clem also had strong relationships. remember jane and kenny?
the characters that had a far superior middle and end to their arcs then anyone of the season 1 group.
most of the season 2 character arcs concluded just as much and were additionally fuel for the development of other characters and the overall theme while season 1's entire plot felt completely irrelevant compares to lee's sacrifice.
walter is doomed by his trust.
carver is brutally killed by what he created.
the relation between alvo and clementine is doomed by the circumstances they met.
serita tried to save kenny, only to see with her dieing breath how her death destroys him.
bonny's redemption story ends with her betrayal.
sarah's and carlo's end teach clementine properly the most important lesson of this season.
some of the optional death's may not conclude that well. but they at least support this season's overall theme.
determinant character like that bum and that guy that just appeared in episode 2 to immediately disappear until they needed someone to be eaten, mattered more? vernen and molly just disappearing?
choices matter far more in season 2. they fundamentally change how you perceive a character. you see what is going on here with "kenny vs. jane". for example depending on your choices there are two additional scenes that prove jane's selflessness, two scenes of kenny ignoring clem dying and three scenes showing he is completely loosing it.
The relationship between Lee and Clem provides a much stronger emotional attachment that being Clem yourself.
Determinant characters matt… moreer in Season 1, but in Season 2 they get killed/die soon after.
Every character has a clear middle and end to their character arcs in Season 1, when in Season 2 some characters get killed/die before their character arcs get completed.
Choices matter more in Season 1 that they do in Season 2.
choices matter far more in season 2. they fundamentally change how you perceive a character. you see what is going on here with "kenny vs. jane". for example depending on your choices there are two additional scenes that prove jane's selflessness, two scenes of kenny "ignoring" clem dying and three scenes showing he is completely loosing it.
remember the big choice who to take with you at the end of season 1 episode 4?
classical narrative structure is totally overrated. kenny's downfall was enough of a thread to go throughout the episodes.
with nick i have to agree. he just seemed as a tool to get some choices and have a dead zombi friend to kill
but sarah's death was an important part of clementine's character development and the overall theme.
Because Season 2 was less predictable but only because it was being made up as it goes along, There was no clear narrative structure. Choice… mores meant absolutely nothing. Sarah and Nick's arc were completely dropped. Characters personality's changed to fit the plot no the other way around. Overall, it was shitty in comparison, I liked it but it was not nearly as good as season 1
clem also had strong relationships. remember jane and kenny?
Debatable, but still it doesn´t compare to the Lee and Clem relationship.
most of the season 2 character arcs concluded just as much
Nope. Remember Nick, and Sarah, and Carlos and Sarita?. They get killed/die, nothing more.
while season 1's entire plot felt completely irrelevant compares to lee's sacrifice.
Season 1 plot: survive in the zombie apocalypse, and protect Clem.
Season 2 plot: Just survive in the zombie apocalypse.
determinant character like that bum and that guy that just appeared in episode 2 to immediately disappear until they needed someone to be eaten, mattered more?
I talked about determinat characters. Mark is not a determinat character. Please, actually read what I wrote.
vernen and molly just disappearing?
Again, these two are not determinant characters, but vernon doesn´t just dissapear, he is the one that steals the boat.
choices matter far more in season 2.
Lol, nope. Literary every choice in the first episode of season 2 doesn´t matter.
they fundamentally change how you perceive a character
That also happens in season 1.
for example depending on your choices there are two additional scenes that prove jane's selflessness
Actually, no. Jane is far for selfess, she is just a manipulative bitch.
two scenes of kenny ignoring clem dying
dafuq? Are we even playing the same game?
and three scenes showing he is completely loosing it.
clem also had strong relationships. remember jane and kenny?
the characters that had a far superior middle and end to their arcs then anyon… moree of the season 1 group.
most of the season 2 character arcs concluded just as much and were additionally fuel for the development of other characters and the overall theme while season 1's entire plot felt completely irrelevant compares to lee's sacrifice.
walter is doomed by his trust.
carver is brutally killed by what he created.
the relation between alvo and clementine is doomed by the circumstances they met.
serita tried to save kenny, only to see with her dieing breath how her death destroys him.
bonny's redemption story ends with her betrayal.
sarah's and carlo's end teach clementine properly the most important lesson of this season.
some of the optional death's may not conclude that well. but they at least support this season's overall theme.
determinant character like t… [view original content]
Dragon Age: Origins was quite good. The story wasn't original but the dialogues and relations between characters (and how they developed through the story) was pretty well done. Its sequel on the other hand was utterly horrible.
Do you really think "Years of research and science" are enough for some people? Do have any understanding of the human animal at all? Plus, in terms of the sky example, there can be debate on what "color" is, and whether "blue" is really "blue" and whether it really exists. And some people would also say we don't know anything at all, regardless what science tells us, so everything is an opinion. Sound crazy? Maybe, but that's how some people work, so don't be too quick to assume that what you understand is what everyone perceives as fact.
And none of this really matters, of course, because that example was meant to be really out there and not something I think can be adequately argued for the sake of comparison. You want a more closer to home example? Okay, then. It could be someone's "opinion" that some people in this world are worth less than others based on race or sexuality. And yes, those are opinions. Some people in the world actually try to use science to justify this bullshit, too. As you can see, some opinions need backing up too, unless it is just a statement of your personal feelings. Saying "I don't like blacks or gay people", for instance, that's just an opinion and one that we can't combat, even though it's screwed up. Making more of a statement of fact as it exists to yourself, however ("blacks and gay people are worth less than whites and straight people"), that's when you start crossing the line and need to back yourself up.
I'm tired of this point of view of, "well, it's their opinion, you can't judge that!" Bullshit. As I said, which some people can't comprehend apparently, it's perfectly okay to like season 2 better. That's an opinion that I won't contest, because that's a personal view. But actually saying that one thing is better than another requires more than just the statement. This is what professional critics do. It's not enough to just say "I didn't like this", because no one is going to take you seriously. You need to back it up, regardless of whether it's just your opinion.
Do we know if Season 2 is not well-written? No we don't know that as a fact. And we never will.
Nonsense. This kind of thing is not something that demands scientific research. It demands an understanding of storytelling and literary techniques. If season 2 fails to live up to a lot of what is considered good writing, and it does, then one can pretty conclusively say that it is not well-written. I've lost count of the amount of times I've read people bringing up inconsistencies, failed plotlines and shitty writing in season 2; certainly more than enough to judge it as something that is, in the end, not well-written.
You know what we can't judge, however? People's views on whether season 2 is good or bad in general, and I never have, nor will I ever do that. I personally see it as having both good and bad moments, but is ultimately a disappointment. But you'll never see me trying to push that on others, because that's a more... abstract opinion, dealing with emotions and what makes a person feel good when they're playing the game. In other words, the kind of thing you can't measure. But good writing and bad writing? You better believe we can measure that. As someone who wants to be a writer someday, I take umbrage at this idea that "well, you can't say whether something is good writing or bad writing." That is Class A bull.
But I guess none of this post really matters since only like three people will read it, and the rest who are illiterate buffoons will just say "TL;DR LOL". Whatever.
"otherwise it could just as easily be my "opinion" that the sky is green".
No it couldn't. Do you even know what opinions are? Opini… moreons are a persons thoughts on a subjective well subject. We know the sky is blue. That's a fact. Why? Years of research and science.
Do we know if Season 2 is not well-written? No we don't know that as a fact. And we never will. Why? Because science can't research this, and not expect a clear divide since some people like it and some people don't.
Dude, did you miss my entire post where I explained the difference between liking something and making a statement of fact as it exists to the person, and not in general?
Well, if you did, there's an essay below that you can check out where I explain it in more detail, but if you want a cliff notes version: There is nothing wrong with saying you like something or don't like something. Opinions where you invoke certain subjects that have established rules to them, like what is written well and what is written better than others, you need to back that up or you have no real opinion on that subject, like we would say of professional critics. I never told the poster that he had to do this, and if he doesn't want to, I don't really care. But that's not going to stop me from pointing out what I see as baseless opinions. That's the whole point of a discussion forum based on some kind of media: to discuss our opinions on the media.
Here's an easy and applicable example to showcase what I mean: "Sarah's death was more fulfilling and better written than Lee's death. My opinion." Well, okay, but you better be ready to explain how that works. "Sarah's death affected me far more than Lee's death. My opinion." Cool, I can totally see that, given how Lee's death was built up to and Sarah's was a complete shock. I may not agree, but that's cool if it had more emotional resonance for you.
Oh... wow... now i start to feel really old xD What about Baldur's Gate series? Planescape Torment? Fallout series? Gothic 1? Silent Hill 2? Half-Life? Eternal Darkness? Anyone remember this?
Oh... wow... now i start to feel really old xD What about Baldur's Gate series? Planescape Torment? Fallout series? Gothic 1? Silent Hill 2? Half-Life? Eternal Darkness? Anyone remember this?
Oh... wow... now i start to feel really old xD What about Baldur's Gate series? Planescape Torment? Fallout series? Gothic 1? Silent Hill 2? Half-Life? Eternal Darkness? Anyone remember this?
Dishonored, TWD, TWAU, Dragon Age Origins, DA2 had its moments, Mass Effect, Beyond Two Souls, Mirrors Edge, Arkham Asylum and City just to name some of my favorites. Gotta end with the game that made me a gamer:
Debatable, but still it doesn´t compare to the Lee and Clem relationship.
the lee and clem relationship was just boring. there was barely any drama behind it.
with kenny and jane it was a permanent back an forward a battle between heart and mind concluding in a character defining decision.
Nope. Remember Nick, and Sarah, and Carlos and Sarita?. They get killed/die, nothing more.
just because their story ended with defeating their defining character flaw, sacrificing them self for something, or something like that does not mean they have been properly concluded. season 2 is a story of failure.
carlos dooming his daughter though protecting her.
sarah fulfilling her inevitable destiny.
sarita trying to pull back kenny only to be the thing that pushes him over the edge.
not every character's story has to end with overcoming their defining flaw or noble sacrifice.
season 2 is a story of failure. these character's deaths a each a little tragedy concluded that also furthers clementines character development.
they all die to form the basis for what your clementine will become.
Season 1 plot: survive in the zombie apocalypse, and protect Clem.
Season 2 plot: Just survive in the zombie apocalypse.
and protect the baby?
I talked about determinat characters. Mark is not a determinat character. Please, actually read what I wrote.
Again, these two are not determinant characters, but vernon doesn´t just dissapear, he is the one that steals the boat.
is it preferable to insert a new character just to get eaten or to tell lee to finally get his fat ass up and teach that girl to survive?
Lol, nope. Literary every choice in the first episode of season 2 doesn´t matter.
literally the first scene of episode 2 has changed through your decision more then any scene in season 1.
depending on how you choose nick also leaves a very different impression on you.
Actually, no. Jane is far for selfess, she is just a manipulative bitch.
jumping down the deck to try to save sarah.
stomping with that boots over the breaking ice to pull clementine from the freezing water ...
dafuq? Are we even playing the same game?
... while the usually so reckless kenny did not move an inch.
clementine pleas to kenny to stop bashing arvo for a minute and do something against her freezing to death and he just looks at her before continuing.
Wrong. Just wrong.
try to remember.
kenny being all mad at you and making you responsible for serita's death is far more understandable if you chop of her hand, bringing all the zombis around to join the meal, and put an axe to her head while he stands mourning over hear, then when you just kill the walker that bit her.
if you bring kenny to join you at the campfire he just makes a stupid comment and gives a disapproving look, if you let him freeze with the baby. he brutally assaults arvo.
in the unfinished house it looks like kenny might have beaten arvo to death if it where not for mike and he does not seem to have any regrets.
but when you simply tell him to stop he immediately stops and gives you a look filled with regret.
clem also had strong relationships. remember jane and kenny?
Debatable, but still it doesn´t compare to the Lee and Clem relationshi… morep.
most of the season 2 character arcs concluded just as much
Nope. Remember Nick, and Sarah, and Carlos and Sarita?. They get killed/die, nothing more.
while season 1's entire plot felt completely irrelevant compares to lee's sacrifice.
Season 1 plot: survive in the zombie apocalypse, and protect Clem.
Season 2 plot: Just survive in the zombie apocalypse.
determinant character like that bum and that guy that just appeared in episode 2 to immediately disappear until they needed someone to be eaten, mattered more?
I talked about determinat characters. Mark is not a determinat character. Please, actually read what I wrote.
vernen and molly just disappearing?
Again, these two are not determinant characters, but vernon doesn´t just dissapear, he is th… [view original content]
To each their own, it's not bad, it's just nowhere near as good as Arkahm City, besides it copies WAY too much from the previous games, so Origins feels less uninspired and more of a cash in.
Kingdom Hearts series
Heavy Rain
Bioshock Infinte
The Walking Dead TTG series
Final Fantasy most of the games
Uncharted serie… mores
Batman Arkham series
Assassin's Creed 2, Brotherhood, Revalations was oke, AC3 was good... I think, AC4 was oke.
The Witcher series
The Wolf Among Us EP1...
Mass Effect series
Red Dead Redemption
GTA 4
Star Wars The Force Unleashed
Indigo Prophecy
And some other games
the lee and clem relationship was just boring. there was barely any drama behind it.
We are talking about emotional attachment, not drama, but even so, there is plety of drama in the Lee and Clem relationship in Around Every Corner and No Time left
carlos dooming his daughter though protecting her.
sarah fulfilling her inevitable destiny.
sarita trying to pull back kenny only to be the thing that pushes him over the edge.
not every character's story has to end with overcoming their defining flaw or noble sacrifice.
Lee takes a care of Clementine, out of kindness, and ends up killed because of it.
Kenny lets go of his anger and risks his live to try am save Ben, who got his family killed
Clementine gets to accept a lot of harsh truths, and has to kill/leave Lee to die.
Ben gets to dealt with his guilt for the bandit attack, and either accepts death or gets the will to live.
not every character's story has to end with overcoming their defining flaw or noble sacrifice.
I never said this.
season 2 is a story of failure. these character's deaths a each a little tragedy concluded that also furthers clementines character development.
The mayority of deaths in season 2 mostly shock value, withouth meaning.
and protect the baby?
Is just a plot point introduced in the last episode.
is it preferable to insert a new character just to get eaten or to tell lee to finally get his fat ass up and teach that girl to survive?
I am talking about determinant characters. Carly and Dough they made changes in the history of Season 1, and each had their own character arc and their death had a different meaning. Ben played a mayor part in the character arc of somebody else, and got to accep its guilt. In season 2 two, all determinat characters get killed off to cut off the story braches.
literally the first scene of episode 2 has changed through your decision more then any scene in season 1.
The changes of that scene are superficial. The same thing happens, whatever you are with Pete or Nick, and Pete dies anyway.
jumping down the deck to try to save sarah.
She only does that if Clementine asks her. If she doesn´t ask her, Jane couldn´t care less.
stomping with that boots over the breaking ice to pull clementine from the freezing water ...
Yes. For Clementine, because she only cares about Clementine. That makes her selfish.
... while the usually so reckless kenny did not move an inch.
He was on the other side of the ice lake, and stepping back into the lake could have only worsened the situation.
clementine pleas to kenny to stop bashing arvo for a minute and do something against her freezing to death and he just looks at her before continuing.
He was angry at Arvo, for having take the chance that the whole thing was not a trap and because of the death of Luke.
then when you just kill the walker that bit her.
If you just kill the walker that bit her, you are responsible for letting the infection spread to far.
if you bring kenny to join you at the campfire he just makes a stupid comment and gives a disapproving look, if you let him freeze with the baby. he brutally assaults arvo.
Kenny doesn´t 'brutally assualt Arvo', he just knock him out. Also, Kenny has reasons for thinking that Arvo deserves it.
in the unfinished house it looks like kenny might have beaten arvo to death if it where not for mike and he does not seem to have any regrets. but when you simply tell him to stop he immediately stops and gives you a look filled with regret.
Debatable, but still it doesn´t compare to the Lee and Clem relationship.
the lee and clem relationship was just boring. there was b… morearely any drama behind it.
with kenny and jane it was a permanent back an forward a battle between heart and mind concluding in a character defining decision.
Nope. Remember Nick, and Sarah, and Carlos and Sarita?. They get killed/die, nothing more.
just because their story ended with defeating their defining character flaw, sacrificing them self for something, or something like that does not mean they have been properly concluded. season 2 is a story of failure.
carlos dooming his daughter though protecting her.
sarah fulfilling her inevitable destiny.
sarita trying to pull back kenny only to be the thing that pushes him over the edge.
not every character's story has to end with overcoming their defining flaw or noble sacrifice.
season 2 is a story of failure. these charac… [view original content]
Uh, they actually do story VERY WELL, there's alot of interesting commentary on Batman's psyche and his relationship with his villains, Origins is just a mediocre fan fiction Year One story, it had some good writing, but at the end it was just another Batman vs Joker story and not a very good one.
Uh, they actually do story VERY WELL, there's alot of interesting commentary on Batman's psyche and his relationship with his villains, Orig… moreins is just a mediocre fan fiction Year One story, it had some good writing, but at the end it was just another Batman vs Joker story and not a very good one.
Silent Hill 2 and Silent Hill Homecoming. Most people like Silent Hill 2 more, but homecoming is much more fun and sadder in my opinion.
… more
They hit home for me. Both of them. When you can relate with the protagonist in a game, it makes it that much more a rewarding experience.
Well I disagree on that, the previous two didn't really have anything great, Origins had some good stuff.
I don't think either of three are really amazing though (speaking of story only here)
Dude, did you miss my entire post where I explained the difference between liking something and making a statement of fact as it exists to t… morehe person, and not in general?
Well, if you did, there's an essay below that you can check out where I explain it in more detail, but if you want a cliff notes version: There is nothing wrong with saying you like something or don't like something. Opinions where you invoke certain subjects that have established rules to them, like what is written well and what is written better than others, you need to back that up or you have no real opinion on that subject, like we would say of professional critics. I never told the poster that he had to do this, and if he doesn't want to, I don't really care. But that's not going to stop me from pointing out what I see as baseless opinions. That's the whole point of a discussion forum based on some kind of media: to discuss our opinions on the media.
Here's an ea… [view original content]
Dishonored, TWD, TWAU, Dragon Age Origins, DA2 had its moments, Mass Effect, Beyond Two Souls, Mirrors Edge, Arkham Asylum and City just to name some of my favorites. Gotta end with the game that made me a gamer:
Timesplitters Future Perfect.
Bastion was pretty good from a story telling perspective with some damn good writing. Also Dark Souls has some pretty amazing lore behind it, but you have to essentially hunt for the tons of stories through-out the game hidden in item descriptions and looking at the enviroment.
Baldur's Gate was one of my favorites since the early 2000s, but I could never get myself to replay BG2. I think I figured out why during my last attempt at replaying it: the NPCs are just too whiny. There might be 3 NPCs I like, the rest just get too annoying to put up with. I think my next attempt at replaying it will be with my own characters with maybe 1 or 2 free slots to bring an NPC with me temporarily for certain quests.
nah planescape torment has aged very well my first runthrough of both it and baldurs gate was in 2012. i'm in my early 20's btw.
speaking… more of baldurs gate baldurs gate 2 is very well written might be david gaider's writeing that does it like with dragon age.
Comments
clem also had strong relationships. remember jane and kenny?
the characters that had a far superior middle and end to their arcs then anyone of the season 1 group.
most of the season 2 character arcs concluded just as much and were additionally fuel for the development of other characters and the overall theme while season 1's entire plot felt completely irrelevant compares to lee's sacrifice.
walter is doomed by his trust.
carver is brutally killed by what he created.
the relation between alvo and clementine is doomed by the circumstances they met.
serita tried to save kenny, only to see with her dieing breath how her death destroys him.
bonny's redemption story ends with her betrayal.
sarah's and carlo's end teach clementine properly the most important lesson of this season.
some of the optional death's may not conclude that well. but they at least support this season's overall theme.
determinant character like that bum and that guy that just appeared in episode 2 to immediately disappear until they needed someone to be eaten, mattered more? vernen and molly just disappearing?
choices matter far more in season 2. they fundamentally change how you perceive a character. you see what is going on here with "kenny vs. jane". for example depending on your choices there are two additional scenes that prove jane's selflessness, two scenes of kenny ignoring clem dying and three scenes showing he is completely loosing it.
i repeat:
choices matter far more in season 2. they fundamentally change how you perceive a character. you see what is going on here with "kenny vs. jane". for example depending on your choices there are two additional scenes that prove jane's selflessness, two scenes of kenny "ignoring" clem dying and three scenes showing he is completely loosing it.
remember the big choice who to take with you at the end of season 1 episode 4?
classical narrative structure is totally overrated. kenny's downfall was enough of a thread to go throughout the episodes.
with nick i have to agree. he just seemed as a tool to get some choices and have a dead zombi friend to kill
but sarah's death was an important part of clementine's character development and the overall theme.
when did character's personality's change?
Debatable, but still it doesn´t compare to the Lee and Clem relationship.
Nope. Remember Nick, and Sarah, and Carlos and Sarita?. They get killed/die, nothing more.
Season 1 plot: survive in the zombie apocalypse, and protect Clem.
Season 2 plot: Just survive in the zombie apocalypse.
I talked about determinat characters. Mark is not a determinat character. Please, actually read what I wrote.
Again, these two are not determinant characters, but vernon doesn´t just dissapear, he is the one that steals the boat.
Lol, nope. Literary every choice in the first episode of season 2 doesn´t matter.
That also happens in season 1.
Actually, no. Jane is far for selfess, she is just a manipulative bitch.
dafuq? Are we even playing the same game?
Wrong. Just wrong.
Dragon Age: Origins was quite good. The story wasn't original but the dialogues and relations between characters (and how they developed through the story) was pretty well done. Its sequel on the other hand was utterly horrible.
Do you really think "Years of research and science" are enough for some people? Do have any understanding of the human animal at all? Plus, in terms of the sky example, there can be debate on what "color" is, and whether "blue" is really "blue" and whether it really exists. And some people would also say we don't know anything at all, regardless what science tells us, so everything is an opinion. Sound crazy? Maybe, but that's how some people work, so don't be too quick to assume that what you understand is what everyone perceives as fact.
And none of this really matters, of course, because that example was meant to be really out there and not something I think can be adequately argued for the sake of comparison. You want a more closer to home example? Okay, then. It could be someone's "opinion" that some people in this world are worth less than others based on race or sexuality. And yes, those are opinions. Some people in the world actually try to use science to justify this bullshit, too. As you can see, some opinions need backing up too, unless it is just a statement of your personal feelings. Saying "I don't like blacks or gay people", for instance, that's just an opinion and one that we can't combat, even though it's screwed up. Making more of a statement of fact as it exists to yourself, however ("blacks and gay people are worth less than whites and straight people"), that's when you start crossing the line and need to back yourself up.
I'm tired of this point of view of, "well, it's their opinion, you can't judge that!" Bullshit. As I said, which some people can't comprehend apparently, it's perfectly okay to like season 2 better. That's an opinion that I won't contest, because that's a personal view. But actually saying that one thing is better than another requires more than just the statement. This is what professional critics do. It's not enough to just say "I didn't like this", because no one is going to take you seriously. You need to back it up, regardless of whether it's just your opinion.
Nonsense. This kind of thing is not something that demands scientific research. It demands an understanding of storytelling and literary techniques. If season 2 fails to live up to a lot of what is considered good writing, and it does, then one can pretty conclusively say that it is not well-written. I've lost count of the amount of times I've read people bringing up inconsistencies, failed plotlines and shitty writing in season 2; certainly more than enough to judge it as something that is, in the end, not well-written.
You know what we can't judge, however? People's views on whether season 2 is good or bad in general, and I never have, nor will I ever do that. I personally see it as having both good and bad moments, but is ultimately a disappointment. But you'll never see me trying to push that on others, because that's a more... abstract opinion, dealing with emotions and what makes a person feel good when they're playing the game. In other words, the kind of thing you can't measure. But good writing and bad writing? You better believe we can measure that. As someone who wants to be a writer someday, I take umbrage at this idea that "well, you can't say whether something is good writing or bad writing." That is Class A bull.
But I guess none of this post really matters since only like three people will read it, and the rest who are illiterate buffoons will just say "TL;DR LOL". Whatever.
Gears of War 3.
Dude, did you miss my entire post where I explained the difference between liking something and making a statement of fact as it exists to the person, and not in general?
Well, if you did, there's an essay below that you can check out where I explain it in more detail, but if you want a cliff notes version: There is nothing wrong with saying you like something or don't like something. Opinions where you invoke certain subjects that have established rules to them, like what is written well and what is written better than others, you need to back that up or you have no real opinion on that subject, like we would say of professional critics. I never told the poster that he had to do this, and if he doesn't want to, I don't really care. But that's not going to stop me from pointing out what I see as baseless opinions. That's the whole point of a discussion forum based on some kind of media: to discuss our opinions on the media.
Here's an easy and applicable example to showcase what I mean: "Sarah's death was more fulfilling and better written than Lee's death. My opinion." Well, okay, but you better be ready to explain how that works. "Sarah's death affected me far more than Lee's death. My opinion." Cool, I can totally see that, given how Lee's death was built up to and Sarah's was a complete shock. I may not agree, but that's cool if it had more emotional resonance for you.
Oh... wow... now i start to feel really old xD What about Baldur's Gate series? Planescape Torment? Fallout series? Gothic 1? Silent Hill 2? Half-Life? Eternal Darkness? Anyone remember this?
I do.
Of those options I have only played Silent Hill 2, Half-Life and Eternal Darkness.
Really? I think Arkham Origins is better written than Arkham City.
Dishonored, TWD, TWAU, Dragon Age Origins, DA2 had its moments, Mass Effect, Beyond Two Souls, Mirrors Edge, Arkham Asylum and City just to name some of my favorites. Gotta end with the game that made me a gamer:
Timesplitters Future Perfect.
the lee and clem relationship was just boring. there was barely any drama behind it.
with kenny and jane it was a permanent back an forward a battle between heart and mind concluding in a character defining decision.
just because their story ended with defeating their defining character flaw, sacrificing them self for something, or something like that does not mean they have been properly concluded. season 2 is a story of failure.
carlos dooming his daughter though protecting her.
sarah fulfilling her inevitable destiny.
sarita trying to pull back kenny only to be the thing that pushes him over the edge.
not every character's story has to end with overcoming their defining flaw or noble sacrifice.
season 2 is a story of failure. these character's deaths a each a little tragedy concluded that also furthers clementines character development.
they all die to form the basis for what your clementine will become.
and protect the baby?
is it preferable to insert a new character just to get eaten or to tell lee to finally get his fat ass up and teach that girl to survive?
literally the first scene of episode 2 has changed through your decision more then any scene in season 1.
depending on how you choose nick also leaves a very different impression on you.
jumping down the deck to try to save sarah.
stomping with that boots over the breaking ice to pull clementine from the freezing water ...
... while the usually so reckless kenny did not move an inch.
clementine pleas to kenny to stop bashing arvo for a minute and do something against her freezing to death and he just looks at her before continuing.
try to remember.
kenny being all mad at you and making you responsible for serita's death is far more understandable if you chop of her hand, bringing all the zombis around to join the meal, and put an axe to her head while he stands mourning over hear, then when you just kill the walker that bit her.
if you bring kenny to join you at the campfire he just makes a stupid comment and gives a disapproving look, if you let him freeze with the baby. he brutally assaults arvo.
in the unfinished house it looks like kenny might have beaten arvo to death if it where not for mike and he does not seem to have any regrets.
but when you simply tell him to stop he immediately stops and gives you a look filled with regret.
whenever someone brings up a game thats depressing i tend to bring up this and nier.
To each their own, it's not bad, it's just nowhere near as good as Arkahm City, besides it copies WAY too much from the previous games, so Origins feels less uninspired and more of a cash in.
i thought i was the only one who liked the force unleashed
We are talking about emotional attachment, not drama, but even so, there is plety of drama in the Lee and Clem relationship in Around Every Corner and No Time left
Lee takes a care of Clementine, out of kindness, and ends up killed because of it.
Kenny lets go of his anger and risks his live to try am save Ben, who got his family killed
Clementine gets to accept a lot of harsh truths, and has to kill/leave Lee to die.
Ben gets to dealt with his guilt for the bandit attack, and either accepts death or gets the will to live.
I never said this.
The mayority of deaths in season 2 mostly shock value, withouth meaning.
Is just a plot point introduced in the last episode.
I am talking about determinant characters. Carly and Dough they made changes in the history of Season 1, and each had their own character arc and their death had a different meaning. Ben played a mayor part in the character arc of somebody else, and got to accep its guilt. In season 2 two, all determinat characters get killed off to cut off the story braches.
The changes of that scene are superficial. The same thing happens, whatever you are with Pete or Nick, and Pete dies anyway.
She only does that if Clementine asks her. If she doesn´t ask her, Jane couldn´t care less.
Yes. For Clementine, because she only cares about Clementine. That makes her selfish.
He was on the other side of the ice lake, and stepping back into the lake could have only worsened the situation.
He was angry at Arvo, for having take the chance that the whole thing was not a trap and because of the death of Luke.
If you just kill the walker that bit her, you are responsible for letting the infection spread to far.
Kenny doesn´t 'brutally assualt Arvo', he just knock him out. Also, Kenny has reasons for thinking that Arvo deserves it.
Two punches= beat to death.
Sure, whatever.
If anything Origins was the one that had some good writing, the other two don't do story very well.
Pretty much any Naughty Dog game.
Uh, they actually do story VERY WELL, there's alot of interesting commentary on Batman's psyche and his relationship with his villains, Origins is just a mediocre fan fiction Year One story, it had some good writing, but at the end it was just another Batman vs Joker story and not a very good one.
The other two had very mediocre stories,, story wise origins had some good stuff going on.
TWD S1 S2,
TLOU,
BEYOND TWO SOULS,
HEAVY RAIN,
R.E TRILOGY,
FALLOUT SERIES,
METAL GEAR TRILOGY,
GEARS OF WAR (Doms death was eye ball material)
Doms death
StillBetterThanAmidTheRuins
did you kill your wife and repress the memory too!?!?!?? :OOOOOOO
The good stuff? You mean when it was trying REALLY HARD to appeal to the Nolan fanboys half the time? I found that very stupid and annoying.
no one here seems to be mentioning the ace attorney games...so i guess ill do it
ALL THE GODDAMN ACE ATTORNEY GAMES (except apollo justice)
Well I disagree on that, the previous two didn't really have anything great, Origins had some good stuff.
I don't think either of three are really amazing though (speaking of story only here)
Dude, did you miss that your response was childish, rude and uncalled for and that he was not looking for a debate?
You son of a ... I was going to write dishonored and the DLC.
SKYRIM
I love haters. They are always so entertaining.
Every Telltale game before TWD to an extent has great writing. If it makes you laugh it's written well.
I played it on the PS2 and PSP
Injustice gods among us
Bastion was pretty good from a story telling perspective with some damn good writing. Also Dark Souls has some pretty amazing lore behind it, but you have to essentially hunt for the tons of stories through-out the game hidden in item descriptions and looking at the enviroment.
Every FIFA game ever.
Baldur's Gate was one of my favorites since the early 2000s, but I could never get myself to replay BG2. I think I figured out why during my last attempt at replaying it: the NPCs are just too whiny. There might be 3 NPCs I like, the rest just get too annoying to put up with. I think my next attempt at replaying it will be with my own characters with maybe 1 or 2 free slots to bring an NPC with me temporarily for certain quests.
so you never played the "real" version?
Something like ten times but I didn't enjoy it that much sorry