I'm anything but a Luke fan but his character change was bullshit and extremely noticeable. Season 2 had this with Carlos and Carver as well. It was all over the place
Call of Duty averages around the high 90s too - is it deserving of such praise? The actual critical reviews of Season 2 are a lot more middling than the AAA+++ the Steam reviews imply.
And deservedly so. I don't think Season 1 was perfect either, but that is no excuse for the second season to plummet further for numerous reasons - and yes, Episode 5 really is pretty bad as far as this series' episodes goes. Aside from the dozens of glaring logical errors and the fact that a disturbingly disproportionate amount of effort is placed into valorizing Kenny (as opposed to making us care about any other characters or, hell, even Clem), much of its drama banks on characters going against their established personalities in order to cynically extract "feels" from us.
No thanks, I don't have all that free time.
I don't know what site represents the majority myself, but I doubt that Steam is a credible o… morene since I'd find it hard to believe that literally 96% of the voters judge the game on equal terms. One may like it as a literal 10/10, while another sees it as 6/10 but still gives it a thumbs up. It's too black and white, where's the grey?
It's my way of saying how ridiculous that 3rd sentence was. It's a real turn off to some readers besides myself as your post lost the potential of being a good post as soon as you said that. It was unnecessarily judgemental to the user and leads to flawed criticism.
EDIT: Alright I gave a shot in reading it (but my earlier statement still counts for others) so here's what I have to say... I feel like your only looking at the negatives and not the positives. It seems rather biased to say that Breckon's a full out bad writer when there have been plenty of fun experiences that people had enjoyed. The dinner scene in Ep1 was well done, the atmosphere of Clem being alone in the woods were good as you got the feeling that she may never get out of there alone. The atmosphere itself in Ep1 was fairly good. Episode 2 may have some flaws but there were definitely some impact in the scenes based on what you did in Ep1 and what you did in Ep2 as well. Kenny didn't even over shadow everyone in Ep2. Despite some flaws, both episodes he did were good were good as whole. For Episode 5, yes I'll admit there are some flaws but we have had some great moments with the woods after the shootout, the power station bit, Kenny getting jumped by a walker seemed okay. The Wellington ending was pretty well done (despite being a fan service part but you gotta respect the choreography in that scene alone). Breckon is not the greatest writer but he's good.
And for Shorette, In Harms way did had some bits that bothered me, but even passed those mistakes I had fun playing it. Carver's death was pretty good, and had the brutality and gore that Walking Dead usually has. And for TWAU, it was meant to be a closure to the game and the intensity it had in certain scenes were great. The part with Vivian certainly shocked me about that whole ribbon business. And what about the Borderlands one, from what I heard he wrote that episode, many doubted but he did a decent job on it.
I thought the story and atmosphere was chilling and frightening back when it was still in the horror genre but then felt the need to differentiate itself from Silent Hill and transferred over to this action bull shit
It was actually one of the better episodes of TWD game series in my eyes. 'No Going Back' had a lot of ground to cover and plot to build coming off the somewhat questionable writing decisions in 'Amid The Ruins.'
I see your complaint with the Russian gun fight. I for one am glad they breezed past it quickly as it was a redundant plot point and it was good to see none of the group die there. It may have been 'unrealistic' but it was certainly unpredictable and fresh. Did you really want another hostile group shootout situation that results in the death of a character from Clem's group? I much preferred that it was mixed up a little and added an extra layer of uncertainty to the episode (as well as false hope). As for the dialogue choices that meant nothing that has always been an issue prevalent in Telltale's game series. Also, would you prefer it if Jane stayed unknown? That would be really poor writing and a complete Molly clone in my opinion.
Luke's death wasn't too bad. He had overstayed his welcome in my opinion and forcing him as a foil to Kenny wouldn't work as much as Jane did. The Bonnie choice did chance things up. You seem to forget that she could potentially die depending on the player's actions during the Luke scenario and this can contribute to a major reason for Mike and Arvo leaving later. Tis' true that TT could have done more with this here, but it is what it is and Luke's death served as a reminder of the harsh realities of the world (he felt a little too invincible before this).
The Mike scene made perfect sense to me. He was constantly portrayed as a morally good guy before this and hated seeing Arvo get abused by Kenny after the kid was only doing necessary things to survive. Not to mention he (and Bonnie if still alive) started seeing Kenny as a lunatic at this point and feared their own safety in his presence. So far they had seen him beat on Arvo, argue with anyone who disagreed with him, and a broken, vengeful man after Sarita's death. Their motivation was perfectly fine here and I saw no bad writing. The option for Clem to agree with leaving too makes sense, especially if one was playing an anti-Kenny playthrough and also saw him as a deranged lunatic (let's be honest it was hard not to).
Worst climax? Really? It was one of Telltale's finest writing moments for me. Jane and Kenny are polar opposite characters but at the same time share similarities. Jane has given up hope in people fixing the world and instead likes to live an isolated survival style. This was caused by the death of her sister and she now sees Clem as this person, wanting to adopt her as her own and believes she is best. Kenny on the other hand still holds on hope that their is people out there (Wellington) that can fix things (flashing back to his belief in the military coming in S1) and wants to embrace that. But both of them want Clem to accept their way of living and it puts the player in a position of great choice (something you seem to complain the episode lacked). This really shines light on just what life would be like in the post-apocalyptic world and the choice to give up humanity in order to survive for just a few more days. If Luke was here it would have just been because they both liked Clementine. Luke lacked any actual character depth unlike Jane and would have fallen flat in this role. Jane and Kenny just had better contrast and for that reason made it a good climax.
These are just my opinions of course. However, I really don't see why this episode could be considered as bad as you make it out to be. 'No Going Back' had excellent writing and mostly everything made sense in the way the characters had been built throughout the season. The choice mechanic was also much better than usual as it felt Clem's actions actually had consequence (moral conviction). I think you have blown things way out of proportion here. S2 gets a little too much hate when it deserves a little bit more credit.
I respect your opinion but disagree on all fronts. Season 2 was a mess for me. The writing was all over the place and it didn't tie together. The Kenny vs Jane thing was a bad ending to a bad episode imho
Might as well make my first post here.
It was actually one of the better episodes of TWD game series in my eyes. 'No Going Back' had a lo… moret of ground to cover and plot to build coming off the somewhat questionable writing decisions in 'Amid The Ruins.'
I see your complaint with the Russian gun fight. I for one am glad they breezed past it quickly as it was a redundant plot point and it was good to see none of the group die there. It may have been 'unrealistic' but it was certainly unpredictable and fresh. Did you really want another hostile group shootout situation that results in the death of a character from Clem's group? I much preferred that it was mixed up a little and added an extra layer of uncertainty to the episode (as well as false hope). As for the dialogue choices that meant nothing that has always been an issue prevalent in Telltale's game series. Also, would you prefer it if Jane stayed unknown? That would be really poor wr… [view original content]
If the ending is made non-canon I'll give you £1000. You have no evidence for that whatsoever, and it is only because of your self-importance and egotism that you think your ending is better than that of others.
I hear ya OP,but it had to deal with a unrealistic start to begin with,the gunfight got completely written off from the previous episode almost asking the player to just have a quick look away and remember it's only a game which i found very condescending,the episode tries to right the very wrongs of the previous episode,the very sudden change of heart from Mike was poorly placed but i gave the episode a 10/10 because of the timing,the feel,and the mostly strong writing.
Carlos died - meh. Rebecca died - meh. Sarah's dead - meh. Don't say it's just my opinion. It's not opinion of one fickle player. Something … moreis wrong with the writing.
And me caring about these characters and these deaths are not just my opinion, either. It goes both ways. If you got people that'll back up your opinion, then there's people that will back up mine.
Saving Omid/Christa, fightning Kenny, Irene and gun... These choices weren't pointless. They have started and ended quick.
Alright, so you're going to go ahead and defend those choices and vilify the ones from Season 2, then.
What the Omid/Christa choice amount to? All it offered was one of them being mad at you for one second. And then the other one survives either way and they forget this ever happened and never hold it against you in any capacity. What a gut-wrenching choice, I feel so horrible!
Fighting Kenny on the train. Oh look at that, I have a cut … [view original content]
I hate posts like this. Not because I am trying to defend the game, but I see it as you think the 'opposite' option should always be completely different. For example, with Luke's Death, realistically, Luke had as much of a chance dying either way. People seem to think that because they have the option to try and rescue him means that they will, because that's how TellTale make their games.
Wrong.
I like it like that. It reminds you that sometimes people can't be helped, they just can't, heck, Clem could have drowned just as easily in that scene but no one would bat an eyelid that she survives either way. Having moments like this removes the fact that this is 'just a game'. That sometimes no matter what we do, not everyone can live. Try not to think of it as a 'checklist' that every character has to die in some way, think of it as what it is, a bunch of ragtag people trying to survive in the middle of the apocalypse, and shit happens. The same goes for the 'Gun Fight' and 'Mike, Bonnie, Arvo run away'.
On the climax, that is just personal opinion. I liked it, this was the toughest moment I have ever had in a game, and then it continued on either path (with Jane or Kenny, or by yourself). I was in the pause menu for 5mins trying to think of what was right, and even when I chose I still didn't feel I had done the best for any of the characters. I do agree on 'Amid The Ruins'. I couldn't get involved with that episode, it tried to build character relationships, but it didn't feel right to me.
One more point, we all know how unnatural it would feel if it was a 'Save Kenny or Luke' scenario. That, would definitely be a cause for concern (storytelling wise, seeing as the story was 'generally' set out to bond with one or the other.)
Comments
i like all the episode
Maybe because all the episodes are written by different people, keep the personality is very difficult.
Yes but ruining the character and make him doing something Ben would do isn't even trying.
Call of Duty averages around the high 90s too - is it deserving of such praise? The actual critical reviews of Season 2 are a lot more middling than the AAA+++ the Steam reviews imply.
And deservedly so. I don't think Season 1 was perfect either, but that is no excuse for the second season to plummet further for numerous reasons - and yes, Episode 5 really is pretty bad as far as this series' episodes goes. Aside from the dozens of glaring logical errors and the fact that a disturbingly disproportionate amount of effort is placed into valorizing Kenny (as opposed to making us care about any other characters or, hell, even Clem), much of its drama banks on characters going against their established personalities in order to cynically extract "feels" from us.
That ain't good writing.
It's my way of saying how ridiculous that 3rd sentence was. It's a real turn off to some readers besides myself as your post lost the potential of being a good post as soon as you said that. It was unnecessarily judgemental to the user and leads to flawed criticism.
EDIT: Alright I gave a shot in reading it (but my earlier statement still counts for others) so here's what I have to say... I feel like your only looking at the negatives and not the positives. It seems rather biased to say that Breckon's a full out bad writer when there have been plenty of fun experiences that people had enjoyed. The dinner scene in Ep1 was well done, the atmosphere of Clem being alone in the woods were good as you got the feeling that she may never get out of there alone. The atmosphere itself in Ep1 was fairly good. Episode 2 may have some flaws but there were definitely some impact in the scenes based on what you did in Ep1 and what you did in Ep2 as well. Kenny didn't even over shadow everyone in Ep2. Despite some flaws, both episodes he did were good were good as whole. For Episode 5, yes I'll admit there are some flaws but we have had some great moments with the woods after the shootout, the power station bit, Kenny getting jumped by a walker seemed okay. The Wellington ending was pretty well done (despite being a fan service part but you gotta respect the choreography in that scene alone). Breckon is not the greatest writer but he's good.
And for Shorette, In Harms way did had some bits that bothered me, but even passed those mistakes I had fun playing it. Carver's death was pretty good, and had the brutality and gore that Walking Dead usually has. And for TWAU, it was meant to be a closure to the game and the intensity it had in certain scenes were great. The part with Vivian certainly shocked me about that whole ribbon business. And what about the Borderlands one, from what I heard he wrote that episode, many doubted but he did a decent job on it.
I liked how if you shot a zombie in the head, half of its head would be gone.
Might as well make my first post here.
It was actually one of the better episodes of TWD game series in my eyes. 'No Going Back' had a lot of ground to cover and plot to build coming off the somewhat questionable writing decisions in 'Amid The Ruins.'
I see your complaint with the Russian gun fight. I for one am glad they breezed past it quickly as it was a redundant plot point and it was good to see none of the group die there. It may have been 'unrealistic' but it was certainly unpredictable and fresh. Did you really want another hostile group shootout situation that results in the death of a character from Clem's group? I much preferred that it was mixed up a little and added an extra layer of uncertainty to the episode (as well as false hope). As for the dialogue choices that meant nothing that has always been an issue prevalent in Telltale's game series. Also, would you prefer it if Jane stayed unknown? That would be really poor writing and a complete Molly clone in my opinion.
Luke's death wasn't too bad. He had overstayed his welcome in my opinion and forcing him as a foil to Kenny wouldn't work as much as Jane did. The Bonnie choice did chance things up. You seem to forget that she could potentially die depending on the player's actions during the Luke scenario and this can contribute to a major reason for Mike and Arvo leaving later. Tis' true that TT could have done more with this here, but it is what it is and Luke's death served as a reminder of the harsh realities of the world (he felt a little too invincible before this).
The Mike scene made perfect sense to me. He was constantly portrayed as a morally good guy before this and hated seeing Arvo get abused by Kenny after the kid was only doing necessary things to survive. Not to mention he (and Bonnie if still alive) started seeing Kenny as a lunatic at this point and feared their own safety in his presence. So far they had seen him beat on Arvo, argue with anyone who disagreed with him, and a broken, vengeful man after Sarita's death. Their motivation was perfectly fine here and I saw no bad writing. The option for Clem to agree with leaving too makes sense, especially if one was playing an anti-Kenny playthrough and also saw him as a deranged lunatic (let's be honest it was hard not to).
Worst climax? Really? It was one of Telltale's finest writing moments for me. Jane and Kenny are polar opposite characters but at the same time share similarities. Jane has given up hope in people fixing the world and instead likes to live an isolated survival style. This was caused by the death of her sister and she now sees Clem as this person, wanting to adopt her as her own and believes she is best. Kenny on the other hand still holds on hope that their is people out there (Wellington) that can fix things (flashing back to his belief in the military coming in S1) and wants to embrace that. But both of them want Clem to accept their way of living and it puts the player in a position of great choice (something you seem to complain the episode lacked). This really shines light on just what life would be like in the post-apocalyptic world and the choice to give up humanity in order to survive for just a few more days. If Luke was here it would have just been because they both liked Clementine. Luke lacked any actual character depth unlike Jane and would have fallen flat in this role. Jane and Kenny just had better contrast and for that reason made it a good climax.
These are just my opinions of course. However, I really don't see why this episode could be considered as bad as you make it out to be. 'No Going Back' had excellent writing and mostly everything made sense in the way the characters had been built throughout the season. The choice mechanic was also much better than usual as it felt Clem's actions actually had consequence (moral conviction). I think you have blown things way out of proportion here. S2 gets a little too much hate when it deserves a little bit more credit.
I respect your opinion but disagree on all fronts. Season 2 was a mess for me. The writing was all over the place and it didn't tie together. The Kenny vs Jane thing was a bad ending to a bad episode imho
If the ending is made non-canon I'll give you £1000. You have no evidence for that whatsoever, and it is only because of your self-importance and egotism that you think your ending is better than that of others.
All endings are valid, all endings are canon.
I hear ya OP,but it had to deal with a unrealistic start to begin with,the gunfight got completely written off from the previous episode almost asking the player to just have a quick look away and remember it's only a game which i found very condescending,the episode tries to right the very wrongs of the previous episode,the very sudden change of heart from Mike was poorly placed but i gave the episode a 10/10 because of the timing,the feel,and the mostly strong writing.
This.
I hate posts like this. Not because I am trying to defend the game, but I see it as you think the 'opposite' option should always be completely different. For example, with Luke's Death, realistically, Luke had as much of a chance dying either way. People seem to think that because they have the option to try and rescue him means that they will, because that's how TellTale make their games.
Wrong.
I like it like that. It reminds you that sometimes people can't be helped, they just can't, heck, Clem could have drowned just as easily in that scene but no one would bat an eyelid that she survives either way. Having moments like this removes the fact that this is 'just a game'. That sometimes no matter what we do, not everyone can live. Try not to think of it as a 'checklist' that every character has to die in some way, think of it as what it is, a bunch of ragtag people trying to survive in the middle of the apocalypse, and shit happens. The same goes for the 'Gun Fight' and 'Mike, Bonnie, Arvo run away'.
On the climax, that is just personal opinion. I liked it, this was the toughest moment I have ever had in a game, and then it continued on either path (with Jane or Kenny, or by yourself). I was in the pause menu for 5mins trying to think of what was right, and even when I chose I still didn't feel I had done the best for any of the characters. I do agree on 'Amid The Ruins'. I couldn't get involved with that episode, it tried to build character relationships, but it didn't feel right to me.
One more point, we all know how unnatural it would feel if it was a 'Save Kenny or Luke' scenario. That, would definitely be a cause for concern (storytelling wise, seeing as the story was 'generally' set out to bond with one or the other.)
You misspelled "Amid The Ruins".
Where? Oh... Wait I get it xD good one