ARVO Defense Thread
CrazyGeorge
Banned
OK guys i know what your thinking. How can George defend ARVO. I just came up with the ultimate defense for this character so l hear me out , before you automatically disagree with me. I like Arvo's character, he was interesting to say the least. I am going to focus on this issue first, then later bring up other issues to expand the topic.
Let's discuss the act of shooting Clementine. He shoots Clementine for plot. In my opinion, it is the exact situation with Ben from Season 1, with the axe. To me it seems quite petty to blame characters for plot choices, without Arvo shooting Clementine the Lee flashback would not of happened. The writers felt that part was important to the story that the flashback was written in. It had to happen, the writers felt that it was necessary, that Clementine needed to hear certain words from Lee, to make the next decision in game. .
So it served a purpose, to send her to the "dream" state so she could meet Lee. After the writers toss away characters like Ben and Arvo to let them live as a Fan's most hated characters. The "Benninizing" Needs to stop TTG.
Edit sorry so bad at writing today, i blame the blizzard.
Comments
Completely agree. The people who hate Arvo don't seem to understand how human beings work. A believable, well-written character that actually resembles a human begin would not have shot Clem in that situation, no matter how pissed he may have been over his sister's death. Despite the fact that Arvo is trying to both escape and rob a man he knows is dangerously violent and unstable, and Clem has (determinately) dropped her weapon, means the only thing Arvo is accomplishing by shooting is drawing Kenny's attention. Hell, his only dialogue in that scene translates to "he's pure evil". Kind of odd to go from fearing another Kenny attack to shooting a little girl with no prompting.
Literally the only scenario Arvo shooting makes any damn sense is if Clem screams for help, because then I could understand he shot out of panic, or in the deleted scene in which Clem shoots Mike (let's face it, Arvo was completely justified to shoot Clem in that case). But to shoot after Mike has the situation under control and it's clear Clem isn't going to stop them?
Oh, but Arvo hates her because of his dead sister!
So what? That hatred is incredibly contrived and forced because Clem is never given the chance to talk to Arvo (besides to half-heatedly tell him "sorry, I guess... Imma just go back to that warm fire now" when he's tied up). And even then, no matter how much he hated Clem, he wouldn't have risked his life so much for so little when he was so close to freedom.
So in conclusion, fuck hating Arvo. I'll hate believable characters, not blatant plot devices, thank you very much.
Since when did defense threads become like this? Before defense threads took time and effort, and thinking of actual points to defend things on. Now defense threads consist of blaming everything on the writing rather than actually being a well thought out defense thread.
I don't know man, Arvo shooting Clem just because of plot seems kinda of an odd argument. We have to judge people based on their actions in this game and he did some things that were not okay in my book even before this event. I mean everything everyone does in this game is for plot since it's a story based game.
But Arvo made that shoot-out happen, he gave Clem wicked glares over a misunderstanding about his sister that he caused in the first place, he ran away from our group when trying to cross the lake and split up our people so Luke could not be saved. These issues all add up and they all pushed the plot forward as well.
Yes Arvo is a punching bag, but I feel the writers did a good job with everything I mentioned to lead up to him shooting Clem and justifying the hate for him. You could say Arvo was fucked the second he crossed paths with Clem, but he brought the hate upon himself with every dumb move he was making.
Because criticizing mediocre writing is apparently not giving time or effort, nor a valid issue to discuss...?
Nope, saying the same thing that's been emphasized for 6 months now on these forums is definitely not giving time or effort into it. Nor is it an actually valid point to defend a character on, sorry.
It wouldn't have to be so repeatedly emphasized if people would acknowledge it's an actual issue rather than brushing it off as a "poorly thought out" argument, and then going back to hating Arvo.
And it is a valid argument actually. The Walking Dead is not reality. It is a story. And unrealistic writing shouldn't be acceptable in a series that's praised for its stellar storytelling. Hating Arvo is essentially hating the character for the writers' mistakes.
It is a poorly thought out argument, because thinking the writing is bad is an opinion. You should be backing up arguments with facts, rather than opinions.
There is such a thing as objectively bad writing, as crazy as that sounds. And the writing surrounding Arvo is atrocious. Nothing about his character makes sense.
Why was he hiding meds? Why so far from his group's shelter? How the fuck did he get so far from the shelter on his own, and why did he go alone in the first place? Did he steal from his group? Surely, his group would've asked him "Arvo, where the fuck were you for the past 2 days? And where's our meds?" Did he blame the theft on Clem's group? Then surely Arvo's group would've asked him "what the fuck were you doing at that civil war site which is a 2 day walk from our shelter, and why did you take a shitton of our meds on that journey in the first place?"
Come next episode, his hiding the meds subplot is completely forgotten and never explained, which just screams "PLOT DEVICE".
Why is Clem never allowed to talk to him in Episode 5? Oh, so Arvo never learns that his sister was a zombie and he has flimsy justification to shoot Clem later. Where did Arvo even get that rifle in the first place? Wait, what's that flying in the breeze? Is that the script?
So bad writing is unanswered questions and things that are left out of the story? What? And the teleportation thing I can't defend but season 1 does do it as well so...
So what if it wasn't? Does every little thing have to have an answer? No it doesn't.
Either way as I said, bad writing is an opinion, and is not a valid point to defend a character or even make a defense thread based on. It's just a lazy excuse for why IN YOUR OPINION something would be bad.
No, bad writing is, in part, things that make no sense and happen with no justification. The teleportation in Season 1 had no effect on the plot. Arvo's ridiculous actions had a huge impact on the plot, which is why it's actually an issue.
Things that make no sense at least need justification in a story, if not an answer. If Sarah is going to do a complete 180 and suddenly try to murder Clem, it needs justification because something like that will destroy our suspension of disbelief otherwise. Same with Arvo, people who take a break from hating him and really think about his actions will realize how little they make sense.
And as I said, as much as you deny it, objectively bad writing, that is, writing that is factually bad, is a real thing.
The hell are you talking about? No effect on the plot? The stranger would have never made it to Savannah in time to capture Clementine if it had "no effect on the plot". They'd be on the ocean right now if it weren't for his little teleportation thing, lol.
Oh, I thought you were referring to Lee teleporting giant items into hammerspace. Apologies for misunderstanding.
Regardless, the stranger making it to Savannah is far more believable than anything Arvo did. He could've found gas in Macon. He may have already been close to Savannah long before the group started heading there, seeing as Long Road Ahead takes place a week after Starved for Help. Incidentally, I found the stranger to be the most plot-convenient part of Season 1.
Most importantly, trying to explain context (how the stranger got to Savannah so fast) is far easier than trying to justifying character behaviour (why the fuck did Arvo do anything he did?) The stranger's fast travelling is an excusable plot convenience. Arvo's inhuman behaviour is an inexcusable immersion breaker.
And my other points still stand.
Defense thread
.... again. Anyway I don't feel bad for him at all. He got off very easy compared to everyone else. I get that he is unstable and had a bad day but that doesn't justify his actions although I do understand them more clearly
I must have missed the patch that had Arvo:
Start the gunfight instead of Buricko
Give Clem 'wicked glares', because that's clearly much worse than him getting his face beaten in constantly or Kenny saying horrid things to Clem in Episode 4
'Splitting our people up' when it was their own fault for going with the 'cross the frozen river' idea in the first place
People will go out of their way to hate this guy, and it's a bit astounding. I honestly can't bring myself to hate him just because it feels like giving in to bad writing. Episode 5 is the worst episode in the entire franchise and the whole ugliness surrounding Arvo is just one reason why I think so.
Another Arvo defense thread. .3. Anyway...yes he was a blatant plot device I agree completely. He is not worthy of the hatred. All I wanted for him was to be a well written character, and he wasn't even that. Arvo was just a big disappointment and it makes me sad. I am so sad.
"because plot" - win every argument?
OK. but then this: Arvo mad at Clementine for shooting his sister. Arvo takes revenge. Plot? I think not.
Disagree
Arvo mad at Clementine for shooting his sister. Arvo takes revenge using a rifle that conveniently appeared from nowhere, in a situation that firing a gun would cause him far more harm than good, acting upon desire for revenge that only exists due to plot's insistence that Clem never be allowed to talk to Arvo.
There, fixed :v
OK. because plot.
Look! Is that the script!? :O
Look! People creating defensive threads and include their reason to be "plot"!
I still have yet to see why criticising the writing automatically means the argument is invalid
"We shouldn't judge characters for their actions, the writers were forcing them to do it!"
-CrazyGeorge
It's not. it's just that some people keep useing "plot" as an immediate excuse to everything.
Therefor I said:
Can't be more accurate haha.
Arvo was the one who told his group that Clem jumped them and started this shit in the first place. All this after Jane told him to not come back and not mess with the group, at gun point.
His "wicked glares" were an indication that he hated Clem for what she had to do. Kenny apologized, but I guess you missed that part, pay attention next time.
Doesn't matter if it was the group's idea, it would've worked if Arvo just crossed it with no problems, but that scum fucked everything up and you know it.
Bad writing is such a weak argument.
Well Jane did steal his gun, why wouldn't his group ask him what happened to it?
It was likely Buricko's idea to go after them, he's the one telling Arvo what to say to Clementine's group, if it were Arvo's idea, he wouldn't be taking orders from someone else. And when both Vitali and Arvo tell him to back down and put his gun away he doesn't listen to either of them. I'd blame Buricko before Arvo.
Arvo was an idiot for running, yeah, but Kenny and Mike were running after him like idiots as well, if anything all three of them share the blame.
Still a warning is a warning. Arvo told his group, knowing that Clem's group could fight back, he brought the shit-storm upon himself. Could've lied just like he was probably doing in first place to his group or leave his group just like what he was planning in the first place.
Somehow I doubt they'd buy an excuse like "I dropped it." What other lie could he have told them that was going to work?
With what though? He had no weapon on him, it would be suicide to just go off on his own at that point. And I doubt he'd leave without his sister, clearly he cared a shitton about her and he'd have to go back to the house and get her to come along. I don't think he had that many options. .-.
Yeah "dropped it" is a bad excuse, but he could've come up with something walking at snails pace back to his group. His sister seemed healthy enough to participate in a mugging, so instead they could have gone their own way after Arvo re-grouped with his people.
I don't know, coming up with hypotheticals seems lame at this point let's just drop this silly argument.
Responding to the first part of this post would have me coming up with even more hypotheticals, so;
Agreed.
I was more talking about if Arvo hadn't shot Clementine, the fans wouldn't of got the important Lee moment. I'm not even discussing the quality of the "writing.", i guess i should of been more direct. I am talking about cause and effect. Everyone hated ben for stealing the supplies, they hated him because they blamed him for Carley's/Doug's death. They blamed him for her death, and we all know Lilly was the one who pulled the trigger.