Not talking about who made this thread, but I've seen people saying they liked Sarah 'cuz they have same issues and felt happy to see someone like that 'alive'
I'm one of those people. I said that in the very beginning of the post--I loved Nick and Sarah because I was like them and to see characters like them surviving made me happy. I expected decent endings and redemption for them. Instead, they got a slaughterfest filled with loose ends.
(Sorry for reviving this thread)
Thinking about this as a fantasy history, yeah, agree with almost everyone else, those were poor made de… moreaths.
Realistic talking, I'm sorry to say it like this but yeah, usually people who are a liability (Nick wasn't really one, just as dumb as a door) die first. Sarah wouldn't even got that far if not for her father. I saved nick because Peter was "dead" already, and I slapped Sarah because I don't have that much patience with people who are weak in their mind. C'mon girl, it's kill or be killed. I'll bring sanity to you by force if needed. But I can't run for you (Not if I'm Clem's size).
Again, poetically speaking, you're right, but people with anxiety disorder should stop feeling 'offended' just because a character with the same problem had such a poor death. If some shit like this happen you won't have such a different ending (Not talking about who made this thread, but I've seen people saying th… [view original content]
After episode 3,I was sure that Clementine,Kenny,Sarah and Luke be alive at the end.Episode 4 make me fell happy to have AJ but I was sad to lose Sarah.
Ya know, I think Lilly would be interesting for the mother figure role(or aunt role whatever). We haven't seen her in such a long time and she most likely changed. I dunno, just a thought I guess. I just hope Lilly will be more unique(by unique I mean not repeating the same damn thing the next season) than Kenny if she returns in S3.
Once Season 3 comes around, there'd better not be yet another father figure archetype that overshadows a mother figure.
Mothers need some… more stories of their own for a change, the fathers had theirs with Bioshock Infinite, The Last of Us, The Walking Dead, and so on.
I'm still hoping Telltale adds something to Nick's final scene in episode 4 when the disc version is released. Just some more potent music would go a long way.
I would love to see the return of Lilly, but I'm not sure if I could see her being much of a mother figure. At least not a particularly conventional one.
Ya know, I think Lilly would be interesting for the mother figure role(or aunt role whatever). We haven't seen her in such a long time and s… morehe most likely changed. I dunno, just a thought I guess. I just hope Lilly will be more unique(by unique I mean not repeating the same damn thing the next season) than Kenny if she returns in S3.
To the people who thought that Nick was this season's Ben. In Season 1 Episode 4 Clem gets trapped in a group of walkers with Ben and in Season 2 Episode 2 she gets trapped in another group of walkers with Nick(Determinant). Ben abandons her, to save himself, while Nick distracts the walkers so that Clem can run away. I think that's a good enough proof.
I would love to see the return of Lilly, but I'm not sure if I could see her being much of a mother figure. At least not a particularly conventional one.
They already did. Unlike Kenny, who's introduced in a friendly manner, she's unfavorable right off the bat, and whereas Kenny has a pleasant wife and a cute kid, she has a miserable dad in tow. She's written out of the plot at her lowest point with no chance for redemption even if you try to give it to her by letting her on the RV.
Telltale wanted us to hate Lilly from the start, but at least Sean Vanaman had the decency to defend her and point out how she's a sympathetic character and why she was struggling, unlike those jokers who just mocked Sarah right alongside Greg Miller.
Yeah, I really respected Sean Vanaman when he showed sympathy for his character. The punks who did Amid The Ruins, on the other hand, take glee in supporting the death of a character they created, whose crime seems to be acting too nice/naive/young.
Yet they try so damn hard to redeem Kenny.
Sympathy for Season 2's writers only belongs to violent, immature men. Don't you dare say anybody else deserves otherwise. Little girls need to shut up and feel bad for the men, because that's what good girls do.
They already did. Unlike Kenny, who's introduced in a friendly manner, she's unfavorable right off the bat, and whereas Kenny has a pleasant… more wife and a cute kid, she has a miserable dad in tow. She's written out of the plot at her lowest point with no chance for redemption even if you try to give it to her by letting her on the RV.
Telltale wanted us to hate Lilly from the start, but at least Sean Vanaman had the decency to defend her and point out how she's a sympathetic character and why she was struggling, unlike those jokers who just mocked Sarah right alongside Greg Miller.
They already did. Unlike Kenny, who's introduced in a friendly manner, she's unfavorable right off the bat, and whereas Kenny has a pleasant… more wife and a cute kid, she has a miserable dad in tow. She's written out of the plot at her lowest point with no chance for redemption even if you try to give it to her by letting her on the RV.
Telltale wanted us to hate Lilly from the start, but at least Sean Vanaman had the decency to defend her and point out how she's a sympathetic character and why she was struggling, unlike those jokers who just mocked Sarah right alongside Greg Miller.
I wonder. Am I considered evil for sympathising with Lilly over Kenny? Even after the whole Carley/Doug/RV incident?
I ended up finding myself being more interested in Lilly's story than Kenny's, since his was basically another 'father who will do anything to protect his family, ending up loses his family' story arc that has been done to death in other games and movies at the time. Lilly's story was more refreshing.
She was a woman in a leadership role she struggled to maintain while having to control her hot-blooded father with a heart condition, butt heads with another leadership figure who appeared more well liked but was more impulsive and had his own family in mind over his group, and very little to none of her own contribution to the group were appreciated or respected.
Yet she still tries her hardest to protect her group, which ended up pushing her over to the edge after losing her father in a brutal fashion, having supplies being stolen by a traitor in the group, having the safe haven her group worked so hard to secure ending up overrun by walkers and bandits, and not having her claims of a traitor in the group being taken seriously due to her own increasing paranoia and instability.
To me, Lilly came across as more of a relatable character than Kenny did in Season 1.
They already did. Unlike Kenny, who's introduced in a friendly manner, she's unfavorable right off the bat, and whereas Kenny has a pleasant… more wife and a cute kid, she has a miserable dad in tow. She's written out of the plot at her lowest point with no chance for redemption even if you try to give it to her by letting her on the RV.
Telltale wanted us to hate Lilly from the start, but at least Sean Vanaman had the decency to defend her and point out how she's a sympathetic character and why she was struggling, unlike those jokers who just mocked Sarah right alongside Greg Miller.
I wonder. Am I considered evil for sympathising with Lilly over Kenny? Even after the whole Carley/Doug/RV incident?
I ended up finding m… moreyself being more interested in Lilly's story than Kenny's, since his was basically another 'father who will do anything to protect his family, ending up loses his family' story arc that has been done to death in other games and movies at the time. Lilly's story was more refreshing.
She was a woman in a leadership role she struggled to maintain while having to control her hot-blooded father with a heart condition, butt heads with another leadership figure who appeared more well liked but was more impulsive and had his own family in mind over his group, and very little to none of her own contribution to the group were appreciated or respected.
Yet she still tries her hardest to protect her group, which ended up pushing her over to the edge after losing her father in a brutal fashion, having supplies b… [view original content]
I know this statement is old, but I'm gonna butt in here anyway.
The word liability is probably the most apt word to use about Nick and most definitively Sarah. I will go so far as to say that Nick died because of Sarah. If she had been capable of leaving the trailer with both Nick and Luke, things could've ended quite differently, but she couldn't move so Nick had to go out on his own to get help. Even Luke, Jane and Clem almost died because of Sarah being non-functional, I put my life at risk to get her to safety. Their deaths and stories does have literary value, just not the value you want from it.
Nick was rash, but not competent enough, I didn't appreciate him, but he grew on me when his issues became clearer. Nick died doing the same thing he did early on, trying to help other people. He helped Clem in episode 1 and he went for help when Luke had to stay and take care of Sarah. His death is sub-par, but not all deaths can be "meaningful, story-concluding stories of perfection". Nick was a liability, but he always did what he thought was best and to protect the people he cared about, he just wasn't competent enough and the circumstances and his mental issues led to his death. His story could probably have been fleshed out a lot more, he had more to go on. But it is possible to empathize with him even if he screws up.
Sarah is the burden and her story is important to Clem, even if it's not the story people want it to be. She was a sheltered child with issues, and her story should have had a different ending. It felt like way to many loose threads with Clem showing her the wound, teaching her to defend herself and trying to pick her up when she was down. They should have played on the friendship, but apparently the writers just disregarded all of that and said fuck her lets kill her. But her death is not completely meaningless, it is built up by Jane's story. Clem does everything she can to break her friend out of her sheltered mindset and get her to overcome her issues. Clem puts herself and others in danger to save Sarah, even going so far as to slap her (which the writers apparently thought was funny wtf) but I found tragic, sad and a necessity. Jane's story about her sister is the reflection on Clem and Sarah. But the story does give Clem an "out" because where Jane's sister died because she couldn't do what she had to, Sarah died under circumstances beyond her control. So in the end, she died in a way where she could not help herself, and so her death is not based on her inability to help herself (which the other one would have). Having Sarah's death be out of Sarah's hands does leave Clem with still some hope that it's still possible to take care of those who cannot fend for themselves. . Had she given her up in the trailer home, things would have been a lot different for Clem.
Honestly, the moment you use the word "liability" is the moment I stop taking your argument remotely seriously. This forum and TWDG fans in … moregeneral grossly abuse that word to a ridiculous degree.
It would be nice to find someone who actually wants to defend their deaths to me and come up with genuine literary value to them instead of just telling me "Sarah and Nick had to die because they were burdens."
Like... Kenny's "death" with Ben? The meaning there was that he came full circle. He went through an arc where he lost his family, the most important thing to him, and hated this kid for it, but then accepted his role as a paternal figure and cared for him in the moments before his death. That illustrates Kenny's role as a father from the beginning to the end.
I IMPLORE people arguing with me to find that kind of meaning in Sarah and Nick's death. Like, seriously. I'm begging you to enlighten me here. Tell me the actual literary value behind it. Tell me what their stories are meant to be.
Nobody here wants anybody to die. You're not special. What's scary is that you being so confident about making "humanly" decision in a split second in a life and death situation by just playing a game.
It honestly is sad. People say that even if you try to play good in this game you would let people like Sarah die in real life. No I wouldn't, because I'm a human. I'm not a monster. It kind of scares me how people can think like that.
I know this statement is old, but I'm gonna butt in here anyway.
The word liability is probably the most apt word to use about Nick and m… moreost definitively Sarah. I will go so far as to say that Nick died because of Sarah. If she had been capable of leaving the trailer with both Nick and Luke, things could've ended quite differently, but she couldn't move so Nick had to go out on his own to get help. Even Luke, Jane and Clem almost died because of Sarah being non-functional, I put my life at risk to get her to safety. Their deaths and stories does have literary value, just not the value you want from it.
Nick was rash, but not competent enough, I didn't appreciate him, but he grew on me when his issues became clearer. Nick died doing the same thing he did early on, trying to help other people. He helped Clem in episode 1 and he went for help when Luke had to stay and take care of Sarah. His death is sub-par, but not all deaths can be "mea… [view original content]
Why not just ask TTG to give every fan favorite a (soon to be) predictable tearfest of an ending. How dare they give Sarah, an emotionally broken disabled 15 year old girl, a sudden unexpected death in a zombie apocalypse ?
The message you edited, that originally showed up in my notifications.
Telltale's slaughterfest is contrived and unnecessary, and I won't take the idea that "her being disabled means she couldn't survive, that's unrealistic" seriously when Clementine survives a plunge in a frozen lake with no lasting damage, and a man who just lost an eye can apparently drive a car normally despite no longer having depth perception. This is not a realistic game. It's about ZOMBIES. ZOMBIES AREN'T REAL. There is NO saying who can and cannot survive such a catastrophe because it is pure fantasy, and to put the completely fabricated "rules of survival" in a made-up scenario above the livelihood and portrayal of characters with disabilities that actually exist is... astounding, to say the least.
Also, why should I be grateful to them? It's not like they're doing this for free out of the goodness of their hearts. They're making bank. Everyone's being plenty grateful for just buying these damn games.
Why not just ask TTG to give every fan favorite a (soon to be) predictable tearfest of an ending. How dare they give Sarah, an emotionally b… moreroken disabled 15 year old girl, a sudden unexpected death in a zombie apocalypse ?
The message you edited, that originally showed up in my notifications.
Telltale's slaughterfest is contrived and unnecessary, and I won't take the idea that "her being disabled means she couldn't survive, that's unrealistic" seriously when Clementine survives a plunge in a frozen lake with no lasting damage, and a man who just lost an eye can apparently drive a car normally despite no longer having depth perception. This is not a realistic game. It's about ZOMBIES. ZOMBIES AREN'T REAL. There is NO saying who can and cannot survive such a catastrophe because it is pure fantasy, and to put the completely fabricated "rules of survival" in a made-up scenario above the livelihood and portrayal of characters with disa… [view original content]
It seemed to me like their secound deaths (Nick on the fence and Sarah on the observation deck) were Telltales way of saying that you can't save everyone. For Sarah, if you left her to die in the trailer park then you are giving up on her and that makes you more like Jane who left her sister but if you help her out then it's like you want to help her but she dies anyway showing you can't help everyone. Similarly for Nick, if you say he is a good guy and get Walter to forgive him you are giving him a secound chance and it shows that you want to try and save him, but when he dies in episode 4 it represents how you couldn't help him, put together with Sarah's secound death it shows you can't help everyone. This theme of not being able to save everyone came in shown to be useful for epiosde 5 with it's major choice of Kenny vs Jane where you have to choose whether you would try to save Kenny or give up on him, the fact that you couldn't save Sarah or Nick might persuade you to choose Jane over Kenny for the mere fact that you would think there is no hope of saving Kenny from himself.
Well, that's my view on their deaths anyway, it may be wrong but I believe in it myself.
Also, they weren't really built up to be these major characters so their deaths didn't really surprise me and I didn't see them surviving till the last episode, sure there may have been things Telltale could have done for both of them but they obviously have other ideas.
It seemed to me like their secound deaths (Nick on the fence and Sarah on the observation deck) were Telltales way of saying that you can't … moresave everyone. For Sarah, if you left her to die in the trailer park then you are giving up on her and that makes you more like Jane who left her sister but if you help her out then it's like you want to help her but she dies anyway showing you can't help everyone. Similarly for Nick, if you say he is a good guy and get Walter to forgive him you are giving him a secound chance and it shows that you want to try and save him, but when he dies in episode 4 it represents how you couldn't help him, put together with Sarah's secound death it shows you can't help everyone. This theme of not being able to save everyone came in shown to be useful for epiosde 5 with it's major choice of Kenny vs Jane where you have to choose whether you would try to save Kenny or give up on him, the fact that you couldn't save Sara… [view original content]
Exactly, even though I may be angry about Luke's death since it was done for shock value, if Telltale hadn't have implied that they killed him for shock then I would have been fine with his death(despite the illogical parts like Bonnie surviving and Luke not ect..) because that's life in the apocalypse, people come and go all the time although I understand people would be upset since it's their favourite characters because I was sad at Luke's death.
The thing with Nick and Sarah though was that I never thought they were built up to look like major characters like Luke who was in 3 out of 5 of the episodes clip art, was introduced in a vine teaser to us all and had a close bond with Clementine like a brother and sister relationship. Sarah and Nick died, yes it's sad but I can't say I didn't see it coming since Telltale love to kill off characters all the time!
The only thing I disliked about Sarah's deaths were that TellTaleGames made it so that it was everyone telling us not to save Sarah, Jane and Luke specifically at the trailer park tell Clementine to lose hope on Sarah and then it requires Clementine to physically hurt Sarah the same way Carlos had to in order to make her snap out of her anxiety. Sarah then had the illogical death of standing out on the observation deck despite being a more sheltered character who often listens to what others ask her to do and then make her get stuck under debris that fell before she did and make it so that only Jane can risk her life to save Sarah only to have another plank mysteriously fall on her head to prevent her from saving Sarah, also despite the fact that the whole group could take out all the walkers even using the ammunition they had, which was used during the gunfight with the Russians. Furthermore, TellTale even revealed the fact that most of the staff wanted Sarah to die and laughed her death up with that IGN person. It's one thing to kill a character but to kill a character who hasn't done anything that deserves hatred just because you don't like him or her is hardly justifiable. I know that people die but I don't see Sarah's illogical second death being explained.
Exactly, even though I may be angry about Luke's death since it was done for shock value, if Telltale hadn't have implied that they killed h… moreim for shock then I would have been fine with his death(despite the illogical parts like Bonnie surviving and Luke not ect..) because that's life in the apocalypse, people come and go all the time although I understand people would be upset since it's their favourite characters because I was sad at Luke's death.
The thing with Nick and Sarah though was that I never thought they were built up to look like major characters like Luke who was in 3 out of 5 of the episodes clip art, was introduced in a vine teaser to us all and had a close bond with Clementine like a brother and sister relationship. Sarah and Nick died, yes it's sad but I can't say I didn't see it coming since Telltale love to kill off characters all the time!
I thought it was quite weird that Sarah was out on the observation deck but, like I said in my first post, her death is most likely Telltales way of saying you can't save everyone. I didn't think her death was laughed about on IGN, Greg Miller didn't like her so he 'liked' her death but the others probably didn't know how to react, I would be the same really. Telltale and IGN are probably in some sort of partnership and if they were like 'you are so horrible for laughing at Sarah's death' or something like that then it would probably go against that. I don't know that's what it seemed like to me. I doubt Telltale hated Sarah or else they wouldn't have created her.
The only thing I disliked about Sarah's deaths were that TellTaleGames made it so that it was everyone telling us not to save Sarah, Jane an… mored Luke specifically at the trailer park tell Clementine to lose hope on Sarah and then it requires Clementine to physically hurt Sarah the same way Carlos had to in order to make her snap out of her anxiety. Sarah then had the illogical death of standing out on the observation deck despite being a more sheltered character who often listens to what others ask her to do and then make her get stuck under debris that fell before she did and make it so that only Jane can risk her life to save Sarah only to have another plank mysteriously fall on her head to prevent her from saving Sarah, also despite the fact that the whole group could take out all the walkers even using the ammunition they had, which was used during the gunfight with the Russians. Furthermore, TellTale even revealed the fact that most of the … [view original content]
Well then the TellTale staff lied because they said it on camera to Greg Miller, also that still doesn't explain why TellTale decided to give Sarah an illogical death, I mean debris on top of her when she fell down on it? I agree that TellTale shows that you can't save everyone but that limits the reason to try and save everyone, it just means that you'll continuously face choices of saving someone when they'll just die a few minutes later :x they could've extended Sarah's death to at least some point in episode 5.
I thought it was quite weird that Sarah was out on the observation deck but, like I said in my first post, her death is most likely Telltale… mores way of saying you can't save everyone. I didn't think her death was laughed about on IGN, Greg Miller didn't like her so he 'liked' her death but the others probably didn't know how to react, I would be the same really. Telltale and IGN are probably in some sort of partnership and if they were like 'you are so horrible for laughing at Sarah's death' or something like that then it would probably go against that. I don't know that's what it seemed like to me. I doubt Telltale hated Sarah or else they wouldn't have created her.
I don't know, in episode 5 Luke talks about how everyone is gone and I think that part was needed for his character since we had never heard from him about his feelings and he had a moment to grieve, I don't know what Telltale could have done with Sarah in episode 5 really, I can't see how they could have killed her then except maybe in the gunfire but then people would complain that her death was shitty then:P
Well then the TellTale staff lied because they said it on camera to Greg Miller, also that still doesn't explain why TellTale decided to giv… moree Sarah an illogical death, I mean debris on top of her when she fell down on it? I agree that TellTale shows that you can't save everyone but that limits the reason to try and save everyone, it just means that you'll continuously face choices of saving someone when they'll just die a few minutes later :x they could've extended Sarah's death to at least some point in episode 5.
People always complain about deaths but Sarah's death literally lacked effort, I mean they could've at least had her fall before the debris fell, would've made sense, I can think of so many reasons how Sarah was easily salvageable but they just made walkers seem like more of threat with Sarah's death. I understand it would've been good for Luke's character development but it would've had more of an effect IMO if Sarah was the last cabin group left, like Luke would feel like he has to protect Sarah, I personally would've chosen Sarah over Jane or Kenny, Sarah wanted to survive that was evident and she had humanity and never killed a soul, she had decency which is almost impossible to find in the apocalypse.
I don't know, in episode 5 Luke talks about how everyone is gone and I think that part was needed for his character since we had never heard… more from him about his feelings and he had a moment to grieve, I don't know what Telltale could have done with Sarah in episode 5 really, I can't see how they could have killed her then except maybe in the gunfire but then people would complain that her death was shitty then:P
I guess, Luke still had his humanity aswell, so did Walter and Sarita all 3 were against killing and were generally nice characters. It's easy to say 'I wish _____ made it to episode 5' and '____ had a rubbish death!' But it is Telltale Games, you should expect them to kill off your favourite characters by now! They won't think 'alright so ____ is a fan favourite let's keep them in to please the fans!' They will think 'okay so if ____ dies then this can happen and that will lead to ____' basically what I'm trying to say is Telltale kill characters off and it may feel shitty since they are your favourite characters but that's life, it's the apocalypse, you can't save everyone - like you said first "not everyone is going to get the ending they deserve, cause that's real life for you."
People always complain about deaths but Sarah's death literally lacked effort, I mean they could've at least had her fall before the debris … morefell, would've made sense, I can think of so many reasons how Sarah was easily salvageable but they just made walkers seem like more of threat with Sarah's death. I understand it would've been good for Luke's character development but it would've had more of an effect IMO if Sarah was the last cabin group left, like Luke would feel like he has to protect Sarah, I personally would've chosen Sarah over Jane or Kenny, Sarah wanted to survive that was evident and she had humanity and never killed a soul, she had decency which is almost impossible to find in the apocalypse.
People always complain about deaths but Sarah's death literally lacked effort, I mean they could've at least had her fall before the debris … morefell, would've made sense, I can think of so many reasons how Sarah was easily salvageable but they just made walkers seem like more of threat with Sarah's death. I understand it would've been good for Luke's character development but it would've had more of an effect IMO if Sarah was the last cabin group left, like Luke would feel like he has to protect Sarah, I personally would've chosen Sarah over Jane or Kenny, Sarah wanted to survive that was evident and she had humanity and never killed a soul, she had decency which is almost impossible to find in the apocalypse.
Yeah I understand that but they never got illogical deaths and as for Walter and Sarita they were barely noticed it seems except when it came to their deaths, at least logic followed them. As for Luke it had a great impact since the events practically changed with Luke being the mediator gone. I'm not expecting them to keep my favourite characters alive but I at least expect them to come up with a slightly better death and not give us a choice to save 2 characters that die within minutes of saving them, both Sarah and Sarita. I know you can't save everyone, that's what I love about The Walking Dead but it's how they handled Sarah's second death that I disliked, it's the only death in the series where a character dies in an illogical way just because they decided to make Sarah fall before the debris and Bonnie, Mike and everyone else had weapons they could easily use, Sarah was literally a foot away from them but they just let her die without even having the option to shoot her so she wouldn't suffer, she's the first character to die in the same episode she is saved and it just felt like she died when she could've easily been saved, at least at the observation deck, the other deaths seem more logical and understandable to me.
I guess, Luke still had his humanity aswell, so did Walter and Sarita all 3 were against killing and were generally nice characters. It's ea… moresy to say 'I wish _____ made it to episode 5' and '____ had a rubbish death!' But it is Telltale Games, you should expect them to kill off your favourite characters by now! They won't think 'alright so ____ is a fan favourite let's keep them in to please the fans!' They will think 'okay so if ____ dies then this can happen and that will lead to ____' basically what I'm trying to say is Telltale kill characters off and it may feel shitty since they are your favourite characters but that's life, it's the apocalypse, you can't save everyone - like you said first "not everyone is going to get the ending they deserve, cause that's real life for you."
It seems that Telltale just wanted to kill her before episode 5 and at least in her second death you actually tried but it doesn't always work out, it was illogical like Luke's death as well; how could Bonnie survive under the water when she was under there for slightly longer and is a smoker also, how did Luke break the ice and not Mike who was running and carrying a baby, or Jane who was running and carrying Clementine?
Yeah I understand that but they never got illogical deaths and as for Walter and Sarita they were barely noticed it seems except when it cam… moree to their deaths, at least logic followed them. As for Luke it had a great impact since the events practically changed with Luke being the mediator gone. I'm not expecting them to keep my favourite characters alive but I at least expect them to come up with a slightly better death and not give us a choice to save 2 characters that die within minutes of saving them, both Sarah and Sarita. I know you can't save everyone, that's what I love about The Walking Dead but it's how they handled Sarah's second death that I disliked, it's the only death in the series where a character dies in an illogical way just because they decided to make Sarah fall before the debris and Bonnie, Mike and everyone else had weapons they could easily use, Sarah was literally a foot away from them but they just let her die without … [view original content]
The commentary about how 'anyone can die' and 'you can't always save everyone' irks me when these principles are not used on characters such as Kenny or Jane (and Luke, to a lesser degree) until right at the end of the story. They seems to be only used on characters who are either underutilized or are unpopular. Sarita was an egregious example of such principles, we all saw it coming due to her unpopularity, lack of impact on the story, and little screen-time, and having ended up being used as a prop to have Kenny reuse his story-arc in Season 1 with the death of his family.
But would the story truly have collapsed had she managed to survive by having her arm amputated if you didn't immediately chose to cut it off when surrounded by walkers? Seeing her struggle to live as an amputee would have been an interesting direction, especially if she meets the disabled Arvo who had to live with a leg-brace for much longer than a day. We had Reggie as an amputee, but he was used in a negative light to promote Carver's justification of killing him for being 'weak'.
Eh, I think we were meant to see Carver as evil for picking on a cripple. But your point about Reggie being a prop still stands - it's telling that neither Kenny nor Sarita even acknowledge his existence.
It's not like a guy surviving a zombie bite is something to shrug off. If they thought he was lying and Carver actually cut his arm off, it'd have made sense to actually ACKNOWLEDGE that.
The commentary about how 'anyone can die' and 'you can't always save everyone' irks me when these principles are not used on characters such… more as Kenny or Jane (and Luke, to a lesser degree) until right at the end of the story. They seems to be only used on characters who are either underutilized or are unpopular. Sarita was an egregious example of such principles, we all saw it coming due to her unpopularity, lack of impact on the story, and little screen-time, and having ended up being used as a prop to have Kenny reuse his story-arc in Season 1 with the death of his family.
But would the story truly have collapsed had she managed to survive by having her arm amputated if you didn't immediately chose to cut it off when surrounded by walkers? Seeing her struggle to live as an amputee would have been an interesting direction, especially if she meets the disabled Arvo who had to live with a leg-brace for much longer than a day. We had Reggie … [view original content]
Kenny is also unnecessarily harsh towards him, and he's meant to be on the side of the good guys. Almost as if his disability makes him a trickster of some sort, like he has something to hide from the group in spite of literally risking his limb to get said group out the first time. Kinda foreshadows Arvo's role in Episode 4 and 5, doesn't it?
Given that the amount of times amputation works for bite victims in the games, which is basically zero, I'm inclined to believe that Carver cut off his arm as punishment for helping Carlos' group escape in the past.
Eh, I think we were meant to see Carver as evil for picking on a cripple. But your point about Reggie being a prop still stands - it's tell… moreing that neither Kenny nor Sarita even acknowledge his existence.
It's not like a guy surviving a zombie bite is something to shrug off. If they thought he was lying and Carver actually cut his arm off, it'd have made sense to actually ACKNOWLEDGE that.
Comments
I'm one of those people. I said that in the very beginning of the post--I loved Nick and Sarah because I was like them and to see characters like them surviving made me happy. I expected decent endings and redemption for them. Instead, they got a slaughterfest filled with loose ends.
After episode 3,I was sure that Clementine,Kenny,Sarah and Luke be alive at the end.Episode 4 make me fell happy to have AJ but I was sad to lose Sarah.
Ya know, I think Lilly would be interesting for the mother figure role(or aunt role whatever). We haven't seen her in such a long time and she most likely changed. I dunno, just a thought I guess. I just hope Lilly will be more unique(by unique I mean not repeating the same damn thing the next season) than Kenny if she returns in S3.
I'm still hoping Telltale adds something to Nick's final scene in episode 4 when the disc version is released. Just some more potent music would go a long way.
And i hated them so much.And I hate everyone from the 2nd group except pete.
I would love to see the return of Lilly, but I'm not sure if I could see her being much of a mother figure. At least not a particularly conventional one.
Okay.
Same, fingers crossed for Christa
This song somehow reminds me of Nick and Sarah. Just look at the lyrics.
To the people who thought that Nick was this season's Ben. In Season 1 Episode 4 Clem gets trapped in a group of walkers with Ben and in Season 2 Episode 2 she gets trapped in another group of walkers with Nick(Determinant). Ben abandons her, to save himself, while Nick distracts the walkers so that Clem can run away. I think that's a good enough proof.
Tell Tale will probably try to make us hate Lilly for what she did :c
They already did. Unlike Kenny, who's introduced in a friendly manner, she's unfavorable right off the bat, and whereas Kenny has a pleasant wife and a cute kid, she has a miserable dad in tow. She's written out of the plot at her lowest point with no chance for redemption even if you try to give it to her by letting her on the RV.
Telltale wanted us to hate Lilly from the start, but at least Sean Vanaman had the decency to defend her and point out how she's a sympathetic character and why she was struggling, unlike those jokers who just mocked Sarah right alongside Greg Miller.
Yeah, I really respected Sean Vanaman when he showed sympathy for his character. The punks who did Amid The Ruins, on the other hand, take glee in supporting the death of a character they created, whose crime seems to be acting too nice/naive/young.
Yet they try so damn hard to redeem Kenny.
Sympathy for Season 2's writers only belongs to violent, immature men. Don't you dare say anybody else deserves otherwise. Little girls need to shut up and feel bad for the men, because that's what good girls do.
I swear though, if a determinant character dies in the same episode they get that status, I might reconsider...
I wonder. Am I considered evil for sympathising with Lilly over Kenny? Even after the whole Carley/Doug/RV incident?
I ended up finding myself being more interested in Lilly's story than Kenny's, since his was basically another 'father who will do anything to protect his family, ending up loses his family' story arc that has been done to death in other games and movies at the time. Lilly's story was more refreshing.
She was a woman in a leadership role she struggled to maintain while having to control her hot-blooded father with a heart condition, butt heads with another leadership figure who appeared more well liked but was more impulsive and had his own family in mind over his group, and very little to none of her own contribution to the group were appreciated or respected.
Yet she still tries her hardest to protect her group, which ended up pushing her over to the edge after losing her father in a brutal fashion, having supplies being stolen by a traitor in the group, having the safe haven her group worked so hard to secure ending up overrun by walkers and bandits, and not having her claims of a traitor in the group being taken seriously due to her own increasing paranoia and instability.
To me, Lilly came across as more of a relatable character than Kenny did in Season 1.
Agreed. I don't dislike Kenny, but I favored Lilly a lot more, for basically all the reasons you described.
Reconsider what?
Why....... is this back?
Well, since I'm here, I like to say I hate Sarah and love Nick.
I know this statement is old, but I'm gonna butt in here anyway.
The word liability is probably the most apt word to use about Nick and most definitively Sarah. I will go so far as to say that Nick died because of Sarah. If she had been capable of leaving the trailer with both Nick and Luke, things could've ended quite differently, but she couldn't move so Nick had to go out on his own to get help. Even Luke, Jane and Clem almost died because of Sarah being non-functional, I put my life at risk to get her to safety. Their deaths and stories does have literary value, just not the value you want from it.
Nick was rash, but not competent enough, I didn't appreciate him, but he grew on me when his issues became clearer. Nick died doing the same thing he did early on, trying to help other people. He helped Clem in episode 1 and he went for help when Luke had to stay and take care of Sarah. His death is sub-par, but not all deaths can be "meaningful, story-concluding stories of perfection". Nick was a liability, but he always did what he thought was best and to protect the people he cared about, he just wasn't competent enough and the circumstances and his mental issues led to his death. His story could probably have been fleshed out a lot more, he had more to go on. But it is possible to empathize with him even if he screws up.
Sarah is the burden and her story is important to Clem, even if it's not the story people want it to be. She was a sheltered child with issues, and her story should have had a different ending. It felt like way to many loose threads with Clem showing her the wound, teaching her to defend herself and trying to pick her up when she was down. They should have played on the friendship, but apparently the writers just disregarded all of that and said fuck her lets kill her. But her death is not completely meaningless, it is built up by Jane's story. Clem does everything she can to break her friend out of her sheltered mindset and get her to overcome her issues. Clem puts herself and others in danger to save Sarah, even going so far as to slap her (which the writers apparently thought was funny wtf) but I found tragic, sad and a necessity. Jane's story about her sister is the reflection on Clem and Sarah. But the story does give Clem an "out" because where Jane's sister died because she couldn't do what she had to, Sarah died under circumstances beyond her control. So in the end, she died in a way where she could not help herself, and so her death is not based on her inability to help herself (which the other one would have). Having Sarah's death be out of Sarah's hands does leave Clem with still some hope that it's still possible to take care of those who cannot fend for themselves. . Had she given her up in the trailer home, things would have been a lot different for Clem.
My God, what a shitstorm. Some of you guys are ungrateful towards TTG. Not even gonna bother.
Nobody here wants anybody to die. You're not special. What's scary is that you being so confident about making "humanly" decision in a split second in a life and death situation by just playing a game.
Did you even know what the word "liability" meant before you played this game and saw everyone else throwing it around?
The message you edited, that originally showed up in my notifications.
Telltale's slaughterfest is contrived and unnecessary, and I won't take the idea that "her being disabled means she couldn't survive, that's unrealistic" seriously when Clementine survives a plunge in a frozen lake with no lasting damage, and a man who just lost an eye can apparently drive a car normally despite no longer having depth perception. This is not a realistic game. It's about ZOMBIES. ZOMBIES AREN'T REAL. There is NO saying who can and cannot survive such a catastrophe because it is pure fantasy, and to put the completely fabricated "rules of survival" in a made-up scenario above the livelihood and portrayal of characters with disabilities that actually exist is... astounding, to say the least.
Also, why should I be grateful to them? It's not like they're doing this for free out of the goodness of their hearts. They're making bank. Everyone's being plenty grateful for just buying these damn games.
TTG literally gave their "fan favorite" Kenny a "predictable tearfest of an ending". All 7 of them.
TBH I'd have been much more interested in Sarah/Nick/Sarita receiving those fates.
It seemed to me like their secound deaths (Nick on the fence and Sarah on the observation deck) were Telltales way of saying that you can't save everyone. For Sarah, if you left her to die in the trailer park then you are giving up on her and that makes you more like Jane who left her sister but if you help her out then it's like you want to help her but she dies anyway showing you can't help everyone. Similarly for Nick, if you say he is a good guy and get Walter to forgive him you are giving him a secound chance and it shows that you want to try and save him, but when he dies in episode 4 it represents how you couldn't help him, put together with Sarah's secound death it shows you can't help everyone. This theme of not being able to save everyone came in shown to be useful for epiosde 5 with it's major choice of Kenny vs Jane where you have to choose whether you would try to save Kenny or give up on him, the fact that you couldn't save Sarah or Nick might persuade you to choose Jane over Kenny for the mere fact that you would think there is no hope of saving Kenny from himself.
Well, that's my view on their deaths anyway, it may be wrong but I believe in it myself.
Also, they weren't really built up to be these major characters so their deaths didn't really surprise me and I didn't see them surviving till the last episode, sure there may have been things Telltale could have done for both of them but they obviously have other ideas.
Also you have to hurt her in order to save her. It shows that not everyone is going to get the ending they deserve, cause that's real life for you.
Exactly, even though I may be angry about Luke's death since it was done for shock value, if Telltale hadn't have implied that they killed him for shock then I would have been fine with his death(despite the illogical parts like Bonnie surviving and Luke not ect..) because that's life in the apocalypse, people come and go all the time although I understand people would be upset since it's their favourite characters because I was sad at Luke's death.
The thing with Nick and Sarah though was that I never thought they were built up to look like major characters like Luke who was in 3 out of 5 of the episodes clip art, was introduced in a vine teaser to us all and had a close bond with Clementine like a brother and sister relationship. Sarah and Nick died, yes it's sad but I can't say I didn't see it coming since Telltale love to kill off characters all the time!
The only thing I disliked about Sarah's deaths were that TellTaleGames made it so that it was everyone telling us not to save Sarah, Jane and Luke specifically at the trailer park tell Clementine to lose hope on Sarah and then it requires Clementine to physically hurt Sarah the same way Carlos had to in order to make her snap out of her anxiety. Sarah then had the illogical death of standing out on the observation deck despite being a more sheltered character who often listens to what others ask her to do and then make her get stuck under debris that fell before she did and make it so that only Jane can risk her life to save Sarah only to have another plank mysteriously fall on her head to prevent her from saving Sarah, also despite the fact that the whole group could take out all the walkers even using the ammunition they had, which was used during the gunfight with the Russians. Furthermore, TellTale even revealed the fact that most of the staff wanted Sarah to die and laughed her death up with that IGN person. It's one thing to kill a character but to kill a character who hasn't done anything that deserves hatred just because you don't like him or her is hardly justifiable. I know that people die but I don't see Sarah's illogical second death being explained.
I thought it was quite weird that Sarah was out on the observation deck but, like I said in my first post, her death is most likely Telltales way of saying you can't save everyone. I didn't think her death was laughed about on IGN, Greg Miller didn't like her so he 'liked' her death but the others probably didn't know how to react, I would be the same really. Telltale and IGN are probably in some sort of partnership and if they were like 'you are so horrible for laughing at Sarah's death' or something like that then it would probably go against that. I don't know that's what it seemed like to me. I doubt Telltale hated Sarah or else they wouldn't have created her.
Well then the TellTale staff lied because they said it on camera to Greg Miller, also that still doesn't explain why TellTale decided to give Sarah an illogical death, I mean debris on top of her when she fell down on it? I agree that TellTale shows that you can't save everyone but that limits the reason to try and save everyone, it just means that you'll continuously face choices of saving someone when they'll just die a few minutes later :x they could've extended Sarah's death to at least some point in episode 5.
I don't know, in episode 5 Luke talks about how everyone is gone and I think that part was needed for his character since we had never heard from him about his feelings and he had a moment to grieve, I don't know what Telltale could have done with Sarah in episode 5 really, I can't see how they could have killed her then except maybe in the gunfire but then people would complain that her death was shitty then:P
People always complain about deaths but Sarah's death literally lacked effort, I mean they could've at least had her fall before the debris fell, would've made sense, I can think of so many reasons how Sarah was easily salvageable but they just made walkers seem like more of threat with Sarah's death. I understand it would've been good for Luke's character development but it would've had more of an effect IMO if Sarah was the last cabin group left, like Luke would feel like he has to protect Sarah, I personally would've chosen Sarah over Jane or Kenny, Sarah wanted to survive that was evident and she had humanity and never killed a soul, she had decency which is almost impossible to find in the apocalypse.
I guess, Luke still had his humanity aswell, so did Walter and Sarita all 3 were against killing and were generally nice characters. It's easy to say 'I wish _____ made it to episode 5' and '____ had a rubbish death!' But it is Telltale Games, you should expect them to kill off your favourite characters by now! They won't think 'alright so ____ is a fan favourite let's keep them in to please the fans!' They will think 'okay so if ____ dies then this can happen and that will lead to ____' basically what I'm trying to say is Telltale kill characters off and it may feel shitty since they are your favourite characters but that's life, it's the apocalypse, you can't save everyone - like you said first "not everyone is going to get the ending they deserve, cause that's real life for you."
Sarah's second death was extremely lazily done to the point that my suspension of disbelief collapsed, much like the deck.
They even recycle her death screams for both scenarios.
Yeah I understand that but they never got illogical deaths and as for Walter and Sarita they were barely noticed it seems except when it came to their deaths, at least logic followed them. As for Luke it had a great impact since the events practically changed with Luke being the mediator gone. I'm not expecting them to keep my favourite characters alive but I at least expect them to come up with a slightly better death and not give us a choice to save 2 characters that die within minutes of saving them, both Sarah and Sarita. I know you can't save everyone, that's what I love about The Walking Dead but it's how they handled Sarah's second death that I disliked, it's the only death in the series where a character dies in an illogical way just because they decided to make Sarah fall before the debris and Bonnie, Mike and everyone else had weapons they could easily use, Sarah was literally a foot away from them but they just let her die without even having the option to shoot her so she wouldn't suffer, she's the first character to die in the same episode she is saved and it just felt like she died when she could've easily been saved, at least at the observation deck, the other deaths seem more logical and understandable to me.
It seems that Telltale just wanted to kill her before episode 5 and at least in her second death you actually tried but it doesn't always work out, it was illogical like Luke's death as well; how could Bonnie survive under the water when she was under there for slightly longer and is a smoker also, how did Luke break the ice and not Mike who was running and carrying a baby, or Jane who was running and carrying Clementine?
The commentary about how 'anyone can die' and 'you can't always save everyone' irks me when these principles are not used on characters such as Kenny or Jane (and Luke, to a lesser degree) until right at the end of the story. They seems to be only used on characters who are either underutilized or are unpopular. Sarita was an egregious example of such principles, we all saw it coming due to her unpopularity, lack of impact on the story, and little screen-time, and having ended up being used as a prop to have Kenny reuse his story-arc in Season 1 with the death of his family.
But would the story truly have collapsed had she managed to survive by having her arm amputated if you didn't immediately chose to cut it off when surrounded by walkers? Seeing her struggle to live as an amputee would have been an interesting direction, especially if she meets the disabled Arvo who had to live with a leg-brace for much longer than a day. We had Reggie as an amputee, but he was used in a negative light to promote Carver's justification of killing him for being 'weak'.
Eh, I think we were meant to see Carver as evil for picking on a cripple. But your point about Reggie being a prop still stands - it's telling that neither Kenny nor Sarita even acknowledge his existence.
It's not like a guy surviving a zombie bite is something to shrug off. If they thought he was lying and Carver actually cut his arm off, it'd have made sense to actually ACKNOWLEDGE that.
Kenny is also unnecessarily harsh towards him, and he's meant to be on the side of the good guys. Almost as if his disability makes him a trickster of some sort, like he has something to hide from the group in spite of literally risking his limb to get said group out the first time. Kinda foreshadows Arvo's role in Episode 4 and 5, doesn't it?
Given that the amount of times amputation works for bite victims in the games, which is basically zero, I'm inclined to believe that Carver cut off his arm as punishment for helping Carlos' group escape in the past.