I agree that characters don't need a full closed storyline before they are killed. To me that would actually feel contrived and sudden deaths fit the walking dead universe. While it might make sense in a regular storytelling perspecivte the fact someone can be ripped away in an instant fits the atmosphere and makes the world believable. Carley and Ben could die in season 1 without meaningfull development aswell, but that did not mean they were irrelevant, why:
What I miss compared to season 1 in this reagard is the interaction with the characters, Lee got to decide how he related to almost all of the people that tagged alone for longer then a few scenes. Clem does not. Also the walking dead world of season1 felt alive to me because of all the little extra things. The fixing of the fence both at the inn and at the farm in episode 2. Scavenging for supplies with Kenny at the start of episode 3. More importantly on these occasions you also discussed what was going on in the group or the plans for the near future with the characters present. This season lacks that. Everything you do is directly related to the main plot of the current episode, that makes the world some less real. I am not involved, I am just watching Clem being dragged from event to event to event.
Add to that the impact of the choises. In season 1 you could not change the impact of the seasons plot, but because you had had Lee from a relationship with the members of the group and your choises affected that, you influence the atmosphere of the group and if you saved someone that character still got development and ti mattered. Compare that to this season, where saving someone turns them into a carboard copy or at best gives them one relevant scene before they die and the choises feel utterly meaningless. S1 was a game, for my taste S2 is too much of a movie with the occasional quicktime event.
Ofcourse some may like the story of the movie, but I was not intending to buy a movie which led to disappointed on my part. I liked episode 4 somewhat because the different locations reminded me of the first season, and we got some exploring, but there to many glaring problems for me to enjoy anything of season 2 as much as season 1.
Clems relations to Christa and the fate of her baby? lets pretend it never happened
A character or characters distrusting Clem? Lets flip there personalities 180 degrees in the next episode without any event giving an indication as to why.
Interact with people? Nah be involved in action, and then some more action and press diaglogue buttons that mostly don't effect anything in the story, and when they do, might allow you to save a cardboard copy of a chacter that if you are lucky gets animated for 1 more scene (yeah I know its the second time I bring this up, but it just really bothers me)
But mostly the lack of felling connected to the world of the walking dead, eveything happens to Clem, not to you as the player controlling a vesion of Clem based on our preferences. It was that way with Lee.
But that's not what Telltale builds it up to be. The incident between Luke and Jane is presented as reflecting badly on Luke, and Jane's part in it is not addressed at all. The situation is not being used to develop her character. The fact that you came up with a way for it to work just honestly feels like a lucky coincidence.
Because you might enjoy five minutes where you can just shut off your brain and don't think about this world. Happens in the comic all the t… moreime.
And I described it the other way round.
"Wow, I described Clem as my partner, told her about my sister and went to Luke for comfort. Time to leave, I'm getting vulnerable."
"Everything you do is directly related to the main plot of the current episode, that makes the world some less real. I am not involved, I am just watching Clem being dragged from event to event to event."
That is so true.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the second season more than the first so far, but I'd love a few more details and stuff for the third season. Season one was a giant test, it worked well, you streamlined the story for the second season, now perfect the formula with the third.
I agree that characters don't need a full closed storyline before they are killed. To me that would actually feel contrived and sudden death… mores fit the walking dead universe. While it might make sense in a regular storytelling perspecivte the fact someone can be ripped away in an instant fits the atmosphere and makes the world believable. Carley and Ben could die in season 1 without meaningfull development aswell, but that did not mean they were irrelevant, why:
What I miss compared to season 1 in this reagard is the interaction with the characters, Lee got to decide how he related to almost all of the people that tagged alone for longer then a few scenes. Clem does not. Also the walking dead world of season1 felt alive to me because of all the little extra things. The fixing of the fence both at the inn and at the farm in episode 2. Scavenging for supplies with Kenny at the start of episode 3. More importantly on these occasions you also di… [view original content]
To be honest, that was the first thought that crossed my mind when Jane left. I think her character is much deeper than Luke anyway, who I never cared about to begin with. The only cabin survivor I liked was Sarah. The other characters we met throughout the season were far better, I think.
But that's not what Telltale builds it up to be. The incident between Luke and Jane is presented as reflecting badly on Luke, and Jane's par… moret in it is not addressed at all. The situation is not being used to develop her character. The fact that you came up with a way for it to work just honestly feels like a lucky coincidence.
But if these characters deaths are supposed to be part of some overarching theme, they are not being treated with the gravity they deserve. When they die, it's not treated as if they are being ripped away because of a cruel and dangerous world. They die and are never reacted to or mentioned again.
All the mistakes made by Telltale that you mentioned just make it even more obvious that the way character deaths are handled is not intentionally thematic, it's just lazy.
I agree that characters don't need a full closed storyline before they are killed. To me that would actually feel contrived and sudden death… mores fit the walking dead universe. While it might make sense in a regular storytelling perspecivte the fact someone can be ripped away in an instant fits the atmosphere and makes the world believable. Carley and Ben could die in season 1 without meaningfull development aswell, but that did not mean they were irrelevant, why:
What I miss compared to season 1 in this reagard is the interaction with the characters, Lee got to decide how he related to almost all of the people that tagged alone for longer then a few scenes. Clem does not. Also the walking dead world of season1 felt alive to me because of all the little extra things. The fixing of the fence both at the inn and at the farm in episode 2. Scavenging for supplies with Kenny at the start of episode 3. More importantly on these occasions you also di… [view original content]
Your that disappointed? Pretty sad, don't you think? People die, that's what makes this good, it works, it's new and exciting, if we could save everyone it would be boring, everyone in clems group will eventually die no doubt, rick will die, daryl will die,, my lee taught clem to be ruthless, the people don't control who dies, "if whoever dies, we riot!"? They will kill them despite whatever you say
Yeah, I have to play it in one go once the final episode is released. So far I have played each episode 3-4 times once it's released. The bi… moregger picture might be weaker. Dunno. I do get a lot of the disappointment, but it's still a really good game and it's still fun playing.
You gotta admit, though, those flaws that you adressed already came up at the end of the first season.
Your that disappointed? Pretty sad, don't you think? People die, that's what makes this good, it works, it's new and exciting, if we could… more save everyone it would be boring, everyone in clems group will eventually die no doubt, rick will die, daryl will die,, my lee taught clem to be ruthless, the people don't control who dies, "if whoever dies, we riot!"? They will kill them despite whatever you say
It's not new and exciting to build up a character with a huge fanbase only to kill them off for no reason.
And I'm not expecting to save everyone. I was expecting them to be treated fairly not by the world, but by the narrative. Bad things can happen to them without completely invalidating and alienating their character and their fans.
Your that disappointed? Pretty sad, don't you think? People die, that's what makes this good, it works, it's new and exciting, if we could… more save everyone it would be boring, everyone in clems group will eventually die no doubt, rick will die, daryl will die,, my lee taught clem to be ruthless, the people don't control who dies, "if whoever dies, we riot!"? They will kill them despite whatever you say
i disagreed with some of the deaths in episode 4 but oh well. In an actual zombie apocalypse i would expect people to die the same some TWD characters have died so far. So even though I might not like it I try to keep in mind that this game is kinda realistic.
actually, you don't need to answer that. I mean, I'm trying to look at this season and judge it fairly on its own. Whether or not the first season made similar mistakes shouldn't be relevant to that....
Yeah, I have to play it in one go once the final episode is released. So far I have played each episode 3-4 times once it's released. The bi… moregger picture might be weaker. Dunno. I do get a lot of the disappointment, but it's still a really good game and it's still fun playing.
You gotta admit, though, those flaws that you adressed already came up at the end of the first season.
The stranger at the end of the first season came out of nowhere and was in no way consistent with the previous episodes. Kenny's death in the alley when Ben falls to his death made no sense. The fourth episode was full of wasted potential (crawford). Chuck's Death was as unsatisfying as Nick's Death was.
actually, you don't need to answer that. I mean, I'm trying to look at this season and judge it fairly on its own. Whether or not the first season made similar mistakes shouldn't be relevant to that....
A story has themes. It has characters. It has events that happen and are relevant to those themes and characters.
This isn't a zombie apocalypse realism simulator. And it was never meant to be.
It is a STORY, told by the critically acclaimed storytellers who claim to specifically develop the episodes live in order to incorporate fan feedback. Why kill off or perform character assassination on these characters with huge fanbases? Why build up a plot or theme that is heavily debated by fans only to drop in the next episode with no explanation?
i disagreed with some of the deaths in episode 4 but oh well. In an actual zombie apocalypse i would expect people to die the same some TWD … morecharacters have died so far. So even though I might not like it I try to keep in mind that this game is kinda realistic.
I get your point, then again, dark realism in a story can be a good thing. I won't argue with you, because it's clear we're not on the same page here. I do understand where you are coming from.
this is a STORY.
Telltale Games is telling a STORY.
A story has themes. It has characters. It has events that happen and are relevant … moreto those themes and characters.
This isn't a zombie apocalypse realism simulator. And it was never meant to be.
It is a STORY, told by the critically acclaimed storytellers who claim to specifically develop the episodes live in order to incorporate fan feedback. Why kill off or perform character assassination on these characters with huge fanbases? Why build up a plot or theme that is heavily debated by fans only to drop in the next episode with no explanation?
I'm pretty much done with Telltale. I can see the writing on the wall, and that writing says 'streamlining.'
Why doesn't anyone care about Nick dying? Because that would require a bunch of extra dialogue that would never be seen by those who let Nick die in Episode 2. Its basically the same reason Nick became a non-entity the moment he became determinant. When Nick could either be there or not be there depending on player choice, that means a bunch of extra dialogue from both him and others, and Telltale has apparently decided they don't want to deal with that hassle. So you can decide whether he lives or he dies...but in the end, he contributes about the same amount to the plot either way.
As it goes with determinant characters, so it goes with player choice. Wanna save Sarah? Well, geez, that would make things a mess for Episode 5, wouldn't it? All of a sudden you have a bunch of your players with Sarah alive and a bunch of them with Sarah dead. That might require a bunch of extra dialogue or even an altered ending. Better to dispense with the pretense that it matters what you choose and off her before the episode even ends.
And god help them if they include hubs! I mean, sure, we might have cared more about Sarita or Carlos or whoever when they die horribly if we actually knew the first thing about them, but...dammit, man. Think of all that extra dialogue it would take! Better to keep the plot relentlessly on rails, like a ride at Disneyland. No need to get to know anyone. Just seeing random one dimensional characters die should be more than enough to provoke 'feels'.
If this were their only project I'd call it lazy, but given what Telltale is doing to itself I think its probably better said as 'stretched thin.' I get the distinct sense some high-level twit saw the success of the first season of TWD and wondered if they could make a whole bunch of series just like it, only streamlined in various ways so they could knock out a bunch of them at once. Now Telltale has bitten off way more than it can chew and has had to make even further compromises regarding quality just to keep up.
I don't expect things to change for Episode 5, or for any of their immediate future series. I'll be paying close attention to reviews before I buy anymore Telltale games, in the hopes that they've realized what a disastrous mistake they've made.
i didn't want to get into comparing s1 and s2 since I'm trying to judge s2 completely on its own merits, but ok I'll bite.
Yes the stranger came out of nowhere, but it was consistent with the previous episodes because it came about as a result of a situation early in the series. Yes, it felt slightly less genuine if you chose not to take the supplies, but it still made sense in context and happened for a thematic purpose in the story,
Kenny's "death" in the alley while saving Ben made thematic sense in the story, less so than his "death" protecting Christa, but it was consistent to both characters and was treated with the property gravity and emotion.
Crawford was wasted potential in the sense that it didn't turn out how we expected, but it served a purpose to the story and revealed more ideas and themes instead of just being a bait and switch.
Chuck's death was pretty unsatisfying, yes, but he was introduced and killed across only two episodes, compared to Nick who recieved much more development, had a big fanbase, and survived into the fourth episode (tho I can't really compare his and Chuck's fanbases since I wasn't around then.). Chuck got his time to shine, and even after his death was treated more emotionally compared to Nick's. Chuck was a cool character & it sucks that they didn't give him a better send-off, but he didn't get a huge amount of focus or development, and everyone reacted in an understandable way- they had just met him and there were other things on their minds so it makes sense that there wouldn't be a focus on their reactions.
Compare that to Nick, who has received a comparitvely huge amount of development and built up a large fan base, along with creating more potential not just for him but for reactions between the rest of the s2 cast. I really don't think it's a fair comparison.
The stranger at the end of the first season came out of nowhere and was in no way consistent with the previous episodes. Kenny's death in th… moree alley when Ben falls to his death made no sense. The fourth episode was full of wasted potential (crawford). Chuck's Death was as unsatisfying as Nick's Death was.
Well, Nick didn't necessarily just died in episode 4. I mean to the player he just out of nowhere died. But if you've listened to Luke to what happened before his untimely demise, he was actually trying to find help. So he before his death, he did have a purpose. But you've looked at my comment earlier, he got shot in the shoulder earlier, so the blood must have attracted the walker to him. So when he went to the hole in the fence as a mean to escape and run to the groups. But most likely got stuck and well so in. But his death wasn't stupid, it made sense at least which counts.
In my perspective, I'm calling it a complete mess because it completely ruined all the potential and missed all its chances to fix where the… more writing was lacking in previous episodes. There were good things about the episode, but there were also such huge and glaringly awful mistakes that I just can't forgive it.
For example with Nick and Sarah, they could have given Nick some kind of participation in the story that made sense with his original personality. They could have allowed you to interact with Sarah as if you are actually her friend instead of just having the option to say so then being like "welp i guess she's nuts now". If they were so determined for her and Nick to die, they could have found a way to do it in a way that was respectful and consistent with their characters.
Hell, if they were set on creating this nihilistic "everyone dies and there's nothing you can do", they could have at least explored it as a theme. It was ba… [view original content]
I'm pretty much done with Telltale. I can see the writing on the wall, and that writing says 'streamlining.'
Why doesn't anyone care abou… moret Nick dying? Because that would require a bunch of extra dialogue that would never be seen by those who let Nick die in Episode 2. Its basically the same reason Nick became a non-entity the moment he became determinant. When Nick could either be there or not be there depending on player choice, that means a bunch of extra dialogue from both him and others, and Telltale has apparently decided they don't want to deal with that hassle. So you can decide whether he lives or he dies...but in the end, he contributes about the same amount to the plot either way.
As it goes with determinant characters, so it goes with player choice. Wanna save Sarah? Well, geez, that would make things a mess for Episode 5, wouldn't it? All of a sudden you have a bunch of your players with Sarah alive and a bunch of them with … [view original content]
Up until that point he had been a nuanced and interesting character, but during episode 3 he was barely even there and then suddenly he's dead. It's just a big smack in the face for anyone who cared or was interested in him in any way and it served no purpose to the plot. Especially since they can't even be bothered to have anyone react to his death or treat it with any gravity whatsoever. And ESPECIALLY because his body is just wedged in as a replacement for a generic zombie kill. It was just cheap.
Well, Nick didn't necessarily just died in episode 4. I mean to the player he just out of nowhere died. But if you've listened to Luke to wh… moreat happened before his untimely demise, he was actually trying to find help. So he before his death, he did have a purpose. But you've looked at my comment earlier, he got shot in the shoulder earlier, so the blood must have attracted the walker to him. So when he went to the hole in the fence as a mean to escape and run to the groups. But most likely got stuck and well so in. But his death wasn't stupid, it made sense at least which counts.
Dude, Kenny his love of his life once again and everyone treating him as a liability, he is very very pissed. Also, did you hear how he talked to Clem. It may be cheesy but its makes sense why they would say that. They never really experience anything like this, guessing from how worry they are for Kenny and we never really see them experience something like this, maybe Bonnie.
I read all of this and I couldn't agree with you more. It was a very disappointing episode and that's all down to extremely bad writing. Eve… moren mike and bonnie's comment on Kenny's reaction to mike trying to talk to him 'it was scary'. C'mon how damn cheesy is that.
I don't see what Sarah did as any more brave than, say, Duck crying out when Kenny gets shot by Andy St. John. A reaction to seeing someone you like get hurt. If you saw that as a brave thing, then I guess we just have different thresholds for what is considered brave.
There is nothing to indicate that Sarah is supposed to be one-dimensional, hopeless, or a "waste of space".
Her dad openly tells you that she will cease to function if she ever realizes what it's really like out there. Add onto that her immaturity for her age, her immediate insistence on being your friend, and her failure to grasp the severity of Clementine's situation and you get a tragedy waiting to happen.
Killing her served no purpose to the story, it did not illustrate any themes or connections to the plot.
I disagree that it doesn't illustrate any themes. The fact that there's a statue in the middle of the square of one person carrying another with the words "Fallen, but never forsaken," and then the player is given a choice to abandon Sarah or not seems to me to have pretty direct implications. Sarah, for all intents and purposes, is someone who's fallen (and she literally falls in the second choice). She's given up. She's not savable. Not for any significant period of time. The question posed to players is whether or not that makes her someone who they deem should be abandoned. That's the central theme of the episode.
I understand that it makes Sarah loyal. I don't see how it makes her brave.
So it's not brave for a 15-year old girl who doesn't kno… morew how to defend herself -and was unable to even if she did know how (since her hands are tied at the time)- to speak up against the very same adult who just beat and nearly killed her father the day before?
She does it as a way to get Clem to leave her alone. This makes it seem like it's not such a big deal to Sarah.
This is more of a game mechanics issue than insight into her character. If Clem doesn't get the medicine, it's game over. That doesn't change the fact that Telltale specifically builds this scene in an attempt to emphasize that Sarah is going to be an important and complex character. Everyone has to go through this conversation, so everyone is going to see it and have insight on Sarah. Several important themes are touched on within the conversation (trust, friendship, innocence)… [view original content]
I don't see what Sarah did as any more brave than, say, Duck crying out when Kenny gets shot by Andy St. John. A reaction to seeing someone you like get hurt.
Replay the episode. Sarah says DIRECTLY to Carver, "No, stop! Don't hurt my friend!" She isn't just crying out in surprise. She is actively trying to help her friend.
Her dad openly tells you that she will cease to function if she ever realizes what it's really like out there.
That does not mean that she's worthless or one dimensional. It is simply expressing to you that she is "not like Clem". That does not mean that she isn't worth saving just because she's different.
She's given up. She's not savable. Not for any significant period of time.
Sarah did not want to die. She was hurt and she was grieving. But she did not want or deserve to die.
I don't see what Sarah did as any more brave than, say, Duck crying out when Kenny gets shot by Andy St. John. A reaction to seeing someone … moreyou like get hurt. If you saw that as a brave thing, then I guess we just have different thresholds for what is considered brave.
There is nothing to indicate that Sarah is supposed to be one-dimensional, hopeless, or a "waste of space".
Her dad openly tells you that she will cease to function if she ever realizes what it's really like out there. Add onto that her immaturity for her age, her immediate insistence on being your friend, and her failure to grasp the severity of Clementine's situation and you get a tragedy waiting to happen.
Killing her served no purpose to the story, it did not illustrate any themes or connections to the plot.
I disagree that it doesn't illustrate any themes. The fact that there's a statue in the middle of the square of one person carrying another … [view original content]
That does not mean that she's worthless or one dimensional. It is simply expressing to you that she is "not like Clem".
It's a clarifying statement. As in "She's not like you and this is how she isn't like you." I notice you didn't include "hopeless." Because that line does pretty much outright tell you that she's hopeless. The player has the option of not believing Carlos's assessment Sarah and it would seem that many of them opted to do so. But that's them forcing their own expectations onto the character, not the game giving them said expectations. What happened to Sarah is what Carlos said would happen to Sarah from the first time we met her.
That does not mean that she isn't worth saving just because she's different. Sarah did not want to die. She was hurt and she was grieving. But she did not want or deserve to die.
I never said she wasn't worth saving because she's different. The fact that someone is helpless and will always be helpless is not an excuse to not help them. That's what I'm trying to get that. That's the attitude that my Clem has. Even seeing that Sarah has lost herself, she still does everything in her power to save her, because it's the right thing to do.
I don't see what Sarah did as any more brave than, say, Duck crying out when Kenny gets shot by Andy St. John. A reaction to seeing someone … moreyou like get hurt.
Replay the episode. Sarah says DIRECTLY to Carver, "No, stop! Don't hurt my friend!" She isn't just crying out in surprise. She is actively trying to help her friend.
Her dad openly tells you that she will cease to function if she ever realizes what it's really like out there.
That does not mean that she's worthless or one dimensional. It is simply expressing to you that she is "not like Clem". That does not mean that she isn't worth saving just because she's different.
She's given up. She's not savable. Not for any significant period of time.
Sarah did not want to die. She was hurt and she was grieving. But she did not want or deserve to die.
The player has the option of not believing Carlos's assessment Sarah and it would seem that many of them opted to do so.
No.
When Clementine and the player decide to be Sarah's friend, they are not deciding to ignore what Carlos is saying. They recognize that Carlos is right. Being Sarah's friend is not ignoring the fact that she has issues.
When Carlos leaves the cabin in episode 2 and you tell Sarah this, she momentarily sits on the ground with her arms around her knees and Clem sits on the ground with her. Sarah smiles at her, and we understand that this is the way Sarah deals with panic, and Clem is being understanding and supportive in the only way she knows how.
Clementine and the player recognize that Sarah has issues. And it does not does not make her hopeless. Her mental state, whatever it is meant to be, is a large part of her character and Clementine is not befriending her in spite of this knowledge, she befriends her knowing that this is just part of who she is. To assume otherwise is just hugely condescending and insulting.
It's a clarifying statement. As in "She's not like you and this is how she isn't like you." I notice you didn't include "hopeless." Because that line does pretty much outright tell you that she's hopeless.
Sarah.is.not.hopeless. She never was. And she was never portrayed to be. Until episode 4 that is.
That does not mean that she's worthless or one dimensional. It is simply expressing to you that she is "not like Clem".
It's a clari… morefying statement. As in "She's not like you and this is how she isn't like you." I notice you didn't include "hopeless." Because that line does pretty much outright tell you that she's hopeless. The player has the option of not believing Carlos's assessment Sarah and it would seem that many of them opted to do so. But that's them forcing their own expectations onto the character, not the game giving them said expectations. What happened to Sarah is what Carlos said would happen to Sarah from the first time we met her.
That does not mean that she isn't worth saving just because she's different. Sarah did not want to die. She was hurt and she was grieving. But she did not want or deserve to die.
I never said she wasn't worth saving because she's different. The fact that someone is helpless and … [view original content]
I replayed the episode for only as long it took to see what happened in that moment. Believe me, I have no desire to go back and replay this episode ever again lol.
Stop investing your soul into that game.
...I guess you are just playing for the quick time events too? Telltale has specifically built this game as a STORY, one that was supposed to be purposeful and hard-hitting. I haven't read up to issue 100 of the comic, but it is completely different. There is a constant theme of nihilism and hopelessness in the comic, so what happened in issue 100 as horrible as it was, fit with the themes of the comic and made sense to the plot. Telltale's game on the other hand, has never been about that. Not to the extent that Kirkman is. There has always been a choice whether we accept this kind of outlook or reject it, but in this episode it was completely forced.
Last night I replayed
See? That your problem. Stop investing your soul into that game. Robert Kirkman and his crew are mad and mean … moremen and women who just want us to feel sad and angry about our favourite characters. We don't have to over-analyse it.
After issue 100 of the comics, I realized all that and now everything is better.
[minor corrections (typo)]
I couldn't agree with you more OP. Nick's death was cheap he was an interesting character but telltale just ruined it. Teaching Sarah how to use a gun was pointless it didn't matter at ALL. The tweet that telltale made about Chuck's quote was referring to Clementine herself not Sarah.
I agree that the writing in this season has been utterly pants.
There's no "story" here. There's all these themes that suggest to me a bit of a conflict between the writers about what this season is "about" but it's all kind of sloppy. And yes, the characterisations are terribly inconsistent. People are making decisions that don't make sense even for people under a lot of mental stress in a zombie apocalypse.
I think the handling of Nick, Jane, Luke and Sarah are all big examples of how poorly the characterisation has been handled this season.
And the thing is when compared to TWAU - it's obvious TTG's staff can still tell great stories. TWAU is tightly plotted.
In TWD meaningless deaths do occur - but in this season they haven't really felt meaningless. They've felt more like the writers saying "too hard to write, rocks fall, they die."
Episode 5 is going to have to really bring their A game to tie it all together. I'm just not convinced there's actually enough of a cohesive story to do that with.
You've said pretty much everything. This season really had great potential, and Telltale did create some characters that would even shine in season 1(Nick, Pete), instead killed meaninglessly and most importantly, cheaply.
But killing in season 1 isn't all that rare. In episode 3 Duck, Katjaa and Carley/Doug got killed-While the latter could die to protect someone, is friendly and trustable, Katjaa and Duck's deaths were built up with the whole convincing Kenny part, had huge impact on Clem which led to doubts about whether Lee could keep Clem alive, of course, affecting Kenny in even season 2.
Deaths used to be important and NOT cheap, Now not even Nick's death can cause Luke to be upset. If Telltale wants to show his human side, they can have him burst into tears and grieve like Kenny did with Sarita. Besides it would make so much sense than Kenny grieving over Sarita when she is merely a clone of Katjaa.
this is a STORY.
Telltale Games is telling a STORY.
A story has themes. It has characters. It has events that happen and are relevant … moreto those themes and characters.
This isn't a zombie apocalypse realism simulator. And it was never meant to be.
It is a STORY, told by the critically acclaimed storytellers who claim to specifically develop the episodes live in order to incorporate fan feedback. Why kill off or perform character assassination on these characters with huge fanbases? Why build up a plot or theme that is heavily debated by fans only to drop in the next episode with no explanation?
I don't know what to tell you, this is the walking dead, people die left and right. Yes nick deserved more, but he was just human like Pete and Carlos. Also, you are saying that death must help advance or impact the plot, well it did, Nick's death was the rising action, adding to the Climax which was steeling or not from Avro. See, if you did steal from him, its showed that you're tried of losing people so you do whatever it takes to help your group live (survival). But of if you didn't steal from him, it showed that you don't let death affect your humanity for others (humanity). Now Sarah's death could contribute as a rising action, affecting the players wanting to survive than retain their humanity. Now, Sarah's death as a falling action, it affects the resolution. If you try to save her, than its confirms you still have care for others. But if you let her die, its shows all you care for are survival of the fittest. Really the resolution of the story is, do you still have morals or are you just survival of the fittest like season one episode 4 of the walking dead.
Nick deserved more than that.
Up until that point he had been a nuanced and interesting character, but during episode 3 he was barely eve… moren there and then suddenly he's dead. It's just a big smack in the face for anyone who cared or was interested in him in any way and it served no purpose to the plot. Especially since they can't even be bothered to have anyone react to his death or treat it with any gravity whatsoever. And ESPECIALLY because his body is just wedged in as a replacement for a generic zombie kill. It was just cheap.
Yeah Telltale needs to read this, I heard there are better way to contact them then through this forum, but since this post is so watched I hope it'll get to them anyway.
Can't say I agree with everything you said, but the story and plots need to improve in season 3 (as I strongly believe there'll be one). TWAU story and plot was definitily much better than season 2 of TWD.
On the other hand this season was still much better than vast majority of other high rated games so... I'm glad we have it, but it definitily should get more passion.
From the comments asking why Sarah couldn't have gotten a gun and defended herself, it would seem that players did forget that Carlos said she would cease to function. Not break down for a bit. Cease to function. That's what happened. She was no longer able to operate in the reality she was in and so she escaped it.
Sarah doesn't just have issues. Clem has issues. Kenny has issues. Luke has issues. Nick and Reggie and Jane had issues. Sarah had detrimental weaknesses that prevented her from moving past trauma. I didn't want to accept that there wasn't any hope for her either. I suspected that there wasn't, but I still had Clem try to instill in her the strength to move on. Then she told me that Carlos was coming back. I wasn't surprised by her saying this. It was perfectly in line with the character that her father told me she was.
Clementine is not befriending her in spite of this knowledge she befriends her knowing that this is just part of who she is.
That's....pretty much just the same thing stated twice. Unless you want to argue that Clem befriended Sarah because she was neurodivergent, the most you can say is that Clem's friendship with Sarah was unaffected by her mental state.
There may have been some hope for Sarah when Carlos was still around. But with his sudden loss, Sarah had no means of coping with her situation. What happened to her was the equivalent of taking someone with severe allergies and no immune system out into downtown LA. No matter how hard you want them to try to survive, they just can't.
The player has the option of not believing Carlos's assessment Sarah and it would seem that many of them opted to do so.
No.
When… more Clementine and the player decide to be Sarah's friend, they are not deciding to ignore what Carlos is saying. They recognize that Carlos is right. Being Sarah's friend is not ignoring the fact that she has issues.
When Carlos leaves the cabin in episode 2 and you tell Sarah this, she momentarily sits on the ground with her arms around her knees and Clem sits on the ground with her. Sarah smiles at her, and we understand that this is the way Sarah deals with panic, and Clem is being understanding and supportive in the only way she knows how.
Clementine and the player recognize that Sarah has issues. And it does not does not make her hopeless. Her mental state, whatever it is meant to be, is a large part of her character and Clementine is not befriending her in spite of this knowledge, she befriends … [view original content]
To all people making an issue out of their own incapability to experience how people in their worst really are:
I understand clearly the critics concerning the characters in TWD. I also partly smirk on the logically views (everywhere are holes, no one cares about and so on). But, I must point out: that is not, how the world functions. It is not an mathematically predictable thing, there are no keen, rational things, no stupid robots. People aren't consistent. They behave pretty much different in a stressed situation as they suppose to behave, needn't be the strict opposite of the "correct" way. That is what makes their actions plausible to me and that's a reason why I like the game. Any other outcome would lead to think: OMG, an ideal constructed, but boring world, telltale realised, but everything is in the line, works how it should work, not like my everydays life, it's like Star Trek with Zombies. Thank god, it's not!
Sry, friends, you play a game in which you are made to believe that you have influence. The authors prove your wrongness every episode anew, but you keep yelling how things should be or not.
The feeling not to be able to do something is part of the concept of the game. We are at the mercy of the telltale authors.
What leaves me really confused: Is anyone in a position to see, that we don't know anything about what is going on in a brain of a character of the game like we never truly can connect to another person in the real life? We are merely voyourists. We only hear, what they are talking, see how they act, nothing more. There isn't even a story teller in there to help the confused players. And from this poor perspective some of us bath in their choleric criticism. It's a shame. You never know what is in somebodys head. You can't possibly look into it.
It is in fact normal, that this situation brings us to fill a character up with everything, we might want to lay in. We fill the gaps on our own individually. She said that because she is such a person, he hit him because he's angry etc. But if you take a close look, you realise, nothing of it stood in the dialogue, was shown in a scene and so on. It maybe that one character suggests things, assumes why happened what happened, but is it the truth? You're just lucky if you get the idea of a whole person. And when you think, you know somebody, it hits you in the face and laughs endlessly.
In short, relax and enjoy, what is about to come. I do so.
And finally to all "I-can-do-better"-gals: Do so and have your success. Don't blame others. Be an author. Write your stories. No comparison, no capatalistic competition in the world of creativity. You'll learn soon enough.
Well, maybe. Even if that had happened, I'm sure that Clem would have learned a lot about pregnancy because Christa and Omid should have def… moreinitely discussed how to take care of a child, how to give birth, what a pregnant womans needs are, etc.
I find this situation a bit shady though. Even if Christa had a miscarriage, someone should have been there to help her take out the fetus. Unless, do you think she just squated down like she was going to do a #2 and just pulled it out with one hand? Seems highly unlikely. I suppose Clem could have helped somewhat but she's still a kid so it kind of seems like the logical backstory for this would be that they ran into another group who helped them out; however, when Christa gave birth and the baby died then maybe Christa became closed off and eventually the group didn't want to deal with her issues anymore so they split off once again.
Furthermore, how did Christa survive? After birth a mother is… [view original content]
The only thing that made me feel disjointed from the episode was how fast Kenny came around and forgave me for axing Saritas face.
As for the deaths, you've already answered that for yourself. "Death happens and we're powerless, no one is safe, that's what the Walking Dead is all about."
I don't know what to tell you, this is the walking dead, people die left and right. Yes nick deserved more, but he was just human like Pete and Carlos.
If you go with Pete to the truck, you get a heartfelt and emotional scene with him in his last moments. And if you didn't, his death serves as further character development to Nick.
It goes along with the general themes and characterization portrayed up to that point. It is not pointless and it does not force you to grasp at straws in order to try to justify it.
As for Carlos, we will never know what his death was supposed to be for. Episode 4 obliterated any chance for logical character or thematic development.
Also, you are saying that death must help advance or impact the plot, well it did, Nick's death was the rising action, adding to the Climax which was steeling or not from Avro.
Nick's death was not a rising action. It had no relevance or necessity to the plot with Arvo. It did not portray the desperation of the situation- nobody gave a crap about it.
See, if you did steal from him, its showed that you're tried of losing people so you do whatever it takes to help your group live (survival). But of if you didn't steal from him, it showed that you don't let death affect your humanity for others (humanity).
You're projecting your own themes and interpretation onto this, it doesn't actually show any effort on Telltale's part. Stealing from him is not a result of desperation- you are never shown to be tired of losing people. It was not shown to being eager to save the ones who are left- taking the medicine results in no change in events whatsoever.
But if you let her die, its shows all you care for are survival of the fittest. Really the resolution of the story is, do you still have morals or are you just survival of the fittest like season one episode 4 of the walking dead.
The plot does not treat it that way. Whether or not you let her die is irrelevant. Survival of the fittest vs morals is not addressed or inferred at all. She is treated as being hopeless from the beginning, and the only relevance to the plot is giving Luke & Jane a bit of extra characterization which is hardly necessary in the first place.
I don't know what to tell you, this is the walking dead, people die left and right. Yes nick deserved more, but he was just human like Pete … moreand Carlos. Also, you are saying that death must help advance or impact the plot, well it did, Nick's death was the rising action, adding to the Climax which was steeling or not from Avro. See, if you did steal from him, its showed that you're tried of losing people so you do whatever it takes to help your group live (survival). But of if you didn't steal from him, it showed that you don't let death affect your humanity for others (humanity). Now Sarah's death could contribute as a rising action, affecting the players wanting to survive than retain their humanity. Now, Sarah's death as a falling action, it affects the resolution. If you try to save her, than its confirms you still have care for others. But if you let her die, its shows all you care for are survival of the fittest. Really the resolution of… [view original content]
I just want Luke and Clementine to get back to their original big brother/younger sister dynamic they had going in all of the previous episodes. I mean, they missed out on a huge moment on the staircase for a deep conversation about their losses. But they just had Luke focusing on Jane
To all people making an issue out of their own incapability to experience how people in their worst really are:
I understand clearly the … morecritics concerning the characters in TWD. I also partly smirk on the logically views (everywhere are holes, no one cares about and so on). But, I must point out: that is not, how the world functions. It is not an mathematically predictable thing, there are no keen, rational things, no stupid robots. People aren't consistent. They behave pretty much different in a stressed situation as they suppose to behave, needn't be the strict opposite of the "correct" way. That is what makes their actions plausible to me and that's a reason why I like the game. Any other outcome would lead to think: OMG, an ideal constructed, but boring world, telltale realised, but everything is in the line, works how it should work, not like my everydays life, it's like Star Trek with Zombies. Thank god, it's not!
Sry, friends, y… [view original content]
You don't get it do you, in the walking dead universe, you not special, you are living. Now Nick character never changed in episode 4, he wanted to help and got killed in the process. This is the theme of the walking dead universe, death will come no matter what. Another theme which goes to Sarah's death is that they may be liability, but you mustn't give up on them. If you give up on Sarah at any moment, you trating them like they don't matter just because you can't be bother to help them. But if you help her, you're slowly helping her realize things about the world and herself. She wanted to die, but you helped her realize that she wanted to live. She wanted her dad, you helped her realize daddy is gone. You helped her realize that other people can help her if she needs help. she only died because people gave up on her and when that happens, its not a happy ending. But if you try to help people, its a better ending to know that you tried to help them to the bitter end because you helped that person with their obstacle.
It's not new and exciting to build up a character with a huge fanbase only to kill them off for no reason.
And I'm not expecting to save … moreeveryone. I was expecting them to be treated fairly not by the world, but by the narrative. Bad things can happen to them without completely invalidating and alienating their character and their fans.
Comments
I agree that characters don't need a full closed storyline before they are killed. To me that would actually feel contrived and sudden deaths fit the walking dead universe. While it might make sense in a regular storytelling perspecivte the fact someone can be ripped away in an instant fits the atmosphere and makes the world believable. Carley and Ben could die in season 1 without meaningfull development aswell, but that did not mean they were irrelevant, why:
What I miss compared to season 1 in this reagard is the interaction with the characters, Lee got to decide how he related to almost all of the people that tagged alone for longer then a few scenes. Clem does not. Also the walking dead world of season1 felt alive to me because of all the little extra things. The fixing of the fence both at the inn and at the farm in episode 2. Scavenging for supplies with Kenny at the start of episode 3. More importantly on these occasions you also discussed what was going on in the group or the plans for the near future with the characters present. This season lacks that. Everything you do is directly related to the main plot of the current episode, that makes the world some less real. I am not involved, I am just watching Clem being dragged from event to event to event.
Add to that the impact of the choises. In season 1 you could not change the impact of the seasons plot, but because you had had Lee from a relationship with the members of the group and your choises affected that, you influence the atmosphere of the group and if you saved someone that character still got development and ti mattered. Compare that to this season, where saving someone turns them into a carboard copy or at best gives them one relevant scene before they die and the choises feel utterly meaningless. S1 was a game, for my taste S2 is too much of a movie with the occasional quicktime event.
Ofcourse some may like the story of the movie, but I was not intending to buy a movie which led to disappointed on my part. I liked episode 4 somewhat because the different locations reminded me of the first season, and we got some exploring, but there to many glaring problems for me to enjoy anything of season 2 as much as season 1.
But mostly the lack of felling connected to the world of the walking dead, eveything happens to Clem, not to you as the player controlling a vesion of Clem based on our preferences. It was that way with Lee.
But that's not what Telltale builds it up to be. The incident between Luke and Jane is presented as reflecting badly on Luke, and Jane's part in it is not addressed at all. The situation is not being used to develop her character. The fact that you came up with a way for it to work just honestly feels like a lucky coincidence.
"Everything you do is directly related to the main plot of the current episode, that makes the world some less real. I am not involved, I am just watching Clem being dragged from event to event to event."
That is so true.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the second season more than the first so far, but I'd love a few more details and stuff for the third season. Season one was a giant test, it worked well, you streamlined the story for the second season, now perfect the formula with the third.
To be honest, that was the first thought that crossed my mind when Jane left. I think her character is much deeper than Luke anyway, who I never cared about to begin with. The only cabin survivor I liked was Sarah. The other characters we met throughout the season were far better, I think.
Thank you for thinking my way works, though
But if these characters deaths are supposed to be part of some overarching theme, they are not being treated with the gravity they deserve. When they die, it's not treated as if they are being ripped away because of a cruel and dangerous world. They die and are never reacted to or mentioned again.
All the mistakes made by Telltale that you mentioned just make it even more obvious that the way character deaths are handled is not intentionally thematic, it's just lazy.
Your that disappointed? Pretty sad, don't you think? People die, that's what makes this good, it works, it's new and exciting, if we could save everyone it would be boring, everyone in clems group will eventually die no doubt, rick will die, daryl will die,, my lee taught clem to be ruthless, the people don't control who dies, "if whoever dies, we riot!"? They will kill them despite whatever you say
I'm not sure what you mean? what similar flaws are in the end of the first season?
Good god dude it's the way they die that is criticized here. -.-'
It's not new and exciting to build up a character with a huge fanbase only to kill them off for no reason.
And I'm not expecting to save everyone. I was expecting them to be treated fairly not by the world, but by the narrative. Bad things can happen to them without completely invalidating and alienating their character and their fans.
i disagreed with some of the deaths in episode 4 but oh well. In an actual zombie apocalypse i would expect people to die the same some TWD characters have died so far. So even though I might not like it I try to keep in mind that this game is kinda realistic.
actually, you don't need to answer that. I mean, I'm trying to look at this season and judge it fairly on its own. Whether or not the first season made similar mistakes shouldn't be relevant to that....
The stranger at the end of the first season came out of nowhere and was in no way consistent with the previous episodes. Kenny's death in the alley when Ben falls to his death made no sense. The fourth episode was full of wasted potential (crawford). Chuck's Death was as unsatisfying as Nick's Death was.
Wow so many downvotes for the smallest of disagreements...
blasé blase
this is a STORY.
Telltale Games is telling a STORY.
A story has themes. It has characters. It has events that happen and are relevant to those themes and characters.
This isn't a zombie apocalypse realism simulator. And it was never meant to be.
It is a STORY, told by the critically acclaimed storytellers who claim to specifically develop the episodes live in order to incorporate fan feedback. Why kill off or perform character assassination on these characters with huge fanbases? Why build up a plot or theme that is heavily debated by fans only to drop in the next episode with no explanation?
I get your point, then again, dark realism in a story can be a good thing. I won't argue with you, because it's clear we're not on the same page here. I do understand where you are coming from.
Let's wait and see how episode five turns out.
I'm pretty much done with Telltale. I can see the writing on the wall, and that writing says 'streamlining.'
Why doesn't anyone care about Nick dying? Because that would require a bunch of extra dialogue that would never be seen by those who let Nick die in Episode 2. Its basically the same reason Nick became a non-entity the moment he became determinant. When Nick could either be there or not be there depending on player choice, that means a bunch of extra dialogue from both him and others, and Telltale has apparently decided they don't want to deal with that hassle. So you can decide whether he lives or he dies...but in the end, he contributes about the same amount to the plot either way.
As it goes with determinant characters, so it goes with player choice. Wanna save Sarah? Well, geez, that would make things a mess for Episode 5, wouldn't it? All of a sudden you have a bunch of your players with Sarah alive and a bunch of them with Sarah dead. That might require a bunch of extra dialogue or even an altered ending. Better to dispense with the pretense that it matters what you choose and off her before the episode even ends.
And god help them if they include hubs! I mean, sure, we might have cared more about Sarita or Carlos or whoever when they die horribly if we actually knew the first thing about them, but...dammit, man. Think of all that extra dialogue it would take! Better to keep the plot relentlessly on rails, like a ride at Disneyland. No need to get to know anyone. Just seeing random one dimensional characters die should be more than enough to provoke 'feels'.
If this were their only project I'd call it lazy, but given what Telltale is doing to itself I think its probably better said as 'stretched thin.' I get the distinct sense some high-level twit saw the success of the first season of TWD and wondered if they could make a whole bunch of series just like it, only streamlined in various ways so they could knock out a bunch of them at once. Now Telltale has bitten off way more than it can chew and has had to make even further compromises regarding quality just to keep up.
I don't expect things to change for Episode 5, or for any of their immediate future series. I'll be paying close attention to reviews before I buy anymore Telltale games, in the hopes that they've realized what a disastrous mistake they've made.
Not holding my breath.
i didn't want to get into comparing s1 and s2 since I'm trying to judge s2 completely on its own merits, but ok I'll bite.
Yes the stranger came out of nowhere, but it was consistent with the previous episodes because it came about as a result of a situation early in the series. Yes, it felt slightly less genuine if you chose not to take the supplies, but it still made sense in context and happened for a thematic purpose in the story,
Kenny's "death" in the alley while saving Ben made thematic sense in the story, less so than his "death" protecting Christa, but it was consistent to both characters and was treated with the property gravity and emotion.
Crawford was wasted potential in the sense that it didn't turn out how we expected, but it served a purpose to the story and revealed more ideas and themes instead of just being a bait and switch.
Chuck's death was pretty unsatisfying, yes, but he was introduced and killed across only two episodes, compared to Nick who recieved much more development, had a big fanbase, and survived into the fourth episode (tho I can't really compare his and Chuck's fanbases since I wasn't around then.). Chuck got his time to shine, and even after his death was treated more emotionally compared to Nick's. Chuck was a cool character & it sucks that they didn't give him a better send-off, but he didn't get a huge amount of focus or development, and everyone reacted in an understandable way- they had just met him and there were other things on their minds so it makes sense that there wouldn't be a focus on their reactions.
Compare that to Nick, who has received a comparitvely huge amount of development and built up a large fan base, along with creating more potential not just for him but for reactions between the rest of the s2 cast. I really don't think it's a fair comparison.
Well, Nick didn't necessarily just died in episode 4. I mean to the player he just out of nowhere died. But if you've listened to Luke to what happened before his untimely demise, he was actually trying to find help. So he before his death, he did have a purpose. But you've looked at my comment earlier, he got shot in the shoulder earlier, so the blood must have attracted the walker to him. So when he went to the hole in the fence as a mean to escape and run to the groups. But most likely got stuck and well so in. But his death wasn't stupid, it made sense at least which counts.
I think it has something to do with them tackling 3 other franchises, which I kind of hope Telltale don't make that business decision again.
Nick deserved more than that.
Up until that point he had been a nuanced and interesting character, but during episode 3 he was barely even there and then suddenly he's dead. It's just a big smack in the face for anyone who cared or was interested in him in any way and it served no purpose to the plot. Especially since they can't even be bothered to have anyone react to his death or treat it with any gravity whatsoever. And ESPECIALLY because his body is just wedged in as a replacement for a generic zombie kill. It was just cheap.
Dude, Kenny his love of his life once again and everyone treating him as a liability, he is very very pissed. Also, did you hear how he talked to Clem. It may be cheesy but its makes sense why they would say that. They never really experience anything like this, guessing from how worry they are for Kenny and we never really see them experience something like this, maybe Bonnie.
I don't see what Sarah did as any more brave than, say, Duck crying out when Kenny gets shot by Andy St. John. A reaction to seeing someone you like get hurt. If you saw that as a brave thing, then I guess we just have different thresholds for what is considered brave.
Her dad openly tells you that she will cease to function if she ever realizes what it's really like out there. Add onto that her immaturity for her age, her immediate insistence on being your friend, and her failure to grasp the severity of Clementine's situation and you get a tragedy waiting to happen.
I disagree that it doesn't illustrate any themes. The fact that there's a statue in the middle of the square of one person carrying another with the words "Fallen, but never forsaken," and then the player is given a choice to abandon Sarah or not seems to me to have pretty direct implications. Sarah, for all intents and purposes, is someone who's fallen (and she literally falls in the second choice). She's given up. She's not savable. Not for any significant period of time. The question posed to players is whether or not that makes her someone who they deem should be abandoned. That's the central theme of the episode.
Replay the episode. Sarah says DIRECTLY to Carver, "No, stop! Don't hurt my friend!" She isn't just crying out in surprise. She is actively trying to help her friend.
That does not mean that she's worthless or one dimensional. It is simply expressing to you that she is "not like Clem". That does not mean that she isn't worth saving just because she's different.
Sarah did not want to die. She was hurt and she was grieving. But she did not want or deserve to die.
It's a clarifying statement. As in "She's not like you and this is how she isn't like you." I notice you didn't include "hopeless." Because that line does pretty much outright tell you that she's hopeless. The player has the option of not believing Carlos's assessment Sarah and it would seem that many of them opted to do so. But that's them forcing their own expectations onto the character, not the game giving them said expectations. What happened to Sarah is what Carlos said would happen to Sarah from the first time we met her.
I never said she wasn't worth saving because she's different. The fact that someone is helpless and will always be helpless is not an excuse to not help them. That's what I'm trying to get that. That's the attitude that my Clem has. Even seeing that Sarah has lost herself, she still does everything in her power to save her, because it's the right thing to do.
No.
When Clementine and the player decide to be Sarah's friend, they are not deciding to ignore what Carlos is saying. They recognize that Carlos is right. Being Sarah's friend is not ignoring the fact that she has issues.
When Carlos leaves the cabin in episode 2 and you tell Sarah this, she momentarily sits on the ground with her arms around her knees and Clem sits on the ground with her. Sarah smiles at her, and we understand that this is the way Sarah deals with panic, and Clem is being understanding and supportive in the only way she knows how.
Clementine and the player recognize that Sarah has issues. And it does not does not make her hopeless. Her mental state, whatever it is meant to be, is a large part of her character and Clementine is not befriending her in spite of this knowledge, she befriends her knowing that this is just part of who she is. To assume otherwise is just hugely condescending and insulting.
Sarah.is.not.hopeless. She never was. And she was never portrayed to be. Until episode 4 that is.
I replayed the episode for only as long it took to see what happened in that moment. Believe me, I have no desire to go back and replay this episode ever again lol.
...I guess you are just playing for the quick time events too? Telltale has specifically built this game as a STORY, one that was supposed to be purposeful and hard-hitting. I haven't read up to issue 100 of the comic, but it is completely different. There is a constant theme of nihilism and hopelessness in the comic, so what happened in issue 100 as horrible as it was, fit with the themes of the comic and made sense to the plot. Telltale's game on the other hand, has never been about that. Not to the extent that Kirkman is. There has always been a choice whether we accept this kind of outlook or reject it, but in this episode it was completely forced.
I couldn't agree with you more OP. Nick's death was cheap he was an interesting character but telltale just ruined it. Teaching Sarah how to use a gun was pointless it didn't matter at ALL. The tweet that telltale made about Chuck's quote was referring to Clementine herself not Sarah.
I agree that the writing in this season has been utterly pants.
There's no "story" here. There's all these themes that suggest to me a bit of a conflict between the writers about what this season is "about" but it's all kind of sloppy. And yes, the characterisations are terribly inconsistent. People are making decisions that don't make sense even for people under a lot of mental stress in a zombie apocalypse.
I think the handling of Nick, Jane, Luke and Sarah are all big examples of how poorly the characterisation has been handled this season.
And the thing is when compared to TWAU - it's obvious TTG's staff can still tell great stories. TWAU is tightly plotted.
In TWD meaningless deaths do occur - but in this season they haven't really felt meaningless. They've felt more like the writers saying "too hard to write, rocks fall, they die."
Episode 5 is going to have to really bring their A game to tie it all together. I'm just not convinced there's actually enough of a cohesive story to do that with.
You've said pretty much everything. This season really had great potential, and Telltale did create some characters that would even shine in season 1(Nick, Pete), instead killed meaninglessly and most importantly, cheaply.
But killing in season 1 isn't all that rare. In episode 3 Duck, Katjaa and Carley/Doug got killed-While the latter could die to protect someone, is friendly and trustable, Katjaa and Duck's deaths were built up with the whole convincing Kenny part, had huge impact on Clem which led to doubts about whether Lee could keep Clem alive, of course, affecting Kenny in even season 2.
Deaths used to be important and NOT cheap, Now not even Nick's death can cause Luke to be upset. If Telltale wants to show his human side, they can have him burst into tears and grieve like Kenny did with Sarita. Besides it would make so much sense than Kenny grieving over Sarita when she is merely a clone of Katjaa.
I just want Nate now.
Yes! This is worded perfectly and couldn't be more correct.
I don't know what to tell you, this is the walking dead, people die left and right. Yes nick deserved more, but he was just human like Pete and Carlos. Also, you are saying that death must help advance or impact the plot, well it did, Nick's death was the rising action, adding to the Climax which was steeling or not from Avro. See, if you did steal from him, its showed that you're tried of losing people so you do whatever it takes to help your group live (survival). But of if you didn't steal from him, it showed that you don't let death affect your humanity for others (humanity). Now Sarah's death could contribute as a rising action, affecting the players wanting to survive than retain their humanity. Now, Sarah's death as a falling action, it affects the resolution. If you try to save her, than its confirms you still have care for others. But if you let her die, its shows all you care for are survival of the fittest. Really the resolution of the story is, do you still have morals or are you just survival of the fittest like season one episode 4 of the walking dead.
Yeah Telltale needs to read this, I heard there are better way to contact them then through this forum, but since this post is so watched I hope it'll get to them anyway.
Can't say I agree with everything you said, but the story and plots need to improve in season 3 (as I strongly believe there'll be one). TWAU story and plot was definitily much better than season 2 of TWD.
On the other hand this season was still much better than vast majority of other high rated games so... I'm glad we have it, but it definitily should get more passion.
From the comments asking why Sarah couldn't have gotten a gun and defended herself, it would seem that players did forget that Carlos said she would cease to function. Not break down for a bit. Cease to function. That's what happened. She was no longer able to operate in the reality she was in and so she escaped it.
Sarah doesn't just have issues. Clem has issues. Kenny has issues. Luke has issues. Nick and Reggie and Jane had issues. Sarah had detrimental weaknesses that prevented her from moving past trauma. I didn't want to accept that there wasn't any hope for her either. I suspected that there wasn't, but I still had Clem try to instill in her the strength to move on. Then she told me that Carlos was coming back. I wasn't surprised by her saying this. It was perfectly in line with the character that her father told me she was.
That's....pretty much just the same thing stated twice. Unless you want to argue that Clem befriended Sarah because she was neurodivergent, the most you can say is that Clem's friendship with Sarah was unaffected by her mental state.
There may have been some hope for Sarah when Carlos was still around. But with his sudden loss, Sarah had no means of coping with her situation. What happened to her was the equivalent of taking someone with severe allergies and no immune system out into downtown LA. No matter how hard you want them to try to survive, they just can't.
To all people making an issue out of their own incapability to experience how people in their worst really are:
I understand clearly the critics concerning the characters in TWD. I also partly smirk on the logically views (everywhere are holes, no one cares about and so on). But, I must point out: that is not, how the world functions. It is not an mathematically predictable thing, there are no keen, rational things, no stupid robots. People aren't consistent. They behave pretty much different in a stressed situation as they suppose to behave, needn't be the strict opposite of the "correct" way. That is what makes their actions plausible to me and that's a reason why I like the game. Any other outcome would lead to think: OMG, an ideal constructed, but boring world, telltale realised, but everything is in the line, works how it should work, not like my everydays life, it's like Star Trek with Zombies. Thank god, it's not!
Sry, friends, you play a game in which you are made to believe that you have influence. The authors prove your wrongness every episode anew, but you keep yelling how things should be or not.
The feeling not to be able to do something is part of the concept of the game. We are at the mercy of the telltale authors.
What leaves me really confused: Is anyone in a position to see, that we don't know anything about what is going on in a brain of a character of the game like we never truly can connect to another person in the real life? We are merely voyourists. We only hear, what they are talking, see how they act, nothing more. There isn't even a story teller in there to help the confused players. And from this poor perspective some of us bath in their choleric criticism. It's a shame. You never know what is in somebodys head. You can't possibly look into it.
It is in fact normal, that this situation brings us to fill a character up with everything, we might want to lay in. We fill the gaps on our own individually. She said that because she is such a person, he hit him because he's angry etc. But if you take a close look, you realise, nothing of it stood in the dialogue, was shown in a scene and so on. It maybe that one character suggests things, assumes why happened what happened, but is it the truth? You're just lucky if you get the idea of a whole person. And when you think, you know somebody, it hits you in the face and laughs endlessly.
In short, relax and enjoy, what is about to come. I do so.
And finally to all "I-can-do-better"-gals: Do so and have your success. Don't blame others. Be an author. Write your stories. No comparison, no capatalistic competition in the world of creativity. You'll learn soon enough.
lmfao oh my god dat image you just gave me of christa has made her such a badass motherf*cker in my mind XD
The only thing that made me feel disjointed from the episode was how fast Kenny came around and forgave me for axing Saritas face.
As for the deaths, you've already answered that for yourself. "Death happens and we're powerless, no one is safe, that's what the Walking Dead is all about."
If you go with Pete to the truck, you get a heartfelt and emotional scene with him in his last moments. And if you didn't, his death serves as further character development to Nick.
It goes along with the general themes and characterization portrayed up to that point. It is not pointless and it does not force you to grasp at straws in order to try to justify it.
As for Carlos, we will never know what his death was supposed to be for. Episode 4 obliterated any chance for logical character or thematic development.
Nick's death was not a rising action. It had no relevance or necessity to the plot with Arvo. It did not portray the desperation of the situation- nobody gave a crap about it.
You're projecting your own themes and interpretation onto this, it doesn't actually show any effort on Telltale's part. Stealing from him is not a result of desperation- you are never shown to be tired of losing people. It was not shown to being eager to save the ones who are left- taking the medicine results in no change in events whatsoever.
The plot does not treat it that way. Whether or not you let her die is irrelevant. Survival of the fittest vs morals is not addressed or inferred at all. She is treated as being hopeless from the beginning, and the only relevance to the plot is giving Luke & Jane a bit of extra characterization which is hardly necessary in the first place.
I just want Luke and Clementine to get back to their original big brother/younger sister dynamic they had going in all of the previous episodes. I mean, they missed out on a huge moment on the staircase for a deep conversation about their losses. But they just had Luke focusing on Jane
So you admit that the story makes no sense whatsoever but expect us to just "relax and enjoy"? I don't really get your logic here.
You don't get it do you, in the walking dead universe, you not special, you are living. Now Nick character never changed in episode 4, he wanted to help and got killed in the process. This is the theme of the walking dead universe, death will come no matter what. Another theme which goes to Sarah's death is that they may be liability, but you mustn't give up on them. If you give up on Sarah at any moment, you trating them like they don't matter just because you can't be bother to help them. But if you help her, you're slowly helping her realize things about the world and herself. She wanted to die, but you helped her realize that she wanted to live. She wanted her dad, you helped her realize daddy is gone. You helped her realize that other people can help her if she needs help. she only died because people gave up on her and when that happens, its not a happy ending. But if you try to help people, its a better ending to know that you tried to help them to the bitter end because you helped that person with their obstacle.