yeah, i agree with that, it's like duck in season 1 loads of people hated him, but then he did the whole batman and robin investigation thing and everybody loved him and were really sad to see him go, whereas for people that found sarah annoying it just got worse before she died, she probably lost more fans before she died rather than gaining a load.
With good writing, you don't want to see characters that you hate or annoy you die. I didn't find any joy in splattering larry all over the … moremeat locker despite thinking he was a douche. To take a non-TWD example that none of you will have heard of, when Normad "dies", that is sad, even though up to that point he's just been deliberately annoying and you wished he would go away. His death actually makes you realise how much he was a part of the team, even if he was annoying.
However, there are some times where you find joy in someone's death. For me those times only tend to be when someone is a blatantly evil scumbag. Sarah is not a blatantly evil scumbag, she's a scared little girl and taking joy in her death is just fucked up, whether you liked her or found her super annoying. Honestly, that he said that just speaks to the bad writing of season 2 imo because I don't think greg is some kind of evil monster. I think the problem is with the … [view original content]
I don't mean to sound like a douche, but you seriously need to stop being a Sarah fanboy. Just because things didn't go the way you wanted i… moret, doesn't mean you have to hate the game now. That's life. Do you really think what they said on this true??? It's probably all for Greg Miller's show. And besides, it's only two developers opinion anyways.
P.S. Who the hell is Greg Miller and why does everyone care about him so much??? I know he's from IGN, but damn, I see this name an awful lot on this forum.
EDIT: I saw the disabled part... So what it's offensive. What movies and TV shows aren't. Although I still don't understand how the hell he got the idea and how it is offensive. I mean, in real life... yeah, maybe a disabled person wouldn't do so good in this world. It's understandable and that isn't the only reason why she died. Her father wasn't really raising right her well in a world like this. So you can't just say this game frowns upon disabled people
If IGN has to cut off the finger to save the hand, trust me they will. I think Greg will be ok, hopefully he will stop making insensitive comments in the future, i mean seriously how hard is it to act respectful of people at work. If Greg acts less jerky people won't hate on him so much.
. I heard about that ESPN anchor, and I think it was wrong for him to get fired for having an unpopular opinion
The kicker is the guy who punched his fiance, Ray Rice got suspended for two games LOL. The ESPN anchor who commented on it, lost his job. Only in America.
It's not that I can't see why so many are upset by what Greg said, because it was put harshly. But it crosses the line when people start spa… moremming/harassing him with personal insults, and are legitimately trying to get him fired over an opinion. Even after his apology, they are still out for blood and want him to "pay for what he's done". Nothing Greg says or does will be good enough for these people. Those angry fans are just crazy tbh. I heard about that ESPN anchor, and I think it was wrong for him to get fired for having an unpopular opinion. People are too damn sensitive nowadays, and want everything to be censored to protect their feelings. Before we know it we'll be getting arrested solely for having a controversial opinion.
I dislike the knee-jerk reaction by many people on the internet when it comes to "Tumblr" or "feminism" or any other bits of vocabulary related to those concepts. The fact is that there's a lot of real people with mental disabilities who are already looked down upon, and the creepy viewpoint endorsed by Miller - literally laughing like some cartoon supervillain about letting people who "aren't normal" die horribly - really is fucked up. The fact is that in lots of shows and games, female characters often get much more hate than male characters for doing similar things - for this very series, contrast Shane murdering Dale with Jane's killing of Troy, where the latter garnered a strong response from boys who unwittingly identified with Troy's injury. It's the kind of immaturity I'd expect from a militaristic slaughter-fest like Call of Duty, not a game that's ostensibly about 'real people' surviving.
This is what I meant when I say that people who use terms like "SJW" or "feminist" as insults are childish. Having it be pointed out that your lifestyle isn't the only one that matters shouldn't lead to sarcastic dismissiveness and anger. Having it be pointed out that there's already a strong abundance in narratives that support the "Only the strongest survive" mindset for boys, with less stories offering different options, should not be considered a joke.
I'm tired about most gamers/people because of these attitudes. If anything, seeing their petty rage is downright funny to me. Better a SJW than a guy who really is too privileged enough to ever consider a time when they might be vulnerable or hurt or miserable. Better to care for people than to just take pleasure in their pain.
Well, no, because Greg explicitly says "Not since Ben was I so ready for a character's death." So it's not something particularly special about the writing of Season 2 that's eliciting this sort of reaction. And as others have pointed out, many other people were stoked about Ben's death as well. Also, unless you think he could telepathically control Lilly, Lee, the bandits, and the walkers, Ben didn't "directly" cause Duck and Katjaa's deaths with his lying any more than Sarah "directly" caused Reggie and Nick's deaths.
Some people just find people just find some personalities grating and want them killed off, regardless of the quality of the fiction. A lot of people did enjoy seeing Larry's head splattered because he was a douche. A lot of people thought that dropping Ben was the right thing to do and completely justified. And it wasn't that the game didn't make them give a crap about those characters as people. In the case of Sarah, Greg, even with his hatred of her character, said that he really just wanted her to "wake up" to the reality of the situation around her and tried to do so by having Clem tell her that they can't be kids anymore. It was only after seeing her inability to respond that he grew frustrated enough to leave her.
With good writing, you don't want to see characters that you hate or annoy you die. I didn't find any joy in splattering larry all over the … moremeat locker despite thinking he was a douche. To take a non-TWD example that none of you will have heard of, when Normad "dies", that is sad, even though up to that point he's just been deliberately annoying and you wished he would go away. His death actually makes you realise how much he was a part of the team, even if he was annoying.
However, there are some times where you find joy in someone's death. For me those times only tend to be when someone is a blatantly evil scumbag. Sarah is not a blatantly evil scumbag, she's a scared little girl and taking joy in her death is just fucked up, whether you liked her or found her super annoying. Honestly, that he said that just speaks to the bad writing of season 2 imo because I don't think greg is some kind of evil monster. I think the problem is with the … [view original content]
I made no secret about my dislike towards Sarah. I once wrote a post with the words "Die, Sarah, die!" repeated for emphasis. But it had nothing to do with her disability (assuming she had a disability, Telltale was a little vague about that detail). At the time, I was still feeling apprehensive towards the character after her rather awkward introduction to Clementine in the bedroom, which probably came off a lot creepier than Telltale intended. I also feared Telltale was grooming her to become season 3's protagonist, a prospect no one was too thrilled about.
Looking back now, I regret my initial hostility, but I feel Telltale managed Sarah's death significantly better than Nick's. The cards are stacked against Sarah in ep. 4, no matter how much your version of Clem could care for her. Clem was exposed to the zombie apocalypse at a fairly early stage, and she recovered from her trauma, although it's the player who ultimately decides how much of her innocence and/or humanity remains intact. On the other hand, Carlos sheltered Sarah from the world the moment it first started going to hell. You can't blame his actions as a loving father, but at the same time, it badly hampered Sarah's ability to adapt. Lee is the only character in the entire series who can arguably be seen as the "perfect" parent figure - balancing tenderness with common sense - and even that depends on how the player chooses to shape him.
Regardless, what you SHOULD be always able to control is Clem's characterization. At the end of the day, Telltale will always pull the trigger on Sarah, but they can't stop you from doing everything in your power to save her. Of course, that still doesn't excuse Greg Miller's remarks, which are pretty chilling.
Yes, ben caused people to die with his lying. If he hadn't put the supplies out for the bandits, if he had owned up to doing it at any point after you've escaped, if he'd done a multitude of things then carley/doug would not have died. Katjaa and duck's deaths were also caused by him, although he had less opportunities to stop it. These are going to be regarded as valid reasons to be glad to see his demise by some people (I did not drop him, personally).
Sarah did nothing. There's no reason to be happy about her death. It's not simply being frustrated by her inability, otherwise one would still be sad about her death and inability to be redeemed. He was happy about her death because TTG didn't make him care about the character. Or maybe he just is an evil scumbag, I don't know.
Well, no, because Greg explicitly says "Not since Ben was I so ready for a character's death." So it's not something particularly special ab… moreout the writing of Season 2 that's eliciting this sort of reaction. And as others have pointed out, many other people were stoked about Ben's death as well. Also, unless you think he could telepathically control Lilly, Lee, the bandits, and the walkers, Ben didn't "directly" cause Duck and Katjaa's deaths with his lying any more than Sarah "directly" caused Reggie and Nick's deaths.
Some people just find people just find some personalities grating and want them killed off, regardless of the quality of the fiction. A lot of people did enjoy seeing Larry's head splattered because he was a douche. A lot of people thought that dropping Ben was the right thing to do and completely justified. And it wasn't that the game didn't make them give a crap about those characters as people. In the case of Sarah, Greg… [view original content]
If Sarah had just followed simple directions that a 5-year old would understand, Reggie would be alive. What's that? Carver killed Reggie because he was crazy and Sarah couldn't have been held responsible for the actions of an unstable mind? Well then Lilly killed Carley because she was crazy and Ben couldn't have been held responsible for the actions of an unstable mind.
And if Sarah had just stood up and followed Luke and Nick to safety, Nick would still be alive and Luke's life wouldn't have been in danger. Sarah could have gotten all of them killed. The only reason she didn't was because of Jane and Clem. The causal chain leading from Sarah freaking out to Nick dying is a lot more straightforward than the one leading from Ben bribing the bandits to Duck and Katjaa being bitten. And yet it's fine to be glad at Ben's demise and horrendous to be glad at Sarah's.
Yes, ben caused people to die with his lying. If he hadn't put the supplies out for the bandits, if he had owned up to doing it at any point… more after you've escaped, if he'd done a multitude of things then carley/doug would not have died. Katjaa and duck's deaths were also caused by him, although he had less opportunities to stop it. These are going to be regarded as valid reasons to be glad to see his demise by some people (I did not drop him, personally).
Sarah did nothing. There's no reason to be happy about her death. It's not simply being frustrated by her inability, otherwise one would still be sad about her death and inability to be redeemed. He was happy about her death because TTG didn't make him care about the character. Or maybe he just is an evil scumbag, I don't know.
Lilly and Carver are completely different. Carver was planning on killing Reggie anyway. You heard Tavia; Carver was not going to let Reggie back into "the flock." He was looking for an excuse to kill Reggie; Lilly wasn't looking for an excuse to kill Carley/Ben. lilly wanted to find out who betrayed the group. Plus, Ben's actions directly resulted in Duck getting bitten and the group being forced to move out of the motel even before Lilly killed anyone. Ben's actions also could have resulted in multiple people dying from illness or from the bandit attack (which, honestly, would have happened eventually; there are only so many bottles of medicine, he would have run out at some point). Sarah's actions resulted in berries getting picked a little bit slower.
If Sarah had just followed simple directions that a 5-year old would understand, Reggie would be alive. What's that? Carver killed Reggie be… morecause he was crazy and Sarah couldn't have been held responsible for the actions of an unstable mind? Well then Lilly killed Carley because she was crazy and Ben couldn't have been held responsible for the actions of an unstable mind.
And if Sarah had just stood up and followed Luke and Nick to safety, Nick would still be alive and Luke's life wouldn't have been in danger. Sarah could have gotten all of them killed. The only reason she didn't was because of Jane and Clem. The causal chain leading from Sarah freaking out to Nick dying is a lot more straightforward than the one leading from Ben bribing the bandits to Duck and Katjaa being bitten. And yet it's fine to be glad at Ben's demise and horrendous to be glad at Sarah's.
There's a perfect comparison for all of this silliness and I'll keep it brief, unlike my other posts:
Imagine you're reading a book where there's a really evil character. But he's such a good character that you don't want the character to die because the story won't be the same. And the character could have committed mass genocide.
Because you want that character to stay alive, does that mean you'd want a real life person who's really evil and has committed mass genocide to stay alive? Contrast that to people having a problem with an in-game character, this case being Sarah. Does it really mean Greg and others' views regarding Sarah translate to real life?
(Maybe the genocide and staying alive part isn't perfect, but try not to focus on that. What's important is your feeling towards wanting an evil character to remain in the story and then comparing that the Sarah situation.)
Meh. Telltale either didn't know what to do with Sarah's character or had a bigger role planned for her and clementine and they just ended up writing it out. So it was probably just easier for them to kill her off and save themselves some trouble. Thats my guess, anyway.
You know, I once hated Sarah. Not because she's a kid but because she just didn't want to accept the reality. But then this episode came out. I thought I'm gonna save her and then change her views on live or something. And then this bullshit came around. What the fuck TT? Why for the bloody hell you gave us an opportunity to save her just so that she'll be killed right in the next door? That's so fucking stupid.
Why the hell then I taught her how to shoot a gun why the hell I protected her for all these episodes? Why the fuck we should care about anyone else if your fucking employee just can dont like some of the characters and you gonna kill him just because of that. You know what? I'm just gonna always use Silence option now. Cuz your choices means nothing in this season. TT just confirmed that. They fucked community, they just need money, that's all.
There's a difference between wanting a character out of the way because they're a bad character (which sarah was not) and taking glee in their death because you think they have personality traits that made them "deserve" it. Yes, I think if the zombie apocalypse were real, greg would not hesitate to leave someone like sarah behind. I don't know him personally though obviously so this isn't like an educated guess.
There's a perfect comparison for all of this silliness and I'll keep it brief, unlike my other posts:
Imagine you're reading a book where… more there's a really evil character. But he's such a good character that you don't want the character to die because the story won't be the same. And the character could have committed mass genocide.
Because you want that character to stay alive, does that mean you'd want a real life person who's really evil and has committed mass genocide to stay alive? Contrast that to people having a problem with an in-game character, this case being Sarah. Does it really mean Greg and others' views regarding Sarah translate to real life?
(Maybe the genocide and staying alive part isn't perfect, but try not to focus on that. What's important is your feeling towards wanting an evil character to remain in the story and then comparing that the Sarah situation.)
There's a difference between wanting a character out of the way because they're a bad character (which sarah was not) and taking glee in the… moreir death because you think they have personality traits that made them "deserve" it. Yes, I think if the zombie apocalypse were real, greg would not hesitate to leave someone like sarah behind. I don't know him personally though obviously so this isn't like an educated guess.
These were not conscious choices. And now we get to it, you don't understand how disability works and you hate her for her disability (note: I'm not saying you personally do, but the opinion being defended in the post I'm responding to is just that). I mean you are basically saying "I'm happy she's dead because [disability]". That's what people are so pissed off about, FYI.
There's a difference between consciously deciding to do the wrong thing (lying to the group, even if we accept that he thought putting the supplies out was right which I'm sure he did) resulting in hurt and something not a product of a conscious decision.
If Sarah had just followed simple directions that a 5-year old would understand, Reggie would be alive. What's that? Carver killed Reggie be… morecause he was crazy and Sarah couldn't have been held responsible for the actions of an unstable mind? Well then Lilly killed Carley because she was crazy and Ben couldn't have been held responsible for the actions of an unstable mind.
And if Sarah had just stood up and followed Luke and Nick to safety, Nick would still be alive and Luke's life wouldn't have been in danger. Sarah could have gotten all of them killed. The only reason she didn't was because of Jane and Clem. The causal chain leading from Sarah freaking out to Nick dying is a lot more straightforward than the one leading from Ben bribing the bandits to Duck and Katjaa being bitten. And yet it's fine to be glad at Ben's demise and horrendous to be glad at Sarah's.
I don't mean to sound like a douche, but you seriously need to stop being a Sarah fanboy. Just because things didn't go the way you wanted i… moret, doesn't mean you have to hate the game now. That's life. Do you really think what they said on this true??? It's probably all for Greg Miller's show. And besides, it's only two developers opinion anyways.
P.S. Who the hell is Greg Miller and why does everyone care about him so much??? I know he's from IGN, but damn, I see this name an awful lot on this forum.
EDIT: I saw the disabled part... So what it's offensive. What movies and TV shows aren't. Although I still don't understand how the hell he got the idea and how it is offensive. I mean, in real life... yeah, maybe a disabled person wouldn't do so good in this world. It's understandable and that isn't the only reason why she died. Her father wasn't really raising right her well in a world like this. So you can't just say this game frowns upon disabled people
Telltale's Walking Dead capitalizes on life or death choices as the pinnacle of interactive fiction, that's what I consider a major problem with the series. Let's face it, life or death choices are the most boring choice & consequence mechanics in story based games. They're utterly foreseeable and it's painfully obvious how players are tricked out of experiencing 'consequences' with life or death choices.
They need to get it out of their head that someone has to die every episode.
The two Telltale employees publicly stated that people at Telltale were excited to kill Sarah. That they were waiting for a chance to do so.… more And that they listened to the ableist casual fandom who hated her and used that to go forward with her eventual pointless death. They then go on to make a joke about the fact that, in order to save Sarah, the player has to physically assault her while she’s in the middle of a shut-down. They joke that people who hated her wanted to slap her, but that would mean saving her, something they didn’t want to do.
Telltale's Walking Dead capitalizes on life or death choices as the pinnacle of interactive fiction, that's what I consider a major problem with the series. Let's face it, life or death choices are the most boring choice & consequence mechanics in story based games. They're utterly foreseeable and it's painfully obvious how players are tricked out of experiencing 'consequences' with li… [view original content]
Lilly didn't want to "find out" who betrayed the group. She had already made up her mind who did it and was prepared to execute them. That's why she told Ben that he "has until Kenny deals with that walker to tell me it was [Carley] and not you." It was the same. Both Lilly and Carver saw what they perceived to be threats to the group and made the decision to execute them. A decision that was motivated by the actions of a third party, i.e. Ben or Sarah. Carver may not have let Reggie "back in the flock" (according to someone else's speculation), but the fact is that he wouldn't have killed Reggie back there if Sarah had done her work.
Ben's action "directly" resulted in Duck getting bitten? Did he sic the walker on Duck? Did he tell the bandits to invade? Did he tell Lee to take the supplies from the drop-off point? No. Duck gotten bitten due to a series of unfortunate events, most of which were completely outside of Ben's control and that he could have in now way predicted form his actions. Sarah, on the other hand, almost got Luke killed and did get Nick killed because she cornered herself and wouldn't get up off the ground and do anything. And in fact, you could predict those consequences from her actions (or inactions as it were).
Lilly and Carver are completely different. Carver was planning on killing Reggie anyway. You heard Tavia; Carver was not going to let Reggie… more back into "the flock." He was looking for an excuse to kill Reggie; Lilly wasn't looking for an excuse to kill Carley/Ben. lilly wanted to find out who betrayed the group. Plus, Ben's actions directly resulted in Duck getting bitten and the group being forced to move out of the motel even before Lilly killed anyone. Ben's actions also could have resulted in multiple people dying from illness or from the bandit attack (which, honestly, would have happened eventually; there are only so many bottles of medicine, he would have run out at some point). Sarah's actions resulted in berries getting picked a little bit slower.
All they had to do is write a good death scene for both characters and the fans would be happy. They did not. Wouldn't it been more rewarding instead of seeing Sarah bitten to death when the deck falls , what if "Alive" Nick sacrifices himself to save her. Then in the next episode Sarah does the same for Clementine. Both Characters die, but no , we got what we got.
Meh. Telltale either didn't know what to do with Sarah's character or had a bigger role planned for her and clementine and they just ended u… morep writing it out. So it was probably just easier for them to kill her off and save themselves some trouble. Thats my guess, anyway.
Exactly. That's the problem. Not that Greg was hating Sarah. But that he was hating her for what you and many others see to be something outside of her conscious control. If her actions weren't excusable by her condition then hating her would be just as appropriate as hating Ben (assuming you don't think that Ben also has some condition that excuses him of his actions).
As Greg said, he didn't think that she had a disability. In his mind, she was just a scared, meek, and oblivious little girl who can't complete a simple task, won't just stand up and walk to safety, and doesn't respond to the people trying to help her. So where he erred here was in his ignorance of what people see to be Sarah's condition, not in his malice for hating the character. That's my point.
These were not conscious choices. And now we get to it, you don't understand how disability works and you hate her for her disability (note:… more I'm not saying you personally do, but the opinion being defended in the post I'm responding to is just that). I mean you are basically saying "I'm happy she's dead because [disability]". That's what people are so pissed off about, FYI.
There's a difference between consciously deciding to do the wrong thing (lying to the group, even if we accept that he thought putting the supplies out was right which I'm sure he did) resulting in hurt and something not a product of a conscious decision.
Holy Cow does someone take this game WAY TOO SERIOUSLY. Combine that with having too much time on their hands, and you get this thread. Every time I come on here there is a new thread that makes lose a little but of humanity and today it was this one.
I actually read the whole thing due to a mix of hilarity and shock. OP you really need to step away from the computer. Like seriously for the well being of yourself, this forum, and other users just step away.
EDIT: And even more shockingly THIS THREAD HAS 30+ LIKES! INSANE! Thrity people came on this thread and actually were like, "Wow that is insightful and I agree!" And everyone wonders why the forums are worse than they used to be . . .
Im not going to argue there. Telltales products this year have suffered from half-assed and lazy writing, at times. But i was sort of apathetic towards Sarah, anyway. Just like i have been for every character they've introduced this season. They all seem sort of disposable to me.
All they had to do is write a good death scene for both characters and the fans would be happy. They did not. Wouldn't it been more reward… moreing instead of seeing Sarah bitten to death when the deck falls , what if "Alive" Nick sacrifices himself to save her. Then in the next episode Sarah does the same for Clementine. Both Characters die, but no , we got what we got.
I actually read the whole thing due to a mix of hilarity and shock. OP you really need to step away from the computer. Like seriously for the well being of yourself, this forum, and other users just step away.
You think the problem is just about me? If only it was that easy. You underestimate this community. If I hadn't bring up this topic, someone else would.
Holy Cow does someone take this game WAY TOO SERIOUSLY. Combine that with having too much time on their hands, and you get this thread. Ever… morey time I come on here there is a new thread that makes lose a little but of humanity and today it was this one.
I actually read the whole thing due to a mix of hilarity and shock. OP you really need to step away from the computer. Like seriously for the well being of yourself, this forum, and other users just step away.
EDIT: And even more shockingly THIS THREAD HAS 30+ LIKES! INSANE! Thrity people came on this thread and actually were like, "Wow that is insightful and I agree!" And everyone wonders why the forums are worse than they used to be . . .
Holy Cow does someone take this game WAY TOO SERIOUSLY. Combine that with having too much time on their hands, and you get this thread. Ever… morey time I come on here there is a new thread that makes lose a little but of humanity and today it was this one.
I actually read the whole thing due to a mix of hilarity and shock. OP you really need to step away from the computer. Like seriously for the well being of yourself, this forum, and other users just step away.
EDIT: And even more shockingly THIS THREAD HAS 30+ LIKES! INSANE! Thrity people came on this thread and actually were like, "Wow that is insightful and I agree!" And everyone wonders why the forums are worse than they used to be . . .
I actually read the whole thing due to a mix of hilarity and shock. OP you really need to step away from the computer. Like seriously for th… moree well being of yourself, this forum, and other users just step away.
You think the problem is just about me? If only it was that easy. You underestimate this community. If I hadn't bring up this topic, someone else would.
Since things are getting fairly heated, I figured I'd remind everyone about the first rule on the forum.
1.1 R-E-S-P-E-C-T! We're all here to have fun, so be cool to each other. Always behave respectfully towards other community members, moderators and Telltale team members. Insults, hate speech, platform wars - leave it out.
Since things are getting fairly heated, I figured I'd remind everyone about the first rule on the forum.
1.1 R-E-S-P-E-C-T! We're all her… moree to have fun, so be cool to each other. Always behave respectfully towards other community members, moderators and Telltale team members. Insults, hate speech, platform wars - leave it out.
"Old" isnt the right word, either, as this game is rated "M" which means you have t obe 18 to play it but I am sure you just used your parents credit card/ lied.
The correct word(s) to use is : sophistcated, inteligent, mature, creative etc. But certainly not old. I agree with you that I should leave since this forum is flooded with 12 year olds who cant proprely formulate a sentence none the less formulate something insightful about this game (hence, all the complaining) but I put the duty on myself to provide the truth/ realism/ correct answer on many things.
For example, you need to calm down with this thread. I would say your at a "9" on the scale of 1-10 and you need to bring it down to a "2." This is a video game about zombies and youre complaing and urging people to email telltale because a character died and people arent compassionate. (Side Note: Sarah didnt have any disabilty) In short, grow up. Just admit you were wrong and over reacted (which we can all agree you did to some extent) and move on. All there is to say. If you want to prove me wrong, dont comment back.
So what is your point? That greg is a moron who can't see what's right in front of his face? I don't think anyone is disputing that he's a moron. But I don't really believe he doesn't think she had some kind of mental condition. Does she seem like an average 15 year old girl to you?
Exactly. That's the problem. Not that Greg was hating Sarah. But that he was hating her for what you and many others see to be something out… moreside of her conscious control. If her actions weren't excusable by her condition then hating her would be just as appropriate as hating Ben (assuming you don't think that Ben also has some condition that excuses him of his actions).
As Greg said, he didn't think that she had a disability. In his mind, she was just a scared, meek, and oblivious little girl who can't complete a simple task, won't just stand up and walk to safety, and doesn't respond to the people trying to help her. So where he erred here was in his ignorance of what people see to be Sarah's condition, not in his malice for hating the character. That's my point.
It's stuff like this that is making people so much more dishonest to themselves and scared to voice their opinions. Anyone who doesn't agree with a point can slap any sort of "-ist" label on to the person making the point, and those people who slapped the label on them suddenly have the moral high ground. Her behavior was frustrating to me. She kept getting people into trouble by being unaware of how to act in certain situations. Normal, unexperienced people do this every day, and it is just as frustrating when it happens even though you know why it happens. Are we allowed to get annoyed at people any more? Have you ever felt relieved when any character got written out of anything? This is completely normal behavior, especially considering that the fact she had a mental disability is as much a speculation as assuming Duck had a disability. News flash people: kids are not adults. Sure, some may become adjusted like Clementine did, but I think she would be an exception to the rule for today's kids. So, most people just thought Sarah was an annoying kid character, and they were glad they didn't have to put up with it any more. What is so sinister about that?
To be fair, a good majority of the recent posts on the subject have erupted from some IGN guy saying he wanted to kill her more when he thought there was actually something wrong with her. I don't think Telltale was saying 'Yeah. That's cool you want to kill her because she was disabled.'. I think they just didn't want to do any type of weird confrontation in an interview, or they didn't quite understand what he was saying. It would be good if Telltale would comment something along the lines of 'We don't condone this.', but they may be worried that doing so will implicate that's what the IGN guy meant and possibly burn bridges there. I guess if they really wanted to try and stop the controversy flat, they could state Sarah was simply sheltered, and there was nothing wrong with her, but that would just lead to people saying that wasn't the case until now.
It's stuff like this that is making people so much more dishonest to themselves and scared to voice their opinions. Anyone who doesn't agree… more with a point can slap any sort of "-ist" label on to the person making the point, and those people who slapped the label on them suddenly have the moral high ground. Her behavior was frustrating to me. She kept getting people into trouble by being unaware of how to act in certain situations. Normal, unexperienced people do this every day, and it is just as frustrating when it happens even though you know why it happens. Are we allowed to get annoyed at people any more? Have you ever felt relieved when any character got written out of anything? This is completely normal behavior, especially considering that the fact she had a mental disability is as much a speculation as assuming Duck had a disability. News flash people: kids are not adults. Sure, some may become adjusted like Clementine did, but I think … [view original content]
Not being average doesn't equate to being disabled. I've met many a 15 year old who were similarly childish, clingy, oblivious, and delicate but, to my knowledge, weren't disabled. I've seen a girl break down and skip 2 days of school over getting third place in an oratorical contest. Is that "average" or "normal"? I don't think so. But does it mean she had a disability? Not necessarily.
The most clear-cut instance I can recall of Sarah showing symptoms of what could be called a disability is when she started hyperventilating and had to sit down at the beginning of episode 2. But even then it's unclear if she's having a panic attack or actually just panicking over an actual threat, something that Ben does quite often.
So what is your point? That greg is a moron who can't see what's right in front of his face? I don't think anyone is disputing that he's a m… moreoron. But I don't really believe he doesn't think she had some kind of mental condition. Does she seem like an average 15 year old girl to you?
Not being average doesn't equate to being disabled. I've met many a 15 year old who were similarly childish, clingy, oblivious, and delicate… more but, to my knowledge, weren't disabled. I've seen a girl break down and skip 2 days of school over getting third place in an oratorical contest. Is that "average" or "normal"? I don't think so. But does it mean she had a disability? Not necessarily.
The most clear-cut instance I can recall of Sarah showing symptoms of what could be called a disability is when she started hyperventilating and had to sit down at the beginning of episode 2. But even then it's unclear if she's having a panic attack or actually just panicking over an actual threat, something that Ben does quite often.
Yeah...I'm not a professional psychiatrist. And I'm not just going to go around assuming that every human being who acts in a way that I don't consider "normal" is disabled. Is that...wrong?
Think it's about time I lighten the mood a bit and I hope you don't mind, Thematt9001.
But:
Were you implying that most kids aren't capable of handling a world gone to hell?
Round where I live, I think many kidnappers would think twice before nabbing a kid lest they get beaten up or worse. You can get started on for just looking at them.
Joking aside, a nice post. And no need to reply to this really. I just felt like having a joke, so my words aren't serious.
It's stuff like this that is making people so much more dishonest to themselves and scared to voice their opinions. Anyone who doesn't agree… more with a point can slap any sort of "-ist" label on to the person making the point, and those people who slapped the label on them suddenly have the moral high ground. Her behavior was frustrating to me. She kept getting people into trouble by being unaware of how to act in certain situations. Normal, unexperienced people do this every day, and it is just as frustrating when it happens even though you know why it happens. Are we allowed to get annoyed at people any more? Have you ever felt relieved when any character got written out of anything? This is completely normal behavior, especially considering that the fact she had a mental disability is as much a speculation as assuming Duck had a disability. News flash people: kids are not adults. Sure, some may become adjusted like Clementine did, but I think … [view original content]
Comments
yeah, i agree with that, it's like duck in season 1 loads of people hated him, but then he did the whole batman and robin investigation thing and everybody loved him and were really sad to see him go, whereas for people that found sarah annoying it just got worse before she died, she probably lost more fans before she died rather than gaining a load.
Playing Dead - IGN
Playing Dead - Wiki
Greg Miller has given a bad reputation for being an idiot.
If IGN has to cut off the finger to save the hand, trust me they will. I think Greg will be ok, hopefully he will stop making insensitive comments in the future, i mean seriously how hard is it to act respectful of people at work. If Greg acts less jerky people won't hate on him so much.
The kicker is the guy who punched his fiance, Ray Rice got suspended for two games LOL. The ESPN anchor who commented on it, lost his job. Only in America.
I dislike the knee-jerk reaction by many people on the internet when it comes to "Tumblr" or "feminism" or any other bits of vocabulary related to those concepts. The fact is that there's a lot of real people with mental disabilities who are already looked down upon, and the creepy viewpoint endorsed by Miller - literally laughing like some cartoon supervillain about letting people who "aren't normal" die horribly - really is fucked up. The fact is that in lots of shows and games, female characters often get much more hate than male characters for doing similar things - for this very series, contrast Shane murdering Dale with Jane's killing of Troy, where the latter garnered a strong response from boys who unwittingly identified with Troy's injury. It's the kind of immaturity I'd expect from a militaristic slaughter-fest like Call of Duty, not a game that's ostensibly about 'real people' surviving.
This is what I meant when I say that people who use terms like "SJW" or "feminist" as insults are childish. Having it be pointed out that your lifestyle isn't the only one that matters shouldn't lead to sarcastic dismissiveness and anger. Having it be pointed out that there's already a strong abundance in narratives that support the "Only the strongest survive" mindset for boys, with less stories offering different options, should not be considered a joke.
I'm tired about most gamers/people because of these attitudes. If anything, seeing their petty rage is downright funny to me. Better a SJW than a guy who really is too privileged enough to ever consider a time when they might be vulnerable or hurt or miserable. Better to care for people than to just take pleasure in their pain.
Well, no, because Greg explicitly says "Not since Ben was I so ready for a character's death." So it's not something particularly special about the writing of Season 2 that's eliciting this sort of reaction. And as others have pointed out, many other people were stoked about Ben's death as well. Also, unless you think he could telepathically control Lilly, Lee, the bandits, and the walkers, Ben didn't "directly" cause Duck and Katjaa's deaths with his lying any more than Sarah "directly" caused Reggie and Nick's deaths.
Some people just find people just find some personalities grating and want them killed off, regardless of the quality of the fiction. A lot of people did enjoy seeing Larry's head splattered because he was a douche. A lot of people thought that dropping Ben was the right thing to do and completely justified. And it wasn't that the game didn't make them give a crap about those characters as people. In the case of Sarah, Greg, even with his hatred of her character, said that he really just wanted her to "wake up" to the reality of the situation around her and tried to do so by having Clem tell her that they can't be kids anymore. It was only after seeing her inability to respond that he grew frustrated enough to leave her.
I made no secret about my dislike towards Sarah. I once wrote a post with the words "Die, Sarah, die!" repeated for emphasis. But it had nothing to do with her disability (assuming she had a disability, Telltale was a little vague about that detail). At the time, I was still feeling apprehensive towards the character after her rather awkward introduction to Clementine in the bedroom, which probably came off a lot creepier than Telltale intended. I also feared Telltale was grooming her to become season 3's protagonist, a prospect no one was too thrilled about.
Looking back now, I regret my initial hostility, but I feel Telltale managed Sarah's death significantly better than Nick's. The cards are stacked against Sarah in ep. 4, no matter how much your version of Clem could care for her. Clem was exposed to the zombie apocalypse at a fairly early stage, and she recovered from her trauma, although it's the player who ultimately decides how much of her innocence and/or humanity remains intact. On the other hand, Carlos sheltered Sarah from the world the moment it first started going to hell. You can't blame his actions as a loving father, but at the same time, it badly hampered Sarah's ability to adapt. Lee is the only character in the entire series who can arguably be seen as the "perfect" parent figure - balancing tenderness with common sense - and even that depends on how the player chooses to shape him.
Regardless, what you SHOULD be always able to control is Clem's characterization. At the end of the day, Telltale will always pull the trigger on Sarah, but they can't stop you from doing everything in your power to save her. Of course, that still doesn't excuse Greg Miller's remarks, which are pretty chilling.
Yes, ben caused people to die with his lying. If he hadn't put the supplies out for the bandits, if he had owned up to doing it at any point after you've escaped, if he'd done a multitude of things then carley/doug would not have died. Katjaa and duck's deaths were also caused by him, although he had less opportunities to stop it. These are going to be regarded as valid reasons to be glad to see his demise by some people (I did not drop him, personally).
Sarah did nothing. There's no reason to be happy about her death. It's not simply being frustrated by her inability, otherwise one would still be sad about her death and inability to be redeemed. He was happy about her death because TTG didn't make him care about the character. Or maybe he just is an evil scumbag, I don't know.
If Sarah had just followed simple directions that a 5-year old would understand, Reggie would be alive. What's that? Carver killed Reggie because he was crazy and Sarah couldn't have been held responsible for the actions of an unstable mind? Well then Lilly killed Carley because she was crazy and Ben couldn't have been held responsible for the actions of an unstable mind.
And if Sarah had just stood up and followed Luke and Nick to safety, Nick would still be alive and Luke's life wouldn't have been in danger. Sarah could have gotten all of them killed. The only reason she didn't was because of Jane and Clem. The causal chain leading from Sarah freaking out to Nick dying is a lot more straightforward than the one leading from Ben bribing the bandits to Duck and Katjaa being bitten. And yet it's fine to be glad at Ben's demise and horrendous to be glad at Sarah's.
Lilly and Carver are completely different. Carver was planning on killing Reggie anyway. You heard Tavia; Carver was not going to let Reggie back into "the flock." He was looking for an excuse to kill Reggie; Lilly wasn't looking for an excuse to kill Carley/Ben. lilly wanted to find out who betrayed the group. Plus, Ben's actions directly resulted in Duck getting bitten and the group being forced to move out of the motel even before Lilly killed anyone. Ben's actions also could have resulted in multiple people dying from illness or from the bandit attack (which, honestly, would have happened eventually; there are only so many bottles of medicine, he would have run out at some point). Sarah's actions resulted in berries getting picked a little bit slower.
There's a perfect comparison for all of this silliness and I'll keep it brief, unlike my other posts:
Imagine you're reading a book where there's a really evil character. But he's such a good character that you don't want the character to die because the story won't be the same. And the character could have committed mass genocide.
Because you want that character to stay alive, does that mean you'd want a real life person who's really evil and has committed mass genocide to stay alive? Contrast that to people having a problem with an in-game character, this case being Sarah. Does it really mean Greg and others' views regarding Sarah translate to real life?
(Maybe the genocide and staying alive part isn't perfect, but try not to focus on that. What's important is your feeling towards wanting an evil character to remain in the story and then comparing that the Sarah situation.)
Meh. Telltale either didn't know what to do with Sarah's character or had a bigger role planned for her and clementine and they just ended up writing it out. So it was probably just easier for them to kill her off and save themselves some trouble. Thats my guess, anyway.
You know, I once hated Sarah. Not because she's a kid but because she just didn't want to accept the reality. But then this episode came out. I thought I'm gonna save her and then change her views on live or something. And then this bullshit came around. What the fuck TT? Why for the bloody hell you gave us an opportunity to save her just so that she'll be killed right in the next door? That's so fucking stupid.
Why the hell then I taught her how to shoot a gun why the hell I protected her for all these episodes? Why the fuck we should care about anyone else if your fucking employee just can dont like some of the characters and you gonna kill him just because of that. You know what? I'm just gonna always use Silence option now. Cuz your choices means nothing in this season. TT just confirmed that. They fucked community, they just need money, that's all.
There's a difference between wanting a character out of the way because they're a bad character (which sarah was not) and taking glee in their death because you think they have personality traits that made them "deserve" it. Yes, I think if the zombie apocalypse were real, greg would not hesitate to leave someone like sarah behind. I don't know him personally though obviously so this isn't like an educated guess.
I just don't understand why people are defending Greg Miller. Do they just not understand what he said,
These were not conscious choices. And now we get to it, you don't understand how disability works and you hate her for her disability (note: I'm not saying you personally do, but the opinion being defended in the post I'm responding to is just that). I mean you are basically saying "I'm happy she's dead because [disability]". That's what people are so pissed off about, FYI.
There's a difference between consciously deciding to do the wrong thing (lying to the group, even if we accept that he thought putting the supplies out was right which I'm sure he did) resulting in hurt and something not a product of a conscious decision.
Portrait of America:
Everyone has a opinion, even if they don't know what they're talking about.
They need to get it out of their head that someone has to die every episode.
Lilly didn't want to "find out" who betrayed the group. She had already made up her mind who did it and was prepared to execute them. That's why she told Ben that he "has until Kenny deals with that walker to tell me it was [Carley] and not you." It was the same. Both Lilly and Carver saw what they perceived to be threats to the group and made the decision to execute them. A decision that was motivated by the actions of a third party, i.e. Ben or Sarah. Carver may not have let Reggie "back in the flock" (according to someone else's speculation), but the fact is that he wouldn't have killed Reggie back there if Sarah had done her work.
Ben's action "directly" resulted in Duck getting bitten? Did he sic the walker on Duck? Did he tell the bandits to invade? Did he tell Lee to take the supplies from the drop-off point? No. Duck gotten bitten due to a series of unfortunate events, most of which were completely outside of Ben's control and that he could have in now way predicted form his actions. Sarah, on the other hand, almost got Luke killed and did get Nick killed because she cornered herself and wouldn't get up off the ground and do anything. And in fact, you could predict those consequences from her actions (or inactions as it were).
All they had to do is write a good death scene for both characters and the fans would be happy. They did not. Wouldn't it been more rewarding instead of seeing Sarah bitten to death when the deck falls , what if "Alive" Nick sacrifices himself to save her. Then in the next episode Sarah does the same for Clementine. Both Characters die, but no , we got what we got.
-
Exactly. That's the problem. Not that Greg was hating Sarah. But that he was hating her for what you and many others see to be something outside of her conscious control. If her actions weren't excusable by her condition then hating her would be just as appropriate as hating Ben (assuming you don't think that Ben also has some condition that excuses him of his actions).
As Greg said, he didn't think that she had a disability. In his mind, she was just a scared, meek, and oblivious little girl who can't complete a simple task, won't just stand up and walk to safety, and doesn't respond to the people trying to help her. So where he erred here was in his ignorance of what people see to be Sarah's condition, not in his malice for hating the character. That's my point.
Holy Cow does someone take this game WAY TOO SERIOUSLY. Combine that with having too much time on their hands, and you get this thread. Every time I come on here there is a new thread that makes lose a little but of humanity and today it was this one.
I actually read the whole thing due to a mix of hilarity and shock. OP you really need to step away from the computer. Like seriously for the well being of yourself, this forum, and other users just step away.
EDIT: And even more shockingly THIS THREAD HAS 30+ LIKES! INSANE! Thrity people came on this thread and actually were like, "Wow that is insightful and I agree!" And everyone wonders why the forums are worse than they used to be . . .
Im not going to argue there. Telltales products this year have suffered from half-assed and lazy writing, at times. But i was sort of apathetic towards Sarah, anyway. Just like i have been for every character they've introduced this season. They all seem sort of disposable to me.
You think the problem is just about me? If only it was that easy. You underestimate this community. If I hadn't bring up this topic, someone else would.
[removed]
Im not sure you are using the word hypocrite correctly. . . Because I use a computer I am a hyporcrite? Hmm odd.
[removed]
Guess you're too old for this forum. You are free to leave.
Since things are getting fairly heated, I figured I'd remind everyone about the first rule on the forum.
1.1 R-E-S-P-E-C-T! We're all here to have fun, so be cool to each other. Always behave respectfully towards other community members, moderators and Telltale team members. Insults, hate speech, platform wars - leave it out.
Thank you.
"Old" isnt the right word, either, as this game is rated "M" which means you have t obe 18 to play it but I am sure you just used your parents credit card/ lied.
The correct word(s) to use is : sophistcated, inteligent, mature, creative etc. But certainly not old. I agree with you that I should leave since this forum is flooded with 12 year olds who cant proprely formulate a sentence none the less formulate something insightful about this game (hence, all the complaining) but I put the duty on myself to provide the truth/ realism/ correct answer on many things.
For example, you need to calm down with this thread. I would say your at a "9" on the scale of 1-10 and you need to bring it down to a "2." This is a video game about zombies and youre complaing and urging people to email telltale because a character died and people arent compassionate. (Side Note: Sarah didnt have any disabilty) In short, grow up. Just admit you were wrong and over reacted (which we can all agree you did to some extent) and move on. All there is to say. If you want to prove me wrong, dont comment back.
So what is your point? That greg is a moron who can't see what's right in front of his face? I don't think anyone is disputing that he's a moron. But I don't really believe he doesn't think she had some kind of mental condition. Does she seem like an average 15 year old girl to you?
Sure I don't know what I'm talking about. Thanks asshole
It's stuff like this that is making people so much more dishonest to themselves and scared to voice their opinions. Anyone who doesn't agree with a point can slap any sort of "-ist" label on to the person making the point, and those people who slapped the label on them suddenly have the moral high ground. Her behavior was frustrating to me. She kept getting people into trouble by being unaware of how to act in certain situations. Normal, unexperienced people do this every day, and it is just as frustrating when it happens even though you know why it happens. Are we allowed to get annoyed at people any more? Have you ever felt relieved when any character got written out of anything? This is completely normal behavior, especially considering that the fact she had a mental disability is as much a speculation as assuming Duck had a disability. News flash people: kids are not adults. Sure, some may become adjusted like Clementine did, but I think she would be an exception to the rule for today's kids. So, most people just thought Sarah was an annoying kid character, and they were glad they didn't have to put up with it any more. What is so sinister about that?
To be fair, a good majority of the recent posts on the subject have erupted from some IGN guy saying he wanted to kill her more when he thought there was actually something wrong with her. I don't think Telltale was saying 'Yeah. That's cool you want to kill her because she was disabled.'. I think they just didn't want to do any type of weird confrontation in an interview, or they didn't quite understand what he was saying. It would be good if Telltale would comment something along the lines of 'We don't condone this.', but they may be worried that doing so will implicate that's what the IGN guy meant and possibly burn bridges there. I guess if they really wanted to try and stop the controversy flat, they could state Sarah was simply sheltered, and there was nothing wrong with her, but that would just lead to people saying that wasn't the case until now.
Not being average doesn't equate to being disabled. I've met many a 15 year old who were similarly childish, clingy, oblivious, and delicate but, to my knowledge, weren't disabled. I've seen a girl break down and skip 2 days of school over getting third place in an oratorical contest. Is that "average" or "normal"? I don't think so. But does it mean she had a disability? Not necessarily.
The most clear-cut instance I can recall of Sarah showing symptoms of what could be called a disability is when she started hyperventilating and had to sit down at the beginning of episode 2. But even then it's unclear if she's having a panic attack or actually just panicking over an actual threat, something that Ben does quite often.
"To your knowledge" being the key phrase.
Yeah...I'm not a professional psychiatrist. And I'm not just going to go around assuming that every human being who acts in a way that I don't consider "normal" is disabled. Is that...wrong?
Think it's about time I lighten the mood a bit and I hope you don't mind, Thematt9001.
But:
Were you implying that most kids aren't capable of handling a world gone to hell?
Round where I live, I think many kidnappers would think twice before nabbing a kid lest they get beaten up or worse.
You can get started on for just looking at them.
Joking aside, a nice post. And no need to reply to this really. I just felt like having a joke, so my words aren't serious.
Hold on a second.
(checks Webster's dictionary)
Yup, I'm using it correctly.