The One Massified Double Standard Regarding Choices
Greetings, person reading this thread!
Nick and his determinant appearance after his death in "A House Divided."
Sarah and her determinant appearance after her first death in "Amid The Ruins."
Sarita and her determinant appearance after her first death in "Amid The Ruins."
These are the three choices that I see people bash on, often used as a means to explain their dislike for "Amid The Ruins," and Season Two in a greater scheme. We have all noticed the discontent toward the decisions listed above.
However, I often find myself wondering—why do people dislike these choices, and not the numerous other ones that virtually have no effect in the course of the game? There are others such as…
Killing Jolene or having her die at the hands of Danny.
Killing Danny or leaving him to be devoured.
Killing Andy or leaving him to be devoured.
Killing Sam—the dog—or leaving him to suffer.
Staying with Kenny or leaving Howe's Hardware.
Killing Norma or leaving her to be devoured.
…that have, in my opinion, a much lower degree of variation that the first three.
What is going on?
Comments
I think the reason why the Nick and Sarah determinant fates bother us the most is that both of them were major and main characters of the season and the fact that they were treated with irrevelance and we really din't get any payoff with saving both of them. If you save Ben, you can convince him to go with Lee, stands up to Kenny who manages to forgive him in the end. with Sarah and Nick, Just a little bit of dialogue, them being in the background and just die, simply like that. As for Sarita, I think people were pissed about the fact there is really no change at all if you cut her arm off and not and Kenny is still pissed at you regardless and the fact that she din't really have that much character besides being Kenny's indian girlfriend.
As for those choices, Jolene and Sam were minor characters who had like 8-10 minutes of screentime and the Andy and Danny choice was more of a morality test, Staying with Kenny or leaving Howe's din't seem like a choice and the Norma choice was more of a give the antagonist a mercy kill or have her suffer more. So, yeah, not really that bad compared to axing off two major characters in two unsatisfying ways without even getting some extra development or anything like that.
I do dislike some aspects of the Amid the Ruins choices you listed. Still, I loved Season 2 and thought there were some good aspects of those choices. There were still some differences between the two though.
I guess the main differences between the two choice sets you listed is the possible outcomes. If you were to kill Andy or Danny, then they would obviously die. The situation was also set up so they all die even if you spare them. This was more okay because the situations leading to their deaths wasn't as random. Some did use shock value, (Jolene's death) but it added to the plot. (Danny shooting her caused some suspicion and distrust)Nick and Sarah's deaths were just pure shock value.
Killing the brothers or sparing them does change Lee in a way, and Clementine's view of him. It was more of a moralistic choice than a story changing choice. The same for the dog choice. Amid the Ruins choices didn't really change anyone's view of Clem or add any little differences. (Kenny got angry either way, Sarah and Nick got like two lines, their deaths didn't impact other characters that much) In Season 1, determinant characters were treated better. For example, if you spared Ben, he got his own little arc and his death meant more.
I don't know anything about Norma, but I guess character importance also factors in. Nick/Sarah/Sarita all had bigger roles in the story than Andy or Jolene. Players also felt more of an attachment to them. Their deaths felt more wasteful because of this.
I know you didn't bring this up, but in my opinion, the worst Amid the Ruins choice was to steal or not steal from Arvo. I was actually somewhat okay with the others, despite a few problems. But this was just...It's kind of similiar to the Season 1 stealing choice. Both of them were a little weak, but the Season 2 choice is bashed a little more. The main difference here is just lack of small details. Doesn't Arvo's dialogue even stay the same? That could've easily been tweaked slightly depending on choice. I still thought the situation was plausible, but a lot of the Season 2 choices lacked the small differences of Season 1 choices. The little things add up a lot. Just small details could have made those choices a lot better.
Edit: Sorry for typing a book here! I didn't realize how long it got.
I rarely see anyone complain about sarita, however nick and sarah its that they were big characters who had really lame second deaths with really little input inbetween.
Jolene was minor. The others were antagonists.
Oh goody, another place to vent out my frustrations that isn't my own thread!(don't worry, it's coming someday, just need time)
To some up what others have/will say, it all comes down to results and purpose:
Jolene was probably one of my top five favorite characters in Season 1 in part because her one-scene death was clearly the end of a story. It hinted that the bandits aren't the only ones who can't be trusted, which she took dark amusement in.
Andy and Danny were major villains whose deaths came down to throwing their beliefs and behavior back at them. Danny tells Lee to eat him and reacts accordingly based on who killed Jolene. Not killing shows that Lee won't do these his way. With Danny, he insists that Lee is the one who had to make trouble and gets his face swoll after trying to electrocute Lee. His death at Lee's hands has Lee lose his temper and show himself to be a killer.
Sam the Dog seemed to be getting across that people will attack each other over the simplest things and choosing to puncture his throat rather than just leave shows a little mercy and remorse on Clementine's end.
Kenny was a bad situation getting worse and then even more worse. As Luke, who just gotten himself beaten up by Carver or Troy, regretful points out, things are getting worse by the hour and if they really want to escape, leaving Kenny, who just got his face and eye beaten in, behind might just be an option for the best.
Nick is interesting considering the implications of his death: there were many who just didn't like him before hand and the few that did couldn't help but notice the dramatic decrease in his determinate screentime. However, once he was revealed to have died offscreen and turned, many who flat out hated him got upset because they thought his death was disrespectful to his fans, ironically gaining him hypothetically three times as many as initially. As I mentioned somewhere else, Nick was arguably the Cabin group member I thought about the least. I don't know what it was but despite my attempts to get into him during my second playthrough, something just wasn't clicking for me. So when I found him on my first playthrough, my reaction was a blank "Oh. He died."However, when the episode was over, I realized just he backwards a lot of things in the episode was. However,(and this is probably gonna irk some nerves here) while I hated how offhand his character arc and life came to an end, the one nice thing I could say about it over Sarah's "canon" death was that it fit his character. From what I recall about him, Nick was reckless(both with a gun and with himself), paranoid, and overzealous, but also guilty and protective. So, if I can say anything nice about his canon death, the idea that he would rush out on his own, despite knowing he had a bullet in his shoulder, to look for help for both Sarah(PSTD-esque flashbacks, won't let anyone touch her without freaking out) and Luke(injured ribs, refuses to just abandon Sarah) is something the others would probably say "That sounds like something he would do".
Sarita is a tangentially controversial topic because of her satellite nature around Kenny. What I remember about Sarita seemed to be flashes of a greater character: kind, empathetic, passive with an interest in folklore and culture, and yet not afraid to talk back in some instances and will get up close and personal if she needs to during action scenes. While I can't say she doesn't fall close to the "meh" pile, I really wish I had gotten to know more about her as a person since Walter was such a welcoming person. Her death did serve a [relatively telegraphed] purpose: she was the one who helped Kenny come back from his initial darkness, so her distress and/or death would signal a steep fall back into it. The downside is, especially for the people who couldn't stand Kenny, they had to cut down another 'different' character with plenty of potential in the process.
Sarah is a bit of a hot button for me, so I'll try to keep this brief(No promises!). While I don't know if I can finally go through with it on my eventually third playthrough, her first death in the trailer park was actually very well done(aside from the visuals, lol), not to mention not too too far off from my vague expectations for her. Which is one of the many, many, many, MANY reasons her "canon" death, as I "affectionately" call it, bothers me so much: it completely $#!+s all over the first death. In the same episode, no less!
I noticed you didn't mention Rebecca and how some people hated how they went through all the trouble to help her only for her to pass away anyway. However, Luke at least gives a reasonable explanation for it.
Norma is basically the same as Andy except much more split second and inevitable: she, despite her attempts to be a reasonable and understanding person, couldn't keep the more 'thuggish'/vengeful side of her family/community under control.
So, in a way, Michonne simply letting her get disemboweled by the walkers is a flip of the script: Norma insisted on keeping Michonne in custody despite her attempts to be reasonable, so now its Michonne's turn to not do the nice thing and put her down.
With the Arvo and the Russians scene, there are a few scant differences that I took note of while writing this.
I've seen a lot of people complain about how we weren't given the choice/chance to save Norma.
That's really interesting. I've watched a few videos, and most of their ambush/Arvo scenes were extremely alike. It's good that they throw in a few more changes than I thought.
It's probably because Nick and Sarah were actually liked by many people as opposed to the St. John's and Jolene who were villains. I can't speak for Norma, as I haven't played the Michonne game. The dog??...really??
Also, in both Nick and Sarah's cases, they were presented as troubled people, one as the classic screw-up, the other as emotionally handicapped. The game then proceeded to force us to interact with them and try to help them out of their respective psychological ruts, leading us to believe there would be some sort of payoff. Then we find out that they are written out of the game for no other reason that to focus on the (somewhat nonsensical) tension between two other characters (Kenny and Jane).
My dead thread, we meet at once!
I've always showed my dissatisfaction with that choice. Probably one of the only one's in fact that condemn's that meaningless scene.
I agree there.
It might have some "deeper meaning" for who Clementine is becoming—according to some—but it is in front of our noses that whether you save Sarah on the trailer park has more variation than this foolish choice. Sarah's model is in the background and she has some lines, for about ten minutes combined; whether you watch Carver's killing or leave has some two additional minutes of material.
I'm sorry, but what choice are you guys talking about here, exactly? Is this about when Kenny is unconscious and you either agree or disagree with Luke that you should leave him or about watching Kenny kill Carver or leave?
I'm very confused.
The latter—whether you stay with Kenny to watch Carver's death.
what
Sarita.
Never knew there would be a double standard on choices such as those.
I think they were pointing out the hatred some get compared to others.
Ah true.
So I totally agree with what everyone has said about the deaths of those three characters, mostly that they were allied major characters with potential to impact the story, and that the player could put a lot of effort into saving then before and during Amid the Ruins.
I also want to add some of the, uh, "problematic"aspects of these deaths.
With Nick and Sarah (especially Sarah), people claimed ableism was involved in their deaths. With Sarita, sexism. I'm mostly going to share what I've observed and not all these views are mine, but honestly I agree to an extent with some of it.
Nick was depressed after the death of his uncle, and thereafter painted as a liability. However, as a liability, we were still able to confirm his worth as a person to Walter in episode 2. Episode 4 comes around and all of the sudden the corpse of his character shows up just for a brief "you have to be able to put your friends down message," which 1) is a pretty unnecessary message for Clementine when she's had to determinately kill Lee, and 2) diminishes Nick's importance to the story to an incredible degree.
With Sarah, it's even worse. The whole story until her death revolved around the player battling circumstances and morals trying to protect Sarah best you could. Is it best to help her when possible, or give her tough love? Is it better to shelter her or show her how to shoot? Is it better to listen to Carlos or defy him for Sarah's friendship? There are a lot of ways Clementine can approach her relationship with Sarah, which gives Sarah an additional layer of friend or peer than just "liability". When she died no matter what Clem does because, according to Jane, there's "no helping her," it sends a dangerous message that those that suffer from mental illness are inherently weak and unfit to live, never mind that what Sarah suffered from and what Jaime suffered from are two different mental illnesses (anxiety and PTSD vs depression). This separation should have been important because it blankets them as "mentally disabled people" rather than individual people that have mental disabilities but still have their own sets of strengths and weaknesses. When some members of the telltale staff celebrated her death on the Talking Dead, I was appalled. As storytellers I wanted to see more respect for their characters than that. It's honestly the only time I can remember being angry at telltale.
Compare how Nick and Sarah are treated to how Ben is treated in season 1. Ben also is a liability (probably doesn't have a mental illness as much as he's just a screw-up kid though), but he's still given respect in both of his deaths, not a condemnation of his uselessness. His character is also framed in an episode meant to villify those that leave behind the disabled thorogh Crawford. To choose a mentally ill characterfrom season 1, let's choose your Jolene example - Jolene I would say could be considered mentally ill when we meet her. Her death comes as a shock because even though she threatens you, she's still portrayed as a sympathetic character in need of mental help after the loss of her daughter. Even if you choose the "I don't care, I'm going to shoot her" route, the player is later proven wrong to have done so... the discovery of the camera lets the player know 1) the atrocities done to her that led her to become this way, and 2) that she was right all along about the St. John's dairy. She's validified in ways that Sarah and Nick aren't.
I don't know, that's a long way if putting it. But I know plenty of people who suffered with depression and anxiety that identified with Nick and Sarah and were incredibly upset and offended, not necessarily that they died, but that the ways that they died put much of the blame on their mental states.
Sarita's case could be considered sexism, particularly the "fridge" trope. The trope follows that a woman only exists to serve as the love interest of a man, whose only purpose is to die to fuel his rage and character development. This is essentially all Sarita does. Barring her death to fuel Kenny's range and character development, she can easily be written out of the story because she has so little consequence on anything or any development of her own.
Compare to Katjaa in season 1. While she also serves the same purpose, she was also an important figure in the group for her medical skills and motherly care, giving her character more substance than that. Sarita has essentially 2 episodes for any development, and because there is so much else going on, she's pushed to the background with her only defining characteristic being "nice" and "knows a significant amount of information on the song Good King Weceslas". Dying is her only purpose, and people we pissed at that. Especially since this point of development has been repeated on Kenny already.
I'm hesitating top say though that it was intended to be sexist. Overall the telltale team has done a good job with portraying women in diverse roles with diverse body types and personalities. So I just let this one slide as a lazy story mechanic.
The most appropriate gif I could find.
Also, I'm sorry, I don't mean to shit all over this but...I wasn't aware that anxiety, PTSD, and depression were considered flat out mental illnesses so much as emotional responses. PTSD maybe,
Depression and anxiety can be emotional responses to temporary stress triggers - death of family can cause depression, stressful situations can cause anxiety. However there are people who suffer chronically from these responses to the point that they are considered illnesses. It's when you experience these responses even outside of rational and temporary situations.
Nick might be chronically depressed as Luke mentioned he's been like this before, though that can be contributed to him also having recently experience the death of his mother. Either way, his mental state is still considered a liability.
Sarah however does seem to have chronic anxiety, to the point that some have speculated her to be autistic. Carlos is well aware of her being "different", and she displays her extreme anxiety in even small stressing events. For example, when Clem tells her that the group is looking for Pete/Nick by the river, Sarah starts hyperventilating and needs to sit down and calm herself.
Which I never bought, honestly.
Good know: Anxiety=Autism.
I didn't really mean it to be Anxiety = Autism, just that she has such telling symptoms that people think it goes beyond anxiety to being something on the autism spectrum. I'm sorry if that offended you.
Because Sarah and Nick's deaths were bullshit. I didn't have an issue with Sarita though.
Naw, I was just being incredibly sarcastic in spite of my obvious ignorance. Forgetaboutit!
...What?
Well, those who wish she had a little more to her and/or grew as her own character do.
I think her's is more acceptable because not only was Sarita a supporting character[ who should've gotten more development], but she really only had to die once in the story, which allowed some variation in the details around her death(though her not being able to talk much is still a bit bullshit).
Sarah and, to a slightly lesser extent, Nick were definitely bullshit because they were main/major characters who had been around since Episode 1 as part of the main plot that the Season was supposed to be following, where they both functioned as more emotional and flawed as well as less ideal and logical foils to Clementine and Luke. Yet Amid the Ruins somehow managed to screw them both by giving them little to no focus(Nick more than Sarah, as he gets practically no lines and miniscule screentime; Sarah gets a decent amount of screentime and a few optional conversations), a relatively cheap "canon" death(both: Nick isn't even seen dying before being found as a walker and Sarah dies regardless of choice without any real resolution or follow-up to her arc), and little to no effect on the story both in the current tone and going forward(Sarah more than Nick, since everyone bares witness to her death before moving on as if nothing happened; Nick at least has additional dialogue that takes his death into account with some effect on Clementine, Jane, Luke, and finally Rebecca).