In S3 should disabled people be shown in a more positive light?
Considering that in S2 physically disabled character Reggie and mentally disabled character Sarah are seen as liabilities, as well as not having the sufficient physical or mental capabilities to survive, wouldn't it be refreshing if season 3 had a disabled character that is shown in a more positive light?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Allot of the characters kind of have mental issues though, really if you think about it, they were shown on a positive light, Arvo temporarily being nice and Reggie being nice regardless. (For some reason I just thought of a comparison between voices of Reggie and The Wish Granter from Adventure Time)
Reggie was a nice guy, the only thing that annoyed me about him was him sticking up for Carver.
They should just have more development. Sarah's arc was cut short, Reggie and Arvo were plot devices, etc. So...yes. Yes they should.
Yes, they should be.
But I'm hesitant at the opportunity for more disabled characters in Season 3, since I don't really believe that Telltale has the mentality to develop them as anything other than either helpless, stupid, liabilities, or evil.
Ironically, for all their effort to portray a disabled little girl as a liability and used an older woman as a prop to advocate this, they ended up making Jane more of a liability to have around than Sarah.
Well, as a disabled person. I'd argue that having a disability is a huge disadvantage in any survival situation.
I'll agree that their portrayal was a little less than charitable, but at the same time, it's realistic. Carver certainly isn't going to take the Americans with Disabilities Act into consideration when someone fucks up on his watch.
The mental image of Carver consulting a giant print-out of the law on the wall of his office when someone messes up
For me they were dealt with how they would be in the world. Zombies etc dont care if you have a condition etc. For me they showed a nice variety of there character, they were real people not boring 100% nice with no flaws characters which seems to be the norm in media.
For me Arvo being a villanish guy was breaking the stereotype, his disability both didnt define him but also was used by him as manipulation etc
Arvo wasn't really breaking any stereotypes, he was still the 'evil' Russian and the 'evil' cripple. Telltale refused to give him any kind of depth since you never find out whether it was his idea to ambush the group or if he was being used as the interpreter, especially since he was disabled and could have easily been abandoned.
He exists to hate Clementine for Natasha's death and shoot her in the end, and receive no comeuppance for it.
Yes but all antagonists etc were done badly this season and we barely know anything about anyone else. I dont see why disabled characters are being singled out.
Also is being crippled associated with being evil? Never heard that one.
For me Sarah being a liabiity was fine, that was her not all people with a condition despite the huge reaction to her dying, and it was mostly not even anything to do with her more her dad. Also I'm pretty sure everyone in the game has some form of PTSD. Also plenty of characters were being seen as liabilities often nothing to do with a disability. rebecca, for example. Reggie was even referred to being a weak person rather than physically.
Having a physical disability doesn't make you evil, that's not what I meant. My point is that Arvo is still a stereotype because of his disability, as known by the 'Evil Cripple' article on TV Tropes, for example. It's an extreme example I'll admit, but it's still applies to him due to his actions.
I don't see TTG treating people with disabilities in a good light.
They should make the protagonist a disabled person.
That oughta force players to care more about disabled people. Those who don't give up, anyway.
I doubt it would work. Telltale will be accused of pandering to the disabled fanbase and go on a tirade on how this disabled player character wouldn't realistically survive in a zombie apocalypse.
I agree but they won't, look at what happened to Sarah. She was killed the same episode.
I wouldn't mind playing as Arvo. I liked him.
This game has no basis realism in it. Clementine would of been dead a long time ago, if this game had any sense of realism.
I was being sarcastic. I tried to use the italic text format to seem sarcastic. Sorry for confusing you.
its cool man , i didn't mean to come off aggressive. I'm like Kenny sometimes crazy shit comes out of my mouth.
That would be interesting.
I think the only disabled character to be treated well by TT would be Lee and even thats determinant.
Welcome to Telltale, we kill characters with mental conditions then laugh about their horrible death!
I doubt they laugh about it.
...Really?
You obviously weren't here during that whole incident. They did laugh along with Greg Miller when all he kept going on about was how he couldn't wait to kill Sarah and seeing her die made him laugh and feel all tingly up inside... It caused a lot of problems...So yes, they actually did laugh and agree about killing a innocent little girl because she was a liability.
Could you send me the link?
Took a while to find it but I did right when I was ready to give up.
Playing Dead
You might have to look around for it but Telltale laughed along with this Greg.
Edit: Nevermind his little hate thing is at the start!
They didnt laugh......, Greg laughed about getting rid of Sarah as he didnt like her and they nodded at most a long with a decision he made.... They didnt even bring up her condition. Sarah isnt real I find it hard to judge someone laughing about a character in a game dying.
Anyone who has played any game in war, or GTA for a good example cant really complain about people laughing at some pixels dying not everyone gets as invested playing these games as we do. Some people found Sarah annoying and they hated her others didnt thats all there is too it really
There is a difference in those games. One of them is one which tells you "You have no consequences, kill everyone they don't matter" while the other tries to make you feel for these people. When someone says they enjoyed killing a little girl with a mental problem then it reflects something wrong with that person. I have a video if you want to go back and watch them laugh and nod alongside Greg's hate of this character.
People found Sarah annoying, sometimes people bring up good reasons of why they dislike her but others it's because she isn't "Normal" like Greg even said. The thing is that morals in games like these can show things you might do in real life, if he feels that way in the game then he might in real life.
When you have to deal with people like Greg Miller, all you need to do is nod a get along. they're doing an interview and don't wan't to look bad.
If they don't want to look bad then they should defend a character that has a mental problem instead of letting this man shit all over her and say he enjoyed killing her because she was different. Them just nodding along caused more hate by the community than they would have gotten for defending their character.
Its not that easy Golden, if they were to defend their character it could turn out bad, into a argument and this is just an interview. They have a lot of responsibility to hold up TT rep in these video's, its not as easy as it seems.
That doesn't mean it has to turn into an argument, they could make Greg aware of Sarah a bit more to shed light on her. When he goes off on how she wasn't normal then they could of said "Well she has PTSD" also how he was talking about she was acting crazy in the trailer then they could have mentioned how her father died. They could've done a lot of things but instead they allowed the interview about characters and as the title says "Why'd they have to die" into Greg Miller's personal opinion show.
They don't want to take the risk though, and its completely understandable why. It could of happened, its better to stay away from things like that than get involved.
If i'm honest Greg Miller seems to be the only one being harsh about her, thanks for the link.
Shit was going to happen anyway according to that.
If they defended their character than IGN would have been upset and because they didn't then the fans got upset. I say it's better to earn the respect of their fans than their reviewers which gave them a bad score on that episode anyway.
Telltale was getting in shit either way and they chose the wrong side to cater.
Like I said Telltale laughed along with him.
They didn't come out and say "Yeah that Sarah is worthless and you should have let her die" however they agreed with him. There was Greg Miller hate on here and Tumblr for weeks, well deserved too.
I'm glad you're thankful, took me a while to find it, not so easy.
Who knows what the rest of the writers wanted, what Telltale represented was that they agreed that killing a little girl with a mental problem was the right choice because she was a liability. Very disappointing...
I'll be honest, Mark Darin seemed to have his head on fairly straight during this.
You know, come to think of it, I bet he is the sole reason that you are able to even save Sarah in the first place (even though the writers still get the last laugh and kill her off later).
I bet the rest of the writers didn't even want it to be a choice.
Would be good to have a determinant character that lasts at least 3 episodes.
Dear God! Call the Pixel Police!
Good one.
I know. I've been spending several hours searching through depths of my mind on severely extensive long walks to come up with such a reply. Thank you for the support.