WHAT WENT WRONG WITH SEASON 2!
iUnix
Banned
Before I start, I want to express clearly that I enjoyed Season 2 and this is by no means a hate thread on the season. I am only giving my opinion on things that can be changed in order to make Season 3 better. If you are going to express hate, leave now. If you think Telltale is perfect and any form of critizism atomatically makes me a hater, leave now. If you want to list and express your concerns, ideas, or issues, this would be the place to do it.
1) The first mistake I believe Telltale made (one which they themselves probably acknowledge) was making the 400 Days characters determinant. This was a big mistake on Telltale's part which pretty muched rendered all the development from these characters useless. If all of the characters' fates were definitive, then there would be no problem in having there story continue. I feel that if these characters were added to the season with bigger roles, the story would have been more intresting.
2) The second mistake I believe was made was getting rid of the Season 1 characters (Omid and Christa). I feel that the only reason Omid and Christa's baby were killed was for the sake of making Clementine grow older, and to give a reason to write off Christa so Clementine would be alone. From a writing perspective, there removal from the game served no important purpose than to establish a setting. If Telltale really viewed them as problamatic to the plot of Clementine being alone in the world, then they should have made the shadows at the end of Season 1 be complete strangers who took Clementine, not have them be Omid and Christa. This would have left there status unknown, but this would have left an open option so their story could be continued if desired.
3) Third, was Killing off Pete to early. I honestly saw no reason why Pete had to die in the first episode. Now, the situation would have been different if Pete and Nick were the Carley and Doug of the Season 2, but the case is that Nick lives regardless of who you choose to go with and Pete dies regardless as well. I believe Pete and Nick were originally suppose to be like Carley and Doug, but for whatever reason the story was changed. Pete had so much potential, and the first episode was focused on Nick and Pete arguing, which leads me to believe that this predicement of their's was intended to influence who to pick.
4) This leads into the fourth mistake (a big one for me) and that is making Nick a determinant character. It is obvious that if Nick lives regardless of what choice you made in episode 1, that means that he was intended to have a bigger role in the season. But, for whatever reason, that idea was changed and Nick was now able to die. My main issue with this is that Nick being determinant in episode 2 makes Pete's death seem completely in vain. If they wanted to make Nick determinant, then it should have been in choosing between him and Pete. I believe that this was the original plan but then it was changed so that Nick would have a bigger role. However, Telltale for whatever reason regretted this decison and made Nick determinant agian, but this time without the option of having someone take his place in death.
5) Another big mistake in my oppinion was the sudden and unbelievable changes in the characters attitudes. For one, Rebecca really despised having Clem around in the first episode, but in the second episode she acts nice to her, almost as if she has known her for awhile. Also Carlos' sudden change was unbelivable. In episode 1 he tells you to stay away from his daughter, but literally one day later, he trusts you to watch her. That just seems so off and an obvious goof on Telltale's part. I mean, Larry hates you for 3 months before he starts to remotely tolerate you, but we are expected to believe that Rebecca and Carlos take a liking to you after one day?
6) Next is the obvious contreversial topic which regards Kenny. Now, I didn't mind Kenny coming back, in fact I was kinda glad, but his screen time this season was so ridiculous! They even created Sarita solely for the purpose of advancing Kenny's development. My problem with this is that Kenny had one whole season to develop his character. Sarita and pretty much everyone else except Luke and Rebecca only had one episode. Forget the fact that he never gives a concreate explaination on how he survived in a walker infested alley with literally no exit. This was an obvious fan service to all those who demanded Kenny back, but his reappearence made everyone else seem useless.
7) Now, another contreversial topic I've seen on this forum before, and a mistake on Telltale's part, regards the deaths of Nick and Sarah. The main issue was that both characters contribute NOTHING after the point they became determinant. Now, I do not mind that they died. It was a given that they will die since Kenny was introduced and began the Luke/Kenny debate. The problem is that the lazy writing was obvious with both characters. Lets not forget the fact that the rest of the group shows little to no emotion after they die. If they were to die, it should have been under more believeable circumstances. Sarah would have never stood on the deck, she would have been inside with Rebecca and Kenny. Nick would have never rushed out knowing he was injured. He would have never left Luke and Sarah's side in the trailer park.
8) Finally, one of the biggest mistakes of the season was creating choices that don't affect the story at all. I can think of many (Teaching Sarah to shoot, giving the dying man water, cutting off Sarita's arm, saving Nick, saving Sarah, etc.). In season 1, even small choices had notable effects in the story. Also, determinant characters were more involved. Honestly who cares if they die later on? If the extra time we have with them makes an impact, then let them be determinant. If you save Ben, he is able to reedem himself by coming with you to look for Clementine and stand up to Kenny. If you save Nick, well he just has an extra line here and there, but thats it. If you chose to help/kill Larry, you relationship with Kenny is different depending on that choice. If you cut off Sarita's arm, it doesn't matter, Kenny hates you for it either way. There are many examples I can go over but that would take a lot of time.
I hope people can read this and understand that I want to bring attention to these issues so that season 3 can improve. I really just want whats best for the franchise and hopefully these issues are considered. If you have any other issues you wish to bring up, mention them here. It may seem like complaining, but honestly, if we don't talk about this, we won't improve. MY solution to one of my main issues would be for Telltale to think carefully about who they chose to be determinant and why? If there is no contribution after that point, then it might just be better to kill off the character. Let me know your thoughts below, and please no hate.
Comments
Choices never made any difference at all in season 1 so theres that. Season 2 had alternative endings which was more than season
The main problem for me is that season 2 you were forced to like and be with Kenny the whole time, There is no option to just accept what people are saying about him.
I agree Sarita was simply a plot device and some charcaters could have been better off. I feel determinant characters only work when their is one or the other (like Doug or Carley), as scenes can still work with them as their will be one on each playthrough. Nick and Sarah couldnt do anything as there had to be someone else there
Thanks for the comment. Yes, the multiple endings was a positive of this season, but I was discussing on things that can be improved on. Also, Season 1 proved determinant characters could work. Look at Ben. If you saved him, he has the chance to look for Clementine and he stands up to Kenny. That is a hell of alot more than Nick got.
Wow, what a massive wall of text. I read it, though. I'm not a Telltale Apologist, I'm not a hater, but I would like to reply, don't feel offended by it.
I agree with you. It is disappointing that the 400 Days characters were such a small part of the second season.
This is just your assumption. Only because a character does not die immediately, it does not mean he has to play a bigger role. Think of Doug, you can save him, but he does not play a big part afterwards. Plus, Nick was an important part of "A House Divided".
On that, I agree with you.
Regarding the thing with Christa and Omid:
"The developers also recognized that they needed to avoid making Clementine feel like a "carbon copy" of the character from the first season and instead something crafted by the player's decisions. To resolve this they created the first scenario of the game that would separate her from the familiar characters and to make it feel a result of the player's actions, so that the player would directly connect with Clementine's situation."
This is a quotation from an interview.
He did not get much more screen time than other characters. He got beaten down in episode three, was a mess in episode four and an important part of No Going Back. Fact is that Kenny is an old friend of Clementine and an important character of her past. It'd be ridiculous if he would not be an important part of the second season. Plus, you are always given the option to sit with Luke, to side against Kenny, do express your anger with Clementine and so on. On that point, I don't agree with you at all.
Nothing wrong with that. Mark in "Starved for Help" was only created so that the cannibals could kill him without someone of the group dying, still the episode was amazing. Sarita was needed in order to break Kenny again, which was necessary for the way the rest of the season plays out.
Not at all. In fact, he was depicted as a dangerous man and an insane person.
Sarah has two huge moments of character development when you save her, Nick does not contribute that much, but hey, I don't mind. I've never liked Nick so much.
Normally, I wouldn't compare it to season one, because I agree with you in that point. But that's been a problem in the first season as well. It's called "Illusion of Choice", and it was pretty prominent in All That Remains (The Way you get your bandages and stuff), A House Divided, In Harm's Way and No Going Back (especially no going back). That your choices don't always result in the whole story changing... yeah, don't expect that. No game except Heavy Rain did that so far.
Example?
You know that kid's game where you draw a character in 3 parts? You take a sheet of paper, fold it in thirds, draw the top third, then fold it over and give it to someone else to draw the second third (without seeing the first), then give it to someone else to draw the last third without seeing the first two.
That's what season 2 was like. Each part kind of worked on its own. But when you unfold the season and look at all the episodes together, it just looks funny.
So I agree with most of your points (forgetting about previous choices, inconsistent characters) and feel that the reason these problems happened was because the writers were looking at individual episodes and no one was looking at the whole thing. Season 1 felt different, like there was a plan from the beginning. It also seemed liked season 1 changed based on feeback as it went along, but the basic framework was in place.
As for your ideas about making 400 days characters nondeterminant ... I see where you're coming from but I'm not sure. 400 days was optional DLC. By making those characters unimportant, people who didn't want 400 days weren't left out of the loop. I think it shows that DLC for story based games is kind of a bad idea, but I also appreciate that Telltale didn't make "optional" DLC and then leave people behind who didn't get it. Season 2 would have reintroduced the 400 days characters, which wastes time for people who already played 400 Days but is necessary for people who haven't. (If you think about it, you didn't need to know anything about Bonnie or Tavia from 400 days to understand their roles in Season 2.)
As for Christa and Omid, they were killed (well MIA) because Clem needed to be on her own so it was a bigger issue who she could trust. I think it's better that they were brought back and killed (well maybe) then ignored because otherwise it would just be a gap in the story. Maybe it would have been better if Christa and Omid died at the end of season 1 so Clem was truly alone going into season 2. But that would have been pretty depressing on top of Lee's death. I think season 1 ended with people in the distance so things weren't so grim for Clem. And then it was revealed they were Omid and Christa, and then they were killed to move Clem's story along.
Hey, thanks for your input. You make a good point about Omid and Christa. I actually never seen that interview piece. Anyways in regards to determinant characters, I mentioned Ben and Doug/Carley.
The thing about Doug/Carley is that you get to choose your companion. If Doug dies, Carley develops as a character and vice versa. That is why I assumed Nick would have been important. It didn't matter if you went with him or Pete, he would always be alive. It's also like the Shawn and Duck choice. Duck lives regardless of who you save and he plays a very important role in the next episodes. He even gets to help Lee investigate.
As for determinant characters being more involved, Ben was an obvious example. If you save him, he has the chance of coming with you to save Clementine. He also has the chance to stand up to Kenny. These events added to his character and story, which is why I believe determinant characters can be more involved if given the chance.
By the way, thank you or your comment. You disagreed with some of my points, but you brought up some good ones I did not consider. Your contribution is appreciated.
About Doug/Carley, I agree. Those determinant characters were included in a great way. I would compare Ben to Sarah: When you save her, it becomes obvious at first that she has lost it (thinking Carlos is still alive), but it's obvious she finally has the will to continue living (screaming for help when she's down there with the walkers). I would compare Ben to Sarah, but I agree with you, Nick should have been handled like Doug/Carley were.
To be fair though that was in a section where everyone could or could not be there. Bonnie had kind of the same role, but because it was negative and not positive people dont care for it as much
Hi everybody.
I am very happy to see OP is tryin to make precise distinctions and I understand his wish to learn from Story related plotholes and from false decisions. From the view of a writer I miss a lot of proofread. While doin the writer gets more familiar with the Story and hes able to push his work to get more advanced results. In Season 2 the Feeling of a raw not refined Story got me dozens of times.
-But I know, the audiance still like the results.
If the majority of a community is Overall positive the Chance to see a more refined/ more professional Story is lessened. I realised that People got cowardish about doin critics in here cuz of the mass affect in here. It would be great if that would mean nothing, but it is a bad condition to Episode 3 IF and only if telltale listen to the com after all.
But to get to the Point let me add some Story-related Problems that have no logic string to it:
-The dogscene. (Clementine is eating first in front of a wild dog, while the dog nap is around./ an Option to throw some Food away to Keep safe while eating would have done it too.
-The prisoner Scene. (After patching herself up, she decides to stay which is a major Story discrepancy. Of course she really had no goddam reason to stay and much less if Lee told her to stay on her own a bit ago.
-A generell issue to me is the game mechanics of Season 2. [Fill a Name in here] will remember that situations and familiar ones. A mad or a flirting Katjaa makes a huge difference to me to just Show an example how this System worked well in Season 1. That season had more of a game. Sure, anybody says something about the Illusion of choice. In Season 1 we had great illusions. Season 2 made the whole concept obsolet,
-A generell lack of worthy moments in Episode 2. I only like to think about the Moments after Rick killed that guy at the Bridge and the following sequences about it. (I know the most of Players have a different view about that too but a writers skills contain mighty Tools to create certain situations, lemme be romantic and call it Magic.)
-Not understandable changes of behavior the Op allready wrote about it. Thats not professional and I see a lot of bad Solutions in here.
-Walkers got demoted to spectators. Something I cant approve of. (Just a personal opinion but a huge one to me)
-The worth of humantiy. Thats all about in Walking dead films, Comics. And I felt it 4 real in Episode 1.
- Creepy and dirty moments. Cutting Saritas Arm for no reason. Guys thats the dark side of writing. Blood? Okay, Gore? Okay if it is used in an responsible way. Thing like that... Are just poor. Sorry to say.
If a Company creates a game and it got big, if the do a Sequel with less worth, technically and writer-related something goes wrong. The whole chapter with lee and kenny & Friends got kidnapped had more Twist then Season 2.
Guess that is that. Dont want to emberass People if I write more about.
Let me tell you one last Thing before posting my comment: Season 3 will be bought no matter what. But aggressive and warlkike fanboying is not giving you a requirement of a greater and better experience.
(Sorry for my bad english)
Yes! The episodes on their own are great, but when you look at it from start to finish it seems a bit starnge. I think if they added a little more explenation to the events the season would have flown better.
I took the time to read all the concerns and for the most part, I agree. The big thing this season was the treatment of determinant characters. I believe that like Carley/Doug and Ben, other determinant characters can have more of a role later on. I hope this is worked on in Season 3
This is the thing that riled me up so much this season. I never felt like I was playing Clementine. Sure, she was our perspective character, but we are not her the same way we are Lee in season 1. Lee could develop relationships with those around him. It affected the way they speak with us and how they feel about us. Clem? Not so much. I can blackmail Rebecca in episode 1, but she's still a worried woman who confides in Clem. I can tell Carlos that he's doing Sarah a disservice with how he protects her, and he still trusts her safety to me.
Then there's the whole issue you brought up with never being able to side against Kenny. At best, you can tell him you disagree or he's scaring you. You just cannot tell him in any way that you don't like him. How many times does he ask if you trust him or not? How many times can you respond with a direct "no"? I count zero, and I was looking for that option, so if anyone can find it, please, please, PLEASE let me know (besides the episode 5 ending, mind you). It gets even worse when this becomes plot relevant. Every time Kenny starts to flip out, Clem is expected to calm him down because we're supposedly friends. Umm... Hello?! My Lee told Kenny to go fuck himself, punched him out on a train, and pretty much refused to side with him. Where the hell did this relationship come from? I certainly didn't see it in season 1. If this is supposed to be so plot central in season 2, then why was it not made clear at any point in either season? Did the writing staff forget that a favorable relationship with Kenny was entirely determinant? As a side note, why was I not able to tell the "adults" that I don't want to deal with Kenny (and have it actually affect things, not just have someone respond with "but it would be best" and Clem marches off to go do what she's told)?
Similar to the Kenny situation, there's Sarah. No matter how coldly you treat her, Carlos asks for your help in the herd because "you're her friend". No, I'm not. I told her as much when I first met her. No pinky swear or nuthin'. I brushed her off, and chastised her as much as I could, but somehow it was my job to convince her to get out of that trailer.
Yes. I'm sure if Kenny is in season 3, he will have an important role despite his determinant status and so will other characters I hope
I agree with BlackBoxx. How would Clem feel about Kenny if she knew he was willing to let her die just because Lee didn't side with him? I find that Kenny fanatics deny even the most obvious flaws of his character.
Then there are those people who say "Kenny was my best friend lolol". What they are actually saying is "I killed Larry, abandoned Lilly, and drop Ben just to gain Kenny's approval". I don't know about you guys but my Lee was not heartless. Seriously, even Katjaa disagreed with Kenny and was more understanding then he was. Yet we were expected to believe Clementine and Kenny were close?
I too would have liked 400 Days characters to play a bigger role, their fates are never determined, neither is Tavia's no matter where they end up. It's kind of good not knowing where some characters have just ended up, it shows a form of realism and how the world works now, you can't expect everyone to play a major role in Clementine's story when they each have their own. Once a character gains the unknown status they may never return at all and we may never find out what happened to them, unless we played their story.
Realism comes into play, in this world no one is protected no matter how important they may be, Omid's death and the disappearance of Christa was meant to show how Clementine could survive on her own if need be, I think. You can't expect a continuation of everyone's story, you just have to deal with the fact that sometimes people die... and not always for good reasons.
I think Pete's death was meant to cause an impact on Nick's character, Pete would have been the voice of reason and I too would have liked him to live on, but the episode focused on good people dying for no reason, Pete was bit and he may have been able to save himself if he cut his leg off though, but not everyone will go to such lengths just to live in a screwed up world, the story probably would've gone allot smoother if Pete lived.
Nick did have a big role in episode 2, it told me that we can choose a character's fate not only by actions, but also by words. Like I said, you can't expect everyone to have a huge role in Clementine's story, sometimes people are looked at as liabilities or screw-ups and they just die regardless of what you can try to do with them, episode 2 truly showed how people can die because of Clementine.
Some people's mood towards others changes quickly if you didn't know. Rebecca distrusted Clementine because she didn't know her at all, she despises Clementine if Clementine knows about her baby, but she obviously didn't mean to be rude towards her, she had her reasons and she even told Clementine why she went off on her, I think she only started trying to be nicer to show Clementine that she didn't mean to be a bad person. As for Carlos, he cares deeply for Sarah, in episode 2 the only reason he asks Clementine to watch out for Sarah is because he has a whole group to look after and it can be shown that Carlos kind of distrust Clementine. Just because you don't like someone, doesn't mean you can't trust them.
I liked Kenny's return as well, but I don't think Sarita died in vain, it goes to show how even the lover of a character can change their path and how bad things keep happening to some people and Clementine can play a part in that. I think if they make a Sarita DLC it should explain how Kenny got out of the alley.
I think Nick was originally going to be a double determinant and we had to choose him or Sarah at the Trailer Park. Nick was drifting away, it goes to show how not everyone is going to be unrealistic and always be helpful, if you forgot, both Nick and Luke were injured, Nick may have just left to commit suicide knowing that his life was over, it goes to show how no matter what our actions are, we can't control the fate of others. As for Sarah, she was drifting away, it's happened to many people in other games, movies, tv shows and real life as well, many have pointed out that she had anxiety, you think it's that easy for Sarah to just move from one place to another when she has this disorder? Some people are just frozen with fright and can't do anything about it, the unrealistic part of her death for me was how the heck the rubble fell on top of her, but it just goes to show that no matter what you do, you can't control the actions of a character either. Also, Rebecca showed emotions for the deaths of Nick and or Sarah, you can't expect everyone to start crying because someone they knew had died, some people just can't shed tears anymore, some people are just strong and refuse to give in to sadness.
Choices don't always have a huge impact, there are choices in both Seasons that don't change the story significantly, the course of the story in Season 1 helped make the choices create an affect mainly because the characters were more stationary, while in Season 2 there's not much time for choices mattering since the characters have to stay mobile and their relationships can't matter when their main goal is survival. Season 1 choices, I felt these affected the game more, however, with Season 2 choices, they definitely affected me more.
Your input is appreciated. I can see the points you are trying to make, and they do have very logical reasoning behind them, but something many seem to overlook is that The Walking Dead is a work of fiction, so anything can go. To me, it doesn't make sense that Telltale will exclude realisim for giant changes and expect use to infere that it applys to smaller situations.
I'll give an example. Kenny returning was a long stretch in both senerios. He was pretty much surrounded in both senerios, but the only explaination we get is "I got real lucky". Now in this sitution, I feel realism was excluded to bring back Kenny. The thing about this is that Telltale could have also excluded realism in less far fetched situations to keep other characters alive, like Christa and Omid. In their case I feel it would make more sense if they were just split up, but they decided to "add" realism and write them off to emphasize the darkness of the world. The same thing goes with Pete and Nick.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I noticed sometimes realism is excluded when it is convinient, yet implied with certain situations that are never clearly explained such as Sarah's supposed mental condition. Carlos never said there is something wrong with her aside from being sheltered, yet realism would have us believe she does have something wrong with her and that would ultimately lead to her death.
I hope this is making sense. It's kinda hard to explain what I mean. I do appreciate some points you bring up though.
9) Luke dies with no emotion.
Nice post, OP. Some may give you a hard time for expressing your opinions, but stand by them.
This is probably a good way to explain how many people felt about Season 2. As stand alone episodes, the season works. But as an overall connected narrative, not so much. The episodes in Season 1 are independent of each other, but demonstrate (for the most part) how well the story is told when the pieces are placed together. The next team of writers needs to be consistent and conduct research (i.e., read the scripts from the previous seasons) in order to tell a better story.
Just to add, I feel that the original intent from "All That Remains" was to observe Clementine's development as a survivor, putting into action the lessons she learned from Lee, Omid, Christa, and any others she might have met. But, once she could not remove herself from the cabin group, she was no longer the focus. Instead, we have history repeating itself: groups falling apart (the motel, the diary, the bandits, cancer survivors, the community). This was frustrating since one of Christa's rules was to avoid groups. Depending on your choices, Lee echoed a similar statement to Clementine. Even Russell stated what occurred with his group.
I approve of this post! Personally, I think the Season would have been better if it focused on Clem and Sarah's friendship rather than Kenny and Clem's relationship. I get that he is a Season 1 survivor, but there was no reason to have the focus be on him.
Thanks for the support. I agree, season 3 needs to have more colaboration so that the overall stroy flows better. This is something that can definately happen.
Yeah, the return of Kenny practically made it unrealistic, although they may just be able to show us how he got out in a DLC where we play as Sarita, at least I think they can, he could've used the endless inventory to hide a weapon within his magical pockets like Lee and Clementine do.
I understand what you're trying to explain and I do agree with your points.
So true. To me Sarah was like Clementine in season 1. I thought we would have molded her to be a survivor, especially after Carlo's death. I think that would have made for a decent story arc in this season.
there are things that certainly showed the flaws, but it was freaking great wither way to me. LOVED IT
but christa did scarred this season to me, its one big flaw.... thought I think now shes dead
Honestly, I loved season 2, but I agree that the constant rewriting made the story looky sloppy. All of the points mentioned were very good points to touch on. I'm going to bump this up so others can see, but for the most part, I agree completely.