You forgot that disabled (or injured) people are also up for the chopping blocki as soon as an opportunity arise - we can't have retards running around can we? A little like the age old trope of the black dude dies first. It's pretty much the same thing.
As for the moronic notion that it's only a video game... Well, its a video game based on the real world - Georgia exist (two Georgia even), Savannah exist, history teachers that fuck up exist.
The thing is, you can only bring a game so far without having to fall back to the real world and realism - if you throw a ball in a game, you'd expect it to fall to the ground because that's how things work realistically. Even the quite far out game Minecraft relies on realism for it to work and suck people in.
That's a simple examplle - people are trickier to show realistically, no matter what they do, be it slaying dragons or zombies. But still: People must react and act realistically in games, otherwise it becomes a bad game that pulls the player out of the immersion. But one telling example is the lack of reaction to Sarah's death.
And how did people react? Some laughed and were relieved that she died. Some were more confused to why there weren't any reactions in the game to her death. And I bet a few actually felt sorry for Sarah. But the thing is, those feelings we had, no matter where on the scale the ended up were real. A lot of people were terrified when Lee died - it didn't come as a shock, but it hit hard anyway, way harder than the reactions we got from Sarah's death.
And here is the core of it: We react as we would if it happened in the real world because that's the way games are nowadays - we can see how they look and move, we can hear their voices, we can talk to them and get some kind of feelings for them - it's not as we try to relate to 16 pixels we are told is Pac-Man any longer. The people on the screen are for all purposes in our minds real people.
Of course i understood the sarcasm. But this is yet another example that is very relevant to what we're discussing here.
We're discussing… more whether or not the portrayal of Sarah was offensive. I believe that it was, because it directly plays into and validates offensive and wrong beliefs of society. The word "retarded" is an ableist slur. Dehumanizing and mocking the disabled. We've already discussed what ableism is so you can see how that's relevant to the situation.
We've also already talked about how the portrayal of a fictional character is a big deal. You should understand by now that a fictional story has very substantial effects in the world.
Here in the US, there was a movie just coming out recently called The Purge. It's a fictional story about a government-sanctioned day in which people are allowed to go out on crime sprees. The idea caught on and now people are actually going out on crime sprees in the name of this "purge", … [view original content]
Oh I see. Well yes I'm not really hanging around any of the threads except the ones criticizing Telltale or defending Sarah. I only ever commented on here when I had something I wanted Telltale to here. & I'm hanging around this thread so much because I've only ever made "I'm having a technical difficulty" threads lol. I never really participate in online discussions but this the only successful thread I've ever made & I want to keep the discussion going!
That apparently there are people actually liking season 2 and not only that, thinks its good. I just mentioned it because its easy to get st… moreuck in a thread like this where there's a lot of discussion going on in a different direction. And I didn't see your name in there, but you are the more active here. It's not critizism, just an observation (FYI - I happen to agree with you on every single thing you've brought up and then some).
Oh I see. Well yes I'm not really hanging around any of the threads except the ones criticizing Telltale or defending Sarah. I only ever com… moremented on here when I had something I wanted Telltale to here. & I'm hanging around this thread so much because I've only ever made "I'm having a technical difficulty" threads lol. I never really participate in online discussions but this the only successful thread I've ever made & I want to keep the discussion going!
You do know that this is a story driven RPG and not a shooter, right? The reason I'm saying this is because we can pretty certainly say TTG tries to tell a story (and fail miserably, but that's another discussion). That means that we who play the game wants exactly what it says on the tin: a story told. If I want to shoot up zombies left and right, I start left 4 Dead, no problem, but if I want to experience a story, I start TWD (season 1 mind you since season 2 is in the crapper).
I agree with on realism though. Realistic characters help drive the story, and not all should get a happy ending - heck, I could live with that no one gets a happy ending and everybody dies. But: in order for that to be satisfying, the story must be told. And so far we haven't had a story, just anecdotes.
Stop copy/pasting things. It doesn't cater to the person you're responding to properly, and it's just a generic sweep of ideas that don't ad… moredress what I'm talking about. But since you can't put forth the time to write something due to apparent laziness, I'll keep my reply brief.
First, don't assume to know the creator's intentions. Just because the story is all that YOU care about, doesn't mean that's necessarily the only direction of the game. Realistic characters that you've grown attached to help drive the story, and it's realistic in the fact that not everyone gets a happy ending during an apocalypse.
I can't even respond to the rest, because I've actually already touched on it. With you. In this thread. Please in the future try to crack down on your copy/paste replies. I find it's really ineffective.
Well in my opinion it's pretty obvious that people hated Sarah because of plain and simple ableism. That's also another reason why so many people are so dead set against the idea that her portrayal was offensive, or are so convinced that she couldn't possibly be disabled. So many people aren't even aware that this is an actual issue because they're never affected by it. I didn't even know there was a word for it until recently. That's at the root of the problem here.
The only reason people hated Sarah was because of ableist assumptions and ideas. None of the anti-Sarah crowd has any reason for not liking her besides the fact that she think she's "useless, stupid, a liability" etc. Those are literally the only reasons anyone hated her. So many people wanted to kill her and hated her guts even though she never ever did anything purposely wrong.
You forgot that disabled (or injured) people are also up for the chopping blocki as soon as an opportunity arise - we can't have retards run… morening around can we? A little like the age old trope of the black dude dies first. It's pretty much the same thing.
As for the moronic notion that it's only a video game... Well, its a video game based on the real world - Georgia exist (two Georgia even), Savannah exist, history teachers that fuck up exist.
The thing is, you can only bring a game so far without having to fall back to the real world and realism - if you throw a ball in a game, you'd expect it to fall to the ground because that's how things work realistically. Even the quite far out game Minecraft relies on realism for it to work and suck people in.
That's a simple examplle - people are trickier to show realistically, no matter what they do, be it slaying dragons or zombies. But still: People must react and act realistically in game… [view original content]
I think there's been more than enough fan feedback already, and you're really just repeating yourself and bumping this thread. Let it rest. We got your point.
I think there's been more than enough fan feedback already, and you're really just repeating yourself and bumping this thread. Let it rest. We got your point.
You have another problem there: We were never given the choice of saving her. Ben was a fuck up of epical proportions, but we could still save him. He was as useless as Sarah, but we could still have him hanging around a while longer. That was also badly written, but more so I think, badly planned.
This comes out of my old pet peeve of not having control in a game - remove the control from the player and a lot of people will be pissed - you should always have at least some control over what is happening.
As I like examples, here's one: Larry getting a heart attack in the meat locker. One might think the player lost control there, but that's not true: you still have the freedom to choose: help Lilly trying to save Larry (and end up on Kenny's bad side) or help Kenny kill Larry (and end up on Lilly's bad side). But the choice was there. I'm very sensitive to when I can't control something in a game, and I could do that most if not all the frikkin' time in season 1.
In season 2 the control is pretty much gone, as with so much else. For example, you can't really help Sarah in any way - I mean, if you had thrown her a rope and she failed to take it, then I would at leat have got the illusion of having a say in what's going on and that I got the chance of saving her. But nope.
The same goes for Nick and his death. The lack of reactions aside, the fact that you couldn't do anything to stop it, or was even given the illusion you could sucked. This was a Devil ex Machina if ever I saw one.
And anything ex machina is bad, lazy, sloppy writing.
Well in my opinion it's pretty obvious that people hated Sarah because of plain and simple ableism. That's also another reason why so many p… moreeople are so dead set against the idea that her portrayal was offensive, or are so convinced that she couldn't possibly be disabled. So many people aren't even aware that this is an actual issue because they're never affected by it. I didn't even know there was a word for it until recently. That's at the root of the problem here.
The only reason people hated Sarah was because of ableist assumptions and ideas. None of the anti-Sarah crowd has any reason for not liking her besides the fact that she think she's "useless, stupid, a liability" etc. Those are literally the only reasons anyone hated her. So many people wanted to kill her and hated her guts even though she never ever did anything purposely wrong.
I'd like to say that something that I really liked about this season was how a determinants first death is handled. It's based either on Clementine doing an action (saving Pete) or manipulating people (staying silent or telling him that Nick is like everyone else, encouraging Kenny to fire another bullet or not helping Alvin resulting in his death). Honestly episode 2 had the best idea for how the season should have gone (though some of that direction being lost when characters did miracle 180s in personality).
What made those great was that Clementine wasn't killing people out of hate, but was instead using the fact that she's a little girl to manipulate people and their emotions. That's how it should have been, with the gaining trust thing being about manipulation or actually gaining trust in the right way, but then she's suddenly cool adult Clem, capable of doing anything adults can do, and those adults basically begging Clementine to handle their situations (except Carlos and Mike, they seemed to care that she was a little girl).
All in all playing Clementine should have been more talking and getting to know people and later use that info to manipulate and gain trust and less action. I don't know why reviewers hate it when there isn't a lot of action, because that's honestly the best part about Telltale's games.
I agree, there is much less of an illusion of choice this season. In season 1 there were clear affects and reactions to your choices even if they might not have made any difference in the long run. But in season 2, the choices make no difference and no one barely reacts either.
I disagree that Ben is "a fuck up of epic proportions". He made mistakes, but he owns up to them every time. And they only ever came out of good intentions so IMO he really does not deserve any of the hate he gets either.
You have another problem there: We were never given the choice of saving her. Ben was a fuck up of epical proportions, but we could still sa… moreve him. He was as useless as Sarah, but we could still have him hanging around a while longer. That was also badly written, but more so I think, badly planned.
This comes out of my old pet peeve of not having control in a game - remove the control from the player and a lot of people will be pissed - you should always have at least some control over what is happening.
As I like examples, here's one: Larry getting a heart attack in the meat locker. One might think the player lost control there, but that's not true: you still have the freedom to choose: help Lilly trying to save Larry (and end up on Kenny's bad side) or help Kenny kill Larry (and end up on Lilly's bad side). But the choice was there. I'm very sensitive to when I can't control something in a game, and I could do that most if not all the… [view original content]
Yeah but to me the Nick choice wasn't a conscious decision of Clementine in that case. I don't think her silence meant that she was thinking "I'm going to get Walter to kill Nick". To me it seemed more like she was just put on the spot and her actions inadvertently decided his fate. Although saying "he's just like everyone else" does seem more like Clem deciding that she would try to manipulate Walter into killing him. But it doesn't really make much sense. The only reason she might have for killing Nick would be because of his whole "danger to the group" thing. But if Clem was meant to be making the conscious decision to indirectly kill off Nick, it's never mentioned again.
That might have actually been a very interesting angle. The episodes could have been made to have choices of being able to throw your group under the bus for your own benefit, or doing everything you can to work together.
And I agree, it would have been interesting for Clem to have influence over people in a very subtle, round about way, by using her young age to affect people for good or for evil. That seemed to be the direction they started out with in the first two episodes but the later ones dropped that for the adult-in-a-child's-body version of Clem.
It bothers me that they seemed to think a person can only be 'strong' if they're physically or mentally fit. Killing off Sarah and Nick was apparently yet another symptom of this belief. But it takes a lot more strength for people like them to survive in a world of gray morals, compared to say Jane, with her "look out for number one" attitude. It's just so apparent now which side was in Telltale's favor.
I'd like to say that something that I really liked about this season was how a determinants first death is handled. It's based either on Cle… morementine doing an action (saving Pete) or manipulating people (staying silent or telling him that Nick is like everyone else, encouraging Kenny to fire another bullet or not helping Alvin resulting in his death). Honestly episode 2 had the best idea for how the season should have gone (though some of that direction being lost when characters did miracle 180s in personality).
What made those great was that Clementine wasn't killing people out of hate, but was instead using the fact that she's a little girl to manipulate people and their emotions. That's how it should have been, with the gaining trust thing being about manipulation or actually gaining trust in the right way, but then she's suddenly cool adult Clem, capable of doing anything adults can do, and those adults basically begging Clementine to h… [view original content]
Good point on the whole put on the spot and decides the fate, but the angle would also work by manipulating how other people viewed other characters. If you stayed silent it was more of a let Walter decide for himself kind of thing, and if you chose to make him hate Nick, that would be a manipulate him to hate this guy, while telling him Nick's a good person is manipulating him into accepting Nick as an individual who made a mistake. And this would have been pretty cool if you could start to affect how the cabin group viewed each other by either degrading a character to another, or glorifying this character to the other one. That would have been cool.
Yeah but to me the Nick choice wasn't a conscious decision of Clementine in that case. I don't think her silence meant that she was thinking… more "I'm going to get Walter to kill Nick". To me it seemed more like she was just put on the spot and her actions inadvertently decided his fate. Although saying "he's just like everyone else" does seem more like Clem deciding that she would try to manipulate Walter into killing him. But it doesn't really make much sense. The only reason she might have for killing Nick would be because of his whole "danger to the group" thing. But if Clem was meant to be making the conscious decision to indirectly kill off Nick, it's never mentioned again.
That might have actually been a very interesting angle. The episodes could have been made to have choices of being able to throw your group under the bus for your own benefit, or doing everything you can to work together.
And I agree, it would have been interesting … [view original content]
Exactly, as a matter of fact when I stayed silent during the "tell Walter or not" choice one time, and the stats list said "You let Walter decide for himself".
Yeah that would have been super cool to see, for you to be able to affect not only other ppl's relationship toward you, but how they feel toward each other. That would have been really interesting.
Good point on the whole put on the spot and decides the fate, but the angle would also work by manipulating how other people viewed other ch… morearacters. If you stayed silent it was more of a let Walter decide for himself kind of thing, and if you chose to make him hate Nick, that would be a manipulate him to hate this guy, while telling him Nick's a good person is manipulating him into accepting Nick as an individual who made a mistake. And this would have been pretty cool if you could start to affect how the cabin group viewed each other by either degrading a character to another, or glorifying this character to the other one. That would have been cool.
Yeah, not even in season 1 did the characters view each other differently. Kenny will always hate Ben, until he determinately proves himself, Lilly and Kenny will always be at each other's throats, the characters will all have a small respect for each other, but twisting their ideologies and their opinions on characters would have been nice to see. It would certainly add a lot of replay value.
Exactly, as a matter of fact when I stayed silent during the "tell Walter or not" choice one time, and the stats list said "You let Walter d… moreecide for himself".
Yeah that would have been super cool to see, for you to be able to affect not only other ppl's relationship toward you, but how they feel toward each other. That would have been really interesting.
I'm sorry, but I still think this whole thread is dramatic. A little over the top. I understand the episode is not perfect, and people have every right to speak up, but there are many good things about this episode. And I'm tired of coming on this site and it being overflowing with all negative things. Most of them I've already read many times.
I hope this doesn't come across as mean.
i don't think so,if anything this thread shows we care the most,we don't just forget about it after playing an episode,we think about the c… moreharacters life's,we try to keep the continuatity going,but you bring up a point of constructive criticism...theres two sides to every coin,Telltale have wrote two beautiful characters,infact most of the characters written in season 2 are outstanding and they should be praised for electing a response from passionate fans telling them the rights or wrongs of their development,it's like telltale have given birth to the character but we raise them into what we think they are,it's a little hard to explain but im sure you know what i mean.
Hey, everyone--
It's me, Greg Miller from IGN! I just wrote a big ol' blog about everything over on IGN (http://www.ign.com/blogs/greggy-… moreign/2014/08/10/the-walking-dead-sarah-and-normal/), but I wanted to make sure y'all saw it, too. I'll stick around to answer comments...
Hey--
So, today's been a mix of a lot of different Tweets. Lots about Christine Lakin on The GameOverGreggy Show and some about Twitch, but then, there's been a couple about yesterday's Playing Dead episode and Sarah.
At first, I was pretty stoked; no one ever Tweets me about Playing Dead! But a few of them got really combative, and I was a bit lost. Finally, someone linked me to this Tumblr about it, which you should really read for the rest of this post to make sense.
I'll wait.
OK. Caught up? Outside of disagreeing/being pretty bummed about being referred to as "an asshole to female characters" and a "shitpile," I understand where Marissa (and the handf… [view original content]
I'm just going to respond to Skoothz since he's at the end of the comment train.
Yes, on the Internet words like "gay" and "retarded" are used in ways that are not always politically correct, intended to insult others, or even mean what they typically mean. And that that's alright because we all have our own ways of speaking. Our values are not universal either. However, using the word retarded in a thread in which we discuss the implications of Telltale's handling a character who is potentially disabled is just plain inappropriate. It distracts from the topic at hand and tends to affect others more. Again, not saying that using those words ever is right or wrong. But context says that now is not the right time to use them.
tldr: Since we're talking about someone who may be mentally disabled, the term "retarded" carries much more weight and should be avoided.
Just saw the newest episode of Playing Dead (never touched that show before Greg Miller's comments were pointed out to me) to see if the host would bring up any of the response he received for his earlier comments... nope. Nothing. he and Jane's VA, Christine Larkin, (the so-called "breakout-star" of the episode) showed just how much they care about the game by yet again crapping on one of its more developed characters, with Greg referring to Sarah as "a horrible person" and Ms. Larkin agreeing completely that the character should have been left behind, all while getting her name wrong.
Seriously, they called her Rebecca two or three times! Obviously not a lot of thought was put into this interview if they can't even get characters' names right. And I'm hoping for Greg's sake that this interview was just recorded before he became aware of our issues with what he said. Because any professional reviewer/ host/ whatever would cover at least some criticism directed at him on the very show in which he incurred said criticism, and not just in a couple of quasi-apology tweets.
Yeah, though that episode was a big improvement from the last one with Greg Miller actually letting the person he's "interviewing" talk more than he did, the blatant carelessness in using the wrong names annoyed me to no end. Like how much do either of you really care about this game if you can't get important character names right?
If Playing Dead continues for Season 3, hopefully whoever is contracted to make it decides to hire somebody who is actually a competent interviewer - seriously, what is the point of a discussion/interview show if no new insights into storylines, characters or behind the scenes are revealed? That's what I wanted to get out Playing Dead, not Greg Miller's extremely one-sided and wholly uninteresting opinions.
Just saw the newest episode of Playing Dead (never touched that show before Greg Miller's comments were pointed out to me) to see if the hos… moret would bring up any of the response he received for his earlier comments... nope. Nothing. he and Jane's VA, Christine Larkin, (the so-called "breakout-star" of the episode) showed just how much they care about the game by yet again crapping on one of its more developed characters, with Greg referring to Sarah as "a horrible person" and Ms. Larkin agreeing completely that the character should have been left behind, all while getting her name wrong.
Seriously, they called her Rebecca two or three times! Obviously not a lot of thought was put into this interview if they can't even get characters' names right. And I'm hoping for Greg's sake that this interview was just recorded before he became aware of our issues with what he said. Because any professional reviewer/ host/ whatever would cover at least s… [view original content]
I stand by my statement: Ben was a fuck up of major proportions. Sure, he admitted them, but he never repaired them - if anything, he made it worse.
That said, I did hate Ben, but since he was a living, breathing human, I really tried to keep him alive.
(Ever thought about how many people he killed? Accidentally I mean? Duck was bit during the raid which was caused by him slipping the bandits supplies (and then denied those supplies); Katjaa killed herself because of Duck being bitten; Carly/Doug is shot when Lilly looses it when trying to figure out who stole the supplies; when in Savannah Brie is killed by walkers let in by Ben taking the hatchet that was blocking the door. And earlier he panicked and left Clem, which might have caused Chuck to be killed when he got surrounded by zombies. That's four or possibly five deaths on him.)
I agree, there is much less of an illusion of choice this season. In season 1 there were clear affects and reactions to your choices even if… more they might not have made any difference in the long run. But in season 2, the choices make no difference and no one barely reacts either.
I disagree that Ben is "a fuck up of epic proportions". He made mistakes, but he owns up to them every time. And they only ever came out of good intentions so IMO he really does not deserve any of the hate he gets either.
They shouldn't be offended by it. Really, there's no need for such overly PC attitudes towards simple words. If they're being used in an offensive context, then sure, but me saying 'My phone is being retarded' for example is nothing.
A lot of disabled people actually are very, very offended by that word. You do not represent all disabled people. Stop trying to justify and… more excuse disgusting, problematic language just because you personally haven't been hurt by it the way thousands of other people have.
Yeah, though that episode was a big improvement from the last one with Greg Miller actually letting the person he's "interviewing" talk more… more than he did, the blatant carelessness in using the wrong names annoyed me to no end. Like how much do either of you really care about this game if you can't get important character names right?
If Playing Dead continues for Season 3, hopefully whoever is contracted to make it decides to hire somebody who is actually a competent interviewer - seriously, what is the point of a discussion/interview show if no new insights into storylines, characters or behind the scenes are revealed? That's what I wanted to get out Playing Dead, not Greg Miller's extremely one-sided and wholly uninteresting opinions.
I really WOULD like to see at least one disabled person in the Walking Dead universe (any of them) actually stay a survivor. So far I think they've killed off every single person who was disabled or became disabled, and the only person who I was happy about seeing dying was the Governor (one eye = disabled)
Everyone else, it's getting a little stale - I know it's survival of the fittest but it's possible for someone disabled to beat the odds I'd hope. But probably won't. The Walking Dead world is a harsh one. If you're not in tip top condition, you're gonna die - badass or not.
TV:
Herschel - disabled (one leg) = dead (even after he gets a prosthetic leg, which you'd think would have helped his chances)
Governor - disabled (one eye) = dead (okay, admittedly I'm happy he died)
Merle - disabled (one hand) = dead (the meanest SOB that I did not want to see die)
Game:
All the cancer survivors from Crawford - All dead (even the two who survived until 400 days wind up dying after that)
Lee - disabled (one arm) = dead (though admittedly he was good as dead as soon as he was bit, and was only disabled if you cut his arm off)
Larry - disabled (heart condition) = dead (lets face it, if Kenny didnt smash his head, he was going to die anyway)
Reggie - disabled (one arm) = dead (sort of annoying for him to die since it finally showed in the game that you can get bit, get your arm removed, and still survive. Then dies because.... just because. I dunno
Molly's sister - disabled (diabetic) = dead
Sarah - disabled (pretty sure she was autistic) = dead
Heck, even if you're overweight you're gonna die for sure - Otis, I'm looking at you.
Then again Zombieland did call that one - "When the virus struck, for obvious reasons, the first ones to go were the fatties."
Honestly tempted to say Duck is disabled as being annoying, and Ben is disabled as being unreasonably stupid, but I'm trying to be semi-serious
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 … morethinks 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)
Slapping Sarah was more to snap her back to what was happening and get her to focus. I didnt really get offended by having to slap her. She needed to get slapped to get her to focus on the fact that ZOMBIES WERE BREAKING IN AND SHE WAS NOT MOVING. Scared or not. Pretty sure everyone was scared. Clem was scared. Jane was scared. Nick was scared. The normal reaction to being scared about zombies breaking in, when there's a way out, is to try to get to the way out.
It's pretty much a staple in movies - someone's freaking out, you shake them and slap them.
It's not about being "PC", it's about being genuinely upset by something because that word has been used to hurt people before. It's associating the word with pain and bullying and violence and oppression.
Is it really so hard to just use a different word? The English language is vast and you'd be doing yourself a favor, intellectually, to just take the time to say something else rather than risk hurting someone. Or are you really that selfish that you'd rather argue take the time to argue about this rather than just say "yeah, you're right, I should avoid saying this, it's just one word anyway it wouldn't kill me" and help foster a safe place for literally thousands, if not millions of people who have personally been hurt by that word?
That kind of attitude is just... beyond my understanding.
They shouldn't be offended by it. Really, there's no need for such overly PC attitudes towards simple words. If they're being used in an offensive context, then sure, but me saying 'My phone is being retarded' for example is nothing.
I really WOULD like to see at least one disabled person in the Walking Dead universe (any of them) actually stay a survivor. So far I think … morethey've killed off every single person who was disabled or became disabled, and the only person who I was happy about seeing dying was the Governor (one eye = disabled)
Everyone else, it's getting a little stale - I know it's survival of the fittest but it's possible for someone disabled to beat the odds I'd hope. But probably won't. The Walking Dead world is a harsh one. If you're not in tip top condition, you're gonna die - badass or not.
TV:
Herschel - disabled (one leg) = dead (even after he gets a prosthetic leg, which you'd think would have helped his chances)
Governor - disabled (one eye) = dead (okay, admittedly I'm happy he died)
Merle - disabled (one hand) = dead (the meanest SOB that I did not want to see die)
Game:
All the cancer survivors from Crawford - All dead (even the… [view original content]
Why? This thread was and still remains (even after episode 5) a valid complaint, with which many people agree.
I don't think episode 5 invalidates any of the OP's arguments to be honest. Episode 4 still sucked in my own opinion and many others', and even though the finale was pretty good - not saying it was flawless, because it wasn't - I'd give the season as a whole a 6.5 out of 10, whereas season 1 would easily be a 9/10.
If Telltale gave a fuck about this kind of threads and realized how popular some complaints can get, I think they'd be able to improve their games a lot more, so it's important to have these rants regarding relevant flaws within the games once in a while.
Why? This thread was and still remains (even after episode 5) a valid complaint, with which many people agree.
I don't think episode 5 in… morevalidates any of the OP's arguments to be honest. Episode 4 still sucked in my own opinion and many others', and even though the finale was pretty good - not saying it was flawless, because it wasn't - I'd give the season as a whole a 6.5 out of 10, whereas season 1 would easily be a 9/10.
If Telltale gave a fuck about this kind of threads and realized how popular some complaints can get, I think they'd be able to improve their games a lot more, so it's important to have these rants regarding relevant flaws within the games once in a while.
Comments
You forgot that disabled (or injured) people are also up for the chopping blocki as soon as an opportunity arise - we can't have retards running around can we? A little like the age old trope of the black dude dies first. It's pretty much the same thing.
As for the moronic notion that it's only a video game... Well, its a video game based on the real world - Georgia exist (two Georgia even), Savannah exist, history teachers that fuck up exist.
The thing is, you can only bring a game so far without having to fall back to the real world and realism - if you throw a ball in a game, you'd expect it to fall to the ground because that's how things work realistically. Even the quite far out game Minecraft relies on realism for it to work and suck people in.
That's a simple examplle - people are trickier to show realistically, no matter what they do, be it slaying dragons or zombies. But still: People must react and act realistically in games, otherwise it becomes a bad game that pulls the player out of the immersion. But one telling example is the lack of reaction to Sarah's death.
And how did people react? Some laughed and were relieved that she died. Some were more confused to why there weren't any reactions in the game to her death. And I bet a few actually felt sorry for Sarah. But the thing is, those feelings we had, no matter where on the scale the ended up were real. A lot of people were terrified when Lee died - it didn't come as a shock, but it hit hard anyway, way harder than the reactions we got from Sarah's death.
And here is the core of it: We react as we would if it happened in the real world because that's the way games are nowadays - we can see how they look and move, we can hear their voices, we can talk to them and get some kind of feelings for them - it's not as we try to relate to 16 pixels we are told is Pac-Man any longer. The people on the screen are for all purposes in our minds real people.
[Mod edit: Insult against Telltale staff removed]
Oh I see. Well yes I'm not really hanging around any of the threads except the ones criticizing Telltale or defending Sarah. I only ever commented on here when I had something I wanted Telltale to here. & I'm hanging around this thread so much because I've only ever made "I'm having a technical difficulty" threads lol. I never really participate in online discussions but this the only successful thread I've ever made & I want to keep the discussion going!
There's really no need for it to go on, though. The topic's been discussed to death. Everybody read it. Not every thread needs to stay alive forever.
You do know that this is a story driven RPG and not a shooter, right? The reason I'm saying this is because we can pretty certainly say TTG tries to tell a story (and fail miserably, but that's another discussion). That means that we who play the game wants exactly what it says on the tin: a story told. If I want to shoot up zombies left and right, I start left 4 Dead, no problem, but if I want to experience a story, I start TWD (season 1 mind you since season 2 is in the crapper).
I agree with on realism though. Realistic characters help drive the story, and not all should get a happy ending - heck, I could live with that no one gets a happy ending and everybody dies. But: in order for that to be satisfying, the story must be told. And so far we haven't had a story, just anecdotes.
Well in my opinion it's pretty obvious that people hated Sarah because of plain and simple ableism. That's also another reason why so many people are so dead set against the idea that her portrayal was offensive, or are so convinced that she couldn't possibly be disabled. So many people aren't even aware that this is an actual issue because they're never affected by it. I didn't even know there was a word for it until recently. That's at the root of the problem here.
The only reason people hated Sarah was because of ableist assumptions and ideas. None of the anti-Sarah crowd has any reason for not liking her besides the fact that she think she's "useless, stupid, a liability" etc. Those are literally the only reasons anyone hated her. So many people wanted to kill her and hated her guts even though she never ever did anything purposely wrong.
"The fan feedback counts" (;
I think there's been more than enough fan feedback already, and you're really just repeating yourself and bumping this thread. Let it rest. We got your point.
i'm not going to stop the discussion of an important issue just because it makes some people uncomfortable
Sigh.
Fine, go on. I don't even care anymore.
You have another problem there: We were never given the choice of saving her. Ben was a fuck up of epical proportions, but we could still save him. He was as useless as Sarah, but we could still have him hanging around a while longer. That was also badly written, but more so I think, badly planned.
This comes out of my old pet peeve of not having control in a game - remove the control from the player and a lot of people will be pissed - you should always have at least some control over what is happening.
As I like examples, here's one: Larry getting a heart attack in the meat locker. One might think the player lost control there, but that's not true: you still have the freedom to choose: help Lilly trying to save Larry (and end up on Kenny's bad side) or help Kenny kill Larry (and end up on Lilly's bad side). But the choice was there. I'm very sensitive to when I can't control something in a game, and I could do that most if not all the frikkin' time in season 1.
In season 2 the control is pretty much gone, as with so much else. For example, you can't really help Sarah in any way - I mean, if you had thrown her a rope and she failed to take it, then I would at leat have got the illusion of having a say in what's going on and that I got the chance of saving her. But nope.
The same goes for Nick and his death. The lack of reactions aside, the fact that you couldn't do anything to stop it, or was even given the illusion you could sucked. This was a Devil ex Machina if ever I saw one.
And anything ex machina is bad, lazy, sloppy writing.
I'd like to say that something that I really liked about this season was how a determinants first death is handled. It's based either on Clementine doing an action (saving Pete) or manipulating people (staying silent or telling him that Nick is like everyone else, encouraging Kenny to fire another bullet or not helping Alvin resulting in his death). Honestly episode 2 had the best idea for how the season should have gone (though some of that direction being lost when characters did miracle 180s in personality).
What made those great was that Clementine wasn't killing people out of hate, but was instead using the fact that she's a little girl to manipulate people and their emotions. That's how it should have been, with the gaining trust thing being about manipulation or actually gaining trust in the right way, but then she's suddenly cool adult Clem, capable of doing anything adults can do, and those adults basically begging Clementine to handle their situations (except Carlos and Mike, they seemed to care that she was a little girl).
All in all playing Clementine should have been more talking and getting to know people and later use that info to manipulate and gain trust and less action. I don't know why reviewers hate it when there isn't a lot of action, because that's honestly the best part about Telltale's games.
I agree, there is much less of an illusion of choice this season. In season 1 there were clear affects and reactions to your choices even if they might not have made any difference in the long run. But in season 2, the choices make no difference and no one barely reacts either.
I disagree that Ben is "a fuck up of epic proportions". He made mistakes, but he owns up to them every time. And they only ever came out of good intentions so IMO he really does not deserve any of the hate he gets either.
Yeah but to me the Nick choice wasn't a conscious decision of Clementine in that case. I don't think her silence meant that she was thinking "I'm going to get Walter to kill Nick". To me it seemed more like she was just put on the spot and her actions inadvertently decided his fate. Although saying "he's just like everyone else" does seem more like Clem deciding that she would try to manipulate Walter into killing him. But it doesn't really make much sense. The only reason she might have for killing Nick would be because of his whole "danger to the group" thing. But if Clem was meant to be making the conscious decision to indirectly kill off Nick, it's never mentioned again.
That might have actually been a very interesting angle. The episodes could have been made to have choices of being able to throw your group under the bus for your own benefit, or doing everything you can to work together.
And I agree, it would have been interesting for Clem to have influence over people in a very subtle, round about way, by using her young age to affect people for good or for evil. That seemed to be the direction they started out with in the first two episodes but the later ones dropped that for the adult-in-a-child's-body version of Clem.
It bothers me that they seemed to think a person can only be 'strong' if they're physically or mentally fit. Killing off Sarah and Nick was apparently yet another symptom of this belief. But it takes a lot more strength for people like them to survive in a world of gray morals, compared to say Jane, with her "look out for number one" attitude. It's just so apparent now which side was in Telltale's favor.
Good point on the whole put on the spot and decides the fate, but the angle would also work by manipulating how other people viewed other characters. If you stayed silent it was more of a let Walter decide for himself kind of thing, and if you chose to make him hate Nick, that would be a manipulate him to hate this guy, while telling him Nick's a good person is manipulating him into accepting Nick as an individual who made a mistake. And this would have been pretty cool if you could start to affect how the cabin group viewed each other by either degrading a character to another, or glorifying this character to the other one. That would have been cool.
Exactly, as a matter of fact when I stayed silent during the "tell Walter or not" choice one time, and the stats list said "You let Walter decide for himself".
Yeah that would have been super cool to see, for you to be able to affect not only other ppl's relationship toward you, but how they feel toward each other. That would have been really interesting.
Yeah, not even in season 1 did the characters view each other differently. Kenny will always hate Ben, until he determinately proves himself, Lilly and Kenny will always be at each other's throats, the characters will all have a small respect for each other, but twisting their ideologies and their opinions on characters would have been nice to see. It would certainly add a lot of replay value.
I'm sorry, but I still think this whole thread is dramatic. A little over the top. I understand the episode is not perfect, and people have every right to speak up, but there are many good things about this episode. And I'm tired of coming on this site and it being overflowing with all negative things. Most of them I've already read many times.
I hope this doesn't come across as mean.
I know he meant well. I guess I may have overreacted a little bit. but I understand why we were all mad. I'll forgive him
I'm just going to respond to Skoothz since he's at the end of the comment train.
Yes, on the Internet words like "gay" and "retarded" are used in ways that are not always politically correct, intended to insult others, or even mean what they typically mean. And that that's alright because we all have our own ways of speaking. Our values are not universal either. However, using the word retarded in a thread in which we discuss the implications of Telltale's handling a character who is potentially disabled is just plain inappropriate. It distracts from the topic at hand and tends to affect others more. Again, not saying that using those words ever is right or wrong. But context says that now is not the right time to use them.
tldr: Since we're talking about someone who may be mentally disabled, the term "retarded" carries much more weight and should be avoided.
Just saw the newest episode of Playing Dead (never touched that show before Greg Miller's comments were pointed out to me) to see if the host would bring up any of the response he received for his earlier comments... nope. Nothing. he and Jane's VA, Christine Larkin, (the so-called "breakout-star" of the episode) showed just how much they care about the game by yet again crapping on one of its more developed characters, with Greg referring to Sarah as "a horrible person" and Ms. Larkin agreeing completely that the character should have been left behind, all while getting her name wrong.
Seriously, they called her Rebecca two or three times! Obviously not a lot of thought was put into this interview if they can't even get characters' names right. And I'm hoping for Greg's sake that this interview was just recorded before he became aware of our issues with what he said. Because any professional reviewer/ host/ whatever would cover at least some criticism directed at him on the very show in which he incurred said criticism, and not just in a couple of quasi-apology tweets.
Yeah, though that episode was a big improvement from the last one with Greg Miller actually letting the person he's "interviewing" talk more than he did, the blatant carelessness in using the wrong names annoyed me to no end. Like how much do either of you really care about this game if you can't get important character names right?
If Playing Dead continues for Season 3, hopefully whoever is contracted to make it decides to hire somebody who is actually a competent interviewer - seriously, what is the point of a discussion/interview show if no new insights into storylines, characters or behind the scenes are revealed? That's what I wanted to get out Playing Dead, not Greg Miller's extremely one-sided and wholly uninteresting opinions.
I stand by my statement: Ben was a fuck up of major proportions. Sure, he admitted them, but he never repaired them - if anything, he made it worse.
That said, I did hate Ben, but since he was a living, breathing human, I really tried to keep him alive.
(Ever thought about how many people he killed? Accidentally I mean? Duck was bit during the raid which was caused by him slipping the bandits supplies (and then denied those supplies); Katjaa killed herself because of Duck being bitten; Carly/Doug is shot when Lilly looses it when trying to figure out who stole the supplies; when in Savannah Brie is killed by walkers let in by Ben taking the hatchet that was blocking the door. And earlier he panicked and left Clem, which might have caused Chuck to be killed when he got surrounded by zombies. That's four or possibly five deaths on him.)
They shouldn't be offended by it. Really, there's no need for such overly PC attitudes towards simple words. If they're being used in an offensive context, then sure, but me saying 'My phone is being retarded' for example is nothing.
Wait are you serious? He mixed up REBECCA and SARAH's names? They have been important characters for 4 episodes, jesus christ...
I really WOULD like to see at least one disabled person in the Walking Dead universe (any of them) actually stay a survivor. So far I think they've killed off every single person who was disabled or became disabled, and the only person who I was happy about seeing dying was the Governor (one eye = disabled)
Everyone else, it's getting a little stale - I know it's survival of the fittest but it's possible for someone disabled to beat the odds I'd hope. But probably won't. The Walking Dead world is a harsh one. If you're not in tip top condition, you're gonna die - badass or not.
TV:
Herschel - disabled (one leg) = dead (even after he gets a prosthetic leg, which you'd think would have helped his chances)
Governor - disabled (one eye) = dead (okay, admittedly I'm happy he died)
Merle - disabled (one hand) = dead (the meanest SOB that I did not want to see die)
Game:
All the cancer survivors from Crawford - All dead (even the two who survived until 400 days wind up dying after that)
Lee - disabled (one arm) = dead (though admittedly he was good as dead as soon as he was bit, and was only disabled if you cut his arm off)
Larry - disabled (heart condition) = dead (lets face it, if Kenny didnt smash his head, he was going to die anyway)
Reggie - disabled (one arm) = dead (sort of annoying for him to die since it finally showed in the game that you can get bit, get your arm removed, and still survive. Then dies because.... just because. I dunno
Molly's sister - disabled (diabetic) = dead
Sarah - disabled (pretty sure she was autistic) = dead
Heck, even if you're overweight you're gonna die for sure - Otis, I'm looking at you.
Then again Zombieland did call that one - "When the virus struck, for obvious reasons, the first ones to go were the fatties."
Honestly tempted to say Duck is disabled as being annoying, and Ben is disabled as being unreasonably stupid, but I'm trying to be semi-serious
Slapping Sarah was more to snap her back to what was happening and get her to focus. I didnt really get offended by having to slap her. She needed to get slapped to get her to focus on the fact that ZOMBIES WERE BREAKING IN AND SHE WAS NOT MOVING. Scared or not. Pretty sure everyone was scared. Clem was scared. Jane was scared. Nick was scared. The normal reaction to being scared about zombies breaking in, when there's a way out, is to try to get to the way out.
It's pretty much a staple in movies - someone's freaking out, you shake them and slap them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1Cpc8Vw-2A
I've polled the entire internet, and no one except you is offended.
Seriously. The whole internet. I asked every single person. Even the one girl who's on the internet.
I speak for everyone. I was voted leader of the internet last year. If you didn't vote, too bad for you. Everyone else did.
It's not about being "PC", it's about being genuinely upset by something because that word has been used to hurt people before. It's associating the word with pain and bullying and violence and oppression.
Is it really so hard to just use a different word? The English language is vast and you'd be doing yourself a favor, intellectually, to just take the time to say something else rather than risk hurting someone. Or are you really that selfish that you'd rather argue take the time to argue about this rather than just say "yeah, you're right, I should avoid saying this, it's just one word anyway it wouldn't kill me" and help foster a safe place for literally thousands, if not millions of people who have personally been hurt by that word?
That kind of attitude is just... beyond my understanding.
Actually, it's not...
Fully agree - it's a variation of the 'the black dude dies first' trope.
Invented in Hollywood, refined by TTG.
Telltale mods perhaps you could share your opinion on this season?
I know Telltale has written this thread off, but it would be cool to hear what you guy's think.
Bump
Also wanted opinions on "No going back" in the OP if possible.
EDIT: I have returned!
Oh god.
Ugh not this thread again, let it die
I'd like to her the frozen song in an updated version...
Let it die, let it die
:P
Why? This thread was and still remains (even after episode 5) a valid complaint, with which many people agree.
I don't think episode 5 invalidates any of the OP's arguments to be honest. Episode 4 still sucked in my own opinion and many others', and even though the finale was pretty good - not saying it was flawless, because it wasn't - I'd give the season as a whole a 6.5 out of 10, whereas season 1 would easily be a 9/10.
If Telltale gave a fuck about this kind of threads and realized how popular some complaints can get, I think they'd be able to improve their games a lot more, so it's important to have these rants regarding relevant flaws within the games once in a while.
What is that from? Some sort of sports team?