What Would Be Worse for the Series?
A - Season 3 is confirmed, but Amid the Ruin and No Going Back are short, run-of-the-mill, Smoke and Mirrors-tier episodes that don't vary much.
B - The Walking Dead Game ends with Season 2, but Amid the Ruins and No Going Back are complex, diverse, and great episodes with many different endings since they don't have to continue.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
I think I'd honestly prefer A. We might get more time all together if if we get a season three, plus the episodes in season three might be complex, diverse, and great.
I guess B would be worse. It's tough, because it would be a real letdown if episodes 4 and 5 are nothing to write home about, but I'd much rather open up all the opportunities of a 3rd season than end it well with the 2nd.
B would be worse since the first 3 episodes really didn't do this season any favors.
A. I quite enjoy the episodes, even if they are short and somewhat generic (I do prefer longer eps, but I can deal with shorter ones) and I love this game. I don't think I'm ready for it to end just yet.
C. They revive Ben with a voodoo ritual and he kills off the entire cast rendering any possible continuations impossible.
I would prefer B.
I'm not really interested in a possible S3 and seeing as how Amid the Ruins is my most hyped-for episode thus far, I wouldn't want it to be sub-par like All that Remains or In Harm's Way.
I think A would be worse for me. Honestly, if the final two episodes of Season 2 are lacking in quality, I wouldn't be very excited for a Season 3.
A would be worse.
Clementine deserved much better in my eyes, but this season is not yet over. If they can wrap up her story the best they can, I would be more grateful than if they turn out a mediocre conclusion to our girl's journey but announced a DLC episode and a S3. It would be almost as bad as BioWare's message at the end of ME3. [Shudders]
i personally dont expect their to be a season3, maybe we'll get a whole new walking dead story with a whole new group of people but the fact that telltale is working on so many other projects to me says this is the end.
Honestly I think B is worse. I honestly don't want it to end, I don't want a whole new group of people. I just want Clementine. I honestly don't think I'll stop loving TWDG, IMO I don't think Telltale would make THAT crappy of an episode, maybe they're making season 2, kinda worse then season 1 on purpose. Maybe it's going to be an amazing last two episodes. I think Telltale will continue on TWDG for awhile. Considering how it got them all this money, and more spotlight.
I am really hoping for a season 3, where telltale makes longer, more interesting episodes.
I reluctantly think B is worse. Season 2 may be a lost cause, complexity-wise, while Telltale could still learn its lesson for Season 3. Five episodes of a third season with the same amount of character development and hubs and so forth as Season 1 would be very welcome.
But I say reluctantly because if Season 2 ends on such a sour note, I don't know why I would have much enthusiasm for waiting for the next season. I would start to think of Telltale's TWD series as a franchise zombie.
No pun intended.
Perhaps you are right, better a lesson well learned and hope for the future than a definitive end to it all.
In the words of Kenny: "You don't just end it 'cause it's hard..."
A or B depends for me how good SEASON 3 will be. Case in point, I really liked S2 E2 a lot and felt that it built up a lot of potential for episode 3, but I was slightly disappointed with the outcome.
Although I still generally liked E3, I just thought the Clementine/Carver dynamic could have been a little more tense & exciting. I guess I wanted to see, if just for a little while, the possibility that Carver could have swayed Clementine to see his point of view (and how far Clementine went down that dark path depending on player choice.) There would be a limit, but Clem still would have had to make some tough choices in her "undercover" role as Carver's protégé.
Thanks for putting up with my mini-rant! Anyway, if season 3 would be as complex, emotional, and memorable as season 1 then I would prefer A, otherwise B.
Funny thing is, if Season 2 was just the worst thing ever at the end, but Season 3 announced, I'd probably just say: "Well.....okay." And pull out $25.
B is worse. I really can't have it end at season two... i'm not ready to let go!!! x(
Gee, that's a tough choice. I guess I'd rather have A because I want this series to go on for as long as it can. It would have its issues but what series doesn't?
Well said Gluskin.
I agree with choosing B. Nonetheless, it remains but a consolation prize.
Even if the two remaining episodes and finale should somehow prove outstanding, we would still only be able to enjoy them in isolation from the rest of the season, lacking as they are a place in the context of a seamless whole owing to the stark inconsistencies, requiring us to force a suspension of disbelief in our minds to ignore the failings of the previous episodes (the bulk and foundations of the season) in order to force some enjoyment out of playing the last ones. And it would be a weak and partly artificial, if somewhat consoling, dose of gratification as even the most rivetting story climax and resolution ring hollow without a solid foundation and convincing build-up leading up to them.
You cannot suddenly inject strong substance into characters and relationships where there was hardly any to start with and rely even on well-acted and powerful emotion-inducing drama (eg. Clem's final demise) towards the end to make up for it any more than I could rely on the reflexive emotional, empathetic response of somebody who hasn't played the game and to whom I show the first season's final scene to qualify as a satisfactory substitute for the full capacity to respond to that scene and engage it in the case of someone who has played through the entire game, carrying with him the richer and more genuine experience it offers.
As much as I'd like to see the story and characters have a chance to develop further, I'd have to go with quality over quantity.
It'd be great if another season meant learning to balance out what was good about both the first and second seasons, but I don't want to see the the series run into the ground for the sake of making it longer.
Only as strong as the journey... aye.
No, you cannot. I think many people realized this too late. I commented in another thread that In Harm's Way was an eye-opener for many, because of what it represented. We are now halfway through the season, with only two episodes left and a myriad of issues that I believe the majority perceives, even if they are unable (as I was after the season opener) or unwilling to translate those feelings into words here.
I thought my answer to the hypothetical more thoroughly than my actual comment reflects, I tend to do that a lot lately. Thanks for the reply, it is the big "but" that was missing from the comment above.
You're welcome.
I was certain you did. I'm in the same habit of thinking through things thoroughly and covering several angles. It is why I hesitate to post short replies in general, owing to their inability to capture the full idea, and why the result becomes something more along the lines of a tract, with a forum audience's short tolerance for those and the fact that writing in that manner is time consuming providing further cause for hesitation.