Powerlessness in the face of death has never been emphasized or presented as a theme in this season's story.
Every time somebody says this, it is simply being used as excuse to explain away the writing and to get critics to stop talking.
Telltale specifically builds their story talking about "important player input" and "choices that radically change the outcome". But instead, this season has turned into "here's a completely railroaded and nonsensical plot with wasted potential. Have fun!"
While I really loved the episode, the way they killed off characters in this episode was upsetting. They could have had some HUGE development for Sarah, but no, they gave us a choice to save her in the beginning, then they decide to kill her off regardless, forty five minutes later. They didn't even give her much dialogue afterwards, she only spoke four times more after saving her. Nick's was just stupid, I know he was determinant and all, but they could have given him an ACTUAL death scene, instead of killing him off-screen. He didn't even have ONE line in this episode. Sarita would either die in the first forty five seconds of the episode, or die twenty five minutes later. Out of the four main character deaths in this episode, Rebecca's was the only one that was logical, at least she was a huge part of the plot, had plenty of dialogue, and had an understandable death scene.
But if you help her, you're slowly helping her realize things about the world and herself.
Saving Sarah does not result in any newly found knowledge or epiphany in her character. She is never shown to realize things about the world, after you save her she is allowed no further input.
She wanted her dad, you helped her realize daddy is gone.
No. The only mention of her dad is when she says "When dad gets back we should all go back to the cabin" and then Clem just gives her a look like "whoaaa you're a lost cause" and never speaks to her again.
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
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 wa… morented 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.
Don't you understand? The entire POINT is that people can die at any time no matter what you do. Even if it's someone you totally don't expect to die for any reason, they can. This is The Walking Dead, this is how it's meant to be. Don't play it if you can't handle that concept.
ok I'm tired of saying this over and over. I'm just going to copy & paste.
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?
You don't mash together a group of highly interesting characters with large potential only to kill them off with no purpose to the plot or themes whatsoever.
This "death is meaningless and hopeless" has barely been even touched on before this episode. If that were true, then maybe I'd be able to accept it. But it's not.
You do not kill off characters who up til now have been complex, compelling, and relevant to the plot and its themes, and then excuse it by saying that it's "realistic".
You don't slowly build up themes about choice and consequence only to turn around and decide that you're trying for nihilism and futility instead.
This was not a deliberate choice from Telltale. It was simply inconsistent writing.
Don't you understand? The entire POINT is that people can die at any time no matter what you do. Even if it's someone you totally don't expe… morect to die for any reason, they can. This is The Walking Dead, this is how it's meant to be. Don't play it if you can't handle that concept.
You write as I spoke: Filling the gaps like you want, building a straw doll to fire at.
Let me please be clear for once: I admit that the characters behave strange sometimes, especially Kenny. But it's nothing out of the ordinary. I didn't reveal my thoughts in reference to the story yet. For that, I like to wait and see the whole outcome. I don't wanna talk about a movie, I've not seen fully.
i'm sad that jane left ;-; or maybe she'll come back to save us from arvo's group??
just disappointed how obvious it was that she was a rehash of molly. both are loner/survivalist kind of girls, both are badasses and are pretty smart, both had a sister who they tried to protect but died anyways, both leave the group without saying goodbye to the rest TT_TT
(maybe if molly had stayed longer she would have done the dirty with someone XD)
on another note, i don't think telltale's great at doing more than 1 project at a time
hopefully with TWAU over, now they can focus more on making the finale super duper amaze-balls
and if they do a season 3 (which i hope they do) i wonder if they'll make it at the same time as tales form the borderlands and game of thrones… i hope not, or quality might not be as good :P
Okay, listen, I don't remember telltale ever posted up what the theme was for episode four. Second, that was my interpretation cause of what Carver's said in the last episode, so I thought that was the case for episode 4, are you just in it to survive or do you still have moral. But about Nick death, he died trying to help people, like his character demonstrates. Luke and Rebecca felt bad, Rebecca cried while Luke did felt bad that his friend was lost, I'm mean he did show through body language.
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.
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 plo… [view original content]
I can't stand the fact that you couldn't save Sarah either way..I mean wtf was the point of saving her the first time? And Kenny being obnoxious and nasty again was just annoying. It was like him losing duck all over again
Ok, so maybe episode 4 was SUPPOSED to be about that. But the execution was not there at all. It was barely ever a question, it was just left over from episode 3.
We only ever barely touch on it with Jane, and even then the idea is completely muddied and confusing. Are they trying to make it sound like certain people aren't cut out for survival? Are they trying to say that sometimes it's kinder to leave people behind? Are they making a statement about the choice whether or not to stick in a group or be alone? Are they saying you have to sacrifice weak members of the group in order to have a chance of survival?
These ideas are only barely touched on during the episode. They are never a focus and nothing ever happens to follow through on them.
Okay, listen, I don't remember telltale ever posted up what the theme was for episode four. Second, that was my interpretation cause of what… more Carver's said in the last episode, so I thought that was the case for episode 4, are you just in it to survive or do you still have moral. But about Nick death, he died trying to help people, like his character demonstrates. Luke and Rebecca felt bad, Rebecca cried while Luke did felt bad that his friend was lost, I'm mean he did show through body language.
This "death is meaningless and hopeless" has barely been even touched on before this episode. If that were true, then maybe I'd be able to accept it. But it's not.
You do not kill off characters who up til now have been complex, compelling, and relevant to the plot and its themes, and then excuse it by saying that it's "realistic".
You don't slowly build up themes about choice and consequence only to turn around and decide that you're trying for nihilism and futility instead.
Carley was shot out of nowhere because she called Lilly a bitch. Where was the meaning in that? Lee had a bunch of dialogue options to try to calm the situation down, but none of them worked. Why? Because the writers wanted to make you feel helpless and not in control. You didn't have a choice to save Carley. She just died. Because of a pointless and stupid action.
OH
MY
LORD.
ok I'm tired of saying this over and over. I'm just going to copy & paste.
Telltale Games is telling a STORY.
… more 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?
You don't mash together a group of highly interesting characters with large potential only to kill them off with no purpose to the plot or themes whatsoever.
This "death is meaningless and hopeless" has barely been even touched on before this episode. If … [view original content]
Lilly was clearly shown to be on the edge of a breakdown multiple times throughout the episode. Yes, it came out of nowhere, but it made perfect sense.
Carley's death was shocking and it was treated as such.
This "death is meaningless and hopeless" has barely been even touched on before this episode. If that were true, then maybe I'd be able to a… moreccept it. But it's not.
You do not kill off characters who up til now have been complex, compelling, and relevant to the plot and its themes, and then excuse it by saying that it's "realistic".
You don't slowly build up themes about choice and consequence only to turn around and decide that you're trying for nihilism and futility instead.
Carley was shot out of nowhere because she called Lilly a bitch. Where was the meaning in that? Lee had a bunch of dialogue options to try to calm the situation down, but none of them worked. Why? Because the writers wanted to make you feel helpless and not in control. You didn't have a choice to save Carley. She just died. Because of a pointless and stupid action.
Okay, but listen, Sarah did realize her dad was gone deep down because she said that her dad is coming back. It showed she was going through the five stages of grief. Well, Luke and Jane did show her that they didn't really care for her that much, but Clem helped her realize that just because things are looking down you shouldn't give up and that there will be people that will care for her. Well, when she's dying, she was counting on you to save her, showing that she knew you will have her back when she needs it, unfortunately Jane got hit and became scared, somehow Bonnie lost bullet so, yeah.
But if you help her, you're slowly helping her realize things about the world and herself.
Saving Sarah does not result in any newly… more found knowledge or epiphany in her character. She is never shown to realize things about the world, after you save her she is allowed no further input.
She wanted her dad, you helped her realize daddy is gone.
No. The only mention of her dad is when she says "When dad gets back we should all go back to the cabin" and then Clem just gives her a look like "whoaaa you're a lost cause" and never speaks to her again.
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
That's.. completely contradictory.
Ok, so maybe episode 4 was SUPPOSED to be about that. But the execution was not there at all. It was barely ever a question, it was just lef… moret over from episode 3.
We only ever barely touch on it with Jane, and even then the idea is completely muddied and confusing. Are they trying to make it sound like certain people aren't cut out for survival? Are they trying to say that sometimes it's kinder to leave people behind? Are they making a statement about the choice whether or not to stick in a group or be alone? Are they saying you have to sacrifice weak members of the group in order to have a chance of survival?
These ideas are only barely touched on during the episode. They are never a focus and nothing ever happens to follow through on them.
Sarah did realize her dad was gone deep down because she said that her dad is coming back. It showed she was going through the five stages of grief.
This is not portrayed as the first stage of grief. It's portrayed as "she's crazy, back away."
Clem helped her realize that just because things are looking down you shouldn't give up
The writing hardly portrays that. Everything that Sarah was given to say in this episode presented a complete breakdown and Clem was not allowed to support her or try to bring her out of it.
Okay, but listen, Sarah did realize her dad was gone deep down because she said that her dad is coming back. It showed she was going through… more the five stages of grief. Well, Luke and Jane did show her that they didn't really care for her that much, but Clem helped her realize that just because things are looking down you shouldn't give up and that there will be people that will care for her. Well, when she's dying, she was counting on you to save her, showing that she knew you will have her back when she needs it, unfortunately Jane got hit and became scared, somehow Bonnie lost bullet so, yeah.
It seemed to me that Sarah's death was far more telegraphed than Carley's. But we're debating that elsewhere.
I agree with you that I found the reactions to character deaths in this episode to be lacking. But it is simply false to say that Telltale has never meaninglessly killed off a well-defined, relevant character or to reinforce themes of futility and hopelessness.
Lilly was clearly shown to be on the edge of a breakdown multiple times throughout the episode. Yes, it came out of nowhere, but it made per… morefect sense.
Carley's death was shocking and it was treated as such.
The character deaths this episode were not.
There was no straw doll to fire at here. I explained how Telltale's writing was completely inconsistent and failed to deliver. You don't have to wait until the end to realize that there's no way for Telltale to wrap this up coherently, because I'm afraid they've already failed to do so. There's no repairing what's already destroyed.
You write as I spoke: Filling the gaps like you want, building a straw doll to fire at.
Let me please be clear for once: I admit that the… more characters behave strange sometimes, especially Kenny. But it's nothing out of the ordinary. I didn't reveal my thoughts in reference to the story yet. For that, I like to wait and see the whole outcome. I don't wanna talk about a movie, I've not seen fully.
I'm sorry, if you don't "get" me :-)
But it is simply false to say that Telltale has never meaninglessly killed off a well-defined, relevant character or to reinforce themes of futility and hopelessness.
I never said that. I said in THIS SEASON, there has never been a focus or even a reference to a theme of futility and hopelessness in regard to characters, so suddenly drawing that conclusion because nothing else works doesn't cut it.
& it doesn't make sense for people to argue by either saying I'm whining because "it's not like season 1, deal with it" and then turning around & saying "the same thing happened in season 1 so you can't complain".
I'm not comparing this season to season 1. On its own merits season 2 simply does not work as a cohesive and consistent story.
It seemed to me that Sarah's death was far more telegraphed than Carley's. But we're debating that elsewhere.
I agree with you that I fou… morend the reactions to character deaths in this episode to be lacking. But it is simply false to say that Telltale has never meaninglessly killed off a well-defined, relevant character or to reinforce themes of futility and hopelessness.
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?
You don't mash together a group of highly interesting characters with large potential only to kill them off with no purpose to the plot or themes whatsoever.
That's even more false. The very first thing to happen this season was Omid (who's name literally translate into "hope") getting shot because a door closed. There's nothing Clem can do. There's nothing that his death accomplishes other than hardening Clem and Christa's characters. Christa's baby is implied to have died. Clem befriends a friendly dog who proceeds to attack her, get impaled, and has to be put down. One of the main criticisms of the the first episode was that it was too bleak and filled with despair.
I have never suggested that you were whining that Season 2 wasn't like Season 1, so I assume that wasn't aimed at me. And I wouldn't even say you shouldn't complain about something in Season 2 just because it happened in Season 1. I would only say that for the sake of consistency, you should complain about it in both instances.
But it is simply false to say that Telltale has never meaninglessly killed off a well-defined, relevant character or to reinforce themes of … morefutility and hopelessness.
I never said that. I said in THIS SEASON, there has never been a focus or even a reference to a theme of futility and hopelessness in regard to characters, so suddenly drawing that conclusion because nothing else works doesn't cut it.
& it doesn't make sense for people to argue by either saying I'm whining because "it's not like season 1, deal with it" and then turning around & saying "the same thing happened in season 1 so you can't complain".
I'm not comparing this season to season 1. On its own merits season 2 simply does not work as a cohesive and consistent story.
I think the writing went down hill after ep 3 Instead of leaving Carver's community so fast, they could have built off it and gave him a chance to be the formidable villain they made him out to be in the first place.
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.
By using that word I was trying to come up with something that would not be belittling of Sarah's neurotypical mind. That is all I was trying to accomplish by using that word, I didn't know how else to put it in the moment. I completely recognize that Sarah does not just have issues, that was the wrong word to use.
I completely recognize that Sarah was not an average 15 year old, and there was nothing wrong with that.
What is wrong is that fact that her character was written off in the way she was. Just because it was a hopeless situation does not mean that the narrative could not have treated her with a shred of respect and decency.
the most you can say is that Clem's friendship with Sarah was unaffected by her mental state.
I said "she befriends her knowing that this is just part of who she is." So we agree? Great.
There may have been some hope for Sarah when Carlos was still around.... No matter how hard you want them to try to survive, they just can't.
Again, you make it sound like I am just protesting that Sarah was killed when I didn't want her to be. You would be right, but that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that the narrative is completely focused on making her appear beyond saving, a hopeless situation from the start. You have even agreed with me on that point.
What I have a problem with is how completely insulting the treatment of Sarah was this episode. It was a complete dismissal and disservice not only to people like her, but also to their own prior writing.
I'm not complaining with the fact that she was killed, I have a problem with the fact that she was treated in such a railroaded, emotionless, and meaningless way.
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 s… morehe 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 jus… [view original content]
I'm not complaining with the fact that she was killed, I have a problem with the fact that she was treated in such a railroaded, emotionless, and meaningless way.
Railroaded. Yes. I agree with this. It seems we only disagree in how far back the "tracks" here stretched. You say her being set up to die in Episode 4. I saw her being set up to die in Episode 1.
Emotionless. Again, I agree with you that the reactions to Sarah's death left much to be desired. I don't think ti was completely emotionless, but I did expect more emotion to come from it.
Meaningless. This seems to be our main point of contention. I found a great deal of meaning in Sarah's death, or more specifically how my Clem approached it. It showed that she is willing to help people to the end, no matter how hopeless the situation appears to be. It showed that she's willing save people, no matter how many times they'll need saving. This was the episode that most strongly tested Clem's morals and proved definitively the kind of person she was. That's not meaningless.
Sarah doesn't just have issues. Clem has issues. Kenny has issues. Luke has issues. Nick and Reggie and Jane had issues. Sarah had detriment… moreal weaknesses that prevented her from moving past trauma.
By using that word I was trying to come up with something that would not be belittling of Sarah's neurotypical mind. That is all I was trying to accomplish by using that word, I didn't know how else to put it in the moment. I completely recognize that Sarah does not just have issues, that was the wrong word to use.
I completely recognize that Sarah was not an average 15 year old, and there was nothing wrong with that.
What is wrong is that fact that her character was written off in the way she was. Just because it was a hopeless situation does not mean that the narrative could not have treated her with a shred of respect and decency.
the most you can say is that Clem's friendship with Sarah was unaffected by her mental state.
… [view original content]
Omid's death served a purpose. It made sense in the plot, was treated with the proper gravity, and had an affect on the characters afterwards. Everything that happens in episode 1 has a point to it, Omid is killed for character development and to get Clem on her own, the dog attacks her to illustrate themes of trust and innocence. Christa's baby not being mentioned does not feel like a mistake in the narrative because at this point we can easily assume that what happened to it will be revealed at some point in the future. But episodes 3 and 4 fail to follow through on any of these things.
Maybe I'm not making it clear enough, but I do believe that episode 1 and 2 was well-written and for the most part were consistent. Yes, there were mistakes, such as character inconsistencies (Carlos and Rebecca) and the loss of development/buildup of the cabin group trusting Clem. But these things were overlooked because they could have been fixed in the future episodes. IMO episode 2 was written very well & was in fact my favorite of the season. It was consistent with the past themes and events of episode 1 while continuing to develop new characters (Nick, Luke, and Sarah) while being consistent to prior plot points and themes from the previous episode. Episode 3 on the other hand had a sudden change in focus, and mistakes were made that were bad but not irreparable. And then episode 4 ruined the chance that Telltale had to fix its mistakes, and that's what this is all about.
Episode 4 ruined and disrespected the majority of its characters and was completely inconsistent with nearly all prior themes and plot points.
You can't emphasize the hopelessness of Clem's situation in episode one only to later drop it and neglect to develop it any further, then use it as an excuse to explain the futility and pointlessness of episode 4. It's no longer treated by Telltale as a theme or part of the plot, it's just an excuse for bad writing.
That's even more false. The very first thing to happen this season was Omid (who's name literally translate into "hope") getting shot becaus… moree a door closed. There's nothing Clem can do. There's nothing that his death accomplishes other than hardening Clem and Christa's characters. Christa's baby is implied to have died. Clem befriends a friendly dog who proceeds to attack her, get impaled, and has to be put down. One of the main criticisms of the the first episode was that it was too bleak and filled with despair.
I have never suggested that you were whining that Season 2 wasn't like Season 1, so I assume that wasn't aimed at me. And I wouldn't even say you shouldn't complain about something in Season 2 just because it happened in Season 1. I would only say that for the sake of consistency, you should complain about it in both instances.
Sarah should not be viewed or treated as a prop to show whether or not Clem has lost her humanity. That is completely disrespectful and disgusting.
Telltale treats her like a dog who shows up on the side of the road to test whether or not you have any compassion left. Instead they could have treated her like a human being and a friend, but she didn't get that.
I'm not complaining with the fact that she was killed, I have a problem with the fact that she was treated in such a railroaded, emotionless… more, and meaningless way.
Railroaded. Yes. I agree with this. It seems we only disagree in how far back the "tracks" here stretched. You say her being set up to die in Episode 4. I saw her being set up to die in Episode 1.
Emotionless. Again, I agree with you that the reactions to Sarah's death left much to be desired. I don't think ti was completely emotionless, but I did expect more emotion to come from it.
Meaningless. This seems to be our main point of contention. I found a great deal of meaning in Sarah's death, or more specifically how my Clem approached it. It showed that she is willing to help people to the end, no matter how hopeless the situation appears to be. It showed that she's willing save people, no matter how many times they'll need saving. This was the episode that most strong… [view original content]
So you accept that Sarah's death did have meaning and relevance to the story and Clem's character. You just expected her to have been more than that. I didn't. I acknowledge that she was a character in her own right, but after she lost her dad, I never expected her role in the story to be anything more than a victim, a cautionary tale, and a way to develop Clem's character. It was the same view I had towards Duck.
Sarah should not be viewed or treated as a prop to show whether or not Clem has lost her humanity. That is completely disrespectful and disg… moreusting.
Telltale treats her like a dog who shows up on the side of the road to test whether or not you have any compassion left. Instead they could have treated her like a human being and a friend, but she didn't get that.
And that's why it didn't matter to you or seem like a mistake on the writers' part.
Sarah was not meant to be a "cautionary tale". She was not meant to be one-dimensional or flat. She was a nuanced and developed character who was abandoned by the writers for no reason or purpose to the story.
So you accept that Sarah's death did have meaning and relevance to the story and Clem's character. You just expected her to have been more t… morehan that. I didn't. I acknowledge that she was a character in her own right, but after she lost her dad, I never expected her role in the story to be anything more than a victim, a cautionary tale, and a way to develop Clem's character. It was the same view I had towards Duck.
Last season was great. I would say they set the bar too high, except that even though I thought this new season wasn't as interesting and I wasn't as attached to the characters, I was still willing to buy and play it. Since finishing episode 4, though, more and more things started to bother me after I shut the game off, and I agree wholeheartedly with the majority of the points made here. It does feel as though the different writers chose to ignore eachothers work in the interest of doing what they wanted with their episode. At this point, if they do another season of The Walking Dead, I don't think I'll be playing.
I signed into my two year old account just to comment on this. I completely agree. This season feels very different from Season One in the sense of emotional value. In season one TTG made me treat these characters as if they were truly humans I knew in real life, and each and every option was hard for me to make. In this season I don't feel attached to any of the new characters, and the writing and plot really show because of that.
I'll still play Episode Five, but I feel like it's a total sham compared to Season One.
I thought you just agreed with me that there was a purpose to her death. So isn't your complaint more that she was an (arguably) nuanced and developed character who was killed off for the sole purpose of developing the main character's sense of morality? And that seems like a criticism that can apply to other deaths in the Walking Dead.
And that's why it didn't matter to you or seem like a mistake on the writers' part.
Sarah was not meant to be a "cautionary tale". She wa… mores not meant to be one-dimensional or flat. She was a nuanced and developed character who was abandoned by the writers for no reason or purpose to the story.
I don't agree that there was a purpose to her death. I felt that it was completely pointless. The only time I recall mentioning her death having a purpose is when I said that it's used to develop Jane and Luke. But even that feels like grasping at straws, since even then it's barely utilized, and unnecessary in the first place. Jane and Luke have had plenty of development without needing use Sarah for it.
I don't buy the argument that she is being used to develop Clem's sense of morality, it's way too simplistic for that. The plot railroads you into thinking she shouldn't be saved, and if you do save her, it's not about whether you're good for doing so, it's all about Jane.
Even if this was supposed to be about a question for morality, it comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere. Sarah deserved better.
I thought you just agreed with me that there was a purpose to her death. So isn't your complaint more that she was an (arguably) nuanced and… more developed character who was killed off for the sole purpose of developing the main character's sense of morality? And that seems like a criticism that can apply to other deaths in the Walking Dead.
The plot railroads you into thinking she shouldn't be saved, and if you do save her, it's not about whether you're good for doing so, it's all about Jane.
It's about whether or not Clem accepts Jane's point of view and leaves Sarah or convinces Jane to follow Clem's point of view and try to save Sarah. There's a reason why the choice on the deck was a choice between Jane and Sarah.
Even if this was supposed to be about a question for morality, it comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere. Sarah deserved better.
How does it come out of nowhere? This episode comes immediately after Carver, someone who murdered a man for being weak, tells Clementine that she is just like him. This episode gives her the chance to accept or reject that. Whether or not it goes anywhere remains to be seen, but this episode did draw parallels between caring for Sarah and caring for the baby.
I don't agree that there was a purpose to her death. I felt that it was completely pointless. The only time I recall mentioning her death ha… moreving a purpose is when I said that it's used to develop Jane and Luke. But even that feels like grasping at straws, since even then it's barely utilized, and unnecessary in the first place. Jane and Luke have had plenty of development without needing use Sarah for it.
I don't buy the argument that she is being used to develop Clem's sense of morality, it's way too simplistic for that. The plot railroads you into thinking she shouldn't be saved, and if you do save her, it's not about whether you're good for doing so, it's all about Jane.
Even if this was supposed to be about a question for morality, it comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere. Sarah deserved better.
My argument wasn't that all the horrible moments that happened in episode 1 didn't have a point to them. It was that point of those horrible moments was to reinforce a theme of despair and hopelessness that Clementine will have to face and eventually give into or overcome.
It seems as though you're shifting all of the problems from the first 3 episodes onto this one by expecting it to fix them all. And that doesn't really seem fair.
You're moving the goal post here. First you argued that "in THIS SEASON, there has never been a focus or even a reference to a theme of futility and hopelessness in regard to characters." Now you admit that the theme of hopelessness was emphasized in episode 1, but it's still not enough for you to accept its inclusion as a theme in episode 4. The theme of episode 1 was about enduring despair. The theme of episode 4 was finding a spark of hope amidst the despair (thus the title of the episode), which is one of the central themes of the series.
Omid's death served a purpose. It made sense in the plot, was treated with the proper gravity, and had an affect on the characters afterward… mores. Everything that happens in episode 1 has a point to it, Omid is killed for character development and to get Clem on her own, the dog attacks her to illustrate themes of trust and innocence. Christa's baby not being mentioned does not feel like a mistake in the narrative because at this point we can easily assume that what happened to it will be revealed at some point in the future. But episodes 3 and 4 fail to follow through on any of these things.
Maybe I'm not making it clear enough, but I do believe that episode 1 and 2 was well-written and for the most part were consistent. Yes, there were mistakes, such as character inconsistencies (Carlos and Rebecca) and the loss of development/buildup of the cabin group trusting Clem. But these things were overlooked because they could have been fixed in the… [view original content]
if they were to pay this thread any attention i doubt they would even care. Someone mentioned thet they be trying to put all their focus on boarder land and game of thrones, which i had no idea they were planning on making. If that is the case then complaints like this are pointless. What we need to do is find out what all the telltale fans are more interested in. TWD vs Boarder lands and game of thrones. We need to make a poll. If most fans would prefer the continuation of TWD over the addition of two new games then someone should inform telltale. If majority of the fans would prefer something instead continuing TWD then we TWD fans will have just accept ghe fact that they won't care for the series and they will continue to put less effort in writing the story.
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 … morehope 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.
I totally agree. TellTale has foregone characterization and consistency for constant rising action that has made the season confusing and seemingly pointless.
We kinda have no choice but to relax and enjoy. It's not like the opinions made in this thread would matter anyways. They don't pay this website any attention do they? Allot people make seem like they don't.
How does it come out of nowhere? This episode comes immediately after Carver, someone who murdered a man for being weak, tells Clementine that she is just like him. This episode gives her the chance to accept or reject that.
The only reason anyone makes a connection between what Carver said and the events of this episode is because they played the previous episode. Aside from that we only are given very weak evidence to indicate that it's supposed to be a theme. It is not mentioned in the "previously on TWD" segment. Only one of the big episode choices have anything to do with it. It is only briefly touched on by Jane, and even then she isn't saying that the weak should be left behind to make way for the strong. Her viewpoint was more about the fact that sometimes people don't want to be saved. This is not about accepting or rejecting Carver's viewpoint, it's not about deciding to be moral or selfish. And if it's supposed to be, it's expressed in such a roundabout way that it honestly feels more coincidental. The fans should get more credit than Telltale in this regard, the way they keep coming up with ways to try to justify Telltale's storytelling.
this episode did draw parallels between caring for Sarah and caring for the baby.
Besides one comment from Jane, what was there to indicate Telltale intended to correlate Sarah and the baby together?
There are so many fans coming up with theories and explanations for this and that, their ideas indicate far more creativity and investment in this story than Telltale does.
You shouldn't have to come up with long and complicated reasons as to why this might have happened or why this character behaved ooc this way. That's the job of the storyteller. There's a difference between being purposely ambiguous and completely inconsistent and lazy.
The plot railroads you into thinking she shouldn't be saved, and if you do save her, it's not about whether you're good for doing so, it's a… morell about Jane.
It's about whether or not Clem accepts Jane's point of view and leaves Sarah or convinces Jane to follow Clem's point of view and try to save Sarah. There's a reason why the choice on the deck was a choice between Jane and Sarah.
Even if this was supposed to be about a question for morality, it comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere. Sarah deserved better.
How does it come out of nowhere? This episode comes immediately after Carver, someone who murdered a man for being weak, tells Clementine that she is just like him. This episode gives her the chance to accept or reject that. Whether or not it goes anywhere remains to be seen, but this episode did draw parallels between caring for Sarah and caring for the baby.
Comments
How many times do I have to say this?
Powerlessness in the face of death has never been emphasized or presented as a theme in this season's story.
Every time somebody says this, it is simply being used as excuse to explain away the writing and to get critics to stop talking.
Telltale specifically builds their story talking about "important player input" and "choices that radically change the outcome". But instead, this season has turned into "here's a completely railroaded and nonsensical plot with wasted potential. Have fun!"
While I really loved the episode, the way they killed off characters in this episode was upsetting. They could have had some HUGE development for Sarah, but no, they gave us a choice to save her in the beginning, then they decide to kill her off regardless, forty five minutes later. They didn't even give her much dialogue afterwards, she only spoke four times more after saving her. Nick's was just stupid, I know he was determinant and all, but they could have given him an ACTUAL death scene, instead of killing him off-screen. He didn't even have ONE line in this episode. Sarita would either die in the first forty five seconds of the episode, or die twenty five minutes later. Out of the four main character deaths in this episode, Rebecca's was the only one that was logical, at least she was a huge part of the plot, had plenty of dialogue, and had an understandable death scene.
Saving Sarah does not result in any newly found knowledge or epiphany in her character. She is never shown to realize things about the world, after you save her she is allowed no further input.
No. The only mention of her dad is when she says "When dad gets back we should all go back to the cabin" and then Clem just gives her a look like "whoaaa you're a lost cause" and never speaks to her again.
That's.. completely contradictory.
Don't you understand? The entire POINT is that people can die at any time no matter what you do. Even if it's someone you totally don't expect to die for any reason, they can. This is The Walking Dead, this is how it's meant to be. Don't play it if you can't handle that concept.
I'm kind of scared to ask which part you are referring to. lol.
OH
MY
LORD.
ok I'm tired of saying this over and over. I'm just going to copy & paste.
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?
You don't mash together a group of highly interesting characters with large potential only to kill them off with no purpose to the plot or themes whatsoever.
This "death is meaningless and hopeless" has barely been even touched on before this episode. If that were true, then maybe I'd be able to accept it. But it's not.
You do not kill off characters who up til now have been complex, compelling, and relevant to the plot and its themes, and then excuse it by saying that it's "realistic".
You don't slowly build up themes about choice and consequence only to turn around and decide that you're trying for nihilism and futility instead.
This was not a deliberate choice from Telltale. It was simply inconsistent writing.
You write as I spoke: Filling the gaps like you want, building a straw doll to fire at.
Let me please be clear for once: I admit that the characters behave strange sometimes, especially Kenny. But it's nothing out of the ordinary. I didn't reveal my thoughts in reference to the story yet. For that, I like to wait and see the whole outcome. I don't wanna talk about a movie, I've not seen fully.
I'm sorry, if you don't "get" me :-)
i'm sad that jane left ;-; or maybe she'll come back to save us from arvo's group??
just disappointed how obvious it was that she was a rehash of molly. both are loner/survivalist kind of girls, both are badasses and are pretty smart, both had a sister who they tried to protect but died anyways, both leave the group without saying goodbye to the rest TT_TT
(maybe if molly had stayed longer she would have done the dirty with someone XD)
on another note, i don't think telltale's great at doing more than 1 project at a time
hopefully with TWAU over, now they can focus more on making the finale super duper amaze-balls
and if they do a season 3 (which i hope they do) i wonder if they'll make it at the same time as tales form the borderlands and game of thrones… i hope not, or quality might not be as good :P
Okay, listen, I don't remember telltale ever posted up what the theme was for episode four. Second, that was my interpretation cause of what Carver's said in the last episode, so I thought that was the case for episode 4, are you just in it to survive or do you still have moral. But about Nick death, he died trying to help people, like his character demonstrates. Luke and Rebecca felt bad, Rebecca cried while Luke did felt bad that his friend was lost, I'm mean he did show through body language.
that's the truth
lol, y'know… second paragraph, third sentence XD
damn that imagery :P
Ok, so maybe episode 4 was SUPPOSED to be about that. But the execution was not there at all. It was barely ever a question, it was just left over from episode 3.
We only ever barely touch on it with Jane, and even then the idea is completely muddied and confusing. Are they trying to make it sound like certain people aren't cut out for survival? Are they trying to say that sometimes it's kinder to leave people behind? Are they making a statement about the choice whether or not to stick in a group or be alone? Are they saying you have to sacrifice weak members of the group in order to have a chance of survival?
These ideas are only barely touched on during the episode. They are never a focus and nothing ever happens to follow through on them.
Carley was shot out of nowhere because she called Lilly a bitch. Where was the meaning in that? Lee had a bunch of dialogue options to try to calm the situation down, but none of them worked. Why? Because the writers wanted to make you feel helpless and not in control. You didn't have a choice to save Carley. She just died. Because of a pointless and stupid action.
Lilly was clearly shown to be on the edge of a breakdown multiple times throughout the episode. Yes, it came out of nowhere, but it made perfect sense.
Carley's death was shocking and it was treated as such.
The character deaths this episode were not.
How about you also Click here And quit your fucking whining you sound like a little bitch...
Okay, but listen, Sarah did realize her dad was gone deep down because she said that her dad is coming back. It showed she was going through the five stages of grief. Well, Luke and Jane did show her that they didn't really care for her that much, but Clem helped her realize that just because things are looking down you shouldn't give up and that there will be people that will care for her. Well, when she's dying, she was counting on you to save her, showing that she knew you will have her back when she needs it, unfortunately Jane got hit and became scared, somehow Bonnie lost bullet so, yeah.
Well, I think it supposed to be interpreted than just said to you because in the real world, there won't always be someone to tell you what what.
This is not portrayed as the first stage of grief. It's portrayed as "she's crazy, back away."
The writing hardly portrays that. Everything that Sarah was given to say in this episode presented a complete breakdown and Clem was not allowed to support her or try to bring her out of it.
It seemed to me that Sarah's death was far more telegraphed than Carley's. But we're debating that elsewhere.
I agree with you that I found the reactions to character deaths in this episode to be lacking. But it is simply false to say that Telltale has never meaninglessly killed off a well-defined, relevant character or to reinforce themes of futility and hopelessness.
There was no straw doll to fire at here. I explained how Telltale's writing was completely inconsistent and failed to deliver. You don't have to wait until the end to realize that there's no way for Telltale to wrap this up coherently, because I'm afraid they've already failed to do so. There's no repairing what's already destroyed.
I never said that. I said in THIS SEASON, there has never been a focus or even a reference to a theme of futility and hopelessness in regard to characters, so suddenly drawing that conclusion because nothing else works doesn't cut it.
& it doesn't make sense for people to argue by either saying I'm whining because "it's not like season 1, deal with it" and then turning around & saying "the same thing happened in season 1 so you can't complain".
I'm not comparing this season to season 1. On its own merits season 2 simply does not work as a cohesive and consistent story.
sigh. Copying and pasting again.
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?
You don't mash together a group of highly interesting characters with large potential only to kill them off with no purpose to the plot or themes whatsoever.
That's not being realistic. That's being lazy.
That's even more false. The very first thing to happen this season was Omid (who's name literally translate into "hope") getting shot because a door closed. There's nothing Clem can do. There's nothing that his death accomplishes other than hardening Clem and Christa's characters. Christa's baby is implied to have died. Clem befriends a friendly dog who proceeds to attack her, get impaled, and has to be put down. One of the main criticisms of the the first episode was that it was too bleak and filled with despair.
I have never suggested that you were whining that Season 2 wasn't like Season 1, so I assume that wasn't aimed at me. And I wouldn't even say you shouldn't complain about something in Season 2 just because it happened in Season 1. I would only say that for the sake of consistency, you should complain about it in both instances.
I think the writing went down hill after ep 3 Instead of leaving Carver's community so fast, they could have built off it and gave him a chance to be the formidable villain they made him out to be in the first place.
By using that word I was trying to come up with something that would not be belittling of Sarah's neurotypical mind. That is all I was trying to accomplish by using that word, I didn't know how else to put it in the moment. I completely recognize that Sarah does not just have issues, that was the wrong word to use.
I completely recognize that Sarah was not an average 15 year old, and there was nothing wrong with that.
What is wrong is that fact that her character was written off in the way she was. Just because it was a hopeless situation does not mean that the narrative could not have treated her with a shred of respect and decency.
I said "she befriends her knowing that this is just part of who she is." So we agree? Great.
Again, you make it sound like I am just protesting that Sarah was killed when I didn't want her to be. You would be right, but that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that the narrative is completely focused on making her appear beyond saving, a hopeless situation from the start. You have even agreed with me on that point.
What I have a problem with is how completely insulting the treatment of Sarah was this episode. It was a complete dismissal and disservice not only to people like her, but also to their own prior writing.
I'm not complaining with the fact that she was killed, I have a problem with the fact that she was treated in such a railroaded, emotionless, and meaningless way.
Railroaded. Yes. I agree with this. It seems we only disagree in how far back the "tracks" here stretched. You say her being set up to die in Episode 4. I saw her being set up to die in Episode 1.
Emotionless. Again, I agree with you that the reactions to Sarah's death left much to be desired. I don't think ti was completely emotionless, but I did expect more emotion to come from it.
Meaningless. This seems to be our main point of contention. I found a great deal of meaning in Sarah's death, or more specifically how my Clem approached it. It showed that she is willing to help people to the end, no matter how hopeless the situation appears to be. It showed that she's willing save people, no matter how many times they'll need saving. This was the episode that most strongly tested Clem's morals and proved definitively the kind of person she was. That's not meaningless.
Omid's death served a purpose. It made sense in the plot, was treated with the proper gravity, and had an affect on the characters afterwards. Everything that happens in episode 1 has a point to it, Omid is killed for character development and to get Clem on her own, the dog attacks her to illustrate themes of trust and innocence. Christa's baby not being mentioned does not feel like a mistake in the narrative because at this point we can easily assume that what happened to it will be revealed at some point in the future. But episodes 3 and 4 fail to follow through on any of these things.
Maybe I'm not making it clear enough, but I do believe that episode 1 and 2 was well-written and for the most part were consistent. Yes, there were mistakes, such as character inconsistencies (Carlos and Rebecca) and the loss of development/buildup of the cabin group trusting Clem. But these things were overlooked because they could have been fixed in the future episodes. IMO episode 2 was written very well & was in fact my favorite of the season. It was consistent with the past themes and events of episode 1 while continuing to develop new characters (Nick, Luke, and Sarah) while being consistent to prior plot points and themes from the previous episode. Episode 3 on the other hand had a sudden change in focus, and mistakes were made that were bad but not irreparable. And then episode 4 ruined the chance that Telltale had to fix its mistakes, and that's what this is all about.
Episode 4 ruined and disrespected the majority of its characters and was completely inconsistent with nearly all prior themes and plot points.
You can't emphasize the hopelessness of Clem's situation in episode one only to later drop it and neglect to develop it any further, then use it as an excuse to explain the futility and pointlessness of episode 4. It's no longer treated by Telltale as a theme or part of the plot, it's just an excuse for bad writing.
Sarah should not be viewed or treated as a prop to show whether or not Clem has lost her humanity. That is completely disrespectful and disgusting.
Telltale treats her like a dog who shows up on the side of the road to test whether or not you have any compassion left. Instead they could have treated her like a human being and a friend, but she didn't get that.
So you accept that Sarah's death did have meaning and relevance to the story and Clem's character. You just expected her to have been more than that. I didn't. I acknowledge that she was a character in her own right, but after she lost her dad, I never expected her role in the story to be anything more than a victim, a cautionary tale, and a way to develop Clem's character. It was the same view I had towards Duck.
And that's why it didn't matter to you or seem like a mistake on the writers' part.
Sarah was not meant to be a "cautionary tale". She was not meant to be one-dimensional or flat. She was a nuanced and developed character who was abandoned by the writers for no reason or purpose to the story.
Last season was great. I would say they set the bar too high, except that even though I thought this new season wasn't as interesting and I wasn't as attached to the characters, I was still willing to buy and play it. Since finishing episode 4, though, more and more things started to bother me after I shut the game off, and I agree wholeheartedly with the majority of the points made here. It does feel as though the different writers chose to ignore eachothers work in the interest of doing what they wanted with their episode. At this point, if they do another season of The Walking Dead, I don't think I'll be playing.
I signed into my two year old account just to comment on this. I completely agree. This season feels very different from Season One in the sense of emotional value. In season one TTG made me treat these characters as if they were truly humans I knew in real life, and each and every option was hard for me to make. In this season I don't feel attached to any of the new characters, and the writing and plot really show because of that.
I'll still play Episode Five, but I feel like it's a total sham compared to Season One.
I thought you just agreed with me that there was a purpose to her death. So isn't your complaint more that she was an (arguably) nuanced and developed character who was killed off for the sole purpose of developing the main character's sense of morality? And that seems like a criticism that can apply to other deaths in the Walking Dead.
I don't agree that there was a purpose to her death. I felt that it was completely pointless. The only time I recall mentioning her death having a purpose is when I said that it's used to develop Jane and Luke. But even that feels like grasping at straws, since even then it's barely utilized, and unnecessary in the first place. Jane and Luke have had plenty of development without needing use Sarah for it.
I don't buy the argument that she is being used to develop Clem's sense of morality, it's way too simplistic for that. The plot railroads you into thinking she shouldn't be saved, and if you do save her, it's not about whether you're good for doing so, it's all about Jane.
Even if this was supposed to be about a question for morality, it comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere. Sarah deserved better.
It's about whether or not Clem accepts Jane's point of view and leaves Sarah or convinces Jane to follow Clem's point of view and try to save Sarah. There's a reason why the choice on the deck was a choice between Jane and Sarah.
How does it come out of nowhere? This episode comes immediately after Carver, someone who murdered a man for being weak, tells Clementine that she is just like him. This episode gives her the chance to accept or reject that. Whether or not it goes anywhere remains to be seen, but this episode did draw parallels between caring for Sarah and caring for the baby.
My argument wasn't that all the horrible moments that happened in episode 1 didn't have a point to them. It was that point of those horrible moments was to reinforce a theme of despair and hopelessness that Clementine will have to face and eventually give into or overcome.
It seems as though you're shifting all of the problems from the first 3 episodes onto this one by expecting it to fix them all. And that doesn't really seem fair.
You're moving the goal post here. First you argued that "in THIS SEASON, there has never been a focus or even a reference to a theme of futility and hopelessness in regard to characters." Now you admit that the theme of hopelessness was emphasized in episode 1, but it's still not enough for you to accept its inclusion as a theme in episode 4. The theme of episode 1 was about enduring despair. The theme of episode 4 was finding a spark of hope amidst the despair (thus the title of the episode), which is one of the central themes of the series.
if they were to pay this thread any attention i doubt they would even care. Someone mentioned thet they be trying to put all their focus on boarder land and game of thrones, which i had no idea they were planning on making. If that is the case then complaints like this are pointless. What we need to do is find out what all the telltale fans are more interested in. TWD vs Boarder lands and game of thrones. We need to make a poll. If most fans would prefer the continuation of TWD over the addition of two new games then someone should inform telltale. If majority of the fans would prefer something instead continuing TWD then we TWD fans will have just accept ghe fact that they won't care for the series and they will continue to put less effort in writing the story.
I totally agree. TellTale has foregone characterization and consistency for constant rising action that has made the season confusing and seemingly pointless.
We kinda have no choice but to relax and enjoy. It's not like the opinions made in this thread would matter anyways. They don't pay this website any attention do they? Allot people make seem like they don't.
The only reason anyone makes a connection between what Carver said and the events of this episode is because they played the previous episode. Aside from that we only are given very weak evidence to indicate that it's supposed to be a theme. It is not mentioned in the "previously on TWD" segment. Only one of the big episode choices have anything to do with it. It is only briefly touched on by Jane, and even then she isn't saying that the weak should be left behind to make way for the strong. Her viewpoint was more about the fact that sometimes people don't want to be saved. This is not about accepting or rejecting Carver's viewpoint, it's not about deciding to be moral or selfish. And if it's supposed to be, it's expressed in such a roundabout way that it honestly feels more coincidental. The fans should get more credit than Telltale in this regard, the way they keep coming up with ways to try to justify Telltale's storytelling.
Besides one comment from Jane, what was there to indicate Telltale intended to correlate Sarah and the baby together?
There are so many fans coming up with theories and explanations for this and that, their ideas indicate far more creativity and investment in this story than Telltale does.
You shouldn't have to come up with long and complicated reasons as to why this might have happened or why this character behaved ooc this way. That's the job of the storyteller. There's a difference between being purposely ambiguous and completely inconsistent and lazy.