I haven't seen that one myself, but people have said, she states she's 10? And Melissa Hutchison also says "she's almost 2 years older" as in " a little less then 2 years".
What do I have to do, to get that line? People said the "we're not the same age"-option. But Clem just says "I'm younger. A lot." When I tried it anyways.
Oh, does she? I dont know if I remember that or not. I do remember her stressing that she is not the same age as Sarah. If she does say that then there you go.
He's talking about the OP.
Blah blah blah it's a video game blah blah blah it's a plot device to set up Clem being bit and the new group reacting to it blah blah blah btw zombies aren't realistic either
Oh, sorry ZombieFaceKillaaaaah I am a bit tired today
he said he got in touched with two specialist.
I absoutley hate people using that terms with video games...
You know what isn't realistic?
I hate it too when reviewers for games use "realism" to demote a game or degrade it in a way. Who cares if it's realistic or not? If people stopped nitpicking on every little detail and stop trying to compare it to real life, they'll find they'll enjoy things 10x more.
Movie reviewers tend to do this more often however and it pisses me off.
I dont think she watches that show. Its more that she loves dogs and has had dogs with behavioral problems. Shes not an expert by any means. But she might not even exist for all you know, I could be an alien trolling humans for fun. Such is the nature of the interwebs.
Following up on what clemlee said, I did a Google for "food bowl aggression". This is definitely a well-known behavioral problem that crops up among dogs. This site has video of a dog being very friendly in one scene, then later attacking and for a little while chasing a rubber hand that was merely held near a bowl where the dog was eating.
This site describes the dog psychology behind food aggression:
Your dog is desperate for this food, in his mind he doesn't know if or when he will get more food. Therefore he protects or guards his food, just like he would have done in a pack situation in the wild.
Your dog may begin to see you as someone who is always taking good stuff away. He comes to view you more as a threat than a provider (you've got to turn this thinking around).
Dog food aggression can be part of the general confusion regarding who the leader is in your owner-dog relationship. Often food aggression is not an isolated incident - it's something you must rectify.
Well, I'm sold. It can happen that a dog is quite friendly up to the point where you attempt or appear to attempt to take food away from it, when it suddenly becomes aggressive. This aggression can be mild or severe, is based on survival instincts that domestication has not entirely bred out of them, and may arise or be exacerbated by a failure to establish dominance over the beast. It can happen. To Clementine's cost, it did.
But, really, I'm not too stressed about the realism of the incident when I'm having to simply roll my eyes at the many violations of common sense that appear in the story -- zombies who spurt red blood under arterial pressure when attacked, previously unspotted hordes of zombies who show up in moments of high tension among the living, zombies who manage to suppress their moaning and need to lurch toward food when the writers need a dangerous spot to seem safe for a while, the second law of thermodynamics in shambles, etc.
I'm curious: The second law of thermodynamics? How does that apply here?
I dunno but this thread has almost reached the point where someone'll bring up Nazis.
The basic scientific problem with a zombie apocalypse scenario is that a zombie would basically be a perpetual motion machine, which is impossible by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Alright, after a minute I figured, that could be mean about zombies in general. Ok, point taken. But this is the premise. If you're not willing to swallow that, there' nothing you can do about it.
I just thought at first you meant specific to The Walking Dead but that goes for all zombies.
And note that I'm not claiming that its just sort of nonsense to argue about realism in a scenario in which we've already accepted a severely unrealistic premise. The general view among writers of fantasy and science fiction is that for every implausible premise, you are obliged to counter-balance it with realism to make the story as a whole feel plausible. So, people are right to object to lack of realism in the details of the narrative. But everyone has a different threshold of plausibility. I haven't seen anyone else complain about arterial blood spatter.
I agree to some extent. It didn't make sense to me that Sam befriended Clementine, yet attacked her when she offered him food. If Sam was so starving, he would attack her at site
Then again, I have a dog who would attack my brothers if she has food. When my dog was a puppy, my brother would play with her by taking her treat and not giving it back. Now, when my brother gets close and she has food, she would get angry and gives with a warning bite or a bite bit if he tries to take it back or puts his hand near her. She doesn't do this to me since I would give her back the treat.
She is friendly, however.
The difference between the dog in the game and my dog is that my dog only attacks my brother because he would tease her.
The funny thing about arguing that this scenario is unrealistic, yet accept that the game is about zombies where people turn into them just by dying.
And if you notice, she gets her foot planted firmly right onthe dogs neck, thats a hell of a vantage point from her position.
Okay. I mean no offence by this, but honestly, it's a video game. (I love the game to pieces, I don't mean that I don't like it). I don't really think Telltale expected people to look into it this much.
I love how the OP went throught the trouble of contacting specialists on the matter and posted FACTS to explain his opinion, and the first answer is from this guy.
Zombies are Awesome!:
JUST STOP! Just because people don't like it doesn't mean it's not "realistic the dog was fucking hungry!
I just laughed hard, it's like if the guy only read the title and based his reply on that and not the actual post. Wich is what probably happened.
Did you manage to get the "I am x years old"-line? I haven't. I just tried a few times, saying different things and didn't get that line. Would just like to see it myself. Since I heard people say both: 10 and 11.
calm... its only a game
I think people are looking too deeply into whether a certain scene was realistic or not. The whole game is unrealistic. Sure, maybe some realism is needed to keep the balance, but is it worth causing a dispute over something so unimportant. It seems people have taken a disliking to this first episode simply because it's so different from Season 1, and are now finding anything and everything to negatively criticise.
And you want to know what i dont like about this forum? People like you who can't take other peoples opinions. There are so many of you (simliar people who hate the kenny lovers) who get mad cause people just have different opinions, there are no hard earned facts or anything that say "this could not happen, or this is not realistic".
It goes both ways, you complain, yet others can't complain at you, and you then in turn complain that others complain, wake up from the bubble and just understand that people see things differently and if you jsut try to think logically most and if not everything in this game makes sense. TT have done their homework!
To be fair, most of the time when reviewers critique realism it's cause it tries to be realistic. TWD tries this too with how human's interact in an apocalypse, all the choices one has to make, who to give food, who to save and a game like this and just the setting shows us what humans really are capable off and how far we are willing to go.
Nail on the head. Couldn't have said it any better.
"The general view among writers of fantasy and science fiction is that for every implausible premise, you are obliged to counter-balance it with realism to make the story as a whole feel plausible." - JohnnyAngel
EDIT: I out in quotations but forgot to write the name of who i quoted, sorry.
The dog thing felt plausible to me. Plausible =/= 100% scientifically accurate. The only people who would feel pulled from the story by this are dog behavior experts and laypersons who find it suspect because it's counter to an incident they've witnessed firsthand or because they have come by very specific secondhand knowledge. The majority of the audience would have no reason to be bothered by this. It isn't like Sam suddenly started driving a car or something. If it IS scientifically inaccurate, it's not very blatant. It's like a gun lover bitching about a character calling a magazine a clip. Sure, it's a writing mistake, but it doesn't mean the story suddenly unravels all to hell and we're justified obsessing over it to the degree some people have with this dog attack. It's pure nitpicking.
Besides, we're dealing with an animal capable of fairly complex emotions, that has underwent the kind of trauma you can't faithfully replicate in real life. The writers are deserving of some leeway here. And this is assuming all the naysayers are correct, by the way. I just don't put animal psychologists on the same infallibility scale as, say, an accomplished astrophysicist. Animal behavior is much too open to interpretation unlike a hard science, where empirical evidence trumps all. So even if people are right about how Sam would not have attacked in that manner, it's not very difficult to suspend belief and look at the situation as a rare exception to the rule.
But the phenomenon of food aggression that samclem mentioned above means you don't have to appeal to animal behavioral specialists or plead special post-apocalypse circumstances. It turns out that many people have problems with perfectly sweet dogs turning on them if they try to get near their food when they're eating. See my more detailed post about this above.
I havent yet. Ive only played twice. If I do I will let you know.
I've had dogs and cats my whole life, meet others outside and i can say that something like this is very plausible if all the circumstances fit in. It's not quite hard if you just think about what this dog has gone through.
I have never encountered something as serious as this but something in a smaller scale, my dog getting mad, other dogs being mad if someone takes from them or keep food away.
The argument "there's zombies so who cares what crazy things happen" is really wrong.
If we go that way, there could be aliens involved in episode 2 and it would be perfectly right... Nope. The unrealistic premise is made realistic to the reader/viewer/player by having its own coherence, and by keeping the rest completely realistic.
Even zombies have their own rules of realism that were created by the author. He has defined how they are, how they behave, their limitations, etc...
If suddenly these rules were disregarded without reasons (like we'd meet a talking, intelligent and nice zombie out of nowhere), the coherency of the universe created by its maker would collapse and would lose the interest of every self-respecting reader/viewer/player.
Regarding the dog situation, I found it weird too (didn't need any dog expert to tell me that) that his only focus suddenly became to kill Clementine, and not the food itself : if being deprived of that food was what made him so mad, first thing he would have done after "making a point" through a swift attack would have been to get back at the can. The fact that he suddenly seems determined to kill Clementine and attack her repeatedly somewhat lacks of realism when you know a thing or two about common animal behaviour (no need to be an expert), and if you think of this dog as your common dog.
You have to consider that he's not your average dog and that he's fucked up because of something to bring realism back.
So OP is right about Sam not being a normal dog, and the answer is that he was most probably not a normal dog. That happens.
Some people reply with logical explanations and good arguments, but those who go "zombies are not realistic so nothing needs to be realistic" are completely wrong.
I hate people like you who talk about realism within video games. If games were real this game wouldn't exist and many others wouldn't either.
For me that scene was realistic because in a way that happened to me.,When i was little about 8 or 9 i was visting my grandparent for thanksgiving and i was out side eating some food and the neighbors dog attacked me and bit me on the arm that i was holding the food in. I was not starving, teasing or even playing with the dog and neither was the dog starving but that dog attacked me for the food i was eating and in order to get the dog off me the owner cracked him once over the head with a bumper from the car he was working on. So yeah for some that is not realistic but hell that happened to me and the dog wasn't even starving or living in a bad way. So before anyone say's that bull shit i still have the bite mark on my arm and i can take a pic and post but thats to much. So for me that scene could happen and was realistic enough for me not to call bs,google or speak to dog specialist . Because i had that experience
Did he whimper and beg like a nice little doggy before he attacked you?
That i don't remember i was 8 or 9..I am 32 years old now lol
hmm not realistic? and a zombie apocalypse is?