I wish she could've done something like help the others fight off Walkers if you taught her how to use a gun in episode 2 and you chose to stay with Rebecca to help her calm down.
I think Sarah's fate would have been a lot easier for most to swallow if she didn't die in such a stupid manner in the very same episode and… more have it barely acknowledged afterwards. Take Larry for instance, he dies no matter what you do, but what you did is at least acknowledged by other characters and changes their view of you.
Amid the Ruins was such a sloppily written mess.
You never actually do teach her how to use a gun though. Clementine tells her what Lee told her but she doesn't seem to really understand Lee's advice or able to really explain it to Sarah. And before you go out back to shoot at a tree Carver shows up at the cabin and its dropped. I do think it should have been brought up again though. Sarah had little understanding of gun safety and it would have been a better way to end episode 4 if it was Sarah that accidentally caused the shoot out.
I wish she could've done something like help the others fight off Walkers if you taught her how to use a gun in episode 2 and you chose to stay with Rebecca to help her calm down.
You never actually do teach her how to use a gun though. Clementine tells her what Lee told her but she doesn't seem to really understand Le… moree's advice or able to really explain it to Sarah. And before you go out back to shoot at a tree Carver shows up at the cabin and its dropped. I do think it should have been brought up again though. Sarah had little understanding of gun safety and it would have been a better way to end episode 4 if it was Sarah that accidentally caused the shoot out.
I would be pissed if Sarah started shooting zombies like a pro, Clem didn't teach her well enough and they already did that with Clem in episode 4 of season 1.
Well, I was a little pest at first too. But did you really think that one class where she never actually shoots was gonna teach her anything? Besides, she never does break out of her shell. It's one of the reasons I wanted Sarah to last a little longer. Maybe if she got better after episode 4, she could've gathered the strength to grab a gun (she would be scared if you hadn't taught her) and shoot someone or something...
It's never really bothered me all that much that determinant characters often die an episode later or what have you, because as long as we have the ILLUSION of choice (and I'll argue that the best way to achieve that is through good storytelling) we still have a very satisfying, story-driven experience on our hands. It's the reason why Carley's death didn't bother me as much as it could have, or Ben's, or any of the others in Season 1; they were at least well-written and well-executed, and in all fairness, many of the characters who died in Season 1 (e.g. Katjaa, Mark, Larry) were killed off as a means of driving the story forward rather than as a means of avoiding numerous branching choices. So long as a good story is afforded, I can deal with it.
This was not the case, I will argue, for Sarah. The idea of "random deaths just happen" is fine, but it does not excuse poor storytelling. Carley's death was most certainly a shock but it had just the right amount of build-up and I for one didn't feel like Telltale were wasting potential in killing her. Ben was developed very well as a character and his death was both suitable in terms of ending his story arc as well as making an impact upon the reader. I wouldn't say they were killed "just like that"; many of the deaths in season 1 were evidently well-planned and well-scripted, and while abrupt did not amount to a story arc simply being "cut off" before it reached an adequate climax.
Sarah's "second" death was, in my opinion, "unusual" for Telltale's series thus far simply because it was a pretty awful way to end her story, and contribute to the overarching plot of the season. It was the wrong kind of abrupt, if you ask me; the kind that doesn't add anything at all to the narrative, as most of the admittedly-futile determinant character did in Season 1, and earlier in Season 2, and is essentially lazy in every aspect. I don't mind Telltale fostering an ethos of "no-one is safe, random deaths can happen" but if they're going to do that then they should at least make the story satisfying.
It's not anything unusual in The Walking Dead -universe that first they spend time building the characters and then BAM!, they are killed of… moref just like that. It's a world where no one is safe and random deaths just happen.
The only part which I find too predictable and bit lazy is that you never can really save someone. Even if you save someone he/she is just killed off bit later in the story. But that problem has existed since the first choices of the first episode of the first season.
"Just because you got her out of there today, doesn't mean you saved her. Trust me."'
At that moment I knew that Sarah was going to die in the same episode.
My biggest issue with her death was it's predictability, I don't think that it was otherwise badly written. When the platform collapsed Sarah froze because she was in panic (she had been completely useless that entire battle). That's the reason why she couldn't react as fast as Jane, who survived the collapse. While the death seemed random, it was her own inability to act in that situation which got her killed.
It's never really bothered me all that much that determinant characters often die an episode later or what have you, because as long as we h… moreave the ILLUSION of choice (and I'll argue that the best way to achieve that is through good storytelling) we still have a very satisfying, story-driven experience on our hands. It's the reason why Carley's death didn't bother me as much as it could have, or Ben's, or any of the others in Season 1; they were at least well-written and well-executed, and in all fairness, many of the characters who died in Season 1 (e.g. Katjaa, Mark, Larry) were killed off as a means of driving the story forward rather than as a means of avoiding numerous branching choices. So long as a good story is afforded, I can deal with it.
This was not the case, I will argue, for Sarah. The idea of "random deaths just happen" is fine, but it does not excuse poor storytelling. Carley's death was most certainly a shock but it had ju… [view original content]
What I don't understand is why she would even be out on the decking in the first place, instead of inside with Rebecca. Unless, of course, Telltale needed her dead and that was a convenient opportunity to do it.
I took that line to be prophetic when I first heard it, similarly to you, but I was expecting at least SOME resolution to Sarah's story arc prior to whatever death she had in store for her, simply to make use of the characterisation that had been given previously. If she had died later in the episode in a less idiotic way, then it wouldn't have been so bad. The main issue for me was that, upon being given a SECOND opportunity to save Sarah by sending Jane down to help, a random plank hits her on the head and Sarah dies anyway. It seemed ludicrous to me, a case of "Deus Ex Plank"; Telltale were so eager not to have Sarah in the series anymore no matter your opinion of her or your resolve to help that she dies no matter what. If there really had been nothing that anyone could have done to help then so be it, but the moment that that plank hit Jane's head I was entirely convinced that Telltale's decisions regarding Sarah were motivated more by laziness than philosophy. She needed some degree of final characterisation regarding Carlos or your earlier choices, and a less insulting manner of death, with less of a "how far can you go before you give up and leave the stupid bitch" ethos of narrative for it to be in any way palatable to me.
"Just because you got her out of there today, doesn't mean you saved her. Trust me."'
At that moment I knew that Sarah was going to die i… moren the same episode.
My biggest issue with her death was it's predictability, I don't think that it was otherwise badly written. When the platform collapsed Sarah froze because she was in panic (she had been completely useless that entire battle). That's the reason why she couldn't react as fast as Jane, who survived the collapse. While the death seemed random, it was her own inability to act in that situation which got her killed.
I see your point. And I agree with it to a certain degree. I just can't be mad about it, because there is a certain part of me which enjoys random and anticlimactic deaths in fiction.
What I don't understand is why she would even be out on the decking in the first place, instead of inside with Rebecca. Unless, of course, T… moreelltale needed her dead and that was a convenient opportunity to do it.
I took that line to be prophetic when I first heard it, similarly to you, but I was expecting at least SOME resolution to Sarah's story arc prior to whatever death she had in store for her, simply to make use of the characterisation that had been given previously. If she had died later in the episode in a less idiotic way, then it wouldn't have been so bad. The main issue for me was that, upon being given a SECOND opportunity to save Sarah by sending Jane down to help, a random plank hits her on the head and Sarah dies anyway. It seemed ludicrous to me, a case of "Deus Ex Plank"; Telltale were so eager not to have Sarah in the series anymore no matter your opinion of her or your resolve to help that she dies no matter what. If ther… [view original content]
That's okay, haha, I'm not asking you to be "mad" if it genuinely doesn't bother you. For what it's worth, I think anti-climax in fiction can work well in certain mediums; novels like 'Catch-22' by Joseph Heller and TV shows like 'Scrubs' have proven that. I just would prefer if the writers of such stories implemented them in a meaningful and expert way, which I don't think was done in this episode. I wish I could see the anticlimactic deaths here as being purposeful but something about the execution just seems off to me.
I see your point. And I agree with it to a certain degree. I just can't be mad about it, because there is a certain part of me which enjoys random and anticlimactic deaths in fiction.
Comments
I wish she could've done something like help the others fight off Walkers if you taught her how to use a gun in episode 2 and you chose to stay with Rebecca to help her calm down.
You never actually do teach her how to use a gun though. Clementine tells her what Lee told her but she doesn't seem to really understand Lee's advice or able to really explain it to Sarah. And before you go out back to shoot at a tree Carver shows up at the cabin and its dropped. I do think it should have been brought up again though. Sarah had little understanding of gun safety and it would have been a better way to end episode 4 if it was Sarah that accidentally caused the shoot out.
To be honest, with Sarah's level of anxiety, the episode might've ended with Sarah pointing the gun at herself...
I would be pissed if Sarah started shooting zombies like a pro, Clem didn't teach her well enough and they already did that with Clem in episode 4 of season 1.
Well, I was a little pest at first too. But did you really think that one class where she never actually shoots was gonna teach her anything? Besides, she never does break out of her shell. It's one of the reasons I wanted Sarah to last a little longer. Maybe if she got better after episode 4, she could've gathered the strength to grab a gun (she would be scared if you hadn't taught her) and shoot someone or something...
It's never really bothered me all that much that determinant characters often die an episode later or what have you, because as long as we have the ILLUSION of choice (and I'll argue that the best way to achieve that is through good storytelling) we still have a very satisfying, story-driven experience on our hands. It's the reason why Carley's death didn't bother me as much as it could have, or Ben's, or any of the others in Season 1; they were at least well-written and well-executed, and in all fairness, many of the characters who died in Season 1 (e.g. Katjaa, Mark, Larry) were killed off as a means of driving the story forward rather than as a means of avoiding numerous branching choices. So long as a good story is afforded, I can deal with it.
This was not the case, I will argue, for Sarah. The idea of "random deaths just happen" is fine, but it does not excuse poor storytelling. Carley's death was most certainly a shock but it had just the right amount of build-up and I for one didn't feel like Telltale were wasting potential in killing her. Ben was developed very well as a character and his death was both suitable in terms of ending his story arc as well as making an impact upon the reader. I wouldn't say they were killed "just like that"; many of the deaths in season 1 were evidently well-planned and well-scripted, and while abrupt did not amount to a story arc simply being "cut off" before it reached an adequate climax.
Sarah's "second" death was, in my opinion, "unusual" for Telltale's series thus far simply because it was a pretty awful way to end her story, and contribute to the overarching plot of the season. It was the wrong kind of abrupt, if you ask me; the kind that doesn't add anything at all to the narrative, as most of the admittedly-futile determinant character did in Season 1, and earlier in Season 2, and is essentially lazy in every aspect. I don't mind Telltale fostering an ethos of "no-one is safe, random deaths can happen" but if they're going to do that then they should at least make the story satisfying.
SARAH your death meant nothing to me! She always ceasing to function.
"Just because you got her out of there today, doesn't mean you saved her. Trust me."'
At that moment I knew that Sarah was going to die in the same episode.
My biggest issue with her death was it's predictability, I don't think that it was otherwise badly written. When the platform collapsed Sarah froze because she was in panic (she had been completely useless that entire battle). That's the reason why she couldn't react as fast as Jane, who survived the collapse. While the death seemed random, it was her own inability to act in that situation which got her killed.
What I don't understand is why she would even be out on the decking in the first place, instead of inside with Rebecca. Unless, of course, Telltale needed her dead and that was a convenient opportunity to do it.
I took that line to be prophetic when I first heard it, similarly to you, but I was expecting at least SOME resolution to Sarah's story arc prior to whatever death she had in store for her, simply to make use of the characterisation that had been given previously. If she had died later in the episode in a less idiotic way, then it wouldn't have been so bad. The main issue for me was that, upon being given a SECOND opportunity to save Sarah by sending Jane down to help, a random plank hits her on the head and Sarah dies anyway. It seemed ludicrous to me, a case of "Deus Ex Plank"; Telltale were so eager not to have Sarah in the series anymore no matter your opinion of her or your resolve to help that she dies no matter what. If there really had been nothing that anyone could have done to help then so be it, but the moment that that plank hit Jane's head I was entirely convinced that Telltale's decisions regarding Sarah were motivated more by laziness than philosophy. She needed some degree of final characterisation regarding Carlos or your earlier choices, and a less insulting manner of death, with less of a "how far can you go before you give up and leave the stupid bitch" ethos of narrative for it to be in any way palatable to me.
I see your point. And I agree with it to a certain degree. I just can't be mad about it, because there is a certain part of me which enjoys random and anticlimactic deaths in fiction.
That's okay, haha, I'm not asking you to be "mad" if it genuinely doesn't bother you. For what it's worth, I think anti-climax in fiction can work well in certain mediums; novels like 'Catch-22' by Joseph Heller and TV shows like 'Scrubs' have proven that. I just would prefer if the writers of such stories implemented them in a meaningful and expert way, which I don't think was done in this episode. I wish I could see the anticlimactic deaths here as being purposeful but something about the execution just seems off to me.
That you in Lee's footsteps could take someone, and make them a survivor.
Of course to make Sarah a survivor you pretty much needed to wrap her in bubble wrap, and put a gag in her mouth.