Settling things, at least a little (Amid the ruins spoilers)

Ok, I loved A House Divided, and I personally liked, but fond may flaws in In Harm's Way, and while All That Remains was meh for me, Amid The Ruins is getting many complaints, more than any other episode this far. Mostly about Nick and Sarah's deaths, and Luke screwing Jane and abandoning watch. I'm going to talk about these three things, and 2 positive things, without making this a Tl;dr post. Here we go.

Sarah's death. The main complaint with this, is that they wanted her not to die. Now, if you think of the characters as real people, this is easier to digest, so I like to do that. Think about it. She's a little girl. Depressed and broken, she barely responds, and is 80% of the time in the fetal position, and has been too sheltered. If this person was real, yeah, they would die at the first sign of danger, and it would be sad, and even if people saved you, at the risk of their own life, you are now a liability, and though your death would be a tragedy, you're gonna die, no matter how much people protect you. Plus, from a writer's standpoint, think about it. Sarah is supposed to (a little, at least to me) represent if Lee had done nothing but shield Clem. As soon as Lee's luck runs out, Clem wouldn't have been able to move on, and despite everyone's best efforts, died regardless. I say that was the point of having Sarah die. What a text wall. Moving on!

Nick's Death. Well, simple. His death reminds me of Chuck's from season 1. You just find the corpse, and though everyone is saddened, you have to move on. As a staff at Telltale once said (I forget who, it was on the talking dead for episode 4 I believe), "Not everyone dies a hero's death." Most people loved Nick, and wanted him to survive, same with Chuck, but he didn't go down in a hail of gunfire saving Clem, just.....bitten. Or bled out from a gunshot wound. Like most people would be in that world. Even though he was a cool character, oh well. He died the average man's death, and was put down by his friends. Who was expecting a mundane, off-screen, average death? I thought it was well-handled, making the most bland zombie apocalypse death exciting, as you weren't expecting it.

Luke and Jane having sex while Luke was on watch. This was a huge screw up, but jeez, lay off the guy. Luke was probably getting stressed, and he's in his twenties, he's not perfect, Rebecca's giving birth, his best friend died, (determinant) his good friend's daughter died, he was panicking and screwed up his job. Hey, just like Kenny did watching Clem, when he got drunk as hell in Around Every Corner! Hey Kenny fanboys constantly attacking Luke for this, Kenny did a similar thing in episode 4 of last season, look at that :D (I am on neither side in the Kenny vs. Luke war)

Lastly, a positive, in this post (It's getting all tl;dr up in here). I personally was completely enamored with the scene with Mike and Bonnie were in the museum. It all felt kinda like a breath of fresh air from all the dark and depressing stuff. Even the walker attack didn't feel dark as, somehow, I learned to trust, and really grew attached to Mike and Bonnie, just through casual dialogue, with no flat out development in the traditional way. Just.... conversation, and they are suddenly 2 of my favorite characters in the group right now.

Comments

  • Regarding Sarah - I understand your point here. She was sheltered and ultimately paid the price. The thing is - and this goes back to the thing about making choices matter more - but we had the opportunity to save her. We had the opportunity to snap her out of it and keep her alive in the very beginning of the episode. Those of us that saved her were rewarded with.........her dying later in the episode and nobody really caring. Instead, her character could have been kept alive and Clem could have taught her how to survive.... Sarah had basically no character development at all this season. Clem teaching her to use the gun? Meant nothing. All of it was meaningless.

    Nick was just completely wasted potential. I just wonder, what was the point of giving the player the opportunity to save him in 202 if he would have 3 lines in 203 and be killed off camera in 204? It's just frustrating to me that they would even bother letting us keep him alive if he becomes irrelevant immediately after, despite his status.

    Aside from the way these 2 characters were handled, I don't really have any problems with the episode. Of course other than the fact that the slide basically had nothing to do with it. Dammit, we wanted Eddie.

  • The choice was pretty pointless to save Sarah, yeah, but Nick at least dies a happier death (slightly). I stick to my guns on the Sarah thing, but I do admit, the choice was nullified, she should have died in at least early episode 5, maybe shot by a member of Arvo's gang. I just think her death should have been held off, as opposed to just having random danger, just to kill her. Nick's death is happier to me, as I feel like being bitten repeatedly on the throat, and being left to possibly kill someone else, all because you messed up is so much worse than being killed somewhat peacefully (he was completely intact, probably bled out from the gunshot), getting parting respects, and then being put down by a friend is somewhat happier. Still no "hero's death" like I said, but at least it was better than the alternative.

    Lucazzy posted: »

    Regarding Sarah - I understand your point here. She was sheltered and ultimately paid the price. The thing is - and this goes back

  • dojo32161dojo32161 Moderator

    Look at his neck.

    Alt text

    maxbear29 posted: »

    The choice was pretty pointless to save Sarah, yeah, but Nick at least dies a happier death (slightly). I stick to my guns on the

  • Sorry, only played once, and watched a play through once. Never noticed that before, thanks for pointing it out. Anyway, the point still stands, and I think bleeding out might actually be arguably worse than just being bitten.

    dojo32161 posted: »

    Look at his neck.

  • edited July 2014

    The problem with Nick's death is that once you save him, he's literally a nobody in episode 3 and doesn't do anything and in episode 4, he dies off screen, that's a huge issue to people who saved him, wasted potential.

  • dojo32161dojo32161 Moderator
    edited July 2014

    My problem with Nick's demise is that every time you've saved a determinant character they've gotten more character development, and a better death.

    Carley/Doug, both get some great development and a shocking out of nowhere death, with Doug going out as a hero.

    Ben, got (IMO) the best development of any character and died a tragic death.

    Pete also got great development and went out saving Clementine in a heroic fashion.

    Alvin was mostly a background character but got a great death scene with some development thrown in.

    Sarah learned that she didn't want to die and died in a much more shocking way, with the balcony giving way and her falling, with Jane unable to save her.

    So when I saw Nick I thought, why did they decide you didn't deserve more characterization, why didn't they believe you should have gotten a better death than your original one?

    Just my two cents.

  • I do agree, but I continue to use the Chuck argument. It must be wearing thin, I know, but still, it applies. I saved him, and I feel like this is like a slap to the face, but so was killing Chuck, a interesting character, and amazing addition to the group, in a matter of minutes. Nick may have been wasted potential, which I'm a little bit with you on, but I understand why. Like a real person. They die at any moment, in this situation, you may not know them well, but they died. Look guys, this is the one I am most with you on, I agree with you a bit, but I still stick to my opinion, and you all are making me debate it so much :P

    J-Master posted: »

    The problem with Nick's death is that once you save him, he's literally a nobody in episode 3 and doesn't do anything and in episode 4, he dies off screen, that's a huge issue to people who saved him, wasted potential.

  • MyushaMyusha Banned

    Players make a promise to both Carlos and Uncle Pete. Carlos says Clem is Sarah's friend and relies on Clem to help Sarah. Uncle Pete for some people, died asking Clementine to help Nick.

    Sarah can be protected, and educated. Be supported, encouraged and saved. And we can do everything in our power to save her. Personally I think the main complaint is that she died later in the same episode her determinant status was established, but her death was still potent and you still could try to save her. You can do everything you possibly could to assist Sarah and be her friend, and it's so sad to think her second-to-final word was "Clementine!" If you saved her. It showcased how much of an impact you made on her life and how much she adores you, and how scared she is and needs you. You can't save her, but you and Clementine can try harder than anyone else.

    Nick meanwhile had no impact on the plot if you saved him. You can promise Pete that you'll take of his boy, treasure and salvage him. Do what you can to keep him safe. Nick lost his mom, his uncle, makes screw-up mistakes, turns to alcohol, is best friends with Luke since nearly childhood, abandoned Carver's camp with the group and honestly did everything he could. He cared, made rash decisions, and was apologetic. He was supposed to play off as somewhat similar to Ben to the players. You could even give him a Watch you stole, a choice you could invest in. Some players even felt closer to Nick because they went with him at the end of Episode 1, and gave his watch back in Episode 2, and saved his very life after crucial plot development in Episode 2.

    Episode 3 he has less than 15 lines, and Episode 4 he only shows up in two scenes and gets a bigger death reaction out of Rebecca, than his life long friend Luke or Clementine. Hell, Lee got to say several lines of dialogue to his brother, who we never knew, and it made me more sad than when Clem said 'Goodbye' and nobody really cared Nick was gone.

    Also if he died in Episode 2, Nick practically disappears from conversation out of one line from Carlos and Clem's reaction to Walter.

    That's wasted potential honestly.

    Jane and Luke having sex is okay to me. Sarah is okay to me. Nick wasn't okay to me.

    maxbear29 posted: »

    The choice was pretty pointless to save Sarah, yeah, but Nick at least dies a happier death (slightly). I stick to my guns on the

  • ohh youre right nick=chuck in death ways. man I was mad about that. I was mad when I just found his body.

  • A lot of people didn't know that Molly is actually technically determinant in season 1, as she can escape with you all, or get out the roof and flee walkers if you fail to help her. She then is ignored, changes her mind to stay with you, and leaves after 3-4 lines of dialogue. Sure, she was a side character, but nobody seems to bring that up.

    dojo32161 posted: »

    My problem with Nick's demise is that every time you've saved a determinant character they've gotten more character development, a

  • dojo32161dojo32161 Moderator

    I don't consider people determinant characters unless they die depending on a choice. We could call Lee's arm a determinant, it did nothing but got to use a piece of glass in the gauntlet, which was awesome. Boyd's also determinant, but we haven't seen that play out, yet. I'd consider Stephanie determinant but she's going to die in that truck whether or not you left. Leland and Justin are also determinant as well, but it hasn't played out.

    maxbear29 posted: »

    A lot of people didn't know that Molly is actually technically determinant in season 1, as she can escape with you all, or get out

  • MyushaMyusha Banned

    Determinant means you have a choice in their fate. Even if the same thing happens, you have an influence how it happens.

    The decision to save Nick didn't reward the players at all who liked him. That's bad. The decision to let Nick die didn't come to bite us in the ass either.

    dojo32161 posted: »

    I don't consider people determinant characters unless they die depending on a choice. We could call Lee's arm a determinant, it di

  • edited July 2014

    The fact that saving Sarah was a sisyphean and ultimately pointless task actually gives it a lot of meaning to me.

    In the trailer park, when Clem is given an option of whether or not to save Sarah, she seems catatonic and unresponsive, she seems like she's given up, she seems like she's a lost cause. But Clem still has hope that Sarah can snap out of her stupor and improve. So she instills Sarah with every bit of positivity and hope and morale she has left, slaps some sense into Sarah, and gives her an opportunity to stand up and survive.

    And what does Sarah do after that? She relapses. She shrinks away from reality and back into her own little world where she feels safe and secure. Seeing that makes Clem realize that Sarah wasn't going to get better. She won't be able to stand on her own two feet. She'll always be a child needing someone to help her up and carry her forward.

    Now Clem is given the exact same choice again. This time, not only is the likelihood of saving Sarah incredibly thin, not only does it put a great potential asset in Jane at risk, but now Clem knows that there will be no pay-off to her success. If she saves Sarah today, all it will mean is that she will probably have to save her again tomorrow. Given this knowledge, will she still do the right thing?

    Lucazzy posted: »

    Regarding Sarah - I understand your point here. She was sheltered and ultimately paid the price. The thing is - and this goes back

Sign in to comment in this discussion.