Personality wise? I wouldn't know since I first saw One Piece threw the 4kids dub and the series is just too long to wanna even attempt to marathon and/or pick up where I left off. I just happened to know there were some imposters at some point.
I was mostly making a joke, Sanji's wanted poster looked exactly like this guy since they never got his picture, so this guy had been harassed daily for looking like that.
The 4Kidz dub was pretty bad, I'd personally recommend it as it gets pretty great as it goes along. I just love shows that have a tight continuity and don't make attempts to allow newcomers to come in whenever they want, makes for a much more focused story. Plus seeing things from hundreds of episodes ago rear its head again is pretty satisfying. Although I definitely see why the episode count would be a barrier.
Personality wise? I wouldn't know since I first saw One Piece threw the 4kids dub and the series is just too long to wanna even attempt to marathon and/or pick up where I left off. I just happened to know there were some imposters at some point.
I'm just protective over Clem
I think that's the reason most people don't like Arvo and the other villains/mooks/neutrals/heroes who… more they feel wronged by. Honestly, Arvo is kinda overrated as a 'villain' since the fact that he took a shot at Clementine that actually hit her is pretty much all he's recognized for.
I know this is technically a critique against Arvo, but I never took him as much of a threat. Maybe its because of his initial lack of nerve, maybe its because Jane makes a similar fuckup with Sarah, or maybe its because I personally can't stand when people are forced into unbalanced situations out of their control. Or maybe it speaks for how much faith I have in Clementine, in which case neutral delivery boys like Arvo or thuggish nihilists like Michelle are barely a threat.
Lee is just doing his job like Kenny did And we all owe him a bullet.
Uhhh...unless you mean "was" in regards to Lee(who I didn't mention, mind you), I don't think you were talking to me. Were you?
I appreciate the thought but it's fine, I'll end up buying it some day I'm just focusing on saving money for bigger games at the moment. Thank you though. If I see it on sale I'll be sure to get it.
If that is how you feel, then I would say that the unjustified beatings that he had received beforehand compensate for those that he won for shooting a kid with a shotgun.
I'd have to disagree. Kenny attacking him was awful, no doubt, and was indeed unjusitified, but it was not in anywhere near as bad or despicable compared to what Arvo did. Kenny was acting out against someone who he believed was not to be trusted and had been involved with a group who tried to have him and his group killed, so it's completely understandable that he wouldn't treat Arvo with respect. Not saying he was right, because he was far from it, but at least there was a solid motivation behind it.
Arvo, on the other hand, with full intention, shot an 11 year old child with a rifle. A child who had done nothing to hurt Arvo or his sister, except for being in association with the group who were holding him captive. His motivation, no matter how many times people say "Oh, but he had sister!" is simply, in my opinion, not in anyway understandable. You just don't try to murder a child. It's wrong and if there was anything to compensate for such a act, I'd say it would be more along the lines of what happened to Carver.
If that is how you feel, then I would say that the unjustified beatings that he had received beforehand compensate for those that he won for shooting a kid with a shotgun.
After shooting Clementine, Arvo made a face like "I done fucked up" or "I can't believe I just shot her". After doing that, I would be amazed if he could live himself or find a group willing to take him in since we know he's a crappy person (no beneficial character traits) in the ZA. Arvo might be walker food when S3 hits.
"Shit, i almost forgot about big crazy guy with beard, his going to kill me, im to cowardly shitbird, even i have rifile i don't wanna mess with him, so.. i just run and left Mike and Bonney xo xo"
After shooting Clementine, Arvo made a face like "I done fucked up" or "I can't believe I just shot her". After doing that, I would be amaze… mored if he could live himself or find a group willing to take him in since we know he's a crappy person (no beneficial character traits) in the ZA. Arvo might be walker food when S3 hits.
Kenny was acting out against someone who he believed was not to be trusted and had been involved with a group who tried to have him and his group killed, so it's completely understandable that he wouldn't treat Arvo with respect.
Similarly, Arvo was acting out against someone who he believed was not to be trusted and, as far as anyone had bothered to explain, had previously shot his sister in cold blood; it's completely understandable that he wouldn't treat Clementine with respect.
Besides, Arvo was dealing with the death of his sister and was already directing them with a house with supplies.
His motivation, no matter how many times people say "Oh, but he had sister!" is simply, in my opinion, not in anyway understandable.
You are taking Kenny's motivation with full regard while also declaring that Arvo's motivation should be completely ignored. I would like to know what the basis to this is.
You just don't try to murder a child.
Technically, had Clementine died, this would've been killing or manslaughtering, and not murdering. A killing only qualifies as murder if it has been planned beforehand.
I also believe that there is no moral difference between killing a toddler, a child, a teenager, a young adult, a middle-aged person and an elder. If the opposite is true, then where exactly is the line that dictates that a kill is more moral or more immoral?
It's wrong
I do agree that it's wrong to try to kill anyone, in most cases. I also see that nobody had taken the measures to prevent him from doing what he was attempting to do—namely, clarifying what happened with his sister, and not beating him several times.
and if there was anything to compensate for such a act, I'd say it would be more along the lines of what happened to Carver.
That is truly disgusting, I must say. I've always advocated for a bullet to the head when killing is needed.
Making a grieving teenager who is out of his mind receive two to three unimaginably painful plows to the face before being knocked out and disfigured? That's something that only Kenny would be capable of.
If that is how you feel, then I would say that the unjustified beatings that he had received beforehand compensate for those that he won for… more shooting a kid with a shotgun.
I'd have to disagree. Kenny attacking him was awful, no doubt, and was indeed unjusitified, but it was not in anywhere near as bad or despicable compared to what Arvo did. Kenny was acting out against someone who he believed was not to be trusted and had been involved with a group who tried to have him and his group killed, so it's completely understandable that he wouldn't treat Arvo with respect. Not saying he was right, because he was far from it, but at least there was a solid motivation behind it.
Arvo, on the other hand, with full intention, shot an 11 year old child with a rifle. A child who had done nothing to hurt Arvo or his sister, except for being in association with the group who were holding him captive. His motivation, no matter how many times peop… [view original content]
After doing that, I would be amazed if he could live himselfor find a group willing to take him in since we know he's a crappy person (no beneficial character traits)
That's sorta my thought as well given his introduction.
Also, I'd think "beneficial character traits" wouldn't really matter as long as they can find something for you to do. Especially considering a majority of the populace includes the likes of Kenny, Jane, Carver, and Troy--we're ALL dicks around here!
After shooting Clementine, Arvo made a face like "I done fucked up" or "I can't believe I just shot her". After doing that, I would be amaze… mored if he could live himself or find a group willing to take him in since we know he's a crappy person (no beneficial character traits) in the ZA. Arvo might be walker food when S3 hits.
having all these stupid factitious characters that didn't add any real forward momentum to the past season being re-explored because of a conclusion means most likely people know in their heart-of-hearts that they sucked. Why else would people need to feel validated and comforted by a slightly more complete character arc?
I agree.
There's a time management that befalls games like TWD in which relevant things must be explored in a fairly quick manner and hav… moreing all these stupid factitious characters that didn't add any real forward momentum to the past season being re-explored because of a conclusion means most likely people know in their heart-of-hearts that they sucked. Why else would people need to feel validated and comforted by a slightly more complete character arc?
having all these stupid factitious characters that didn't add any real forward momentum to the past season being re-explored because of a co… morenclusion means most likely people know in their heart-of-hearts that they sucked. Why else would people need to feel validated and comforted by a slightly more complete character arc?
...What?
Instead of bringing back Arvo, bring back his VA, Michael Ark
Say what you will about Arvo as a character, but his voice actor did a great job with what he was given. Definitely deserves a second go, if you ask me. Maybe a character that's a bit more... resonant with people.
Seconded. Even if I definitely wouldn't mind Clementine having an emotional confrontation with someone who wronged her, Mr. Ark was indeed amazing as Arvo and Vitali.
Instead of bringing back Arvo, bring back his VA, Michael Ark
Say what you will about Arvo as a character, but his voice actor did a grea… moret job with what he was given. Definitely deserves a second go, if you ask me. Maybe a character that's a bit more... resonant with people.
Similarly, Arvo was acting out against someone who he believed was not to be trusted and, as far as anyone had bothered to explain, had previously shot his sister in cold blood; it's completely understandable that he wouldn't treat Clementine with respect.
I mean, sure, if he didn't respect or like Clementine after what happened, I could get that. I'd still disagree, as Clementine wasn't in anyway to blame, but it wouldn't have been as bad and would've made Arvo just a little less of a shit. Just a little. But the reality is, that isn't how Arvo behaved in the end. He didn't just simply dislike Clementine for what happened or make his feelings known to her. Oh no, instead, he decides to shoot her because she shot his already dead (zombified) sister, who was in that state because of the standoff, which, to me, is completely ridiculous. The only reason the shootout happened in the first place is because, Arvo being Arvo, decided that even if Clementine didn't take any of his supplies with Jane ( which he may have been stealing from his own group), he was going to blame her and her entire group for an act they weren't even responsible for.
Not to mention, even if Clementine tries to defend Arvo from Kenny's attacks, guess what? He still shoots her.
Besides, Arvo was dealing with the death of his sister and was already directing them with a house with supplies.
And does Arvo's grief in anyhow excuse his act of shooting a child, who (determinedly) disarms herself and is willing to let him, Mike and Bonnie be on their way? No, it doesn't. And, the only reason he was directing them to the house was because his group failed to rob them, ended up dead and he had a gun to his head, so it's not like Arvo was doing these things out of the goodness of his heart.
You are taking Kenny's motivation with full regard while also declaring that Arvo's motivation should be completely ignored. I would like to know what the basis to this is.
That's because Kenny's motivation is actually understandable. Arvo had tried to kill him and everyone else. Maybe not himself directly, but if it weren't for him telling the rest of the Russians what happened, there would've been no ambush. He had put their lives at threat, thus proving that he, himself, was a threat.
Arvo, on the other hand, shoots Clementine, when she wasn't even determinedly a threat to him for something, in which, she wasn't accountable for. That, to me, isn't understandable.
I also believe that there is no moral difference between killing a toddler, a child, a teenager, a young adult, a middle-aged person and an elder. If the opposite is true, then where exactly is the line that dictates that a kill is more moral or more immoral?
You're right that most killing is immoral, but to kill children, who are less capable of defending themselves and in no way have the physical strength to do so or to recover from injuries that a fully developed adult would, is to me, crueller than targeting someone who's actually more capable of handling it. It's not necessarily more wrong, as killing anyone is wrong really, but it does show that the person committing the act is cowardly and lacks a severe form of empathy if they're willing to gun down a child who'd, obliviously, done nothing to produce such a callous act.
The fact, alone, that Arvo chooses to only blame Clementine, the weaker member of the group, for what happened to his sister speaks volumes about him in my opinion. If he really wanted to blame someone, he should've held Kenny responsible, but of course, Arvo being a coward, he only decides to target the person weaker than him.
That is truly disgusting, I must say. I've always advocated for a bullet to the head when killing is needed.
I'd admit, Arvo probably doesn't really deserve a death as brutal as Carver's and I went a tad bit extreme on that one. But to be honest, if it did happen to him, it really isn't a tragedy.
Making a grieving teenager who is out of his mind receive two to three unimaginably painful plows to the face before being knocked out and disfigured? That's something that only Kenny would be capable of.
Again, his grief is in no way an excuse for what he did, and I'm also quite sure, Arvo wasn't "out of his mind". He clearly knew what he was doing and didn't appear to be suffering any lack of control.
And, firing a bullet, with intent to kill, into an 11 year old child, who'd defended him against Jane's attempts at robbery, had tried to stop Kenny's brutish actions of assault, was willing to let him flee, and even disarmed herself when in face with his actions of theft, is something that only Arvo would be capable of.
Kenny was acting out against someone who he believed was not to be trusted and had been involved with a group who tried to have him and his … moregroup killed, so it's completely understandable that he wouldn't treat Arvo with respect.
Similarly, Arvo was acting out against someone who he believed was not to be trusted and, as far as anyone had bothered to explain, had previously shot his sister in cold blood; it's completely understandable that he wouldn't treat Clementine with respect.
Besides, Arvo was dealing with the death of his sister and was already directing them with a house with supplies.
His motivation, no matter how many times people say "Oh, but he had sister!" is simply, in my opinion, not in anyway understandable.
You are taking Kenny's motivation with full regard while also declaring that Arvo's motivation should be completely ignored. I would like to know what the basis to this is.
You just don't try… [view original content]
I should really just stay outta this considering the cluster of grey(symbolic?) it creates, but just throwing it out there:
The only reason the shootout happened in the first place is because, Arvo being Arvo, decided that even if Clementine didn't take any of his supplies with Jane ( which he may have been stealing from his own group), he was going to blame her and her entire group for an act they weren't even responsible for.
Well, in the long term, I guess yes to a point.
However, it's also worth noting that whatever Arvo himself had in mind for them never gets brought up: it's Buricko who decided to rob the group on the spot, either because poetic justice or because he's a dick; I prefer both. Also note that when AJ's presence is discovered, Kenny, Mike, Arvo, and Natasha (and even Vitali at one point) all try to convince Buricko to back off since this isn't worth getting anyone killed over. It's only because Clementine/Kenny/Kennyagain suddenly shoots Rebecca, after several seconds of everyone losing their collective tempers/shit and arguing, that Buricko actually opens fire.
So, really it's a bunch of people getting worked up over a misunderstanding and being rash: Jane and determinately Clementine robbed Arvo, Arvo had to walk back home without his gun, His group came after Clementine and Jane, Buricko decided to rob the entire group, everyone got out their guns, Clementine/Kenny fired the first shot, and then Buricko got trigger happy.
That's because Kenny's motivation is actually understandable. Arvo had tried to kill him and everyone else. Maybe not himself directly, but if it weren't for him telling the rest of the Russians what happened, there would've been no ambush. He had put their lives at threat, thus proving that he, himself, was a threat.
Arvo, on the other hand, shoots Clementine, when she wasn't even determinedly a threat to him for something, in which, she wasn't accountable for. That, to me, isn't understandable.
You know, I was gonna comment that that's a bit of a black and white way of thinking, but then I realize that that's pretty much Kenny's take on Arvo for the firefight. On the other hand, if the thing Arvo is supposed holding her accountable her for is his sister, then yeah, she kinda is: even if she was only defending herself, Clementine did technically kill his sister(by proxy at first and then for real from Arvo's POV at the time) and was even the reason Arvo got jumped by Jane in the first place.
So, Kenny is pushing around Arvo for what his "friends" did and Arvo pointed out Clementine for her "friend" did. Not So Different indeed.
The fact, alone, that Arvo chooses to only blame Clementine, the weaker member of the group, for what happened to his sister speaks volumes about him in my opinion. If he really wanted to blame someone, he should've held Kenny responsible, but of course, Arvo being a coward, he only decides to target the person weaker than him.
Ah, Arvo: one of the only characters I can defend by laughing at him.
Technically, Arvo blamed Clementine for killing his sister because he saw her shoot her--or rather her turned coprse--as she was crawling away. And while I do believe that to be the case due to the implication given by Vitali and thematic appropriateness, it's never directly said that Kenny was the one who shot Natasha and the other two. Which also kinda bothers me, honestly.
And I get that you're saying that because she's a little girl, but Clementine is far from weak and I kinda assume she'd be able to take him in fair fight. Then again, considering he was able to give Kenny a hard time while being taken hostage, what do I know?
Not to mention, even if Clementine tries to defend Arvo from Kenny's attacks, guess what? He still shoots her.
Not really important, but while I get the basic idea of having him shoot her there, someone brought up an interesting point: From a gameplay divergence perspectice, why does Arvo have to shoot Clementine in the scenarios where she isn't being mean to him, threatening Mike, or actively throwing a wrench in their plan?
Like, there's actually quite a few details to that scene depending on your behavior and choices, so sometimes it makes sense but other times, it feels like he just fires because the plot demands it. Except, not really, since Clementine can easily just be dazed by Kenny and Jane knocking her down that hard, which is pretty much the only time her being shot affects anything.
And you wanna know makes this feel all the more convoluted? According to various sources, Arvo shooting Clementine even on your nicest and/or most nonthreatening playthrough is supposed to be an accident, as indicated by a difference in his expression. Having watched nearly all of the various versions of that scene when writing my Unfortunately Sympathetic example, I can confirm that it is there, it's just too easy to miss: when Mike reacts to Clementine suddenly getting shot and glances back at Arvo, Arvo's face will either be a glare(mean/threatening) or a look of shock(nice/nonthreatening). So, that raises two questions: 1. Why not have the camera zoom in appropriately to show that Arvo panicked or that the gun just went off or whatever? and 2. Why didn't you just come up with another reason for Clementine getting knocked out, like [whoever's] example where Mike just punches her?
Again, not really important, just a recent observation that is currently confounding me.
And, firing a bullet, with intent to kill, into an 11 year old child, who'd defended him against Jane's attempts at robbery, had tried to stop Kenny's brutish actions of assault, was willing to let him flee, and even disarmed herself when in face with his actions of theft, is something that only Arvo would be capable of.
Aaaaand I'm gonna have to call bullshit on this one. As I said in my US example before the final paragraphs got accidentally deleted, Arvo is kinda overrated in a way because the only thing most people really focus on with him is that he shot at Clementine and actually hit her. Which, not to step on his already low street cred, anyone with a gun could do. In fact, plenty of people have tried: Andy, Save lot bandits, Winston, Carver, Taavia, Tavia's crew, and Buricko. The only reason people single out Arvo is cause he actually did it. By determinant accident, even.
Similarly, Arvo was acting out against someone who he believed was not to be trusted and, as far as anyone had bothered to explain, had prev… moreiously shot his sister in cold blood; it's completely understandable that he wouldn't treat Clementine with respect.
I mean, sure, if he didn't respect or like Clementine after what happened, I could get that. I'd still disagree, as Clementine wasn't in anyway to blame, but it wouldn't have been as bad and would've made Arvo just a little less of a shit. Just a little. But the reality is, that isn't how Arvo behaved in the end. He didn't just simply dislike Clementine for what happened or make his feelings known to her. Oh no, instead, he decides to shoot her because she shot his already dead (zombified) sister, who was in that state because of the standoff, which, to me, is completely ridiculous. The only reason the shootout happened in the first place is because, Arvo being Arvo, decided that ev… [view original content]
Comments
I'd recommend it if you ever get a chance, if I see it for cheap I'll give you a copy.
Personality wise? I wouldn't know since I first saw One Piece threw the 4kids dub and the series is just too long to wanna even attempt to marathon and/or pick up where I left off. I just happened to know there were some imposters at some point.
I was mostly making a joke, Sanji's wanted poster looked exactly like this guy since they never got his picture, so this guy had been harassed daily for looking like that.
The 4Kidz dub was pretty bad, I'd personally recommend it as it gets pretty great as it goes along. I just love shows that have a tight continuity and don't make attempts to allow newcomers to come in whenever they want, makes for a much more focused story. Plus seeing things from hundreds of episodes ago rear its head again is pretty satisfying. Although I definitely see why the episode count would be a barrier.
Lee is just doing his job like Kenny did
And we all owe him a bullet. 
Uhhh...unless you mean "was" in regards to Lee(who I didn't mention, mind you), I don't think you were talking to me. Were you?
I meant in gif
Sorry, my English is not on a good level.
Oh, okay. The bad about some many replies is that it becomes hard to know who says what to who without quotes.
I appreciate the thought but it's fine, I'll end up buying it some day I'm just focusing on saving money for bigger games at the moment. Thank you though. If I see it on sale I'll be sure to get it.
I'd have to disagree. Kenny attacking him was awful, no doubt, and was indeed unjusitified, but it was not in anywhere near as bad or despicable compared to what Arvo did. Kenny was acting out against someone who he believed was not to be trusted and had been involved with a group who tried to have him and his group killed, so it's completely understandable that he wouldn't treat Arvo with respect. Not saying he was right, because he was far from it, but at least there was a solid motivation behind it.
Arvo, on the other hand, with full intention, shot an 11 year old child with a rifle. A child who had done nothing to hurt Arvo or his sister, except for being in association with the group who were holding him captive. His motivation, no matter how many times people say "Oh, but he had sister!" is simply, in my opinion, not in anyway understandable. You just don't try to murder a child. It's wrong and if there was anything to compensate for such a act, I'd say it would be more along the lines of what happened to Carver.
After shooting Clementine, Arvo made a face like "I done fucked up" or "I can't believe I just shot her". After doing that, I would be amazed if he could live himself or find a group willing to take him in since we know he's a crappy person (no beneficial character traits) in the ZA. Arvo might be walker food when S3 hits.
"Shit, i almost forgot about big crazy guy with beard, his going to kill me, im to cowardly shitbird, even i have rifile i don't wanna mess with him, so.. i just run and left Mike and Bonney xo xo"
Fix you
Similarly, Arvo was acting out against someone who he believed was not to be trusted and, as far as anyone had bothered to explain, had previously shot his sister in cold blood; it's completely understandable that he wouldn't treat Clementine with respect.
Besides, Arvo was dealing with the death of his sister and was already directing them with a house with supplies.
You are taking Kenny's motivation with full regard while also declaring that Arvo's motivation should be completely ignored. I would like to know what the basis to this is.
Technically, had Clementine died, this would've been killing or manslaughtering, and not murdering. A killing only qualifies as murder if it has been planned beforehand.
I also believe that there is no moral difference between killing a toddler, a child, a teenager, a young adult, a middle-aged person and an elder. If the opposite is true, then where exactly is the line that dictates that a kill is more moral or more immoral?
I do agree that it's wrong to try to kill anyone, in most cases. I also see that nobody had taken the measures to prevent him from doing what he was attempting to do—namely, clarifying what happened with his sister, and not beating him several times.
That is truly disgusting, I must say. I've always advocated for a bullet to the head when killing is needed.
Making a grieving teenager who is out of his mind receive two to three unimaginably painful plows to the face before being knocked out and disfigured? That's something that only Kenny would be capable of.
That's sorta my thought as well given his introduction.
Also, I'd think "beneficial character traits" wouldn't really matter as long as they can find something for you to do. Especially considering a majority of the populace includes the likes of Kenny, Jane, Carver, and Troy--we're ALL dicks around here!
...What?
Chicken-butt.
Instead of bringing back Arvo, bring back his VA, Michael Ark
Say what you will about Arvo as a character, but his voice actor did a great job with what he was given. Definitely deserves a second go, if you ask me. Maybe a character that's a bit more... resonant with people.
Oh, okay. That clears thing up.
Seconded. Even if I definitely wouldn't mind Clementine having an emotional confrontation with someone who wronged her, Mr. Ark was indeed amazing as Arvo and Vitali.
I mean, sure, if he didn't respect or like Clementine after what happened, I could get that. I'd still disagree, as Clementine wasn't in anyway to blame, but it wouldn't have been as bad and would've made Arvo just a little less of a shit. Just a little. But the reality is, that isn't how Arvo behaved in the end. He didn't just simply dislike Clementine for what happened or make his feelings known to her. Oh no, instead, he decides to shoot her because she shot his already dead (zombified) sister, who was in that state because of the standoff, which, to me, is completely ridiculous. The only reason the shootout happened in the first place is because, Arvo being Arvo, decided that even if Clementine didn't take any of his supplies with Jane ( which he may have been stealing from his own group), he was going to blame her and her entire group for an act they weren't even responsible for.
Not to mention, even if Clementine tries to defend Arvo from Kenny's attacks, guess what? He still shoots her.
And does Arvo's grief in anyhow excuse his act of shooting a child, who (determinedly) disarms herself and is willing to let him, Mike and Bonnie be on their way? No, it doesn't. And, the only reason he was directing them to the house was because his group failed to rob them, ended up dead and he had a gun to his head, so it's not like Arvo was doing these things out of the goodness of his heart.
That's because Kenny's motivation is actually understandable. Arvo had tried to kill him and everyone else. Maybe not himself directly, but if it weren't for him telling the rest of the Russians what happened, there would've been no ambush. He had put their lives at threat, thus proving that he, himself, was a threat.
Arvo, on the other hand, shoots Clementine, when she wasn't even determinedly a threat to him for something, in which, she wasn't accountable for. That, to me, isn't understandable.
You're right that most killing is immoral, but to kill children, who are less capable of defending themselves and in no way have the physical strength to do so or to recover from injuries that a fully developed adult would, is to me, crueller than targeting someone who's actually more capable of handling it. It's not necessarily more wrong, as killing anyone is wrong really, but it does show that the person committing the act is cowardly and lacks a severe form of empathy if they're willing to gun down a child who'd, obliviously, done nothing to produce such a callous act.
The fact, alone, that Arvo chooses to only blame Clementine, the weaker member of the group, for what happened to his sister speaks volumes about him in my opinion. If he really wanted to blame someone, he should've held Kenny responsible, but of course, Arvo being a coward, he only decides to target the person weaker than him.
I'd admit, Arvo probably doesn't really deserve a death as brutal as Carver's and I went a tad bit extreme on that one. But to be honest, if it did happen to him, it really isn't a tragedy.
Again, his grief is in no way an excuse for what he did, and I'm also quite sure, Arvo wasn't "out of his mind". He clearly knew what he was doing and didn't appear to be suffering any lack of control.
And, firing a bullet, with intent to kill, into an 11 year old child, who'd defended him against Jane's attempts at robbery, had tried to stop Kenny's brutish actions of assault, was willing to let him flee, and even disarmed herself when in face with his actions of theft, is something that only Arvo would be capable of.
I should really just stay outta this considering the cluster of grey(symbolic?) it creates, but just throwing it out there:
Well, in the long term, I guess yes to a point.
However, it's also worth noting that whatever Arvo himself had in mind for them never gets brought up: it's Buricko who decided to rob the group on the spot, either because poetic justice or because he's a dick; I prefer both. Also note that when AJ's presence is discovered, Kenny, Mike, Arvo, and Natasha (and even Vitali at one point) all try to convince Buricko to back off since this isn't worth getting anyone killed over. It's only because Clementine/Kenny/Kennyagain suddenly shoots Rebecca, after several seconds of everyone losing their collective tempers/shit and arguing, that Buricko actually opens fire.
So, really it's a bunch of people getting worked up over a misunderstanding and being rash: Jane and determinately Clementine robbed Arvo, Arvo had to walk back home without his gun, His group came after Clementine and Jane, Buricko decided to rob the entire group, everyone got out their guns, Clementine/Kenny fired the first shot, and then Buricko got trigger happy.
You know, I was gonna comment that that's a bit of a black and white way of thinking, but then I realize that that's pretty much Kenny's take on Arvo for the firefight. On the other hand, if the thing Arvo is supposed holding her accountable her for is his sister, then yeah, she kinda is: even if she was only defending herself, Clementine did technically kill his sister(by proxy at first and then for real from Arvo's POV at the time) and was even the reason Arvo got jumped by Jane in the first place.
So, Kenny is pushing around Arvo for what his "friends" did and Arvo pointed out Clementine for her "friend" did. Not So Different indeed.
Ah, Arvo: one of the only characters I can defend by laughing at him.
Technically, Arvo blamed Clementine for killing his sister because he saw her shoot her--or rather her turned coprse--as she was crawling away. And while I do believe that to be the case due to the implication given by Vitali and thematic appropriateness, it's never directly said that Kenny was the one who shot Natasha and the other two. Which also kinda bothers me, honestly.
And I get that you're saying that because she's a little girl, but Clementine is far from weak and I kinda assume she'd be able to take him in fair fight. Then again, considering he was able to give Kenny a hard time while being taken hostage, what do I know?
Not really important, but while I get the basic idea of having him shoot her there, someone brought up an interesting point: From a gameplay divergence perspectice, why does Arvo have to shoot Clementine in the scenarios where she isn't being mean to him, threatening Mike, or actively throwing a wrench in their plan?
Like, there's actually quite a few details to that scene depending on your behavior and choices, so sometimes it makes sense but other times, it feels like he just fires because the plot demands it. Except, not really, since Clementine can easily just be dazed by Kenny and Jane knocking her down that hard, which is pretty much the only time her being shot affects anything.
And you wanna know makes this feel all the more convoluted? According to various sources, Arvo shooting Clementine even on your nicest and/or most nonthreatening playthrough is supposed to be an accident, as indicated by a difference in his expression. Having watched nearly all of the various versions of that scene when writing my Unfortunately Sympathetic example, I can confirm that it is there, it's just too easy to miss: when Mike reacts to Clementine suddenly getting shot and glances back at Arvo, Arvo's face will either be a glare(mean/threatening) or a look of shock(nice/nonthreatening). So, that raises two questions: 1. Why not have the camera zoom in appropriately to show that Arvo panicked or that the gun just went off or whatever? and 2. Why didn't you just come up with another reason for Clementine getting knocked out, like [whoever's] example where Mike just punches her?
Again, not really important, just a recent observation that is currently confounding me.
Aaaaand I'm gonna have to call bullshit on this one. As I said in my US example before the final paragraphs got accidentally deleted, Arvo is kinda overrated in a way because the only thing most people really focus on with him is that he shot at Clementine and actually hit her. Which, not to step on his already low street cred, anyone with a gun could do. In fact, plenty of people have tried: Andy, Save lot bandits, Winston, Carver, Taavia, Tavia's crew, and Buricko. The only reason people single out Arvo is cause he actually did it. By determinant accident, even.