Telltale Wanted Us to Hate Sarah and Nick
When I first started playing Season 2, Sarah and Nick blew my mind. Not only were they heavily fleshed out, dynamic characters, but they were like me. Sarah with her severe anxiety, Nick with his implied depression--I saw myself in them and I saw myself in how they struggled. And the fact that they'd been fighting through that and surviving for so long... that just blew my mind. It made me happy, because I knew that while right now they were being underestimated and portrayed as "liabilities", they'd make a turn around. They wouldn't be "cured" per se, but they'd have their moment of agency.
I was wrong.
The issue here is not the fact that they died. This is the Walking Dead. Of course people are going to die. Most of us have accepted that by now. The problem is the fact that their deaths were meaningless. The argument that "this is the apocalypse, things go fast, people just die" is not putting meaning to it, because--this may surprise you--The Walking Dead is not actually real. It is a story and needs to be viewed from a literary standpoint when discussing this. When Telltale wrote Lee's death, that was an example of how deaths can be meaningless and sudden and happen to anyone. He was our protagonist! We didn't expect him to die--but he did. And the story didn't end there. The world kept on turning. And they were successful in that theme.
Sarah and Nick did not have that thematic element to their deaths. To say there was any thematic element to begin with would be generous--but I'll take a stab at guessing what it was. The meaning behind their deaths was "disabled people do not deserve to survive."
Sarah and Nick NEVER get the chance to redeem themselves. Is this something realistic, that happens in real life? Yes. Is The Walking Dead real life? No. It is a story. And it must be viewed from a critical literary standpoint.
These two characters were, besides Clementine and Kenny, arguably the most fleshed out of the entire season. Both had significant roles in the first episode, Nick was a huge focus of episode 2, and Sarah was borderline deuteragonist by episode 3. Their arcs revolved around them struggling to continue adapting to the world around them while it emotionally breaks them down. Nick continuously digs himself into a hole as he grapples to cope after his emotional support system (his uncle) dies, and Sarah exhibits similar and more intense reliance on her father, shutting down and going into panic mode when him and the security he provides to her is threatened.
An especially heartbreaking parallel between the two is when, in episode 2, Nick mentions how he "isn't built" like Luke but wishes he was, and then in episode 4, Sarah expresses the same exact feeling to Clementine. In fact, there are a lot of parallels between them--watching Sarah trail behind the group as they returned to Parker's Run as everyone discussed her stability like she wasn't even there rang similar to Nick falling behind as the group marched on in episode 2, Luke and Clem also discussing his stability. These characters are clearly disabled in everything but just saying the word "disabled" itself.
Now it has been argued time and time again in response to their deaths (or more specifically Sarah's, as Nick's presence in the plot line was completely dropped after episode 2 and he was reduced to nothing but Luke's fanboy) were necessary, as they were liabilities, and people like them would not survive in a "real zombie apocalypse."
This had been discussed a lot before episode 4, but when Amid the Ruins finally rolled around, it came to light that Telltale's writers felt the same way. Saving Sarah was difficult--the game gives us the option to leave her behind TWICE, making your second ultimatum either "Leave her" or "Slap her". Yes, "slap" the disabled teenage girl after only a few days ago her now-dead father had been forced to enact the same abuse on her by the tyrannical and inexplicably short-lived villain of the first three episodes, Carver. If you want to save Sarah, the game works AGAINST you. And if you do save her? Nothing happens. You get the chance to have some brief dialogue with her, then in a freak accident she falls off the scaffolding of the observation deck and dies. No development, no moment of agency, no redemption. She simply exists for a slightly longer amount of time. A very anticlimactic death after we fought to save her the first time.
And Nick gets the same exact treatment. A dramatic build-up to the first death, yet an underwhelming "afterthought" kind of death if you save him. Everyone was expecting Nick to redeem himself, to do something notably heroic in response to the atonement he had received from Walter. But... we found him stuck in a fence.
In both situations, we have very dramatic deaths, and then deaths that fall short, which leads me to believe...
Telltale wanted you to hate them. The deaths where you sold them out, abandoned them, claimed they were "bad" people--those were meant to be the "canon" deaths. But the options where you saved them and gave them a chance in hopes they could better themselves? Those death scenes are afterthoughts.
Their deaths, if you save them, have no meaning. But if you chose to throw them under the bus? Told Walter that Nick is "bad", left Sarah behind at the trailer park? The meaning here is that you need to cut out the "liabilities" to survive, because they'll just "drag you down". And if you do, the game rewards you.
Let me tell you a little secret: people like Sarah and Nick?
They're actually real. And they've been surviving, in our real world. Be it because they're struggling with whatever hindrances their own disabilities cause them, people who are trying to oppress them, what have you--they're ALREADY survivors.
After living through almost three years of the apocalypse, Sarah and Nick are arguably the strongest survivors of the season. They're stronger than Luke. They're stronger than Jane. They've been fighting tooth and nail against something that's been trying to keep them down since before the apocalypse began, and to add all that together is a heavy load to bear.
In Season 1, Molly did everything within her power to protect her diabetic sister and help her survive, only for the people of Crawford to decide her sister's disability made her "weak" and she had to be killed off for the good of everyone else.
In Season 1, we were meant to sympathize with Molly, and to hate Crawford.
In Season 2, we're meant to become Crawford.
Comments
Then they did a pretty shit job at it.
Agreed.
Totally agree with you girl. The way they handled their death was ridiculous but I guess that's what happens when telltales hires numerous of writers to write a story. That's really stupid though, like seriously why more than 3? Ridiculous and they're asking for trouble and a train wreck.
But I guess it's just telltale saving money too. They don't have to pay the va shit and make an illusion that your choices actually matter. What would've been an acceptable death for nick is atleast from him to sacrifice himself for rebecca's baby in the shoot out at the start of episode 5 or something.. Also sarah.. her death was really unnecessary and a big middle finger to the face to people who actually cared for her. They give us a save option but yet still end up killing her like that? She was totally savable. people had guns and they just stood there and watched. Also it was just like 2-3 zombies coming towards her. So ridiculous. And don't get me started on how telltale is reusing the same zombie models in every episode and from season 1.
I'm seriously considering supporting telltale right now and buying their shit. They don't listen to us at all and don't take are opinions and thoughts into consideration like they're supposed to do. That's why TWDG is episodic... Just ridiculous.
Damn dude, "In Season 1, we were meant to sympathize with Molly, and to hate Crawford.
In Season 2, we're meant to become Crawford." Powerful stuff there.
That last sentence you wrote gave me shivers. Good read, I agree with everything you say.
I just can't get behind Telltale anymore. They had the chance to give us a unique story. But they wasted their potential completely.
Preach.
Both deaths felt incredibly spiteful. Having to hack Nick in the skull three times was a huge middle finger.
And Sarah's second death just made no sense. It made no sense for her to be in the line of fire instead of inside the building with Kenny and Rebecca. They kept her out there with no regard to logic just to get rid of her.
What would have been really meaningful would be for Jane--who had been talking about cutting Sarah off the whole episode--almost fall, and then if Sarah is saved, she helps save Jane. Then if she really had to die, she could be killed in the shootout at the end of the episode. Would that have been so hard? It would have given Sarah a beautiful moment of agency and proven Jane wrong. But Telltale wants Jane to be right. They want us to believe that people like Sarah are useless and neither want nor deserve to live.
Dammit, gurl. You did it again. Give the rest of us a chance to talk.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I know which TWO Telltale's games i won't be buying in the near future.
I agree. It ate me inside that Sarah died an idiot. Seriously, what was she doing outside anyway?
I'm to the point where I want to go back and leave her at the trailer.
Shame on those of us who thought Carlos' death was a good thing for her character. I was ready for some Sarah development. Instead, "Lol nope she will die the next day".
I doubt Telltale wanted us to hate Sarah and Nick, initially. Writer, Nick Breckon, wrote the first two episodes of Season 2 and brought life to the characters. By Episode 4, there were different writers who obviously didn't share Nick's vision and killed them off. Jane's attitude in Episode 4 towards them was literally the new writers trying to manipulate players into not caring about them either. That was just wrong.
I really hope Telltale reads this. I agreed completely.
Jane is a bitch, a selfish one. I wish that saving sarah in the balcony actually ended up killing jane. She cared about nobody and assumed too much. She also left the group and just thought about herself.
Maybe relevant but you should take a look at this good stuff. Both deaths were unnecessary and I wished atleast one of them could've survived until season 3.
Also the two staff actually said a lot of people in the office were excited to kill off sarah. So sad, maybe that's why she ended up dying the way she did and saving her the first time meant nothing. This should tell us a lot about telltale game staff.
Nick Breckon is the lead writer of Season 2. He wrote Nick and Sarah in a far more sympathetic light but being lead writer means that whatever they wrote was under his approval. Those deaths happened on his okay.
I've read it and I completely agree. How Greg Miller, Mark Darin, and Jason Latino talked about Sarah was shameful. Absolutely shameful. Speaking as an aspiring writer, I would always defend my character against someone like Greg Miller. They just laughed along with them. What kind of artists are they?
Well they partially succeeded. I hated Sarah but I didn't hate Nick.
Why do you keep saying here here ._____________________________.
Agreed. When the plank fell on Jane's head, I raged so hard. Her "I'm sorry I tried to save her" completely contradicted with how she kept insisting that Sarah was doomed. And furthermore, why did no one tell Sarah to get inside? They all knew what she was like. It's as if she was invisible until the deck collapsed.
And wow, really? That's disgusting.
There, there.
Of course they'll read this, but they'll just ignore it and take nothing into consideration.
get out
That was like one of the HUGE things I loved from last season. How they'd listen to their fans reactions to characters and events and address them in later episodes. I'm just annoyed right now. >:(
Wow. i agree a million times over.
All I have played of Telltale Games is TWD Season 1. I haven't even bought Season 2 yet, or any of their other games, and I know I'm never going to. From what I have read and seen, I would have related heavily to Nick and Sarah- they are people who deal with neurological issues that I deal with everyday, that friends I have deal with everyday, and the idea of seeing someone like that, who has to struggle with something that makes living in the real world alone so fucking difficult, surviving and doing their best in an even worse situation, a zombie apocalypse, was so exciting to me. But them being treated like this in the game's narrative, the message the narrative is sending about those of us with disabilities, and that interview with Greg Miller... It's not something I want to use my money on, and I regret paying for Season 1 if these are the storylines Telltale approves.
It would be nice if they did, but I think it's more important for it to be absorbed by the people on this forum. The episode has already been written, it's already been put out there. Nothing can be done to change that. But a lot of you guys are young, enthusiastic people and many I'm sure are aspiring artists/writers themselves. Maybe my words will stick, and the future game designers on this forum will grow up to create characters like Sarah and Nick and do them a better justice than Telltale did with their own.
I agree, and the fact that people try to justify it "Oh, they were holding the group down" kind of angers me. It also pisses me off that there deaths were so quick, Nick is in a chainlink fence, you know, dying for nothing, and Sarah of course, was made by Telltale to die, so she had to have a bad death scene, too. You're right, Telltale is trying to make us Crawford. The sad part about this, is that some people actually think this way, if you're holding the group back, you should be left behind (or in this instance, killed).
Duuuuh. Obviously, Sarah was gonna kill hundreds of walkers, ya know. I mean, she learned how to shoot. That decision matters, right?
Ah, nevermind...
Where, where?
;__________;
... I don't know.
Next season just needs the same writers for every episode. I feel like Nick Breckon, the writer of episode 1 and 2, had a plan for each character, and then the writers for episodes 3 and 4 came and disregarded those plans. They didn't think they fit in where the story was going, so they just killed them off with no real thought or plan. And that shows with what happened to Sarah and Nick.
I'm 20, actually, but I might as well be 50. So many gosh darn whippersnappers 'round here.
Maybe it's becoming less the walking dead game and more telltale's zombie simulator.
You need to learn to respect someone's opinion, Just saying.
I disagree. The fact that you felt attached and like they had developed was good, that's what Telltale wanted you to feel about them. They died, and though their deaths seem pointless, not everyone gets a grand death. I like to think of Walking Dead as both a story, and a real life situation, and though a minor death seems like bad storytelling, Nick got parting respects and died trying to help others, which is a better death than most people in the Walking Dead. Sarah's death took an emotional toll on everyone, and the fact that you can't save her makes it a tragedy, which is good storytelling. At least that's how I see it, and every time I debate this the people use their original statement as a counter argument constantly, so we get stuck in a loop and my point never gets across.
One of the big problems this season was the number of writers on one project. If they left it to like 2-3 people it would be much better. They could also get more done.
It's not real life, though. It's just a story. And stories require themes and completed character arcs. Sarah and Nick got neither with their deaths. Again, Lee's death is an example of "not everyone gets a grand death", it is the ultimate example as he was our protagonist. Sarah and Nick didn't get that. They just got laziness.
So they "succeeded" because they killed off a disabled 15 year old girl in the most brutal way? No I will NOT respect you and your opinion because of that.
here we go again