Well you can, I guess. I seem to have to rephrase things a lot in forum discussions. What I mean to say is that conclusions drawn from the comparison aren't valid, because interactivity is a huge deal. As for the GTA fact tidbit, I'm glad you can.
Nobody's bringing your personal choices in literature into question. Most of what you said, in that paragraph and in others, seems to speak against the extremist view of the side opposing interactive media and apparently books too. I'm going to assume(and would like you to assume this as well) that we agree on these things. My response was focused completely on the specific exercise posed by your previous comment in regards to how we treat good/bad people in interactive fiction as opposed to real life. I say this in regards to said writing example, the GTA example, you, Hannibal Lector, and the one referencing the media at large.
So then, let me explain myself clearer. What I mean by the "fence" is that you can't treat both by the same "rules". Evil guy, whatever, but when you change the moral standing of a hypothetical character in a video game to upright and "good", those rules change. You no longer decide whether to save this person based on how "evil" they are. Telltale doesn't make these choices to challenge you from a literary standpoint, but from one of morality vs practicality(to generalize it). It's not about what would make more sense to the story, it's about what makes more sense to you as a player. Granted, nothing's stopping players from making choices based on how the story should "flow" or whatever, but what they're taking from the data gathered is that most people are making these decisions based on how strongly they personally feel one way or the other, at least the first time around. The general point I'm trying to make is that the hypothetical situation involving an evil character and the same situation involving a good character are not equal, not on a spectrum, and don't follow the same rules.
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 l… moreife 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 practic… [view original content]
What it really depends on is how you view games. Some people really just view them as simple entertainment, myself included, where nothing really bleeds over into real life. The end of TWD's season 1 did affect me though, but that's because of the writing ability on display. It's very rare for me to feel anything if I'm honest, as I'm quite emotionally stunted. But it doesn't mean I can't relate to how people must feel. (As an aside when it comes to your point about doing what you think you would do in real life, that is generally how I play, which tends to lead towards me choosing the nice options)
Anyhow, my point is that you can apply the same rules if you treat games as simple entertainment and don't give much thought to things. So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. No progress will be made.
That said, I'd like to touch on what you mentioned here: 'You no longer decide whether to save this person based on how "evil" they are. Telltale doesn't make these choices to challenge you from a literary standpoint, but from one of morality vs practicality(to generalize it). It's not about what would make more sense to the story, it's about what makes more sense to you as a player. Granted, nothing's stopping players from making choices based on how the story should "flow" or whatever, but what they're taking from the data gathered is that most people are making these decisions based on how strongly they personally feel one way or the other, at least the first time around. The general point I'm trying to make is that the hypothetical situation involving an evil character and the same situation involving a good character are not equal, not on a spectrum, and don't follow the same rules.'
I can actually see plenty of value in interactive fiction when it comes to literary value and making people think about the world, amongst other things. It's actually why I want to write an interactive story at some point, because I feel that involving the reader in a great tale, full of morally grey choices, can lead to a greater story than one where you're not directing the story.
One example I've had in mind for a long time:
Picture a war zone. You're in the shoes of a soldier. There are some kids nearby who are at risk of dying. Orders state that you should stand your ground and push back the enemy, possibly saving more lifes in the process than you'd save by protecting the kids.
So, do you defy orders and save the kids, potentially leading to more casualties and facing a court marshal? Or do you run the risk of letting those kids die while sticking to your orders? Do the lives of many people outweigh the value of a few kid's lives?
I imagine a soldier in that situation would be quite conflicted. And whatever choice you'd make, you'd have to live with it, with no rewind button like you wouldn't get in the choice of games. (The decision would preferably be present in the text throughout the story, haunting you, and not glossed over so that you're always reminded of your actions)
But if I wanted to affect people in the way I desire, I'd need for them to not treat the story as simple entertainment and to not think that interactive fiction doesn't offer much in the way of literary value. I'd also need for adults to not have the viewpoint that interactive stories are for kids too (sadly, some adults don't see much value in it).
But let's examine the Sarah situation very quickly at the risk of me earning people's ire:
Luke has risked his life trying to save Sarah. Nick has died. When you find Sarah, Luke's at a loss as to what to do and she's screaming her head off. You try to convince her to leave and, eventually, the zombies break in. She still doesn't move. You're left with a few choices: knock her out or slap her (knocking her out and carrying her would be quite a burden on you with having to carry her), leave her, or die trying to get her to safety.
It's a morally grey situation if there ever was one really. And no-one can say Sarah was not putting Luke, Jane and Clem at risk while keeping a straight face. The only way she wouldn't be is if the group didn't give a damn, meaning they wouldn't stick around to help her.
Edit: I don't mind the conversation here with you, hbh128, btw, with it being civil. But I think I'm going to bow out here as I honestly have much better things to do with my time than to spend time debating this. So, reply by all means, but don't expect a reply back. It's not that I'm ignoring you, but it's just that I have many better things to do, like play through a massive backlog of games, write a story or work on the RPG I'm making. Plus there's a lot of anime I want to watch on Netflix too. If it was about a real life situation though, I'd be willing to make the time to discuss things.
Well you can, I guess. I seem to have to rephrase things a lot in forum discussions. What I mean to say is that conclusions drawn from the c… moreomparison aren't valid, because interactivity is a huge deal. As for the GTA fact tidbit, I'm glad you can.
Nobody's bringing your personal choices in literature into question. Most of what you said, in that paragraph and in others, seems to speak against the extremist view of the side opposing interactive media and apparently books too. I'm going to assume(and would like you to assume this as well) that we agree on these things. My response was focused completely on the specific exercise posed by your previous comment in regards to how we treat good/bad people in interactive fiction as opposed to real life. I say this in regards to said writing example, the GTA example, you, Hannibal Lector, and the one referencing the media at large.
So then, let me explain myself clearer. What I mean by the "fenc… [view original content]
And, again, I think the fact Greg didn't know about Sarah's disability is a very important consideration because it determines how much resp… moreonsibility 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 y… [view original content]
I don't understand. With time you can help Sarah overcome her current state of shock with what is happening. Clementine did it with seeing her dead parents and she even shot Lee. Granted, she was still young to let emotions shut her down, but Sarah is older and would be more numb in time to what happened to her father and the world around her. If anything, blame Carlos for sheltering her her entire life. Sarah's instincts of survival were still functioning when she left with Clementine (had you chose that option).
To want to kill her off from the start is a waste of potential and character development, but it shows that some people can't be saved, as quoted by Jane. Still, she definitely COULD be a hardened survivor within time. She's just always caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, is all.
Massive overreaction and reading motives that aren't there. Telltale created a game with a realistic portrayal of the apocalypse, hard fact is that many times those with disabilities (which includes myself btw) wouldn't make it. Being treated equally and fairly doesn't mean changing reality to accommodate you. It would have been SO MUCH worse if they had suddenly discarded Sarah's issues and turned her into a badass, there's no "I want to be normal now" button on having a disability. Sarah died because she just couldn't deal with the world as it was, it's not fair, it's not nice but it's facts. And autism? Please. GAD and extremely sheltered yes, perhaps with a few other issues as well, but definitely not autistic. And Sarah was a liability. She in no way contributed to the group's survival and people died protecting and sheltering her, basically the textbook definition of a liability. Again, not nice to say but factual.
I dunno who Greg Miller is but accusing him of being sexist and ableist based off of this seems like a bit much, especially since he's largely responding on how he saw a big part of the fanbase react. Even if the accusation is accurate his views do not necessarily reflect that of Telltale who I think handled Sarah well and realistically if not politically correct.
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.
How are characters "everyone's characters"? Did everyone help write the characters? Were people there throwing around ideas during the planning process? Did other people even come up with the name? No. No, they did not. The characters belong to the people who created them and truly understand their intentions. You know, they belong to people who actually put in the time or effort.
I'm not really attacking you, but this mindset annoys me. It reeks of entitlement...or something. I can't think of the word. It suggests that you feel like you have something you didn't earn.
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.
Ya know, its funny because I have never seen ANY argument on this forum that actually supports why this season blows. Talk about irony! You're a funny guy, I like you. Much needed comedic relief to a forum that lacks it sometimes.
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 bigges… moret 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?
But we know Greg Miller is an asshole to female characters.
Stopped reading it there. While I don't agree with Greg at all, he isn't sexist. That's absurd. This just looks like whiny tumblr bullshit.
Can we all just let this thread die? Like seriously, there is no need for this thread and it makes a really poor representation of what this forum is actually capable of. I know it [the forum] hasn't been good as of late but deep down there are some insightful people on this forums. Lets let them post the threads from now on. This thread is 100% ridiculous.
Of course I understand that everyone is different and will react differently to things. But just because you're offended doesn't mean it cal… morels for this huge movement to make TellTale apologize, or yield to your way of thinking about those things. I just don't understand what you all over at Tumblr want to get out of this, Greg apologized but you're all still angry. I hate to break it to you but I think you've been misinformed about Tumblr. Tumblr preaches about accepting and embracing everybody, and not judging anyone, but that only applies if you think like them. If someone has an unpopular opinion or disagrees with them, they attack you like rabid dogs.
You can be heard on any forum, all you have to do is start a thread. Do you mean to say that having people agree with you is equivalent to being heard? Sorry, I might be misinterpreting that last bit of your comment.
Sadly most of the people I hang out with at school are that type of Tumblr user and they call me a gross white cist all because I go on reddit and 4chan.
It's there alright, and just like I said to theonys, I sincerely hope you don't ever have to see it. The people who engage in it are huge hy… morepocrites, they advocate love and acceptance but turn on others at even the slightest mention of an opinion they don't agree with. They tell their followers about the user and send them over to harass them. It's disgusting, and is a huge reason as to why I despise Tumblr so much as a community. I only really lurk there for edits/gifs/art mostly, but I still come across it some how. I guess I'm just unlucky that way. Thankfully I have neither a Facebook or a Twitter, nor do I plan to lurk on there.
They're everyone's characters because we pay for them when we buy the game, book, film, anything. We all get to enjoy them, we have the legal right to use them in fanfiction and to reproduce them. We empathize with them and can understand them ourselves. We project ourselves into them, it's absurd to ask people not to care about what is done with them because you have some arbitrary notion they "belong" to someone else.
Sometimes the writers don't understand a character as well as the fans, especially when a character gets passed between several writers.
I think the whole notion of "owning" a character is ridiculous but legally the fans have as much right to them as the creators, so long as they aren't trying to profit off it. The creators own the intellectual property, name rights and really deciding what is canon, but they don't own the characters. They can do whatever they want with them in the framework of canon fiction but the characters themselves belong to everyone. We paid our money and we got a stake in them.
How are characters "everyone's characters"? Did everyone help write the characters? Were people there throwing around ideas during the plann… moreing process? Did other people even come up with the name? No. No, they did not. The characters belong to the people who created them and truly understand their intentions. You know, they belong to people who actually put in the time or effort.
I'm not really attacking you, but this mindset annoys me. It reeks of entitlement...or something. I can't think of the word. It suggests that you feel like you have something you didn't earn.
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 fando… morem 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'll make this really clear and I'll explain my first post in detail. The critique in question is about autism or special needs. The OP to me as I read it made it sound as if Telltale and Greg Miller don't believe that autistic people are capable of surviving in harsh environments. That they are not "strong" enough. That's drawing ridicule. When I said it wasn't their story, I meant they literally have no input into how these scenarios and characters were created and what intentions the writers had while creating them.
Many of us know that the people dealing with these illnesses can do phenomenal things. I actually find their stories of success inspiring.
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 "Th… moreis 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).
We can't blame Sarah for being a liability when there were only people weighing her down and degrading her, treating her as a child instead of a living being at these times. Sarah was never taught how to use any sort of weapon, she was sheltered by her father Carlos and knew that the time would come when she would need to protect herself. Clementine never even actually had the chance to try and help her through her anxiety. Clementine was the only person that was able to reach Sarah and teach her how to survive, but alas, tis not so. Sarah was the kindest character in the series in my opinion and her death was horrible. If you leave Sarah at the trailer park, Rebecca is really the only one affected. However, if you saved Sarah, Jane can try and help but fail with the aid of one bullet from Mike and Bonnie each, and then they just stood there.... Clementine, Luke and Kenny just watched as she was devoured, while screaming for Clementine and Carlos. I believe that Sarah could've been the turning point for determinant characters, Tell Tale could've showed us that the supposedly 'weak' can survive if taught how to, and that people with disabilities or thought of as 'liabilities' can survive such a cruel world. I wouldn't mind if the Season ended with Clementine, Sarah and the baby.
I have no idea what you're talking about or how this post addresses anything discussed in this comment thread. I never accused you of being anti-disability.
The critique being made in the OP is of the attitude displayed in the interview by greg and the writers and how that's reflected in the writing of the episode with how people who chose to save her and believe in her got screwed over by a nonsensical death a few scenes later with no real development inbetween. They think it was poorly done and that the reprehensible attitude apparently shown in the interview (she's not normal so it was great when she died, to paraphrase) was the cause of it.
You came in with "it's not your story you can't tell TTG what to do" and then implied that the OP was nothing more than a dissing thread without critical value. They can't "tell telltale what to do" and it is "their story", sure. They can't, so why are you even worried about it. But they can give feedback, they can critique the story, they can complain about shit they didn't like and, if they want, they can insult TTG whilst doing so. You can disagree, but it's not selfish to offer one's own criticism. Nobody is forcing TTG to tailor the game to them by going to their offices with a gun or anything. They're offering critique on what they received. If you disagree, say you disagree and say why, making a post about how "selfish" they are is just silly.
I'll make this really clear and I'll explain my first post in detail. The critique in question is about autism or special needs. The OP to m… moree as I read it made it sound as if Telltale and Greg Miller don't believe that autistic people are capable of surviving in harsh environments. That they are not "strong" enough. That's drawing ridicule. When I said it wasn't their story, I meant they literally have no input into how these scenarios and characters were created and what intentions the writers had while creating them.
Many of us know that the people dealing with these illnesses can do phenomenal things. I actually find their stories of success inspiring.
Sadly most of the people I hang out with at school are that type of Tumblr user and they call me a gross white cist all because I go on reddit and 4chan.
But we know Greg Miller is an asshole to female characters.
Stopped reading it there. While I don't agree with Greg at all, he isn't sexist. That's absurd. This just looks like whiny tumblr bullshit.
Don't think so. Firstly, I haven't seen any people calling him a dick for apologising. It sounds irrationally and immature. Secondly, I believe that community would only have a higher opinion of TT, because it takes strength to admit one's fault.
I personally don't really seek for an apology that much, but some kind of explanation would be nice.
Don't think so. Firstly, I haven't seen any people calling him a dick for apologising. It sounds irrationally and immature. Secondly, I beli… moreeve that community would only have a higher opinion of TT, because it takes strength to admit one's fault.
I personally don't really seek for an apology that much, but some kind of explanation would be nice.
He literally, in the interview, says he hates her for not being "normal". That was the explicit reason he gave. His hate means he feels she should die. How is that not malicious? I don't actually give a fuck whether he thought she was disabled or not, that's not cool. And this doesn't explain why the writers were so excited to kill her either.
Well. What he literally said was that he hated her because "she sucks," "she was this season's Ben," and "she wasn't meant for this world." According to him the measure of "normal" that he was referring to was being a functional survivor in that world:
The Walking Dead is an adventure game to most, but to me, it's an RPG. I am Clem. I am in this ugly fictional world. I have to make horrible choices in a fraction of a second. I had talked and talked and talked to Sarah about helping out, but it was no use. It was the same way I had talked and talked and talked to Ben about helping out, but it was no use.
This is the "normal" I was talking about on Playing Dead.
So to him, Sarah wasn't "normal" in the same way that Ben wasn't "normal." They weren't like the other survivors who could help out the group. So I don't think he's being more malicious in his hatred of Sarah than in his hatred of Ben because he essentially hated them for same reasons.
He literally, in the interview, says he hates her for not being "normal". That was the explicit reason he gave. His hate means he feels she … moreshould die. How is that not malicious? I don't actually give a fuck whether he thought she was disabled or not, that's not cool. And this doesn't explain why the writers were so excited to kill her either.
Ya know, its funny because I have never seen ANY argument on this forum that actually supports why this season blows. Talk about irony! You're a funny guy, I like you. Much needed comedic relief to a forum that lacks it sometimes.
I disagree. You own the piece of entertainment that the characters are in. You are entitled to have an emotional reaction to the characters because that is the point of entertainment, no? Heck, you can even write your own version of the character, though that will have no bearing on the original story. However, the author who created the character has created the concept of that character. It follows that the author can do whatever that author chooses to do with that character. Sure, you can dislike it. However, I feel like it's overstepping to say that a character should be changed or handled differently than how the author intended it to be because an audience member or multiple audience members didn't enjoy the treatment of the character. It's the author's original idea. The author should be able to have a mind of his/her own.
They're everyone's characters because we pay for them when we buy the game, book, film, anything. We all get to enjoy them, we have the lega… morel right to use them in fanfiction and to reproduce them. We empathize with them and can understand them ourselves. We project ourselves into them, it's absurd to ask people not to care about what is done with them because you have some arbitrary notion they "belong" to someone else.
Sometimes the writers don't understand a character as well as the fans, especially when a character gets passed between several writers.
I think the whole notion of "owning" a character is ridiculous but legally the fans have as much right to them as the creators, so long as they aren't trying to profit off it. The creators own the intellectual property, name rights and really deciding what is canon, but they don't own the characters. They can do whatever they want with them in the framework of canon fiction but the characters themselves belong to everyone. We paid our money and we got a stake in them.
Ok good for you, that doesn't change the argument I made regarding giving feedback. No-one is threatening anyone, the writers can do whatever the hell they want, but we can equally bitch when we hate what they've done and find it offensive. Then they can ignore us and lose our respect and/or business or they can not. This is how capitalism works.
I disagree. You own the piece of entertainment that the characters are in. You are entitled to have an emotional reaction to the characters … morebecause that is the point of entertainment, no? Heck, you can even write your own version of the character, though that will have no bearing on the original story. However, the author who created the character has created the concept of that character. It follows that the author can do whatever that author chooses to do with that character. Sure, you can dislike it. However, I feel like it's overstepping to say that a character should be changed or handled differently than how the author intended it to be because an audience member or multiple audience members didn't enjoy the treatment of the character. It's the author's original idea. The author should be able to have a mind of his/her own.
I'm truly sorry to hear that, it really sucks that so many Tumblr users are like that. Just remember that the majority of Tumblr who thinks like that are severely deluded and will never make it in the real world with such a ridiculous mindset. Hopefully it's just a phase their going through, and they will grow out of it as they mature. Hopefully.
Sadly most of the people I hang out with at school are that type of Tumblr user and they call me a gross white cist all because I go on reddit and 4chan.
Well it's weird since most of my friends who are that way and have graduated are going to horrible colleges and having severe financial problems since they're spending all their parents money trying to impress their college friends. It's funny.
I'm truly sorry to hear that, it really sucks that so many Tumblr users are like that. Just remember that the majority of Tumblr who thinks … morelike that are severely deluded and will never make it in the real world with such a ridiculous mindset. Hopefully it's just a phase their going through, and they will grow out of it as they mature. Hopefully.
Ok good for you, that doesn't change the argument I made regarding giving feedback. No-one is threatening anyone, the writers can do whateve… morer the hell they want, but we can equally bitch when we hate what they've done and find it offensive. Then they can ignore us and lose our respect and/or business or they can not. This is how capitalism works.
well somewhat, I was joking about the cis thing (I'm cis gendered too) since it just sounds funny to say it and to piss them off. I think mods should delete that comment, I really didn't care about it in the first place. I was angry at how people were laughing at sarah's death which really didn't do much but just annoyed. If you took this serious and found this offensive then I think you shouldn't be on the internet
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 fando… morem 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.
Well I think they are. It's nothing to do with entitlement, think of it more like partial adoption. I think that when an artist puts a character out there, into to world, they belong to anyone. Again, franchises do not and I recognize a company's right to make money off of those characters in an official context but I don't think that those characters solely belong to the author in that case.
Do you think that an author should be able to shut down fanfiction he or she doesn't like?
Comments
Well you can, I guess. I seem to have to rephrase things a lot in forum discussions. What I mean to say is that conclusions drawn from the comparison aren't valid, because interactivity is a huge deal. As for the GTA fact tidbit, I'm glad you can.
Nobody's bringing your personal choices in literature into question. Most of what you said, in that paragraph and in others, seems to speak against the extremist view of the side opposing interactive media and apparently books too. I'm going to assume(and would like you to assume this as well) that we agree on these things. My response was focused completely on the specific exercise posed by your previous comment in regards to how we treat good/bad people in interactive fiction as opposed to real life. I say this in regards to said writing example, the GTA example, you, Hannibal Lector, and the one referencing the media at large.
So then, let me explain myself clearer. What I mean by the "fence" is that you can't treat both by the same "rules". Evil guy, whatever, but when you change the moral standing of a hypothetical character in a video game to upright and "good", those rules change. You no longer decide whether to save this person based on how "evil" they are. Telltale doesn't make these choices to challenge you from a literary standpoint, but from one of morality vs practicality(to generalize it). It's not about what would make more sense to the story, it's about what makes more sense to you as a player. Granted, nothing's stopping players from making choices based on how the story should "flow" or whatever, but what they're taking from the data gathered is that most people are making these decisions based on how strongly they personally feel one way or the other, at least the first time around. The general point I'm trying to make is that the hypothetical situation involving an evil character and the same situation involving a good character are not equal, not on a spectrum, and don't follow the same rules.
What it really depends on is how you view games. Some people really just view them as simple entertainment, myself included, where nothing really bleeds over into real life. The end of TWD's season 1 did affect me though, but that's because of the writing ability on display. It's very rare for me to feel anything if I'm honest, as I'm quite emotionally stunted. But it doesn't mean I can't relate to how people must feel. (As an aside when it comes to your point about doing what you think you would do in real life, that is generally how I play, which tends to lead towards me choosing the nice options)
Anyhow, my point is that you can apply the same rules if you treat games as simple entertainment and don't give much thought to things. So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. No progress will be made.
That said, I'd like to touch on what you mentioned here: 'You no longer decide whether to save this person based on how "evil" they are. Telltale doesn't make these choices to challenge you from a literary standpoint, but from one of morality vs practicality(to generalize it). It's not about what would make more sense to the story, it's about what makes more sense to you as a player. Granted, nothing's stopping players from making choices based on how the story should "flow" or whatever, but what they're taking from the data gathered is that most people are making these decisions based on how strongly they personally feel one way or the other, at least the first time around. The general point I'm trying to make is that the hypothetical situation involving an evil character and the same situation involving a good character are not equal, not on a spectrum, and don't follow the same rules.'
I can actually see plenty of value in interactive fiction when it comes to literary value and making people think about the world, amongst other things. It's actually why I want to write an interactive story at some point, because I feel that involving the reader in a great tale, full of morally grey choices, can lead to a greater story than one where you're not directing the story.
One example I've had in mind for a long time:
Picture a war zone. You're in the shoes of a soldier. There are some kids nearby who are at risk of dying. Orders state that you should stand your ground and push back the enemy, possibly saving more lifes in the process than you'd save by protecting the kids.
So, do you defy orders and save the kids, potentially leading to more casualties and facing a court marshal? Or do you run the risk of letting those kids die while sticking to your orders? Do the lives of many people outweigh the value of a few kid's lives?
I imagine a soldier in that situation would be quite conflicted. And whatever choice you'd make, you'd have to live with it, with no rewind button like you wouldn't get in the choice of games. (The decision would preferably be present in the text throughout the story, haunting you, and not glossed over so that you're always reminded of your actions)
But if I wanted to affect people in the way I desire, I'd need for them to not treat the story as simple entertainment and to not think that interactive fiction doesn't offer much in the way of literary value. I'd also need for adults to not have the viewpoint that interactive stories are for kids too (sadly, some adults don't see much value in it).
But let's examine the Sarah situation very quickly at the risk of me earning people's ire:
Luke has risked his life trying to save Sarah. Nick has died. When you find Sarah, Luke's at a loss as to what to do and she's screaming her head off. You try to convince her to leave and, eventually, the zombies break in. She still doesn't move. You're left with a few choices: knock her out or slap her (knocking her out and carrying her would be quite a burden on you with having to carry her), leave her, or die trying to get her to safety.
It's a morally grey situation if there ever was one really. And no-one can say Sarah was not putting Luke, Jane and Clem at risk while keeping a straight face. The only way she wouldn't be is if the group didn't give a damn, meaning they wouldn't stick around to help her.
Edit: I don't mind the conversation here with you, hbh128, btw, with it being civil. But I think I'm going to bow out here as I honestly have much better things to do with my time than to spend time debating this. So, reply by all means, but don't expect a reply back. It's not that I'm ignoring you, but it's just that I have many better things to do, like play through a massive backlog of games, write a story or work on the RPG I'm making. Plus there's a lot of anime I want to watch on Netflix too. If it was about a real life situation though, I'd be willing to make the time to discuss things.
What are you even arguing now? That Greg is stupid?
I don't understand. With time you can help Sarah overcome her current state of shock with what is happening. Clementine did it with seeing her dead parents and she even shot Lee. Granted, she was still young to let emotions shut her down, but Sarah is older and would be more numb in time to what happened to her father and the world around her. If anything, blame Carlos for sheltering her her entire life. Sarah's instincts of survival were still functioning when she left with Clementine (had you chose that option).
To want to kill her off from the start is a waste of potential and character development, but it shows that some people can't be saved, as quoted by Jane. Still, she definitely COULD be a hardened survivor within time. She's just always caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, is all.
Massive overreaction and reading motives that aren't there. Telltale created a game with a realistic portrayal of the apocalypse, hard fact is that many times those with disabilities (which includes myself btw) wouldn't make it. Being treated equally and fairly doesn't mean changing reality to accommodate you. It would have been SO MUCH worse if they had suddenly discarded Sarah's issues and turned her into a badass, there's no "I want to be normal now" button on having a disability. Sarah died because she just couldn't deal with the world as it was, it's not fair, it's not nice but it's facts. And autism? Please. GAD and extremely sheltered yes, perhaps with a few other issues as well, but definitely not autistic. And Sarah was a liability. She in no way contributed to the group's survival and people died protecting and sheltering her, basically the textbook definition of a liability. Again, not nice to say but factual.
I dunno who Greg Miller is but accusing him of being sexist and ableist based off of this seems like a bit much, especially since he's largely responding on how he saw a big part of the fanbase react. Even if the accusation is accurate his views do not necessarily reflect that of Telltale who I think handled Sarah well and realistically if not politically correct.
Now you do, good eh? I wish that were the case but there's always going to be things that fail our expectations.
I'm in shock, don't even know how to respond to this. They were... Excited to kill her? sighs
How are characters "everyone's characters"? Did everyone help write the characters? Were people there throwing around ideas during the planning process? Did other people even come up with the name? No. No, they did not. The characters belong to the people who created them and truly understand their intentions. You know, they belong to people who actually put in the time or effort.
I'm not really attacking you, but this mindset annoys me. It reeks of entitlement...or something. I can't think of the word. It suggests that you feel like you have something you didn't earn.
Ya know, its funny because I have never seen ANY argument on this forum that actually supports why this season blows. Talk about irony! You're a funny guy, I like you. Much needed comedic relief to a forum that lacks it sometimes.
My hero c;
I am now apart of your fan club. c:
Can we all just let this thread die? Like seriously, there is no need for this thread and it makes a really poor representation of what this forum is actually capable of. I know it [the forum] hasn't been good as of late but deep down there are some insightful people on this forums. Lets let them post the threads from now on. This thread is 100% ridiculous.
Greg apologised and people called him a dick for apologising.
I don't think TT should apologise since the same thing would happen.
Sadly most of the people I hang out with at school are that type of Tumblr user and they call me a gross white cist all because I go on reddit and 4chan.
They're everyone's characters because we pay for them when we buy the game, book, film, anything. We all get to enjoy them, we have the legal right to use them in fanfiction and to reproduce them. We empathize with them and can understand them ourselves. We project ourselves into them, it's absurd to ask people not to care about what is done with them because you have some arbitrary notion they "belong" to someone else.
Sometimes the writers don't understand a character as well as the fans, especially when a character gets passed between several writers.
I think the whole notion of "owning" a character is ridiculous but legally the fans have as much right to them as the creators, so long as they aren't trying to profit off it. The creators own the intellectual property, name rights and really deciding what is canon, but they don't own the characters. They can do whatever they want with them in the framework of canon fiction but the characters themselves belong to everyone. We paid our money and we got a stake in them.
Tinni, I love you.
I'll make this really clear and I'll explain my first post in detail. The critique in question is about autism or special needs. The OP to me as I read it made it sound as if Telltale and Greg Miller don't believe that autistic people are capable of surviving in harsh environments. That they are not "strong" enough. That's drawing ridicule. When I said it wasn't their story, I meant they literally have no input into how these scenarios and characters were created and what intentions the writers had while creating them.
Many of us know that the people dealing with these illnesses can do phenomenal things. I actually find their stories of success inspiring.
We can't blame Sarah for being a liability when there were only people weighing her down and degrading her, treating her as a child instead of a living being at these times. Sarah was never taught how to use any sort of weapon, she was sheltered by her father Carlos and knew that the time would come when she would need to protect herself. Clementine never even actually had the chance to try and help her through her anxiety. Clementine was the only person that was able to reach Sarah and teach her how to survive, but alas, tis not so. Sarah was the kindest character in the series in my opinion and her death was horrible. If you leave Sarah at the trailer park, Rebecca is really the only one affected. However, if you saved Sarah, Jane can try and help but fail with the aid of one bullet from Mike and Bonnie each, and then they just stood there.... Clementine, Luke and Kenny just watched as she was devoured, while screaming for Clementine and Carlos. I believe that Sarah could've been the turning point for determinant characters, Tell Tale could've showed us that the supposedly 'weak' can survive if taught how to, and that people with disabilities or thought of as 'liabilities' can survive such a cruel world. I wouldn't mind if the Season ended with Clementine, Sarah and the baby.
I have no idea what you're talking about or how this post addresses anything discussed in this comment thread. I never accused you of being anti-disability.
The critique being made in the OP is of the attitude displayed in the interview by greg and the writers and how that's reflected in the writing of the episode with how people who chose to save her and believe in her got screwed over by a nonsensical death a few scenes later with no real development inbetween. They think it was poorly done and that the reprehensible attitude apparently shown in the interview (she's not normal so it was great when she died, to paraphrase) was the cause of it.
You came in with "it's not your story you can't tell TTG what to do" and then implied that the OP was nothing more than a dissing thread without critical value. They can't "tell telltale what to do" and it is "their story", sure. They can't, so why are you even worried about it. But they can give feedback, they can critique the story, they can complain about shit they didn't like and, if they want, they can insult TTG whilst doing so. You can disagree, but it's not selfish to offer one's own criticism. Nobody is forcing TTG to tailor the game to them by going to their offices with a gun or anything. They're offering critique on what they received. If you disagree, say you disagree and say why, making a post about how "selfish" they are is just silly.
I'm arguing that he made a mistake.
And he said sorry too for it.
-
I stopped reading there. I'm not even dignifying it with a reason for stopping reading.
Don't think so. Firstly, I haven't seen any people calling him a dick for apologising. It sounds irrationally and immature. Secondly, I believe that community would only have a higher opinion of TT, because it takes strength to admit one's fault.
I personally don't really seek for an apology that much, but some kind of explanation would be nice.
That is exactly what was said. No one called him a dick, but they called him out and critiqued his apology.
That tends to happen when you get backlash, it doesn't mean anything.
Honesty is the best medicine.
Anyway I can't blame them for that. I don't think he apologised because he actually felt guilty.
Clearly he made a mistake. I think it was stupid and/or malicious. I'm honestly not sure how we got here or what the point is any more though.
I don't think it was that stupid and I definitely don't think it was malicious.That was pretty much my point.
He literally, in the interview, says he hates her for not being "normal". That was the explicit reason he gave. His hate means he feels she should die. How is that not malicious? I don't actually give a fuck whether he thought she was disabled or not, that's not cool. And this doesn't explain why the writers were so excited to kill her either.
Well. What he literally said was that he hated her because "she sucks," "she was this season's Ben," and "she wasn't meant for this world." According to him the measure of "normal" that he was referring to was being a functional survivor in that world:
So to him, Sarah wasn't "normal" in the same way that Ben wasn't "normal." They weren't like the other survivors who could help out the group. So I don't think he's being more malicious in his hatred of Sarah than in his hatred of Ben because he essentially hated them for same reasons.
When you hide your head in the sand, you aren't going to see what is in front of you.
I disagree. You own the piece of entertainment that the characters are in. You are entitled to have an emotional reaction to the characters because that is the point of entertainment, no? Heck, you can even write your own version of the character, though that will have no bearing on the original story. However, the author who created the character has created the concept of that character. It follows that the author can do whatever that author chooses to do with that character. Sure, you can dislike it. However, I feel like it's overstepping to say that a character should be changed or handled differently than how the author intended it to be because an audience member or multiple audience members didn't enjoy the treatment of the character. It's the author's original idea. The author should be able to have a mind of his/her own.
Ok good for you, that doesn't change the argument I made regarding giving feedback. No-one is threatening anyone, the writers can do whatever the hell they want, but we can equally bitch when we hate what they've done and find it offensive. Then they can ignore us and lose our respect and/or business or they can not. This is how capitalism works.
I'm truly sorry to hear that, it really sucks that so many Tumblr users are like that. Just remember that the majority of Tumblr who thinks like that are severely deluded and will never make it in the real world with such a ridiculous mindset. Hopefully it's just a phase their going through, and they will grow out of it as they mature. Hopefully.
Well it's weird since most of my friends who are that way and have graduated are going to horrible colleges and having severe financial problems since they're spending all their parents money trying to impress their college friends. It's funny.
I agree. People should voice their opinions. I just think that the concept of characters being everyone's is a bit odd, is all.
I was just joking lol
well somewhat, I was joking about the cis thing (I'm cis gendered too) since it just sounds funny to say it and to piss them off. I think mods should delete that comment, I really didn't care about it in the first place. I was angry at how people were laughing at sarah's death which really didn't do much but just annoyed. If you took this serious and found this offensive then I think you shouldn't be on the internet
Well I think they are. It's nothing to do with entitlement, think of it more like partial adoption. I think that when an artist puts a character out there, into to world, they belong to anyone. Again, franchises do not and I recognize a company's right to make money off of those characters in an official context but I don't think that those characters solely belong to the author in that case.
Do you think that an author should be able to shut down fanfiction he or she doesn't like?