Kill Babies to keep it real
I pose a question to you all: is killing your babies keeping it real?
Keeping it real is staying true to the reality of the Walking Dead universe, dark, bleak, and no sacred cows who can't be killed. Lee dies, breaking apart the strongest emotional bond created by the Walking Dead series. Was that keeping it real? Clem learned something from it. I say yes.
If there is a season two with Clem, by our very desire to see her live, should the game writers toss Clem to the zombies to maintain the dignity of the world they've created?
I want a happy ending. I know they don't exist in that world. I know to expect what I don't want to happen to happen in that world, because that's keeping it real to the writers. They can do this and still tell a legit story. But sometimes it feels like the same trick over and over again: the old tricked you with a sad ending because you wanted a happy ending switch out.
Is killing babies to keep it real a stronger choice than a happy ending?
My answer: Sometimes. Though I wish there was a chance for both. I still give Telltale mondo props for season 1, in spite of crying all day because I can't see Lee walk Clem off into the sunset.
What are your thoughts?
Keeping it real is staying true to the reality of the Walking Dead universe, dark, bleak, and no sacred cows who can't be killed. Lee dies, breaking apart the strongest emotional bond created by the Walking Dead series. Was that keeping it real? Clem learned something from it. I say yes.
If there is a season two with Clem, by our very desire to see her live, should the game writers toss Clem to the zombies to maintain the dignity of the world they've created?
I want a happy ending. I know they don't exist in that world. I know to expect what I don't want to happen to happen in that world, because that's keeping it real to the writers. They can do this and still tell a legit story. But sometimes it feels like the same trick over and over again: the old tricked you with a sad ending because you wanted a happy ending switch out.
Is killing babies to keep it real a stronger choice than a happy ending?
My answer: Sometimes. Though I wish there was a chance for both. I still give Telltale mondo props for season 1, in spite of crying all day because I can't see Lee walk Clem off into the sunset.
What are your thoughts?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In the comic ofcourse the hunters ate their own kids.
Also in the comics Carl and Sophia lived so why wouldn't Clem.
I'm rooting for Clem by the way
Here here!
cant wait to see as she changes becoming more stronger:D
Just because Lee was killed off in the first season doesn't mean that Clementine has to be killed off in the second season. It just seems too predictable for that to happen.
Side note:
If you've followed TWD you know that children have died on several occasions, but they've always kept at least one child in the group.
I don't think they have to kill a kid to get the point across.
It'd be interesting, but it can't happen. Telltale can't go ahead of the established canon, and the comics are only like a year or two into the apocalypse.
So the oldest we might see Clem as is 10, maybe 11 or 12.
Lee's death was so great because you knew he was on a timer, and had a LOT to do before he clocks out. If he had died some other way, or was bitten in the last episode, I just don't think his death would have worked so well.