Nick turned into a zombie and had no choice but to kill him. I was devastated to witness Sarah being eaten alive. I felt powerless, despair, and also more sense of urgency in ensuring the survival of my group.
And if any argument is to be made that the game wants or forces you to hate on poor ol Sarah who is vulnerable and has disabilities, I would say it is totally laughable. I had plenty of choices to make to ensure that I express my sympathy and willingness to help my friend. Jane's existence is just like any other..... Just another character except that she is a controversial character with an opinion that many people may disagree with. It is not uncommon to have such characters like this, and even with her insistence that Sarah is beyond saving, I still had the choice to tell her that I care for my friend, that I won't abandon my group, and that I won't give up on anybody. How satisfying is that?
If Nick and Sarah's deaths were handled in such shameful ways like you keep on insisting, I could, if I wanted to insist on stirring things up, make the same case for the characters I loved that died in which I felt did not get enough love and attention that they rightfully deserved because they were so lovingly crafted and developed: Carley in Season 1 comes into mind. Oh how people did not mourn her deaths enough, how her death was so pointless, and how Lilly, the sole person responsible for that atrocious murder did not get treated with the just punishment that she deserved.... I could practically write an essay on that subject. I don't see you complaining about that. Perhaps... Maybe... Because you didn't feel the way that I did? Should I parade around attacking the writers and anybody who might have felt differently from my perspective disrespectful?
It seems to me that you are just upset that your beloved characters died. You are upset that they didn't get enough love or the attention that you think they deserved. Guess what? It is Telltale's story. There is always someone else writing a story unless you yourself write your own story. Liking the story or not is up to you. But to call the writers shameful and disrespectful is going too far. It is not uncommon to have side characters in a story that some people may have strong feelings for. But this story, just like any others, is about the main character first and foremost. And it is not uncommon to have some characters get more screen time than others. That in no way represents lack of respect.
And no... Sarah is just like anybody else in the game world.... Just another person like everyone else who are trying to survive. Her having disabilities does not make her any more special or deserving of more. The fact that you still refuse to acknowledge that Sarah was a liability to the group says a lot about your mindset. Your argument seems to be wholly based from your infatuation with the fictional character ina video game.
Finally, please do not act as if you speak for the majority. You may have a lot of supporters in this thread, but there are other threads with people that do not share your point of view. Last I checked, this thread has less than 2,000 posts. Considering how many actual real world people bought and played the game, I'd say you are a very vocal extreme minority here acting as if you represent the gaming community. I have seen this way too many times in numerous other video game forums. The patterns have become all too predictable by now.... Accusing the writers, the game developers, and insulting and attacking anyone else who dares to disagree with you.
How dare they kill off your favorite characters and not give them the screen time and the amount of attention that you think they rightfully deserve? How disrespectful of them! You are never going to buy their products again! Telltale better do exactly what you ask them to do or they are doomed to fail! You represent the viewpoints of majority of the actual players and by not having your wishes granted, Telltale is a company that does not listen to the fanbase because you represent that fanbase!
Funnily enough, he did become that in a way. I mean, out of most characters in the second season, Nick is one of the most memorable ones!
I think i found the last revision before it went wrong but i apologise if some bits are still missing as there was a lot of text to read through, i think you are starting to reach the limit on the amount of text in one post which is causing things to delete themselves.
Thank you so much, I'm so grateful! I REALLY appreciate it. I'll go back and check through the post but it looks good I think. Thank you.
Glad i could help
Like i said in my other post it looks like you could be reaching the character limit so you might have to start giving long posts as replies rather than updating your op.
If you ever need to contact a mod again you can send a PM to me, @Blind Sniper, @Vainamoinen or @Jennifer and we should hopefully be able to help.
When I say nobody cared, I don't mean that the fans didn't care. I meant that the writing in the story didn't care. Like I said before, their deaths did not have the proper emotional weight. As you say yourself, there are very few times when anyone in the story is actually bothered that they died. Sarah's first death does have acknowledgment from Jane and Luke, but her second death and both of Nick's deaths are ignored by the cast.
When I say that it was disrespectful, I'm referring to how they were killed off. Killing off Nick and Sarah who were not only previously important but were also considered to be rare and important representation to many people was a disservice both to the fans and to Telltale's own previous writing.
Prior to episode 4, Sarah had been presented with both positives and negatives, but episode 4 presents her as nothing more than a liability. You are meant to abandon her simply because she was "useless". And when she finally dies, not even Clem can acknowledge if Sarah actually meant anything to her or might have been her friend. Her death at best only reflects on Luke and Jane.
I've already explained many times where there's a difference there. The deaths of everyone in season 1 were extremely hard hitting. Their deaths had a purpose to the plot and to the themes, and the characters reacted accordingly. Nick and Sarah's deaths on the other hand show no such thing. At best they can only be seen as referring to themes of futility and hopelessness which were not even built up to in the first place. This isn't a result of conscious storytelling decisions, it's a justification of lazy writing.
it's Telltale's job to make a story purposeful. I wasn't upset when they died. I was taken out of the moment at what bad writing it was. I wasn't sad, I was mad.
Not really sure what you're getting at here. I created the thread to express my honest reaction to the episode. If you're talking about my edit where I talked about Telltale letting down their biggest fans, this is also how I personally feel, and how many others feel as well. The fans who feel this way may or may not be the majority but numbers don't dictate the relevance of an issue.
To my knowledge there isn't the slightest indication that they have incorporated any feedback whatsoever, whether I agreed with it or not. edit: Come to think of it, I can only think of a single case: when Telltale chose to cater to the "lol can't wait to kill Sarah cuz she's useless " crowd. In which case they're just insulting their own writing.
Thanks!
Many characters are flashed out and developed in many stories, and it is not uncommon for them to die a pointless death for stupid reasons. The main argument coming from you seems to be that you wanted an extra dialogue or two between characters acknowledging the deaths in some sort, While I don't disagree that having such extra dialogues could have been better, that by no means makes the writing bad or disrespectful in any way.
Where I do disagree with you is the fact that I, as the player, felt the heartless, cold, brutal, helpless nature of all these deaths and tore me apart to see beloved characters meet their doom for pointless and stupid reasons. After all, the story telling is meant to entertain and touch me, the player, emotionally. I think that is the most important part. So what if there weren't any acknowledgments between the characters? That doesn't change the way I felt about the whole ordeal. And the fact that the story succeeded in moving me emotionally makes the story work for me... a far cry from disservice and disrespect.
Never did I ever feel that the game was forcing me to hate on Sarah and abandon her. I never felt as though I was "meant" to abandon her because she was "useless." Yes, Jane does talk about that quite a lot, but I always had the choice to express my feelings that I would never abandon my friend and my group, and that we all are supposed to look after each other. Every instance where there was a chance, I had the choice to either talk to or show my concerns for her safety. Having to slap Sarah in the trailer park? Heck, I would do anything at that point to get that girl moving because slapping her in the face is better than allowing her to die, which is exactly what is going to happen if I don't do anything. Carrying her is not an option, talking to her is not an option, so what more can you do? Yes, it is terrible that I had to slap her, knowing the trauma that she had incurred back from that rotten place run by Carver.... that makes it all the more agonizing. And in it, the story succeeded in giving me just the level of emotional impact that I was looking for in a game like this.
You see.... Sarah was clearly a liability to the group's survival. The whole trailer park scene proves that. Now, my Clem, would look out for her group and never give up on anyone until the absolute moment where she has absolutely no choice. You do the best you can, but sometimes things don't pan out as we all would like to. And we, as players, were given the choice to follow through on that principle. And the fact that Sarah still died even after all that emotional effort on players' part makes it all the more devastating. And the story succeeds in portraying the hopelessness and despair that this fragile group of people must be feeling for themselves.
The nostalgia of Season 1 may have an effect on your analysis between the two seasons, but in my opinion, the character deaths in Season 1 was not that much better handled than Season 2. If anything, Nick and Sarah's deaths also had the purpose, and it was hard hitting for me, the player, the person that matters most. And not all deaths in Season 1 had the level of character reaction and acknowledgment that you think were so much better. Personally, if I had to nitpick on that issue, I am sure I could come up with many names.... including my beloved Carly. But I don't want to get into that.
I do acknowledge and agree however, in your assessment that the numbers don't dictate the relevance of any issues. Even the voices of a minority group is just as important as the vast majority. History has taught us that, I believe.
Finally, let me quote a couple of posts in other threads that I'd like to share:
First from DomeWing333:
And another one from Fredward:
Oh lol, ok. I ad no idea about that.
I actually went down both choices to save nick and his uncle's route. It was ok...I guess.
In the past 4 episodes, I don't think he did anything that made me love or like him that much. I felt responsible for his safety, given what his uncle asked of Clem and because of his drunk confession. But besides that, what did he do besides killing that guy's boyfriend and feeling guilty and confess? I didn't even feel that bad when I saw him refuse to save Nick; it was kind of justified.
What about save red-sweater guy? I always thought he was really cool, considering he saved Nick in the route I'm running.
This is not real life. People in real life often die with no conclusion or purpose. Characters in a story do not. The writers consciously chose -whether by oversight or intentionally- to not give Sarah's death the gravity it deserved. If this is supposed to be some way of making us feel frustrated and the futility of life, it's the wrong way to do it. It's not effective. It's lazy and unsatisfying.
I don't recall a single dialogue option showing actual regret for the loss of Sarah as a person. The only time anyone talks about it afterwards with Jane and Luke, who were like "I feel bad because her death says something about me". No one mourns her death as an actual person. No one expresses the unfairness or the brutality of it, the fact that they lost an innocent life.
Copypasting (Sarah's first death):
Afterward, Luke says "I didn't think you'd leave her." Clem's answers are "we didnt have a choice", "you left her too", or "what was I supposed to do". There is no option or dialogue about the fact that Sarah was her FRIEND, or that she is SAD that she died. "What was I supposed to do", the most emotional reply, is an expression of frustration, not sadness.
Then Jane starts in with her speech about her sister, and how neither of them could make it in this world. Luke then agrees, "I guess there was nothing we could do."
Clem's responses to this idea are iirc "Sarah wasn't Jaime", "I thought I could trust you," or "would you leave me behind?". Again, this makes the issue all about JANE.
Not only is Sarah obviously NOT the same as Jaime, this is the last that anyone has to say about Sarah's first death.
As for Sarah's second death, it's more or less the same. After she dies, no one reacts or cares, the only thing said about is Clem who has the dialogue options: "I know you tried," "It was hopeless", or "You didn't try hard enough."
Again, this makes it all about Jane.
No one ever expresses that it was sad that SARAH died. Sarah was built up to be so much more, but in the end they turned her into a weak device to expand on Jane's issues, and even that purpose was completely wasted when Jane walks away with no consequence.
In other cases that may be a valid explanation. But throughout my argument I have been careful to avoid comparisons between the seasons if I can, unaffected by how much better/worse the writing is in comparison to the two.
But the fact is, one does not excuse the other. If season 1 deaths weren't impactful enough, that is not an excuse for this season's deaths to also be weak. If anything, Telltale should have learned from their mistakes and made the deaths this season more effective, not less.
I have been going through this argument over and over and over. And every time I do, I am arguing with those who by their own admission, either actively hated Sarah and wanted her gone, or thought that she was useless and should have been left behind.
I think it really says alot about the situation here. I have honestly not seen a single Telltale apologist who liked or was neutral toward Sarah defending the writing this episode. Everyone who liked Sarah and many who were neutral on her agree that the writing was lazy and unemotional. The only people who insist that her death was effective are either neutral or on Greg's "lol kill Sarah" bandwagon, poking fun at her "uselessness" or calling for her death.
Didn't Trout say that he cared for and tried to save Sarah repeatedly? I may disagree with most of what he said, but he seems to have actually appreciated the character and find her death(s) meaningful. So did, like two other people, but yeah most of those defending Telltale seemed to care little for her character.
By the way, while I still disagree with you Trout (a lot) I do think those two quotes made your position easier to understand, even if I disagree with them both somewhat.
That was a great read, and I have to agree.
Personally I wanted my Clem to be a selfish, ruthless, badass from the very start, which kind of happened, so I guess I didn't pay attention to the lack of emotion over peoples deaths, as I was roleplaying as an evil Clem. I was more disappointed I couldn't fully side with Carver and screw the rest of the group. But even then I noticed lots of inconsistencies.
OP (TT247) I like your analysis and writing, is there somewhere where I can find more of your work? If you don't do some kind of writing or journalism for a living, you should. I'd love to see quality articles like this from gaming sites, as this is far above what I've seen on most major gaming journalism sites.
I think that kind of depends on which death, cause Sarah's first death in the trailer park does kind of have some meaning behind it, as it's sort of an arc where Sarah couldn't cope with the apocalypse, the biggest issue is that once you have a choice to save her, her character arc has the potential going somewhere interesting, but that gets cut short by a rather poor and unsatisfying death which didn't really feel like a proper send off, unlike Ben's arc which worked BOTH ways if you killed him or saved him.
I am gonna make this reply as short as possible.
While I do disagree with your position that the writing was so lazy and terrible, I do acknowledge that the writing/story would have been better and more emotionally touching had the writers chosen to include the acknowledgments and conversations between characters about Sarah and Nick's deaths. It is obvious to me and probably to you, that it didn't take much to satisfy me, and you obviously needed something more... which is understandable.
Your initial title of the thread with the words "Shame on you" came off as another rant thread initially, but at least you take your time to think things through and explain your positions thoroughly in a well organized manner, which is very hard to come by. For that, I applaud you for your dedication and enthusiasm in such a wonderful game as this. I do recommend though, that perhaps instead of "Shame on you," it could have been titled a bit differently as to not throw off people into making up their minds about what you have to say even before reading them.
But perhaps.... You may get what you wish for in the season finale... It may just tie up all the loose ends.
Thank you for your feedback and acknowledgment. Where I disagree with the OP is his opinion on whether the writing was lazily and badly written, but I do think that the elements that he is looking for would definitely have made the game's story much more emotional impact.
As for Sarah....
There is a difference, in my opinion, of being "useless" and being a "liability." No human beings are useless. That would be too cruel and that is completely against my principles. Some people seem to think that these two words mean one and the same. I don't think they are. Sarah was a liability because she couldn't help or contribute in any sort of ways when it comes to basic survival of the group.... In fact, she did put other people in danger of deaths because of her condition. But does that make her useless? No... Because no matter who you are and what you can or cannot do, no human being is ever useless. Life is precious and should be respected.... That's my stance anyway.
Yeah I originally titled the thread Shame on You after my initial reaction to the episode. I changed it later thinking that was a bit harsh but the Playing Dead interview convinced me to change it back. Telltale's response to this situation is not helping, they're ignoring all criticism and acting like they're the best and they listen to their fans blahblahblahblah while they just continue to completely ignore feedback. I mean I can hardly expect them to come out and apologize or whatever but they could at least acknowledge what's going on. They really can't do this whole "the fan feedback counts" if they ignore us like this.
& about the finale, I'm afraid there really is "no going back" for me at this point. Even if it's excellent, they still threw away all their potential in the writing before that, there's really no way to fix that now. And it really turns me off from feeling excited for the finale at all.
Well anyway thanks for reading.
WHOAA thank you!!
To answer your question I don't do any formal writing no.. I do have stuff on my tumblr occasionally.. If you want you can pm me for the url? My stuff on there is usually alot less formal and more ranting/personal tho lol!
That interview was another typical scenario of Greg Miller being as annoying as he has ever been. I did not take it seriously, but that's another whole other topic.
Did you buy the Season Pass? If you did, then you might as well see this through to the end.
I just went on their facebook page and there is indeed a shitstorm right there. And they don't even take the time to answer something back...
I just went on their facebook page and there is indeed a shitstorm right there. And they don't even take the time to answer something back...