To bring it back to the original point, though, what I was trying to argue was that hopelessness and futility have been explored in the Season to some extent and that this latest episode can be seen as a continuation of that. Sarita's death, Sarah's refusal to deal with reality, Kenny asking why Carver couldn't have killed him, Jane talking about there being people you just can't protect, Clem having the option to abandon Sarah twice--they all serve to explore different aspects of losing hope and giving up.
But Telltale's exploration of these themes has been extremely underutilized. The fact that the foundations are there does not excuse Telltale from adequately following through on it.
You don't build up to one thing only to completely abandon it only to return to it later in a half-assed way. You don't completely disrespect and waste your characters as a result.
This hopelessness and futility feels less intentional and more of a result of bad writing.
They have set up multiple character arcs, plot points, and themes, only to drop them and suddenly put minimal/weak focus on other things. The episodes jump from one to the next without wrapping up or utilizing their already existing characters, plots, and themes.
Fans who come up w/ reasons as to how the thing can work deserve more credit than Telltale in this regard, for being able to point out what Telltale "might have been going for". They shouldn't have to do that. Telltale should have delivered the story to be satisfying without fans having to come up with theories of their own to explain things away. There's a difference between leaving something up to the imagination and being completely underdelivered and wasted.
Telltale themselves should be held to a higher standard. They shouldn't be above criticism because "it could be worse" or because each episode on its own is enjoyable. Their sloppiness toward their characters was wasteful of all prior development. It was completely disrespectful not only to their fans but to their own story.
Heh. Well, considering that we've been going at this for the better half of a day, I'd say that's not necessarily such a bad thing.
To br… moreing it back to the original point, though, what I was trying to argue was that hopelessness and futility have been explored in the Season to some extent and that this latest episode can be seen as a continuation of that. Sarita's death, Sarah's refusal to deal with reality, Kenny asking why Carver couldn't have killed him, Jane talking about there being people you just can't protect, Clem having the option to abandon Sarah twice--they all serve to explore different aspects of losing hope and giving up. But after all this tragedy, the episode is punctuated by a miraculous bit of hope: a new life being introduced into a world that had previously only contained death. And that's meaningful to me. That's why I like the episode.
I agree. Kenny has probably been the most consistently portrayed of the season so far. It's more arguable with Luke, but I feel that his characterization has been pretty solid up until episode 4 and possibly parts of episode 3.
But yes I agree about Sarita. When she died without any further input on the story she ends up being completely wasted as a character. Even Katjaa and Duck have their own personalities and purpose beyond being Kenny's family, but Sarita is no longer being allowed any development outside of her relationship with Kenny. It was excusable up until this point because it was fixable, but in episode 4 she doesn't even have a single line of dialogue. There is barely on focus on sorrow or regret for losing her, instead we are only led to feel bad about it because of Kenny. That's really not fair to either one of their characters.
I didn't have problem with vast majority of characters.
Even though people are raging about what Kenny did and what Luke did, it's explai… morenable, because the emotions ran really high. Though his reaction to Nick could have been better.
The problem I have is definitily Sarita, that was put there just to expand Kenny's character, the same deal was with Katjaa and Duck, but those two you could at least get to know through optional conversations and they played their role in the story multiple times. Walter and Matthew died too soon, they were 100% kind people, which is rare in apocalypse and it'd be interesting to watch their reaction to dangerous situations.
The problem is episodes do not connect by any means except they continue in locations u're situated in. That's a huge problem and unfortunately Telltale won't realise that if they'll focus only on the good things they did in episode 4 (there were good things, sheeple are just splitti… [view original content]
Yeah, I don't know what I was defending. Sorry for the lame arguments, I admit it was hard for me to even draw out a theme and I was just very tired, not emotionally, like just sleeping tried. I admit I was just acting very biased sorry again.
Yeah, but no more than me not finding Duck or Mark or Katjaa interesting. Some characters are just not intended to be anything more than victims. If that's a problem, it's a problem for both seasons.
Just because you did not find these characters interesting does not mean that Telltale did not intend them to be so.
& you should not have to look at the failures of season 1 in order to justify the mistakes of season 2. If anything, they should have learned from the mistakes of season 1 and improved on them.
Yeah, but no more than me not finding Duck or Mark or Katjaa interesting. Some characters are just not intended to be anything more than victims. If that's a problem, it's a problem for both seasons.
I assume you're referring to Sarah not responding to Clem's motivation speech? o you actually know how hard it is to talk someone out of a state of despair? Have you ever had the experience? I have. You can give the best goddamn speech you've ever given in your life and be met with absolutely nothing.
"This sucks. I can come up with something better" is not a rebuttal to my point.
No, it doesnt feel genuine at all, even if it did then its wasted potential that could be replaced with a million more interesting scenarios.
Thats literally all I need to say in rebuttle.
The fact that they changed the story doesn't make it bad. It was still a cohesive and satisfying story on its own, and anyway we will probably never know if it could have been better.
But you don't have to compare two things in order to excuse the other. You don't have to say that Season 2 of TWDG is better/worse than TWAU or even S1 in order to make a valid judgment on it.
Ohhh okay? I mean everyone has their one opinion. For me TWAU felt really...short. And every episode were like "we have to change everything… more" if u know what I mean. I mean the wait for episode 2 was disrespectful for the fans. 4 fcking month for a boring episode. Than it seems like the whole story changed. The mundis had absolurly no role...Bluebeard never became the chef of the office (i mean becaus eof the prieview for ep 3) and a lot of other stuff
I've been enjoying the season but I agree with everything you said no doubt about it. The characters and themes never feel fully realized, you aren't even given the illusion that your decisions matter, and it really feels as if completely different writers are writing each episode as it's own self-contained story.
Nick’s death was abrupt at it was to target your emotional connection with the character—Sarah was no different
But their deaths are not portrayed as being upsetting or emotional. They just happen, with minimal reactions or significance.
I think this is the way the writers are voicing Jane’s point-of-view that no matter how moral and optimistic you are that it can and will be attacked as you lay helpless watching the darkness take you down.
But this theme is barely emphasized or expanded on. If this was supposed to be the central theme of the season, it should have been treated as such. It should have been addressed and explored properly. Right now it's just being used as an explanation for the railroaded plot.
Episode 4 did not treat character deaths with the gravity that they deserved. People are simply being forced to die for weak reasons and their potential & previous development is completely wasted.
Fans don't feel upset that they died, they feel angry that their deaths mean nothing to the characters, the story, and the writers.
The fans are more deserving of credit than Telltale here. They are trying to come up with ways to explain why this episode turned out the way it did, but that should not even be necessary. There is a difference between ambiguity and lazy storytelling.
This episode just solidified the entire season into being altogether messy & unsatisfying.
I think that’s the point of episode four. The fact that this outlook is forced and voices itself strongly that no matter what you can do the… morere is no saving everyone because eventually everyone’s luck runs out as Jane pointed out as a sort of warning to Clementine. Nick’s death was abrupt at it was to target your emotional connection with the character—Sarah was no different even if you convince her to move on to this sort of ‘death march’ as she struggled with a mental breakdown as her anxiety festered. I think this is the way the writers are voicing Jane’s point-of-view that no matter how moral and optimistic you are that it can and will be attacked as you lay helpless watching the darkness take you down. In my playthrough my Clementine definitely acknowledges this even if she doesn’t like it as anxiety is starting to take to her.
Sarah was nothing but a burden on the group. She brought nothing to the group or the game, I really don't see the issue with them killing her off.. she was useless and this showed us that you just can't help some people, and you certainly can't save them if they don't want to be saved or try to save themselves.
But that's not how Sarah was being treated. The story did not treat the situation as if you strongly care about this person but are helpless… more to save them. The way Sarah is treated, it's like no one barely even knows her or cares.
The only characters that even acknowledge her, Luke and Jane, only talk about her in relation to their own issues - Luke "I can't believe I left her/ almost left her" and Jane "she reminds me of my sister".
Sarah was built up to be so much more, but in the end they turned her into a weak device to expand on Jane's issues, and even that purpose was completely wasted when Jane walks out for barely related reasons.
Yes, I'm sure Telltale wants all of their characters to be interesting. But have you ever encountered a single work of fiction in which you found all of the characters to be interesting? I haven't. Not all characters will have intricate narrative arcs and I could tell that that Sarah was going to be one of them.
Look, I get it. You saw more character potential in Sarah than Telltale utilized. It's how I felt about Chuck. It's how a lot of people felt about Carley. it's how people felt about Omid this season. Hell, some people thought Mark or Duck had more potential as characters than Telltale did. There were more interesting directions they could have taken any of the characters than the ones they chose. Difference of opinion between fans and authors is nothing new.
Yes, sure. Call them out on it. Complain that they didn't improve on mistakes from Season 1. What I'm trying to point out is that there are a lot of mistakes in Season 1 that people tend to gloss over and then harp on Season 2 about. If you're going to complain, complain about it all.
I'm repeating myself at this point.
Just because you did not find these characters interesting does not mean that Telltale did not intend… more them to be so.
& you should not have to look at the failures of season 1 in order to justify the mistakes of season 2. If anything, they should have learned from the mistakes of season 1 and improved on them.
Yes, I'm sure Telltale wants all of their characters to be interesting. But have you ever encountered a single work of fiction in which you found all of the characters to be interesting? I haven't.
Liking a character is a matter of opinion and has no reflection on whether or not they are intended by the writers to be interesting and complicated.
What I'm trying to point out is that there are a lot of mistakes in Season 1 that people tend to gloss over and then harp on Season 2 about. If you're going to complain, complain about it all.
This is ...kindof a weak argument.. I don't have to point out how a separate work of fiction made mistakes in order to prove that this one does. Here goes anyway...
I wasn't part of the TTG fanbase when S1 first came out. And when I did join the fanbase, I had no complaints on the story in season 1 to speak of. I thought that the story was brilliant. It wasn't perfect, but I had nothing to criticize because they delivered on everything else.
Yes, I'm sure Telltale wants all of their characters to be interesting. But have you ever encountered a single work of fiction in which you … morefound all of the characters to be interesting? I haven't. Not all characters will have intricate narrative arcs and I could tell that that Sarah was going to be one of them.
Look, I get it. You saw more character potential in Sarah than Telltale utilized. It's how I felt about Chuck. It's how a lot of people felt about Carley. it's how people felt about Omid this season. Hell, some people thought Mark or Duck had more potential as characters than Telltale did. There were more interesting directions they could have taken any of the characters than the ones they chose. Difference of opinion between fans and authors is nothing new.
Yes, sure. Call them out on it. Complain that they didn't improve on mistakes from Season 1. What I'm trying to point out is that there are a lot of mistakes in Season 1 tha… [view original content]
You don't build up to one thing only to completely abandon it only to return to it later in a half-assed way.
I disagree that it was half-assed, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.
Telltale should have delivered the story to be satisfying without fans having to come up with theories of their own to explain things away.
It was satisfying to me and a lot of other fans. It was also unsatisfying to you and a lot of other fans. A large part of it seems to have been due difference in how we expected different characters to be utilized and the degree to which we saw certain themes being explored. I thought the themes were readily apparent and well-explored. You didn't. You thought Sarah was too deep a character to have been given the fate that she received. I didn't. I don't see either of us making very much progress on either of these fronts because they seem to be mostly up to subjective interpretation.
Telltale themselves should be held to a higher standard. They shouldn't be above criticism because "it could be worse" or because each episode on its own is enjoyable.
I agree wholeheartedly. I just happen to disagree with some of the criticism in this case.
To bring it back to the original point, though, what I was trying to argue was that hopelessness and futility have been explored in the Seas… moreon to some extent and that this latest episode can be seen as a continuation of that. Sarita's death, Sarah's refusal to deal with reality, Kenny asking why Carver couldn't have killed him, Jane talking about there being people you just can't protect, Clem having the option to abandon Sarah twice--they all serve to explore different aspects of losing hope and giving up.
But Telltale's exploration of these themes has been extremely underutilized. The fact that the foundations are there does not excuse Telltale from adequately following through on it.
You don't build up to one thing only to completely abandon it only to return to it later in a half-assed way. You don't completely disrespect and waste your characters as a result.
This hopelessness and futility feels less intentional and more of… [view original content]
Sarah was nothing but a burden on the group. She brought nothing to the group or the game, I really don't see the issue with them killing he… morer off.. she was useless and this showed us that you just can't help some people, and you certainly can't save them if they don't want to be saved or try to save themselves.
The point I made that most people have been arguing over in this thread so far has been mostly about Sarah, and they disagree with me because they didn't enjoy her character or see her as having any potential. My point is that Telltale intended Sarah to have more potential than what she got, and they treated her character much differently prior to this episode.
Episode 4 only solidified the opinion of those who insist that Sarah is "useless" because that's how she was treated in this episode.
But we're kindof just going around in circles at this point.
You don't build up to one thing only to completely abandon it only to return to it later in a half-assed way.
I disagree that it was… more half-assed, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.
Telltale should have delivered the story to be satisfying without fans having to come up with theories of their own to explain things away.
It was satisfying to me and a lot of other fans. It was also unsatisfying to you and a lot of other fans. A large part of it seems to have been due difference in how we expected different characters to be utilized and the degree to which we saw certain themes being explored. I thought the themes were readily apparent and well-explored. You didn't. You thought Sarah was too deep a character to have been given the fate that she received. I didn't. I don't see either of us making very much progress on either of these fronts because they seem to be mostly up to subjective interpretation.
Telltale t… [view original content]
Neither of us know how interesting or complicated the writers intended Sarah to be. We speak only from our own expectations (and these are at least partially informed by our affinity with the characters). I saw Sarah as a fragile glass vase perched on a rickety stand and wasn't at all surprised when the stand toppled and she was completely shattered. I don't know if that's what the writers intended to be her character all along. But what I thought they were going to do with her was exactly what they ended up doing with her.
No, you don't have to bring them up when you initially point the mistakes out, but you should acknowledge that these mistakes are common across both seasons when examples are pointed out. I just feel like it's very easy to look past the mistakes of Season 1 because of nostalgia while criticizing Season 2 for making the same mistakes. Not that I'm saying that's what you're necessarily doing.
Yes, I'm sure Telltale wants all of their characters to be interesting. But have you ever encountered a single work of fiction in which you … morefound all of the characters to be interesting? I haven't.
Liking a character is a matter of opinion and has no reflection on whether or not they are intended by the writers to be interesting and complicated.
What I'm trying to point out is that there are a lot of mistakes in Season 1 that people tend to gloss over and then harp on Season 2 about. If you're going to complain, complain about it all.
This is ...kindof a weak argument.. I don't have to point out how a separate work of fiction made mistakes in order to prove that this one does. Here goes anyway...
I wasn't part of the TTG fanbase when S1 first came out. And when I did join the fanbase, I had no complaints on the story in season 1 to speak of. I thought that the story was brilliant. It wasn't perfect, but I had nothing to criticize because they delivered on everything else.
Neither of us know how interesting or complicated the writers intended Sarah to be. We speak only from our own expectations (and these are at least partially informed by our affinity with the characters).
But when arguing about Sarah's character I avoided speaking about my expectations for where her character could have gone. I focused on the fact that her prior presentation and treatment by the writers is contradicted in episode 4.
It's oversimplification of the issue to say that I'm just disappointed that Sarah didn't live up to my interpretation of her original potential. What I take most offense to in regard to Sarah's treatment is the fact that the writers do not give her the respect that she was originally written with. I've discussed why I see it this way in detail throughout the thread, and not only in response to you.
Neither of us know how interesting or complicated the writers intended Sarah to be. We speak only from our own expectations (and these are a… moret least partially informed by our affinity with the characters). I saw Sarah as a fragile glass vase perched on a rickety stand and wasn't at all surprised when the stand toppled and she was completely shattered. I don't know if that's what the writers intended to be her character all along. But what I thought they were going to do with her was exactly what they ended up doing with her.
No, you don't have to bring them up when you initially point the mistakes out, but you should acknowledge that these mistakes are common across both seasons when examples are pointed out. I just feel like it's very easy to look past the mistakes of Season 1 because of nostalgia while criticizing Season 2 for making the same mistakes. Not that I'm saying that's what you're necessarily doing.
If you're referring to the story treated her as if she were a completely hopeless wreck without the strength to stand on her own two feet, it's because that's what she was. That's what her father's death made her become. Sarah in episodes 1-3 was fragile. Sarah in Episode 4 was broken. Moreso than any other character we've seen.
Neither of us know how interesting or complicated the writers intended Sarah to be. We speak only from our own expectations (and these are a… moret least partially informed by our affinity with the characters).
But when arguing about Sarah's character I avoided speaking about my expectations for where her character could have gone. I focused on the fact that her prior presentation and treatment by the writers is contradicted in episode 4.
It's oversimplification of the issue to say that I'm just disappointed that Sarah didn't live up to my interpretation of her original potential. What I take most offense to in regard to Sarah's treatment is the fact that the writers do not give her the respect that she was originally written with. I've discussed why I see it this way in detail throughout the thread, and not only in response to you.
You are still responsible for the life of a little girl, you are still trapped in a dire situation where casualties are a constant worry and… more problem, and you are still going to deal with things and characters that you don't like. That is just how this story is.
None of my problems with the writing have anything to do with this. I have a problem with the constant changes in characterization, and with the themes and plot points that are left unresolved with no explanation. As a writer, you do not specifically build something up only to drop it, with the excuse that "this is just the world they live in now." That's BS.
Constantly complaining about Luke's reaction to Nick and Sarah's deaths. It's called getting over it. ... Lilly handled her father's death a lot worse than Nick handled Pete's death. The level of their relationship makes no difference, but the loss does. Lilly never let go of the loss, while Nick got over it within a… [view original content]
I really wonder what's going on inside TTG. It's obvious that the same guys who wrote S1 had nothing to do with S2... How will Game of Thrones turn out? I was really looking forward to that game, but with the huge let down that TWD S2 was I'm now holding my breath.
This reminds me of Bioware; a great game studio known for their compelling stories, suddenly turning to shit.
But Bioware was corrupted by the rEApers. I wonder what did TTG in.
If you're referring to the story treated her as if she were a completely hopeless wreck without the strength to stand on her own two feet, it's because that's what she was. That's what her father's death made her become. Sarah in episodes 1-3 was fragile. Sarah in Episode 4 was broken. Moreso than any other character we've seen.
I've already argued this point multiple times. The narrative has not treated her as unsympathetic or hopeless until now. She was not denied respect or nuance by the writers until Episode 4.
If you're referring to the story treated her as if she were a completely hopeless wreck without the strength to stand on her own two feet, i… moret's because that's what she was. That's what her father's death made her become. Sarah in episodes 1-3 was fragile. Sarah in Episode 4 was broken. Moreso than any other character we've seen.
She wasn't hopeless until now. And she was still pretty damn sympathetic to me. I was frustrated that she had given up, but I completely understood why she did. There is no nuance to be shown for someone in her state. She was a shell of a person, showing little attachment to anything but the reality she refuses to let go.
If you're referring to the story treated her as if she were a completely hopeless wreck without the strength to stand on her own two feet, i… moret's because that's what she was. That's what her father's death made her become. Sarah in episodes 1-3 was fragile. Sarah in Episode 4 was broken. Moreso than any other character we've seen.
I've already argued this point multiple times. The narrative has not treated her as unsympathetic or hopeless until now. She was not denied respect or nuance by the writers until Episode 4.
Throughout our entire conversation you kept calling sarah useless, a liability, a waste of space. Your language throughout this entire discussion has demonstrated a lack of understanding and sympathy toward her character.
Then you change your mind after being proven wrong, only to continue to argue that you're right.
Stop going in circles.
You're only able to support your view based on Telltale's writing IN THIS EPISODE. Nothing else.
Their writing in this episode was weak. I have proven this. You have acknowledged this.
The only point you disagree with me on is Sarah. And you refuse to accept that you've been proven wrong about her because it's either a "matter of opinion" or "no, I actually do sympathize with her".
She wasn't hopeless until now. And she was still pretty damn sympathetic to me. I was frustrated that she had given up, but I completely und… moreerstood why she did. There is no nuance to be shown for someone in her state. She was a shell of a person, showing little attachment to anything but the reality she refuses to let go.
Are you arguing that Sarah wasn't a liability? Because she was. Inarguably, she was. That doesn't make her unsympathetic. We can have sympathy for those who are nothing more than burdens on us. In fact, those are often the people whom we're most sympathetic towards.
It's not Sarah's fault that she's weak and useless, but she is weak and useless. Even moreso now that she lost her only means of coping with the world she's in. She can't do anything on her own. She can't take care of herself or anyone else. I don't hate her for it and I don't think she should be abandoned for it. And I don't think that writing what is in fact a helpless and hopeless character to be a helpless and hopeless character is "disrespectful."
I acknowledge that there are weaknesses in the writing in this episode. That is not the same as saying that the overall writing in the episode itself is weak. Do you understand that?
What you seem to be getting at is that you want the plot to treat the Sarah who lost her father as if she were the same as the Sarah who still had her father. But that's would be ignoring the gravity of the trauma that she went through.
This is just completely offensive and disgusting.
Throughout our entire conversation you kept calling sarah useless, a liability, a waste… more of space. Your language throughout this entire discussion has demonstrated a lack of understanding and sympathy toward her character.
Then you change your mind after being proven wrong, only to continue to argue that you're right.
Stop going in circles.
You're only able to support your view based on Telltale's writing IN THIS EPISODE. Nothing else.
Their writing in this episode was weak. I have proven this. You have acknowledged this.
The only point you disagree with me on is Sarah. And you refuse to accept that you've been proven wrong about her because it's either a "matter of opinion" or "no, I actually do sympathize with her".
Make up your mind and stop going in circles.
I'll have to second this as well. I wasn't really hit emotionally when we lost Nick and Sarah, I was frustrated. Season 1 deaths were rarely heroic, but most of them still felt like a natural part of the story's progression and had characters react accordingly. Amid the Ruins felt more like a clean-up of dropped plot threads.
Shame that it's something that Telltale can't backtrack on. I would have really liked to see those two progress as characters after the build-up they've had; but if they had to die, the impact of it happening could've been more than an afterthought.
Sarah was not a waste of space. She was a fucking human being and she deserved to be treated as such.
You don't get to judge if someone is weak and useless. Just because she couldn't battle a crowd of zombies does not mean that people like her have no worth whatsoever.
I acknowledge that there are weaknesses in the writing in this episode. That is not the same as saying that the overall writing in the episode itself is weak. Do you understand that?
Don't fucking patronize me. I have said SEVERAL TIMES that the writing in the episodes themselves stand fine on their own.
IT IS THE WRITING AS A WHOLE OVER THE ENTIRE SEASON THAT HAS BECOME WEAK AND INCONSISTENT.
Well I hit a nerve...
Are you arguing that Sarah wasn't a liability? Because she was. Inarguably, she was. That doesn't make her unsympat… morehetic. We can have sympathy for those who are nothing more than burdens on us. In fact, those are often the people whom we're most sympathetic towards.
It's not Sarah's fault that she's weak and useless, but she is weak and useless. Even moreso now that she lost her only means of coping with the world she's in. She can't do anything on her own. She can't take care of herself or anyone else. I don't hate her for it and I don't think she should be abandoned for it. And I don't think that writing what is in fact a helpless and hopeless character to be a helpless and hopeless character is "disrespectful."
I acknowledge that there are weaknesses in the writing in this episode. That is not the same as saying that the overall writing in the episode itself is weak. Do you understand that?
What you seem t… [view original content]
I'll have to second this as well. I wasn't really hit emotionally when we lost Nick and Sarah, I was frustrated. Season 1 deaths were rarely… more heroic, but most of them still felt like a natural part of the story's progression and had characters react accordingly. Amid the Ruins felt more like a clean-up of dropped plot threads.
Shame that it's something that Telltale can't backtrack on. I would have really liked to see those two progress as characters after the build-up they've had; but if they had to die, the impact of it happening could've been more than an afterthought.
She was a broken human being. And she was written as a broken human being.
Did you see her offering to help anyone do anything or giving emotional support to the people around her? Did you see her make an attempt to do something for someone else? Or even express concern at the plight of others? No, because she had completely shut down. Which, again, is precisely what the person who knew her the best said would happen to her. She had worth as a human life (which is why I saved her), but absolutely nothing to offer beyond that.
You said:
Their writing in this episode was weak. I have proven this. You have acknowledged this.
I was clarifying because you seemed to be under the impression that I had agreed with you that the writing in the episode was weak. Which I didn't. You're contradicting yourself.
Sarah was not a waste of space. She was a fucking human being and she deserved to be treated as such.
You don't get to judge if someone i… mores weak and useless. Just because she couldn't battle a crowd of zombies does not mean that people like her have no worth whatsoever.
I acknowledge that there are weaknesses in the writing in this episode. That is not the same as saying that the overall writing in the episode itself is weak. Do you understand that?
Don't fucking patronize me. I have said SEVERAL TIMES that the writing in the episodes themselves stand fine on their own.
IT IS THE WRITING AS A WHOLE OVER THE ENTIRE SEASON THAT HAS BECOME WEAK AND INCONSISTENT.
I'm pretty sure Sarah's death as well as other's this episode was simply the product of bad writing and writing is what telltale games are all about but now I've been thinking and I figured that some of the deaths this episode were so bland that I decided to make my own meanings/reasons
Sarah: her death was stupid and could've been so much more meaningful, but I thought about it and Sarah was to Clem what Clem was to lee, or at least that may have been the starting intention, and the idea was to teach her survival skills and maybe in later episodes she would show what she learned, but with the introduction of the baby maybe having Clem take care of the baby and Sarah would be too big of a conflict and hard to write, so they decided to kill Sarah off so that Clem could focus her care onto Rebecca's child. Note this is just a theory
Nick: I'm pretty sure Nick's death wasn't wholly the writers fault, you may notice Nick never utters a word in this episode and his pathetic death may have been a product of the VA's absence so they tried to hammer in at least some kind of death for him rather than him just disappearing, still thought they could've done a lot better
Sarita: note to self in the future if the option to amputate a characters arm onscreen appears, don't do it cause it never ends well, I'm puzzled by Sarita's death, not that it was there but how it was done as well as Kenny's reaction. What I mean is Sarita had lines this episode so even if you cut her arm off there should've been at least 5-10 minutes of her before she got offed, and Kenny, dear god could they be any more bland about his character, it the same shit as last season, Kenny at least should've had a scene to himself and Sarita if he was going to be so bent out of shape.
Rebecca: this connects back to Sarah's death I believe this opens the door to a new plot with Clem and her new responsibility, the baby, if Rebecca was still around this new connection probably wouldn't come into play, but now it is. However I believe her death should've come with some more explanation, even though it is true that after birth a woman is prone to many more diseases due to her recooperating immune system, but they still should've offered a little explanation especially give how fast she turned
Now I'm not saying any of these theories were in the writer's minds but I've decided that the deaths were so bland I had to give myself somekind of explanation and these are just what I thought of.
I didn't even read it, but the title caught my eye. Why the heck would you SHAME THEM? I mean, it's okay if you hate Season 2, but don't shame Telltale! They're doing their best. If you feel the need to shame a company because you don't like their game, then don't play it. If you're that upset with them, it's pretty obvious you're wasting your money on their game, so just don't buy it. Simple.
Human beings are not "broken". They are not jars of glass. They have ups and downs in their lives and they can recover from trauma if given the support and tools to do so. To judge that someone is hopelessly broken and therefore beyond saving is reprehensible.
Did you see her offering to help anyone do anything or giving emotional support to the people around her? Did you see her make an attempt to do something for someone else? Or even express concern at the plight of others? No, because she had completely shut down.
Wow.
Ok. So the minute that a person can't offer something to you, they are useless and without worth? The minute that Sarah was unable to contribute to the group means that she is worthless and has no hope of recovery?
Wow.
I was clarifying because you seemed to be under the impression that I had agreed with you that the writing in the episode was weak. Which I didn't. You're contradicting yourself.
The point that this episode's writing is weak is only one point I make to support the argument that this season's writing is altogether weak.
And several times you specifically wrote that you agreed with me:
I was originally going to argue your points about each character, but I found myself agreeing with most of them save for Sarah....
.
You're right that there was nothing indicating that you shouldn't just give up on her. Everything indicated that she was hopeless. ...
.
But I do agree that, at some point, either Luke or Rebecca should have talked to Clem specifically about Sarah to give her death more closure.....
.
Railroaded. Yes. I agree with this....
.
I acknowledge that there are weaknesses in the writing in this episode....
She was a broken human being. And she was written as a broken human being.
Did you see her offering to help anyone do anything or giving… more emotional support to the people around her? Did you see her make an attempt to do something for someone else? Or even express concern at the plight of others? No, because she had completely shut down. Which, again, is precisely what the person who knew her the best said would happen to her. She had worth as a human life (which is why I saved her), but absolutely nothing to offer beyond that.
You said:
Their writing in this episode was weak. I have proven this. You have acknowledged this.
I was clarifying because you seemed to be under the impression that I had agreed with you that the writing in the episode was weak. Which I didn't. You're contradicting yourself.
There is more variation in S2 than S1 and TWAU combined. I agree that characters dying in lackluster ways before they can even be developed enough to the point that we care about them is disappointing, but it's better than playing the same scene again expecting something else and just getting a modified version of what you got before. Where as S2 allows for several variations. I.E. Nick, how to handle Carver, Alvin, Sarita, Sarah, and a few other minor ones. Almost naught of the "big choices" in S1 or TWAU matter at all. It doesn't matter if you try to save Duck or Shawn, the same thing happens each time. It doesn't matter if you tear off Gren's arm, there is no real repercussion. In the end, your first playthrough in S1 and TWAU is always going to be your best. Where as in S2, your second playthrough could be your best, 3rd, 4th, and so on. Somethings could have been handled better than they were and have been, but if you ask me, I'm more interested in there being decisions that have MAJOR and STORY CHANGING consequences than having surprising interactive plot twists. Not to say S2 is better than S1, because it's not, but more just my 2 cents.
Comments
Am i the only one who thinks that most of the fans are upset because sarah dies in a unfair way?
But Telltale's exploration of these themes has been extremely underutilized. The fact that the foundations are there does not excuse Telltale from adequately following through on it.
You don't build up to one thing only to completely abandon it only to return to it later in a half-assed way. You don't completely disrespect and waste your characters as a result.
This hopelessness and futility feels less intentional and more of a result of bad writing.
They have set up multiple character arcs, plot points, and themes, only to drop them and suddenly put minimal/weak focus on other things. The episodes jump from one to the next without wrapping up or utilizing their already existing characters, plots, and themes.
Fans who come up w/ reasons as to how the thing can work deserve more credit than Telltale in this regard, for being able to point out what Telltale "might have been going for". They shouldn't have to do that. Telltale should have delivered the story to be satisfying without fans having to come up with theories of their own to explain things away. There's a difference between leaving something up to the imagination and being completely underdelivered and wasted.
Telltale themselves should be held to a higher standard. They shouldn't be above criticism because "it could be worse" or because each episode on its own is enjoyable. Their sloppiness toward their characters was wasteful of all prior development. It was completely disrespectful not only to their fans but to their own story.
Don't be ridiculous.
I agree. Kenny has probably been the most consistently portrayed of the season so far. It's more arguable with Luke, but I feel that his characterization has been pretty solid up until episode 4 and possibly parts of episode 3.
But yes I agree about Sarita. When she died without any further input on the story she ends up being completely wasted as a character. Even Katjaa and Duck have their own personalities and purpose beyond being Kenny's family, but Sarita is no longer being allowed any development outside of her relationship with Kenny. It was excusable up until this point because it was fixable, but in episode 4 she doesn't even have a single line of dialogue. There is barely on focus on sorrow or regret for losing her, instead we are only led to feel bad about it because of Kenny. That's really not fair to either one of their characters.
Thank you for apologizing.
Yeah, but no more than me not finding Duck or Mark or Katjaa interesting. Some characters are just not intended to be anything more than victims. If that's a problem, it's a problem for both seasons.
I'm repeating myself at this point.
Just because you did not find these characters interesting does not mean that Telltale did not intend them to be so.
& you should not have to look at the failures of season 1 in order to justify the mistakes of season 2. If anything, they should have learned from the mistakes of season 1 and improved on them.
I assume you're referring to Sarah not responding to Clem's motivation speech? o you actually know how hard it is to talk someone out of a state of despair? Have you ever had the experience? I have. You can give the best goddamn speech you've ever given in your life and be met with absolutely nothing.
"This sucks. I can come up with something better" is not a rebuttal to my point.
The fact that they changed the story doesn't make it bad. It was still a cohesive and satisfying story on its own, and anyway we will probably never know if it could have been better.
But you don't have to compare two things in order to excuse the other. You don't have to say that Season 2 of TWDG is better/worse than TWAU or even S1 in order to make a valid judgment on it.
I've been enjoying the season but I agree with everything you said no doubt about it. The characters and themes never feel fully realized, you aren't even given the illusion that your decisions matter, and it really feels as if completely different writers are writing each episode as it's own self-contained story.
I completely disagree.
But their deaths are not portrayed as being upsetting or emotional. They just happen, with minimal reactions or significance.
But this theme is barely emphasized or expanded on. If this was supposed to be the central theme of the season, it should have been treated as such. It should have been addressed and explored properly. Right now it's just being used as an explanation for the railroaded plot.
Episode 4 did not treat character deaths with the gravity that they deserved. People are simply being forced to die for weak reasons and their potential & previous development is completely wasted.
Fans don't feel upset that they died, they feel angry that their deaths mean nothing to the characters, the story, and the writers.
The fans are more deserving of credit than Telltale here. They are trying to come up with ways to explain why this episode turned out the way it did, but that should not even be necessary. There is a difference between ambiguity and lazy storytelling.
This episode just solidified the entire season into being altogether messy & unsatisfying.
Sarah was nothing but a burden on the group. She brought nothing to the group or the game, I really don't see the issue with them killing her off.. she was useless and this showed us that you just can't help some people, and you certainly can't save them if they don't want to be saved or try to save themselves.
Yes, I'm sure Telltale wants all of their characters to be interesting. But have you ever encountered a single work of fiction in which you found all of the characters to be interesting? I haven't. Not all characters will have intricate narrative arcs and I could tell that that Sarah was going to be one of them.
Look, I get it. You saw more character potential in Sarah than Telltale utilized. It's how I felt about Chuck. It's how a lot of people felt about Carley. it's how people felt about Omid this season. Hell, some people thought Mark or Duck had more potential as characters than Telltale did. There were more interesting directions they could have taken any of the characters than the ones they chose. Difference of opinion between fans and authors is nothing new.
Yes, sure. Call them out on it. Complain that they didn't improve on mistakes from Season 1. What I'm trying to point out is that there are a lot of mistakes in Season 1 that people tend to gloss over and then harp on Season 2 about. If you're going to complain, complain about it all.
Liking a character is a matter of opinion and has no reflection on whether or not they are intended by the writers to be interesting and complicated.
This is ...kindof a weak argument.. I don't have to point out how a separate work of fiction made mistakes in order to prove that this one does. Here goes anyway...
I wasn't part of the TTG fanbase when S1 first came out. And when I did join the fanbase, I had no complaints on the story in season 1 to speak of. I thought that the story was brilliant. It wasn't perfect, but I had nothing to criticize because they delivered on everything else.
I disagree that it was half-assed, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.
It was satisfying to me and a lot of other fans. It was also unsatisfying to you and a lot of other fans. A large part of it seems to have been due difference in how we expected different characters to be utilized and the degree to which we saw certain themes being explored. I thought the themes were readily apparent and well-explored. You didn't. You thought Sarah was too deep a character to have been given the fate that she received. I didn't. I don't see either of us making very much progress on either of these fronts because they seem to be mostly up to subjective interpretation.
I agree wholeheartedly. I just happen to disagree with some of the criticism in this case.
nice chef analogy lol
Just because Sarah was "a burden" to the group in your eyes does not mean she brought nothing to the story.
The only reason she appears useless is because this episode's writers completely wasted her character.
Woah! Are you fucking nuts?!
The point I made that most people have been arguing over in this thread so far has been mostly about Sarah, and they disagree with me because they didn't enjoy her character or see her as having any potential. My point is that Telltale intended Sarah to have more potential than what she got, and they treated her character much differently prior to this episode.
Episode 4 only solidified the opinion of those who insist that Sarah is "useless" because that's how she was treated in this episode.
But we're kindof just going around in circles at this point.
That's the point that most people on this thread have been arguing, but it's not the only problem I have with this season.
Neither of us know how interesting or complicated the writers intended Sarah to be. We speak only from our own expectations (and these are at least partially informed by our affinity with the characters). I saw Sarah as a fragile glass vase perched on a rickety stand and wasn't at all surprised when the stand toppled and she was completely shattered. I don't know if that's what the writers intended to be her character all along. But what I thought they were going to do with her was exactly what they ended up doing with her.
No, you don't have to bring them up when you initially point the mistakes out, but you should acknowledge that these mistakes are common across both seasons when examples are pointed out. I just feel like it's very easy to look past the mistakes of Season 1 because of nostalgia while criticizing Season 2 for making the same mistakes. Not that I'm saying that's what you're necessarily doing.
But when arguing about Sarah's character I avoided speaking about my expectations for where her character could have gone. I focused on the fact that her prior presentation and treatment by the writers is contradicted in episode 4.
It's oversimplification of the issue to say that I'm just disappointed that Sarah didn't live up to my interpretation of her original potential. What I take most offense to in regard to Sarah's treatment is the fact that the writers do not give her the respect that she was originally written with. I've discussed why I see it this way in detail throughout the thread, and not only in response to you.
If you're referring to the story treated her as if she were a completely hopeless wreck without the strength to stand on her own two feet, it's because that's what she was. That's what her father's death made her become. Sarah in episodes 1-3 was fragile. Sarah in Episode 4 was broken. Moreso than any other character we've seen.
Lawyered.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=how+i+met+your+mother+lawyered&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=7B3ECF79C082D0E687017B3ECF79C082D0E68701
I really wonder what's going on inside TTG. It's obvious that the same guys who wrote S1 had nothing to do with S2... How will Game of Thrones turn out? I was really looking forward to that game, but with the huge let down that TWD S2 was I'm now holding my breath.
This reminds me of Bioware; a great game studio known for their compelling stories, suddenly turning to shit.
But Bioware was corrupted by the rEApers. I wonder what did TTG in.
I've already argued this point multiple times. The narrative has not treated her as unsympathetic or hopeless until now. She was not denied respect or nuance by the writers until Episode 4.
She wasn't hopeless until now. And she was still pretty damn sympathetic to me. I was frustrated that she had given up, but I completely understood why she did. There is no nuance to be shown for someone in her state. She was a shell of a person, showing little attachment to anything but the reality she refuses to let go.
This is just completely offensive and disgusting.
Throughout our entire conversation you kept calling sarah useless, a liability, a waste of space. Your language throughout this entire discussion has demonstrated a lack of understanding and sympathy toward her character.
Then you change your mind after being proven wrong, only to continue to argue that you're right.
Stop going in circles.
You're only able to support your view based on Telltale's writing IN THIS EPISODE. Nothing else.
Their writing in this episode was weak. I have proven this. You have acknowledged this.
The only point you disagree with me on is Sarah. And you refuse to accept that you've been proven wrong about her because it's either a "matter of opinion" or "no, I actually do sympathize with her".
Make up your mind and stop going in circles.
Has any staff replied to this thread? Or are they avoiding it like the plague?
Nope, no input yet from the staff. But I hope they see it.
Trust me, they've seen it. Especially puzzlebox. She was replying to littler threads and it's sort of sad. But no surprise regardless.
Well I hit a nerve...
Are you arguing that Sarah wasn't a liability? Because she was. Inarguably, she was. That doesn't make her unsympathetic. We can have sympathy for those who are nothing more than burdens on us. In fact, those are often the people whom we're most sympathetic towards.
It's not Sarah's fault that she's weak and useless, but she is weak and useless. Even moreso now that she lost her only means of coping with the world she's in. She can't do anything on her own. She can't take care of herself or anyone else. I don't hate her for it and I don't think she should be abandoned for it. And I don't think that writing what is in fact a helpless and hopeless character to be a helpless and hopeless character is "disrespectful."
I acknowledge that there are weaknesses in the writing in this episode. That is not the same as saying that the overall writing in the episode itself is weak. Do you understand that?
What you seem to be getting at is that you want the plot to treat the Sarah who lost her father as if she were the same as the Sarah who still had her father. But that's would be ignoring the gravity of the trauma that she went through.
I'll have to second this as well. I wasn't really hit emotionally when we lost Nick and Sarah, I was frustrated. Season 1 deaths were rarely heroic, but most of them still felt like a natural part of the story's progression and had characters react accordingly. Amid the Ruins felt more like a clean-up of dropped plot threads.
Shame that it's something that Telltale can't backtrack on. I would have really liked to see those two progress as characters after the build-up they've had; but if they had to die, the impact of it happening could've been more than an afterthought.
Sarah was not a waste of space. She was a fucking human being and she deserved to be treated as such.
You don't get to judge if someone is weak and useless. Just because she couldn't battle a crowd of zombies does not mean that people like her have no worth whatsoever.
Don't fucking patronize me. I have said SEVERAL TIMES that the writing in the episodes themselves stand fine on their own.
IT IS THE WRITING AS A WHOLE OVER THE ENTIRE SEASON THAT HAS BECOME WEAK AND INCONSISTENT.
Hm yeah. Apparently Telltale decided it was too much work to fix so might as well just kill everybody in one go.
She was a broken human being. And she was written as a broken human being.
Did you see her offering to help anyone do anything or giving emotional support to the people around her? Did you see her make an attempt to do something for someone else? Or even express concern at the plight of others? No, because she had completely shut down. Which, again, is precisely what the person who knew her the best said would happen to her. She had worth as a human life (which is why I saved her), but absolutely nothing to offer beyond that.
You said:
I was clarifying because you seemed to be under the impression that I had agreed with you that the writing in the episode was weak. Which I didn't. You're contradicting yourself.
I'm pretty sure Sarah's death as well as other's this episode was simply the product of bad writing and writing is what telltale games are all about but now I've been thinking and I figured that some of the deaths this episode were so bland that I decided to make my own meanings/reasons
Sarah: her death was stupid and could've been so much more meaningful, but I thought about it and Sarah was to Clem what Clem was to lee, or at least that may have been the starting intention, and the idea was to teach her survival skills and maybe in later episodes she would show what she learned, but with the introduction of the baby maybe having Clem take care of the baby and Sarah would be too big of a conflict and hard to write, so they decided to kill Sarah off so that Clem could focus her care onto Rebecca's child. Note this is just a theory
Nick: I'm pretty sure Nick's death wasn't wholly the writers fault, you may notice Nick never utters a word in this episode and his pathetic death may have been a product of the VA's absence so they tried to hammer in at least some kind of death for him rather than him just disappearing, still thought they could've done a lot better
Sarita: note to self in the future if the option to amputate a characters arm onscreen appears, don't do it cause it never ends well, I'm puzzled by Sarita's death, not that it was there but how it was done as well as Kenny's reaction. What I mean is Sarita had lines this episode so even if you cut her arm off there should've been at least 5-10 minutes of her before she got offed, and Kenny, dear god could they be any more bland about his character, it the same shit as last season, Kenny at least should've had a scene to himself and Sarita if he was going to be so bent out of shape.
Rebecca: this connects back to Sarah's death I believe this opens the door to a new plot with Clem and her new responsibility, the baby, if Rebecca was still around this new connection probably wouldn't come into play, but now it is. However I believe her death should've come with some more explanation, even though it is true that after birth a woman is prone to many more diseases due to her recooperating immune system, but they still should've offered a little explanation especially give how fast she turned
Now I'm not saying any of these theories were in the writer's minds but I've decided that the deaths were so bland I had to give myself somekind of explanation and these are just what I thought of.
Woah...that's freaking long...
I didn't even read it, but the title caught my eye. Why the heck would you SHAME THEM? I mean, it's okay if you hate Season 2, but don't shame Telltale! They're doing their best. If you feel the need to shame a company because you don't like their game, then don't play it. If you're that upset with them, it's pretty obvious you're wasting your money on their game, so just don't buy it. Simple.
She was broken human being?
Excuse me?
Human beings are not "broken". They are not jars of glass. They have ups and downs in their lives and they can recover from trauma if given the support and tools to do so. To judge that someone is hopelessly broken and therefore beyond saving is reprehensible.
Wow.
Ok. So the minute that a person can't offer something to you, they are useless and without worth? The minute that Sarah was unable to contribute to the group means that she is worthless and has no hope of recovery?
Wow.
The point that this episode's writing is weak is only one point I make to support the argument that this season's writing is altogether weak.
And several times you specifically wrote that you agreed with me:
.
.
.
.
There is more variation in S2 than S1 and TWAU combined. I agree that characters dying in lackluster ways before they can even be developed enough to the point that we care about them is disappointing, but it's better than playing the same scene again expecting something else and just getting a modified version of what you got before. Where as S2 allows for several variations. I.E. Nick, how to handle Carver, Alvin, Sarita, Sarah, and a few other minor ones. Almost naught of the "big choices" in S1 or TWAU matter at all. It doesn't matter if you try to save Duck or Shawn, the same thing happens each time. It doesn't matter if you tear off Gren's arm, there is no real repercussion. In the end, your first playthrough in S1 and TWAU is always going to be your best. Where as in S2, your second playthrough could be your best, 3rd, 4th, and so on. Somethings could have been handled better than they were and have been, but if you ask me, I'm more interested in there being decisions that have MAJOR and STORY CHANGING consequences than having surprising interactive plot twists. Not to say S2 is better than S1, because it's not, but more just my 2 cents.