Nick Breckon is the lead writer and wrote the worst episodes of season two. The ridiculous way he wrote the first episode completely turned off a large portion of fans who were returning from season one. He didn't seem to get what made the first season so great and destroyed all the realism that people had come to expect by making adults interact with a preteen girl as if there was absolutely no difference in them. It was strange and ridiculous. When you have a man like Luke talking to a preteen girl the way he does it has an underlying feeling that seems inappropriate even though it would be normal if it was directed at another adult. Breckon's writing is what started all the talk about Luke and Clem having a romantic relationship together. Adults don't talk to kids the same as they do each other, and when you write them to do so it comes off as inappropriate. You would expect Luke to try and make a move on Clem if you didn't know any better.
There's a reason most fans like an adult like Kenny acting fatherly toward her instead of like the unrealistic adults who didn't seem to have the natural ability to see the difference between adults and children until episode three. Fans liked seeing Lee act like a realistic man doing something most people see as noble; not the selfish and cowardly people written for season two by someone who also seems to think that allowing Clem to show any emotion or behavior of a child is showing weakness that fans don't want to see. Breckon shouldn't have been lead writer to begin and is hopefully let go by telltale after this season. The last two episodes aren't anything special either, but at least they seem to understand some of the things that Breckon screwed up big time in the first couple of episodes, but I doubt there are very many fans who had such a negative opinion of those episodes as myself who stuck around this long. I only stayed around because I made the mistake of buying the season pass up front.
Do you not see that this is actually a problem in the world? That there are actually people that think people like Sarah, disabled people, should die? And that there is dozens of countries that still persecute those who are disabled? This is a real-world fucking problem!
It's funny though...
The very first moment you say to Nick that he reminds of Ben (In the game EP2) he proves you wrong.By sacrificing himself , and agreeing with you about telling the truth to Walter...
I think it's pretty remarkable that Telltale has been able to elicit a response out of fans (whether negative or positive). I think that saying they should be ashamed of the product of their work is absurd. The fact that it was able to get a response out of people shows that it's engaging. I seriously doubt that everyone who is enraged at Telltale for killing of Sarah or Nick will stop playing the game. I'm assuming every single one of them will play the final episode.
In terms of story, it's the story of Clem (you). In the first season it was Lee. Either way the story revolves around them and the other characters are literally an ends to a means and that means is the conclusion of the story. I can agree the characters they use to push the story forward are not always fleshed out but that's about as far as I'll go. The story is about Clem, no matter how hard you want it to be about Nick or Sarah. With Lee, the theme was survival of himself and learning to put someone, Clem, ahead of himself. This often meant protecting her humanity. The theme of protecting humanity is still present throughout this season, except they seem to be playing with the idea of losing it. In episode 4 if you look at the way others interacted with Clem, you see the same ideas being played out again except this time the onus is on the player. Do you act in a manner that helps everyone survive, which is the ideal of humanity in this situation, or do you act in a manner that ensures your own survival. The themes are very similar to the comic book series, where Kirkman doesn't hold back on killing of characters for the sake of story, ultimately, it's about story and the development of the main character.
Episode 1= the question about trusting groups, establishing that Clem is "just a little girl"
Episode 2= strength lies in the group, are you loyal?
Episode 3= strong vs weak, do you have to lose your morals in order to survive?
Episode 4= the group is fracturing, is it better to stay or leave?
Now for my main point: each of these themes exist in the episodes if you look. But the connection between them is not developed. And because of this, in some cases it's hard to even point out that they're there. As a result the themes only appear weaker and weaker as the season goes on because the foundation has been built but is not followed through.
I just plain don't understand the argument being made here. The theme as I mentioned earlier has been pretty coherent even from the first season. The idea of retaining humanity in the time of apocalypse is kind of a big one that has been present throughout the series. Additionally, ideas of trust, REGRET, sacrifice, teamwork, and betrayal are all part of the themes. But humanity obviously stands out amongst all of the episodes a.k.a. a coherent theme throughout...
Episode 1: the cabin crew shows humanity by taking Clem in
Episode 2: Nick admits to Walter that he killed his friend(or boyfriend), Walter doesn't kill him
Episode 3: Seeing what the difference between the humanity Clem and her group have vs Carver and his group
Episode 4: This is where humanity is emphasized through Clem's act of kindness, or lack there of.
I should also add that even the absence of humanity is still proof that it is part of the theme.
And...Just because a character is killed off doesn't make them unimportant, I think it affects the way you act and the choices you make for the rest of the episode (and I'm assuming the final episode). Why you would be "completely confident that these characters would continue to be important" is beyond me, they were ancillary characters and were treated exactly as such from day one.
Also, the season isn't done. I know it's released in an episodic format but you literally can't talk about the "character development" the author of this initial post was talking about, as a finished thing, until...welll...the end. Also Nick was always a dud. Sarah was a spud.
Miscommunication? More like saving face.
You wanted to wish her death.
You called her "not normal" and thus wished her death.
You praised her death.
Despite the fact that she hurt no one and barely caused the death of anyone else intentionally. (Reggie and her father being complete accidents).
Either Greg Miller played the game with Both eyes closed and doesn't understand english Or He's an ignorant bigot.
But that's a load of crap. Sarah may have had a disability but she could have been WRITTEN as being a developed character. She WANTED to learn to use a gun, she had a decent judge of character by Helping clementine despite her father's wishes and getting you Peroxide, and you had the option to teach her. She hid from Carver just fine.
She didn't cause any real issues until Carver's Fascist and VIOLENT mindset came along. And even then he was abusive to those who were useful. The Crawford Mindset that Carver and later Jane had was full of Crap that would make even Molly spit in her face because Molly atleast fought against that mindset for her sister. Because a disabled ill-person was worth living. Sarah was fully WORTH living and was becoming a stronger person in an atypical way.It's just shoddy and lazy writing that suddenly made her beyond redemption and then they decided to tack on Jane's crap POV on her despite her knowing NOTHING about her?
I am a fan of S1 and S2 Ep 1-2. I'm NOT a fan of this diminished piece of shoddy writting.
Because they did? As I recall, the option to abandon her right away was almost 50%. They're not there to express their own thoughts and choi… moreces of what they did on the game. You'll notice neither said 'oh yeah, we totally dropped her too as soon as we could'. Neither commented on their own opinions or what actions they took or would take. Not voicing objection does not mean agreement. They were guests on the show, and were polite and let Greg reflect his own experiences with the game.
Believe it or not, they're probably not nazis
"Oh so you're STILL not sorry about your offensive Ableist b.s"
You can explain what Sarah's character is and isn't all you want, doesn't change the fact that ableist and offensive crap spewed out of your mouth.
Hey, everyone--
It's me, Greg Miller from IGN! I just wrote a big ol' blog about everything over on IGN (http://www.ign.com/blogs/greggy-… moreign/2014/08/10/the-walking-dead-sarah-and-normal/), but I wanted to make sure y'all saw it, too. I'll stick around to answer comments...
Hey--
So, today's been a mix of a lot of different Tweets. Lots about Christine Lakin on The GameOverGreggy Show and some about Twitch, but then, there's been a couple about yesterday's Playing Dead episode and Sarah.
At first, I was pretty stoked; no one ever Tweets me about Playing Dead! But a few of them got really combative, and I was a bit lost. Finally, someone linked me to this Tumblr about it, which you should really read for the rest of this post to make sense.
I'll wait.
OK. Caught up? Outside of disagreeing/being pretty bummed about being referred to as "an asshole to female characters" and a "shitpile," I understand where Marissa (and the handf… [view original content]
Greg, don't apologize. People are taking your opinion on a fictional character way too seriously. I disagree with yours and think that Sarah… more is a great character, but you played the game the way how you played, and that's how the game is supposed to work in the first place.
Also, you found out that Sarah was confirmed to be mentally disabled AFTER your show. So why are people still roasting you? Because they incredibly sensitive. They shouldn't care what you said, but they are because for whatever reason, it's an obligation for them to care.
To the people who are offended, just let it go. Seriously, an internet talk show host stating his opinion about a fictional video game character is nothing to get upset over.
i don't think so,if anything this thread shows we care the most,we don't just forget about it after playing an episode,we think about the characters life's,we try to keep the continuatity going,but you bring up a point of constructive criticism...theres two sides to every coin,Telltale have wrote two beautiful characters,infact most of the characters written in season 2 are outstanding and they should be praised for electing a response from passionate fans telling them the rights or wrongs of their development,it's like telltale have given birth to the character but we raise them into what we think they are,it's a little hard to explain but im sure you know what i mean.
Vent their frustration on the wrong person? This guy publically ridiculed and celebrated the death of a 15 year old hispanic child for doing nothing wrong. she never hurt anyone yet she deserves more death and hate than any of the other characters? Where's his long spiel against Jane and her abandoning her sister and then encouraging the abandonment of an innocent despite not knowing them at all? Or that Luke never even sniffled at Sarah and Nick's death despite the fact that these two practically looked up and idolized them?
Dammit, I was trying to not reply and see how many thumbs down I could rack up. Sigh, here I go.
Its just that this reminds of that Jonah… more Hill homophobia incident. There were so many people that condemned him for that, and he was sincere in his apology and expressed that he was not against gay people at all. People just, overreacted so much, and vented so much of their frustrations at the wrong person and accused him of having certain ideas and intentions. Hell, some people still hate him for that even now, in spite of his apology.
If anything, it seems people dislike how Telltale portrayed her as contributing nothing, being unhelpful as well as killing her off. Which was a major problem in the story. But instead you rage against gameovergreggy whom you guys make out to be the representative overlord of hating disabled people.
@Bokor, why ask a loaded question that makes me out to be white trash hateful confederate republican? Thats … [view original content]
Love this man's POV and Lilly. Fantastic stance on character perspective.
I wish he was the one Miller was interviewing so he can snap his Offensive and narrowminded POV right back at him.
See how Sean reacts to the characters players hated...
Peter Molyneux and The Walking Dead’s Creative Lead - The On… moree-On-One Interview
Sean Vanaman, the creative lead/writer for Telltale’s The Walking Dead (Season One) talks to the legendary game designer Peter Molyneux about playtesting and the reactions playtesters/players have to certain characters among other subjects in this one-on-one interview
Credits to thewalkingliability for making these.
"This is actually saying more about you now, than it is about the rendering of the character. Because you won't give her a break."
The difference is, this game is centered around a fictional apocalypse where terrible things happen to the good, the bad, the strong and the… more weak all the same. Having a 'laugh at it' is up to the player, and not the aim of Telltale.
I find that different than playing a game about a real life travesty about the genocide of Jews
Sean Vanaman's Interview defending Lilly against all the terrible hate she received (a few scrolls above) States otherwise. There are two sides to every coin and I'm pretty sure Sean Vanaman would never laugh along with Greg Miller's complete narrow-minded bigotry of a 15 year old child character. OH how the times have changed =(
What a shitstorm. Wow.
From that interview, I personally got the impression less that Telltale's representatives were 100% in agreement w… moreith Greg and more that they didn't have the conviction to argue with him about it. If he had said how sad he was to see Sarah die and how he wished it could have been different, they would have run with that just as eagerly and given examples of people from Telltale sharing the same sentiment. I get the sense they aren't all that invested in their characters, certainly not enough to argue in their defense.
I find them more lacking in character than actually sadistic. A louder and more obnoxious person like Greg can drag such people along with them into saying all kinds of horrible things.That still makes them contemptible, but in a different way.
But that's a load of crap. Sarah may have had a disability but she could have been WRITTEN as being a developed character. She WANTED to lea… morern to use a gun, she had a decent judge of character by Helping clementine despite her father's wishes and getting you Peroxide, and you had the option to teach her. She hid from Carver just fine.
She didn't cause any real issues until Carver's Fascist and VIOLENT mindset came along. And even then he was abusive to those who were useful. The Crawford Mindset that Carver and later Jane had was full of Crap that would make even Molly spit in her face because Molly atleast fought against that mindset for her sister. Because a disabled ill-person was worth living. Sarah was fully WORTH living and was becoming a stronger person in an atypical way.It's just shoddy and lazy writing that suddenly made her beyond redemption and then they decided to tack on Jane's crap POV on her despite her knowing NOTHING abou… [view original content]
Its hard for me to hate S2 Ep 1-2 because they atleast had a DIRECTION. The characters that were introduced all had potential and fitting in and getting to know them, the game set that mood perfectly.
Being treated coldly by christa but then Lonely when separated from her.
The heated debate of the cabin folk yelling at you and the subsequent anguish and frustration of being thrown in a shed.
Being reluctantly trusted and finding out about Carver and why the cabin folk acted the way they did.
They weren't perfect but they were atleast steady and the direction was there.
Now we have a halfassed attempt at Crawford which could have been great but was woefully short and underwhelming, and then Ep 4 nuff said and then Russians.
Nick Breckon is the lead writer and wrote the worst episodes of season two. The ridiculous way he wrote the first episode completely turned … moreoff a large portion of fans who were returning from season one. He didn't seem to get what made the first season so great and destroyed all the realism that people had come to expect by making adults interact with a preteen girl as if there was absolutely no difference in them. It was strange and ridiculous. When you have a man like Luke talking to a preteen girl the way he does it has an underlying feeling that seems inappropriate even though it would be normal if it was directed at another adult. Breckon's writing is what started all the talk about Luke and Clem having a romantic relationship together. Adults don't talk to kids the same as they do each other, and when you write them to do so it comes off as inappropriate. You would expect Luke to try and make a move on Clem if you didn't know any better… [view original content]
Well as similar to ben as he was, I honestly thought he'd be a character that would develop magnificently. I loved Ben's character as a mess up and his Death and inability to atone was a tragedy but a great and realistic one.
Nick despite being a mess up (in different ways) he had a unique approach where you can actually influence and steadily guide his character to develop in a completely new way which they dropped the ball on completely. I honestly thought his death in Episode 2 was YES a choice but an unpopular one where it was actually not the choice you were meant to take but a trap.
After episode 2, Nick's character didn't know where to go once Breckon was replaced.
About the characters, the way they got rid of Nick... disappointed and saddened me.
We saw Nick Breckon started an amazing arc on him bu… moret the others writers didn't saw the same thing. And the reason why I'm pissed off about this is because without too much effort , Nick could have become one the most lovable and complex character of the Walking Dead game.
You've certainly given them a life outside the game if that's what you mean. However, again, the point of those characters is to tell a story, I don't think they made Sarah or Nick for any other reason than to tell the story they always wanted to tell.
i don't think so,if anything this thread shows we care the most,we don't just forget about it after playing an episode,we think about the c… moreharacters life's,we try to keep the continuatity going,but you bring up a point of constructive criticism...theres two sides to every coin,Telltale have wrote two beautiful characters,infact most of the characters written in season 2 are outstanding and they should be praised for electing a response from passionate fans telling them the rights or wrongs of their development,it's like telltale have given birth to the character but we raise them into what we think they are,it's a little hard to explain but im sure you know what i mean.
Your argument is tiring tbh.
The themes may be "coherent" but it's still a written sloppy mess and we expected better from their writers who made promises in great decisions and characters. But instead are given rehashes and Non existant development and interactions.
I think it's pretty remarkable that Telltale has been able to elicit a response out of fans (whether negative or positive). I think that say… moreing they should be ashamed of the product of their work is absurd. The fact that it was able to get a response out of people shows that it's engaging. I seriously doubt that everyone who is enraged at Telltale for killing of Sarah or Nick will stop playing the game. I'm assuming every single one of them will play the final episode.
In terms of story, it's the story of Clem (you). In the first season it was Lee. Either way the story revolves around them and the other characters are literally an ends to a means and that means is the conclusion of the story. I can agree the characters they use to push the story forward are not always fleshed out but that's about as far as I'll go. The story is about Clem, no matter how hard you want it to be about Nick or Sarah. With Lee, the theme was survival of himself… [view original content]
That doesn't mean her Point of view was 1. Right and 2. Not problematic in its own right.
If her POV was right, then Clem would have stayed with Carver and his "strong survive" mentality.
Also if so: 1. Why would she want to leave Carver's group then? 2. If it's because she's a loner why did she stick around Clem so long dangling that you were helpful and then ultimately leave? She didn't know what she wanted.
Also if she was right, then Lee should have abandoned Clementine long ago. Christa should have abandoned Clementine Long ago. And Luke should have also. (why didn't Luke disagree with Jane? Jane is everything luke DIDN'T want)
And still who the hell was she to criticize Rebecca having a baby? The lady is 9 months in term, she can't just be like "Oh yes, Jane your so right. let me magically abort the child already ready to come out. Or decide that Sarah wasn't worth saving? Does she KNOW Rebecca or Sarah?
Also why did the Narrative suddenly follow her POV as if she was right? Which is extremely problematic for telltale up until now. She was never proven wrong. And your few times you CAN oppose her mindset it isn't nearly as combatative. they wanted you to be buddy buddy with her and for what? so she can leave?
That's all Jane was. A shallow POV in the Narrative. She barely added anything to anyone's development yet railroaded the development of several characters to move her nonexistant one which she ultimately abandons you anyway.
I've been going through the same exact arguments so many times I'm just going to start copypasting.
I think it's pretty remarkable that Telltale has been able to elicit a response out of fans (whether negative or positive). I think that saying they should be ashamed of the product of their work is absurd. The fact that it was able to get a response out of people shows that it's engaging. I seriously doubt that everyone who is enraged at Telltale for killing of Sarah or Nick will stop playing the game. I'm assuming every single one of them will play the final episode.
We're not upset that these characters died. We're upset that they died and nobody cared. We're upset that they were thrown away in such an underwhelming and disrespectful and emotionless way. Their deaths were pointless to the story, they only minimally affected any of the characters; at best they only served to reflect weak themes that only show up in episode 4. Their deaths don't have a strong purpose; they just happen, with minimal reactions or significance in the story. It's a disservice not just to the fans but to Telltale's own previous writing.
In terms of story, it's the story of Clem (you). In the first season it was Lee. Either way the story revolves around them and the other characters are literally an ends to a means and that means is the conclusion of the story.
So if Telltale thinks it's good storytelling for the characters to be thrown away with no purpose or emotion, alright, fine. So why don't they make any effort to show how any of this personally affects Clem? She's been pretty much emotionless and static this whole season, no changes or growth to be seen. Not saying that she can't just be suppressing her feelings or something, but like most other characters this season, I'm convinced that the portrayal is less intentional and is more just a result of lazy writing.
If this season is truly meant to be nothing more than a character study on Clementine herself, why not have the themes actually reflect this? Why not have the choices change Clementine's behavior, or affect the people around her? Why not take the time to reflect on how these situations personally affect her? Why would you have her react so unemotionally if you're supposed to be trying to show us her thoughts and growth and feelings? Clementine is never the focus, she is constantly overshadowed by the characters and situations we are presented with. If a character study is really meant to be the point of this season, it really should have been a bit more obvious.
In Lee's story, the characters were not just a means to an end. They were treated as characters in their own right, they had consistent and solid characterization. They served a purpose. Their deaths were emotional and hard-hitting, and they were treated respectfully and purposefully.
People are not complaining that the S2 characters did not go out with a bang, or recieve some heroic final scene. Remember Carley and Doug? What about Katjaa? And Duck? None of these deaths were heroic, but they were extremely emotional, because the story treated the situation with the proper gravity, purpose, and reaction. Compare that to episode 4, where it's just like "whoa, you're dead now?.....Why?... Oh well, moving on. It's not like this character meant anything anyway."
I just plain don't understand the argument being made here.
My argument is that the themes are all over the place. In episodes 1-4, you might pick out different themes in each episode, but none of them carry over to the next episodes. The episodes do not carry any overarching themes from one to the next. Instead, each episode in itself briefly touches on something interesting but abandons it in consequent episodes. At best they are inconsistent, at worst, they don't even exist, and the fact that the fans can find them and try to find ways to justify them is a lucky coincidence.
I keep seeing these long complicated theories on why this might have happened or why that character might have behaved this way etc etc.
This is not just fan theory and speculation, this is the fan being forced to struggle in order to find a way for the story to possibly work. You shouldn't have to come up with long elaborate theories on what happened in order to explain away such ridiculous inconsistencies. It's one thing if a story leaves something up to the imagination, and it's another thing for stuff be built up and then dropped for no reason.
The theme of protecting humanity is still present throughout this season, except they seem to be playing with the idea of losing it. In episode 4 if you look at the way others interacted with Clem, you see the same ideas being played out again except this time the onus is on the player.
Episode 4 is pretty much the only episode that can be interpreted to focus on this survival of the fittest, and abandoning morals as a specific theme. The other episodes barely touched on it. And even in episode 4, the theme is convoluted and messy. If this was supposed to be the overarching theme of the season it should have been more clear and focused in the writing.
But humanity obviously stands out amongst all of the episodes a.k.a. a coherent theme throughout... Episode 1: the cabin crew shows humanity by taking Clem in Episode 2: Nick admits to Walter that he killed his friend(or boyfriend), Walter doesn't kill him Episode 3: Seeing what the difference between the humanity Clem and her group have vs Carver and his group Episode 4: This is where humanity is emphasized through Clem's act of kindness, or lack there of. I should also add that even the absence of humanity is still proof that it is part of the theme.
This idea comes less from the writing and more from assumptions. The writing never tries to actively portray this idea of "humanity vs inhumanity" in the story, none of the examples above are ever emphasized as being the point. Good writing doesn't have to be justified by grasping at straws.
And...Just because a character is killed off doesn't make them unimportant, I think it affects the way you act and the choices you make for the rest of the episode (and I'm assuming the final episode). Why you would be "completely confident that these characters would continue to be important" is beyond me, they were ancillary characters and were treated exactly as such from day one.
Until episode 3 Nick had a huge amount of character focus and screen time, arguably more so than anyone else in the cabin group besides Sarah, whose importance was also obvious. She was integral to just about every episode, and was very well developed. Sarah and Nick were probably the most talked-about characters in the fanbase. Then they are both suddenly killed off in a completely railroaded and emotionless way. This was not in proper service to the story, and it was not the coherent and satisfying conclusion of a character arc.
I know it's released in an episodic format but you literally can't talk about the "character development" the author of this initial post was talking about, as a finished thing, until...welll...the end.
Well, they can't really develop any more. They're dead.
I think it's pretty remarkable that Telltale has been able to elicit a response out of fans (whether negative or positive). I think that say… moreing they should be ashamed of the product of their work is absurd. The fact that it was able to get a response out of people shows that it's engaging. I seriously doubt that everyone who is enraged at Telltale for killing of Sarah or Nick will stop playing the game. I'm assuming every single one of them will play the final episode.
In terms of story, it's the story of Clem (you). In the first season it was Lee. Either way the story revolves around them and the other characters are literally an ends to a means and that means is the conclusion of the story. I can agree the characters they use to push the story forward are not always fleshed out but that's about as far as I'll go. The story is about Clem, no matter how hard you want it to be about Nick or Sarah. With Lee, the theme was survival of himself… [view original content]
You've certainly given them a life outside the game if that's what you mean. However, again, the point of those characters is to tell a stor… morey, I don't think they made Sarah or Nick for any other reason than to tell the story they always wanted to tell.
She was shallow, but she also had no real ties to the group besides her plan. She spoke what was on her mind, I never did say it was right. Jane on her comments about Rebecca and Sarah were fairly just.
She knew keeping the baby safe in the situation they were in was fucked. They had no real permanent shelter and no real competent leader who had no plans.
Her sister was similar to Sarah and she knew that you can't save everyone. In the end she was right with Sarah dying regardless of what you did.
Also you can't say that she barely added anything, because she taught Clem that she can survive on her own and that she owes them nothing. Clem in most cases is the one saving them, so at this point it'd be better if Clem would leave the group.
That doesn't mean her Point of view was 1. Right and 2. Not problematic in its own right.
If her POV was right, then Clem would have stay… moreed with Carver and his "strong survive" mentality.
Also if so: 1. Why would she want to leave Carver's group then? 2. If it's because she's a loner why did she stick around Clem so long dangling that you were helpful and then ultimately leave? She didn't know what she wanted.
Also if she was right, then Lee should have abandoned Clementine long ago. Christa should have abandoned Clementine Long ago. And Luke should have also. (why didn't Luke disagree with Jane? Jane is everything luke DIDN'T want)
And still who the hell was she to criticize Rebecca having a baby? The lady is 9 months in term, she can't just be like "Oh yes, Jane your so right. let me magically abort the child already ready to come out. Or decide that Sarah wasn't worth saving? Does she KNOW Rebecca or Sarah?
Also why did the Na… [view original content]
copy pasting yet again
It's pretty common knowledge that the media has an obvious effect on how people see and treat people in their live… mores. You can't excuse it because "it's an opinion" or "it's not real". These things have influence and effects, and they are very real.
Nick was a very well-written character in the beginning. In fact there are many points in the season that were well-written and compelling. But they dropped the ball half-way through. Instead of continuing to develop these characters and themes and plots, they were dumped. That's my whole point here.
Which is IIRC based on what dialogue options you take, but nevermind then.
Apparently Nick was a very well-written and GOOD character coming out of the TTG factory.
/sarcasm
Do you realise that you can't change a person by saying something is bad. People still persecute those of different skin colours and people still enslave others. If other people view things that way so fucking what? You can't tell a catholic priest homosexuality is a-okay and you can't tell someone who's homosexual that homosexuality is wrong.
Do you not see that this is actually a problem in the world? That there are actually people that think people like Sarah, disabled people, s… morehould die? And that there is dozens of countries that still persecute those who are disabled? This is a real-world fucking problem!
I certainly hope Telltale is taking notice. If they choose to ignore this, there's no way they can possibly continue with the whole bs "the fan feedback counts". Did you see the Facebook page? Even people who aren't fans are starting to weigh in on this. They need to address it.
Do you realise that you can't change a person by saying something is bad. People still persecute those of different skin colours and people … morestill enslave others. If other people view things that way so fucking what? You can't tell a catholic priest homosexuality is a-okay and you can't tell someone who's homosexual that homosexuality is wrong.
Having you have to kick it MULTIPLE times would of made the situation 10x more tense anyway. Jane is upto the neck with walkers, they're litterly at arms length from you two and you deliver the final kick, unsure if it'll be your last and the door bolts open. Rather than they're being nothing there at all.
Talking of tense scenes, this season seems to lack them. I can only remember one, in the first episode where I had a gun pointed at me, and instinctively acted innocent and willing cause I DID believe I'd get shot, that was about it, all the other episodes had ... nothing.
Of course that bothers me! I was like : Come on Telltale, really? She's Clementine, not Bigby! At least, if she hit the door a dozen times … morethen I would have accepted it. She's a valuable little girl , not a Tyresse or a Abraham.
Really, I don't know how all the staff, director, writers and everyone are thinking about this.
Not only that, but the scene where you have to get the door open, Jane's animation is the exact same one molly uses in crawford when you have to shoot the zombie off her.
My reaction when:
-Rebecca cried more at Nick's death than Luke himself.
-Luke and Clem didn't react to Nick's death.
-No reaction … moreof everybody to Sarah's death.
-Jane the exact Molly 2.0 : Both are girls, young adults, lost a young sister, are extremely good at fighting, say survival is only what matters, and leave at the end of Episode 4.
Telltale, really?
When people say that video games have power, they're right. But that is not on the same level as when people want video games to be banned because they supposedly cause real life violence.
This is a case of the media playing into and encouraging harmful assumptions onto any real-life kid like Sarah, assumptions that are very harmful and very real. This isn't some unsupported case of claiming that games make people lose contact with reality and want to kill people for the high score, or whatever that argument is supposed to claim.
Video games are an active and well-known part of the media which constantly portrays the mentally disabled as useless, comic relief, killers, or a prop for another character. Instead of turning that on its head, Telltale played right into it.
Comments
Nick Breckon is the lead writer and wrote the worst episodes of season two. The ridiculous way he wrote the first episode completely turned off a large portion of fans who were returning from season one. He didn't seem to get what made the first season so great and destroyed all the realism that people had come to expect by making adults interact with a preteen girl as if there was absolutely no difference in them. It was strange and ridiculous. When you have a man like Luke talking to a preteen girl the way he does it has an underlying feeling that seems inappropriate even though it would be normal if it was directed at another adult. Breckon's writing is what started all the talk about Luke and Clem having a romantic relationship together. Adults don't talk to kids the same as they do each other, and when you write them to do so it comes off as inappropriate. You would expect Luke to try and make a move on Clem if you didn't know any better.
There's a reason most fans like an adult like Kenny acting fatherly toward her instead of like the unrealistic adults who didn't seem to have the natural ability to see the difference between adults and children until episode three. Fans liked seeing Lee act like a realistic man doing something most people see as noble; not the selfish and cowardly people written for season two by someone who also seems to think that allowing Clem to show any emotion or behavior of a child is showing weakness that fans don't want to see. Breckon shouldn't have been lead writer to begin and is hopefully let go by telltale after this season. The last two episodes aren't anything special either, but at least they seem to understand some of the things that Breckon screwed up big time in the first couple of episodes, but I doubt there are very many fans who had such a negative opinion of those episodes as myself who stuck around this long. I only stayed around because I made the mistake of buying the season pass up front.
The Auschwitz SS garrison was entirely German. No attempt at organizing non-German sentry units ever succeeded.
Do you not see that this is actually a problem in the world? That there are actually people that think people like Sarah, disabled people, should die? And that there is dozens of countries that still persecute those who are disabled? This is a real-world fucking problem!
Which is IIRC based on what dialogue options you take, but nevermind then.
Apparently Nick was a very well-written and GOOD character coming out of the TTG factory.
/sarcasm
August 10th
August 12th
I think they knoooooow~
That's good to see. It could mean that they're paying attention to us.
I think it's pretty remarkable that Telltale has been able to elicit a response out of fans (whether negative or positive). I think that saying they should be ashamed of the product of their work is absurd. The fact that it was able to get a response out of people shows that it's engaging. I seriously doubt that everyone who is enraged at Telltale for killing of Sarah or Nick will stop playing the game. I'm assuming every single one of them will play the final episode.
In terms of story, it's the story of Clem (you). In the first season it was Lee. Either way the story revolves around them and the other characters are literally an ends to a means and that means is the conclusion of the story. I can agree the characters they use to push the story forward are not always fleshed out but that's about as far as I'll go. The story is about Clem, no matter how hard you want it to be about Nick or Sarah. With Lee, the theme was survival of himself and learning to put someone, Clem, ahead of himself. This often meant protecting her humanity. The theme of protecting humanity is still present throughout this season, except they seem to be playing with the idea of losing it. In episode 4 if you look at the way others interacted with Clem, you see the same ideas being played out again except this time the onus is on the player. Do you act in a manner that helps everyone survive, which is the ideal of humanity in this situation, or do you act in a manner that ensures your own survival. The themes are very similar to the comic book series, where Kirkman doesn't hold back on killing of characters for the sake of story, ultimately, it's about story and the development of the main character.
I just plain don't understand the argument being made here. The theme as I mentioned earlier has been pretty coherent even from the first season. The idea of retaining humanity in the time of apocalypse is kind of a big one that has been present throughout the series. Additionally, ideas of trust, REGRET, sacrifice, teamwork, and betrayal are all part of the themes. But humanity obviously stands out amongst all of the episodes a.k.a. a coherent theme throughout...
Episode 1: the cabin crew shows humanity by taking Clem in
Episode 2: Nick admits to Walter that he killed his friend(or boyfriend), Walter doesn't kill him
Episode 3: Seeing what the difference between the humanity Clem and her group have vs Carver and his group
Episode 4: This is where humanity is emphasized through Clem's act of kindness, or lack there of.
I should also add that even the absence of humanity is still proof that it is part of the theme.
And...Just because a character is killed off doesn't make them unimportant, I think it affects the way you act and the choices you make for the rest of the episode (and I'm assuming the final episode). Why you would be "completely confident that these characters would continue to be important" is beyond me, they were ancillary characters and were treated exactly as such from day one.
Also, the season isn't done. I know it's released in an episodic format but you literally can't talk about the "character development" the author of this initial post was talking about, as a finished thing, until...welll...the end. Also Nick was always a dud. Sarah was a spud.
Miscommunication? More like saving face.
You wanted to wish her death.
You called her "not normal" and thus wished her death.
You praised her death.
Despite the fact that she hurt no one and barely caused the death of anyone else intentionally. (Reggie and her father being complete accidents).
Either Greg Miller played the game with Both eyes closed and doesn't understand english Or He's an ignorant bigot.
But that's a load of crap. Sarah may have had a disability but she could have been WRITTEN as being a developed character. She WANTED to learn to use a gun, she had a decent judge of character by Helping clementine despite her father's wishes and getting you Peroxide, and you had the option to teach her. She hid from Carver just fine.
She didn't cause any real issues until Carver's Fascist and VIOLENT mindset came along. And even then he was abusive to those who were useful. The Crawford Mindset that Carver and later Jane had was full of Crap that would make even Molly spit in her face because Molly atleast fought against that mindset for her sister. Because a disabled ill-person was worth living. Sarah was fully WORTH living and was becoming a stronger person in an atypical way.It's just shoddy and lazy writing that suddenly made her beyond redemption and then they decided to tack on Jane's crap POV on her despite her knowing NOTHING about her?
I am a fan of S1 and S2 Ep 1-2. I'm NOT a fan of this diminished piece of shoddy writting.
It's ok to have constructive criticism, or i guess any, but "shame on you telltale" ..... You don't think you're being slightly dramatic.
Here's an interview on S1 Of Lilly haters.
Oh how it changed.
http://lillycaul.tumblr.com/post/94442984842/treedeecee-thewalkingliability-peter
"Oh, so you're STILL not Normal"
"Oh so you're STILL not sorry about your offensive Ableist b.s"
You can explain what Sarah's character is and isn't all you want, doesn't change the fact that ableist and offensive crap spewed out of your mouth.
Umm. he said "She's not normal" and then "Oh you're STILL not Normal".
he didn't know she was disabled? Sure....
i don't think so,if anything this thread shows we care the most,we don't just forget about it after playing an episode,we think about the characters life's,we try to keep the continuatity going,but you bring up a point of constructive criticism...theres two sides to every coin,Telltale have wrote two beautiful characters,infact most of the characters written in season 2 are outstanding and they should be praised for electing a response from passionate fans telling them the rights or wrongs of their development,it's like telltale have given birth to the character but we raise them into what we think they are,it's a little hard to explain but im sure you know what i mean.
Vent their frustration on the wrong person? This guy publically ridiculed and celebrated the death of a 15 year old hispanic child for doing nothing wrong. she never hurt anyone yet she deserves more death and hate than any of the other characters? Where's his long spiel against Jane and her abandoning her sister and then encouraging the abandonment of an innocent despite not knowing them at all? Or that Luke never even sniffled at Sarah and Nick's death despite the fact that these two practically looked up and idolized them?
this is positive
Love this man's POV and Lilly. Fantastic stance on character perspective.
I wish he was the one Miller was interviewing so he can snap his Offensive and narrowminded POV right back at him.
So the mistreatment and ridicule of Disabled individuals doesn't exist and never happens? get outta here.
Sean Vanaman's Interview defending Lilly against all the terrible hate she received (a few scrolls above) States otherwise. There are two sides to every coin and I'm pretty sure Sean Vanaman would never laugh along with Greg Miller's complete narrow-minded bigotry of a 15 year old child character. OH how the times have changed =(
Jane's character explained her point of view and I feel she was an amazing character for it.
Its hard for me to hate S2 Ep 1-2 because they atleast had a DIRECTION. The characters that were introduced all had potential and fitting in and getting to know them, the game set that mood perfectly.
Being treated coldly by christa but then Lonely when separated from her.
The heated debate of the cabin folk yelling at you and the subsequent anguish and frustration of being thrown in a shed.
Being reluctantly trusted and finding out about Carver and why the cabin folk acted the way they did.
They weren't perfect but they were atleast steady and the direction was there.
Now we have a halfassed attempt at Crawford which could have been great but was woefully short and underwhelming, and then Ep 4 nuff said and then Russians.
Well as similar to ben as he was, I honestly thought he'd be a character that would develop magnificently. I loved Ben's character as a mess up and his Death and inability to atone was a tragedy but a great and realistic one.
Nick despite being a mess up (in different ways) he had a unique approach where you can actually influence and steadily guide his character to develop in a completely new way which they dropped the ball on completely. I honestly thought his death in Episode 2 was YES a choice but an unpopular one where it was actually not the choice you were meant to take but a trap.
After episode 2, Nick's character didn't know where to go once Breckon was replaced.
You've certainly given them a life outside the game if that's what you mean. However, again, the point of those characters is to tell a story, I don't think they made Sarah or Nick for any other reason than to tell the story they always wanted to tell.
Your argument is tiring tbh.
The themes may be "coherent" but it's still a written sloppy mess and we expected better from their writers who made promises in great decisions and characters. But instead are given rehashes and Non existant development and interactions.
That doesn't mean her Point of view was 1. Right and 2. Not problematic in its own right.
If her POV was right, then Clem would have stayed with Carver and his "strong survive" mentality.
Also if so: 1. Why would she want to leave Carver's group then? 2. If it's because she's a loner why did she stick around Clem so long dangling that you were helpful and then ultimately leave? She didn't know what she wanted.
Also if she was right, then Lee should have abandoned Clementine long ago. Christa should have abandoned Clementine Long ago. And Luke should have also. (why didn't Luke disagree with Jane? Jane is everything luke DIDN'T want)
And still who the hell was she to criticize Rebecca having a baby? The lady is 9 months in term, she can't just be like "Oh yes, Jane your so right. let me magically abort the child already ready to come out. Or decide that Sarah wasn't worth saving? Does she KNOW Rebecca or Sarah?
Also why did the Narrative suddenly follow her POV as if she was right? Which is extremely problematic for telltale up until now. She was never proven wrong. And your few times you CAN oppose her mindset it isn't nearly as combatative. they wanted you to be buddy buddy with her and for what? so she can leave?
That's all Jane was. A shallow POV in the Narrative. She barely added anything to anyone's development yet railroaded the development of several characters to move her nonexistant one which she ultimately abandons you anyway.
I've been going through the same exact arguments so many times I'm just going to start copypasting.
We're not upset that these characters died. We're upset that they died and nobody cared. We're upset that they were thrown away in such an underwhelming and disrespectful and emotionless way. Their deaths were pointless to the story, they only minimally affected any of the characters; at best they only served to reflect weak themes that only show up in episode 4. Their deaths don't have a strong purpose; they just happen, with minimal reactions or significance in the story. It's a disservice not just to the fans but to Telltale's own previous writing.
So if Telltale thinks it's good storytelling for the characters to be thrown away with no purpose or emotion, alright, fine. So why don't they make any effort to show how any of this personally affects Clem? She's been pretty much emotionless and static this whole season, no changes or growth to be seen. Not saying that she can't just be suppressing her feelings or something, but like most other characters this season, I'm convinced that the portrayal is less intentional and is more just a result of lazy writing.
If this season is truly meant to be nothing more than a character study on Clementine herself, why not have the themes actually reflect this? Why not have the choices change Clementine's behavior, or affect the people around her? Why not take the time to reflect on how these situations personally affect her? Why would you have her react so unemotionally if you're supposed to be trying to show us her thoughts and growth and feelings? Clementine is never the focus, she is constantly overshadowed by the characters and situations we are presented with. If a character study is really meant to be the point of this season, it really should have been a bit more obvious.
In Lee's story, the characters were not just a means to an end. They were treated as characters in their own right, they had consistent and solid characterization. They served a purpose. Their deaths were emotional and hard-hitting, and they were treated respectfully and purposefully.
People are not complaining that the S2 characters did not go out with a bang, or recieve some heroic final scene. Remember Carley and Doug? What about Katjaa? And Duck? None of these deaths were heroic, but they were extremely emotional, because the story treated the situation with the proper gravity, purpose, and reaction. Compare that to episode 4, where it's just like "whoa, you're dead now?.....Why?... Oh well, moving on. It's not like this character meant anything anyway."
My argument is that the themes are all over the place. In episodes 1-4, you might pick out different themes in each episode, but none of them carry over to the next episodes. The episodes do not carry any overarching themes from one to the next. Instead, each episode in itself briefly touches on something interesting but abandons it in consequent episodes. At best they are inconsistent, at worst, they don't even exist, and the fact that the fans can find them and try to find ways to justify them is a lucky coincidence.
I keep seeing these long complicated theories on why this might have happened or why that character might have behaved this way etc etc.
This is not just fan theory and speculation, this is the fan being forced to struggle in order to find a way for the story to possibly work. You shouldn't have to come up with long elaborate theories on what happened in order to explain away such ridiculous inconsistencies. It's one thing if a story leaves something up to the imagination, and it's another thing for stuff be built up and then dropped for no reason.
Episode 4 is pretty much the only episode that can be interpreted to focus on this survival of the fittest, and abandoning morals as a specific theme. The other episodes barely touched on it. And even in episode 4, the theme is convoluted and messy. If this was supposed to be the overarching theme of the season it should have been more clear and focused in the writing.
This idea comes less from the writing and more from assumptions. The writing never tries to actively portray this idea of "humanity vs inhumanity" in the story, none of the examples above are ever emphasized as being the point. Good writing doesn't have to be justified by grasping at straws.
Until episode 3 Nick had a huge amount of character focus and screen time, arguably more so than anyone else in the cabin group besides Sarah, whose importance was also obvious. She was integral to just about every episode, and was very well developed. Sarah and Nick were probably the most talked-about characters in the fanbase. Then they are both suddenly killed off in a completely railroaded and emotionless way. This was not in proper service to the story, and it was not the coherent and satisfying conclusion of a character arc.
Well, they can't really develop any more. They're dead.
Now that's just unnecessary and insulting.
The story they told with the deaths of Nick and Sarah was at best extremely weak. At worst it was intentionally offensive.
She was shallow, but she also had no real ties to the group besides her plan. She spoke what was on her mind, I never did say it was right. Jane on her comments about Rebecca and Sarah were fairly just.
She knew keeping the baby safe in the situation they were in was fucked. They had no real permanent shelter and no real competent leader who had no plans.
Her sister was similar to Sarah and she knew that you can't save everyone. In the end she was right with Sarah dying regardless of what you did.
Also you can't say that she barely added anything, because she taught Clem that she can survive on her own and that she owes them nothing. Clem in most cases is the one saving them, so at this point it'd be better if Clem would leave the group.
That is the same thing as saying video games cause violence.
Nick was a very well-written character in the beginning. In fact there are many points in the season that were well-written and compelling. But they dropped the ball half-way through. Instead of continuing to develop these characters and themes and plots, they were dumped. That's my whole point here.
Do you realise that you can't change a person by saying something is bad. People still persecute those of different skin colours and people still enslave others. If other people view things that way so fucking what? You can't tell a catholic priest homosexuality is a-okay and you can't tell someone who's homosexual that homosexuality is wrong.
I certainly hope Telltale is taking notice. If they choose to ignore this, there's no way they can possibly continue with the whole bs "the fan feedback counts". Did you see the Facebook page? Even people who aren't fans are starting to weigh in on this. They need to address it.
That doesn't make any sense.
I already explained how it's not the same.
Having you have to kick it MULTIPLE times would of made the situation 10x more tense anyway. Jane is upto the neck with walkers, they're litterly at arms length from you two and you deliver the final kick, unsure if it'll be your last and the door bolts open. Rather than they're being nothing there at all.
Talking of tense scenes, this season seems to lack them. I can only remember one, in the first episode where I had a gun pointed at me, and instinctively acted innocent and willing cause I DID believe I'd get shot, that was about it, all the other episodes had ... nothing.
Not only that, but the scene where you have to get the door open, Jane's animation is the exact same one molly uses in crawford when you have to shoot the zombie off her.
So we should just give up on trying to convince them they're wrong?
Yeah it does, people hold true to their opinions even if it's wrong. No matter what you do you can't control their opinions.
I read your explanation and you just seemed to point out how it is the same.
This is what I said: