Existence is formed by knowledge. I just said it multiple times, I just proved I'm partly right myself. Don't be so ignorant about it cuz you're no more right than I am. I don't have all the answers. You don't have all the answers. Actually... I'm just gonna leave. This discussion isn't even worth it.
That's a thought. Prove it. You can't. I don't know you are smelling things. I don't know you are thinking. I don't know this TV exists outs… moreide of my mind. I could never know that. It's utterly impossible. You assume these things are there, and it makes sense that they are, but prove it.
Theory of existence is formed through knowledge and observation. I get the feeling you don't grasp the concept here (honestly not trying to demean you). I know you don't have all the answers and I know I don't have all the answers. I'm not trying to prove that nothing exists, I'm saying that it is literally impossible to prove the opposite. The sight or feel of paper, the feeling of another person, the heat radiating from a stove, the sound of a train rolling by, a thought about this game, thinking about a loved one, the sight of an old man walking down the street, all of these are only inside your own mind. Take color blindness for instances. Some people cannot see a certain color. To them, in their mind, that color does not exist. They ay be told by others that a fire truck is red, but they will never see red. It is not possible for red to be distinguished by them and therefore it does not exist. A man in a psych ward may not believe in Obama (idk, why not). No matter how many pictures of Obama you show that man, no matter how many of Obama's speeches you read to that man, no matter how many times Obama comes to shake this man's hand if his brain does not recognize he exists than he does not exist. It stands to reason that he does. He exists in my mind and presumable yours. But I cannot think what you think. Not one person can say anyone but they exist. I can say you probably exist. You are replying to my comments. You say things I do not think. But you could simply be a conjuring on my mind, and I could never prove otherwise. Because the sight of your posts is inside my mind. The thought process to decipher your posts is inside my mind. The typing to reply to your posts is inside my mind. My mind, nothing else. In the absence of my mind, none of this exists.
Existence is formed by knowledge. I just said it multiple times, I just proved I'm partly right myself. Don't be so ignorant about it cuz yo… moreu're no more right than I am. I don't have all the answers. You don't have all the answers. Actually... I'm just gonna leave. This discussion isn't even worth it.
Theory of existence is formed through knowledge and observation. I get the feeling you don't grasp the concept here (honestly not trying to … moredemean you). I know you don't have all the answers and I know I don't have all the answers. I'm not trying to prove that nothing exists, I'm saying that it is literally impossible to prove the opposite. The sight or feel of paper, the feeling of another person, the heat radiating from a stove, the sound of a train rolling by, a thought about this game, thinking about a loved one, the sight of an old man walking down the street, all of these are only inside your own mind. Take color blindness for instances. Some people cannot see a certain color. To them, in their mind, that color does not exist. They ay be told by others that a fire truck is red, but they will never see red. It is not possible for red to be distinguished by them and therefore it does not exist. A man in a psych ward may not believe in Oba… [view original content]
Heh. Well, fair enough. In the end were both right, I just misunderstood a bit cuz I didn't feel like making massive explanations considering my mind is all fucked right now and my aggression is heightened cuz of it. Damn psychology! lol
Theory of existence is formed through knowledge and observation. I get the feeling you don't grasp the concept here (honestly not trying to … moredemean you). I know you don't have all the answers and I know I don't have all the answers. I'm not trying to prove that nothing exists, I'm saying that it is literally impossible to prove the opposite. The sight or feel of paper, the feeling of another person, the heat radiating from a stove, the sound of a train rolling by, a thought about this game, thinking about a loved one, the sight of an old man walking down the street, all of these are only inside your own mind. Take color blindness for instances. Some people cannot see a certain color. To them, in their mind, that color does not exist. They ay be told by others that a fire truck is red, but they will never see red. It is not possible for red to be distinguished by them and therefore it does not exist. A man in a psych ward may not believe in Oba… [view original content]
Nah I think he just means that in the only way that you can prove existence is by your own mind. Existence is formed by one's brain and without it nothing would exist. So if the person was to not have a brain, they would have no knowledge of anything that existed. In the end, it's all based on perception and technicality. Existence is such a fickle thing.
Chances are they both exist. H.A.C. made an attempt at cheap humor, I did the same thing. Only mine had more aptitude for debate and a basis in psychology.
unrealistic scenarios where adults are incompetent and a little girl has to do the adult work
I can partly agree, however that what you said may be exaggerating slightly to describe it in that way.
Carver being terribly written and stereotypical, no time to fully get invested in characters
Strongly disagree.
Kenny just being there because the fanboys love him
If that's your way of thinking, I'm not surprised you feel it that way.
Clem being boring and having little genuine emotion
Clementine was never boring, her character is brilliantly written and possible to develop in a dozen ways. And I think you mean her maturity and how she mostly accustomed to a post-apocalyptic world instead of "having genuine emotinon".
Inconsistent writing of characters, unrealistic scenarios where adults are incompetent and a little girl has to do the adult work, Carver be… moreing terribly written and stereotypical, no time to fully get invested in characters, Kenny just being there because the fanboys love him, Clem being boring and having little genuine emotion, and episode 3 being a complete waste of my time.
To add to Fallandir's rebuttal, I think that Kenny and Clem are the heart of what Walking Dead stands for. Becoming a monster. Clem doesn't have real emotion because the world squelches it within you. The last time she was happy she got the most emotional person she knew killed. That's plenty of reason to lose your innocence.
And Kenny? I've always liked Kenny, but in a "Dude, you're crazy and dangerous" sort of way. Showing how someone goes from caring and reckless, to paranoid and murderous is pretty much the only story Walking Dead tells. Should it do more? Sure, but I doubt Kirkman wants anyone wants to stray from the formula that much. He still okays everything.
Inconsistent writing of characters, unrealistic scenarios where adults are incompetent and a little girl has to do the adult work, Carver be… moreing terribly written and stereotypical, no time to fully get invested in characters, Kenny just being there because the fanboys love him, Clem being boring and having little genuine emotion, and episode 3 being a complete waste of my time.
I think Season 2 had good episodes but overall as a game and as a story it didn't feel very good. Had a nice finale, though.
My biggest personal gripes with Season 2 was the shock factor tbh. Like the most involved game play I had that wasn't a quick time event was suturing Clementine's wound. I can't even watch people play through this scene and it felt like torture porn of a 12-year-old. You could say that the game's not supposed to be pretty but at least they don't force you to like sit through and watch Lee's amputation (which you could choose not to do) and the amputation isn't something you have to drag and push buttons for and focus on.
Basically the only involved gameplay in season 1 makes me squeamish.
Carver gives me a lot of anxiety which means if I replayed I would have to skip episode 2 and 3 entirely, making essentially half the game completely unenjoyable for me. I never had this for season 1.
Kenny wasn't really the heart in the first place. That was LEE and Clem, Kenny and Clem never had a relationship in the first season. I understand losing your innocence, but I would actually like some genuine emotion for character deaths and maybe some times where Clem shows some personality, most of the time, she's just boringly cold and stale for most of the season despite a few moments that barely stick out, she's really just "generic badass survivor girl" and that rubs me the wrong way.
To add to Fallandir's rebuttal, I think that Kenny and Clem are the heart of what Walking Dead stands for. Becoming a monster. Clem doesn't … morehave real emotion because the world squelches it within you. The last time she was happy she got the most emotional person she knew killed. That's plenty of reason to lose your innocence.
And Kenny? I've always liked Kenny, but in a "Dude, you're crazy and dangerous" sort of way. Showing how someone goes from caring and reckless, to paranoid and murderous is pretty much the only story Walking Dead tells. Should it do more? Sure, but I doubt Kirkman wants anyone wants to stray from the formula that much. He still okays everything.
Examples being Carlos and Rebecca, it make no real sense as to why they're suddenly your friend in episode 2, and this isn't even much of a time skip, Rebecca didn't care for Clem in episode1, but in episode 2 she's suddenly your friend? That's inconsistent, and Carlos suddenly trusts Clem to look after his daughter and suddenly isn't suspicious and suddenly cares about Clem, INCONSISTENT. Clem is now generic badass survivor girl, anyone could have played her role and S2 wouldn't change, she shows very little personality, and I know we can shape her, but it doesn't really feel organic at all, Lee actually showed signs of a personality when you played as him, not Clem though, she's boring in S2.
Inconsistent writing of characters
Examples?
unrealistic scenarios where adults are incompetent and a little girl has to do th… moree adult work
I can partly agree, however that what you said may be exaggerating slightly to describe it in that way.
Carver being terribly written and stereotypical, no time to fully get invested in characters
Strongly disagree.
Kenny just being there because the fanboys love him
If that's your way of thinking, I'm not surprised you feel it that way.
Clem being boring and having little genuine emotion
Clementine was never boring, her character is brilliantly written and possible to develop in a dozen ways. And I think you mean her maturity and how she mostly accustomed to a post-apocalyptic world instead of "having genuine emotinon".
episode 3 being a complete waste of my time.
Your time, not mine.
Sometimes only the trust of strangers keeps you alive in the apocaliptic world; Carlos and Rebecca didn't want to trust Clementine, they simply had to do so. Are you really suprised? They just escaped from Carver's, they were suspicious of (rational reaction) a girl who might've been bitten by a walker, however, they took her in and let her stay with them; gave her a chance, which is what the good people do.
Clementine is a child, her personality isn't permanently shaped yet. As far as we know, she's brave, smart and mature, like Lee tought her to be. And she's a protagonist of the story, meaning you are the one who leads her throughout the game.
Examples being Carlos and Rebecca, it make no real sense as to why they're suddenly your friend in episode 2, and this isn't even much of a … moretime skip, Rebecca didn't care for Clem in episode1, but in episode 2 she's suddenly your friend? That's inconsistent, and Carlos suddenly trusts Clem to look after his daughter and suddenly isn't suspicious and suddenly cares about Clem, INCONSISTENT. Clem is now generic badass survivor girl, anyone could have played her role and S2 wouldn't change, she shows very little personality, and I know we can shape her, but it doesn't really feel organic at all, Lee actually showed signs of a personality when you played as him, not Clem though, she's boring in S2.
Really? Are you forgetting that scene where Rebecca is extremely rude to Clem in the kitchen in episode 1? And expected her to be gone the next day? Carlos also can tell Clem to stay way from his daughter in episode 1 once he takes her in, then he suddenly trusts her in episode 2? Keep on sugarcoating, Where exactly did that personality in S1 go? Oh yeah, we have to go through that lame time skip which any potential character growth, and making her the protagonist probably wasn't the best move if Telltale weren't going to handle this story with proper planning and careful storytelling, it's rushed and underwhelming.
Sometimes only the trust of strangers keeps you alive in the apocaliptic world; Carlos and Rebecca didn't want to trust Clementine, they sim… moreply had to do so. Are you really suprised? They just escaped from Carver's, they were suspicious of (rational reaction) a girl who might've been bitten by a walker, however, they took her in and let her stay with them; gave her a chance, which is what the good people do.
Clementine is a child, her personality isn't permanently shaped yet. As far as we know, she's brave, smart and mature, like Lee tought her to be. And she's a protagonist of the story, meaning you are the one who leads her throughout the game.
Actually I've replayed both seasons multiple times. Also through and through as you did. Season one is most definitely better. It does have flaws, but not nearly as many (and as significant) as season two has.
Kenny wasn't really the heart in the first place. That was LEE and Clem, Kenny and Clem never had a relationship in the first season. I unde… morerstand losing your innocence, but I would actually like some genuine emotion for character deaths and maybe some times where Clem shows some personality, most of the time, she's just boringly cold and stale for most of the season despite a few moments that barely stick out, she's really just "generic badass survivor girl" and that rubs me the wrong way.
Yup, I expect Rebecca to calm down and apologize (she did), and Carlos to help the group to find Luke, Alvin, Nick and Pete, even if that means leaving his daughter with the person he doesn't trust. Only thing I sugarcoat is my morning coffee.
What exactly Clem's personality in S1 we're talking about? Sweet little girl? Then yes, it's gone.
Really? Are you forgetting that scene where Rebecca is extremely rude to Clem in the kitchen in episode 1? And expected her to be gone the n… moreext day? Carlos also can tell Clem to stay way from his daughter in episode 1 once he takes her in, then he suddenly trusts her in episode 2? Keep on sugarcoating, Where exactly did that personality in S1 go? Oh yeah, we have to go through that lame time skip which any potential character growth, and making her the protagonist probably wasn't the best move if Telltale weren't going to handle this story with proper planning and careful storytelling, it's rushed and underwhelming.
If you are right about being a brain in a jar then you still objectively lost an argument to your imaginary friends :P
But you're wrong about being a brain in a jar. if "brain in a jar" theory is correct then "I" am the brain in a jar and I just saw one imaginary person beat another imaginary person in an argument.
The only picture she looks even slightly more than marginally touched emotionally is the last one. Maybe the first one a bit.
The second one she looks like she has a "fine, do it quick" attitude and the third one...... She looks high.
Not imaginary friends. Subconsciously projected figments. I didn't lose. But even if I had it's like one man playing both sides of a chess game. At absolute worst it can be classified as is a draw.
If you are right about being a brain in a jar then you still objectively lost an argument to your imaginary friends :P
But you're wrong a… morebout being a brain in a jar. if "brain in a jar" theory is correct then "I" am the brain in a jar and I just saw one imaginary person beat another imaginary person in an argument.
Not imaginary friends. Subconsciously projected figments. I didn't lose. But even if I had it's like one man playing both sides of a chess game. At absolute worst it can be classified as is a draw.
Disclaimer: Long post. Don't read if you can't handle it. This goes for anybody who has ever posted a "TL;DR". Kthxbai.
Nope, no rose-tinted glasses here. Season 2 is crap compared to season 1. I have given and have seen others give multitudes of reasons why we feel this is the case. Because I don't feel like going into why episodes 3-5 each failed in their own way, I'm just going to go with my problems with No Going Back's writing specifically, just to kind of scratch the surface. Keep in mind that I comment on the writing flubs in season 1 all the damn time. The difference is, season 1 continues to maintain a fantastic narrative all around. Season 2 does not.
The first and most damning inconsistency is the completely forgotten plot point of the mysterious town in the distance with the church tower at the end of episode 4. It's the entire reason we're out there in the cold, but once Arvo mentions his house, suddenly everyone thinks we should head that way for no reason other than that the story wouldn't work unless we did. The town is never even mentioned again specifically because it ruin the plot. This is lazy on a level season 1 never aspired to, even when it also had flubs in the writing.
There is nothing wrong with convenient writing to benefit the story. There is much wrong with flat out forgetting or just ignoring previously set up important plot points because it interferes with your new ideas.
Bonnie and Mike's characters go right down the drain for reasons of shock, not proper character development. Getting away from Kenny neither justifies nor explains plotting to leave Clementine and the baby behind with no supplies after sacrificing just as much as anyone else to keep the baby safe and developing bonds with Clementine. Now sure, you can try and argue that Bonnie could potentially hate Clementine at that point (and let's not even get into how stupid that whole ice scene with Luke was), but she can also potentially still be close with her, and she'll still plot to leave her behind with no supplies. And even if you want to hold onto that point, Mike has no such excuse. This is ONLY done because Telltale wanted to shock us, and indeed they did... with how contrived and stupid it was.
Then Arvo shoots you. This is ONLY done so that it mitigates all that Kenny has done up until this point and make it seem like he was right in the stupidest, most roundabout way possible. There was absolutely no attempt to characterize Arvo after episode 4, and he's turned into a walking plot device. Hell, what was he even doing with the medicine so far from his safehouse where he could easily die? Why take the risk? Never explained, because Nick Breckon just didn't care about keeping the story consistent. We get no chance to even speak to him and explain that killing his sister was necessary because she was a walker, even though that would be the most logical thing imaginable.
Hell, Arvo's whole demeanor feels so strange in episode 5 because he's treated as someone who doesn't fully comprehend what's going on because of a language barrier, but that's BS because he was rather fluent in episode 4 and understood everything going on around him. He was the translator for his group, for fuck's sake. Where did this "he doesn't speak much English" crap come from?
Luke's death was a decent shock, but the problem was that in trying to be shocking, Telltale made a good portion of Luke/Kenny drama in the past three episodes completely meaningless. All those scenes and all that build up? Yeah, they were a complete waste of time, and the Kenny/Jane drama in this one comes off as incredibly forced as a result. I still remember being so confused when Kenny suddenly started gunning for Jane even though he didn't even know anything about her because they never shared a single line of dialogue in the previous episode. But we're supposed to buy that they're the two opposite sides of the coin that we have to ultimately choose between? Really?
I won't comment too much on the obvious Kenny bias from the writers since that isn't a writing issue, but a personal one. It's pretty damned detrimental to the entire season, mind you, but not necessarily an example of "bad writing", more like "disappointing writing".
Keep in mind that I also consider the season 1 finale "No Time Left" the weakest episode of the first season in terms of writing as well, but its problems are purely in relation to the rest of the first season. There are inconsistencies like Vernon going after the boat which contradicts what he said about his place being the safest place for Clementine even after seeing the herd, and how they got the boat down to the water on their own at all. Kenny trying to save Ben also doesn't make too much sense, but that's more of a retrospective thing, thanks to the idiotic reason we got for his survival in season 2. The Stranger, while potentially fascinating, is also potentially an incredibly forced resolution that really only works the first time you play it. Clementine's off-screen super strength of dragging Lee into the jewelry place is also just silly.
Here's the thing, though. These are all silly oversights or technical issues that could easily be solved with just slight reworking, particularly in dialogue, so they're much more minor compared to "No Going Back's" failings. Where NTL just needs slight reworkings (as well as all of season 1's problems as a whole), NGB needs entirely rethought scenarios and character arcs that aren't completely insulting to us (just like the entirety of season 2).
And that is, as they say, my two cents. Agree or disagree, I hope it's clear that I'm not cutting season 1 slack. The mistakes that the writers made in the past are simply nowhere near as big or as disappointing as season 2's mistakes.
Yeah....no. She looks pretty normal to me. You expecting over-acting from her?
Mind you, I do get pissed off at how harsh Telltale sometimes expects her to be. Particularly with Sarah. Are we really supposed to believe that she'd be angry at Sarah for being traumatized?
The only picture she looks even slightly more than marginally touched emotionally is the last one. Maybe the first one a bit.
The second one she looks like she has a "fine, do it quick" attitude and the third one...... She looks high.
Overacting? No. A small visual (or vocal) amount of emotion would have been nice. Not saying it never happened, but it was fairly rare. "It has a darker tone, its been 2 years," yeah, but what interest should I have in the emotional state of a character when the emotional state has no chance of changing for better or worse? Beating a dead horse. I was hoping Sarah was going to be a spark, a light in the dark, but she turned out to be an underused plot device. Disappointing.
Yeah....no. She looks pretty normal to me. You expecting over-acting from her?
Mind you, I do get pissed off at how harsh Telltale some… moretimes expects her to be. Particularly with Sarah. Are we really supposed to believe that she'd be angry at Sarah for being traumatized?
Only if you're a douchebag, I suppose.
I love both Seasons equally and to be fair I don't see how Season 2 was meant to live up to Season 1s high standards when those writers left, and new writers such as Pierre Shorette were taken in to write a new season.
Heart means the crux of the theme, not that they had to have a relationship. The "heart of the issue" has nothing to do with emotions. I said Kenny and Clem are the heart of the theme and I mean that. The concept that good people lose everything and have to do what might be considered evil to outside views appears nowhere as strongly as it does to Kenny and Clem.
Clem becoming generic badass surivivor girl is the point. You're supposed to hate that she turned out this way. It's supposed to rub you wrong. You want to see Clem and Lee eating ice cream and talking about grades, but that's not this world. It's a world where you watch everything fall apart and fight to hold the last pieces together.
Kenny wasn't really the heart in the first place. That was LEE and Clem, Kenny and Clem never had a relationship in the first season. I unde… morerstand losing your innocence, but I would actually like some genuine emotion for character deaths and maybe some times where Clem shows some personality, most of the time, she's just boringly cold and stale for most of the season despite a few moments that barely stick out, she's really just "generic badass survivor girl" and that rubs me the wrong way.
Totally disagree with your take on Mike and Bonnie. Mike never agreed with anyone in the group and wanted to do sane things from the beginning. When Kenny went berserk, he just wanted out. He wasn't screwing us over, he was getting out of a bad situation. Bonnie is always looking for the easy way out. She avoids conflict and (as seen in 400 Days and when Luke leaves Carver) runs away at the first sign of trouble. Bonnie would have jumped aboard again with Carver to get away from Kenny.
Jane clearly was looking for a reason to kill Kenny and Kenny was just lashing out at everyone. They aren't opposite sides of the coin, they're the same person. They see themselves in each other and think they're different. And Arvo? Well he's a weak, angry kid looking for any way to screw over the people who killed his companions and sister he can. I don't think anything in the finale was out of character. Writing means you take a character and push them until they behave in a different way. This can be to step up and save the day, or it can be to stab their closest friend.
Disclaimer: Long post. Don't read if you can't handle it. This goes for anybody who has ever posted a "TL;DR". Kthxbai.
Nope, no rose-tin… moreted glasses here. Season 2 is crap compared to season 1. I have given and have seen others give multitudes of reasons why we feel this is the case. Because I don't feel like going into why episodes 3-5 each failed in their own way, I'm just going to go with my problems with No Going Back's writing specifically, just to kind of scratch the surface. Keep in mind that I comment on the writing flubs in season 1 all the damn time. The difference is, season 1 continues to maintain a fantastic narrative all around. Season 2 does not.
The first and most damning inconsistency is the completely forgotten plot point of the mysterious town in the distance with the church tower at the end of episode 4. It's the entire reason we're out there in the cold, but once Arvo mentions his house, suddenly everyone thinks we … [view original content]
Comments
Existence is formed by knowledge. I just said it multiple times, I just proved I'm partly right myself. Don't be so ignorant about it cuz you're no more right than I am. I don't have all the answers. You don't have all the answers. Actually... I'm just gonna leave. This discussion isn't even worth it.
Theory of existence is formed through knowledge and observation. I get the feeling you don't grasp the concept here (honestly not trying to demean you). I know you don't have all the answers and I know I don't have all the answers. I'm not trying to prove that nothing exists, I'm saying that it is literally impossible to prove the opposite. The sight or feel of paper, the feeling of another person, the heat radiating from a stove, the sound of a train rolling by, a thought about this game, thinking about a loved one, the sight of an old man walking down the street, all of these are only inside your own mind. Take color blindness for instances. Some people cannot see a certain color. To them, in their mind, that color does not exist. They ay be told by others that a fire truck is red, but they will never see red. It is not possible for red to be distinguished by them and therefore it does not exist. A man in a psych ward may not believe in Obama (idk, why not). No matter how many pictures of Obama you show that man, no matter how many of Obama's speeches you read to that man, no matter how many times Obama comes to shake this man's hand if his brain does not recognize he exists than he does not exist. It stands to reason that he does. He exists in my mind and presumable yours. But I cannot think what you think. Not one person can say anyone but they exist. I can say you probably exist. You are replying to my comments. You say things I do not think. But you could simply be a conjuring on my mind, and I could never prove otherwise. Because the sight of your posts is inside my mind. The thought process to decipher your posts is inside my mind. The typing to reply to your posts is inside my mind. My mind, nothing else. In the absence of my mind, none of this exists.
Oh, I was arguing with a solipsist. Marvelous.
No. I fully believe the world exists. Again you miss the point. How surprising.
If you believe the world exists then your point is completely moot. Tobi exists with it.
Heh. Well, fair enough. In the end were both right, I just misunderstood a bit cuz I didn't feel like making massive explanations considering my mind is all fucked right now and my aggression is heightened cuz of it. Damn psychology! lol
My point is alive and well. I have no doubts that Tobi does exist. Perhaps you should reread the post and give it another go.
Lol... So Tobi exists and HardAppleCider doesn't? This sure is an interesting philosophical theory.
Nah I think he just means that in the only way that you can prove existence is by your own mind. Existence is formed by one's brain and without it nothing would exist. So if the person was to not have a brain, they would have no knowledge of anything that existed. In the end, it's all based on perception and technicality. Existence is such a fickle thing.
You gotta admit he's got a point there, Viva.
Chances are they both exist. H.A.C. made an attempt at cheap humor, I did the same thing. Only mine had more aptitude for debate and a basis in psychology.
EDIT: Condescending humor
I love everything that telltal game do.
Examples?
I can partly agree, however that what you said may be exaggerating slightly to describe it in that way.
Strongly disagree.
If that's your way of thinking, I'm not surprised you feel it that way.
Clementine was never boring, her character is brilliantly written and possible to develop in a dozen ways. And I think you mean her maturity and how she mostly accustomed to a post-apocalyptic world instead of "having genuine emotinon".
Your time, not mine.
To add to Fallandir's rebuttal, I think that Kenny and Clem are the heart of what Walking Dead stands for. Becoming a monster. Clem doesn't have real emotion because the world squelches it within you. The last time she was happy she got the most emotional person she knew killed. That's plenty of reason to lose your innocence.
And Kenny? I've always liked Kenny, but in a "Dude, you're crazy and dangerous" sort of way. Showing how someone goes from caring and reckless, to paranoid and murderous is pretty much the only story Walking Dead tells. Should it do more? Sure, but I doubt Kirkman wants anyone wants to stray from the formula that much. He still okays everything.
I think Season 2 had good episodes but overall as a game and as a story it didn't feel very good. Had a nice finale, though.
My biggest personal gripes with Season 2 was the shock factor tbh. Like the most involved game play I had that wasn't a quick time event was suturing Clementine's wound. I can't even watch people play through this scene and it felt like torture porn of a 12-year-old. You could say that the game's not supposed to be pretty but at least they don't force you to like sit through and watch Lee's amputation (which you could choose not to do) and the amputation isn't something you have to drag and push buttons for and focus on.
Basically the only involved gameplay in season 1 makes me squeamish.
Carver gives me a lot of anxiety which means if I replayed I would have to skip episode 2 and 3 entirely, making essentially half the game completely unenjoyable for me. I never had this for season 1.
Kenny wasn't really the heart in the first place. That was LEE and Clem, Kenny and Clem never had a relationship in the first season. I understand losing your innocence, but I would actually like some genuine emotion for character deaths and maybe some times where Clem shows some personality, most of the time, she's just boringly cold and stale for most of the season despite a few moments that barely stick out, she's really just "generic badass survivor girl" and that rubs me the wrong way.
Examples being Carlos and Rebecca, it make no real sense as to why they're suddenly your friend in episode 2, and this isn't even much of a time skip, Rebecca didn't care for Clem in episode1, but in episode 2 she's suddenly your friend? That's inconsistent, and Carlos suddenly trusts Clem to look after his daughter and suddenly isn't suspicious and suddenly cares about Clem, INCONSISTENT. Clem is now generic badass survivor girl, anyone could have played her role and S2 wouldn't change, she shows very little personality, and I know we can shape her, but it doesn't really feel organic at all, Lee actually showed signs of a personality when you played as him, not Clem though, she's boring in S2.
Sometimes only the trust of strangers keeps you alive in the apocaliptic world; Carlos and Rebecca didn't want to trust Clementine, they simply had to do so. Are you really suprised? They just escaped from Carver's, they were suspicious of (rational reaction) a girl who might've been bitten by a walker, however, they took her in and let her stay with them; gave her a chance, which is what the good people do.
Clementine is a child, her personality isn't permanently shaped yet. As far as we know, she's brave, smart and mature, like Lee tought her to be. And she's a protagonist of the story, meaning you are the one who leads her throughout the game.
Really? Are you forgetting that scene where Rebecca is extremely rude to Clem in the kitchen in episode 1? And expected her to be gone the next day? Carlos also can tell Clem to stay way from his daughter in episode 1 once he takes her in, then he suddenly trusts her in episode 2? Keep on sugarcoating, Where exactly did that personality in S1 go? Oh yeah, we have to go through that lame time skip which any potential character growth, and making her the protagonist probably wasn't the best move if Telltale weren't going to handle this story with proper planning and careful storytelling, it's rushed and underwhelming.
This whole convo.
If you are doing what I think you are doing then you win
Yeah, as cold as Luke.
It all affect her, throughout whole season.
Yup, I expect Rebecca to calm down and apologize (she did), and Carlos to help the group to find Luke, Alvin, Nick and Pete, even if that means leaving his daughter with the person he doesn't trust. Only thing I sugarcoat is my morning coffee.
What exactly Clem's personality in S1 we're talking about? Sweet little girl? Then yes, it's gone.
If you are right about being a brain in a jar then you still objectively lost an argument to your imaginary friends :P
But you're wrong about being a brain in a jar. if "brain in a jar" theory is correct then "I" am the brain in a jar and I just saw one imaginary person beat another imaginary person in an argument.
The only picture she looks even slightly more than marginally touched emotionally is the last one. Maybe the first one a bit.
The second one she looks like she has a "fine, do it quick" attitude and the third one...... She looks high.
Maybe she is high, you never know.
Not imaginary friends. Subconsciously projected figments. I didn't lose. But even if I had it's like one man playing both sides of a chess game. At absolute worst it can be classified as is a draw.
Winky face... Oh man..
Hmmm. Well, if you are doing what I think you're doing then I applaud you. That was perfect
I don't judge. Need something to keep you calm during a zombie apocalypse. What better for that than a bit of sticky?
Eddie and Wyatt approve.
I actually play against myself on a chessboard sometimes just for the fun of it. I win about half the time.
That's where she got it......
I win 100% of the time... I also lose 100% of the time. Spooky.
Eddie confirmed for Season 3.
Disclaimer: Long post. Don't read if you can't handle it. This goes for anybody who has ever posted a "TL;DR". Kthxbai.
Nope, no rose-tinted glasses here. Season 2 is crap compared to season 1. I have given and have seen others give multitudes of reasons why we feel this is the case. Because I don't feel like going into why episodes 3-5 each failed in their own way, I'm just going to go with my problems with No Going Back's writing specifically, just to kind of scratch the surface. Keep in mind that I comment on the writing flubs in season 1 all the damn time. The difference is, season 1 continues to maintain a fantastic narrative all around. Season 2 does not.
The first and most damning inconsistency is the completely forgotten plot point of the mysterious town in the distance with the church tower at the end of episode 4. It's the entire reason we're out there in the cold, but once Arvo mentions his house, suddenly everyone thinks we should head that way for no reason other than that the story wouldn't work unless we did. The town is never even mentioned again specifically because it ruin the plot. This is lazy on a level season 1 never aspired to, even when it also had flubs in the writing.
There is nothing wrong with convenient writing to benefit the story. There is much wrong with flat out forgetting or just ignoring previously set up important plot points because it interferes with your new ideas.
Bonnie and Mike's characters go right down the drain for reasons of shock, not proper character development. Getting away from Kenny neither justifies nor explains plotting to leave Clementine and the baby behind with no supplies after sacrificing just as much as anyone else to keep the baby safe and developing bonds with Clementine. Now sure, you can try and argue that Bonnie could potentially hate Clementine at that point (and let's not even get into how stupid that whole ice scene with Luke was), but she can also potentially still be close with her, and she'll still plot to leave her behind with no supplies. And even if you want to hold onto that point, Mike has no such excuse. This is ONLY done because Telltale wanted to shock us, and indeed they did... with how contrived and stupid it was.
Then Arvo shoots you. This is ONLY done so that it mitigates all that Kenny has done up until this point and make it seem like he was right in the stupidest, most roundabout way possible. There was absolutely no attempt to characterize Arvo after episode 4, and he's turned into a walking plot device. Hell, what was he even doing with the medicine so far from his safehouse where he could easily die? Why take the risk? Never explained, because Nick Breckon just didn't care about keeping the story consistent. We get no chance to even speak to him and explain that killing his sister was necessary because she was a walker, even though that would be the most logical thing imaginable.
Hell, Arvo's whole demeanor feels so strange in episode 5 because he's treated as someone who doesn't fully comprehend what's going on because of a language barrier, but that's BS because he was rather fluent in episode 4 and understood everything going on around him. He was the translator for his group, for fuck's sake. Where did this "he doesn't speak much English" crap come from?
Luke's death was a decent shock, but the problem was that in trying to be shocking, Telltale made a good portion of Luke/Kenny drama in the past three episodes completely meaningless. All those scenes and all that build up? Yeah, they were a complete waste of time, and the Kenny/Jane drama in this one comes off as incredibly forced as a result. I still remember being so confused when Kenny suddenly started gunning for Jane even though he didn't even know anything about her because they never shared a single line of dialogue in the previous episode. But we're supposed to buy that they're the two opposite sides of the coin that we have to ultimately choose between? Really?
I won't comment too much on the obvious Kenny bias from the writers since that isn't a writing issue, but a personal one. It's pretty damned detrimental to the entire season, mind you, but not necessarily an example of "bad writing", more like "disappointing writing".
Keep in mind that I also consider the season 1 finale "No Time Left" the weakest episode of the first season in terms of writing as well, but its problems are purely in relation to the rest of the first season. There are inconsistencies like Vernon going after the boat which contradicts what he said about his place being the safest place for Clementine even after seeing the herd, and how they got the boat down to the water on their own at all. Kenny trying to save Ben also doesn't make too much sense, but that's more of a retrospective thing, thanks to the idiotic reason we got for his survival in season 2. The Stranger, while potentially fascinating, is also potentially an incredibly forced resolution that really only works the first time you play it. Clementine's off-screen super strength of dragging Lee into the jewelry place is also just silly.
Here's the thing, though. These are all silly oversights or technical issues that could easily be solved with just slight reworking, particularly in dialogue, so they're much more minor compared to "No Going Back's" failings. Where NTL just needs slight reworkings (as well as all of season 1's problems as a whole), NGB needs entirely rethought scenarios and character arcs that aren't completely insulting to us (just like the entirety of season 2).
And that is, as they say, my two cents. Agree or disagree, I hope it's clear that I'm not cutting season 1 slack. The mistakes that the writers made in the past are simply nowhere near as big or as disappointing as season 2's mistakes.
Yeah....no. She looks pretty normal to me. You expecting over-acting from her?
Mind you, I do get pissed off at how harsh Telltale sometimes expects her to be. Particularly with Sarah. Are we really supposed to believe that she'd be angry at Sarah for being traumatized?
Only if you're a douchebag, I suppose.
Overacting? No. A small visual (or vocal) amount of emotion would have been nice. Not saying it never happened, but it was fairly rare. "It has a darker tone, its been 2 years," yeah, but what interest should I have in the emotional state of a character when the emotional state has no chance of changing for better or worse? Beating a dead horse. I was hoping Sarah was going to be a spark, a light in the dark, but she turned out to be an underused plot device. Disappointing.
Thank. You.
I love both Seasons equally and to be fair I don't see how Season 2 was meant to live up to Season 1s high standards when those writers left, and new writers such as Pierre Shorette were taken in to write a new season.
Heart means the crux of the theme, not that they had to have a relationship. The "heart of the issue" has nothing to do with emotions. I said Kenny and Clem are the heart of the theme and I mean that. The concept that good people lose everything and have to do what might be considered evil to outside views appears nowhere as strongly as it does to Kenny and Clem.
Clem becoming generic badass surivivor girl is the point. You're supposed to hate that she turned out this way. It's supposed to rub you wrong. You want to see Clem and Lee eating ice cream and talking about grades, but that's not this world. It's a world where you watch everything fall apart and fight to hold the last pieces together.
Totally disagree with your take on Mike and Bonnie. Mike never agreed with anyone in the group and wanted to do sane things from the beginning. When Kenny went berserk, he just wanted out. He wasn't screwing us over, he was getting out of a bad situation. Bonnie is always looking for the easy way out. She avoids conflict and (as seen in 400 Days and when Luke leaves Carver) runs away at the first sign of trouble. Bonnie would have jumped aboard again with Carver to get away from Kenny.
Jane clearly was looking for a reason to kill Kenny and Kenny was just lashing out at everyone. They aren't opposite sides of the coin, they're the same person. They see themselves in each other and think they're different. And Arvo? Well he's a weak, angry kid looking for any way to screw over the people who killed his companions and sister he can. I don't think anything in the finale was out of character. Writing means you take a character and push them until they behave in a different way. This can be to step up and save the day, or it can be to stab their closest friend.