Good point. I really don't see why it was necessary to make things more difficult for themselves like that. Not saying that it was the whole problem, or that it can't/shouldn't be done, but at this point it does seem to be part of why the story suffered.
nah it's not all for nothing,it might not be the greatest judge of comments but look at all the fans who agree by liking your original post,… moreand what about the fans who don't come on the forums,who feel the same way,i'd say it's the majority,episode 4 dropped the ball so hard even IGN woke up,Telltale know. When they said they were streamlining there games to make them into cinematic experiences into 90 minutes is when the quality suffered,great stories need time to be told.
And he's been taking up too much of the spot-light, pushing Luke and other characters to the side-lines. He's present in the climax of Episode 2, is involved in almost all the group decisions of Episode 3, and it becomes Clem's responsibility to help him become group leader in Episode 4. The ridiculous forced dynamic between him and Luke is imbalanced partly because one guy takes up a lot more space than the other.
And Sarita. She could have existed as an independent character, rather than literally just a disposable girlfriend who gets 'fridged' for Kenny's man-pain. Luke's loss of Nick presumably leads to his irrational decision with Jane, but the amount of time spent on HIS grief is much smaller.
About Kenny's return to the plot, it felt like a weird choice. I mean, on one hand I love Kenny and was thrilled to be able to spend more ti… moreme with him. But on the other hand, his character arc had a pretty solid conclusion in Season 1, compared to, say Lilly, who not only was more likely to be alive, but who also had more storytelling potential since she didn't really get much of a conclusion in S1.
I mean, you have to consider his role in the story itself. His miraculous escape from death is completely handwaved, his role/character arc at this point seems to be a rehash of season 1... Telltale really could have aimed higher than that in my opinion.
Admittedly expected that reunion to be with Lilly as well. It's like you say, from a storytelling perspective it was more plausible and could have developed in interesting ways for the character.
Kenny's arc was one of the more fleshed out stories of season one, but we've already experienced his love/hate role when it comes to his deterioration over losing loved ones. Though I suppose that the love/hate moments are a bit less variant when it comes to his relationship with Clem as opposed to Lee.
About Kenny's return to the plot, it felt like a weird choice. I mean, on one hand I love Kenny and was thrilled to be able to spend more ti… moreme with him. But on the other hand, his character arc had a pretty solid conclusion in Season 1, compared to, say Lilly, who not only was more likely to be alive, but who also had more storytelling potential since she didn't really get much of a conclusion in S1.
I mean, you have to consider his role in the story itself. His miraculous escape from death is completely handwaved, his role/character arc at this point seems to be a rehash of season 1... Telltale really could have aimed higher than that in my opinion.
I think I will tackle this thread a point or two at the time. Great OP, BTW.
Episode 2 nullifies the theme in episode 1 of trust when the cabin crew suddenly all like and depend on Clementine for no reason. We are not shown this development, or how anyone changed their mind about her, so the theme is invalidated and wasted.
Of my main problems with an otherwise, in my opinion, very good episode. A House Divided also nullifies the possible effect on the determinant posture we as Clementine could have taken towards various members of the Cabin Group. I usually talk about the shifts of Carlos, Rebecca and a little of Alvin.
Everything else he does shows a complete lack of depth, and it's all about "This guy is evil, now hate him!" He is no longer shown to have a purpose in his twisted moral code, instead he just goes around beating and killing everybody.
In my opinion, Carver was reduced in episode three to a walking Diabolus es Machina, done so that the players, as you put it, would hate him. He personally does not work for me because I expected them to go beyond the dictatorial idiot we have got from other incarnations of The Walking Dead. Archetypes and stereotypes exist because of their predominance, and every work of fiction is expected to use them, and Carver did not add enough flavor to the tried formula that his character is, for me.
You could argue that he is one hell of a motivator for us to want to escape as soon as possible, and come up with a dozen justifications of the perceived dissonance in his characterization between Eps 2 and 3 by analyzing the behavior of psychopaths, who exhibit different attitudes when outside and inside of their territory, their "comfort zone". They reveal their true inner monster while at home, when they are in control, after putting up a facade while "hunting" on the outside.
Despite his violent methods, which Clementine would never adopt, the base of his twisted darwinistic/pragmatic philosophy expressed in what few one on one interactions with him we got, carry weight. Jane's lessons, presented in a more compelling manner to Clementine, and I think that was part of the point of Carver; to contrast two sides of the same harsh truths which are difficult for us, always selfless heroes, to acknowledge and swallow. I think they were going for various moments of realization during last episode in which we were supposed to realize that, although we may have hated him, Carver did indeed have a point. Here's the thing, though; That dilemma fails when there is no strong argument for the idealistic stance. The human stance, which the cast, the antagonist(s), Clementine herself and the season as a whole lack.
I, myself, am a person who exhibits sociopathic tendencies to some degrees. You will find me take the pragmatic choice in these kinds of games almost all the time, and I dare say, also in real life... and yet this particular game made me feel and understand a little better the human condition through an illusion powerful enough to make me care last time around. I realize this is a little too personal, but I tell it for the sake of the argument, from an empirical perspective. As they say in the interwebs, I shit you not; Season One made me understand and rethink a lot of how I viewed the world around me. Season Two made me revert to a posture many times in accordance to what this season's Clementine seems to reflect... not a very caring one.
Although I am, at core, a firm believer in the pragmatic approach, fiction challenges often times my stance by what I guess could call embellishing or romanticizing the alternative. The clichés regarding the power of love and other abstract areas of the human psyche can be made compelling if executed well. Ok, now, let us take a brief look at Season Two. I can summarize my opinion in one sentence, and then even just one word: "I don't care." and "Apathy". I don't care about the cast and their inconsistent plight throughout the season. I have pinned the reasons on everything ranging from a natural desensitization to these sorts of things after a certain amount of exposure (As suggested by @Itchy_Tasty, I believe), a lack of both plentiful and meaningful character interactions, dynamics and relationships, all of this also translated into less of the mechanical elements of the game. Less interactivity, less agency and with it all, less effectiveness of the illusion presented to us. Once the illusion is gone, the magic is gone, and those parts of me take over.
When you fail to tell me why I should give two shits whenever a member of "The Cabin Expendables" dies or why I should be putting my/her life on the line for these strangers other than the basic amount of human decency and empathy (which, if you have been paying attention, I kind of lack), then nothing stops me from picking what I already thought was the "best" option, as bleak, heartless, inhumane [insert adjectives here] as the majority may find it. This season preaches to the choir for me, and that is not what I was looking for.
TL;DR: Dunno, don't be a lazy ass and read the thing. Agree, disagree, say so or do not, but read, damn it. Doing these things take double the effort for me to make, lately.
thank you I did not realize this until I read this. What you are saying is completely true. Lilly from season one turned kinda crazy after her dad died. When Nick died though Luke did not even care. Noone cared after sarah died either. It is unrealistic for the characters.
You could argue that he is one hell of a motivator for us to want to escape as soon as possible, and come up with a dozen justifications of the perceived dissonance in his characterization between Eps 2 and 3 by analyzing the behavior of psychopaths, who exhibit different attitudes when outside and inside of their territory, their "comfort zone". They reveal their true inner monster while at home, when they are in control, after putting up a facade while "hunting" on the outside.
Huh, good point. I never considered that.. it actually makes sense. But still. I'm repeating myself again, but considering the rest of the season's mistakes in character development, this doesn't really feel like a deliberate decision on Telltales part.. IMO it would have been more satisfying if he had been the complex and subtle villain he had been built up as.
Despite his violent methods, which Clementine would never adopt, the base of his twisted darwinistic/pragmatic philosophy expressed in what few one on one interactions with him we got, carry weight. Jane's lessons, presented in a more compelling manner to Clementine, and I think that was part of the point of Carver; to contrast two sides of the same harsh truths which are difficult for us, always selfless heroes, to acknowledge and swallow. I think they were going for various moments of realization during last episode in which we were supposed to realize that, although we may have hated him, Carver did indeed have a point. Here's the thing, though; That dilemma fails when there is no strong argument for the idealistic stance. The human stance, which the cast, the antagonist(s), Clementine herself and the season as a whole lack.
Exactly. When the story fails to portray the opposite side of an argument to be valid.. it really isn't an argument anymore. It's just frustrating and flat. As you & other people have pointed out, Jane's approach does seem to almost be related to Carver's in some ways, but this is mostly because of our own assumptions; we aren't given much to draw that conclusion. IMO it would have been more powerful if they hadn't tried to shift Carver's philosophy onto Jane's. I think it would have been MUCH more effective to make Carver's stance more subtle and not so in your face evil, so as to make you consider or even have the option of agreeing with him and maybe even siding against the cabin group!
When you fail to tell me why I should give two shits whenever a member of "The Cabin Expendables" dies or why I should be putting my/her life on the line for these strangers other than the basic amount of human decency and empathy (which, if you have been paying attention, I kind of lack), then nothing stops me from picking what I already thought was the "best" option, as bleak, heartless, inhumane [insert adjectives here] as the majority may find it. This season preaches to the choir for me, and that is not what I was looking for.
I can definitely see why you would feel that way. The cabin group is really not as fleshed out as I would have preferred, that's for sure.
Most of the reasons why I liked & even identified with some of them was after reading fan discussion/analysis of their characters back in the earlier episodes. The fans picked up on stuff that I missed and pointed out things that really seemed to be laying the groundwork for these characters arcs, and made them so much more interesting to me. But all that buildup was just used for nothing when they are each killed off and like you said, we don't even care.
I think I will tackle this thread a point or two at the time. Great OP, BTW.
Episode 2 nullifies the theme in episode 1 of trust when … morethe cabin crew suddenly all like and depend on Clementine for no reason. We are not shown this development, or how anyone changed their mind about her, so the theme is invalidated and wasted.
Of my main problems with an otherwise, in my opinion, very good episode. A House Divided also nullifies the possible effect on the determinant posture we as Clementine could have taken towards various members of the Cabin Group. I usually talk about the shifts of Carlos, Rebecca and a little of Alvin.
Everything else he does shows a complete lack of depth, and it's all about "This guy is evil, now hate him!" He is no longer shown to have a purpose in his twisted moral code, instead he just goes around beating and killing everybody.
In my opinion, Carver was reduced in episode three to a walking … [view original content]
You could argue that he is one hell of a motivator for us to want to escape as soon as possible, and come up with a dozen justifications of … morethe perceived dissonance in his characterization between Eps 2 and 3 by analyzing the behavior of psychopaths, who exhibit different attitudes when outside and inside of their territory, their "comfort zone". They reveal their true inner monster while at home, when they are in control, after putting up a facade while "hunting" on the outside.
Huh, good point. I never considered that.. it actually makes sense. But still. I'm repeating myself again, but considering the rest of the season's mistakes in character development, this doesn't really feel like a deliberate decision on Telltales part.. IMO it would have been more satisfying if he had been the complex and subtle villain he had been built up as.
Despite his violent methods, which Clementine would never adopt, the base of his twisted dar… [view original content]
pointed out things that really seemed to be laying the groundwork for these characters arcs, and made them so much more interesting to me.
… more
I could write you an essay on the potential I saw in the suggested dynamic between Sarah, Carlos and Clementine.
And he's been taking up too much of the spot-light, pushing Luke and other characters to the side-lines. He's present in the climax of Epis… moreode 2, is involved in almost all the group decisions of Episode 3, and it becomes Clem's responsibility to help him become group leader in Episode 4. The ridiculous forced dynamic between him and Luke is imbalanced partly because one guy takes up a lot more space than the other.
And Sarita. She could have existed as an independent character, rather than literally just a disposable girlfriend who gets 'fridged' for Kenny's man-pain. Luke's loss of Nick presumably leads to his irrational decision with Jane, but the amount of time spent on HIS grief is much smaller.
Yeah, and like I said I really was happy that Kenny came back, I actually teared up at that part, it was really well done. But you can't decide to bring back a fan favorite just because he's a fan favorite, it has to be for a specific & solid storytelling reason.
Admittedly expected that reunion to be with Lilly as well. It's like you say, from a storytelling perspective it was more plausible and coul… mored have developed in interesting ways for the character.
Kenny's arc was one of the more fleshed out stories of season one, but we've already experienced his love/hate role when it comes to his deterioration over losing loved ones. Though I suppose that the love/hate moments are a bit less variant when it comes to his relationship with Clem as opposed to Lee.
tbh I was actually disappointed in how similar this season was to season 1's style. I think it would have been so much more interesting to have things strictly from a child's perspective, with relationships and puzzles and gameplay centered around that, instead of trying to force Clem into acting like an adult.
I always thought that the whole "she's not a little girl, she's alive" was meant to be "she's still a little girl but the world doesn't treat her like one," instead of "the apocalypse makes you morph into a grown adult".
I agree, playing as clementine was a logical step for the game since Clem is more defenseless than a grown adult thus: Walkers are still a h… moreuge threat and puzzles would require an extra level of thinking on her part and the story gave her an EXCELLENT starting hand with Christa and Omid being her caretaker and Christa being pregnant and Clem learning about survival and relationships the hard way. it all became a disappointment after episode 2. And We get next to NIL when it comes to puzzles except opening a can of food (which was actually ok) and hunting around for items for stitching (also ok) and then its suddenly harder to grab a damn walkie talkie (in ep. 3?). Like i spent such a long time figuring out how to grab the damn thing which was ridiculous.
I'd agree that Season 2 seems a lot more weighted towards cynicism and jadedness than humanity, which makes the experience feel hollow rather than believable. We start off with Omid being killed off to sabotage Clem's chance at happiness, fail to uphold dying men's promises to protect their loved ones, and the inhumanity of Jane's philosophy is validated just because the writers say so. The premise of this Season seems to be centered around why people keep going on when there seems to be no hope left. The shoot-out makes me apathetic because I know only Clem and the two most annoying characters are likely to remain alive, and that the writers will draw us out to a bleak conclusion rather than provide a glimpse of hope. If a story ends grimly no matter what, then there honestly isn't any point in caring.
What bothers me is how such relentless bleakness actually panders to a wannabe tough-guy mindset among many young people, who glorify selfishness and savagery even as they themselves ignore the luxury they live in. For once I'd like to see a "survivalist" story that validates the virtues that actually compose how our society works, rather than appealing to the anti-social types.
I think I will tackle this thread a point or two at the time. Great OP, BTW.
Episode 2 nullifies the theme in episode 1 of trust when … morethe cabin crew suddenly all like and depend on Clementine for no reason. We are not shown this development, or how anyone changed their mind about her, so the theme is invalidated and wasted.
Of my main problems with an otherwise, in my opinion, very good episode. A House Divided also nullifies the possible effect on the determinant posture we as Clementine could have taken towards various members of the Cabin Group. I usually talk about the shifts of Carlos, Rebecca and a little of Alvin.
Everything else he does shows a complete lack of depth, and it's all about "This guy is evil, now hate him!" He is no longer shown to have a purpose in his twisted moral code, instead he just goes around beating and killing everybody.
In my opinion, Carver was reduced in episode three to a walking … [view original content]
That's why I think Season 1 was so successful in comparison to this one. Yes it was bleak, yes it was tragic, terrible things happened, and by the end almost everyone was dead. But at its core the story was about hope and innocence and cruelty and the question of morality vs survival. In the end, morality was meant to be the stronger side, when Lee sacrificed everything to ensure the survival what he considered to be that last living embodiment of hope. They knew from the beginning that this was what they set out to do. Yes, you still had the option to be a callous "survival of the fittest" type, but even then the story treated it as a regretful necessity, not "welcome to the cool club, you are now a certified hardass".
Eek. i think i just broke my own rule of trying not to compare the two seasons. But still.... you get the picture.
I'd agree that Season 2 seems a lot more weighted towards cynicism and jadedness than humanity, which makes the experience feel hollow rathe… morer than believable. We start off with Omid being killed off to sabotage Clem's chance at happiness, fail to uphold dying men's promises to protect their loved ones, and the inhumanity of Jane's philosophy is validated just because the writers say so. The premise of this Season seems to be centered around why people keep going on when there seems to be no hope left. The shoot-out makes me apathetic because I know only Clem and the two most annoying characters are likely to remain alive, and that the writers will draw us out to a bleak conclusion rather than provide a glimpse of hope. If a story ends grimly no matter what, then there honestly isn't any point in caring.
What bothers me is how such relentless bleakness actually panders to a wannabe tough-guy mindset among many young people, who glorify … [view original content]
Eek. i think i just broke my own rule of trying not to compare the two seasons. But still.... you get the picture.
Such comparisons end up being inevitable, considering that Season One is what I see as the best frame of reference we - community and Telltale - have for what works and doesn't. As a sequel, it is expected of S2 to do its own thing, and not be a clone of the previous work, but that does not exempt it from criticism based on what came before.
That's why I think Season 1 was so successful in comparison to this one. Yes it was bleak, yes it was tragic, terrible things happened, and … moreby the end almost everyone was dead. But at its core the story was about hope and innocence and cruelty and the question of morality vs survival. In the end, morality was meant to be the stronger side, when Lee sacrificed everything to ensure the survival what he considered to be that last living embodiment of hope. They knew from the beginning that this was what they set out to do. Yes, you still had the option to be a callous "survival of the fittest" type, but even then the story treated it as a regretful necessity, not "welcome to the cool club, you are now a certified hardass".
Eek. i think i just broke my own rule of trying not to compare the two seasons. But still.... you get the picture.
I absolutely agree that it kind of sucks that we didn't really get to know any of the characters. It took me until episode 3 before I started caring about them and It took me awhile to trust Luke. Luke felt like kind of a robot, like "Hi I'm generic Mr Good Guy #463". It wasn't until we caught him with Jane when he felt like a human and not a robot... But at the same time I kind of see Telltales side on this one.
It's been two years since the initial apocalypse, does it really matter what the hell Luke did for a living? Kind of thing. I mean I recently played Season 1 and I got to know who Carley was and what she did, but it was just after everything started, so it was still relevant at the time.
I've actually really enjoyed Season 2 so far. It has such a strong atmosphere and a few really strong characters. I thought Episode 1 and 2 were fantastic, and I thought it was all going somewhere. Episode 3 I found to be really disappointing and Episode 4 was decent, but it had a very hard task of picking up the pieces that Episode 3 left.
I really hope Nick Brenon can help piece everything together for episode 5, I have faith in him. I just hope for season 3 Telltale listens to us. We aren't trying to blindly hate on your product, we just know how much better you can do.
Anyway thanks TT247. I don't agree with everything you said, but you laid out all your points excellently and you are very civil with it.
I am seriously tired, but the best analogy I can find is to think of Clem as a kind of determinant (true to the spirit of the game regarding choice and consequence, or at least the illusion of those) Chuck to Carlos and Sarah's extreme Lee and Clementine. Sorry if it doesn't sound that compelling when put into so little words.
If I'm understanding you correctly, that's actually the way I viewed it at first too.. Like in episode 1 you can tell Carlos "she needs to grow up sometime" & then that seemed to carry on to episode 2 when you had the option of trying to hide things from Sarah or to try let her know exactly what's going on even if that's not what Carlos seemed to want.
I am seriously tired, but the best analogy I can find is to think of Clem as a kind of determinant (true to the spirit of the game regardin… moreg choice and consequence, or at least the illusion of those) Chuck to Carlos and Sarah's extreme Lee and Clementine. Sorry if it doesn't sound that compelling when put into so little words.
Anyway thanks TT247. I don't agree with everything you said, but you laid out all your points excellently and you are very civil with it.
Ha yeah aside from my first post which I have to admit appeared very raging fangirl.. I like to think that I was as polite as possible otherwise lol. Thanks for reading
I absolutely agree that it kind of sucks that we didn't really get to know any of the characters. It took me until episode 3 before I starte… mored caring about them and It took me awhile to trust Luke. Luke felt like kind of a robot, like "Hi I'm generic Mr Good Guy #463". It wasn't until we caught him with Jane when he felt like a human and not a robot... But at the same time I kind of see Telltales side on this one.
It's been two years since the initial apocalypse, does it really matter what the hell Luke did for a living? Kind of thing. I mean I recently played Season 1 and I got to know who Carley was and what she did, but it was just after everything started, so it was still relevant at the time.
I've actually really enjoyed Season 2 so far. It has such a strong atmosphere and a few really strong characters. I thought Episode 1 and 2 were fantastic, and I thought it was all going somewhere. Episode 3 I found to be really disappointing a… [view original content]
True enough. I'm just very wary about comparing the two in this thread, since so many people earlier on were like "You just don't like it cuz it's different from s1 etc"
Eek. i think i just broke my own rule of trying not to compare the two seasons. But still.... you get the picture.
Such comparisons … moreend up being inevitable, considering that Season One is what I see as the best frame of reference we - community and Telltale - have for what works and doesn't. As a sequel, it is expected of S2 to do its own thing, and not be a clone of the previous work, but that does not exempt it from criticism based on what came before.
Actually, what I'm saying is if you're going to tell someone they're a whiner for making valid complaints, have some good counter-complaints. There's no hypocrisy in telling someone to deal with it. Deal with the fact that one person had excellent arguments, and one person just went to insults. Which means the person who made the well-reasoned complaints wins. Not to mention that 'deal with it' is not an insult. I'm sure I could think of a lot of different insults about you though if you'd like But I'm not saying that. I just said 'deal with it.' See how much less insulting that is?
By the way, calling me a hypocrite is an insult. I'm noticing a theme in your ad hominem debating style.
So in other words you're telling them to deal with your complaints......but you can't deal with telltale not caring anymore. Yeah his insult… more was wrong but that doesn't change the hypocrisy of a complainer telling someone to deal with anything. Sorry but that's just how I see it.
I want to save Clem also, but mainly because she's a well fleshed out character, plus if she died, it would be too unoriginal when you consider the end of Season 1 with Lee.
I do get that, and I do get why that bothers a lot of people. Then again, I became emotionally invested with many characters, and I still want to save Clem.
Hm I'm not trying to argue xD. If I were you would see all caps. I'm just speaking the truth is all. To tell someone to deal with something when you have something you can't deal with is hypocritical. I get what pander is saying but he/she is ignoring the fact that he/she can't deal with telltale not caring anymore and doing a bad job with the recent episode otherwise he/she would not be on here complaining. And let's say pander wasn't complaining. My point still stands for those who were and thumbs up pander's statement. I know this "argument" strayed away from the purpose of your post and I apologize for helping it to get out of hand.
Hmm, I agree with most of your post, but I personally never saw Rebecca as dying from an infection. I saw it the first time and thought she died from exhaustion (and the exposure didn't help either). Birth takes a lot out of a woman (pun not intended, but I'll go with it).
All that energy Rebecca's body was giving to the baby had to come from somewhere, and except for the dinner at Walter's, we never saw them get much food. With all the travelling the group was doing, it would have taken even more energy out of Rebecca. I think she just ran out.
Still, it would have been interesting to keep Rebecca alive. Episode 3 did a lot to make me like her, and it's a shame that relationship is dead as well.
It kinda struck me how interesting it would've been if Rebecca had not been killed off. In Zombie Apocalypse portrayels, there is this thing… more of either A) the mother dies, the child dies or C) somehow both die.
Letting Rebecca keep her child would've been, in a way, innovative for the genre.
Sadly, the meds you could steal made no impact to.. you know.. cure Rebecca's infection (the cough seemed to indicate).
But others have done a great job to explain how and why so much potential was given away, so I won't do that as well, I think.
I just hope TTG consider this fanbase advice... for Ep5, Season 3 and all the other games in production. Hopefully they'll focus more and do something about that writer chaos
I really agree with your view on Carver. Episodes 1 & especially 2 really built him up as a true threat; cunning, cruel, and even kind when it suited his purposes (the break in scene is still one of my favorite from the season, and maybe even the series, so far). I could see similarities between Carver and the Governor and Negan. When Carver rounded up the group like cattle to take them back to his camp, I was really looking forward to seeing what could happen next.
The episode 3 happened. Don't get me wrong, there were parts I enjoyed, but not nearly as much or as often as I hoped. Carver, who had been built up as a real threat to the group, was treated by the narrative as a simple psychopath with delusions of grandeur. To be fair, I'm not sure how the narrative could have lived up to the expectations it gave about Carver.
I think perhaps Season 2 has too many characters in the canon to be as complex and multi-faceted as those in the first one. The new group is… more simply nowhere near as interesting as the first band of survivors Clementine travelled with and Carver, a character who could have driven the story over much more bigger arc, was prematurely killed off. It's also difficult to muster the same emotion for characters that die: there's nothing thus far (bar Omid's death) that has been remotely anywhere near as shocking as Katjaa or Duck or Carley or Doug. In my opinion anyway. In fact, I felt more sad about the dog Clementine was forced to put down than I did when many of the supporting cast were offed.
Season 2 was dissapointing but still fairly enjoyable . Of course it doesnt even come close to what season 1 or TWAU was because i just hate the idea of us playing with a character that already existed i think we should have played with a completly new protaganist .
Hmm, I agree with most of your post, but I personally never saw Rebecca as dying from an infection. I saw it the first time and thought she … moredied from exhaustion (and the exposure didn't help either). Birth takes a lot out of a woman (pun not intended, but I'll go with it).
All that energy Rebecca's body was giving to the baby had to come from somewhere, and except for the dinner at Walter's, we never saw them get much food. With all the travelling the group was doing, it would have taken even more energy out of Rebecca. I think she just ran out.
Still, it would have been interesting to keep Rebecca alive. Episode 3 did a lot to make me like her, and it's a shame that relationship is dead as well.
Yes, your posts are very beautiful and ring so true with me. I actually am finishing up being tested, which was spurred on by my desire to know if I'm autistic. I strongly suspect I am with what I know about the disability. From what we've seen of Sarah in the game, I don't think I'm as "disabled" as her, but I definitely saw some of myself in her.
It really is, sometimes, like being trapped in your own mind. You see what is "normal", what "should" happen and what you "need" to do, but even if you try or succeed in trying, it's like running several miles in a sprint just to accomplish what many people must take for granted.
And Nick too; I really really liked Nick. I felt a strong connection with him, with his realistic dealing with depression and a sense of helplessness (somethings that my suspected autism has made me deal with many times). Between Sarah and Nick, I really felt a connection to the game beyond the badassery of the tiniest protagonist. Clem's a great character and all, but as this season's gone on I've felt much more of a real personal connection the these two deeply flawed and even more deeply lovable characters.
And yes, the slap as the only way to save Sarah felt tacked on and unnecessary, especially since it's clear Clem's pleas and reasoning were already getting through to Sarah, convincing her to live.
And I'm sorry TTG, but you've done something I honestly did not believe possible. I ended episode 3 wondering how I would make a choice between Kenny and Luke, my best guess for this "pizza vs. ice cream" thing that's been blowing up around here. But now...now I ended episode 4 wondering how I would care. Don't get me wrong, if they do it I can definitely see it being emotional and me caring about it in the moment...but not much beyond that.
Just think...if both had been alive, even if they were still determinant, how awesomely intense would it be if the pizza vs ice cream was Nick and Sarah. Both were characters seen as burdens by many in the group beyond their respective father figures (Pete's last request to watch over Nick and Carlos's frequent requests to help Sarah in some way). And then you'd have to, somehow for some awesome reason, choose between the two. I honestly don't know how I'd make THAT choice.
Heck, keep them both around, then have both die from their wounds as a result of the cliffhanger from ep. 4. Is that the way I'd prefer their stories to end? No, but it could have been loads better than what we got. I just thought that up off the top of my head, and I like it better than what we got.
Or like you said earlier, I like the potential TTG could have done with having Clem and Sarah with the baby being the only survivors of the season. sigh It could have had so much potential pay off, could have been so much better. I've seen TTG do so much better many times in TWD. It's just a darn shame they didn't do better here.
Thank you very much, both for what you just wrote and for starting this dicussion in the first place! It's such an important topic to talk a… morebout and I probably wouldn't have dared to do it myself.
Since I first saw Sarah in the cabin, being alone in her room with her book, very isolated yet so happy to see Clementine and instantly asking her to be her friend I just felt she was autistic, I sensed it somehow. You know, most people believe that people with autism are isolated because they want to be alone but mostly, and very much in my case, it is because we and the things we do are vastly misunderstood and that usually leads either us or the people around us to withdraw at some point. And I instantly felt how lonely she was and why. Many people blamed her father for her condition but I think the way he treated her, the way he never overwhelmed her because he knew and respected her limits so well, made him a very good father. And that's why I… [view original content]
Bro, you're probably saying a lot of interesting stuff, problem is that you can't format your text in here. Which makes long text indigestible to read. So, if you feel like doing so, you should synthesize your text. I'm sure there's plenty of unnecessary words. Find some synonyms to shorten your sentences. Or if you feel lazy : Just sum-up your point (Hope you won't take it badly, it's not meant as a bad thing)
Great OP @TT247 I agree with you. I think my opinion will earn a lot of downvotes and they'll think like I'm some kind of shitbird but... One thing that really bothers me is that this season doesn't feel like "A sequel to Season One." Like; this season could be the first season. It doesn't have any continuation except that "Season Two" logo on it. It's like, this events happened in some alternative universe you know? That timeskip bullshit though. It starts 8 months after Lee's death. That's okay but 16 months time jump after that... that means 24 months timeskip in one episode. All of those efforts I've done for Clementine seems pointless. Lee and Clementine spend hardly 4 months together where as Clementine and Christa spend 24 months together. What's the point of all of those decisions we made then? Sadly; our choices didn't affected Clementine's characteristic personality and her point of view about this world. Not even a little bit. Even if I'm playing kindhearted Clementine, her face is always in sassy mode. I remember that one time in "A House Divided" when you talk with Walter outside one of dialogue option was "Everything will not be fine." I was like ; "WTF?!" I replayed "Season One" to make sure I didn't chose wrong dialogue options. Guess what... doesn't matter after all. Even if you respond "Yes." to Clementine in "Starved For Help" when she asks you about that or in "Around Every Corner" when Clementine asks "Do you think things will ever be normal again? Just like the way they were before?" in Crawford even if you respond "I think so." it doesn't change anything. That makes me angry though. Phew... so that's my opinion my forum family. Yeah, it looks like stupid and shitty opinion but thank you for reading this.
Comments
Good point. I really don't see why it was necessary to make things more difficult for themselves like that. Not saying that it was the whole problem, or that it can't/shouldn't be done, but at this point it does seem to be part of why the story suffered.
[removed]
Insightful.
Wow, JAPassini you're a real sweetheart aren't you?
NO.
Thank you.
Season 2 was a huge disappointment for me, and I doubt i will get season 3.
And he's been taking up too much of the spot-light, pushing Luke and other characters to the side-lines. He's present in the climax of Episode 2, is involved in almost all the group decisions of Episode 3, and it becomes Clem's responsibility to help him become group leader in Episode 4. The ridiculous forced dynamic between him and Luke is imbalanced partly because one guy takes up a lot more space than the other.
And Sarita. She could have existed as an independent character, rather than literally just a disposable girlfriend who gets 'fridged' for Kenny's man-pain. Luke's loss of Nick presumably leads to his irrational decision with Jane, but the amount of time spent on HIS grief is much smaller.
Admittedly expected that reunion to be with Lilly as well. It's like you say, from a storytelling perspective it was more plausible and could have developed in interesting ways for the character.
Kenny's arc was one of the more fleshed out stories of season one, but we've already experienced his love/hate role when it comes to his deterioration over losing loved ones. Though I suppose that the love/hate moments are a bit less variant when it comes to his relationship with Clem as opposed to Lee.
I think I will tackle this thread a point or two at the time. Great OP, BTW.
Of my main problems with an otherwise, in my opinion, very good episode. A House Divided also nullifies the possible effect on the determinant posture we as Clementine could have taken towards various members of the Cabin Group. I usually talk about the shifts of Carlos, Rebecca and a little of Alvin.
In my opinion, Carver was reduced in episode three to a walking Diabolus es Machina, done so that the players, as you put it, would hate him. He personally does not work for me because I expected them to go beyond the dictatorial idiot we have got from other incarnations of The Walking Dead. Archetypes and stereotypes exist because of their predominance, and every work of fiction is expected to use them, and Carver did not add enough flavor to the tried formula that his character is, for me.
You could argue that he is one hell of a motivator for us to want to escape as soon as possible, and come up with a dozen justifications of the perceived dissonance in his characterization between Eps 2 and 3 by analyzing the behavior of psychopaths, who exhibit different attitudes when outside and inside of their territory, their "comfort zone". They reveal their true inner monster while at home, when they are in control, after putting up a facade while "hunting" on the outside.
Despite his violent methods, which Clementine would never adopt, the base of his twisted darwinistic/pragmatic philosophy expressed in what few one on one interactions with him we got, carry weight. Jane's lessons, presented in a more compelling manner to Clementine, and I think that was part of the point of Carver; to contrast two sides of the same harsh truths which are difficult for us, always selfless heroes, to acknowledge and swallow. I think they were going for various moments of realization during last episode in which we were supposed to realize that, although we may have hated him, Carver did indeed have a point. Here's the thing, though; That dilemma fails when there is no strong argument for the idealistic stance. The human stance, which the cast, the antagonist(s), Clementine herself and the season as a whole lack.
I, myself, am a person who exhibits sociopathic tendencies to some degrees. You will find me take the pragmatic choice in these kinds of games almost all the time, and I dare say, also in real life... and yet this particular game made me feel and understand a little better the human condition through an illusion powerful enough to make me care last time around. I realize this is a little too personal, but I tell it for the sake of the argument, from an empirical perspective. As they say in the interwebs, I shit you not; Season One made me understand and rethink a lot of how I viewed the world around me. Season Two made me revert to a posture many times in accordance to what this season's Clementine seems to reflect... not a very caring one.
Although I am, at core, a firm believer in the pragmatic approach, fiction challenges often times my stance by what I guess could call embellishing or romanticizing the alternative. The clichés regarding the power of love and other abstract areas of the human psyche can be made compelling if executed well. Ok, now, let us take a brief look at Season Two. I can summarize my opinion in one sentence, and then even just one word: "I don't care." and "Apathy". I don't care about the cast and their inconsistent plight throughout the season. I have pinned the reasons on everything ranging from a natural desensitization to these sorts of things after a certain amount of exposure (As suggested by @Itchy_Tasty, I believe), a lack of both plentiful and meaningful character interactions, dynamics and relationships, all of this also translated into less of the mechanical elements of the game. Less interactivity, less agency and with it all, less effectiveness of the illusion presented to us. Once the illusion is gone, the magic is gone, and those parts of me take over.
When you fail to tell me why I should give two shits whenever a member of "The Cabin Expendables" dies or why I should be putting my/her life on the line for these strangers other than the basic amount of human decency and empathy (which, if you have been paying attention, I kind of lack), then nothing stops me from picking what I already thought was the "best" option, as bleak, heartless, inhumane [insert adjectives here] as the majority may find it. This season preaches to the choir for me, and that is not what I was looking for.
TL;DR: Dunno, don't be a lazy ass and read the thing. Agree, disagree, say so or do not, but read, damn it. Doing these things take double the effort for me to make, lately.
thank you I did not realize this until I read this. What you are saying is completely true. Lilly from season one turned kinda crazy after her dad died. When Nick died though Luke did not even care. Noone cared after sarah died either. It is unrealistic for the characters.
Huh, good point. I never considered that.. it actually makes sense. But still. I'm repeating myself again, but considering the rest of the season's mistakes in character development, this doesn't really feel like a deliberate decision on Telltales part.. IMO it would have been more satisfying if he had been the complex and subtle villain he had been built up as.
Exactly. When the story fails to portray the opposite side of an argument to be valid.. it really isn't an argument anymore. It's just frustrating and flat. As you & other people have pointed out, Jane's approach does seem to almost be related to Carver's in some ways, but this is mostly because of our own assumptions; we aren't given much to draw that conclusion. IMO it would have been more powerful if they hadn't tried to shift Carver's philosophy onto Jane's. I think it would have been MUCH more effective to make Carver's stance more subtle and not so in your face evil, so as to make you consider or even have the option of agreeing with him and maybe even siding against the cabin group!
I can definitely see why you would feel that way. The cabin group is really not as fleshed out as I would have preferred, that's for sure.
Most of the reasons why I liked & even identified with some of them was after reading fan discussion/analysis of their characters back in the earlier episodes. The fans picked up on stuff that I missed and pointed out things that really seemed to be laying the groundwork for these characters arcs, and made them so much more interesting to me. But all that buildup was just used for nothing when they are each killed off and like you said, we don't even care.
I could write you an essay on the potential I saw in the suggested dynamic between Sarah, Carlos and Clementine.
Please do. I could use a good cry.
Lol seriously though, I am interested to know!
I will read it all.
Yeah, I really don't even really understand WHY we have the whole "Luke vs Kenny" thing in the first place.
And don't even get me started on Sarita! She was SO MUCH MORE than what they reduced her to. My mind was just blown...
Yeah, and like I said I really was happy that Kenny came back, I actually teared up at that part, it was really well done. But you can't decide to bring back a fan favorite just because he's a fan favorite, it has to be for a specific & solid storytelling reason.
tbh I was actually disappointed in how similar this season was to season 1's style. I think it would have been so much more interesting to have things strictly from a child's perspective, with relationships and puzzles and gameplay centered around that, instead of trying to force Clem into acting like an adult.
I always thought that the whole "she's not a little girl, she's alive" was meant to be "she's still a little girl but the world doesn't treat her like one," instead of "the apocalypse makes you morph into a grown adult".
I'd agree that Season 2 seems a lot more weighted towards cynicism and jadedness than humanity, which makes the experience feel hollow rather than believable. We start off with Omid being killed off to sabotage Clem's chance at happiness, fail to uphold dying men's promises to protect their loved ones, and the inhumanity of Jane's philosophy is validated just because the writers say so. The premise of this Season seems to be centered around why people keep going on when there seems to be no hope left. The shoot-out makes me apathetic because I know only Clem and the two most annoying characters are likely to remain alive, and that the writers will draw us out to a bleak conclusion rather than provide a glimpse of hope. If a story ends grimly no matter what, then there honestly isn't any point in caring.
What bothers me is how such relentless bleakness actually panders to a wannabe tough-guy mindset among many young people, who glorify selfishness and savagery even as they themselves ignore the luxury they live in. For once I'd like to see a "survivalist" story that validates the virtues that actually compose how our society works, rather than appealing to the anti-social types.
That's why I think Season 1 was so successful in comparison to this one. Yes it was bleak, yes it was tragic, terrible things happened, and by the end almost everyone was dead. But at its core the story was about hope and innocence and cruelty and the question of morality vs survival. In the end, morality was meant to be the stronger side, when Lee sacrificed everything to ensure the survival what he considered to be that last living embodiment of hope. They knew from the beginning that this was what they set out to do. Yes, you still had the option to be a callous "survival of the fittest" type, but even then the story treated it as a regretful necessity, not "welcome to the cool club, you are now a certified hardass".
Eek. i think i just broke my own rule of trying not to compare the two seasons. But still.... you get the picture.
Such comparisons end up being inevitable, considering that Season One is what I see as the best frame of reference we - community and Telltale - have for what works and doesn't. As a sequel, it is expected of S2 to do its own thing, and not be a clone of the previous work, but that does not exempt it from criticism based on what came before.
I absolutely agree that it kind of sucks that we didn't really get to know any of the characters. It took me until episode 3 before I started caring about them and It took me awhile to trust Luke. Luke felt like kind of a robot, like "Hi I'm generic Mr Good Guy #463". It wasn't until we caught him with Jane when he felt like a human and not a robot... But at the same time I kind of see Telltales side on this one.
It's been two years since the initial apocalypse, does it really matter what the hell Luke did for a living? Kind of thing. I mean I recently played Season 1 and I got to know who Carley was and what she did, but it was just after everything started, so it was still relevant at the time.
I've actually really enjoyed Season 2 so far. It has such a strong atmosphere and a few really strong characters. I thought Episode 1 and 2 were fantastic, and I thought it was all going somewhere. Episode 3 I found to be really disappointing and Episode 4 was decent, but it had a very hard task of picking up the pieces that Episode 3 left.
I really hope Nick Brenon can help piece everything together for episode 5, I have faith in him. I just hope for season 3 Telltale listens to us. We aren't trying to blindly hate on your product, we just know how much better you can do.
Anyway thanks TT247. I don't agree with everything you said, but you laid out all your points excellently and you are very civil with it.
I am seriously tired, but the best analogy I can find is to think of Clem as a kind of determinant (true to the spirit of the game regarding choice and consequence, or at least the illusion of those) Chuck to Carlos and Sarah's extreme Lee and Clementine. Sorry if it doesn't sound that compelling when put into so little words.
If I'm understanding you correctly, that's actually the way I viewed it at first too.. Like in episode 1 you can tell Carlos "she needs to grow up sometime" & then that seemed to carry on to episode 2 when you had the option of trying to hide things from Sarah or to try let her know exactly what's going on even if that's not what Carlos seemed to want.
Ha yeah aside from my first post which I have to admit appeared very raging fangirl.. I like to think that I was as polite as possible otherwise lol. Thanks for reading
True enough. I'm just very wary about comparing the two in this thread, since so many people earlier on were like "You just don't like it cuz it's different from s1 etc"
Actually, what I'm saying is if you're going to tell someone they're a whiner for making valid complaints, have some good counter-complaints. There's no hypocrisy in telling someone to deal with it. Deal with the fact that one person had excellent arguments, and one person just went to insults. Which means the person who made the well-reasoned complaints wins. Not to mention that 'deal with it' is not an insult. I'm sure I could think of a lot of different insults about you though if you'd like
But I'm not saying that. I just said 'deal with it.' See how much less insulting that is? 
By the way, calling me a hypocrite is an insult. I'm noticing a theme in your ad hominem debating style.
I want to save Clem also, but mainly because she's a well fleshed out character, plus if she died, it would be too unoriginal when you consider the end of Season 1 with Lee.
Hm I'm not trying to argue xD. If I were you would see all caps. I'm just speaking the truth is all. To tell someone to deal with something when you have something you can't deal with is hypocritical. I get what pander is saying but he/she is ignoring the fact that he/she can't deal with telltale not caring anymore and doing a bad job with the recent episode otherwise he/she would not be on here complaining. And let's say pander wasn't complaining. My point still stands for those who were and thumbs up pander's statement. I know this "argument" strayed away from the purpose of your post and I apologize for helping it to get out of hand.
Hmm, I agree with most of your post, but I personally never saw Rebecca as dying from an infection. I saw it the first time and thought she died from exhaustion (and the exposure didn't help either). Birth takes a lot out of a woman (pun not intended, but I'll go with it).
All that energy Rebecca's body was giving to the baby had to come from somewhere, and except for the dinner at Walter's, we never saw them get much food. With all the travelling the group was doing, it would have taken even more energy out of Rebecca. I think she just ran out.
Still, it would have been interesting to keep Rebecca alive. Episode 3 did a lot to make me like her, and it's a shame that relationship is dead as well.
I really agree with your view on Carver. Episodes 1 & especially 2 really built him up as a true threat; cunning, cruel, and even kind when it suited his purposes (the break in scene is still one of my favorite from the season, and maybe even the series, so far). I could see similarities between Carver and the Governor and Negan. When Carver rounded up the group like cattle to take them back to his camp, I was really looking forward to seeing what could happen next.
The episode 3 happened. Don't get me wrong, there were parts I enjoyed, but not nearly as much or as often as I hoped. Carver, who had been built up as a real threat to the group, was treated by the narrative as a simple psychopath with delusions of grandeur. To be fair, I'm not sure how the narrative could have lived up to the expectations it gave about Carver.
Season 2 was dissapointing but still fairly enjoyable . Of course it doesnt even come close to what season 1 or TWAU was because i just hate the idea of us playing with a character that already existed i think we should have played with a completly new protaganist .
And here's the evidence that Season 2 is Inferior to Season 1
Thanks, severe exhaustion does make a lot of sense, especially if you have no way of regenerating (they were exposed to the cold & had to move on).
Yes, I also started to really like Rebecca - and then they take her away.
Yes, your posts are very beautiful and ring so true with me. I actually am finishing up being tested, which was spurred on by my desire to know if I'm autistic. I strongly suspect I am with what I know about the disability. From what we've seen of Sarah in the game, I don't think I'm as "disabled" as her, but I definitely saw some of myself in her.
It really is, sometimes, like being trapped in your own mind. You see what is "normal", what "should" happen and what you "need" to do, but even if you try or succeed in trying, it's like running several miles in a sprint just to accomplish what many people must take for granted.
And Nick too; I really really liked Nick. I felt a strong connection with him, with his realistic dealing with depression and a sense of helplessness (somethings that my suspected autism has made me deal with many times). Between Sarah and Nick, I really felt a connection to the game beyond the badassery of the tiniest protagonist. Clem's a great character and all, but as this season's gone on I've felt much more of a real personal connection the these two deeply flawed and even more deeply lovable characters.
And yes, the slap as the only way to save Sarah felt tacked on and unnecessary, especially since it's clear Clem's pleas and reasoning were already getting through to Sarah, convincing her to live.
And I'm sorry TTG, but you've done something I honestly did not believe possible. I ended episode 3 wondering how I would make a choice between Kenny and Luke, my best guess for this "pizza vs. ice cream" thing that's been blowing up around here. But now...now I ended episode 4 wondering how I would care. Don't get me wrong, if they do it I can definitely see it being emotional and me caring about it in the moment...but not much beyond that.
Just think...if both had been alive, even if they were still determinant, how awesomely intense would it be if the pizza vs ice cream was Nick and Sarah. Both were characters seen as burdens by many in the group beyond their respective father figures (Pete's last request to watch over Nick and Carlos's frequent requests to help Sarah in some way). And then you'd have to, somehow for some awesome reason, choose between the two. I honestly don't know how I'd make THAT choice.
Heck, keep them both around, then have both die from their wounds as a result of the cliffhanger from ep. 4. Is that the way I'd prefer their stories to end? No, but it could have been loads better than what we got. I just thought that up off the top of my head, and I like it better than what we got.
Or like you said earlier, I like the potential TTG could have done with having Clem and Sarah with the baby being the only survivors of the season. sigh It could have had so much potential pay off, could have been so much better. I've seen TTG do so much better many times in TWD. It's just a darn shame they didn't do better here.
Bro, you're probably saying a lot of interesting stuff, problem is that you can't format your text in here. Which makes long text indigestible to read. So, if you feel like doing so, you should synthesize your text. I'm sure there's plenty of unnecessary words. Find some synonyms to shorten your sentences. Or if you feel lazy : Just sum-up your point
(Hope you won't take it badly, it's not meant as a bad thing)
Say TT247, can I share this on Tumblr? There are a lot of flame wars going on there...
Great OP @TT247 I agree with you. I think my opinion will earn a lot of downvotes and they'll think like I'm some kind of shitbird but... One thing that really bothers me is that this season doesn't feel like "A sequel to Season One." Like; this season could be the first season. It doesn't have any continuation except that "Season Two" logo on it. It's like, this events happened in some alternative universe you know? That timeskip bullshit though. It starts 8 months after Lee's death. That's okay but 16 months time jump after that... that means 24 months timeskip in one episode. All of those efforts I've done for Clementine seems pointless. Lee and Clementine spend hardly 4 months together where as Clementine and Christa spend 24 months together. What's the point of all of those decisions we made then? Sadly; our choices didn't affected Clementine's characteristic personality and her point of view about this world. Not even a little bit. Even if I'm playing kindhearted Clementine, her face is always in sassy mode. I remember that one time in "A House Divided" when you talk with Walter outside one of dialogue option was "Everything will not be fine." I was like ; "WTF?!" I replayed "Season One" to make sure I didn't chose wrong dialogue options. Guess what... doesn't matter after all. Even if you respond "Yes." to Clementine in "Starved For Help" when she asks you about that or in "Around Every Corner" when Clementine asks "Do you think things will ever be normal again? Just like the way they were before?" in Crawford even if you respond "I think so." it doesn't change anything. That makes me angry though. Phew... so that's my opinion my forum family. Yeah, it looks like stupid and shitty opinion but thank you for reading this.