Disappointments with S2 hopes for S3

2»

Comments

  • I've never said I was disappointed about Chuck's death, I guess I could of since he was one of my favourite charaters. Nick & Sarah's deaths compared to Chuck's were played in a similar manner, considering it happened all at once and we couldn't help it regardless of the choices we've made. I treat it as a the brutal reality of the world of the apocalypse which destroys weak and sooner or later finds a way to wear out the strongest.

    I don't approve TT's negligence towards the other characters, I simply think Nick's & Sarah's deaths were most reallistic and well written (as a situation, not what happened afterwards) as they desribed the sad end of mentally exhausted and broken people, dealing with depression and a sense of of meaninglessness for a long time, which logically led to stupid and pathetic deaths, with no fireworks at the end.

    Nothing to do with taste, more to do with the other characters' reactions (or lack thereof). Yeah, he saved Clem, but Chuck was

  • edited May 2015

    I'm one of few people around here who doesn't judge easily, who doesn't base things on their first impression like many fans automatically tend to do. I'm not denying that every game has plot holes which can't be filled, but there are also details left for the players to discover and connect them together. For example, I don't see Carver as antagonist or a villian at all, I believe his character wasn't changed or undeveloped, as well that everything he did served on a purpose and created a logical storyline.

    Another one: many blame Mike and Bonnie for acting out of their characters after the lake scene, but you can also say it was foreseeable and realistic, as the signs could've been seen miles away.

    It's not a spy competition, it is about who value what, and does a lack of one dialogue or face expression can ruin the whole game. Pretty sad if it can, because the game is great and many things are missed because of the constant complaining and whining.

    No offense, but it kinda seems like you're confusing "connecting well hidden dots together" with "desperately filling in gaping plot holes with fanon"...

  • Does a lack of one dialogue or face expression can ruin the whole game

    Usually not (Lee's face wasn't animated when he hugged Molly, but I still found it heartwarming), but gaping plot holes can.

    Feel free to tell me about Carver's character, Bonnie and Mike's sudden betrayal, and all the other things I apparently missed, because I'd genuinely love to know.

    fallandir posted: »

    I'm one of few people around here who doesn't judge easily, who doesn't base things on their first impression like many fans autom

  • In that case, I do agree that Nick and Sarah's deaths (only the situations, not the subsequent reactions) were interesting. The way Nick died was unexpected and, had anyone actually cared he died, it could've demonstrated how good people can die just because of bad luck. Sarah's first death actually worked thematically, because she died being unable to cope with her situation and her weaknesses got the best of her. The situation itself was still dumb though, since if you look closely both Jane and Luke clearly had loaded handguns and there was no reason not to shoot Sarah before leaving.

    Oh, but Sarah's second death? That was the dumbest thing I've ever seen besides Luke's death and the Kenny/Jane fight. Planks magically appear on top of Sarah even though she fell on top of the deck. Mike and Bonnie shoot one walker each and just give up, even though we see in the shootout that they still had ammo. Jane is the only one to go down and help Sarah, even though Mike and Bonnie certainly weren't busy doing anything at the time and Mike was strong enough to lift those planks.

    Worst of all, there was no thematic justification. Unlike Sarah's first death, here Sarah just dies because everyone forgets how to use their guns and no one thinks to go down and help Jane. There was nothing to do with the meaninglessness of death or bad luck or the weak being unable to cope. It was just unrealistic and dumb.

    fallandir posted: »

    I've never said I was disappointed about Chuck's death, I guess I could of since he was one of my favourite charaters. Nick &

  • I'm bad at internet sarcasm.

    Does a lack of one dialogue or face expression can ruin the whole game Usually not (Lee's face wasn't animated when he hug

  • Yes, I agree that Sarah's second death was bullshit.

    In that case, I do agree that Nick and Sarah's deaths (only the situations, not the subsequent reactions) were interesting. The wa

  • I... wasn't being sarcastic?

    I still think Carver was a boring, underdeveloped villain, and the betrayal was super dumb, but I'm interested what you think.

    fallandir posted: »

    I'm bad at internet sarcasm.

  • Yes, Sarah's death was the dumbest one in the whole season.

    In that case, I do agree that Nick and Sarah's deaths (only the situations, not the subsequent reactions) were interesting. The wa

  • Alt text

    All cutscenes and no gameplay makes mark a dull boy

    The lack of hub areas and puzzles made me so bored in S2 everything felt rushed and forced without it I like to explore these games and look around more, have a few chill convo's with people season 1 perfected it

    I felt like playing some episodes I could of walked out of the room gotten something to eat then when I got back the episode would of completed itself such lack of interaction made me feel not immersed and bored

    I hate cut scenes even in S1 I always looked forward to the hub areas where I could really have an influence and play the game :)

  • edited May 2015

    My feelings for season 3 are as follows. If the creators really listen to the fans wishes far as play time and character development. Then season 3 will probably be the best season yet. Or at least on par with #1.

  • edited May 2015

    Hopes for S3:

    Longer episodes, interesting dialogue, less glitches and bugs (still not fixed from S1)

    and a major one:

    Stop introducing groups and killing them off. It's annoying. At least S1's group had vital roles, S2 was:

    1. Carlos- Doctor

    2. Luke- Leader(sort of)

    3. Pete (old guy with wisdom like Hershel or Dale)

    4. Alvin (being Rebecca's bitch)

    5. Nick (failed attempt at the group's sharp shot like Carley)

    6. Rebecca (pregnant woman with needs)

    7. Sarah (to stay inside and know nothing)

    S3 needs a more realistic group of characters, there's absolutely no way i can believe anyone from the Cabin group survived 2 or more years in a ZA.

  • edited May 2015

    This.

    I like the games. Both seasons, but damn. What is our Purpose? What are we trying to accomplish here? I want Clem to take a moment and figure out what She really wants in season 3.

    I am sooo over being pushed around by Kennys one track mindedness. Boat Boat it's a boat! We need a boat! We lost the Boat. Boat to fucking where jackass? And then the same frickin thing with Wellington in season 2, except even more belligerent and uncompromising. I'm not so hung up on Clem being smarter than most of the adults around her. I think it would piss me off more if i wasn't taken as serious as we were (which wasn't really much when the shit hit the fan.) I think that part of it is just the fact that We the player are Clem and have to have agency as her to progress the plot forward with our actions.

    That's why my Clem is alone at the end of season 2. I want her to have a fresh start, to be able to have a choice in her circumstances going forward. I really hope they use whatever this new DLC is before season 3 to rectify the fact that we now have an 11 year old taking care of a baby. I want there to be some kind of resolution to that, either kill the kid off ( yes yes i am a hater of digital infants, not real ones okay? ) or let us find it a home with a family that wants him. I just really don't want to play babysitters club zombie edition for a whole season.

    Anthorn posted: »

    My main hope is that series 3 has an actual story arc. Series 2 had none, or at least a wishy washy plot. And I'm talking Once up

  • Yeah. To me it certainly seemed like they were, at first, trying to pit Luke and Kenny against each other and in order to do so had little care for the already established characteristics Luke had. Like I already mentioned, the scene where Luke suddenly objects using Clementine to escape Carver's camp while before he always encouraged her to do such things is, IMO, a pretty glaring example of them just wanting Luke to butt heads with Kenny, even at the cost of one's character. In the end, like Anthorn mentioned, this whole setup became too unbalanced and they decided to switch to Jane instead. I may be completely wrong but that's how it felt to me too. I was always a bit baffled/annoyed about the forced bonding with Jane which happened in such a short time but the reason became pretty clear in the last episode. They once again wanted to set someone as the "anti-Kenny" and make us choose between the two.

    Come to think of it... if I'm being perfectly honest, Kenny is one of the major reasons I have issues with S2. Not with the character himself, mind you, but the way they used him. IMO he overshadowed rest of the cast and it seemed like the story constantly tried to follow his character arc, e.g always trying to create conflict between someone else and him which was the source of majority of the drama. As a side effect other characters took a major blow. I'm not blaming the character but the bad writing since that indeed is what it all boils down to.

    RichWalk23 posted: »

    It all boils down to bad writing, at least from what I can see. Not only should Luke's return should have had more of a positive r

  • You're not on your own, I also believe that Kenny's role in S2 was poorly handled and overused to the point where he overshadowed the entire cast of the Cabin Group, in a story that was supposed to be tailored for them since Episode 1.

    The Cabin Group had a story set up for them with their conflict with Carver and his community, and you were starting to learn more about their background and why Carver is someone to be concerned about, but as soon as Episode 3 came Kenny started to steal the Cabin Group's spotlight, with Jane joining shortly after in Episode 4, and suddenly the story about the Cabin Group and Carver ended up meaningless and making no impact on Clementine's development. Makes me wonder why did the writers even bother creating the Cabin Group in the first place if they were going to have no reason to have a story of their own to begin with, since it's quickly dropped and forgotten about halfway in the season.

    It didn't help that another Kenny vs 'anti-Kenny' was one of the most predictable twist of the season, which had already been done back in Season 1 with several other 'anti-Kenny' characters. The reused story arcs had me thinking that Kenny was basically brought back for nostalgia's sake and for the fandom, perhaps because the writers didn't feel confident to tell a new story without taking the easy way out by appealing to the audience's love for Season 1.

    CreeperX posted: »

    Yeah. To me it certainly seemed like they were, at first, trying to pit Luke and Kenny against each other and in order to do so ha

  • DeltinoDeltino Moderator
    edited May 2015

    I remember that it actually took a few days before people figured out Bonnie was actually determinant. There was a period where no one even suspected it. I can't think of a single other character like that. Every other character's status was found out pretty much immediately.

    Whether intentional or not, Bonnie was one of the best handled determinant characters in the sense of not feeling like she was one at all. She still had a role in the following scenes, and she felt natural when she was around, not just a second thought that's added to the scene like Nick was.

    Besides these things, I think they really need to ditch or revamp the determinant character -status. Now that we know the pattern,

  • I just really don't want to play babysitters club zombie edition for a whole season.

    Yes please. I've already had enough of Kenny Babysitting Simulator 2014 to last a lifetime, I don't need Plot Device Babysitting Simulator 2016.

    Arya_Stupid posted: »

    This. I like the games. Both seasons, but damn. What is our Purpose? What are we trying to accomplish here? I want Clem to take

  • dojo32161dojo32161 Moderator

    Actually when I got back home on the day it was released (after I played), the first detail posted on my "Details" thread was that Bonnie could drown. It eventually spiraled out of control a few days later with people constantly spouting, "If you don't break the ice Bonnie drowns". But yeah, Bonnie was an interesting determinant character, much like Leland, you have to be very specific in your choices for either of them to die.

    Deltino posted: »

    I remember that it actually took a few days before people figured out Bonnie was actually determinant. There was a period where no

  • No offence sweetheart, but Carver was a genius. No many people would create that kind of community, and he did it, and I'm sure as hell that if it wasn't because of 'our' group they could even survived that herb.

    I... wasn't being sarcastic? I still think Carver was a boring, underdeveloped villain, and the betrayal was super dumb, but I'm interested what you think.

  • Told you I was bad.

    I don't want to repeat myself over and over again, so here are threads in which I've defended Carver and a few other things about the game in general. They are pretty old, but feel free to bump them up.

    In Harm's Way Defence Masterpost

    Carver's Past and other theories

    I... wasn't being sarcastic? I still think Carver was a boring, underdeveloped villain, and the betrayal was super dumb, but I'm interested what you think.

  • My only hope for season 3 is that not everyone will die.

  • edited May 2015

    The Cabin Group had a story set up for them with their conflict with Carver and his community, and you were starting to learn more about their background and why Carver is someone to be concerned about, but as soon as Episode 3 came Kenny started to steal the Cabin Group's spotlight, with Jane joining shortly after in Episode 4, and suddenly the story about the Cabin Group and Carver ended up meaningless and making no impact on Clementine's development.

    Nailed it right there. Carver's character in general was a major disappointment for me. I thought the whole situation with him showed great promise but in the end the whole plot-point was dropped like a sack of potatoes. Carver's characterization ended up being very one-dimensional and I didn't get the whole thing they tried to do between him and Clementine; when he tried to "bond" with her by claiming they were the same. Nothing in the game made me even consider his reasoning because of the way he came across. It all ended up being pointless, having no impact on Clementine's development nor did it really help us learn more about the Cabin Group.

    It could have been very interesting if Carver had managed to be more manipulative, make his POV about the survival of the fittest sound more valid and actually try and turn several things against the Cabin group. Something akin to the Crooked Man from TWAU who certainly had a way with words. (That guy almost made me doubt myself dammit!) Now, someone might say that Carver was always supposed the be like this and that I myself had wrong expectations. Perhaps, but it doesn't change the fact that he still was a huge disappointment for me since I personally don't find this type of villains compelling at all, not to mention how all this didn't seem to matter in the long run. Well, except getting some characters killed/hurt during their great escape.

    It didn't help that another Kenny vs 'anti-Kenny' was one of the most predictable twist of the season, which had already been done back in Season 1 with several other 'anti-Kenny' characters. The reused story arcs had me thinking that Kenny was basically brought back for nostalgia's sake and for the fandom, perhaps because the writers didn't feel confident to tell a new story without taking the easy way out by appealing to the audience's love for Season 1.

    Yup. Kenny's character arc was basically a repeat from S1. At first he's relatively happy with a loved one (S1: family / S2: Sarita) but also immediately in constant conflict with another character(s), creating several situation where you have to choose between him and another (e.g. S1: Lily / S2: Luke). His loved one dies but he's in denial about it (if you didn't chop off Sarita's arm he postpones putting her out for some possibility that she's different). In his misery he lashes out at wrong people, saying pretty hurtful things to them (S1: calling Lee's relationship with Clementine a sham / S2: blaming Clementine for what happened). After that his mind goes to a dark place; he's angry and depressed and develops a very strict plan about what the group should do (S1: boat / S2: Wellington) having little concern for other opinions. There's also a young guy (S1: Ben / S2: Arvo) who he takes his anger on, blames them for what's happened and wants to leave them behind.

    It's like all the themes from S1 all over again and sadly it ends up being a major focus of the overall story while the Cabin Group was pretty much forgotten. Kenny 2.0 Edition was not what I was expecting when I started Season 2.

    RichWalk23 posted: »

    You're not on your own, I also believe that Kenny's role in S2 was poorly handled and overused to the point where he overshadowed

Sign in to comment in this discussion.