I agree, but it is fundamentally bad writing to invent and dispose of characters solely for exposition and another character's development. Reggie was a tool for the writers and not even remotely a fleshed out character. Compare to Chuck from s1, who was used to explain the need for Clem to learn how to shoot/be treated less gently, but fit into that role naturally and served other thematic roles WHILE being a complete character who has his own interests, feelings, regrets. It made sense that Chuck spoke up about Clem's education given his personality, past, etc. Reggie was there for 3 things, in order.
A tell, not show intro to the compound/situation.
Telltale teasing that Carver might actually forgive, and guilting us in line by implying we could get Reggie in trouble.
Completely forced and nondeterminant death so that players would (hopefully) now blindly hate Carver and consider him insane, instead of going through the trouble of creating a thoroughly dangerous and hateable (or even better, appealing to the dark part of yourself that you hate) villain without having to resort to pointless shock value and evil for the sake of evil. The whole "Reggie was weak" argument rings hollow. Reggie had no power, no influence over the fate of the group. Slave labor does not need to be mentally strong, or even particularly competent. Killing him did not enhance the group from any perspective, unlike the Ben situation, because he literally NEVER ENDANGERED A THING. He played such a small role in the community that he was practically incapable of causing any real damage. All his death did was lose the compound another strong back that could perform physical labor, and most importantly, gave players an easy peasy way to categorize Carver as villain.
Go ahead, ask yourself, what makes Carver a villain? What makes you hate Carver? He killed Walter and Reggie? He hit Clem?
Reggie is the counterpart to Ben in a certain respect. As annoying as he was, he was essential because it's showed a quintessential part of… more how Carver leads and what you (Clem) experienced with Ben and how he did things jeopardized the group's lives.
Ah, yes, I think he was written with the hopes that his death would induce a strong enough catharsis on the players... sad to see a potentially good villain go to waste, but glad to see him die early on, so that I don't have to put up with more of his BS and that of the script.
Seriously, I know that TWD punishes you at every turn because that is kind of the point, but having the dumb main villain getting the upper hand again, and again, as shown in the episode is tiring. Carver's death, at the time and state of his character, was nothing if not timely for me.
I agree, but it is fundamentally bad writing to invent and dispose of characters solely for exposition and another character's development. … moreReggie was a tool for the writers and not even remotely a fleshed out character. Compare to Chuck from s1, who was used to explain the need for Clem to learn how to shoot/be treated less gently, but fit into that role naturally and served other thematic roles WHILE being a complete character who has his own interests, feelings, regrets. It made sense that Chuck spoke up about Clem's education given his personality, past, etc. Reggie was there for 3 things, in order.
* A tell, not show intro to the compound/situation.
* Telltale teasing that Carver might actually forgive, and guilting us in line by implying we could get Reggie in trouble.
* Completely forced and nondeterminant death so that players would (hopefully) now blindly hate Carver and consider him insane, instead of going through the troubl… [view original content]
I was honestly a little disappointed with how much of an affair his death ended up being. Personally, I think a much stronger death just for actual cinematic value would have been a quick, Carlos-style death for him. Build up this larger than life supervillain, have an entire episode effectively removed from the apocalypse, and then a quick brutal reminder that power and intimidation mean next to nothing to a bullet, or a zombie. Making his death such a big deal just solidified the fact that he was actually apparently meant to be a worthwhile villain, and gave him a level of respect and focus that his character just did not end up deserving. I was excited by him in Episode 2, he seemed almost predatory and it looked like they would actually have a grey area decision between him and the group, with both having wrongs and rights. Even if it was a very cut and dry "Genuinely nice but gets people killed being naive (think Ben, S1 Clem)" and "Survival is the number one goal, even if we let go of a lot of things from the old world (A la Kenny, Molly, Chuck)" it would have been better than what we got - yet another "Ooh, a rival leader, too bad he's a homicidal one dimensional maniac who has seemingly no logical thought in his head."
I'm glad that he's gone, but I almost wish he had never existed in the first place if this is how they were going to write him. Honestly, I'm sick of this every-time-we-find-a-community-it's-run-by-psychos thing. The St. Johns, Crawford, now Howe's... it's tiring, boring, and lacks any sort of impact. Does anyone actually think that forming a society in the Apocalypse automatically makes you 100% evil? Even better, do writers honestly think that it's better to have all irredeemable, shallow, and caracaturish villains? How about more disputes that are genuinely more like two perfectly logical opinions that happen to clash, and less "This is the bad guy because we are telling you that they are the bad guy, also did I mention that they're bad?"
Sorry Telltale, but a steady stream of "This is the badass character, she will teach Clem to be badass.", "This is Luke, he is nice because he is nice, so be nice or else he will know you are not nice.", "This is Reggie, he's here so you know who to hate and when.", "This is Matthew, he's here so you can feel guilty for something that is literally nobody's fault whatsoever, but you have to feel guilty anyways because we're playing the sad music." does not do it for me, and from the looks of this thread, a whole lot of people. There are so many hard decisions INHERENT in an apocalypse that you skirt around because they are heavy, and then you try to fake the same effect with over the top brutality and death counts.
Ah, yes, I think he was written with the hopes that his death would induce a strong enough catharsis on the players... sad to see a potentia… morelly good villain go to waste, but glad to see him die early on, so that I don't have to put up with more of his BS and that of the script.
Seriously, I know that TWD punishes you at every turn because that is kind of the point, but having the dumb main villain getting the upper hand again, and again, as shown in the episode is tiring. Carver's death, at the time and state of his character, was nothing if not timely for me.
To move on from stereotyping gameplay and start innovating in gameplay specifically.
Count me in for new styles of gameplay. I said it once, I'll say it a thousand times: Telltale has severely underestimated the value of even their most simple gameplay elements and how they help the player immerse themselves into what they see projected in their monitors.
Actually, I never really been a big fan of the elders scrolls,
It was, again, only an example to demonstrate what I'm trying to say. I don't know if you've delved into TES ' mythos, but the lore is dense and rich for a fantasy world, if a bit... used at times. The fact that Skyrim's main quest was based on said rich lore does not magically transform it into a better story on its own merits.
Survivalists vs Community. Jane, Molly, .. Etc. Vs. Luke, Rebbecca, .... Etc. That's how it will be morally defining for an eleven years old kid. You believe in a community that helps each others, Family as Luke addressed, then go ahead. If you're a survivalist, Then go on to the opposite way.
Yeah, now actually develop those themes and the characters that represent them so that your mentioned "final choice" ends up being not only morally defining, but morally challenging to make. See the problem that the lack of meaningful interaction with the group is: Clementine's growth as a character and protagonist depended on it, as did the story as a whole.
Imagine you have to make a choice between saving you and yours or saving a bunch of other people who you know nothing about. Again, basic empathy is what would make that decision somewhat morally challenging to make, but in the end, you'd most likely choose to save your own hide and that of those close to you than that group of strangers.
Let's pretend that all of them are now close to you. You like both groups, so now the decision is more difficult to make.
But I don't really miss them due to the strong thematic feature.
Which shifts at the current writers' whim and we now arguably lack, at least a strong one, come next episode.
Some people you met after being bit by a dog that locked you down and left you to die. And then you're supposed to care about them? For me, Naaaaaah. that's why they're still under-developed.
That would be a more or less justifiable answer if they never had attempted to make amends with you. You are, of course, not obligated to forgive them, but considering the heart of the IP is the group dynamics, not developing those characters, whether they are likeable or not is a huge mistake.
Now I ask, what is Season Two's theme and overarching storyline? I thought it was something, but last episode actually surprised me and lite… morerally killed the perceived focus. This can be a good thing, but I am not holding my breath.
If you say Clementine's development, know that that is stunted because of the interconnecting issues throughout the season. This is how I feel, and this is my reasoning behind it.
No, It's something that can not be described. Like the Sci-Fi theme of ME1. This time with more Zombies and bleak events. I think Clementine is just fine that way.
Shit, then The Elder Scrolls games are literary masterpieces simply based on the lore, nevermind that their main stories are
quite shitty.
ME3 was awesome, nevermind the ending and other assorted problems it had, because we had three games worth of codex entries behind us.
You... cannot... judge this game based on only some aspects; th… [view original content]
It's nowhere near as good as the first season. Playing as Clem is actually really fun. I like that she is maturing as a character and isn't just a scared little girl anymore.
The story in season two is just really dumb and poorly constructed. Major holes in the story that just make me annoyed during game play. The only similar thing I can think of to compare it to was the dairy farm in season 1. The moment I arrived at the farm I thought "they better not make these people canibals" but they did.
But episode 2 has bigger issues like it taking weeks to walk someplace hours to drive back, but another character makes the trip alone in less than. A day. Character development is gone, player guided character interaction is gone. It's a far less interesting game.
If I hadn't already paid for all of the episodes I wouldn't bother playing episode 4.
I hold out some hope for some kind of recovery... But it kinda feels like waiting for Star Wars episode III to come out, you already know you are gonna be disappointed.
In my opinion, I like Season Two better.
*Playing as Clementine is more of a better perspective.
*The episodes are shorter, which is ama… morezing.
*The characters are great, and more exciting than those of Season One's.
*The situations that the characters go through make you appreciate them more SPOILER: I.e, Sarah losing her father.
*You get to see returning characters, and there are still more to come!
*There are less hubs, which makes the experience more enjoyable.
*The choices you make have a larger impact in the future, while Season One's would mostly impact the current or the next episode.
*Lastly, The overall plot of Season Two has a better pacing, which eliminates the unnecessary material that Season One had.
Again, this is my personal opinion on Season Two.
Season one was great and the thing that makes it better was the depth of the story, characters and the gameplay. Season Two is good don't get me wrong but it really is lacking in depth, for example whenever a main character died in Season One it was tragic and you felt for them but now when it happens to someone from Season Two you don't feel for them.
It needs to get back to the greatness of Season One, don't forget that before Season Two came out there were very high expectations for it which aren't really being lived up to.
I don't think so. Atmosphere is described through the feeling you get while playing, That's all. It transcends words.
Count me in for new styles of gameplay. I said it once, I'll say it a thousand times: Telltale has severely underestimated the value of even their most simple gameplay elements and how they help the player immerse themselves into what they see projected in their monitors.
Yes. But My guess is that they don't want you to feel in control of everything this season as they're playing loose with the story as I've explained before.
It was, again, only an example to demonstrate what I'm trying to say. I don't know if you've delved into TES ' mythos, but the lore is dense and rich for a fantasy world, if a bit... used at times. The fact that Skyrim's main quest was based on said rich lore does not magically transform it into a better story on its own merits.
It's not original and it has no atmosphere. I happen to be a massive disliker for Dragons and exaggerated Fantasy. I'm a big, fat Sci-Fi geek.
Yeah, now actually develop those themes and the characters that represent them so that your mentioned "final choice" ends up being not only morally defining, but morally challenging to make. See the problem that the lack of meaningful interaction with the group is: Clementine's growth as a character and protagonist depended on it, as did the story as a whole.
Imagine you have to make a choice between saving you and yours or saving a bunch of other people who you know nothing about. Again, basic empathy is what would make that decision somewhat morally challenging to make, but in the end, you'd most likely choose to save your own hide and that of those close to you than that group of strangers.
Let's pretend that all of them are now close to you. You like both groups, so now the decision is more difficult to make.
Yes, That's what Episode 4 is about to present. The first 3 episodes were about you moving on from your group which has decayed, Into a new world, To blend in it and see how it works, Then to introduce both moralities and let you decide.
Which shifts at the current writers' whim and we now arguably lack, at least a strong one, come next episode.
I don't really believe the writing is bad, Every point that i speak of supports it.
That would be a more or less justifiable answer if they never had attempted to make amends with you. You are, of course, not obligated to forgive them, but considering the heart of the IP is the group dynamics, not developing those characters, whether they are likeable or not is a huge mistake.
As I have said before, They're not the heart of the season, They're just a tool to present you to the apocalypse world on your own.
EDIT:
No, It's something that can not be described.
It can be, with enough words.
To move on from stereotyping gameplay … moreand start innovating in gameplay specifically.
Count me in for new styles of gameplay. I said it once, I'll say it a thousand times: Telltale has severely underestimated the value of even their most simple gameplay elements and how they help the player immerse themselves into what they see projected in their monitors.
Actually, I never really been a big fan of the elders scrolls,
It was, again, only an example to demonstrate what I'm trying to say. I don't know if you've delved into TES ' mythos, but the lore is dense and rich for a fantasy world, if a bit... used at times. The fact that Skyrim's main quest was based on said rich lore does not magically transform it into a better story on its own merits.
Survivalists vs Community. Jane, Molly, .. Etc. Vs. Luke, Rebbecca, .... E… [view original content]
I agree. Episode 2 was the most well constructed of season, but I wouldn't say I loved it. Episode 3 was definitely a big disappointment. It just felt so cobbled together, and the story needed more time to unfold. It was rushed and characters were one dimensional.
I think that Season 2 is pretty good. I'm enjoying it quite a bit, and I'm never not at least a little excited for the next Episode, but it lacks that magic spark that made me love Season 1 so much.
I think that Season 2 is pretty good. I'm enjoying it quite a bit, and I'm never not at least a little excited for the next Episode, but it lacks that magic spark that made me love Season 1 so much.
It is a problem because they are not presented to us as people, but - as an user put above most eloquently - as a bunch of plot devices wearing human skin.
The 'Varric effect', if I may add to the eloquence with that term. The plot device, in Varric's case the accompanying narrator, whose business is to serve that role rather than to become an interesting character through personal development (he is the most vanilla and neutral of the DAII companions), with the story focusing on him in the context of the former, not the latter.
This is our protagonist's predicament, but to a serious extent it applies and relates to the secondary characters as well; as somebody else eloquently put it, she is the mechanism that drives the plot forward, its vantage point and point of visual perspective, rather than the driving force in her own story.
Yes. I'm a huge fan of that issue. To focus on your theme of the game.
Now I ask, what is Season Two's theme and overarching storyli… morene? I thought it was something, but last episode actually surprised me and literally killed the perceived focus. This can be a good thing, but I am not holding my breath.
If you say Clementine's development, know that that is stunted because of the interconnecting issues throughout the season. This is how I feel, and this is my reasoning behind it.
The lore of the story while ignoring mistakes the dev team might have made.
Shit, then The Elder Scrolls games are literary masterpieces simply based on the lore, nevermind that their main stories are quite shitty.
ME3 was awesome, nevermind the ending and other assorted problems it had, because we had three games worth of codex entries behind us.
You... cannot... judge this game based on only some aspects; the whole must be taken into ac… [view original content]
Season 2 is definitely less immersive than S1, with less character interaction and stuff, but it's still mostly enjoyable... I do have to admit though that maybe it's not a bad idea to not purchase it and just watch a playthrough in youtube of it
I would say the verdict is BUY BUY BUY! Will end up as one of my top ten games of the year I'm sure.
Not as good as season 1 for one reason mentioned earlier: Lee and Clementine relationship. They really hit a home run in season 1 with that. But if season 1 was 9/10 then season 2 is 8/10.
I was most skeptical of continuing as Clementine as I would've liked a new story and maybe see Clem later in that story... but all in all I'm pleasantly surprised continuing Clem's story and it really feels like she is the "Rick" of this world. And of course she is way more awesome than Rick.
Guess I'm in the minority of posters here, but thought ep3 was great. Maybe even my favorite of the entire series or tied with 400.
Moderators here are just community volunteers that are also fellow fans. As such, we have our own opinions of the games. Of course, we like the games overall though or we wouldn't be here in the first place.
Yes, I already know that. But you know, As a member of the telltale team, You must have some connection with the staff, Learning how they think. Therefore, Defending their work. Or such connection doesn't exist?
Moderators here are just community volunteers that are also fellow fans. As such, we have our own opinions of the games. Of course, we like the games overall though or we wouldn't be here in the first place.
Not really. By community volunteers, I mean we don't even work for Telltale. We're just average users who used the board prior to being asked to volunteer as a Mod.
Yes, I already know that. But you know, As a member of the telltale team, You must have some connection with the staff, Learning how they think. Therefore, Defending their work. Or such connection doesn't exist?
Not really. By community volunteers, I mean we don't even work for Telltale. We're just average users who used the board prior to being asked to volunteer as a Mod.
It's fine. I can see how that would be a little odd to understand at first. It's a pretty common mistake; you aren't the first and definitely not the last to make that assumption. :P
I like Episode 1, Loved Episode 2, and was thrilled with Episode 3.
I know liking episode 3 more than episode 2 is a minority but the end.. damn like 4 characters died. So intense.
Comments
I agree, but it is fundamentally bad writing to invent and dispose of characters solely for exposition and another character's development. Reggie was a tool for the writers and not even remotely a fleshed out character. Compare to Chuck from s1, who was used to explain the need for Clem to learn how to shoot/be treated less gently, but fit into that role naturally and served other thematic roles WHILE being a complete character who has his own interests, feelings, regrets. It made sense that Chuck spoke up about Clem's education given his personality, past, etc. Reggie was there for 3 things, in order.
Go ahead, ask yourself, what makes Carver a villain? What makes you hate Carver? He killed Walter and Reggie? He hit Clem?
Exactly.
Ah, yes, I think he was written with the hopes that his death would induce a strong enough catharsis on the players... sad to see a potentially good villain go to waste, but glad to see him die early on, so that I don't have to put up with more of his BS and that of the script.
Seriously, I know that TWD punishes you at every turn because that is kind of the point, but having the dumb main villain getting the upper hand again, and again, as shown in the episode is tiring. Carver's death, at the time and state of his character, was nothing if not timely for me.
I was honestly a little disappointed with how much of an affair his death ended up being. Personally, I think a much stronger death just for actual cinematic value would have been a quick, Carlos-style death for him. Build up this larger than life supervillain, have an entire episode effectively removed from the apocalypse, and then a quick brutal reminder that power and intimidation mean next to nothing to a bullet, or a zombie. Making his death such a big deal just solidified the fact that he was actually apparently meant to be a worthwhile villain, and gave him a level of respect and focus that his character just did not end up deserving. I was excited by him in Episode 2, he seemed almost predatory and it looked like they would actually have a grey area decision between him and the group, with both having wrongs and rights. Even if it was a very cut and dry "Genuinely nice but gets people killed being naive (think Ben, S1 Clem)" and "Survival is the number one goal, even if we let go of a lot of things from the old world (A la Kenny, Molly, Chuck)" it would have been better than what we got - yet another "Ooh, a rival leader, too bad he's a homicidal one dimensional maniac who has seemingly no logical thought in his head."
I'm glad that he's gone, but I almost wish he had never existed in the first place if this is how they were going to write him. Honestly, I'm sick of this every-time-we-find-a-community-it's-run-by-psychos thing. The St. Johns, Crawford, now Howe's... it's tiring, boring, and lacks any sort of impact. Does anyone actually think that forming a society in the Apocalypse automatically makes you 100% evil? Even better, do writers honestly think that it's better to have all irredeemable, shallow, and caracaturish villains? How about more disputes that are genuinely more like two perfectly logical opinions that happen to clash, and less "This is the bad guy because we are telling you that they are the bad guy, also did I mention that they're bad?"
Sorry Telltale, but a steady stream of "This is the badass character, she will teach Clem to be badass.", "This is Luke, he is nice because he is nice, so be nice or else he will know you are not nice.", "This is Reggie, he's here so you know who to hate and when.", "This is Matthew, he's here so you can feel guilty for something that is literally nobody's fault whatsoever, but you have to feel guilty anyways because we're playing the sad music." does not do it for me, and from the looks of this thread, a whole lot of people. There are so many hard decisions INHERENT in an apocalypse that you skirt around because they are heavy, and then you try to fake the same effect with over the top brutality and death counts.
EDIT:
It can be, with enough words.
Count me in for new styles of gameplay. I said it once, I'll say it a thousand times: Telltale has severely underestimated the value of even their most simple gameplay elements and how they help the player immerse themselves into what they see projected in their monitors.
It was, again, only an example to demonstrate what I'm trying to say. I don't know if you've delved into TES ' mythos, but the lore is dense and rich for a fantasy world, if a bit... used at times. The fact that Skyrim's main quest was based on said rich lore does not magically transform it into a better story on its own merits.
Yeah, now actually develop those themes and the characters that represent them so that your mentioned "final choice" ends up being not only morally defining, but morally challenging to make. See the problem that the lack of meaningful interaction with the group is: Clementine's growth as a character and protagonist depended on it, as did the story as a whole.
Imagine you have to make a choice between saving you and yours or saving a bunch of other people who you know nothing about. Again, basic empathy is what would make that decision somewhat morally challenging to make, but in the end, you'd most likely choose to save your own hide and that of those close to you than that group of strangers.
Let's pretend that all of them are now close to you. You like both groups, so now the decision is more difficult to make.
Which shifts at the current writers' whim and we now arguably lack, at least a strong one, come next episode.
That would be a more or less justifiable answer if they never had attempted to make amends with you. You are, of course, not obligated to forgive them, but considering the heart of the IP is the group dynamics, not developing those characters, whether they are likeable or not is a huge mistake.
An easily invalidated point, sure.
Okay but but as good as S1
It's nowhere near as good as the first season. Playing as Clem is actually really fun. I like that she is maturing as a character and isn't just a scared little girl anymore.
The story in season two is just really dumb and poorly constructed. Major holes in the story that just make me annoyed during game play. The only similar thing I can think of to compare it to was the dairy farm in season 1. The moment I arrived at the farm I thought "they better not make these people canibals" but they did.
But episode 2 has bigger issues like it taking weeks to walk someplace hours to drive back, but another character makes the trip alone in less than. A day. Character development is gone, player guided character interaction is gone. It's a far less interesting game.
If I hadn't already paid for all of the episodes I wouldn't bother playing episode 4.
I hold out some hope for some kind of recovery... But it kinda feels like waiting for Star Wars episode III to come out, you already know you are gonna be disappointed.
Wow fair enough but i don't think many will agree with you
Clem? lead character? worst idea since making obama president
Meh.
I liked episode 1,I loved episode 2,and I kinda hated episode 3.Episode 3 was like the disappointed one.
It's good but not great.
Season one was great and the thing that makes it better was the depth of the story, characters and the gameplay. Season Two is good don't get me wrong but it really is lacking in depth, for example whenever a main character died in Season One it was tragic and you felt for them but now when it happens to someone from Season Two you don't feel for them.
It needs to get back to the greatness of Season One, don't forget that before Season Two came out there were very high expectations for it which aren't really being lived up to.
I don't think so. Atmosphere is described through the feeling you get while playing, That's all. It transcends words.
Yes. But My guess is that they don't want you to feel in control of everything this season as they're playing loose with the story as I've explained before.
It's not original and it has no atmosphere. I happen to be a massive disliker for Dragons and exaggerated Fantasy. I'm a big, fat Sci-Fi geek.
Yes, That's what Episode 4 is about to present. The first 3 episodes were about you moving on from your group which has decayed, Into a new world, To blend in it and see how it works, Then to introduce both moralities and let you decide.
I don't really believe the writing is bad, Every point that i speak of supports it.
As I have said before, They're not the heart of the season, They're just a tool to present you to the apocalypse world on your own.
My only problem with season 2 is too much Kenny
I like playing as Clementine. Who would you have chosen?
I agree. Episode 2 was the most well constructed of season, but I wouldn't say I loved it. Episode 3 was definitely a big disappointment. It just felt so cobbled together, and the story needed more time to unfold. It was rushed and characters were one dimensional.
I think that Season 2 is pretty good. I'm enjoying it quite a bit, and I'm never not at least a little excited for the next Episode, but it lacks that magic spark that made me love Season 1 so much.
Yeah, that spark... Is called a story. Season 2? Doesn't have one.
The 'Varric effect', if I may add to the eloquence with that term. The plot device, in Varric's case the accompanying narrator, whose business is to serve that role rather than to become an interesting character through personal development (he is the most vanilla and neutral of the DAII companions), with the story focusing on him in the context of the former, not the latter.
This is our protagonist's predicament, but to a serious extent it applies and relates to the secondary characters as well; as somebody else eloquently put it, she is the mechanism that drives the plot forward, its vantage point and point of visual perspective, rather than the driving force in her own story.
I wish the Episodes this Season were a little more... immersive, like how the last Season's episodes were.
I agree retronox... I like clem, but not as the lead character. Just my preference of course.
I wasn't expecting that kind of statement from Telltale mod.
Season 2 is definitely less immersive than S1, with less character interaction and stuff, but it's still mostly enjoyable... I do have to admit though that maybe it's not a bad idea to not purchase it and just watch a playthrough in youtube of it
I would say the verdict is BUY BUY BUY! Will end up as one of my top ten games of the year I'm sure.
Not as good as season 1 for one reason mentioned earlier: Lee and Clementine relationship. They really hit a home run in season 1 with that. But if season 1 was 9/10 then season 2 is 8/10.
I was most skeptical of continuing as Clementine as I would've liked a new story and maybe see Clem later in that story... but all in all I'm pleasantly surprised continuing Clem's story and it really feels like she is the "Rick" of this world. And of course she is way more awesome than Rick.
Guess I'm in the minority of posters here, but thought ep3 was great. Maybe even my favorite of the entire series or tied with 400.
Moderators here are just community volunteers that are also fellow fans. As such, we have our own opinions of the games. Of course, we like the games overall though or we wouldn't be here in the first place.
Yes, I already know that. But you know, As a member of the telltale team, You must have some connection with the staff, Learning how they think. Therefore, Defending their work. Or such connection doesn't exist?
Not really. By community volunteers, I mean we don't even work for Telltale. We're just average users who used the board prior to being asked to volunteer as a Mod.
I see. My apologizes for the misinterpretation.
It's fine. I can see how that would be a little odd to understand at first. It's a pretty common mistake; you aren't the first and definitely not the last to make that assumption. :P
I like Episode 1, Loved Episode 2, and was thrilled with Episode 3.
I know liking episode 3 more than episode 2 is a minority but the end.. damn like 4 characters died. So intense.
It's not as good as Season One, but it's still pretty damn good.