I think the later half lacked human conflict
I'm talking about the last 3 episodes in Season 2 and I wanted to go more into it. I'll be comparing it with some parts of Season 1 so bare with me. In Season 1 the moments with tension had some deep, sensible conflict like when Lily confronts Lee about returning with Ben and company, the meatlocker situation and the dialogue in the attic. What I'm referring to is the shouting a blind rage with not much substance (Kenny and Luke argument about the sex in Episode 4, Kenny beating Arvo in Episode 5 or Kenny vs Jane as a whole) It may have been the way he was written but I think the situations and dilemmas were more real life and developed in Season 1 instead of immature, whiny arguments. Its just the later half of Season 2 as well the entire dialogue about trust between the cabin group had some reason and depth to it until it didnt go anywhere.
Comments
This is one of the season's biggest problems. It didn't really have any overarching theme(s) to tie everything together.
Episodes 1 and 2 were based around trust
Episode 3 was based around... something
Episodes 4 and 5 were based around loyalty
Each episode had a theme, but there wasn't much of a connection or cohesion between them. Trust and loyalty were the two key themes of S2, but they lacked any connection or bridge between each other. If they found a clever way to make those two themes cross in episode 3, it could have been perfect, but unfortunately it didn't play out that way.
Personally I would have loved season 2 if most of the characters were treated better, and not given the appear in an episode die in the episode or 1-2 episodes later.. or the determinant character death sentence. Pete should have lived longer, Sarita, Sarah, Carlos, Walter ,Nick, Alvin... they all just died too quickly for me to enjoy them as characters, especially on episodes1-2-3-4 Luke was the only ok send off, It was unique how he died but I think the cut saving him option should have stayed in. More conflict in general would have made me enjoy it better, Season 2 just seemed like exactly what Nick said "will just go somewhere else, and somebody else will die..." especially the cut bandit was Mike thing, would have been very interesting.
Got the opposite feeling. The zombies were a problem at the time of Rebecca having the baby, but everything dramatic around the end of the season came from people versus people. With Sarah becoming an anchor to the group and Kenny butting heads with everyone in the group from time to time and of course the Russian ambush, all conflict that seems reasonable in a ZA story.
I dunno, I thought deciding who was to blame for Sarah taking a picture of herself was pretty intense. :P
...but, yeah, I agree that Season 1 had more of a cohesive theme as Deltino was alluding too in his response. The events and themes of Season 2 did feel a little disorganized at times, but I still thought overall they made some notably interesting narrative choices as well at times.
Disagreed. The Russians seemed like a comical and generic villain that was pretty cliche. Most of the dialogue isn't well written human conflict its empty and false drama.
I just think that Season 2 would have been better if Carver lasted until the last episode.
The whole season lacked human conflict. There was no conflict at all, and when there was it was inconsistent.
Be a bitch to Rebecca in All that Remains? Doesn't matter, she'll love you anyway by the next episode with a tacked on reason as to why she hated you in episode 1 that made no sense. That could've been a conflict that played out in Episode 4 where a character openly hostile toward Clem needs to rely on her help.
Show Sarah how to use a gun. That could've created conflict between Sarah, her father, and Clem. Doesn't matter, it was a throwaway scene that meant nothing.
The conflict between Luke and Kenny that started in Episode 2. You know the line. "It's fine, Nick we're not staying."
Kenny: "She's staying!" And this is regardless of if you say yes or no.
Luke: "What, excuse me?" said in a way that it's like I'm not leaving a little girl here with these strangers. But that was abandoned in Episode 5 for Jane. Heck even the dialogue she used would've made more sense coming from Luke than her.
Who is the baby's father? Carver or Alvin could've been good conflict, but wasn't really a factor except for one or two lines.
Then there was the Christa being pissed with Clem for Omid dying which would've been good conflict. (Did you see the look she gave Clem when she went to get wood?) But nope.
Then there was Nick being a danger to the group, which would've been good conflict because we'd have to choose whether or not to throw him out of the group. Imagine, if he was voted out of the group and THEN we discovered his walker body at the caravan park.
So many missed opportunities.
Pretty much, but the Nick thing was messed up. I imagine if Nick lived he would save Luke at the Lake but die himself.
Really? I always looked at season 1 as having it's major conflict as humans vs walkers since it was the beggining of the apocolypse. Season 2 was majority humans vs humans since that's the major theme of TWD and season 1 already did humans vs walkers mainly. If you think about it all the episodes in season 2 have major conflicts that are between people and not walkers.
Episode 1: Clem vs the cabin group
Episode 2: Clem's group vs Carver
Episode 3: Continuation of episode 2's conflict
Episode 4: Affects of the Carver conflict and start of the conflict with people we know little about
Episode 5: Conflict between Arvo's group, and conflict within the main group
IMO season 2's main theme was the human vs human conflict, and that was one of the main things that made me love it so much. I also thought season 1 focused much more on the bonds and relationships between people while season 2 was much more focused on the conflicts people have with eachother.
Episode 2: Clem's group vs Carver
I think the jump from 1 to 2 was too quick. Most of the distrust seemed to have vanished in Episode 2
Episode 3 seemed to have a real conflict. A comic style villain and the group had a purpose
Episode 4 and even 5 moved slowly without a clear long term objective. The Kenny/Arvo, Kenny/ Jane thing just felt like false drama with no emotion or structure to it. Instead of survivors who had been dealing with constant threat, the group (Kenny and Jane) acted like goddamn children and Mike and Arvo running away was just for more Kenny development (hooray...)
I think the only real distrust was between Clem and Rebecca, but I'm fairly sure even Pete debunks that character change myth people have when he outright says in episode 1 that Rebecca has moodswings, I mean it does make sense considering she is pregnant :P
Everyone else dropped it after Carlos confirmed it was a dog bite. The only inconsistency I see is Carlos, which I can't really defend, UNLESS he forgives you but of course, that's determinant.
There was conflict for one scene and the Pete convo MIGHT debunk it IF you were nice to Rebecca. If you're a bitch to Rebecca and pretty much confirm her fears, then she's still nice to you and trusts you for no reason.
I really think they should have played out the whole Luke/Kenny thing more, or at least Cabin Group/Kenny. It might have been predictable, but I think that conflict would have bridged those two themes about trust or loyalty. Do you develop trust with the new people who have seemed to accept you, or do you stay loyal to the man you knew from the beginning?
That's where I thought Episode 3 was heading too, with the conflict between Kenny and Luke evident throughout the whole episode. Kenny was wary that Luke would help them, they both had differing plans to escape, Luke reluctantly advocated leaving Kenny, and Luke and Kenny disagreed on Carver's fate. This conflict as a bridging theme was somewhat carried into Episode 4 as well, but was muddled as soon as Jane was introduced, and then was completely dropped by Episode 5. I think that's why the finale didn't seem to be a satisfying resolution to me, because it never fully addressed the resolution to this conflict when it was prematurely ended through Luke's death.
Episode 1 conflict.
Christa blaming Clem for Omid/baby death. Abandoned/unresolved. TBD. (that scene between them was tense)
Clem has been bitten and survivors don't know if dog or human. Resolved Episode 1.
Will the Cabin group trust Clem considering she might be working for Carver. Conflict abandoned in Episode 1.
Carlos doesn't trust you with his daughter and warns you to stay away. abandoned.
You threaten Rebecca by asking whose baby is it and you should be nicer to me. Abandoned.
Episode 2 conflict.
Nick is a danger to the group. Abandoned by the next scene.
Who is the father of the baby. Abandoned or forgotten.
Kenny and Luke don't see eye to eye over Clementine. Abandoned in favour of 'the plan all along' Jane for Episode 5.
Carver is hunting you. Starts in Episode 2 and resolved by Episode 3.
Episode 3 conflict.
There wasn't much conflict here. Everyone was pretty much left to their own devices.
Luke wanting to abandon some people at Howes. Resolved during episode. Kenny is superhuman.
Clem is the automatic leader and chosen to do anything. Not really a conflict and automatically accepted by all the adults, even Carver.
Episode 4 conflict.
Groups fear of Kenny. resolved by Episode 5.
Group don't trust Jane. Abandoned in Episode 5 when she gets the Luke seal of approval.
Are you a good person? Do you save Sarah or be ruthless like Carver and abandon her. Resolved/abandoned as it doesn't matter what you choose.
Do you steal medicine and risk getting into trouble with another group? resolved/abandoned as it doesn't matter what you do.
Episode 5 conflict.
Is the Apocalypse safe for a baby. Forgotten about/doesn't matter/that baby is superhuman.
Jane and Kenny don't trust each other. Introduced in Episode 5. Resolved by the end.
Group don't trust Kenny. Resolved.
Jane doesn't like babies. Introduced Episode 4 abandoned during Episode 5.
That all depends on how you interact with them. The only characters the game ever forces Clementine to trust in Episode 1 was Luke and Pete. Otherwise, you could choose to not interact with Alvin, not be Sarah's friend, instill distrust in Carlos, be antagonistic and blackmail Rebecca, and not accept Nick's apology. All that doesn't seem to matter come Episode 2 and everyone treats you about the same as they would have if you were nice at first, which makes it seem way more inconsistent.
It had conflict.
Just not intelligent or believable conflict.
This is most evident in episode 5, where the (contrived) tension between Luke and Kenny is erased in favor of an unforeshadowed (but equally contrived) battle between Jane and Kenny. But it's also evident in the fact that starvation and illness don't actually impact your group in any meaningful way. Robbing Arvo is meaningless as your group's fate doesn't change either way.
Episode 4's ending was immediately ruined by the next episode's opening, which in turn ruined the entire episode for me.
They better get a more competent writing staff for Season 3, along with a more cohesive vision for what the season should be about. I'm glad Telltale won't be releasing this game until next year, but that should mean they'll use their time wisely rather than phone it in.
It had conflict. In fact I think The Walking Dead: Season Two had some of the most atmospheric conflict ever. Episode 3 throughout was tense and scary, the ending to Episode 4 was shockingly depressing. Even the ending to Episode 5 was just something that was terrible, and something that should never have happened to Clementine.
Sure, the conflict was contrived and overall not that great. But if they improve, I can most definitely think they can do conflict well in Season Three, at least.
As I've said before, the writers (mostly Breckon and Shoriette) are good writers. I just think they need time to improve, which is partly the reason it's going to come out next year.