Shame On You, Telltale (SPOILERS)

17810121339

Comments

  • How does it come out of nowhere? This episode comes immediately after Carver, someone who murdered a man for being weak, tells Clementine that she is just like him. This episode gives her the chance to accept or reject that.

    The only reason anyone makes a connection between what Carver said and the events of this episode is because they played the previous episode. Aside from that we only are given very weak evidence to indicate that it's supposed to be a theme. It is not mentioned in the "previously on TWD" segment. Only one of the big episode choices have anything to do with it. It is only briefly touched on by Jane, and even then she isn't saying that the weak should be left behind to make way for the strong. Her viewpoint was more about the fact that sometimes people don't want to be saved. This is not about accepting or rejecting Carver's viewpoint, it's not about deciding to be moral or selfish. And if it's supposed to be, it's expressed in such a roundabout way that it honestly feels more coincidental. The fans should get more credit than Telltale in this regard, the way they keep coming up with ways to try to justify Telltale's storytelling.

    this episode did draw parallels between caring for Sarah and caring for the baby.

    Besides one comment from Jane, what was there to indicate Telltale intended to correlate Sarah and the baby together?

    There are so many fans coming up with theories and explanations for this and that, their ideas indicate far more creativity and investment in this story than Telltale does.

    You shouldn't have to come up with long and complicated reasons as to why this might have happened or why this character behaved ooc this way. That's the job of the storyteller. There's a difference between being purposely ambiguous and completely inconsistent and lazy.

    DomeWing333 posted: »

    The plot railroads you into thinking she shouldn't be saved, and if you do save her, it's not about whether you're good for doing

  • You're moving the goal post here.

    If that's how it appears then I should have explained it better, and that's on me >>>

    First you argued that "in THIS SEASON, there has never been a focus or even a reference to a theme of futility and hopelessness in regard to characters." Now you admit that the theme of hopelessness was emphasized in episode 1, but it's still not enough for you to accept its inclusion as a theme in episode 4.

    When I say that this season has not focused on or referenced the futility/hopelessness theme, I mean that it is referenced and emphasized in episode 1, carried over to episode 2, and then completely dropped. You can't drop a theme and give no reference or acknowledgment of it, then expect to be able to stick it back in at the end. That creates a sloppy and inconsistent narrative, and makes the prior development irrelevant. The cohesiveness of the season as a whole is lost.

    Not only that, there is nothing in this episode to indicate that futility/hopelessness is supposed to be a theme (besides the treatment of Sarah's death which might have been a valid interpretation). But nothing indicates that Clem is anything but strong and unstoppable. Clementine has been the most capable member of the group at this point, since episode 2 nothing bad has happened to her as a result of her own powerlessness, and she succeeds at everything she sets out to do. In episodes 3 and 4, she's become an unstoppable badass. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but it invalidates the themes of episode 1 and 2 that had previously been built up.

    This futillity/hopelessness theme is less of a conscious decision incorporated by the writers and more of a reflection on the desperation of the fans to explain their lazy writing. Again, in this point the fans should be given more credit than Telltale here.

    DomeWing333 posted: »

    My argument wasn't that all the horrible moments that happened in episode 1 didn't have a point to them. It was that point of thos

  • Hmm well I personally don't think the reason for the last two episode's problems are because they're working on too many projects. I'm pretty sure their dev teams for each project are different, right? And TWAU turned out really well. I mean, there seemed to be plenty of last-minute changes and delays but overall it was a very solid and coherent story.

    TWDG on the other hand seems to have each episode be focused on completely different themes altogether, with their characters only vaguely resembling what they were originally built up to be. It seems more like it's just a complete failure of communication between the writers.

    OmegaTise posted: »

    if they were to pay this thread any attention i doubt they would even care. Someone mentioned thet they be trying to put all their

  • To suggest Sarah was a parallel to Clem, or even similar to Clem in any way at all, is way off base. Sarah was introduced as a very sheltered and even damaged child, while Clem had a perfectly normal life before the walkers, and she was already aware of the walker situation and handling it reasonably well by herself at the start of the first season. Sarah was totally sheltered by her father. She didn't even know about the walkers because he thought she was too unstable to handle it (and it seems he was right). It was clear from their first awkward conversation that Clem and Sarah were very different. It sounds like you invented this idea in your mind that Clem would do for Sarah what Lee did for her, and now you're mad that your invention didn't come true.

    As for Luke, yes he cares about what's best for the group, but that doesn't make him a perfect saint or immune to his own desires. I don't even think it was entirely "wrong" for him and Jane to get it on. Timing wasn't great of course, but it never would be in their situation. They didn't know walkers had arrived. I think Jane knew by then that she would be leaving, she wanted to be with Nick before she left, and that was probably the only chance they were going to get to be alone together.

    I'm not saying this episode or this season has been perfect or on par with season 1. I think they introduced way too many new characters this season and have failed to develop most of them to make their deaths meaningful enough. Every death in the first season had more of an impact on me than any this season. Sarita's immediate death annoyed me in particular this episode after having to make that tough decision at the end of last episode to chop her to save her life. Apparently that decision didn't mean anything at all. But this angry "shame on you" nonsense is silly and childish. Get over it.

  • Actually they pictured Clementine as a 20 year-old man who knows to turn off wind turbines.
    Like back when Kenny is being beaten up by Carver. Who is the first person Carlos ask for help? Luke? No. Nick? No. He asks Clementine's help to restrain Sarita, it doesn't even make any sense,

    Viser posted: »

    That last paragraph is the EXACT reason I didn't want to play Clem as Season 2 protagonist. As Lee, the stuff you said and could d

  • edited July 2014

    I hate to say this, but OP speaks the truth. Though my posts usually take a more forgiving approach, this is still what I feel deep down about Season 2. It's just confounding how TTG has been handling these characters this season. Too much inconsistency, too many 180 turns, and not to mention the complete abandonment of certain characters and plot threads (e.g. Christa disappearing, Nick and Sarah being developed and then suddenly being killed unceremoniously, Carver being built up and then shot down anticlimactically, etc.)

    Part of me has been enjoying these past 4 episodes, because this is still TTG, and they still do know how to make some fun gameplay. But I honestly cannot get over the problems that OP has addressed in their post. This season has not been meeting my expectations at all. Back in the autumn of last year, I thought this season was going to be epic. I actually thought it was going to improve upon Season 1, rather than fall way short of it. But the writing this season has unquestionably been terrible, and I really feel bad saying this, but everything OP said is correct. Season 1 was not without its problems, both in gameplay and story, but they were pretty insignificant. The good FAR outweighed any bad in Season 1. In Season 2, it's pretty much the opposite.

    Sorry, Telltale. But I bought both seasons and have been playing and thinking about this game fairly often for over a year and a half, so I think I owe it to you to tell you how I feel. Not only has Season 2 failed to live up to the first one, but it has also failed to live up to its own hype. It is a poor sequel to Season 1, and it is a disappointing game in its own right. Again, I'm very sorry, but that's the truth.

    -

    EDIT: One more thing - I have been very disappointed since Episode 3 at the unimportance of 400 Days characters. Other than Bonnie (who is one of the few characters that were actually written somewhat competently in Season 2) none of the 400 Days characters even matter in Season 2. To which I beg the question: Why did TT even make 400 Days to begin with? I understand that it was meant to tide fans over between seasons, but if that was its sole purpose then it really didn't need to exist. That's why I was so perplexed by the way the All That Remains introduced us to like 7 new characters when they could have just brought back the people from 400 Days. I loved the 400 Days characters, and I honestly thought that they were going to play a more important role in Season 2.

    Just another thing that has annoyed me this season.

  • edited July 2014

    Even if this is the case, then the error is in episode 3 for not continuing the theme present in episodes 1, 2, and 4. Not in episode 4 for reestablishing a central theme that was dropped in episode 3. Moreover, I do think that Reggie's death in episode 3 was an exploration of futility and hopelessness. Scared as he was, he was extremely positive and tried his best to move forward and make the best of his situation. In the end, however, his positivity wasn't enough to save him. After his death, Carver proceeds to give a whole speech about Reggie was weak and doomed to failure because of his weakness.

    The episode is called "Amid the Ruins," it starts off with the immediate death of someone you made a tough decision to save at the end of the last episode, and Clem's conversations with Kenny and Jane are fill with nothing but musings on futility and hopelessness. There's plenty there to indicate that hopelessness is a main theme.

    Clem has been shown to be extremely a strong and capable survivor over the last few episodes, yes. But there's more to strength than just being able to take care of yourself. Jane showed us that. She came on as this savvy, experienced survivor, but her character this episode portrayed weakness. She gives up on people because she can't bring herself to care for others and have them die. She's scared of losing people and she's not strong enough to deal with it so she just doesn't. She runs off. Alone. Her response to hopelessness is to never hope at all. And in the episode, we decide whether or not we agree with that approach.

    I don't know what the writers intended. We rarely do when it comes to fiction. But I haven't had to struggle that hard to pull out these threads of meaning in the story. I don't think it's a coincidence that they used the "Fallen but Never Forsaken" statue as the title card for the episode. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Lincoln quote "Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any one thing" is shown in the background of the museum. I think these things are intentional and serve to emphasize the theme of the episode as one of overcoming despair. I do think the writer(s) made some bad missteps in getting this across, but I don't doubt that this is the theme they were going for.

    TT247 posted: »

    You're moving the goal post here. If that's how it appears then I should have explained it better, and that's on me >&g

  • To suggest Sarah was a parallel to Clem, or even similar to Clem in any way at all, is way off base.....

    In season one Clementine was presented as having similar qualities to Sarah. They were both naive and childish, friendly and innocent. This wasn't just fan speculation, Telltale themselves drew the parallel to season1 Clem in episode two when they have Clem attempt to teach Sarah how to use a gun in the exact same way that Lee taught her.

    She didn't even know about the walkers

    There is nothing to indicate that Sarah didn't at least know that walkers existed. You would think that she would have reacted alot worse to the herd in episode 3 if that were the case.

    It sounds like you invented this idea in your mind that Clem would do for Sarah what Lee did for her, and now you're mad that your invention didn't come true.

    After how this episode turned out, I would have been thrilled if this is where they went with her character. But even if I kindof liked this idea, it's pretty obvious so I didn't expect Telltale to go there. My point is, I didn't specifically build this idea up in my head. I expected Telltale to treat Sarah's character with the complexity and respect that they shown to her character prior to this episode.

    Timing wasn't great of course, but it never would be in their situation. They didn't know walkers had arrived

    But they knew that Rebecca was about to give birth. That isn't any better timing than walkers coming.

    I think Jane knew by then that she would be leaving, she wanted to be with Nick before she left, and that was probably the only chance they were going to get to be alone together.

    I.. don't even know what to say to that.

    Arodin posted: »

    To suggest Sarah was a parallel to Clem, or even similar to Clem in any way at all, is way off base. Sarah was introduced as a ve

  • Even if this is the case, then the error is in episode 3 for not continuing the theme present in episodes 1, 2, and 4. Not in episode 4 for reestablishing a central theme that was dropped in episode 3.

    Yes, and I am arguing that episode 3 was not a coherent part of the narrative. I am arguing that even as far back as episode 2, the narrative was showing signs of inconsistency which were reparable, but were made even worse in episode 3. And now that we've finally reached episode 4, it's fallen apart.

    Jane came on as this savvy, experienced survivor, but her character this episode portrayed weakness... She's scared of losing people and she's not strong strong enough to deal with it so she just doesn't. She runs off. Alone. Her response to hopelessness is to never hope at all. And in the episode, we decide whether or not we agree with that approach.

    I've never seen this interpretation of Jane's character and it's an interesting one, but it's not really supported by the narrative and it makes your previous points turn out backwards.

    Up until this point morality or as Carver puts it, "weakness", has been presented as sticking with the group, and refusing to abandon them if they're in trouble. Not deciding that you can't handle attachment and you need to leave alone.

    When we were discussing Sarah, you said that Jane is meant to represent the survival aspect of the argument, and we are meant to choose whether we agree to leave behind those we consider a liability. But that's contradicting your above interpretation of her character.

    She's either on one side of the argument or the other. She really can't be on both.

    DomeWing333 posted: »

    Even if this is the case, then the error is in episode 3 for not continuing the theme present in episodes 1, 2, and 4. Not in epis

  • No, I play the game for its story. And while the story isn't anywhere near as the good as the first season, I still think it's pretty damn good. I just simply think some people are just over analyzing the hell out of it.

    TT247 posted: »

    I'm not mad that I didn't "get my way". I did not actively participate in predictions, avoided Telltale's twitter, and did not wat

  • And plus, why would I play a story-based game for the action scenes?

    TT247 posted: »

    I'm not mad that I didn't "get my way". I did not actively participate in predictions, avoided Telltale's twitter, and did not wat

  • Up until this point morality or as Carver puts it, "weakness", has been presented as sticking with the group, and refusing to abandon them if they're in trouble. Not deciding that you can't handle attachment and you need to leave alone.

    I think the game would expect you to take Carver's interpretation of morality with a grain of salt. I wouldn't look to him as the ultimate arbiter of what morality is or isn't. There is no definitive answer anway. It's something Clementine is supposed to decide for herself, I feel.

    When we were discussing Sarah, you said that Jane is meant to represent the survival aspect of the argument, and we are meant to choose whether we agree to leave behind those we consider a liability. But that's contradicting your above interpretation of her character.

    Like I said, there's more to strength than being able to take care of yourself. It takes strength to preserve one's humanity as opposed to just give into pragmatism. Only a strong person will be willing to carry the weak, to put others before themselves, and to find hope in an endless stream of hopelessness. What made Lee so respectable was that he was able to do all of that, not because he could bash a few walker heads in (although that helped).

    In choosing to save Sarah, Clem is choosing to carry the weak. That's a choice that requires a kind of strength that Jane didn't have.

    TT247 posted: »

    Even if this is the case, then the error is in episode 3 for not continuing the theme present in episodes 1, 2, and 4. Not in epis

  • I agree with Krazehcakes, I feel that there was so much potential that could have been explored with her character. It was just lazy writing to show that "this world is unforgiving", "the weak will perish bla bla bla". Now sometimes you just can't save them all, but her death felt unnatural and the characters showed barely any emotion apart from Jane.

    I loved this episode and I didn't mind Nick's death but Sarah's really pissed me off.

    Krazehcakes posted: »

    Are you serious? Umm last i checked, did Clementine WILDLY go after the bandits when they pointed guns at their group at the Motor

  • Let me rephrase:

    I am not throwing a fit because events didn't turn out how I pictured. I am expressing my complete disappointment in Telltale's failure to deliver a coherent narrative.

    Fans were not promised to have things turn out how as they pictured. They were promised to have a logical and consistent story which incorporated fan input and featured difficult choices which have an impact on the story.

    This is not overanalysis. This is being pounded over and over into our heads by TTG staff themselves and then completely invalidated by their own episodes.

    ralo229 posted: »

    No, I play the game for its story. And while the story isn't anywhere near as the good as the first season, I still think it's pretty damn good. I just simply think some people are just over analyzing the hell out of it.

  • that was sarcasm

    ralo229 posted: »

    And plus, why would I play a story-based game for the action scenes?

  • Anyone know the length of episode 4? was delightfully long.

  • I loved this episode, the excitement building up with the deck coming down... Rebecca screaming in the background... it was awesome, I loved the trip Clem took with Jane, and the new tricks she taught her.

  • Let me redirect you back to iorek21's comment.

    TT247 posted: »

    Let me rephrase: I am not throwing a fit because events didn't turn out how I pictured. I am expressing my complete disappointm

  • Iorek21 says

    Season 2 reminds me of Dark Souls 2:

    Both are sequels to critically acclaimed games.
    Both changed the dev team/writers (in TWD's case)
    Both didn't capture the points that made the first tittle great
    Both promissed things that ended up not happening
    Both are good games, but they do not live up to the originals

    This is true.

    But I'm not trying to compare this game to the first one. And I'm not saying I don't like it simply because it doesn't live up to the first. Telltale has failed to deliver on the themes and characters that they introduced in season 2 itself. It's not even necessary to talk about s1 in this aspect.

    ralo229 posted: »

    Let me redirect you back to iorek21's comment.

  • So we agree then

    DomeWing333 posted: »

    Up until this point morality or as Carver puts it, "weakness", has been presented as sticking with the group, and refusing to aban

  • As I understood it, your point was that the episodes 3 and 4 makes Clem into an uber-badass, which "invalidates" the narrative trajectory of Episodes 1 and 2. My point is that Episodes 3 and 4 are exploring a different aspects of strength than the ones explored in 1 and 2. In Episodes 1 and 2, Clem's capacity to protect herself were put to the test. Episodes 3 and 4 tested her willingness to look out for others. There is no invalidation here. That's my point. So if we can agree on that, then yes, we agree.

    TT247 posted: »

    So we agree then

  • I agree with almost everything you said, particularly regarding Luke and the pregnancy.

    Has anyone else noticed that CARLOS was shot only moments before Episode 4 starts, and that absolutely no one mentions him except for Sarah?
    And that even though he was sort of the leader of Luke and Rebecca and that HE WAS A DOCTOR?

    How can, during that whole turmoil when no one knows what to do with pregnant Rebecca, no one mention him, especially not Rebecca?
    How blind is that to what happened only last episode.
    It is just so absolutely lazy, and yes, its just a shame. This episode has disappointed me greatly.

    And there is more.
    If you play it through not cutting saritas hand off, going first with jane, not robbing arvo, and not trying to save Sarah at the deck, the whole development of the episode and the character interactions barely make sense.
    1. Kenny is mad at you anyways... Because???
    2. Rebecca doesnt move to the already secured Observation point... Because???
    3. Clementine doesnt act surprised with the accusations and does not confront Arvo with the fact that she didnt rob anything... Because???
    4. Sarah dies like that, and no one gives a crap. I mean seriously, Luke walks up to you and talks about going to scavange after... that???

    One last thing out of many just to show how this episode was way below of what we could expect from TWD episodes before:
    What was that scene at the memorial, after you did your first trip with either Bonnie or Jane, where most of the characters are assembled?
    We saw this kind of "resting" moments in every episode, it's when you get to interact with the characters, talk about what happened and build a foundation. It is the only moment in the episode like that. And then every character has only one interaction with Clem! I mean seriously. In EVERY episode so far you can develop a converation, find out things, process things that happened. And here they set that up, and were clearly just to lazy to write several questions and answers for each character, like they always used to.
    Im just sad the game lost what made it so great before.

  • Well, no

    My point was that changing Clem into a badass in episodes 3 and 4 invalidated the previous theme of helplessness and futility and the emphasis that she's "just a little girl".

    I don't think that the change in focus from episodes 1 and 2 to 3 and 4 was purposeful. Especially not when you consider it along with the rest of the season's inconsistencies My guess is that it was a result of failure to communicate between the writers... * shrug *

    But we've been going at this all day so yeah.... I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. :/

    DomeWing333 posted: »

    As I understood it, your point was that the episodes 3 and 4 makes Clem into an uber-badass, which "invalidates" the narrative tra

  • Let my focus on Sarah first. She's a sheltered girl, maybe even one with already mental or emotional issues before the Zombie Apocalypse (her father implied as much). Regardless of whether she has mental or emotional issues, her father, Carlos, did Sarah no good from sheltering Sarah for two to three years into the Zombie Apocalypse. Sarah, was at best, needed someone to always "hold her hand" to get through in bad situations, mainly because that's what her father did. She had no skills to even protect herself because of Carlos.

    During the observation deck scene, she stands around all shocked, without helping Kenny and Rebecca, or helping fend off the zombies. When the deck broke, she stood there shocked, while everyone made a mad scramble. And she was under that pile of rubble, instead of actively trying to move out of it, she kept asking for help.But none of this is Sarah's fault. It's likely Carlos sheltered her from everything except from the most obvious.

    Clementine, either through accident or intention, receives a crash-course in survival from Jane, Chuck, Christa, and Lee (that's what I did as Lee). Clem has been taught what she needs to do, and what would happen if she doesn't. Sarah never receives this, and because of this, dies because of well-intentioned accident that leads to her getting eaten, because she wasn't taught to have the urgency to escape.

    In other words, she was never likely to survive without Carlos, and it's amazing she's survived this long in the first place. Her dad kept alive as long as he could, but he didn't prepare her when she no longer had him anymore.

  • edited July 2014

    edit: double post

    Ureal posted: »

    I agree with almost everything you said, particularly regarding Luke and the pregnancy. Has anyone else noticed that CARLOS was

  • edited July 2014

    Yep.

    Plus the fact that the birthing scene takes place immediately after Sarah's futile death was just in bad taste.

    So everyone forgets about the horrific death of a teenage girl who Clem could have been good friends with in order to focus on the miracle of birth and sisterly bonds? Alright then.....

    Ureal posted: »

    I agree with almost everything you said, particularly regarding Luke and the pregnancy. Has anyone else noticed that CARLOS was

  • edited July 2014

    Well, I've still got some fight left in me.

    I don't think there was that big of a shift in focus between Episodes 1 and 2 and Episodes 3 and 4.

    Episode 1 included a sequence in which Clementine broke out of a shed, snuck into a house undetected, stole a bunch of supplies, a stitched her own arm up, and killed a zombie in a confined space. Episode 2 had Clementine taking out several walkers by herself to save Luke on the bridge and settling a dispute between two factions. Episode 3 had her struggling to get away from a walker and being saved by Troy. Episode 4 had her being saved by Mike and being mentored by Jane most of the time, rather than taking charge herself. They even gave her an unwinnable mashing QTE with the water container.

    There might be a change in Clem's overall capabilites across, but if so it's pretty gradual. Maybe it just feels like there's more of a jump this episode because of the many times they showcased the whole "go for the knees" thing. But I don't feel as though she's ready to take on the world by herself at this point.

    TT247 posted: »

    Well, no My point was that changing Clem into a badass in episodes 3 and 4 invalidated the previous theme of helplessness and f

  • Just. This. I'm not sure how they let some of this through. I'm even ok with Luke's sort of character change, even if it was annoying. Sarah and Nick's treatment was atrocious. If it weren't these problems this could have been the greatest episode ever. This is coming by someone who actually really liked TWAU episode 4 too, so I have low standards in terms of these episodes.

  • She couldn't get out. She was trapped. If someone else would have helped her....

  • edited July 2014

    Regardless of whether she has mental or emotional issues, her father, Carlos, did Sarah no good from sheltering Sarah for two to three years into the Zombie Apocalypse.

    When I first played the season, I also thought that Carlos was wrong to completely shelter Sarah from the apocalypse.

    But I recently read an extremely valid point that makes complete sense and is faithful to her character:

    As you say, from the beginning Sarah has been like this. That is just the way she is. Carlos, knowing that Sarah would not be able to handle the world as it is, protected her from it as best as he could instead of trying to force her to change because he knew that she never could. He treated her with kindness and respect which allowed her to grow in her own way.

    Clementine was also able to show kindness and respect to Sarah.The player was given the option to be supportive while also attempting to give Sarah the advice and tools she needed to survive without trying to turn her into an unstoppable badass, because she never would be. And there's nothing wrong with that.

    During the observation deck scene, she stands around all shocked, without helping Kenny and Rebecca, or helping fend off the zombies.

    Her behavior in episode 4 is less of a result of being sheltered, and more of a a railroaded plot and a misunderstanding of her character.

    Sarah was naive, but she wasn't completely clueless. When Carver came into the cabin, even though Sarah was completely petrified and in the middle of a panic attack, she still was able to recover and to hide when Clem told her to.

    When you choose to react negatively toward Sarah, her answers are portray that Sarah actually has valid points. For example when Clem tells her to "Grow up", Sarah replies "I'm older than you, and besides, you're the one who just got us in trouble," and Clem stares at the ground and doesn't answer as if to say "You're right."

    When Sarah thanks Clem for coming with her in the beginning of the episode, and Clem says "They made me," Sarah replies "I know they did, but it was still nice of you" and Clem looks guilty. And even after being treated with dismissal by Clem, she still stands up to Carver if he hits Clem, saying "Stop, don't hurt her!"

    Sarah was not an unstoppable badass, and she was never meant to be. But she was not a complete coward, and she wasn't completely clueless.

    She deserved much better than the writing Telltale suddenly forced on her in episode 4.

  • I know she was. But Jane was helping her. I'm not saying she needed to do it on her own. But from the player's point of view, it could been seen she was begging for help without trying hard enough. In that situation, you have to FIGHT as hard as possible.

    I'm not saying it's her fault for being trapped there. But once Jane was helping her, she had to move-move-move. And if she couldn't-well, couldn't move any longer... she was going to die.

    Spooch posted: »

    She couldn't get out. She was trapped. If someone else would have helped her....

  • The action sequences of episode 1 created gameplay and showed Clementine's growth as a character. It was not out of character that she developed strength in sewing up her arm, and when she had to kill the zombie in the shed it was treated as "Whoa, how did she pull that off?" It was used to showcase her determination and strength of character.

    Telltale was then criticized by the fanbase as being overexaggerative of the capabilities of a little girl. Remember all the threads about how Clem is too much of a badass? I actually defended Telltale's choice to have Clem be that capable in episode 1 because in that context it made sense and had a purpose, to show her character. Then in episode 2 I continued to defend Telltale, because I recognized that Clementine's importance to the adults was over-exaggerated, but was completely confident that they would take the fan feedback under consideration and come up with a way to create gameplay that didn't make Clem appear completely unstoppable. I was sure that they would find a way to create meaningful gameplay and a a plot that made sense and stopped the adults from treating her like she is more capable than them.

    But instead, the feedback is disregarded and episode 3 in many ways felt more like a slap in the mouth.

    Adults: You're the only one who can do it.

    Clementine: Why is it always me?

    .....

    Kenny: It's your decision.

    Clem: Really?

    Kenny: Well... no.

    After episode 4, this dialogue honestly feels more like TTG laughing at us rather than a genuine attempt at humor.

    DomeWing333 posted: »

    Well, I've still got some fight left in me. I don't think there was that big of a shift in focus between Episodes 1 and 2 and E

  • Here's a bunch of rambly thoughts from me. Talking about "out of kayfabe" stuff, I think Telltale did not have any intentions regard Sarah planned, but if I guess, they eventually settled on Sarah as a counter-point, rather than a parallel.

    Clementine is supposed to be the survivor-regardless of what her attitude and personality is, she has learned how to survive. TTG may have decided at some point for Sarah to be an example on what someone may become if the person is not ready for the ZA.Additionally, it seems they written for Clementine always seemed a little bit...frustrated with Sarah, even at the beginning. Kind of like how Carl Grimes is to Sophia, but not quite. That said, Sophia is still alive the last time I've known, and she isn't quite as out of it as Carl considered.

    TTG is heavily leaning Clementine to be a "hard-nosed" survivalist, even if she is nice. It seems Sarah was used as a counter-point to what Clementine is.

    TT247 posted: »

    Regardless of whether she has mental or emotional issues, her father, Carlos, did Sarah no good from sheltering Sarah for two to t

  • I think Nick's treatment is worse than Sarah's. It's one for Walter to fail to save Nick (after all, Nick killed his boyfriend), but Nick's off-screen death at the fence seems odd. How did he even die? He wasn't partially eaten. He must have just died from his wound, but that's not even confirmed.

    Spooch posted: »

    Just. This. I'm not sure how they let some of this through. I'm even ok with Luke's sort of character change, even if it was annoy

  • Regardless of intention, Sarah was first written with nuance, subtlety, and respect for her character. Episode 4 took all that and flushed it down the toilet.

    It's like they just hand the new writers a character description and say "hope you come up with something good! Now hop to it!"

    And I'm going to say this again, fans shouldn't have to come up with complex theories in order to justify things in the story that make no sense. There is a difference between leaving something up to the imagination and abandoning it.

    There is a difference between leaving something open to interpretation and failing to follow a character through.

    Here's a bunch of rambly thoughts from me. Talking about "out of kayfabe" stuff, I think Telltale did not have any intentions rega

  • edited July 2014

    Jane was unable to help her because a random plank smacked her in the face. Sarah was unable to move or be saved not for any logical reason, but because that's how Telltale wrote it.

    The planks fell on top of her when she had previously been standing on them. Makes no sense.

    She was unable to move and we were giving no explanation for this. Are the planks too heavy? Are her legs broken? Makes no sense.

    Why did Telltale completely abandon and treat her as hopeless after building her up as a nuanced character? Makes no sense.

    I know she was. But Jane was helping her. I'm not saying she needed to do it on her own. But from the player's point of view, it c

  • edited July 2014

    The only "badass Clem" sequence I recall in episode 3 was the end. The other time she faced zombies, she would have been dead if it hadn't been for Troy. So they did seem to showcase her physical limitations.

    Having adults constantly asking Clem do things is a different story, but I thought they handled it well enough in this latest episode.

    Jane brought Clem along, not because she was more capable than the others but because she wanted to talk to her and teach her survival tactics. Bonnie asked Clem to go get Kenny out of the tent because she was the only one there who knew him for more than 2 days. In the museum, when Bonnie suggests that Clem squeeze herself in and unlock the door from the other side, you can outright say no and she'll respect that, despite her request being no different than what Lee was having Clem do back when she was even younger. All of those made she for her to be the one they turned to, unlike the infamous windmill incident.

    TT247 posted: »

    The action sequences of episode 1 created gameplay and showed Clementine's growth as a character. It was not out of character that

  • If you ask me, I don't think they built her up as nuanced character. In fact, from the beginning the game made me felt "man, she's going to die sooner rather than later".

    Not saying it doesn't suck, but the way they wrote her, ever since the beginning, always felt like she was "off" from the beginning. Just my two cents.

    TT247 posted: »

    Jane was unable to help her because a random plank smacked her in the face. Sarah was unable to move or be saved not for any logic

  • edited July 2014

    When I finished Amid the Ruins I decided to look back on the entire walking dead season 1 and 2, and I've realized that the reason season 1 was better was the overall feeling you got from the game, like the hub sections, the hubs in Amid the Ruins were disgraceful with the one line from each character and then back to walking around, Telltale simply missed what the hubs did, they gave a feeling of calm and allowed the player to choose who they wanted to talk to and to learn about but now it's just talk to Kenny now go talk to Luke, don't wanna talk to Luke WELL TO BAD. And the character development is pure shit this season. Like the thing with Carlos and Sarah, I mean it was really obvious Carlos was gonna be hang, drawn, and quartered as soon as we met Sarah and how Sarah would have to adapt to this new world without her father's shadow but nope, instead it's "oh Sarah freaked out! Well I guess we gotta leave her to get torn apart, too bad so sad". And Nick, dude, do I even have to say it, I think it might even be better to let Nick die in episode 2, at least he'd get a death scene, it's just he had so much development those first two episodes and as soon he becomes determinant the writers just threw him to the wolves.

    Now at first when I finished In Harms Way I wasn't sure if I didnt care about people dying because I've read, watched, and played so much walking dead, but then I realized, I don't care because the characters are now weak and have lame deaths. In season 1 I liked Kenny and I forgave him for being a dick in the second half because he just lost his family. I even kinda cried at his "death" scene but now it feels like Kenny just kinda dominates the whole scene for the season and seriously, you couldn't think of a new story arc for hims so you just do the same damn thing as season 1? Wtf!?! And Luke, I like Luke when we were introduced (except for when you first meet hims he's like "oh she's bitten let's leave her in the woods" and thirty seconds later he's all sunshine and rainbows) and how they tried to make Luke this kinda big Brother persona but now it's "ooh look! Luke's an irresponibles douche! Yay! Final rant... Christa, in episode 1 & 2 it's I gotta find christa but now it's like Christa? Who dat? I justify this in my head by saying well , Clem's realized that it's a dark world and people die but still, srsly telltale?

    In conclusion, season 1 was better because your choices mattered more and the tone of the game using hubs and background rather than forced dialogue between characters like a damn rail shooter. Season 2 character development= gobshite. Hell I'd still buy episode 5 and even a season 3, but just to finish it or to see what happens, It's been a long time since I've cared much about the characters.

  • You see, I don't think written her with nuance or subtlety in the beginning at all. I think they it was pretty obvious where (read: unsubtle and unnuanced) on what direction they were taking Sarah in. I thought TTG had a fuzzy idea on WHAT to do with her, but had a pretty clear idea on who she is (which I think they pretty unsubtle and unnuanced about).

    I'm not defending on how they treated Sarah, but I think saying they had subtle and nuanced writing for her is...well, it seemed pretty obvious to me on who and what she was in the beginning.

    TT247 posted: »

    Regardless of intention, Sarah was first written with nuance, subtlety, and respect for her character. Episode 4 took all that and

This discussion has been closed.