"Dead in 78% of canon" Kenny? Yeah, he's just as dead of the rest of them. And you're misreading what I said. Being unable to save anyone is my point, you can't rescue Carley/Doug any more than Luke, Sarah or Glenn.
People die for no reason, there's no time for a funeral and all you can do at the end of the day is wonder "Could Lee/Clem/Rick have done mo… morere?" And the answer is always yes.
That's not entirely true, don't you think? Especially since there's no way you can stop Lilly from shooting Carley/Doug, among a few other examples.
(Oh, and "everybody dies" my butt. Try telling that to Kenny. He eats nihilism for breakfast.)
You said "Could Lee/Clem/Rick have done more?" And the answer is always yes." Now you seem to be saying the answer is no. Are you seeing the inconsistency?
"Dead in 78% of canon" Kenny? Yeah, he's just as dead of the rest of them. And you're misreading what I said. Being unable to save anyone is my point, you can't rescue Carley/Doug any more than Luke, Sarah or Glenn.
Have you ever been in an unwinnable situation? One where you do something, do something else and keep trying, but nothing works and you always get the same result? That's what I mean. It's not a factual statement of "One more try would have changed the results", it's more of a "Maybe I could have done X instead" gut reaction. The answer is yes because you want it to be.
You said "Could Lee/Clem/Rick have done more?" And the answer is always yes." Now you seem to be saying the answer is no. Are you seeing the inconsistency?
I'm like Captain Kirk. I don't believe in the unwinnable situation.
Besides, if THIS conclusion was inevitable for Clementine no matter what the player did, Telltale would go bankrupt faster than Orion:
I'm sure Kirkman would have something like that planned for Clem. That doesn't make him an innovative storyteller. It just makes him a pessimistic idiot.
Have you ever been in an unwinnable situation? One where you do something, do something else and keep trying, but nothing works and you alwa… moreys get the same result? That's what I mean. It's not a factual statement of "One more try would have changed the results", it's more of a "Maybe I could have done X instead" gut reaction. The answer is yes because you want it to be.
"Pessimistic idiot" is the name of the game. If you don't want a pessimistic story, you really shouldn't be asking for more from Kirkman. This is the business model, everyone dies. Kirkman isn't bankrupt yet, far from it. People throw money at him hoping for their favorite characters to live forever and he kills them all.
We whine, we say it was weak and meaningless, we write an angry letter, he expands the dimensions of his money bin and sends Norman Reedus a gift basket.
I'm like Captain Kirk. I don't believe in the unwinnable situation.
Besides, if THIS conclusion was inevitable for Clementine no matter … morewhat the player did, Telltale would go bankrupt faster than Orion:
I'm sure Kirkman would have something like that planned for Clem. That doesn't make him an innovative storyteller. It just makes him a pessimistic idiot.
I wrote a ton on this here: http://deadpansal.tumblr.com/post/94712021052/clementine-will-remember-that-writing-agendas-and
But if you do… moren't want to wade through that wall of text, here's the bottom line: it's consistent with Kirkman's world. They didn't die because they were weak or represented negative stereotypes of disorders or anything like that, they died because everybody dies. Nobody "deserves" better treatment in this universe, everybody gets a shit rap. People die for no reason, there's no time for a funeral and all you can do at the end of the day is wonder "Could Lee/Clem/Rick have done more?" And the answer is always yes.
"Pessimistic idiot" is the name of the game. If you don't want a pessimistic story, you really shouldn't be asking for more from Kirkman.
I don't. I haven't read an issue of the comic series since #6, and I haven't watched an episode of the TV show since AMC gave Darabont the boot. I only became invested in the video game because of Lee and Clementine (and Kenny, to a lesser degree). Once Clem is gone from the picture, I'll be too.
"Pessimistic idiot" is the name of the game. If you don't want a pessimistic story, you really shouldn't be asking for more from Kirkman. Th… moreis is the business model, everyone dies. Kirkman isn't bankrupt yet, far from it. People throw money at him hoping for their favorite characters to live forever and he kills them all.
We whine, we say it was weak and meaningless, we write an angry letter, he expands the dimensions of his money bin and sends Norman Reedus a gift basket.
I liked the comic until the prison arc. I knew it couldn't top that, just rehash the same impending danger, extreme situations and cooloff cycle. And so far I'm right.
Darabont did a great job. I don't think the TV series did anything as good as his view of the show. It's getting better now and focusing on characters, but we all know where it's going...
"Pessimistic idiot" is the name of the game. If you don't want a pessimistic story, you really shouldn't be asking for more from Kirkman.
… more
I don't. I haven't read an issue of the comic series since #6, and I haven't watched an episode of the TV show since AMC gave Darabont the boot. I only became invested in the video game because of Lee and Clementine (and Kenny, to a lesser degree). Once Clem is gone from the picture, I'll be too.
They had character arcs that were cut short and they are ultimately wasted and it doesn't help everyone suddenly forgets about them once they're dead minutes later. It doesn't suck, because they died, it sucks that Telltale missed a golden opportunity to have those characters grow into something meaningful and investing instead of going the shallow and pessimistic route of just killing them off in a disgusting way, because "realism" which is a bullshit argument concerning Clem should have died in S1 and Ben never got a character defining moment in S1. S1 was more optimistic, it was dark and tragic, but it wasn't nihilistic, Characters died when their arcs were finished and most of their deaths weren't hero deaths, just deaths that made sense. S2 is relying on pure shallow shock value to get any emotion, and that's not going to work 100%. If the comics are like this, then I guess Telltale actually IMPROVED on the source material in S1. but honestly it's pretty obvious that Telltale got rid of them because they had no idea on what to do with them, so instead of having a clear plan and thinking things through, they just kill them off in a terrible, stupid, unsatisfying way,Ben's death had more depth to it than Sarah or Nick's death and it wasn't even heroic.
I wrote a ton on this here: http://deadpansal.tumblr.com/post/94712021052/clementine-will-remember-that-writing-agendas-and
But if you do… moren't want to wade through that wall of text, here's the bottom line: it's consistent with Kirkman's world. They didn't die because they were weak or represented negative stereotypes of disorders or anything like that, they died because everybody dies. Nobody "deserves" better treatment in this universe, everybody gets a shit rap. People die for no reason, there's no time for a funeral and all you can do at the end of the day is wonder "Could Lee/Clem/Rick have done more?" And the answer is always yes.
No, pretty lazy considering this is more about how the characters were handled and how they were wasted to terribly written deaths, this is a lazy reasoning.
It's not lazy reasoning to say that staying true to the tone and agenda of a source material is bad writing. Cutting off a character arc that could go somewhere is exactly what The Walking Dead has done through the span of its entire franchise. If you're going to think that Sarah and Nick are special, I've got a whole list of names of people way higher on the list of "People Who Could Have Gone Further".
No, pretty lazy considering this is more about how the characters were handled and how they were wasted to terribly written deaths, this is a lazy reasoning.
It's not "realism". It's "the worst case scenario." The only reason why Clem didn't die is the same reason why Rick and Carl don't die. Everyone else is expendable. No one gets a hero's death or a huge payoff.
I'll agree with you that Telltale improved on the source material. The source material is endless meandering and circling forever around death while well defined characters die without ceremony. The game had a point with Clementine. But they play the canon's tone a lot straighter in season 2. If you don't like it, then you don't like the source material. Don't blame Telltale, Kirkman's the nihilist.
They had character arcs that were cut short and they are ultimately wasted and it doesn't help everyone suddenly forgets about them once the… morey're dead minutes later. It doesn't suck, because they died, it sucks that Telltale missed a golden opportunity to have those characters grow into something meaningful and investing instead of going the shallow and pessimistic route of just killing them off in a disgusting way, because "realism" which is a bullshit argument concerning Clem should have died in S1 and Ben never got a character defining moment in S1. S1 was more optimistic, it was dark and tragic, but it wasn't nihilistic, Characters died when their arcs were finished and most of their deaths weren't hero deaths, just deaths that made sense. S2 is relying on pure shallow shock value to get any emotion, and that's not going to work 100%. If the comics are like this, then I guess Telltale actually IMPROVED on the source material in S1. but ho… [view original content]
I feel like they just made Luke mention the cabin group in the last episode so fans would be happy that he remembered after what happened in episode 4 and it worked.
I'd probably be willing to accept that, even ignoring the writer's intent, if anyone fucking cared that Sarah dies. There's a bit of dialogu… moree after the trailer park and Rebecca cries, and if she dies under the deck you get one line to Jane and no one mentions her, aside from Luke mentioning the entire cabin crew in the last episode.
If the actual intent was to contrast Sarah's innocent nature with such a horrible death (which it sounds like it wasn't their intent), a little more dialogue to talk about her would have been nice. There's a perfectly natural opportunity when Jane is leaving. With all the crap about her sister and a lot of the drama about leaving Sarah coming from Jane's own hang-ups. Hell, Jane could even say that's part of reason she's leaving, Watching Sarah die was a painful reminder of why she doesn't want to get close to people anymore since she knows you'll just lose them.
ALVIN: Good determinant death scene.
NICK: Bad determinant death scene.
SARAH: This is a tricky one. While Telltale's treatment of the… more character is still up for debate, my version of Clem did everything in her power to save Sarah. If Telltale got a lot wrong with Sarah's final moment, you definitely can't deny the scene itself was pretty fucking awful - the worst in the series so far, IMO. The way she screams "daddy" while being eaten alive is the stuff of nightmares.
Unfortunately, it doesn't excuse the "well, that happened" attitude of the other characters immediately thereafter.
That's kind of the issue with episode 4, it kind of just throws a complete middle finger to everyone who grew attached to both Sarah and Nick that felt like they both had interesting character arcs that were built up and cut short stupidly Nick gets it worse concerning he gets nothing substantional to do in episode 3 and is a nobody, if the comics do this 24-7 then it's probably a mediocre comic, the thing is though what Telltale did to those characters is stupid and unprofessional
It's not "realism". It's "the worst case scenario." The only reason why Clem didn't die is the same reason why Rick and Carl don't die. Ever… moreyone else is expendable. No one gets a hero's death or a huge payoff.
I'll agree with you that Telltale improved on the source material. The source material is endless meandering and circling forever around death while well defined characters die without ceremony. The game had a point with Clementine. But they play the canon's tone a lot straighter in season 2. If you don't like it, then you don't like the source material. Don't blame Telltale, Kirkman's the nihilist.
It's not lazy reasoning to say that staying true to the tone and agenda of a source material is bad writing. Cutting off a character arc tha… moret could go somewhere is exactly what The Walking Dead has done through the span of its entire franchise. If you're going to think that Sarah and Nick are special, I've got a whole list of names of people way higher on the list of "People Who Could Have Gone Further".
I still remember someone at TellTale said a writer from season 2 was a fan who sent him drafts in his email. Like really? Wow. Stop hiring fans and get real writers like season one. Thanks.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I didn't consider Sarah "worthless" at all either. I liked her as much as I liked Clementine. I think we were supposed to hate her and leave her to die, but that didn't work.
The most damning thing I can say about S2 TWDG is that it's a lot like the Walking Dead Comic. In tone, pacing, quality. I read the first compendium which covers to the end of the Prison/Woodbury conflict and was happy to be done with it. It's not terrible, but... Well that's the nicest thing I can say about it actually. It could have been worse.
The entire series (or at least as much of it as I read) has a very loose feel to it. It feels very much like Kirkman is just writing by the seat of his pants. No plan, or overarching theme really. Just throwing whatever he has against the wall to see what sticks. Hence the abrupt introduction and end of a lot of characters. They weren't working, they weren't popular, he had no idea what to them, so off they go for cheap drama. People dying has nothing to do with realism or pessimism in the comic, it's just constantly resetting the board. Anyone the audience really likes will become borderline invincible.
Actually thinking about it, I'd still give it up for Season 2 of the game over the parts of the comic I read. At least it built up a few characters to the point where their abrupt deaths actually feels frustrating. The way the writers treated Sarah in the end pisses me off, but only because I actually cared about her character. Can't say I felt much for most of Hershel's children, the majority of which only existed so they could die and make Hershel sad. =P
That's kind of the issue with episode 4, it kind of just throws a complete middle finger to everyone who grew attached to both Sarah and Nic… morek that felt like they both had interesting character arcs that were built up and cut short stupidly Nick gets it worse concerning he gets nothing substantional to do in episode 3 and is a nobody, if the comics do this 24-7 then it's probably a mediocre comic, the thing is though what Telltale did to those characters is stupid and unprofessional
I think Luke sums it up pretty well when he says, "...So many of my friends are dead... for no good reason... and I couldn't do anything to stop it. Everyone we set out with, just... gone..."
I think that with Nick and Sarah dying, despite all you do to try and help them, fits really well with the theme of the game. When you're in the apocalypse and bad things are happening all around, sometimes people are going to die. They may be people you didn't care for or ones you thought really highly of, but that's what their world now. It's sad, but things happen.
Like others say, both deaths were just an arbitrary way to start dropping character arcs with minimal effort.
No satisfying resolution to their development, and no real impact on the other characters, to the point where Luke shirking guard duty is played off as a joke in the finale even though a kid got eaten alive in the aftermath. It's painfully apathetic.
The ironic part is if you get Sarah out of the trailer park, she's the first one to spot the incoming zombies and actually alerts the others when she starts calling for Clementine. So the borderline catatonic girl makes a better look out than the actual look out, who at the time was busy upgrading his farm boy status to playboy. =P
Like others say, both deaths were just an arbitrary way to start dropping character arcs with minimal effort.
No satisfying resolution to… more their development, and no real impact on the other characters, to the point where Luke shirking guard duty is played off as a joke in the finale even though a kid got eaten alive in the aftermath. It's painfully apathetic.
The most damning thing I can say about S2 TWDG is that it's a lot like the Walking Dead Comic. In tone, pacing, quality. I read the first co… morempendium which covers to the end of the Prison/Woodbury conflict and was happy to be done with it. It's not terrible, but... Well that's the nicest thing I can say about it actually. It could have been worse.
The entire series (or at least as much of it as I read) has a very loose feel to it. It feels very much like Kirkman is just writing by the seat of his pants. No plan, or overarching theme really. Just throwing whatever he has against the wall to see what sticks. Hence the abrupt introduction and end of a lot of characters. They weren't working, they weren't popular, he had no idea what to them, so off they go for cheap drama. People dying has nothing to do with realism or pessimism in the comic, it's just constantly resetting the board. Anyone the audience really likes will become borderline invi… [view original content]
Man Sarah had a lot of potential to be a great character. I would have love to explore a character who's not as tough as Clem and is sheltered but is also really kind and wants to learn how to survive. On a more personal note my father died very suddenly of a stroke while I was at home and during that time I was exactly like Sarah and I'm sure that if anyone had a loved one die in front of them they would panic and shut down as well. You really don't think rationally. I'm pretty sure that all of us behind our computer screens and tv screens (I'm talking to you Greg Miller) would like to pretend that we would be just like Clem but in reality we would be scared and we would probably be like Sarah or Ben if not worse, not only that but I find it really odd how people are cheering for the death of someone who has done nothing malicious to you and overall is a kind person.
From the sound of it, you don't know the half of it. It's ridiculously constructed. Kirkman calls it a soap opera. Add drama, intrigue, and then kill everyone before they get too interesting.
That still doesn't change the fact that Nick and Sarah were wasted characters and their deaths were written horribly, I don't know half of it, but if the comic pulls that shit more than once according to you, than it's probably mediocre, and probably badly written some times.
From the sound of it, you don't know the half of it. It's ridiculously constructed. Kirkman calls it a soap opera. Add drama, intrigue, and then kill everyone before they get too interesting.
Yeah. As much as you guys want to complain about Sarah or Nick deserving better, issue 100 is a way worse character exit. And the ultimate example of how this story is written.
Man Sarah had a lot of potential to be a great character. I would have love to explore a character who's not as tough as Clem and is shelter… moreed but is also really kind and wants to learn how to survive. On a more personal note my father died very suddenly of a stroke while I was at home and during that time I was exactly like Sarah and I'm sure that if anyone had a loved one die in front of them they would panic and shut down as well. You really don't think rationally. I'm pretty sure that all of us behind our computer screens and tv screens (I'm talking to you Greg Miller) would like to pretend that we would be just like Clem but in reality we would be scared and we would probably be like Sarah or Ben if not worse, not only that but I find it really odd how people are cheering for the death of someone who has done nothing malicious to you and overall is a kind person.
I figured that she would die to be honest but I thought her death was going to be meaningful. I thought that before her death she would develop as a character not just be thrown away and that episode made me really dislike Jane. I find it interesting how Molly from season 1 did everything she could to help her sister who was diabetic and even though was a bit of a loner still manage to help people who would be perceived as weak and was disgusted by Crawford's attitude whereas Jane wanted to leave Sarah behind. In season 2 the game tries to push you into that mentality and it doesn't really give the player a choice to not accept it.
That still doesn't change the fact that Nick and Sarah were wasted characters and their deaths were written horribly, I don't know half of … moreit, but if the comic pulls that shit more than once according to you, than it's probably mediocre, and probably badly written some times.
Comments
"Dead in 78% of canon" Kenny? Yeah, he's just as dead of the rest of them. And you're misreading what I said. Being unable to save anyone is my point, you can't rescue Carley/Doug any more than Luke, Sarah or Glenn.
You said "Could Lee/Clem/Rick have done more?" And the answer is always yes." Now you seem to be saying the answer is no. Are you seeing the inconsistency?
Have you ever been in an unwinnable situation? One where you do something, do something else and keep trying, but nothing works and you always get the same result? That's what I mean. It's not a factual statement of "One more try would have changed the results", it's more of a "Maybe I could have done X instead" gut reaction. The answer is yes because you want it to be.
Great, now i'm sad.
I'm like Captain Kirk. I don't believe in the unwinnable situation.
Besides, if THIS conclusion was inevitable for Clementine no matter what the player did, Telltale would go bankrupt faster than Orion:
I'm sure Kirkman would have something like that planned for Clem. That doesn't make him an innovative storyteller. It just makes him a pessimistic idiot.
Telltale:fuck logic.fuck Sarah.
Edit:didn't mean to reply.
Link?
Yeah? That closure? That feeling that someone's death was meaningful? This isn't the series for it. I mean, read issue 100 of the comic.
"Pessimistic idiot" is the name of the game. If you don't want a pessimistic story, you really shouldn't be asking for more from Kirkman. This is the business model, everyone dies. Kirkman isn't bankrupt yet, far from it. People throw money at him hoping for their favorite characters to live forever and he kills them all.
We whine, we say it was weak and meaningless, we write an angry letter, he expands the dimensions of his money bin and sends Norman Reedus a gift basket.
Lazy reasoning.
I don't. I haven't read an issue of the comic series since #6, and I haven't watched an episode of the TV show since AMC gave Darabont the boot. I only became invested in the video game because of Lee and Clementine (and Kenny, to a lesser degree). Once Clem is gone from the picture, I'll be too.
I liked the comic until the prison arc. I knew it couldn't top that, just rehash the same impending danger, extreme situations and cooloff cycle. And so far I'm right.
Darabont did a great job. I don't think the TV series did anything as good as his view of the show. It's getting better now and focusing on characters, but we all know where it's going...
Lazy response.
They had character arcs that were cut short and they are ultimately wasted and it doesn't help everyone suddenly forgets about them once they're dead minutes later. It doesn't suck, because they died, it sucks that Telltale missed a golden opportunity to have those characters grow into something meaningful and investing instead of going the shallow and pessimistic route of just killing them off in a disgusting way, because "realism" which is a bullshit argument concerning Clem should have died in S1 and Ben never got a character defining moment in S1. S1 was more optimistic, it was dark and tragic, but it wasn't nihilistic, Characters died when their arcs were finished and most of their deaths weren't hero deaths, just deaths that made sense. S2 is relying on pure shallow shock value to get any emotion, and that's not going to work 100%. If the comics are like this, then I guess Telltale actually IMPROVED on the source material in S1. but honestly it's pretty obvious that Telltale got rid of them because they had no idea on what to do with them, so instead of having a clear plan and thinking things through, they just kill them off in a terrible, stupid, unsatisfying way,Ben's death had more depth to it than Sarah or Nick's death and it wasn't even heroic.
No, pretty lazy considering this is more about how the characters were handled and how they were wasted to terribly written deaths, this is a lazy reasoning.
It's not lazy reasoning to say that staying true to the tone and agenda of a source material is bad writing. Cutting off a character arc that could go somewhere is exactly what The Walking Dead has done through the span of its entire franchise. If you're going to think that Sarah and Nick are special, I've got a whole list of names of people way higher on the list of "People Who Could Have Gone Further".
It's not "realism". It's "the worst case scenario." The only reason why Clem didn't die is the same reason why Rick and Carl don't die. Everyone else is expendable. No one gets a hero's death or a huge payoff.
I'll agree with you that Telltale improved on the source material. The source material is endless meandering and circling forever around death while well defined characters die without ceremony. The game had a point with Clementine. But they play the canon's tone a lot straighter in season 2. If you don't like it, then you don't like the source material. Don't blame Telltale, Kirkman's the nihilist.
I feel like they just made Luke mention the cabin group in the last episode so fans would be happy that he remembered after what happened in episode 4 and it worked.
sarah's mouth didn't even move when she screamed for her dad the second time. that's how little they cared about sarah
That's kind of the issue with episode 4, it kind of just throws a complete middle finger to everyone who grew attached to both Sarah and Nick that felt like they both had interesting character arcs that were built up and cut short stupidly Nick gets it worse concerning he gets nothing substantional to do in episode 3 and is a nobody, if the comics do this 24-7 then it's probably a mediocre comic, the thing is though what Telltale did to those characters is stupid and unprofessional
Guess the source material is pretty mediocre and has a consistent problem of bad writing.
True, but I'm not claiming to be a professional video game writer.
What? When did they say this?
I'm just at the tome 8.
You mean Glenn's death?
I was sure that Clementine would be the new Lee and Sarah the new Clementine.
Nick maybe?
The most damning thing I can say about S2 TWDG is that it's a lot like the Walking Dead Comic. In tone, pacing, quality. I read the first compendium which covers to the end of the Prison/Woodbury conflict and was happy to be done with it. It's not terrible, but... Well that's the nicest thing I can say about it actually. It could have been worse.
The entire series (or at least as much of it as I read) has a very loose feel to it. It feels very much like Kirkman is just writing by the seat of his pants. No plan, or overarching theme really. Just throwing whatever he has against the wall to see what sticks. Hence the abrupt introduction and end of a lot of characters. They weren't working, they weren't popular, he had no idea what to them, so off they go for cheap drama. People dying has nothing to do with realism or pessimism in the comic, it's just constantly resetting the board. Anyone the audience really likes will become borderline invincible.
Actually thinking about it, I'd still give it up for Season 2 of the game over the parts of the comic I read. At least it built up a few characters to the point where their abrupt deaths actually feels frustrating. The way the writers treated Sarah in the end pisses me off, but only because I actually cared about her character. Can't say I felt much for most of Hershel's children, the majority of which only existed so they could die and make Hershel sad. =P
I think Luke sums it up pretty well when he says, "...So many of my friends are dead... for no good reason... and I couldn't do anything to stop it. Everyone we set out with, just... gone..."
I think that with Nick and Sarah dying, despite all you do to try and help them, fits really well with the theme of the game. When you're in the apocalypse and bad things are happening all around, sometimes people are going to die. They may be people you didn't care for or ones you thought really highly of, but that's what their world now. It's sad, but things happen.
Like others say, both deaths were just an arbitrary way to start dropping character arcs with minimal effort.
No satisfying resolution to their development, and no real impact on the other characters, to the point where Luke shirking guard duty is played off as a joke in the finale even though a kid got eaten alive in the aftermath. It's painfully apathetic.
The ironic part is if you get Sarah out of the trailer park, she's the first one to spot the incoming zombies and actually alerts the others when she starts calling for Clementine. So the borderline catatonic girl makes a better look out than the actual look out, who at the time was busy upgrading his farm boy status to playboy. =P
This is The Walking Dead. This repeated endlessly. Hate it or love it, it's a frickin unstoppable cashcow.
Man Sarah had a lot of potential to be a great character. I would have love to explore a character who's not as tough as Clem and is sheltered but is also really kind and wants to learn how to survive. On a more personal note my father died very suddenly of a stroke while I was at home and during that time I was exactly like Sarah and I'm sure that if anyone had a loved one die in front of them they would panic and shut down as well. You really don't think rationally. I'm pretty sure that all of us behind our computer screens and tv screens (I'm talking to you Greg Miller) would like to pretend that we would be just like Clem but in reality we would be scared and we would probably be like Sarah or Ben if not worse, not only that but I find it really odd how people are cheering for the death of someone who has done nothing malicious to you and overall is a kind person.
From the sound of it, you don't know the half of it. It's ridiculously constructed. Kirkman calls it a soap opera. Add drama, intrigue, and then kill everyone before they get too interesting.
That still doesn't change the fact that Nick and Sarah were wasted characters and their deaths were written horribly, I don't know half of it, but if the comic pulls that shit more than once according to you, than it's probably mediocre, and probably badly written some times.
Yeah. As much as you guys want to complain about Sarah or Nick deserving better, issue 100 is a way worse character exit. And the ultimate example of how this story is written.
I guess the show and the game kept this franchise from dying.
When Clementine meet Sarah in the first episode, I was sure she would survive the entire season. I was wrong.
I figured that she would die to be honest but I thought her death was going to be meaningful. I thought that before her death she would develop as a character not just be thrown away and that episode made me really dislike Jane. I find it interesting how Molly from season 1 did everything she could to help her sister who was diabetic and even though was a bit of a loner still manage to help people who would be perceived as weak and was disgusted by Crawford's attitude whereas Jane wanted to leave Sarah behind. In season 2 the game tries to push you into that mentality and it doesn't really give the player a choice to not accept it.
Yes. I think that's exactly what you said in the previous posts and I agreed with it. Still just about as true as when I said it earlier.