Season 2: Genius Writing or Cheap Shock Value?
Somethings been eating at me, I can't sleep with this on my chest.
So I tried playing Season 2 for a second time and I had to stop at a certain point and turn off my game. I had to stop at the ice lake. I knew what was going to happen and how it was going to happen no matter what I did. My dear 27-year old, art major number one good guy Luke would fall in and die with Clementine powerless to change the outcome. We've seen this kind of deaths all Season. Is it considered genius writing that Telltale chose to kill him off when majority of players expected Luke to survive the Season or is it just cheap shock value that he died so unceremoniously? I had to stop because I couldn't stand seeing him either being dragged down again or floating lifelessly. He was the last connection to the Cabin Group, a group of people who were the main original characters of Season 2, some who had their arcs cut short and forgotten and some killed off for pure cheap shock value.
I understand that there's the whole "Oh it's the zombie apocalypse! Everyone can die!" message the writers tried to enforce in Season 2, but I personally feel as if they sacrificed proper storytelling the entire Season just to kill off people. What did Pete die for? What did Carlos die for? What did Sarita die for? What did Nick die for? What did Sarah die for? What did Luke die for? While, they do have to kill off people, it being the zombie apocalypse, that's no excuse for sacrificing quality character development because first and foremost, this is a game, and a game that relies heavily on it's characters to carry the story.
This whole thing of killing off characters just because and for no good reason will get old very fast. Priority wise, before using character deaths as cheap jump scares and the like, you need to properly resolve their story arc before killing them. This is done very well in Season 1 as each death from a character part of the main group had a purpose into calling into attention different themes and impacted the story as well.
Season 1 Deaths
Larry: To show Lilly's descent into instability and possible insanity. Say what you want about Larry, he was Lilly's rock and her place of comfort, with that gone what does she have?
Katjaa: When unable to cope with a situation you thought you could control, do you end it to take away the pain?
Duck: What would a parent do and how do they cope with a situation like that?
Carley: Don't mess with the unstable person. (Ep. 3). To show how Lilly was insecure and on the verge of snapping.
Doug: Giving up your life selflessly in a snap decision like that with the intent of saving someone else. (Ep. 3)
Ben: History of good intentions with awful results. It's hard to remember that he was just a kid who messed up a lot because that's what kids do. He can make Kenny redeem himself in the alley.
Chuck: Dies saving Clementine.
Kenny: Admirable that he sacrifices himself for someone else when he spent the entire 1st season selfishly (but kinda understandably) bring up his family in everything.
vs.
Season 2 Deaths
Pete - Gets bitten, dies to show another side of Nick, or killed brutally by someone (possiibly Carver). It's okay I guess, because his death leads to a promise to help Nick or the show the brutality of Carver.
Alvin- Either killed by Carver in the lodge or Carver in Howe's. We don't know anything about him as he is killed off fairly early.
Carlos-Shot in the walkers and devoured. Was this to show that Sarah was useless without her father? Because other than that there is nothing about his death that does anything for the plot.
Sarita- Katjaa 2.0. That's all she was. Not even an attempt at a backstory and she's just there to die for Kenny so he can go down a road of depression and anger again.
Nick- Dead at the lodge or in a fence. Saving him does nothing for the plot and he disappears after a brief talk in Ep. 3 and magically reappears at the end when they plan their escape and his development comes to a dead halt and is thrown off a bridge. Does his death change anything in either scenario? Nope.
Sarah- Someone decided she was useless and hated her. Only save her by slapping her, then she falls down the deck in a really dumb way. And the attempt to save her is awful to. Her death doesn't do anything for the plot. All it does is reinforce this feeling of depression as our previous interactions with her have little impact on her in her death episode.
Rebecca-I actually agree with her death here.
Luke - #1 thing I've come to expect, Telltale will kill off anyone nice because nice things are evil and make too much sense.
Season 2 attempted to really pour on the misery and feeling of dread with little room for anything hopeful or optimistic in the future. Most of the Season 2 characters died pointless deaths in my opinion, especially the Cabin Group who were the first people Clementine meets. I also found that while the Cabin Group was interesting in the first 2 episodes, it doesn't matter much because I know they are going to die stupid deaths with their arcs unfinished and forgotten.
SO,
Do you think this is genius writing that it makes me feel so depressed, or do you think it's just cheap that main characters are introduced to be killed off without resolving their arcs?
EDIT: Me personally, I think it's dumb to cheaply kill them off. This shows in the endings as most of them aren't even endings. Endings...end stories..that's what they're for. Nothing feels finished in most of the endings and I think it reflects the overall feeling of the game.
Oh...and I'll just leave this here because I feel really sad right now even though I know we're all probably tired of it and I need some hope for Season 3.
Comments
I actually didn´t find the writing terrible at all...it wasn´t till I came to lurk after I finished the episode and saw fifty complaining threads that I even knew people had a problem with it.
The only death I didn´t like was Luke´s but I´m very biased about his character. I can also see where the complaints for Nick come from but if I´m being honest it barely bothered me.
They should stop killing everybody off, or just kill Clementine off; because her Main Protagonist immortality is starting to get predictable.
I think it may have been intentional in order to place more emphasis on Clem's character development over the season. Kinda like the whole cabin group plus Kenny were only there as a plot device for Clem's character. Hopefully next season will have more focus on side character development like season 1 did
Most of em died for development for another.
Pete died for Nick's development (Being depressed and shooting Matthew).
Carlos died for Sarah development that we never got.
Sarah died for Jane to compare her with Jamie.
Alvin died for...uh...well atleast his 2nd death was kinda sad.
Rebecca's death I actually have no problem with.
Nick faded into the background after Ep 2.
And Luke died to show that he was the glue of the group. If Luke was still around I doubt Bonnie and Mike would've left, and if they did he would've stayed behind.
I was actually okay with Pete's death, as I found his determinant scene in the truck with Clem one of the most touching in the series so far. The bitter resignation in one version of his final line, "let's get this over with", is also amazing.
Now, Nick...he's a determinant character with problems.
Luke and Pete were good. Luke at least got mourning and a heroish death. It was well done
I honestly was hoping they wernt going the route they were with Rebecca and having her whole role just being pregnant but oh well
Alvin and Carlos were okay if they were really just red shirts (walking dead style) but for me they were equal to some of the quick deaths in season 1
Sarah's was.... eh. If shed died freaking out again then I would have been fine with it however the fact shes trying to free herself just shows shes changed so I didnt like it
Nicks was appalling
I was ok with Pete's death because it lead to a obligation with NIck. It meant something, then when he died i lost it.
I thought S1's deaths were more shocking, which I don't claim is a bad thing. In S2 it generally it took me several minutes to realize the characters were dead and weren't coming back... The process of emotion was more drawn out.
Pete was Shawn of Season 2.
Some times I forget there was even a cabin group with how forgettable they were. They were practically meaningless and did nearly nothing.
They could have done so much more for the plot than Jane vs Kenny which sucked.
I don't think Season Two's writing was terrible, but not on the level of the first game. But all the deaths were predictable. I didn't know when but you just tell, especially both of Nick's deaths.
Nick death #1: "Is Nick a good man?" Its so obvious, whats going to happen next.
Nick death #2: Has no dialogue and gets shot. - I know where this is going.
Cheap Shock Value.
I know. The story was beyond weak, it was predicable, boring, yet nostalgic.
I don't think it's as simple as the either/or choice offered. Very few things are ever that simple.
I think there were writing problems in season 2. And yet I also don't think they were aiming for cheap shock value either. I just think they could have benefited from a stronger script editor who would have circled a bunch of this stuff in red and written "are you really sure about this?"
Still some of the best writing we see in gaming and I'm not sure individuals not liking particular deaths or taking the loss of some characters personally counts as a writing disaster but, yeah, problems were apparent in this season.
Uh... The Jane vs Kenny plot point was predictable? How? Not a single person saw it coming. No Going Back was done excellently bar Luke's death.
Cheap shock value.
Both of Pete's deaths made sense. If you went with Nick, then Pete's sudden and brutal death leads to you losing the most competent and trustworthy member of the group due to him making a simple mistake. If you went with Pete, then you get to see a more vulnerable, regretful side of him.
Sarita's deaths pissed me off partly because both she and Kenny both seemed to have forgotten about Reggie's amputation.
I think Hazzer means he/she didn't see it coming due to her unknown status at the end of Ep 4.
At that point no one knew for a fact that she'd come back.
After that though, it became more and more obvious that it was Kenny v Jane.
Maybe you didn't. It was so obvious in Ep 4 i wanted to shoot myself in the head, after listening to Jane. Kenny was becoming the "bad" guy, and Jane is telling you what a liability he is, i could never see this coming. Right....
Jeez, how many of these threads complaining about characters dying are there? I've been with Telltale since their second game. And I watched everyone play The Walking Dead and then start saying that Telltale wrote it wrong. Like it was a great story, but they hated episode 3 in season 1 and all the dying in season 2 was bad.
That's exactly what the franchise is built on! You introduce someone, they say something interesting, and then die for no reason. If you don't like it, stop watching. This isn't even the worst of it. Two well loved characters did all sorts of cool stuff and helped Rick and deserved really badass deaths. You know what happened to them? One got his head hacked off, no struggle, no last words. Another got an arrow through the back of the head. Died mid-sentence. And THE MOST beloved character in all of canon got beat to death somewhere after talking about how much he was looking forward to living a normal, protected life with his family.
So you know what? To hell with Nick, Sarah, Doug and Carley. There are far better characters out there given a much cheaper exit. And it's not "genius writing" or "cheap shock value", it's both and it's deliberate. If it isn't for you, stop holding your breath for something different.
All you've done is convince me that Kirkman is even worse of a writer than Season 2's. Glad I've never touched the comics.
"Anyone can die" is bullshit, because if you really want to commit to that style then you need to have the guts to kill off the primary protagonist in every episode. The longer that people die while the main character is unscathed, the more ridiculous and annoying the story becomes. It's particularly grating when it's a supporting character that gets the plot armor, as was the case with Jane & Kenny making it to the finale while all the supporting characters are thrown to the wayside.
Cheap shock value. I didn't have a problem with some of the deaths [Pete, Carlos, Alvin, Rebecca, Nick's first death, Sarah's first death] but some of the others were really poorly done. Luke's death was just the big cold slap in the face that has me frustrated they even went ahead with it. It's worse knowing his death at that lake was a rewrite and Jane was slotted in to take his place instead of drowning in the lake instead. Even Kenny being determinant, I wish he could've survived without that status
But honestly torkahn808, I'd rather hope Luke gets lucky too, and that they treat their characters better in the next season, because I'm really in a state of 'do I even bother with Season 3, or do I give them a chance to redeem themselves?' and this is from the fan that was super excited when Season 3 announced T_T I wanna be excited again but the excitement has been zapped from my core!
Gavin Hammon, the voice actor for Kenny, confirmed that Luke's death was in very early versions of the script. Luke was always supposed to die in that lake. If it makes you feel better, Gavin also said he believed that was cheap shock value.
Nowhere in here did I defend Kirkman. Disposable casts with a protagonist wearing plot armor is all he does. But no one at Telltale is a bad writer, far as I can tell. They're replicating Kirkman's style perfectly. For anyone who doesn't like the pointless death, I say pick up a different game. Fables and Monkey Island told great stories.
Then Telltale did a horrible job in replicating his style in season 1, the cast didn't feel disposable, they all held some significance, the deaths weren't cheap shots, but well constructed ideas that led up to their deaths, and none of the characters personalities changed. That's how a story should be, careful consideration to the cast, because your characters make the story.
I read on that, but somebody from another thread that got into the game stuff said there was an idea for Luke and Kenny to be lost in the blizzard and you could only save one. It's from the same person that found out all the things from Season 1 that got cut.
Although, it does make me feel better that Gavin said that T_T but it sad that he did say it too, because even he thinks it wasn't good.
i felt a lot of deaths were there to make s2 look good
s1's deaths seemed more realistic and not forced
I don't think it's good writing for the conflicts of previous episodes to be discarded in favor of new ones.
For example:
Episode 1 hinted that you were going to have to deal with the distrust of Carlos and Rebecca. That thread was lost as soon as Carver entered the picture in Episode 2 as the unambiguous bad guy.
Episode 4 hinted at a rivalry between Luke & Kenny, that is somehow inexplicably resolved after Kenny/Clem starts the gunfight that gets Mike injured, endangered the baby, and killed the Russians.
I underwent surgery, just so I could give you 4 thumbs up
I think TellTale should have fewer characters, but keep them around longer. Killing off around two characters per season is expected, but more than that affects their development, given the season/episode lengths.
In Season 2, I would have cut Jane and Mike from the character list and given the rest more screen time. I'm double-minded about Kenny, as I think his coming back was unrealistic (some may disagree), but his character's interactions with Clementine carried the story.
I felt that the deaths of Alvin, Carver, Rebecca and Walter were meaningful. So was Bonnie's death/departure. Perhaps Pete's death to develop Nick and Sarita's death to develop Kenny were fine as well. I feel that the rest of the characters (I'm typing in the direction of Nick, Luke, Carlos and Sarah) didn't have enough development. After their deaths, I can't easily answer what they contributed to the story. Why have Luke die suddenly and then have Silent Mike start talking and interacting with the group? They could have reduced one character and let the other have the combined screen time. I was particularly attached to Sarah and Carlos. Weak characters like Sarah can be very endearing (like Clementine was in Season 1) as it makes me want to care for them, and I didn't like the game's apparent message that the weak should be discarded/killed off, as pointed out in another thread.
As for Season 1, I'd have carried forward Carley and Kenny to Season 2. Carley was far more appealing than Jane, and not (apparently) killing off Kenny would avoid having to unrealistically (IMO) bring him back in Season 2.
So like the first season. But if it devolves into a cycle of pointless death, don't be surprised. I thought the game was revolutionary for what I expect from Kirkman's universe, season 1 was astounding. I think season 2 is just as good, but I know what to expect. If you think it's going to have the same weight every time the cycle of pointless, numbing death repeats itself, then you're expecting too much from a flimsy concept.
Kirkman designed this to be a zombie story that never ends. How long would you actually watch that?
At this point, good and unpredictable writing by Telltale would be to keep people alive instead of killing them. Or just give replacement characters better backstories. Bonnie appears in more episodes than Alvin or Carlos but is still a less interesting character.
Season 2 was genius writing.
Season 1 was bad.
Btw, people don't get their story arc ended before they die.
A character in a story gets development if they have info./facts that contributes to the story, and this was (and is) present in Season 2.
Not in Kirkman's world they don't.
You're the kind of guy who doesn't like being wrong, aren't you?
Well, I guess Telltale should stop considering Kirk man's style and go back to what they did in S1, considering that many people don't seem to care for Kirk man's style, if this franchise relies on shitty writing more than once, then maybe Telltale should actually try and improve this series to please everyone once again, no need to replicate shitty and lazy writing, based on what you're saying, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirk man had something do with S2's sloppy writing.
But in Telltale's(superior) version, they do, in S1 at least.
Cheap shock value, but sadly that seems to be a norm in the comics, at least from I've heard.
I'm seeing more people leaning on the cheap writing then I hoped
Why the fuck did no one post this on the forums then? Load of bullshit, that. People seem to love bashing the everliving hell out of Telltale when they have absolutely no creative writing qualifications and know nothing about what makes a story good.
People always have S1 to reference since it had better writing and knew how to develop characters and there actually are a few writers in the forums that think Telltale screwed up.