Sam is a horrible person
GameoverENT proved that Sam is the cause of all this events in TWD Michonne. I want to see your opinions about this.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
GameoverENT proved that Sam is the cause of all this events in TWD Michonne. I want to see your opinions about this.
Comments
Completely agree. She's one of the reasons why it was difficult to get interested in the game. She, and quite a few of the main characters just aren't attachable, or just plain annoying.
Couldn't agree more. Telltale really forced us to be on Sam's side. I felt like the main antagonist of this game, I was such a fool to let Norma die a horrible way. There wasn't even an option to call Sam out for starting this mess.
Couldn't this go in the 'It's all sam's fault' thread? On the front page?
Strongly disagree.
I dunno, I hope the one who made that thread should add the die but it just happened.
Why?
Or is it all because Pete is a good person? It's all about perception and Pete's good conscious very well could have gotten us all killed. All because he wanted to help random people we got involved in the Monroe conflict.
I haven't watched the video yet, and I look forward to doing it, but, going by the title, I am disappointed at Trey for having such a shallow judgment. You can't say everything is Sam's fault. A lot of people contributed to making the misunderstanding bigger. Hell, Pete himself could also be put to blame because he consciously decided to go to the shore to look for Vanessa—of course, that's not a reasonable thing to opine, because a lot of others took part, too.
Shes dumb and doesnt understand responsibility but shes not a horrible person, shes a good person who made a mistake. Compared to group members we have had in the past shes pretty good.
I don't agree. I mean, yes, she stole from Monroe, but that bag wasn't even from them. They took it after what Randall did in Mobjack.
And she stole even twice. But that doesn't make her a horrible person. It was for her family. They were starving.
And no, she didn't destroy Monroe. Michonne did it (determinant, and accidentaly if you let pete go)
Apart of all of this Monroe thing, i don't thinks there's more reason to think she is a horrible person
Because I like Sam.
This. As I've said before, you can blame anyone for everything in the game if you try hard enough.
Also I find this talk of her being a 'horrible person' completely puzzling when we have literal child murderers like Randall in the same game, on whose level Sam is not even close to being.
Its because the game clearly portrays Randall as evil and an antagonist and norma for that matter but the stuff sam does is all but ignored. Heck they even had Pete discuss about whether him helping people was the wrong call plenty but bar one line when shes bleeding neither sam or anyone around her comments on her crime being the spark which started this conflict
(also again nothing in the game confirmed he killed any kids)
Sam caused the conflict, she stole (and this was after she had been let go previously) its pretty ridiculous to compare this to pete wanting to help others.
Its the same as ben in season , yes there was a follow up of effects that had multiple causes but they were the start of it all
Right but if the game clearly portrays him as evil then how is it justifiable to say every single bad thing is Sam's fault?
It's heavily hinted at that Randall was responsible for the Mobjack massacre, I don't think we need to be so obtuse about it.
Thats Not how a Discussion works. Could you please tell us, what you like about her?
I agree, but the real problems lies with how most players feel that we're meant to condemn the entirety of Monroe, not just the ones responsible, for the massacre.
Not everyone felt comfortable with killing many people who likely never played a part in the massacre and, for all we knew at the time, were just decent people who probably never even met either Michonne or Sam and had to suffer or die because of what the two thought they had to do to escape.
Her eyes are pretty.
I don't Know what i expected. But i guess Thats still a valid Point.
Exactly. I always think, what if we were in the shoes of one of those people, knowing that they went through depression after witnessing the death of their family during the start of the apocalypse, but then found Norma, and was able to live life again? Knowing their worries, their daily struggles, their goals and their little sacrifices for the community—that's why the detail of the Christmas lights connecting the boats hits me. Somebody put so much effort to keep the colony nice, and then these criminals that were taken to your home burned it all down.
That said, if it was true that the ferry scavengers had Monroe on the scope, I don't condemn Randall for going there and killing them. Of course, the executions seemed crueler than necessary, but the idea behind them doesn't seem wrong to me.
Well yeah, the game makes that point in the hostage scene. Also you don't have to kill many people, if you let pete leave you accidentally cause the fire, and don't really kill anyone.
Hmm, stealing from the group and makign the deal with bandits, which caused them to raid the camp, while with good intentions, wasn't really 'indirect' was it?
It's implied that some died on the fire, or drowned, and some others were devored by walkers on the shore. That is—in some cases accidentally—all caused by Michonne herself.
At least she doesn't murder children like Randall.
Yes but she doesn't blame herself for what causing this situations, unlike Ben.
Yes I don't deny that it's all her fault. I wanted to lecture her but there wasn't a dialogue option for that.
This again... getting caught for Randall was an accident or a misunderstood. I told Norma that Sam wasnt part from our group and she didnt listen. And i dont think what happened in episode 3 was her fault.
Michonne was the one who turned Monroe in flames, and Randall killed John when he had nothing to do with that.
I understand, Sam started this chain of events, but even if she did, a lot of thing that happened in the game, would have never happened if other characters were nore reasonable.
Sorry for the english
And Sam never knew that stealing a bag of supplies would set off a chain of events that would cause her brother and father to die, an entire community to get burned down, and her family house to also get burned down.
Is it really all that different? They both made mistakes that turned into something much worse than their initial actions ever were. And neither were intentionally malicious, they both had understandable reasons for what they respectively did, even if the actions themselves weren't the best ideas.
I don't think Sam, is a horrible person.
We have seen she is willing to take huge risks to save other characters including Michonne, when she tried to get her out of the hallicunation.
Instead of just escaping the burning house to save herself.
Which is something in my opinion, a horrible person wouldn't even think about doing.
Sam isn't a horrible person just because she fucked up on the supplies, yes she did cause the events of Randall capturing Michonne and Pete but not a horrible person. I don't see how fucking up makes you bad in anyway or forum and I find it pretty ridiculous that the video is comparing her to Pete - a genuine good guy who doesn't want to harm anybody, even if they've tried to kill them. If fucking up did make you bad then I'm pretty sure a lot of us would be terrible people.
If you do want to know who the horrible person is, then please look at the guy who constantly needs to turn to violence, killed a man out of the blue and threatened to brake his kids skull with a wrench even though their at an emotional state after losing their mom, brother and father.
I think that's more Randall's fault than Sam's, surely?
Well then it comes to the same ridiculous argument going on above. You could say the loss of life was Randall's fault for taking Michonne to Monroe. And Sam's fault for being on the Mobjack at the same time as Michonne. Or Pete wanted to check out the radio signal.
Also I believe you can play that scene without intentionally causing any death?
I don't remember killing anyone.
The case is different from the what-if and the blame games, though. Michonne did start a fire, and that did directly end up with people dying. The other ridiculous examples link a death to an indirectly responsible character. That's how I see it, at least.
I believe @Mortal5075 is correct, but it really depends on your choices.
After Jonas or Gabby have killed Berto, Sam will push the gate of the house and press a gun against Randall's head, which ends with everyone on Norma's side aiming at Michonne, Pete and Sam. This also prompts Paige to shoot at Norma, though she will wait for Michonne's confirmation.
If Michonne didn't hand Randall over, Sam will end up shooting Randall in the head, causing Norma to become enraged and tell her colonialists to kill everyone at the house.
Also, when you don't hand him over, Randall attacks Sam and tries to make a break for it, which is what prompts her to shoot him. If he didn't do that, Sam probably wouldn't have gunned him down.
I don't think Sam is a horrible person. She's a strong person who cares about her family. She just made some mistakes that pissed off some psychos who don't like sharing.
She shoots Randall even if he is a walker, possibly so that Norma can witness his death, so I am pretty sure she would've shot him even if he hadn't hit her.
This video apparently convinced @AronDracula and @TheAutisticGamer that Norma isn't so bad, and I am glad, I suppose. But it grossly distorts from what actually happened, pointing unfair judgments at Samantha. This doesn't have to be a choice as Sam vs Norma! You can like or dislike both, if you want!
First of all, it was explained that Sam only stole twice from Monroe, not three times, because Norma would then be constantly The second time, she stole the two bags—one with assorted supplies, and the other one with guns and ammunition—and brought them home, but then talked to Greg about it, and they decided to go back to the ferry and temporarily hide them to bring them back progressively, so that it didn't look like the supplies had been pulled out of her ass. You can see John nor Paige know about Monroe up to that point. And the kleptomaniac remark… yeah… no. That's not accurate.
I have to say, I instantly disliked Sam for acting like Michonne and Pete were with them in front of Pete. That was just an asshole move, though it doesn't seem to matter, because it is determinant and we're all taken either way.
Then, why would Samantha confess to this woman she barely knows, let alone trust? I don't see why, at that point into this mess, somebody would expect her to tell Michonne.
I always thought that Greg saying that they're old family friends was a relatively smart move, because whatever Michonne said would coincide, as long as she stated that they knew each other. They could've been acquaintances and still found one another after the apocalypse occurred.
Now, how the hell is Greg's death Sam's fault? I can't believe this video, to be honest. It is, for the tenth time, Zachary's fault, because he was the one to consciously shoot in that direction, which resulted in the death of the teenager. Sure, you could say that he was attempting to shoot the wall behind in order to scare them off, but he should've known better than doing it just as one of them started moving sideways.
About the Mobjack massacre… sigh… I believe it is true that Randall killed those people and I also take as true that he killed the scavengers, because… wait for it… they're the same people! The scavengers killed the previous inhabitants of the ferry, moved in and settled, and then were killed by Randall.
Yeah, well, Trey, what was the alternative for going to the Fairbanks' house? Were they going to camp at the ferry forever so that the house is intact? Were they going to go to the ship, which would've ended with all of them captured by the survivor colonialists? How does that make Sam responsible for John's death?
I didn't even watch the video.