And what exactly did Jane do to her sister? She told us that she couldn't have made her jump, throw her, or carry her. What would you have wanted her to do?
Molly would have been disgusted by Jane if she heard what she did to her sister.
Molly fought tooth and nail to protect her disabled sister and keep her alive. Jane gave up on hers.
I just wanted to comment that this is the best post I have read in this thread and most closely resembles how I felt upon finishing Episode 4.
My Clementine chose to look after Sarah until the end, and even though my choices ultimately still resulted in her death, I felt as though I did the best I could do to keep my friend safe. To me, that was all that mattered. I chose not to be like people at Crawford.
Yes, this story is fantasy. Still, I would still like there to be reasonable amount of realism in it. It may be cruel to say that people with disabilities have it hard in a brutal environment like we have within this story, but that's understandable.
Sarah was a liability to the group's survival, plain and simple by the fact that she contributed very little if any, and she constantly put other people in danger especially when those said people were putting their lives at risk to save her. That trailer park scene speaks for itself. We have zombies about to bust through the door to eat everyone alive, but what did Sarah do? She did nothing. She couldn't even get herself to move so that my Clementine and Luke didn't have to waste time staying inside that trailer while zombies were trying to bust through and eat all of us alive. My Clementine and Luke did put ourselves at risk for our lives for her. So where do you draw the line? We clearly have someone who is traumatized, disturbed, and unwilling to help others or herself, and if we were put into that same exact situation, is it unreasonable to think that our very own safety and survival comes first and foremost? In an ideal world behind our computer screen, it is too easy for everyone to say how unfair or cruel it is. But if any of us were put into that very same situation, how many of you would put your very own life at risk to try to save someone who is unwilling to save even her own self? How much patience would you have had in a situation where every extra second you stay gets you closer to being eaten alive?
Does this automatically translate into promotion of hatred towards disabled people? Of course not. I don't understand why so many people are feeling this way. Realistically speaking, the brutal nature of the deaths is understandable no matter how pointless it seems, because not every deaths need to be glorified. The fact that these deaths seem pointless only compound to the feeling of hopelessness and despair which these episodes are clearly trying to depict.
And please don't try to bring up the "fantasy stories do not need to be realistic" card. Maybe perhaps some of you expected Sarah to all of a sudden become saviors of humanity simply by the fact that this story is fantasy? Hey anything can happen in fantasy right? Perhaps she could cast fire out of her hands all of a sudden and burn all the zombies to ashes! Now how realistic is that?
Just because your favorite characters met an end that you did not agree with...... Does not make the storytelling bad.
Speaking as someone with a [physical] disability I can get your viewpoint. People with disabilities fight an uphill battle in all spheres of… more life. But that doesn't make your life mean more. Just because you need support or protection doesn't mean your life is worth more than those doing the protection. People died protecting/sheltering Sarah, or died because of her inability to act and function autonomously. Where do you draw the line? How many people die protecting someone before it becomes too much? I'm studying psychology so I get the reasons for Sarah's inability better than most but that doesn't change facts. Sarah did not just not contribute anything to the survival of the group she actively detracted from their chances of survival simply by existing. It's not fair and it's brutal and I felt terribly for leaving her behind in that trailer park [after trying to convince her to leave, again, against my better judgement] but I don't regret… [view original content]
One of the things that makes me mad is that you had to push her to do any of those things. She definitely would not do those things under normal circumstances. And what is up with her just hanging off the deck like she needed someone to save her? It seemed out of character to me. (Also seems like someone trying to write a female badass but can't get out of the damsel in distress.) You would think with her talk about not relying on others she would have slipped out and run up the collapsed deck herself without anyone's pushing. Jane's character seem very inconsistent to me.
Jane would've killed Lee, left Kenny wounded and let Clementine cry as the horde surrounded them, and escaped by herself in the Alley.
… more
Jane did plenty of things out of humanity and care for others. She turned back to help Clem and Rebecca make it through the hoard, even though they would have been just fine if Rebecca just followed Jane's directions. She rushed over and risked her life to save Sarah and Luke in the trailer (remember, she was the one holding the door open and fending off the walker and she was the last one to leave through the skylight). She is explicitly stated to have confronted Arvo rather than just run away because she was afraid of leading him back to the vulnerable group. She's nearly in tears after threatening/robbing Arvo. And even though she was (understandably) reluctant to do so, she did jump down to try to help Sarah rather than just immediately running up the collapsed deck.
Jane doesn't just care about… [view original content]
Yes, this is why I like the character. Her philosophy and social isolation has made her a rather blunt and flawed person, but she does provoke a strong emotional reaction from me precisely because I find her actions both fascinating and repulsive.
Jane would've killed Lee, left Kenny wounded and let Clementine cry as the horde surrounded them, and escaped by herself in the Alley.
… more
Jane did plenty of things out of humanity and care for others. She turned back to help Clem and Rebecca make it through the hoard, even though they would have been just fine if Rebecca just followed Jane's directions. She rushed over and risked her life to save Sarah and Luke in the trailer (remember, she was the one holding the door open and fending off the walker and she was the last one to leave through the skylight). She is explicitly stated to have confronted Arvo rather than just run away because she was afraid of leading him back to the vulnerable group. She's nearly in tears after threatening/robbing Arvo. And even though she was (understandably) reluctant to do so, she did jump down to try to help Sarah rather than just immediately running up the collapsed deck.
Jane doesn't just care about… [view original content]
Molly would have killed Lee if Clem wasn't there to stop her. And she was fully prepared to leave the group to die against the approaching hoard until Clem flashed her the sad eyes, saying that it "wasn't her problem". And that situation was a lot more dire than the one with Rebecca. Clem and Rebecca were covered in walker guts so they would have had a pretty decent chance of making it out of there without Jane's help. Without Molly, Clem, Kenny and Lee would have died there. And Jane's "we gotta help them" response to hearing Luke and Sarah was pretty immediate. She didn't even hesitate when she saw that they were surrounded by walkers; she just tried to think of a way around it.
I don't think it's inconsistent for her to want to be pulled up when it could have easily been done rather than immediately jumping down herself just to prove her independence. She doesn't like putting herself in situations where she needs to rely on others, but she's not anti-social to the extent that should would reject help when it can easily be provided.
One of the things that makes me mad is that you had to push her to do any of those things. She definitely would not do those things under no… morermal circumstances. And what is up with her just hanging off the deck like she needed someone to save her? It seemed out of character to me. (Also seems like someone trying to write a female badass but can't get out of the damsel in distress.) You would think with her talk about not relying on others she would have slipped out and run up the collapsed deck herself without anyone's pushing. Jane's character seem very inconsistent to me.
Exactly, she's a far more complex and conflicted character than I think people give her credit for. She embodies the struggle between humanity and pragmatism very nicely. Despite her choosing to be a survivalist loner, she just can't help but give into the small bit humanity she tries to bury away. From talking to her it's clear that she wasn't always like how she is now. She sounded like a really sweet (if a bit mischievous) young girl. But the apocalypse changed her. I see her as a model of what Clem could eventually become given enough time in that world. And that's a really tragic thing to think about.
Yes, this is why I like the character. Her philosophy and social isolation has made her a rather blunt and flawed person, but she does provoke a strong emotional reaction from me precisely because I find her actions both fascinating and repulsive.
the strange thing is, Didnt after they run up the balcony and Rebecca laid down she told Sarah to stay behind and she hid behind the crates? So why she went outside is a complete and utter mystery.
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 i… morensisting 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.
Oh no, Jane is STILL a carbon copy. Just a crappy one compared to Molly.
All the laziness, not nearly as good. Which is strange cuz i disliked Molly but jane made me love molly instead. Cuz Molly atleast was human, Jane was just trash who assumed and butted her nose into everyone with her trash opinion.
Maybe I don't remember much with Molly and would need to replay that but I still disagree about Jane. With the way Jane acted and her responses to certain things I can't see that. If you save Sarah the first time she tries pushing you into thinking that Sarah is unsavable right in front of her. That sounds like anti-social behavior to me. Broke my heart speaking to Sarah after that point. Had I been give the ability to prove Jane wrong I would have liked her character more thinking she was trying to prove herself wrong instead.
Molly would have killed Lee if Clem wasn't there to stop her. And she was fully prepared to leave the group to die against the approaching h… moreoard until Clem flashed her the sad eyes, saying that it "wasn't her problem". And that situation was a lot more dire than the one with Rebecca. Clem and Rebecca were covered in walker guts so they would have had a pretty decent chance of making it out of there without Jane's help. Without Molly, Clem, Kenny and Lee would have died there. And Jane's "we gotta help them" response to hearing Luke and Sarah was pretty immediate. She didn't even hesitate when she saw that they were surrounded by walkers; she just tried to think of a way around it.
I don't think it's inconsistent for her to want to be pulled up when it could have easily been done rather than immediately jumping down herself just to prove her independence. She doesn't like putting herself in situations where she needs to rely on others, but … [view original content]
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 d… moreied, 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.
Which, in the hands of another writer, would be another indicator of how bad she is at reading people socially. Just like when she implies to Rebecca, a woman hours away from giving birth, that she should abort the baby. What on earth is she expecting?
Maybe I don't remember much with Molly and would need to replay that but I still disagree about Jane. With the way Jane acted and her respon… moreses to certain things I can't see that. If you save Sarah the first time she tries pushing you into thinking that Sarah is unsavable right in front of her. That sounds like anti-social behavior to me. Broke my heart speaking to Sarah after that point. Had I been give the ability to prove Jane wrong I would have liked her character more thinking she was trying to prove herself wrong instead.
On the other hand, one can see Michelle as an indicator of how Clem might turn out if she really wants to stick with being a loner. It's not a coincidence that she's a black girl who's approximately the same size as 11-year-old Clem. Additionally, her remorse over accidentally killing Omid can be linked to Jane not being able to fully commit to her pragmatism and murder Arvo.
Exactly, she's a far more complex and conflicted character than I think people give her credit for. She embodies the struggle between humani… morety and pragmatism very nicely. Despite her choosing to be a survivalist loner, she just can't help but give into the small bit humanity she tries to bury away. From talking to her it's clear that she wasn't always like how she is now. She sounded like a really sweet (if a bit mischievous) young girl. But the apocalypse changed her. I see her as a model of what Clem could eventually become given enough time in that world. And that's a really tragic thing to think about.
just because she has anxiety though doesn't mean she CAN'T adapt and become stronger atleast on the inside.
She had her father killed just half a day earlier, and a day earlier he slapped her for the first time. Of course she'd be anxious and in a panic attack, it would be unreasonable for her NOT to be.
But over time she could have been okay. She could have adapted even if she wasn't a zombie-killing rambo. Her having Anxety is no excuse not to save her.
It makes me sick when people say that because Sarah had anxiety she had become a great liability and that there was no point in even trying … moreto save her because she is the type of person who wouldn't be able to survive the apocalypse, well of course she won't survive if no one will help her! If Sarah didn't have anxiety and she wasn't in that position, then people would say different...
Exactly. I can go on a long spiel about the bias towards angry white men and why that means characters like Kenny get so much defense, and … moreabout how Strong Female Characters can only be as de-feminized as Jane, but I don't have the energy for that.
Part of my disappointment is that Season 1 allowed for players to empathize with a black man and see him as a sensitive, heroic figure even if he starts off in a police car. I was hoping the second Season would continue this theme of empathizing with minorities by having us focus on the struggles of a little girl - but instead, we're forced to agree with the cruel mindsets of murderers, thieves and psychotics.
Also if you want sudden and unfortunate deaths, Carley and Doug's deaths were not only tragic but had TWO VERY different meanings.
What happened Telltale?
I know people are mad about Greg Miller. He was disgusting.
The fact that they didn't get to redeem themselves is actually a normal th… moreing. I look at it as "This is The Walking Dead. Life is so precious, and it can be taken in and instant. Fair or not, villainess or heroic, it will always end."
I'm not going to repeat myself. I've already explained why this is a lazy, cop-out excuse from a literary standpoint because it's clear this wasn't Telltale's intention when they wrote the scenes. Lee's death, Ben's death--THOSE deaths had that meaning. These deaths did not. Nick and Sarah were just fridged, plan and simple.
Michelle struck me more as a scared little kid trying to come off as tough by picking on those weaker than her. Plus Michelle kinda reveled in bullying Clem out of her stuff. I can't see Clem ever doing that.
Jane's more the genuine article. She clearly doesn't enjoy robbing Arvo. While talking to him, you hear her listing off justifications for why robbing him is the right thing to do (the group needs the supplies, he's probably just a junkie, he's lying about his sick sister), as if she's talking herself into doing it. That's how I'd imagine a hardened, survivalist Clem robbing people.
On the other hand, one can see Michelle as an indicator of how Clem might turn out if she really wants to stick with being a loner. It's no… moret a coincidence that she's a black girl who's approximately the same size as 11-year-old Clem. Additionally, her remorse over accidentally killing Omid can be linked to Jane not being able to fully commit to her pragmatism and murder Arvo.
I'm ok with the fact that she might actually be bad at reading people socially speaking though she just felt a bit inconsistent with a lot of things to me. Maybe it really is her trying to prove her thoughts on people wrong but her character develop would have been more effective on me if we were giving the ability to prove her wrong about Sarah. I really don't know how to explain my thought on it.
Which, in the hands of another writer, would be another indicator of how bad she is at reading people socially. Just like when she implies … moreto Rebecca, a woman hours away from giving birth, that she should abort the baby. What on earth is she expecting?
Her anxiety makes it difficult for her to adapt, and Clementine was really the only one who could help her adapt. Out of everyone, Sarah would only talk to Clementine when she was in a state of anxiety.
just because she has anxiety though doesn't mean she CAN'T adapt and become stronger atleast on the inside.
She had her father killed just … morehalf a day earlier, and a day earlier he slapped her for the first time. Of course she'd be anxious and in a panic attack, it would be unreasonable for her NOT to be.
But over time she could have been okay. She could have adapted even if she wasn't a zombie-killing rambo. Her having Anxety is no excuse not to save her.
I know Spooch even when everyone wanted Duck dead. Maybe I'm just patient with kids but, if I saw Shawn and Duck i'd go straight for Duck. Everyone hated him for no reason. He was a modern child to be honest.
Jane wasn't implying that Rebecca should abort the baby. She might have been suggesting that Rebecca should abandon it, but I'm not sure she actually meant to say even that. I think she meant exactly what she asked: "What are you going to do with it?"
At that point, it was just Rebecca and Clem and there was no guarantee that any of the other group members made it out. So the "worst case scenario," as she put it, was a weakened mother and a little girl having to care for a newborn child by themselves. It was an analytical statement identifying "the problem" as she saw it, not a suggestion of how to solve it.
Which, in the hands of another writer, would be another indicator of how bad she is at reading people socially. Just like when she implies … moreto Rebecca, a woman hours away from giving birth, that she should abort the baby. What on earth is she expecting?
OP's statements seem to be based on irrational and overly emotional way of thinking. Sarah and Nick were just like everyone else in this story.... People who are trying to survive. Disabilities or not, they are just that.... people. Having disabilities does not make them any more deserving than other people. At no point did It ever cross my mind that this game was actively trying to force me to dislike anybody because they have disabilities. Are you kidding me?
Given the circumstances in which the characters' lives were in immediate danger, the fact that a newborn and her mother's safety were of an utmost importance and the general hardship that everyone was suffering through, I'd say that the deaths were handled quite well.
Existence of characters that bring conflicts in a story is nothing new.... someone like Jane. Jane's statements and overall notion about the survival of the fittest is the way this game presented conflict. From there, we as players were given the option to agree or disagree with it and act accordingly. Simply having these characters does not automatically translate into writers forcing us players to hate on anybody. Since we have the luxury of making choices due to this being a video game, I feel that I was given plenty of choices and opportunities to express my sympathy and willingness to help Sarah. Even if this were a straight up movie or a book, if the main character is written to shy away from people like Sarah and Nick, we should take that as just a story and nothing more.
And yes, Sarah was a burden and a liability to the group's survival. That is a fact. We may sympathize, and we may choose to help as much as we can, but at the end of the day, if the lives of others trying to help are put at risk due to the incapacity or unwillingness of the disabled person (which clearly happens numerous times in the story) then where do you draw the line? It is easy for you to talk as if you are a super saint in the confines of your home behind a computer screen, but what if you were actually put into that very same situation? Would you be willing to sacrifice yours and other people's lives in order to save a disabled person? What makes them more deserving of life? Is that not clearly a sign of a burden and a liability?
Interesting points. Though if that's the case, then it's pretty ironic how they managed to do just the opposite effect. Nick was my favorite character and Sarah, while at times infuriating, was definitely one of the most interesting ones. Especially after her father died, i became really intrigued how she was going to make it, how my "guardianship" over her was going to play out... but you all know how that ended up.
It's interesting to compare these character to Luke for example. In earlier episodes it almost seems like Luke was made to be loved (nowadays his role just seems to consist of opposing Kenny in every turn). Well, I must say Telltale that if that was your intention, it worked totally backwards with me. While I did like Luke, I never was relating to him or finding him that interesting of a character. Instead it was Nick who got my attention and sympathy and it was Sarah who made me think about the future.
Honestly, the moment you use the word "liability" is the moment I stop taking your argument remotely seriously. This forum and TWDG fans in general grossly abuse that word to a ridiculous degree.
It would be nice to find someone who actually wants to defend their deaths to me and come up with genuine literary value to them instead of just telling me "Sarah and Nick had to die because they were burdens."
Like... Kenny's "death" with Ben? The meaning there was that he came full circle. He went through an arc where he lost his family, the most important thing to him, and hated this kid for it, but then accepted his role as a paternal figure and cared for him in the moments before his death. That illustrates Kenny's role as a father from the beginning to the end.
I IMPLORE people arguing with me to find that kind of meaning in Sarah and Nick's death. Like, seriously. I'm begging you to enlighten me here. Tell me the actual literary value behind it. Tell me what their stories are meant to be.
OP's statements seem to be based on irrational and overly emotional way of thinking. Sarah and Nick were just like everyone else in this st… moreory.... People who are trying to survive. Disabilities or not, they are just that.... people. Having disabilities does not make them any more deserving than other people. At no point did It ever cross my mind that this game was actively trying to force me to dislike anybody because they have disabilities. Are you kidding me?
Given the circumstances in which the characters' lives were in immediate danger, the fact that a newborn and her mother's safety were of an utmost importance and the general hardship that everyone was suffering through, I'd say that the deaths were handled quite well.
Existence of characters that bring conflicts in a story is nothing new.... someone like Jane. Jane's statements and overall notion about the survival of the fittest is the way this game presented conflict. Fr… [view original content]
A lot of people are split on Sarah but Nick was arguably the Ensemble Dark Horse of the season. Telltale wanted us all to love Luke but we ended up loving Nick more.
Interesting points. Though if that's the case, then it's pretty ironic how they managed to do just the opposite effect. Nick was my favorite… more character and Sarah, while at times infuriating, was definitely one of the most interesting ones. Especially after her father died, i became really intrigued how she was going to make it, how my "guardianship" over her was going to play out... but you all know how that ended up.
It's interesting to compare these character to Luke for example. In earlier episodes it almost seems like Luke was made to be loved (nowadays his role just seems to consist of opposing Kenny in every turn). Well, I must say Telltale that if that was your intention, it worked totally backwards with me. While I did like Luke, I never was relating to him or finding him that interesting of a character. Instead it was Nick who got my attention and sympathy and it was Sarah who made me think about the future.
Yeah, and I think that whole "wanting this character to be loved" -thing is exactly the reason why I didn't find myself invested in Luke. When you are trying to make people like someone, it's easy to make him/her appear "too good" which in turn tends to annoy people. Well, while he did not actually annoy me (in fact, I liked him), I also didn't find anything to really... grasp upon in his character. I still don't and we are almost done with the season.
Nick had these flaws and personality traits which made him easy to relate and sympathize with. While appearing initially hostile, he then proceeded to make up for his mistakes and showed some real character growth. He was an actual dynamic character with realistic fears and doubts. He then continued to develop even more and reminded me of some sort of mixture of Kenny (temper) and Ben (mess ups & self doubt) but he was also a far more believable version of Ben whose actions sometimes went to absurd levels (the infamous hatchet!). I actually always thought Telltale really wanted us to hate Ben because of all the stupid stuff they made him do. It's such a damn shame that all the beautiful development of Nick was totally wasted after he became a determinant character. There's actually no point in saving him. Even Ben actually did something and had a great character moment with Kenny. Nick added absolutely nothing to the story after that point and his death was, like you said, meaningless.
But anyways, Telltale indeed did a shitty job if they wanted me to hate Nick and fangirl over Luke.
A lot of people are split on Sarah but Nick was arguably the Ensemble Dark Horse of the season. Telltale wanted us all to love Luke but we ended up loving Nick more.
Your continued insistence to refuse the fact that Sarah was a liability to the group's survival tells me that you are in denial. The fact that you are going to ignore what I had to say simply because I stated an obvious fact tells me you are one of those types that are not worth having a discussion. Cry me a river for god's sakes! If you can't grasp that simple fact and stop making assumptions that I or anyone else literally said people need to die because they were burdens....then we can go somewhere with a discussion. Until then, it is not worth my time because quite frankly, statements like yours is being thrown about to a ridiculous degree.
Honestly, the moment you use the word "liability" is the moment I stop taking your argument remotely seriously. This forum and TWDG fans in … moregeneral grossly abuse that word to a ridiculous degree.
It would be nice to find someone who actually wants to defend their deaths to me and come up with genuine literary value to them instead of just telling me "Sarah and Nick had to die because they were burdens."
Like... Kenny's "death" with Ben? The meaning there was that he came full circle. He went through an arc where he lost his family, the most important thing to him, and hated this kid for it, but then accepted his role as a paternal figure and cared for him in the moments before his death. That illustrates Kenny's role as a father from the beginning to the end.
I IMPLORE people arguing with me to find that kind of meaning in Sarah and Nick's death. Like, seriously. I'm begging you to enlighten me here. Tell me the actual literary value behind it. Tell me what their stories are meant to be.
I thought most like her more than Molly for being more realistic? I like Molly and Jane but I'd like Molly more because Molly wouldn't ever abandon Clem imo. That said Molly left Lee and Kenny and only helped because Clem was with them, but I think Clem could help Jane with her humanity also
Oh no, Jane is STILL a carbon copy. Just a crappy one compared to Molly.
All the laziness, not nearly as good. Which is strange cuz i disli… moreked Molly but jane made me love molly instead. Cuz Molly atleast was human, Jane was just trash who assumed and butted her nose into everyone with her trash opinion.
Interesting comment I read on Youtube:
It’s sort of sad to see so much vitriol towards Sarah from fans of the series. It’s just a reflection of how society in general views people with mental illness.
Whilst I'm not the target of the post exactly (I know full well how awesome I am ;3), I still appreciate the sentiment. It gets a little hokey at the end but that's ok. xD
I know for a fact that it made a lot of people feel bad about themselves and I don't blame them. Don't tell me to "stop" when I'm trying to offer kind and encouraging words to young people who are struggling. Why would you ever think that's okay?
I don't get all the jane hate, jane was fine. She was probably one of the better characters in the series, she had some depth to her.
The thing with ben is that they gave you a choice and rewarded both choices. They didn't take a dump on your decision if you chose to save him. Maybe they tried to make him less sympathetic, not because they wanted you to kill him, but to make it a more meaningful choice for the majority of people. If it's pretty much an automatic save, that makes it a less interesting decision and they realised that, so tried to make it more split. Then they fleshed out the character more if you saved him and gave him a good end. The point of the OP is that this simply didn't happen in S2 and saving sarah and nick was completely worthless from a story perspective which isn't rewarding and makes you feel like "why did I bother", thus pushing your future decisions towards crawford-style ones. And whilst this might lead to an interesting moral conflict within yourself by the end, it leaves the story and characters feeling lacking and unsatisfying.
letting Ben die has consequences on how Clem perceives you
Well, not really. The game allows you to justify letting Ben die in whate… morever way you choose. One of the options allow you to outright tell Clem that letting Ben die was the right thing to do because "He was a danger to the rest of us."
Whereas Crawford was an over-the-top caricature of pragmatism, Jane represents the more (for lack of a better word) seductive side of it. Going out and actively hunting down those you perceive to be the lessers of society is never going to be an appealing prospect to most normal, well-adjusted people. But as the apocalypse goes on, as the horrors and deaths pile up, it becomes easier and easier to just sever all attachment to others, particularly those who are weaker than you, and just survive for yourself.
I remember the writers of Season 1 talking about how the character of Clementine was there to address a central problem with putting a… [view original content]
Your continued insistence to refuse the fact that Sarah was a liability to the group's survival tells me that you are in denial. The fact t… morehat you are going to ignore what I had to say simply because I stated an obvious fact tells me you are one of those types that are not worth having a discussion. Cry me a river for god's sakes! If you can't grasp that simple fact and stop making assumptions that I or anyone else literally said people need to die because they were burdens....then we can go somewhere with a discussion. Until then, it is not worth my time because quite frankly, statements like yours is being thrown about to a ridiculous degree.
Good riddance!
Nick's ending, I agree, was very lacking and unsatisfying for the wrong reasons. His story arc was really strong in episode 2, and then petered out very quickly after that and went out with a barely a whimper.
Sarah's ending, while poorly handled in terms of how the other characters reacted to it, felt to me to be the "right" kind of unsatisfying in how it played out. It was unsatisfying for those rooting for the character to succeed but this failure to succeed helped to illustrate themes within the narrative.
It doesn't feel like much of a victory to save Sarah because, really, in the grand scheme of things, it's not. You want to give her a chance to get better and prove herself but she doesn't seem to respond even slightly to any of your attempts to get through to her. Ben can at least tell you that he's going to make the effort to do better, and, as much of a screw-up as he is, he can still do some of the normal survivor things (just...worse). Sarah can't. And it's unclear if she ever will, at least given the average life expectancy of an apocalypse survivor. So saving her once today just means you're going to have to save her again tomorrow. And that feels really frustrating and futile. It's how I imagine Jane must have felt pushing her sister to live on and keep going day after day after day. Like you're fighting a never ending war and no matter how many battles you win, it just never stops.
What's also interesting is that now there's suddenly another member of the group whom you need to care of indefinitely, to an far greater extent than Sarah: the baby. All of the problems that Sarah has are multiplied several times over with the baby. And yet, like Clem says, we can't just abandon it...right? It's an awful thing to consider but if you're willing to let Sarah die because you find it futile to save her, what's stopping you from doing the same with the baby? It's just another war you can't win.
I don't get all the jane hate, jane was fine. She was probably one of the better characters in the series, she had some depth to her.
The… more thing with ben is that they gave you a choice and rewarded both choices. They didn't take a dump on your decision if you chose to save him. Maybe they tried to make him less sympathetic, not because they wanted you to kill him, but to make it a more meaningful choice for the majority of people. If it's pretty much an automatic save, that makes it a less interesting decision and they realised that, so tried to make it more split. Then they fleshed out the character more if you saved him and gave him a good end. The point of the OP is that this simply didn't happen in S2 and saving sarah and nick was completely worthless from a story perspective which isn't rewarding and makes you feel like "why did I bother", thus pushing your future decisions towards crawford-style ones. And whilst this might lead to an … [view original content]
No, she does respond to attempts. It's an entirely unsatisfying character arc, I didn't say anything about the death itself. The character had a lot of potential that was just thrown away and wasted. And even if she didn't respond, that's the story writer's fault too. Like I said, ultimately the story and characters are unsatisfying and lacking if you save them, which is not remotely analogous to what happened if you save Ben and the fact that the season 1 writers deliberately made ben less sympathetic is not remotely the same as what the writers of season 2 did.
Nick's ending, I agree, was very lacking and unsatisfying for the wrong reasons. His story arc was really strong in episode 2, and then pete… morered out very quickly after that and went out with a barely a whimper.
Sarah's ending, while poorly handled in terms of how the other characters reacted to it, felt to me to be the "right" kind of unsatisfying in how it played out. It was unsatisfying for those rooting for the character to succeed but this failure to succeed helped to illustrate themes within the narrative.
It doesn't feel like much of a victory to save Sarah because, really, in the grand scheme of things, it's not. You want to give her a chance to get better and prove herself but she doesn't seem to respond even slightly to any of your attempts to get through to her. Ben can at least tell you that he's going to make the effort to do better, and, as much of a screw-up as he is, he can still do some of the normal survivor things (just… [view original content]
As I remember, after you save her, all she says is "I'm not okay" "Why didn't you leave me?" "I just want my dad" and "When he comes back we should all go back to the cabin." All the "you have to be strong" "we'll make it through this" and "you have to try" that Clem throws at her seems to me to fall on deaf ears.
In bringing up the Ben thing, I was responding to the claim that Telltale "wanted" the player to choose the option that led to the Nick and Sarah's first deaths: "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." I don't think this is true, at least not any more than they "wanted" players to drop Ben.
What's different in Sarah's case is, like you said, that it "makes you feel like "why did I bother", thus pushing your future decisions towards crawford-style ones." But that's not wanting us to "hate" Nick and Sarah. At least in Sarah's case, it's wanting us to despair at the prospect of saving her.
No, she does respond to attempts. It's an entirely unsatisfying character arc, I didn't say anything about the death itself. The character h… moread a lot of potential that was just thrown away and wasted. And even if she didn't respond, that's the story writer's fault too. Like I said, ultimately the story and characters are unsatisfying and lacking if you save them, which is not remotely analogous to what happened if you save Ben and the fact that the season 1 writers deliberately made ben less sympathetic is not remotely the same as what the writers of season 2 did.
Your continued insistence to refuse the fact that Sarah was a liability to the group's survival tells me that you are in denial. The fact t… morehat you are going to ignore what I had to say simply because I stated an obvious fact tells me you are one of those types that are not worth having a discussion. Cry me a river for god's sakes! If you can't grasp that simple fact and stop making assumptions that I or anyone else literally said people need to die because they were burdens....then we can go somewhere with a discussion. Until then, it is not worth my time because quite frankly, statements like yours is being thrown about to a ridiculous degree.
Good riddance!
So what? You think you can just say "be strong" and all of a sudden all of her mental problems are suddenly gone? That's not how it works. But she was showing signs of improvement. She was slowly beginning to respond to clem. But it takes a lot of time. I have atypical autism and although I don't think sarah is autistic, I do know what it's like to deal with severe anxiety, panic attacks and social disorders. Over the past 2 years I have gone from wanting to hide away from everything and kill myself to actually being able to go to a store and buy something and not hate being out around people. Although I still find it hard to enter new stores I haven't visited before and I still can't hold any kind of conversation with anyone, I consider this a significant improvement. However, a casual "normal" onlooker would probably think I hadn't changed. Just because she's still scared doesn't mean she isn't responding or improving.
But they're just not comparable. It's not a good example if you're just trying to use it to highlight your disagreement. I explained why. In S2 they're trying to push you towards a specific choice and shitting on the other choice. In S1, with ben, they were trying to do the OPPOSITE, make it a more viable 50/50 choice. They weren't trying to make you feel like you should have dropped ben, nor that you shouldn't. In the original case, they realised they had made people like ben too much so they changed it to make you feel like it was an actual decision, not to make you feel like you had to drop him. With S2 they want you to leave them as liabilities, they want you to abandon them and the other option just leaves you feeling empty.
As I remember, after you save her, all she says is "I'm not okay" "Why didn't you leave me?" "I just want my dad" and "When he comes back we… more should all go back to the cabin." All the "you have to be strong" "we'll make it through this" and "you have to try" that Clem throws at her seems to me to fall on deaf ears.
In bringing up the Ben thing, I was responding to the claim that Telltale "wanted" the player to choose the option that led to the Nick and Sarah's first deaths: "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." I don't think this is true, at least not any more than they "wanted" players to drop Ben.
What's different in Sarah's case is, like you said, that it "makes you feel like "… [view original content]
"I don't know how to find literary value in their deaths so I'm just going to yell at you for not listening to my initial contrived argument that countless people have been posting here and over and over again."
Your continued insistence to refuse the fact that Sarah was a liability to the group's survival tells me that you are in denial. The fact t… morehat you are going to ignore what I had to say simply because I stated an obvious fact tells me you are one of those types that are not worth having a discussion. Cry me a river for god's sakes! If you can't grasp that simple fact and stop making assumptions that I or anyone else literally said people need to die because they were burdens....then we can go somewhere with a discussion. Until then, it is not worth my time because quite frankly, statements like yours is being thrown about to a ridiculous degree.
Good riddance!
Comments
And what exactly did Jane do to her sister? She told us that she couldn't have made her jump, throw her, or carry her. What would you have wanted her to do?
I just wanted to comment that this is the best post I have read in this thread and most closely resembles how I felt upon finishing Episode 4.
My Clementine chose to look after Sarah until the end, and even though my choices ultimately still resulted in her death, I felt as though I did the best I could do to keep my friend safe. To me, that was all that mattered. I chose not to be like people at Crawford.
Yes, this story is fantasy. Still, I would still like there to be reasonable amount of realism in it. It may be cruel to say that people with disabilities have it hard in a brutal environment like we have within this story, but that's understandable.
Sarah was a liability to the group's survival, plain and simple by the fact that she contributed very little if any, and she constantly put other people in danger especially when those said people were putting their lives at risk to save her. That trailer park scene speaks for itself. We have zombies about to bust through the door to eat everyone alive, but what did Sarah do? She did nothing. She couldn't even get herself to move so that my Clementine and Luke didn't have to waste time staying inside that trailer while zombies were trying to bust through and eat all of us alive. My Clementine and Luke did put ourselves at risk for our lives for her. So where do you draw the line? We clearly have someone who is traumatized, disturbed, and unwilling to help others or herself, and if we were put into that same exact situation, is it unreasonable to think that our very own safety and survival comes first and foremost? In an ideal world behind our computer screen, it is too easy for everyone to say how unfair or cruel it is. But if any of us were put into that very same situation, how many of you would put your very own life at risk to try to save someone who is unwilling to save even her own self? How much patience would you have had in a situation where every extra second you stay gets you closer to being eaten alive?
Does this automatically translate into promotion of hatred towards disabled people? Of course not. I don't understand why so many people are feeling this way. Realistically speaking, the brutal nature of the deaths is understandable no matter how pointless it seems, because not every deaths need to be glorified. The fact that these deaths seem pointless only compound to the feeling of hopelessness and despair which these episodes are clearly trying to depict.
And please don't try to bring up the "fantasy stories do not need to be realistic" card. Maybe perhaps some of you expected Sarah to all of a sudden become saviors of humanity simply by the fact that this story is fantasy? Hey anything can happen in fantasy right? Perhaps she could cast fire out of her hands all of a sudden and burn all the zombies to ashes! Now how realistic is that?
Just because your favorite characters met an end that you did not agree with...... Does not make the storytelling bad.
One of the things that makes me mad is that you had to push her to do any of those things. She definitely would not do those things under normal circumstances. And what is up with her just hanging off the deck like she needed someone to save her? It seemed out of character to me. (Also seems like someone trying to write a female badass but can't get out of the damsel in distress.) You would think with her talk about not relying on others she would have slipped out and run up the collapsed deck herself without anyone's pushing. Jane's character seem very inconsistent to me.
Yes, this is why I like the character. Her philosophy and social isolation has made her a rather blunt and flawed person, but she does provoke a strong emotional reaction from me precisely because I find her actions both fascinating and repulsive.
Molly would have killed Lee if Clem wasn't there to stop her. And she was fully prepared to leave the group to die against the approaching hoard until Clem flashed her the sad eyes, saying that it "wasn't her problem". And that situation was a lot more dire than the one with Rebecca. Clem and Rebecca were covered in walker guts so they would have had a pretty decent chance of making it out of there without Jane's help. Without Molly, Clem, Kenny and Lee would have died there. And Jane's "we gotta help them" response to hearing Luke and Sarah was pretty immediate. She didn't even hesitate when she saw that they were surrounded by walkers; she just tried to think of a way around it.
I don't think it's inconsistent for her to want to be pulled up when it could have easily been done rather than immediately jumping down herself just to prove her independence. She doesn't like putting herself in situations where she needs to rely on others, but she's not anti-social to the extent that should would reject help when it can easily be provided.
Exactly, she's a far more complex and conflicted character than I think people give her credit for. She embodies the struggle between humanity and pragmatism very nicely. Despite her choosing to be a survivalist loner, she just can't help but give into the small bit humanity she tries to bury away. From talking to her it's clear that she wasn't always like how she is now. She sounded like a really sweet (if a bit mischievous) young girl. But the apocalypse changed her. I see her as a model of what Clem could eventually become given enough time in that world. And that's a really tragic thing to think about.
the strange thing is, Didnt after they run up the balcony and Rebecca laid down she told Sarah to stay behind and she hid behind the crates? So why she went outside is a complete and utter mystery.
Oh no, Jane is STILL a carbon copy. Just a crappy one compared to Molly.
All the laziness, not nearly as good. Which is strange cuz i disliked Molly but jane made me love molly instead. Cuz Molly atleast was human, Jane was just trash who assumed and butted her nose into everyone with her trash opinion.
Maybe I don't remember much with Molly and would need to replay that but I still disagree about Jane. With the way Jane acted and her responses to certain things I can't see that. If you save Sarah the first time she tries pushing you into thinking that Sarah is unsavable right in front of her. That sounds like anti-social behavior to me. Broke my heart speaking to Sarah after that point. Had I been give the ability to prove Jane wrong I would have liked her character more thinking she was trying to prove herself wrong instead.
It's a story. and saying meaningless deaths is realistic doesn't excuse lazy ass writing when all of these characters are given them.
Which, in the hands of another writer, would be another indicator of how bad she is at reading people socially. Just like when she implies to Rebecca, a woman hours away from giving birth, that she should abort the baby. What on earth is she expecting?
On the other hand, one can see Michelle as an indicator of how Clem might turn out if she really wants to stick with being a loner. It's not a coincidence that she's a black girl who's approximately the same size as 11-year-old Clem. Additionally, her remorse over accidentally killing Omid can be linked to Jane not being able to fully commit to her pragmatism and murder Arvo.
just because she has anxiety though doesn't mean she CAN'T adapt and become stronger atleast on the inside.
She had her father killed just half a day earlier, and a day earlier he slapped her for the first time. Of course she'd be anxious and in a panic attack, it would be unreasonable for her NOT to be.
But over time she could have been okay. She could have adapted even if she wasn't a zombie-killing rambo. Her having Anxety is no excuse not to save her.
agreex100
Also if you want sudden and unfortunate deaths, Carley and Doug's deaths were not only tragic but had TWO VERY different meanings.
What happened Telltale?
Michelle struck me more as a scared little kid trying to come off as tough by picking on those weaker than her. Plus Michelle kinda reveled in bullying Clem out of her stuff. I can't see Clem ever doing that.
Jane's more the genuine article. She clearly doesn't enjoy robbing Arvo. While talking to him, you hear her listing off justifications for why robbing him is the right thing to do (the group needs the supplies, he's probably just a junkie, he's lying about his sick sister), as if she's talking herself into doing it. That's how I'd imagine a hardened, survivalist Clem robbing people.
I'm ok with the fact that she might actually be bad at reading people socially speaking though she just felt a bit inconsistent with a lot of things to me. Maybe it really is her trying to prove her thoughts on people wrong but her character develop would have been more effective on me if we were giving the ability to prove her wrong about Sarah. I really don't know how to explain my thought on it.
Her anxiety makes it difficult for her to adapt, and Clementine was really the only one who could help her adapt. Out of everyone, Sarah would only talk to Clementine when she was in a state of anxiety.
I only went for shawn because I was hoping to know more about him in the comics. But he died and i didnt hate duck
Not me, as I saved her. Sigh
Jane wasn't implying that Rebecca should abort the baby. She might have been suggesting that Rebecca should abandon it, but I'm not sure she actually meant to say even that. I think she meant exactly what she asked: "What are you going to do with it?"
At that point, it was just Rebecca and Clem and there was no guarantee that any of the other group members made it out. So the "worst case scenario," as she put it, was a weakened mother and a little girl having to care for a newborn child by themselves. It was an analytical statement identifying "the problem" as she saw it, not a suggestion of how to solve it.
OP's statements seem to be based on irrational and overly emotional way of thinking. Sarah and Nick were just like everyone else in this story.... People who are trying to survive. Disabilities or not, they are just that.... people. Having disabilities does not make them any more deserving than other people. At no point did It ever cross my mind that this game was actively trying to force me to dislike anybody because they have disabilities. Are you kidding me?
Given the circumstances in which the characters' lives were in immediate danger, the fact that a newborn and her mother's safety were of an utmost importance and the general hardship that everyone was suffering through, I'd say that the deaths were handled quite well.
Existence of characters that bring conflicts in a story is nothing new.... someone like Jane. Jane's statements and overall notion about the survival of the fittest is the way this game presented conflict. From there, we as players were given the option to agree or disagree with it and act accordingly. Simply having these characters does not automatically translate into writers forcing us players to hate on anybody. Since we have the luxury of making choices due to this being a video game, I feel that I was given plenty of choices and opportunities to express my sympathy and willingness to help Sarah. Even if this were a straight up movie or a book, if the main character is written to shy away from people like Sarah and Nick, we should take that as just a story and nothing more.
And yes, Sarah was a burden and a liability to the group's survival. That is a fact. We may sympathize, and we may choose to help as much as we can, but at the end of the day, if the lives of others trying to help are put at risk due to the incapacity or unwillingness of the disabled person (which clearly happens numerous times in the story) then where do you draw the line? It is easy for you to talk as if you are a super saint in the confines of your home behind a computer screen, but what if you were actually put into that very same situation? Would you be willing to sacrifice yours and other people's lives in order to save a disabled person? What makes them more deserving of life? Is that not clearly a sign of a burden and a liability?
Interesting points. Though if that's the case, then it's pretty ironic how they managed to do just the opposite effect. Nick was my favorite character and Sarah, while at times infuriating, was definitely one of the most interesting ones. Especially after her father died, i became really intrigued how she was going to make it, how my "guardianship" over her was going to play out... but you all know how that ended up.
It's interesting to compare these character to Luke for example. In earlier episodes it almost seems like Luke was made to be loved (nowadays his role just seems to consist of opposing Kenny in every turn). Well, I must say Telltale that if that was your intention, it worked totally backwards with me. While I did like Luke, I never was relating to him or finding him that interesting of a character. Instead it was Nick who got my attention and sympathy and it was Sarah who made me think about the future.
Honestly, the moment you use the word "liability" is the moment I stop taking your argument remotely seriously. This forum and TWDG fans in general grossly abuse that word to a ridiculous degree.
It would be nice to find someone who actually wants to defend their deaths to me and come up with genuine literary value to them instead of just telling me "Sarah and Nick had to die because they were burdens."
Like... Kenny's "death" with Ben? The meaning there was that he came full circle. He went through an arc where he lost his family, the most important thing to him, and hated this kid for it, but then accepted his role as a paternal figure and cared for him in the moments before his death. That illustrates Kenny's role as a father from the beginning to the end.
I IMPLORE people arguing with me to find that kind of meaning in Sarah and Nick's death. Like, seriously. I'm begging you to enlighten me here. Tell me the actual literary value behind it. Tell me what their stories are meant to be.
ttg needs to hire skoothz for s3. revive nick when u get the job
A lot of people are split on Sarah but Nick was arguably the Ensemble Dark Horse of the season. Telltale wanted us all to love Luke but we ended up loving Nick more.
Skoothz4Telltale2k14
Yeah, and I think that whole "wanting this character to be loved" -thing is exactly the reason why I didn't find myself invested in Luke. When you are trying to make people like someone, it's easy to make him/her appear "too good" which in turn tends to annoy people. Well, while he did not actually annoy me (in fact, I liked him), I also didn't find anything to really... grasp upon in his character. I still don't and we are almost done with the season.
Nick had these flaws and personality traits which made him easy to relate and sympathize with. While appearing initially hostile, he then proceeded to make up for his mistakes and showed some real character growth. He was an actual dynamic character with realistic fears and doubts. He then continued to develop even more and reminded me of some sort of mixture of Kenny (temper) and Ben (mess ups & self doubt) but he was also a far more believable version of Ben whose actions sometimes went to absurd levels (the infamous hatchet!). I actually always thought Telltale really wanted us to hate Ben because of all the stupid stuff they made him do. It's such a damn shame that all the beautiful development of Nick was totally wasted after he became a determinant character. There's actually no point in saving him. Even Ben actually did something and had a great character moment with Kenny. Nick added absolutely nothing to the story after that point and his death was, like you said, meaningless.
But anyways, Telltale indeed did a shitty job if they wanted me to hate Nick and fangirl over Luke.
Your continued insistence to refuse the fact that Sarah was a liability to the group's survival tells me that you are in denial. The fact that you are going to ignore what I had to say simply because I stated an obvious fact tells me you are one of those types that are not worth having a discussion. Cry me a river for god's sakes! If you can't grasp that simple fact and stop making assumptions that I or anyone else literally said people need to die because they were burdens....then we can go somewhere with a discussion. Until then, it is not worth my time because quite frankly, statements like yours is being thrown about to a ridiculous degree.
Good riddance!
I thought most like her more than Molly for being more realistic? I like Molly and Jane but I'd like Molly more because Molly wouldn't ever abandon Clem imo. That said Molly left Lee and Kenny and only helped because Clem was with them, but I think Clem could help Jane with her humanity also
At the same time, there were a lot of people who loved Sarah. There are lots of stupid, bad people out there, but there are lots of good ones too.
Whilst I'm not the target of the post exactly (I know full well how awesome I am ;3), I still appreciate the sentiment. It gets a little hokey at the end but that's ok. xD
I don't get all the jane hate, jane was fine. She was probably one of the better characters in the series, she had some depth to her.
The thing with ben is that they gave you a choice and rewarded both choices. They didn't take a dump on your decision if you chose to save him. Maybe they tried to make him less sympathetic, not because they wanted you to kill him, but to make it a more meaningful choice for the majority of people. If it's pretty much an automatic save, that makes it a less interesting decision and they realised that, so tried to make it more split. Then they fleshed out the character more if you saved him and gave him a good end. The point of the OP is that this simply didn't happen in S2 and saving sarah and nick was completely worthless from a story perspective which isn't rewarding and makes you feel like "why did I bother", thus pushing your future decisions towards crawford-style ones. And whilst this might lead to an interesting moral conflict within yourself by the end, it leaves the story and characters feeling lacking and unsatisfying.
Are you like, 14?
Nick's ending, I agree, was very lacking and unsatisfying for the wrong reasons. His story arc was really strong in episode 2, and then petered out very quickly after that and went out with a barely a whimper.
Sarah's ending, while poorly handled in terms of how the other characters reacted to it, felt to me to be the "right" kind of unsatisfying in how it played out. It was unsatisfying for those rooting for the character to succeed but this failure to succeed helped to illustrate themes within the narrative.
It doesn't feel like much of a victory to save Sarah because, really, in the grand scheme of things, it's not. You want to give her a chance to get better and prove herself but she doesn't seem to respond even slightly to any of your attempts to get through to her. Ben can at least tell you that he's going to make the effort to do better, and, as much of a screw-up as he is, he can still do some of the normal survivor things (just...worse). Sarah can't. And it's unclear if she ever will, at least given the average life expectancy of an apocalypse survivor. So saving her once today just means you're going to have to save her again tomorrow. And that feels really frustrating and futile. It's how I imagine Jane must have felt pushing her sister to live on and keep going day after day after day. Like you're fighting a never ending war and no matter how many battles you win, it just never stops.
What's also interesting is that now there's suddenly another member of the group whom you need to care of indefinitely, to an far greater extent than Sarah: the baby. All of the problems that Sarah has are multiplied several times over with the baby. And yet, like Clem says, we can't just abandon it...right? It's an awful thing to consider but if you're willing to let Sarah die because you find it futile to save her, what's stopping you from doing the same with the baby? It's just another war you can't win.
No, she does respond to attempts. It's an entirely unsatisfying character arc, I didn't say anything about the death itself. The character had a lot of potential that was just thrown away and wasted. And even if she didn't respond, that's the story writer's fault too. Like I said, ultimately the story and characters are unsatisfying and lacking if you save them, which is not remotely analogous to what happened if you save Ben and the fact that the season 1 writers deliberately made ben less sympathetic is not remotely the same as what the writers of season 2 did.
As I remember, after you save her, all she says is "I'm not okay" "Why didn't you leave me?" "I just want my dad" and "When he comes back we should all go back to the cabin." All the "you have to be strong" "we'll make it through this" and "you have to try" that Clem throws at her seems to me to fall on deaf ears.
In bringing up the Ben thing, I was responding to the claim that Telltale "wanted" the player to choose the option that led to the Nick and Sarah's first deaths: "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." I don't think this is true, at least not any more than they "wanted" players to drop Ben.
What's different in Sarah's case is, like you said, that it "makes you feel like "why did I bother", thus pushing your future decisions towards crawford-style ones." But that's not wanting us to "hate" Nick and Sarah. At least in Sarah's case, it's wanting us to despair at the prospect of saving her.
Who gives a fuck if shes a burden, this isnt real life. Its a fucking story. Stories need to be interesting.
So what? You think you can just say "be strong" and all of a sudden all of her mental problems are suddenly gone? That's not how it works. But she was showing signs of improvement. She was slowly beginning to respond to clem. But it takes a lot of time. I have atypical autism and although I don't think sarah is autistic, I do know what it's like to deal with severe anxiety, panic attacks and social disorders. Over the past 2 years I have gone from wanting to hide away from everything and kill myself to actually being able to go to a store and buy something and not hate being out around people. Although I still find it hard to enter new stores I haven't visited before and I still can't hold any kind of conversation with anyone, I consider this a significant improvement. However, a casual "normal" onlooker would probably think I hadn't changed. Just because she's still scared doesn't mean she isn't responding or improving.
But they're just not comparable. It's not a good example if you're just trying to use it to highlight your disagreement. I explained why. In S2 they're trying to push you towards a specific choice and shitting on the other choice. In S1, with ben, they were trying to do the OPPOSITE, make it a more viable 50/50 choice. They weren't trying to make you feel like you should have dropped ben, nor that you shouldn't. In the original case, they realised they had made people like ben too much so they changed it to make you feel like it was an actual decision, not to make you feel like you had to drop him. With S2 they want you to leave them as liabilities, they want you to abandon them and the other option just leaves you feeling empty.
"I don't know how to find literary value in their deaths so I'm just going to yell at you for not listening to my initial contrived argument that countless people have been posting here and over and over again."