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 i… moref 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.
But there are no major story changing consequences. S2 does not even barely give the illusion of it. Most of the choices barely have an impact at all.
Save Christa or leave her? No difference, the bandits notice you immediately either way.
Kill or leave the dog? No difference, it's only mentioned in one line afterward.
Accept Nick's apology? No difference but one line of dialogue.
Give water to the dying man? No difference except you can give Pete a drink.
Save Nick or Pete? Pete dies either way. (altho this choice isn't the best example of weak consequences because going with Nick or Pete results in interesting development for either of them)
Take blame for Sarah's photo? No difference whatsoever.
Who to sit with at dinner? No difference, neither of them change their attitude do you.
Tell Walter the truth about Matthew? No difference, you can still convince him to save Nick.
Nick's fate? whether he lives or dies doesn't matter because he doesn't do anything afterwards
Left to find Kenny? No difference, Alvin can still die/be saved either way and you are still caught by carver.
Help Sarah with her chores? Reggie dies either way.
Tell Bonnie about Luke? No difference, she is convinced that Carver is evil either way.
Admit to stealing the walkie talkie? No difference.
Watch Kenny kill Carver? No consequence in the plot.
Chop off Sarita's arm? She dies either way with no further development.
Leave sarah at the trailer park? She hovers in the background and dies later in a very weak death scene.
Rob Arvo? No difference whatsoever, he still comes after you with no variation in dialogue.
Crawl through the ticket booth? You get what you need either way with no consequence.
It was Telltale who got me invested in this game, am I wrong to criticize them when they fail to deliver? Fan feedback is constantly stressed as being valuable, you could say I'm just fulfilling my end of the deal.
Telltale specifically built their own reputation on the grounds that they make top-notch stories which incorporate fan feedback and in which player choice makes a difference in narrative. They can't turn around and destroy that concept without expecting backlash.
Does it look like they have access to mental health care to you? Even with care, years of therapy, medication, and the love and support from their family, some people just don't recover from trauma. Some people do break. If you don't think this happens, you're either ignorant or deluding yourself.
So you're just going to ignore the part where I said she had worth as a human being? And ignore that the conversation was about whether or not I can judge Sarah to be "weak and useless"? In providing no use to the group, Sarah was, by definition, useless. I repeated,emphatically stated that this does not make someone not worth saving. I don't care about people based on how much they can contribute to my own well-being.
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.
Right. And I disagree with that point. I have been disagreeing with that point this whole time. Only for you to claim that I agree with you that this episode's writing is weak as if you had already won the argument. Which is why I asked if you understood the difference between recognizing that there is weakness in something and believing that the thing itself is weak. And based on how this conversation is going, I'm still not sure you do.
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… more 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 … [view original content]
I understand you're angry, but you shouldn't shame a video game company because they made a mistake. Telltale is made up of people, and people make mistakes. What if you were supposed to turn in an essay at school, and your last essay got an A+, but this essay got a B. Should your teacher shame you because you missed a couple questions? No. He or she should give you some useful tips and encourage you to do better. Not shame you.
It was Telltale who got me invested in this game, am I wrong to criticize them when they fail to deliver? Fan feedback is constantly stresse… mored as being valuable, you could say I'm just fulfilling my end of the deal.
Telltale specifically built their own reputation on the grounds that they make top-notch stories which incorporate fan feedback and in which player choice makes a difference in narrative. They can't turn around and destroy that concept without expecting backlash.
And that's what we should do instead of trying to make Telltale feel bad. We should give them encouragement to do better and tell then what they could improve upon. And not get mad at them because their older project got an A, while
this one got a B. But of course, you're free to express your opinion however you please.
It was Telltale who got me invested in this game, am I wrong to criticize them when they fail to deliver? Fan feedback is constantly stresse… mored as being valuable, you could say I'm just fulfilling my end of the deal.
Telltale specifically built their own reputation on the grounds that they make top-notch stories which incorporate fan feedback and in which player choice makes a difference in narrative. They can't turn around and destroy that concept without expecting backlash.
Does it look like they have access to mental health care to you? Even with care, years of therapy, medication, and the love and support from their family, some people just don't recover from trauma.
Just because they don't have access to the latest medical care does not mean that recovery was hopeless. Before episode 4 came along, Sarah's mental state was fragile but she didn't shut down completely. There might have been hope for her to grow and develop beyond her father's death. But episode 4 did its hardest to portray her as beyond saving.
Some people do break. If you don't think this happens, you're either ignorant or deluding yourself.
You don't get a say in whether a person is "broken" and "beyond saving". You don't get to proclaim a person to be a lost cause. You have no right.
Right. And I disagree with that point. I have been disagreeing with that point this whole time. Only for you to claim that I agree with you that this episode's writing is weak as if you had already won the argument. Which is why I asked if you understood the difference between recognizing that there is weakness in something and believing that the thing itself is weak.
That's not how an argument works. When a point in favor of an argument is proven correct, that's a step closer to proving the argument.
I pointed out examples in the episode that were weak writing, and you agreed that they were weak writing. That means we're a step closer to proving my argument .
Does it look like they have access to mental health care to you? Even with care, years of therapy, medication, and the love and support from… more their family, some people just don't recover from trauma. Some people do break. If you don't think this happens, you're either ignorant or deluding yourself.
So you're just going to ignore the part where I said she had worth as a human being? And ignore that the conversation was about whether or not I can judge Sarah to be "weak and useless"? In providing no use to the group, Sarah was, by definition, useless. I repeated, emphatically stated that this does not make someone not worth saving. I don't care about people based on how much they can contribute to my own well-being.
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.
Right. And I disagree with that point. I have been disagreeing with that p… [view original content]
So many aspects of the episode felt completely disrespectful to the fans so I had a very strong reaction to it, and used a strong word to express my opinion and catch their attention.
I agree that the proper reaction to a failed project is to give constructive criticism in how it can be better, and that's what I'm trying to do here. I'm just explaining where they went wrong.
I understand you're angry, but you shouldn't shame a video game company because they made a mistake. Telltale is made up of people, and peop… morele make mistakes. What if you were supposed to turn in an essay at school, and your last essay got an A+, but this essay got a B. Should your teacher shame you because you missed a couple questions? No. He or she should give you some useful tips and encourage you to do better. Not shame you.
And not get mad at them because their older project got an A, while this one got a B.
Again, I'm not judging this season based on the previous one, although Telltale does make that more difficult with its constant references etc. I simply believe that on its own this season is a weak narrative that is not up to par with the writing that Telltale is able to pull off.
And that's what we should do instead of trying to make Telltale feel bad. We should give them encouragement to do better and tell then what … morethey could improve upon. And not get mad at them because their older project got an A, while
this one got a B. But of course, you're free to express your opinion however you please.
Making a bad episode is not disrespectful. It simply means that they screwed up. If you don't enjoy a game it doesn't mean that that company was being disprespectful towards you. It just means that they messed up somewhere down the line and they probably could have done better. If they don't live up to your expectations, it doesn't mean they're being disrespectful. That's like a great artist making a bad drawing, and then because it wasn't as good as the other ones, it's disrespectful to the artist's fans, which it isn't.
"Deal with it" doesn't denote one specific thing. When fanboys repeatedly bitch about the complaining and flat out don't want to hear it, like that guy up there and his constant stupid dismissals of criticism and name-calling on various negative threads, then the "complainers" have every right in the world to tell them to "deal with it".
I don't think the ones complaining should be telling anyone to "deal with it". I mean that's just hypocritical. You told journey to get a gr… moreip on himself but he's not the one flipping out over a game xD. I agree with the points made....kinda even though i like this season better than the first. Theres nothing wrong with complaining. I personlly encourage it to a certain extent. When you start making threats to boycott and writing a novel for a complaint thats just taking it too far. If a game upsets you the point where you're willing to take it that far well then maybe you should stop playing and move on to another game. Just saying.
When I say that Telltale is disrespectful I'm mostly referring to their treatment toward Sarah and Nick's characters here.
For example, Nick was shown to be a complicated individual in episode 2 with the focus on his depression, low self-esteem, and his "being a danger to the group". But in episode 3, his characterization became lazy. Instead of feeling envious and resentful that he is unable to move on quickly like Luke, he just has a case of hero-worship and very little input to the story. Then before he can do anything else, he is killed off-screen. He had a large fan base and many fans identified with his issues, so his treatment is a disservice both to to fans and to prior writing which built him to have a purposeful if not happy ending.
As for Sarah, she was railroaded into being portrayed as one-dimensional and hopeless throughout episode 4 while up until this point she had been a focused and developed character. Episode 4 drops this in favor of making her appear unworthy of saving. Telltale's writing of Sarah in episode 4 only proves those who considered her to be "useless" and "a bad character" right. And it's a complete contradiction to her previous characterization.
Making a bad episode is not disrespectful. It simply means that they screwed up. If you don't enjoy a game it doesn't mean that that company… more was being disprespectful towards you. It just means that they messed up somewhere down the line and they probably could have done better. If they don't live up to your expectations, it doesn't mean they're being disrespectful. That's like a great artist making a bad drawing, and then because it wasn't as good as the other ones, it's disrespectful to the artist's fans, which it isn't.
Before episode 4 came along, Sarah's mental state was fragile but she didn't shut down completely.
Because her father was there! Her father has consistently been shown to be the only thing keeping her from from breaking down. Sarah constantly reinforces how much she needs him and every time they're separated for any significant length of time, she is shown to be on the verge of a breakdown. And then when they are separated for good, she breaks down. Imagine that!
Why is it that I don't get a right to have the opinion that a person is broken, while you do get a right to have the opinion that the person isn't broken? Why is your optimism based on nothing more valid than my pessimism based on something?
I pointed out examples in the episode that were weak writing, and you agreed that they were weak writing. That means we're a step closer to proving my argument.
You also said "the writing in the episodes themselves stand fine on their own." Is that then a step further from proving your argument? Because the points I agreed with you (points like "there should have been more of reaction from characters to Nick and Sarah's deaths") were criticisms of the writing in the episode on its own, not a criticism of the writing in the episode as it relates to the themes in the whole season. That's your main point. If my conceding to there being flaws in the writing of the episode bolsters your argument, then your admission that the writing in the episodes themselves is fine tears it down far more.
Does it look like they have access to mental health care to you? Even with care, years of therapy, medication, and the love and support from… more their family, some people just don't recover from trauma.
Just because they don't have access to the latest medical care does not mean that recovery was hopeless. Before episode 4 came along, Sarah's mental state was fragile but she didn't shut down completely. There might have been hope for her to grow and develop beyond her father's death. But episode 4 did its hardest to portray her as beyond saving.
Some people do break. If you don't think this happens, you're either ignorant or deluding yourself.
You don't get a say in whether a person is "broken" and "beyond saving". You don't get to proclaim a person to be a lost cause. You have no right.
Right. And I disagree with that point. I have been disagreeing with that point this whole time. Only for you to claim that I agree wi… [view original content]
Because her father was there! Her father has consistently been shown to be the only thing keeping her from from breaking down.
Carlos is not there in episode 3 when Sarah defends Clem from Carver.
Carlos is not there when in episode 2 Sarah pulls herself out of it enough to hide from Carver even in the midst of having a panic attack.
Saying that she breaks down because of the absence of her father is logical, but it is not consistent with her previous portrayal. She has been portrayed as reliant on Carlos, but not absolutely dependent. With Clem's support, she is able to pull herself together when Carlos is not there.
You also said "the writing in the episodes themselves stand fine on their own." Is that then a step further from proving your argument? Because the points I agreed with you (points like "there should have been more of reaction from characters to Nick and Sarah's deaths") were criticisms of the writing in the episode on its own, not a criticism of the writing in the episode as it relates to the themes in the whole season. That's your main point.
We're splitting hairs here.
When I say that each episode in itself stands on its own, I am saying that each episode as a self contained story is for the most part well-written.
When you do not closely examine the episodes in relation to each other they seem to work but when you get a closer look, the missed potential and buildup is obvious.
My point gets muddied because in some aspects of characterization, themes, plots etc there is some consistency in certain aspects from some episodes in relation to each other.
But when we take a closer look, it is obvious that the themes and characters have been severely underutilized and unfulfilled.
I'll give a specific example.
Nick in episode 1 is consistent with his character in episode 2, but episode 3's characterization of him is contradictory and oversimplified. Episode 2 showed him to be envious of Luke's ability to move on, because he is unable to. But episode 3 showed him to have completely forgotten about Uncle Pete's death when he previously had been shown to be unable to move on from grief. Suddenly his desire to be more like Luke was oversimplified and used for the purpose of developing Luke, and not in service to his own character.
If not closely examined, this could be seen as logical. But it is oversimplification of his character, and ends up completely unfaithful to his original development.
In fact it's very similar to what happened to Sarah.
Before episode 4 came along, Sarah's mental state was fragile but she didn't shut down completely.
Because her father was there! Her… more father has consistently been shown to be the only thing keeping her from from breaking down. Sarah constantly reinforces how much she needs him and every time they're separated for any significant length of time, she is shown to be on the verge of a breakdown. And then when they are separated for good, she breaks down. Imagine that!
Why is it that I don't get a right to have the opinion that a person is broken, while you do get a right to have the opinion that the person isn't broken? Why is your optimism based on nothing more valid than my pessimism based on something?
I pointed out examples in the episode that were weak writing, and you agreed that they were weak writing. That means we're a step closer to proving my argument.
You also said "the writing in the episodes themselves stand … [view original content]
She has been portrayed as reliant on Carlos, but not absolutely dependent. With Clem's support, she is able to pull herself together when Carlos is not there.
While Clem can help Sarah to a small extent (often by reassuring her that her dad will be back to take care of her), it's shown not to be enough. During the berry-picking sequence, Clem can try to console Sarah and get her to gather herself, but she still ends up not being able to focus on her surroundings and failing to complete a very simple task. Clem has to come over and do her job for her. This is echoed by Clem being able to talk Sarah into responding and putting on her glasses in the trailer, but not being able to bring Sarah to the point where can stand up and escape. She needs to physically go over, slap Sarah, and pick her up off the ground. Clem is a good friend, but she's not enough to pull Sarah back when she's really lost.
While Nick was essentially sidelined in episode 3 (which I agree was a mistake; they should have just killed him off in episode 2 after the resolution of his arc with Walter), there was an exchange in which Nick, in a self-loathing, retired voice, blames himself for Reggie losing his arm. This is a demonstration of his tendency to dwell on past mistakes, which is one of his defining character traits.
My point gets muddied because in some aspects of characterization, themes, plots etc there is some consistency in certain aspects from some episodes in relation to each other.
Okay. Good. From the way you were talking about it, it sounded like you thought the season was entirely disjointed and that there were no overarching themes or characterizations at all. But if you do recognize that consistent themes are there and you just think there are key instances where there isn't enough continuity. I can accept that. My main gripe was that I disagreed that Episode 4, and Sarah's portrayal in it, was a particularly egregious example of bad writing in the season. I don't disagree that this season has been weaker than the first.
Because her father was there! Her father has consistently been shown to be the only thing keeping her from from breaking down.
Carlo… mores is not there in episode 3 when Sarah defends Clem from Carver.
Carlos is not there when in episode 2 Sarah pulls herself out of it enough to hide from Carver even in the midst of having a panic attack.
Saying that she breaks down because of the absence of her father is logical, but it is not consistent with her previous portrayal. She has been portrayed as reliant on Carlos, but not absolutely dependent. With Clem's support, she is able to pull herself together when Carlos is not there.
You also said "the writing in the episodes themselves stand fine on their own." Is that then a step further from proving your argument? Because the points I agreed with you (points like "there should have been more of reaction from characters to Nick and Sarah's deaths") were criticisms of the writing in the … [view original content]
Can I just chip in and say this argument is really interesting to read (for both sides) I wish there were more lengthy discussions like this.
I am leaning towards dome though, Sarah completely snapped, I too tried to save her till the end however she'd just lost it. When you talk to her at the camp she says her dad is going to come back. Shes detached from reality.
Also I really like sarah but she was in a sense useless to the group. She was a burden (hence the achievement) but I think its a testimant to clem that she didnt give up on her despite this
She has been portrayed as reliant on Carlos, but not absolutely dependent. With Clem's support, she is able to pull herself together when Ca… morerlos is not there.
While Clem can help Sarah to a small extent (often by reassuring her that her dad will be back to take care of her), it's shown not to be enough. During the berry-picking sequence, Clem can try to console Sarah and get her to gather herself, but she still ends up not being able to focus on her surroundings and failing to complete a very simple task. Clem has to come over and do her job for her. This is echoed by Clem being able to talk Sarah into responding and putting on her glasses in the trailer, but not being able to bring Sarah to the point where can stand up and escape. She needs to physically go over, slap Sarah, and pick her up off the ground. Clem is a good friend, but she's not enough to pull Sarah back when she's really lost.
While Nick was essentially sidelined in… [view original content]
"Deal with it" doesn't denote one specific thing. When fanboys repeatedly bitch about the complaining and flat out don't want to hear it, li… moreke that guy up there and his constant stupid dismissals of criticism and name-calling on various negative threads, then the "complainers" have every right in the world to tell them to "deal with it".
Well, we can agree to disagree. I won't debate with you anymore, because not to sound mean, but I do have some better things to be done. I was just wanting to share my opinion on the matter, and my opinion still stands. I suggest that of you don't enjoy episode 5, then maybe stop playing the games, as it's apparent that you're not enjoying them, so you shouldn't waste your money anymore. Your decision, of course.
When I say that Telltale is disrespectful I'm mostly referring to their treatment toward Sarah and Nick's characters here.
For example, N… moreick was shown to be a complicated individual in episode 2 with the focus on his depression, low self-esteem, and his "being a danger to the group". But in episode 3, his characterization became lazy. Instead of feeling envious and resentful that he is unable to move on quickly like Luke, he just has a case of hero-worship and very little input to the story. Then before he can do anything else, he is killed off-screen. He had a large fan base and many fans identified with his issues, so his treatment is a disservice both to to fans and to prior writing which built him to have a purposeful if not happy ending.
As for Sarah, she was railroaded into being portrayed as one-dimensional and hopeless throughout episode 4 while up until this point she had been a focused and developed character. Episode 4 drops… [view original content]
Honestly, I find it laughable and out of order to see that so many fans of numerous pieces of entertainment/art think that the authors/artist are accountable to them.
Sometime, artists make choices of their own and they decide to live with them and simply watch how it ends up and how fan react. I know that collective pieces of entertainment are more prone to failures (See latest True Blood seasons), but the authors still have the last words.
Also, I think a lot of people are near-disrespectful here because we should respect authorship and try to understand what authors want to say or show instead of throwing rocks at them because we don't like what they are saying or how they are doing it. Maybe they don't exactly know what they want to say, but at least they are creating something.
I know Walking Dead can be frustrating as it is, and I know that the whole "let mass market and milk a popular series" can be more frustrating, but let us all be honest here: Most of us asked for a second season and wanted it as soon as possible.
A lot of people like myself loved the episode, if they came in here to acknowledged your complaints that's something, but it would be stupid to say that they messed up on the episode, because a few people are complaining that it didn't meet their expectations.
Season 2 is almost better than Season 1 if you ask me. I like it better and it's not finished yet.
-14 downvotes, my downvote record!!! Let's get to 20.
A lot of people like myself loved the episode, if they came in here to acknowledged your complaints that's something, but it would be stupid… more to say that they messed up on the episode, because a few people are complaining that it didn't meet their expectations.
I agree with everything you said in this post. Admittedly I felt more bad for Mark from season one when he died than anyone else that died in this episode, and I barely knew him.
Sometime, artists make choices of their own and they decide to live with them and simply watch how it ends up and how fan react
That is very true. Telltale are at perfectly liberty to craft episodes however they wish. However, if they want people to actually purchase and applaud their intellectual property then they do need to listen to "how fans react", and adapt accordingly. I would argue that content creators are indeed accountable insofar as they need to provide value for money, especially when things such as episodic content and season passes are involved, and so that leaves Telltale with a choice. Either they can do whatever the hell they want story-wise, and end up alienating the very people who are giving them money and a reputation, or else listen to fan feedback so long as it is reasonable and try to create something that everyone can enjoy. I don't see why I should have to keep silent when the episodic content that I have paid for in advance is no longer satisfying, and I don't see why it's wrong to offer constructive criticism when I think that the author/ artist's content is lacking in quality. They don't have to listen to me, but if they don't then they can hardly expect me to continue investing in their product regardless.
Do Telltale have to change the way they make episodes just because I think the last couple of episodes have been muddled in terms of narrative, lacking in character development and noticeably lower in quality in many areas compared to previously? Of course they're not obliged to, but if they want me and others like me to continue investing in their product then they probably should, because the alternative is churning out episode after episode that no-one wants to buy simply to avoid the inconvenience of giving the fans the same quality of gameplay and storytelling that attracted them to the franchise in Season 1.
Honestly, I find it laughable and out of order to see that so many fans of numerous pieces of entertainment/art think that the authors/artis… moret are accountable to them.
Sometime, artists make choices of their own and they decide to live with them and simply watch how it ends up and how fan react. I know that collective pieces of entertainment are more prone to failures (See latest True Blood seasons), but the authors still have the last words.
Also, I think a lot of people are near-disrespectful here because we should respect authorship and try to understand what authors want to say or show instead of throwing rocks at them because we don't like what they are saying or how they are doing it. Maybe they don't exactly know what they want to say, but at least they are creating something.
I know Walking Dead can be frustrating as it is, and I know that the whole "let mass market and milk a popular series" can be more frustrating, but let u… [view original content]
Thank you for doing this. I am glad that I was not the only one who was just broken by the atrocious butchering of potential.
Also, Jane leaving the game alive. Seriously. They kill Sarita, they kill Nick, they kill Sarah, they kill Rebecca. All who had potential but they were too lazy to explore them. But rather than end Jane the Original Character's involvement in the plot with a death (could have been written to punish her assumptions that one can survive alone, creating moral contrast for the player), they refuse to kill her and just let her walk away alive. Wow. Molly The Original Character 2.0, huh. Yeah. Thanks.
For some reason I felt the writers of this episode were actually valiant fans of Kenny (judging from all the excessive badass-building and drama that is thrown his way, plus his active involvement with the plot that leaves deuteragonist Luke no space to develop) and probably very fond of characters like Molly who dance on the edge of Mary Sue-ism with their badass loner attitude and oh so dramatic backstory. Just... Ow, it was written so obnoxiously unevenly that it hurts, still.
episode 2 is what broke it for me. episode 1 just left such a bad taste, and then episode 2 was just more of the same mixed with a little plot, no real answers, and kenny. pete is the one that showed me things were gonna suck. there was absolutely no way to get anything more out of that scene, i kept goin back and making dif choices to see if there was some way to change things so he atleast had a moment to say goodbye. no matter how you leave him, he ends up the exact same way. the water has no effect beyond the few lines that followed, there's plenty of other crap around, but nothing to use as a cord/belt/jumper cables to remove the leg, and leaving him in the driver's seat has no difference than when he follows you out of the vehicle. there was no explanation for why the blood was on the wrong side of the van if he was in the drivers seat pretty much unable to move, much less the single shot, which i still dont believe carver could have possibly done it. there was no real mourning, save from nick, and they just move on.
the rest of the season has pretty much followed that: previously on TWD none of that shit mattered, big build up, possible plot development, shit happens, your choices didn't actually matter, plot rather than story driven event occurs, cliffhanger ending to keep people guessing so they buy next episode, queue black screen fade out, show a few morality choices for kicks, and then get ready to start from scratch all over again, this time with a little less build up.
Thank you (and everyone else who reads this whole thing!).
Yes I agree, and earlier on I wasn't as harsh with this season because I played … mores1 long after it first came out all at the same time, so at first I thought that maybe season 2 felt weaker because of the long waits in between each episode. Or something.
But looking at the entire season as a whole, it just makes no narrative sense. It's not even about the comparison between s1 and s2, or liking one or the other better, season 2 is just not working as a story on its own. I mean, I even liked the supporting characters in season 2 BETTER than in season one, and yet the deaths of characters in season 1 hit me a million times more hard. In s2 I wasn't sad that they died, I was mad at Telltale for wasting their potential and not even trying to evoke any feelings when they did die.
Nick's Death did not bother me as much as Sarah's . The way I looked at Nick is his death was on screen , as soon as he got hit with that bullet from a semi automatic military stile Rifle and No Carlos to patch him up He was as good as dead . Jane hit home the point the plan did not fail people panicked and poorly executed it. When Nick took that bullet at the end of ep 3 I knew he was dead , I just didn't know how we would find him or if we would even find him at all.
Honestly, I can see this guy having a point - this episode felt heavily railroaded, and whilst I enjoyed it I feel a little let down by the … morefact that our choices have made even less of an effect in this instance. Don't get me wrong, episode four had a great start and set-up with Sarita and honestly, I saw plenty of potential in convincing Sarah to escape with Clem from the trailer, but it honestly felt like a slap in the fact to have her killed off as she was. Same for Nick.
hello everyone .. all of you must wondered about what did the russian group said to clems group soo this what i got :
maud(the russian women) : "Are you out of your mind? What the hell do you think you're doing? You're going to get us all killed! Hey! You! Don't point that thing at me! Put it down! I said put it down!"
vitali ( the shotgun guy ) : "Buricko! Buricko! We can take them! I can kill any three of them with my bare hands, we don't even need the weapons! That's right, I mean you, eyepatch man, you're weak and I could tear out your throat with my teeth, who needs to use bullets for the likes of you? I'll kill you all and eat your entrails for breakfast!"
buricko ( the tattoo guy ) : "So this is how it's going to be, is it? That's fine! This is as good a day to die as any other! You don't scare me, you pathetic scavengers! Just bring it on! Bring it on! Bring it on!"
While Clem can help Sarah to a small extent (often by reassuring her that her dad will be back to take care of her), it's shown not to be enough. During the berry-picking sequence, Clem can try to console Sarah and get her to gather herself, but she still ends up not being able to focus on her surroundings and failing to complete a very simple task. Clem has to come over and do her job for her. This is echoed by Clem being able to talk Sarah into responding and putting on her glasses in the trailer, but not being able to bring Sarah to the point where can stand up and escape. She needs to physically go over, slap Sarah, and pick her up off the ground. Clem is a good friend, but she's not enough to pull Sarah back when she's really lost.
The only theme that leaving Sarah reveals is purported to be this idea that you can't save everyone, there was no choice, Sarah wanted to die, etc.
Over and over the only one who can suggest they shouldnt abandon Sarah is Clem, as a result of player choice, but regardless, the plot is still railroaded into leaving her behind and her death is treated extremely unemotionally.
Afterward, Luke says "I didn't think you'd leave her."
Clem's answers are "we didnt have a choice", "you left her too", or "what was I supposed to do". There is no option or dialogue about the fact that Sarah was her FRIEND, or that she is SAD that she died. "What was I supposed to do", the most emotional reply, is an expression of frustration, not sadness.
Then Jane starts in with her speech about her sister, and how neither of them couldn't make it in this world. Luke then agrees, "I guess there was nothing we could do."
Clem's responses to this idea are "I thought I could trust you" or "would you leave me behind?". This makes the issue all about JANE.
A heavy-handed parallel is drawn entirely through Jane's monologue that Sarah and Jaime's sister were the same. It claims that Sarah was hopeless, and no longer wanted to live, therefore she was unsaveable.
But this is completely unfaithful to Sarah's character! Not only to her prior characterization in episodes 1-3, but even to her behavior in this very same episode! There is NOTHING to indicate that Sarah WANTED to die!
Not onlt that, the fact that this theme is only ever expressed thru a single long monologue about a character we don't even know results in it falling completely flat.
The most emotion you can express at Jane's leaving her sister is to say "how could you do it?" Every other option is agreement or sympathy toward JANE, and not Sarah. We are never allowed to disagree with this view, or even to focus on how Sarah exactly related to it.
Jane claims "Sarah was like Jaime: no regard for her safety or ours." Clem can reply to this by saying "Sarah wasn't Jaime,"
"Sarah wasn't dangerous," or "Sorry about Jaime."
THERE IS NO OPTION TO COUNTER JANE BY SAYING hELLO?!! SARAH HAD NO REGARD FOR HER OWN SAFETY BECAUSE SHE WAS HAVING A PANIC ATTACK.
Claiming that Sarah had no regard for her own safety, and therefore no regard for the group, is a completely unfair viewpoint that proclaims it was SELFISH of Sarah to shut down. When we are given to option to counter this point, it is painfully clear that the narrative is FORCING this extremely harmful and untrue view on its audience.
IT IS NOT SELFISH TO SHUT DOWN. IT IS NOT "SELFISH" OR A "BURDEN" FOR A PERSON TO HAVE A COMPLICATED MENTAL CONDITION.
While Nick was essentially sidelined in episode 3 (which I agree was a mistake; they should have just killed him off in episode 2 after the resolution of his arc with Walter), there was an exchange in which Nick, in a self-loathing, retired voice, blames himself for Reggie losing his arm. This is a demonstration of his tendency to dwell on past mistakes, which is one of his defining character traits.
yes. This is part of what I described; some things are carried over consistently but others are ignored, or twisted into a disrespect of the original development.
Nick's line "it was my fault" is the only consistent part to his character shown after episode 2. Everything else thereafter is an oversimplification and misinterpretation of his previous writing.
In episode 2 when his relationship to Luke was discussed, Nick says "I wish I could be like him but I'm just not". This contributed to his low self esteem and constant guilt. Despite this, he is not simply a spineless admirer of Luke, he is allowed to disagree with him & even snaps back when Luke criticizes him.
This is contradicted by episode 3's Nick, which shows a single line suggesting self-loathing, but who otherwise is completely relegated to the background, and whose only other lines are completely OOC. He only ever speaks to assure Clem that he has the utmost faith that everything will be fine, or to let Luke walk all over him by completely agreeing with what Luke says even after putting forth his own opinion and being corrected by him.
This is completely inconsistent and oversimplifying of his previous depth.
These things that I am pointing out are only part of the problem with this season. Overall, this season has suffered from several problems that altogether point it out to be an underdeveloped and missed potential.
She has been portrayed as reliant on Carlos, but not absolutely dependent. With Clem's support, she is able to pull herself together when Ca… morerlos is not there.
While Clem can help Sarah to a small extent (often by reassuring her that her dad will be back to take care of her), it's shown not to be enough. During the berry-picking sequence, Clem can try to console Sarah and get her to gather herself, but she still ends up not being able to focus on her surroundings and failing to complete a very simple task. Clem has to come over and do her job for her. This is echoed by Clem being able to talk Sarah into responding and putting on her glasses in the trailer, but not being able to bring Sarah to the point where can stand up and escape. She needs to physically go over, slap Sarah, and pick her up off the ground. Clem is a good friend, but she's not enough to pull Sarah back when she's really lost.
While Nick was essentially sidelined in… [view original content]
This viewpoint results only from the writing and treatment of the themes in episode 4. Prior to this, Sarah's portrayal had been two-sided: in some cases, Sarah was portrayed as having her own strength, but you were also allowed to disagree and claim her to be weak. And every time you claim that Sarah is weak, the narrative suggests that YOU are probably wrong.
Episode 4 invalidates this. The narrative forces you to see Sarah as one-dimensional, weak, and irredeemable.
The only opportunity to comfort her results with Sarah shown to be delusional, "let's wait for dad" and clem just gives her a "whooaa" look and backs away. The narrative treats Sarah as if it's a lost cause and you are not given the opportunity thereafter to talk to her ever again, or express any feelings toward her.
Her charactr was railroaded into dying in a way that was completely opposed to her prior portrayal, and it was a complete disrespect, both to TTG's own writing, the very issue it demonstrated, and to the fanbase.
Can I just chip in and say this argument is really interesting to read (for both sides) I wish there were more lengthy discussions like this… more.
I am leaning towards dome though, Sarah completely snapped, I too tried to save her till the end however she'd just lost it. When you talk to her at the camp she says her dad is going to come back. Shes detached from reality.
Also I really like sarah but she was in a sense useless to the group. She was a burden (hence the achievement) but I think its a testimant to clem that she didnt give up on her despite this
He does KNOW that she was completely sheltered, but who says hes ever seen her seen her in this condition before.
Even in episode 1 when Carlos was not convinced that Clem was trustworthy, he still had the sense to let her know that Sarah was not like her. You can bet that he would have told the same to the cabin group when they had known each other for months beforehand. Even if the cabin group had never actually witnessed Sarah having a panic attack, you can bet that Carlos, as a dad and as a doctor, knew enough to let them know IN DETAIL how to properly respond.
Luke KNEW sarah had panic attacks. The writers KNEW she had panic attacks. And before episode 4, they had shown them in a realistic and logical manner. You do not yell at someone on sensory overload and you do not smack them to "snap them out of it". The fact that this actually worked (ESPECIALLY after Carver forced Carlos to slap Sarah in episode 3) is completely ridiculous. It shows a complete misunderstanding not only of Sarah but of the real-life conditions she represents.
Being sheltered has nothing to do with having a rational mind which she obviously did not have
Sarah has never been presented as The Crazy One. This is a shallow and erroneous cliche that the writers of Telltale originally did not stoop to. No, Sarah did not have an average mind. But she was never treated as irrational, one-dimensional, or hopeless, and she should not have been written off as if she was.
Oh she has the privilege to feel pain and have feelings but when you start making decisions like that (which are stupid) yeah you deserve to be yelled at least once.
Having a panic attack is not a conscious "decision". Yes, you can DECIDE to fight it, but it is not a conscious decision to HAVE one in the first place. The actions or events that resulted in the attack were not Sarah's decision. You rarely have control over the circumstances that create a panic attack. And it should never result in people who know & care about you shouting, slapping, and treating you like a lost cause. The writing in episodes 1, 2, and 3 understood this. The writing in episode 4 did not.
I didn't mean mean HE Knew nick was already in trouble, it was part of the joke. He also clearly explained what he had to do when he found h… moreer. Chase her down for who knows how long and she ran straight for the trailer and just sat on the floor. He does KNOW that she was completely sheltered, but who says hes ever seen her seen her in this condition before. Being sheltered has nothing to do with having a rational mind which she obviously did not have. Her dad died yes, so you run off into the abyss of the night leaving everyone behind? your stuck in a trailer with zombies who are literally in the next room, escape route right in front of you and you just sit there waiting to be eaten? Oh she has the privilege to feel pain and have feelings but when you start making decisions like that (which are stupid) yeah you deserve to be yelled at least once. Idk who to blame for this, but if telltale made sarah say "I want to die" then these would make … [view original content]
The wind Turbine part did piss me off, I was like really How does this fall on Clem? I felt just like Lee all over again like Do I have to do everything for these people ? Carver touched on that briefly too when he spoke to Clem .
The only "badass Clem" sequence I recall in episode 3 was the end. The other time she faced zombies, she would have been dead if it hadn't b… moreeen for Troy. So they did seem to showcase her physical limitations.
Just because there was one situation in which Clem would have been dead if not for someone's intervention does not demonstrate that Telltale is attempting to focus on Clem's futility and helplessness.
You are insisting that Clem's physical limitations are meant to present a focus on the futility of their situation. But these sequences are just a part of gameplay.
Clem was shown to be the most suitable to perform multiple tasks, such as stealing the walkie-talkies and turning on the speakers. In these cases, Clem was not shown to have physical limitations. The fact that she was a little girl only made it easier for her to complete the task.
If Telltale was trying to present Clem as having physical limitations that enhance… [view original content]
What I think happened is that the writers failed to proper communicate to each other what they were going for, so as a result the writing is inconsistent. It adequately established the foundations that could be expanded on, but they are never properly followed through. Characters are underutilized and in some cases behave consistently, but even then this same consistent behavior is an oversimplification of their prior characterization. It's like the writers were given a vague outline and then set free to come up with their own episodes with very little guidance or collaboration.
Since Sarah is the strongest debated topic so far in this thread, I'll use her case as an example. In prior episodes, she is shown to suffer panic attacks but prior to episode 4 they were treated in a realistic and respectful manner. She was able to recover when given help, and was never portrayed as hopeless or irredeemable; she was even shown to have bravery and initiative in some cases. Episode 4 however offered no subtlety to the issue and instead Sarah was portrayed a completely lost cause, and her panic attacks were portrayed inaccurately.
The fact that she continued to suffer panic attacks in episode 4 was a logical result of events, but their treatment of these attacks lost all subtlety and gravity, and it was completely inconsistent with the way they had been previously explored.
Thinking about all of this some more, I realized something about my own views concerning an ZA or just A event.
I am a group guy in these… more sort of things, It might be valid under some circumstances that you are able to survive better on your own, but I do not see survival in and of itsself as meaningfull. Fictional numbers: Id rather go for the 40% shot to rebuild a functional community then for a 70% chance to be the last one standing.
That being said, the narrative in this season as it is; being dragged from event to event to event with no reflection in between and no real communication in the group, has got me thinking that I would actually prefer Clem to leave everyone here behind and find a more stable group. Running around like the stereotype lemmings is a good description if this crew so far.
What I can't figure out for myself yet is if this dysfunctionality is intentional writing on telltales part or that the lack of connectio… [view original content]
It's not just hate here. Yes, I was angry, but I'm trying to point out flaws from an invested and literary perspective. I'm not just screaming and crying unjustified criticism.
Comments
If you wanna know why I "shame them", you could try reading it?
But there are no major story changing consequences. S2 does not even barely give the illusion of it. Most of the choices barely have an impact at all.
Save Christa or leave her? No difference, the bandits notice you immediately either way.
Kill or leave the dog? No difference, it's only mentioned in one line afterward.
Accept Nick's apology? No difference but one line of dialogue.
Give water to the dying man? No difference except you can give Pete a drink.
Save Nick or Pete? Pete dies either way. (altho this choice isn't the best example of weak consequences because going with Nick or Pete results in interesting development for either of them)
Take blame for Sarah's photo? No difference whatsoever.
Who to sit with at dinner? No difference, neither of them change their attitude do you.
Tell Walter the truth about Matthew? No difference, you can still convince him to save Nick.
Nick's fate? whether he lives or dies doesn't matter because he doesn't do anything afterwards
Left to find Kenny? No difference, Alvin can still die/be saved either way and you are still caught by carver.
Help Sarah with her chores? Reggie dies either way.
Tell Bonnie about Luke? No difference, she is convinced that Carver is evil either way.
Admit to stealing the walkie talkie? No difference.
Watch Kenny kill Carver? No consequence in the plot.
Chop off Sarita's arm? She dies either way with no further development.
Leave sarah at the trailer park? She hovers in the background and dies later in a very weak death scene.
Rob Arvo? No difference whatsoever, he still comes after you with no variation in dialogue.
Crawl through the ticket booth? You get what you need either way with no consequence.
Hold the baby? No consequence.
Shoot Rebecca? Same thing happens either way.
You completely missed my point. I was saying that you probably shouldn't be playing the game if it upsets you so bad.
It was Telltale who got me invested in this game, am I wrong to criticize them when they fail to deliver? Fan feedback is constantly stressed as being valuable, you could say I'm just fulfilling my end of the deal.
Telltale specifically built their own reputation on the grounds that they make top-notch stories which incorporate fan feedback and in which player choice makes a difference in narrative. They can't turn around and destroy that concept without expecting backlash.
Does it look like they have access to mental health care to you? Even with care, years of therapy, medication, and the love and support from their family, some people just don't recover from trauma. Some people do break. If you don't think this happens, you're either ignorant or deluding yourself.
So you're just going to ignore the part where I said she had worth as a human being? And ignore that the conversation was about whether or not I can judge Sarah to be "weak and useless"? In providing no use to the group, Sarah was, by definition, useless. I repeated, emphatically stated that this does not make someone not worth saving. I don't care about people based on how much they can contribute to my own well-being.
Right. And I disagree with that point. I have been disagreeing with that point this whole time. Only for you to claim that I agree with you that this episode's writing is weak as if you had already won the argument. Which is why I asked if you understood the difference between recognizing that there is weakness in something and believing that the thing itself is weak. And based on how this conversation is going, I'm still not sure you do.
I understand you're angry, but you shouldn't shame a video game company because they made a mistake. Telltale is made up of people, and people make mistakes. What if you were supposed to turn in an essay at school, and your last essay got an A+, but this essay got a B. Should your teacher shame you because you missed a couple questions? No. He or she should give you some useful tips and encourage you to do better. Not shame you.
And that's what we should do instead of trying to make Telltale feel bad. We should give them encouragement to do better and tell then what they could improve upon. And not get mad at them because their older project got an A, while
this one got a B. But of course, you're free to express your opinion however you please.
Just because they don't have access to the latest medical care does not mean that recovery was hopeless. Before episode 4 came along, Sarah's mental state was fragile but she didn't shut down completely. There might have been hope for her to grow and develop beyond her father's death. But episode 4 did its hardest to portray her as beyond saving.
You don't get a say in whether a person is "broken" and "beyond saving". You don't get to proclaim a person to be a lost cause. You have no right.
That's not how an argument works. When a point in favor of an argument is proven correct, that's a step closer to proving the argument.
I pointed out examples in the episode that were weak writing, and you agreed that they were weak writing. That means we're a step closer to proving my argument .
So many aspects of the episode felt completely disrespectful to the fans so I had a very strong reaction to it, and used a strong word to express my opinion and catch their attention.
I agree that the proper reaction to a failed project is to give constructive criticism in how it can be better, and that's what I'm trying to do here. I'm just explaining where they went wrong.
Again, I'm not judging this season based on the previous one, although Telltale does make that more difficult with its constant references etc. I simply believe that on its own this season is a weak narrative that is not up to par with the writing that Telltale is able to pull off.
Making a bad episode is not disrespectful. It simply means that they screwed up. If you don't enjoy a game it doesn't mean that that company was being disprespectful towards you. It just means that they messed up somewhere down the line and they probably could have done better. If they don't live up to your expectations, it doesn't mean they're being disrespectful. That's like a great artist making a bad drawing, and then because it wasn't as good as the other ones, it's disrespectful to the artist's fans, which it isn't.
"Deal with it" doesn't denote one specific thing. When fanboys repeatedly bitch about the complaining and flat out don't want to hear it, like that guy up there and his constant stupid dismissals of criticism and name-calling on various negative threads, then the "complainers" have every right in the world to tell them to "deal with it".
When I say that Telltale is disrespectful I'm mostly referring to their treatment toward Sarah and Nick's characters here.
For example, Nick was shown to be a complicated individual in episode 2 with the focus on his depression, low self-esteem, and his "being a danger to the group". But in episode 3, his characterization became lazy. Instead of feeling envious and resentful that he is unable to move on quickly like Luke, he just has a case of hero-worship and very little input to the story. Then before he can do anything else, he is killed off-screen. He had a large fan base and many fans identified with his issues, so his treatment is a disservice both to to fans and to prior writing which built him to have a purposeful if not happy ending.
As for Sarah, she was railroaded into being portrayed as one-dimensional and hopeless throughout episode 4 while up until this point she had been a focused and developed character. Episode 4 drops this in favor of making her appear unworthy of saving. Telltale's writing of Sarah in episode 4 only proves those who considered her to be "useless" and "a bad character" right. And it's a complete contradiction to her previous characterization.
Because her father was there! Her father has consistently been shown to be the only thing keeping her from from breaking down. Sarah constantly reinforces how much she needs him and every time they're separated for any significant length of time, she is shown to be on the verge of a breakdown. And then when they are separated for good, she breaks down. Imagine that!
Why is it that I don't get a right to have the opinion that a person is broken, while you do get a right to have the opinion that the person isn't broken? Why is your optimism based on nothing more valid than my pessimism based on something?
You also said "the writing in the episodes themselves stand fine on their own." Is that then a step further from proving your argument? Because the points I agreed with you (points like "there should have been more of reaction from characters to Nick and Sarah's deaths") were criticisms of the writing in the episode on its own, not a criticism of the writing in the episode as it relates to the themes in the whole season. That's your main point. If my conceding to there being flaws in the writing of the episode bolsters your argument, then your admission that the writing in the episodes themselves is fine tears it down far more.
Carlos is not there in episode 3 when Sarah defends Clem from Carver.
Carlos is not there when in episode 2 Sarah pulls herself out of it enough to hide from Carver even in the midst of having a panic attack.
Saying that she breaks down because of the absence of her father is logical, but it is not consistent with her previous portrayal. She has been portrayed as reliant on Carlos, but not absolutely dependent. With Clem's support, she is able to pull herself together when Carlos is not there.
We're splitting hairs here.
When I say that each episode in itself stands on its own, I am saying that each episode as a self contained story is for the most part well-written.
When you do not closely examine the episodes in relation to each other they seem to work but when you get a closer look, the missed potential and buildup is obvious.
My point gets muddied because in some aspects of characterization, themes, plots etc there is some consistency in certain aspects from some episodes in relation to each other.
But when we take a closer look, it is obvious that the themes and characters have been severely underutilized and unfulfilled.
I'll give a specific example.
Nick in episode 1 is consistent with his character in episode 2, but episode 3's characterization of him is contradictory and oversimplified. Episode 2 showed him to be envious of Luke's ability to move on, because he is unable to. But episode 3 showed him to have completely forgotten about Uncle Pete's death when he previously had been shown to be unable to move on from grief. Suddenly his desire to be more like Luke was oversimplified and used for the purpose of developing Luke, and not in service to his own character.
If not closely examined, this could be seen as logical. But it is oversimplification of his character, and ends up completely unfaithful to his original development.
In fact it's very similar to what happened to Sarah.
While Clem can help Sarah to a small extent (often by reassuring her that her dad will be back to take care of her), it's shown not to be enough. During the berry-picking sequence, Clem can try to console Sarah and get her to gather herself, but she still ends up not being able to focus on her surroundings and failing to complete a very simple task. Clem has to come over and do her job for her. This is echoed by Clem being able to talk Sarah into responding and putting on her glasses in the trailer, but not being able to bring Sarah to the point where can stand up and escape. She needs to physically go over, slap Sarah, and pick her up off the ground. Clem is a good friend, but she's not enough to pull Sarah back when she's really lost.
While Nick was essentially sidelined in episode 3 (which I agree was a mistake; they should have just killed him off in episode 2 after the resolution of his arc with Walter), there was an exchange in which Nick, in a self-loathing, retired voice, blames himself for Reggie losing his arm. This is a demonstration of his tendency to dwell on past mistakes, which is one of his defining character traits.
Okay. Good. From the way you were talking about it, it sounded like you thought the season was entirely disjointed and that there were no overarching themes or characterizations at all. But if you do recognize that consistent themes are there and you just think there are key instances where there isn't enough continuity. I can accept that. My main gripe was that I disagreed that Episode 4, and Sarah's portrayal in it, was a particularly egregious example of bad writing in the season. I don't disagree that this season has been weaker than the first.
Can I just chip in and say this argument is really interesting to read (for both sides) I wish there were more lengthy discussions like this.
I am leaning towards dome though, Sarah completely snapped, I too tried to save her till the end however she'd just lost it. When you talk to her at the camp she says her dad is going to come back. Shes detached from reality.
Also I really like sarah but she was in a sense useless to the group. She was a burden (hence the achievement) but I think its a testimant to clem that she didnt give up on her despite this
I didn't say complainers don't have the right to tell anyone that but you make yourself look hypocritical by doing so.
I'm imagining MatPat from Game Theory or Ross Scott reading this.
Well, we can agree to disagree. I won't debate with you anymore, because not to sound mean, but I do have some better things to be done. I was just wanting to share my opinion on the matter, and my opinion still stands. I suggest that of you don't enjoy episode 5, then maybe stop playing the games, as it's apparent that you're not enjoying them, so you shouldn't waste your money anymore. Your decision, of course.
Honestly, I find it laughable and out of order to see that so many fans of numerous pieces of entertainment/art think that the authors/artist are accountable to them.
Sometime, artists make choices of their own and they decide to live with them and simply watch how it ends up and how fan react. I know that collective pieces of entertainment are more prone to failures (See latest True Blood seasons), but the authors still have the last words.
Also, I think a lot of people are near-disrespectful here because we should respect authorship and try to understand what authors want to say or show instead of throwing rocks at them because we don't like what they are saying or how they are doing it. Maybe they don't exactly know what they want to say, but at least they are creating something.
I know Walking Dead can be frustrating as it is, and I know that the whole "let mass market and milk a popular series" can be more frustrating, but let us all be honest here: Most of us asked for a second season and wanted it as soon as possible.
Anyway... I'll go watch Luther. :P Seeya!
A lot of people like myself loved the episode, if they came in here to acknowledged your complaints that's something, but it would be stupid to say that they messed up on the episode, because a few people are complaining that it didn't meet their expectations.
Let's get to 60 lol
(joke)
[removed]
I agree with everything you said in this post. Admittedly I felt more bad for Mark from season one when he died than anyone else that died in this episode, and I barely knew him.
you don't have any right to say anything about the title until you read it.
You know what? I was already suspecting that, but it was confirmed yesterday: Season 2 is just a bridge for something bigger on Season 3.
I don't know what will happen on Episode 5 and the DLC, but I know that it'll set up something huge for the sequel.
That is very true. Telltale are at perfectly liberty to craft episodes however they wish. However, if they want people to actually purchase and applaud their intellectual property then they do need to listen to "how fans react", and adapt accordingly. I would argue that content creators are indeed accountable insofar as they need to provide value for money, especially when things such as episodic content and season passes are involved, and so that leaves Telltale with a choice. Either they can do whatever the hell they want story-wise, and end up alienating the very people who are giving them money and a reputation, or else listen to fan feedback so long as it is reasonable and try to create something that everyone can enjoy. I don't see why I should have to keep silent when the episodic content that I have paid for in advance is no longer satisfying, and I don't see why it's wrong to offer constructive criticism when I think that the author/ artist's content is lacking in quality. They don't have to listen to me, but if they don't then they can hardly expect me to continue investing in their product regardless.
Do Telltale have to change the way they make episodes just because I think the last couple of episodes have been muddled in terms of narrative, lacking in character development and noticeably lower in quality in many areas compared to previously? Of course they're not obliged to, but if they want me and others like me to continue investing in their product then they probably should, because the alternative is churning out episode after episode that no-one wants to buy simply to avoid the inconvenience of giving the fans the same quality of gameplay and storytelling that attracted them to the franchise in Season 1.
Thank you for doing this. I am glad that I was not the only one who was just broken by the atrocious butchering of potential.
Also, Jane leaving the game alive. Seriously. They kill Sarita, they kill Nick, they kill Sarah, they kill Rebecca. All who had potential but they were too lazy to explore them. But rather than end Jane the Original Character's involvement in the plot with a death (could have been written to punish her assumptions that one can survive alone, creating moral contrast for the player), they refuse to kill her and just let her walk away alive. Wow. Molly The Original Character 2.0, huh. Yeah. Thanks.
For some reason I felt the writers of this episode were actually valiant fans of Kenny (judging from all the excessive badass-building and drama that is thrown his way, plus his active involvement with the plot that leaves deuteragonist Luke no space to develop) and probably very fond of characters like Molly who dance on the edge of Mary Sue-ism with their badass loner attitude and oh so dramatic backstory. Just... Ow, it was written so obnoxiously unevenly that it hurts, still.
episode 2 is what broke it for me. episode 1 just left such a bad taste, and then episode 2 was just more of the same mixed with a little plot, no real answers, and kenny. pete is the one that showed me things were gonna suck. there was absolutely no way to get anything more out of that scene, i kept goin back and making dif choices to see if there was some way to change things so he atleast had a moment to say goodbye. no matter how you leave him, he ends up the exact same way. the water has no effect beyond the few lines that followed, there's plenty of other crap around, but nothing to use as a cord/belt/jumper cables to remove the leg, and leaving him in the driver's seat has no difference than when he follows you out of the vehicle. there was no explanation for why the blood was on the wrong side of the van if he was in the drivers seat pretty much unable to move, much less the single shot, which i still dont believe carver could have possibly done it. there was no real mourning, save from nick, and they just move on.
the rest of the season has pretty much followed that: previously on TWD none of that shit mattered, big build up, possible plot development, shit happens, your choices didn't actually matter, plot rather than story driven event occurs, cliffhanger ending to keep people guessing so they buy next episode, queue black screen fade out, show a few morality choices for kicks, and then get ready to start from scratch all over again, this time with a little less build up.
Nick's Death did not bother me as much as Sarah's . The way I looked at Nick is his death was on screen , as soon as he got hit with that bullet from a semi automatic military stile Rifle and No Carlos to patch him up He was as good as dead . Jane hit home the point the plan did not fail people panicked and poorly executed it. When Nick took that bullet at the end of ep 3 I knew he was dead , I just didn't know how we would find him or if we would even find him at all.
hello everyone .. all of you must wondered about what did the russian group said to clems group soo this what i got :
maud(the russian women) : "Are you out of your mind? What the hell do you think you're doing? You're going to get us all killed! Hey! You! Don't point that thing at me! Put it down! I said put it down!"
vitali ( the shotgun guy ) : "Buricko! Buricko! We can take them! I can kill any three of them with my bare hands, we don't even need the weapons! That's right, I mean you, eyepatch man, you're weak and I could tear out your throat with my teeth, who needs to use bullets for the likes of you? I'll kill you all and eat your entrails for breakfast!"
buricko ( the tattoo guy ) : "So this is how it's going to be, is it? That's fine! This is as good a day to die as any other! You don't scare me, you pathetic scavengers! Just bring it on! Bring it on! Bring it on!"
Now i feel waaay better, thank you mate.
your welcome dude
The only theme that leaving Sarah reveals is purported to be this idea that you can't save everyone, there was no choice, Sarah wanted to die, etc.
Over and over the only one who can suggest they shouldnt abandon Sarah is Clem, as a result of player choice, but regardless, the plot is still railroaded into leaving her behind and her death is treated extremely unemotionally.
Afterward, Luke says "I didn't think you'd leave her."
Clem's answers are "we didnt have a choice", "you left her too", or "what was I supposed to do". There is no option or dialogue about the fact that Sarah was her FRIEND, or that she is SAD that she died. "What was I supposed to do", the most emotional reply, is an expression of frustration, not sadness.
Then Jane starts in with her speech about her sister, and how neither of them couldn't make it in this world. Luke then agrees, "I guess there was nothing we could do."
Clem's responses to this idea are "I thought I could trust you" or "would you leave me behind?". This makes the issue all about JANE.
A heavy-handed parallel is drawn entirely through Jane's monologue that Sarah and Jaime's sister were the same. It claims that Sarah was hopeless, and no longer wanted to live, therefore she was unsaveable.
But this is completely unfaithful to Sarah's character! Not only to her prior characterization in episodes 1-3, but even to her behavior in this very same episode! There is NOTHING to indicate that Sarah WANTED to die!
Not onlt that, the fact that this theme is only ever expressed thru a single long monologue about a character we don't even know results in it falling completely flat.
The most emotion you can express at Jane's leaving her sister is to say "how could you do it?" Every other option is agreement or sympathy toward JANE, and not Sarah. We are never allowed to disagree with this view, or even to focus on how Sarah exactly related to it.
Jane claims "Sarah was like Jaime: no regard for her safety or ours." Clem can reply to this by saying "Sarah wasn't Jaime,"
"Sarah wasn't dangerous," or "Sorry about Jaime."
THERE IS NO OPTION TO COUNTER JANE BY SAYING hELLO?!! SARAH HAD NO REGARD FOR HER OWN SAFETY BECAUSE SHE WAS HAVING A PANIC ATTACK.
Claiming that Sarah had no regard for her own safety, and therefore no regard for the group, is a completely unfair viewpoint that proclaims it was SELFISH of Sarah to shut down. When we are given to option to counter this point, it is painfully clear that the narrative is FORCING this extremely harmful and untrue view on its audience.
IT IS NOT SELFISH TO SHUT DOWN. IT IS NOT "SELFISH" OR A "BURDEN" FOR A PERSON TO HAVE A COMPLICATED MENTAL CONDITION.
yes. This is part of what I described; some things are carried over consistently but others are ignored, or twisted into a disrespect of the original development.
Nick's line "it was my fault" is the only consistent part to his character shown after episode 2. Everything else thereafter is an oversimplification and misinterpretation of his previous writing.
In episode 2 when his relationship to Luke was discussed, Nick says "I wish I could be like him but I'm just not". This contributed to his low self esteem and constant guilt. Despite this, he is not simply a spineless admirer of Luke, he is allowed to disagree with him & even snaps back when Luke criticizes him.
This is contradicted by episode 3's Nick, which shows a single line suggesting self-loathing, but who otherwise is completely relegated to the background, and whose only other lines are completely OOC. He only ever speaks to assure Clem that he has the utmost faith that everything will be fine, or to let Luke walk all over him by completely agreeing with what Luke says even after putting forth his own opinion and being corrected by him.
This is completely inconsistent and oversimplifying of his previous depth.
These things that I am pointing out are only part of the problem with this season. Overall, this season has suffered from several problems that altogether point it out to be an underdeveloped and missed potential.
This viewpoint results only from the writing and treatment of the themes in episode 4. Prior to this, Sarah's portrayal had been two-sided: in some cases, Sarah was portrayed as having her own strength, but you were also allowed to disagree and claim her to be weak. And every time you claim that Sarah is weak, the narrative suggests that YOU are probably wrong.
Episode 4 invalidates this. The narrative forces you to see Sarah as one-dimensional, weak, and irredeemable.
The only opportunity to comfort her results with Sarah shown to be delusional, "let's wait for dad" and clem just gives her a "whooaa" look and backs away. The narrative treats Sarah as if it's a lost cause and you are not given the opportunity thereafter to talk to her ever again, or express any feelings toward her.
Her charactr was railroaded into dying in a way that was completely opposed to her prior portrayal, and it was a complete disrespect, both to TTG's own writing, the very issue it demonstrated, and to the fanbase.
Even in episode 1 when Carlos was not convinced that Clem was trustworthy, he still had the sense to let her know that Sarah was not like her. You can bet that he would have told the same to the cabin group when they had known each other for months beforehand. Even if the cabin group had never actually witnessed Sarah having a panic attack, you can bet that Carlos, as a dad and as a doctor, knew enough to let them know IN DETAIL how to properly respond.
Luke KNEW sarah had panic attacks. The writers KNEW she had panic attacks. And before episode 4, they had shown them in a realistic and logical manner. You do not yell at someone on sensory overload and you do not smack them to "snap them out of it". The fact that this actually worked (ESPECIALLY after Carver forced Carlos to slap Sarah in episode 3) is completely ridiculous. It shows a complete misunderstanding not only of Sarah but of the real-life conditions she represents.
Sarah has never been presented as The Crazy One. This is a shallow and erroneous cliche that the writers of Telltale originally did not stoop to. No, Sarah did not have an average mind. But she was never treated as irrational, one-dimensional, or hopeless, and she should not have been written off as if she was.
Having a panic attack is not a conscious "decision". Yes, you can DECIDE to fight it, but it is not a conscious decision to HAVE one in the first place. The actions or events that resulted in the attack were not Sarah's decision. You rarely have control over the circumstances that create a panic attack. And it should never result in people who know & care about you shouting, slapping, and treating you like a lost cause. The writing in episodes 1, 2, and 3 understood this. The writing in episode 4 did not.
The wind Turbine part did piss me off, I was like really How does this fall on Clem? I felt just like Lee all over again like Do I have to do everything for these people ? Carver touched on that briefly too when he spoke to Clem .
What I think happened is that the writers failed to proper communicate to each other what they were going for, so as a result the writing is inconsistent. It adequately established the foundations that could be expanded on, but they are never properly followed through. Characters are underutilized and in some cases behave consistently, but even then this same consistent behavior is an oversimplification of their prior characterization. It's like the writers were given a vague outline and then set free to come up with their own episodes with very little guidance or collaboration.
Since Sarah is the strongest debated topic so far in this thread, I'll use her case as an example. In prior episodes, she is shown to suffer panic attacks but prior to episode 4 they were treated in a realistic and respectful manner. She was able to recover when given help, and was never portrayed as hopeless or irredeemable; she was even shown to have bravery and initiative in some cases. Episode 4 however offered no subtlety to the issue and instead Sarah was portrayed a completely lost cause, and her panic attacks were portrayed inaccurately.
The fact that she continued to suffer panic attacks in episode 4 was a logical result of events, but their treatment of these attacks lost all subtlety and gravity, and it was completely inconsistent with the way they had been previously explored.
It's not just hate here. Yes, I was angry, but I'm trying to point out flaws from an invested and literary perspective. I'm not just screaming and crying unjustified criticism.