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 ca… morepable 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.
Robert Kirkman isn't directing the show, he's writing the comics. Currently, the timeline is roughly at around 2010 as far as he's written right now. They only keep him around for the licensing and to make sure they stay true to the source.
Previous seasons were terrible because Glen Mazzara, but then he stepped down and now Scott Gimple did a patch job. Hopefully he'll keep doing a better job.
So Clemmy1, I believe, unless you're referring to the comics(of which I have no reference and haven't read), you really mean Glen Mazzara. Or Scott Gimple.
TWD is very limited...
That's because they don't try hard enough to come up with something new, Kirkman has been stuck on the same s… moretuff for like 6 years now.
The show's second half of Season 4 didn't have any major character deaths and GUESS WHAT, it's the best part of the show apart from Season 1.
How childish and disrespectful. It's not your place to tell Telltale what to do with THEIR characters. This isn't your story. This is their story and for you to criticize it and ridicule them because they didn't write it how you would have liked is selfish.
Keep up the work Telltale. I'm still enjoying the experience.
How childish and disrespectful. It's not your place to tell Telltale what to do with THEIR characters. This isn't your story. This is their … morestory and for you to criticize it and ridicule them because they didn't write it how you would have liked is selfish.
Keep up the work Telltale. I'm still enjoying the experience.
You can give as much feedback about the game back to them as you like but if it falls in line with what and how OP thinks then you are selfish too. This isn't your story.
It's really just not possible to compare that analogy with this. When you're reading a book or watching a movie, you don't have the power to interact with the story. Choose Your Own Adventure books don't count because they are rigged and they sucked hard.
In a video game, interactivity comes as a given and a must. Some, like the Walking Dead, give you the power to choose whether a character in danger is helped or let go, whether to really go after a villain or let him be. Those characters could end up dying or living regardless of what you do because games like the Walking Dead keep the non-linear element within certain constraints.
"He's so evil, but I like him" can't equate to "she's innocent, but screw her", because villains tend to have plot armor until their 11th hour, so whether or not you do like him, there's always some contrived reason why he can't die yet, not until the story's had its way with him, dropped him out of the protective bubble and said, "okay, we've had our fun, you go ahead and have yours". Best example: the Joker. Would I want him to die? No, because as a villain, he's important, he's lovable, and the conflict almost always centers around him and Batman and it's either literal, symbolic, or both. But if I was holding the gun and the restraints were turned off, yes, I would kill Joker, provided I wasn't controlling Batman. If I were dropped into the real world with someone like the Joker, and I had the means to ensure that he died, I would, may the court have mercy if I were ever caught.
Sarah doesn't have plot armor, and her case is much more complicated than being super evil/good but incredibly loved/hated. To want her dead for the sake of the story is chilling, because aside from being too sheltered to handle this new world without much difficulty, she is portrayed as a genuinely good person.
Bottom line: on this topic, when you move from the subject of a person who's pure evil to someone who's as good as everyday can get, you've hurdled over the fence, and the rules have changed.
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.)
gets slapped and then stands there, staring at Thematt9001
I doth challenge thy's knowledge of young'uns. draws a sword Prepare to die for thy slapping!
Did you even read my response? I just said that the problem with your comment is you just made a biased generalization of this forum's fandom based off of one person's controversial opinion. It is not only insulting but overall ridiculous that you assume everyone who has a negative opinion of Sarah or laughed at her death(which I don't condone, but that isn't what I'm addressing here) is a "white cis male". Not to mention the way you worded it makes it seem like its an insult, like its bad to be a "white cis male". Frankly I'm shocked you don't understand why your comment is an issue. Go back and read what you wrote. If that doesn't help, replace "white" with "black", "cis" with "gay", and "male" with "female". If you only see a problem with the replaced words to your comment, you are a fucking hypocrite, and need to reevaluate your way of thinking.
Perhaps your subconscious is trying to enlighten you of the sheer stupidity and ignorance of your comment, which is why you feel compelled to continue speaking with me.
I'm buying this game, I'm making the choices so dont tell me this isn't my story. If they would want to make their own story they could just write a book or something. But this is a game that supposed to be non-linear. We write the story ourselves. At least we supposed to.
Paid
You can give as much feedback about the game back to them as you like but if it falls in line with what and how OP thinks then you are selfish too. This isn't your story.
Sarah is NOT autistic. She has none of the qualifications for it. Her inability to cope with the new world as it is, frequently shutting down in imminent danger, or needing assistance in social situations most other people are capable of handling on their own, are not qualifiers. In fact, they have nothing to do with the disorder. If you people would just take the time to look it up, you'd know. Sarah suffers from anxiety nurtured into her personality from being sheltered to an extreme degree, which could have been cured with time and support.
You have a good point. But something in her death and Greg's reaction to it still doesn't fell right to me, and I'm not even her fan.
Lets… more think about what kind of story TT is telling to us. What I loved about season one - everything had sense. It felt like a good book to me.
Now see, all gamers like to be represented in games they play, somehow. And now there is a autistic character. We get reminded that her attitude is dangerous and that she won't make it if she keep being that way. The thing is - we know it. It's realistic. But it's not what the STORY needs. (And TTgames are not the ones you should look for realism in).
And what we have now - TT tries to make us feel that everything is right. That it's okay to feel relief of 'annoying and problematic' kid's death. Like someone said, in season 2 we becoming Crawford.
All I want to say is that TT showed as an example of a very bad writing. Sarah's death was senseless.
No, but if you don't have the ability to tell unless they have something like down's syndrome then don't go around assuming against what evidence you do have that they're 100% normal mentally. The line between mental illness and not mental illness is blurry and fine. Sarah obviously had some issues, regardless of whether one considers her disabled or not, she suffered with severe anxiety and so on. Maybe you don't know what that feels like, but it's not something I would expect a coddled 15 year old girl to just get over and power through all by herself. It's unreasonable to expect. It's quite different from an adult deciding to continue lying to their friends long after it was "necessary". Unless he's some sort of pathological liar which I think it's safe to say that ben was not.
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?
Dude, as long as you're not stupid, know how to use a weapon and how to survive, you've covered the basics. If you were in a wheelchair and paralyzed from the neck down, then you're done. Simple as. As long as your anxiety is controlled you can be a survivor.
Anxiety (controlled as long as there are not very many people talking against me too many people against me makes me brake down like Sarah b… moreut because of that I already know you will see me as a liability.), Aspergers (With high IQ), Codependency (I'm working on it), Depression (Not really an issue anymore)
You don't make the story, the story is melded around your choices. It's still the same end destination, you just choose how you get there. It even tells you that at the beginning of the game!
I'm buying this game, I'm making the choices so dont tell me this isn't my story. If they would want to make their own story they could just… more write a book or something. But this is a game that supposed to be non-linear. We write the story ourselves. At least we supposed to.
What is your argument here? "Wahh, I didn't like what you said so you don't get to say it"?
As spooch said, feedback is fine. Feedback is how things get better. If everyone was an ass kisser like you then nothing would ever improve. It's not disrespectful to tell someone you don't like what they've done. And they're the player's characters too. The characters belong to everyone. It's a simple fact that whatever corporations own the intellectual property are the ones who get to put out commercial releases and decide what happens in the canon, we know and noone is saying "do what I want or I'll blow up your offices". What is being said is that the writing in this season was bad and offensive in some people's opinion. The same people who pay their salaries.
How childish and disrespectful. It's not your place to tell Telltale what to do with THEIR characters. This isn't your story. This is their … morestory and for you to criticize it and ridicule them because they didn't write it how you would have liked is selfish.
Keep up the work Telltale. I'm still enjoying the experience.
No one's 100% normal mentally. We all have our weird quirks and issues. Sometimes those issues are big enough for others to make exceptions for us. Other times, we're expected to just suck it up and deal with it. That seems to be the difference in your view of Ben and Sarah.
Up until the berry-picking incident, Sarah's anxiety didn't strike me as being that severe, given the actual level of threat that was going on. She seemed prone to panic and hyperventilating, but still seemed like she could function pretty normally otherwise. I really did expect her to be able to gather herself and be able to accomplish the berry-picking task. That didn't strike me as being beyond her capacity to do. And Clem gave her a good deal of emotional support before hand so I wouldn't say that she had to power through that all by herself. It honestly looked like she just wasn't trying.
Ben's not a pathological liar. He's a coward. He tried to bribe the bandits because he was afraid they would do the same to the motor in group as they did to his school group and he didn't tell the truth because he was scared of being kicked out of the group and left to fend for himself. Is it reasonable to expect a scared high schooler to say 'no' to the gang of thugs that terrorized and hunted down his friends? Is it reasonable to expect him to tell an unstable woman that the 'traitor' she was screaming about was him? I don't think the answer to either of these is obvious.
No, but if you don't have the ability to tell unless they have something like down's syndrome then don't go around assuming against what evi… moredence you do have that they're 100% normal mentally. The line between mental illness and not mental illness is blurry and fine. Sarah obviously had some issues, regardless of whether one considers her disabled or not, she suffered with severe anxiety and so on. Maybe you don't know what that feels like, but it's not something I would expect a coddled 15 year old girl to just get over and power through all by herself. It's unreasonable to expect. It's quite different from an adult deciding to continue lying to their friends long after it was "necessary". Unless he's some sort of pathological liar which I think it's safe to say that ben was not.
It's not? You're dealing with fictional characters in both cases. And you yourself stated you'd feel different towards a character in real life than you would about a fictional one. Yet because it's someone who clearly has issues of one form or another, as in disabilities or because they were sheltered (that sort of thing), it's different. It's really not.
If I played Gta and ran someone down by accident (or on purpose, which isn't my gaming style), I don't sit there and think about it. I can seperate fiction from non-fiction. Same with games that have choices in.
Those that can't? Meaning those whose actions in game represent how they'd act or feel in real life. There was something wrong with them in the first place before they picked up a controller, despite what the media likes to claim.
Bottom line, as you said, I don't take games seriously and all of this is silly to me. While I'm not the same as Sarah, I get made fun of practically every single night I'm out with friends because I'm small and such, while being socially awkward. I seem to attract it..I'm a writer as well, so it's kind of my job to imagine how people must feel etc. else I wouldn't be very good. My parents are also disabled, though it's with arthiritis. But I find nothing to get worked up over because I can recognise the difference between fiction and non-fiction.
There really is no line to cross either, so it is quite silly to state that. Simply put, what one does in a game does not relate to what they'd do in real life, even if they were to save Sarah and love her. If you were put in the situation where she won't move and zombies are piling into the room. you could very well freeze or bolt despite saying right now that you'd save her. Unless you've already been baptised by fire so to speak, you really don't know how you'd react. Likewise, Greg could surprise you, plus I will reiterate he made a comment about a fictional character. Also, there's a reason people sometimes do a good and evil playthrough in a game as well. (Myself, I tend to pick what I think is right, as in the nicer choices, by and large) Myself, when I played it and watched Sarah get eaten after saving her, I just went 'ouch!' It's not like I was sat here thinking about everything, though I get what Telltale's being going for with the whole arc and they are right with what they've wanted to do. I daresay that if I were to write a zombie story myself, it would deal with similar themes. About how people may or may not be able to cope because there's a lot of value in examining the human condition.
I was tempted several years ago myself to write a story where a kid is murdered for simply being disabled. Why? Because I'm attracted to social issues. It wouldn't have meant that I hated disabled people or took pleasure in writing it. I simply wanted to write about that kind of thing.
And finally, think of Hannibal Lector. That's actually the comparison I should have made perhaps. Why do people like those stories? I'm guessing it's because of mister Hannibal whom they like in a story sense, though I've not read them. If what one's thoughts are regarding a fictional character relate to their feelings in reality, then we must have plenty of budding serial killers or messed up people. (We do have plenty of messed up people in this world because it is messed up, but that is beside the point)
Anyhow, I can't believe I just wasted this much time posting this. It's utter stupidity and like a zoo. Just move on. And I'd like to remind people that someone who claimed to be suffer from similar problems in comparison to Sarah said they weren't offended, partly because Greg apologised and partly because he was talking about a fictional character. It would have been different if he'd spoke about a real person, which I can fully get behind. (Is it just me a little disturbed by the fact that the Robin Wlliams thread has very few replies yet this one does? Also, I'm sure there are plenty of real life cases that are worthy of this sort of crusade. I mean, even discounting cases where disabled people and such have been ill treated, just take a look at the problems in the MIddle East and there are people out there who kidnap kids and remove their eyes because they can. I find it hard to give a damn about Greg's comments when there are plenty of messed up things going on in the world.)
PS: The post I was referring to is on page 2 of this thread, or it is for me, as the forum seems messed up for me (I can go on the next page and see posts from the previous one). It's got 30 likes, 3 dislikes. Rather long, so it can't be missed and the poster was Lilacsbloom.
PS 2: Actually, I should clarify one last thing. If a character annoys you in-game, you might say you want them dead and out of the story. In real life, the same type of person might annoy you, but does it mean that you'd want them dead? No. I remember one time being on Steam. I had someone added to my friend's list who did actually have some disability. Asperegers, I think. Anyhow, they messaged me one time after a while had passed and asked who I was. Not a good start to the conversation. Being the nice guy I am though and with not liking to ignore messages, I replied back civilly. We talked for a while but the person would complain about games etc. and they would send me like 30 two word messages in a span of a minute or two while I was playing a game. It did irk me and I imagine it would irk others, but it doesn't mean I wished any harm upon the person. If the person was a character in a story or game, I'd possibly want them gone (if they were annoying me, but I don't take things seriously so I doubt the character would). But you can see how my real life thoughts differ when it comes to a real life person and a fictional character.
It's really just not possible to compare that analogy with this. When you're reading a book or watching a movie, you don't have the power to… more interact with the story. Choose Your Own Adventure books don't count because they are rigged and they sucked hard.
In a video game, interactivity comes as a given and a must. Some, like the Walking Dead, give you the power to choose whether a character in danger is helped or let go, whether to really go after a villain or let him be. Those characters could end up dying or living regardless of what you do because games like the Walking Dead keep the non-linear element within certain constraints.
"He's so evil, but I like him" can't equate to "she's innocent, but screw her", because villains tend to have plot armor until their 11th hour, so whether or not you do like him, there's always some contrived reason why he can't die yet, not until the story's had its way with him, dropped him out of the prot… [view original content]
That's OP's argument, not mine but it's more like "Wahh, I don't like how you did that so you and your product is trash."
I'm not arguing with anyone. Ass kisser is a bit harsh but okay. I'd say you're right I do think that Telltale is doing a good job and I like the game still, it's good. It's disrespectful to insult someone and paint them as some sorts of demons namely Greg Miller and the Telltale employees. I could be misinterpreting their message but that's the vibe I detected from OP's message.
What is your argument here? "Wahh, I didn't like what you said so you don't get to say it"?
As spooch said, feedback is fine. Feedback is… more how things get better. If everyone was an ass kisser like you then nothing would ever improve. It's not disrespectful to tell someone you don't like what they've done. And they're the player's characters too. The characters belong to everyone. It's a simple fact that whatever corporations own the intellectual property are the ones who get to put out commercial releases and decide what happens in the canon, we know and noone is saying "do what I want or I'll blow up your offices". What is being said is that the writing in this season was bad and offensive in some people's opinion. The same people who pay their salaries.
Sorry about my misspelling. Guess I didn't know how to spell paid. Anyway, I'm not saying that Telltale should bend to my whim, I'm just saying that when I pay for a story, it should be good.
Paid
You can give as much feedback about the game back to them as you like but if it falls in line with what and how OP thinks then you are selfish too. This isn't your story.
That's not even remotely what the OP said. It gave specific criticisms and points out what they think TTG did wrong. If it had just said "This season was shit and you're shit" then I'd be beside you in criticizing it as a useless post. As it was it gave a load of reasons and specific points of where they think telltale went wrong. It was constructive criticism, regardless of the tone. Your post just said "I don't agree with your opinion so you shouldn't state it". They should say it and you can disagree. The TTG writers can disagree. Either way, this was hardly a worthless post that was just here to dis TTG, even if it did dis TTG (which I don't think it did, but it's been a couple days since I read the OP through).
That's OP's argument, not mine but it's more like "Wahh, I don't like how you did that so you and your product is trash."
I'm not arguing… more with anyone. Ass kisser is a bit harsh but okay. I'd say you're right I do think that Telltale is doing a good job and I like the game still, it's good. It's disrespectful to insult someone and paint them as some sorts of demons namely Greg Miller and the Telltale employees. I could be misinterpreting their message but that's the vibe I detected from OP's message.
Walkers: Hey Sarah..
Sarah: Hey..
Walkers: Sorry we ate your dad. You see, we're dead. And our stomachs can't tell us when we're full.… more Really.. we didn't mean too. Here's some flowers
Sarah: Really? Wow these are nic...
Walkers start devouring Sarah apart
Sarah: DADDYYYYYYYYY AHHHHH THEY'RE HURTING ME
PLOT TWIST: The Walkers weren't talking. It was just Sarah's imagination. She got the attention of the walkers by talking to herself.
I don't hate Greg because he hates Sarah,I hate him because he was so fucking happy at the idea of a child getting devoured by walkers.That's not normal...
Again, greg hated her for things that her disability caused. It's synonymous with hating her for her disability whether you know it or not and wanting to see her ripped apart for not being normal is terrible. Ben had no such disability. His actions were of his own free will and were not simply being "not normal". I still had compassion for ben, but it's more understandable when it comes to those who didn't because he took conscious actions, which were obviously wrong, that got other major important characters killed.
Sarah is a scared little girl with mental issues who, even if you were relieved to release her as a burden: 1. should not make you happy to see her die and 2. should have been given some significance after you save her, not just being unceremoniously and stupidly killed off 3 scenes later. I wouldn't criticize the decision to leave her any more than I would to drop ben, it's ok if you can't deal with taking care of her. It's the way she was handled if you saved her that's the problem and certain people's glee with seeing a disabled girl ripped apart.
No one's 100% normal mentally. We all have our weird quirks and issues. Sometimes those issues are big enough for others to make exceptions … morefor us. Other times, we're expected to just suck it up and deal with it. That seems to be the difference in your view of Ben and Sarah.
Up until the berry-picking incident, Sarah's anxiety didn't strike me as being that severe, given the actual level of threat that was going on. She seemed prone to panic and hyperventilating, but still seemed like she could function pretty normally otherwise. I really did expect her to be able to gather herself and be able to accomplish the berry-picking task. That didn't strike me as being beyond her capacity to do. And Clem gave her a good deal of emotional support before hand so I wouldn't say that she had to power through that all by herself. It honestly looked like she just wasn't trying.
Ben's not a pathological liar. He's a coward. He tried to bribe the bandi… [view original content]
Haha Kirbinator it seems all you do is go around and bash on people who dislike Season 2...if there was an award for being Telltale's biggest apologist I think you'd win easy.
I've never seen you counter any arguments as to why this season blows. Instead it's just constant bitching for the sake of bitching. Talk about irony...how much extra time do you have on your hands sir?
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 . . .
Indeed. Plus, Sarah will protest if Carver slaps Clem outside the truck. To do that in her situation, especially against a man that clearly terrifies her and with her father still out of sight inside the truck, is incredibly brave. Being determinant, not everyone will experience it all the time so it can be forgotten. But it was still a touching moment I really appreciated.
Yeah, I don't really get why people seem to believe Sarah was some kind of huge threat. She got a whopping zero people killed (more than Ben… more or Kenny can say), and she was surprisingly capable for someone who was sheltered for so long. For one thing, she evaded Carver in the cabin in spite of her panic attack, which was pretty impressive. She also had the initiative to ask Clem to train her to defend herself.
your correct,a lot of fans didn't say she was disabled back then,including me,but i have changed my mind based on what ive read from fans wh… moreo have got similiar disabilities,and it's probably something i wouldn't recognise as a disability because it's so subtle.
Greg Miller reminds me of a living breathing version of Mr. Burns. That was the first image that popped into my head when I heard him go "Yes. Excellent" in response to Sarah getting eaten alive. He then proceeds to go on a rant about how Sarah isn't "normal" and the whole thing just got really ugly.
Greg Miller is a douchebag and shame on Telltale for laughing along with the prick. What I thought equally appalling was how the Telltale writer's had a good laugh about having to slap Sarah in order to save her...that was just really creepy and weird, it just kinda came out of nowhere too.
Absolutely not. Depending on the severity of the mental disability, some can be managed or effects on life lessened with practice, as in the individual knowing themselves, their limits, and what they can do to advocate for themselves. It can't eliminate it, but it can help ease life toward a more "normal" state.
A mentally disabled person, yes, that disability could easily be a liability, a struggle that could quickly get that person killed, just like many other disabilities in that world. But it's the way the story, through the characters and situations, treats Sarah as not worth saving, that I (and I think many people) consider offensive. That's how I see that difference at least.
Well, one thing, a person's skin color is something they can't control.
Sarah not being normal was something that could've been controlle… mored by her parents early on. But she was not. She was sheltered. He's talking about a fictional character in a zombie apocalypse game. Where mentally disabled people ARE a liability. What's the big deal?
It's a game. This kind of political correctness is a poison.
And, again, I think the fact Greg didn't know about Sarah's disability is a very important consideration because it determines how much responsibility he could have assigned to her. If someone whacks me in the face with a stick, I think I would be pretty justified in being pissed off at them for it up until the point where I realize that they're blind and thus not responsible for their actions (I realize blind people are more responsible with their canes than this; it's just an analogy).
If Greg, in fact, didn't see Sarah as someone with a disability, then to him, she was simply a person whose cowardice and incompetence caused her to mess up a simple task and get Reggie killed and curl up in the corner uselessly instead of responding to Luke and Clem's pleas to help save herself. Disliking a character for being a coward and incompetent to the extent that it puts others in danger seems pretty valid to me.
Now, it stops being valid once you accept the premise that Sarah could not be held responsible for her reactions because of her disability. Greg would, in fact, be an asshole if he still professes his hatred of Sarah for her reactions given that she is mentally disabled. But, to my knowledge, he hasn't done this.
Again, greg hated her for things that her disability caused. It's synonymous with hating her for her disability whether you know it or not a… morend wanting to see her ripped apart for not being normal is terrible. Ben had no such disability. His actions were of his own free will and were not simply being "not normal". I still had compassion for ben, but it's more understandable when it comes to those who didn't because he took conscious actions, which were obviously wrong, that got other major important characters killed.
Sarah is a scared little girl with mental issues who, even if you were relieved to release her as a burden: 1. should not make you happy to see her die and 2. should have been given some significance after you save her, not just being unceremoniously and stupidly killed off 3 scenes later. I wouldn't criticize the decision to leave her any more than I would to drop ben, it's ok if you can't deal with taking care of her. It's t… [view original content]
For me at least, it was less about glee about a character's (that I personally connected with) death that rubbed me the wrong way. I was the reason for that glee, because Sarah's disability partly lead to her death. And her disability was something she would not have full control over.
And it's not even an issue with her death (the one in the trailer--the observation deck was just a waste of her character). Except for the slap to save Sarah (which I felt was unnecessary both from a situational and literary standpoint--Clem was already getting through to Sarah), I really liked how the trailer scene was executed. I was certain at first that Jane would be dragged back into the trailer since I had waited to save Sarah. It was tense.
So it seems like a lot of the hate towards Greg Miller is due to the fact that he found joy in seeing Sarah, a character he didn't like, die… more. But this is something that gamers and other patrons of fiction do all the time. Don't pretend like it's some cardinal sin that only "monsters" like Greg Miller are capable of. I think a lot of us, at one time or another, have found it enjoyable to see a particular character that we don't like and find annoying be killed off.
For those of you who are Star Wars fans, how many of you would react with outrage at a gleeful reaction towards the death of, say, Jar Jar Binks? Not many of you, I'm guessing. And it's not as if the character has done something evil or immoral. People hate him because he's annoying and cumbersome. People hate him for being who he is. People hate his character for existing. And I, personally, agree. I don't think that makes me a monster. I think it makes me a Star Wars fan.
Fo… [view original content]
Comments
Are you backsassing my knowledge of children? I challenge you to a duel, ser!
slaps you in the face with a glove
No, it would be "Tumbler! Tumbler! Tumbler Cats, HOOO!"
gets slapped and then stands there, staring at Thematt9001
I doth challenge thy's knowledge of young'uns. draws a sword Prepare to die for thy slapping!
Two things:
Robert Kirkman isn't directing the show, he's writing the comics. Currently, the timeline is roughly at around 2010 as far as he's written right now. They only keep him around for the licensing and to make sure they stay true to the source.
Previous seasons were terrible because Glen Mazzara, but then he stepped down and now Scott Gimple did a patch job. Hopefully he'll keep doing a better job.
So Clemmy1, I believe, unless you're referring to the comics(of which I have no reference and haven't read), you really mean Glen Mazzara. Or Scott Gimple.
How childish and disrespectful. It's not your place to tell Telltale what to do with THEIR characters. This isn't your story. This is their story and for you to criticize it and ridicule them because they didn't write it how you would have liked is selfish.
Keep up the work Telltale. I'm still enjoying the experience.
So we are not allowed to give feedback? I payed for this, so I have the right to tell them what I didn't like about it.
Paid
You can give as much feedback about the game back to them as you like but if it falls in line with what and how OP thinks then you are selfish too. This isn't your story.
It's really just not possible to compare that analogy with this. When you're reading a book or watching a movie, you don't have the power to interact with the story. Choose Your Own Adventure books don't count because they are rigged and they sucked hard.
In a video game, interactivity comes as a given and a must. Some, like the Walking Dead, give you the power to choose whether a character in danger is helped or let go, whether to really go after a villain or let him be. Those characters could end up dying or living regardless of what you do because games like the Walking Dead keep the non-linear element within certain constraints.
"He's so evil, but I like him" can't equate to "she's innocent, but screw her", because villains tend to have plot armor until their 11th hour, so whether or not you do like him, there's always some contrived reason why he can't die yet, not until the story's had its way with him, dropped him out of the protective bubble and said, "okay, we've had our fun, you go ahead and have yours". Best example: the Joker. Would I want him to die? No, because as a villain, he's important, he's lovable, and the conflict almost always centers around him and Batman and it's either literal, symbolic, or both. But if I was holding the gun and the restraints were turned off, yes, I would kill Joker, provided I wasn't controlling Batman. If I were dropped into the real world with someone like the Joker, and I had the means to ensure that he died, I would, may the court have mercy if I were ever caught.
Sarah doesn't have plot armor, and her case is much more complicated than being super evil/good but incredibly loved/hated. To want her dead for the sake of the story is chilling, because aside from being too sheltered to handle this new world without much difficulty, she is portrayed as a genuinely good person.
Bottom line: on this topic, when you move from the subject of a person who's pure evil to someone who's as good as everyday can get, you've hurdled over the fence, and the rules have changed.
I read all of it, thank you
It would appear that I have gotten into a fight that I can't handle!
runs away
But you didn't answer my question . . . So I am a hypocrite, because I use the computer?
Did you even read my response? I just said that the problem with your comment is you just made a biased generalization of this forum's fandom based off of one person's controversial opinion. It is not only insulting but overall ridiculous that you assume everyone who has a negative opinion of Sarah or laughed at her death(which I don't condone, but that isn't what I'm addressing here) is a "white cis male". Not to mention the way you worded it makes it seem like its an insult, like its bad to be a "white cis male". Frankly I'm shocked you don't understand why your comment is an issue. Go back and read what you wrote. If that doesn't help, replace "white" with "black", "cis" with "gay", and "male" with "female". If you only see a problem with the replaced words to your comment, you are a fucking hypocrite, and need to reevaluate your way of thinking.
Perhaps your subconscious is trying to enlighten you of the sheer stupidity and ignorance of your comment, which is why you feel compelled to continue speaking with me.
I'm buying this game, I'm making the choices so dont tell me this isn't my story. If they would want to make their own story they could just write a book or something. But this is a game that supposed to be non-linear. We write the story ourselves. At least we supposed to.
lol I can see that one too.
Sarah is NOT autistic. She has none of the qualifications for it. Her inability to cope with the new world as it is, frequently shutting down in imminent danger, or needing assistance in social situations most other people are capable of handling on their own, are not qualifiers. In fact, they have nothing to do with the disorder. If you people would just take the time to look it up, you'd know. Sarah suffers from anxiety nurtured into her personality from being sheltered to an extreme degree, which could have been cured with time and support.
Because fuck logic.
No, but if you don't have the ability to tell unless they have something like down's syndrome then don't go around assuming against what evidence you do have that they're 100% normal mentally. The line between mental illness and not mental illness is blurry and fine. Sarah obviously had some issues, regardless of whether one considers her disabled or not, she suffered with severe anxiety and so on. Maybe you don't know what that feels like, but it's not something I would expect a coddled 15 year old girl to just get over and power through all by herself. It's unreasonable to expect. It's quite different from an adult deciding to continue lying to their friends long after it was "necessary". Unless he's some sort of pathological liar which I think it's safe to say that ben was not.
He's right actually. People are mad about how Sarah was 'presented'... but she was presented perfectly in the ZA. She would die every time.
Well then why did you respond to some other post that had nothing to do with the thread?
Dude, as long as you're not stupid, know how to use a weapon and how to survive, you've covered the basics. If you were in a wheelchair and paralyzed from the neck down, then you're done. Simple as. As long as your anxiety is controlled you can be a survivor.
You don't make the story, the story is melded around your choices. It's still the same end destination, you just choose how you get there. It even tells you that at the beginning of the game!
What is your argument here? "Wahh, I didn't like what you said so you don't get to say it"?
As spooch said, feedback is fine. Feedback is how things get better. If everyone was an ass kisser like you then nothing would ever improve. It's not disrespectful to tell someone you don't like what they've done. And they're the player's characters too. The characters belong to everyone. It's a simple fact that whatever corporations own the intellectual property are the ones who get to put out commercial releases and decide what happens in the canon, we know and noone is saying "do what I want or I'll blow up your offices". What is being said is that the writing in this season was bad and offensive in some people's opinion. The same people who pay their salaries.
Uhhhh...because I felt like it![:\](https://community.telltale.com/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
Fuck. Tumblr.
No one's 100% normal mentally. We all have our weird quirks and issues. Sometimes those issues are big enough for others to make exceptions for us. Other times, we're expected to just suck it up and deal with it. That seems to be the difference in your view of Ben and Sarah.
Up until the berry-picking incident, Sarah's anxiety didn't strike me as being that severe, given the actual level of threat that was going on. She seemed prone to panic and hyperventilating, but still seemed like she could function pretty normally otherwise. I really did expect her to be able to gather herself and be able to accomplish the berry-picking task. That didn't strike me as being beyond her capacity to do. And Clem gave her a good deal of emotional support before hand so I wouldn't say that she had to power through that all by herself. It honestly looked like she just wasn't trying.
Ben's not a pathological liar. He's a coward. He tried to bribe the bandits because he was afraid they would do the same to the motor in group as they did to his school group and he didn't tell the truth because he was scared of being kicked out of the group and left to fend for himself. Is it reasonable to expect a scared high schooler to say 'no' to the gang of thugs that terrorized and hunted down his friends? Is it reasonable to expect him to tell an unstable woman that the 'traitor' she was screaming about was him? I don't think the answer to either of these is obvious.
It's not? You're dealing with fictional characters in both cases. And you yourself stated you'd feel different towards a character in real life than you would about a fictional one. Yet because it's someone who clearly has issues of one form or another, as in disabilities or because they were sheltered (that sort of thing), it's different. It's really not.
If I played Gta and ran someone down by accident (or on purpose, which isn't my gaming style), I don't sit there and think about it. I can seperate fiction from non-fiction. Same with games that have choices in.
Those that can't? Meaning those whose actions in game represent how they'd act or feel in real life. There was something wrong with them in the first place before they picked up a controller, despite what the media likes to claim.
Bottom line, as you said, I don't take games seriously and all of this is silly to me. While I'm not the same as Sarah, I get made fun of practically every single night I'm out with friends because I'm small and such, while being socially awkward. I seem to attract it..I'm a writer as well, so it's kind of my job to imagine how people must feel etc. else I wouldn't be very good. My parents are also disabled, though it's with arthiritis. But I find nothing to get worked up over because I can recognise the difference between fiction and non-fiction.
There really is no line to cross either, so it is quite silly to state that. Simply put, what one does in a game does not relate to what they'd do in real life, even if they were to save Sarah and love her. If you were put in the situation where she won't move and zombies are piling into the room. you could very well freeze or bolt despite saying right now that you'd save her. Unless you've already been baptised by fire so to speak, you really don't know how you'd react. Likewise, Greg could surprise you, plus I will reiterate he made a comment about a fictional character. Also, there's a reason people sometimes do a good and evil playthrough in a game as well. (Myself, I tend to pick what I think is right, as in the nicer choices, by and large) Myself, when I played it and watched Sarah get eaten after saving her, I just went 'ouch!' It's not like I was sat here thinking about everything, though I get what Telltale's being going for with the whole arc and they are right with what they've wanted to do. I daresay that if I were to write a zombie story myself, it would deal with similar themes. About how people may or may not be able to cope because there's a lot of value in examining the human condition.
I was tempted several years ago myself to write a story where a kid is murdered for simply being disabled. Why? Because I'm attracted to social issues. It wouldn't have meant that I hated disabled people or took pleasure in writing it. I simply wanted to write about that kind of thing.
And finally, think of Hannibal Lector. That's actually the comparison I should have made perhaps. Why do people like those stories? I'm guessing it's because of mister Hannibal whom they like in a story sense, though I've not read them. If what one's thoughts are regarding a fictional character relate to their feelings in reality, then we must have plenty of budding serial killers or messed up people. (We do have plenty of messed up people in this world because it is messed up, but that is beside the point)
Anyhow, I can't believe I just wasted this much time posting this. It's utter stupidity and like a zoo. Just move on. And I'd like to remind people that someone who claimed to be suffer from similar problems in comparison to Sarah said they weren't offended, partly because Greg apologised and partly because he was talking about a fictional character. It would have been different if he'd spoke about a real person, which I can fully get behind. (Is it just me a little disturbed by the fact that the Robin Wlliams thread has very few replies yet this one does? Also, I'm sure there are plenty of real life cases that are worthy of this sort of crusade. I mean, even discounting cases where disabled people and such have been ill treated, just take a look at the problems in the MIddle East and there are people out there who kidnap kids and remove their eyes because they can. I find it hard to give a damn about Greg's comments when there are plenty of messed up things going on in the world.)
PS: The post I was referring to is on page 2 of this thread, or it is for me, as the forum seems messed up for me (I can go on the next page and see posts from the previous one). It's got 30 likes, 3 dislikes. Rather long, so it can't be missed and the poster was Lilacsbloom.
PS 2: Actually, I should clarify one last thing. If a character annoys you in-game, you might say you want them dead and out of the story. In real life, the same type of person might annoy you, but does it mean that you'd want them dead? No. I remember one time being on Steam. I had someone added to my friend's list who did actually have some disability. Asperegers, I think. Anyhow, they messaged me one time after a while had passed and asked who I was. Not a good start to the conversation. Being the nice guy I am though and with not liking to ignore messages, I replied back civilly. We talked for a while but the person would complain about games etc. and they would send me like 30 two word messages in a span of a minute or two while I was playing a game. It did irk me and I imagine it would irk others, but it doesn't mean I wished any harm upon the person. If the person was a character in a story or game, I'd possibly want them gone (if they were annoying me, but I don't take things seriously so I doubt the character would). But you can see how my real life thoughts differ when it comes to a real life person and a fictional character.
That's OP's argument, not mine but it's more like "Wahh, I don't like how you did that so you and your product is trash."
I'm not arguing with anyone. Ass kisser is a bit harsh but okay. I'd say you're right I do think that Telltale is doing a good job and I like the game still, it's good. It's disrespectful to insult someone and paint them as some sorts of demons namely Greg Miller and the Telltale employees. I could be misinterpreting their message but that's the vibe I detected from OP's message.
Sorry about my misspelling. Guess I didn't know how to spell paid. Anyway, I'm not saying that Telltale should bend to my whim, I'm just saying that when I pay for a story, it should be good.
That's not even remotely what the OP said. It gave specific criticisms and points out what they think TTG did wrong. If it had just said "This season was shit and you're shit" then I'd be beside you in criticizing it as a useless post. As it was it gave a load of reasons and specific points of where they think telltale went wrong. It was constructive criticism, regardless of the tone. Your post just said "I don't agree with your opinion so you shouldn't state it". They should say it and you can disagree. The TTG writers can disagree. Either way, this was hardly a worthless post that was just here to dis TTG, even if it did dis TTG (which I don't think it did, but it's been a couple days since I read the OP through).
Don't be such an ass...
I don't hate Greg because he hates Sarah,I hate him because he was so fucking happy at the idea of a child getting devoured by walkers.That's not normal...
Again, greg hated her for things that her disability caused. It's synonymous with hating her for her disability whether you know it or not and wanting to see her ripped apart for not being normal is terrible. Ben had no such disability. His actions were of his own free will and were not simply being "not normal". I still had compassion for ben, but it's more understandable when it comes to those who didn't because he took conscious actions, which were obviously wrong, that got other major important characters killed.
Sarah is a scared little girl with mental issues who, even if you were relieved to release her as a burden: 1. should not make you happy to see her die and 2. should have been given some significance after you save her, not just being unceremoniously and stupidly killed off 3 scenes later. I wouldn't criticize the decision to leave her any more than I would to drop ben, it's ok if you can't deal with taking care of her. It's the way she was handled if you saved her that's the problem and certain people's glee with seeing a disabled girl ripped apart.
Haha Kirbinator it seems all you do is go around and bash on people who dislike Season 2...if there was an award for being Telltale's biggest apologist I think you'd win easy.
I've never seen you counter any arguments as to why this season blows. Instead it's just constant bitching for the sake of bitching. Talk about irony...how much extra time do you have on your hands sir?
Reading this thread gave me an tremendous craving for popcorn.
Indeed. Plus, Sarah will protest if Carver slaps Clem outside the truck. To do that in her situation, especially against a man that clearly terrifies her and with her father still out of sight inside the truck, is incredibly brave. Being determinant, not everyone will experience it all the time so it can be forgotten. But it was still a touching moment I really appreciated.
I have atypical autism and I don't think she's autistic.
Greg Miller reminds me of a living breathing version of Mr. Burns. That was the first image that popped into my head when I heard him go "Yes. Excellent" in response to Sarah getting eaten alive. He then proceeds to go on a rant about how Sarah isn't "normal" and the whole thing just got really ugly.
Greg Miller is a douchebag and shame on Telltale for laughing along with the prick. What I thought equally appalling was how the Telltale writer's had a good laugh about having to slap Sarah in order to save her...that was just really creepy and weird, it just kinda came out of nowhere too.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Absolutely not. Depending on the severity of the mental disability, some can be managed or effects on life lessened with practice, as in the individual knowing themselves, their limits, and what they can do to advocate for themselves. It can't eliminate it, but it can help ease life toward a more "normal" state.
A mentally disabled person, yes, that disability could easily be a liability, a struggle that could quickly get that person killed, just like many other disabilities in that world. But it's the way the story, through the characters and situations, treats Sarah as not worth saving, that I (and I think many people) consider offensive. That's how I see that difference at least.
And, again, I think the fact Greg didn't know about Sarah's disability is a very important consideration because it determines how much responsibility he could have assigned to her. If someone whacks me in the face with a stick, I think I would be pretty justified in being pissed off at them for it up until the point where I realize that they're blind and thus not responsible for their actions (I realize blind people are more responsible with their canes than this; it's just an analogy).
If Greg, in fact, didn't see Sarah as someone with a disability, then to him, she was simply a person whose cowardice and incompetence caused her to mess up a simple task and get Reggie killed and curl up in the corner uselessly instead of responding to Luke and Clem's pleas to help save herself. Disliking a character for being a coward and incompetent to the extent that it puts others in danger seems pretty valid to me.
Now, it stops being valid once you accept the premise that Sarah could not be held responsible for her reactions because of her disability. Greg would, in fact, be an asshole if he still professes his hatred of Sarah for her reactions given that she is mentally disabled. But, to my knowledge, he hasn't done this.
For me at least, it was less about glee about a character's (that I personally connected with) death that rubbed me the wrong way. I was the reason for that glee, because Sarah's disability partly lead to her death. And her disability was something she would not have full control over.
And it's not even an issue with her death (the one in the trailer--the observation deck was just a waste of her character). Except for the slap to save Sarah (which I felt was unnecessary both from a situational and literary standpoint--Clem was already getting through to Sarah), I really liked how the trailer scene was executed. I was certain at first that Jane would be dragged back into the trailer since I had waited to save Sarah. It was tense.