I think you might have to watch the interview again. They actually said "I think it's also interesting that there [were] so many people who … morewere.. you know I've been hearing, were satisfied with slapping Sarah, but you only get that option if you're going to save her. I think that's like the last thing that you can do. And so it's just like Oh well you wanted to slap her, but in order to that you have to want her to be around at the same time [laughs]."
Call it nit-picking but there are subtle differences there that indicate their attitude toward her more clearly. They said earlier that people in the office and online were all hating Sarah, and they all wanted to kill her. There was no other side shown to this, no sympathy or respect shown toward Sarah at all.
Just because some people are angry and overly defensive as they discuss these issues does not mean that they're automatically not worth listening to. And why would it be a plague on society to want people to try to improve themselves?
This is what happens when check-your-privilege socialjusticewarrioring ideology make it to gaming communities.
Then the hunt for -isms an… mored moral inquisition is on, with "guilty until proven innocent" as fundamental principle, mind-reading of programmers' intentions (assuming the worst, always), etc...
This is a plague at every level of society.
The only reason "Telltale" made Sarah unworthy of life is because you see her that way.
I NEVER said I saw Sarah as being unworthy of life. That's the way the characters and Telltale thought of her in this episode. Not me.
She was set up from the beginning to be this way "If she knew what was out there she would cease to function"...If you say she was poorly written then quit defending a poorly written character.
She was not poorly written. Prior to this episode she had been written very well. The narrative portrayed her sympathetically and she had both strengths and weaknesses. She was an important character and several of the games decisions revolved around her and how you treat her. Then in episode 4, she is suddenly treated in a very one-sided light. She stops being treated as an important or sympathetic character, with both positive and negative qualities that might enable her to be a good survivor. Instead she is sidelined and at best, is reduced to nothing more than a crutch to highlight the reactions of other characters.
The only reason "Telltale" made Sarah unworthy of life is because you see her that way.
Numerous times before her death they made it clea… morer "Find the others" and when you find her in a room with Luke who's probably been trying to calm her down all day/morning and hasn't been able to do anything. When you try a calm and collected "spilling your heart out" Sarah doesn't react, or still doesn't do anything. She was set up from the beginning to be this way "If she knew what was out there she would cease to function."
If you say she was poorly written then quit defending a poorly written character.
Woah there, calm down a bit. Telltale never said Sarah was unworthy of life. When her Dad died, she just shut down, that's all. Killing of a character in a half-lazy way is a writers' decision. You can say that the death scene was bad, you can say the writing was lazy. In no way does that even indicate that Sarah was unworthy to live.
The only reason "Telltale" made Sarah unworthy of life is because you see her that way.
I NEVER said I saw Sarah as being unworthy o… moref life. That's the way the characters and Telltale thought of her in this episode. Not me.
She was set up from the beginning to be this way "If she knew what was out there she would cease to function"...If you say she was poorly written then quit defending a poorly written character.
She was not poorly written. Prior to this episode she had been written very well. The narrative portrayed her sympathetically and she had both strengths and weaknesses. She was an important character and several of the games decisions revolved around her and how you treat her. Then in episode 4, she is suddenly treated in a very one-sided light. She stops being treated as an important or sympathetic character, with both positive and negative qualities that might enable her to be a good survivor. Instead she is s… [view original content]
1.) I never argued that Clem's anger is unjustified. Becoming frustrated that Sarah can't move would have been understandable, but as it is, it's just another part of this one-sided view on Sarah, that she's just being stupid and we should be angry because it's all her fault.
2.) This really does not apply here. Show don't tell is a rule in books, not visual media. It's a rule that indicates a writer must not directly tell us how to feel about something; we must see it for ourselves by actions in the writing and with hints and descriptions that don't hold our hand and steer us in one direction or another without subtlety. If you do want to apply this to the game, then Telltale did the opposite of this, they hit us over the head with all these put-downs on Sarah's character and the writing never indicates that there is anything more to it than that.
3.1-3.4 This has nothing to do with episode 4, all this development is in previous episodes. And I never dispute any of these facts, I agree with them.
3.5) It wasn't her fault that Reggie was killed in episode 3. Carver had been planning to kill him long before Sarah came along. This is referenced in multiple dialogues. The event wasn't supposed to make it look like it was Sarah's fault, it was just them trying to villanize Carver and make you hate him
3.6) I'm not disputing that.
3.7) Not sure what you're trying to argue here, you're just stating what happened in the plot.
3.8) Jane directly compares Sarah to her sister Jaime, who she says "gave up", and wasn't "meant to make it". From what we know about Jaime, she had signs of depression (not being able to get out of bed, giving up on the world, and wanting to die). Sarah meanwhile clearly shows signs of disabilities as well. Her panic attacks in themselves are a disability. Killing her the way they did while drawing a direct parallel to another disabled girl draws a direct correlation that "people like them" as is directly stated, have no chance to make it.
4.) They didn't chuckle very slightly. They didn't say it was "the correct time to kill her off". They did nothing to justify or explain the writing. They laughed along as Greg poked fun at her and left her behind specifically because she "was not normal". There is nothing to indicate that they had any respect or defense for Sarah as a character of their own writing.
5.) Having the characters become numb to death could have been a logical change in the story. But there is nothing to indicate that. A writer cannot intend to be pointing to something, but leave out all evidence pointing towards it, only to be excused because "that's realistic". Luke's sleeping with Jane isn't a big deal for me either, it could have been a logical character flaw, but it's only because of when and how it occurs that it becomes bad writing. It's illogical of both of them. Luke and Jane both knew that Rebecca was about to give birth, and yet Luke "for the good of the group" and Jane "savvy survivor" suddenly decide that it's more important to get it on than to watch out for walkers? It comes out of nowhere and makes no sense.
And I disagree, it was not "suitable" of the entire cast and Rebecca to completely ignore that an innocent girl had just been brutally killed, just they're suddenly distracted by the baby. Emphasizing how Clem would be such a good sister while the only girl her age was rotting below was not "suitable". It was jarring and in bad taste.
And to what you're saying to Hazzer about caring about real world issues instead of a video game character, representation in the media is a real-world issue that affects real-life people. And people can care about more than one thing at a time. Talking about this here doesn't mean I don't care about anything else.
Look . . .
1) There are zombies fast approaching. She isn't moving. Nothing else has worked. Would you calmly slap her? Clem's about to b… moreecome chow if she doesn't leave. So, I think an angry look is quite justified.
2) Sometimes not stating something is the epitome of good writing. I hate the term personally and I hate the 'rule' as I find people take it too far, but there's something called show, don't tell. Also, there's a lot of value in leaving things to a reader's intrepetration (can't be bothered checking the spelling).
3) There are multiple things you can take from Sarah.
3.1) She's sheltered.
3.2) She's possibly got disabilities.
3.3) Carlos says she will cease to function.
3.4) We have the opportunity to teach her how to shoot. She ends up helping Clem in the cabin when Carver visits. This implies she's capable of being of use, as does the fact she recognises she should learn how to use a gun.
3.5) At the camp… [view original content]
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: a condition (such as an illness or an injury) that damages or limits a person's physical or mental abilities; the condition of being unable to do things in the normal way : the condition of being disabled. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disability)
Panic attacks are a disability. Even if you don't believe the other characteristics she has are indicative of another disability such as autism, repeated panic attacks are a symptom of panic disorder, which interferes with the capability to function normally in daily life and is therefore by definition a disability.
I never even got a 'disabled' vibe from her. She was just a sheltered girl... I don't understand why everyone says she was disabled. She had… more panic attacks, that's it. I've struggled with panic episodes and attacks since I was around three years old but that doesn't make me ill or disabled.
It's not offensive for a person to have a disability. It is an incorrect and offensive view of society that the disabled are looked down on and made to be ashamed of, that a person is worth "less than" another as a result of their disability.
Sarah's panic attacks are a disability. Like I said in my previous reply, repeated panic attacks are a symptom of panic disorder, which interferes with the capability to function normally in daily life and is therefore by definition a disability.
Now that is what I would consider offensive. People don't have panic attacks because they're mentally ill or brain-damaged... People have th… moreem when they focus on negatives and can't stop thinking about their fate. It's a downwards spiral that goes on and on... The more you think about it, the more you worry. It all piles on until you break down and can barely breathe.
You see, I got into Mass Effect pretty late. So I already had all the DLC for all three games.
Maybe it's just me, but the Leviathan DLC and Extended cut DLC made the ending really good,to me at least.
Panic attacks are not a disability. Panic attacks are symptoms of a disability, but a perfectly fine person can have those as well. I had a serious one when my Dad nearly died in a car crash. Does that mean I'm disabled?
As long as Telltale does not confirm anything in that direction, I think it's legitimate to think that she's perfectly fine and healthy, but simply a little bit spoiled and when the real world confronted her with a whole lot of death, pain and suffering, it was too much for her to handle.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: a condition (such as an illness or an injury) that damages or limits a person's physical or mental abilities; t… morehe condition of being unable to do things in the normal way : the condition of being disabled. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disability)
ADA definition: a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity." (https://adata.org/faq/what-definition-disability-under-ada)
Panic attacks are a disability. Even if you don't believe the other characteristics she has are indicative of another disability such as autism, repeated panic attacks are a symptom of panic disorder, which interferes with the capability to function normally in daily life and is therefore by definition a disability.
Guys, TellTale's always been like this.
Did any of you ever see their Walking Dead S1 livestream? They were cracking jokes for the whole … morething. They were laughing and making jokes when Larry's head got crushed, they were laughing and making jokes when they dropped Ben. I'm pretty sure they were making jokes when Carley got shot.
The ending was kinda meh, but everything before that was so emotional and great that it did not bother me that much. A lot of huge stories have a "bleh" ending (Lost, Sopranos, Gears of War).
I wouldn't be as bothered by it if there was anything else shown anywhere to prove that Telltale meant no disrespect in their treatment of Sarah this episode. It's in combination with all other evidence that it becomes such a big deal to me.
The way that they treated her this episode was disrespectful and downplaying her previously sympathetic and important role. Read more on my answers to Hazzer if you want a clearer idea what I mean.
Woah there, calm down a bit. Telltale never said Sarah was unworthy of life. When her Dad died, she just shut down, that's all. Killing of a… more character in a half-lazy way is a writers' decision. You can say that the death scene was bad, you can say the writing was lazy. In no way does that even indicate that Sarah was unworthy to live.
I wouldn't be as bothered by it if there was anything else shown anywhere to prove that Telltale meant no disrespect in their treatment of Sarah this episode. It's in combination with all other evidence that it becomes such a big deal to me.
She had more than one panic attack throughout the game, indicating that it is a regular thing. This could be simply panic disorder in itself, which is a disability. She also has multiple traits that logically place her on the autism spectrum. Confirmation of the writers is not needed when it is so readily apparent.
Panic attacks are not a disability. Panic attacks are symptoms of a disability, but a perfectly fine person can have those as well. I had a … moreserious one when my Dad nearly died in a car crash. Does that mean I'm disabled?
As long as Telltale does not confirm anything in that direction, I think it's legitimate to think that she's perfectly fine and healthy, but simply a little bit spoiled and when the real world confronted her with a whole lot of death, pain and suffering, it was too much for her to handle.
Yeah I never got the impression Sarah was disabled. The panic attacks can happen to anyone and with Sarah seemingly sheltered from what's happening to the world outside the cabin and what Carver could have potentially done it's very reasonable for her to freak out. When we first met the poor girl she was reading a book on Trans-dimensional body snatchers so I would say her intelligence is quite normal for her age. She is a lonely, young, sheltered teenager that was not born into this world nor had the training Lee and Christa gave to Clem, so the way she acts seems very reasonable.
Panic attacks are not a disability. Panic attacks are symptoms of a disability, but a perfectly fine person can have those as well. I had a … moreserious one when my Dad nearly died in a car crash. Does that mean I'm disabled?
As long as Telltale does not confirm anything in that direction, I think it's legitimate to think that she's perfectly fine and healthy, but simply a little bit spoiled and when the real world confronted her with a whole lot of death, pain and suffering, it was too much for her to handle.
The ending was kinda meh, but everything before that was so emotional and great that it did not bother me that much. A lot of huge stories have a "bleh" ending (Lost, Sopranos, Gears of War).
"This is untrue. Episode 4 did nothing to portray Sarah as anything but. Jane constantly compares her to Jaime, who she views as being unable and "not meant" to live. The story forces us to agree with this."
Hm... I disagree. The fact she's huddled into a corner in the fetal position alone portrays her as simply being scared and broken following Carlos' death, not a coward. Not at one point in Episode 4 do they make Sarah do something overly stupid and out of character in order to make her look like a useless Ben 2.0 type. She remains the very same Sarah we saw in previous episodes, but it's only now that she's been fully exposed to the apocalypse and she reacts as any sheltered person would in that situation. Jane's description of Jaime wasn't as hateful as you're making it sound, either... She just didn't want to force her sister through hell any longer.
"This was only true until episode 4. Her good qualities are now downplayed or ignored. it was only before this episode that her character had strong focus and importance, with both strengths and weaknesses."
They're downplayed and ignored because Sarah was in no position to show her redeeming qualities. Her father died so she became a mess as anyone would.
"There is nothing to indicate that her death represents this. The only purpose she has in episode 4 is to fulfill Jane's beliefs that people like Sarah are simply "not meant" to survive. The second time she dies, nobody even notices at all."
I think her death thematically has both the purpose I mentioned and also this one. But I don't see a problem with that... It made me think, and it made me upset. It was a poignant message that made me question whether Clem should be less idealistic.
"This is a poor excuse for poor writing. You can't project your view that her death was supposed to affect Clementine when there is no evidence to suggest that it does. And even if there was, that is poor writing. Characters do not exist simply for the benefit of other characters. In good writing they must be treated as their own person. Characters affect each other, they have importance in the story. They are not specifically built as important and significant only to be reduced to have no purpose other than characterization for somebody else."
But Sarah was her own person. Telltale did a very good job at making her lovable and that's why you as well as many others defend her and rightfully so! You are free to be frustrated by her fate... I just can't see how Sarah could have died in a more satisfying manner without it coming off as cheesy, though.
She existed as a unique, interesting standalone character that now, having met her end, will continue to affect the other group members even in death. Who's to say she won't be mourned in Episode 5? Even if she isn't, her death still delivers a potent message that makes us ponder on how we should approach the world in future. In my opinion that's acceptable writing and serves very well.
"Jane does not recognize the value of Sarah as her own person. She insists that Sarah is bringing the group down, and draws constant parallels between her sister and Sarah. Jane says that both of them "had no regard for their own safety, or for ours." This is placing blame on them and acting as if it was their fault, or that they were being selfish, simply for being the way they are. Sarah and Jaime were not consciously making themselves a burden. Sarah does nothing to drag the group down. She wasn't one of their top fighters, but she did nothing to intentionally cause any harm to the group whatsoever."
I think Jane continues to hold both her sister and Sarah in high esteem. She knew they were good people, but she also recognized that they just didn't have the necessary outlook for survival in the apocalypse. We can tell Jane loved Jaime by the way she talks about her earlier in Episode 4, and I'd say she sees the same innocent girl in Sarah. She never labels them burdens or insults them directly. There's no hate, and she never implies that they were selfish.
"You're misunderstanding me. I never said that Telltale should have made Sarah to be nothing more than "a young girl who needs saving". This would have been a wasteful and offensive reduction of her character as well. I'm saying that in this episode Telltale neglected to portray Sarah as she had been in previous episodes. She was no longer portrayed in a nuanced or respectful light. Instead the narrative only dehumanized her and used her as a way to prove Jane's offensive views to be correct."
They portrayed Sarah in a very believable manner which supports my view of her as a highly detailed and intriguing character, rather than simply making her appear as an angelic girl that absolutely needed to be saved or rather, on the contrary, a complete waste of time. There's a grey area and players are given freedom.
The writing involved in Sarah's actions this episode was perfect. Her dad died before her eyes and she had a full-blown, uncontrollable panic attack. There was no time for her, as I said earlier, to prove herself useful or worth saving this episode... All she could think about was her dad, and the way she sat so terrified in that trailer even reminded me of my own past panic attacks which as far as I'm concerned is masterful writing on Telltale's part. If anything, she was made to look even more human. She wasn't dehumanized.
"Your interpretation of Clem's character and the way you played her was satisfying and made sense to you, only because you had been playing Clem in a way that this episode allowed. But there was never any other side to this. What about the players who saw value in Sarah and disagreed with Jane's views? We are never given an opportunity to characterize this in Clem this episode, instead the narrative forces us to act in the same way you did."
You could have acted in a hostile manner towards Jane throughout the remainder of the episode, criticizing her for her extreme mentality. Yes, you should have been able to express more upset... That I will admit, though I do think Clem as an overall character in that situation would choose to hide her emotions after losing dozens of other people close to her, rather than burst into tears or seek comfort from another group member.
"That's a very different scenario. In a story, an author cannot neglect to show how something affects a character. That's not good writing. Failing to show how something affects a character does not make it realistic, it makes it unsatisfying and confusing."
I'm just saying that the way in which Jane and Luke reacted to Sarah's death wasn't selfish... They truly were upset and then moved on to care for the remaining group members. The deck death however, was underwhelming. There should have been more consequence there.
Barely anyone sees Sarah as a useless burden, because that idea isn't just completely stampeded into our heads.
This is untrue. Epis… moreode 4 did nothing to portray Sarah as anything but. Jane constantly compares her to Jaime, who she views as being unable and "not meant" to live. The story forces us to agree with this.
We also see her positive traits like kindness, innocence, and her potential to be a great survivor. The player decides whether she's a burden or not. Telltale give us the means to do that with detailed characterization.
This was only true until episode 4. Her good qualities are now downplayed or ignored. it was only before this episode that her character had strong focus and importance, with both strengths and weaknesses.
It was a sad ending to her life representing how innocence and helplessness leads to death.
There is nothing to indicate that her death represents this. The only purpose she ha… [view original content]
Yeah, I get that.. what I don't get is how you think that Telltale thought she was unworthy of life?
Writing a bad death scene, even writing a lazy scene and thinking someone is unworthy of life... there's a huge difference IMO.
The way that they treated her this episode was disrespectful and downplaying her previously sympathetic and important role. Read more on my answers to Hazzer if you want a clearer idea what I mean.
Yeah, I'm obviously passionate when it comes to TWDG so it's always fun to discuss it with others, even if they share a different view. I don't necessarily hope to convert anyone to my viewpoint but if I can at least make people think about things then I'm happy.
Autism spectrum? What? Where? Never caught a glimpse of that. I always thought she was a life-loving, happy child. She just could not deal with the zombie apocalypse thingie.
She had more than one panic attack throughout the game, indicating that it is a regular thing. This could be simply panic disorder in itself… more, which is a disability. She also has multiple traits that logically place her on the autism spectrum. Confirmation of the writers is not needed when it is so readily apparent.
They made her die specifically because she was "not meant for this world", She was constantly looked down on by Jane and had no other purpose than to prove her right. Jane doesn't think it's worth it to try to save her, and Telltale wants us to think the same thing.
Yeah, I get that.. what I don't get is how you think that Telltale thought she was unworthy of life?
Writing a bad death scene, even writing a lazy scene and thinking someone is unworthy of life... there's a huge difference IMO.
Exactly! In previous episodes we see her for who she truly is. If you play Season 2 from Episode 1 to the end of Episode 4 in one session it… more flows beautifully, and feels entirely consistent.
How is it flowing beautifully and consistently to suddenly reduce a significant character's role down to nothing, and to portray her wildly differently from all prior characterization? This was not a satisfying character arc, it may have been a logical result of events, but it was not satisfying or good writing in any way. Sarah had been a very focused and developed character until episode 4, but suddenly we are supposed to see her as nothing more than a liability, and her character has no purpose except to develop other characters. That's not beautiful writing. It's lazy.
Being a life-loving and happy child and being autistic is not mutually exclusive. The view that autism is a shameful and negative thing is an offensive and wrong view that society takes toward the condition. Having autism makes life more difficult because of the challenges that come from both within and from how society views it. It does not make them any less of a person.
As for direct evidence, there were several threads on here discussing it. Sorry but I'm very tired so I can't find them for you rn.
Autism spectrum? What? Where? Never caught a glimpse of that. I always thought she was a life-loving, happy child. She just could not deal with the zombie apocalypse thingie.
See, this is where we disagree. Telltale =/= Jane.
Sarah had a lot of purpose, she showed that you have to be tough to survive in a Zombie world, she was kinda there to remind us that innocence CAN still exist.
But even IF they made her die because she is "not meant for this world", I don't think they think she is unworthy of life. Not being able to survive in a Zombie Apocalypse and Not being worthy of life are two completely different pairs of shoes, pal.
Has Telltale stated they want us to think the same thing?
They made her die specifically because she was "not meant for this world", She was constantly looked down on by Jane and had no other purpos… moree than to prove her right. Jane doesn't think it's worth it to try to save her, and Telltale wants us to think the same thing.
And no, I truly, truly care about many fictional characters in all types of media so it's very unlikely that was me. I do however think there are better things to vent about than the way Greg Miller sits in his chair during interviews though, lol, and that's what my post on the next page means.
Look . . .
1) There are zombies fast approaching. She isn't moving. Nothing else has worked. Would you calmly slap her? Clem's about to b… moreecome chow if she doesn't leave. So, I think an angry look is quite justified.
2) Sometimes not stating something is the epitome of good writing. I hate the term personally and I hate the 'rule' as I find people take it too far, but there's something called show, don't tell. Also, there's a lot of value in leaving things to a reader's intrepetration (can't be bothered checking the spelling).
3) There are multiple things you can take from Sarah.
3.1) She's sheltered.
3.2) She's possibly got disabilities.
3.3) Carlos says she will cease to function.
3.4) We have the opportunity to teach her how to shoot. She ends up helping Clem in the cabin when Carver visits. This implies she's capable of being of use, as does the fact she recognises she should learn how to use a gun.
3.5) At the camp… [view original content]
See, this is where we disagree. Telltale =/= Jane.
Sarah had a lot of purpose, she showed that you have to be tough to survive in a Zombie… more world, she was kinda there to remind us that innocence CAN still exist.
But even IF they made her die because she is "not meant for this world", I don't think they think she is unworthy of life. Not being able to survive in a Zombie Apocalypse and Not being worthy of life are two completely different pairs of shoes, pal.
Has Telltale stated they want us to think the same thing?
There is nothing to indicate that we should disagree with Jane. Nothing to indicate this episode that Sarah was worth the effort of saving, no sympathy shown to her, no attention drawn to her positive qualities. Instead Telltale treats her as a different person, nothing more than an example to us to show that people like her are beyond saving, hopeless from the start. The writing constantly hits us over the head with fulfilling the way Jane thinks. It does nothing to prove her wrong, and everything to prove her right.
See, this is where we disagree. Telltale =/= Jane.
Sarah had a lot of purpose, she showed that you have to be tough to survive in a Zombie… more world, she was kinda there to remind us that innocence CAN still exist.
But even IF they made her die because she is "not meant for this world", I don't think they think she is unworthy of life. Not being able to survive in a Zombie Apocalypse and Not being worthy of life are two completely different pairs of shoes, pal.
Has Telltale stated they want us to think the same thing?
You don't have evidence. Sorry, but you don't. You simply read some stuff into what a bunch of people said and some lazy writing.
That's why EVERY DVD says: "The comments made on this DVD do not represent the view of the company." Because in modern days, every sentence gets twisted until it's classified as "evidence."
I have regular panic attacks but my only mental illness is dyspraxia... The panic attacks are irrelevant and are not a result of any disability. Claiming Sarah is autistic because she has panic attacks during a fucked up, insane zombie apocalypse is unfair. The vast majority of people would be in her situation.
She had more than one panic attack throughout the game, indicating that it is a regular thing. This could be simply panic disorder in itself… more, which is a disability. She also has multiple traits that logically place her on the autism spectrum. Confirmation of the writers is not needed when it is so readily apparent.
You don't have evidence. Sorry, but you don't. You simply read some stuff into what a bunch of people said and some lazy writing.
That's wh… morey EVERY DVD says: "The comments made on this DVD do not represent the view of the company." Because in modern days, every sentence gets twisted until it's classified as "evidence."
There is nothing to indicate that we should disagree with Jane. Nothing to indicate this episode that Sarah was worth the effort of saving, … moreno sympathy shown to her, no attention drawn to her positive qualities. Instead Telltale treats her as a different person, nothing more than an example to us to show that people like her are beyond saving, hopeless from the start. The writing constantly hits us over the head with fulfilling the way Jane thinks. It does nothing to prove her wrong, and everything to prove her right.
Comments
Wow, that's strange, because I find this statement really interesting and in no way offensive.
Just because some people are angry and overly defensive as they discuss these issues does not mean that they're automatically not worth listening to. And why would it be a plague on society to want people to try to improve themselves?
I NEVER said I saw Sarah as being unworthy of life. That's the way the characters and Telltale thought of her in this episode. Not me.
She was not poorly written. Prior to this episode she had been written very well. The narrative portrayed her sympathetically and she had both strengths and weaknesses. She was an important character and several of the games decisions revolved around her and how you treat her. Then in episode 4, she is suddenly treated in a very one-sided light. She stops being treated as an important or sympathetic character, with both positive and negative qualities that might enable her to be a good survivor. Instead she is sidelined and at best, is reduced to nothing more than a crutch to highlight the reactions of other characters.
missing the point
Woah there, calm down a bit. Telltale never said Sarah was unworthy of life. When her Dad died, she just shut down, that's all. Killing of a character in a half-lazy way is a writers' decision. You can say that the death scene was bad, you can say the writing was lazy. In no way does that even indicate that Sarah was unworthy to live.
1.) I never argued that Clem's anger is unjustified. Becoming frustrated that Sarah can't move would have been understandable, but as it is, it's just another part of this one-sided view on Sarah, that she's just being stupid and we should be angry because it's all her fault.
2.) This really does not apply here. Show don't tell is a rule in books, not visual media. It's a rule that indicates a writer must not directly tell us how to feel about something; we must see it for ourselves by actions in the writing and with hints and descriptions that don't hold our hand and steer us in one direction or another without subtlety. If you do want to apply this to the game, then Telltale did the opposite of this, they hit us over the head with all these put-downs on Sarah's character and the writing never indicates that there is anything more to it than that.
3.1-3.4 This has nothing to do with episode 4, all this development is in previous episodes. And I never dispute any of these facts, I agree with them.
3.5) It wasn't her fault that Reggie was killed in episode 3. Carver had been planning to kill him long before Sarah came along. This is referenced in multiple dialogues. The event wasn't supposed to make it look like it was Sarah's fault, it was just them trying to villanize Carver and make you hate him
3.6) I'm not disputing that.
3.7) Not sure what you're trying to argue here, you're just stating what happened in the plot.
3.8) Jane directly compares Sarah to her sister Jaime, who she says "gave up", and wasn't "meant to make it". From what we know about Jaime, she had signs of depression (not being able to get out of bed, giving up on the world, and wanting to die). Sarah meanwhile clearly shows signs of disabilities as well. Her panic attacks in themselves are a disability. Killing her the way they did while drawing a direct parallel to another disabled girl draws a direct correlation that "people like them" as is directly stated, have no chance to make it.
4.) They didn't chuckle very slightly. They didn't say it was "the correct time to kill her off". They did nothing to justify or explain the writing. They laughed along as Greg poked fun at her and left her behind specifically because she "was not normal". There is nothing to indicate that they had any respect or defense for Sarah as a character of their own writing.
5.) Having the characters become numb to death could have been a logical change in the story. But there is nothing to indicate that. A writer cannot intend to be pointing to something, but leave out all evidence pointing towards it, only to be excused because "that's realistic". Luke's sleeping with Jane isn't a big deal for me either, it could have been a logical character flaw, but it's only because of when and how it occurs that it becomes bad writing. It's illogical of both of them. Luke and Jane both knew that Rebecca was about to give birth, and yet Luke "for the good of the group" and Jane "savvy survivor" suddenly decide that it's more important to get it on than to watch out for walkers? It comes out of nowhere and makes no sense.
And I disagree, it was not "suitable" of the entire cast and Rebecca to completely ignore that an innocent girl had just been brutally killed, just they're suddenly distracted by the baby. Emphasizing how Clem would be such a good sister while the only girl her age was rotting below was not "suitable". It was jarring and in bad taste.
And to what you're saying to Hazzer about caring about real world issues instead of a video game character, representation in the media is a real-world issue that affects real-life people. And people can care about more than one thing at a time. Talking about this here doesn't mean I don't care about anything else.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: a condition (such as an illness or an injury) that damages or limits a person's physical or mental abilities; the condition of being unable to do things in the normal way : the condition of being disabled. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disability)
ADA definition: a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity." (https://adata.org/faq/what-definition-disability-under-ada)
Panic attacks are a disability. Even if you don't believe the other characteristics she has are indicative of another disability such as autism, repeated panic attacks are a symptom of panic disorder, which interferes with the capability to function normally in daily life and is therefore by definition a disability.
It's not offensive for a person to have a disability. It is an incorrect and offensive view of society that the disabled are looked down on and made to be ashamed of, that a person is worth "less than" another as a result of their disability.
Sarah's panic attacks are a disability. Like I said in my previous reply, repeated panic attacks are a symptom of panic disorder, which interferes with the capability to function normally in daily life and is therefore by definition a disability.
Definitely, the DLC made the ending fine. But playing the game before they came out was very jarring and a weak ending.
Panic attacks are not a disability. Panic attacks are symptoms of a disability, but a perfectly fine person can have those as well. I had a serious one when my Dad nearly died in a car crash. Does that mean I'm disabled?
As long as Telltale does not confirm anything in that direction, I think it's legitimate to think that she's perfectly fine and healthy, but simply a little bit spoiled and when the real world confronted her with a whole lot of death, pain and suffering, it was too much for her to handle.
There's nothing wrong with trying to bring awareness to real-life injustices.
Well I thought that their writing was supposed to be emotional, not funny.
Media has a huge affect on how people are viewed in the real world. Just because the character is fictional does not mean that they don't matter.
The ending was kinda meh, but everything before that was so emotional and great that it did not bother me that much. A lot of huge stories have a "bleh" ending (Lost, Sopranos, Gears of War).
I wouldn't be as bothered by it if there was anything else shown anywhere to prove that Telltale meant no disrespect in their treatment of Sarah this episode. It's in combination with all other evidence that it becomes such a big deal to me.
The way that they treated her this episode was disrespectful and downplaying her previously sympathetic and important role. Read more on my answers to Hazzer if you want a clearer idea what I mean.
"Evidence"?
She had more than one panic attack throughout the game, indicating that it is a regular thing. This could be simply panic disorder in itself, which is a disability. She also has multiple traits that logically place her on the autism spectrum. Confirmation of the writers is not needed when it is so readily apparent.
Yeah I never got the impression Sarah was disabled. The panic attacks can happen to anyone and with Sarah seemingly sheltered from what's happening to the world outside the cabin and what Carver could have potentially done it's very reasonable for her to freak out. When we first met the poor girl she was reading a book on Trans-dimensional body snatchers so I would say her intelligence is quite normal for her age. She is a lonely, young, sheltered teenager that was not born into this world nor had the training Lee and Christa gave to Clem, so the way she acts seems very reasonable.
The ending itself I wasn't a big fan of, but the dlc made it more important and emotional so yeah I agree.
Hm... I disagree. The fact she's huddled into a corner in the fetal position alone portrays her as simply being scared and broken following Carlos' death, not a coward. Not at one point in Episode 4 do they make Sarah do something overly stupid and out of character in order to make her look like a useless Ben 2.0 type. She remains the very same Sarah we saw in previous episodes, but it's only now that she's been fully exposed to the apocalypse and she reacts as any sheltered person would in that situation. Jane's description of Jaime wasn't as hateful as you're making it sound, either... She just didn't want to force her sister through hell any longer.
They're downplayed and ignored because Sarah was in no position to show her redeeming qualities. Her father died so she became a mess as anyone would.
I think her death thematically has both the purpose I mentioned and also this one. But I don't see a problem with that... It made me think, and it made me upset. It was a poignant message that made me question whether Clem should be less idealistic.
But Sarah was her own person. Telltale did a very good job at making her lovable and that's why you as well as many others defend her and rightfully so! You are free to be frustrated by her fate... I just can't see how Sarah could have died in a more satisfying manner without it coming off as cheesy, though.
She existed as a unique, interesting standalone character that now, having met her end, will continue to affect the other group members even in death. Who's to say she won't be mourned in Episode 5? Even if she isn't, her death still delivers a potent message that makes us ponder on how we should approach the world in future. In my opinion that's acceptable writing and serves very well.
I think Jane continues to hold both her sister and Sarah in high esteem. She knew they were good people, but she also recognized that they just didn't have the necessary outlook for survival in the apocalypse. We can tell Jane loved Jaime by the way she talks about her earlier in Episode 4, and I'd say she sees the same innocent girl in Sarah. She never labels them burdens or insults them directly. There's no hate, and she never implies that they were selfish.
They portrayed Sarah in a very believable manner which supports my view of her as a highly detailed and intriguing character, rather than simply making her appear as an angelic girl that absolutely needed to be saved or rather, on the contrary, a complete waste of time. There's a grey area and players are given freedom.
The writing involved in Sarah's actions this episode was perfect. Her dad died before her eyes and she had a full-blown, uncontrollable panic attack. There was no time for her, as I said earlier, to prove herself useful or worth saving this episode... All she could think about was her dad, and the way she sat so terrified in that trailer even reminded me of my own past panic attacks which as far as I'm concerned is masterful writing on Telltale's part. If anything, she was made to look even more human. She wasn't dehumanized.
You could have acted in a hostile manner towards Jane throughout the remainder of the episode, criticizing her for her extreme mentality. Yes, you should have been able to express more upset... That I will admit, though I do think Clem as an overall character in that situation would choose to hide her emotions after losing dozens of other people close to her, rather than burst into tears or seek comfort from another group member.
I'm just saying that the way in which Jane and Luke reacted to Sarah's death wasn't selfish... They truly were upset and then moved on to care for the remaining group members. The deck death however, was underwhelming. There should have been more consequence there.
Yeah, I get that.. what I don't get is how you think that Telltale thought she was unworthy of life?
Writing a bad death scene, even writing a lazy scene and thinking someone is unworthy of life... there's a huge difference IMO.
Telltale's writing this episode, and the general attitude toward her in recent interviews
Yeah, I'm obviously passionate when it comes to TWDG so it's always fun to discuss it with others, even if they share a different view.
I don't necessarily hope to convert anyone to my viewpoint but if I can at least make people think about things then I'm happy.
Autism spectrum? What? Where? Never caught a glimpse of that. I always thought she was a life-loving, happy child. She just could not deal with the zombie apocalypse thingie.
They made her die specifically because she was "not meant for this world", She was constantly looked down on by Jane and had no other purpose than to prove her right. Jane doesn't think it's worth it to try to save her, and Telltale wants us to think the same thing.
That's weak evidence. I don't think you'd win in court with that.
Glad you're enjoying this. xD
I touched on this in my post further up, so we may as well take our arguments there. :P
Being a life-loving and happy child and being autistic is not mutually exclusive. The view that autism is a shameful and negative thing is an offensive and wrong view that society takes toward the condition. Having autism makes life more difficult because of the challenges that come from both within and from how society views it. It does not make them any less of a person.
As for direct evidence, there were several threads on here discussing it. Sorry but I'm very tired so I can't find them for you rn.
I really don't feel like having to explain it all over again. Look at my recent comments for details and direct evidence
See, this is where we disagree. Telltale =/= Jane.
Sarah had a lot of purpose, she showed that you have to be tough to survive in a Zombie world, she was kinda there to remind us that innocence CAN still exist.
But even IF they made her die because she is "not meant for this world", I don't think they think she is unworthy of life. Not being able to survive in a Zombie Apocalypse and Not being worthy of life are two completely different pairs of shoes, pal.
Has Telltale stated they want us to think the same thing?
@Rob_K
Agree with all your points here.
And no, I truly, truly care about many fictional characters in all types of media so it's very unlikely that was me. I do however think there are better things to vent about than the way Greg Miller sits in his chair during interviews though, lol, and that's what my post on the next page means.
double post
There is nothing to indicate that we should disagree with Jane. Nothing to indicate this episode that Sarah was worth the effort of saving, no sympathy shown to her, no attention drawn to her positive qualities. Instead Telltale treats her as a different person, nothing more than an example to us to show that people like her are beyond saving, hopeless from the start. The writing constantly hits us over the head with fulfilling the way Jane thinks. It does nothing to prove her wrong, and everything to prove her right.
You don't have evidence. Sorry, but you don't. You simply read some stuff into what a bunch of people said and some lazy writing.
That's why EVERY DVD says: "The comments made on this DVD do not represent the view of the company." Because in modern days, every sentence gets twisted until it's classified as "evidence."
I have regular panic attacks but my only mental illness is dyspraxia... The panic attacks are irrelevant and are not a result of any disability. Claiming Sarah is autistic because she has panic attacks during a fucked up, insane zombie apocalypse is unfair. The vast majority of people would be in her situation.
Please look at all my replies containing evidence before claiming i don't have any.
Their writing is emotional. But that doesn't mean they can't be funny. Have you seen their older games?
Here's one of their first games for example. Sam and Max. Sam and Max is not only funny, but one of the best examples of surreal humor I've ever seen.
I recall that Clem has the option of disagreeing with Jane?