Interesting difference between reactions during S1 and S2
So I was on the forums last night per usual, and I noticed this difference about how people talk about S1 deaths, versus how they talk about S2 deaths.
People when they refer to Season 1 deaths always say something along the lines of "I can't believe Lee is dead", or "When Lilly shot Carley, I was so shocked".
Vs.
When people talk about Season 2 deaths they almost always refer to it as Telltale just killing off characters. For example: "Why would they (meaning Telltale) kill Nick like that?" or "I can't believe they killed Sarah like that."
Maybe this means we are viewing deaths in Season 2 more objectively, while we view the deaths of Season 1 more subjectively, letting our emotions sway our opinions more. Thoughts?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
WE NEED SEAN VANAMAN BACK!!
Don't forget Dave Fennoy haha
I think that's because even when a character died in S1, we were always emotional wrecks as we were attached to these characters and each of them had his or her moment to shine.
In S2 however (and Episode 4 in particular) it feels more like cutting down the cast to create drama for drama's sake, deaths are almost immediately marginalized and characters are killed despite the fact that there's no payoff to their arcs which were present in previous episodes (e.g. Sarah). Besides - if characters don't care (Luke about Nick, nobody about Sarah at the observation deck), then why should WE care? Not to mention the fact that most of the characters are undeveloped.
My only problem is that in Season 1 almost every death added something to the story. In Season 2, however, it feels like they're killing them off just because we can't have so many group members by Episode 5. Of course, this is just my opinion.
Now that you mentioned it, some of the Season 2 deaths had no meaning at all.
Sarah died one episode after Carlos, we could barely see the effect of his death on her because of that. Since we couldn't see Sarah's character evolving and nobody got ''affected'' by her death, she died for no reason. (Other than prove that weak people can't survive the apocalypse.)
Also, nobody cared about Nick dying, or just completely forgotten about him afterwards. He did nothing important for the group (As far as i remember.) so he died for no reason.
Exactly, Arthur. When Carlos died I was like "Well, it's sad, but it means more room for development in Sarah's character.". Instead, she dies a day later. Also, what did Nick's death contribute to the story? See, Alvin, Rebecca, and Pete's deaths were very well done in my opinion. Sarah's, Nick's, and Carlos'.. Not so much.
In Season 1 even Mark's death had a reason.
i Really like this season and i hope season 3 will have more Hubs and more Character's development
I don't know that we can use the word "objective" in analysing story elements and the like; there's always going to an element of subjectivity in these kinds of events.
I'm going to have to concur with those who've already given their opinions; even when deaths were abrupt in Season 1, they complemented the narrative well and I can't remember an example where a character with a promising story arc and latent potential was killed off in a way which didn't feel satisfying or positively affect the plot. Carley, Larry, Ben... all well-developed characters, whose deaths were impactful (not only upon the audience but upon other characters) and felt well-integrated, hence their emotive nature. In Season 2, the relatively fast pace and lack of real development for many characters has meant that characters are often thrown away, leaving story arcs unfinished, and there's no time afforded for other characters to grieve or even acknowledge their passing. Often, as with Nick and Sarah's second death, they are lazily-implemented with minimal effort from the developers in terms of dialogue or animation. Even deaths like Pete's and Carlos' which might have had purpose by proxy (affecting Nick and Sarah respectively) are essentially worthless as those characters are eliminated without having been fully developed.
If anything, rather than "letting emotions sway" my opinion over the deaths between seasons, I'll postulate that it's the lack of emotion surrounding the deaths in Season 2 that has often resulted in such responses, which I personally think points to poor storytelling in this season, though there have of course been times when the writing has been more adequate.
I would have been fine with Carlos' death if it meant character development for Sarah, but nope...
I definitely think this is an issue of (some) players not being as attached to the characters of season two as we were in season one. I'm enjoying season two quite a bit, but I was definitely much more invested in the characters from season one simply because we got to know them a lot more than we have the characters in season two. I also very much believe that the lack of hubs is the cause of this problem since we just don't have much of an opportunity to bond with the other characters, and I think it is a shame because if we did season two would be even better than it is.
Me too. As a matter of fact, I thought Carlos' death was a homerun by Telltale until Sarah died. Think about it, he had the perfect death to complement the whole Ceasing-to-function arc. Bam. He was gone and it fell on Sarah like a huge meteor. It could've made for great storyline, but ya know.
I felt like each death in Season 1 had meaning, and even each of the determinant characters helped to change the tailoring of the story. We got the chance to get to know and learn to love characters, their deaths had an impact on the story and other characters, even if they were minor characters that appeared for one episode, they played a somewhat important role in their episode. If you think about it, the characters whose death have upset people in Season 2 are determinant characters. In Season 1 saving either Doug or Carley and choosing to save or kill Ben changed the course of the story, their deaths even differed. Carley would get shot by Lilly out of anger, Doug would get shot by Lilly accidentally. In Season 2 the deaths that are hated on are the determinant deaths, Nick dies off-screen with no actual explanation of how he got stuck on a fence, Sarah is a determinant and dies in the same episode and all past choices with her are regarded as useless, Sarah was wasted potential and only helped to develop Jane's motivation to leave the group. In Season 1, deaths had more meaning, especially determinant deaths, in Season 2 it just feels as though characters just died because their fates were sealed.
Yeah, I agree. It seems impossible to have so many characters, especially while so many of the fans are so in favor of finding even more people from season 1, like Lilly, Molly, and even the whole of the 400 Days group.
In S1, death was very very ground breaking.
But in S2, i think that 2 years into the apocalypse, people are more acceptable to death and are just used to it. That would explain a lot.
this
Time for a long-ass post.
I don't see what people mean when they say that these characters aren't developed. They're plenty developed, and I care for them just as much as any Season 1 character.People say that these characters don't have a personality, did Carley have THAT much personality? No, she's a generic perfect girl, who's only reason for existing is that one part in episode 3. Every character has a story, and you always get moments to learn about them. The only character that really doesn't get any development is Alvin, and that's only if you never talk to him.
"Why aren't these people sad anymore?" Because the spent the last two fucking years seeing all of their other family and friends up and dying, and they know mourning about it isn't going to make things any better. Vernon had this big huge speech about that in episode 4.
"Why aren't we learning about their lives before the apocalypse?" Because that's two years ago! When there are horrible flesh eating corpses roaming around, the last thing I want to talk about is what I did for a living two years ago
And before you say, "Hah. Prove it. Show us how much personality season 2 has." I am.
Let's start with Pete. Pete is the uncle of Nick, and one of Nick's last living family members. While it may be hard sometimes, he truly does love and care for his nephew, and will do anything to protect him. Even bit and dying, all he cares is that Clem helps Nick cope with the loss of the last of his family.His most notable trait, is he is very trusting, and always sees the good in people, and his always wiling to listen. His most noticeable moments of character development is when you first meet up with him and Luke, and the whole river scene, and if you went with him instead of Nick.
Nick is the nephew of Pete and Luke's longtime friend. While he may pretend to be tough, the death of his mother, had very much left him an emotional wreck, and made worse when Pete dies. He may be stubborn, and arrogant but he always means well, even though to some, good intentions doesn't excuse what he did to Matthew. However, when he realizes his actions were wrong, he is VERY quick to apologize. Past the arrogant attitude, he is indeed very sensitive, as shown in several scenes, such as if Clem refuses his apology, when Pete is telling the deer story, and especially after Pete dies. His character development can be seen during his apology, his loss of his will to live in the shed, the scene on the bridge, and the lodge.
Alvin is the husband of Rebecca. Alvin's character is the absolute definition of a "Big ol' nice guy". While he and Rebecca may not always agree, he deeply cares about both Bec, and the baby, and his every action is to keep them safe. Alvin is also rather protective of Clementine, sneaking her both bandages and a box of apple juice, while the others thought she was bitten. And even giving up his life in Carver's camp to make sure she escapes. Alvin has a deep hatred of Carver, a hatred probably only outmatched by Kenny or Rebecca, for claiming that the baby isn't truly his own. His character development can be seen when he gives Clem the bandages and apple juice, and when he sacrifices himself for Clementine.
Carlos is the over protective father of Sarah. Carlos was a doctor long before the apocalypse, making him an almost essential member to any group. While the apocalypse is on going, he does all he can to protect his daughter from the walkers, and becomes angered when ever anyone questions his parenting. Carlos is the one of the few that I'll say, yes. He could have been developed a lot more.
Sarah is the sheltered daughter of Carlos. Due to her over protective father, Sarah has little to no survival skills, and is prone to simply shutting down when things get tense. However, when Clementine met the cabin group, she saw a friend in her. A friend that didn't see her as a baby, but a friend that saw her as an equal. Awed by Clementine's ability to cope to such horrors, she saw Clementine as, a pretty cool person. However, her father never taught her how to defend herself in such a horrible time, which proved a death sentence for her. Scenes of development? Every time she's on screen really. Every conversation is BRIMMING with character, but most people don't notice that because they're to busy going "Ha,ha, she's a dumb ass." Instead of paying attention, and THEN they complain about character development.
I'm gonna finish with Rebecca, yeah, I've still got Luke, but this post is going on WAY to long. I've been spending an hour right now just typing all of this shit. Besides, I think I made my point a LONG time ago.
Rebecca is the wife of Alvin. Her being pregnant has brought about much struggle for the group. While they have to scavenge food and supplies for themselves, they must also pay special attention to Rebecca. While at first cold, Rebecca eventually warms up to Clementine the more she gets to know her. Seeing her as not a stupid kid, but as a very smart, very resourceful little girl. Devastated by Alvin's death, instead of giving up, it gives her more need to carry on, to keep the baby that Alvin should've been with safe. With the help of the whole group, she gives birth to the little boy, that Alvin wished for. Examples of Rebecca's development, can be seen with her talk with Clementine in episode 2 and 3, the end of episode 3, and almost all of episode 4.
Has anyone seen a picture of Dave Fennoy? He looks nothing like Lee, but whenever I see him, all I can see is Lee!
I don't know, but maybe one of the reasons is that many of the characters who died in season 2 were "useless" for the group. Now, before someone starts screaming, I'll explain what I mean by "useless": people who can't shoot or defend themselves in another way because of phisical/mental issues (like Sarah or Rebecca), people who **could ** be useful but are just too impulsive and often pick the wrong decision (Nick), and in general people who needs an 11-years-old girl to make dangerous stuff for them because..because.. damn, why do they need Clem to do everything instead of doing things by themselves ? (I'm looking at you, Bonnie!!!). So, when some of these people die you feel sorry for them, but at the same time you think :"well, maybe the group will have more chances to survive without them". As for Carlos, "the doctor", he wasn't able to tell the differnce from a human bite and a dog one, so I kinda doubt that his medical skills would have been useful XD But I must say that I'm still very sorry for Pete's death, he was both a useful and interesting character.
I'm looking at season 2 characters from a different point of view
after I read all that. Thanks for that
Yes same! And whenever I hear hulu ads I revert to the fetal position and think about Lee while simultaneously crying.
Although i love season 2. I feel like i'm not attached to the characters like i was in season 1, except Clementine of course. I would talk to everybody and make sure they were all right in the first season. But in season 2, i just finish the objective. I much prefer the characters in season 1 to season 2, because there was more development. But i still love both seasons regardless.
Yep, that's exactly how it should be.
Too bad most people are blinded by the ridiculous notion that every single death now results as bad writing.
Not all deaths are bad writing. But killing characters off for no reason is bad writing. Sarita's death was bad writing. Her character was Katjaa 2.0-- except we knew way more about Katjaa than about Sarita. Sarita was blatantly fridged. Nick's death was also bad writing. Granted, he was determinant, and we knew he would die. But in season one, Doug was also determinant, and we got a good amount of character development in before he died, and when he did die, there was an emotional impact. With Nick, it was just "eh, whatever."
Just to note, Jane didn't even search Nick's body like she does to the other walkers which shows how eager they were to get rid of him.
The Season 2 characters aren't as developed as the Season 1 characters. That's why I haven't really cared about half the deaths in Season 2.