I can understand being bothered with the time jump and all of that, but we're talking about how shes portrayed at the current point in the story timeline. I just don't understand how he/she can find her character to be unrealistic or unbelievable given the time that has gone by and the things that have happened in her past. I agree that there isn't a whole lot that could be done to improve Clem's character at this point. TTG has done a great job with her character growth (even though it happened very quickly because of the time jump).
I think he's more upset about the character changing than the character itself. I am personally upset that Clementine was made the protagon… moreist. We had many discussions about why it is a bad idea to "protagonistify" a character with a preestablished personality after the release of episode 5, especially one as delicate as Clementine's. He could also be bothered by the time jump, meaning that he might have been happier to drop in on an earlier stage of her development rather than a completed stage. I personally have a problem with time jumps, but that is a narrative problem rather than one of Clementine.
I don't think the problem is that Clementine is portrayed as too competent, but that the adults are portrayed as too incompetent. Leaving the door open for Carver, letting a little girl operate a wind turbine, ignoring the threat of Carver's group at the Ski Lodge when they were just miles away, all of episode 1... It doesn't take much… [view original content]
I don't think he is really mad about the season 2 character because it is extremely unrealistic per-say, but because it differs from his preconceived notions of what Clementine should be. To be fair, that probably is caused by the time jump. It's kind of like not wanting your children to ever grow up, and then waking up one day to find that 2 years have passed and the child no longer acts convincingly as a child, but as an adult. I kind of felt like that before episode 2, but now I am fine with her character.
The time jump is basically a slap in the face to players who wanted to witness her evolution rather than be thrown into some random time in the distant future and be expected to fully relate to her character. It's just lazy writing, as was the 5 day time jump in episode 2 which could have been used for actual character development.
I can understand being bothered with the time jump and all of that, but we're talking about how shes portrayed at the current point in the s… moretory timeline. I just don't understand how he/she can find her character to be unrealistic or unbelievable given the time that has gone by and the things that have happened in her past. I agree that there isn't a whole lot that could be done to improve Clem's character at this point. TTG has done a great job with her character growth (even though it happened very quickly because of the time jump).
Fun Fact: Season 1 Clem isn't the complete sweet and innocent girl you all make her out to be.
If you play as a complete jerk to everyone (including Clem) you'll see some sass and bravery come out.
For example: At the gate to the mansion when you just run into the backyard from the walkers, Clem will ask "Did they see us?" If you respond with a yes instead of a reassuring answer she will then proclaim "I'll stand watch."
Fun Fact: Season 1 Clem isn't the complete sweet and innocent girl you all make her out to be.
If you play as a complete jerk to everyone… more (including Clem) you'll see some sass and bravery come out.
For example: At the gate to the mansion when you just run into the backyard from the walkers, Clem will ask "Did they see us?" If you respond with a yes instead of a reassuring answer she will then proclaim "I'll stand watch."
Well, a year of living in a zombie infested wasteland, full of marauding dangerous people will do that to you. Also I suppose seeing your pa… morerents and zombies, and the man who cared for you die also probably has something to do with it. Also I'd like to point out that before the "modern age" 11 years old was close to, if not "grown up", hell I'm sure there are plenty of women in history who were married by that age.
"The time jump is basically a slap in the face to players who wanted to witness her evolution rather than be thrown into some random time in the distant future and be expected to fully relate to her character. It's just lazy writing, as was the 5 day time jump in episode 2 which could have been used for actual character development."
Precisely the point, which is why I've found myself mechanically plodding along playing this game with sheer lack of interest: my entire motivation for playing a sequel was to build up on what was started, which meant carrying along the same motivations I had in Season I in order to play this game, concern for the protagonist's evolution and development as she steps more fully into the real world (and now for that of the legacy of the first season's protagonist), and for that reason it isn't a matter of witnessing that evolution as it is steering it and confronting the threats that world poses to the direction we might wish to continue to take it towards from the first season (or even reverse it away from in response to realities to be faced), all of which requires the same motive of protection that had driven us the players before, thus providing us with a clear goal. More importantly, it gives a more interesting, responsive character to contend with, one whose original imported personality (meaning her core personality carrying with it a nascent orientation coming from the directional influence and lessons endowed to it by Lee's intervention and example as fashioned by the player) might itself be an obstacle to what we choose to do or itself an NPC of sorts even if we are given full control over her actions, a personality both whom we recognise from before and that actually responds and is affected and influenced further in its evolution by the actions we choose to undertake as we play her.
This is in contrast to the current Clementine whose persona is one that is ready-made, a shell waiting to be outfitted with a full personality of our own choosing and projection, and that has no point of reference to anything except whatever our imaginations can conjure up for her backstory in the period of the time gap. It is stale and presents no challenges with regards to shaping her. She is already shaped into what we have chosen for her, and the actions we choose for her will be little more than mere extensions of a personality we have already selected for her. Contrary to what is often said about her, she is not evolving. There is no inner conflict within herself because her actions are applications of whatever moral compass or code of behaviour she already has; they are not mechanisms that can run counter to those and clash with them. Evolution involves changes or results originating in the interaction or clash that occurs between a person's initial mindset and code of behaviour and experience gained from the environment. The other sort of evolution you might want to consider is that of skill and the ability to survive. She's the protagonist and I have nothing to evoke in me the fear that she might die at any moment in the game, unless I want to kill off with a berserker's axe what's left of that vestigial bit of care I once had by wading through a slew of Clementine death scenes that seem to be there for cheap comical value. Frankly, I have little reason or desire anymore to care for the physical safety of this new protagonist.
I don't think he is really mad about the season 2 character because it is extremely unrealistic per-say, but because it differs from his pre… moreconceived notions of what Clementine should be. To be fair, that probably is caused by the time jump. It's kind of like not wanting your children to ever grow up, and then waking up one day to find that 2 years have passed and the child no longer acts convincingly as a child, but as an adult. I kind of felt like that before episode 2, but now I am fine with her character.
The time jump is basically a slap in the face to players who wanted to witness her evolution rather than be thrown into some random time in the distant future and be expected to fully relate to her character. It's just lazy writing, as was the 5 day time jump in episode 2 which could have been used for actual character development.
This is in contrast to the current Clementine whose personality is ready-made, a shell waiting to be outfitted with a full personality of our own choosing and projection, and that has no point of reference to anything except whatever our imaginations can conjure up for her backstory in the period of the time gap. It is stale and presents no challenges with regards to shaping her. She is already shaped into what we have chosen for her, and the actions we choose for her will be nothing more but mere extensions to a personality we have already selected for her.
This is precisely why I didn't want Clementine to be the protagonist. It's literally impossible to set a character with a preestablished personality as the protagonist and expect the character to remain untarnished. No matter how much they don't want to admit it, the player is, to some extent, projecting their own personality onto Clementine. Lee was created as a blank slate to accommodate all types of players, while Clementine was already a character and she is now capable of basically being mind-controlled into doing things that contradict her established personality.
I am warming up to her, but this isn't season 1 Clementine. Contrary to popular belief, "growing up" doesn't involve adopting an entirely new personality, that of the player. Not to mention the problems caused by the time jump, which basically prevented us from gaining a true understanding of her current mental state. I like the new Clementine because she is basically an extension of myself blended with some vague traits from her season 1 character. She really isn't reminiscent of season 1 Clementine, but I still find her very enjoyable as a character.
"The time jump is basically a slap in the face to players who wanted to witness her evolution rather than be thrown into some random time in… more the distant future and be expected to fully relate to her character. It's just lazy writing, as was the 5 day time jump in episode 2 which could have been used for actual character development."
Precisely the point, which is why I've found myself mechanically plodding along playing this game with sheer lack of interest: my entire motivation for playing a sequel was to build up on what was started, which meant carrying along the same motivations I had in Season I in order to play this game, concern for the protagonist's evolution and development as she steps more fully into the real world (and now for that of the legacy of the first season's protagonist), and for that reason it isn't a matter of witnessing that evolution as it is steering it and confronting the threats that world poses to the direction… [view original content]
It was a difficult question from the beginning; if one wants Clementine's story to remain the central focus of the season and entire series, how to do so without assigning her the protagonist role and instead primary NPC role but without reapplying the same tried formula that would try to have somebody play the role of a new Lee? I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when the staff were discussing these points.
Unfortunately, I had invested too much interest in the character and story of the girl to be able to warm up to this incarnation of her. Happy to know you've made peace with that, but I've resigned myself from trying to find some enjoyment in playing this season of the game. Things are quite irreversible at this point, and the dreaded word 'ret-con' seems like the only possible resort. I've started to repeat the mantra that they've pulled a Dragon Age 2 with this season. We had some prominent nay-sayers like Maxwell Horse at the time, but like many from the earlier membership of these forums, he's long gone. I had written a long bit about the points discussed here back during the first episode. Here's the link to it, if you're interested.
I'm also thinking of maybe posting another critique in the same vein. If you'd like to give it a look or some feedback, it's here as a draft in the context of a PM. Since the system is broken, you'll have to use the link below:
This is in contrast to the current Clementine whose personality is ready-made, a shell waiting to be outfitted with a full personality of ou… morer own choosing and projection, and that has no point of reference to anything except whatever our imaginations can conjure up for her backstory in the period of the time gap. It is stale and presents no challenges with regards to shaping her. She is already shaped into what we have chosen for her, and the actions we choose for her will be nothing more but mere extensions to a personality we have already selected for her.
This is precisely why I didn't want Clementine to be the protagonist. It's literally impossible to set a character with a preestablished personality as the protagonist and expect the character to remain untarnished. No matter how much they don't want to admit it, the player is, to some extent, projecting their own personality onto Clementine. Lee was created as a blank slate to… [view original content]
"The time jump... It's just lazy writing, as was the 5 day time jump in episode 2 which could have been used for actual character development."
Incidentally, and on the matter of the less obvious time jumps, you've just reminded me now of something else, that things to me had begun already from the start to feel uncomfortably off and abrupt, appearing disjointed and lacking resolution, pushing me to suspect that a continuity stretching from the sharp impact and momentum of past events or a sense of connexion to them was likely to be of little importance and not much the priority. I thought it perhaps to be only a small matter that I had no call to give much notice to, but in retrospect it seems to have been quite the foreshadowing of what direction the writers had ultimately decided to take, working with this story.
The season opened having Clementine immediately start off in safe hands once more in a relaxed atmosphere and setting and light-heartedly chatting. This came across as too disconnected and abrupt a start, given the tense, unresolved cliff-hanger note on which we ended last season. I thought for the sake of keeping things like a 'season start' freshly connected to and proceeding from that immediate aftermath and resolution, they could at least have given us an opening prologue set at the instant she finds Omid and Christa, still dazed with the shock of events fresh in her mind, and with grief breaking the news to them of Lee's death, before allowing for that momentary diffusion of tension in transitioning ahead only a few short months. Or better still for the sake of creating a short, suspenseful climb leading up to that point, start her off a short time before she finds and reaches them, who knows?, maybe even with a few minor preliminary obstacles leading up to that point for her to face as she wanders and makes her way. After all, the somewhat symbolic ending and final, dissonant note on which the last season concluded wasn't that of Lee's death, but of Clementine truly all by herself in the middle of a wide and empty expanse, marking a point of transition. It seems fitting for the sake of a short prologue for the writers to have picked up from that open tail end still carrying the full, packed, charge of the entire first season and conclude that segment to signal an intended continuity before then skipping ahead reasonably in time.
I don't think he is really mad about the season 2 character because it is extremely unrealistic per-say, but because it differs from his pre… moreconceived notions of what Clementine should be. To be fair, that probably is caused by the time jump. It's kind of like not wanting your children to ever grow up, and then waking up one day to find that 2 years have passed and the child no longer acts convincingly as a child, but as an adult. I kind of felt like that before episode 2, but now I am fine with her character.
The time jump is basically a slap in the face to players who wanted to witness her evolution rather than be thrown into some random time in the distant future and be expected to fully relate to her character. It's just lazy writing, as was the 5 day time jump in episode 2 which could have been used for actual character development.
Who would you want the protagonist to be if not Clementine? Omid? Christa? If the story continues directly off of season one, it obviously has to be one of those two if its not Clementine. I believe Clementine was the best and most logical choice, especially since she was already a fan favorite.
I don't know how you figure being player controlled is tarnishing her character. As you grow up, you change. People are also a product of their environment, so they're subject to change in that way over time as well. In season two, you get to have a say in what ways she changes. Whats wrong with that exactly? Expecting her to be the same as she was in season one just isn't realistic. Its not like her season two self is so dramatically different that she isn't the same person. She hasn't adopted "an entirely new personality".
This is in contrast to the current Clementine whose personality is ready-made, a shell waiting to be outfitted with a full personality of ou… morer own choosing and projection, and that has no point of reference to anything except whatever our imaginations can conjure up for her backstory in the period of the time gap. It is stale and presents no challenges with regards to shaping her. She is already shaped into what we have chosen for her, and the actions we choose for her will be nothing more but mere extensions to a personality we have already selected for her.
This is precisely why I didn't want Clementine to be the protagonist. It's literally impossible to set a character with a preestablished personality as the protagonist and expect the character to remain untarnished. No matter how much they don't want to admit it, the player is, to some extent, projecting their own personality onto Clementine. Lee was created as a blank slate to… [view original content]
Who would you want the protagonist to be if not Clementine? Omid? Christa?
See Conviva's post.
I don't know how you figure being player controlled is tarnishing her character
You would if you read my/Conviva's posts. I'll let you reflect over what I've already said so you can realize why much of the second paragraph doesn't apply to me. Specifically, everything related to her "growing up", unrealistic expectations, and changes in character brought on by the environment.
In season two, you get to have a say in what ways she changes. Whats wrong with that exactly?
Read Conviva's post.
She hasn't adopted "an entirely new personality".
She has adopted parts of a completely different personality projected by the player due to the nature of her being the protagonist. You seem to think that I was stating there was no resemblance between the characters at all. I stated that I, personally, was not greatly reminded of season 1 Clementine (at least in the first two episodes), not that they share no similarities whatsoever. I also stated that I view season 2 Clementine as "an extension of myself blended with some vague traits from her season 1 character", which acknowledges my belief that they are not completely different characters.
Who would you want the protagonist to be if not Clementine? Omid? Christa? If the story continues directly off of season one, it obviously h… moreas to be one of those two if its not Clementine. I believe Clementine was the best and most logical choice, especially since she was already a fan favorite.
I don't know how you figure being player controlled is tarnishing her character. As you grow up, you change. People are also a product of their environment, so they're subject to change in that way over time as well. In season two, you get to have a say in what ways she changes. Whats wrong with that exactly? Expecting her to be the same as she was in season one just isn't realistic. Its not like her season two self is so dramatically different that she isn't the same person. She hasn't adopted "an entirely new personality".
I don't see any alternative options presented. I understand you two don't like the idea of her being the protagonist, but I have yet to see either of you offer up a different character to take that spot.
"You would if you read my/Conviva's posts. I'll let you reflect over what I've already said so you can realize why much of the second paragraph doesn't apply to me. Specifically, everything related to her "growing up", unrealistic expectations, and changes in character brought on by the environment."
I've read both posts and they honestly just don't make any logical sense to me. As we have already established many times now, Clementine is growing up. People change as they grow up. You as the player get to decide in what way she changes as she grows up. That isn't tarnishing her character. It's called character growth. Basically every main character/protagonist in any story goes through it. Look at Rick from The Walking Dead show. Is he the same person as he was from the very start of the series? No. Is his character tarnished? No.
"She has adopted parts of a completely different personality projected by the player due to the nature of her being the protagonist. You seem to think that I was stating there was no resemblance between the characters at all.I stated that I, personally, was not greatly reminded of season 1 Clementine (at least in the first two episodes), not that they share no similarities whatsoever. I also stated that I view season 2 Clementine as "an extension of myself blended with some vague traits from her season 1 character", which acknowledges my belief that they are not completely different characters."
Your exact words were: "Contrary to popular belief, 'growing up' doesn't involve adopting an entirely new personality, that of the player."
Why would you say that if you didn't think she was adopting an entirely new personality? If you said parts of an entirely new personality in the first place, it would have been different. Anyway.. it doesn't really matter, just letting you know that's where I thought you were saying/implying there weren't similarities in their personalities.
Who would you want the protagonist to be if not Clementine? Omid? Christa?
See Conviva's post.
I don't know how you figure bei… moreng player controlled is tarnishing her character
You would if you read my/Conviva's posts. I'll let you reflect over what I've already said so you can realize why much of the second paragraph doesn't apply to me. Specifically, everything related to her "growing up", unrealistic expectations, and changes in character brought on by the environment.
In season two, you get to have a say in what ways she changes. Whats wrong with that exactly?
Read Conviva's post.
She hasn't adopted "an entirely new personality".
She has adopted parts of a completely different personality projected by the player due to the nature of her being the protagonist. You seem to think that I was stating there was no resemblance between the characters at all. I stated that I, personally, was not … [view original content]
Why would she run towards walkers if she can get away from them? That would be the most foolhardy thing to do. Clementine is smart enough to know that.
I really like this badass version. Of course, I liked her before, but if she didn't evolve into this badass, then I wouldn't like her this m… moreuch. Staying for years, and not growing up tough only will make you get killed. Still, I kind of feel silly when most of the time she sees walkers, she kind of runs away from them. Sure, shooting them would attract noise, but she should start using a knife or a sword or something more...
Suffice it to say that I take issue with being involved as an "invisible hand" that guides Clementine's thoughts and actions. Clementine was perfectly capable of standing alone as her own character, and my intervention only serves to diminish her character growth as simply a bi-product of that intervention. No alternative suggestion was made for protagonist because, as stated above, it was basically unavoidable following Lee's death, for better or for worse. Again, I don't take issue with Clementine "growing up" in general, I take issue with the fact that I must think and act for an established character.
My quote was meant to explain that the phrase "growing up" oversimplifies my issue in which character-building moments feel artificial because I have difficulty separating my own personality from that of Clementine's. If the player is allowed to choose how her character evolves, I don't feel it can be considered a natural evolution, particularly if this evolution contradicts part of her established personality.
To quote, highlight a selection and press the quotation marks, which are located second furthest to the right on the "action bar".
"See Conviva's post"
I don't see any alternative options presented. I understand you two don't like the idea of her being the protagonist… more, but I have yet to see either of you offer up a different character to take that spot.
"You would if you read my/Conviva's posts. I'll let you reflect over what I've already said so you can realize why much of the second paragraph doesn't apply to me. Specifically, everything related to her "growing up", unrealistic expectations, and changes in character brought on by the environment."
I've read both posts and they honestly just don't make any logical sense to me. As we have already established many times now, Clementine is growing up. People change as they grow up. You as the player get to decide in what way she changes as she grows up. That isn't tarnishing her character. It's called character growth. Basically every main character/protagonist in any story goes through it. Look at Rick from The W… [view original content]
Fair enough. I can't say I feel the same way about the situation of having a role in how her character grows and develops, but I understand where you're coming from.
Thanks for the info on quoting, I couldn't figure it out for the life of me.
Suffice it to say that I take issue with being involved as an "invisible hand" that guides Clementine's thoughts and actions. Clementine wa… mores perfectly capable of standing alone as her own character, and my intervention only serves to diminish her character growth as simply a bi-product of that intervention. No alternative suggestion was made for protagonist because, as stated above, it was basically unavoidable following Lee's death, for better or for worse. Again, I don't take issue with Clementine "growing up" in general, I take issue with the fact that I must think and act for an established character.
My quote was meant to explain that the phrase "growing up" oversimplifies my issue in which character-building moments feel artificial because I have difficulty separating my own personality from that of Clementine's. If the player is allowed to choose how her character evolves, I don't feel it can be considered a natural evolution, p… [view original content]
It's not as big as an issue to me as I am making it seem, but it exists nonetheless. I admit that, during her exchanges with Kenny, I completely forgot about the issue. It goes to show, immersion in the story can really blind someone to its issues. The fast, "cinematic" pace of episode 1, with its minimal character development, had the opposite effect. I expect that it will be almost a non-issue by episode 3, which seems to be largely centered around character development.
Fair enough. I can't say I feel the same way about the situation of having a role in how her character grows and develops, but I understand where you're coming from.
Thanks for the info on quoting, I couldn't figure it out for the life of me.
After reading some of these comments, I believe people are more upset over the time jump than Clem's character evolution. The people upset seem to want some game play on the two years between the end of Season 1 and when Christa and Clem are in the woods together. The only problem with that is that time frame would take up a lot of time to cover and probably would be a season of it's own. A season for character development of one character would be much too long. My mom has been doing licensed home daycare for almost 20 years. Trust me, kids can grow up and change quick even in a non-apocalyptic setting.
Depending on how you play the game, you can see signs of sass and attitude in Season 1 Clem and signs of innocence in Season 2 Clem. It's all about how you play the game. You want season 1 Clem, play her that way. If you want sass and attitude, play her that way. That's what great about this game: you control the character. Play how you want and the story will evolve around it. What some of the play-throughs on YouTube to see what I mean.
Side note: This isn't direct to you Carv-eer-George. The "you" are just used for the general audience. Just wanted to say that just incase it looked like I was talking at you. lol
Fun Fact: Season 1 Clem isn't the complete sweet and innocent girl you all make her out to be.
If you play as a complete jerk to everyone… more (including Clem) you'll see some sass and bravery come out.
For example: At the gate to the mansion when you just run into the backyard from the walkers, Clem will ask "Did they see us?" If you respond with a yes instead of a reassuring answer she will then proclaim "I'll stand watch."
I've going to say I like her sassy... but that sounds a litte pervy... Guess my favorite sassy girl is Jeon Ji Hyun ^_^
But seriously, it's a progression. Started off with an 11 year-old Clementine would be like wtf... and 8 year-old Clementine could never be a main character. They're good for their respective roles...
Ok, this scene I just watch definitely shows how Clem still has her old child-like essence while still maturing. Clem doesn't know how to hi-5!!! Check out this play-though to see what I mean. The scene starts about 4 minutes in the video.
Ha. No, I don't expect a reply to this monster below, but organising my thoughts about much of this made for good cerebral exercise.
A good exchange between the two of you, but I'll add that Riadon has me re-examining some of my positions. In what sense? (Unfortunately you won't know until quite later ;-) ) First, both of us agree that Clementine's appeal for us is found essentially in her own individuality and cohesive personality, in her being a character who ultimately stands alone and functions independently as her own agent and person, one with whom and with whose personality we as players have a desire to interact and not to take control of, who in what she thinks (especially) and does ought to be free of the outside, interruptive agency of the player, but who nonetheless like any character with a believable personality is receptive and responsive to and affected by her own experience and by the influence of others, and it is ultimately within the category of exertion not of control but of influence, of seeing its effects and noticing how Clementine responds to it--for we'd hardly be content with being mere spectators either--as well as how even in an unexpected manner of reciprocity we ourselves respond to and are influenced by her in return (eg. some players upon factoring Clementine into their equation might have hesitated on a course of action they were just about to take), it is within that category of influence that our role and place and motivations as players lay and whence our primary pleasure in playing the game was derived (within the context of our relationship with Clementine and Lee's personal quest at any rate; the game of course drew us in in other ways as well: the game of survival itself, power politics, our relationships to other characters, etc.). Where it has involved us accompanying Clementine along the rocky path that is her character arc, the proper place that our motivations accorded us was not one of merely observing her growing and following her evolutionary course, but of heavily influencing the direction of that course and working to plot it, yet in order to preserve her own individuality, agency, and free will, doing so strictly indirectly by example and guidance through the agency of someone connected to and who was a visible presence for her, and not, as was done to Lee, by wresting control directly as a player and stealing from these by partially merging our will and personality with hers as my use of the word 'steering' before in a previous post might have seemed incorrectly to imply.
Season I had not only offered to us in Lee that primary role of influence, a place in the girl's story, and the opportunity to inject our own selves and personal convictions into it to act for her welfare's sake, but had also and again by means of Lee's own character given us our core motivation for playing the game, not by simply counting on Clementine's redeeming qualities and personality to endear her to us, but by cementing our commitment to Clementine's welfare by way of Lee's own concerns and affections for her in the context of his own personal story of redemption and through her own influence on his character. As our good Maxwell Rose (I take a moment to pour out libations in his memory) had put it, in many ways our connection and devotion to her character arc were established vicariously. We had partially merged with Lee to produce an alter-ego to define our place in the world and our role and influence in the lives of these characters. In other words, if the clothes make the man, unlike many an RPG, we had put on Lee as much as we had him put on us. When we think and operate in the world of the Walking Dead, he, with his motives, drive, and goals possesses us as much as we possess him with our own personalities, ethical compass, and manner of acting. This goes to show that Clementine's continuing story of character progression for us should be seen as in fact being the story of Lee's legacy that is yet to reach or be told to its full conclusion. This is crucial as it allows Lee's paternal regard and concern to survive his death and perpetuate itself within us the players as a motive to drive us forward with purpose into continuing Clementine's story and seeing how Lee's (our) influence guides her development. But the problem that I do not envy Telltale having had to study and try to resolve is that we now at that point had motive to follow that story into its next chapters, but not one to play a game, because there seemed no longer to be a place for us as players to continue in that role since the character in whom we had channelled something of ourselves and in whose person we had established a means to interact with Clementine and had define for us our relationship to her as players, had in dying removed along with himself our own persona, that which housed our own visible in-game presence and through which we could project our personalities as agents of influence with goals and a role to play. We have now been excised from our place in that universe and our continued presence in this story is forced into having to contend itself to being no less ethereal or helpless and powerless to assist than Lee's floating spectre who can do little more now than watch and follow Clementine, if even that.
Although I do not disagree at all with and fully supported the decision that was made to kill off Lee and grant closure to his story, this nonetheless had left the developers in a very tricky, messy, and likely unsalvageable situation in trying to move the story forward with us maintaining a place, role, and visible presence in it. The first season with its conclusion now demanded a progression and eventual closure to Clementine's story, but it seems there could be no working way to go about this other than trying to make the rest of the Walking Dead disappointingly into an animated film, because in the context of a game that could assign a satisfactory and appropriate role to us, Telltale were really caught in between a rock and hard place. If the story is to be centred on Clementine, then there is no other role for us there than that of Lee. His motives, his goals for Clementine, his concern for her, his wishing to see her progress, his particular experience with and memories of her, his (and itself ours) history with her, his 'why' that tells me why I should even care to move on with Clementine in this story, live on in us as players, but have no way of manifesting themselves once more in the game world in the guise of another character with agency in her story unless that character was literally possessed by his ghost. The problem would not have been solved by playing as a new protagonist because both our motives to safeguard Clementine and our relationship and approach to her as players have been defined through our execution of Lee's role. Playing the role of somebody else and joining ourselves to that new person, whether it is a new character carrying a relatively blank slate but who brings to the table his own back story and personal motives, or one of the pre-established characters from Season I, a person whose skin we would have to wear, would require looking at Clementine through the eyes and motives of that new character, forcing us into constructing a new alter-ego that redefines a player relationship to a past character, one that is separate from that which has defined our relationship to her and perceptions of her, when the entire motivation to continue participating in this story is to continue to behave in the same role of the person you've played before, but that person cannot exist in the game without wearing Lee's skin, as you had bound yourself to his character with its goals and story in order to project yourself into the game. Even in our mind's eye as players behind our screens, we do not see Clementine except through Lee's eyes and all the capacity and framework through which we could imagine interacting with her are those of Lee's role. We'd be finding ourselves instinctively trying to create a substitutive Lee carrying those same motives and approach towards Clementine in whom to replicate the role meaninglessly and unsatisfyingly, and in the case of a Season I character, overriding their pre-established personalities and motives. Clementine's story for us from now on from our personal vantage point as players only exists within Lee's story and perspective and so therefore any alter-ego that would house ourselves along with our original motives, feelings, and attitudes towards Clementine and grant us any contextual capacity to interact with her in a personal continuity can only be inextricably bound to the host character of Lee no less than Clementine's story is to his. The most striking proof is that when she reminisces about Lee and speaks of him in Season II, we are meant to feel that she is reminiscing and speaking directly about us. As far as it matters who we feel ourselves to be in this story and in our relationship to Clementine as players, we are still Lee, even after death. We live on in Clementine's memories and in our lasting influence and imprint upon her mind, and her continuing character growth and development always remains in good part our own on-going work, not as puppet masters who substitute her own decision making with our own, but as ones whose selves and whose example and influence and guidance and ethical/coping philosophy and lessons this independently thinking character responded to and freely took to heart and can now from the reference point of her core character and pre-established personality and in her personal odyssey make use of and herself apply to coming situations, accept or reject, or find herself conflicted with, eventually leading her to a heartfelt or persuaded adoption of or disillusionment with these principles, in the face and wake of challenges and scarring trials that she will be forced to face. The final result of that transition and of that last stretch of Clementine's character arc will close the final chapter of the story of Lee's legacy, either vindicating him in his pedagogical role or ultimately condemning him for it.
This all seems to leave us with little choice but to play a second-season game no longer as before in the sense of portraying ourselves in the role of a protagonist with whose personality we merge, whose role in the game we identify with, and through whom we can project our own selves as players in the game world, because the only viable presence now of what was our personal ego in this world is a passive, ghostly one, an imprint, that of memories, lessons, and whatever else of us Clementine carries within her now. In season I, our game-playing role was executed partly through direct intervention when she was in danger and in talking to her directly and presenting an example to her to assist in her processing things as she changes and tries to make sense of and digest what happens around her. But with us being dead now, the only way our 'ghost' can interact with her in a second season and seem to be playing a role in how she journeys ahead and what she does in the same dangerous situations she now has to face alone is when we see her interact with that piece of ourselves that we have left behind in her when again she faces the dangerous challenges of the world and again changes as she processes her new experiences. These hows and whys of how she eventually becomes whatever it is she will become is our role in this game. Our continued presence as Lee is in her very progression because this will be derived in much part from what we have imparted to her, having us play a direct, cardinal role in the story of who she becomes and, more importantly, how and the manner in which she is desensitised and how she handles and faces that issue. But the problem is that this is a very passive role, that leaves us stuck watching an animated film. For all of our wish to continue this story, we need gameplay motivation in the context of agency, fun, and interaction with the game itself. As I see it then, what looks like our only remaining option that would leave us capable of actually exercising some agency in a second game to allow us to get our money's worth of gameplay, and actually PLAY the thing is something I have to wonder if even feasible or possible, and this is where I find Riadon's sobering insistence on the futility of the 'no hands on' approach to Clementine causing me constantly to re-evaluate what small faith I've been keeping in the idea that the slightest seeming compromise of that might have given us a solution. Your relevant comments are these:
"It's literally impossible to set a character with a preestablished personality as the protagonist and expect the character to remain untarnished. No matter how much they don't want to admit it, the player is, to some extent, projecting their own personality onto Clementine."
Down in my gut, I wholeheartedly agree, and to me, this season is indicative proof, but I have to keep wondering whether there can exist a way of doing this with as little damage as possible with every effort made at establishing constraints that prevent us from intruding upon her personality and individuality, and her own direct role in her development and also leaving us with enough indirect or direct agency or control of some kind over something in the game to offer us gameplay motivation and let us want to play the game in the context of something interactive and enjoyable.
What I have in my mind is far too sketchy and with little form even to be called an idea, but the idea at its optimal is somehow 'playing' Clem without being Clem, in a sense making Clementine both protagonist and NPC; it is somehow to play this game from the vantage point and narrative perspective of Clementine (only in that sense a protagonist, meaning the focal character the camera follows), but as far as humanly possibly not as Clementine herself in the context of an agent who controls her thoughts or critical actions and decisions in a fashion that binds her to your ego, or has you identify yourself with her, as was the case when playing Lee. Approaching playing her character with that same mindset you had Lee is pointless to me and makes little motivational sense. (Imagine playing a third-season protagonist whose story Clementine has affected deeply. When that character remembers Clementine, would you feel that he is speaking of you yourself as Clementine makes the player feel now when remembering Lee? More to the point, why would you want that?) Mind melding with Clem and turning her into the player's vessel destroys the whole point which is to keep her entirely separate of you, even when playing her, so that she remains a character whose independence of thought, behaviour, and ability to react will make her an object of your focus to whose reactions you can react yourself rather than an extension of you, and akin to NPCs elicit more of an inner response from you than a protagonist would, as if she was separate from the role of main playable character, as if you were a hidden protagonist or absent Lee watching her and reacting to her and her actions. If you try to avoid that problem by pretending she is acting and behaving according to her own volition based on an imaginary simulated model of what you think she's like now and how you think she has changed, then what you are in fact doing now is no more than reacting to your own artificial replication of her actions and thoughts as you would imagine them now to be. This can be no more satisfying and no less forced or contrived than interacting with and reacting to your own written fan fiction. What to do? I suppose somehow you must achieve a manner of game design or writing in which you in your role would actually be effectively appearing to play the game not as a protagonist Clem speaking for her thoughts and actions (or trying to replicate them), nor within the context of any personal character agent at all that would house part of your ego as a receptacle. The solution instead--and who knows what different gameplay mechanics this would require?--could be the role of an impersonal force (no ghostly projection of ego but akin more to a hidden director) that somehow in different ways (even through Clem) manipulates, sets into motion, and directs the course of events and scenarios (and the manner in which they unfold or test our protagonist) that Clementine will face and respond to and that further her story without having us hamper her own self-development and compromise her individuality by way of the direct intrusion of our own 'invisible hand' into her actions and thoughts, at least the ones that intervene in the process of character development or involve projection of character. Perhaps the game can separate player-prompted action entirely from matters that dictate personality or its development and leaving action choice in the realm of things that Clem reacts to or does whilst acting on instinct rather than things that would count as extensions of an artificially chosen personality. The worst nut to crack is dialogue choices; these often are direct projections of personality. The question is whether there are certain kinds of dialogue and action choices that can endow the player with the capacity to effect important changes to the story but that nonetheless do not impinge upon the territory of projecting or shaping personality, so as to leave the dynamics of character growth within the hands of the uncontrollable NPC side of Clementine that will respond in its own way to situations based on its pre-established personality interacting with what was instilled in her by the player in Season I. Overall, I think the key to all this may lie in fleshing out and bolstering that NPC component to her character by gutting the time jump and establishing a continuity with Season I where all the nuances of what she has experienced and been taught last season can be imported in their set variables to fill the hole in character caused by this disconnection and that has encouraged the protagonist side of her to fill it up with our own projections. All this is vague brainstorming, but there it is.
It's not as big as an issue to me as I am making it seem, but it exists nonetheless. I admit that, during her exchanges with Kenny, I compl… moreetely forgot about the issue. It goes to show, immersion in the story can really blind someone to its issues. The fast, "cinematic" pace of episode 1, with its minimal character development, had the opposite effect. I expect that it will be almost a non-issue by episode 3, which seems to be largely centered around character development.
Come to think of it, I believe one can really build up on that last suggestion. That missing solid link with the last season is a crucial element that just might give us even more leeway in controlling Clementine, whilst still having us respect the boundaries of her own individuality. Its detrimental absence from the second-season game we have before us now is in large part why I have come to view it so far as a failed project that has demolished Clementine's personality or rather any coherence inherent to that personality. A strong continuity with her pre-established personality carrying with it Lee's influence, an influence that is unique to every player depending on how they had played the first game, has now been broken and discarded by the time jump. Ultimately and fundamentally speaking, it is the interactive combination of these very two components with future experience and choices, and the manner in which they will dynamically relate to each other that will shape character development, something that is further catalysed by inner struggle and reflection in future stages, particularly when such reflection takes place in the context of conversations with others with their own input to share.
So how does all this factor into the kind of gameplay we are discussing? Here's the point: character development isn't necessarily tied only to the way you act or behave, but also to the mindset and rationale and explanation behind the action, and in Clementine those have a contextual reference point in both her pre-established personality and in what lessons and example Lee has given her. A good reason why the present Clementine, post-time-jump, is so mangled beyond recognition, is that by breaking continuity with the past, any dialogue or action choice is void of context tied to past events and becomes nothing other than a projection of one's personality upon her. However, one action can have a variety of possible reasons and mindsets underlying it. Were our protagonist endowed with her pre-established personality as uniquely influenced by Lee in our respective playthroughs, then it is possible even if we choose an action ourselves for Clementine to have her explain it and rationalise it to us in different possible ways, but in a way that would make sense within and connected to the context of the Season I experience you have imported and the likely personality she would have begun to shape. In other words, you will not be able to project your own backstory or motives, and so, personality, onto Clementine's behaviour, but rather, as a semi-NPC of sorts, she will react to your having prompted her to act in a certain way by bringing the action within the context of her pre-established mindset so as to project her personality, not yours, her backstory, not the one you've conjured up in your imagination for her, upon your action so as to make it appear as if she initiated the action as one stemming from her own motives. (This of course could work to sets of actions that do not sharply contradict her personality. If you choose one contrary enough that cannot be explained in a way that matches her budding orientation, she will exhibit that tension and hesitation and can express this somehow in the context of regret or of a re-evaluation of her initial outlook that is being forced upon her by the stress of more trying experiences.)
Consider: the simple final choice of Season I that Lee needs to make, to have her shoot you or leave you. Only two options (or a third: let her decide), but a small myriad of different explanations and rationales for choosing to do any of the two, each of which projects its own philosophy and mindset and is offered to you to explain your decision--and I believe most of which are explained to Clementine in the context of past events and decisions that Lee took and his subsequent reflections on his past actions, thus making your action and rationale count for something in the area of logic as opposed to amounting to random, arbitrary behaviour. In a Season II other than this one, you will not pick for Clementine her rationale for an action or define her state of mind for her; that is out of your control. She, rather, could explain it herself for you and her reply would be dictated by what makes logical sense based on her path of character development and what she has learnt from you in Season I. One might directly or indirectly control scenarios in Season II such that Clementine takes or is forced into a course of action or decides on something, but she will have an appropriate, believable reaction, frame of mind, and rationale for her action prepared to be explained to you based on how her core character combined with Season I lessons and new experience in the course of this game have shaped her views and caused her character to develop, this rationale being presented in the game as a function of these that you cannot directly pluck out as a dialogue option of your choosing according to your immediate wim to plug in a certain personality chip at the moment.
Development is likewise also found in the gradual processing of one's actions and in reacting to them and changing accordingly (and such reflections can involve conversations with and the influence of other characters). This is also a function independent of your body-snatcher leaning ways in our hypothetical game, and subject to the contextual reference point mentioned before. It in fact charts for her the manner in which she analyses her conduct (depending on whether it agrees or contradicts the Season I lessons she has been endowed with), the attitude in which she takes up a particular action (with hesitation or full conviction in respect to her moral compass), and the manner and attitude in which she responds, faces, copes, and deals with the process and effects of desensitisation, giving the desensitisation a context in which to frame it and give it particular significance.
Another example to consider, if probably too polarised in the scenarios it presents: does she upon reflecting, let's say, on an impulsive act of vengeful harm she has committed and in the process of further desensitisation that follows it, find herself then when thinking of Lee, recalling the man who had not only killed one of the St John brothers in a fit of rage, but even when passions cooled down, calmly and collectively killed the second, and then explained to her that there was nothing wrong in killing such wicked men even if unnecessary (or perhaps does he tell her regrettably that he was wrong and in his actions and words to her down the line reverse course to reflect this, demonstrating to her the concepts of weakness, regret, and admission of mistakes?) or does she recall a Lee who was sufficiently wedded to his principles that he could take a restraining hold of his rage even at its impulsive peak and even spare the first brother, and who at his last wished to instill such a warning against the consuming effects of violence that he resigned himself to the sentence of an undead existence rather than push her to spare him such a fate with a bullet?
In the case of the first Lee, does his vindictive example reinforce her desensitisation by allowing her to embrace/surrender to a sense of legitimacy/inevitablity in regard to her actions? If so, how does her initially constructed innocent side of her character struggle with her mentor's harsh and vindictive (whether motivated by simple rage or the desire to protect a loved one at all costs) example? Does it rebel against it in a panic? Or does she concede to it and take that example as a vindication of her action and start readily to embrace the desensitisation? (NB I understand that denensitisation is not synonymous with heartless cruelty, so I'll ask to be pardoned for letting go of semantic precision in all this.) In the case of the second Lee, she would find herself more easily coming to regret her action, as well as pushed to struggle actively against the numbing it has further caused, in heed to Lee's warning. However, given the impractical nature of the idealism of these lessons to the concept of survival, further trials that prove too much for her in the game might break her will and leave her disillusioned with everything Lee had taught her, even if he strengthened those lessons by example instead of mere words.
It is in the myriad possibilities found in nuanced variables like these, and not in the quick lip service of simple in-game reminiscences, that the dynamics and complexity and potential for compelling character growth and storytelling can be tapped, and could have been in this game, at least to a reasonable extent (I can imagine the difficulty of programming a game that takes into account the sheer number of possible variables), to provide immersion and create a strong bond between the player and main character. And the final personality that results at advanced, more weary stages of character development can take on numerous forms, each of which reaches back to its own explanation and history and series of rationales, and those numerous forms are not capable of being represented in any meaningful, compelling way by a vanilla-flavoured 'desensitised, monotone Clementine' template with no contextual reference point to any existing transitional point (since one doesn't exist except in the imagination), who has a schizophrenic range of shallow personality dialogue choices that pretends to be able to project the actual depth of the various possible Clementines that could be fashioned through an involving and complex transitional stage that is well fleshed out.
All in all, it probably sounds like too daunting and challenging a project, but would it have been much to expect to see something of these elements and dynamics in a new season? A pity then that it's far too late for any of that now.
It's not as big as an issue to me as I am making it seem, but it exists nonetheless. I admit that, during her exchanges with Kenny, I compl… moreetely forgot about the issue. It goes to show, immersion in the story can really blind someone to its issues. The fast, "cinematic" pace of episode 1, with its minimal character development, had the opposite effect. I expect that it will be almost a non-issue by episode 3, which seems to be largely centered around character development.
Comments
I can understand being bothered with the time jump and all of that, but we're talking about how shes portrayed at the current point in the story timeline. I just don't understand how he/she can find her character to be unrealistic or unbelievable given the time that has gone by and the things that have happened in her past. I agree that there isn't a whole lot that could be done to improve Clem's character at this point. TTG has done a great job with her character growth (even though it happened very quickly because of the time jump).
I don't think he is really mad about the season 2 character because it is extremely unrealistic per-say, but because it differs from his preconceived notions of what Clementine should be. To be fair, that probably is caused by the time jump. It's kind of like not wanting your children to ever grow up, and then waking up one day to find that 2 years have passed and the child no longer acts convincingly as a child, but as an adult. I kind of felt like that before episode 2, but now I am fine with her character.
The time jump is basically a slap in the face to players who wanted to witness her evolution rather than be thrown into some random time in the distant future and be expected to fully relate to her character. It's just lazy writing, as was the 5 day time jump in episode 2 which could have been used for actual character development.
Fun Fact: Season 1 Clem isn't the complete sweet and innocent girl you all make her out to be.
If you play as a complete jerk to everyone (including Clem) you'll see some sass and bravery come out.
For example: At the gate to the mansion when you just run into the backyard from the walkers, Clem will ask "Did they see us?" If you respond with a yes instead of a reassuring answer she will then proclaim "I'll stand watch."
That's so cute and brave of her! Thanks for sharing, never knew that :P
The man has a point.
Is this song on iTunes?
"The time jump is basically a slap in the face to players who wanted to witness her evolution rather than be thrown into some random time in the distant future and be expected to fully relate to her character. It's just lazy writing, as was the 5 day time jump in episode 2 which could have been used for actual character development."
Precisely the point, which is why I've found myself mechanically plodding along playing this game with sheer lack of interest: my entire motivation for playing a sequel was to build up on what was started, which meant carrying along the same motivations I had in Season I in order to play this game, concern for the protagonist's evolution and development as she steps more fully into the real world (and now for that of the legacy of the first season's protagonist), and for that reason it isn't a matter of witnessing that evolution as it is steering it and confronting the threats that world poses to the direction we might wish to continue to take it towards from the first season (or even reverse it away from in response to realities to be faced), all of which requires the same motive of protection that had driven us the players before, thus providing us with a clear goal. More importantly, it gives a more interesting, responsive character to contend with, one whose original imported personality (meaning her core personality carrying with it a nascent orientation coming from the directional influence and lessons endowed to it by Lee's intervention and example as fashioned by the player) might itself be an obstacle to what we choose to do or itself an NPC of sorts even if we are given full control over her actions, a personality both whom we recognise from before and that actually responds and is affected and influenced further in its evolution by the actions we choose to undertake as we play her.
This is in contrast to the current Clementine whose persona is one that is ready-made, a shell waiting to be outfitted with a full personality of our own choosing and projection, and that has no point of reference to anything except whatever our imaginations can conjure up for her backstory in the period of the time gap. It is stale and presents no challenges with regards to shaping her. She is already shaped into what we have chosen for her, and the actions we choose for her will be little more than mere extensions of a personality we have already selected for her. Contrary to what is often said about her, she is not evolving. There is no inner conflict within herself because her actions are applications of whatever moral compass or code of behaviour she already has; they are not mechanisms that can run counter to those and clash with them. Evolution involves changes or results originating in the interaction or clash that occurs between a person's initial mindset and code of behaviour and experience gained from the environment. The other sort of evolution you might want to consider is that of skill and the ability to survive. She's the protagonist and I have nothing to evoke in me the fear that she might die at any moment in the game, unless I want to kill off with a berserker's axe what's left of that vestigial bit of care I once had by wading through a slew of Clementine death scenes that seem to be there for cheap comical value. Frankly, I have little reason or desire anymore to care for the physical safety of this new protagonist.
This is precisely why I didn't want Clementine to be the protagonist. It's literally impossible to set a character with a preestablished personality as the protagonist and expect the character to remain untarnished. No matter how much they don't want to admit it, the player is, to some extent, projecting their own personality onto Clementine. Lee was created as a blank slate to accommodate all types of players, while Clementine was already a character and she is now capable of basically being mind-controlled into doing things that contradict her established personality.
I am warming up to her, but this isn't season 1 Clementine. Contrary to popular belief, "growing up" doesn't involve adopting an entirely new personality, that of the player. Not to mention the problems caused by the time jump, which basically prevented us from gaining a true understanding of her current mental state. I like the new Clementine because she is basically an extension of myself blended with some vague traits from her season 1 character. She really isn't reminiscent of season 1 Clementine, but I still find her very enjoyable as a character.
It was a difficult question from the beginning; if one wants Clementine's story to remain the central focus of the season and entire series, how to do so without assigning her the protagonist role and instead primary NPC role but without reapplying the same tried formula that would try to have somebody play the role of a new Lee? I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when the staff were discussing these points.
Unfortunately, I had invested too much interest in the character and story of the girl to be able to warm up to this incarnation of her. Happy to know you've made peace with that, but I've resigned myself from trying to find some enjoyment in playing this season of the game. Things are quite irreversible at this point, and the dreaded word 'ret-con' seems like the only possible resort. I've started to repeat the mantra that they've pulled a Dragon Age 2 with this season. We had some prominent nay-sayers like Maxwell Horse at the time, but like many from the earlier membership of these forums, he's long gone. I had written a long bit about the points discussed here back during the first episode. Here's the link to it, if you're interested.
http://www.telltalegames.com/community/discussion/comment/907702#Comment_907702
I'm also thinking of maybe posting another critique in the same vein. If you'd like to give it a look or some feedback, it's here as a draft in the context of a PM. Since the system is broken, you'll have to use the link below:
http://www.telltalegames.com/community/messages/1167
I can't put into words how much I want this on my ipod. ..
"The time jump... It's just lazy writing, as was the 5 day time jump in episode 2 which could have been used for actual character development."
Incidentally, and on the matter of the less obvious time jumps, you've just reminded me now of something else, that things to me had begun already from the start to feel uncomfortably off and abrupt, appearing disjointed and lacking resolution, pushing me to suspect that a continuity stretching from the sharp impact and momentum of past events or a sense of connexion to them was likely to be of little importance and not much the priority. I thought it perhaps to be only a small matter that I had no call to give much notice to, but in retrospect it seems to have been quite the foreshadowing of what direction the writers had ultimately decided to take, working with this story.
The season opened having Clementine immediately start off in safe hands once more in a relaxed atmosphere and setting and light-heartedly chatting. This came across as too disconnected and abrupt a start, given the tense, unresolved cliff-hanger note on which we ended last season. I thought for the sake of keeping things like a 'season start' freshly connected to and proceeding from that immediate aftermath and resolution, they could at least have given us an opening prologue set at the instant she finds Omid and Christa, still dazed with the shock of events fresh in her mind, and with grief breaking the news to them of Lee's death, before allowing for that momentary diffusion of tension in transitioning ahead only a few short months. Or better still for the sake of creating a short, suspenseful climb leading up to that point, start her off a short time before she finds and reaches them, who knows?, maybe even with a few minor preliminary obstacles leading up to that point for her to face as she wanders and makes her way. After all, the somewhat symbolic ending and final, dissonant note on which the last season concluded wasn't that of Lee's death, but of Clementine truly all by herself in the middle of a wide and empty expanse, marking a point of transition. It seems fitting for the sake of a short prologue for the writers to have picked up from that open tail end still carrying the full, packed, charge of the entire first season and conclude that segment to signal an intended continuity before then skipping ahead reasonably in time.
Who would you want the protagonist to be if not Clementine? Omid? Christa? If the story continues directly off of season one, it obviously has to be one of those two if its not Clementine. I believe Clementine was the best and most logical choice, especially since she was already a fan favorite.
I don't know how you figure being player controlled is tarnishing her character. As you grow up, you change. People are also a product of their environment, so they're subject to change in that way over time as well. In season two, you get to have a say in what ways she changes. Whats wrong with that exactly? Expecting her to be the same as she was in season one just isn't realistic. Its not like her season two self is so dramatically different that she isn't the same person. She hasn't adopted "an entirely new personality".
See Conviva's post.
You would if you read my/Conviva's posts. I'll let you reflect over what I've already said so you can realize why much of the second paragraph doesn't apply to me. Specifically, everything related to her "growing up", unrealistic expectations, and changes in character brought on by the environment.
Read Conviva's post.
She has adopted parts of a completely different personality projected by the player due to the nature of her being the protagonist. You seem to think that I was stating there was no resemblance between the characters at all. I stated that I, personally, was not greatly reminded of season 1 Clementine (at least in the first two episodes), not that they share no similarities whatsoever. I also stated that I view season 2 Clementine as "an extension of myself blended with some vague traits from her season 1 character", which acknowledges my belief that they are not completely different characters.
"See Conviva's post"
I don't see any alternative options presented. I understand you two don't like the idea of her being the protagonist, but I have yet to see either of you offer up a different character to take that spot.
"You would if you read my/Conviva's posts. I'll let you reflect over what I've already said so you can realize why much of the second paragraph doesn't apply to me. Specifically, everything related to her "growing up", unrealistic expectations, and changes in character brought on by the environment."
I've read both posts and they honestly just don't make any logical sense to me. As we have already established many times now, Clementine is growing up. People change as they grow up. You as the player get to decide in what way she changes as she grows up. That isn't tarnishing her character. It's called character growth. Basically every main character/protagonist in any story goes through it. Look at Rick from The Walking Dead show. Is he the same person as he was from the very start of the series? No. Is his character tarnished? No.
"She has adopted parts of a completely different personality projected by the player due to the nature of her being the protagonist. You seem to think that I was stating there was no resemblance between the characters at all.I stated that I, personally, was not greatly reminded of season 1 Clementine (at least in the first two episodes), not that they share no similarities whatsoever. I also stated that I view season 2 Clementine as "an extension of myself blended with some vague traits from her season 1 character", which acknowledges my belief that they are not completely different characters."
Your exact words were: "Contrary to popular belief, 'growing up' doesn't involve adopting an entirely new personality, that of the player."
Why would you say that if you didn't think she was adopting an entirely new personality? If you said parts of an entirely new personality in the first place, it would have been different. Anyway.. it doesn't really matter, just letting you know that's where I thought you were saying/implying there weren't similarities in their personalities.
p.s.
How on earth do quotes work here?
Why would she run towards walkers if she can get away from them? That would be the most foolhardy thing to do. Clementine is smart enough to know that.
I'm not the only one tearing up, right? Right??
Suffice it to say that I take issue with being involved as an "invisible hand" that guides Clementine's thoughts and actions. Clementine was perfectly capable of standing alone as her own character, and my intervention only serves to diminish her character growth as simply a bi-product of that intervention. No alternative suggestion was made for protagonist because, as stated above, it was basically unavoidable following Lee's death, for better or for worse. Again, I don't take issue with Clementine "growing up" in general, I take issue with the fact that I must think and act for an established character.
My quote was meant to explain that the phrase "growing up" oversimplifies my issue in which character-building moments feel artificial because I have difficulty separating my own personality from that of Clementine's. If the player is allowed to choose how her character evolves, I don't feel it can be considered a natural evolution, particularly if this evolution contradicts part of her established personality.
To quote, highlight a selection and press the quotation marks, which are located second furthest to the right on the "action bar".
Fair enough. I can't say I feel the same way about the situation of having a role in how her character grows and develops, but I understand where you're coming from.
Thanks for the info on quoting, I couldn't figure it out for the life of me.
It's not as big as an issue to me as I am making it seem, but it exists nonetheless. I admit that, during her exchanges with Kenny, I completely forgot about the issue. It goes to show, immersion in the story can really blind someone to its issues. The fast, "cinematic" pace of episode 1, with its minimal character development, had the opposite effect. I expect that it will be almost a non-issue by episode 3, which seems to be largely centered around character development.
After reading some of these comments, I believe people are more upset over the time jump than Clem's character evolution. The people upset seem to want some game play on the two years between the end of Season 1 and when Christa and Clem are in the woods together. The only problem with that is that time frame would take up a lot of time to cover and probably would be a season of it's own. A season for character development of one character would be much too long. My mom has been doing licensed home daycare for almost 20 years. Trust me, kids can grow up and change quick even in a non-apocalyptic setting.
Depending on how you play the game, you can see signs of sass and attitude in Season 1 Clem and signs of innocence in Season 2 Clem. It's all about how you play the game. You want season 1 Clem, play her that way. If you want sass and attitude, play her that way. That's what great about this game: you control the character. Play how you want and the story will evolve around it. What some of the play-throughs on YouTube to see what I mean.
Side note: This isn't direct to you Carv-eer-George. The "you" are just used for the general audience. Just wanted to say that just incase it looked like I was talking at you. lol
I've going to say I like her sassy... but that sounds a litte pervy... Guess my favorite sassy girl is Jeon Ji Hyun ^_^
But seriously, it's a progression. Started off with an 11 year-old Clementine would be like wtf... and 8 year-old Clementine could never be a main character. They're good for their respective roles...
Ok, this scene I just watch definitely shows how Clem still has her old child-like essence while still maturing. Clem doesn't know how to hi-5!!! Check out this play-though to see what I mean. The scene starts about 4 minutes in the video.
I do like the new Clem but I miss the old one. I like the moments where the old one shines back through the new one.
Ha. No, I don't expect a reply to this monster below, but organising my thoughts about much of this made for good cerebral exercise.
A good exchange between the two of you, but I'll add that Riadon has me re-examining some of my positions. In what sense? (Unfortunately you won't know until quite later ;-) ) First, both of us agree that Clementine's appeal for us is found essentially in her own individuality and cohesive personality, in her being a character who ultimately stands alone and functions independently as her own agent and person, one with whom and with whose personality we as players have a desire to interact and not to take control of, who in what she thinks (especially) and does ought to be free of the outside, interruptive agency of the player, but who nonetheless like any character with a believable personality is receptive and responsive to and affected by her own experience and by the influence of others, and it is ultimately within the category of exertion not of control but of influence, of seeing its effects and noticing how Clementine responds to it--for we'd hardly be content with being mere spectators either--as well as how even in an unexpected manner of reciprocity we ourselves respond to and are influenced by her in return (eg. some players upon factoring Clementine into their equation might have hesitated on a course of action they were just about to take), it is within that category of influence that our role and place and motivations as players lay and whence our primary pleasure in playing the game was derived (within the context of our relationship with Clementine and Lee's personal quest at any rate; the game of course drew us in in other ways as well: the game of survival itself, power politics, our relationships to other characters, etc.). Where it has involved us accompanying Clementine along the rocky path that is her character arc, the proper place that our motivations accorded us was not one of merely observing her growing and following her evolutionary course, but of heavily influencing the direction of that course and working to plot it, yet in order to preserve her own individuality, agency, and free will, doing so strictly indirectly by example and guidance through the agency of someone connected to and who was a visible presence for her, and not, as was done to Lee, by wresting control directly as a player and stealing from these by partially merging our will and personality with hers as my use of the word 'steering' before in a previous post might have seemed incorrectly to imply.
Season I had not only offered to us in Lee that primary role of influence, a place in the girl's story, and the opportunity to inject our own selves and personal convictions into it to act for her welfare's sake, but had also and again by means of Lee's own character given us our core motivation for playing the game, not by simply counting on Clementine's redeeming qualities and personality to endear her to us, but by cementing our commitment to Clementine's welfare by way of Lee's own concerns and affections for her in the context of his own personal story of redemption and through her own influence on his character. As our good Maxwell Rose (I take a moment to pour out libations in his memory) had put it, in many ways our connection and devotion to her character arc were established vicariously. We had partially merged with Lee to produce an alter-ego to define our place in the world and our role and influence in the lives of these characters. In other words, if the clothes make the man, unlike many an RPG, we had put on Lee as much as we had him put on us. When we think and operate in the world of the Walking Dead, he, with his motives, drive, and goals possesses us as much as we possess him with our own personalities, ethical compass, and manner of acting. This goes to show that Clementine's continuing story of character progression for us should be seen as in fact being the story of Lee's legacy that is yet to reach or be told to its full conclusion. This is crucial as it allows Lee's paternal regard and concern to survive his death and perpetuate itself within us the players as a motive to drive us forward with purpose into continuing Clementine's story and seeing how Lee's (our) influence guides her development. But the problem that I do not envy Telltale having had to study and try to resolve is that we now at that point had motive to follow that story into its next chapters, but not one to play a game, because there seemed no longer to be a place for us as players to continue in that role since the character in whom we had channelled something of ourselves and in whose person we had established a means to interact with Clementine and had define for us our relationship to her as players, had in dying removed along with himself our own persona, that which housed our own visible in-game presence and through which we could project our personalities as agents of influence with goals and a role to play. We have now been excised from our place in that universe and our continued presence in this story is forced into having to contend itself to being no less ethereal or helpless and powerless to assist than Lee's floating spectre who can do little more now than watch and follow Clementine, if even that.
Although I do not disagree at all with and fully supported the decision that was made to kill off Lee and grant closure to his story, this nonetheless had left the developers in a very tricky, messy, and likely unsalvageable situation in trying to move the story forward with us maintaining a place, role, and visible presence in it. The first season with its conclusion now demanded a progression and eventual closure to Clementine's story, but it seems there could be no working way to go about this other than trying to make the rest of the Walking Dead disappointingly into an animated film, because in the context of a game that could assign a satisfactory and appropriate role to us, Telltale were really caught in between a rock and hard place. If the story is to be centred on Clementine, then there is no other role for us there than that of Lee. His motives, his goals for Clementine, his concern for her, his wishing to see her progress, his particular experience with and memories of her, his (and itself ours) history with her, his 'why' that tells me why I should even care to move on with Clementine in this story, live on in us as players, but have no way of manifesting themselves once more in the game world in the guise of another character with agency in her story unless that character was literally possessed by his ghost. The problem would not have been solved by playing as a new protagonist because both our motives to safeguard Clementine and our relationship and approach to her as players have been defined through our execution of Lee's role. Playing the role of somebody else and joining ourselves to that new person, whether it is a new character carrying a relatively blank slate but who brings to the table his own back story and personal motives, or one of the pre-established characters from Season I, a person whose skin we would have to wear, would require looking at Clementine through the eyes and motives of that new character, forcing us into constructing a new alter-ego that redefines a player relationship to a past character, one that is separate from that which has defined our relationship to her and perceptions of her, when the entire motivation to continue participating in this story is to continue to behave in the same role of the person you've played before, but that person cannot exist in the game without wearing Lee's skin, as you had bound yourself to his character with its goals and story in order to project yourself into the game. Even in our mind's eye as players behind our screens, we do not see Clementine except through Lee's eyes and all the capacity and framework through which we could imagine interacting with her are those of Lee's role. We'd be finding ourselves instinctively trying to create a substitutive Lee carrying those same motives and approach towards Clementine in whom to replicate the role meaninglessly and unsatisfyingly, and in the case of a Season I character, overriding their pre-established personalities and motives. Clementine's story for us from now on from our personal vantage point as players only exists within Lee's story and perspective and so therefore any alter-ego that would house ourselves along with our original motives, feelings, and attitudes towards Clementine and grant us any contextual capacity to interact with her in a personal continuity can only be inextricably bound to the host character of Lee no less than Clementine's story is to his. The most striking proof is that when she reminisces about Lee and speaks of him in Season II, we are meant to feel that she is reminiscing and speaking directly about us. As far as it matters who we feel ourselves to be in this story and in our relationship to Clementine as players, we are still Lee, even after death. We live on in Clementine's memories and in our lasting influence and imprint upon her mind, and her continuing character growth and development always remains in good part our own on-going work, not as puppet masters who substitute her own decision making with our own, but as ones whose selves and whose example and influence and guidance and ethical/coping philosophy and lessons this independently thinking character responded to and freely took to heart and can now from the reference point of her core character and pre-established personality and in her personal odyssey make use of and herself apply to coming situations, accept or reject, or find herself conflicted with, eventually leading her to a heartfelt or persuaded adoption of or disillusionment with these principles, in the face and wake of challenges and scarring trials that she will be forced to face. The final result of that transition and of that last stretch of Clementine's character arc will close the final chapter of the story of Lee's legacy, either vindicating him in his pedagogical role or ultimately condemning him for it.
This all seems to leave us with little choice but to play a second-season game no longer as before in the sense of portraying ourselves in the role of a protagonist with whose personality we merge, whose role in the game we identify with, and through whom we can project our own selves as players in the game world, because the only viable presence now of what was our personal ego in this world is a passive, ghostly one, an imprint, that of memories, lessons, and whatever else of us Clementine carries within her now. In season I, our game-playing role was executed partly through direct intervention when she was in danger and in talking to her directly and presenting an example to her to assist in her processing things as she changes and tries to make sense of and digest what happens around her. But with us being dead now, the only way our 'ghost' can interact with her in a second season and seem to be playing a role in how she journeys ahead and what she does in the same dangerous situations she now has to face alone is when we see her interact with that piece of ourselves that we have left behind in her when again she faces the dangerous challenges of the world and again changes as she processes her new experiences. These hows and whys of how she eventually becomes whatever it is she will become is our role in this game. Our continued presence as Lee is in her very progression because this will be derived in much part from what we have imparted to her, having us play a direct, cardinal role in the story of who she becomes and, more importantly, how and the manner in which she is desensitised and how she handles and faces that issue. But the problem is that this is a very passive role, that leaves us stuck watching an animated film. For all of our wish to continue this story, we need gameplay motivation in the context of agency, fun, and interaction with the game itself. As I see it then, what looks like our only remaining option that would leave us capable of actually exercising some agency in a second game to allow us to get our money's worth of gameplay, and actually PLAY the thing is something I have to wonder if even feasible or possible, and this is where I find Riadon's sobering insistence on the futility of the 'no hands on' approach to Clementine causing me constantly to re-evaluate what small faith I've been keeping in the idea that the slightest seeming compromise of that might have given us a solution. Your relevant comments are these:
"It's literally impossible to set a character with a preestablished personality as the protagonist and expect the character to remain untarnished. No matter how much they don't want to admit it, the player is, to some extent, projecting their own personality onto Clementine."
Down in my gut, I wholeheartedly agree, and to me, this season is indicative proof, but I have to keep wondering whether there can exist a way of doing this with as little damage as possible with every effort made at establishing constraints that prevent us from intruding upon her personality and individuality, and her own direct role in her development and also leaving us with enough indirect or direct agency or control of some kind over something in the game to offer us gameplay motivation and let us want to play the game in the context of something interactive and enjoyable.
What I have in my mind is far too sketchy and with little form even to be called an idea, but the idea at its optimal is somehow 'playing' Clem without being Clem, in a sense making Clementine both protagonist and NPC; it is somehow to play this game from the vantage point and narrative perspective of Clementine (only in that sense a protagonist, meaning the focal character the camera follows), but as far as humanly possibly not as Clementine herself in the context of an agent who controls her thoughts or critical actions and decisions in a fashion that binds her to your ego, or has you identify yourself with her, as was the case when playing Lee. Approaching playing her character with that same mindset you had Lee is pointless to me and makes little motivational sense. (Imagine playing a third-season protagonist whose story Clementine has affected deeply. When that character remembers Clementine, would you feel that he is speaking of you yourself as Clementine makes the player feel now when remembering Lee? More to the point, why would you want that?) Mind melding with Clem and turning her into the player's vessel destroys the whole point which is to keep her entirely separate of you, even when playing her, so that she remains a character whose independence of thought, behaviour, and ability to react will make her an object of your focus to whose reactions you can react yourself rather than an extension of you, and akin to NPCs elicit more of an inner response from you than a protagonist would, as if she was separate from the role of main playable character, as if you were a hidden protagonist or absent Lee watching her and reacting to her and her actions. If you try to avoid that problem by pretending she is acting and behaving according to her own volition based on an imaginary simulated model of what you think she's like now and how you think she has changed, then what you are in fact doing now is no more than reacting to your own artificial replication of her actions and thoughts as you would imagine them now to be. This can be no more satisfying and no less forced or contrived than interacting with and reacting to your own written fan fiction. What to do? I suppose somehow you must achieve a manner of game design or writing in which you in your role would actually be effectively appearing to play the game not as a protagonist Clem speaking for her thoughts and actions (or trying to replicate them), nor within the context of any personal character agent at all that would house part of your ego as a receptacle. The solution instead--and who knows what different gameplay mechanics this would require?--could be the role of an impersonal force (no ghostly projection of ego but akin more to a hidden director) that somehow in different ways (even through Clem) manipulates, sets into motion, and directs the course of events and scenarios (and the manner in which they unfold or test our protagonist) that Clementine will face and respond to and that further her story without having us hamper her own self-development and compromise her individuality by way of the direct intrusion of our own 'invisible hand' into her actions and thoughts, at least the ones that intervene in the process of character development or involve projection of character. Perhaps the game can separate player-prompted action entirely from matters that dictate personality or its development and leaving action choice in the realm of things that Clem reacts to or does whilst acting on instinct rather than things that would count as extensions of an artificially chosen personality. The worst nut to crack is dialogue choices; these often are direct projections of personality. The question is whether there are certain kinds of dialogue and action choices that can endow the player with the capacity to effect important changes to the story but that nonetheless do not impinge upon the territory of projecting or shaping personality, so as to leave the dynamics of character growth within the hands of the uncontrollable NPC side of Clementine that will respond in its own way to situations based on its pre-established personality interacting with what was instilled in her by the player in Season I. Overall, I think the key to all this may lie in fleshing out and bolstering that NPC component to her character by gutting the time jump and establishing a continuity with Season I where all the nuances of what she has experienced and been taught last season can be imported in their set variables to fill the hole in character caused by this disconnection and that has encouraged the protagonist side of her to fill it up with our own projections. All this is vague brainstorming, but there it is.
Maybe barragan got banned and this is his new account.
Come to think of it, I believe one can really build up on that last suggestion. That missing solid link with the last season is a crucial element that just might give us even more leeway in controlling Clementine, whilst still having us respect the boundaries of her own individuality. Its detrimental absence from the second-season game we have before us now is in large part why I have come to view it so far as a failed project that has demolished Clementine's personality or rather any coherence inherent to that personality. A strong continuity with her pre-established personality carrying with it Lee's influence, an influence that is unique to every player depending on how they had played the first game, has now been broken and discarded by the time jump. Ultimately and fundamentally speaking, it is the interactive combination of these very two components with future experience and choices, and the manner in which they will dynamically relate to each other that will shape character development, something that is further catalysed by inner struggle and reflection in future stages, particularly when such reflection takes place in the context of conversations with others with their own input to share.
So how does all this factor into the kind of gameplay we are discussing? Here's the point: character development isn't necessarily tied only to the way you act or behave, but also to the mindset and rationale and explanation behind the action, and in Clementine those have a contextual reference point in both her pre-established personality and in what lessons and example Lee has given her. A good reason why the present Clementine, post-time-jump, is so mangled beyond recognition, is that by breaking continuity with the past, any dialogue or action choice is void of context tied to past events and becomes nothing other than a projection of one's personality upon her. However, one action can have a variety of possible reasons and mindsets underlying it. Were our protagonist endowed with her pre-established personality as uniquely influenced by Lee in our respective playthroughs, then it is possible even if we choose an action ourselves for Clementine to have her explain it and rationalise it to us in different possible ways, but in a way that would make sense within and connected to the context of the Season I experience you have imported and the likely personality she would have begun to shape. In other words, you will not be able to project your own backstory or motives, and so, personality, onto Clementine's behaviour, but rather, as a semi-NPC of sorts, she will react to your having prompted her to act in a certain way by bringing the action within the context of her pre-established mindset so as to project her personality, not yours, her backstory, not the one you've conjured up in your imagination for her, upon your action so as to make it appear as if she initiated the action as one stemming from her own motives. (This of course could work to sets of actions that do not sharply contradict her personality. If you choose one contrary enough that cannot be explained in a way that matches her budding orientation, she will exhibit that tension and hesitation and can express this somehow in the context of regret or of a re-evaluation of her initial outlook that is being forced upon her by the stress of more trying experiences.)
Consider: the simple final choice of Season I that Lee needs to make, to have her shoot you or leave you. Only two options (or a third: let her decide), but a small myriad of different explanations and rationales for choosing to do any of the two, each of which projects its own philosophy and mindset and is offered to you to explain your decision--and I believe most of which are explained to Clementine in the context of past events and decisions that Lee took and his subsequent reflections on his past actions, thus making your action and rationale count for something in the area of logic as opposed to amounting to random, arbitrary behaviour. In a Season II other than this one, you will not pick for Clementine her rationale for an action or define her state of mind for her; that is out of your control. She, rather, could explain it herself for you and her reply would be dictated by what makes logical sense based on her path of character development and what she has learnt from you in Season I. One might directly or indirectly control scenarios in Season II such that Clementine takes or is forced into a course of action or decides on something, but she will have an appropriate, believable reaction, frame of mind, and rationale for her action prepared to be explained to you based on how her core character combined with Season I lessons and new experience in the course of this game have shaped her views and caused her character to develop, this rationale being presented in the game as a function of these that you cannot directly pluck out as a dialogue option of your choosing according to your immediate wim to plug in a certain personality chip at the moment.
Development is likewise also found in the gradual processing of one's actions and in reacting to them and changing accordingly (and such reflections can involve conversations with and the influence of other characters). This is also a function independent of your body-snatcher leaning ways in our hypothetical game, and subject to the contextual reference point mentioned before. It in fact charts for her the manner in which she analyses her conduct (depending on whether it agrees or contradicts the Season I lessons she has been endowed with), the attitude in which she takes up a particular action (with hesitation or full conviction in respect to her moral compass), and the manner and attitude in which she responds, faces, copes, and deals with the process and effects of desensitisation, giving the desensitisation a context in which to frame it and give it particular significance.
Another example to consider, if probably too polarised in the scenarios it presents: does she upon reflecting, let's say, on an impulsive act of vengeful harm she has committed and in the process of further desensitisation that follows it, find herself then when thinking of Lee, recalling the man who had not only killed one of the St John brothers in a fit of rage, but even when passions cooled down, calmly and collectively killed the second, and then explained to her that there was nothing wrong in killing such wicked men even if unnecessary (or perhaps does he tell her regrettably that he was wrong and in his actions and words to her down the line reverse course to reflect this, demonstrating to her the concepts of weakness, regret, and admission of mistakes?) or does she recall a Lee who was sufficiently wedded to his principles that he could take a restraining hold of his rage even at its impulsive peak and even spare the first brother, and who at his last wished to instill such a warning against the consuming effects of violence that he resigned himself to the sentence of an undead existence rather than push her to spare him such a fate with a bullet?
In the case of the first Lee, does his vindictive example reinforce her desensitisation by allowing her to embrace/surrender to a sense of legitimacy/inevitablity in regard to her actions? If so, how does her initially constructed innocent side of her character struggle with her mentor's harsh and vindictive (whether motivated by simple rage or the desire to protect a loved one at all costs) example? Does it rebel against it in a panic? Or does she concede to it and take that example as a vindication of her action and start readily to embrace the desensitisation? (NB I understand that denensitisation is not synonymous with heartless cruelty, so I'll ask to be pardoned for letting go of semantic precision in all this.) In the case of the second Lee, she would find herself more easily coming to regret her action, as well as pushed to struggle actively against the numbing it has further caused, in heed to Lee's warning. However, given the impractical nature of the idealism of these lessons to the concept of survival, further trials that prove too much for her in the game might break her will and leave her disillusioned with everything Lee had taught her, even if he strengthened those lessons by example instead of mere words.
It is in the myriad possibilities found in nuanced variables like these, and not in the quick lip service of simple in-game reminiscences, that the dynamics and complexity and potential for compelling character growth and storytelling can be tapped, and could have been in this game, at least to a reasonable extent (I can imagine the difficulty of programming a game that takes into account the sheer number of possible variables), to provide immersion and create a strong bond between the player and main character. And the final personality that results at advanced, more weary stages of character development can take on numerous forms, each of which reaches back to its own explanation and history and series of rationales, and those numerous forms are not capable of being represented in any meaningful, compelling way by a vanilla-flavoured 'desensitised, monotone Clementine' template with no contextual reference point to any existing transitional point (since one doesn't exist except in the imagination), who has a schizophrenic range of shallow personality dialogue choices that pretends to be able to project the actual depth of the various possible Clementines that could be fashioned through an involving and complex transitional stage that is well fleshed out.
All in all, it probably sounds like too daunting and challenging a project, but would it have been much to expect to see something of these elements and dynamics in a new season? A pity then that it's far too late for any of that now.