In reality, children get forced into disgustingly 'adult' occupations such as prostitute and soldier all the time in places with poverty or war. It's 'realistic' for Clementine to be forced into an adult role in the face of society's collapse, even if the execution comes across as unbelievable.
Excellent - and it goes well with what the OP already said.
I especially agree with regarding Clem, and I have done so since the beginnin… moreg. Not only is she poorly written and little regard is taken about what she learned in season 1, she is also not treated like the child she is. Simply put, she is not handled realistically by the developers - when a group of people include two healthy young men, they are the ones going at the front, no one else goddammit. The only time a child should be in action would be if there are absolutely no adults around - and that would include Rebecca.
And flaws... well, part of her being poorly written.
Poorly written by the way: That should be stamped all over season 2, and that is pretty much everything that needs to be said.
Season 2 is poorly written.
While that does indeed happen in the real world, and has throughout history, it usually indicates a moral breakdown as much as a societal one. I could imagine Carver using kids as soldiers, for example, but a group of people intended to still be sympathetic wouldn't do it unless there were no other choice.
Telltale sidesteps the issue by having everyone just kinda forget that Clementine is 11 years old and treat her exactly as they would any other member of the group.
In reality, children get forced into disgustingly 'adult' occupations such as prostitute and soldier all the time in places with poverty or … morewar. It's 'realistic' for Clementine to be forced into an adult role in the face of society's collapse, even if the execution comes across as unbelievable.
Did it ever occur to you that the during the interview, the developers were laughing not because of Greg's opinion of Sarah, but because of the irony of someone leaving a 15 year old for dead? Something called...oh, I don't know...a sense of humour?
Hell, I laughed at what Greg said and I really liked Sarah and was upset when she got killed off. But she's a fictional character first and a character that we grow attach to second. I'm sorry one of your favourite characters got killed off, but you'll eventually get over it and move on with your life...at least I hope.
You know what? You are so right. Leaving a defenseless young girl to die was hilarious. I don't know how I didn't see it before. Being ripped apart and eaten alive was so ironic. I laughed out loud at how ironic it was.
Did it ever occur to you that the during the interview, the developers were laughing not because of Greg's opinion of Sarah, but because of … morethe irony of someone leaving a 15 year old for dead? Something called...oh, I don't know...a sense of humour?
Hell, I laughed at what Greg said and I really liked Sarah and was upset when she got killed off. But she's a fictional character first and a character that we grow attach to second. I'm sorry one of your favourite characters got killed off, but you'll eventually get over it and move on with your life...at least I hope.
This actually reminded me of another reason I like Sarah. When Clem had conversations with Sarah she acted like a normal girl for a change. She wasn't as "mature" and stuff. They acted like kids talking to each other.
I'm 100% agreeing on this. I'm going to write an essay as well, so I can feel smart, because I'm feeling pretty stupid these days, and my br… moreain needs a workout. I also may of copied something that you have said (because I don't read newspapers,) - if so I am sorry.
I thought that episodic games such as The Wolf Among Us or The Walking Dead were about noticing the public's feedback throughout the season, and making sure that every episode was better than their previous counterpart. Telltale has completely ignored the fans who have wished for a better choices in the story. Telltale have only thought about the other half of the fanbase - the people who hate and hate and hate on the character's that could be fixed with just a little bit of development. This causes us to see the deaths of characters that we would love to see grow up, and learn how to deal with loss. But Telltale follows the people that I personally believe are wrong; people who… [view original content]
This actually reminded me of another reason I like Sarah. When Clem had conversations with Sarah she acted like a normal girl for a change. She wasn't as "mature" and stuff. They acted like kids talking to each other.
I don't understand why Telltale decided to sideline all these characters just to focus on ppl like Jane and Luke. and Kenny, he's just going through the same exact arc as last season. The whole "he's changed" and "he's going to snap" etc
Exactly. It would have been interesting if Sarita lived. There could have been an interesting plot with her getting scared about what Kenny's becoming and stuff. She mentions something about it after Kenny kills Carver if you go outside with the rest of the group instead of watching. It would have been way more interesting. Instead we get a rehash of season one.
I don't understand why Telltale decided to sideline all these characters just to focus on ppl like Jane and Luke. and Kenny, he's just going through the same exact arc as last season. The whole "he's changed" and "he's going to snap" etc
Yeah I mean it's a strange decision to rehash his s1 role in the first place, but wasting Sarita's character completely the way they did was really just inexcusable imho
Exactly. It would have been interesting if Sarita lived. There could have been an interesting plot with her getting scared about what Kenny'… mores becoming and stuff. She mentions something about it after Kenny kills Carver if you go outside with the rest of the group instead of watching. It would have been way more interesting. Instead we get a rehash of season one.
Did it ever occur to you that the during the interview, the developers were laughing not because of Greg's opinion of Sarah, but because of … morethe irony of someone leaving a 15 year old for dead? Something called...oh, I don't know...a sense of humour?
Hell, I laughed at what Greg said and I really liked Sarah and was upset when she got killed off. But she's a fictional character first and a character that we grow attach to second. I'm sorry one of your favourite characters got killed off, but you'll eventually get over it and move on with your life...at least I hope.
I'd actually prefer Sarah to be the one who was bitten, and choosing whether or not to amputate her limb would really test the limits of your friendship (and her sanity.)
Yeah. I didn't really find anything wrong with Sarita's first death, but I haven't seen her second death so I can't say anything about it. W… morehat I do find kind of wrong is that they killed her off in the first place. In fact, do you know what would have been cool and shocking? If they had Rebecca get bit in the herd instead of Sarita. She could make it out, and then she could either give birth a little bit before turning or die before, making us cut her open. Heck, maybe it could have been a choice. You could kill her before turning or let her live with the risk of her turning at a bad time.
Yeah. I didn't really find anything wrong with Sarita's first death, but I haven't seen her second death so I can't say anything about it. What I do find kind of wrong is that they killed her off in the first place. In fact, do you know what would have been cool and shocking? If they had Rebecca get bit in the herd instead of Sarita. She could make it out, and then she could either give birth a little bit before turning or die before, making us cut her open. Heck, maybe it could have been a choice. You could kill her before turning or let her live with the risk of her turning at a bad time.
Yeah I mean it's a strange decision to rehash his s1 role in the first place, but wasting Sarita's character completely the way they did was really just inexcusable imho
I personally think it would have been most interesting and logical if Sarah was the one who was bitten. Choosing whether or not to amputate her limb would test the limits of your friendship (and her sanity.)
Yeah. I didn't really find anything wrong with Sarita's first death, but I haven't seen her second death so I can't say anything about it. W… morehat I do find kind of wrong is that they killed her off in the first place. In fact, do you know what would have been cool and shocking? If they had Rebecca get bit in the herd instead of Sarita. She could make it out, and then she could either give birth a little bit before turning or die before, making us cut her open. Heck, maybe it could have been a choice. You could kill her before turning or let her live with the risk of her turning at a bad time.
Who cares, they are just disrespectful assholes that shouldnt be a reason to change the title which is about the negitives of Season 2 which is the game itself. Playing Dead is outside the game so it shouldnt have caused the title change imo. To be fair THEY were stating how they felt, just like you are.. but they shouldve kept it to themselves.
Already talked about how the Playing Dead interview just buried the hole deeper on other threads so I'm going to copy paste this response:
… more Telltale's employees reflect their company as a whole, and for them to sit there and laugh and agree with him instead of making a move to defend their own character was just not cool. Not even addressing how people are offended by it, from a purely writing standpoint, it's like Greg was saying "LOL Your character was useless and pointless to the plot and I'm glad she's gone" and they went "Yeah, pretty much, haha!"
People call Greg out on this and he releases a statement say "sorry IF I was being offensive but I really wasn't" but continues to say that Sarah was useless and deserved to die.
And now this new Playing Dead. He keeps saying the EXACT SAME THING. What happened to his "apology"? What happened to "this was a tragic necessity but there was no other way"? Nope, "it was the RIGHT thing to l… [view original content]
I personally think it would have been most interesting and logical if Sarah was the one who was bitten. Choosing whether or not to amputate her limb would test the limits of your friendship (and her sanity.)
Maybe she would have fainted if her arm was cut off and saved herself from becoming a zombie dinner bell. Then Clem would use the same muscles she used back when Lee fainted in the horde to drag Sarah out of harm's way.
Maybe she would have fainted if her arm was cut off and saved herself from becoming a zombie dinner bell. Then Clem would use the same muscles she used back when Lee fainted in the horde to drag Sarah out of harm's way.
I really hope Telltale does not respond to this. Valid criticism is one thing, but calling them racist for killing of a character... phew.
And they are not blocking out your criticism. They're not responding to EVERY single negative review out there as well. You can be damn sure they read it, puzzlebox already said that they read your stuff.
I actually really liked that Sarita dies immediately in the herd if you cut off her arm, at first it seemed so shocking and well-done. But then in the next scene her death lost all effectiveness. She was just being used for Kenny's benefit, nobody but Kenny even notices she's gone. And if you keep her alive, she just sits there mute on Kenny's lap without a word. Her death is just used to show how Kenny is getting angry again like he did in season 1.
So the whole thing just falls flat. If they were so determined to kill her off either way they could have least put some effort into it.
Yeah. I didn't really find anything wrong with Sarita's first death, but I haven't seen her second death so I can't say anything about it. W… morehat I do find kind of wrong is that they killed her off in the first place. In fact, do you know what would have been cool and shocking? If they had Rebecca get bit in the herd instead of Sarita. She could make it out, and then she could either give birth a little bit before turning or die before, making us cut her open. Heck, maybe it could have been a choice. You could kill her before turning or let her live with the risk of her turning at a bad time.
I really hope Telltale does not respond to this. Valid criticism is one thing, but calling them racist for killing of a character... phew.
… moreAnd they are not blocking out your criticism. They're not responding to EVERY single negative review out there as well. You can be damn sure they read it, puzzlebox already said that they read your stuff.
Wait, who said they were being racist? Also, according to the forums you responded to me on another thread, but when I click show comment I can't see it, so I'll reply to it here. You said that some people want other users to be ripped apart by zombies to feel what Sarah felt. I feel like that's pretty extreme. I think whoever says that might be going too far.
I really hope Telltale does not respond to this. Valid criticism is one thing, but calling them racist for killing of a character... phew.
… moreAnd they are not blocking out your criticism. They're not responding to EVERY single negative review out there as well. You can be damn sure they read it, puzzlebox already said that they read your stuff.
Some people here call out Telltale because of how they handled a character who was disabled in their point of view, and they said that in their opinion, Telltale had fun killing of this character. That's not far from racism (against disabled people). I think that your criticism is valid, I do get a lot of your points, but IMO that Sarah issue escalated.
I actually really liked that Sarita dies immediately in the herd if you cut off her arm, at first it seemed so shocking and well-done. But t… morehen in the next scene her death lost all effectiveness. She was just being used for Kenny's benefit, nobody but Kenny even notices she's gone. And if you keep her alive, she just sits there mute on Kenny's lap without a word. Her death is just used to show how Kenny is getting angry again like he did in season 1.
So the whole thing just falls flat. If they were so determined to kill her off either way they could have least put some effort into it.
Some people here call out Telltale because of how they handled a character who was disabled in their point of view, and they said that in their opinion, Telltale had fun killing of this character. That's not far from racism (against disabled people). I think that you're criticism is valid, I do get a lot of your points, but IMO that Sarah issue escalated.
I think we're not that far away from users wishing that to Telltale.
Wait, who said they were being racist? Also, according to the forums you responded to me on another thread, but when I click show comment I … morecan't see it, so I'll reply to it here. You said that some people want other users to be ripped apart by zombies to feel what Sarah felt. I feel like that's pretty extreme. I think whoever says that might be going too far.
Discrimination or prejudice against disabled people is called ableism.
The Sarah issue has become such a big deal because so many people interpreted her as disabled, and either loved or hated her for it. Killing her off the way they did validated the people who hated her for it. So that's why they're being criticized as ableist.
Some people here call out Telltale because of how they handled a character who was disabled in their point of view, and they said that in th… moreeir opinion, Telltale had fun killing of this character. That's not far from racism (against disabled people). I think that your criticism is valid, I do get a lot of your points, but IMO that Sarah issue escalated.
Discrimination or prejudice against disabled people is called ableism.
The Sarah issue has become such a big deal because so many people … moreinterpreted her as disabled, and either loved or hated her for it. Killing her off the way they did validated the people who hated her for it. So that's why they're being criticized as ableist.
Ableism and racism are kind of different. If you are racist, you hate someone because they look cosmetically different. If you are an ableist then you hate someone because they have something wrong with them mentally. It's kind of hard to explain.
Some people here call out Telltale because of how they handled a character who was disabled in their point of view, and they said that in th… moreeir opinion, Telltale had fun killing of this character. That's not far from racism (against disabled people). I think that you're criticism is valid, I do get a lot of your points, but IMO that Sarah issue escalated.
I think we're not that far away from users wishing that to Telltale.
Ableism and racism are kind of different. If you are racist, you hate someone because they look cosmetically different. If you are an ableist then you hate someone because they have something wrong with them mentally. It's kind of hard to explain.
Online Webster Merriam Dictionary definition: discrimination or prejudice against individuals with disabilities. So basically it is like racism. Just different reasons.
edit: and saying someone has something "wrong" with them mentally is a getting a bit ableist in itself. It's a step toward dehumanizing and reducing the conditions of the disabled. People aren't "right" or "wrong", just different.
Ableism and racism are kind of different. If you are racist, you hate someone because they look cosmetically different. If you are an ableist then you hate someone because they have something wrong with them mentally. It's kind of hard to explain.
I can recall a couple of threads on here that discuss Sarah's traits that indicate she is disabled but I don't have the links ready rn. But fyi, panic attacks are considered a disability, and she clearly has those in the game.
Sorry, I thought about putting quotations around the word wrong but I forgot. But in a way, it is kind of "wrong". A disability gets in the way, so it's not a good thing. I'm not trying to say the people are bad or anything, I was just using a commonly used phrase. Sorry if I offended anyone.
Online Webster Merriam Dictionary definition: discrimination or prejudice against individuals with disabilities. So basically it is like ra… morecism. Just different reasons.
edit: and saying someone has something "wrong" with them mentally is a getting a bit ableist in itself. It's a step toward dehumanizing and reducing the conditions of the disabled. People aren't "right" or "wrong", just different.
No, it's fine I understand. It's just that saying something's wrong with someone because they function a certain way is part of how society thinks it's a shameful and bad thing to have a disability. It makes life more hard, yes, but it's not a disabled person's fault. Saying that it's "wrong" makes it sound like it's badly reflecting on them as a person/it's their fault/they're inferior etc. (I know you probably don't think this way I'm just pointing out how the term badly reflects on the disabled)
Sorry, I thought about putting quotations around the word wrong but I forgot. But in a way, it is kind of "wrong". A disability gets in the … moreway, so it's not a good thing. I'm not trying to say the people are bad or anything, I was just using a commonly used phrase. Sorry if I offended anyone.
Again, you can draw parallells to the real world - which must be done for any kind of media to make any sense. Places where you put children in harm's way on purpose has broken down on all levels.
Example: Late in the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980's Iran was reported to send children out to march across minefields (to clear them that way) only equipped with a plastic key that would "lead to heaven". But the children were not their first choice: First they obviously had engineers who were properly trained and equipped to deal with mines, but the war took its toll and Iran ran out of engineers. Then they tried with donkeys and sheep, but the animals refused to go anywhere near the minefields.
So they began using children, ordering them to march across the minefields equipped with a plastic key.
Children were not their first choice to use, but they did so because it was necessary and Iran was in a tight spot. Add to that the fact that the war had gone on for years draining both countries of pretty much everything and they ended up there.
To get back to the Clem example, there is nothing that justifies having her there. You have Nick and Luke, that doc whatshisname, you have the cliché action girl Jane - heck, even Alvin would do better.
So again, to justify why we are forced to play as Clem, she is inserted clumsily into anything that happens. And that is poor writing - unfortunately based on moronic fan reactions after the first game, so to be honest, TTG is not entirely to blame.
While that does indeed happen in the real world, and has throughout history, it usually indicates a moral breakdown as much as a societal on… moree. I could imagine Carver using kids as soldiers, for example, but a group of people intended to still be sympathetic wouldn't do it unless there were no other choice.
Telltale sidesteps the issue by having everyone just kinda forget that Clementine is 11 years old and treat her exactly as they would any other member of the group.
Glenn was mostly there to tie in the comic (and the TV show) to the game and make people realize that yeah, it's the same world. He couldn't have NOT left the group, since he was required to survive and appear in the comics.
It was an ok cameo. Not great, but I understand why Glenn appeared, and he got enough screen time to make him believable and as well developed as possible (this goes for Hershel as well even if he didn't join Lee and the others)..
Glenn didn't really get any kind of development other than that he felt sorry for the motel women, he was more of "a along for the ride" kin… mored of character and he was a cameo from the comics and him leaving made sense, as he had friends in Atlanta and felt like he needed to help them out, that's not a very good comparison as Glenn didn't really have development.
I remember the thread where fans were posting their reaction to Jake and Sean (Season one lead writers ) leaving Telltale when Season 2 was just being written,i said at that time that 'we should treat S1 as a stand alone game' and it's never felt so true, coming on here yesterday seeing everyone crying? why??? because Telltale are trying to top season 1's emotional end,now that is poor writing! ofc there has to be a climax in the finale but this whole season has now come to a grinding halt after episode 4,the damage has been done,tears will get the season nowhere,because they feel manufactured to cap off the negative comments.
For the first time ever i was looking at spoilers because i don't care how this season ends,i will seriously think if i should buy season 3 because i just don't know,the lack of quality and depth is shocking,and as OP has said it's like episode 4 was written intentionally to piss fans off???but thats another issue.
On a positive note: Telltale can still write amazing locations and characters,if not better than season 1,The cabin group have so many complex characters there could be a stand alone game involving everyone,but because they are crammed in 90 minutes the story needs to be told fast which is a real shame.i think a lot of the people who worked on s1 are now gone from Telltale.it sure feels like it.
If Clem is killed off it could be a good thing,people link her to season 1 which portrays season 2 in a negative light.
Comments
In reality, children get forced into disgustingly 'adult' occupations such as prostitute and soldier all the time in places with poverty or war. It's 'realistic' for Clementine to be forced into an adult role in the face of society's collapse, even if the execution comes across as unbelievable.
While that does indeed happen in the real world, and has throughout history, it usually indicates a moral breakdown as much as a societal one. I could imagine Carver using kids as soldiers, for example, but a group of people intended to still be sympathetic wouldn't do it unless there were no other choice.
Telltale sidesteps the issue by having everyone just kinda forget that Clementine is 11 years old and treat her exactly as they would any other member of the group.
Did it ever occur to you that the during the interview, the developers were laughing not because of Greg's opinion of Sarah, but because of the irony of someone leaving a 15 year old for dead? Something called...oh, I don't know...a sense of humour?
Hell, I laughed at what Greg said and I really liked Sarah and was upset when she got killed off. But she's a fictional character first and a character that we grow attach to second. I'm sorry one of your favourite characters got killed off, but you'll eventually get over it and move on with your life...at least I hope.
You know what? You are so right. Leaving a defenseless young girl to die was hilarious. I don't know how I didn't see it before. Being ripped apart and eaten alive was so ironic. I laughed out loud at how ironic it was.
This actually reminded me of another reason I like Sarah. When Clem had conversations with Sarah she acted like a normal girl for a change. She wasn't as "mature" and stuff. They acted like kids talking to each other.
Yeah it was cool to have a girl Clem's age for her to interact with for a change. I had hoped we would get more of their interactions this episode.
Yeah, but, you know. If that happened we would have less time to see how Kenny's feeling.....
I don't understand why Telltale decided to sideline all these characters just to focus on ppl like Jane and Luke. and Kenny, he's just going through the same exact arc as last season. The whole "he's changed" and "he's going to snap" etc
Exactly. It would have been interesting if Sarita lived. There could have been an interesting plot with her getting scared about what Kenny's becoming and stuff. She mentions something about it after Kenny kills Carver if you go outside with the rest of the group instead of watching. It would have been way more interesting. Instead we get a rehash of season one.
Yeah I mean it's a strange decision to rehash his s1 role in the first place, but wasting Sarita's character completely the way they did was really just inexcusable imho
I can't even make this up. A girl being eaten alive is hilarious according to you. That is literally what you meant.
I'd actually prefer Sarah to be the one who was bitten, and choosing whether or not to amputate her limb would really test the limits of your friendship (and her sanity.)
Yeah. I didn't really find anything wrong with Sarita's first death, but I haven't seen her second death so I can't say anything about it. What I do find kind of wrong is that they killed her off in the first place. In fact, do you know what would have been cool and shocking? If they had Rebecca get bit in the herd instead of Sarita. She could make it out, and then she could either give birth a little bit before turning or die before, making us cut her open. Heck, maybe it could have been a choice. You could kill her before turning or let her live with the risk of her turning at a bad time.
I personally think it would have been most interesting and logical if Sarah was the one who was bitten. Choosing whether or not to amputate her limb would test the limits of your friendship (and her sanity.)
Who cares, they are just disrespectful assholes that shouldnt be a reason to change the title which is about the negitives of Season 2 which is the game itself. Playing Dead is outside the game so it shouldnt have caused the title change imo. To be fair THEY were stating how they felt, just like you are.. but they shouldve kept it to themselves.
That could have been crazy, but I feel like Sarah had potential alive, and I'm not really sure how she would make it out of that.
Maybe she would have fainted if her arm was cut off and saved herself from becoming a zombie dinner bell. Then Clem would use the same muscles she used back when Lee fainted in the horde to drag Sarah out of harm's way.
"I really liked Sarah and was upset when she got killed off."
There is NO way you could've missed that.
For God's sake, it's the irony of someone letting a video game kid character die when the morally right thing to do is save her is what I find funny.
But wouldn't she bleed out?
I really hope Telltale does not respond to this. Valid criticism is one thing, but calling them racist for killing of a character... phew.
And they are not blocking out your criticism. They're not responding to EVERY single negative review out there as well. You can be damn sure they read it, puzzlebox already said that they read your stuff.
I actually really liked that Sarita dies immediately in the herd if you cut off her arm, at first it seemed so shocking and well-done. But then in the next scene her death lost all effectiveness. She was just being used for Kenny's benefit, nobody but Kenny even notices she's gone. And if you keep her alive, she just sits there mute on Kenny's lap without a word. Her death is just used to show how Kenny is getting angry again like he did in season 1.
So the whole thing just falls flat. If they were so determined to kill her off either way they could have least put some effort into it.
Whoever brought racism into this?
And why do you keep showing up to say you hope Telltale doesn't respond? Would that really be a terrible thing?
Wait, who said they were being racist? Also, according to the forums you responded to me on another thread, but when I click show comment I can't see it, so I'll reply to it here. You said that some people want other users to be ripped apart by zombies to feel what Sarah felt. I feel like that's pretty extreme. I think whoever says that might be going too far.
Some people here call out Telltale because of how they handled a character who was disabled in their point of view, and they said that in their opinion, Telltale had fun killing of this character. That's not far from racism (against disabled people). I think that your criticism is valid, I do get a lot of your points, but IMO that Sarah issue escalated.
Yeah, I liked her herd death, but like all of the other deaths, no one mentions it.
I think we're not that far away from users wishing that to Telltale.
Discrimination or prejudice against disabled people is called ableism.
The Sarah issue has become such a big deal because so many people interpreted her as disabled, and either loved or hated her for it. Killing her off the way they did validated the people who hated her for it. So that's why they're being criticized as ableist.
Okay, did not know that word. In Germany, it's all called racism.
Funny, it never crossed my mind that she could be disabled.
Ableism and racism are kind of different. If you are racist, you hate someone because they look cosmetically different. If you are an ableist then you hate someone because they have something wrong with them mentally. It's kind of hard to explain.
Understood, in Germany it's both called racism
Online Webster Merriam Dictionary definition: discrimination or prejudice against individuals with disabilities. So basically it is like racism. Just different reasons.
edit: and saying someone has something "wrong" with them mentally is a getting a bit ableist in itself. It's a step toward dehumanizing and reducing the conditions of the disabled. People aren't "right" or "wrong", just different.
I can recall a couple of threads on here that discuss Sarah's traits that indicate she is disabled but I don't have the links ready rn. But fyi, panic attacks are considered a disability, and she clearly has those in the game.
Sorry, I thought about putting quotations around the word wrong but I forgot. But in a way, it is kind of "wrong". A disability gets in the way, so it's not a good thing. I'm not trying to say the people are bad or anything, I was just using a commonly used phrase. Sorry if I offended anyone.
No, it's fine I understand. It's just that saying something's wrong with someone because they function a certain way is part of how society thinks it's a shameful and bad thing to have a disability. It makes life more hard, yes, but it's not a disabled person's fault. Saying that it's "wrong" makes it sound like it's badly reflecting on them as a person/it's their fault/they're inferior etc. (I know you probably don't think this way I'm just pointing out how the term badly reflects on the disabled)
Yup.
Again, you can draw parallells to the real world - which must be done for any kind of media to make any sense. Places where you put children in harm's way on purpose has broken down on all levels.
Example: Late in the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980's Iran was reported to send children out to march across minefields (to clear them that way) only equipped with a plastic key that would "lead to heaven". But the children were not their first choice: First they obviously had engineers who were properly trained and equipped to deal with mines, but the war took its toll and Iran ran out of engineers. Then they tried with donkeys and sheep, but the animals refused to go anywhere near the minefields.
So they began using children, ordering them to march across the minefields equipped with a plastic key.
Children were not their first choice to use, but they did so because it was necessary and Iran was in a tight spot. Add to that the fact that the war had gone on for years draining both countries of pretty much everything and they ended up there.
To get back to the Clem example, there is nothing that justifies having her there. You have Nick and Luke, that doc whatshisname, you have the cliché action girl Jane - heck, even Alvin would do better.
So again, to justify why we are forced to play as Clem, she is inserted clumsily into anything that happens. And that is poor writing - unfortunately based on moronic fan reactions after the first game, so to be honest, TTG is not entirely to blame.
Glenn was mostly there to tie in the comic (and the TV show) to the game and make people realize that yeah, it's the same world. He couldn't have NOT left the group, since he was required to survive and appear in the comics.
It was an ok cameo. Not great, but I understand why Glenn appeared, and he got enough screen time to make him believable and as well developed as possible (this goes for Hershel as well even if he didn't join Lee and the others)..
I remember the thread where fans were posting their reaction to Jake and Sean (Season one lead writers ) leaving Telltale when Season 2 was just being written,i said at that time that 'we should treat S1 as a stand alone game' and it's never felt so true, coming on here yesterday seeing everyone crying? why??? because Telltale are trying to top season 1's emotional end,now that is poor writing! ofc there has to be a climax in the finale but this whole season has now come to a grinding halt after episode 4,the damage has been done,tears will get the season nowhere,because they feel manufactured to cap off the negative comments.
For the first time ever i was looking at spoilers because i don't care how this season ends,i will seriously think if i should buy season 3 because i just don't know,the lack of quality and depth is shocking,and as OP has said it's like episode 4 was written intentionally to piss fans off???but thats another issue.
On a positive note: Telltale can still write amazing locations and characters,if not better than season 1,The cabin group have so many complex characters there could be a stand alone game involving everyone,but because they are crammed in 90 minutes the story needs to be told fast which is a real shame.i think a lot of the people who worked on s1 are now gone from Telltale.it sure feels like it.
If Clem is killed off it could be a good thing,people link her to season 1 which portrays season 2 in a negative light.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW TELLTALE!
btw recent threads about Clem's slap.
Oh god. Seriously? Just to fan the flames?
Even a retarded person can tell it's a joke. Nothing wrong with that.
Jokes can never be offensive if the person who makes them didn't intend any offense.