I'm not arguing, I was just stating a fact. It annoyed me when we were reunited with kenny and clem suddenly forgot the imminent danger everyone was in.
I didn't shoot Kenny to put him out of his misery, I shot him to stop him from murdering someone. Then I proceeded to abandon Jane after hearing how avoidable the entire situation was.
Well, let's think about that for a second. Kenny was actually using that hope as justification for his more frowned upon actions. Actions which served to drive the group apart, put the newborn baby in extreme danger and ultimately led to his destruction. Maybe in a vacuum hope isn't a negative thing, but there are always two-sides to every coin here in the real world.
See in my mind, kenny would think that far. He even proves it at the end, he wants the kids safe, nothing else. putting two kids ahead of yourself is selfless and considerate, not psychopathic and violent. When he asked clem to race him to the top of the hill I almost cried, I didnt, but almost. The guy does this for a second time too, he decides to be with Ben in the end and try to fight a downward battle in the first season. Kenny at his core has a golden heart, but he needs family/trusted friends to remain stable, otherwise the cracks show, like every single human ever. No man or woman has an infinite fuse and when you're constantly put under duress the cracks become holes and you start to collapse. Sarita bought him back the first time, clem and aj after her. Jane being a smart woman, knows this, or simply cannot comprehend what it's like to feel remorse for a broken family (something Jane cannot allow or she would blame herself for the death of her sister) its different coping mechanisms and I believe not being a manipulative biatch is a better alternative. Kenny snapped because he had enough. His fuse ran short, it was unfortunate a good person decided to spark it. I'd hurt someone if they said they lost a child as stupidly as that, oops butterfingers my bad guys! Kenny was clearly relevant because who else fixed the truck? Mechanics are important, they maintain technology. Loyalty does have its limit, but kenny didnt attempt to kill Jane, he responded to a ridiculous scenario. You don't just lose a kid, you don't. Unless you're up to no good or a sicko. As well as the whole "I'll bring out my oversized knife just to show you I mean business" that really calmed the situation. Then putting it back? She might as well waved a red flag in front of his face. She knees him in the balls, slashes him in the stomach and gouges for his bad eye...she was looking for a fight to the death and got it, too bad she couldn't handle the heat, she was cool until that point really.
So do you think it's humane to bully & beating a tied up prisoner? not really,he just went frenzy because he thought Jane killed his rep… morelacement of Duck,Kenny wouldn't think that far.People criticize his plan & obviously have another alternative,but he just wouldn't listen to it,definitely not a leader that will be respected,it's also because most of his "dirt work" are very narrowminded and not well thought,that's how Kenny has been.He could've but he's not,Jane implied he was quite irrelevant to the group.Exactly,that's why Jane returned to save Clem & the others,I never said loyalty is a bad thing,I said it has its limit,and with Kenny he already crossed it when he tried to kill Jane.
Because the characters are kind of what these games are about. It's fun to discuss and argue for our favorites. Granted, some of us aren't as... eloquent as others, or don't think through things from multiple points of view, but that doesn't mean we should all just not talk about things that are at the forefront of our minds.
The way I see it is Jane was trying to provoke Kenny for a long time coming. Jane wanted this fight. Managed to make herself look like the victim while repetitively provoking someone. I feel it was the "right" thing for me to do, to just let her get killed. She pulls a knife on Kenny like it was said and like I said in other threads she crosses a line at that point. It's not about who is too violent or what happened to AJ, but about one not being killed by the other. They have to kill each other at this point because if the other one is let go, who is to say they won't try to kill them again? To me, Jane provoked the fight, started the fight, wanted the fight. She knew Clem wouldn't just leave Kenny so Jane manipulated the situation to try and get her way and does so by also risking another person's life. Jane is the one playing with lives to "prove a point" that can't actually be proven when if you try to get someone angry long enough, guess what, they're going to get angry, violent issues aside. It will happen to anyone. And because of all this, because Jane is willing to kill people over trying to get her way, I feel she deserves to die. I'm not going to shoot someone that is defending himself and manipulated into acting violent. I feel that would be morally wrong even if you liked Jane better, which prior to this I liked them both equally.
That being said, Kenny isn't all innocent, that I agree with, but I feel Jane is more crazy trying to get people killed on purpose. Kenny needs to work on his emotions and rage but I rather be with him when I know he at least tries to do right and keep Clem's wants in mind rather than only trying to force into doing exactly what Jane wants. They both view Clem as a reflection of a piece of something they lost, the difference here though is Jane is willing to kill and betray people in order to get that little sister situation back. And I feel that's just simply wrong.
Well imo it wasn't. I used an example and an expert opinion to argue why I don't think people who let Kenny kill Jane did the morally wrong … moredecision - because the situation was forced by both people and you are not morally obligated to choose between two lives in that situation.
I also like trading facts or objective opinions by interpreting facts.
I never said you were an idiot. If you want you can interprete it that way but I won't confirm that.
Your statement regarding the Spaemann-example was idiotic - not you.
Since you said Jane had it coming for "wind[ing] someone up like that you deal with the consequences" - would you let Jane kill Kenny because he was an aggressor as well ?
And btw, are we talking about doing the "right" thing or are we talking emotionally based subjective opinions ? Like :"I like Kenny and hate Jane, so I kill Jane and feel right about it" That's certainly true.
Additionally, I never said Janes action were right, I said they were wrong. So were Kennys.
In Season One, Kenny and Clementine didn't really interact directly so it is pretty hard to say their relationship... Really, it is like in Season One both were ghosts and didn't talk to each other directly! But dude, he always cared about Clem, he always talked about "the children", like "Lee, did you give some to the children?", "Isn't that fence a bit too dangerous for the kids?", both his own son and Clem.
Kenny was never my friend and he wasn't nice to Clem. He didn't even want to save Clem in my season 1 because his ego got in the way.
I wis… moreh Telltale would have given me the choice to leave Kenny as a soon as he showed up, or at least tell him to fuck off.
It's not real. That's the best you can come up with? If it means so little why are you on the forums? I never stated I was a kenny fan, I was ok with him most of season one but we were never best mates. I also never denied your personal freedom of deciding who had the moral high ground in their encounter. Please calm down.
Well that's sad, you murdered your accomplice and then threw away a valuable survivor all so you can bring up a baby on its own. Your clem is in some deep doo doo next season hahaha THERE IS NO WRONG PLAY THROUGH! Don't kill me.
I didn't shoot Kenny to put him out of his misery, I shot him to stop him from murdering someone. Then I proceeded to abandon Jane after hearing how avoidable the entire situation was.
Nobody wins in my scenario.
It's not real. That's the best you can come up with? If it means so little why are you on the forums? I never stated I was a kenny fan, I wa… mores ok with him most of season one but we were never best mates. I also never denied your personal freedom of deciding who had the moral high ground in their encounter. Please calm down.
First off, Loyalty isn't blindly following someone and constantly apologizing for their violent and stubborn behavior. Did we even play the same game? Clem was torn in her feelings toward Kenny precisely because of loyalty. How can you continue to support a guy so obviously becoming more and more unhinged? Would it not be more loyal to stop him before he causes more harm, to himself and those around him?
Loyalty isn't watching a guy beat an unarmed and bound prisoner (who was justifiably spooked by (to his perception) the raving lunatic) to death, and then covering for him by saying "Well he lost people he cared for!" or "He wants to protect the baby!" Arvo made an impulsive decision after being constantly emotionally and physically scarred by Kenny, who flew off the handle and doled out his own punishment for both a petty offense, and his own perceived threats.
Loyalty isn't blindly following a guy into an unknown situation whenever he says we should just because he says we should. He won't listen to any arguments about what is actually best for the baby, is the first one to start yelling and blaming, and then storms off like everything is already decided. That is: A.) Not how cooperating individuals act and B.) further evidence of him slipping.
And then Jane. Again, did we even play the same game? She didn't go into the last battle determined to end Kenny's life, or to make Clem do it. She was put into a situation where she was had to force the issue of Kenny's slippage before it caused even more harm to both the baby and Clementine herself. She was prepared to fight the guy if he did the predictable thing and lashed out, but the news also had a chance to force him to see how it was his own actions that led to the baby being killed, and that it might bring out his humanity and calm him down.
If she simply wanted him dead there were options to do so. And its not like she was in a position to run away with both the baby and Clem (that opportunity already passed because of Clem anyway). Convincing him was already proving futile (as the yelling during the driving was proving), and telling him directly that you are taking the baby and Clem and leaving him has tons of faults on its own. Kenny himself wouldn't have allowed it, and Clem would never have parted with the baby. She had to make a snap decision and decided to use a ruse as a last ditch effort to change his mind and rigid thinking with a tragedy. Instead, he lashed out (as she thought he would).
You're not betraying Kenny by siding with Jane and ending his life. You're are more protecting his wish to keep Clem and the baby safe by keeping them safe from him than you are blindly following him to god knows where as the baby continues to freeze and starve, and Clem continues to run ragged from dealing with all of his outbursts.
I tried to save kenny. By not pulling the trigger. Although your point is valid. I shan't concede my stance on if you attack someone and its doesnt go your way, that's tough luck, you should weigh up your chances better. And she had a knife, and kenny was blind on one side, she shouldn't have had much trouble really. Lol
I tried to save kenny. By not pulling the trigger. Although your point is valid. I shan't concede my stance on if you attack someone and its… more doesnt go your way, that's tough luck, you should weigh up your chances better. And she had a knife, and kenny was blind on one side, she shouldn't have had much trouble really. Lol
In Season One, Kenny and Clementine didn't really interact directly so it is pretty hard to say their relationship... Really, it is like in … moreSeason One both were ghosts and didn't talk to each other directly! But dude, he always cared about Clem, he always talked about "the children", like "Lee, did you give some to the children?", "Isn't that fence a bit too dangerous for the kids?", both his own son and Clem.
If you mean during the fight with Lee, well, the whole fucking city is overrun with walkers, is it really worth sacrificing 4 people to save one? After all, that's Jane's philosophy as well, and I don't see you criticizing her for that but calling it "survivalism".
I never say follow blindly, I say don't shit over those that have done you good. Kenny was right about Wellington, so it worked out anyway. Like I explain previously, they both have coping mechanisms and both require clem or the baby to keep functioning, they are both at fault, but like I keep saying you create a scenario that puts yourself in danger, you have no one but yourself to blame. In fact if she knew kenny was such a nutter, why wait until it was the 3 of them? Don't instigate violence to stop violence, it leads to more violence. She made a terrible decision and pays for it, my clem wasnt pulling that trigger. Next playthrough though....watch your back kenny
Where do I begin? =P
First off, Loyalty isn't blindly following someone and constantly apologizing for their violent and stubborn behavio… morer. Did we even play the same game? Clem was torn in her feelings toward Kenny precisely because of loyalty. How can you continue to support a guy so obviously becoming more and more unhinged? Would it not be more loyal to stop him before he causes more harm, to himself and those around him?
Loyalty isn't watching a guy beat an unarmed and bound prisoner (who was justifiably spooked by (to his perception) the raving lunatic) to death, and then covering for him by saying "Well he lost people he cared for!" or "He wants to protect the baby!" Arvo made an impulsive decision after being constantly emotionally and physically scarred by Kenny, who flew off the handle and doled out his own punishment for both a petty offense, and his own perceived threats.
Loyalty isn't blindly following a guy into an unkno… [view original content]
Thats a good representation from someone who let Kenny kill Jane.
Just one thing I don't agree with is that Jane started the fight. She provoked it and depending on how much you interacted with Kenny/Jane you understand her or Kenny. I just played through once until now but wasnt it Kenny jumping her ?
Another thing I'd disagree with is that he is defending himself - one could say that he jumped in to sort of surprise her and take away the knife but he later on took it to kill her. He wouldnt have to kill her to defend himself. But this is propably were opinions split. Telltale certainly did a good job to part the audience there
You have to remember though that, at the point where Kenny was killing Jane, you didnt knew she provoked it.
If she was attacked by a group of walkers and the baby was dropped and she couldnt save it or whatever, Kenny would've had no point.
The way I see it is Jane was trying to provoke Kenny for a long time coming. Jane wanted this fight. Managed to make herself look like the v… moreictim while repetitively provoking someone. I feel it was the "right" thing for me to do, to just let her get killed. She pulls a knife on Kenny like it was said and like I said in other threads she crosses a line at that point. It's not about who is too violent or what happened to AJ, but about one not being killed by the other. They have to kill each other at this point because if the other one is let go, who is to say they won't try to kill them again? To me, Jane provoked the fight, started the fight, wanted the fight. She knew Clem wouldn't just leave Kenny so Jane manipulated the situation to try and get her way and does so by also risking another person's life. Jane is the one playing with lives to "prove a point" that can't actually be proven when if you try to get someone angry long enough, guess… [view original content]
And when the hell did that happen?
If you mean during the fight with Lee, well, the whole fucking city is overrun with walkers, is it rea… morelly worth sacrificing 4 people to save one? After all, that's Jane's philosophy as well, and I don't see you criticizing her for that but calling it "survivalism".
No it wasn't. In that case Kenny wouldn't have ever gone with Lee (determinant) to save Clem in the first place.You didn't even mention Jane in the comment I commented on.There was no reason to bring her up. Both Kenny and Jane are "survivalist" if you want to bring it up so badly. Geez..
We aren't shitting all over anyone. Let's throw Jane out of the equation for a moment. Just because Kenny has done good by us (for certain definitions of "good") in the past doesn't allow us to say that the things he ends up doing are in any way defensible, which is exactly the kind of "loyalty" you are referring to, which, yes, is blindly following him. You aren't willing to split up with him over his behavior (not that you're going to be able to get that baby away from him anyway), you aren't willing (or, really, even able) to subdue him to stop him from going too far, and even if you argue with him he's just going to dismiss your opinion unless its what he wants to hear. If having the argument in the first place doesn't kill you.
You are not betraying Kenny by realizing that he's too far gone, especially when he keeps on proving that point ever since Sarita's death.
Second, you can't use Wellington's actual existence as evidence that Kenny was right all along, the same way you can't use the knowledge of Jane's ruse as justification for her death, because we don't actually know either of those things during all the strife. Just because he got lucky in the end doesn't mean the things he does to get to that point are automatically ok. Terrorizing a prisoner, including almost beating him to death. Getting angry and violent toward those who disagree with him (even Clementine herself). Dragging kids in need of immediate care into a blinding snowstorm based on his own stubborn hunches. Oh but its ok! He was right all along! Using your psychic logic, Wellington wouldn't have been able to take in the other group survivors anyway, so yes. It would have ultimately doomed everyone anyway, who would have used up all their supplies even getting to the place, and then finding out they all couldn't get in. So Kenny trying to lead everyone up there against their will, with other more immediate things needing to be taken care of, was actually the wrong thing to do in the end.
Lastly, I'm sure Jane was all up for confronting Kenny with the rest of the group back at the Russians hideout, in the morning after his lastest selfish outburst. But Mike and crew fucked that up pretty badly. Kenny had then dragged both those children (and one relatively young adult) into that snowstorm. Jane had very little time between Clem getting shot and ending up in the snowstorm alone with the baby, to actually do anything with Kenny outside of arguing how stupid his current plan was and convincing him to turn around and head back. The only other opportunity they had to get away from Kenny (by turning the truck around and just leaving) was squandered by Clem's inability to do so. So when the truck gets attacked by Walkers, and they are all forced to scatter, she has now been put into a situation that, if she still cares about Clementine, she now needs to find a way to deal with. And I believe I already covered these things.
I never say follow blindly, I say don't shit over those that have done you good. Kenny was right about Wellington, so it worked out anyway. … moreLike I explain previously, they both have coping mechanisms and both require clem or the baby to keep functioning, they are both at fault, but like I keep saying you create a scenario that puts yourself in danger, you have no one but yourself to blame. In fact if she knew kenny was such a nutter, why wait until it was the 3 of them? Don't instigate violence to stop violence, it leads to more violence. She made a terrible decision and pays for it, my clem wasnt pulling that trigger. Next playthrough though....watch your back kenny
That's... ok? What does that have to do with my comment? I was merely pointing out the irony of arguing for characters in a series of replies to a comment that was complaining about people arguing for characters. I just thought it was amusing. =P
Comments
I don't condone murder. He was WAY out of line in my eyes. Also why does it matter if people shot him?
Why does it matter if people shot him? Are you serious? It's a pretty good reason to retaliate aggressively. Most humans don't like bullets in them.
I'm not arguing, I was just stating a fact. It annoyed me when we were reunited with kenny and clem suddenly forgot the imminent danger everyone was in.
Are you a vegetarian? Otherwise you condone murder buddy hahahaha even then, the veggies murder plants so...NO ESCAPE.
I didn't shoot Kenny to put him out of his misery, I shot him to stop him from murdering someone. Then I proceeded to abandon Jane after hearing how avoidable the entire situation was.
Nobody wins in my scenario.
Its a fucking game dude it's not real and people will choose what THEY want not what kenny fans want
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human by another human. Killing an animal cannot be murder by definition.
Well, let's think about that for a second. Kenny was actually using that hope as justification for his more frowned upon actions. Actions which served to drive the group apart, put the newborn baby in extreme danger and ultimately led to his destruction. Maybe in a vacuum hope isn't a negative thing, but there are always two-sides to every coin here in the real world.
See in my mind, kenny would think that far. He even proves it at the end, he wants the kids safe, nothing else. putting two kids ahead of yourself is selfless and considerate, not psychopathic and violent. When he asked clem to race him to the top of the hill I almost cried, I didnt, but almost. The guy does this for a second time too, he decides to be with Ben in the end and try to fight a downward battle in the first season. Kenny at his core has a golden heart, but he needs family/trusted friends to remain stable, otherwise the cracks show, like every single human ever. No man or woman has an infinite fuse and when you're constantly put under duress the cracks become holes and you start to collapse. Sarita bought him back the first time, clem and aj after her. Jane being a smart woman, knows this, or simply cannot comprehend what it's like to feel remorse for a broken family (something Jane cannot allow or she would blame herself for the death of her sister) its different coping mechanisms and I believe not being a manipulative biatch is a better alternative. Kenny snapped because he had enough. His fuse ran short, it was unfortunate a good person decided to spark it. I'd hurt someone if they said they lost a child as stupidly as that, oops butterfingers my bad guys! Kenny was clearly relevant because who else fixed the truck? Mechanics are important, they maintain technology. Loyalty does have its limit, but kenny didnt attempt to kill Jane, he responded to a ridiculous scenario. You don't just lose a kid, you don't. Unless you're up to no good or a sicko. As well as the whole "I'll bring out my oversized knife just to show you I mean business" that really calmed the situation. Then putting it back? She might as well waved a red flag in front of his face. She knees him in the balls, slashes him in the stomach and gouges for his bad eye...she was looking for a fight to the death and got it, too bad she couldn't handle the heat, she was cool until that point really.
Because the characters are kind of what these games are about. It's fun to discuss and argue for our favorites. Granted, some of us aren't as... eloquent as others, or don't think through things from multiple points of view, but that doesn't mean we should all just not talk about things that are at the forefront of our minds.
That's awesome. A tangential, spiraling character debate in a comment questioning the constant character debates. This is why I surf the internet. =P
I played the whole season yesterday. Everything was new to me.
The way I see it is Jane was trying to provoke Kenny for a long time coming. Jane wanted this fight. Managed to make herself look like the victim while repetitively provoking someone. I feel it was the "right" thing for me to do, to just let her get killed. She pulls a knife on Kenny like it was said and like I said in other threads she crosses a line at that point. It's not about who is too violent or what happened to AJ, but about one not being killed by the other. They have to kill each other at this point because if the other one is let go, who is to say they won't try to kill them again? To me, Jane provoked the fight, started the fight, wanted the fight. She knew Clem wouldn't just leave Kenny so Jane manipulated the situation to try and get her way and does so by also risking another person's life. Jane is the one playing with lives to "prove a point" that can't actually be proven when if you try to get someone angry long enough, guess what, they're going to get angry, violent issues aside. It will happen to anyone. And because of all this, because Jane is willing to kill people over trying to get her way, I feel she deserves to die. I'm not going to shoot someone that is defending himself and manipulated into acting violent. I feel that would be morally wrong even if you liked Jane better, which prior to this I liked them both equally.
That being said, Kenny isn't all innocent, that I agree with, but I feel Jane is more crazy trying to get people killed on purpose. Kenny needs to work on his emotions and rage but I rather be with him when I know he at least tries to do right and keep Clem's wants in mind rather than only trying to force into doing exactly what Jane wants. They both view Clem as a reflection of a piece of something they lost, the difference here though is Jane is willing to kill and betray people in order to get that little sister situation back. And I feel that's just simply wrong.
In Season One, Kenny and Clementine didn't really interact directly so it is pretty hard to say their relationship... Really, it is like in Season One both were ghosts and didn't talk to each other directly! But dude, he always cared about Clem, he always talked about "the children", like "Lee, did you give some to the children?", "Isn't that fence a bit too dangerous for the kids?", both his own son and Clem.
It's not real. That's the best you can come up with? If it means so little why are you on the forums? I never stated I was a kenny fan, I was ok with him most of season one but we were never best mates. I also never denied your personal freedom of deciding who had the moral high ground in their encounter. Please calm down.
Death is death my friend.
Well that's sad, you murdered your accomplice and then threw away a valuable survivor all so you can bring up a baby on its own. Your clem is in some deep doo doo next season hahaha THERE IS NO WRONG PLAY THROUGH! Don't kill me.
Im just saying he was out of line with what he did
Hold up, you don't comdone murder, but you allow a little girl to shoot and kill someone?
Putting someone down to save someone's life is NOT murder
It's not that simple. Nothing in life or death is ever that simple.
I shot , because i loved him.
Where do I begin? =P
First off, Loyalty isn't blindly following someone and constantly apologizing for their violent and stubborn behavior. Did we even play the same game? Clem was torn in her feelings toward Kenny precisely because of loyalty. How can you continue to support a guy so obviously becoming more and more unhinged? Would it not be more loyal to stop him before he causes more harm, to himself and those around him?
Loyalty isn't watching a guy beat an unarmed and bound prisoner (who was justifiably spooked by (to his perception) the raving lunatic) to death, and then covering for him by saying "Well he lost people he cared for!" or "He wants to protect the baby!" Arvo made an impulsive decision after being constantly emotionally and physically scarred by Kenny, who flew off the handle and doled out his own punishment for both a petty offense, and his own perceived threats.
Loyalty isn't blindly following a guy into an unknown situation whenever he says we should just because he says we should. He won't listen to any arguments about what is actually best for the baby, is the first one to start yelling and blaming, and then storms off like everything is already decided. That is: A.) Not how cooperating individuals act and B.) further evidence of him slipping.
And then Jane. Again, did we even play the same game? She didn't go into the last battle determined to end Kenny's life, or to make Clem do it. She was put into a situation where she was had to force the issue of Kenny's slippage before it caused even more harm to both the baby and Clementine herself. She was prepared to fight the guy if he did the predictable thing and lashed out, but the news also had a chance to force him to see how it was his own actions that led to the baby being killed, and that it might bring out his humanity and calm him down.
If she simply wanted him dead there were options to do so. And its not like she was in a position to run away with both the baby and Clem (that opportunity already passed because of Clem anyway). Convincing him was already proving futile (as the yelling during the driving was proving), and telling him directly that you are taking the baby and Clem and leaving him has tons of faults on its own. Kenny himself wouldn't have allowed it, and Clem would never have parted with the baby. She had to make a snap decision and decided to use a ruse as a last ditch effort to change his mind and rigid thinking with a tragedy. Instead, he lashed out (as she thought he would).
You're not betraying Kenny by siding with Jane and ending his life. You're are more protecting his wish to keep Clem and the baby safe by keeping them safe from him than you are blindly following him to god knows where as the baby continues to freeze and starve, and Clem continues to run ragged from dealing with all of his outbursts.
It still ends with someone not breathing.
Yeah but it ends with you saving someone
I tried to save kenny. By not pulling the trigger. Although your point is valid. I shan't concede my stance on if you attack someone and its doesnt go your way, that's tough luck, you should weigh up your chances better. And she had a knife, and kenny was blind on one side, she shouldn't have had much trouble really. Lol
Clem should have shot kenny someplace non fatal that way both would live
"But dude, he always cared about Clem."
So what about when he refuses to help Clem because of some petty rivalry with Lee.
And when the hell did that happen?
If you mean during the fight with Lee, well, the whole fucking city is overrun with walkers, is it really worth sacrificing 4 people to save one? After all, that's Jane's philosophy as well, and I don't see you criticizing her for that but calling it "survivalism".
I never say follow blindly, I say don't shit over those that have done you good. Kenny was right about Wellington, so it worked out anyway. Like I explain previously, they both have coping mechanisms and both require clem or the baby to keep functioning, they are both at fault, but like I keep saying you create a scenario that puts yourself in danger, you have no one but yourself to blame. In fact if she knew kenny was such a nutter, why wait until it was the 3 of them? Don't instigate violence to stop violence, it leads to more violence. She made a terrible decision and pays for it, my clem wasnt pulling that trigger. Next playthrough though....watch your back kenny
I'm reminded of the statue in Amid the Ruins.
You're damn right! But then Jane would have finished him off...probably.
Thats a good representation from someone who let Kenny kill Jane.
Just one thing I don't agree with is that Jane started the fight. She provoked it and depending on how much you interacted with Kenny/Jane you understand her or Kenny. I just played through once until now but wasnt it Kenny jumping her ?
Another thing I'd disagree with is that he is defending himself - one could say that he jumped in to sort of surprise her and take away the knife but he later on took it to kill her. He wouldnt have to kill her to defend himself. But this is propably were opinions split. Telltale certainly did a good job to part the audience there
You have to remember though that, at the point where Kenny was killing Jane, you didnt knew she provoked it.
If she was attacked by a group of walkers and the baby was dropped and she couldnt save it or whatever, Kenny would've had no point.
That wasn't his reasoning though. And I didn't even say anything about Jane so stop putting words in my mouth.
During that moment, it was. And that's the thing, I commented you did the opposite of saying that about Jane.
No it wasn't. In that case Kenny wouldn't have ever gone with Lee (determinant) to save Clem in the first place.You didn't even mention Jane in the comment I commented on.There was no reason to bring her up. Both Kenny and Jane are "survivalist" if you want to bring it up so badly. Geez..
We aren't shitting all over anyone. Let's throw Jane out of the equation for a moment. Just because Kenny has done good by us (for certain definitions of "good") in the past doesn't allow us to say that the things he ends up doing are in any way defensible, which is exactly the kind of "loyalty" you are referring to, which, yes, is blindly following him. You aren't willing to split up with him over his behavior (not that you're going to be able to get that baby away from him anyway), you aren't willing (or, really, even able) to subdue him to stop him from going too far, and even if you argue with him he's just going to dismiss your opinion unless its what he wants to hear. If having the argument in the first place doesn't kill you.
You are not betraying Kenny by realizing that he's too far gone, especially when he keeps on proving that point ever since Sarita's death.
Second, you can't use Wellington's actual existence as evidence that Kenny was right all along, the same way you can't use the knowledge of Jane's ruse as justification for her death, because we don't actually know either of those things during all the strife. Just because he got lucky in the end doesn't mean the things he does to get to that point are automatically ok. Terrorizing a prisoner, including almost beating him to death. Getting angry and violent toward those who disagree with him (even Clementine herself). Dragging kids in need of immediate care into a blinding snowstorm based on his own stubborn hunches. Oh but its ok! He was right all along! Using your psychic logic, Wellington wouldn't have been able to take in the other group survivors anyway, so yes. It would have ultimately doomed everyone anyway, who would have used up all their supplies even getting to the place, and then finding out they all couldn't get in. So Kenny trying to lead everyone up there against their will, with other more immediate things needing to be taken care of, was actually the wrong thing to do in the end.
Lastly, I'm sure Jane was all up for confronting Kenny with the rest of the group back at the Russians hideout, in the morning after his lastest selfish outburst. But Mike and crew fucked that up pretty badly. Kenny had then dragged both those children (and one relatively young adult) into that snowstorm. Jane had very little time between Clem getting shot and ending up in the snowstorm alone with the baby, to actually do anything with Kenny outside of arguing how stupid his current plan was and convincing him to turn around and head back. The only other opportunity they had to get away from Kenny (by turning the truck around and just leaving) was squandered by Clem's inability to do so. So when the truck gets attacked by Walkers, and they are all forced to scatter, she has now been put into a situation that, if she still cares about Clementine, she now needs to find a way to deal with. And I believe I already covered these things.
That's... ok? What does that have to do with my comment? I was merely pointing out the irony of arguing for characters in a series of replies to a comment that was complaining about people arguing for characters. I just thought it was amusing. =P
Maybe she found Maybelle and got the milk from her?