Well, I disagree. I didn't feel very invested in Braveheart because it didn't really cater to my tastes. That's not the fault of the writers, of course. Sure, a three-hundred page edited novel is obviously going to be superior to a three-year old's childish scrawlings but when it comes to fiction you can always subjectively argue whether the story's flaws ruin the rest of the content. In my opinion Season 2 had enough redeeming qualities and hit the perfect spots thematically to the point that it was superior to the first season, which by the way, I still love and adore with all my heart. I'll always miss little Clem. :P
You're missing the point. Braveheart is regarded as a well written story due to the things I previously listed (and others) whether you enjo… morey it or not. It is a better and more well written story than others and this can be objectively founded whether you liked it or not. The same can be said for TTG TWD.
No, you're never going to convince me that Nick and Sarah's death weren't cheap and lazily written, you don't just kill off characters when their character arcs were JUST going somewhere, that's bad writing, especially compared to the S1.
I'm not making comparisons. I picked random characters and judged which I preferred, my point being that Season 2's characters were far from significantly worse than the first's. Both Pete and Shawn were one off characters. They both lasted for a short period of time. If you want a better comparison then I can say that I preferred Pete as a character over Molly, who seemed excessively 'badass' and assassin-like for my tastes.
For one, Shawn was a one off character and has nothing in common with Pete, and Kat and Nick aren't even the same, so bad comparison there. Pete was fine, Nick was fine until episode 3 where the entire season went downhill.
Well, I disagree. I didn't feel very invested in Braveheart because it didn't really cater to my tastes. That's not the fault of the writers… more, of course. Sure, a three-hundred page edited novel is obviously going to be superior to a three-year old's childish scrawlings but when it comes to fiction you can always subjectively argue whether the story's flaws ruin the rest of the content. In my opinion Season 2 had enough redeeming qualities and hit the perfect spots thematically to the point that it was superior to the first season, which by the way, I still love and adore with all my heart. I'll always miss little Clem. :P
Nick and Sarah were way more interesting than Carley and Doug. Carley was the technologically inept, stereotypical female reporter serving as a love interest and Doug was a plain tech nerd. Nick and Sarah were more than simple character slates.
No, you're never going to convince me that Nick and Sarah's death weren't cheap and lazily written, you don't just kill off characters when their character arcs were JUST going somewhere, that's bad writing, especially compared to the S1.
And there's the passive aggression! Cool, not sure what else I expected. For fuck's sake, people are incapable of keeping their jimmies unrustled during discussions. It's worse than primary school Ethics & Philosophy class here.
I get your fucking point and I believe you're completely incorrect. Yes, someone disagrees with you! Astounding, I know!
You CAN NOT objectively determine the quality of a fucking fictional story. That's absurd. Season 1 had irritating flaws and so did Season 2. I preferred the second overall, and do not believe the issues people have with it are as significant as they make them out to be. That's all there is to it. Your opinion isn't fact, sorry!
And there's the passive aggression! Cool, not sure what else I expected. For fuck's sake, people are incapable of keeping their jimmies unru… morestled during discussions. It's worse than primary school Ethics & Philosophy class here.
I get your fucking point and I believe you're completely incorrect. Yes, someone disagrees with you! Astounding, I know!
You CAN NOT objectively determine the quality of a fucking fictional story. That's absurd. Season 1 had irritating flaws and so did Season 2. I preferred the second overall, and do not believe the issues people have with it are as significant as they make them out to be. That's all there is to it. Your opinion isn't fact, sorry!
^ He speaks the truth. If writing could be broken down as good or bad as simple as that, nobody would make bad films and they certainly wouldn't spend $150 million on them. And yet people do all the time. Those things are great tools of storytelling, great for the troubleshooting, great for interesting analysis. They are not the be all and end all of everything and story cannot be rated objectively.
And there's the passive aggression! Cool, not sure what else I expected. For fuck's sake, people are incapable of keeping their jimmies unru… morestled during discussions. It's worse than primary school Ethics & Philosophy class here.
I get your fucking point and I believe you're completely incorrect. Yes, someone disagrees with you! Astounding, I know!
You CAN NOT objectively determine the quality of a fucking fictional story. That's absurd. Season 1 had irritating flaws and so did Season 2. I preferred the second overall, and do not believe the issues people have with it are as significant as they make them out to be. That's all there is to it. Your opinion isn't fact, sorry!
^ He speaks the truth. If writing could be broken down as good or bad as simple as that, nobody would make bad films and they certainly woul… moredn't spend $150 million on them. And yet people do all the time. Those things are great tools of storytelling, great for the troubleshooting, great for interesting analysis. They are not the be all and end all of everything and story cannot be rated objectively.
Opinion is good though.
Season One has small flaws, unlike Season Two which were more obvious. Season Two has tons of character inconsistencies, unfinished arcs and deaths were only for shock factor, and contributed little to the story. The most noticeably problem in Season Two is the choices, they barely affected anything in the story. Season One did the same thing but the illusion of choice better than S2, other characters interacted differently with the player but S2 didn't do this at all.
I don't have much else to say, but I do agree that S2 does have some unfair criticism and TONS of people nitpicking.
I like them both equally. Though if I had a gun to my head, I would probably pick Season 1. But they really are both great. Season 2 gets alot of unnecessary hate.
I like them both equally. Though if I had a gun to my head, I would probably pick Season 1. But they really are both great. Season 2 gets alot of unnecessary hate.
Agreed, thanks for contributing without being a prick. xD Season 2 had some issues, bigger than the first's, yeah, but I liked a lot of it and enjoyed it more than Season 1. All a matter of taste, I suppose.
Season One has small flaws, unlike Season Two which were more obvious. Season Two has tons of character inconsistencies, unfinished arcs and… more deaths were only for shock factor, and contributed little to the story. The most noticeably problem in Season Two is the choices, they barely affected anything in the story. Season One did the same thing but the illusion of choice better than S2, other characters interacted differently with the player but S2 didn't do this at all.
I don't have much else to say, but I do agree that S2 does have some unfair criticism and TONS of people nitpicking.
Oh my, you are a fan of directed cursing aren't you. Tisk, tisk. How about we remain somewhat civil deary.
The things I listed (and many others I have not) are intricate to a well written story. In any case if you do or do not enjoy a story is inconsequential. Your subjective view has no premise on if a story is well written or not. I duly enjoy my nieces writings. She is 5, and she has a weird fascination with dogs. If I had to choose between her stories or Harry Potter I would choose her stories. I enjoy them more. BUT Happy Potter is most definitely better written. The same applies to the two seasons (and any works of fiction) only on a more level playing field.
I don't care if you liked season 2 more. I don't care you can look over the flaws and enjoy the points it gives you more than season 1. The plot holes alone make it worse written than season 1. Your opinion doesn't matter, sorry!
And there's the passive aggression! Cool, not sure what else I expected. For fuck's sake, people are incapable of keeping their jimmies unru… morestled during discussions. It's worse than primary school Ethics & Philosophy class here.
I get your fucking point and I believe you're completely incorrect. Yes, someone disagrees with you! Astounding, I know!
You CAN NOT objectively determine the quality of a fucking fictional story. That's absurd. Season 1 had irritating flaws and so did Season 2. I preferred the second overall, and do not believe the issues people have with it are as significant as they make them out to be. That's all there is to it. Your opinion isn't fact, sorry!
mmm idk why the hell it got posted like that but anyways... yeah i still have to finish my other gamethrough and finish it. i like reliving the s2, i like getting emotional about some of the places it poked us even though they were caused by s1 events but still like it very much. once that is done im more than likely going to replay the whole game, S1&S2, and go through a massive feels train, but thats when i have lots if free time. ohh but i still have that bad bone to pick with TT because they didnt tell us what was up with christa. and if her status is dead it will really stain this season for me more, cuz thats what pissed me off more. well it was the only thing that pissed me off about S2
Perhaps you should cease being a condescending prick and that way your chances of receiving direct cursing will be significantly lower! Crazy, eh?
No. I suggest you view BeefJerky's post. Everything is subjective in storytelling, hell, even now we're throwing out our subjective ideas on creative writing in general. My opinion of a well-written story is one that emits the most emotion from its reader, notwithstanding its continuity issues and overall style. Season 2 did that for me. Your idea of a well-written story is one that has zero plotholes and theoretical errors... It's subjective. There is no fact here. This is all debatable.
Evidently my opinion has some wealth considering you're taking the effort to vehemently counter everything I say. Allow me to retort.
Oh my, you are a fan of directed cursing aren't you. Tisk, tisk. How about we remain somewhat civil deary.
The things I listed (and many … moreothers I have not) are intricate to a well written story. In any case if you do or do not enjoy a story is inconsequential. Your subjective view has no premise on if a story is well written or not. I duly enjoy my nieces writings. She is 5, and she has a weird fascination with dogs. If I had to choose between her stories or Harry Potter I would choose her stories. I enjoy them more. BUT Happy Potter is most definitely better written. The same applies to the two seasons (and any works of fiction) only on a more level playing field.
I don't care if you liked season 2 more. I don't care you can look over the flaws and enjoy the points it gives you more than season 1. The plot holes alone make it worse written than season 1. Your opinion doesn't matter, sorry!
Huh. Pacing was actually one of the gripes I had with this season. I really enjoyed the untimed moments of quiet reflection in between scenes of action in the first season (generally delivered as hubs). Talking to other characters to see how they're holding up in the light of a difficult situation gave the player time to soak all of it in and the difficult situations more weight to me.
One of my favorite examples comes in episode 3, after Duck is bitten. Lee can come up to Katjaa and ask her about Duck and one of the things she says is that he's allergic to bees. At first you're like "What the hell does that have to do with anything?" but then you realize that her mind is just racing through every possible thing and desperately grasping at anything that could possibly mean that her son is okay, no matter how silly or far-fetched it is. It's an incredibly sad, human moment and it's entirely optional.
I loved playing as Clementine and being able to shape her development in different ways, and as well as that I felt the pacing in the second season was great and packed with emotion.
Yeah, you make a very good point. Season 1's moments such as the Duck one you describe were hugely touching at times, and worked great. I sort of enjoyed the chaotic, 'rushing to death' feeling we got with this season however. That one Nick quote I'm sure you remember kinda sums it all up. One of the big themes in the second season is that everyone's gonna end up dead sooner or later, and I liked how Clementine was constantly on the move with the group, desperately trying to survive and hold everyone together until they made it to Wellington.
Huh. Pacing was actually one of the gripes I had with this season. I really enjoyed the untimed moments of quiet reflection in between scene… mores of action in the first season (generally delivered as hubs). Talking to other characters to see how they're holding up in the light of a difficult situation gave the player time to soak all of it in and the difficult situations more weight to me.
One of my favorite examples comes in episode 3, after Duck is bitten. Lee can come up to Katjaa and ask her about Duck and one of the things she says is that he's allergic to bees. At first you're like "What the hell does that have to do with anything?" but then you realize that her mind is just racing through every possible thing and desperately grasping at anything that could possibly mean that her son is okay, no matter how silly or far-fetched it is. It's an incredibly sad, human moment and it's entirely optional.
Ah but you misunderstand. I don't mind being cursed at. I just figured you might like to make yourself out better than a vulgar mouth deserving of soap.
Some things are subjective in story telling, for instance, whether you like one story more than another. And you're semi-correct, but again you misinterpret the information given. Your emotions are not prudent here. My emotions are not prudent here. One thing may make you cry and make me smile and vise versa (subjective), but what cannot be dismissed (and is objective) is a hole in the story which makes no sense. Subjective points aside the more well written story can be identified. This is fairly easy to grasp.
But no, your opinion matters not. More of an interesting pass time (or more, your eccentric replies are an interesting pass time) during commercials. Shows back on! No cursing next time, I've got a big bottle of Dawn!
Perhaps you should cease being a condescending prick and that way your chances of receiving direct cursing will be significantly lower! Craz… morey, eh?
No. I suggest you view BeefJerky's post. Everything is subjective in storytelling, hell, even now we're throwing out our subjective ideas on creative writing in general. My opinion of a well-written story is one that emits the most emotion from its reader, notwithstanding its continuity issues and overall style. Season 2 did that for me. Your idea of a well-written story is one that has zero plotholes and theoretical errors... It's subjective. There is no fact here. This is all debatable.
Evidently my opinion has some wealth considering you're taking the effort to vehemently counter everything I say. Allow me to retort.
U-huh. Plot-holes and issues are objective, but a superior story is not necessarily the one with the least plot-holes. That's simply the case from your subjective viewpoint. We're arguing complete bullshit semantics here.
If I were in college arguing with you in a hall with an audience of people in a formal setting, I might restrain the cursing... But welcome to the internet. I'll speak my mind freely without consequence.
Ah but you misunderstand. I don't mind being cursed at. I just figured you might like to make yourself out better than a vulgar mouth deserv… moreing of soap.
Some things are subjective in story telling, for instance, whether you like one story more than another. And you're semi-correct, but again you misinterpret the information given. Your emotions are not prudent here. My emotions are not prudent here. One thing may make you cry and make me smile and vise versa (subjective), but what cannot be dismissed (and is objective) is a hole in the story which makes no sense. Subjective points aside the more well written story can be identified. This is fairly easy to grasp.
But no, your opinion matters not. More of an interesting pass time (or more, your eccentric replies are an interesting pass time) during commercials. Shows back on! No cursing next time, I've got a big bottle of Dawn!
That's not the only reason in my particular case, however it's a perfectly valid one that does make sense. She's more fun to play as than Lee, I think.
Nice to know your mindset changes so drastically behind a computer screen. You only fake being a self-controlled person then?
The better written story is the one with fewer errors. Even if I type "I am eating cheese," it is more well written than "I am eting cheese," from an objective stand point. You might get more emotional from the second one, but that doesn't matter in the slightest. I honestly cannot dumb this down anymore.
U-huh. Plot-holes and issues are objective, but a superior story is not necessarily the one with the least plot-holes. That's simply the cas… moree from your subjective viewpoint. We're arguing complete bullshit semantics here.
If I were in college arguing with you in a hall with an audience of people in a formal setting, I might restrain the cursing... But welcome to the internet. I'll speak my mind freely without consequence.
Only in your opinion! A story might have dozens of little logical errors and silly patches in it, but the emotional value and overall quality of the plot is, for most people, going to be the factor that determines whether it's best or not.
I understand what you're trying to say. I'm not an idiot. You're just wrong as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, I fake being self-controlled with people who piss me off in real social settings as most people do. If I went and cursed profusely during a real, public debate I'd offend many people and it would be grossly inappropriate. But this is the internet, where even Clementine has her own demented Rule 34 section. Cussing isn't exactly out of place here.
Nice to know your mindset changes so drastically behind a computer screen. You only fake being a self-controlled person then?
The better … morewritten story is the one with fewer errors. Even if I type "I am eating cheese," it is more well written than "I am eting cheese," from an objective stand point. You might get more emotional from the second one, but that doesn't matter in the slightest. I honestly cannot dumb this down anymore.
Only in your opinion! A story might have dozens of little logical errors and silly patches in it, but the emotional value and overall qualit… morey of the plot is, for most people, going to be the factor that determines whether it's best or not.
I understand what you're trying to say. I'm not an idiot. You're just wrong as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, I fake being self-controlled with people who piss me off in real social settings as most people do. If I went and cursed profusely during a real, public debate I'd offend many people and it would be grossly inappropriate. But this is the internet, where even Clementine has her own demented Rule 34 section. Cussing isn't exactly out of place here.
Whether I have moral issues when it comes to the usage of swear words is fairly irrelevant and bringing it up initially was pointless. -_- I come from Portsmouth, I often punctuate my sentences with cuss words. If that puts me at the same level as some pathetic paedophile then so be it. People are too sensitive.
Whether I have moral issues when it comes to the usage of swear words is fairly irrelevant and bringing it up initially was pointless. -_- I… more come from Portsmouth, I often punctuate my sentences with cuss words. If that puts me at the same level as some pathetic paedophile then so be it. People are too sensitive.
Season 1 was great, Season 2 was great.
Just wait, people will talk about Nick and Sarah all over again. We discussed this a thousand times, but it keeps coming back like a damn boomerang.
I don't prefer season 2 over season 1, however; I DID enjoy playing it more (if that makes any sense). After playing through both seasons a second time I understand why.
The pacing is better in season 2.
The dialogue didn't hiccup almost at all. In season 1 people would say things that just reminded you that you are in a game very often, and often the dialogue would just not feel natural.
Darker tone in season 2.
No "gamy" puzzles to pull you out of the experience.
Nick and Sarah were way more interesting than Carley and Doug. Carley was the technologically inept, stereotypical female reporter serving as a love interest and Doug was a plain tech nerd. Nick and Sarah were more than simple character slates.
Season 1 was great, Season 2 was great.
Just wait, people will talk about Nick and Sarah all over again. We discussed this a thousand times, but it keeps coming back like a damn boomerang.
I'm not making comparisons. I picked random characters and judged which I preferred, my point being that Season 2's characters were far from… more significantly worse than the first's. Both Pete and Shawn were one off characters. They both lasted for a short period of time. If you want a better comparison then I can say that I preferred Pete as a character over Molly, who seemed excessively 'badass' and assassin-like for my tastes.
Ehh, Carley and Doug's arcs were abruptly ended by Lilly's trigger-finger and weren't really going anywhere. Not a fulfilling conclusion by any means. Nick and Sarah's weren't great either.
Are you forgetting the point where Carley tells Lee to share his past with the other group members? Are you forgetting that Doug slowly was starting to become a bit more braver and then goes on to sacrifice himself, his death was pure shock value, but it had an impact on the characters. Point is Doug and Carley served their purpose in the story and their deaths made sense and left an impact, While Nick and Sarah were very much forgotten about minutes later and their arcs never really left any kind of impact on Clem as a whole, doesn't help that Nick is a complete nobody in episode 3.
Ehh, Carley and Doug's arcs were abruptly ended by Lilly's trigger-finger and weren't really going anywhere. Not a fulfilling conclusion by any means. Nick and Sarah's weren't great either.
To be honest I don't know why either. I've had the string in the water for far too long with a half baked argument and I kept catching you. I guess I just felt I had to cut you loose and let you swim.
Comments
Well, I disagree. I didn't feel very invested in Braveheart because it didn't really cater to my tastes. That's not the fault of the writers, of course. Sure, a three-hundred page edited novel is obviously going to be superior to a three-year old's childish scrawlings but when it comes to fiction you can always subjectively argue whether the story's flaws ruin the rest of the content. In my opinion Season 2 had enough redeeming qualities and hit the perfect spots thematically to the point that it was superior to the first season, which by the way, I still love and adore with all my heart. I'll always miss little Clem. :P
Not trying to convince you. It's just the way I see it, which is more than I can say for you.
I'm not making comparisons. I picked random characters and judged which I preferred, my point being that Season 2's characters were far from significantly worse than the first's. Both Pete and Shawn were one off characters. They both lasted for a short period of time. If you want a better comparison then I can say that I preferred Pete as a character over Molly, who seemed excessively 'badass' and assassin-like for my tastes.
Are you actually still not getting the point, or trying to dance around it?
Nick and Sarah were way more interesting than Carley and Doug. Carley was the technologically inept, stereotypical female reporter serving as a love interest and Doug was a plain tech nerd. Nick and Sarah were more than simple character slates.
And there's the passive aggression! Cool, not sure what else I expected. For fuck's sake, people are incapable of keeping their jimmies unrustled during discussions. It's worse than primary school Ethics & Philosophy class here.
I get your fucking point and I believe you're completely incorrect. Yes, someone disagrees with you! Astounding, I know!
You CAN NOT objectively determine the quality of a fucking fictional story. That's absurd. Season 1 had irritating flaws and so did Season 2. I preferred the second overall, and do not believe the issues people have with it are as significant as they make them out to be. That's all there is to it. Your opinion isn't fact, sorry!
^ He speaks the truth. If writing could be broken down as good or bad as simple as that, nobody would make bad films and they certainly wouldn't spend $150 million on them. And yet people do all the time. Those things are great tools of storytelling, great for the troubleshooting, great for interesting analysis. They are not the be all and end all of everything and story cannot be rated objectively.
Opinion is good though.
THANK YOU! I'm glad I'm not the only one with this opinion, because I feel like such a minority all the time, lol.
Season One has small flaws, unlike Season Two which were more obvious. Season Two has tons of character inconsistencies, unfinished arcs and deaths were only for shock factor, and contributed little to the story. The most noticeably problem in Season Two is the choices, they barely affected anything in the story. Season One did the same thing but the illusion of choice better than S2, other characters interacted differently with the player but S2 didn't do this at all.
I don't have much else to say, but I do agree that S2 does have some unfair criticism and TONS of people nitpicking.
I like them both equally. Though if I had a gun to my head, I would probably pick Season 1. But they really are both great. Season 2 gets alot of unnecessary hate.
Agreed, thanks for contributing without being a prick. xD Season 2 had some issues, bigger than the first's, yeah, but I liked a lot of it and enjoyed it more than Season 1. All a matter of taste, I suppose.
Oh my, you are a fan of directed cursing aren't you. Tisk, tisk. How about we remain somewhat civil deary.
The things I listed (and many others I have not) are intricate to a well written story. In any case if you do or do not enjoy a story is inconsequential. Your subjective view has no premise on if a story is well written or not. I duly enjoy my nieces writings. She is 5, and she has a weird fascination with dogs. If I had to choose between her stories or Harry Potter I would choose her stories. I enjoy them more. BUT Happy Potter is most definitely better written. The same applies to the two seasons (and any works of fiction) only on a more level playing field.
I don't care if you liked season 2 more. I don't care you can look over the flaws and enjoy the points it gives you more than season 1. The plot holes alone make it worse written than season 1. Your opinion doesn't matter, sorry!
Same here buddy. Had as just as many replayable moments in S2 than S1.
That'd be great if you people would stop making threads like this..
mmm idk why the hell it got posted like that but anyways... yeah i still have to finish my other gamethrough and finish it. i like reliving the s2, i like getting emotional about some of the places it poked us even though they were caused by s1 events but still like it very much. once that is done im more than likely going to replay the whole game, S1&S2, and go through a massive feels train, but thats when i have lots if free time. ohh but i still have that bad bone to pick with TT because they didnt tell us what was up with christa. and if her status is dead it will really stain this season for me more, cuz thats what pissed me off more. well it was the only thing that pissed me off about S2
Perhaps you should cease being a condescending prick and that way your chances of receiving direct cursing will be significantly lower! Crazy, eh?
No. I suggest you view BeefJerky's post. Everything is subjective in storytelling, hell, even now we're throwing out our subjective ideas on creative writing in general. My opinion of a well-written story is one that emits the most emotion from its reader, notwithstanding its continuity issues and overall style. Season 2 did that for me. Your idea of a well-written story is one that has zero plotholes and theoretical errors... It's subjective. There is no fact here. This is all debatable.
Evidently my opinion has some wealth considering you're taking the effort to vehemently counter everything I say. Allow me to retort.
Huh. Pacing was actually one of the gripes I had with this season. I really enjoyed the untimed moments of quiet reflection in between scenes of action in the first season (generally delivered as hubs). Talking to other characters to see how they're holding up in the light of a difficult situation gave the player time to soak all of it in and the difficult situations more weight to me.
One of my favorite examples comes in episode 3, after Duck is bitten. Lee can come up to Katjaa and ask her about Duck and one of the things she says is that he's allergic to bees. At first you're like "What the hell does that have to do with anything?" but then you realize that her mind is just racing through every possible thing and desperately grasping at anything that could possibly mean that her son is okay, no matter how silly or far-fetched it is. It's an incredibly sad, human moment and it's entirely optional.
Yeah, you make a very good point. Season 1's moments such as the Duck one you describe were hugely touching at times, and worked great. I sort of enjoyed the chaotic, 'rushing to death' feeling we got with this season however. That one Nick quote I'm sure you remember kinda sums it all up. One of the big themes in the second season is that everyone's gonna end up dead sooner or later, and I liked how Clementine was constantly on the move with the group, desperately trying to survive and hold everyone together until they made it to Wellington.
Ah but you misunderstand. I don't mind being cursed at. I just figured you might like to make yourself out better than a vulgar mouth deserving of soap.
Some things are subjective in story telling, for instance, whether you like one story more than another. And you're semi-correct, but again you misinterpret the information given. Your emotions are not prudent here. My emotions are not prudent here. One thing may make you cry and make me smile and vise versa (subjective), but what cannot be dismissed (and is objective) is a hole in the story which makes no sense. Subjective points aside the more well written story can be identified. This is fairly easy to grasp.
But no, your opinion matters not. More of an interesting pass time (or more, your eccentric replies are an interesting pass time) during commercials. Shows back on! No cursing next time, I've got a big bottle of Dawn!
I loved season two. I do give criticism over how certain characters were treated, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy playing it.
U-huh. Plot-holes and issues are objective, but a superior story is not necessarily the one with the least plot-holes. That's simply the case from your subjective viewpoint. We're arguing complete bullshit semantics here.
If I were in college arguing with you in a hall with an audience of people in a formal setting, I might restrain the cursing... But welcome to the internet. I'll speak my mind freely without consequence.
That's not the only reason in my particular case, however it's a perfectly valid one that does make sense. She's more fun to play as than Lee, I think.
Nice to know your mindset changes so drastically behind a computer screen. You only fake being a self-controlled person then?
The better written story is the one with fewer errors. Even if I type "I am eating cheese," it is more well written than "I am eting cheese," from an objective stand point. You might get more emotional from the second one, but that doesn't matter in the slightest. I honestly cannot dumb this down anymore.
Season 1 was great, Season 2 was great.
Just wait, people will talk about Nick and Sarah all over again. We discussed this a thousand times, but it keeps coming back like a damn boomerang.
Only in your opinion! A story might have dozens of little logical errors and silly patches in it, but the emotional value and overall quality of the plot is, for most people, going to be the factor that determines whether it's best or not.
I understand what you're trying to say. I'm not an idiot. You're just wrong as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, I fake being self-controlled with people who piss me off in real social settings as most people do. If I went and cursed profusely during a real, public debate I'd offend many people and it would be grossly inappropriate. But this is the internet, where even Clementine has her own demented Rule 34 section. Cussing isn't exactly out of place here.
Stoop to the level of the internet ingrates. Promising.
Have a good one
Whether I have moral issues when it comes to the usage of swear words is fairly irrelevant and bringing it up initially was pointless. -_- I come from Portsmouth, I often punctuate my sentences with cuss words. If that puts me at the same level as some pathetic paedophile then so be it. People are too sensitive.
Haha ok. Have a good one!
:l Fine job derailing the conversation and bailing out... Don't know why I bothered in the first place.
And then season 3 comes, cycle repeats.
I don't prefer season 2 over season 1, however; I DID enjoy playing it more (if that makes any sense). After playing through both seasons a second time I understand why.
The pacing is better in season 2.
The dialogue didn't hiccup almost at all. In season 1 people would say things that just reminded you that you are in a game very often, and often the dialogue would just not feel natural.
Darker tone in season 2.
No "gamy" puzzles to pull you out of the experience.
Doesn't matter, Carley and Doug's arcs actually ended, while Nick and Sarah never got a chance and and are wasted.
Because it's so bad, it sticks out.
Still using bad comparisons, alright then.
Ehh, Carley and Doug's arcs were abruptly ended by Lilly's trigger-finger and weren't really going anywhere. Not a fulfilling conclusion by any means. Nick and Sarah's weren't great either.
Are you forgetting the point where Carley tells Lee to share his past with the other group members? Are you forgetting that Doug slowly was starting to become a bit more braver and then goes on to sacrifice himself, his death was pure shock value, but it had an impact on the characters. Point is Doug and Carley served their purpose in the story and their deaths made sense and left an impact, While Nick and Sarah were very much forgotten about minutes later and their arcs never really left any kind of impact on Clem as a whole, doesn't help that Nick is a complete nobody in episode 3.
To be honest I don't know why either. I've had the string in the water for far too long with a half baked argument and I kept catching you. I guess I just felt I had to cut you loose and let you swim.
Very sorry. Have a good one though
Not really.