While I can understand some of your reasoning, you are missing one of the most important point's of the entire game. It is a story written with a beginning and an ending. We are only meant to make certain choices along the way to tailor it to a degree, not re-write it.
I too would have had Clem keep the gun with her at all time's including in the restroom stall, or had Jane shoot Arvo after taking the med's so he couldn't even return to harm us. But remember, we are playing as Clem and the choices we're given are Clem's choices, not just our own otherwise Telltale would have to include every possible decision every single player could possibly make.
I kinda agree, Clem is still nicer than let's say you and I would have been, but it's still Clem's story and as such we're given Clem's choices.
Tailor made is like having a suit, made to fit you. It's tweaked and adjusted according to your specific dimentions, but it is still a suit!
This game is still a story, we can tweak and adjust it to fit us, but it's still a story.
I don't understand something here.
What exactly did Jane do wrong?
The baby is fucking worthless in an apocalypse except maybe as food i… moren a pinch.
She risked sacrificing that useless thing to engineer a situation that might, potentially (albeit indirectly), save the life of a relatively resourceful girl that actually has a figthing chance by teaching her an important lesson about some of the remaining people.
For the record, I was actually ANGRY at Telltale for never giving me the option to toss the baby in a ditch myself, blame it on someone and move on unhindered by the living burden.
And, also, for not giving me the option to keep my gun in hand at all times (oh, you forgot to take it into the stall! Too bad! No, i didn't I was that coming and you did not give me a fucking prompt) and just shoot on sight or run from people as my first response to everything.
No Ben and his buddies (I tried to chop the tree KNOWING I would fai… [view original content]
I don't understand something here.
What exactly did Jane do wrong?
The baby is fucking worthless in an apocalypse except maybe as food i… moren a pinch.
She risked sacrificing that useless thing to engineer a situation that might, potentially (albeit indirectly), save the life of a relatively resourceful girl that actually has a figthing chance by teaching her an important lesson about some of the remaining people.
For the record, I was actually ANGRY at Telltale for never giving me the option to toss the baby in a ditch myself, blame it on someone and move on unhindered by the living burden.
And, also, for not giving me the option to keep my gun in hand at all times (oh, you forgot to take it into the stall! Too bad! No, i didn't I was that coming and you did not give me a fucking prompt) and just shoot on sight or run from people as my first response to everything.
No Ben and his buddies (I tried to chop the tree KNOWING I would fai… [view original content]
But then, make the stall situation a CUTSCENE.
When I am in control, I AM the character and I do not want to be punished for a catastrophe I foresaw, knew exactly how to avert but couldn't because of an artificial restriction.
Reminds me of the poisoning in Dishonored. At least that was a cutscene.
And Clem can point a gun at people, just not shoot, even when they are stealing everything from you?
When the kid turns around with the rifle, there should have been an 'open fire' prompt. Nowhere does it say, though, that I have to succeed. But let me try, darn it.
I cursed out loud after that sequence
Also, I can't shake the feeling that this is less 'this is not acceptable for narrative reasons' and more, 'we did not feel like making this or could not afford to', which destroys my immersion
While I can understand some of your reasoning, you are missing one of the most important point's of the entire game. It is a story written … morewith a beginning and an ending. We are only meant to make certain choices along the way to tailor it to a degree, not re-write it.
I too would have had Clem keep the gun with her at all time's including in the restroom stall, or had Jane shoot Arvo after taking the med's so he couldn't even return to harm us. But remember, we are playing as Clem and the choices we're given are Clem's choices, not just our own otherwise Telltale would have to include every possible decision every single player could possibly make.
I kinda agree, Clem is still nicer than let's say you and I would have been, but it's still Clem's story and as such we're given Clem's choices.
Tailor made is like having a suit, made to fit you. It's tweaked and adjusted according to your specific dimentions, but it is still a suit!
T… [view original content]
again, I totally agree with that situation of Clem holding the gun while Mike and Arvo are trying to take the truck and supplies, I would have shot Arvo without hesitation in that moment.
But, again I will defend Telltale in that it is their story and we are intended to play as Clem and not ourselves. You would have shot them, I would have shot them, many other's would have shot them, but Clem wouldn't. She is the main character in that story and we're only given option's of what Clem would do.
The point is, it's like reading a book, or watching a movie. Perhap's if we were the writer's we would have made a scene or chapter differently but it isn't our's and to blame the creator's for how they make it, isn't right. We can't just alter the story to insert what we want because it's what we would do. That's like erasing then ending of a book and writing our own ending because we don't like the book's version.
Overall, I do understand and agree with the basic point your making, but that would require an entirely different game to make that happen. It would require so many possible senerio's to accomidate the possible action's of everyone who ever play's the game.
It would need to be like an open world mmo that gives every player the freedom to go where they want, do what they want without following any specific story line. But this is Telltale's game and it is a specific story with a specific path and it's intended that we the player's only follow that path, not blaze new ones.
But then, make the stall situation a CUTSCENE.
When I am in control, I AM the character and I do not want to be punished for a catastrophe … moreI foresaw, knew exactly how to avert but couldn't because of an artificial restriction.
Reminds me of the poisoning in Dishonored. At least that was a cutscene.
And Clem can point a gun at people, just not shoot, even when they are stealing everything from you?
When the kid turns around with the rifle, there should have been an 'open fire' prompt. Nowhere does it say, though, that I have to succeed. But let me try, darn it.
I cursed out loud after that sequence
Also, I can't shake the feeling that this is less 'this is not acceptable for narrative reasons' and more, 'we did not feel like making this or could not afford to', which destroys my immersion
In that case do not tell me that "This series is tailored based on how [I] play"
Or make it into a linear game with barely any agency on the player's part so that I do not percieve the characters actions as my own. I will still be frustrated by this moments, but not nearly as much.
You say "choice" and my mind goes "choice as in fallout games", where, you know, that shit matters and if want someone dead, they fucking die. In my F:NV gameworld every single member of the brotherhood of steel is dead (even essentials, and specially their children, thank you dev console) since I don't appreciate people bossing me around by going Amanda Waller on my neck. I like it bomb-free.
again, I totally agree with that situation of Clem holding the gun while Mike and Arvo are trying to take the truck and supplies, I would ha… moreve shot Arvo without hesitation in that moment.
But, again I will defend Telltale in that it is their story and we are intended to play as Clem and not ourselves. You would have shot them, I would have shot them, many other's would have shot them, but Clem wouldn't. She is the main character in that story and we're only given option's of what Clem would do.
The point is, it's like reading a book, or watching a movie. Perhap's if we were the writer's we would have made a scene or chapter differently but it isn't our's and to blame the creator's for how they make it, isn't right. We can't just alter the story to insert what we want because it's what we would do. That's like erasing then ending of a book and writing our own ending because we don't like the book's version.
Overall, I do understa… [view original content]
Spec-Ops: The Line also offers some interesting choices. For instance, I did not try to kill the soldier or the man who stole the water. Instead, I fired on the soldiers forcing the choice on me while my sniper shot the ropes. They did not make it, but I was allowed to try my solution.
When the crowd swarmed my sniper after the white phosphorus, I could not let that happen and sit by idly, but I wasn't going to kill people for an entirely justified reaction, so I tried firing at the air, and IT WORKED.
The variations on the ending are also amazing.
Why can't we have something more akin to that?
In that case do not tell me that "This series is tailored based on how [I] play"
Or make it into a linear game with barely any agency on th… moree player's part so that I do not percieve the characters actions as my own. I will still be frustrated by this moments, but not nearly as much.
You say "choice" and my mind goes "choice as in fallout games", where, you know, that shit matters and if want someone dead, they fucking die. In my F:NV gameworld every single member of the brotherhood of steel is dead (even essentials, and specially their children, thank you dev console) since I don't appreciate people bossing me around by going Amanda Waller on my neck. I like it bomb-free.
Not really, but I wrote in a bout of anger and I see how it could quite easily be seen that way. This is the internet, after all.
I just want to know why the game is holding back. This should be about the absolute worse humanity is capable of when push comes to society-shattering shove. That includes what I've mentioned and more. I mean, I'm pretty sure it goes against the rules of the forum, but otherwise I'd link you to a video of a woman getting her head hacked of with a machete while she's conscious, and said head being 'played with' after... excision. On tape. For me to watch and trivialize by linking to it on a forum about videogames.
And that happened a few years ago, over money and drugs in a world of relative civilization and abundance. Remove the rules and then tell me it's edgy to imagine eaten babies, abusing children, and just any shit you can come up with.
You might not want to play that or for that matter touch that content with a ten foot pole, but that is another story. I totally would. If only out of morbid curiosity.
Doesnt make sence to compare TTG TWD to Fallout or Spec-Op's they are different game's.. If TTG TWD still frustrates you then why even bother to play? Go play the games you enjoy more because complaining about TTG will serve no point.
It's too bad for you that you cannot have everything you want, the way you want it.. Maybe you can buy TTG and demand that they completely re-create TWD to serve only your purpose.
If you want to play a game and want someone dead, and they fucking die, then go play a game that allow's that.
Why don't I complain that TWD isn't more like WOW? I want MY Clem to come riding in on a Mechano-hog with twin epic blade's severing hundreds of walkers leaving a bloody wake. Or how about TWD be more like Grand Theft Auto where Clem can speed down street's, run over walker's or beat-up zombie hooker's whenever I want?
Because that is not TTG TWD.
Take it for what it is.. If you don't enjoy it, if your frustrated with it, DON'T BUY IT!!! Go play what you enjoy.
To complain that this game is not like other game's is just immature and unreasonable.
In that case do not tell me that "This series is tailored based on how [I] play"
Or make it into a linear game with barely any agency on th… moree player's part so that I do not percieve the characters actions as my own. I will still be frustrated by this moments, but not nearly as much.
You say "choice" and my mind goes "choice as in fallout games", where, you know, that shit matters and if want someone dead, they fucking die. In my F:NV gameworld every single member of the brotherhood of steel is dead (even essentials, and specially their children, thank you dev console) since I don't appreciate people bossing me around by going Amanda Waller on my neck. I like it bomb-free.
I don't understand something here.
What exactly did Jane do wrong?
The baby is fucking worthless in an apocalypse except maybe as food i… moren a pinch.
She risked sacrificing that useless thing to engineer a situation that might, potentially (albeit indirectly), save the life of a relatively resourceful girl that actually has a figthing chance by teaching her an important lesson about some of the remaining people.
For the record, I was actually ANGRY at Telltale for never giving me the option to toss the baby in a ditch myself, blame it on someone and move on unhindered by the living burden.
And, also, for not giving me the option to keep my gun in hand at all times (oh, you forgot to take it into the stall! Too bad! No, i didn't I was that coming and you did not give me a fucking prompt) and just shoot on sight or run from people as my first response to everything.
No Ben and his buddies (I tried to chop the tree KNOWING I would fai… [view original content]
I did not demand it by the textual equivalent of screaming at the top of my lungs.
I'm just wondering aloud.
And the use of point of reference is one of the main tools of criticism, which often takes the form of 'X, in regard Y would have been better served by steering closer to Z.'
I actually like Telltale, and I discuss my gripes with the game with other fans on their forum in hopes of it evetually contributing indirectly to improving things. I enjoyed part of it, I would like to enjoy it all. That's why people usually offer what they disliked. Avoiding something because it isn't exactly what you would have loved is not how any intetesting dicussion about art ever happened. Those who had their reservations, express them in hopes of one day it contributing to them be able to enjoy it all.
Don't-complain-and-just-avoid-it works if I was say, offended by the game or hated every moment. I liked it for the most part, but I hated watching the shadow of a darker more unflinching and better game at the edges of my screen as I played it.
I don't want to stop playing this games, I just want them to play a little more fast and loose with morallity. At least a little.
Also, note that I'm asking fo a CHOICE. Not for my desires to be the single true path all players are railroaded into.
Doesnt make sence to compare TTG TWD to Fallout or Spec-Op's they are different game's.. If TTG TWD still frustrates you then why even bothe… morer to play? Go play the games you enjoy more because complaining about TTG will serve no point.
It's too bad for you that you cannot have everything you want, the way you want it.. Maybe you can buy TTG and demand that they completely re-create TWD to serve only your purpose.
If you want to play a game and want someone dead, and they fucking die, then go play a game that allow's that.
Why don't I complain that TWD isn't more like WOW? I want MY Clem to come riding in on a Mechano-hog with twin epic blade's severing hundreds of walkers leaving a bloody wake. Or how about TWD be more like Grand Theft Auto where Clem can speed down street's, run over walker's or beat-up zombie hooker's whenever I want?
Because that is not TTG TWD.
Take it for what it is.. If you don't enjoy it, if your frust… [view original content]
It's this "2 +2 = 7" logic that really infuriates me
Everybody knows 2+2=6. Come one!
I don't support Kenny murdering Jane. He… more was completely in the wrong, but his mind was so far gone, there was simply no way to prevent Kenny from taking Jane's life without killing him outright. He wouldn't stop until his rage was spent.
Kenny's rage is enough for him to be justified or at least nullify him from any and all responsibility. So, I guess murder is ok as long as you're as rabid as a dog when you plunge a knife into a woman's chest, thought never factored in so... you get off Scott-free. Good to know, if you'll excuse me, someone is looking at me funny and I've had a bad week. I'll just tell the judge I wasn't thinking.
Clem didn't have the means or the time to knock him out
No, but she had a gun. Which would deter Kenny from ever harming anyone again because he was a bit sore or grumpy or whatever it is you're… [view original content]
He was willing to kill her even before she used lethal force
We don't know that for sure. Its speculation.
Jane defended hers… moreelf.
Jane pulled out a knife, that means its on.
But like you said both had mental problems and probably won't be in S3 so it doesn't matter.
Killing in generl of of course is not right, but they are in ZA so it i necessary. Killing a human being in ZA is rediculous because half of the world are zombies. I love Kenny, that still doesn't justife killing. I wouldn't blame him though, he has gone through a lot, lost everyone he cared for and Jane was tomenting him in the car and even than he asked her later "Are you ok?" but as soon s he thought she killed the baby he tied to kill her, that is not fair because killing a killer makes you a killer. I hoped this wasn't going to happen. I won't justify him or Jane , Jane was obviously mentally ill but after what happened to Kenny i would assume he was disturbed too, he didn't do it the right way, esxpressing anger that you have to yourself towards someone else is not really good, but it is better than keeping it inside.
The problem with season two in lies that TellTale kept making Clementine too damn passive within the narrative. Harnessing any and all conflict because the game became a "go with the flow" narrative.
An example would be Carver's death. Which was disgusting not because of the strong not needed gore, but because Clementine was relegated to a prop for the sake of making Kenny look "cool." Why can't Clementine pull out her gun, walk over to Carver while Kenny is menacingly standing over him, push the barrel to Carver's temple and just shoot him in front of everyone? It'd show that Clementine actual can stand up to Kenny and his shit and it'd show off her independence. But no, just have her take a backseat to The Walking Dead: Kenny's a Douche.
How come Clementine can't jump down and defend Jane while she tries to free Sarah? How come Clementine can't waste Bonnie, Mike, and Arvo? It's not too fucking crazy that Clementine is allowed to pull out her weapon but not use it to at least kill a dude that has another weapon drawn on Clementine. Being an immediate threat. No, they don't want Clementine become "too cold" even though from the jump that's what The Walking Dead is about. It's the "cat's in the bag, bag's in the river" method of storytelling and it's very unfortunate that many people say it's the narrative equivalent to Call of Duty.
I did not demand it by the textual equivalent of screaming at the top of my lungs.
I'm just wondering aloud.
And the use of point of refe… morerence is one of the main tools of criticism, which often takes the form of 'X, in regard Y would have been better served by steering closer to Z.'
I actually like Telltale, and I discuss my gripes with the game with other fans on their forum in hopes of it evetually contributing indirectly to improving things. I enjoyed part of it, I would like to enjoy it all. That's why people usually offer what they disliked. Avoiding something because it isn't exactly what you would have loved is not how any intetesting dicussion about art ever happened. Those who had their reservations, express them in hopes of one day it contributing to them be able to enjoy it all.
Don't-complain-and-just-avoid-it works if I was say, offended by the game or hated every moment. I liked it for the most part, but I hated watching … [view original content]
The problem with season two in lies that TellTale kept making Clementine too damn passive within the narrative. Harnessing any and all confl… moreict because the game became a "go with the flow" narrative.
An example would be Carver's death. Which was disgusting not because of the strong not needed gore, but because Clementine was relegated to a prop for the sake of making Kenny look "cool." Why can't Clementine pull out her gun, walk over to Carver while Kenny is menacingly standing over him, push the barrel to Carver's temple and just shoot him in front of everyone? It'd show that Clementine actual can stand up to Kenny and his shit and it'd show off her independence. But no, just have her take a backseat to The Walking Dead: Kenny's a Douche.
How come Clementine can't jump down and defend Jane while she tries to free Sarah? How come Clementine can't waste Bonnie, Mike, and Arvo? It's not too fucking crazy that Clementine is allowed to pull… [view original content]
I don't know that I would say that he was "right" to kill Jane, but I would say it was justifiable considering the fact that she was clearly trying to kill him.
No it is not justifiable. Kenny came on to Jane first with the intention of killing her. Jane defended herself. That's all this is. Maybe if the fight was the other way around your statement would be true.
I don't know that I would say that he was "right" to kill Jane, but I would say it was justifiable considering the fact that she was clearly trying to kill him.
It depends on your priorities. If you have loved ones to protect, then for most being moral isn't that important. If being moral puts one's change(s) in any sort of danger, then they likely will choose the immoral path. There's not black and white side here tho, because it's a ZA; other people are already willing to do the worst to you to survive, and it's all about adapting.
Now, that doesn't mean you become a sociopathic fucker, who feels no remorse, or that you don't try your best to be a moral person in this hell, but you gotta know when to be practical at times, is all I'm saying.
He said he "he would say"- that means it is his opinion, in my opinion it is justifiable. In your it isn't.
They both wanted a fight and if it were vice versa it would still be self defense. Like i said in my opinion it was totally justifiable because i would've done the same if i am being attacked.
No it is not justifiable. Kenny came on to Jane first with the intention of killing her. Jane defended herself. That's all this is. Maybe if the fight was the other way around your statement would be true.
He said he "he would say"- that means it is his opinion, in my opinion it is justifiable. In your it isn't.
They both wanted a fight and … moreif it were vice versa it would still be self defense. Like i said in my opinion it was totally justifiable because i would've done the same if i am being attacked.
But to answer, she provoked him to attack, by lying and manipulating. Both were wrong but at least i can understand why Kenny did what he did. While Jane is just a loonatic in my book and i can't imagine anyone doing that,
You are completely entiteled to your opinion. I am jut expressing mine and i am done arguing who is worse/better.
But who attacked first? Kenny. Therefore it's not justifiable.
If he didn't then Jane would've been hella wrong. If she'd then attacked h… moreim first, outta desperation to prove her point, then he'd be justified.
Also, just being attacked doesn't justify lethal force for anybody; it depends on the danger that presented.
Are you serious? Provocation isn't a valid reason to attack anyone.
Even then she didn't do that:1) She said/lied that it was an accident what happened to AJ. Kenny didn't know she was lying, so he didn't know he was being manipulated. 2) She sheathed her knife, and backed up towards the door, and then HE initiated the fight. In order for Jane to get Clem to her side, she can't initiate any of the violence, so she banked on Kenny starting the fight. Kenny did just that, with knowledge of her accidentally dropping/losing a newborn while in a walker infested blizzard.
If he didn't attack, then Jane's plan falls apart and she's wrong about him. Again, you say she provoked him via lying and manipulation, but that's not possible because he didn't know she was doing that. WE know that, but he doesn't. Clem didn't know either, which is why she never had the option to say that Jane was lying. Jane also didn't attack him first, but instead stood down before he attacked; it was the only way to prove her point.
Kenny attacked out of anger, and that no excuse for anybody to attack, even less kill, another person. Yeah, Jane did a fucked up thing, but if Kenny was as sensible as we have the option of having Clem believe, then Jane would've been hella wrong about him.
It does, self defense IS justified.
But to answer, she provoked him to attack, by lying and manipulating. Both were wrong but at least … morei can understand why Kenny did what he did. While Jane is just a loonatic in my book and i can't imagine anyone doing that,
You are completely entiteled to your opinion. I am jut expressing mine and i am done arguing who is worse/better.
Are you serious? Provocation isn't a valid reason to attack anyone.
Even then she didn't do that:1) She said/lied that it was an accident… more what happened to AJ. Kenny didn't know she was lying, so he didn't know he was being manipulated. 2) She sheathed her knife, and backed up towards the door, and then HE initiated the fight. In order for Jane to get Clem to her side, she can't initiate any of the violence, so she banked on Kenny starting the fight. Kenny did just that, with knowledge of her accidentally dropping/losing a newborn while in a walker infested blizzard.
If he didn't attack, then Jane's plan falls apart and she's wrong about him. Again, you say she provoked him via lying and manipulation, but that's not possible because he didn't know she was doing that. WE know that, but he doesn't. Clem didn't know either, which is why she never had the option to say that Jane was lying. Jane also didn't attack him first, but instead stood… [view original content]
Regardless of Kenny, or Jane, attacking/killing out of anger, or provocation, isn't right, or smart; in real life we get punished for that shit.
But, fine, whatever...
Comments
While I can understand some of your reasoning, you are missing one of the most important point's of the entire game. It is a story written with a beginning and an ending. We are only meant to make certain choices along the way to tailor it to a degree, not re-write it.
I too would have had Clem keep the gun with her at all time's including in the restroom stall, or had Jane shoot Arvo after taking the med's so he couldn't even return to harm us. But remember, we are playing as Clem and the choices we're given are Clem's choices, not just our own otherwise Telltale would have to include every possible decision every single player could possibly make.
I kinda agree, Clem is still nicer than let's say you and I would have been, but it's still Clem's story and as such we're given Clem's choices.
Tailor made is like having a suit, made to fit you. It's tweaked and adjusted according to your specific dimentions, but it is still a suit!
This game is still a story, we can tweak and adjust it to fit us, but it's still a story.
Again with the baby eating? Come on.
But then, make the stall situation a CUTSCENE.
When I am in control, I AM the character and I do not want to be punished for a catastrophe I foresaw, knew exactly how to avert but couldn't because of an artificial restriction.
Reminds me of the poisoning in Dishonored. At least that was a cutscene.
And Clem can point a gun at people, just not shoot, even when they are stealing everything from you?
When the kid turns around with the rifle, there should have been an 'open fire' prompt. Nowhere does it say, though, that I have to succeed. But let me try, darn it.
I cursed out loud after that sequence
Also, I can't shake the feeling that this is less 'this is not acceptable for narrative reasons' and more, 'we did not feel like making this or could not afford to', which destroys my immersion
again, I totally agree with that situation of Clem holding the gun while Mike and Arvo are trying to take the truck and supplies, I would have shot Arvo without hesitation in that moment.
But, again I will defend Telltale in that it is their story and we are intended to play as Clem and not ourselves. You would have shot them, I would have shot them, many other's would have shot them, but Clem wouldn't. She is the main character in that story and we're only given option's of what Clem would do.
The point is, it's like reading a book, or watching a movie. Perhap's if we were the writer's we would have made a scene or chapter differently but it isn't our's and to blame the creator's for how they make it, isn't right. We can't just alter the story to insert what we want because it's what we would do. That's like erasing then ending of a book and writing our own ending because we don't like the book's version.
Overall, I do understand and agree with the basic point your making, but that would require an entirely different game to make that happen. It would require so many possible senerio's to accomidate the possible action's of everyone who ever play's the game.
It would need to be like an open world mmo that gives every player the freedom to go where they want, do what they want without following any specific story line. But this is Telltale's game and it is a specific story with a specific path and it's intended that we the player's only follow that path, not blaze new ones.
Agreed 100%
...She doesn't have to put up with their stupidity if she kills them both though! heh.
In that case do not tell me that "This series is tailored based on how [I] play"
Or make it into a linear game with barely any agency on the player's part so that I do not percieve the characters actions as my own. I will still be frustrated by this moments, but not nearly as much.
You say "choice" and my mind goes "choice as in fallout games", where, you know, that shit matters and if want someone dead, they fucking die. In my F:NV gameworld every single member of the brotherhood of steel is dead (even essentials, and specially their children, thank you dev console) since I don't appreciate people bossing me around by going Amanda Waller on my neck. I like it bomb-free.
Spec-Ops: The Line also offers some interesting choices. For instance, I did not try to kill the soldier or the man who stole the water. Instead, I fired on the soldiers forcing the choice on me while my sniper shot the ropes. They did not make it, but I was allowed to try my solution.
When the crowd swarmed my sniper after the white phosphorus, I could not let that happen and sit by idly, but I wasn't going to kill people for an entirely justified reaction, so I tried firing at the air, and IT WORKED.
The variations on the ending are also amazing.
Why can't we have something more akin to that?
Not really, but I wrote in a bout of anger and I see how it could quite easily be seen that way. This is the internet, after all.
I just want to know why the game is holding back. This should be about the absolute worse humanity is capable of when push comes to society-shattering shove. That includes what I've mentioned and more. I mean, I'm pretty sure it goes against the rules of the forum, but otherwise I'd link you to a video of a woman getting her head hacked of with a machete while she's conscious, and said head being 'played with' after... excision. On tape. For me to watch and trivialize by linking to it on a forum about videogames.
And that happened a few years ago, over money and drugs in a world of relative civilization and abundance. Remove the rules and then tell me it's edgy to imagine eaten babies, abusing children, and just any shit you can come up with.
You might not want to play that or for that matter touch that content with a ten foot pole, but that is another story. I totally would. If only out of morbid curiosity.
Doesnt make sence to compare TTG TWD to Fallout or Spec-Op's they are different game's.. If TTG TWD still frustrates you then why even bother to play? Go play the games you enjoy more because complaining about TTG will serve no point.
It's too bad for you that you cannot have everything you want, the way you want it.. Maybe you can buy TTG and demand that they completely re-create TWD to serve only your purpose.
If you want to play a game and want someone dead, and they fucking die, then go play a game that allow's that.
Why don't I complain that TWD isn't more like WOW? I want MY Clem to come riding in on a Mechano-hog with twin epic blade's severing hundreds of walkers leaving a bloody wake. Or how about TWD be more like Grand Theft Auto where Clem can speed down street's, run over walker's or beat-up zombie hooker's whenever I want?
Because that is not TTG TWD.
Take it for what it is.. If you don't enjoy it, if your frustrated with it, DON'T BUY IT!!! Go play what you enjoy.
To complain that this game is not like other game's is just immature and unreasonable.
so you're basically saying being a horrible person is the way to survive
I did not demand it by the textual equivalent of screaming at the top of my lungs.
I'm just wondering aloud.
And the use of point of reference is one of the main tools of criticism, which often takes the form of 'X, in regard Y would have been better served by steering closer to Z.'
I actually like Telltale, and I discuss my gripes with the game with other fans on their forum in hopes of it evetually contributing indirectly to improving things. I enjoyed part of it, I would like to enjoy it all. That's why people usually offer what they disliked. Avoiding something because it isn't exactly what you would have loved is not how any intetesting dicussion about art ever happened. Those who had their reservations, express them in hopes of one day it contributing to them be able to enjoy it all.
Don't-complain-and-just-avoid-it works if I was say, offended by the game or hated every moment. I liked it for the most part, but I hated watching the shadow of a darker more unflinching and better game at the edges of my screen as I played it.
I don't want to stop playing this games, I just want them to play a little more fast and loose with morallity. At least a little.
Also, note that I'm asking fo a CHOICE. Not for my desires to be the single true path all players are railroaded into.
When it's the most convenient option, yes.
thats horrendously fucked up, especially to the fact youre so open to admit that holy shit
she was playing it dumb though.
she should've said something.
I stopped reading at
It's fucked up, but in a ZA that CAN become reality when survival is put above all else.
I've edited my post to counter claim your a argument after finding a certain flaw in it.
They're both assholes and I didn't like either of them. Kenny was quite possibly mentally ill which is his only excuse.
I stopped reading at
^--This guys gets it.
Should the worse come to pass, I would like you in my group, good sir.
A survivalist?
What group?
They'll leave it.
Killing in generl of of course is not right, but they are in ZA so it i necessary. Killing a human being in ZA is rediculous because half of the world are zombies. I love Kenny, that still doesn't justife killing. I wouldn't blame him though, he has gone through a lot, lost everyone he cared for and Jane was tomenting him in the car and even than he asked her later "Are you ok?" but as soon s he thought she killed the baby he tied to kill her, that is not fair because killing a killer makes you a killer. I hoped this wasn't going to happen. I won't justify him or Jane , Jane was obviously mentally ill but after what happened to Kenny i would assume he was disturbed too, he didn't do it the right way, esxpressing anger that you have to yourself towards someone else is not really good, but it is better than keeping it inside.
Nope.
The problem with season two in lies that TellTale kept making Clementine too damn passive within the narrative. Harnessing any and all conflict because the game became a "go with the flow" narrative.
An example would be Carver's death. Which was disgusting not because of the strong not needed gore, but because Clementine was relegated to a prop for the sake of making Kenny look "cool." Why can't Clementine pull out her gun, walk over to Carver while Kenny is menacingly standing over him, push the barrel to Carver's temple and just shoot him in front of everyone? It'd show that Clementine actual can stand up to Kenny and his shit and it'd show off her independence. But no, just have her take a backseat to The Walking Dead: Kenny's a Douche.
How come Clementine can't jump down and defend Jane while she tries to free Sarah? How come Clementine can't waste Bonnie, Mike, and Arvo? It's not too fucking crazy that Clementine is allowed to pull out her weapon but not use it to at least kill a dude that has another weapon drawn on Clementine. Being an immediate threat. No, they don't want Clementine become "too cold" even though from the jump that's what The Walking Dead is about. It's the "cat's in the bag, bag's in the river" method of storytelling and it's very unfortunate that many people say it's the narrative equivalent to Call of Duty.
This!
I don't know that I would say that he was "right" to kill Jane, but I would say it was justifiable considering the fact that she was clearly trying to kill him.
isnt keeping your humanity more important than suviving? isnt trying to go back to the way it was before more important?
[removed]
No it is not justifiable. Kenny came on to Jane first with the intention of killing her. Jane defended herself. That's all this is. Maybe if the fight was the other way around your statement would be true.
No.
It depends on your priorities. If you have loved ones to protect, then for most being moral isn't that important. If being moral puts one's change(s) in any sort of danger, then they likely will choose the immoral path. There's not black and white side here tho, because it's a ZA; other people are already willing to do the worst to you to survive, and it's all about adapting.
Now, that doesn't mean you become a sociopathic fucker, who feels no remorse, or that you don't try your best to be a moral person in this hell, but you gotta know when to be practical at times, is all I'm saying.
He said he "he would say"- that means it is his opinion, in my opinion it is justifiable. In your it isn't.
They both wanted a fight and if it were vice versa it would still be self defense. Like i said in my opinion it was totally justifiable because i would've done the same if i am being attacked.
But who attacked first? Kenny. Therefore it's not justifiable.
If he didn't then Jane would've been hella wrong. If she'd then attacked him first, outta desperation to prove her point, then he'd be justified.
Also, just being attacked doesn't justify lethal force for anybody; it depends on the danger that presented.
It does, self defense IS justified.
But to answer, she provoked him to attack, by lying and manipulating. Both were wrong but at least i can understand why Kenny did what he did. While Jane is just a loonatic in my book and i can't imagine anyone doing that,
You are completely entiteled to your opinion. I am jut expressing mine and i am done arguing who is worse/better.
LOL yes
Are you serious? Provocation isn't a valid reason to attack anyone.
Even then she didn't do that:1) She said/lied that it was an accident what happened to AJ. Kenny didn't know she was lying, so he didn't know he was being manipulated. 2) She sheathed her knife, and backed up towards the door, and then HE initiated the fight. In order for Jane to get Clem to her side, she can't initiate any of the violence, so she banked on Kenny starting the fight. Kenny did just that, with knowledge of her accidentally dropping/losing a newborn while in a walker infested blizzard.
If he didn't attack, then Jane's plan falls apart and she's wrong about him. Again, you say she provoked him via lying and manipulation, but that's not possible because he didn't know she was doing that. WE know that, but he doesn't. Clem didn't know either, which is why she never had the option to say that Jane was lying. Jane also didn't attack him first, but instead stood down before he attacked; it was the only way to prove her point.
Kenny attacked out of anger, and that no excuse for anybody to attack, even less kill, another person. Yeah, Jane did a fucked up thing, but if Kenny was as sensible as we have the option of having Clem believe, then Jane would've been hella wrong about him.
Read...
Regardless of Kenny, or Jane, attacking/killing out of anger, or provocation, isn't right, or smart; in real life we get punished for that shit.
But, fine, whatever...
[removed]