A Defense of Season 2
I'm know I'm only going to regret this because this forum seems to have evolved into a place for the haters, but....I'm bored....lol. Naw, it just kinda got me down that Telltale didn't win anything at the Game Awards, because I truly think they're pretty damn good at what they do, and they deserve awards.
Now, for my defense regarding some of the most complained-about points of season 2.
Nick:
I know everyone thinks he lived and died pointlessly. They think Telltale is composed of a bunch of Nazi able-ists who kill all disabled characters for the fun of it. Or they think Telltale is composed of a bunch of hack writers. But none of that is true. Nick has a definite (even somewhat warm and fuzzy) character arc. It's just that it's basically over by the end of episode 2, when Walter saves Nick (or not) and Nick makes this face (or not):
"Why are you smiling so big, Nick?" I thought, "Walter just saved your life. That doesn't mean he forgives you. At most, he's buying himself the time to try and forgive you. That's it."
It took me a long time to realize that that face was Telltale's way of signifying Nick's turning point. You see, whether or not Nick understood how little Walter really forgave him, Walter's selfless act hit Nick in a big way. From that point on, Nick is kinder (telling Clementine she's one of "us guys"), more forgiving (saying "thanks, Bonnie" even though Bonnie was locking them all up, and screaming for Carver to stop beating Kenny even though Nick and Kenny never got along), and more filled with an inner peace (being the first to fall asleep in Carver's camp and having complete faith that Luke would help them).
See what I mean?
Nick's arc is basically this:
1. Almost killing an innocent person (Clem)
2. Actually killing an innocent person (Matthew)
3. Having a forgiveness-like experience that changed him for the better.
Yes, it was much too abrupt and subtle (they could have at least lingered on Nick's turning-point face a bit longer), but it was definitely there. For all intents and purposes, Nick's story arc is complete by the end of episode 2. And realizing that now, I have no problem with his unceremonious, off-screen death in episode 4.
I barely even have a problem with how the 3rd part of his arc was glossed over to such a high degree. I know it's not great writing, but people don't seem to realize that great writing takes time. People get so mad when Telltale takes so long to release each episode, but people also get mad when the writing isn't perfect. I personally would much rather have short wait periods than meticulously fleshed out character arcs for every unpleasant minor character. (As long as the major characters have meticulously fleshed out character arcs, which I believe Clem and Kenny did in Season 2.)
Sarah:
People also say that Sarah lived and died pointlessly and Telltale killed her out of spite. Also, not true. See this post for details about my theory that Sarah died as a way of showing that Slapping Sarah was a brutal, Carver-ish way to deal with the problem, and like Carver, it wasn't successful in the long run.
If Clem had dealt with it in a kinder, more Lee-like fashion, she would have been more successful at saving Sarah. But Clem isn't that self-sacrificing yet, and that's fine. I suspect she will be down the line.
Clem:
People say that she was poorly developed in this season, but she wasn't. This season was about teaching Clem survival skills (from tending a fire in episode 1 to neck-stabbing zombies in episode 4) and hard truths (people are unstable, manipulative, and untrustworthy). And yes, those are depressing themes, whereas Lee's themes were inspiring. But Lee's story is complete. Clem's story is just getting started. There were points when Lee's story seemed bleak and pointless, but by the end, it was beautiful. I have faith that Clem's will be too, by the end.
People also say that it's unrealistic, everything the adults asked Clem to do in this season. Methinks these people had exceedingly easy, carefree childhoods. When I was a child, my parents gave me a substantial amount of responsibility, and I often took on large responsibilities that I didn't have to take on. (For instance, I was entirely responsible for myself, getting my own homework done, getting up on time, getting everywhere I needed to go on time; taking care of our cats, dogs, chickens, horses, and my siblings; doing various chores; making my own meals and pocket money; applying for jobs and colleges, etc. My parents were very adamant that they wouldn't hold my hand for any of it.) It might seem unrealistic to you based on your childhood, but it simply isn't universally true that adults don't place heavy responsibilities on children or that children are unable to bear such responsibility with strength and maturity. And in a fantastic setting like the zombie apocalypse, I am perfectly willing to suspend my disbelief that Clem would bear such fantastic responsibilities.
Disabled people:
People seem to think that Telltale hates disabled people and wants us to kill them in our playthroughs. No one ever seems to consider that Lee and Clem may BOTH be disabled. Lee has at least one flashback/nightmare about his wife/the affair/the fight/the murder. And he's haunted by that for the whole game. Doesn't that point to PTSD? And in many playthroughs, Lee only has one arm in his last episode. Isn't that a disability? And yes, Lee died, but no one wanted that. Not even Telltale, I'm sure. And IMO, Clem is suffering from depression the whole second season, as seen by the prolonged absence of her former energy. I mean, come on. Anyone can see she's miserable. And then there's her comparatively small size, which is an definite disability. And Clem is obviously going to live until the end of the series, or longer. And I guarantee you that Telltale doesn't want us to hate Lee or Clem, so why should we think that Telltale wants us to hate disabled people?
The whole Kenny/Jane thing:
People seem to think that Telltale wants us to hate either Kenny or Jane or both, because they both have despicable qualities. But really, almost all Telltale characters have both good and bad qualities, and Telltale wants us to decide for ourselves which ones to hate or whether to hate anyone at all, since in the end, they're all only human. Can't we just celebrate the fact that Telltale so successfully polarized the players with the Kenny/Jane choice? I mean, they really made people care, even though Jane was hardly there most of the season and Kenny was hated by half the players (including myself) in Season 1.
.....................................................................
So, look. Do I have my complaints about this season? Yeah. Do I wish the episodes had been longer and had more hubs and come out with shorter wait periods. Yes, absolutely. Am I taking a risk in having any faith that Telltale will ultimately satisfy us with Clementine's story. Yes, of course. But overall, I loved Season 2. It completely sucked me in and made me care. And I love Clementine. And I can't wait for Season 3. And I just wanted to say that, as an encouragement to Telltale and anyone else who loved the season as much as I did.
Comments
so who did you choose in the end?
Listen Bro, Nick Did change, But it doesn't help when you saw him become an asshole, He left Rebecca (The PREGNANT woman) and died for a situation luke could Have Handled Himself. His death didn't really affect anyone. (Except Cry because he was WAY into the game) And all around, Nick was a character that was developed too fast.
I agree sarah was a good character that could have been taught, But after her father was eaten, and She had no one left, she was, as rick grimes would say, Too Far Gone.
There was no way for clem to do it lee style, She Lost everyone from season 1, She is traumatized and the world had changed her, Kenny was being a douche nozzle, and walkers were everywhere. Also, Clem sacrificed everything to 1. Get lee in the store, 2. Do everything for the group, and 3. would have sacrificed anything to help Kenny when he was attacked.
Clem knew people were like that, she has had experience. Lee's Themes included, Group Betrayal, Suicide, Revenge, and Murder, It was not exactly "Inspiring" More like realistic. Clem's Themes are not depressing. They Include, Helping Clueless adults, Being a little girl that has more balls than Chuck Norris and Jolene's Tree combined, and Just Plain Dissapointment from season 1. By the end, Yes. It will be good. But now, All we know is she is an unrealisticly strong little girl.
Yes true, But the chances that this little girl could die are unbearably dangerous. And these Dickweeds tell her to do EVERYTHING! Hell, Kenny and Carver are the only smart people of Season 2, Kenny Knew what clem could do, and what she couldn't do, and carver knew how she felt, and was smart about her strength, Easy Childhood or not, it's still retarded.
They didn't want us to hate them, They wanted us to make a choice, Survivalism VS Loyalty/Friendship. In the end, People chose jane because they were either sick of kenny, or Didn't want him to suffer anymore. Was it a hard choice? No. What would have been hard was Kenny vs Luke. Then people would actually give a shit. But no. They fucked it up.
No one. Just AJ. And not because I really hated either Jane or Kenny. In fact, I pretty much loved Kenny. Nonetheless, it tore me up inside. That whole violent fight between the two people who were supposed to be something of a family unit for Clem. She got caught in the middle of it and got hurt physically and emotionally. That's why I consider it darker -- though not necessarily sadder -- than the ending of Season 1. In Season 1, Clem's caretaker was her savior. In Season 2, Clem's caretakers were her downfall.
I won't say you're reading too much into it because that would be totally hypocritical of me, but I will say that the bigger problem here is that these are all very tiny moments that are totally inconsequential, because without Nick present, nothing really changes at all. When Ben became determinant, his presence, or lack thereof, drastically changed a big pivotal moment in episode 5. With Nick, we either get an early death, or table-scraps of development with no real expansion and no real role followed by a later death. As a result, it feels way more like we lost nothing of value when he dies. With Ben, the game actually takes you to task about giving up on him (through Clementine's sadness, Vernon's anger, and possibly the Stranger's accusation). Giving up on Nick literally changes nothing except a short moment of sadness from Reggie, something Nick's supposed best friend couldn't even muster up.
Even just an extra dialogue with Nick about what happened at the lodge would have been a good moment, because he seems to have forgotten it completely in episode 3, opting instead to dreamily talk about Luke. I really don't think fans of Nick are asking for too much when something like this could have easily rectified the complaints. One dialogue to show what Nick learned from his experience, or to lament that Walter died the way he did after he saved his life and that he would try harder to see the better things in life just like Walter did to honor his memory. Boom, instant character realization right there. Would it have been all that people wanted? No, but if he had to die the way he did in episode 4, they could have at least given us something like this that would cement his development in our memories, as opposed to subtle ideas that may or may not have been their intention.
I like your ideas. I just wish they would have expanded on it more.
How can that be the case when Clementine is perfectly willing to go after a baby in the middle of a gunfight, or to stay by Kenny's side no matter what he does and no matter how toxic he is? Yes, you may argue that these are matters of choice, but as I've said before, every single choice you make with Clementine is "canon" or something the writers have determined is part of her character. Which means that they deemed Clementine a person who is always willing to help out a friend and a baby in need (they discounted the possibility of abandoning AJ for this reason)... but just not in Sarah's case.
As I've said before, Sarah was treated like a hopeless case in episode 4... but Kenny, who was going through similar pain, was treated as someone that was so needed that he could totally get back on his feet with the right motivation. I'm sorry, but that disconnect is such a crock of shit that is most certainly borne out of writer bias. Plus, didn't those dudes from Telltale just laugh along with that idiot about Sarah's death and her fans having to smack her to help her? Were they just keeping the truth of their writing bottled up or something?
Plus, this doesn't in any way excuse Sarah's second death which was written about as stupidly as possible to achieve the desired effect of killing her off. If we were meant to learn anything about Clementine's treatment of Sarah, then the writers fucked it up royally because Sarah dies from completely unrelated circumstances and as a complete accident from being out on the deck for no reason.
All of these things are well within the ability to handle for most young people, and cannot in any way be compared to something like sneaking around a base run by a psychopath and full of enemies to carefully set up all the details pertaining to the group's escape, choosing a little girl as your ideal backup against zombies and possible human foes (Luke on the bridge), or holding a little girl responsible for whether or not a man dies (speaking of Bonnie and Luke's situation), or even doing an exceedingly simple task while sitting on one's hands and acting stupid about it (Alvin sitting around while you check out the house, and Carlos and Sarita with the windmill). Would your parents let you do these things as a child in a survival situation while doing nothing themselves? I doubt it.
These things play out this way to give the player something to do, and while it's almost excusable in that regard, it just doesn't work because in the end, they have to make the adult characters look like morons to make Clementine look good, or just bump Clementine's strength up to ridiculous levels to make certain things happen (little girl kicking a locked door down? Get the hell out of here...). That's where the problems tend to occur.
Well, if I were to guess the retort to this logic... Telltale makes sure that the disabled characters they want us to like are savable, likable, heroes, or given good endings in some way. Kenny has this chance, Clementine is obviously the hero, Lee's personality may be determinant, but he still ends the story like a true hero saving Clementine. Compare that to the deplorable treatment Sarah got, or Nick, or Reggie (oh, especially Reggie).
Also keep in mind, and this is a big one: The major characters are not at all hindered by their disabilities like the minor characters. Lee gets his arm cut off... meh, keep on going because he's unrealistically awesome. Kenny loses an eye and suffers from depression... meh, keep on going because he's awesome and Jesus or something (don't get me wrong, Kenny's decaying mental state is definitely explored, but he is given a sense of importance when he sinks into depression that gives him the strength to carry on, and is always a proactive character no matter how many horrible things happen to him). Clementine is suffering from depression... not gonna stop her from spouting off action one-liners, being badass, doing everything for everyone, and walking off gunshots and brushing off the deaths of those around her, except for the big characters like Kenny, because who cares about the minor characters?
Sarah? Totally hindered by her disability, and is practically made a mockery of in the writing, culminating with being told that sometimes you have to let people like her go because she'll drag Clementine down, something you can either agree with, or disagree with and receive absolutely no reward as a result. Nick? Totally hindered by his depression, and makes stupid decisions because of it, and you can either believe he's useless and a bad person, or disagree and receive virtually no reward as a result. Reggie? Actually takes note of the problem that his lost arm causes him, and is much more forgiving of Carver's actions as a result, just so that he can be criticized by Kenny, Rebecca, and possibly the fanbase as well, and is practically treated like some kind of traitor because he acknowledges his compliance is more important now because of his harrowing disability.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't believe Telltale wants us to hate disabled people or whatever. That whole idea sounds ludicrous. But I do think there's a big difference between how the major characters with disabilities are treated, and how the minor characters are treated, and cannot be compared. Of course, it always comes down to how you treat them to give them some understanding as Clementine, but that doesn't change the fact that the story itself gives them unfulfilled and unceremonious endings that almost contradict everything you did if you even cared enough about them to do so.
You wanted Sarah to make it? Fuck you. She's just dead. You wanted Nick to make it? Fuck you. He's just dead. You wanted Kenny to make it? Well, of course! Because we (Telltale) love Kenny too! Here, have a big character affirming ending for Kenny as a reward for sticking by him. Oh, and if you didn't stick by him, don't worry! We'll totally give Kenny a sad sendoff and have Clementine cry over him, because even when you don't forgive him, we (Telltale) sure do!
Meh. My problem comes from the fact that Kenny vs. Jane was so artificial after all the buildup between Kenny and Luke that they opted out of because they realized the audience weren't morons and could see it coming from a mile away. Okay, that may not be true, but it's hard to look at that complete abandonment of a storyline as anything other than, "Aw, shit, they're onto us! Let's be all unpredictable and crap, no matter how dumb it makes the final product!" I mean, it's either that, or "Hehe, we totally wasted everyone's time with this storyline that we planned to abandon from the start!"
Plus, the choice was pretty easy when they gave us a third option to choose neither of them, which is what I did. I certainly didn't have a hard time choosing my path in that case.
Well, that's the thing with Kenny, though. Regardless of how he is in season 1, he is treated in season 2 as someone Clem cares about so much that she's potentially the only one to stand by his side when nobody else will... despite a thorough lack of buildup between the two characters in season 2. Clementine and Kenny having this kind of connection is only there because we the audience have made a connection with him, be it positive or negative. So again, even for those of us who had our reservations with Kenny (I certainly didn't hate him until season 2 came around), Kenny is nevertheless vindicated every time through either a big self-sacrificing ending, or a sad sendoff that has him agree with your decision right to the end rather than be every bit as bitter as we know he can be. All his sins are essentially forgiven, no matter what you do, by painting Jane as the instigator and Kenny as the poor regretful man if you choose to side against him.
You sir deserve an award.
Nothing can justify what happened to Nick and Sarah. Nothing.
Yes, I agree. But like I said above, I would rather have shorter wait periods for the episodes than longer character arcs for minor characters. Also, Telltale said in an interview once (wish I could remember where) that they were struggling to develop four games at once, and so, realizing that they were swamped, I'm willing to let Nick's bad characterization slide. But that all comes down to how much leeway I personally prefer to give Telltale. Many people give them absolutely no leeway, and it's their right to give them no leeway, sure. But I choose to be lenient.
Agree to disagree. In the post I linked to in the Sarah paragraph, I suggest that Sarah just needed to see that she DID have someone left, and that someone could have been Clementine.
Furthermore, you're quite right that Clementine can be very self-sacrificing. But not, I think, to the point of laying down her life for people she isn't really close to, even if they're depending on her. For those people, she may take some major risks, but nothing that means almost certain death. And, like I said, that's fine. Only the most heroic heroes do things like that, and I know you're probably just going to say that NO ONE could do things like that, but...agree to disagree. Also, it's not just that Clem is less than perfectly self-sacrificing. It's also that she's less than perfectly compassionate (as I said in the link I mentioned before, the Slap could have been replaced with a Hug, but Clem has been hardened by zombie apocalypse), which is also fine. Only the most heroic of heroes are greatly compassionate even under great pressure.
Yes, those are themes WITHIN Lee's story, but not the themes OF Lee's story. Here's something I wrote in this post:
"One of the things that made Lee's story so great is that he had such a great character arc. No matter what happened in the middle, Lee went from being a murder to a savior. We first see Lee in the back of a police car on his way to prison. I mean, he must have thought his life was over. He'd live a long, dull life in prison regretting what he'd done, and he'd die alone in a cell. It seemed there was no hope. But it turned out, no. He lived a short, exciting life teaching and protecting an orphan girl, and he died for someone he loved. There was hope. He loved Clementine. He was redeemed. Lee's story has a definite trio of inspiring themes: hope, love, and redemption."
I still hold that the themes (loss of hope, trust, and innocence) of Season 2 are depressing, but those are the themes WITHIN Clem's story not OF Clem's story, which I trust those will be more uplifting, like Lee's were.
Yes, but everything in the zombie apocalypse is unbearably dangerous. Everything. And while I think we all wish the adults in Clem's group had been good people and insisted on protecting her no matter what, they just weren't like that. Like you said, these people were complete dickweeds. If they would lock a hurt child in a shed, they would certainly ask her to risk her life to save, not just them, but herself as well. Add to that the fact that even Lee allowed Clem to do what she had to do to get everyone, including herself, to safety, and I am perfectly willing to believe what they asked her to do, most of the time. There are times when it's flat-out (intentionally or non-intentionally) comical, like when Clem has to turn the wind turbine off or when Alvin is too lazy to check out the cabin himself, but once again, I choose to be lenient with Telltale.
I personally wouldn't have cared any more about a Kenny vs. Luke choice than I did about the Kenny vs. Jane choice. I didn't care much for Luke by the end of the season. But I was garnering the idea that people really cared about the Kenny/Jane thing because of the intense battles over it, which I didn't witness but did hear about. I think that points to a strong polarization of the players.
Sure, I agree. But like I said to ClemmyClooAndBabyboo:
"But like I said above, I would rather have shorter wait periods for the episodes than longer character arcs for minor characters. Also, Telltale said in an interview once (wish I could remember where) that they were struggling to develop four games at once, and so, realizing that they were swamped, I'm willing to let Nick's bad characterization slide. But that all comes down to how much leeway I personally prefer to give Telltale. Many people give them absolutely no leeway, and it's their right to give them no leeway, sure. But I choose to be lenient."
Also, like I said to ClemmyClooAndBabyboo:
"Furthermore, you're quite right that Clementine can be very self-sacrificing. But not, I think, to the point of laying down her life for people she isn't really close to, even if they're depending on her. For those people, she may take some major risks, but nothing that means almost certain death (as fighting off the zombies for Sarah would have meant). And, like I said, that's fine. Only the most heroic heroes do things like that, and I know you're probably just going to say that NO ONE could do things like that, but...agree to disagree. Also, it's not just that Clem is less than perfectly self-sacrificing. It's also that she's less than perfectly compassionate (as I said in the link I mentioned before, the Slap could have been replaced with a Hug, but Clem has been hardened by zombie apocalypse), which is also fine. Only the most heroic of heroes are greatly compassionate even under great pressure."
And, actually, Clem is not always willing to help out a friend or a baby in need. She has the option of abandoning the baby during the shootout, and responding with anger to Kenny's pain in ep 4 and death in ep 5. And I don't hate her for it. She's not perfect.
Yeah, maybe. I mean, I hated that they laughed about it, but that doesn't mean they agree with it. How can they get angry at people for making a choice that they gave them? It would be hypocritical. And the fact that they laughed probably just means they don't have the guts to politely stand up for empathy and compassion. Most people don't. Most people laugh at insensitive jokes in order to not seem uncool.
Sarah's second death was the only one I was talking about. That's the one that shows how wrong the slap was, IMO.
Well, how about all the examples of children in WW2 stepping up to the plate and taking responsibilities? Or the fact that in the Middle Ages, children were considered adults at 14 and were able to marry and have children (which I do not advocate by the way)? Doesn't that show that children are able to handle intense pressures and responsibilities? I think so. And I don't think it would have been unreasonable for my parents to have let me do dangerous things if I was the only one who could do them and everyone's well-being, including my own, depended on it. Just as I don't think it was unreasonable for Lee to let Clem do the dangerous things she had to do to get them all, including herself, to safety (climbing through the air duct and over the bars in the train station). Obviously, Lee was appropriately upset and reluctant to let Clem do these things, like any good parent would be, and the adults in season 2 were less upset and perhaps less reluctant, but like I said to ClemmyClooAndBabyboo, it's obvious from episode 1 that these adults are not good people and/or didn't have the bond with Clem that Lee had. And sometimes it seemed comical, the degree to which they depended on her, but I'm willing to give Telltale some leeway.
I've said it before, and I'll prolly say it again, but I suspend my disbelief here on the basis that kids can be quite strong and doors can be quite weak.
I completely disagree. Take, for instance, the moment in s2e1 when Clem slumps down against a rock and starts crying. Or all the moments Kenny puts himself in harm's way because he apparently is somewhat suicidal. Or the moment in s1e1 when Lee can't even bring himself to say out-loud to Clementine that he killed someone (even if you make the choice to say that).
The only difference between the disabled people who made it and the ones who didn't is the same difference between Clem and Sarah. Unlike Sarah, Clem made a choice to get up from that slump when the zombies came. It was a hard thing to do but she did it. See, people wanted to see Sarah overcome her depression, at least enough to save herself, and that's exactly what Clem did. She overcame her depression enough to save herself. But apparently, it's precisely because she did that that everyone seems to think Clem is fine, not hindered by her depression at all. Just because someone keeps going doesn't mean they're not in great pain. It just means they made a choice to keep going in spite of the pain. (And yes, I do think Clem's depression wasn't explored enough in Season 2, but we have the whole rest of the series to explore it.) People get upset when Telltale lets disabled people die, and they say Telltale is sending the message that disabled people can't carry on and survive. Yet, when Telltale shows disabled people carrying on and surviving, everyone writes it off as "Those characters weren't hindered by anything." Telltale just can't win.
I don't think so. If I was Clem, I'd certainly feel a great loyalty to someone who almost died for me, as Kenny did for Clem in episode 3.
See, this is what I mean. People seem to think that Telltale is purposely painting either Jane or Kenny as the bad guy and the other as the good guy. But the fact that such heated, sustained debates exist as to which was which shows that Telltale did a good job of making Jane and Kenny both bad and good.
Thanks.
Its embarassing how people try to defend S2's obvious cons, the fact of the matter is that Telltale fucked up big time with Nick's character.
Giving him that much spotlight in EP2 only to just toss him around an episode later in the background is just plain bad writing.
IMO S2 was extremely average. I didn't care about any decisions throughout the game.
The problem is S2 was multiple stories all smashed together into one piece of hard fudge. It came out average.
Its cool, different strokes for different folks.
I liked Season 2 more than Season 1.
I appreciate it. Lots of people don´t take opinions that well.
I like redheads, some people like blonds. Its just personal choice.
Basically.
I´m guessing Bonnie´s a favourite?
I glad people like season 2. It's nice to see that because most people on here didn't like it.
I gotta admit I like season 2. One of the better stories told in 2014 compared to most games I've played, but this is just one very handsome man's opinion.
I, myself liked Season Two. I felt it still had a good story and was overall yet another fantastic experience from Telltale.
It wasn't a bad game by any means, I just didn't feel it lived up to the masterpiece that was Season One.
Just because people didn't like it as much, doesn't make it a bad season. I thought it was one of the better games of 2014.
There were some cons yes, and some that hindered the game, but all in all, I liked it.
It's unusual I know, but I actually find myself agreeing with another member of this forum. Your points were well thought out and put across brilliantly. Rather than the Neanderthal grunting we usually get on here.
I to enjoyed Season Two, but there were a number of faults with it. Obviously much of it has to do with the constant re-writes that went on, and the different approaches the different writers had.
I will say this though. With all the faults, it is far, far superior to anything else brought out this year. The Walking Dead on the whole is still the best game I have ever played bar none.
All I hope for now is that Tell-tale doesn't keep us waiting for Season Three. If they do, then people will lose interest and they will lose money.
Season three will release after GoT and Borderlands finish, alternating with Minecraft.
So we can probably expect those two to release mid - late 2015. Anyone's guess as to which first episode will release first though.
Actually, Lilly is more my type.
I look for those angry mentally abusing type of women, kind of like Lilly. I like a girl with spirit.
We all got our Issues.
It´s not really an issue though, is it? It´s just a personal choice/preference.
Lol! For me, they're so different, I feel perfectly justified in using what sounds like a weak cop-out and saying that I love them equally in different ways.
Fair enough, they are both great in their own way afterall.
Me too. I'm glad I got comments on here from other people who liked the game, not just from a bunch of people telling me I'm wrong.
Lol, cool.
I'm really not much of a gamer at all, so I know this doesn't count for much but both seasons of The Walking Dead are tied for the best game I've ever played.
I agree there were some cons and maybe people focus on those and compare it to Season One too much to really see that, overall, Season Two was a good game in its own right.
CrazyGeorge living up to his name!
it was a joke. What i meant by that is i secretly want a female who mentally abuses me, because i have my own issues.
It's the best game I've ever played too! But I don't play many games, so I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so.
I agree they shouldn't keep us waiting too long. That was one of the problems with Season 2. There were usually about ten weeks in between every two episodes, and people would lose interest or forget what happened in the last episode. But it had to be hard developing 4 games at once and I'm sure it was an extremely difficult balancing act to get the episodes out in a reasonable amount of time without sacrificing too much quality. I'm sure compromises were made. I just hope they're not planning on developing more than two games at a time from now on.
I agree fully with your analysis of the game. I simply wish personally that somehow some way Sarah could have been saved. I know a lot of people who are like that in ways and it would have been cool to be able to save Sarah.
I know. I wished I could have saved Sarah too. Poor Sarah.
But I do appreciate the message her death sent about how being cruel to people only breaks them down further, it doesn't toughen them up. At least, I believe that's the message it sends.
Here's how I would of handled things as far as Nick and Sarah's deaths goes:
If Nick died in A House Divided, Sarah would never fall off the observation deck in Amid The Ruins and you have to pull Jane up either way. Sarah's death in No Going Back would be her taking Luke's place. Luke would be the one that tries to get Clem to save Sarah. If you choose to save her, Clem and Sarah would both go down into the water, and Luke would jump into the water to save them both, but is too late to save Sarah, and the walker still drags Luke down into the icy depths below while Jane pulls Clem out of the water. If Clem chooses to cover Sarah, Luke will try to save Sarah himself, and they both go down. Afterwards, you'd see Sarah banging on the ice and you can her her dead body under water if Clem breaks the ice instead of seeing Luke's body.
If Nick was saved in A House Divided, his offscreen death would never happen. His death would go two ways in Amid The Ruins depending on if you saved Sarah or not. If Sarah is saved at the trailer park, she'll fall off the observation deck and gets pinned underneath the rubble like in the actual episode, except Jane will refuse to save Sarah, even if you do ask her to, which causes Nick to jump down there to save Sarah himself, sacrificing his own life. If Sarah died at the trailer park, Nick would take Sarah's original observation deck death.
Kind of like a domino effect with detriment characters, it would be cool if story-line video games did that more especially Telltale games.
True that, especially the logic used with Sarah's second death, apparently falling down after rubble = buried under rubble.
No need to defend anything. Most people who say S2 sucked are either nitpicking, spoiled due to S1, spoiled in general, or are nostalgiatards. This is a good game.
Well some people just the "everyone dies unexpectedly" thing...