570 Comments
  • This is on the forum now? Good lord. :/

    • Yes it is, because it's important.

      • It's not though. What is this meant to accomplish? So what if Telltale apologise for fans not liking the treatment of her? She's still dead at the end of the day.

        • Not getting into the debate, but I really don't think whether this topic is important or not is the issue. There are plenty of inane, useless threads on this forum, and no one complains about them. Sure, there might be other reasons you object to this thread, but "importance" shouldn't be one of them.

        • He tells the Telltale employees how he feels about Sarah “not being normal” and that he wants her to die for it - and they agree! This is unacceptable.

          I know she's dead. And I myself not a big part of Sarah, but I still think that killing off characters like that should stop.

          • She's their character, they can do whatever the hell they want with her. The nodding and agreeing is called being polite and civil - they're being interviewed and acknowledging his choices! It's bad PR to argue with his choices "WELL HOW COULD YOU DO OR SAY SUCH A THING!"

            It's the walking dead dude, people die all the time in unfair ways.

  • this should be on the forum

  • But we know Greg Miller is an asshole to female characters.

    Stopped reading it there. While I don't agree with Greg at all, he isn't sexist. That's absurd. This just looks like whiny tumblr bullshit.

    • Tumblr is populated by feminists, and I reckon the article's author is no exception.

      • You've hit the nail on the head there.

      • does it really matter? what matters is the content of what Greg and Telltale said. it's not as if every female on the planet are bugging Telltale because of what was said,it's the issues it raises,very delicate emotional issues NOBODY should joke about

      • She openly identifies as such in her profile, so yes.

        That doesn't make her automatically wrong. Greg Miller may very well be an asshole to female characters. I don't follow him, so I don't know.

        Yet when someone who loudly proclaims themselves a feminist starts playing the misogyny card, I do need to see the evidence before I put a lot of stock in it. It's very easy to find any kind of prejudice, whether it's actually there or not, if you spend a good portion of your time looking for it.

        • Can't disagree there.

        • guys i think your missing the bigger picture here... this isn't about femininity

          • No, and she's absolutely right that Greg Miller's reaction to Sarah's death was tasteless and disgusting, as was the spineless reaction of the Telltale reps who were so quick to agree with him. I would very much like to see Telltale apologize, though Telltale is so awful at PR and keeping in touch with their fans that I'm dubious we'll ever see it.

            Just sayin', flinging out random accusations of misogyny, without presenting a speck of evidence, weakens her other accusations. If she actually has a case on that front, she'd have been better off just leaving the issue for some other time.

      • The Tumblr twdg fandom is in a constant uproar about sexism, ableism, feminism, name any "ism" and they're probably screaming about it over there. They can't turn off the "offended" switch for anything, not even for a video game. I'd imagine it must be very hard to enjoy life so pissed off all the time.:-/

        • You can pretty much remove "twdg fandom" from your statement and it will apply to over 70-80% of what's happening on Tumblr, at least from what I've heard.

        • If you wasn't offended that's good for you. But if someone is, let them speak. People don't usually 'shout' because they want to annoy you or to get attention, it's because they feel hurt.
          And as tumblr user, I can assure you, we enjoy the game as much as everyone here does.

          • I'm not saying you aren't allowed to be offended, but there needs to be a limit. Over at Tumblr it seems that every single thing that offends someone, or is considered "problematic" even the least bit needs to be petitioned/boycotted, TellTale needs to be reprimanded for allowing it, and the person who's responsible for the "offensive" comment is now labeled as trash/gross/ableist/sexist/a bad person /belongs in the dumpster etc. With people freaking out so much over there, it lessens the impact of the issue you're trying to make light of. And because of that people won't take the issue, or you, seriously.

            • every single thing that offends someone

              I hope you understand that everyone is different. And of course everyone is mad about different things, that's why it may seem that 'everyone is offended by something'. But that's at the same time the precious thing about tumblr - no one will try to shut you up. What I've been told about tumblr before I joined it - you won't be judged there unless you're uncivil. And strangely it happen to be true.

              I'm not saying that I agree with every topic that had been raised on tumblr, but you can be heared there, and that's what I aprreciate.

              • Of course I understand that everyone is different and will react differently to things. But just because you're offended doesn't mean it calls for this huge movement to make TellTale apologize, or yield to your way of thinking about those things. I just don't understand what you all over at Tumblr want to get out of this, Greg apologized but you're all still angry. I hate to break it to you but I think you've been misinformed about Tumblr. Tumblr preaches about accepting and embracing everybody, and not judging anyone, but that only applies if you think like them. If someone has an unpopular opinion or disagrees with them, they attack you like rabid dogs.

                You can be heard on any forum, all you have to do is start a thread. Do you mean to say that having people agree with you is equivalent to being heard? Sorry, I might be misinterpreting that last bit of your comment.

                • If someone has an unpopular opinion or disagrees with them, they attack you like rabid dogs.

                  I haven't seen this side of tumblr yet and I'm truly sorry if you did. Not everyone there is well-mannered but it's just like everywhere, there is no perfection in the world. But from what I've seen the majority are actually nice people.

                  By 'you can be heard' I meant there will be people who will discuss your topic of interest without being impolite.

                  • You are very lucky not to have dealt with people like that, and I hope you never do. I don't own a Tumblr account, but I lurk there a lot, and the amount of times I've seen someone being bullied into deleting their account because they think differently is far too high. However, I can't disagree with you there, it is true that every forum/site is always going to have some bad apples. All I can say is that there is a reason why Tumblr tends to have such a bad rep among non-Tumblr users.

                    I think you can be heard here, as said earlier there will always be a few trolls on the forums, but for those few trolls there is a lot more people who actually want to have a polite discussion and exchange thoughts/opinions civilly.

                    • I'm sorry to hear that. I've seen posts about 'stop bulling, it makes people delete their blog' stuff, but it was in general, never applying to TWDG. As I said, tumblr is not perfect and I only can wish it to become a better place.

                    • I must be lucky too then. Although I heard of severe bullying on tumblr I haven't actually seen as much. If anything I've seen far more bullying on twitter and facebook combined than I ever seen on tumblr. (I don't use social networking much though I do check them at least once a day.)

                      • It's there alright, and just like I said to theonys, I sincerely hope you don't ever have to see it. The people who engage in it are huge hypocrites, they advocate love and acceptance but turn on others at even the slightest mention of an opinion they don't agree with. They tell their followers about the user and send them over to harass them. It's disgusting, and is a huge reason as to why I despise Tumblr so much as a community. I only really lurk there for edits/gifs/art mostly, but I still come across it some how. I guess I'm just unlucky that way. Thankfully I have neither a Facebook or a Twitter, nor do I plan to lurk on there.

                        • Sadly most of the people I hang out with at school are that type of Tumblr user and they call me a gross white cist all because I go on reddit and 4chan.

                          • -

                          • I'm truly sorry to hear that, it really sucks that so many Tumblr users are like that. Just remember that the majority of Tumblr who thinks like that are severely deluded and will never make it in the real world with such a ridiculous mindset. Hopefully it's just a phase their going through, and they will grow out of it as they mature. Hopefully.

                            • Well it's weird since most of my friends who are that way and have graduated are going to horrible colleges and having severe financial problems since they're spending all their parents money trying to impress their college friends. It's funny.

                            • I find it funny that you think the oppression of marginalized people are "deluded" and will "never make it into the real world" as if only hurt feelings is what they experience. It's not the fact that they are easily offended, its the ignorance belonging to the privileged and how defensive and offended the privileged get when they get called out for being just that: Ignorant and privileged.

                              • This is such a Tumblr post through and through. I don't have the patience to argue with you about this, you are already in too deep.

                                • Hmmm I love how "This is such a tumblr post" is tacked on to a statement as if it's an insult. Because godforbid wanting some decent exposure and treatment to those who don't is considered so awful and that stating that on their personal blogs is considered "immature".

                                  I wonder what the people of Ferguson who are fighting for their rights for protest in a non violent way. They're vocalizing for equality and are treated in turn by violence from authorities. You can state how immature Tumblr is because of a few uneducated eggs here and there, but I don't see what's wrong with calling out people for being what they are: Ableist. And people have a right to be offended when they're tossed to the dogs with the characters they identify with especially when they are seen so few and far between .

                                  • Because the collective mentality there is that of angry first world babies who cry ableist/racist/sexist at everyone or thing that doesn't go their way. People over there parade around with all their self diagnosed "disabilities", and "illnesses" like they're shiny "look at how different I am, acknowledge it or else!" stickers, it's them who are desensitizing people to the reality of these illnesses/disabilities, because they treat it as though it's a fad, but get "triggered" when you call them out on it. I sincerely doubt that even half of Tumblr actually has these any of these illnesses/disabilities. Call me ableist if you want, that word no longer has impact either because of how carelessly it's thrown around. Try being "offended" in a third world country, and see how that bodes with the people there, and then tell me how "oppressed" you are in this "terrible" country.

                • Greg apologised and people called him a dick for apologising.
                  I don't think TT should apologise since the same thing would happen.

                  • Don't think so. Firstly, I haven't seen any people calling him a dick for apologising. It sounds irrationally and immature. Secondly, I believe that community would only have a higher opinion of TT, because it takes strength to admit one's fault.
                    I personally don't really seek for an apology that much, but some kind of explanation would be nice.

                    • Alt text

                      That is exactly what was said. No one called him a dick, but they called him out and critiqued his apology.

                      • Anyway I can't blame them for that. I don't think he apologised because he actually felt guilty.

                        • I think he apologised because he didn't actually mean to offend people, he just expressed his opinion on a video game character and people are taking it way to far. I don't see why they think his opinion of Sarah would transcend in to real life. "Sarah was disabled (psst... she wasn't) and Greg said something I didn't like about her, so he MUST hate disabled people!"

                          IGN is a shitty company, they wouldn't give a flying fuck about a group of angry people on a forum. Greg apologised for his actions and upsetting people (without the prompting of IGN, I would assume) and people give him shit for trying to make up for it. What more do people want from him? There's not much else he can do... and IGN aren't going to sack him for pissing Tumblr off :P

                      • greg was a horrible interviewer.. -_-

    • Lmao, so many thumbs down and ZERO responses explaining why I'm wrong. Anyone care to explain?

    • Miller does have a track record on hating on female characters way more than he does male characters, tbh. Make of that what you will. Could just be a coincidence. But it's something I've noticed, too.

    • This just looks like whiny tumblr bullshit.

      My hero c;

    • being a female character and being disabled, she was immediately despised by the majority of the fandom

      I stopped reading there. I'm not even dignifying it with a reason for stopping reading.

  • If it takes effort and reduces the probability of everyone else's survival, it's a burden. Period. That's Sarah in a nutshell. Physically paralyzed people didn't do all that well in the zombie apocalypse, either. It's not ableist bullshit to acknowledge that, it's the post-apocalyptic reality when there's an ever-present menace waiting to rip everyone apart that it can get its hands on.

  • This has been taken too far as I said in my thread. Greg Miller's a fucking asshat, we all know that without a doubt... But Jason and Mark never really agreed with him; they compared his opinion to the rest of the playerbase and hinted at how they found it interesting. They then mentioned that even their own office was split in terms of what was morally right.

    Also, the notion that disabled people would be a burden in a zombie apocalypse situation is completely right. I'm dyspraxic and I'm not afraid to admit this. Of course someone who struggles to cope both physically and mentally is going to be hugely stunted when it comes to surviving in such a harsh world.

    • I think the bigger issue concerning disabled people and Sarah is that you shouldn't react to their deaths with vindictive glee. It's one thing to realize that someone is being a burden and finding it necessary to eliminate them to ensure everyone else's safety. But acting like it's Christmas morning upon watching this supposed burden suffer one of the most painful and brutal deaths in the series thus far is... pretty disturbing.

      • Yeah, of course, and that's my big issue with Greg Miller. Fortunately I honestly don't think Telltale share the same view... Writers such as themselves who have the role of creating stories heavily involving ethics are surely aware that that's... Well, fucked up. They nodded their heads and awkwardly chuckled with Greg because it was the easiest way of making him shut up and move on.

      • It's like Lizzie from the TV show. She didn't know what she was doing was wrong, but she needed to be put down for the safety of everyone else... but that doesn't mean people enjoyed doing/watching it.

        • Sarah didn't attempt to murder other members of the group and willfully put their lives into danger by purposely luring walkers into the camp. If anything, Sarah tried to learn how to protect herself and the group, to the point where she planned to teach herself how to shoot and asked Clementine for advice.

          And yes, while I'm sure many players didn't enjoy doing it, OP was talking about Telltale's intent. And Telltale chooses to agree and support Greg when Greg says how much he enjoyed watching Sarah die. They could have politely defended Sarah (the same way Erin Yvette defended Bonnie when Greg was saying how much he hated her in a previous episode of Playing Dead), but they didn't, and they then went on to actively encourage him.

          • Yeah, I don't really get why people seem to believe Sarah was some kind of huge threat. She got a whopping zero people killed (more than Ben or Kenny can say), and she was surprisingly capable for someone who was sheltered for so long. For one thing, she evaded Carver in the cabin in spite of her panic attack, which was pretty impressive. She also had the initiative to ask Clem to train her to defend herself.

            • Indeed. Plus, Sarah will protest if Carver slaps Clem outside the truck. To do that in her situation, especially against a man that clearly terrifies her and with her father still out of sight inside the truck, is incredibly brave. Being determinant, not everyone will experience it all the time so it can be forgotten. But it was still a touching moment I really appreciated.

          • I'm not saying Sarah was a threat - that was part of the problem, she wasn't a threat to anyone or anything, especially walkers. But that's not the point, the point is they were both clueless, and that cluelessness is what lead up to their deaths, however shitty they may be.

            • But Sarah really wasn't clueless. She knew what walkers were, and that they were dangerous. She also knew the world was dangerous enough that it warranted learning to defend herself. In spite of her father holding her back, she still knew that "Everything is dangerous. I need to know sometimes." The same piece of wisdom Lee can share with Clem back in Season One.

  • Telltale games is a privately owned company. The last thing anyone wants is to bring political correctness in their games.
    Let them be!

    If you don't like it, then please, just don't play the game!

    • User Avatar Image
      Ellias BANNED

      So because they're a "privately owned company" excuses them from their behavior? No, no, no, no, no. They're a company, they need feedback and need to know what's right and wrong.

      And I did love the series so very much, but I paid my money so I'm giving my feed back and opinion whether they like it or not. Although I do wish to get a refund...

  • User Avatar Image
    CrazyGeorge BANNED

    I've chimed in this before, I never thought of Sarah as a burden, or disappointment. She saved Clementine's life. She was just a innocent goofy kid, and i felt sorry for her until the very end. I think what Greg said was extremely out there, and should be held accountable for it. Is he a misogynist? Who knows, but i do find it disturbing that a grown man would find happiness in a girl's death. To me this shows a lack of maturity. maybe he was trying to be funny, but the joke didn't land.

    I agree with this post mostly.

    • A fictional character's death

      fixed it for you

      • Sarah represents real people with real mental disorders. Greg said he wanted her to die because "she wasn't normal."

        Opinions like that don't just stay within the confines of fictional universes.

        • God damn, does he have to be specific so some damn tumblr blogger isn't mad?

          Leave it to tumblr to always escalate every little issue. Smh -_-

          • Escalate you say? Well, if you are not angry, you are not paying attention

          • He wanted her to die because she wasn't normal. That's some eugenics-esque ridiculousness, no two ways about it, whether you use Tumblr or not.

            Imagine if he said he hated Lee because Lee was black. No one would hesitate to say he was being intolerant of people on the basis of race. After all, if he weren't a racist, why would he hate a character strictly because they were black? It's the same thing but with Sarah's mental disorder(s) instead of Lee's race.

            And the issue has already been escalated. People die for "not being normal."

            • Well, one thing, a person's skin color is something they can't control.

              Sarah not being normal was something that could've been controlled by her parents early on. But she was not. She was sheltered. He's talking about a fictional character in a zombie apocalypse game. Where mentally disabled people ARE a liability. What's the big deal?

              It's a game. This kind of political correctness is a poison.

              • You can't control being mentally disabled. The sheer ignorance of your statement expresses far more than the actual text you wrote...

                • He already clarified that he didn't see her as being mentally disabled. And seeing as how there's still disagreement on here over whether or not she actually is mentally disabled from those who profess to have autism, anxiety, etc, I'd say that it's pretty plausible that a layman like Greg would just see her as a really sheltered wimp.

                  • Sheltered wimp... Well then, What for communities serve? Communities as Wellington, Alexandria, Hilltop, etc. If people in the community are bound to be a Chuck Norris, a Solid Snake or Hulk in the post-apocalyptic world.

                    What for we're human in TWD?

                • Way to put words in my mouth. Wanna try reading again, then re-quote me?

              • Thanks for telling me I would be a liability had a zombie apocalypse happened. I will be sure to not let you in my fortress when it does.

                • Depends what kind of disability, really.

                  • Anxiety (controlled as long as there are not very many people talking against me too many people against me makes me brake down like Sarah but because of that I already know you will see me as a liability.), Aspergers (With high IQ), Codependency (I'm working on it), Depression (Not really an issue anymore)

                    • Dude, as long as you're not stupid, know how to use a weapon and how to survive, you've covered the basics. If you were in a wheelchair and paralyzed from the neck down, then you're done. Simple as. As long as your anxiety is controlled you can be a survivor.

              • Absolutely not. Depending on the severity of the mental disability, some can be managed or effects on life lessened with practice, as in the individual knowing themselves, their limits, and what they can do to advocate for themselves. It can't eliminate it, but it can help ease life toward a more "normal" state.

                A mentally disabled person, yes, that disability could easily be a liability, a struggle that could quickly get that person killed, just like many other disabilities in that world. But it's the way the story, through the characters and situations, treats Sarah as not worth saving, that I (and I think many people) consider offensive. That's how I see that difference at least.

      • User Avatar Image
        CrazyGeorge BANNED

        A fictional character's death

        What does that matter? He is on a public forum spreading hate speech. Words have power, you can't just run at the mouth, then apologize, and say SHE IS ONLY FICTIONAL, It still hurt people's feelings, don't you understand that? Greg should try to avoid that because its kind of a jerk thing to do.

      • User Avatar Image
        CrazyGeorge BANNED

        double post

  • Walkers: Hey Sarah..

    Sarah: Hey..

    Walkers: Sorry we ate your dad. You see, we're dead. And our stomachs can't tell us when we're full. Really.. we didn't mean too. Here's some flowers

    Sarah: Really? Wow these are nic...

    Walkers start devouring Sarah apart

    Sarah: DADDYYYYYYYYY AHHHHH THEY'RE HURTING ME

    PLOT TWIST: The Walkers weren't talking. It was just Sarah's imagination. She got the attention of the walkers by talking to herself.

  • So it seems like a lot of the hate towards Greg Miller is due to the fact that he found joy in seeing Sarah, a character he didn't like, die. But this is something that gamers and other patrons of fiction do all the time. Don't pretend like it's some cardinal sin that only "monsters" like Greg Miller are capable of. I think a lot of us, at one time or another, have found it enjoyable to see a particular character that we don't like and find annoying be killed off.

    For those of you who are Star Wars fans, how many of you would react with outrage at a gleeful reaction towards the death of, say, Jar Jar Binks? Not many of you, I'm guessing. And it's not as if the character has done something evil or immoral. People hate him because he's annoying and cumbersome. People hate him for being who he is. People hate his character for existing. And I, personally, agree. I don't think that makes me a monster. I think it makes me a Star Wars fan.

    For those of you who are less familiar with Star Wars, imagine there was a character like Greg Miller in the Walking Dead. In fact, imagine that the character was based off of Greg Miller. Now imagine that this character, after constantly talking about how annoying the other survivors are for being burdens and putting other people's lives at risk, sudden finds himself fallen surrounded by walkers, about to be torn apart, and yelling for someone to save him. Based on a lot of the posts I've read on here, I'm betting that a lot of you would find this sequence fairly enjoyable and cathartic.

    Would this make you all monsters? No. Does this mean that you all would actually enjoy it if Greg Miller were, in real life, killed in a violent way in front of you? Fuck no. (At least I hope that's the case.) Because reactions to fictional events do not always match reactions to real life events. Even a relatively "serious" and "realistic" piece of fiction like The Walking Dead can be enjoyed on levels that aren't serious and realistic.

    Now this is not to say that Greg's reaction to Sarah wasn't in some ways problematic. But I think it's important to look at the issue more objectively to really zero in on why we find his behavior so objectionable, rather than just reducing the outrage to "Oh my God, how could you have wanted to see a child die??!!"

    • This is just me, but I wouldn't really enjoy a Jar Jar Binks/ Greg Miller death scene. I'd feel relief, maybe, but not vindictive glee.

      • That's fair. I'm just pointing out that the people who would enjoy those death scenes shouldn't necessarily be made out to be monsters.

        • Yeah, I can get behind that. What I don't understand is what exactly would prompt people to hate Sarah to the point that they'd enjoy her brutal death. I mean, I understand some people dislike her because she wasn't very useful, but it's not like she got anyone killed or hurt anyone. Just what warranted the death wishes? She was nowhere near as annoying as Jar Jar after all. Then again, I'm not sure anyone is...

          • Projection? Denial? Disliking people whom Sarah reminds them of? Being pissed off at having to 'take care of' weak characters rather than be a tough guy? I don't know.

    • You have a good point. But something in her death and Greg's reaction to it still doesn't fell right to me, and I'm not even her fan.
      Lets think about what kind of story TT is telling to us. What I loved about season one - everything had sense. It felt like a good book to me.

      Now see, all gamers like to be represented in games they play, somehow. And now there is a autistic character. We get reminded that her attitude is dangerous and that she won't make it if she keep being that way. The thing is - we know it. It's realistic. But it's not what the STORY needs. (And TTgames are not the ones you should look for realism in).

      And what we have now - TT tries to make us feel that everything is right. That it's okay to feel relief of 'annoying and problematic' kid's death. Like someone said, in season 2 we becoming Crawford.

      All I want to say is that TT showed as an example of a very bad writing. Sarah's death was senseless.

      • And what we have now - TT tries to make us feel that everything is right. That it's okay to feel relief of 'annoying and problematic' kid's death. Like someone said, in season 2 we becoming Crawford.

        Well, we're becoming more like Jane. Or at least it's starting to feel easier and and more natural to be like Jane. And I think there's something kind of profound there. I've talked about this in a recent post on another thread:

        Whereas Crawford was an over-the-top caricature of pragmatism, Jane represents the more (for lack of a better word) seductive side of it. Going out and actively hunting down those you perceive to be the lessers of society is never going to be an appealing prospect to most normal, well-adjusted people. But as the apocalypse goes on, as the horrors and deaths pile up, it becomes easier and easier to just sever all attachment to others, particularly those who are weaker than you, and just survive for yourself.

        That's something I kind of like about Season 2 now that I think about it. It feels...appropriately ruthless. This is 2 years into the apocalypse. Everyone who has survived thus far has probably had to do some pretty fucked up things to do so. Christa, Clem's primary caretaker for 16+ months, shotgun blasted an unarmed teenage girl in the stomach. Alvin, described by Rebecca as such a warm caring person, killed his friend to escape from Carver's compound. The Cabin group as a whole were willing to lock an injured little girl in a shed for their own protection. Like Bonnie says, there "ain't no saints in all of this." Not anymore. And in fact, the people closest to being saints, Walter and Matthew, both ended up being killed by the group they were trying to help. Season 2 feels colder, more ruthless, more Crawford-y because it takes place in a colder, more ruthless, more Crawford-y world.

      • Sarah is NOT autistic. She has none of the qualifications for it. Her inability to cope with the new world as it is, frequently shutting down in imminent danger, or needing assistance in social situations most other people are capable of handling on their own, are not qualifiers. In fact, they have nothing to do with the disorder. If you people would just take the time to look it up, you'd know. Sarah suffers from anxiety nurtured into her personality from being sheltered to an extreme degree, which could have been cured with time and support.

    • I don't know about anyone else but me personally, assuming I'm still the minority here,and even though I definitely find Greg annoying ect, would be upset if he as a character died off the same way. Mainly because his character wasn't developed past his annoyance. I know I may be the minority on this but I love character development even if its on characters I dislike but its a necessity for me in enjoying any writing.

    • But greg Miller's character would be abusive, abrasive and a de-humanizing scumbag.
      Sarah hurt absolutely no one and was very sweet and caring. The only time she ever caused any problems was with Carver who abused her.
      So you can't quite compare.

    • You don't even need to look outside of TWD to see that some players are happy to see characters die.
      In Season 1, the forums had many posts from people who were happy to murder Ben by dropping him to his death.

      • But Ben directly caused people to die through his lying. Sarah is just a scared little girl who hasn't done anything wrong. You may not think she's worth saving, but you should not be happy to watch her die.

    • With good writing, you don't want to see characters that you hate or annoy you die. I didn't find any joy in splattering larry all over the meat locker despite thinking he was a douche. To take a non-TWD example that none of you will have heard of, when Normad "dies", that is sad, even though up to that point he's just been deliberately annoying and you wished he would go away. His death actually makes you realise how much he was a part of the team, even if he was annoying.

      However, there are some times where you find joy in someone's death. For me those times only tend to be when someone is a blatantly evil scumbag. Sarah is not a blatantly evil scumbag, she's a scared little girl and taking joy in her death is just fucked up, whether you liked her or found her super annoying. Honestly, that he said that just speaks to the bad writing of season 2 imo because I don't think greg is some kind of evil monster. I think the problem is with the game that didn't make him give a crap about her as a person. You shouldn't want to see your fellow group members dead if they haven't done anything wrong.

      • yeah, i agree with that, it's like duck in season 1 loads of people hated him, but then he did the whole batman and robin investigation thing and everybody loved him and were really sad to see him go, whereas for people that found sarah annoying it just got worse before she died, she probably lost more fans before she died rather than gaining a load.

      • Well, no, because Greg explicitly says "Not since Ben was I so ready for a character's death." So it's not something particularly special about the writing of Season 2 that's eliciting this sort of reaction. And as others have pointed out, many other people were stoked about Ben's death as well. Also, unless you think he could telepathically control Lilly, Lee, the bandits, and the walkers, Ben didn't "directly" cause Duck and Katjaa's deaths with his lying any more than Sarah "directly" caused Reggie and Nick's deaths.

        Some people just find people just find some personalities grating and want them killed off, regardless of the quality of the fiction. A lot of people did enjoy seeing Larry's head splattered because he was a douche. A lot of people thought that dropping Ben was the right thing to do and completely justified. And it wasn't that the game didn't make them give a crap about those characters as people. In the case of Sarah, Greg, even with his hatred of her character, said that he really just wanted her to "wake up" to the reality of the situation around her and tried to do so by having Clem tell her that they can't be kids anymore. It was only after seeing her inability to respond that he grew frustrated enough to leave her.

        • Yes, ben caused people to die with his lying. If he hadn't put the supplies out for the bandits, if he had owned up to doing it at any point after you've escaped, if he'd done a multitude of things then carley/doug would not have died. Katjaa and duck's deaths were also caused by him, although he had less opportunities to stop it. These are going to be regarded as valid reasons to be glad to see his demise by some people (I did not drop him, personally).

          Sarah did nothing. There's no reason to be happy about her death. It's not simply being frustrated by her inability, otherwise one would still be sad about her death and inability to be redeemed. He was happy about her death because TTG didn't make him care about the character. Or maybe he just is an evil scumbag, I don't know.

          • If Sarah had just followed simple directions that a 5-year old would understand, Reggie would be alive. What's that? Carver killed Reggie because he was crazy and Sarah couldn't have been held responsible for the actions of an unstable mind? Well then Lilly killed Carley because she was crazy and Ben couldn't have been held responsible for the actions of an unstable mind.

            And if Sarah had just stood up and followed Luke and Nick to safety, Nick would still be alive and Luke's life wouldn't have been in danger. Sarah could have gotten all of them killed. The only reason she didn't was because of Jane and Clem. The causal chain leading from Sarah freaking out to Nick dying is a lot more straightforward than the one leading from Ben bribing the bandits to Duck and Katjaa being bitten. And yet it's fine to be glad at Ben's demise and horrendous to be glad at Sarah's.

            • Lilly and Carver are completely different. Carver was planning on killing Reggie anyway. You heard Tavia; Carver was not going to let Reggie back into "the flock." He was looking for an excuse to kill Reggie; Lilly wasn't looking for an excuse to kill Carley/Ben. lilly wanted to find out who betrayed the group. Plus, Ben's actions directly resulted in Duck getting bitten and the group being forced to move out of the motel even before Lilly killed anyone. Ben's actions also could have resulted in multiple people dying from illness or from the bandit attack (which, honestly, would have happened eventually; there are only so many bottles of medicine, he would have run out at some point). Sarah's actions resulted in berries getting picked a little bit slower.

              • Lilly didn't want to "find out" who betrayed the group. She had already made up her mind who did it and was prepared to execute them. That's why she told Ben that he "has until Kenny deals with that walker to tell me it was [Carley] and not you." It was the same. Both Lilly and Carver saw what they perceived to be threats to the group and made the decision to execute them. A decision that was motivated by the actions of a third party, i.e. Ben or Sarah. Carver may not have let Reggie "back in the flock" (according to someone else's speculation), but the fact is that he wouldn't have killed Reggie back there if Sarah had done her work.

                Ben's action "directly" resulted in Duck getting bitten? Did he sic the walker on Duck? Did he tell the bandits to invade? Did he tell Lee to take the supplies from the drop-off point? No. Duck gotten bitten due to a series of unfortunate events, most of which were completely outside of Ben's control and that he could have in now way predicted form his actions. Sarah, on the other hand, almost got Luke killed and did get Nick killed because she cornered herself and wouldn't get up off the ground and do anything. And in fact, you could predict those consequences from her actions (or inactions as it were).

            • These were not conscious choices. And now we get to it, you don't understand how disability works and you hate her for her disability (note: I'm not saying you personally do, but the opinion being defended in the post I'm responding to is just that). I mean you are basically saying "I'm happy she's dead because [disability]". That's what people are so pissed off about, FYI.

              There's a difference between consciously deciding to do the wrong thing (lying to the group, even if we accept that he thought putting the supplies out was right which I'm sure he did) resulting in hurt and something not a product of a conscious decision.

              • Exactly. That's the problem. Not that Greg was hating Sarah. But that he was hating her for what you and many others see to be something outside of her conscious control. If her actions weren't excusable by her condition then hating her would be just as appropriate as hating Ben (assuming you don't think that Ben also has some condition that excuses him of his actions).

                As Greg said, he didn't think that she had a disability. In his mind, she was just a scared, meek, and oblivious little girl who can't complete a simple task, won't just stand up and walk to safety, and doesn't respond to the people trying to help her. So where he erred here was in his ignorance of what people see to be Sarah's condition, not in his malice for hating the character. That's my point.

                • So what is your point? That greg is a moron who can't see what's right in front of his face? I don't think anyone is disputing that he's a moron. But I don't really believe he doesn't think she had some kind of mental condition. Does she seem like an average 15 year old girl to you?

                  • Not being average doesn't equate to being disabled. I've met many a 15 year old who were similarly childish, clingy, oblivious, and delicate but, to my knowledge, weren't disabled. I've seen a girl break down and skip 2 days of school over getting third place in an oratorical contest. Is that "average" or "normal"? I don't think so. But does it mean she had a disability? Not necessarily.

                    The most clear-cut instance I can recall of Sarah showing symptoms of what could be called a disability is when she started hyperventilating and had to sit down at the beginning of episode 2. But even then it's unclear if she's having a panic attack or actually just panicking over an actual threat, something that Ben does quite often.

                    • "To your knowledge" being the key phrase.

                      • Yeah...I'm not a professional psychiatrist. And I'm not just going to go around assuming that every human being who acts in a way that I don't consider "normal" is disabled. Is that...wrong?

                        • No, but if you don't have the ability to tell unless they have something like down's syndrome then don't go around assuming against what evidence you do have that they're 100% normal mentally. The line between mental illness and not mental illness is blurry and fine. Sarah obviously had some issues, regardless of whether one considers her disabled or not, she suffered with severe anxiety and so on. Maybe you don't know what that feels like, but it's not something I would expect a coddled 15 year old girl to just get over and power through all by herself. It's unreasonable to expect. It's quite different from an adult deciding to continue lying to their friends long after it was "necessary". Unless he's some sort of pathological liar which I think it's safe to say that ben was not.

                          • No one's 100% normal mentally. We all have our weird quirks and issues. Sometimes those issues are big enough for others to make exceptions for us. Other times, we're expected to just suck it up and deal with it. That seems to be the difference in your view of Ben and Sarah.

                            Up until the berry-picking incident, Sarah's anxiety didn't strike me as being that severe, given the actual level of threat that was going on. She seemed prone to panic and hyperventilating, but still seemed like she could function pretty normally otherwise. I really did expect her to be able to gather herself and be able to accomplish the berry-picking task. That didn't strike me as being beyond her capacity to do. And Clem gave her a good deal of emotional support before hand so I wouldn't say that she had to power through that all by herself. It honestly looked like she just wasn't trying.

                            Ben's not a pathological liar. He's a coward. He tried to bribe the bandits because he was afraid they would do the same to the motor in group as they did to his school group and he didn't tell the truth because he was scared of being kicked out of the group and left to fend for himself. Is it reasonable to expect a scared high schooler to say 'no' to the gang of thugs that terrorized and hunted down his friends? Is it reasonable to expect him to tell an unstable woman that the 'traitor' she was screaming about was him? I don't think the answer to either of these is obvious.

                            • Again, greg hated her for things that her disability caused. It's synonymous with hating her for her disability whether you know it or not and wanting to see her ripped apart for not being normal is terrible. Ben had no such disability. His actions were of his own free will and were not simply being "not normal". I still had compassion for ben, but it's more understandable when it comes to those who didn't because he took conscious actions, which were obviously wrong, that got other major important characters killed.

                              Sarah is a scared little girl with mental issues who, even if you were relieved to release her as a burden: 1. should not make you happy to see her die and 2. should have been given some significance after you save her, not just being unceremoniously and stupidly killed off 3 scenes later. I wouldn't criticize the decision to leave her any more than I would to drop ben, it's ok if you can't deal with taking care of her. It's the way she was handled if you saved her that's the problem and certain people's glee with seeing a disabled girl ripped apart.

                              • And, again, I think the fact Greg didn't know about Sarah's disability is a very important consideration because it determines how much responsibility he could have assigned to her. If someone whacks me in the face with a stick, I think I would be pretty justified in being pissed off at them for it up until the point where I realize that they're blind and thus not responsible for their actions (I realize blind people are more responsible with their canes than this; it's just an analogy).

                                If Greg, in fact, didn't see Sarah as someone with a disability, then to him, she was simply a person whose cowardice and incompetence caused her to mess up a simple task and get Reggie killed and curl up in the corner uselessly instead of responding to Luke and Clem's pleas to help save herself. Disliking a character for being a coward and incompetent to the extent that it puts others in danger seems pretty valid to me.

                                Now, it stops being valid once you accept the premise that Sarah could not be held responsible for her reactions because of her disability. Greg would, in fact, be an asshole if he still professes his hatred of Sarah for her reactions given that she is mentally disabled. But, to my knowledge, he hasn't done this.

                                • What are you even arguing now? That Greg is stupid?

                                  • I'm arguing that he made a mistake.

                                    • And he said sorry too for it.

                                    • Clearly he made a mistake. I think it was stupid and/or malicious. I'm honestly not sure how we got here or what the point is any more though.

                                      • I don't think it was that stupid and I definitely don't think it was malicious.That was pretty much my point.

                                        • He literally, in the interview, says he hates her for not being "normal". That was the explicit reason he gave. His hate means he feels she should die. How is that not malicious? I don't actually give a fuck whether he thought she was disabled or not, that's not cool. And this doesn't explain why the writers were so excited to kill her either.

                                          • Well. What he literally said was that he hated her because "she sucks," "she was this season's Ben," and "she wasn't meant for this world." According to him the measure of "normal" that he was referring to was being a functional survivor in that world:

                                            The Walking Dead is an adventure game to most, but to me, it's an RPG. I am Clem. I am in this ugly fictional world. I have to make horrible choices in a fraction of a second. I had talked and talked and talked to Sarah about helping out, but it was no use. It was the same way I had talked and talked and talked to Ben about helping out, but it was no use.

                                            This is the "normal" I was talking about on Playing Dead.

                                            So to him, Sarah wasn't "normal" in the same way that Ben wasn't "normal." They weren't like the other survivors who could help out the group. So I don't think he's being more malicious in his hatred of Sarah than in his hatred of Ben because he essentially hated them for same reasons.

                                            • He said, she's abnormal and she did this abnormal behaviour so I hate her and she should die. That was what he said. He clearly said that he realised she wasn't normal, thought it was due to being coddled and when he realised she still wasn't normal afterwards he decided he hated her.

                                              • Right, but he would say the same thing of Ben. Ben was "abnormal" for a survivor in the same sense that Sarah was. Or so Greg thought. He thought that Sarah, like Ben, was responsible for her abnormal behavior because he didn't know that she abnormal to the extent that exceptions should be made to excuse her behavior (what we call "a disability"). I feel like the discussion has kinda stagnated on this point for quite some time...

                                                • How was Ben abnormal? And if his reason for hating Ben was that he was "abnormal" then he was also an asshole in that case. I guess it just hit a few more nerves when it's said about a character who so many fans identify with, hence this furore.

                                                  • Well Ben was abnormal, like I said, in the sense that he just wasn't like the other survivors. He was meek, panicky, cowardly, etc. Other characters, while they had their own demons and issues, were more or less able to get their shit together when push came to shove. Ben didn't and a lot of people, Greg included, hated him for that.

                                                    The only thing new with Sarah is that she had a valid excuse for not getting her shit together that Greg and many others didn't pick up on. But not picking up on that doesn't make him an asshole. What arguably does make him an asshole is hating someone for being a shitty survivor. And in that case, he would be an asshole for hating Sarah and for hating Ben. Which is what your opinion seems to be. And that's fine. That's consistent. It's only inconsistent if you call someone an asshole for hating Sarah but don't call them an asshole for hating Ben.

                                                    • Ben was not abnormal even among the survivors. He was kind of a pussy but not abnormally so. But yes that's my opinion. Though Ben did get his shit together, what are you even talking about.

                                                      • Well, he kinda got his shit together after you save him. He still passes the fuck out when Lee goes to chop his arm off if it's just him. Prior to Episode 5, though, Ben's shit was distinctly not together. I mean even Clem is like "Why the fuck are you leaving me with that guy? Do you want me to die?" ...maybe not in those words....

                                                        • Except it was. He was not, at any point, non-functional. He was a bit of a coward in leaving the supplies for the bandits but then he found the balls, after he realised it had gone way too far, to tell you about it. Can you refresh my memory on how his shit wasn't together after that point? I do have a bad memory so help me remember.

                                                          • There was leaving running off and leaving Clem in the middle of the streets, not looking after Clem and letting her wander off in Savannah after Lee specifically told him to watch her, losing track of Clem again and letting her play outside by herself, there's the infamous hatchet-in-the-door handle fiasco, and there was him spilling his guts to Kenny at literally the worst possible time. He didn't "cease to function" like Sarah did, he just functioned very, very poorly.

                                                            • I don't see how this is in any way abnormal. The only one that comes close is the hatchet in the door handle. I've heard many parents attest to how difficult it is to keep an eye on children. He's not exactly the most courageous person on the planet but abnormal? Really?

                                                              Anyway, this is tangential, as you know. I think if greg hated him for being abnormal that's still assholish.

                                                              • I think that if you could plot the "zombie apocalypse survivability" of Walking Dead Game characters on a Bell curve, Ben would be over one standard deviation from the mean. They don't call him the walking liability for nothing. :P

              • You are making a baseless accusation that anyone who abandoned or did not like Sarah is some villain and a hater. And exactly where is the clear evidence that Sarah is a disabled person anyhow? It is from your subjective opinion that she might be, but she may not be. She is just a troubled and disturbed young girl that needs help but cannot motivate herself to get help for herself, let alone help other people.

                We are talking about a fictional video game character. Not liking or appreciating such characters does not automatically translate into real life hatred towards certain group of people. Instead of making arguments about how a fictional character in a video game is so mistreated, why don't you use that same energy and enthusiasm towards real people who are really disabled in real life?

                DomeWing could not have better explained about Sarah any clearly. She did directly cause the deaths of Reggie and Nick. She almost got Luke killed. She could have gotten both Jane and Clem killed. She did directly put other people in danger for her lack of willpower to help herself even witn the helping hands reaching out to help her. Who says the zombies discriminate and gives a certain person a "free pass" for being different? When it is all said and done, Sarah is just like everyone else.... Survivor who is vulnerable to deaths at any time. Even the best of them like Lee succumbed due to pure bad luck.

                Sarah's second death could have been someone else's death. Death can come to anyone.... Everyone is the same... They are all vulnerable survivors. Just people trying to live another day.

                And for the last time, liking, appreciating, not appreciating, hating a fictional character in a video game does not automatically translate into that said person's point of view and how he/she conducts him/herself in real life.

              • Please do not label people as haters just because they happened to not appreciate or like a fictional character in a video game. That kine of reasoning coming from you is, in fact, is offensive and insulting. Liking or not liking a fictional character in a video game does not automatically translate into real life point of view and treatment toward certain group of people.

                And exactly where is the clear evidence that Sarah is disabled? You are making an assumption based on your subjective observation of her. Don't parade around and preach people that it is a fact. You say you are tired of people saying "burden" and "liability?" How about I and many others are tired of your "Disabled people are hated because Sarah died?"

                If you are so passionate about people with disabilities, why don't you devote your time outside of your computer screen and instead put all that time into helping real people in real life who needs help? It is so easy for you to sit in front of your computer and act like as if you are a super saint, but it isn't so easy to apply it in the outside world, is it?

                And what gives you the right to label other people as haters? Aren't you a hater yourself for saying what you are??

                Criticisms about any video games are usually refreshing to read, but this??? It is getting out of hand now.

                • I technically devote 100% of my time to helping people with disabilities. You have no idea how much my computer screen has helped me to improve my mental condition. You don't know anything about me or my life so how 'bout you stop talking about it.

                  I did not call everyone who didn't like sarah a hater. I said several times that I can understand the decision to abandon her. There's not much point going through your post point by point because you clearly don't understand the problem here in the first place.

                  Given that you can't tell whether she has a disability or not, forgive me for not taking too much stock in your opinion on other people's thoughts and motivations. How about you actually read people's posts before spewing a bunch of shit, absolutely noone has said "sarah died therefore telltale hates disabled people".

    • For me at least, it was less about glee about a character's (that I personally connected with) death that rubbed me the wrong way. I was the reason for that glee, because Sarah's disability partly lead to her death. And her disability was something she would not have full control over.

      And it's not even an issue with her death (the one in the trailer--the observation deck was just a waste of her character). Except for the slap to save Sarah (which I felt was unnecessary both from a situational and literary standpoint--Clem was already getting through to Sarah), I really liked how the trailer scene was executed. I was certain at first that Jane would be dragged back into the trailer since I had waited to save Sarah. It was tense.

  • Vote for the post. Sarah's death would happen at any time but Telltale Games should not treat her like crap for not being "normal".

    Greg Miller has always been a jerk everyone knows him but I doubt he is hopelessly sexist.

Add Comment