That would be a logical implication given the circumstances. As I've pointed out, Arvo is a debatable evil counterpart/shadow archetype of Sarah, who also deferred heavily on an elder relative and didn't know how to properly respond to the conflicts of the apocalypse. His addressing the walkers as just "those things," combined with the fact that he didn't really see Natasha turn, just her recently turned corpse, suggests that he never realized the exact nature of them and may have even assumed that's just the way things are now. Even assuming Buricko, Vitali, or even Natasha herself were "bandits"(not the word I'd use if that was indubitably the case), its entirely possible that they never had to deal with any recently turned walkers because a. they didn't seem to be the shoot-first, rob-later type and b. they most likely would've shot their enemies in the head, hence sparing them all from witnessing a turning walker.
Even if they did he still would have wanted someone to blame for her getting killed in the first place.
Truth. It's basically Kenny, Ben, the Bandits, and Duck/Katjaa all over again; Just swap in Arvo, Clementine, Jane/Rebecca, and Natasha.
They didn't give her supplies she might use and would die anyway.
Sarah understood but wasnt as exposed as everyone else because she had … moreanxiety. Unlike Clem and the gang the cabin group camped out at Howe's or whatever that store was named.
Who said Arvo didnt understand what was going on?
Even if they did he still would have wanted someone to blame for her getting killed in the first place.
I think Kenny can assume why Clem would shoot her adopted father. Why would he pry when he knows personally how painful shooting a family member can be?
Clementine can stop an walker herd like Lee (as seen if you save Nick) buy she can't lift the water.
Well, to be fair, pressing all of your weight and power against a double door should be easier than actively lifting and maintaining balance with a jug of water.
I noticed only 2 plot holes in Season 2.
1) Clementine can stop a walker herd like Lee (as seen if you save Nick) but she can't lift a wa… moreter container.
2) Clementine's bite-wound on the arm is way too big for a human bite. And how the hell Carlos doesn't notice that?
Clementine can stop an walker herd like Lee (as seen if you save Nick) buy she can't lift the water.
Well, to be fair, pressing all … moreof your weight and power against a double door should be easier than actively lifting and maintaining balance with a jug of water.
I don't think it's possible for anyone to cut their own hair as flatly and evenly as Mike. Btw you know there's a quoting feature right?
No idea how to use the quoting feature. I guess that's right
Why not? Cut off as much as you can with scissors or something and then use a razor to cut the rest. Plus even without electricity I'm sure he could have found a battery operated razor somewhere in some house or store at some point.
Why on earth would someone who is bit by a walker use a bandage?
Because they are stupid and afraid. Especially a child. Yes I know Clementine isnt stupid but remember they dont know her.
I understand that they protected Sarah, but I think everyone is seriously underestimating how long 2 years is
Still I say if you stayed in one place and had no herds come through it's be fine. Our characters get attacked often for plots sake but most people might only find a walker once in awhile after they left the cities.
What? I'm saying that Clem and Kenny don't really seem that interested about what happened after they split apart in Season 1
I guess Kenny could have asked about Christa and Omid but Kenny told his story about being alone for a long time before finding Sarita and Clementine said Lee saved her. Maybe he didn't give a shit about Christa and Omid, would it surprise you to find out he couldnt care less about them?
I kinda don't wanna give it away...but then again, that only really applied to my milestone contribution and the one after it. Check out dan######'s topic!
It's a list of plot points and missed opportunities I'm taking note of for later plans. Sarita is one of the characters that felt like there should have been more to them and the story could have benefited from their increased presence.
Clementine can stop a walker herd like Lee (as seen if you save Nick) but she can't lift a water container.
In all honesty, they basically wrote themselves into a corner with that scene, looking back at it. There's really only two ways it could play out, both of which present their own problems.
Nick holds the door, and has Clementine look for something heavy to put in front of the door. Nick holding the door closed makes sense, but how would Clementine manage to push a heavy box over to the door by herself?
Clementine holds the door, Nick finds something heavy to put in front of the door. Solves the problem of how Clementine can move something heavy in front of the door, but opens up a new problem in its place; how does Clementine manage to hold the door closed by herself?
There's a logic gap no matter what they choose to do. Though I'll admit, they probably would have been better off choosing the former.
I noticed only 2 plot holes in Season 2.
1) Clementine can stop a walker herd like Lee (as seen if you save Nick) but she can't lift a wa… moreter container.
2) Clementine's bite-wound on the arm is way too big for a human bite. And how the hell Carlos doesn't notice that?
I kinda don't wanna give it away...but then again, that only really applied to my milestone contribution and the one after it. Check out dan… more######'s topic!
It's a list of plot points and missed opportunities I'm taking note of for later plans. Sarita is one of the characters that felt like there should have been more to them and the story could have benefited from their increased presence.
Not to ruin anyone's fun, but I don't think a lot of these really count as plot holes. I mean yeah, they're inconsistencies, sure, but are they really that big of a deal? Something that has you scratching your head thinking "wait, what?"
When I think of a plot hole, I think of something along the lines of the town from Amid The Ruins. One episode, it's there, characters acknowledge it's existence, and it's made a point to try and get to the town. Then comes episode 5, and suddenly everyone has forgotten its existence. No one mentions or acknowledges it. It's like it just dropped off the face of the earth.
That's what I'd personally consider an actual plot hole. It isn't some character inconsistency like someone being able to do something they couldn't do an episode ago, it's an entire plot point just vanishing into thin air for no discernible reason. Something that actively stands out among other details. Something that you can't just brush to the side as a small writing/design blunder.
Like, most of the examples in this thread are either minor, or have some kind of possible explanation as to why they happened, be that for narrative reasons, gameplay reasons, or maybe something that could have happened off screen. Now I'm not saying that they're good reasons, but they're still explanations nonetheless. But the town just disappearing from the story? That's not really defensible. With AJ still being alive after 9 days, for example, you could explain it as they found a working vehicle along the way, looted a store and found baby formula while they were traveling, and other things like that. It's not that hard to believe. But episode 5 picks up directly after episode 4, and it's like everyone collectively suffered a bout of amnesia regarding the town.
"In fiction, a plot hole, plothole or plot error is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot. Such inconsistencies include such things as illogical or impossible events, and statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline."
In this sense, a plot hole can either be a noticeable gap in the logic of the narrative, such as the amnesia regarding the town in "No Going Back," or it can also be a minor inconsistency, such as the newborn's survival during the nine day time-skip.
Not to ruin anyone's fun, but I don't think a lot of these really count as plot holes. I mean yeah, they're inconsistencies, sure, but are t… morehey really that big of a deal? Something that has you scratching your head thinking "wait, what?"
When I think of a plot hole, I think of something along the lines of the town from Amid The Ruins. One episode, it's there, characters acknowledge it's existence, and it's made a point to try and get to the town. Then comes episode 5, and suddenly everyone has forgotten its existence. No one mentions or acknowledges it. It's like it just dropped off the face of the earth.
That's what I'd personally consider an actual plot hole. It isn't some character inconsistency like someone being able to do something they couldn't do an episode ago, it's an entire plot point just vanishing into thin air for no discernible reason. Something that actively stands out among other details. Something that you can't just b… [view original content]
Alright, so they can count as a plot hole in the textbook definition, but they can be argued beyond that. It's like how by the textbook definition, Telltale's games do indeed count as games, but a lot of people argue whether or not they're game games, you get what I mean?
So you could argue whether or not a smaller-scale inconsistency really counts as a plot hole in a more general/broad sense, and not just in terms of the literary terminology behind it. Which is what I'm doing. Or at least, I think I am.
The way I see it, a plot hole is like a sink hole in the middle of a street. Something readily noticeable to anyone passing by. Not something you're going to miss or just pay no attention to. On the other hand, a minor inconsistency in a character is more like a small pot hole in the street. You drive over it, there's a small bump. At most, maybe it startles you a bit, but otherwise, you're not being going to care too much or keep thinking about it. But when you have one big sink hole in the middle of the road, you're gonna be all like "the fuck is this?" when you pass by it. It's something that will grab your attention before you're even close to it. And it's something that's probably going to stick in your mind. You might go over to a friend later in the day and be like "Hey Joey, did you see that sink hole in the middle of Fifth Street? Shit's pretty neat."
Which is why this boils down to semantics, I guess. What I might consider to be something relatively small and not overly important and/or noticeable, someone else might be all like "whoa whoa whoa, stop the presses" depending on your own feelings, and your own personal definitions of more abstract concepts.
"In fiction, a plot hole, plothole or plot error is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by… more the story's plot. Such inconsistencies include such things as illogical or impossible events, and statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline."
—In Project Muse through Wikipedia
In this sense, a plot hole can either be a noticeable gap in the logic of the narrative, such as the amnesia regarding the town in "No Going Back," or it can also be a minor inconsistency, such as the newborn's survival during the nine day time-skip.
Let's argue semantics, yo.
But when you have one big sink hole in the middle of the road, you're gonna be all like "the fuck is this?" when you pass by it. It's something that will grab your attention before you're even close to it. And it's something that's probably going to stick in your mind.
Okay, you asked for it.
Alright, so they can count as a plot hole in the textbook definition, but they can be argued beyond that. It's li… moreke how by the textbook definition, Telltale's games do indeed count as games, but a lot of people argue whether or not they're game games, you get what I mean?
So you could argue whether or not a smaller-scale inconsistency really counts as a plot hole in a more general/broad sense, and not just in terms of the literary terminology behind it. Which is what I'm doing. Or at least, I think I am.
The way I see it, a plot hole is like a sink hole in the middle of a street. Something readily noticeable to anyone passing by. Not something you're going to miss or just pay no attention to. On the other hand, a minor inconsistency in a character is more like a small pot hole in the street. You drive over it, there's a small bump. At most, maybe it startles you a bit, but otherwise, you're not being going to … [view original content]
That is more than a hole. That's like a plot extinction event. It isn't just causing trouble in the consistency and logic of the narrative. It is actively taking the narrative by the shirt collar, tossing it to the floor, and proceeding to kick the shit out of it. With lead boots. With spikes on them.
But when you have one big sink hole in the middle of the road, you're gonna be all like "the fuck is this?" when you pass by it. It's someth… moreing that will grab your attention before you're even close to it. And it's something that's probably going to stick in your mind.
...Sooo, Sarah's "canon" death?
What you're saying is rather very sensible, Deltino. There's a simple disagreement on terminology, I believe, but the concepts are the same—there are inconsistencies that affect the realism of the narrative and concern the player to varying degrees.
Also, the second to last paragraph got me a laugh, so thanks.
Okay, you asked for it.
Alright, so they can count as a plot hole in the textbook definition, but they can be argued beyond that. It's li… moreke how by the textbook definition, Telltale's games do indeed count as games, but a lot of people argue whether or not they're game games, you get what I mean?
So you could argue whether or not a smaller-scale inconsistency really counts as a plot hole in a more general/broad sense, and not just in terms of the literary terminology behind it. Which is what I'm doing. Or at least, I think I am.
The way I see it, a plot hole is like a sink hole in the middle of a street. Something readily noticeable to anyone passing by. Not something you're going to miss or just pay no attention to. On the other hand, a minor inconsistency in a character is more like a small pot hole in the street. You drive over it, there's a small bump. At most, maybe it startles you a bit, but otherwise, you're not being going to … [view original content]
You know, I put that rimshot clip in there as another joke, but the real funny thing is that it's pretty much accurate to my real life response to that stupid scene. For weeks even!
That is more than a hole. That's like a plot extinction event. It isn't just causing trouble in the consistency and logic of the narrative. … moreIt is actively taking the narrative by the shirt collar, tossing it to the floor, and proceeding to kick the shit out of it. With lead boots. With spikes on them.
Clementine can stop a walker herd like Lee (as seen if you save Nick) but she can't lift a water container.
In all honesty, they bas… moreically wrote themselves into a corner with that scene, looking back at it. There's really only two ways it could play out, both of which present their own problems.
* Nick holds the door, and has Clementine look for something heavy to put in front of the door. Nick holding the door closed makes sense, but how would Clementine manage to push a heavy box over to the door by herself?
* Clementine holds the door, Nick finds something heavy to put in front of the door. Solves the problem of how Clementine can move something heavy in front of the door, but opens up a new problem in its place; how does Clementine manage to hold the door closed by herself?
There's a logic gap no matter what they choose to do. Though I'll admit, they probably would have been better off choosing the former.
I don't think it's possible for anyone to cut their own hair as flatly and evenly as Mike. Btw you know there's a quoting feature right?
… more
No idea how to use the quoting feature. I guess that's right
Why not? Cut off as much as you can with scissors or something and then use a razor to cut the rest. Plus even without electricity I'm sure he could have found a battery operated razor somewhere in some house or store at some point.
Funny you should mention that because I swear that on my first playthrough, Walker!Rebecca actually looked down and gave the baby one of the most hilariously curious looks I’ve ever seen; I have yet to see it again, but I seriously doubt I just imagined that.
Plot hole...Bonnie and Mike obviously care about AJ and Clementine....willingly take all food to let newborn and 11 year old starve to death because they mistrust and hate Kenny. Killing him would have made more sense plotwise.
I really hate invoking the whole lazy plot point trope, it occurs to me that the implication that Mike, Arvo, and Bonnie were apparently taking all of the supplies was just a surefire way of keeping people from sympathizing with them and making their decision wrong.
Plot hole...Bonnie and Mike obviously care about AJ and Clementine....willingly take all food to let newborn and 11 year old starve to death because they mistrust and hate Kenny. Killing him would have made more sense plotwise.
It was wrong, and most people can't empathize with people who are willing to leave a child and plot-night-dumpster-baby to starve or freeze to death because they felt threatened by Kenny.
What I don't get is people who are willing to forgive the three nut-stains for their irredeemable act as one that can be absolved because it didn't make any sense for their characters. Of course it didn't, it happened during No Going Back. And very little made sense, that doesn't mean it didn't happen and is now considered canon, they're still awful people.
I really hate invoking the whole lazy plot point trope, it occurs to me that the implication that Mike, Arvo, and Bonnie were apparently tak… moreing all of the supplies was just a surefire way of keeping people from sympathizing with them and making their decision wrong.
It was wrong, and most people can't empathize with people who are willing to leave a child and plot-night-dumpster-baby to starve or freeze to death because they felt threatened by Kenny.
That's what I'm saying: remove that implication that they were taking all of the food and people would be more willing to take their side or at least be willing to look the other way. It's kinda like that one movie with the racoon and the turtle.
What I don't get is people who are willing to forgive the three nut-stains for their irredeemable act as one that can be absolved because it didn't make any sense for their characters. Of course it didn't, it happened during No Going Back.
It was wrong, and most people can't empathize with people who are willing to leave a child and plot-night-dumpster-baby to starve or freeze … moreto death because they felt threatened by Kenny.
What I don't get is people who are willing to forgive the three nut-stains for their irredeemable act as one that can be absolved because it didn't make any sense for their characters. Of course it didn't, it happened during No Going Back. And very little made sense, that doesn't mean it didn't happen and is now considered canon, they're still awful people.
Ditto, what are you getting at exactly with your point?
Because from the wording, it'd seem as though you're going to talk about how Mike, Bonnie, and Vomit bag are wrongly persecuted among many forum-goers because of their abhorrent behavior at the end of No Going Back. And that because the scene makes no sense, they can be largely absolved of the selfish act they were caught red-handedly doing.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I've gathered thus far.
It was wrong, and most people can't empathize with people who are willing to leave a child and plot-night-dumpster-baby to starve or freeze … moreto death because they felt threatened by Kenny.
That's what I'm saying: remove that implication that they were taking all of the food and people would be more willing to take their side or at least be willing to look the other way. It's kinda like that one movie with the racoon and the turtle.
What I don't get is people who are willing to forgive the three nut-stains for their irredeemable act as one that can be absolved because it didn't make any sense for their characters. Of course it didn't, it happened during No Going Back.
Um...huh?
The first one the comes up in my mind is always A New Day:
When Lee, Carley and Glenn use stealth to kill walkers at the motel you can use a car to put a fat walker in it's place against the wall but I never killed the female walker next to the car that is feasting on a body and ignores what you do
1:32:27 that walker behind the car
What I don't get is people who are willing to forgive the three nut-stains for their irredeemable act as one that can be absolved because it didn't make any sense for their characters.
Well, I can forgive them because they were willing to take me with them... Until Arvo shot me.
I also believe that they only didn't invite Clem to come with them in the first place because they (like everyone else in the game) thought that Clem was Kenny's bff and if they told her she'd tell him, which would result on them getting murdered. They didn't take Jane as well, because they knew she has a wierd fixation on Clementine and would never leave her. Finally, they didn't take AJ because Kenny would obviously chase them and murder them if they did so.
About taking all the supplies... Yeah, I got nothing. They're awful people for that indeed.
People's forgiveness for their acts come from understanding what they did and empathizing with what they did.
It was wrong, and most people can't empathize with people who are willing to leave a child and plot-night-dumpster-baby to starve or freeze … moreto death because they felt threatened by Kenny.
What I don't get is people who are willing to forgive the three nut-stains for their irredeemable act as one that can be absolved because it didn't make any sense for their characters. Of course it didn't, it happened during No Going Back. And very little made sense, that doesn't mean it didn't happen and is now considered canon, they're still awful people.
I wanna say I was supposed to be referring to the one he had when he called everyone to the yard, but I don't remember at the moment.
From my understanding, Troy seemed to know(or at least was suspicious) about both Luke and Kenny's walkie talkie but apparently didn't really say anything. Assuming he wasn't the one who told Carver about the walkie talkies (which wouldn't make sense considering he was basically withholding information about the prisoner's escape plan, thus getting himself in trouble), that raises the question of who had other one if Clementine was taking one to Luke and how did Carver find out about it.
I had/have a few suspects but the game never really addresses it for some reason.
Not really, I guess. Much like with Sarah's "canon" death, I was more coming at it from a writing standpoint to answer Kennyshouladiedins1's comment. I went into that topic in length here but I'll briefly sum up what I meant by that just to give you an answer.
Depending on your actions, Arvo has his reasons for hating Jane, Clementine, and Kenny and Bonnie can have both an implied dislike for Jane and is cross with Clementine for not helping Luke. That leaves Mike, the apparent mastermind of the plan, as the only one without a grudge against the majority of the abandoned and thus the idea that he would knowingly leave them to die doesn't really make sense. Why would these three go that far just to get away from Kenny when it doesn't really match up with their actions and personalities beforehand? Yes, the scene was clearly banking on OOC is Serious Business to show just how bad things have gotten, but Arvo was already something of a Designated Villain to begin with and Mike and Bonnie were arguably the most friendly group members besides Luke at that point. While it is true that the food is technically Arvo's property, Bonnie and especially Mike deciding to just up and take it all doesn't make much sense, considering they were so worried about the baby from hour one, Kenny was determinately the only motivator, and they were the ones executing the plan. Again, the implication that they were taking all of the food rather than just enough for themselves, thereby endangering Clementine and AJ, was indeed a serious dick move on their part, but it also kinda feels a bit too extreme when you stop to think about it.
Hence, me deconstructing that scene by pointing out that if you take that line about them taking all of the food with them out of the equation, which you even specified in your reply, their decision to leave wouldn't be nearly as reprehensible.
Um...huh?
Ditto, what are you getting at exactly with your point?
Because from the wording, it'd seem as though you're going to t… morealk about how Mike, Bonnie, and Vomit bag are wrongly persecuted among many forum-goers because of their abhorrent behavior at the end of No Going Back. And that because the scene makes no sense, they can be largely absolved of the selfish act they were caught red-handedly doing.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I've gathered thus far.
Well, if you're going to analysis dumb nonsensical stuff that happened in No Going Back, that is far from the worse offense the episode has.
But, my point is it is still canonically as tangible of an event as Lee's death and the three assholes shouldn't get a pass just cause it wasn't the most viable set-up.
Not really, I guess. Much like with Sarah's "canon" death, I was more coming at it from a writing standpoint to answer Kennyshouladiedins1's… more comment. I went into that topic in length here but I'll briefly sum up what I meant by that just to give you an answer.
Depending on your actions, Arvo has his reasons for hating Jane, Clementine, and Kenny and Bonnie can have both an implied dislike for Jane and is cross with Clementine for not helping Luke. That leaves Mike, the apparent mastermind of the plan, as the only one without a grudge against the majority of the abandoned and thus the idea that he would knowingly leave them to die doesn't really make sense. Why would these three go that far just to get away from Kenny when it doesn't really match up with their actions and personalities beforehand? Yes, the scene was clearly banking on OOC is Serious Business to show just how bad things have gotten, but Arvo was already something of a Design… [view original content]
Comments
That would be a logical implication given the circumstances. As I've pointed out, Arvo is a debatable evil counterpart/shadow archetype of Sarah, who also deferred heavily on an elder relative and didn't know how to properly respond to the conflicts of the apocalypse. His addressing the walkers as just "those things," combined with the fact that he didn't really see Natasha turn, just her recently turned corpse, suggests that he never realized the exact nature of them and may have even assumed that's just the way things are now. Even assuming Buricko, Vitali, or even Natasha herself were "bandits"(not the word I'd use if that was indubitably the case), its entirely possible that they never had to deal with any recently turned walkers because a. they didn't seem to be the shoot-first, rob-later type and b. they most likely would've shot their enemies in the head, hence sparing them all from witnessing a turning walker.
Truth. It's basically Kenny, Ben, the Bandits, and Duck/Katjaa all over again; Just swap in Arvo, Clementine, Jane/Rebecca, and Natasha.
Well, to be fair, pressing all of your weight and power against a double door should be easier than actively lifting and maintaining balance with a jug of water.
Good point. I guess it's just of those common sense making way for characterization things that allow me to forgive/ignore it.
No idea how to use the quoting feature. I guess that's right
Why not? Cut off as much as you can with scissors or something and then use a razor to cut the rest. Plus even without electricity I'm sure he could have found a battery operated razor somewhere in some house or store at some point.
Because they are stupid and afraid. Especially a child. Yes I know Clementine isnt stupid but remember they dont know her.
Still I say if you stayed in one place and had no herds come through it's be fine. Our characters get attacked often for plots sake but most people might only find a walker once in awhile after they left the cities.
I guess Kenny could have asked about Christa and Omid but Kenny told his story about being alone for a long time before finding Sarita and Clementine said Lee saved her. Maybe he didn't give a shit about Christa and Omid, would it surprise you to find out he couldnt care less about them?
Yet another plot point that should've been expanded upon.[Checks list]
I kinda don't wanna give it away...but then again, that only really applied to my milestone contribution and the one after it. Check out dan######'s topic!
It's a list of plot points and missed opportunities I'm taking note of for later plans. Sarita is one of the characters that felt like there should have been more to them and the story could have benefited from their increased presence.
In all honesty, they basically wrote themselves into a corner with that scene, looking back at it. There's really only two ways it could play out, both of which present their own problems.
Nick holds the door, and has Clementine look for something heavy to put in front of the door. Nick holding the door closed makes sense, but how would Clementine manage to push a heavy box over to the door by herself?
Clementine holds the door, Nick finds something heavy to put in front of the door. Solves the problem of how Clementine can move something heavy in front of the door, but opens up a new problem in its place; how does Clementine manage to hold the door closed by herself?
There's a logic gap no matter what they choose to do. Though I'll admit, they probably would have been better off choosing the former.
I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who can't manage to learn the darn numbers in anybody's username.
Not to ruin anyone's fun, but I don't think a lot of these really count as plot holes. I mean yeah, they're inconsistencies, sure, but are they really that big of a deal? Something that has you scratching your head thinking "wait, what?"
When I think of a plot hole, I think of something along the lines of the town from Amid The Ruins. One episode, it's there, characters acknowledge it's existence, and it's made a point to try and get to the town. Then comes episode 5, and suddenly everyone has forgotten its existence. No one mentions or acknowledges it. It's like it just dropped off the face of the earth.
That's what I'd personally consider an actual plot hole. It isn't some character inconsistency like someone being able to do something they couldn't do an episode ago, it's an entire plot point just vanishing into thin air for no discernible reason. Something that actively stands out among other details. Something that you can't just brush to the side as a small writing/design blunder.
Like, most of the examples in this thread are either minor, or have some kind of possible explanation as to why they happened, be that for narrative reasons, gameplay reasons, or maybe something that could have happened off screen. Now I'm not saying that they're good reasons, but they're still explanations nonetheless. But the town just disappearing from the story? That's not really defensible. With AJ still being alive after 9 days, for example, you could explain it as they found a working vehicle along the way, looted a store and found baby formula while they were traveling, and other things like that. It's not that hard to believe. But episode 5 picks up directly after episode 4, and it's like everyone collectively suffered a bout of amnesia regarding the town.
But whatever, I'm basically arguing semantics.
In this sense, a plot hole can either be a noticeable gap in the logic of the narrative, such as the amnesia regarding the town in "No Going Back," or it can also be a minor inconsistency, such as the newborn's survival during the nine day time-skip.
Let's argue semantics, yo.
I know, right? And I feel bad because he's such as chill seeming dude, but I can't remember it for the life of we.
I will take my chances and bet for @dan170986!
Okay, you asked for it.
Alright, so they can count as a plot hole in the textbook definition, but they can be argued beyond that. It's like how by the textbook definition, Telltale's games do indeed count as games, but a lot of people argue whether or not they're game games, you get what I mean?
So you could argue whether or not a smaller-scale inconsistency really counts as a plot hole in a more general/broad sense, and not just in terms of the literary terminology behind it. Which is what I'm doing. Or at least, I think I am.
The way I see it, a plot hole is like a sink hole in the middle of a street. Something readily noticeable to anyone passing by. Not something you're going to miss or just pay no attention to. On the other hand, a minor inconsistency in a character is more like a small pot hole in the street. You drive over it, there's a small bump. At most, maybe it startles you a bit, but otherwise, you're not being going to care too much or keep thinking about it. But when you have one big sink hole in the middle of the road, you're gonna be all like "the fuck is this?" when you pass by it. It's something that will grab your attention before you're even close to it. And it's something that's probably going to stick in your mind. You might go over to a friend later in the day and be like "Hey Joey, did you see that sink hole in the middle of Fifth Street? Shit's pretty neat."
Which is why this boils down to semantics, I guess. What I might consider to be something relatively small and not overly important and/or noticeable, someone else might be all like "whoa whoa whoa, stop the presses" depending on your own feelings, and your own personal definitions of more abstract concepts.
I love how that linked me back to MY profile!
...Sooo, Sarah's "canon" death?
That is more than a hole. That's like a plot extinction event. It isn't just causing trouble in the consistency and logic of the narrative. It is actively taking the narrative by the shirt collar, tossing it to the floor, and proceeding to kick the shit out of it. With lead boots. With spikes on them.
Alright, Clementine. That's good enough for me.
What you're saying is rather very sensible, Deltino. There's a simple disagreement on terminology, I believe, but the concepts are the same—there are inconsistencies that affect the realism of the narrative and concern the player to varying degrees.
Also, the second to last paragraph got me a laugh, so thanks.
You do? Lol
I didnt know what I was doing and it kept messing up. First time quoting :P
You know, I put that rimshot clip in there as another joke, but the real funny thing is that it's pretty much accurate to my real life response to that stupid scene. For weeks even!
Correct, also if Clementine can push that box, don't you think the walkers can too?
Maybe Mike accidentally cut his ear off trying to cut his own hair.
#HowToFailInLife
How did Carver know about the other walkie talkie was one I saw being discussed.
Funny you should mention that because I swear that on my first playthrough, Walker!Rebecca actually looked down and gave the baby one of the most hilariously curious looks I’ve ever seen; I have yet to see it again, but I seriously doubt I just imagined that.
Plot hole...Bonnie and Mike obviously care about AJ and Clementine....willingly take all food to let newborn and 11 year old starve to death because they mistrust and hate Kenny. Killing him would have made more sense plotwise.
I really hate invoking the whole lazy plot point trope, it occurs to me that the implication that Mike, Arvo, and Bonnie were apparently taking all of the supplies was just a surefire way of keeping people from sympathizing with them and making their decision wrong.
It was wrong, and most people can't empathize with people who are willing to leave a child and plot-night-dumpster-baby to starve or freeze to death because they felt threatened by Kenny.
What I don't get is people who are willing to forgive the three nut-stains for their irredeemable act as one that can be absolved because it didn't make any sense for their characters. Of course it didn't, it happened during No Going Back. And very little made sense, that doesn't mean it didn't happen and is now considered canon, they're still awful people.
That's what I'm saying: remove that implication that they were taking all of the food and people would be more willing to take their side or at least be willing to look the other way. It's kinda like that one movie with the racoon and the turtle.
Um...huh?
Ditto, what are you getting at exactly with your point?
Because from the wording, it'd seem as though you're going to talk about how Mike, Bonnie, and Vomit bag are wrongly persecuted among many forum-goers because of their abhorrent behavior at the end of No Going Back. And that because the scene makes no sense, they can be largely absolved of the selfish act they were caught red-handedly doing.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I've gathered thus far.
The first one the comes up in my mind is always A New Day:
When Lee, Carley and Glenn use stealth to kill walkers at the motel you can use a car to put a fat walker in it's place against the wall but I never killed the female walker next to the car that is feasting on a body and ignores what you do
1:32:27 that walker behind the car
Well, I can forgive them because they were willing to take me with them... Until Arvo shot me.
I also believe that they only didn't invite Clem to come with them in the first place because they (like everyone else in the game) thought that Clem was Kenny's bff and if they told her she'd tell him, which would result on them getting murdered. They didn't take Jane as well, because they knew she has a wierd fixation on Clementine and would never leave her. Finally, they didn't take AJ because Kenny would obviously chase them and murder them if they did so.
About taking all the supplies... Yeah, I got nothing. They're awful people for that indeed.
People's forgiveness for their acts come from understanding what they did and empathizing with what they did.
Why would Carver assume there was only one radio?
Before Sarah falls off the platform in her second death, she was on the platform, and then suddenly when she falls, she's somehow under it.
I wanna say I was supposed to be referring to the one he had when he called everyone to the yard, but I don't remember at the moment.
From my understanding, Troy seemed to know(or at least was suspicious) about both Luke and Kenny's walkie talkie but apparently didn't really say anything. Assuming he wasn't the one who told Carver about the walkie talkies (which wouldn't make sense considering he was basically withholding information about the prisoner's escape plan, thus getting himself in trouble), that raises the question of who had other one if Clementine was taking one to Luke and how did Carver find out about it.
I had/have a few suspects but the game never really addresses it for some reason.
Not really, I guess. Much like with Sarah's "canon" death, I was more coming at it from a writing standpoint to answer Kennyshouladiedins1's comment. I went into that topic in length here but I'll briefly sum up what I meant by that just to give you an answer.
Depending on your actions, Arvo has his reasons for hating Jane, Clementine, and Kenny and Bonnie can have both an implied dislike for Jane and is cross with Clementine for not helping Luke. That leaves Mike, the apparent mastermind of the plan, as the only one without a grudge against the majority of the abandoned and thus the idea that he would knowingly leave them to die doesn't really make sense. Why would these three go that far just to get away from Kenny when it doesn't really match up with their actions and personalities beforehand? Yes, the scene was clearly banking on OOC is Serious Business to show just how bad things have gotten, but Arvo was already something of a Designated Villain to begin with and Mike and Bonnie were arguably the most friendly group members besides Luke at that point. While it is true that the food is technically Arvo's property, Bonnie and especially Mike deciding to just up and take it all doesn't make much sense, considering they were so worried about the baby from hour one, Kenny was determinately the only motivator, and they were the ones executing the plan. Again, the implication that they were taking all of the food rather than just enough for themselves, thereby endangering Clementine and AJ, was indeed a serious dick move on their part, but it also kinda feels a bit too extreme when you stop to think about it.
Hence, me deconstructing that scene by pointing out that if you take that line about them taking all of the food with them out of the equation, which you even specified in your reply, their decision to leave wouldn't be nearly as reprehensible.
That whole scene was stupid, contrived bullshit where Sarah was involved--where have you been, pal?
Also, there's the fact that Sarah clearly falls after the deck collapses making that even more obvious.
Well, if you're going to analysis dumb nonsensical stuff that happened in No Going Back, that is far from the worse offense the episode has.
But, my point is it is still canonically as tangible of an event as Lee's death and the three assholes shouldn't get a pass just cause it wasn't the most viable set-up.