Challenged? When something unexpected happens, there must be a reason behind it, otherwise that is a flaw in the story. That reason can come explicitly (for example, through dialogues) or implicitly (through foreshadowing and small, purposely hidden details). What I meant is that too many things don't make sense or feel really forced into the story, and it all comes with no build-up, completely out of the blue. That's NOT the way TellTale handled TWD S1 and TWAU, and I don't think they should've done it to TWD S2 either. Leaving details open for interpretation can be really stupid in some situations.
For example, we CAN assume Lilly had a sort of mental breakdown from witnessing her dad being murdered in front of her and having to leave the motor inn because of the bandit invasion. These events have evidently had an impact on her mental state and ultimately led her to kill Carley out of rage (after being insulted by her) or Doug when trying to shoot Ben because she couldn't think clearly and thought he definitely had to be the traitor.
However, we CAN'T assume Luke fucked Jane because he was grieving over the cabin survivors' deaths and/or feeling physical pain from his injuries: all he said was that 'the world is shit' and that he 'wanted a moment of something else'. Him thinking the world to be shit could refer to many possible problems.
I think what you're trying to say is the fact that we have to painfully justify any stupid moments in stories is what indicates poor writing.
The way how you said it made it sound like you don't like being challenged when it comes to stories.
That's fine you have your right to your own opinion and obviously you have reasons to back it up. We all have our own way of interpreting how the episode went.
I'm sorry but I must disagree: I even re-read everything you've written, but I can't find ONE thing that isn't an assumption with no concret… moree evidence. The way I see it, all your statements are debatable. I'm just saying that the way you've interpreted the story is yet another one of many ways, NONE of which are official.
As I said:
exactly what I think episode 4 consisted of.
My own opinion is that it was bad writing, please understand I am not disregarding yours, it's just that I believe many of the complaints regarding episode 4's writing bring up valid arguments.
Firstly, I would like to state categorically that I do not begrudge you your opinion and that I don't necessarily think that you are "wrong"… more for thinking of Episode 4 as well-written, good quality or meaningful. It would be wrong of me to do anything of the sort and I recognise that this matter is mostly subjective.
However, I feel that I have to respond to the idea that Episode 4 was "better than I thought it was" (I understand that the title was just to grab attention, but that's essentially the gist of the OP as well; that people who didn't like the episode have analysed its elements incorrectly) with wholehearted disagreement.
I don't really want to talk about Clementine's super-strength or what have you because it really didn't seem like a big deal at the time and it doesn't now, to me at any rate. However, I personally think that people are giving Telltale far too much credit with the whole "profound message of futility and the ab… [view original content]
well clementine was a daddy's girl he gave her that hat in season 1 she said her dad built her tree house so maybe they built small magnetism's in their garage my dad was an engineer and my little brother did that with my dad i just smoke pot and make bongs and pipes when i'm not working
I don't think you can just "justify" Nick's death.
So you have a determinant character who the overwhelming majority saved, is a fan-favorite, and one of the best written characters who got shafted in episode 3. What happens? He's killed off in literally the shittiest way. Not only does he die under 20 mins into the episode. He is given no dialogue and dies OFF-SCREEN. No other major character dies like this. The death just reeked of shitty laziness.
It really feels like they should have had Nick killed by Carver for screwing up or trying to be a hero in episode 3. Anything would have been better than the lazy writing they used to off him in Amid the Ruins. Let's say if he was alive he automatically distracts Carver before they flee the compound but gets killed by Carver in the process. Its not perfect. But still more than what he actually got.
idk why people are still arguing about that door thing. It's a damn trailer. Those doors are weak as heck and it was old and made from wood. Do you honestly know how easy it is to kick a door like that down?
And episode 4 was poor and typical. It's overrated.
also at the end of the day it's a zombie game so stop judging it because it's unrealistic. That's foolish and a waste of time.
yeah...youre probably right...but you now what? i don't give a fuck when TWD makes no sensen. I play'ed it to get "Entertained". When Sarah died, i felt sorry and sad. and my exact reaction in my head was "fuck..." btw. I dont wan't to complain about games i Love. I mean i played Borderlands 2 nearly for 1000H and i know its Unbalanced but fuck it, its still one of my top 5 games of all times, so is TWD. Of course you (and all the others of course ) can complain TWD but what good will it bring to you (i luv Jersey Devil btw.)
1) Character development for whom? I agree that Kenny, Rebecca, Luke and, to a degree, Clementine (and Jane, of course) received a fair amount of development but Mike still has next to none and other than a continual restatement of her guilt concerning Carver, Bonnie hasn't really had any either. That's without even touching upon Nick and Sarah.
2) I don't know which elements of "gameplay" you're talking about (quick-time events, choices, etc.) so I can't really make a definite response, but I can't remember anything in the episode which was more substantial than previous episodes, gameplay-wise.
3) I agree that compared to the previous episode, there was slightly more interaction between main characters given that no other characters were present other than Alvin and the Russians near the end, but again this seemed heavily weighted towards certain characters ("Rebecca's not looking too good, Rebecca's baby's coming quick, Kenny seems broken, Jane's untrustworthy") at the cost of potential development for the likes of Bonny and Mike, or real resolution to Nick and Sarah's story arcs following their deaths.
4) I'll argue that the hub worlds we received were insultingly poor attempts by Telltale to give their more vocal fans hub areas without spending an adequate amount of time on them; they were perfect opportunities to actually develop characters or add backstory as in Season 1 (again, Mike and Bonnie spring to mind, since Clementine's yet to learn much of anything about them and the civil war museum was a perfect place to do so) and completely wasted.
5) If by "useless" you mean "not expert survivalists" then I agree. If you mean "useless" because they didn't do anything for the story, then I wholeheartedly disagree. Considering the amount of potential that Sarah and Nick had in previous episodes, and that which Sarah in particular had going into this episode, I think that Telltale was mistaken in killing them off as they did. And even if you think that Telltale was justified in this regard because they needed to focus on Kenny and Luke or the baby or whatever, the way in which Sarah and Nick died was still arguably very poor.
6) Again, I have no idea which puzzle you're referring to but I can't remember anything of the sort from my own playthrough so you'll have to jog my memory if you need stipulation.
I think it's great that you liked the episode, for the record, but I'm afraid that I really don't agree.
* More character development than the previous episodes.
* More gameplay than the previous episodes.
* More character interaction than the… more previous episodes.
* Actual hub worlds.
* All the useless characters are finally gone.
* An actual puzzle that requires some thought.
Episode 4 was awesome.
Actually, she very well could have. And my reason is that there is a part on the door (next to the door nob) where if you kick it, it'll snap the locking mechanism loose from the nob. It's still pretty strong, but I know thats where SWAT typically hit for a "beach and clear."
Not saying Clem is SWAT, but with enough force (three kicks) should be able to break it off. Now if she BROKE DOWN the door, that'd be stupid.
Clementine can't be there to witness EVERYONE'S demise though. My dog past away, and I never even saw him at any time around his final hours. It sucked, but life's shitty like that sometimes, y'know?
I don't think you can just "justify" Nick's death.
So you have a determinant character who the overwhelming majority saved, is a fan-favo… morerite, and one of the best written characters who got shafted in episode 3. What happens? He's killed off in literally the shittiest way. Not only does he die under 20 mins into the episode. He is given no dialogue and dies OFF-SCREEN. No other major character dies like this. The death just reeked of shitty laziness.
''My points for Nick could also be said about Sarah, death happens and Clem's group just did not care enough about Sarah. It's all about survival in TWD and there was absolutely no time to mourn over her death after the deck collapsed since you know... zombie attack.''
ermm after the deck fell there was not a chance the walkers could get up,so where is the zombie attack coming from? i think you being very kind to the poor writing in this episode,if you say it's not poor writing over and over soon you will probably convince yourself.
Now why not have Luke react in a more dramatic way later in the game? Why couldn't Telltale write a heroic death for Nick? these are not the questions you should be asking. You should ask why kill Nick and Sarah in the first place? Telltale is trying to make a point in this game, death happens quick and sudden in the zombie apocalypse and sometimes you can't save everyone no matter how hard you try. You(Clem) have to be prepared for it when the time comes to do what is necessary is what Jane's point is throughout the entire time you spend with her. They use Nick and Sarah's death to prove that point.<
i agree,but i don't think Telltale thought this way and your giving them too much credit,they built up the characters of Sarah and Nick but seemed lost what to do next,usually when you teach someone to fire a gun there will be a payoff,or when you teach someone to be stronger and you will get her through it because you are friends..there will be payoff...NOT slapping the shit out of her causing her to retreat further from the players emotions,the writing of ep 4 was pathetic and like a fan fic,it doesn't make sense,they are using characters that were built up into very likeable characters to be killed off to prove points??? pathetic
To your first argument yes actually the walkers can go up the deck and kill Clem if you wait around long enough. That red outline around your screen has a purpose you know.
To your second argument "Carley will remember that!"
''My points for Nick could also be said about Sarah, death happens and Clem's group just did not care enough about Sarah. It's all about sur… morevival in TWD and there was absolutely no time to mourn over her death after the deck collapsed since you know... zombie attack.''
ermm after the deck fell there was not a chance the walkers could get up,so where is the zombie attack coming from? i think you being very kind to the poor writing in this episode,if you say it's not poor writing over and over soon you will probably convince yourself.
Now why not have Luke react in a more dramatic way later in the game? Why couldn't Telltale write a heroic death for Nick? these are not the questions you should be asking. You should ask why kill Nick and Sarah in the first place? Telltale is trying to make a point in this game, death happens quick and sudden in the zombie apocalypse and sometimes you can't save everyone no matter how hard you try. … [view original content]
Actually, she very well could have. And my reason is that there is a part on the door (next to the door nob) where if you kick it, it'll sna… morep the locking mechanism loose from the nob. It's still pretty strong, but I know thats where SWAT typically hit for a "beach and clear."
Not saying Clem is SWAT, but with enough force (three kicks) should be able to break it off. Now if she BROKE DOWN the door, that'd be stupid.
after the whole deck fell? after Clem (an 11 yr old girl) hit it with the axe ?xDDDD causing the whole deck to fall? ..no they were safe for the night and time to deliver baby alvin.
To your first argument yes actually the walkers can go up the deck and kill Clem if you wait around long enough. That red outline around your screen has a purpose you know.
To your second argument "Carley will remember that!"
If there's anything that Season One taught me, it's that in this kind of setting, character's that you grow attached to can get killed off at any moment and anytime. Yet for some reason, people see this as an example of lazy writing ONLY in Season Two. Why?
When Nick and Sarah got killed off, I reacted just the same as when Chuck, Ben, and Mark got killed off. It sucks cause they were great characters, but just because they were great characters, that doesn't mean that their deaths should be this big, grand thing like with Lee.
The problems that people have with the character deaths in this episode, I can easily find in Season One. Chuck is never mentioned again after Lee finds him the sewers, no one really talks about Mark after leaving the farm in Starved For Help, and Ben? Well, he did get that badass monologue in No Time Left if you saved him, but that's it; the whole episode can go on like he didn't even existed.
These characters barely got a mention after there send offs, but NO ONE talks about how shitty the writing is in those episodes (probably because everyone believes that Season One's so perfect, it could try out for Jesus). If a character gets killed off due to unfortunate circumstances that ultimately lead to their demise, that's not shitty writing. It's good, because these people are put into realistic yet crappy situations.
This is how ALL writing should be. If an unexplained coincidence happens that gets people out of life-threatening trouble, THAT is bad writing. I don't know how else anyone could've written this episode better and honestly for what they had, they did a pretty damn good job. I won't say this episode's perfect, but it's far FAR FAR from fan-fiction bad.
I suppose the fact that he got killed off so quick into the episode that he didn't get a single line besides a grunt is good enough for you? No other character was killed off like this. The only other MAJOR character I remember who got killed off-screen was Chuck. And even then, he had lines before he died, died protecting his group and wasn't just found as a shitty incapacitated walker.
Clementine can't be there to witness EVERYONE'S demise though. My dog past away, and I never even saw him at any time around his final hours. It sucked, but life's shitty like that sometimes, y'know?
Chuck is the only example of a character dying in the same episode and never being mentioned again. Season 1 did have its share of bad writing I agree. But you know what? Chuck and Mark had deaths that mattered. That were shown and had actual impact. Ben gets referenced at the end of Episode 4 which makes Sarah's handling even worse since she gets only a token mention by Jane afterward. Which is even worse than Chuck never being mentioned because they don't have the excuse of Sarah being a homeless man they only knew for less than a day.
Nick gets this. A few lines in episode 3 only to get unceremoniously offed in episode 4 with only one person he was never shown interacting with caring. Not his friend of 20 years who doesn't even seem to remember him. Same with Sarah. Sarah can die right in front of all of them and they don't even react. That is bad writing. Even Mark and Chuck got more than that those two did.
So yeah, Season 1 had its share of bad writing. It wasn't perfect. But it still managed to tell a more coherent story with meaningful choices and a better illusion of choice. Compared to Season 2 where the episodes feel disjointed and barely related while your choices are barely being acknowledged by the other characters.
If there's anything that Season One taught me, it's that in this kind of setting, character's that you grow attached to can get killed off a… moret any moment and anytime. Yet for some reason, people see this as an example of lazy writing ONLY in Season Two. Why?
When Nick and Sarah got killed off, I reacted just the same as when Chuck, Ben, and Mark got killed off. It sucks cause they were great characters, but just because they were great characters, that doesn't mean that their deaths should be this big, grand thing like with Lee.
The problems that people have with the character deaths in this episode, I can easily find in Season One. Chuck is never mentioned again after Lee finds him the sewers, no one really talks about Mark after leaving the farm in Starved For Help, and Ben? Well, he did get that badass monologue in No Time Left if you saved him, but that's it; the whole episode can go on like he didn't even existed.
These character… [view original content]
I don't think that Season One was perfect by any means, but I'm going to argue that it did a far better job in these kinds of situations than the most recent episode of Season Two has done, though of course I respect your differing opinion.
I think the reason that Mark and Chuck's deaths didn't bother people, or at least me to any great extent (Chuck's death was slightly off but then a lot of people think of that episode as the worst of Season One, so it's not exactly as if people IGNORE it), is that there was never really any indication that they were going to have big, sweeping story arcs in episodes to come, or much impact upon the overall plot of the season, which I think WAS the case for Nick and Sarah, both of whom were very well-developed. Chuck was essentially (though admittedly well-done in this capacity) introduced as a means of impressing upon Lee the importance of training up Clementine; he fulfilled this role very well, was no longer necessary and was killed off. I can understand that, and while his death was off-screen it at least didn't feel as out-of-the-blue or wasteful as Nick's death, seeing as he had far more potential as a character going forward than Chuck did. Mark meanwhile was introduced at the start of 'Starved for Help' as someone who had provided food for the group and was later killed off as a means of irony; Mark's still providing food but it's his legs (teehee). As with Chuck, he hadn't been built up as a key character and so his death was by no means "wasteful"; Mark hadn't been developed as if he was going to be a big deal, so his death made sense in the context of the story. This was by no means the case with Nick, and especially not with Sarah, who was most certainly a big deal, with lots to offer to the plot. And no, Mark and Chuck aren't really mentioned again, but then nobody had known either of them for twenty years (which was how long Luke had allegedly known Nick for) and at least the group was shocked when they found Mark legless. Everybody forgets Sarah the moment the baby is born, even Rebecca, who seemed fond of her.
As for Ben, I really can't think of anything at all wrong (personally) with his Episode 5 death; it was tragic, the result of a "crappy situation" and seemed like a fitting end to his story arc, since it afforded Kenny the opportunity to do something selfless for once and was preceded by the "badass monologue" which effectively concluded his arc quite nicely.
I get that you feel differently, but I really DO think it was crappy writing that resulted in many of the events in the story in this episode. It's not so much that Nick and Sarah died, but that the way in which their deaths were scripted were simply slap-dash and lazy; Nick gets no lines and if you saved Sarah then she gets quickly killed off later without any resolution to the whole "Carlos-coddled" arc, or any illusion of choice or personal impact upon the plot, as has been present to some degree so far. I agree that a 'Deus Ex Machina' saviour in either case would have been poor writing, but I maintain that so is killing off promising characters in indolent ways simply because you get tired of animating or writing lines for them, and I will conclude by saying that I have actually read fan fiction death scenes for the two on this forum that have made more sense, been more satisfying, and which have essentially been of far better quality than what Telltale came up with. I don't care about realism if, to attain it, we have to sacrifice good character potential and a cohesive narrative.
If there's anything that Season One taught me, it's that in this kind of setting, character's that you grow attached to can get killed off a… moret any moment and anytime. Yet for some reason, people see this as an example of lazy writing ONLY in Season Two. Why?
When Nick and Sarah got killed off, I reacted just the same as when Chuck, Ben, and Mark got killed off. It sucks cause they were great characters, but just because they were great characters, that doesn't mean that their deaths should be this big, grand thing like with Lee.
The problems that people have with the character deaths in this episode, I can easily find in Season One. Chuck is never mentioned again after Lee finds him the sewers, no one really talks about Mark after leaving the farm in Starved For Help, and Ben? Well, he did get that badass monologue in No Time Left if you saved him, but that's it; the whole episode can go on like he didn't even existed.
These character… [view original content]
Well, I was the minority that saw Nick die at the ski-lodge. But it seems, from what I've heard at least, that him dying off screen was TellTale's way of showing that life ends sometimes without much warning. Hell, you may not even have seen how it happened. I think that's what they were going for (whether that type of lesson was a bust or not is completely subjective).
And although I never cared about Nick, a lot of people obviously did. TellTale saw this as their opportunity to make the community feel like they had been cheated out of Nick's character, like things were hopeless. And at least they accomplished that task.
I suppose the fact that he got killed off so quick into the episode that he didn't get a single line besides a grunt is good enough for you?… more No other character was killed off like this. The only other MAJOR character I remember who got killed off-screen was Chuck. And even then, he had lines before he died, died protecting his group and wasn't just found as a shitty incapacitated walker.
I would say that Nick and Sarah's deaths mattered as well. Nick to show Clem that death happens and you have to be ready for it and be prepared to do what's necessary just like what Jane was teaching her. Sarah taught Clem that you can't save everyone no matter hard you try another point Jane was trying to make. Weather you agree with these points is up to you, but that's what Telltale intended to understand with their deaths.
Chuck is the only example of a character dying in the same episode and never being mentioned again. Season 1 did have its share of bad writi… moreng I agree. But you know what? Chuck and Mark had deaths that mattered. That were shown and had actual impact. Ben gets referenced at the end of Episode 4 which makes Sarah's handling even worse since she gets only a token mention by Jane afterward. Which is even worse than Chuck never being mentioned because they don't have the excuse of Sarah being a homeless man they only knew for less than a day.
Nick gets this. A few lines in episode 3 only to get unceremoniously offed in episode 4 with only one person he was never shown interacting with caring. Not his friend of 20 years who doesn't even seem to remember him. Same with Sarah. Sarah can die right in front of all of them and they don't even react. That is bad writing. Even Mark and Chuck got more than that those two did.
So yeah, Season 1 had it… [view original content]
6) Again, I have no idea which puzzle you're referring to but I can't remember anything of the sort from my own playthrough so you'll have to jog my memory if you need stipulation.
The walker and the horn that you used to attract the small group of walkers in order to reach Luke and Sarah.
1) Character development for whom? I agree that Kenny, Rebecca, Luke and, to a degree, Clementine (and Jane, of course) received a fair amou… morent of development but Mike still has next to none and other than a continual restatement of her guilt concerning Carver, Bonnie hasn't really had any either. That's without even touching upon Nick and Sarah.
2) I don't know which elements of "gameplay" you're talking about (quick-time events, choices, etc.) so I can't really make a definite response, but I can't remember anything in the episode which was more substantial than previous episodes, gameplay-wise.
3) I agree that compared to the previous episode, there was slightly more interaction between main characters given that no other characters were present other than Alvin and the Russians near the end, but again this seemed heavily weighted towards certain characters ("Rebecca's not looking too good, Rebecca's baby's coming quick, Kenny seems b… [view original content]
O yeah I forgot about that puzzle. I figured out very easily, but then watch some Lets Players do that part and it took them a long time to figure it out clicking on everything. Everyone has their own way of playing this game... I guess.
6) Again, I have no idea which puzzle you're referring to but I can't remember anything of the sort from my own playthrough so you'll have t… moreo jog my memory if you need stipulation.
The walker and the horn that you used to attract the small group of walkers in order to reach Luke and Sarah.
I would say that Nick and Sarah's deaths mattered as well. Nick to show Clem that death happens and you have to be ready for it and be prepa… morered to do what's necessary just like what Jane was teaching her. Sarah taught Clem that you can't save everyone no matter hard you try another point Jane was trying to make. Weather you agree with these points is up to you, but that's what Telltale intended to understand with their deaths.
I love TWAU, its so much better than Season 2. I never got into Borderlands. Season 2 is good in my opinion but there are scenes that don't make sense when i try to think about them logically.
yeah...youre probably right...but you now what? i don't give a fuck when TWD makes no sensen. I play'ed it to get "Entertained". When Sarah … moredied, i felt sorry and sad. and my exact reaction in my head was "fuck..." btw. I dont wan't to complain about games i Love. I mean i played Borderlands 2 nearly for 1000H and i know its Unbalanced but fuck it, its still one of my top 5 games of all times, so is TWD. Of course you (and all the others of course ) can complain TWD but what good will it bring to you (i luv Jersey Devil btw.)
1) Character development for whom? I agree that Kenny, Rebecca, Luke and, to a degree, Clementine (and Jane, of course) received a fair amount of development
And that's more in this one episode than the last three combined.
2) I don't know which elements of "gameplay" you're talking about (quick-time events, choices, etc.) so I can't really make a definite response, but I can't remember anything in the episode which was more substantial than previous episodes, gameplay-wise.
Please, go back and replay episodes 2 and 3. Episode 2 had 2 QTEs and "hubs" that could be barely be considered hubs. Episode 3 was even worse in this regard, as there was only 1 hub world, and 2 QTEs. The rest of It was practically like watching a movie. Episode 4 had several QTEs, as already mentioned, actual hubs worlds, more hubs worlds than previous episodes, and an actual puzzle.
4) I'll argue that the hub worlds we received were insultingly poor attempts by Telltale to give their more vocal fans hub areas without spending an adequate amount of time on them; they were perfect opportunities to actually develop characters or add backstory as in Season 1 (again, Mike and Bonnie spring to mind, since Clementine's yet to learn much of anything about them and the civil war museum was a perfect place to do so) and completely wasted.
That's really a matter of opinion, so I'll just say: That's actually an actuate description of episode 2's "hubs".
5) If by "useless" you mean "not expert survivalists" then I agree. If you mean "useless" because they didn't do anything for the story, then I wholeheartedly disagree.
It's both. In season 1, determinant characters played an important role in the story, and when they did die the impact was felt on who was left. In season 2, determinant characters do next to nothing after you save them, and when they die, nobody really gives a shit, even the people who should care about them the most. This is a problem with season 2 as a whole however, not just episode 4.
1) Character development for whom? I agree that Kenny, Rebecca, Luke and, to a degree, Clementine (and Jane, of course) received a fair amou… morent of development but Mike still has next to none and other than a continual restatement of her guilt concerning Carver, Bonnie hasn't really had any either. That's without even touching upon Nick and Sarah.
2) I don't know which elements of "gameplay" you're talking about (quick-time events, choices, etc.) so I can't really make a definite response, but I can't remember anything in the episode which was more substantial than previous episodes, gameplay-wise.
3) I agree that compared to the previous episode, there was slightly more interaction between main characters given that no other characters were present other than Alvin and the Russians near the end, but again this seemed heavily weighted towards certain characters ("Rebecca's not looking too good, Rebecca's baby's coming quick, Kenny seems b… [view original content]
1) Character development for whom? I agree that Kenny, Rebecca, Luke and, to a degree, Clementine (and Jane, of course) received a fair amou… morent of development
And that's more in this one episode than the last three combined.
2) I don't know which elements of "gameplay" you're talking about (quick-time events, choices, etc.) so I can't really make a definite response, but I can't remember anything in the episode which was more substantial than previous episodes, gameplay-wise.
Please, go back and replay episodes 2 and 3. Episode 2 had 2 QTEs and "hubs" that could be barely be considered hubs. Episode 3 was even worse in this regard, as there was only 1 hub world, and 2 QTEs. The rest of It was practically like watching a movie. Episode 4 had several QTEs, as already mentioned, actual hubs worlds, more hubs worlds than previous episodes, and an actual puzzle.
4) I'll argue that the hub worlds we received were insultin… [view original content]
I don't think that Season One was perfect by any means, but I'm going to argue that it did a far better job in these kinds of situations tha… moren the most recent episode of Season Two has done, though of course I respect your differing opinion.
I think the reason that Mark and Chuck's deaths didn't bother people, or at least me to any great extent (Chuck's death was slightly off but then a lot of people think of that episode as the worst of Season One, so it's not exactly as if people IGNORE it), is that there was never really any indication that they were going to have big, sweeping story arcs in episodes to come, or much impact upon the overall plot of the season, which I think WAS the case for Nick and Sarah, both of whom were very well-developed. Chuck was essentially (though admittedly well-done in this capacity) introduced as a means of impressing upon Lee the importance of training up Clementine; he fulfilled this role very well, was no… [view original content]
Oooooooooooooooooooooooh. Okay. To be fair, though it wasn't a particularly difficult puzzle (for me at any rate) it was at least "an actual puzzle" so I shall have to give marccost3 a point for that.
6) Again, I have no idea which puzzle you're referring to but I can't remember anything of the sort from my own playthrough so you'll have t… moreo jog my memory if you need stipulation.
The walker and the horn that you used to attract the small group of walkers in order to reach Luke and Sarah.
Since most of these points are essentially "previous episodes in Season 2 were worse in this regard", I'll try and give a 'blanket' response and say that just because Episode 4 was more substantial than previous episodes in Season 2 in some select ways, doesn't make it automatically an adequate episode. I will agree that there were perhaps MORE hubs and QTEs here than, for instance, Episode 3, but I will again argue that the hubs we received were inadequate, even if there were inadequate hubs in earlier episodes. But I don't see why I should wholeheartedly praise Episode 4 for having slightly more substantial gameplay elements than Episode 3, or 2, when Season 1 had highly-interactive and satisfying hub areas.
I also disagree that there was more substantial character development for everyone than in the last three episodes combined. Or that anything regarding the story in Episode 4 was improved, or adequate, rather than lazy. And I'm afraid I don't understand your last point, since you appear to be admitting that the characters in Season 2 in general have been poorly written and that nobody gives a shit about them when they die, which as you say is a problem with Season 2 as a whole but I'll also argue that if you script the other characters in the episode in such a way that they don't appear to care, and give them lazily-implemented deaths, then that also counts as poor writing, which I think is most attributable to Episode 4. I maintain that I don't think Nick or Sarah were utterly useless in the story, and far more so than Mike or Bonnie have been thus far, and I think that a better script for this episode would have reflected that.
I understand that much of this is a matter of perspective, and that you're not obliged to agree with me, and I should also admit that there was "an actual puzzle" in the episode, which you should get a point for, even if I personally care far more about the story, which I found lacking here, no matter what you thought of previous episodes in Season 2.
1) Character development for whom? I agree that Kenny, Rebecca, Luke and, to a degree, Clementine (and Jane, of course) received a fair amou… morent of development
And that's more in this one episode than the last three combined.
2) I don't know which elements of "gameplay" you're talking about (quick-time events, choices, etc.) so I can't really make a definite response, but I can't remember anything in the episode which was more substantial than previous episodes, gameplay-wise.
Please, go back and replay episodes 2 and 3. Episode 2 had 2 QTEs and "hubs" that could be barely be considered hubs. Episode 3 was even worse in this regard, as there was only 1 hub world, and 2 QTEs. The rest of It was practically like watching a movie. Episode 4 had several QTEs, as already mentioned, actual hubs worlds, more hubs worlds than previous episodes, and an actual puzzle.
4) I'll argue that the hub worlds we received were insultin… [view original content]
Firstly, I would like to state categorically that I do not begrudge you your opinion and that I don't necessarily think that you are "wrong"… more for thinking of Episode 4 as well-written, good quality or meaningful. It would be wrong of me to do anything of the sort and I recognise that this matter is mostly subjective.
However, I feel that I have to respond to the idea that Episode 4 was "better than I thought it was" (I understand that the title was just to grab attention, but that's essentially the gist of the OP as well; that people who didn't like the episode have analysed its elements incorrectly) with wholehearted disagreement.
I don't really want to talk about Clementine's super-strength or what have you because it really didn't seem like a big deal at the time and it doesn't now, to me at any rate. However, I personally think that people are giving Telltale far too much credit with the whole "profound message of futility and the ab… [view original content]
Comments
Challenged? When something unexpected happens, there must be a reason behind it, otherwise that is a flaw in the story. That reason can come explicitly (for example, through dialogues) or implicitly (through foreshadowing and small, purposely hidden details). What I meant is that too many things don't make sense or feel really forced into the story, and it all comes with no build-up, completely out of the blue. That's NOT the way TellTale handled TWD S1 and TWAU, and I don't think they should've done it to TWD S2 either. Leaving details open for interpretation can be really stupid in some situations.
For example, we CAN assume Lilly had a sort of mental breakdown from witnessing her dad being murdered in front of her and having to leave the motor inn because of the bandit invasion. These events have evidently had an impact on her mental state and ultimately led her to kill Carley out of rage (after being insulted by her) or Doug when trying to shoot Ben because she couldn't think clearly and thought he definitely had to be the traitor.
However, we CAN'T assume Luke fucked Jane because he was grieving over the cabin survivors' deaths and/or feeling physical pain from his injuries: all he said was that 'the world is shit' and that he 'wanted a moment of something else'. Him thinking the world to be shit could refer to many possible problems.
That's fine you have your right to your own opinion and obviously you have reasons to back it up. We all have our own way of interpreting how the episode went.
Amen brother/sister. Amen. Episode 4 was a mess.
well clementine was a daddy's girl he gave her that hat in season 1 she said her dad built her tree house so maybe they built small magnetism's in their garage my dad was an engineer and my little brother did that with my dad i just smoke pot and make bongs and pipes when i'm not working
I don't think you can just "justify" Nick's death.
So you have a determinant character who the overwhelming majority saved, is a fan-favorite, and one of the best written characters who got shafted in episode 3. What happens? He's killed off in literally the shittiest way. Not only does he die under 20 mins into the episode. He is given no dialogue and dies OFF-SCREEN. No other major character dies like this. The death just reeked of shitty laziness.
It really feels like they should have had Nick killed by Carver for screwing up or trying to be a hero in episode 3. Anything would have been better than the lazy writing they used to off him in Amid the Ruins. Let's say if he was alive he automatically distracts Carver before they flee the compound but gets killed by Carver in the process. Its not perfect. But still more than what he actually got.
idk why people are still arguing about that door thing. It's a damn trailer. Those doors are weak as heck and it was old and made from wood. Do you honestly know how easy it is to kick a door like that down?
And episode 4 was poor and typical. It's overrated.
also at the end of the day it's a zombie game so stop judging it because it's unrealistic. That's foolish and a waste of time.
Episode 4 was awesome.
yeah...youre probably right...but you now what? i don't give a fuck when TWD makes no sensen. I play'ed it to get "Entertained". When Sarah died, i felt sorry and sad. and my exact reaction in my head was "fuck..." btw. I dont wan't to complain about games i Love. I mean i played Borderlands 2 nearly for 1000H and i know its Unbalanced but fuck it, its still one of my top 5 games of all times, so is TWD. Of course you (and all the others of course
) can complain TWD but what good will it bring to you (i luv Jersey Devil btw.)
1) Character development for whom? I agree that Kenny, Rebecca, Luke and, to a degree, Clementine (and Jane, of course) received a fair amount of development but Mike still has next to none and other than a continual restatement of her guilt concerning Carver, Bonnie hasn't really had any either. That's without even touching upon Nick and Sarah.
2) I don't know which elements of "gameplay" you're talking about (quick-time events, choices, etc.) so I can't really make a definite response, but I can't remember anything in the episode which was more substantial than previous episodes, gameplay-wise.
3) I agree that compared to the previous episode, there was slightly more interaction between main characters given that no other characters were present other than Alvin and the Russians near the end, but again this seemed heavily weighted towards certain characters ("Rebecca's not looking too good, Rebecca's baby's coming quick, Kenny seems broken, Jane's untrustworthy") at the cost of potential development for the likes of Bonny and Mike, or real resolution to Nick and Sarah's story arcs following their deaths.
4) I'll argue that the hub worlds we received were insultingly poor attempts by Telltale to give their more vocal fans hub areas without spending an adequate amount of time on them; they were perfect opportunities to actually develop characters or add backstory as in Season 1 (again, Mike and Bonnie spring to mind, since Clementine's yet to learn much of anything about them and the civil war museum was a perfect place to do so) and completely wasted.
5) If by "useless" you mean "not expert survivalists" then I agree. If you mean "useless" because they didn't do anything for the story, then I wholeheartedly disagree. Considering the amount of potential that Sarah and Nick had in previous episodes, and that which Sarah in particular had going into this episode, I think that Telltale was mistaken in killing them off as they did. And even if you think that Telltale was justified in this regard because they needed to focus on Kenny and Luke or the baby or whatever, the way in which Sarah and Nick died was still arguably very poor.
6) Again, I have no idea which puzzle you're referring to but I can't remember anything of the sort from my own playthrough so you'll have to jog my memory if you need stipulation.
I think it's great that you liked the episode, for the record, but I'm afraid that I really don't agree.
Actually, she very well could have. And my reason is that there is a part on the door (next to the door nob) where if you kick it, it'll snap the locking mechanism loose from the nob. It's still pretty strong, but I know thats where SWAT typically hit for a "beach and clear."
Not saying Clem is SWAT, but with enough force (three kicks) should be able to break it off. Now if she BROKE DOWN the door, that'd be stupid.
Clementine can't be there to witness EVERYONE'S demise though. My dog past away, and I never even saw him at any time around his final hours. It sucked, but life's shitty like that sometimes, y'know?
ermm after the deck fell there was not a chance the walkers could get up,so where is the zombie attack coming from? i think you being very kind to the poor writing in this episode,if you say it's not poor writing over and over soon you will probably convince yourself.
i agree,but i don't think Telltale thought this way and your giving them too much credit,they built up the characters of Sarah and Nick but seemed lost what to do next,usually when you teach someone to fire a gun there will be a payoff,or when you teach someone to be stronger and you will get her through it because you are friends..there will be payoff...NOT slapping the shit out of her causing her to retreat further from the players emotions,the writing of ep 4 was pathetic and like a fan fic,it doesn't make sense,they are using characters that were built up into very likeable characters to be killed off to prove points??? pathetic
To your first argument yes actually the walkers can go up the deck and kill Clem if you wait around long enough. That red outline around your screen has a purpose you know.
To your second argument "Carley will remember that!"
Brother, haha
Yeah, my five year old nephew can kick down a door too, they weigh about the same size. Its totally possible!
after the whole deck fell? after Clem (an 11 yr old girl) hit it with the axe ?xDDDD causing the whole deck to fall? ..no they were safe for the night and time to deliver baby alvin.
If there's anything that Season One taught me, it's that in this kind of setting, character's that you grow attached to can get killed off at any moment and anytime. Yet for some reason, people see this as an example of lazy writing ONLY in Season Two. Why?
When Nick and Sarah got killed off, I reacted just the same as when Chuck, Ben, and Mark got killed off. It sucks cause they were great characters, but just because they were great characters, that doesn't mean that their deaths should be this big, grand thing like with Lee.
The problems that people have with the character deaths in this episode, I can easily find in Season One. Chuck is never mentioned again after Lee finds him the sewers, no one really talks about Mark after leaving the farm in Starved For Help, and Ben? Well, he did get that badass monologue in No Time Left if you saved him, but that's it; the whole episode can go on like he didn't even existed.
These characters barely got a mention after there send offs, but NO ONE talks about how shitty the writing is in those episodes (probably because everyone believes that Season One's so perfect, it could try out for Jesus). If a character gets killed off due to unfortunate circumstances that ultimately lead to their demise, that's not shitty writing. It's good, because these people are put into realistic yet crappy situations.
This is how ALL writing should be. If an unexplained coincidence happens that gets people out of life-threatening trouble, THAT is bad writing. I don't know how else anyone could've written this episode better and honestly for what they had, they did a pretty damn good job. I won't say this episode's perfect, but it's far FAR FAR from fan-fiction bad.
I suppose the fact that he got killed off so quick into the episode that he didn't get a single line besides a grunt is good enough for you? No other character was killed off like this. The only other MAJOR character I remember who got killed off-screen was Chuck. And even then, he had lines before he died, died protecting his group and wasn't just found as a shitty incapacitated walker.
Chuck is the only example of a character dying in the same episode and never being mentioned again. Season 1 did have its share of bad writing I agree. But you know what? Chuck and Mark had deaths that mattered. That were shown and had actual impact. Ben gets referenced at the end of Episode 4 which makes Sarah's handling even worse since she gets only a token mention by Jane afterward. Which is even worse than Chuck never being mentioned because they don't have the excuse of Sarah being a homeless man they only knew for less than a day.
Nick gets this. A few lines in episode 3 only to get unceremoniously offed in episode 4 with only one person he was never shown interacting with caring. Not his friend of 20 years who doesn't even seem to remember him. Same with Sarah. Sarah can die right in front of all of them and they don't even react. That is bad writing. Even Mark and Chuck got more than that those two did.
So yeah, Season 1 had its share of bad writing. It wasn't perfect. But it still managed to tell a more coherent story with meaningful choices and a better illusion of choice. Compared to Season 2 where the episodes feel disjointed and barely related while your choices are barely being acknowledged by the other characters.
I don't think that Season One was perfect by any means, but I'm going to argue that it did a far better job in these kinds of situations than the most recent episode of Season Two has done, though of course I respect your differing opinion.
I think the reason that Mark and Chuck's deaths didn't bother people, or at least me to any great extent (Chuck's death was slightly off but then a lot of people think of that episode as the worst of Season One, so it's not exactly as if people IGNORE it), is that there was never really any indication that they were going to have big, sweeping story arcs in episodes to come, or much impact upon the overall plot of the season, which I think WAS the case for Nick and Sarah, both of whom were very well-developed. Chuck was essentially (though admittedly well-done in this capacity) introduced as a means of impressing upon Lee the importance of training up Clementine; he fulfilled this role very well, was no longer necessary and was killed off. I can understand that, and while his death was off-screen it at least didn't feel as out-of-the-blue or wasteful as Nick's death, seeing as he had far more potential as a character going forward than Chuck did. Mark meanwhile was introduced at the start of 'Starved for Help' as someone who had provided food for the group and was later killed off as a means of irony; Mark's still providing food but it's his legs (teehee). As with Chuck, he hadn't been built up as a key character and so his death was by no means "wasteful"; Mark hadn't been developed as if he was going to be a big deal, so his death made sense in the context of the story. This was by no means the case with Nick, and especially not with Sarah, who was most certainly a big deal, with lots to offer to the plot. And no, Mark and Chuck aren't really mentioned again, but then nobody had known either of them for twenty years (which was how long Luke had allegedly known Nick for) and at least the group was shocked when they found Mark legless. Everybody forgets Sarah the moment the baby is born, even Rebecca, who seemed fond of her.
As for Ben, I really can't think of anything at all wrong (personally) with his Episode 5 death; it was tragic, the result of a "crappy situation" and seemed like a fitting end to his story arc, since it afforded Kenny the opportunity to do something selfless for once and was preceded by the "badass monologue" which effectively concluded his arc quite nicely.
I get that you feel differently, but I really DO think it was crappy writing that resulted in many of the events in the story in this episode. It's not so much that Nick and Sarah died, but that the way in which their deaths were scripted were simply slap-dash and lazy; Nick gets no lines and if you saved Sarah then she gets quickly killed off later without any resolution to the whole "Carlos-coddled" arc, or any illusion of choice or personal impact upon the plot, as has been present to some degree so far. I agree that a 'Deus Ex Machina' saviour in either case would have been poor writing, but I maintain that so is killing off promising characters in indolent ways simply because you get tired of animating or writing lines for them, and I will conclude by saying that I have actually read fan fiction death scenes for the two on this forum that have made more sense, been more satisfying, and which have essentially been of far better quality than what Telltale came up with. I don't care about realism if, to attain it, we have to sacrifice good character potential and a cohesive narrative.
All you illiterate lazy assholes are so annoying. Either read the damn post, or just leave the thread.
Well, I was the minority that saw Nick die at the ski-lodge. But it seems, from what I've heard at least, that him dying off screen was TellTale's way of showing that life ends sometimes without much warning. Hell, you may not even have seen how it happened. I think that's what they were going for (whether that type of lesson was a bust or not is completely subjective).
And although I never cared about Nick, a lot of people obviously did. TellTale saw this as their opportunity to make the community feel like they had been cheated out of Nick's character, like things were hopeless. And at least they accomplished that task.
I would say that Nick and Sarah's deaths mattered as well. Nick to show Clem that death happens and you have to be ready for it and be prepared to do what's necessary just like what Jane was teaching her. Sarah taught Clem that you can't save everyone no matter hard you try another point Jane was trying to make. Weather you agree with these points is up to you, but that's what Telltale intended to understand with their deaths.
The walker and the horn that you used to attract the small group of walkers in order to reach Luke and Sarah.
O yeah I forgot about that puzzle. I figured out very easily, but then watch some Lets Players do that part and it took them a long time to figure it out clicking on everything. Everyone has their own way of playing this game... I guess.
I get the point they were trying to make. It was just poorly written and forced.
I love TWAU, its so much better than Season 2. I never got into Borderlands. Season 2 is good in my opinion but there are scenes that don't make sense when i try to think about them logically.
And that's more in this one episode than the last three combined.
Please, go back and replay episodes 2 and 3. Episode 2 had 2 QTEs and "hubs" that could be barely be considered hubs. Episode 3 was even worse in this regard, as there was only 1 hub world, and 2 QTEs. The rest of It was practically like watching a movie. Episode 4 had several QTEs, as already mentioned, actual hubs worlds, more hubs worlds than previous episodes, and an actual puzzle.
That's really a matter of opinion, so I'll just say: That's actually an actuate description of episode 2's "hubs".
It's both. In season 1, determinant characters played an important role in the story, and when they did die the impact was felt on who was left. In season 2, determinant characters do next to nothing after you save them, and when they die, nobody really gives a shit, even the people who should care about them the most. This is a problem with season 2 as a whole however, not just episode 4.
I agree with your last point. I mean, where is the emotion?! : /
You explained the situation pretty good! Have a like!
Oooooooooooooooooooooooh. Okay. To be fair, though it wasn't a particularly difficult puzzle (for me at any rate) it was at least "an actual puzzle" so I shall have to give marccost3 a point for that.
Amen!
Since most of these points are essentially "previous episodes in Season 2 were worse in this regard", I'll try and give a 'blanket' response and say that just because Episode 4 was more substantial than previous episodes in Season 2 in some select ways, doesn't make it automatically an adequate episode. I will agree that there were perhaps MORE hubs and QTEs here than, for instance, Episode 3, but I will again argue that the hubs we received were inadequate, even if there were inadequate hubs in earlier episodes. But I don't see why I should wholeheartedly praise Episode 4 for having slightly more substantial gameplay elements than Episode 3, or 2, when Season 1 had highly-interactive and satisfying hub areas.
I also disagree that there was more substantial character development for everyone than in the last three episodes combined. Or that anything regarding the story in Episode 4 was improved, or adequate, rather than lazy. And I'm afraid I don't understand your last point, since you appear to be admitting that the characters in Season 2 in general have been poorly written and that nobody gives a shit about them when they die, which as you say is a problem with Season 2 as a whole but I'll also argue that if you script the other characters in the episode in such a way that they don't appear to care, and give them lazily-implemented deaths, then that also counts as poor writing, which I think is most attributable to Episode 4. I maintain that I don't think Nick or Sarah were utterly useless in the story, and far more so than Mike or Bonnie have been thus far, and I think that a better script for this episode would have reflected that.
I understand that much of this is a matter of perspective, and that you're not obliged to agree with me, and I should also admit that there was "an actual puzzle" in the episode, which you should get a point for, even if I personally care far more about the story, which I found lacking here, no matter what you thought of previous episodes in Season 2.
Really well written. Thank you.
You mean Jane?