I wasn't looking for a sudden drastic change. Maybe something as little as an "I'll do better" or "I'll try" or even just "Thank you." Something to tell me that there's some small amount of fight in her and that what happened in that trailer won't happen again. I didn't see that. Maybe there were cues I just didn't pick up.
Based on the stats alone, it actually seems like they made it a more viable 50/50 choice this time around, compared to the Ben case. Playing through the episode, I never felt that I should have just let Sarah die in that trailer or that that would have been the "right" choice. Jane seems to think so, but Luke straight up tells you that you did the right thing. It's the same as Kenny patting you on the back for dropping Ben and Clem being sad about it.
So what? You think you can just say "be strong" and all of a sudden all of her mental problems are suddenly gone? That's not how it works. B… moreut she was showing signs of improvement. She was slowly beginning to respond to clem. But it takes a lot of time. I have atypical autism and although I don't think sarah is autistic, I do know what it's like to deal with severe anxiety, panic attacks and social disorders. Over the past 2 years I have gone from wanting to hide away from everything and kill myself to actually being able to go to a store and buy something and not hate being out around people. Although I still find it hard to enter new stores I haven't visited before and I still can't hold any kind of conversation with anyone, I consider this a significant improvement. However, a casual "normal" onlooker would probably think I hadn't changed. Just because she's still scared doesn't mean she isn't responding or improving.
But they're just n… [view original content]
I wasn't looking for a sudden drastic change. Maybe something as little as an "I'll do better" or "I'll try" or even just "Thank you." Somet… morehing to tell me that there's some small amount of fight in her and that what happened in that trailer won't happen again. I didn't see that. Maybe there were cues I just didn't pick up.
Based on the stats alone, it actually seems like they made it a more viable 50/50 choice this time around, compared to the Ben case. Playing through the episode, I never felt that I should have just let Sarah die in that trailer or that that would have been the "right" choice. Jane seems to think so, but Luke straight up tells you that you did the right thing. It's the same as Kenny patting you on the back for dropping Ben and Clem being sad about it.
Well, my point is that I never saw any suggestion from the game that my choice to save Sarah was "wrong," only that it was futile. Which is an important difference. The game, through Luke and through the symbolism of the statue, tells you that saving Sarah is the right choice. But Sarah's (in my view) lack of response to Clem's efforts to help her and her lack of a "moment of agency," as skoothz puts it, tells us that our efforts were in vain.
The game doesn't "reward" you with the fruits of your labor because, in reality, it would be unclear if your efforts to save Sarah would have ever allowed her to recover from her trauma. I personally came to the conclusion that it probably wouldn't, at least not in that world where even the strong and capable might only live a few months to a couple years. But that doesn't make me regret saving Sarah. Does it really make you regret it?
The choice initially was 50/50, yes but then the aftermath of it said "fuck you you picked wrong". That's the point.
I saw the fight in h… moreer several times. Sorry she didn't react in the specific way you wanted her to. Doesn't mean she wasn't changing.
I think we're both off topic since this doesn't have much to do with the OP. It's not saying that her manner of death is supposed to make you hate her. I was just taking issue with your use of ben as an analogous situation, writing wise, because it's just not. The OP thinks there are indications that you're supposed to hate sarah and think like crawford. If you don't then fine, but the thing comparing it to ben doesn't really work because the writing is totally different. One says to me "fuck you you made the wrong choice what are you doing" and the other says "you made this choice and these are the results".
It doesn't make me regret saving sarah per se, but it does make me regret playing to some degree, so in a way it does.
Well, my point is that I never saw any suggestion from the game that my choice to save Sarah was "wrong," only that it was futile. Which is … morean important difference. The game, through Luke and through the symbolism of the statue, tells you that saving Sarah is the right choice. But Sarah's (in my view) lack of response to Clem's efforts to help her and her lack of a "moment of agency," as skoothz puts it, tells us that our efforts were in vain.
The game doesn't "reward" you with the fruits of your labor because, in reality, it would be unclear if your efforts to save Sarah would have ever allowed her to recover from her trauma. I personally came to the conclusion that it probably wouldn't, at least not in that world where even the strong and capable might only live a few months to a couple years. But that doesn't make me regret saving Sarah. Does it really make you regret it?
Molly would have been disgusted by Jane if she heard what she did to her sister.
Molly fought tooth and nail to protect her disabled sister and keep her alive. Jane gave up on hers.
I IMPLORE people arguing with me to find that kind of meaning in Sarah and Nick's death. Like, seriously. I'm begging you to enlighten me here. Tell me the actual literary value behind it. Tell me what their stories are meant to be.
The only thing i could come up with that made sense to me, was they were created to leave the player (Clementine) feeling more jaded. As uncle Pete said. "Sometimes you have to play a role, even if the people you love, hate you for it." Sarah and Nick imo were created to play that role of the not savable survivor, you get close to that character, and no matter what you do you cannot save them. Maybe this is to explain Clementine's personality change in the future, if she survives Season 3.
Honestly, the moment you use the word "liability" is the moment I stop taking your argument remotely seriously. This forum and TWDG fans in … moregeneral grossly abuse that word to a ridiculous degree.
It would be nice to find someone who actually wants to defend their deaths to me and come up with genuine literary value to them instead of just telling me "Sarah and Nick had to die because they were burdens."
Like... Kenny's "death" with Ben? The meaning there was that he came full circle. He went through an arc where he lost his family, the most important thing to him, and hated this kid for it, but then accepted his role as a paternal figure and cared for him in the moments before his death. That illustrates Kenny's role as a father from the beginning to the end.
I IMPLORE people arguing with me to find that kind of meaning in Sarah and Nick's death. Like, seriously. I'm begging you to enlighten me here. Tell me the actual literary value behind it. Tell me what their stories are meant to be.
All I can say is thank god nick breckon is writing the finale. Episode 2 was probably the best episode so far this season, and with him writing the finale, this may turn out to be a decent climax for the season
I doubt Telltale wanted us to hate Sarah and Nick, initially. Writer, Nick Breckon, wrote the first two episodes of Season 2 and brought lif… moree to the characters. By Episode 4, there were different writers who obviously didn't share Nick's vision and killed them off. Jane's attitude in Episode 4 towards them was literally the new writers trying to manipulate players into not caring about them either. That was just wrong.
I don't think it's about Telltale getting lazy, it's about Telltale getting greedy and developing multiple games at once.At this very moment they are working on (at least) 3 games (The Walking Dead,Tales From The Borderlands,Game of Thrones) so they are forced to botch their games which is evident from the decreasing duration of their episodes ('Cry Wolf' only lasted for 65-70 minutes ffs and TWD has suffered from this too) and the facts skoothz mentioned. I'm afraid Telltale will end up biting off more than they can chew.
Question for you: If I was a gay man would I be compelled to buy any video game/movie that has presented its game developers and itself to me by reviews as openly homophobic and claiming that I should die for my sexual orientation?
If I was a racialized person, would I be compelled to buy any video game/movie that has presented its game developers and itself to me by reviews as openly racist and claiming that I should die for my race?
If your answer to either of these is no, think about what you're asking of this poster in your post.
I agree that they've been mishandled but to read spoilers for S2 and let other's opinions influence you to not rent or purchase it yourself … moreseems foolish. So many things I absolutely love have had bad reviews, you could rent this and see the good points instead of simply writing the entire game as bad and not worth purchasing. Like people say it's better than most games around
Hmmm... Better than your statement about how you are going to ignore someone's comments for stating a fact that you stubbornly refuse to admit. I just pointed out that it is useless to try to engage in a meaningful conversation with someone like that.
And quite frankly, I am not yelling at you and have no need to. I like the game and the story. You are the one stirring up the pot here with all your claims about how TTG is forcing us to hate the very characters that they themselves created. And any sort of disagreement has been met with nothing but denial and hostility from you. Way to go.
Lot of people who choose not to post in yet another Sarah/Nick thread is quite fed up and tired with this. There have been many good posts pointing out your obvious flaws to your arguments. But of course, I have confidence in you that you won't even bother reading them, let alone acknowledge or agree with any of them.
Good luck with your "crusade".... I am sure it will all be forgotten very soon just like all the other previous ones have been.
"I don't know how to find literary value in their deaths so I'm just going to yell at you for not listening to my initial contrived argument that countless people have been posting here and over and over again."
I don't care if she is a burden or not. I liked her and I hated it when she had to die. But that does not mean I think the writers wanted us to hate her. Hey I am not the one complaining about the game here.
And I like the story. Maybe you didn't... Happens with all games out there. Cheers.
Oh yes of course! She needed a friend.... My Clem needed a friend or two or more.... And they were indeed friends and cared for each other. Absolutely no question about it.
Ok so this has probably been pointed out before, but I just noticed:
okay yeah the deck hits the ground before Sarah so she should land on top of it, cool cool
Um, what? I guess Telltale wanted to get rid of Sarah so badly that they had debris magically appear on top of her. Wow, this whole scenario just gets more and more stupid.
I've been reading every single post on here and pretty much all of the arguments are the same exact thing. Like I said before, I'm waiting for someone to find some actual literary meaning. At least CrazyGeorge tried to below. You just got mad because I didn't want to listen to yet another person babbling about liabilities and burdens. I'm ignoring it because I've responded to the same exact argument multiple times in the same thread and it's just exhausting at this point.
Am I stirring the pot? I take that as a compliment. I want young people to think critically and question media. I'm glad I'm prompting that. I like the game and the story too but that doesn't mean it's not flawed. It's important to address and discuss those flaws to be an active consumer.
If you want to think this is a "crusade", then so be it. These were characters I love dearly and related to a lot and found some heavily problematic implications in their deaths. So I put that here to discuss. And people agreed with me. I don't see how that's me trying to act like a "crusader."
And buddy, if you think I'm being hostile here, well... wow. In that case, your experience on the internet's been pretty damn pleasant so far.
Hmmm... Better than your statement about how you are going to ignore someone's comments for stating a fact that you stubbornly refuse to adm… moreit. I just pointed out that it is useless to try to engage in a meaningful conversation with someone like that.
And quite frankly, I am not yelling at you and have no need to. I like the game and the story. You are the one stirring up the pot here with all your claims about how TTG is forcing us to hate the very characters that they themselves created. And any sort of disagreement has been met with nothing but denial and hostility from you. Way to go.
Lot of people who choose not to post in yet another Sarah/Nick thread is quite fed up and tired with this. There have been many good posts pointing out your obvious flaws to your arguments. But of course, I have confidence in you that you won't even bother reading them, let alone acknowledge or agree with any of them.
Good luck with your "cru… [view original content]
And the very fact she was out there with them makes no sense the begin with. She would have gone into the gift shop with Kenny and Rebecca and stayed out of the line of fire.
If they wanted her to die so badly why not just kill her off in the shootout at the end? Like... they couldn't even bring themselves to let her last the rest of the episode. They had to kill her off in a way that was contrived and made no sense, and they had to make her death all about Jane all throughout. In fact, both of her deaths revolved around Jane.
Ok so this has probably been pointed out before, but I just noticed:
okay yeah the deck hits the ground before Sarah so she should land… more on top of it, cool cool
Um, what? I guess Telltale wanted to get rid of Sarah so badly that they had debris magically appear on top of her. Wow, this whole scenario just gets more and more stupid.
You accuse others that did not like Sarah and Nick as if they have no respect, but then turn around and show no respect yourself. Really? Any comments that you disagree or fail to acknowledge as the truth is "some babbling" now? How typical of you. See where I am taking this to? Think too dramatic much? Maybe you should take a good look at yourself in the mirror.
What actual literary meaning? That you are trying to relate a death of a video game character to real life? That anyone who even dares to not like someone should be labeled as haters?
Babbling about liability? Have you ever thought that being a liability in a setting like TWD can be a justification for some people to abandon Sarah, in the context of a video game? Does that me they are all haters and be damned for it? Oh wait, you vehemently refuse to acknowledge that she was a liability. Because admitting it weakens your whole flawed logic.
Oh I know the game isn't perfect. It always has room for improvement. And I like the story and the characters. But to me, it seems your agenda isn't necessarily about improving the game. All you are doing is labeling other people as haters just because you want to take the contexts of a video game into a real world situation while stubbornly refusing to acknowledge anything contrary to your limited and biased point of view.
I've been reading every single post on here and pretty much all of the arguments are the same exact thing. Like I said before, I'm waiting f… moreor someone to find some actual literary meaning. At least CrazyGeorge tried to below. You just got mad because I didn't want to listen to yet another person babbling about liabilities and burdens. I'm ignoring it because I've responded to the same exact argument multiple times in the same thread and it's just exhausting at this point.
Am I stirring the pot? I take that as a compliment. I want young people to think critically and question media. I'm glad I'm prompting that. I like the game and the story too but that doesn't mean it's not flawed. It's important to address and discuss those flaws to be an active consumer.
If you want to think this is a "crusade", then so be it. These were characters I love dearly and related to a lot and found some heavily problematic implications in their deaths. So I… [view original content]
But that isn't what Telltale do. You're taking it too far. I've had depression though not as bad and I have anxiety, I see lots of myself in Nick and Sarah and I'm disappointed in what Telltale did but I doubt it's a message that people like that can't manage in TWD Game. They've made lots of mistakes in S2 like handling all determinant, not just those two, you can hardly say they have an anti message, they've used lots of both genders and more than one race and sexual orientation. S2 isn't as good as S1 in many aspects imo but this is not because it has an agenda or or acts as though certain people are a burden
Question for you: If I was a gay man would I be compelled to buy any video game/movie that has presented its game developers and itself to m… moree by reviews as openly homophobic and claiming that I should die for my sexual orientation?
If I was a racialized person, would I be compelled to buy any video game/movie that has presented its game developers and itself to me by reviews as openly racist and claiming that I should die for my race?
If your answer to either of these is no, think about what you're asking of this poster in your post.
And the very fact she was out there with them makes no sense the begin with. She would have gone into the gift shop with Kenny and Rebecca a… morend stayed out of the line of fire.
If they wanted her to die so badly why not just kill her off in the shootout at the end? Like... they couldn't even bring themselves to let her last the rest of the episode. They had to kill her off in a way that was contrived and made no sense, and they had to make her death all about Jane all throughout. In fact, both of her deaths revolved around Jane.
Considering Nick didn't die as a result of his depression and Sarah only dies as a result of her anxiety if you choose to leave her behind I don't think it was telltales intention to entice hatred. And even if they did die as a direct result of their disorders I do not think the point telltale was trying to make is that they deserve to die simply because of their disorders but rather that they would have a harder time surviving if they couldn't overcome them. Besides they did survive for about two years so they outlasted a lot of strong capable characters. Furthermore I think Sarah second death was pretty good in that it reinforced what Jane said about her not being saved. In the end it was entirely up to the player whether these characters were to be killed because of them being a liability or whether you would try to save them.
Question for you: If I was a gay man would I be compelled to buy any video game/movie that has presented its game developers and itself to m… moree by reviews as openly homophobic and claiming that I should die for my sexual orientation?
If I was a racialized person, would I be compelled to buy any video game/movie that has presented its game developers and itself to me by reviews as openly racist and claiming that I should die for my race?
If your answer to either of these is no, think about what you're asking of this poster in your post.
Part of it was trying to represent the theme of the episode. You can try and save Sarah meaning you don't leave her behind which gets an 'At least you tried to save her. That's what counts.' Or you can leave her behind.
Part of it was trying to represent the theme of the episode. You can try and save Sarah meaning you don't leave her behind which gets an 'At least you tried to save her. That's what counts.' Or you can leave her behind.
For a lot of us, that's simply not good enough. We already know that you can't save everyone. The "at least you tried" thing was done with Shawn, Irene and Ben in season 1. I don't think it needed to happen again.
Part of it was trying to represent the theme of the episode. You can try and save Sarah meaning you don't leave her behind which gets an 'At least you tried to save her. That's what counts.' Or you can leave her behind.
You accuse others that did not like Sarah and Nick as if they have no respect
Not true. I don't mind if people don't like them. But if they don't like them because "Oh they were dangerous liabilities they dragged the group down" and they come into spaces where people are discussing the characters in a positive manner and try to stir their hate into the mix, then I'm not interested in tolerating that. And there are a LOT of people like that. But there are also a lot of people who dislike them but respect those who are fans and don't say hurtful things. Those people are fine in my book.
Any comments that you disagree or fail to acknowledge as the truth is "some babbling" now?
It's babbling when you're all echoing each other to a point where you have no idea what you're talking about. How many people on this forum actually knew what the word "liability" meant and used it in their day-to-day language before they started talking about Ben, Sarah, and Nick?
Oh wait, you vehemently refuse to acknowledge that she was a liability.
Whether or not someone is a "liability" is subjective. Not fact. She was to you. Not to me. The implication behind making a disabled character nothing but a "liability" who never gets the chance to redeem themselves is problematic writing.
All you are doing is labeling other people as haters just because you want to take the contexts of a video game into a real world situation while stubbornly refusing to acknowledge anything contrary to your limited and biased point of view.
Never labeled anyone a "hater." Just used a rather goading title to point out that Telltale's canon leaned towards us abandoning Sarah and Nick rather than saving them. And, uh... honestly, if I refused to acknowledged other people's viewpoints, then why am I even humoring this discussion? Clearly you disagree with me. And I'm acknowledging you. I just refuse to bother responding to your weak argument because I've responded to the same exact argument in this thread and other thread multiple times. Surprisingly enough I do have a life and I'm not interested in taking time out of it to retype the same thing over and over again.
You accuse others that did not like Sarah and Nick as if they have no respect, but then turn around and show no respect yourself. Really? A… moreny comments that you disagree or fail to acknowledge as the truth is "some babbling" now? How typical of you. See where I am taking this to? Think too dramatic much? Maybe you should take a good look at yourself in the mirror.
What actual literary meaning? That you are trying to relate a death of a video game character to real life? That anyone who even dares to not like someone should be labeled as haters?
Babbling about liability? Have you ever thought that being a liability in a setting like TWD can be a justification for some people to abandon Sarah, in the context of a video game? Does that me they are all haters and be damned for it? Oh wait, you vehemently refuse to acknowledge that she was a liability. Because admitting it weakens your whole flawed logic.
Oh I know the game isn'… [view original content]
Part of the debris fell apart on top of her after she fell?
Or shoddy cinematic work from Telltale. They obviously wanted a scene where she ended up under debris, and the cinematics/whatever job just didn't do that good of a job.
Jane wasn't implying that Rebecca should abort the baby. She might have been suggesting that Rebecca should abandon it, but I'm not sure she… more actually meant to say even that. I think she meant exactly what she asked: "What are you going to do with it?"
At that point, it was just Rebecca and Clem and there was no guarantee that any of the other group members made it out. So the "worst case scenario," as she put it, was a weakened mother and a little girl having to care for a newborn child by themselves. It was an analytical statement identifying "the problem" as she saw it, not a suggestion of how to solve it.
I personally didn't read the OP as claiming people with disabilities are more deserving than non disabled people. It's just that, even in our world today, people with disabilities have to deal with life, but life through the cracked and distorted lens of their disability (obviously I'm generalizing "disabilities" for the sake of brevity, but the point remains valid to the degree of disability).
The disabilities don't make the person inherently "better" or "more deserving" than others. It gives the disabled the potential to be personally stronger or more tough because they have to deal with more. In exercising, someone isn't better or worse as a person for doing more or doing less than others. They can just reap the benefits according to what they perform.
OP's statements seem to be based on irrational and overly emotional way of thinking. Sarah and Nick were just like everyone else in this st… moreory.... People who are trying to survive. Disabilities or not, they are just that.... people. Having disabilities does not make them any more deserving than other people. At no point did It ever cross my mind that this game was actively trying to force me to dislike anybody because they have disabilities. Are you kidding me?
Given the circumstances in which the characters' lives were in immediate danger, the fact that a newborn and her mother's safety were of an utmost importance and the general hardship that everyone was suffering through, I'd say that the deaths were handled quite well.
Existence of characters that bring conflicts in a story is nothing new.... someone like Jane. Jane's statements and overall notion about the survival of the fittest is the way this game presented conflict. Fr… [view original content]
True. Considering how she fell and landed, I just always assumed she'd broken her leg or at the least sprained her ankle. Kind of makes the debris feel superfluous at that point.
Part of the debris fell apart on top of her after she fell?
Or shoddy cinematic work from Telltale. They obviously wanted a scene where she ended up under debris, and the cinematics/whatever job just didn't do that good of a job.
The contrast between them is even more evident in how they left. In Molly's case, it's clear that she only left because she thought it would be best for the group. She knew by then that the boat couldn't hold everyone, and that she had the best chance of surviving alone out of everyone in the group. Meanwhile, Jane's reasons for leaving were entirely selfish. There were people who needed her help, a freaking baby who needed protecting, but she left because she didn't want to see Clem die. I understand that she's afraid of losing people she cares about, but it was still cowardly of her. If Jane had truly cared about Clem, she would've stayed with her to support her and make sure that her luck didn't run out in the first place.
For the people who consider Jane as a Molly copy and paste.
Molly was actually a person with humanity, she was a lone wolf, but was also so… moremeone who cared about others.
Molly, even if you beat her down, saved Clementine and Kenny, and was going to save Lee, if Kenny hadn't dropped him.
If Jane was there?
Jane would've killed Lee, left Kenny wounded and let Clementine cry as the horde surrounded them, and escaped by herself in the Alley.
Jane and Molly are two different characters.
I agree. SARITA, CARLOS, REBECCA, NICK AND SARAH DESERVES SO FREAKING MORE.
They had no right to do something good, for which they will receive authority.
Ben had a lot of chances to do it, but he lost them. And with him the same thing that Nick and Sara.
She was a girl Kenny, she just goes and dies. So it is impossible. Her death was not logical. Of course, if someone loyal fans wrote the script, or at least changed the scenario, there would be almost all survived.
Nick
He was not so bad. He became one of my favorite characters after his death. His death was so, so stupid and pointless , it makes want to cry. Luke quickly "cured" from the loss of nick, in that moment when Rebecca did not care about him. And so, it was clear that nobody treasured Nickname.
Here is my conversation with a friend after we played in this Episode.
My friend "...yeah, and I ate at the time when they killed nick. Disgusting.
I " And I did eat too."
My friend: "What?"
I: "My tears".
Carlos
IT JUST SHOT! He didn't even have their 15 minutes, wherever he was all attention. He was a doctor, is not quite a bad father, although he did not understand that he is not doing right with Sarah.
Sarah
Sarah bore a strong and didn't like me, but when I uvideo her death - simply horror. I was hard, and I could not believe that she died.
Rebecca.
What crap is this? Her death... So sudden. She began to treat the Clementine well. and gave birth to a child who will not remember it.
Comments
I wasn't looking for a sudden drastic change. Maybe something as little as an "I'll do better" or "I'll try" or even just "Thank you." Something to tell me that there's some small amount of fight in her and that what happened in that trailer won't happen again. I didn't see that. Maybe there were cues I just didn't pick up.
Based on the stats alone, it actually seems like they made it a more viable 50/50 choice this time around, compared to the Ben case. Playing through the episode, I never felt that I should have just let Sarah die in that trailer or that that would have been the "right" choice. Jane seems to think so, but Luke straight up tells you that you did the right thing. It's the same as Kenny patting you on the back for dropping Ben and Clem being sad about it.
[removed]
The choice initially was 50/50, yes but then the aftermath of it said "fuck you you picked wrong". That's the point.
I saw the fight in her several times. Sorry she didn't react in the specific way you wanted her to. Doesn't mean she wasn't changing.
Well, my point is that I never saw any suggestion from the game that my choice to save Sarah was "wrong," only that it was futile. Which is an important difference. The game, through Luke and through the symbolism of the statue, tells you that saving Sarah is the right choice. But Sarah's (in my view) lack of response to Clem's efforts to help her and her lack of a "moment of agency," as skoothz puts it, tells us that our efforts were in vain.
The game doesn't "reward" you with the fruits of your labor because, in reality, it would be unclear if your efforts to save Sarah would have ever allowed her to recover from her trauma. I personally came to the conclusion that it probably wouldn't, at least not in that world where even the strong and capable might only live a few months to a couple years. But that doesn't make me regret saving Sarah. Does it really make you regret it?
"smoothz"
I think we're both off topic since this doesn't have much to do with the OP. It's not saying that her manner of death is supposed to make you hate her. I was just taking issue with your use of ben as an analogous situation, writing wise, because it's just not. The OP thinks there are indications that you're supposed to hate sarah and think like crawford. If you don't then fine, but the thing comparing it to ben doesn't really work because the writing is totally different. One says to me "fuck you you made the wrong choice what are you doing" and the other says "you made this choice and these are the results".
It doesn't make me regret saving sarah per se, but it does make me regret playing to some degree, so in a way it does.
I don't think it was that simple, she wanted to save her sister, but couldn't. I am sure the guilt is killing her inside.
I never thought of her as burden, just a lost girl who needed a friend.
The only thing i could come up with that made sense to me, was they were created to leave the player (Clementine) feeling more jaded. As uncle Pete said. "Sometimes you have to play a role, even if the people you love, hate you for it." Sarah and Nick imo were created to play that role of the not savable survivor, you get close to that character, and no matter what you do you cannot save them. Maybe this is to explain Clementine's personality change in the future, if she survives Season 3.
Sugar fought?its a real thing...I think...
"In Season 1, we were meant to sympathize with Molly, and to hate Crawford.
In Season 2, we're meant to become Crawford."
This hit me pretty hard.
All I can say is thank god nick breckon is writing the finale. Episode 2 was probably the best episode so far this season, and with him writing the finale, this may turn out to be a decent climax for the season
Just wanted to thank you for this thread, skoothz. It was a pleasure to read your post.
I don't think it's about Telltale getting lazy, it's about Telltale getting greedy and developing multiple games at once.At this very moment they are working on (at least) 3 games (The Walking Dead,Tales From The Borderlands,Game of Thrones) so they are forced to botch their games which is evident from the decreasing duration of their episodes ('Cry Wolf' only lasted for 65-70 minutes ffs and TWD has suffered from this too) and the facts skoothz mentioned. I'm afraid Telltale will end up biting off more than they can chew.
Question for you: If I was a gay man would I be compelled to buy any video game/movie that has presented its game developers and itself to me by reviews as openly homophobic and claiming that I should die for my sexual orientation?
If I was a racialized person, would I be compelled to buy any video game/movie that has presented its game developers and itself to me by reviews as openly racist and claiming that I should die for my race?
If your answer to either of these is no, think about what you're asking of this poster in your post.
Hmmm... Better than your statement about how you are going to ignore someone's comments for stating a fact that you stubbornly refuse to admit. I just pointed out that it is useless to try to engage in a meaningful conversation with someone like that.
And quite frankly, I am not yelling at you and have no need to. I like the game and the story. You are the one stirring up the pot here with all your claims about how TTG is forcing us to hate the very characters that they themselves created. And any sort of disagreement has been met with nothing but denial and hostility from you. Way to go.
Lot of people who choose not to post in yet another Sarah/Nick thread is quite fed up and tired with this. There have been many good posts pointing out your obvious flaws to your arguments. But of course, I have confidence in you that you won't even bother reading them, let alone acknowledge or agree with any of them.
Good luck with your "crusade".... I am sure it will all be forgotten very soon just like all the other previous ones have been.
I don't care if she is a burden or not. I liked her and I hated it when she had to die. But that does not mean I think the writers wanted us to hate her. Hey I am not the one complaining about the game here.
And I like the story. Maybe you didn't... Happens with all games out there. Cheers.
Oh yes of course! She needed a friend.... My Clem needed a friend or two or more.... And they were indeed friends and cared for each other. Absolutely no question about it.
Ok so this has probably been pointed out before, but I just noticed:
okay yeah the deck hits the ground before Sarah so she should land on top of it, cool cool
Um, what? I guess Telltale wanted to get rid of Sarah so badly that they had debris magically appear on top of her. Wow, this whole scenario just gets more and more stupid.
I've been reading every single post on here and pretty much all of the arguments are the same exact thing. Like I said before, I'm waiting for someone to find some actual literary meaning. At least CrazyGeorge tried to below. You just got mad because I didn't want to listen to yet another person babbling about liabilities and burdens. I'm ignoring it because I've responded to the same exact argument multiple times in the same thread and it's just exhausting at this point.
Am I stirring the pot? I take that as a compliment. I want young people to think critically and question media. I'm glad I'm prompting that. I like the game and the story too but that doesn't mean it's not flawed. It's important to address and discuss those flaws to be an active consumer.
If you want to think this is a "crusade", then so be it. These were characters I love dearly and related to a lot and found some heavily problematic implications in their deaths. So I put that here to discuss. And people agreed with me. I don't see how that's me trying to act like a "crusader."
And buddy, if you think I'm being hostile here, well... wow. In that case, your experience on the internet's been pretty damn pleasant so far.
You're welcome.
And the very fact she was out there with them makes no sense the begin with. She would have gone into the gift shop with Kenny and Rebecca and stayed out of the line of fire.
If they wanted her to die so badly why not just kill her off in the shootout at the end? Like... they couldn't even bring themselves to let her last the rest of the episode. They had to kill her off in a way that was contrived and made no sense, and they had to make her death all about Jane all throughout. In fact, both of her deaths revolved around Jane.
You accuse others that did not like Sarah and Nick as if they have no respect, but then turn around and show no respect yourself. Really? Any comments that you disagree or fail to acknowledge as the truth is "some babbling" now? How typical of you. See where I am taking this to? Think too dramatic much? Maybe you should take a good look at yourself in the mirror.
What actual literary meaning? That you are trying to relate a death of a video game character to real life? That anyone who even dares to not like someone should be labeled as haters?
Babbling about liability? Have you ever thought that being a liability in a setting like TWD can be a justification for some people to abandon Sarah, in the context of a video game? Does that me they are all haters and be damned for it? Oh wait, you vehemently refuse to acknowledge that she was a liability. Because admitting it weakens your whole flawed logic.
Oh I know the game isn't perfect. It always has room for improvement. And I like the story and the characters. But to me, it seems your agenda isn't necessarily about improving the game. All you are doing is labeling other people as haters just because you want to take the contexts of a video game into a real world situation while stubbornly refusing to acknowledge anything contrary to your limited and biased point of view.
But that isn't what Telltale do. You're taking it too far. I've had depression though not as bad and I have anxiety, I see lots of myself in Nick and Sarah and I'm disappointed in what Telltale did but I doubt it's a message that people like that can't manage in TWD Game. They've made lots of mistakes in S2 like handling all determinant, not just those two, you can hardly say they have an anti message, they've used lots of both genders and more than one race and sexual orientation. S2 isn't as good as S1 in many aspects imo but this is not because it has an agenda or or acts as though certain people are a burden
They probably wanted her to suffer more. But yeah, none of it makes sense.
Considering Nick didn't die as a result of his depression and Sarah only dies as a result of her anxiety if you choose to leave her behind I don't think it was telltales intention to entice hatred. And even if they did die as a direct result of their disorders I do not think the point telltale was trying to make is that they deserve to die simply because of their disorders but rather that they would have a harder time surviving if they couldn't overcome them. Besides they did survive for about two years so they outlasted a lot of strong capable characters. Furthermore I think Sarah second death was pretty good in that it reinforced what Jane said about her not being saved. In the end it was entirely up to the player whether these characters were to be killed because of them being a liability or whether you would try to save them.
Part of it was trying to represent the theme of the episode. You can try and save Sarah meaning you don't leave her behind which gets an 'At least you tried to save her. That's what counts.' Or you can leave her behind.
That still doesn't really explain the magic debris...
For a lot of us, that's simply not good enough. We already know that you can't save everyone. The "at least you tried" thing was done with Shawn, Irene and Ben in season 1. I don't think it needed to happen again.
I bet she lied, fuck Jane.
Not true. I don't mind if people don't like them. But if they don't like them because "Oh they were dangerous liabilities they dragged the group down" and they come into spaces where people are discussing the characters in a positive manner and try to stir their hate into the mix, then I'm not interested in tolerating that. And there are a LOT of people like that. But there are also a lot of people who dislike them but respect those who are fans and don't say hurtful things. Those people are fine in my book.
It's babbling when you're all echoing each other to a point where you have no idea what you're talking about. How many people on this forum actually knew what the word "liability" meant and used it in their day-to-day language before they started talking about Ben, Sarah, and Nick?
Whether or not someone is a "liability" is subjective. Not fact. She was to you. Not to me. The implication behind making a disabled character nothing but a "liability" who never gets the chance to redeem themselves is problematic writing.
Never labeled anyone a "hater." Just used a rather goading title to point out that Telltale's canon leaned towards us abandoning Sarah and Nick rather than saving them. And, uh... honestly, if I refused to acknowledged other people's viewpoints, then why am I even humoring this discussion? Clearly you disagree with me. And I'm acknowledging you. I just refuse to bother responding to your weak argument because I've responded to the same exact argument in this thread and other thread multiple times. Surprisingly enough I do have a life and I'm not interested in taking time out of it to retype the same thing over and over again.
Different matter.
Again, different matter.
Part of the debris fell apart on top of her after she fell?
Or shoddy cinematic work from Telltale. They obviously wanted a scene where she ended up under debris, and the cinematics/whatever job just didn't do that good of a job.
Yeah, I agree. It was a valid question in that situation, just poorly timed.
I personally didn't read the OP as claiming people with disabilities are more deserving than non disabled people. It's just that, even in our world today, people with disabilities have to deal with life, but life through the cracked and distorted lens of their disability (obviously I'm generalizing "disabilities" for the sake of brevity, but the point remains valid to the degree of disability).
The disabilities don't make the person inherently "better" or "more deserving" than others. It gives the disabled the potential to be personally stronger or more tough because they have to deal with more. In exercising, someone isn't better or worse as a person for doing more or doing less than others. They can just reap the benefits according to what they perform.
Well, after watching part of the last Playing Dead, I'm sure Greg Miller wanted Sarah to suffer more...
I could only get through about half of it; his attitude was so repulsive to me.
True. Considering how she fell and landed, I just always assumed she'd broken her leg or at the least sprained her ankle. Kind of makes the debris feel superfluous at that point.
The contrast between them is even more evident in how they left. In Molly's case, it's clear that she only left because she thought it would be best for the group. She knew by then that the boat couldn't hold everyone, and that she had the best chance of surviving alone out of everyone in the group. Meanwhile, Jane's reasons for leaving were entirely selfish. There were people who needed her help, a freaking baby who needed protecting, but she left because she didn't want to see Clem die. I understand that she's afraid of losing people she cares about, but it was still cowardly of her. If Jane had truly cared about Clem, she would've stayed with her to support her and make sure that her luck didn't run out in the first place.
I agree. SARITA, CARLOS, REBECCA, NICK AND SARAH DESERVES SO FREAKING MORE.
They had no right to do something good, for which they will receive authority.
Ben had a lot of chances to do it, but he lost them. And with him the same thing that Nick and Sara.
She was a girl Kenny, she just goes and dies. So it is impossible. Her death was not logical. Of course, if someone loyal fans wrote the script, or at least changed the scenario, there would be almost all survived.
Nick
He was not so bad. He became one of my favorite characters after his death. His death was so, so stupid and pointless , it makes want to cry. Luke quickly "cured" from the loss of nick, in that moment when Rebecca did not care about him. And so, it was clear that nobody treasured Nickname.
Here is my conversation with a friend after we played in this Episode.
My friend "...yeah, and I ate at the time when they killed nick. Disgusting.
I " And I did eat too."
My friend: "What?"
I: "My tears".
Carlos
IT JUST SHOT! He didn't even have their 15 minutes, wherever he was all attention. He was a doctor, is not quite a bad father, although he did not understand that he is not doing right with Sarah.
Sarah
Sarah bore a strong and didn't like me, but when I uvideo her death - simply horror. I was hard, and I could not believe that she died.
Rebecca.
What crap is this? Her death... So sudden. She began to treat the Clementine well. and gave birth to a child who will not remember it.