There's a difference between taking fan's input into account to better their story, and catering to every single complaint and criticism, most of which insults Telltale's capabilities.
You were here after the whole episode 4 fiasco. People were insulting Telltale directly, threats were being sent, people were getting upset. You think they're going to listen to that?
People like you need to figure out the difference between real, genuine issues, and the mishandling of video game characters. Sarah is dead and gone now, not that it mattered because she was never real in the first place, but what do you expect them to do? Bring her back? There's nothing they can do, and there's nothing they will do.
Go ahead, boycott the game. See how much of a shit Telltale gives.
I never asked for an apology. I said acknowledgement. And, uh... yeah. Considering the fact that they claim to take fans' input into account… more and that's something they allegedly PRIDE themselves on, yeah, I sort of do expect them to somehow acknowledge a major criticism.
Well, it's not like Telltale are being hounded by a major studio like Activision, Ubisoft, or Square Enix, so I think they can remake S2 all together, but it's probably not going to happen.
There's a difference between taking fan's input into account to better their story, and catering to every single complaint and criticism, mo… morest of which insults Telltale's capabilities.
You were here after the whole episode 4 fiasco. People were insulting Telltale directly, threats were being sent, people were getting upset. You think they're going to listen to that?
People like you need to figure out the difference between real, genuine issues, and the mishandling of video game characters. Sarah is dead and gone now, not that it mattered because she was never real in the first place, but what do you expect them to do? Bring her back? There's nothing they can do, and there's nothing they will do.
Go ahead, boycott the game. See how much of a shit Telltale gives.
I never deemed myself as anything, I just know an Autistic when I see one, as I am one. You on the other hand, have proved yourself to be an insensitive dickwad.
Congratulations. I'm sure Daddy is really proud of you now.
I don't think you understand what I'm trying to do, here.
I've been here from Episode 2 and on, so actually, yeah, I saw everything. I don't support threats or insults and I'm not asking for a rewrite. I'm not asking to bring Sarah back. When you point out flaws, it's so the artist can improve in the future. As Telltale continues to create games and characters, I want them to be aware of the problematic treatment of Sarah and take that into account should they ever decide to create a character similar to hers.
And, uh... y'know, it wasn't even my plan, but if enough people boycott something, the company does kind of care. Because. Y'know. Money and all that.
There's a difference between taking fan's input into account to better their story, and catering to every single complaint and criticism, mo… morest of which insults Telltale's capabilities.
You were here after the whole episode 4 fiasco. People were insulting Telltale directly, threats were being sent, people were getting upset. You think they're going to listen to that?
People like you need to figure out the difference between real, genuine issues, and the mishandling of video game characters. Sarah is dead and gone now, not that it mattered because she was never real in the first place, but what do you expect them to do? Bring her back? There's nothing they can do, and there's nothing they will do.
Go ahead, boycott the game. See how much of a shit Telltale gives.
Being that they got the approval from Kirkman before finalizing the story and sold record copies, I really doubt it's going to happen either. A success is a success, no matter what a vocal minority says about how they'd do it.
Now if they were dropped midway through by their network and had to air the rest of the episodes on a website only and everyone hated their characters and season arc, we'd have something to talk about.
Well, it's not like Telltale are being hounded by a major studio like Activision, Ubisoft, or Square Enix, so I think they can remake S2 all together, but it's probably not going to happen.
Sarah wasn't mishandled as a character. She was used exactly for that purpose. If you don't like the implication that a mentally impaired child can't survive in the zombie apocalypse, that means you're better than the moral. No one is suddenly going to realize that they just accidentally wrote the death of a helpless, tearsoaked child and try to take it back. It was done deliberately. Call for a boycott, cry "UNFAIR", but put your anger at the right place.
Hate the premise of the world, where the only way to survive is to screw over anyone weaker. Don't hate Telltale for making a perfect replica of a design you hate.
I don't think you understand what I'm trying to do, here.
I've been here from Episode 2 and on, so actually, yeah, I saw everything. I do… moren't support threats or insults and I'm not asking for a rewrite. I'm not asking to bring Sarah back. When you point out flaws, it's so the artist can improve in the future. As Telltale continues to create games and characters, I want them to be aware of the problematic treatment of Sarah and take that into account should they ever decide to create a character similar to hers.
And, uh... y'know, it wasn't even my plan, but if enough people boycott something, the company does kind of care. Because. Y'know. Money and all that.
Oh my god,
I just know an Autistic when I see one, as I am one
That's fucking stupid.
Cases can differ from different people. Not everyone is the same.
Oh my god,
I just know an Autistic when I see one, as I am one
That's fucking stupid.
Cases can differ from different people. Not everyone is the same.
Well, it's not like Telltale are being hounded by a major studio like Activision, Ubisoft, or Square Enix, so I think they can remake S2 all together, but it's probably not going to happen.
I wanted acknowledgment that there's value to life beyond the ability to shoot a gun.
I think that was Season Two's problem in a nutshell, that there was almost no value placed on life. People hardly notice when other people die, Clem seems completely detached or disinterested in a lot of scenes, nobody seems to have any goal outside of not die and even then it's not treated as all that important of one. Like Luke volunteering Clem for the bridge, but doesn't bother giving her a gun in case things go bad. After that I was like "Well if these people don't care what happens why should I?" It was like the story is just an excuse to have things happen so you can get to the next action scene. Like... well a video game I guess.
Still's it's a pretty striking contrast with Season 1 and say, the kid in the attic. You don't know who he is, he's probably been dead for weeks, and is removed from the story shortly after being introduced, yet he has very noticeable impact on a lot of the cast and probably the audience. For Kenny it's a painful relapse of the dilemma he faced with Duck and for Lee it's a chilling reminder of what could have happened to Clementine if he hadn't meet her on that fateful day. It also clearly affects Clementine since she later draws a picture of Lee burying the boy. Lot of emotional punch, in and out of universe, for just one random zombified kid.
Compare that to everyone around the campfire giggling about Luke shirking his responsibilities for an improv sexscapade with Jane, completely oblivious to the fact that doing so put everyone in danger and may have even gotten an innocent girl killed to boot. Good times! Enjoy your ice bath farm boy. =P
Really well said. I could have looked past a lot of other issues if those themes were more of a focal point throughout the season.
I didn… more't need Sarah to become a crack shot overnight for her character arc to work, I wanted acknowledgment that there's value to life beyond the ability to shoot a gun. And a sibling-like relationship would have been one of the few things to really make use of Clementine's age, because everyone else essentially treats her like an adult. With the group always expecting so much from Clem and blaming her when she fails, Sarah could have been that one voice of support that just wanted Clem to open up and be friends.
Telltale: That's totally what we're aiming for, honest!
And to be quite frank, I'm beginning to agree with the theory that No Going Back takes place in an alternate universe from Amid The Ruins. The logical fallout of Clementine/Kenny starting the gunfight would have caused greater tensions among the remains of the group, rather than everything being inexplicably forgiven.
"Don't worry, Clem, about feeling responsible for causing a gunfight that could have killed everybody.
But DO feel responsible for making a grown woman scream when you try to save her life. DO feel responsible for failing to save a man from drowning. DO feel responsible for murdering a teenage boy's zombified sister. DO feel responsible for not saving Kenny."
I wanted acknowledgment that there's value to life beyond the ability to shoot a gun.
I think that was Season Two's problem in a nut… moreshell, that there was almost no value placed on life. People hardly notice when other people die, Clem seems completely detached or disinterested in a lot of scenes, nobody seems to have any goal outside of not die and even then it's not treated as all that important of one. Like Luke volunteering Clem for the bridge, but doesn't bother giving her a gun in case things go bad. After that I was like "Well if these people don't care what happens why should I?" It was like the story is just an excuse to have things happen so you can get to the next action scene. Like... well a video game I guess.
Still's it's a pretty striking contrast with Season 1 and say, the kid in the attic. You don't know who he is, he's probably been dead for weeks, and is removed from the story shortly after being introduced, yet h… [view original content]
I would agree that Season 1 shows more balance. It didn't just have people trying to survive disasters, it had them trying to cope and make a home for themselves. Little things like talking to everyone individually about the situation or fixing a swing for the kids, weren't a priority in moving the plot forward, but it was important in showing why the group keeps struggling in the first place. A time to laugh, and a time to cry.
Season 2 was more event driven, eager to move from one tragedy and forget it before moving on to the next. The ideas were there, as far as new relationships and scenarios go, but they're not all given the development that they deserve. Heck, I don't care if the trip from the cabin to the ski lodge was uneventful, let me spend some time camping with this new group. Get to know them outside of the times of conflict.
I wanted acknowledgment that there's value to life beyond the ability to shoot a gun.
I think that was Season Two's problem in a nut… moreshell, that there was almost no value placed on life. People hardly notice when other people die, Clem seems completely detached or disinterested in a lot of scenes, nobody seems to have any goal outside of not die and even then it's not treated as all that important of one. Like Luke volunteering Clem for the bridge, but doesn't bother giving her a gun in case things go bad. After that I was like "Well if these people don't care what happens why should I?" It was like the story is just an excuse to have things happen so you can get to the next action scene. Like... well a video game I guess.
Still's it's a pretty striking contrast with Season 1 and say, the kid in the attic. You don't know who he is, he's probably been dead for weeks, and is removed from the story shortly after being introduced, yet h… [view original content]
Sarah wasn't mishandled as a character. She was used exactly for that purpose. If you don't like the implication that a mentally impaired ch… moreild can't survive in the zombie apocalypse, that means you're better than the moral. No one is suddenly going to realize that they just accidentally wrote the death of a helpless, tearsoaked child and try to take it back. It was done deliberately. Call for a boycott, cry "UNFAIR", but put your anger at the right place.
Hate the premise of the world, where the only way to survive is to screw over anyone weaker. Don't hate Telltale for making a perfect replica of a design you hate.
Being that they got the approval from Kirkman before finalizing the story and sold record copies, I really doubt it's going to happen either… more. A success is a success, no matter what a vocal minority says about how they'd do it.
Now if they were dropped midway through by their network and had to air the rest of the episodes on a website only and everyone hated their characters and season arc, we'd have something to talk about.
A lot of my anger came from the developer's outside comments, when they endorsed the gross viewpoint of manchild Greg Miller, who laughed about having the opportunity to kill off a girl just because she was 'not normal'. I suppose not knowing the developer's thoughts would make her death feel less gross, but knowing their biases (where a disabled girl dies in an extremely contrived way, and where a rage-filled traumatized old man like Kenny inexplicably deserves 'redemption') pushes me to reject their idea.
Sarah wasn't mishandled as a character. She was used exactly for that purpose. If you don't like the implication that a mentally impaired ch… moreild can't survive in the zombie apocalypse, that means you're better than the moral. No one is suddenly going to realize that they just accidentally wrote the death of a helpless, tearsoaked child and try to take it back. It was done deliberately. Call for a boycott, cry "UNFAIR", but put your anger at the right place.
Hate the premise of the world, where the only way to survive is to screw over anyone weaker. Don't hate Telltale for making a perfect replica of a design you hate.
A lot of my anger came from the developer's outside comments, when they endorsed the gross viewpoint of manchild Greg Miller, who laughed ab… moreout having the opportunity to kill off a girl just because she was 'not normal'. I suppose not knowing the developer's thoughts would make her death feel less gross, but knowing their biases (where a disabled girl dies in an extremely contrived way, and where a rage-filled traumatized old man like Kenny inexplicably deserves 'redemption') pushes me to reject their idea.
About Nick's death, I probably wouldn't hate it as much if Nick wasn't determinant in the first place. Had he been like Chuck, who's purpose was to go out saving Clem, while Nick's would have been to go out trying to get help, then I wouldn't feel like this. But because he was determinant, he should have done something after his first possible death. Because every other character added something after a possible death (besides determinants who weren't part of the main group, like two of the Save-Lots Bandits).
Doug/Carley - They developed over two extra episodes and they died shocking deaths at the hands of one of our own group members.
Ben- Probably my favorite example, because of the different variations to the beginning of episode 5 he feels like he was meant to be part of the episode since the beginning, and he contributed to most conversations, and he died a tragic death. He also got one of my favorite moments in the game, and that was standing up to Kenny, with an amazing speech to boot.
Pete- He literally got his own beginning, with him facing the realities of his own demise and expressing his concerns for his nephew, he even goes out trying to save Clem.
Alvin- He goes out in a heroic way, saving Clem, but more importantly to him, his wife and unborn child.
Sarah- Now she might not be the most stellar of examples, what with all the inconsistencies and leaps of logic to produce her death, but you have to admit that it most likely took you by surprise, as most savable characters would only die in a later episode, and it was very shocking and quite horrifying.
Now here we have Nick, who arguably got the most character development before his first demise, doing absolutely nothing after his first possible death. Sure you can talk to him in episode 3, but it's completely optional, and you could just fly right past it. Also, he gets absolutely no lines in episode 4, unless you count the grunt from the bullet lodging into his shoulder, and his voice actor is not credited at all in the credits. He had no purpose after episode 2.
Not to mention, his death is also filled with some logical inconsistencies. It left me with several questions.
Why didn't Luke, his supposed best friend of 20 years, not give him a weapon, when he had a machete, and AK and a pistol?
What was the point of Nick being shot if he was just going to be bitten in the exact same spot in his episode 2 death, and he certainly wasn't suffering from a bullet wound then, so why have him shot?
How did Nick get out of the trailer in the first place?
Nick's death just really felt like an afterthought.
Nick getting shot was a red herring and a mean-spirited insult to the players who saved him. "Remember the guy you saved back in Episode 2?" Telltale seems to say, "He's gonna die lol."
About Nick's death, I probably wouldn't hate it as much if Nick wasn't determinant in the first place. Had he been like Chuck, who's purpose… more was to go out saving Clem, while Nick's would have been to go out trying to get help, then I wouldn't feel like this. But because he was determinant, he should have done something after his first possible death. Because every other character added something after a possible death (besides determinants who weren't part of the main group, like two of the Save-Lots Bandits).
Doug/Carley - They developed over two extra episodes and they died shocking deaths at the hands of one of our own group members.
Ben- Probably my favorite example, because of the different variations to the beginning of episode 5 he feels like he was meant to be part of the episode since the beginning, and he contributed to most conversations, and he died a tragic death. He also got one of my favorite moments in the game, and that… [view original content]
After thinking about it for a while, in the same vein of it being interesting to see how Sarah would have reacted/interacted with AJ, it also would have been interesting to see Nick react/interact with a traumatized Sarah. He went through a very similar breakdown when Pete died and being confronted with a despondent Sarah dealing with a devastating loss the same way seems like it'd set the stage for a natural conclusion to his own previous dilemma. Possibly by being the most adamant about not leaving Sarah because he sees himself in her grief and he desperately tries to help her because it's what he subconsciously wanted when he felt like dying, someone telling him they still care about him. (Which, depending on your previous actions, Clem may have done for Nick earlier in the game.)
You could even kind of daisy chain Nick and Sarah's fates together. If you don't get Sarah out of the trailer, Nick dies with her trying to save her. If you do, Nick dies saving Sarah from under the deck. Sarah could have a hopeful moment with AJ after he's born, then die in the shoot out trying to get him to safety. This wouldn't have required any major changes to the story or their characters, just a few minutes of extra life to take part in already written parts of the story that have some relevance to their character arcs.
About Nick's death, I probably wouldn't hate it as much if Nick wasn't determinant in the first place. Had he been like Chuck, who's purpose… more was to go out saving Clem, while Nick's would have been to go out trying to get help, then I wouldn't feel like this. But because he was determinant, he should have done something after his first possible death. Because every other character added something after a possible death (besides determinants who weren't part of the main group, like two of the Save-Lots Bandits).
Doug/Carley - They developed over two extra episodes and they died shocking deaths at the hands of one of our own group members.
Ben- Probably my favorite example, because of the different variations to the beginning of episode 5 he feels like he was meant to be part of the episode since the beginning, and he contributed to most conversations, and he died a tragic death. He also got one of my favorite moments in the game, and that… [view original content]
Hate the premise of the world, where the only way to survive is to screw over anyone weaker. Don't hate Telltale for making a perfect replica of a design you hate.
They're still responsible for perpetuating the trope. Blaming the "world" as a whole just takes responsibility away from people and when you do that, change never happens.
Sarah wasn't mishandled as a character. She was used exactly for that purpose. If you don't like the implication that a mentally impaired ch… moreild can't survive in the zombie apocalypse, that means you're better than the moral. No one is suddenly going to realize that they just accidentally wrote the death of a helpless, tearsoaked child and try to take it back. It was done deliberately. Call for a boycott, cry "UNFAIR", but put your anger at the right place.
Hate the premise of the world, where the only way to survive is to screw over anyone weaker. Don't hate Telltale for making a perfect replica of a design you hate.
ok i have no love for sarah, i always hated her as a character. but i wont get into that, but slapping her was to hopefully knock some smart into her dumb little head.snap her into reality, she needed a good slap.
i agree with you about nick i liked his character after season 1 when he wasn't such a jerk.
But you got to remember one thing..............this is the walking dead,one point of this is that someone can die at any moment. even someone as "innocent" as sarah or nick.
Change? In a franchise that's been doing this since 2003 and has many extensions all doing the same tropes over and over? Kirkman has had detractors from the start, you're not special in complaining about the writing nor will you be more successful than anyone who has complained in the last 11 years.
And if you're going to blame writers for taking a multibillion dollar business model and not change it, then I'm going to clear my schedule for the week so I have enough time to laugh at you. Because that is rich.
Hate the premise of the world, where the only way to survive is to screw over anyone weaker. Don't hate Telltale for making a perfect replic… morea of a design you hate.
They're still responsible for perpetuating the trope. Blaming the "world" as a whole just takes responsibility away from people and when you do that, change never happens.
I remember somebody back before Omid The Ruins was released who drew a parallel between Nick and Sarah's trauma. Nick, who's implied to have been a very sensitive and soft-hearted child, began to harden once his uncle shot a deer in the throat, and his loss of innocence was complete once he shoots Matthew in the throat. Carlos' death via being shot in the throat indicates another significant loss to Sarah's innocence, and it's interesting to contrast the different ways in which Nick & Sarah react to this loss of innocence.
After thinking about it for a while, in the same vein of it being interesting to see how Sarah would have reacted/interacted with AJ, it als… moreo would have been interesting to see Nick react/interact with a traumatized Sarah. He went through a very similar breakdown when Pete died and being confronted with a despondent Sarah dealing with a devastating loss the same way seems like it'd set the stage for a natural conclusion to his own previous dilemma. Possibly by being the most adamant about not leaving Sarah because he sees himself in her grief and he desperately tries to help her because it's what he subconsciously wanted when he felt like dying, someone telling him they still care about him. (Which, depending on your previous actions, Clem may have done for Nick earlier in the game.)
You could even kind of daisy chain Nick and Sarah's fates together. If you don't get Sarah out of the trailer, Nick dies with her trying to save her. If you d… [view original content]
I'd say you need a 'good slap' for saying nonsense like that.
In a logical world, a girl who's been traumatized into near-catatonia by being slapped by her father WOULDN'T suddenly snap out of a traumatized stupor once her only remaining friend does the same thing to her.
But since Telltale's writers are a bunch of violent dicks who think it's funny to slap a grieving girl, they forced players to hurt her in order to give a half-baked legitimacy to Carver's insane message of "being cruel to be kind."
ok i have no love for sarah, i always hated her as a character. but i wont get into that, but slapping her was to hopefully knock some smart… more into her dumb little head.snap her into reality, she needed a good slap.
i agree with you about nick i liked his character after season 1 when he wasn't such a jerk.
But you got to remember one thing..............this is the walking dead,one point of this is that someone can die at any moment. even someone as "innocent" as sarah or nick.
well surely shes got enough sense to know her father was forced to do it. and after clem tells her this that was supposed to have been a hint to her that this world is fucked up, And sitting in in the floor in the fetal position isnt going to help here. And i know she has a condition but im sure she should be aware of common sense. If your going to sit there and LET the dead eat you, let me go to my last resort of saving your ass and slap the shit out of you.
I'd say you need a 'good slap' for saying nonsense like that.
In a logical world, a girl who's been traumatized into near-catatonia by be… moreing slapped by her father WOULDN'T suddenly snap out of a traumatized stupor once her only remaining friend does the same thing to her.
But since Telltale's writers are a bunch of violent dicks who think it's funny to slap a grieving girl, they forced players to hurt her in order to give a half-baked legitimacy to Carver's insane message of "being cruel to be kind."
The only reason why the game 'forces' you to slap her is because the writers thought slapping works. Never mind that you can actually give her a pep-talk and calm her down - because the writers are dead-set on sending a half-baked message justifying physical abuse, the pep-talk does nothing and the game 'makes' you hit Sarah. This act of violence isn't even reflected on by anybody, and it's treated as a necessary good.
Which is bullshit, if you actually have any inkling of psychology or even just have a memory stronger than a goldfish's.
"Slapping the hysterical bitch" is a cliche in old movies, and if it's made fun of in a Leslie Nielsen movie like Airplane that may be a sign that it's not actually a sensible thing to do.
well surely shes got enough sense to know her father was forced to do it. and after clem tells her this that was supposed to have been a hin… moret to her that this world is fucked up, And sitting in in the floor in the fetal position isnt going to help here. And i know she has a condition but im sure she should be aware of common sense. If your going to sit there and LET the dead eat you, let me go to my last resort of saving your ass and slap the shit out of you.
you are still missing the point, the writers did nothing wrong. Think of this as a real situation, your in a trailer with walkers inside the only thing standing between you and them is a wooden door which they have proven they can get through. you have little time to convince her to get her ass up so you dont get killed. you give her a short pep-talk because thats all you have time for. But still she sits there, at this point the walkers are through the door, your seconds from death and she still sits there even though the dead are in the room. you are out of ideas, this crazy bitch isnt moving. Slap her, Why the fuck not? no harm in trying, (slap)"hey bitch, i dont know if you have noticed but the dead are here to eat you and if you dont get up your lunch". That whole sentence put into one slap, she gets the point and you all live problem solved.
The only reason why the game 'forces' you to slap her is because the writers thought slapping works. Never mind that you can actually give … moreher a pep-talk and calm her down - because the writers are dead-set on sending a half-baked message justifying physical abuse, the pep-talk does nothing and the game 'makes' you hit Sarah. This act of violence isn't even reflected on by anybody, and it's treated as a necessary good.
Which is bullshit, if you actually have any inkling of psychology or even just have a memory stronger than a goldfish's.
"Slapping the hysterical bitch" is a cliche in old movies, and if it's made fun of in a Leslie Nielsen movie like Airplane that may be a sign that it's not actually a sensible thing to do.
This act of violence isn't even reflected on by anybody, and it's treated as a necessary good.
I really hated there's no option to apologize to her afterwards so she knows Clem isn't angry with her. Even if the slap was necessary (which, like you, I think was just tacked on by the writers to spite the people who liked Sarah) you should be allowed to make it clear you hated doing it. Yet again, this another case of S2 screwing something S1 did really well, where you have to talk to Kenny about Duck. You can possibly talk Kenny down, or get in a fight with him in attempt to knock some sense into him, which you can also apologize for immediately afterwards.
And I'm really fucking sick of people holding up Sarah's meltdown as the telltale sign of how stupid she is. Fucking EVERYONE EVER in the Walking Dead series has flipped their fucking shit after they lose the people closet to them. Just in the games alone we have.
S1 Kenny herds everyone into a boxcar with his soon to zombified son and angrily refuses to discuss the obvious problem.
S1 Kenny also insists on holding a improv sentencing for the alleged killer of his family while zombies are literally at the door.
S2 Kenny starts performing a soliloquy in the middle of a fucking zombie herd for Sarita. (OR)
S2 Kenny keeps his zombie-infected wife alive until the last second, against her own wishes no less.
S2 Kenny goes onto waxing nostalgic about being beaten into a coma and deciding he isn't much use to anyone.
S2 Kenny also fucking attempts murder on the news that Jane lost AJ by accident. (Spare me the crap about her retarded scheme because Kenny himself admits he wasn't aware of it when he says "He's gone Clem.")
Katjaa kills herself when faced with her son's death.
Despite urgency and the fact he's already dead, Lee stops for some last words to his already zombified brother while a man is in desperate need of heart medication and a platoon of zombies are about fifteen feet away watching T.V.
Vicious cannibal Andy St. John completely loses the will to live when hearing news of his brother and mother's demises.
Lilly refuses even to consider her non-breathing father may be dead, and later her griefs causes her to murder someone.
S1 Christa's response to thinking Omid has died is lie right next to him, assuring her face will get chewed off if he was actually dead.
S2 Christa's response to knowing Omid is dead is hold him close, assuring she'll get bitten when he reanimates.
Nick goes into a deep depression after Pete dies and refuses to even protect himself or Clementine in the immediate aftermath.
Perfect little Clementine is so desperate for news of her parents that she has secret talks with a strange man on her radio and after seeing Savannah has been ripped up from top to the bottom and being told not to trust a total stranger, actually opts to trust the weirdo she's never met in person instead of the man whose safeguarded her for months.
And the Stranger himself cuts off his wife's zombie head, sticks it a bag, lies to and manipulates a little girl for his own selfish reasons, kidnaps her, and tries to murder the person who actually cares for her as part of an elaborate and insane revenge scheme that ends with him starting a family even Charlie Mansion probably would be weirded out by.
And with the exception of Clem, all these people are probably double Sarah's age, and likely without anxiety disorders either. If you find it consistently annoying people do stupid shit when their loved ones die, fine. But don't go acting like this a Sarah specific hang up of any kind. If anything, she seems like she's somewhere on the lower end of stupid behavior chart. Really only endangering herself. She even ran away and isolated herself after Carlos died. It was the other's decision to attempt to save her. Blame them. =P
The only reason why the game 'forces' you to slap her is because the writers thought slapping works. Never mind that you can actually give … moreher a pep-talk and calm her down - because the writers are dead-set on sending a half-baked message justifying physical abuse, the pep-talk does nothing and the game 'makes' you hit Sarah. This act of violence isn't even reflected on by anybody, and it's treated as a necessary good.
Which is bullshit, if you actually have any inkling of psychology or even just have a memory stronger than a goldfish's.
"Slapping the hysterical bitch" is a cliche in old movies, and if it's made fun of in a Leslie Nielsen movie like Airplane that may be a sign that it's not actually a sensible thing to do.
People were projecting and assuming that she was going to be a 'stupid', 'creepy', 'dangerous' liability even back since Episode 1, where she is the most unambiguously kind person to Clem. They never gave her a chance, and they're actually irrationally dead-set on wanting her dead because...
...she's nice? Because she's socially awkward? Because she's suppressed? Because she's disabled? Because she's not dark & edgy enough?
This act of violence isn't even reflected on by anybody, and it's treated as a necessary good.
I really hated there's no option to a… morepologize to her afterwards so she knows Clem isn't angry with her. Even if the slap was necessary (which, like you, I think was just tacked on by the writers to spite the people who liked Sarah) you should be allowed to make it clear you hated doing it. Yet again, this another case of S2 screwing something S1 did really well, where you have to talk to Kenny about Duck. You can possibly talk Kenny down, or get in a fight with him in attempt to knock some sense into him, which you can also apologize for immediately afterwards.
And I'm really fucking sick of people holding up Sarah's meltdown as the telltale sign of how stupid she is. Fucking EVERYONE EVER in the Walking Dead series has flipped their fucking shit after they lose the people closet to them. Just in the games alone we have.
* S1 Kenny h… [view original content]
It's because she's an easy target, since she's not given the chance to defend or redeem herself and is instead portrayed and mishandled as a defenceless victim who is a burden to others, so therefore it's easier to point the finger and browbeat her.
Reminds me of bullies in school, actually. Rather sad when you think about it.
People were projecting and assuming that she was going to be a 'stupid', 'creepy', 'dangerous' liability even back since Episode 1, where sh… moree is the most unambiguously kind person to Clem. They never gave her a chance, and they're actually irrationally dead-set on wanting her dead because...
...she's nice? Because she's socially awkward? Because she's suppressed? Because she's disabled? Because she's not dark & edgy enough?
The problem is that Season 2's writers are mean-spirited enough to endorse this kind of behavior, which casts dark aspirations over the entire season as a whole. I reject the idea that we should only empathize with cold-blooded assholes who whine and moan about how hard it is to have compassion i.e. Jane. I reject the premise that kindness is wasted on the deserving.
And the irony is that a lot of gamers, just like me, know what it's like to be mistreated and bullied. Yet it's somehow okay when 'cool' people do it?
It's because she's an easy target, since she's not given the chance to defend or redeem herself and is instead portrayed and mishandled as a… more defenceless victim who is a burden to others, so therefore it's easier to point the finger and browbeat her.
Reminds me of bullies in school, actually. Rather sad when you think about it.
I agree that both of the characters' stories were handled really poorly, if at all. i don't see this whole "Telltale hates depressed people" thing, though. It really was just rushed writing with no real sense of purpose. After episode three, we still had Rebecca's baggage, Kenny just lost his girlfriend, we needed to find out more about Jane [unless she just left, which might have made sense], Carlos just died; we needed a reaction to that, and since everything was suddenly a blank slate, so they needed to restart the plot. That alone is a lot to cover in an hour and a half. Given that the writing staff was on a short time table, I'm not surprised that they decided to just write out the characters that they didn't feel like were important. They could've at least did it in a way that didn't feel like a giant F-U to the fans of those characters, but I wouldn't say that what they did was out of the ordinary. Those two character arcs were crap because the writing staff was pressured and rushing. The whole season reeked of poor planning, to me.
But to suggest that the characters disabilities were the reason they were written so poorly? Nah, I don't buy it.
I believe Nick Breckon intended for Sarah to have a much greater purpose. We could teach how to shoot a gun and she really wanted to know what was happening in the world back in Ep. 2. Of course, we will never really know.
The problem is that Season 2's writers are mean-spirited enough to endorse this kind of behavior, which casts dark aspirations over the enti… morere season as a whole. I reject the idea that we should only empathize with cold-blooded assholes who whine and moan about how hard it is to have compassion i.e. Jane. I reject the premise that kindness is wasted on the deserving.
And the irony is that a lot of gamers, just like me, know what it's like to be mistreated and bullied. Yet it's somehow okay when 'cool' people do it?
Doesn't mean it's not worth the effort if you feel strongly enough about it. I'm not exactly going so far as to picket outsides these people's doorsteps. I'm just writing on a forum.
I'd ask you not to keep referring to my criticism as "complaining" because it's far from such. And I don't really give a shit what Kirkman writes, Telltale created a whole cast of their own characters and did a pretty good job writing an emotional, meaningful, bittersweet arc in Season 1. Don't see how laughable it is the expect the same from Season 2.
But go on ahead and continue dispassionately accepting whatever half-assed slop you're given and instead criticizing the people who don't. I'm sure it's a satisfying existence.
Change? In a franchise that's been doing this since 2003 and has many extensions all doing the same tropes over and over? Kirkman has had de… moretractors from the start, you're not special in complaining about the writing nor will you be more successful than anyone who has complained in the last 11 years.
And if you're going to blame writers for taking a multibillion dollar business model and not change it, then I'm going to clear my schedule for the week so I have enough time to laugh at you. Because that is rich.
I have autism, well aspergers and I can /sometimes/ tell when others have it but then again I don't know for sure because some people have symptoms and aren't diagnosed.
Oh my god,
I just know an Autistic when I see one, as I am one
That's fucking stupid.
Cases can differ from different people. Not everyone is the same.
Please. You should hear me rant about bad writing on Korra and Pacific Rim. I accept the writing of this franchise because I consider all of their decisions sound. When I see bad writing - actual bad writing, not just decisions I don't agree with - I am very vocal. I don't think your notes are good and think your concept of The Walking Dead is contrary to the tone and premise of the world. I think your concept is laughable because, while you understand how to resolve plotlines and bring characters to satisfying conclusions, you're in the wrong place for it. Asking a Kirkman inspired work to give more than four characters completed arcs is like expecting Disney to produce Battle Royale. It's not that Telltale isn't capable of creating another emotional, meaningful, bittersweet arc, it's that they're not aiming for it anymore. The story from now on is going to be about wringing whatever innocence Clementine has left out and turning her into a monster. If you don't think that's true, look at Carl and Rick. That's all this premise is built to do.
Yes, I dispassionately accept half-assed slop. I have seen the future and it is stuck in the past. This universe works in a loop of despair and weak hopespots that fall apart as soon as someone dares to smile. And I'm going to criticize anyone who looks at that miserable and cheap story and says "Hey, why not make Clementine happy again?" or "Why not let the differently abled character survive?" or "You know what would make this scene better? Ice cream!" It's not a satisfying experience. It's me trying to save people the trouble of getting the wrong impression of something that doesn't want to be different, but everyone expects it to be.
Go pick up any issue of the comic, then flip to the back to find black pages. You'll see that you're not alone in almost everything you say. People complain about this all the time. It doesn't change the way Kirkman writes and it won't change how Telltale writes. If you feel strongly enough to complain, that's great. But I think you should have learned the lesson by now. Telltale is full of better writers and better franchises to work with. Complain there. Game of Thrones will be awesome. Another Monkey Island will probably also be awesome. I want those to succeed far more than I want to try to shout down Kirkman's crystalline fortress of predictability and inescapable doom. I don't think we'll ever get anywhere near season 1's quality from Walking Dead ever again. I love the series for what it is, and when it drops the ball and calls it a "feature" rather than a mistake, I know who is really to blame. And I think if you realize that, you'll have a more satisfying experience, or know why you shouldn't be playing it.
Doesn't mean it's not worth the effort if you feel strongly enough about it. I'm not exactly going so far as to picket outsides these people… more's doorsteps. I'm just writing on a forum.
I'd ask you not to keep referring to my criticism as "complaining" because it's far from such. And I don't really give a shit what Kirkman writes, Telltale created a whole cast of their own characters and did a pretty good job writing an emotional, meaningful, bittersweet arc in Season 1. Don't see how laughable it is the expect the same from Season 2.
But go on ahead and continue dispassionately accepting whatever half-assed slop you're given and instead criticizing the people who don't. I'm sure it's a satisfying existence.
Comments
There's a difference between taking fan's input into account to better their story, and catering to every single complaint and criticism, most of which insults Telltale's capabilities.
You were here after the whole episode 4 fiasco. People were insulting Telltale directly, threats were being sent, people were getting upset. You think they're going to listen to that?
People like you need to figure out the difference between real, genuine issues, and the mishandling of video game characters. Sarah is dead and gone now, not that it mattered because she was never real in the first place, but what do you expect them to do? Bring her back? There's nothing they can do, and there's nothing they will do.
Go ahead, boycott the game. See how much of a shit Telltale gives.
Well, it's not like Telltale are being hounded by a major studio like Activision, Ubisoft, or Square Enix, so I think they can remake S2 all together, but it's probably not going to happen.
Oh my god,
That's fucking stupid.
Cases can differ from different people. Not everyone is the same.
I don't think you understand what I'm trying to do, here.
I've been here from Episode 2 and on, so actually, yeah, I saw everything. I don't support threats or insults and I'm not asking for a rewrite. I'm not asking to bring Sarah back. When you point out flaws, it's so the artist can improve in the future. As Telltale continues to create games and characters, I want them to be aware of the problematic treatment of Sarah and take that into account should they ever decide to create a character similar to hers.
And, uh... y'know, it wasn't even my plan, but if enough people boycott something, the company does kind of care. Because. Y'know. Money and all that.
Being that they got the approval from Kirkman before finalizing the story and sold record copies, I really doubt it's going to happen either. A success is a success, no matter what a vocal minority says about how they'd do it.
Now if they were dropped midway through by their network and had to air the rest of the episodes on a website only and everyone hated their characters and season arc, we'd have something to talk about.
Sarah wasn't mishandled as a character. She was used exactly for that purpose. If you don't like the implication that a mentally impaired child can't survive in the zombie apocalypse, that means you're better than the moral. No one is suddenly going to realize that they just accidentally wrote the death of a helpless, tearsoaked child and try to take it back. It was done deliberately. Call for a boycott, cry "UNFAIR", but put your anger at the right place.
Hate the premise of the world, where the only way to survive is to screw over anyone weaker. Don't hate Telltale for making a perfect replica of a design you hate.
The judges give the credibility to the man with autism. No points are awarded to the rebuttal founded on hearsay and inductive reasoning.
[removed]
Why would they do that when it was still a major success either way?
Seems like everytime I start to like a character Tell Tale makes them die or makes me hate them.
I think that was Season Two's problem in a nutshell, that there was almost no value placed on life. People hardly notice when other people die, Clem seems completely detached or disinterested in a lot of scenes, nobody seems to have any goal outside of not die and even then it's not treated as all that important of one. Like Luke volunteering Clem for the bridge, but doesn't bother giving her a gun in case things go bad. After that I was like "Well if these people don't care what happens why should I?" It was like the story is just an excuse to have things happen so you can get to the next action scene. Like... well a video game I guess.
Still's it's a pretty striking contrast with Season 1 and say, the kid in the attic. You don't know who he is, he's probably been dead for weeks, and is removed from the story shortly after being introduced, yet he has very noticeable impact on a lot of the cast and probably the audience. For Kenny it's a painful relapse of the dilemma he faced with Duck and for Lee it's a chilling reminder of what could have happened to Clementine if he hadn't meet her on that fateful day. It also clearly affects Clementine since she later draws a picture of Lee burying the boy. Lot of emotional punch, in and out of universe, for just one random zombified kid.
Compare that to everyone around the campfire giggling about Luke shirking his responsibilities for an improv sexscapade with Jane, completely oblivious to the fact that doing so put everyone in danger and may have even gotten an innocent girl killed to boot. Good times! Enjoy your ice bath farm boy. =P
Telltale: That's totally what we're aiming for, honest!
And to be quite frank, I'm beginning to agree with the theory that No Going Back takes place in an alternate universe from Amid The Ruins. The logical fallout of Clementine/Kenny starting the gunfight would have caused greater tensions among the remains of the group, rather than everything being inexplicably forgiven.
"Don't worry, Clem, about feeling responsible for causing a gunfight that could have killed everybody.
But DO feel responsible for making a grown woman scream when you try to save her life. DO feel responsible for failing to save a man from drowning. DO feel responsible for murdering a teenage boy's zombified sister. DO feel responsible for not saving Kenny."
How do I logic?
I sense much hate within you.
I would agree that Season 1 shows more balance. It didn't just have people trying to survive disasters, it had them trying to cope and make a home for themselves. Little things like talking to everyone individually about the situation or fixing a swing for the kids, weren't a priority in moving the plot forward, but it was important in showing why the group keeps struggling in the first place. A time to laugh, and a time to cry.
Season 2 was more event driven, eager to move from one tragedy and forget it before moving on to the next. The ideas were there, as far as new relationships and scenarios go, but they're not all given the development that they deserve. Heck, I don't care if the trip from the cabin to the ski lodge was uneventful, let me spend some time camping with this new group. Get to know them outside of the times of conflict.
Yes, because you've suddenly turned into a Jedi.
One that can sense emotions over the internet as well! Impressive. :P
I been a Sith Lord since 2008
Even if that replica ends up being pretty bad.
I don't know about minority, other places are not real happy with how S2 turned out.
A lot of my anger came from the developer's outside comments, when they endorsed the gross viewpoint of manchild Greg Miller, who laughed about having the opportunity to kill off a girl just because she was 'not normal'. I suppose not knowing the developer's thoughts would make her death feel less gross, but knowing their biases (where a disabled girl dies in an extremely contrived way, and where a rage-filled traumatized old man like Kenny inexplicably deserves 'redemption') pushes me to reject their idea.
Yeah, fuck Greg Miller. I really don't want him to talk over anything I care about.
About Nick's death, I probably wouldn't hate it as much if Nick wasn't determinant in the first place. Had he been like Chuck, who's purpose was to go out saving Clem, while Nick's would have been to go out trying to get help, then I wouldn't feel like this. But because he was determinant, he should have done something after his first possible death. Because every other character added something after a possible death (besides determinants who weren't part of the main group, like two of the Save-Lots Bandits).
Doug/Carley - They developed over two extra episodes and they died shocking deaths at the hands of one of our own group members.
Ben- Probably my favorite example, because of the different variations to the beginning of episode 5 he feels like he was meant to be part of the episode since the beginning, and he contributed to most conversations, and he died a tragic death. He also got one of my favorite moments in the game, and that was standing up to Kenny, with an amazing speech to boot.
Pete- He literally got his own beginning, with him facing the realities of his own demise and expressing his concerns for his nephew, he even goes out trying to save Clem.
Alvin- He goes out in a heroic way, saving Clem, but more importantly to him, his wife and unborn child.
Sarah- Now she might not be the most stellar of examples, what with all the inconsistencies and leaps of logic to produce her death, but you have to admit that it most likely took you by surprise, as most savable characters would only die in a later episode, and it was very shocking and quite horrifying.
Now here we have Nick, who arguably got the most character development before his first demise, doing absolutely nothing after his first possible death. Sure you can talk to him in episode 3, but it's completely optional, and you could just fly right past it. Also, he gets absolutely no lines in episode 4, unless you count the grunt from the bullet lodging into his shoulder, and his voice actor is not credited at all in the credits. He had no purpose after episode 2.
Not to mention, his death is also filled with some logical inconsistencies. It left me with several questions.
Why didn't Luke, his supposed best friend of 20 years, not give him a weapon, when he had a machete, and AK and a pistol?
What was the point of Nick being shot if he was just going to be bitten in the exact same spot in his episode 2 death, and he certainly wasn't suffering from a bullet wound then, so why have him shot?
How did Nick get out of the trailer in the first place?
Nick's death just really felt like an afterthought.
Nick getting shot was a red herring and a mean-spirited insult to the players who saved him. "Remember the guy you saved back in Episode 2?" Telltale seems to say, "He's gonna die lol."
After thinking about it for a while, in the same vein of it being interesting to see how Sarah would have reacted/interacted with AJ, it also would have been interesting to see Nick react/interact with a traumatized Sarah. He went through a very similar breakdown when Pete died and being confronted with a despondent Sarah dealing with a devastating loss the same way seems like it'd set the stage for a natural conclusion to his own previous dilemma. Possibly by being the most adamant about not leaving Sarah because he sees himself in her grief and he desperately tries to help her because it's what he subconsciously wanted when he felt like dying, someone telling him they still care about him. (Which, depending on your previous actions, Clem may have done for Nick earlier in the game.)
You could even kind of daisy chain Nick and Sarah's fates together. If you don't get Sarah out of the trailer, Nick dies with her trying to save her. If you do, Nick dies saving Sarah from under the deck. Sarah could have a hopeful moment with AJ after he's born, then die in the shoot out trying to get him to safety. This wouldn't have required any major changes to the story or their characters, just a few minutes of extra life to take part in already written parts of the story that have some relevance to their character arcs.
They're still responsible for perpetuating the trope. Blaming the "world" as a whole just takes responsibility away from people and when you do that, change never happens.
ok i have no love for sarah, i always hated her as a character. but i wont get into that, but slapping her was to hopefully knock some smart into her dumb little head.snap her into reality, she needed a good slap.
i agree with you about nick i liked his character after season 1 when he wasn't such a jerk.
But you got to remember one thing..............this is the walking dead,one point of this is that someone can die at any moment. even someone as "innocent" as sarah or nick.
Change? In a franchise that's been doing this since 2003 and has many extensions all doing the same tropes over and over? Kirkman has had detractors from the start, you're not special in complaining about the writing nor will you be more successful than anyone who has complained in the last 11 years.
And if you're going to blame writers for taking a multibillion dollar business model and not change it, then I'm going to clear my schedule for the week so I have enough time to laugh at you. Because that is rich.
I remember somebody back before Omid The Ruins was released who drew a parallel between Nick and Sarah's trauma. Nick, who's implied to have been a very sensitive and soft-hearted child, began to harden once his uncle shot a deer in the throat, and his loss of innocence was complete once he shoots Matthew in the throat. Carlos' death via being shot in the throat indicates another significant loss to Sarah's innocence, and it's interesting to contrast the different ways in which Nick & Sarah react to this loss of innocence.
I'd say you need a 'good slap' for saying nonsense like that.
In a logical world, a girl who's been traumatized into near-catatonia by being slapped by her father WOULDN'T suddenly snap out of a traumatized stupor once her only remaining friend does the same thing to her.
But since Telltale's writers are a bunch of violent dicks who think it's funny to slap a grieving girl, they forced players to hurt her in order to give a half-baked legitimacy to Carver's insane message of "being cruel to be kind."
well surely shes got enough sense to know her father was forced to do it. and after clem tells her this that was supposed to have been a hint to her that this world is fucked up, And sitting in in the floor in the fetal position isnt going to help here. And i know she has a condition but im sure she should be aware of common sense. If your going to sit there and LET the dead eat you, let me go to my last resort of saving your ass and slap the shit out of you.
The only reason why the game 'forces' you to slap her is because the writers thought slapping works. Never mind that you can actually give her a pep-talk and calm her down - because the writers are dead-set on sending a half-baked message justifying physical abuse, the pep-talk does nothing and the game 'makes' you hit Sarah. This act of violence isn't even reflected on by anybody, and it's treated as a necessary good.
Which is bullshit, if you actually have any inkling of psychology or even just have a memory stronger than a goldfish's.
"Slapping the hysterical bitch" is a cliche in old movies, and if it's made fun of in a Leslie Nielsen movie like Airplane that may be a sign that it's not actually a sensible thing to do.
you are still missing the point, the writers did nothing wrong. Think of this as a real situation, your in a trailer with walkers inside the only thing standing between you and them is a wooden door which they have proven they can get through. you have little time to convince her to get her ass up so you dont get killed. you give her a short pep-talk because thats all you have time for. But still she sits there, at this point the walkers are through the door, your seconds from death and she still sits there even though the dead are in the room. you are out of ideas, this crazy bitch isnt moving. Slap her, Why the fuck not? no harm in trying, (slap)"hey bitch, i dont know if you have noticed but the dead are here to eat you and if you dont get up your lunch". That whole sentence put into one slap, she gets the point and you all live problem solved.
I really hated there's no option to apologize to her afterwards so she knows Clem isn't angry with her. Even if the slap was necessary (which, like you, I think was just tacked on by the writers to spite the people who liked Sarah) you should be allowed to make it clear you hated doing it. Yet again, this another case of S2 screwing something S1 did really well, where you have to talk to Kenny about Duck. You can possibly talk Kenny down, or get in a fight with him in attempt to knock some sense into him, which you can also apologize for immediately afterwards.
And I'm really fucking sick of people holding up Sarah's meltdown as the telltale sign of how stupid she is. Fucking EVERYONE EVER in the Walking Dead series has flipped their fucking shit after they lose the people closet to them. Just in the games alone we have.
And with the exception of Clem, all these people are probably double Sarah's age, and likely without anxiety disorders either. If you find it consistently annoying people do stupid shit when their loved ones die, fine. But don't go acting like this a Sarah specific hang up of any kind. If anything, she seems like she's somewhere on the lower end of stupid behavior chart. Really only endangering herself. She even ran away and isolated herself after Carlos died. It was the other's decision to attempt to save her. Blame them. =P
People were projecting and assuming that she was going to be a 'stupid', 'creepy', 'dangerous' liability even back since Episode 1, where she is the most unambiguously kind person to Clem. They never gave her a chance, and they're actually irrationally dead-set on wanting her dead because...
...she's nice? Because she's socially awkward? Because she's suppressed? Because she's disabled? Because she's not dark & edgy enough?
It's because she's an easy target, since she's not given the chance to defend or redeem herself and is instead portrayed and mishandled as a defenceless victim who is a burden to others, so therefore it's easier to point the finger and browbeat her.
Reminds me of bullies in school, actually. Rather sad when you think about it.
The problem is that Season 2's writers are mean-spirited enough to endorse this kind of behavior, which casts dark aspirations over the entire season as a whole. I reject the idea that we should only empathize with cold-blooded assholes who whine and moan about how hard it is to have compassion i.e. Jane. I reject the premise that kindness is wasted on the deserving.
And the irony is that a lot of gamers, just like me, know what it's like to be mistreated and bullied. Yet it's somehow okay when 'cool' people do it?
I agree that both of the characters' stories were handled really poorly, if at all. i don't see this whole "Telltale hates depressed people" thing, though. It really was just rushed writing with no real sense of purpose. After episode three, we still had Rebecca's baggage, Kenny just lost his girlfriend, we needed to find out more about Jane [unless she just left, which might have made sense], Carlos just died; we needed a reaction to that, and since everything was suddenly a blank slate, so they needed to restart the plot. That alone is a lot to cover in an hour and a half. Given that the writing staff was on a short time table, I'm not surprised that they decided to just write out the characters that they didn't feel like were important. They could've at least did it in a way that didn't feel like a giant F-U to the fans of those characters, but I wouldn't say that what they did was out of the ordinary. Those two character arcs were crap because the writing staff was pressured and rushing. The whole season reeked of poor planning, to me.
But to suggest that the characters disabilities were the reason they were written so poorly? Nah, I don't buy it.
I believe Nick Breckon intended for Sarah to have a much greater purpose. We could teach how to shoot a gun and she really wanted to know what was happening in the world back in Ep. 2. Of course, we will never really know.
Doesn't mean it's not worth the effort if you feel strongly enough about it. I'm not exactly going so far as to picket outsides these people's doorsteps. I'm just writing on a forum.
I'd ask you not to keep referring to my criticism as "complaining" because it's far from such. And I don't really give a shit what Kirkman writes, Telltale created a whole cast of their own characters and did a pretty good job writing an emotional, meaningful, bittersweet arc in Season 1. Don't see how laughable it is the expect the same from Season 2.
But go on ahead and continue dispassionately accepting whatever half-assed slop you're given and instead criticizing the people who don't. I'm sure it's a satisfying existence.
I have autism, well aspergers and I can /sometimes/ tell when others have it but then again I don't know for sure because some people have symptoms and aren't diagnosed.
Please. You should hear me rant about bad writing on Korra and Pacific Rim. I accept the writing of this franchise because I consider all of their decisions sound. When I see bad writing - actual bad writing, not just decisions I don't agree with - I am very vocal. I don't think your notes are good and think your concept of The Walking Dead is contrary to the tone and premise of the world. I think your concept is laughable because, while you understand how to resolve plotlines and bring characters to satisfying conclusions, you're in the wrong place for it. Asking a Kirkman inspired work to give more than four characters completed arcs is like expecting Disney to produce Battle Royale. It's not that Telltale isn't capable of creating another emotional, meaningful, bittersweet arc, it's that they're not aiming for it anymore. The story from now on is going to be about wringing whatever innocence Clementine has left out and turning her into a monster. If you don't think that's true, look at Carl and Rick. That's all this premise is built to do.
Yes, I dispassionately accept half-assed slop. I have seen the future and it is stuck in the past. This universe works in a loop of despair and weak hopespots that fall apart as soon as someone dares to smile. And I'm going to criticize anyone who looks at that miserable and cheap story and says "Hey, why not make Clementine happy again?" or "Why not let the differently abled character survive?" or "You know what would make this scene better? Ice cream!" It's not a satisfying experience. It's me trying to save people the trouble of getting the wrong impression of something that doesn't want to be different, but everyone expects it to be.
Go pick up any issue of the comic, then flip to the back to find black pages. You'll see that you're not alone in almost everything you say. People complain about this all the time. It doesn't change the way Kirkman writes and it won't change how Telltale writes. If you feel strongly enough to complain, that's great. But I think you should have learned the lesson by now. Telltale is full of better writers and better franchises to work with. Complain there. Game of Thrones will be awesome. Another Monkey Island will probably also be awesome. I want those to succeed far more than I want to try to shout down Kirkman's crystalline fortress of predictability and inescapable doom. I don't think we'll ever get anywhere near season 1's quality from Walking Dead ever again. I love the series for what it is, and when it drops the ball and calls it a "feature" rather than a mistake, I know who is really to blame. And I think if you realize that, you'll have a more satisfying experience, or know why you shouldn't be playing it.