Agreed, but the pace of deaths is so high relative to the episode/season lengths, that the characters don't get sufficient development. That is the problem.
I just don't think any death needs to be meaningful at all.. It's a zombie apocalypse and shit will happen to anyone at any time. If every … moredeath were written to have meaning or go out in a blaze of glory, then that would make the entire story seem un-realistic.
Like Christa, we never saw what her fate was.. Many people want to know. Truth is, things will happen that no one can stop or alter and we may never know their fate. Same with Lilly.
We can all mourn the losses and wonder what happened or blame ourselves for making a choice that may have caused their death or depature and be left wondering what happened but we'll never get that answer or closure. Yeah it may suck, but it's realistic.
I guess I just take what Telltale has created and play it as it comes and not really disect every senerio into what I think it should have been or what others say they would prefer.
I can respect anyones opinions even though I really don't a… [view original content]
Someone circa-season 1 had an idea on the forums to end the series with a retrospective of everyone alive before the apocalypse. I think that would be really nice to have, so that some characters who really don't get full exposure can get a good moment.
I do know that. I respect your opinion regarding how you feel about the Nick's, Sarah's and Sarita's death. It is a shame that we'll never got more time to know them better.
And then when Nick got back on board, plot points got abandoned like the town and the Kenny vs Luke business. I really think i they had just stuck with the one guy the story wouldn't have been such a mess with ideas conflicting and needless rewrites.
Episode 1 and 2 were the best episodes of this Season and set things up really well, after that everything just went potty and the story lost it's direction.
Agreed with Bokor. It may have been convenient at the time to randomly switch the Luke and Kenny power struggle with Jane and Kenny because … moreit shocks viewers because no one expects it, but when you look at the Season as a whole, it really messes up everything consistency wise. I blame the dudes who wrote Ep. 3 and 4. Nick Breckon who wrote Ep. 1 and 2 had some really nice things going and when he wrote Ep. 5, all his threads were gone because the Cabin Group were all dead in pointless manners, leaving him no choice but to create something completely different.
So, you seriously think Season 1 had terrible writing while Season 2 has genius writing? I understand opinion, but there are quite a few things in this Season that simply are objectively pretty terrible.
This game is great and filled with plenty of dramatic moments and plot twists that few games wish they could rival. Every death seemed to have a purpose, if not for the person dying but definitely for Clem growing as a person on what you want her to be.
This game is great and filled with plenty of dramatic moments and plot twists that few games wish they could rival. Every death seemed to ha… moreve a purpose, if not for the person dying but definitely for Clem growing as a person on what you want her to be.
Every death had a purpose for the person dying? Yes because that usually happens when a person dies, they die.
Hardly any of the deaths had impact on how Clementine grew. Most of the deaths were just stupd and used purely for shock value. Kenny smashes Carver's face. Carlos is shot and devoured unexpectedly. Nick is found on a fence as a zombie. Sarah falls off the deck. Luke falls in the ice lake. It's an endless tale of misery and they don't do anything for Clementine, more like just more people she has lost.
This game is great and filled with plenty of dramatic moments and plot twists that few games wish they could rival. Every death seemed to ha… moreve a purpose, if not for the person dying but definitely for Clem growing as a person on what you want her to be.
So, you seriously think Season 1 had terrible writing while Season 2 has genius writing? I understand opinion, but there are quite a few things in this Season that simply are objectively pretty terrible.
Yep it's all in Clem's character development. She can either be pragmatic or show empathy towards her fallen comrades. You gotta realize that this game can have an effect on you, wanting to watch Carver die is your choice it may be because you didn't like him and want revenge. Nick dying taught Clem that she gotta be prepared to do what's necessary if bad things continue to happen to her friends. Sarah and Luke show that no matter what you can't save everyone. Granted I'm oversimplifying it, but all this hate on these character deaths are a bit irrational.
Every death had a purpose for the person dying? Yes because that usually happens when a person dies, they die.
Hardly any of the deaths h… moread impact on how Clementine grew. Most of the deaths were just stupd and used purely for shock value. Kenny smashes Carver's face. Carlos is shot and devoured unexpectedly. Nick is found on a fence as a zombie. Sarah falls off the deck. Luke falls in the ice lake. It's an endless tale of misery and they don't do anything for Clementine, more like just more people she has lost.
Why is everyone so obsessed with, who dies, and who survives? Thats not what the story is about, at all! Its about Clems life in a Cold merciless world. And i Hope we follow Clem as a teenager in season 3.
I'm a little (read: a lot) biased because I love Luke a lot, but I'll be as objective as I can when writing this.
Did it make sense in retrospect to kill off Luke before the ending with the way they wanted the finale to end like? Sure. He's a good natured guy, who cares about everybody in the group (even if he didn't like Kenny all that much, they were still part of the same team). He was arguably the glue of the group - Bonnie and Mike trusted and liked Luke more than Kenny, and Clementine can determinately feel the same towards him. His death was the catalyst for the breakdown of the group: Bonnie was heartbroken over Luke's death and none of the group members could tolerate Kenny anymore. There was no reason for them to stick around when the guy they liked as their leader and friend was gone. Not to mention, Luke would never allow Jane and Kenny to fight to the death. He would not stand for that, and he would prevent it as best he could. Fans could see a 'Luke vs. Kenny' choice from a mile away, not a 'Jane vs. Kenny' one.
However, predictable does not always mean boring or bad writing. The final 'Luke vs. Kenny' loyalty choice had proper buildup. You have Kenny, this aggressive, mentally unstable guy who you've known for awhile now (and who is, in turn, extremely loyal to you). On the other end, you got to meet this new guy, Luke. He's more cautious and logic-driven (opposed to Kenny, who thinks with his emotions), and never wavers in his kindness to you. The problem is that some players may, at times, question his leadership abilities. You also have not been around him as long as you have Kenny. It's your past loyalties conflicting your present loyalties. It makes sense. I have read so many comments by people saying they would have had a harder time choosing between them than Kenny and Jane. Why? Because they like them both!
Also, I think Luke had so much untapped potential. He could have easily been a major character and part of season three (provided he wasn't determinant). He had the foundation set for growth and more development. He was one at point described as Clementine's Clementine - he was there to question your choices (stealing from Arvo, watching Kenny murder Carver). We were already seeing a brother-sister bond between him and Clementine, which could have continued into season three. He was also the last tie to the cabin group - a close friend to the parents of AJ, and to the rest of the deceased group. Why does everyone have to die? Why can't we have a core group of characters surrounding the main (The Walking Dead show, for example, where multiple characters last many seasons alongside Carl and Rick).
So, did killing Luke off make sense for the ending they ended up writing? Yeah. In retrospect of character potential and storyline? No. They should have kept him.
Oh yeah, Nick's death was easily the worst they've ever done. It was an injustice to his character and an absolute waste considering how much screen time he got in episodes one and two. One of the only people in the group that got character development gets killed off screen and stuck on a fence? Where he's mentioned maybe once afterwards?
I think Kenny's return was okay the way it was. But I would have made it so he doesn't wake up after his beating by Carver. Sarita would be more than a plot device. He wouldn't have been such a HUGE part of the narrative after and we would have to bond with the cabin group.
If Kenny wasn't in the game. The story would have been a lot better.
Like it or not, Kenny's return was a HUGE moment in season two, and the fact fans are still arguing about it only proves its lasting power.
Couldn't have said it better. But yeah I agree, I would've liked more main characters to pull through to the third season and Luke could've been one of those guys that they could've built on and done so much more with.
I'm a little (read: a lot) biased because I love Luke a lot, but I'll be as objective as I can when writing this.
Did it make sense in re… moretrospect to kill off Luke before the ending with the way they wanted the finale to end like? Sure. He's a good natured guy, who cares about everybody in the group (even if he didn't like Kenny all that much, they were still part of the same team). He was arguably the glue of the group - Bonnie and Mike trusted and liked Luke more than Kenny, and Clementine can determinately feel the same towards him. His death was the catalyst for the breakdown of the group: Bonnie was heartbroken over Luke's death and none of the group members could tolerate Kenny anymore. There was no reason for them to stick around when the guy they liked as their leader and friend was gone. Not to mention, Luke would never allow Jane and Kenny to fight to the death. He would not stand for that, and he would prevent it as best he could… [view original content]
Just because people still argue about it doesn't mean it's good.
Some people argue about it since Kenny didn't have any reason to come back or actively took away from their experience. He just came in and soaked up all screen time.
If Kenny wasn't in the game. The story would have been a lot better.
Like it or not, Kenny's return was a HUGE moment in season two, and the fact fans are still arguing about it only proves its lasting power.
Couldn't have said it better. But yeah I agree, I would've liked more main characters to pull through to the third season and Luke could've been one of those guys that they could've built on and done so much more with.
Some people argue about it since Kenny didn't have any reason to come back or actively took away from their experience. He just came in and soaked up all screen time.
...and here we are, arguing about it. Doesn't that just prove my point?
At any rate, "soaking up all screen time" is pretty questionable, considering the bulk of episode 2 centred heavily around Nick's conflict with Walter.
Just because people still argue about it doesn't mean it's good.
Some people argue about it since Kenny didn't have any reason to come back or actively took away from their experience. He just came in and soaked up all screen time.
Yep it's all in Clem's character development. She can either be pragmatic or show empathy towards her fallen comrades. You gotta realize tha… moret this game can have an effect on you, wanting to watch Carver die is your choice it may be because you didn't like him and want revenge. Nick dying taught Clem that she gotta be prepared to do what's necessary if bad things continue to happen to her friends. Sarah and Luke show that no matter what you can't save everyone. Granted I'm oversimplifying it, but all this hate on these character deaths are a bit irrational.
Yep it's all in Clem's character development. She can either be pragmatic or show empathy towards her fallen comrades. You gotta realize tha… moret this game can have an effect on you, wanting to watch Carver die is your choice it may be because you didn't like him and want revenge. Nick dying taught Clem that she gotta be prepared to do what's necessary if bad things continue to happen to her friends. Sarah and Luke show that no matter what you can't save everyone. Granted I'm oversimplifying it, but all this hate on these character deaths are a bit irrational.
It's definitely weird; obviously, Clem can't save everyone so depending on what she does, she can't do certain actions, but that just seems like an excuse for the cheap shock value. What I wanted to see was different characters that would appear and would affect the plot depending on your choices, but I assume it was too much. Again, it seemed Telltale took on too many projects and that seemed to make the episodes suffer. IDK, if S3 has at least one varying episode (from S2 endings) I would definitely be happy with that.
But as for the writing of S2, I thought it was OK. The choice illusion was obvious at times because it usually followed the cross diamond path. It even felt like a movie at some points, but I still loved S2 as a sequel.
Me too. His death sucked! ;_; Barry's cheesy death in Resident Evil 1 was better than what Luke got for crying out loud!
Mostly because it's the funniest thing going, BUT THAT'S BESIDES THE POINT!
quinnics , as a fellow Luke fan, I fucking love you.
I agree so much with all that you just said, especially this part:
However, predictable does not always mean boring or bad writing.
I kind of feel that TTG had originally wanted to do a Luke vs Kenny thing, but when episode 2 released and everyone was predicting, "Oh noes! They're going to make us choose between Kenny and Luke!" and then TTG was like, "Fuck, everyone knows what the final choice will be. We have to change it to be edgy and shocking and unpredictable! Let's create a new character and shove her into the last few episodes and have her be one of the final choices! They'll never see it coming!" It's like they sacrificed all that good storytelling buildup for the sake of being unpredictable and shocking.
I mean, the Kenny vs. Jane storyline didn't really start until late episode 4. The Kenny vs. Luke storyline began the moment that they met, with Kenny questioning if he can trust Luke (and the rest of the cabin group), and it was developed rather well in episodes 2-4. Kenny vs. Jane just feels tacked on at the last moment. I dunno, I just feel like Telltale really missed out on something incredible when they decided to kill off Luke. The Kenny vs. Luke choice would have been more emotional IMO.
I'm a little (read: a lot) biased because I love Luke a lot, but I'll be as objective as I can when writing this.
Did it make sense in re… moretrospect to kill off Luke before the ending with the way they wanted the finale to end like? Sure. He's a good natured guy, who cares about everybody in the group (even if he didn't like Kenny all that much, they were still part of the same team). He was arguably the glue of the group - Bonnie and Mike trusted and liked Luke more than Kenny, and Clementine can determinately feel the same towards him. His death was the catalyst for the breakdown of the group: Bonnie was heartbroken over Luke's death and none of the group members could tolerate Kenny anymore. There was no reason for them to stick around when the guy they liked as their leader and friend was gone. Not to mention, Luke would never allow Jane and Kenny to fight to the death. He would not stand for that, and he would prevent it as best he could… [view original content]
Season 2 centred around Kenny from episode 2, let's face it... even the Jane fight centred around Kenny and Tell Tale just made Jane a character who becomes easy to hate in the end despite her being a good and helpful character before that and Kenny was a character who became easy to forgive for all his past actions, it really felt like Tell Tale wanted me to pick Season 1 over Season 2.
Exactly. It's incredibly disheartening to see a character like Luke go to waste just because they wanted a shock ending. I've seen a lot of people debating about who they would choose if it came down to Kenny and Luke - that sort of heated discussion should be exactly why they keep it in. It becomes a choice of "I don't want to have to kill either of them" (for most) as opposed to what we did get which was "...I don't really like either of them." For me, it was a who do I dislike least kind of thought process for Jane and Kenny.
There was literally no payoff in siding with Luke for anything at the end of it all. I liked the idea of a rivalry between the two because it wasn't something born out of stupidity. It's natural for two leaders to butt heads when they have conflicting ideas on how to run the group and where to go next. For three episodes, we've had to listen to Kenny and Luke bicker with each other and be stuck in the middle of it. It doesn't matter if we're always agreeing with Luke's plans because he drowns. He drowns no matter what we say or what we do. It's not fair to the people who sided with Luke throughout the season. We got absolutely nothing out of it except an angry Kenny. Whereas if you were Kenny's best friend, it works out in your favor because not only do you have a fantastic relationship with him, but you literally get to walk off into the sunset with him and AJ. At least if there was 'Kenny vs. Luke' choice, we would be able to end up with the person we wanted instead of being stuck with two people we want to be far away from. Them killing off Luke after all this development is like saying, "you've sided with Luke on every argument? Sorry kid, he's still gonna die and you're gonna be stuck with Kenny no matter what. ENJOY."
Kenny's character arc is done. His story has been told. He started out the zombie apocalypse, lost his family, became part of a new one, lost his mind, and could either go out by Clementine's hand or by sacrificing his own needs for Clem and AJs. Luke's story was incomplete. There was so much more we could have learned about him - so much room for growth in his character. Luke could easily be just as protective of AJ since he's the last connection Luke has to Rebecca and Alvin. All season long we saw him struggle with trying to be the leader his group needs but feeling like he has yet to do right by them. We saw him question any questionable choices Clementine makes, while struggling on his own with balancing survival and his morals. What about the sibling bond we saw them building through banter and team work? There's so much more to him that we'll never get to explore. whines
I get chills just thinking about how intense and dramatic a final choice between the two would be. Ahhh.
quinnics , as a fellow Luke fan, I fucking love you.
I agree so much with all that you just said, especially this part:
However, pr… moreedictable does not always mean boring or bad writing.
I kind of feel that TTG had originally wanted to do a Luke vs Kenny thing, but when episode 2 released and everyone was predicting, "Oh noes! They're going to make us choose between Kenny and Luke!" and then TTG was like, "Fuck, everyone knows what the final choice will be. We have to change it to be edgy and shocking and unpredictable! Let's create a new character and shove her into the last few episodes and have her be one of the final choices! They'll never see it coming!" It's like they sacrificed all that good storytelling buildup for the sake of being unpredictable and shocking.
I mean, the Kenny vs. Jane storyline didn't really start until late episode 4. The Kenny vs. Luke storyline began the moment that they met, with Kenny questio… [view original content]
Oh it's going very nicely, thanks for asking I'm busy tuning up Growing Pains currently before I finish up the first chapter on the sequel. Sialark's been helping me with the grammar [I just can't figure out these damn semicolons it's ridiculous! ;_; I even miss some of the semicolon changes she added for me! Eck! Me and semicolon were not meant for each other.] plus I have been adding some new scenes, like they'll be a few new things in Part 2 once that's done. But on sequel matters I got quite a lot planned out and the very first draft of chapter 1 is there, just...um, very messy at the moment. It'll be 5 chapters in total, some veeeery long chapters like the last chapter of Growing Pains was.
Now, ten points if you can guess correctly who's perspective it follows? >.> <.< go on, I dare you.
Oh it's going very nicely, thanks for asking I'm busy tuning up Growing Pains currently before I finish up the first chapter on the sequel.… more Sialark's been helping me with the grammar [I just can't figure out these damn semicolons it's ridiculous! ;_; I even miss some of the semicolon changes she added for me! Eck! Me and semicolon were not meant for each other.] plus I have been adding some new scenes, like they'll be a few new things in Part 2 once that's done. But on sequel matters I got quite a lot planned out and the very first draft of chapter 1 is there, just...um, very messy at the moment. It'll be 5 chapters in total, some veeeery long chapters like the last chapter of Growing Pains was.
Now, ten points if you can guess correctly who's perspective it follows? >.> <.< go on, I dare you.
What development.we got more development from clem in season one than we did with season 2.just tiny bits and pieces of her story and such.by development I mean her past BTW.
Yep it's all in Clem's character development. She can either be pragmatic or show empathy towards her fallen comrades. You gotta realize tha… moret this game can have an effect on you, wanting to watch Carver die is your choice it may be because you didn't like him and want revenge. Nick dying taught Clem that she gotta be prepared to do what's necessary if bad things continue to happen to her friends. Sarah and Luke show that no matter what you can't save everyone. Granted I'm oversimplifying it, but all this hate on these character deaths are a bit irrational.
Kenny randomly walks up immediately after you decide to do with the last piece of food
"Hey Lee, thanks for looking out for me and my family, but not everybody is gonna be happy with your choices." Kenny randomly walks away after making an angry face and shaking his head
Yeaaaahhhhh.... THANKS KENNY FOR SPELLING IT OUT TO ME THAT NOT EVERY CHARACTER IS GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH MY CHOICES I HAD NO IDEA!!!!!
"Do you know what we did to get this stuff? We let some girl get eaten so that we would have enough time to clear everything out!" says Kenny.
"Really? You couldn't save her?" says Carly.
"Don't take that tone with him!" says Kenny. "You should be thanking him for not shooting that girl. First smart thing he's done in a while."
Wait huh? Nobody said anything about shooting her
(much later)
"Well what about the rest of us? Don't we get a vote?" zombies bust in and kill her in a horrifying manner
"NOW can we go?" says Molly.
"Hell yeah!" says Lee.
(Nobody so much as blinks over the horrifying death. Clem doesn't even scream IIRC. Everybody is extra extra calm. No sad faces or scared faces or anything.... just "default character neutral face" the whole time....)
Season 1 was chocked full of moments like this that just made me tilt my head and frown. I quickly forgave the game for these moments, but it had WAY more of them than season 2 did, all writing related.
I liked the story arch a lot in both games and I cannot say which one I really like better. Season 1 had a clear goal most of the time, where season 2 is a lot more bleak and "survive" is clearest goal. I like both stories for what they are. Both are well done. I just enjoyed actually playing season 2 a little better and really appreciated the lack of so many dialogue hiccups.
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.
I liked season 2, but the only problem I have with it is Luke's death and not just because I'm a Luke fan and would love to see him alive, I just didn't get why they would kill off a character they built up when they could have done so much more with him, and then when they said on the spoilercast that they basically killed him off for shock I was mad about that. I get that it's the walking dead and no character is safe but from a story telling perspective it didn't seem to serve any purpose to me except to shock the players and knowing that my favourite character was killed purely for shock purposes is annoying. But, other than that I enjoyed season 2 c:
What development.we got more development from clem in season one than we did with season 2.just tiny bits and pieces of her story and such.by development I mean her past BTW.
Did it really though. 2 scenes showed the effect of Walter Vs Nick. And if you walked into a room shoot in the air attempting to hit someone but miss, does that make it effective?
Some people argue about it since Kenny didn't have any reason to come back or actively took away from their experience. He just came in and … moresoaked up all screen time.
...and here we are, arguing about it. Doesn't that just prove my point?
At any rate, "soaking up all screen time" is pretty questionable, considering the bulk of episode 2 centred heavily around Nick's conflict with Walter.
Did it really though. 2 scenes showed the effect of Walter Vs Nick. And if you walked into a room shoot in the air attempting to hit someone but miss, does that make it effective?
Ah quinnics! I love everything you said, because I agree with all of it, but I still would've rather the final choice not be between Luke and Kenny, because throughout the whole season everything felt so unbalanced and more in Kenny's favour if it ever did come down to that choice, and in the end the final choice wasn't really between choosing to save Jane over Kenny or Kenny over Jane, it was essentially choosing to shoot Kenny or not.
It would've been much better in my opinion if Luke had just survived the season, and wasn't a determinant character like Jane and Kenny ended up being, because like you said he had so much potential to carry on... plus with the way they treated determinant characters this season, I'd rather he not go into season 3 being determinant. That being said though, I do think they planned from the beginning to kill off Luke to make the final choice "shocking", but I don't think that idea was very good, so they probably should've changed it, especially since Luke was a nice guy and a likeable character, so it was pretty predictable that he would die. It would've been far more shocking if he had survived. I think they just made a poor decision when they decided to kill off Luke for shock value.
Exactly. It's incredibly disheartening to see a character like Luke go to waste just because they wanted a shock ending. I've seen a lot of … morepeople debating about who they would choose if it came down to Kenny and Luke - that sort of heated discussion should be exactly why they keep it in. It becomes a choice of "I don't want to have to kill either of them" (for most) as opposed to what we did get which was "...I don't really like either of them." For me, it was a who do I dislike least kind of thought process for Jane and Kenny.
There was literally no payoff in siding with Luke for anything at the end of it all. I liked the idea of a rivalry between the two because it wasn't something born out of stupidity. It's natural for two leaders to butt heads when they have conflicting ideas on how to run the group and where to go next. For three episodes, we've had to listen to Kenny and Luke bicker with each other and be stuck in the middle of it.… [view original content]
Think about the theme of the season. Sometimes good people do bad things. That means every character tied to that theme was going to lose their identity scrambling to survive. It happens with Kenny, Jane, Bonnie, Mike and supposedly with Carver too. I think Luke dying in the lake is the only way to end his arc. He wasn't going to turn out bad, he was going to protect you until the end. And he did.
I liked season 2, but the only problem I have with it is Luke's death and not just because I'm a Luke fan and would love to see him alive, I… more just didn't get why they would kill off a character they built up when they could have done so much more with him, and then when they said on the spoilercast that they basically killed him off for shock I was mad about that. I get that it's the walking dead and no character is safe but from a story telling perspective it didn't seem to serve any purpose to me except to shock the players and knowing that my favourite character was killed purely for shock purposes is annoying. But, other than that I enjoyed season 2 c:
Comments
Agreed, but the pace of deaths is so high relative to the episode/season lengths, that the characters don't get sufficient development. That is the problem.
Someone circa-season 1 had an idea on the forums to end the series with a retrospective of everyone alive before the apocalypse. I think that would be really nice to have, so that some characters who really don't get full exposure can get a good moment.
If Kenny wasn't in the game. The story would have been a lot better.
And then when Nick got back on board, plot points got abandoned like the town and the Kenny vs Luke business. I really think i they had just stuck with the one guy the story wouldn't have been such a mess with ideas conflicting and needless rewrites.
Episode 1 and 2 were the best episodes of this Season and set things up really well, after that everything just went potty and the story lost it's direction.
So, you seriously think Season 1 had terrible writing while Season 2 has genius writing? I understand opinion, but there are quite a few things in this Season that simply are objectively pretty terrible.
This game is great and filled with plenty of dramatic moments and plot twists that few games wish they could rival. Every death seemed to have a purpose, if not for the person dying but definitely for Clem growing as a person on what you want her to be.
Yeah, sure you've got nothing else except praising S2, seems to be your only function.
Every death had a purpose for the person dying? Yes because that usually happens when a person dies, they die.
Hardly any of the deaths had impact on how Clementine grew. Most of the deaths were just stupd and used purely for shock value. Kenny smashes Carver's face. Carlos is shot and devoured unexpectedly. Nick is found on a fence as a zombie. Sarah falls off the deck. Luke falls in the ice lake. It's an endless tale of misery and they don't do anything for Clementine, more like just more people she has lost.
Umm.. that's cause I like both. Too much negativity around here you're kinda bumming people out.
I never said anything about Season 1's writing.
The problem is that it's "too long" with the unnecessary hubs.
Yep it's all in Clem's character development. She can either be pragmatic or show empathy towards her fallen comrades. You gotta realize that this game can have an effect on you, wanting to watch Carver die is your choice it may be because you didn't like him and want revenge. Nick dying taught Clem that she gotta be prepared to do what's necessary if bad things continue to happen to her friends. Sarah and Luke show that no matter what you can't save everyone. Granted I'm oversimplifying it, but all this hate on these character deaths are a bit irrational.
Yes, but when a story is predictable like that it doesn't make it great, and I was using character deaths as an example.
I'm a little (read: a lot) biased because I love Luke a lot, but I'll be as objective as I can when writing this.
Did it make sense in retrospect to kill off Luke before the ending with the way they wanted the finale to end like? Sure. He's a good natured guy, who cares about everybody in the group (even if he didn't like Kenny all that much, they were still part of the same team). He was arguably the glue of the group - Bonnie and Mike trusted and liked Luke more than Kenny, and Clementine can determinately feel the same towards him. His death was the catalyst for the breakdown of the group: Bonnie was heartbroken over Luke's death and none of the group members could tolerate Kenny anymore. There was no reason for them to stick around when the guy they liked as their leader and friend was gone. Not to mention, Luke would never allow Jane and Kenny to fight to the death. He would not stand for that, and he would prevent it as best he could. Fans could see a 'Luke vs. Kenny' choice from a mile away, not a 'Jane vs. Kenny' one.
However, predictable does not always mean boring or bad writing. The final 'Luke vs. Kenny' loyalty choice had proper buildup. You have Kenny, this aggressive, mentally unstable guy who you've known for awhile now (and who is, in turn, extremely loyal to you). On the other end, you got to meet this new guy, Luke. He's more cautious and logic-driven (opposed to Kenny, who thinks with his emotions), and never wavers in his kindness to you. The problem is that some players may, at times, question his leadership abilities. You also have not been around him as long as you have Kenny. It's your past loyalties conflicting your present loyalties. It makes sense. I have read so many comments by people saying they would have had a harder time choosing between them than Kenny and Jane. Why? Because they like them both!
Also, I think Luke had so much untapped potential. He could have easily been a major character and part of season three (provided he wasn't determinant). He had the foundation set for growth and more development. He was one at point described as Clementine's Clementine - he was there to question your choices (stealing from Arvo, watching Kenny murder Carver). We were already seeing a brother-sister bond between him and Clementine, which could have continued into season three. He was also the last tie to the cabin group - a close friend to the parents of AJ, and to the rest of the deceased group. Why does everyone have to die? Why can't we have a core group of characters surrounding the main (The Walking Dead show, for example, where multiple characters last many seasons alongside Carl and Rick).
So, did killing Luke off make sense for the ending they ended up writing? Yeah. In retrospect of character potential and storyline? No. They should have kept him.
Oh yeah, Nick's death was easily the worst they've ever done. It was an injustice to his character and an absolute waste considering how much screen time he got in episodes one and two. One of the only people in the group that got character development gets killed off screen and stuck on a fence? Where he's mentioned maybe once afterwards?
Like it or not, Kenny's return was a HUGE moment in season two, and the fact fans are still arguing about it only proves its lasting power.
I think Kenny's return was okay the way it was. But I would have made it so he doesn't wake up after his beating by Carver. Sarita would be more than a plot device. He wouldn't have been such a HUGE part of the narrative after and we would have to bond with the cabin group.
Couldn't have said it better. But yeah I agree, I would've liked more main characters to pull through to the third season and Luke could've been one of those guys that they could've built on and done so much more with.
Just because people still argue about it doesn't mean it's good.
Some people argue about it since Kenny didn't have any reason to come back or actively took away from their experience. He just came in and soaked up all screen time.
I just have a lot of feelings about Luke. sobs
...and here we are, arguing about it. Doesn't that just prove my point?
At any rate, "soaking up all screen time" is pretty questionable, considering the bulk of episode 2 centred heavily around Nick's conflict with Walter.
Me too. His death sucked! ;_; Barry's cheesy death in Resident Evil 1 was better than what Luke got for crying out loud!
Mostly because it's the funniest thing going, BUT THAT'S BESIDES THE POINT!
I think it's needed tremendously, because Telltale might make the same stupid mistake again.
But we already knew this. There was no point in reinforcing this theme again. To be honest, I couldn't find any meaning to his demise.
It's
It's definitely weird; obviously, Clem can't save everyone so depending on what she does, she can't do certain actions, but that just seems like an excuse for the cheap shock value. What I wanted to see was different characters that would appear and would affect the plot depending on your choices, but I assume it was too much. Again, it seemed Telltale took on too many projects and that seemed to make the episodes suffer. IDK, if S3 has at least one varying episode (from S2 endings) I would definitely be happy with that.
But as for the writing of S2, I thought it was OK. The choice illusion was obvious at times because it usually followed the cross diamond path. It even felt like a movie at some points, but I still loved S2 as a sequel.
By the way, how's the Growing Pains sequel coming? :')
quinnics , as a fellow Luke fan, I fucking love you.
I agree so much with all that you just said, especially this part:
I kind of feel that TTG had originally wanted to do a Luke vs Kenny thing, but when episode 2 released and everyone was predicting, "Oh noes! They're going to make us choose between Kenny and Luke!" and then TTG was like, "Fuck, everyone knows what the final choice will be. We have to change it to be edgy and shocking and unpredictable! Let's create a new character and shove her into the last few episodes and have her be one of the final choices! They'll never see it coming!" It's like they sacrificed all that good storytelling buildup for the sake of being unpredictable and shocking.
I mean, the Kenny vs. Jane storyline didn't really start until late episode 4. The Kenny vs. Luke storyline began the moment that they met, with Kenny questioning if he can trust Luke (and the rest of the cabin group), and it was developed rather well in episodes 2-4. Kenny vs. Jane just feels tacked on at the last moment. I dunno, I just feel like Telltale really missed out on something incredible when they decided to kill off Luke. The Kenny vs. Luke choice would have been more emotional IMO.
Season 2 centred around Kenny from episode 2, let's face it... even the Jane fight centred around Kenny and Tell Tale just made Jane a character who becomes easy to hate in the end despite her being a good and helpful character before that and Kenny was a character who became easy to forgive for all his past actions, it really felt like Tell Tale wanted me to pick Season 1 over Season 2.
Exactly. It's incredibly disheartening to see a character like Luke go to waste just because they wanted a shock ending. I've seen a lot of people debating about who they would choose if it came down to Kenny and Luke - that sort of heated discussion should be exactly why they keep it in. It becomes a choice of "I don't want to have to kill either of them" (for most) as opposed to what we did get which was "...I don't really like either of them." For me, it was a who do I dislike least kind of thought process for Jane and Kenny.
There was literally no payoff in siding with Luke for anything at the end of it all. I liked the idea of a rivalry between the two because it wasn't something born out of stupidity. It's natural for two leaders to butt heads when they have conflicting ideas on how to run the group and where to go next. For three episodes, we've had to listen to Kenny and Luke bicker with each other and be stuck in the middle of it. It doesn't matter if we're always agreeing with Luke's plans because he drowns. He drowns no matter what we say or what we do. It's not fair to the people who sided with Luke throughout the season. We got absolutely nothing out of it except an angry Kenny. Whereas if you were Kenny's best friend, it works out in your favor because not only do you have a fantastic relationship with him, but you literally get to walk off into the sunset with him and AJ. At least if there was 'Kenny vs. Luke' choice, we would be able to end up with the person we wanted instead of being stuck with two people we want to be far away from. Them killing off Luke after all this development is like saying, "you've sided with Luke on every argument? Sorry kid, he's still gonna die and you're gonna be stuck with Kenny no matter what. ENJOY."
Kenny's character arc is done. His story has been told. He started out the zombie apocalypse, lost his family, became part of a new one, lost his mind, and could either go out by Clementine's hand or by sacrificing his own needs for Clem and AJs. Luke's story was incomplete. There was so much more we could have learned about him - so much room for growth in his character. Luke could easily be just as protective of AJ since he's the last connection Luke has to Rebecca and Alvin. All season long we saw him struggle with trying to be the leader his group needs but feeling like he has yet to do right by them. We saw him question any questionable choices Clementine makes, while struggling on his own with balancing survival and his morals. What about the sibling bond we saw them building through banter and team work? There's so much more to him that we'll never get to explore. whines
I get chills just thinking about how intense and dramatic a final choice between the two would be. Ahhh.
Oh it's going very nicely, thanks for asking
I'm busy tuning up Growing Pains currently before I finish up the first chapter on the sequel. Sialark's been helping me with the grammar [I just can't figure out these damn semicolons it's ridiculous! ;_; I even miss some of the semicolon changes she added for me! Eck! Me and semicolon were not meant for each other.] plus I have been adding some new scenes, like they'll be a few new things in Part 2 once that's done. But on sequel matters I got quite a lot planned out and the very first draft of chapter 1 is there, just...um, very messy at the moment. It'll be 5 chapters in total, some veeeery long chapters like the last chapter of Growing Pains was.
Now, ten points if you can guess correctly who's perspective it follows? >.> <.< go on, I dare you.
LUKE'S. At least from what I remember of what you showed me.
What development.we got more development from clem in season one than we did with season 2.just tiny bits and pieces of her story and such.by development I mean her past BTW.
Each scene going purely off of memory here:
Kenny randomly walks up immediately after you decide to do with the last piece of food
"Hey Lee, thanks for looking out for me and my family, but not everybody is gonna be happy with your choices."
Kenny randomly walks away after making an angry face and shaking his head
Yeaaaahhhhh.... THANKS KENNY FOR SPELLING IT OUT TO ME THAT NOT EVERY CHARACTER IS GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH MY CHOICES I HAD NO IDEA!!!!!
"Do you know what we did to get this stuff? We let some girl get eaten so that we would have enough time to clear everything out!" says Kenny.
"Really? You couldn't save her?" says Carly.
"Don't take that tone with him!" says Kenny. "You should be thanking him for not shooting that girl. First smart thing he's done in a while."
Wait huh? Nobody said anything about shooting her
(much later)
"Well what about the rest of us? Don't we get a vote?"
zombies bust in and kill her in a horrifying manner
"NOW can we go?" says Molly.
"Hell yeah!" says Lee.
(Nobody so much as blinks over the horrifying death. Clem doesn't even scream IIRC. Everybody is extra extra calm. No sad faces or scared faces or anything.... just "default character neutral face" the whole time....)
Season 1 was chocked full of moments like this that just made me tilt my head and frown. I quickly forgave the game for these moments, but it had WAY more of them than season 2 did, all writing related.
I liked the story arch a lot in both games and I cannot say which one I really like better. Season 1 had a clear goal most of the time, where season 2 is a lot more bleak and "survive" is clearest goal. I like both stories for what they are. Both are well done. I just enjoyed actually playing season 2 a little better and really appreciated the lack of so many dialogue hiccups.
I think Season 2 was great and all but it did suffer from bad writing like handling Nick and Luke's deaths, among other things.
Wrong! Waffles is the main protagonist this time around. Tsk tsk tsk, shame on you Quinnics.
And I totally forgot about that! XD
I liked season 2, but the only problem I have with it is Luke's death and not just because I'm a Luke fan and would love to see him alive, I just didn't get why they would kill off a character they built up when they could have done so much more with him, and then when they said on the spoilercast that they basically killed him off for shock I was mad about that. I get that it's the walking dead and no character is safe but from a story telling perspective it didn't seem to serve any purpose to me except to shock the players and knowing that my favourite character was killed purely for shock purposes is annoying. But, other than that I enjoyed season 2 c:
Development does not equal back story. It equals development. As in developing as the story goes on.
Did it really though. 2 scenes showed the effect of Walter Vs Nick. And if you walked into a room shoot in the air attempting to hit someone but miss, does that make it effective?
Yeah, the Walter vs. Nick angle was short, but it was pretty powerful. Probably the most memorable thing for me in episode 2.
Ah quinnics! I love everything you said, because I agree with all of it, but I still would've rather the final choice not be between Luke and Kenny, because throughout the whole season everything felt so unbalanced and more in Kenny's favour if it ever did come down to that choice, and in the end the final choice wasn't really between choosing to save Jane over Kenny or Kenny over Jane, it was essentially choosing to shoot Kenny or not.
It would've been much better in my opinion if Luke had just survived the season, and wasn't a determinant character like Jane and Kenny ended up being, because like you said he had so much potential to carry on... plus with the way they treated determinant characters this season, I'd rather he not go into season 3 being determinant. That being said though, I do think they planned from the beginning to kill off Luke to make the final choice "shocking", but I don't think that idea was very good, so they probably should've changed it, especially since Luke was a nice guy and a likeable character, so it was pretty predictable that he would die. It would've been far more shocking if he had survived. I think they just made a poor decision when they decided to kill off Luke for shock value.
Think about the theme of the season. Sometimes good people do bad things. That means every character tied to that theme was going to lose their identity scrambling to survive. It happens with Kenny, Jane, Bonnie, Mike and supposedly with Carver too. I think Luke dying in the lake is the only way to end his arc. He wasn't going to turn out bad, he was going to protect you until the end. And he did.
Character arc fulfilled.
Clem becoming a guardian for others and totally losing her innocence is character development. Having a dream that Lee was alive again isn't.