good points Josh,also to add
10)there was zero rection to how Clem dealt with baby Omid even though she went through it with Christa,yets… more keep totally quiet when Bonnie asks who knows how to deliver babies,it's laughable
11)Telltale was Jane in this episode trolling everyone
12)you mentioned the slide,no episode ever had this much hype before it was out,the slide and music is stunning,but doesn't reflect anything about the episode
13)newb writers
14)russians
15)lack of emotion/wrong character reactions/etc etc etc xD
positive:racoon family morals
It's actually IS one of favourites this season. I really only complained about how Nick's and Sarah's deaths were handled, how Eddie never appeared despite being IN THE SLIDE, and how the choices meant diddly squat. There's more reasons but that's for the whole season in general. Otherwise, it was fun to play.
good points Josh,also to add
10)there was zero rection to how Clem dealt with baby Omid even though she went through it with Christa,yets… more keep totally quiet when Bonnie asks who knows how to deliver babies,it's laughable
11)Telltale was Jane in this episode trolling everyone
12)you mentioned the slide,no episode ever had this much hype before it was out,the slide and music is stunning,but doesn't reflect anything about the episode
13)newb writers
14)russians
15)lack of emotion/wrong character reactions/etc etc etc xD
positive:racoon family morals
Nick did sort of have a hero's death--we just didn't see it. He ran off to get help while Luke stayed behind with Sarah, but obviously he screwed it up. That's actually pretty in-character for him: guilt was eating him. He had to kill his mom, and then he lost Pete, and then he was trying to be protective when he shot Matthew. I could see him at the trailer park saying, "OK, this time I'm not going to screw it up," but he did, because that was his character.
Looking at it that way, you could make an argument for poor execution (it might have been better if we could have seen some of that happening) but I wouldn't call it a waste of prior development. Myself, I wasn't insulted, but I would have been if the writers had wedged in some unnecessary dialogue in the name of "closure." I know a lot of people liked Nick, but from the second episode on he seemed more symbolic of what guilt does to people than anything else.
He didn't need a hero's death, but one that wasn't insultingly lazy would have been nice.
I would direct you to one of the other very rel… moreevant issues that certain people have with the episode, but I'm sure that you're bored by now of all of us horrible, nasty, nit-picking tedium merchants and our obsessive-compulsive need to complain about altogether PERFECT episodic content, so I shan't bother. Because I love you, ulop22.
All That Remains. I didn't really like it. Amid The Ruins was pretty but it did have its flaws (Nick's death and Sarah's second death and how teaching her how to use a gun meant nothing)
I think it was a good episode, I can't lie and say that when it first came out that I wasn't disappointed about some character deaths, but now that the feels are drained away, I can happily say it was definitely one of the best this Season, possible my favourite episode of Season 2.
People aren't upset about Sarah and Nick dying, they are upset about how they got treated. Nick got lots of development in episodes 1 and 2,… more and if Nick gets saved, he does nothing in episode 3, says a few lines and in episode 4, he gets shot and we see him as a walker when we find him again and we have to kill him off. As for Sarah, we have the choice to save her and later, we have to save her or Jane and she still dies no matter what. And practically, nobody gives a shit about Sarah's death except Jane.
I love all the episodes so much! The only part i don't like about episode 4 is that Kenny yells at you for no reason. Because for me, i didn't chop off Sarita's arm, because i knew what would happen if i did. Meaning i wouldn't kill her right in front of Kenny's face. If anything i saved Sarita from that walker because i killed it. Then Kenny is all like "she's dead because of YOU", and "this is all your fault!", even though all i did was save her for all the time she had left. If anything he should be thanking me for at least him getting to say his goodbyes. Nevertheless, The Walking Dead is still my favorite game ever!
It wasn't the episode per se so much as the absolute confirmation that our choices don't mean jack shit. I mean, that was true in Season 1 as well, but they've somehow managed to outdo themselves in the 'choices not meaning jack shit' department. At least in Season 1 dialogue and relationships with characters could change quite substantially depending on what you said and did.
It also suffered from bad writing. Luke getting upset about Jane leaving but pretty much forgetting Nick, his best friend for two decades, ever existed after one line of cussing is bad writing. Sarah dying no matter what you do, and being forgotten almost instantly by everyone, is bad writing. Jane being Molly redux, including the predictable leaving at the end of the episode, is bad writing. And so on.
I can understand it from that perspective, absolutely. I understand that, to a degree, this is about personal preference and that there are many people who are perfectly fine with how Nick died, which is okay. I for one agree with you, the manner of death didn't upset me too much (dying while going to get help). I agree, it fits his character.
I just can't shake the sense that the way it was executed, as you say, was inherently lazy because it conveniently allowed for minimal screen time and absolutely no dialogue, which I would argue was incredibly inadequate. And I'm going to stipulate to the idea that Nick was indeed wasted, because of his significance in the first two episodes and the fact that nothing regarding that guilt, his relationship with Pete and THAT burden (simply taking the watch from Nick's body if he had it, or Clementine or Luke mentioning Pete at all, would have improved the scene tenfold) , his mother or his friendship with Luke, which was apparently longstanding, was ever touched upon prior to his death, or after. I did like Nick very much, but I'd hate for anyone to think that I was simply raging against Telltale because one of my favourite characters was killed off. I'd say that the very fact that he wasn't much of ANYTHING in terms of presence in the story, and was killed off-screen with no dialogue beforehand, and was barely mentioned again, after Episode 3 is more suggestive of laziness than anything else, and amounts to little more than wasteful practice.
Nick did sort of have a hero's death--we just didn't see it. He ran off to get help while Luke stayed behind with Sarah, but obviously he sc… morerewed it up. That's actually pretty in-character for him: guilt was eating him. He had to kill his mom, and then he lost Pete, and then he was trying to be protective when he shot Matthew. I could see him at the trailer park saying, "OK, this time I'm not going to screw it up," but he did, because that was his character.
Looking at it that way, you could make an argument for poor execution (it might have been better if we could have seen some of that happening) but I wouldn't call it a waste of prior development. Myself, I wasn't insulted, but I would have been if the writers had wedged in some unnecessary dialogue in the name of "closure." I know a lot of people liked Nick, but from the second episode on he seemed more symbolic of what guilt does to people than anything else.
I really liked Amid the Ruins, just the only reason I had to dislike it was because they just had to make badguy Russians. It's in SOUTHERN AMERICA, I guess I could understand French speaking Canadians, or even Mexicans, from the south, but Russians that don't know any English? Seems rather far fetched.
There's a thread like this after every episode. why was all that remains hated? Why was a house divided hates? Why was in harms way hated? Why was amid the ruins hated?
For me, it shows the same weaknesses the whole season shows. Not more and not less. (Well, maybe there's also the fact that they make it harder and harder to like Kenny, a character I loved in the first season. But that's a personal thing.)
In general, season 2 gives me the impression it's just pretending to give you choices. I'm somebody who has played every game of season 1 twice: first time reacting like I would personally react, second time around choosing the exact opposite to see the difference it makes. And wow, did it make a difference in season 1. The whole group dynamic and attitudes changed depending on which people you sided with at tough situations. And you were actually able to change peoples' fates for at least several episodes.
During the second season however, the second playthrough became awfully boring really fast, I've never made it through all of the episodes a second time. As you notice that pretty much nothing really changes, no matter what you do. You do get a different reaction to your answer (and even that not always), but a few minutes later the exact same stuff happens no matter what you chose. Episode 4 maybe shows that more clearly than other episodes (with Saritas just being bitten again if you get rid of the bitten arm, and with you not even having the choice to not kill her afterwards, or with Sarah dying within the same episode even if you save her, for example). But the lazy decision tree crafting has actually been present troughout the whole season. Don't get me wrong here, it's still excellent story writing. But it's basically just one given story which happens no matter what you do. In season 1 decisions had much much more impact, with people permanently changing their attitude towards you due to your decisions, with people you saved/took with you actually making a difference for more than just a fraction of one episode, and so on. Maybe they left out that one starting screen from season 1 (stating that the game changes based on your actions) when they went on with season 2 for a reason...
Please Telltale, when designing season 3 (the last episode of this season surely already has its story already finalized) bring back and enhance what once was one of the main marketing points of season 1. Create different story paths, completely different sets of reactions of characters depending on your earlier choices (not just one or two different sentences), give the choices back their impact. The hard choices loose their whole purpose if they have no impact anyway... ;_;
Update: Also, season 1 had much more adventure elements, much more roaming around freely, using objects and so on. In season 2, most of the time even if you can actually move freely (which is rare to start with) there is basically only one thing you can do (except from looking at useless stuff, though I'm glad there's at least that) anyway.
I felt ballsy when I left Sarah behind (expected most players would save her) but it didnt have any effect anyway. Same with robbing Arvo, I took the meds altough I already expected we would see him again. Didnt matter, he still blames us if you take the stuff or not.
So In the end those "choices" of Ep4 are no choices. That was handled better in S1.
Wether or not you took the Strangers' stuff in S1 did not matter. It's EXACTLY the same situation with Arvo. Do your research. "That was handled better in S1" is not an opinion, it's just wrong, because it was handled the EXACT SAME WAY.
I felt ballsy when I left Sarah behind (expected most players would save her) but it didnt have any effect anyway. Same with robbing Arvo, I… more took the meds altough I already expected we would see him again. Didnt matter, he still blames us if you take the stuff or not.
So In the end those "choices" of Ep4 are no choices. That was handled better in S1.
Both Clementine's attitude and the talk with the stranger change depending on if you take it or not. Not completely, but still far more than in the latest episode. Where it makes really no difference at all, Arvo just claims I took it even though I did not.
Update: Though I have to admit that was one of the weak impact decisions in season 1, there are better ones.
Wether or not you took the Strangers' stuff in S1 did not matter. It's EXACTLY the same situation with Arvo. Do your research. "That was handled better in S1" is not an opinion, it's just wrong, because it was handled the EXACT SAME WAY.
Whether taking the strangers stuff in S1 mattered or not was only revealed in the last minutes of the last episode of S1, not a few minutes after you made your choice, not in the same episode! I think that is what some ppl didnt like in "Among the ruins". You make a choice and directly find out it didnt matter. That is what I meant with "handled it better".
I agree. Even where there was not much impact you still thought it might have had an impact for a while in season 1.
Update: The whole problem basically already started from the very beginning. Season 1 made it seem like an important decision which advice to give to Clementine in the end. (Alone or in groups? Cities or rural areas?) But it's just completely dropped whatsoever in Season 2. As the starting group doesn't last long anyway, they could have easily started season 2 with different starting groups (or no group at all) depending on your decision. But sadly there isn't even a tiny difference except from Clementine mentioning it in a subordinate clause if you happen to choose the one answer that actually fits the season start. (Otherwise it's just ignored.)
Whether taking the strangers stuff in S1 mattered or not was only revealed in the last minutes of the last episode of S1, not a few minutes … moreafter you made your choice, not in the same episode! I think that is what some ppl didnt like in "Among the ruins". You make a choice and directly find out it didnt matter. That is what I meant with "handled it better".
The whole finale with the Stranger was built up on something you DID NOT DO if you did not took the stuff from the car. He should've punished Kenny. It made no SENSE whatsoever he'd pick Lee.
Both Clementine's attitude and the talk with the stranger change depending on if you take it or not. Not completely, but still far more than… more in the latest episode. Where it makes really no difference at all, Arvo just claims I took it even though I did not.
Update: Though I have to admit that was one of the weak impact decisions in season 1, there are better ones.
It's slightly better than episode 3 (why did the escape have last one entire episode, really....), but I had some problems with it.
-A lot of things seem very contrived like the Luke and Jane thing or just random.
-Nick needed a better send off. Alvin had one, Ben had one. Not asking for a hero's death, but come on, did he even have a line in this entire episode? Don't give me crap about how he got shot at the start and that's why he dies so early. It could have been done a lot better. In fact, you could have interpreted it as Nick leaving Luke and Sarah so that they're safe when he turns, but I don't think they ran with that angle. He dies, you kill him again, that's it.
-Also, what's the point of Sarah dying within the same episode.
-To end with how about that totally subtle symbolism like sjeesh a statue of a soldier carrying another one. I wonder what the theme of this episode is gonna be....
I get what you're saying, and I agree that Nick's arc would have been more satisfactorily resolved if Clementine had taken the watch: that's the first thing I thought of when I had to chop his head off. The watch was Pete's; that would have tied things up nicely, and the watch would have been available in both branches if the choices were (a) Clementine takes watch or (b) somebody else takes watch and gives it to Nick.
It seems that most of the problems people are having with this season come down to a lack of understanding for why things happen. The writers are definitely not spelling things out and for people who prefer unambiguous explanations that can be super-frustrating. Wanting things to be unambiguous is not bad or inferior--it's a sign that people are invested in your characters, and that's never a negative.
But figuring things out through context can be pretty satisfying, too. Take the resolution of Sarah's arc--I personally thought it was fantastic. She loses her only protector, and then in the trailer park she continues to repeat, "I can't." I assumed she was meant to be somewhere on the autistic spectrum, so to have her break into a big speech about how she felt would have been unrealistic. Instead, her "I can't" stretches out to mean can't explain, can't stand up, can't go on, can't understand what's happening, all of it.
For me, that was very powerful, because it showed that there is no more room in that world for innocent Sarahs, as much as we may wish there were. But because Sarah's demise is convenient in terms of dialogue, screen time, etc., it can look like lazy game development.
I may in fact be wrong that the writers are "showing and not telling" and it may be quite true that they're just thinking of how they can get rid of this inconvenient character as quickly as possible. It's just that when I learned to write fiction, there was so much harping about showing not telling that the opposite now annoys the heck out of me. Either way, there's no proof that showing and not telling is the right way to go for a game. Definitely, the writers will need to balance things out a little for future episodes.
I can understand it from that perspective, absolutely. I understand that, to a degree, this is about personal preference and that there are … moremany people who are perfectly fine with how Nick died, which is okay. I for one agree with you, the manner of death didn't upset me too much (dying while going to get help). I agree, it fits his character.
I just can't shake the sense that the way it was executed, as you say, was inherently lazy because it conveniently allowed for minimal screen time and absolutely no dialogue, which I would argue was incredibly inadequate. And I'm going to stipulate to the idea that Nick was indeed wasted, because of his significance in the first two episodes and the fact that nothing regarding that guilt, his relationship with Pete and THAT burden (simply taking the watch from Nick's body if he had it, or Clementine or Luke mentioning Pete at all, would have improved the scene tenfold) , his mother or his friendship … [view original content]
People aren't upset about Sarah and Nick dying, they are upset about how they got treated. Nick got lots of development in episodes 1 and 2,… more and if Nick gets saved, he does nothing in episode 3, says a few lines and in episode 4, he gets shot and we see him as a walker when we find him again and we have to kill him off. As for Sarah, we have the choice to save her and later, we have to save her or Jane and she still dies no matter what. And practically, nobody gives a shit about Sarah's death except Jane.
None of that matters. I didn't see anyone giving a shit about Nick in the first two episodes when he actually was cool and did stuff, but when he fades away in the background and doesn't do anything that's when people start to care about him. That makes a lot of sense. Who cares if Eddie didn't appear? Sarah sucks, and you should want her to die. Also, everybody hated her before, why the fuck do you care if she dies? Sarita is irrelevant. Clem never loses her hat, really? You are basically saying the same thing over and over with these so called points.
* Nicks dead
* The slide of the Episode changed everytime
* Eddie didn't appear
* Save Sarah don't worry she dies in the next 30 minutes
… more * Your choice with Arvo didn't matter that much
* Saritas dies no matter what
* Nick didn't have dialogues and walker sounds don't count his voice actor wasn't even mentioned in the credits
* Clem never losed her hat
* Your choices with Sarah didn't matter
* Luke doesn't realy care that much when Nick dies but is very upset when Jane leaves
I give it a 7-
I have to admit that having thought about it, I am very much in agreement about Sarah's FIRST possible death scene. It was reasonably fitting, and I don't have many qualms with it. The more I do think about it, the more I wish that Telltale hadn't given us the opportunity to get Sarah out of the trailer; if she had died there and then, then there wouldn't be an issue; good, satisfying conclusion, good storytelling, and no ludicrous flying-plank, mad-fumble-to-kill-off-Sarah second potential death scenes to muddy the waters.
I think ambiguity can have a very important place in storytelling, personally, but as you say, I think balance is very important. In any case, I don't think it's the ambiguity inherent in Nick's death that had me irate when playing through this episode, but rather that aforementioned possibility of lazy practice and the missing watch/ allusion to Pete or some other aspect of Nick's character. The fact that Jane had been rustling around in fresh walker's pockets minutes prior and didn't think to check Nick is somewhat galling to me, and further evidence of oversight on the writers' part. I find it sad that the relatively fast pace of this season (compared to the first, at least in places) has resulted in a lack of consideration for the deceased and the lost in some places, which is understandable but unfortunate. I know that if I was in Clementine's shoes, or Luke's, then I would want to dwell on Nick's passing and the ramifications and the tragedy of it all, if only for a moment before the necessity of pragmatism carried us forth. It just breaks the immersion for me and ruins the narrative a little bit when I feel that characters are underserved, and forgotten, when to me they've been a pretty big deal.
I'm very impressed with your grasp of the intricacies of storytelling by the way; I've had conversations with other people on this forum which have essentially been a 'ring-around-the-roses' trying to convince them that I'm not decrying the episode just for the hell of it, so this makes a refreshing change, haha.
I get what you're saying, and I agree that Nick's arc would have been more satisfactorily resolved if Clementine had taken the watch: that's… more the first thing I thought of when I had to chop his head off. The watch was Pete's; that would have tied things up nicely, and the watch would have been available in both branches if the choices were (a) Clementine takes watch or (b) somebody else takes watch and gives it to Nick.
It seems that most of the problems people are having with this season come down to a lack of understanding for why things happen. The writers are definitely not spelling things out and for people who prefer unambiguous explanations that can be super-frustrating. Wanting things to be unambiguous is not bad or inferior--it's a sign that people are invested in your characters, and that's never a negative.
But figuring things out through context can be pretty satisfying, too. Take the resolution of Sarah's arc--I personally t… [view original content]
I do think Sarah's first death was somewhat satisfying if you simply look at Sarah's arc in the way of her not growing accustomed to the apocalypse and essentially giving up on herself, that's fine, BUT Telltale DID give us an option to save her and lead her arc somewhere different and interesting, but that never pays off and it's frustrating because Telltale did such a good job with Ben's arc IF you saved him, Ben stands up to Kenny and tells him that he's just as miserable and broken as Kenny is, and his death is satisfying in that he suffered SO much and needed to be put out of his misery, you can do that in episode 4, but in episode 5 it brings some interesting characterization into Kenny's arc as Ben's recklessness got alot of people killed including Kenny's family and Kenny almost ends up feeling sorry for Ben and tries to save him, even though he probably doesn't forgive Ben, he still feels like a bad guy over Shawn's death, getting Duck bitten, and (debatable) killing Larry and treating Ben like shit, and wants to somewhat redeem himself for his rash actions, at least that's how I see it, you don't get that kind of stuff in Amid the Ruins.
I have to admit that having thought about it, I am very much in agreement about Sarah's FIRST possible death scene. It was reasonably fittin… moreg, and I don't have many qualms with it. The more I do think about it, the more I wish that Telltale hadn't given us the opportunity to get Sarah out of the trailer; if she had died there and then, then there wouldn't be an issue; good, satisfying conclusion, good storytelling, and no ludicrous flying-plank, mad-fumble-to-kill-off-Sarah second potential death scenes to muddy the waters.
I think ambiguity can have a very important place in storytelling, personally, but as you say, I think balance is very important. In any case, I don't think it's the ambiguity inherent in Nick's death that had me irate when playing through this episode, but rather that aforementioned possibility of lazy practice and the missing watch/ allusion to Pete or some other aspect of Nick's character. The fact that Jane had been… [view original content]
I do think Sarah's first death was somewhat satisfying if you simply look at Sarah's arc in the way of her not growing accustomed to the apo… morecalypse and essentially giving up on herself, that's fine, BUT Telltale DID give us an option to save her and lead her arc somewhere different and interesting, but that never pays off and it's frustrating because Telltale did such a good job with Ben's arc IF you saved him, Ben stands up to Kenny and tells him that he's just as miserable and broken as Kenny is, and his death is satisfying in that he suffered SO much and needed to be put out of his misery, you can do that in episode 4, but in episode 5 it brings some interesting characterization into Kenny's arc as Ben's recklessness got alot of people killed including Kenny's family and Kenny almost ends up feeling sorry for Ben and tries to save him, even though he probably doesn't forgive Ben, he still feels like a bad guy over Shawn's death, getting Du… [view original content]
I had to be at work at 12:30. I finished downloading the episode just before 11 AM, and finished it in time to leave my house by noon. That's why it sucked floppy donkey dong in my opinion.
I'm very impressed with your grasp of the intricacies of storytelling by the way
Thank you, I'm an actual writer =D At least that's what I'm trained for. No fiction published yet; I am just starting on fiction after writing other kinds of stuff for a long time (documentation, instructions...nothing interesting). I was blown away by the writing in TWD comics, which is why I decided to play this game in the first place.
I agree that the saved Sarah is pretty unexciting compared to the one left in the trailer, especially when you compare the extension of her life to the extension of Ben's in S1 (good points, J-Master). The "lame duck" Sarah is basically a cautionary tale, as in, don't save somebody who "can't" because they'll probably just die in a couple of hours anyway, so don't risk your own life. That's a yawn compared to the abandoned Sarah's end.
Personally, I'm hoping for a few minutes of reflection in E5 about everybody who's gone. Of course we may or may not get that in a world where dead is the majority--Clem is looking a bit burned out, and I wonder how much mourning she has left in her.
I have to admit that having thought about it, I am very much in agreement about Sarah's FIRST possible death scene. It was reasonably fittin… moreg, and I don't have many qualms with it. The more I do think about it, the more I wish that Telltale hadn't given us the opportunity to get Sarah out of the trailer; if she had died there and then, then there wouldn't be an issue; good, satisfying conclusion, good storytelling, and no ludicrous flying-plank, mad-fumble-to-kill-off-Sarah second potential death scenes to muddy the waters.
I think ambiguity can have a very important place in storytelling, personally, but as you say, I think balance is very important. In any case, I don't think it's the ambiguity inherent in Nick's death that had me irate when playing through this episode, but rather that aforementioned possibility of lazy practice and the missing watch/ allusion to Pete or some other aspect of Nick's character. The fact that Jane had been… [view original content]
I myself love the 'show, don't tell advice', especially when it's taken too far.
Anyhow, apologies for the off-topic and a nice post. Also, good luck with your writing. I haven't written or published anything for months, unless you count writing text for a game I'm developing.
I get what you're saying, and I agree that Nick's arc would have been more satisfactorily resolved if Clementine had taken the watch: that's… more the first thing I thought of when I had to chop his head off. The watch was Pete's; that would have tied things up nicely, and the watch would have been available in both branches if the choices were (a) Clementine takes watch or (b) somebody else takes watch and gives it to Nick.
It seems that most of the problems people are having with this season come down to a lack of understanding for why things happen. The writers are definitely not spelling things out and for people who prefer unambiguous explanations that can be super-frustrating. Wanting things to be unambiguous is not bad or inferior--it's a sign that people are invested in your characters, and that's never a negative.
But figuring things out through context can be pretty satisfying, too. Take the resolution of Sarah's arc--I personally t… [view original content]
Long story short: this season is just one big streamlined piece of shit.
If you want a more detailed answer of why I suggest you look at the "Shame on You Telltale" thread. It's the one with almost 300 likes, you can't miss it. (Even though for some strange reason Telltale has yet to comment on that thread even once...I wonder why)
Comments
Another positive:
Mike
In 1 word? Eddie. Among other things of course.
It's actually IS one of favourites this season. I really only complained about how Nick's and Sarah's deaths were handled, how Eddie never appeared despite being IN THE SLIDE, and how the choices meant diddly squat. There's more reasons but that's for the whole season in general. Otherwise, it was fun to play.
Who gives a fuck on what IGN thinks?
Or Luke that didn't give to much about Nicks dead but is very upset if Jane leaves
About the baby I don't think it was the time but there were points I thought Clem could say it
I still ask myself about the Russians
And yes I love that raccoon family
Nick did sort of have a hero's death--we just didn't see it. He ran off to get help while Luke stayed behind with Sarah, but obviously he screwed it up. That's actually pretty in-character for him: guilt was eating him. He had to kill his mom, and then he lost Pete, and then he was trying to be protective when he shot Matthew. I could see him at the trailer park saying, "OK, this time I'm not going to screw it up," but he did, because that was his character.
Looking at it that way, you could make an argument for poor execution (it might have been better if we could have seen some of that happening) but I wouldn't call it a waste of prior development. Myself, I wasn't insulted, but I would have been if the writers had wedged in some unnecessary dialogue in the name of "closure." I know a lot of people liked Nick, but from the second episode on he seemed more symbolic of what guilt does to people than anything else.
All That Remains. I didn't really like it. Amid The Ruins was pretty but it did have its flaws (Nick's death and Sarah's second death and how teaching her how to use a gun meant nothing)
I think it was a good episode, I can't lie and say that when it first came out that I wasn't disappointed about some character deaths, but now that the feels are drained away, I can happily say it was definitely one of the best this Season, possible my favourite episode of Season 2.
I loved it. The only thing I didn't like was that Nick died off screen.
(And that Luke fucked Jane, but I'll admit, it was good for the story. I only didn't like it because I love Luke)
Nick says something in ep3 and nothing in ep4
The story was ok but the choices were pointless and hardly had any effect.
I love all the episodes so much! The only part i don't like about episode 4 is that Kenny yells at you for no reason. Because for me, i didn't chop off Sarita's arm, because i knew what would happen if i did. Meaning i wouldn't kill her right in front of Kenny's face. If anything i saved Sarita from that walker because i killed it. Then Kenny is all like "she's dead because of YOU", and "this is all your fault!", even though all i did was save her for all the time she had left. If anything he should be thanking me for at least him getting to say his goodbyes. Nevertheless, The Walking Dead is still my favorite game ever!
Yeah i still loved everything
It wasn't the episode per se so much as the absolute confirmation that our choices don't mean jack shit. I mean, that was true in Season 1 as well, but they've somehow managed to outdo themselves in the 'choices not meaning jack shit' department. At least in Season 1 dialogue and relationships with characters could change quite substantially depending on what you said and did.
It also suffered from bad writing. Luke getting upset about Jane leaving but pretty much forgetting Nick, his best friend for two decades, ever existed after one line of cussing is bad writing. Sarah dying no matter what you do, and being forgotten almost instantly by everyone, is bad writing. Jane being Molly redux, including the predictable leaving at the end of the episode, is bad writing. And so on.
I can understand it from that perspective, absolutely. I understand that, to a degree, this is about personal preference and that there are many people who are perfectly fine with how Nick died, which is okay. I for one agree with you, the manner of death didn't upset me too much (dying while going to get help). I agree, it fits his character.
I just can't shake the sense that the way it was executed, as you say, was inherently lazy because it conveniently allowed for minimal screen time and absolutely no dialogue, which I would argue was incredibly inadequate. And I'm going to stipulate to the idea that Nick was indeed wasted, because of his significance in the first two episodes and the fact that nothing regarding that guilt, his relationship with Pete and THAT burden (simply taking the watch from Nick's body if he had it, or Clementine or Luke mentioning Pete at all, would have improved the scene tenfold) , his mother or his friendship with Luke, which was apparently longstanding, was ever touched upon prior to his death, or after. I did like Nick very much, but I'd hate for anyone to think that I was simply raging against Telltale because one of my favourite characters was killed off. I'd say that the very fact that he wasn't much of ANYTHING in terms of presence in the story, and was killed off-screen with no dialogue beforehand, and was barely mentioned again, after Episode 3 is more suggestive of laziness than anything else, and amounts to little more than wasteful practice.
I really liked Amid the Ruins, just the only reason I had to dislike it was because they just had to make badguy Russians. It's in SOUTHERN AMERICA, I guess I could understand French speaking Canadians, or even Mexicans, from the south, but Russians that don't know any English? Seems rather far fetched.
There's a thread like this after every episode. why was all that remains hated? Why was a house divided hates? Why was in harms way hated? Why was amid the ruins hated?
This is how Amid the ruins should have been in order to be perfect http://giuseppeazzarello.deviantart.com/art/SPOILER-Amid-the-Ruins-Alternative-Version-474299204 XD
For me, it shows the same weaknesses the whole season shows. Not more and not less. (Well, maybe there's also the fact that they make it harder and harder to like Kenny, a character I loved in the first season. But that's a personal thing.)
In general, season 2 gives me the impression it's just pretending to give you choices. I'm somebody who has played every game of season 1 twice: first time reacting like I would personally react, second time around choosing the exact opposite to see the difference it makes. And wow, did it make a difference in season 1. The whole group dynamic and attitudes changed depending on which people you sided with at tough situations. And you were actually able to change peoples' fates for at least several episodes.
During the second season however, the second playthrough became awfully boring really fast, I've never made it through all of the episodes a second time. As you notice that pretty much nothing really changes, no matter what you do. You do get a different reaction to your answer (and even that not always), but a few minutes later the exact same stuff happens no matter what you chose. Episode 4 maybe shows that more clearly than other episodes (with Saritas just being bitten again if you get rid of the bitten arm, and with you not even having the choice to not kill her afterwards, or with Sarah dying within the same episode even if you save her, for example). But the lazy decision tree crafting has actually been present troughout the whole season. Don't get me wrong here, it's still excellent story writing. But it's basically just one given story which happens no matter what you do. In season 1 decisions had much much more impact, with people permanently changing their attitude towards you due to your decisions, with people you saved/took with you actually making a difference for more than just a fraction of one episode, and so on. Maybe they left out that one starting screen from season 1 (stating that the game changes based on your actions) when they went on with season 2 for a reason...
Please Telltale, when designing season 3 (the last episode of this season surely already has its story already finalized) bring back and enhance what once was one of the main marketing points of season 1. Create different story paths, completely different sets of reactions of characters depending on your earlier choices (not just one or two different sentences), give the choices back their impact. The hard choices loose their whole purpose if they have no impact anyway... ;_;
Update: Also, season 1 had much more adventure elements, much more roaming around freely, using objects and so on. In season 2, most of the time even if you can actually move freely (which is rare to start with) there is basically only one thing you can do (except from looking at useless stuff, though I'm glad there's at least that) anyway.
I felt ballsy when I left Sarah behind (expected most players would save her) but it didnt have any effect anyway. Same with robbing Arvo, I took the meds altough I already expected we would see him again. Didnt matter, he still blames us if you take the stuff or not.
So In the end those "choices" of Ep4 are no choices. That was handled better in S1.
Wether or not you took the Strangers' stuff in S1 did not matter. It's EXACTLY the same situation with Arvo. Do your research. "That was handled better in S1" is not an opinion, it's just wrong, because it was handled the EXACT SAME WAY.
Both Clementine's attitude and the talk with the stranger change depending on if you take it or not. Not completely, but still far more than in the latest episode. Where it makes really no difference at all, Arvo just claims I took it even though I did not.
Update: Though I have to admit that was one of the weak impact decisions in season 1, there are better ones.
Whether taking the strangers stuff in S1 mattered or not was only revealed in the last minutes of the last episode of S1, not a few minutes after you made your choice, not in the same episode! I think that is what some ppl didnt like in "Among the ruins". You make a choice and directly find out it didnt matter. That is what I meant with "handled it better".
I agree. Even where there was not much impact you still thought it might have had an impact for a while in season 1.
Update: The whole problem basically already started from the very beginning. Season 1 made it seem like an important decision which advice to give to Clementine in the end. (Alone or in groups? Cities or rural areas?) But it's just completely dropped whatsoever in Season 2. As the starting group doesn't last long anyway, they could have easily started season 2 with different starting groups (or no group at all) depending on your decision. But sadly there isn't even a tiny difference except from Clementine mentioning it in a subordinate clause if you happen to choose the one answer that actually fits the season start. (Otherwise it's just ignored.)
The whole finale with the Stranger was built up on something you DID NOT DO if you did not took the stuff from the car. He should've punished Kenny. It made no SENSE whatsoever he'd pick Lee.
It's slightly better than episode 3 (why did the escape have last one entire episode, really....), but I had some problems with it.
-A lot of things seem very contrived like the Luke and Jane thing or just random.
-Nick needed a better send off. Alvin had one, Ben had one. Not asking for a hero's death, but come on, did he even have a line in this entire episode? Don't give me crap about how he got shot at the start and that's why he dies so early. It could have been done a lot better. In fact, you could have interpreted it as Nick leaving Luke and Sarah so that they're safe when he turns, but I don't think they ran with that angle. He dies, you kill him again, that's it.
-Also, what's the point of Sarah dying within the same episode.
-To end with how about that totally subtle symbolism like sjeesh a statue of a soldier carrying another one. I wonder what the theme of this episode is gonna be....
I get what you're saying, and I agree that Nick's arc would have been more satisfactorily resolved if Clementine had taken the watch: that's the first thing I thought of when I had to chop his head off. The watch was Pete's; that would have tied things up nicely, and the watch would have been available in both branches if the choices were (a) Clementine takes watch or (b) somebody else takes watch and gives it to Nick.
It seems that most of the problems people are having with this season come down to a lack of understanding for why things happen. The writers are definitely not spelling things out and for people who prefer unambiguous explanations that can be super-frustrating. Wanting things to be unambiguous is not bad or inferior--it's a sign that people are invested in your characters, and that's never a negative.
But figuring things out through context can be pretty satisfying, too. Take the resolution of Sarah's arc--I personally thought it was fantastic. She loses her only protector, and then in the trailer park she continues to repeat, "I can't." I assumed she was meant to be somewhere on the autistic spectrum, so to have her break into a big speech about how she felt would have been unrealistic. Instead, her "I can't" stretches out to mean can't explain, can't stand up, can't go on, can't understand what's happening, all of it.
For me, that was very powerful, because it showed that there is no more room in that world for innocent Sarahs, as much as we may wish there were. But because Sarah's demise is convenient in terms of dialogue, screen time, etc., it can look like lazy game development.
I may in fact be wrong that the writers are "showing and not telling" and it may be quite true that they're just thinking of how they can get rid of this inconvenient character as quickly as possible. It's just that when I learned to write fiction, there was so much harping about showing not telling that the opposite now annoys the heck out of me. Either way, there's no proof that showing and not telling is the right way to go for a game. Definitely, the writers will need to balance things out a little for future episodes.
Mostly because of Nick and Sarah deaths. I am not sure why they hate the whole epidose because of it but oh well....
But who cares though? Their deaths were only a small part of the episode and not important. The rest of the episode is what matters and was amazing.
People have different thoughts on the game.
I loved the episode and I enjoyed, but it did have some flaws. No biggie.
None of that matters. I didn't see anyone giving a shit about Nick in the first two episodes when he actually was cool and did stuff, but when he fades away in the background and doesn't do anything that's when people start to care about him. That makes a lot of sense. Who cares if Eddie didn't appear? Sarah sucks, and you should want her to die. Also, everybody hated her before, why the fuck do you care if she dies? Sarita is irrelevant. Clem never loses her hat, really? You are basically saying the same thing over and over with these so called points.
I have to admit that having thought about it, I am very much in agreement about Sarah's FIRST possible death scene. It was reasonably fitting, and I don't have many qualms with it. The more I do think about it, the more I wish that Telltale hadn't given us the opportunity to get Sarah out of the trailer; if she had died there and then, then there wouldn't be an issue; good, satisfying conclusion, good storytelling, and no ludicrous flying-plank, mad-fumble-to-kill-off-Sarah second potential death scenes to muddy the waters.
I think ambiguity can have a very important place in storytelling, personally, but as you say, I think balance is very important. In any case, I don't think it's the ambiguity inherent in Nick's death that had me irate when playing through this episode, but rather that aforementioned possibility of lazy practice and the missing watch/ allusion to Pete or some other aspect of Nick's character. The fact that Jane had been rustling around in fresh walker's pockets minutes prior and didn't think to check Nick is somewhat galling to me, and further evidence of oversight on the writers' part. I find it sad that the relatively fast pace of this season (compared to the first, at least in places) has resulted in a lack of consideration for the deceased and the lost in some places, which is understandable but unfortunate. I know that if I was in Clementine's shoes, or Luke's, then I would want to dwell on Nick's passing and the ramifications and the tragedy of it all, if only for a moment before the necessity of pragmatism carried us forth. It just breaks the immersion for me and ruins the narrative a little bit when I feel that characters are underserved, and forgotten, when to me they've been a pretty big deal.
I'm very impressed with your grasp of the intricacies of storytelling by the way; I've had conversations with other people on this forum which have essentially been a 'ring-around-the-roses' trying to convince them that I'm not decrying the episode just for the hell of it, so this makes a refreshing change, haha.
I do think Sarah's first death was somewhat satisfying if you simply look at Sarah's arc in the way of her not growing accustomed to the apocalypse and essentially giving up on herself, that's fine, BUT Telltale DID give us an option to save her and lead her arc somewhere different and interesting, but that never pays off and it's frustrating because Telltale did such a good job with Ben's arc IF you saved him, Ben stands up to Kenny and tells him that he's just as miserable and broken as Kenny is, and his death is satisfying in that he suffered SO much and needed to be put out of his misery, you can do that in episode 4, but in episode 5 it brings some interesting characterization into Kenny's arc as Ben's recklessness got alot of people killed including Kenny's family and Kenny almost ends up feeling sorry for Ben and tries to save him, even though he probably doesn't forgive Ben, he still feels like a bad guy over Shawn's death, getting Duck bitten, and (debatable) killing Larry and treating Ben like shit, and wants to somewhat redeem himself for his rash actions, at least that's how I see it, you don't get that kind of stuff in Amid the Ruins.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I had to be at work at 12:30. I finished downloading the episode just before 11 AM, and finished it in time to leave my house by noon. That's why it sucked floppy donkey dong in my opinion.
I didn't like it because of Sarah's death.
Thank you, I'm an actual writer =D At least that's what I'm trained for. No fiction published yet; I am just starting on fiction after writing other kinds of stuff for a long time (documentation, instructions...nothing interesting). I was blown away by the writing in TWD comics, which is why I decided to play this game in the first place.
I agree that the saved Sarah is pretty unexciting compared to the one left in the trailer, especially when you compare the extension of her life to the extension of Ben's in S1 (good points, J-Master). The "lame duck" Sarah is basically a cautionary tale, as in, don't save somebody who "can't" because they'll probably just die in a couple of hours anyway, so don't risk your own life. That's a yawn compared to the abandoned Sarah's end.
Personally, I'm hoping for a few minutes of reflection in E5 about everybody who's gone. Of course we may or may not get that in a world where dead is the majority--Clem is looking a bit burned out, and I wonder how much mourning she has left in her.
lmfao!!!
I myself love the 'show, don't tell advice', especially when it's taken too far.
Anyhow, apologies for the off-topic and a nice post. Also, good luck with your writing. I haven't written or published anything for months, unless you count writing text for a game I'm developing.
Long story short: this season is just one big streamlined piece of shit.
If you want a more detailed answer of why I suggest you look at the "Shame on You Telltale" thread. It's the one with almost 300 likes, you can't miss it. (Even though for some strange reason Telltale has yet to comment on that thread even once...I wonder why)