Yes, but as previously stated, it conflicts with the tone. When the game is pushing the comfort that comes with sticking with a group of strangely obtuse personalities, a relationship that began quite rocky, then dedicates it's time having that same group get murdered in various almost comedic fashions, showing suffering as simply a benign result of being with people that find solace and comfort with each other, the best thing to do is to not implicitly showcase a scene of a child (around the suspiciously same age as Clem) getting heinously mauled to death with little visible remorse or guilt on anyone's faces.
To me, I found that scene almost insulting not because Sarah died or even that she was under rubble that was underneath her (hence the comedic comment) but because no one gave a single fuck and the attention was almost without question shifted to the baby.
Shit like that undermines the entire gravitas of the accompanying situation and marginalizes it to mean absolutely nothing.
but what about the few players who have been trying to break away from the group since day 1?
If you weren't asking this question rh… moreetorically, then all they can really do is grin and bear it, I guess, because that rationale is conflicting with the story they want to tell (or attempted to tell)
Like, if someone isn't a fan of Clementine in S1, and doesn't want to be around her/interact with her (and they do exist), there isn't much they can do other than begrudgingly go along with it
the best thing to do is to not implicitly showcase a scene of a child (around the suspiciously same age as Clem) getting heinously mauled to death with little visible remorse or guilt on anyone's faces.
Sarah is 15, which is four years older than Clementine. I'm sure she's legal somewhere, but that doesn't change the fact that it was excessively cruel and forced.
To me, I found that scene almost insulting not because Sarah died or even that she was under rubble that was underneath her (hence the comedic comment) but because no one gave a single fuck and the attention was almost without question shifted to the baby.
Not to mention that they failed to adequately address that, the situation, and the "rivalry"afterwards, as well as completely wastes a main character who was there since the beginning without giving her proper closure--even though it was right fuckin there! I really believe that hurt the episode and the story as a whole more than anything.
Yes, but as previously stated, it conflicts with the tone. When the game is pushing the comfort that comes with sticking with a group of str… moreangely obtuse personalities, a relationship that began quite rocky, then dedicates it's time having that same group get murdered in various almost comedic fashions, showing suffering as simply a benign result of being with people that find solace and comfort with each other, the best thing to do is to not implicitly showcase a scene of a child (around the suspiciously same age as Clem) getting heinously mauled to death with little visible remorse or guilt on anyone's faces.
To me, I found that scene almost insulting not because Sarah died or even that she was under rubble that was underneath her (hence the comedic comment) but because no one gave a single fuck and the attention was almost without question shifted to the baby.
Shit like that undermines the entire gravitas of the accompanying situation and marginalizes it to mean absolutely nothing.
I don't mind cruelty being inflicted on someone innocent and pure. In the correct tone, it can even amount to powerfully moving art. What I dislike is when something cruel happens to said innocent person and nothing is done in the plot to show any direction being conveyed in any shape or form. As if there isn't any acknowledgment, meaning that there isn't any reason for it to exist.
I really do think that the scene was borderline foul in it's grossly distorted message. No settling guilt, no encompassing sadness, and to top it off a baby that was born without proper medical supplies but is healthy as a horse.
Thank you!
the best thing to do is to not implicitly showcase a scene of a child (around the suspiciously same age as Clem) getting he… moreinously mauled to death with little visible remorse or guilt on anyone's faces.
Sarah is 15, which is four years older than Clementine. I'm sure she's legal somewhere, but that doesn't change the fact that it was excessively cruel and forced.
To me, I found that scene almost insulting not because Sarah died or even that she was under rubble that was underneath her (hence the comedic comment) but because no one gave a single fuck and the attention was almost without question shifted to the baby.
Not to mention that they failed to adequately address that, the situation, and the "rivalry"afterwards, as well as completely wastes a main character who was there since the beginning without giving her proper closure--even though it was right fuckin there! I really believe that hurt the episode and the story as a whole more than anything.
What I dislike is when something cruel happens to said innocent person and nothing is done in the plot to show any direction being conveyed in any shape or form. As if there isn't any acknowledgement, meaning that there isn't any reason for it to exist.
Pretty much. There are numerous tweaks that could've been made to make it work, but it would've been best if Sarah had been present for the Russian Ambush.
I don't mind cruelty being inflicted on someone innocent and pure. In the correct tone, it can even amount to powerfully moving art. What I … moredislike is when something cruel happens to said innocent person and nothing is done in the plot to show any direction being conveyed in any shape or form. As if there isn't any acknowledgment, meaning that there isn't any reason for it to exist.
I really do think that the scene was borderline foul in it's grossly distorted message. No settling guilt, no encompassing sadness, and to top it off a baby that was born without proper medical supplies but is healthy as a horse.
I am pretty sure Job or someone said in an interview about it. No I don't have concrete proof of that but if you really think about it, it was obvious going back to the dinner table scene in episode 2. Kenny showed a dislike to him in episode 3, they argued a lot in episode 4. I am pretty sure they were building up to a big fight between them in episode 5. Even some youtube LP gamers thought they were going to do that
Oh for sure! It would have been much more believable and would have been a harder choice for most people. Only problem with that is it would have been out of character for Luke to do what Jane did with AJ
Oh alright I didn't know that lol That does make sense, thanks for telling me I still think they should have kept the Kenny vs Luke ending though, even if people guessed it, it would have been awesome
Yeah I don't think Luke would hide AJ and pretend that he was dead like Jane did, maybe telltale would have actually killed AJ and then Kenny would blame Luke and then they would have the fight
Oh for sure! It would have been much more believable and would have been a harder choice for most people. Only problem with that is it would have been out of character for Luke to do what Jane did with AJ
Yeah I don't think Luke would hide AJ and pretend that he was dead like Jane did, maybe telltale would have actually killed AJ and then Kenny would blame Luke and then they would have the fight
Let's say that, while in the trailer, Jane makes sure that Clementine knows that she acknowledges that Sarah is the latter's friend and is in a state of grief, before urging her to leave. Would your opinion on Jane be more favorable because of this? If not, how would you amend her actions in a way that you'd agree with what she did?
Well, my opinion on Jane isn't really all that bad, to be honest, and I actually liked the character up until the end. I always felt, out of the main cast, she was my favourite behind Kenny throughout most of the season.
But yeah, had Jane actually acknowledged that Sarah was Clementine's friend and how difficult such a choice could be on her, I wouldn't have seen her in such a bad light in the scene. I mean, I still wouldn't really agree with her decision in encouraging Clem to leave Sarah, but at least had the scene been this way, Jane wouldn't have come across as insensitive and cold.
Aditional tags: @OneWayNoWay
Let's say that, while in the trailer, Jane makes sure that Clementine knows that she acknowledges that Sarah… more is the latter's friend and is in a state of grief, before urging her to leave. Would your opinion on Jane be more favorable because of this? If not, how would you amend her actions in a way that you'd agree with what she did?
I'm spending time discussing with both of you because I have the impression that you take the time to consider what the other person says.
I said it because i did not want to get annoyed and begin/continue an argument. Agreeing to disagree is best said because neither of us will ever accept each other's opinions so what is the point in carrying it on if it will be an endless argument or convo that could become an argument? I don't feel me saying that was perceived as stubborn or foolish at all!
However I dont get this guy telling you not to say "agree to disagree" because thats just stupid, people can disagree on something particula… morerly on a game based about choice.
Thank you not, @Firewallcano, but at least I have the chance to expand on this now.
I dislike this phrase because, in my personal experience, the only purpose that it has is to stall discussion surrounding any given topic whenever uttered—a cheap idiom used to replace meaningful talk. We are in a forum that seeks discussion particularly.
In a way, it feels similar to "beauty lies in the eye of the beholder." As soon as somebody says it, the majority don't dare to discuss any further in fear of being perceived as stubborn or foolish. This practically taints the thread, and other similar threads in the future, and it's also a courteous method for people to keep their views without further considering other perspectives.
A spot-on entry on this.
If the old threads that I have come across are any proof, I would say that the forum is less shitty and all over the place, and more of an actual forum with discussions. I'm referring to the The Walking Dead section.
Why? Because the majority of pro Kenny fans have gone is that why?
The forums have changed a lot since 2013
If the old threads that I have come across are any proof, I would say that the forum is les… mores shitty and all over the place, and more of an actual forum with discussions. I'm referring to the The Walking Dead section.
Oh come on now, there's still a lot of both sides here on the forums.
But I don't think it matters much cause the game will be progressing beyond Kenny's relevancy and the big divide among users won't be whether Kenny was a vile man or a hero, it'll be whether another character is a pedo or if Clementine's actions (whatever they may possibly be) are justified.
We've seen the preemptive signs already whether Clem is even a good character, and I know personally I'm now focusing my sights of slight unacceptance at a decision Telltale has made on AJ's continued agency in the game's structure. Which I'm of course quite against seeing as though he subtracted a great deal of interest from the later part of season 2.
Debates will change most certainly once the new season is released and I'm looking forward to not having to talk about fuckface anymore.
If the old threads that I have come across are any proof, I would say that the forum is less shitty and all over the place, and more of an a… morectual forum with discussions. I'm referring to the The Walking Dead section.
Why? Because the majority of pro Kenny fans have gone is that why?
I actually agree with you. I'm looking forward to new topics.
In my response to BetterToSleep i was actually genuinely asking the question if that was why because I remember when the board had many pro Kenny fans who haven't visited the board for over 2 years now.
Oh come on now, there's still a lot of both sides here on the forums.
But I don't think it matters much cause the game will be progressin… moreg beyond Kenny's relevancy and the big divide among users won't be whether Kenny was a vile man or a hero, it'll be whether another character is a pedo or if Clementine's actions (whatever they may possibly be) are justified.
We've seen the preemptive signs already whether Clem is even a good character, and I know personally I'm now focusing my sights of slight unacceptance at a decision Telltale has made on AJ's continued agency in the game's structure. Which I'm of course quite against seeing as though he subtracted a great deal of interest from the later part of season 2.
Debates will change most certainly once the new season is released and I'm looking forward to not having to talk about fuckface anymore.
Debates will change most certainly once the new season is released and I'm looking forward to not having to talk about fuckface anymore.
If Kenny is included through flashbacks in S3 you know there will be new topics about him right? Lol oh and Jane too of course. Do you have a save for each ending scenario? I'm hoping we will see some noticeable differences! Don't let us down Telltale
Oh come on now, there's still a lot of both sides here on the forums.
But I don't think it matters much cause the game will be progressin… moreg beyond Kenny's relevancy and the big divide among users won't be whether Kenny was a vile man or a hero, it'll be whether another character is a pedo or if Clementine's actions (whatever they may possibly be) are justified.
We've seen the preemptive signs already whether Clem is even a good character, and I know personally I'm now focusing my sights of slight unacceptance at a decision Telltale has made on AJ's continued agency in the game's structure. Which I'm of course quite against seeing as though he subtracted a great deal of interest from the later part of season 2.
Debates will change most certainly once the new season is released and I'm looking forward to not having to talk about fuckface anymore.
Nah, I played the episode once (barely managed that) and then replayed the ending just to get the ending where Clem is completely off alone allowing both parties to die rather than letting Jane live as my "canon" playthrough.
And yes, I know there will most likely be more inclusions made to further "deepen" his character, but I have no interest in examining any of his past any further. In my opinion, he's dead, and I don't want him clouding up too much of the new narrative with his presence.
Debates will change most certainly once the new season is released and I'm looking forward to not having to talk about fuckface anymore.
… more
If Kenny is included through flashbacks in S3 you know there will be new topics about him right? Lol oh and Jane too of course. Do you have a save for each ending scenario? I'm hoping we will see some noticeable differences! Don't let us down Telltale
Probably right after seeing Kenny at the statue in ep 4, every time she talked about Kenny after that it was about how he can be a realiability. But when I think she truly did would be when she tells Clem the story about the guy under the car. It seems like she was comparing him to Kenny and how she thinks some people arnt worth saving.
Nah, I played the episode once (barely managed that) and then replayed the ending just to get the ending where Clem is completely off alone … moreallowing both parties to die rather than letting Jane live as my "canon" playthrough.
And yes, I know there will most likely be more inclusions made to further "deepen" his character, but I have no interest in examining any of his past any further. In my opinion, he's dead, and I don't want him clouding up too much of the new narrative with his presence.
In my response to BetterToSleep i was actually genuinely asking the question if that was why because I remember when the board had many pro Kenny fans who haven't visited the board for over 2 years now.
That's not the reason.
The reason is that most of the comments that I encountered were composed of two lines with awful grammar, published in a half-assed attempt to be witty, sometimes looking to win a senseless argument.
I actually agree with you. I'm looking forward to new topics.
In my response to BetterToSleep i was actually genuinely asking the questio… moren if that was why because I remember when the board had many pro Kenny fans who haven't visited the board for over 2 years now.
But anyway, roll on season 3
If neither you nor the person you're holding a dialogue with are willing to change your opinion—even if your points are more sensible that the other's or vice versa—let me tell you that both are wasting your time.
You seem to have realized this, Dan, which is clever, but perhaps the conversation shouldn't have been started in the first place.
I said it because i did not want to get annoyed and begin/continue an argument. Agreeing to disagree is best said because neither of us will… more ever accept each other's opinions so what is the point in carrying it on if it will be an endless argument or convo that could become an argument? I don't feel me saying that was perceived as stubborn or foolish at all!
In my response to BetterToSleep i was actually genuinely asking the question if that was why because I remember when the board had many pro … moreKenny fans who haven't visited the board for over 2 years now.
That's not the reason.
The reason is that most of the comments that I encountered were composed of two lines with awful grammar, published in a half-assed attempt to be witty, sometimes looking to win a senseless argument.
Yeah I guess you could say it was wasting time but you could also say that each of us want to get said things off our chests regardless lol. I suppose on this occasion, i was the one that posted to prink that started off the so called debate but i saw it going nowhere. But i do think by saying we should agree to disagree doesn't always mean someone is giving up or backing away from the discussion because he or she is unable to win the convo or can't think of what to reply back to a comment on or as you stated that said person is perceived as stubborn or foolish.
Trust me and you know this, i could go on forever with someone if i felt the need to but for the sake of myself and further pissing others off, i'll stop it when i can.
If neither you nor the person you're holding a dialogue with are willing to change your opinion—even if your points are more sensible that t… morehe other's or vice versa—let me tell you that both are wasting your time.
You seem to have realized this, Dan, which is clever, but perhaps the conversation shouldn't have been started in the first place.
Okay. I got that feeling to upon my second playthrough, but I know how fast one person's speculation can suddenly become everyone's common knowledge. Just wanted to be sure.
[Also, first post in a while because of that killer storm. Thank God for the library!]
I am pretty sure Job or someone said in an interview about it. No I don't have concrete proof of that but if you really think about it, it w… moreas obvious going back to the dinner table scene in episode 2. Kenny showed a dislike to him in episode 3, they argued a lot in episode 4. I am pretty sure they were building up to a big fight between them in episode 5. Even some youtube LP gamers thought they were going to do that
Probably right after seeing Kenny at the statue in ep 4, every time she talked about Kenny after that it was about how he can be a realiabil… moreity. But when I think she truly did would be when she tells Clem the story about the guy under the car. It seems like she was comparing him to Kenny and how she thinks some people arnt worth saving.
She does care about people but doesn't want to go through the pain of losing those she is close to. That is why she was kinda bent out of shape when Luke died. She is a realist in a world that somehow still has enough tact to think things through to determine the best possible outcome. Does that mean that this or that outcome is necessarily the right one? Who knows.
Kenny doesn't even seem to show remorse for killing Lily's dad. Wants you to drop Ben to his death when you can save him. When you do he gets pissed off that you didn't let him die. If you let him die he shows some sort of pride in letting a kid drop to his death. This is all in season one and doesn't even touch on all the little asshole aspects of Kenny.
Now, you are telling me that you can see past all of that for Kenny. Yet, can't see Jane for who she truly is? Hell, she probably is the only one who has her shit as together as can be.
Correction: She doesn't really care about other people especially those she sees as a liability unless they do something for her. Hence Clementine and to a lesser degree Luke.
You have some selective memory here. Don't make me post the video to show how he instigates this whole thing.
Jane wants to decide where they are going. She even mentions they should decide since Clementine woke up. Meaning she wanted to involve Clem into deciding where to go as a collective effort. Kenny gets pissed and Jane says they could go back to Carvers camp since it's close. They had supplies and they can immediately get stuff there to take care of the baby. Kenny doesn't wanna hear and actually ignores any point she makes. Jane puts her feet on the dash and Kenny knocks her feet off.
So Kenny pretty much starts all this shit. Hell, Jane up until Kenny actually puts his hands on her. She was done trying with him at that point.
I mean Kenny literally calls Jane nothing which to me is a really fucked thing to say.
Yeah and what are some of things Jane says to… more him before hand? She says numerous things to provoke him such as "bet you're having trouble seeing a lot of things these days" when Kenny is driving or saying "fuck you. You know nothing about me". Fact is, both of them were "being children" as Clem states in the car with their arguing.
You do realize that if Kenny had his way he would have originally dropped him to his death or bashed his head in right? Jane just threaten him to get him away from the group. Also, you can see how distressed that actually made her. In a world like this when do you actually see someone get that distressed for trying to make sure they are keeping their people safe?
a sociopath is just very difficult to reason with on a personal level and therefore is more prone to unacceptable behavior regardless of conventional standards
Stop talking about Kenny like that
far too jaded and bitter for anyone else's good and only cares about what appeals to her, only changing her attitude or apologizing when it's unavoidable.
Yeah, its like she didn't care to here anyone elses opinion at all. I mean at least Kenny was willing to listen and actually figure out the best possible place to go for the baby. I mean knowing Wellington is out there is more reassuring than a camp they know the location of that has supplies.
Seriously, I kinda wonder what you guys are actually thinking when you post this stuff. Are you that unwillingly to clump Kenny in there? If you have to stretch some things to label Jane like this. Then I really want to see how you justify all of Kenny's actions.
Now look, defining someone as an actual sociopath is a tricky subject, but I wouldn't say Jane counts as one. She might be aloof and somewha… moret socially awkard, sure. She might show a few sociopathic traits as well, but not enough to classify her as a sociopath, if you ask me.
Yeah, I know it is. My understanding is that while a psychopath will gladly abuse others and break laws for their own amusement, a sociopath is just very difficult to reason with on a personal level and therefore is more prone to unacceptable behavior regardless of conventional standards.
Jane fits the latter and while I admit there are several moments that showcase that there was a decent human being in there at one point, she's far too jaded and bitter for anyone else's good and only cares about what appeals to her, only changing her attitude or apologizing when it's unavoidable.
Not to run the topic off course too much, but if there's any characters i… [view original content]
I really do think that the scene was borderline foul in it's grossly distorted message. No settling guilt, no encompassing sadness, and to top it off a baby that was born without proper medical supplies but is healthy as a horse.
Not to mention, highly hypocritical when it comes to the story trying to justify the necessary existence and survival of baby AJ.
One moment the story advises the audience to cut loose the liabilities and forget that they ever existed, and in the next moment, the story outright demands that you bond with a newborn baby who needs your constant care, will need feeding, may attracted unwanted attention by it's screaming and crying, and will need to be loved by everyone around them.
No if, no buts, you will like this baby and will not abandon the baby to his death just as we tried to tell you to sell out Nick and Sarah earlier, and will punish you dearly for ignoring our advice.
Basically from what I've seen, Amid the Ruins were telling me that a newborn baby has more value than those who are held back by their flaws and struggle to survive on their own without help from their 'friends', the same 'friends' who barely showed much emotion to the horrific demise of people who they've known for much longer than they've known a newborn baby.
I don't mind cruelty being inflicted on someone innocent and pure. In the correct tone, it can even amount to powerfully moving art. What I … moredislike is when something cruel happens to said innocent person and nothing is done in the plot to show any direction being conveyed in any shape or form. As if there isn't any acknowledgment, meaning that there isn't any reason for it to exist.
I really do think that the scene was borderline foul in it's grossly distorted message. No settling guilt, no encompassing sadness, and to top it off a baby that was born without proper medical supplies but is healthy as a horse.
Kenny doesn't even seem to show remorse for killing Lily's dad. Wants you to drop Ben to his death when you can save him. When you do he gets pissed off that you didn't let him die. If you let him die he shows some sort of pride in letting a kid drop to his death. This is all in season one and doesn't even touch on all the little asshole aspects of Kenny.
On the Larry situation, that's not true: it's pretty obvious that actually killing Larry was something he didn't feel comfortable about. Not that it makes it any better, but there's clearly some signs of remorse.
As for Ben thing, I know and I agree. That was way too shady for my liking, not to mention messed up: Why should I be expected to just up and kill one of my group member's because another one wanted me to? If he has a problem with Ben, that's his business and not mine. Not endorsing anything here, but if he really wants to something to happen to Ben, he can do it himself.
Now, you are telling me that you can see past all of that for Kenny. Yet, can't see Jane for who she truly is? Hell, she probably is the only one who has her shit as together as can be.
Not really? By the end of it all, Kenny was a pretty unlikable guy sure, but at the very least I knew there was some remains of a decent man in there somewhere, he was just a little too beat up by that point. When it became clear he was gonna snap and kill Jane, I decided shooting him was the best way to save him.
Jane, on the other hand, made no attempts to hide how unreliable she was since day one. While I tried to give her several chances to get over her issues and become a better person, she crossed the line way too many times and too many lives were lost/ruined because of it. And then, even at the end, when she said she was gonna change her ways and try to be more of a team player, she fell back into those ways and pulled a stunt that could've gotten all four of us killed, with one guaranteed no matter what.
I may not like Kenny's way of doing things all the time, but Jane's way is too cold for my tastes. I understand that both were just trying to do what they thought was best, but what they thought was best came a cost that I was just not ready to pay: Kenny was too bossy, pigheaded and volatile, whereas Jane was too manipulative, bitter, and callous. So, when the truth came out, I did a little time travel to let them both die on my first playthrough.
She does care about people but doesn't want to go through the pain of losing those she is close to. That is why she was kinda bent out of sh… moreape when Luke died. She is a realist in a world that somehow still has enough tact to think things through to determine the best possible outcome. Does that mean that this or that outcome is necessarily the right one? Who knows.
Kenny doesn't even seem to show remorse for killing Lily's dad. Wants you to drop Ben to his death when you can save him. When you do he gets pissed off that you didn't let him die. If you let him die he shows some sort of pride in letting a kid drop to his death. This is all in season one and doesn't even touch on all the little asshole aspects of Kenny.
Now, you are telling me that you can see past all of that for Kenny. Yet, can't see Jane for who she truly is? Hell, she probably is the only one who has her shit as together as can be.
Huh. I admit, I actually forgot what they discussed before Jane stated getting personal. I just remember they weren't agreeing about something and Jane got attitude to go with his stubbornness.
Granted, we were already in the snow presumably miles away from Howe's at that point so I decided that checking out this Wellington rumor was the most convenient since we were already on the road, but yeah I forgot.
You have some selective memory here. Don't make me post the video to show how he instigates this whole thing.
Jane wants to decide where … morethey are going. She even mentions they should decide since Clementine woke up. Meaning she wanted to involve Clem into deciding where to go as a collective effort. Kenny gets pissed and Jane says they could go back to Carvers camp since it's close. They had supplies and they can immediately get stuff there to take care of the baby. Kenny doesn't wanna hear and actually ignores any point she makes. Jane puts her feet on the dash and Kenny knocks her feet off.
So Kenny pretty much starts all this shit. Hell, Jane up until Kenny actually puts his hands on her. She was done trying with him at that point.
No guideline is being broken and this thread is the place to talk about it, so @DabigRG and everybody else can do so as long as they want.
Edited section
I thought you were telling @DabigRG to stop describing Kenny negatively, but I am confused now, since the rest of posts in your profile suggest that you dislike him.
a sociopath is just very difficult to reason with on a personal level and therefore is more prone to unacceptable behavior regardless of con… moreventional standards
Stop talking about Kenny like that
far too jaded and bitter for anyone else's good and only cares about what appeals to her, only changing her attitude or apologizing when it's unavoidable.
Yeah, its like she didn't care to here anyone elses opinion at all. I mean at least Kenny was willing to listen and actually figure out the best possible place to go for the baby. I mean knowing Wellington is out there is more reassuring than a camp they know the location of that has supplies.
Seriously, I kinda wonder what you guys are actually thinking when you post this stuff. Are you that unwillingly to clump Kenny in there? If you have to stretch some things to label Jane like this. Then I really want to see how you justify all of Kenny's actions.
I really do think that the scene was borderline foul in it's grossly distorted message. No settling guilt, no encompassing sadness, and to t… moreop it off a baby that was born without proper medical supplies but is healthy as a horse.
Not to mention, highly hypocritical when it comes to the story trying to justify the necessary existence and survival of baby AJ.
One moment the story advises the audience to cut loose the liabilities and forget that they ever existed, and in the next moment, the story outright demands that you bond with a newborn baby who needs your constant care, will need feeding, may attracted unwanted attention by it's screaming and crying, and will need to be loved by everyone around them.
No if, no buts, you will like this baby and will not abandon the baby to his death just as we tried to tell you to sell out Nick and Sarah earlier, and will punish you dearly for ignoring our advice.
Basically from what I've … [view original content]
Huh. You know what, you're not wrong, but I'd probably call him a psychopath in No Going Back, at the absolute worst. He's just not very smart in general, but he clearly cares about how other people feel about something; he just tries to ignore it if it conflicts with his idea.
Are you that unwillingly to clump Kenny in there?
Honestly, yes. If only because one of the things I legitimately don't like about him is the fact that there's always confusion and arguments where he's concerned. Plus, why would I drag him into something when I'm talking about Jane and Jane alone?
Then I really want to see how you justify all of Kenny's actions.
I don't. Not much anyway; more like Kenny is the lesser of two evils from my perspective since he's not too smart and kinda predictable. His treatment of Larry, Ben, Mike, and Arvo is where I try to draw the line, since those are examples of him being too hasty, insistent, and overzealous.
Not to mention the fact that he's so opinionated that he sorta cares about other people a lot more than Jane does. As much of a jerk he can be, Kenny isn't as likely to just leave someone in harms way if he can help it.
a sociopath is just very difficult to reason with on a personal level and therefore is more prone to unacceptable behavior regardless of con… moreventional standards
Stop talking about Kenny like that
far too jaded and bitter for anyone else's good and only cares about what appeals to her, only changing her attitude or apologizing when it's unavoidable.
Yeah, its like she didn't care to here anyone elses opinion at all. I mean at least Kenny was willing to listen and actually figure out the best possible place to go for the baby. I mean knowing Wellington is out there is more reassuring than a camp they know the location of that has supplies.
Seriously, I kinda wonder what you guys are actually thinking when you post this stuff. Are you that unwillingly to clump Kenny in there? If you have to stretch some things to label Jane like this. Then I really want to see how you justify all of Kenny's actions.
Okay, you actually spark an excellent point: Jane thought she was doing something that would help Clementine out at the cost of stooping to the level of a thief. That's fine and all, but she's also intentionally screwing someone else over in the process, even with Clementine's own morality determinately being against it. And I don't just mean Natasha, but both groups in general: by threatening/deciding to take the medicine, she pissed Arvo's group off and caused them to come looking for her and Clementine, which caused the standoff that escalated into a firefight when Rebecca turned.
When all this was said and done, Rebecca, Natasha, Buricko, and Vitali were dead/deader, Mike and especially Luke were injured, and Arvo became Kenny's prisoner. By making that one unnecessary move against Arvo, Jane caused pretty much everything thing that went wrong in that final episode and yet she refused to accept responsibility for instigating the conflict in the first place and in fact just reacted as if Kenny was merely pinning it on her.
Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions. Unfortunately, Jane's blamelessness helped to make her look worse than she probably needed to, as her list of callous actions no doubt benefit.
You do realize that if Kenny had his way he would have originally dropped him to his death or bashed his head in right? Jane just threaten h… moreim to get him away from the group. Also, you can see how distressed that actually made her. In a world like this when do you actually see someone get that distressed for trying to make sure they are keeping their people safe?
Pretty much. At the barest minimum, Sarah had prove a few times that she could act as a lookout and/or danger detector since the mere thought of walkers causes her to become uncomfortable.
Not to mention, highly hypocritical when it comes to the story trying to justify the necessary existence and survival of baby AJ.
Basically from what I've seen, Amid the Ruins were telling me that a newborn baby has more value than those who are held back by their flaws and struggle to survive on their own without help from their 'friends', the same 'friends' who barely showed much emotion to the horrific demise of people who they've known for much longer than they've known a newborn baby.
Yeah. Like I've said numerous times, Sarah's death did more to hurt the story than help it since there are numerous little tweaks or alternatives that could've been done to benefit the story and at least make sure her loss served an actual purpose.
I really do think that the scene was borderline foul in it's grossly distorted message. No settling guilt, no encompassing sadness, and to t… moreop it off a baby that was born without proper medical supplies but is healthy as a horse.
Not to mention, highly hypocritical when it comes to the story trying to justify the necessary existence and survival of baby AJ.
One moment the story advises the audience to cut loose the liabilities and forget that they ever existed, and in the next moment, the story outright demands that you bond with a newborn baby who needs your constant care, will need feeding, may attracted unwanted attention by it's screaming and crying, and will need to be loved by everyone around them.
No if, no buts, you will like this baby and will not abandon the baby to his death just as we tried to tell you to sell out Nick and Sarah earlier, and will punish you dearly for ignoring our advice.
Basically from what I've … [view original content]
Comments
Yes, but as previously stated, it conflicts with the tone. When the game is pushing the comfort that comes with sticking with a group of strangely obtuse personalities, a relationship that began quite rocky, then dedicates it's time having that same group get murdered in various almost comedic fashions, showing suffering as simply a benign result of being with people that find solace and comfort with each other, the best thing to do is to not implicitly showcase a scene of a child (around the suspiciously same age as Clem) getting heinously mauled to death with little visible remorse or guilt on anyone's faces.
To me, I found that scene almost insulting not because Sarah died or even that she was under rubble that was underneath her (hence the comedic comment) but because no one gave a single fuck and the attention was almost without question shifted to the baby.
Shit like that undermines the entire gravitas of the accompanying situation and marginalizes it to mean absolutely nothing.
Thank you!
Sarah is 15, which is four years older than Clementine. I'm sure she's legal somewhere, but that doesn't change the fact that it was excessively cruel and forced.
Not to mention that they failed to adequately address that, the situation, and the "rivalry"afterwards, as well as completely wastes a main character who was there since the beginning without giving her proper closure--even though it was right fuckin there! I really believe that hurt the episode and the story as a whole more than anything.
I don't mind cruelty being inflicted on someone innocent and pure. In the correct tone, it can even amount to powerfully moving art. What I dislike is when something cruel happens to said innocent person and nothing is done in the plot to show any direction being conveyed in any shape or form. As if there isn't any acknowledgment, meaning that there isn't any reason for it to exist.
I really do think that the scene was borderline foul in it's grossly distorted message. No settling guilt, no encompassing sadness, and to top it off a baby that was born without proper medical supplies but is healthy as a horse.
Pretty much. There are numerous tweaks that could've been made to make it work, but it would've been best if Sarah had been present for the Russian Ambush.
I am pretty sure Job or someone said in an interview about it. No I don't have concrete proof of that but if you really think about it, it was obvious going back to the dinner table scene in episode 2. Kenny showed a dislike to him in episode 3, they argued a lot in episode 4. I am pretty sure they were building up to a big fight between them in episode 5. Even some youtube LP gamers thought they were going to do that
Oh for sure! It would have been much more believable and would have been a harder choice for most people. Only problem with that is it would have been out of character for Luke to do what Jane did with AJ
"Whatever, I give up." And then she proceeded to rest her feet up on the dash.
Yeah I don't think Luke would hide AJ and pretend that he was dead like Jane did, maybe telltale would have actually killed AJ and then Kenny would blame Luke and then they would have the fight
Yeah agreed! Luke was never shown to be anything like Jane. It's a shame we'll never know how it would have gone otherwise
Well, my opinion on Jane isn't really all that bad, to be honest, and I actually liked the character up until the end. I always felt, out of the main cast, she was my favourite behind Kenny throughout most of the season.
But yeah, had Jane actually acknowledged that Sarah was Clementine's friend and how difficult such a choice could be on her, I wouldn't have seen her in such a bad light in the scene. I mean, I still wouldn't really agree with her decision in encouraging Clem to leave Sarah, but at least had the scene been this way, Jane wouldn't have come across as insensitive and cold.
I said it because i did not want to get annoyed and begin/continue an argument. Agreeing to disagree is best said because neither of us will ever accept each other's opinions so what is the point in carrying it on if it will be an endless argument or convo that could become an argument? I don't feel me saying that was perceived as stubborn or foolish at all!
Why? Because the majority of pro Kenny fans have gone is that why?
Oh come on now, there's still a lot of both sides here on the forums.
But I don't think it matters much cause the game will be progressing beyond Kenny's relevancy and the big divide among users won't be whether Kenny was a vile man or a hero, it'll be whether another character is a pedo or if Clementine's actions (whatever they may possibly be) are justified.
We've seen the preemptive signs already whether Clem is even a good character, and I know personally I'm now focusing my sights of slight unacceptance at a decision Telltale has made on AJ's continued agency in the game's structure. Which I'm of course quite against seeing as though he subtracted a great deal of interest from the later part of season 2.
Debates will change most certainly once the new season is released and I'm looking forward to not having to talk about fuckface anymore.
I actually agree with you. I'm looking forward to new topics.
In my response to BetterToSleep i was actually genuinely asking the question if that was why because I remember when the board had many pro Kenny fans who haven't visited the board for over 2 years now.
But anyway, roll on season 3
If Kenny is included through flashbacks in S3 you know there will be new topics about him right? Lol oh and Jane too of course. Do you have a save for each ending scenario? I'm hoping we will see some noticeable differences! Don't let us down Telltale
Nah, I played the episode once (barely managed that) and then replayed the ending just to get the ending where Clem is completely off alone allowing both parties to die rather than letting Jane live as my "canon" playthrough.
And yes, I know there will most likely be more inclusions made to further "deepen" his character, but I have no interest in examining any of his past any further. In my opinion, he's dead, and I don't want him clouding up too much of the new narrative with his presence.
Probably right after seeing Kenny at the statue in ep 4, every time she talked about Kenny after that it was about how he can be a realiability. But when I think she truly did would be when she tells Clem the story about the guy under the car. It seems like she was comparing him to Kenny and how she thinks some people arnt worth saving.
I've got a save for each ending. I hope we'll see the differences
That's not the reason.
The reason is that most of the comments that I encountered were composed of two lines with awful grammar, published in a half-assed attempt to be witty, sometimes looking to win a senseless argument.
If neither you nor the person you're holding a dialogue with are willing to change your opinion—even if your points are more sensible that the other's or vice versa—let me tell you that both are wasting your time.
You seem to have realized this, Dan, which is clever, but perhaps the conversation shouldn't have been started in the first place.
Ahh ok. I remember back in 2013/14 that a lot of users kept posting gifs to use as a witty remark to insult others. Happened quite frequently
Yeah I guess you could say it was wasting time but you could also say that each of us want to get said things off our chests regardless lol. I suppose on this occasion, i was the one that posted to prink that started off the so called debate but i saw it going nowhere. But i do think by saying we should agree to disagree doesn't always mean someone is giving up or backing away from the discussion because he or she is unable to win the convo or can't think of what to reply back to a comment on or as you stated that said person is perceived as stubborn or foolish.
Trust me and you know this, i could go on forever with someone if i felt the need to but for the sake of myself and further pissing others off, i'll stop it when i can.
Okay. I got that feeling to upon my second playthrough, but I know how fast one person's speculation can suddenly become everyone's common knowledge. Just wanted to be sure.
[Also, first post in a while because of that killer storm. Thank God for the library!]
I think she start to giving up on him after what he did to Arvo.
To me when she talked about that guy I was thinking it might be Eddie from 400 days he was a duchbag
As someone who doesn't mind him gone...really?
She does care about people but doesn't want to go through the pain of losing those she is close to. That is why she was kinda bent out of shape when Luke died. She is a realist in a world that somehow still has enough tact to think things through to determine the best possible outcome. Does that mean that this or that outcome is necessarily the right one? Who knows.
Kenny doesn't even seem to show remorse for killing Lily's dad. Wants you to drop Ben to his death when you can save him. When you do he gets pissed off that you didn't let him die. If you let him die he shows some sort of pride in letting a kid drop to his death. This is all in season one and doesn't even touch on all the little asshole aspects of Kenny.
Now, you are telling me that you can see past all of that for Kenny. Yet, can't see Jane for who she truly is? Hell, she probably is the only one who has her shit as together as can be.
You have some selective memory here. Don't make me post the video to show how he instigates this whole thing.
Jane wants to decide where they are going. She even mentions they should decide since Clementine woke up. Meaning she wanted to involve Clem into deciding where to go as a collective effort. Kenny gets pissed and Jane says they could go back to Carvers camp since it's close. They had supplies and they can immediately get stuff there to take care of the baby. Kenny doesn't wanna hear and actually ignores any point she makes. Jane puts her feet on the dash and Kenny knocks her feet off.
So Kenny pretty much starts all this shit. Hell, Jane up until Kenny actually puts his hands on her. She was done trying with him at that point.
You do realize that if Kenny had his way he would have originally dropped him to his death or bashed his head in right? Jane just threaten him to get him away from the group. Also, you can see how distressed that actually made her. In a world like this when do you actually see someone get that distressed for trying to make sure they are keeping their people safe?
Stop talking about Kenny like that
Yeah, its like she didn't care to here anyone elses opinion at all. I mean at least Kenny was willing to listen and actually figure out the best possible place to go for the baby. I mean knowing Wellington is out there is more reassuring than a camp they know the location of that has supplies.
Seriously, I kinda wonder what you guys are actually thinking when you post this stuff. Are you that unwillingly to clump Kenny in there? If you have to stretch some things to label Jane like this. Then I really want to see how you justify all of Kenny's actions.
Don't be fooled.
This whole entire community was kissing Kenny's ass until more reasonable people came in with some logic.
Not to mention, highly hypocritical when it comes to the story trying to justify the necessary existence and survival of baby AJ.
One moment the story advises the audience to cut loose the liabilities and forget that they ever existed, and in the next moment, the story outright demands that you bond with a newborn baby who needs your constant care, will need feeding, may attracted unwanted attention by it's screaming and crying, and will need to be loved by everyone around them.
No if, no buts, you will like this baby and will not abandon the baby to his death just as we tried to tell you to sell out Nick and Sarah earlier, and will punish you dearly for ignoring our advice.
Basically from what I've seen, Amid the Ruins were telling me that a newborn baby has more value than those who are held back by their flaws and struggle to survive on their own without help from their 'friends', the same 'friends' who barely showed much emotion to the horrific demise of people who they've known for much longer than they've known a newborn baby.
On the Larry situation, that's not true: it's pretty obvious that actually killing Larry was something he didn't feel comfortable about. Not that it makes it any better, but there's clearly some signs of remorse.
As for Ben thing, I know and I agree. That was way too shady for my liking, not to mention messed up: Why should I be expected to just up and kill one of my group member's because another one wanted me to? If he has a problem with Ben, that's his business and not mine. Not endorsing anything here, but if he really wants to something to happen to Ben, he can do it himself.
Not really? By the end of it all, Kenny was a pretty unlikable guy sure, but at the very least I knew there was some remains of a decent man in there somewhere, he was just a little too beat up by that point. When it became clear he was gonna snap and kill Jane, I decided shooting him was the best way to save him.
Jane, on the other hand, made no attempts to hide how unreliable she was since day one. While I tried to give her several chances to get over her issues and become a better person, she crossed the line way too many times and too many lives were lost/ruined because of it. And then, even at the end, when she said she was gonna change her ways and try to be more of a team player, she fell back into those ways and pulled a stunt that could've gotten all four of us killed, with one guaranteed no matter what.
I may not like Kenny's way of doing things all the time, but Jane's way is too cold for my tastes. I understand that both were just trying to do what they thought was best, but what they thought was best came a cost that I was just not ready to pay: Kenny was too bossy, pigheaded and volatile, whereas Jane was too manipulative, bitter, and callous. So, when the truth came out, I did a little time travel to let them both die on my first playthrough.
Huh. I admit, I actually forgot what they discussed before Jane stated getting personal. I just remember they weren't agreeing about something and Jane got attitude to go with his stubbornness.
Granted, we were already in the snow presumably miles away from Howe's at that point so I decided that checking out this Wellington rumor was the most convenient since we were already on the road, but yeah I forgot.
No guideline is being broken and this thread is the place to talk about it, so @DabigRG and everybody else can do so as long as they want.
Edited section
I thought you were telling @DabigRG to stop describing Kenny negatively, but I am confused now, since the rest of posts in your profile suggest that you dislike him.
Following that line of thought, pragmatically, Sarah is a much bigger contribution to a group of survivors than a newborn.
Huh. You know what, you're not wrong, but I'd probably call him a psychopath in No Going Back, at the absolute worst. He's just not very smart in general, but he clearly cares about how other people feel about something; he just tries to ignore it if it conflicts with his idea.
Honestly, yes. If only because one of the things I legitimately don't like about him is the fact that there's always confusion and arguments where he's concerned. Plus, why would I drag him into something when I'm talking about Jane and Jane alone?
I don't. Not much anyway; more like Kenny is the lesser of two evils from my perspective since he's not too smart and kinda predictable. His treatment of Larry, Ben, Mike, and Arvo is where I try to draw the line, since those are examples of him being too hasty, insistent, and overzealous.
Not to mention the fact that he's so opinionated that he sorta cares about other people a lot more than Jane does. As much of a jerk he can be, Kenny isn't as likely to just leave someone in harms way if he can help it.
Okay, you actually spark an excellent point: Jane thought she was doing something that would help Clementine out at the cost of stooping to the level of a thief. That's fine and all, but she's also intentionally screwing someone else over in the process, even with Clementine's own morality determinately being against it. And I don't just mean Natasha, but both groups in general: by threatening/deciding to take the medicine, she pissed Arvo's group off and caused them to come looking for her and Clementine, which caused the standoff that escalated into a firefight when Rebecca turned.
When all this was said and done, Rebecca, Natasha, Buricko, and Vitali were dead/deader, Mike and especially Luke were injured, and Arvo became Kenny's prisoner. By making that one unnecessary move against Arvo, Jane caused pretty much everything thing that went wrong in that final episode and yet she refused to accept responsibility for instigating the conflict in the first place and in fact just reacted as if Kenny was merely pinning it on her.
Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions. Unfortunately, Jane's blamelessness helped to make her look worse than she probably needed to, as her list of callous actions no doubt benefit.
Pretty much. At the barest minimum, Sarah had prove a few times that she could act as a lookout and/or danger detector since the mere thought of walkers causes her to become uncomfortable.
Yeah. Like I've said numerous times, Sarah's death did more to hurt the story than help it since there are numerous little tweaks or alternatives that could've been done to benefit the story and at least make sure her loss served an actual purpose.