Things are now just being blown out of proportion
Fucking hell... This forum's tearing Mark Darin and Jason Latino apart for not breaking into some kind of full-blown argument during a casual IGN interview, which is ridiculous. While I'm not in agreement with Greg Miller at all I fully understand the reaction of the writers; They never claimed to dislike Sarah, but simply acknowledged Greg's thoughts and compared that to what the rest of the player-base seemed to think as well as employees at the office.
The focus of the interview was ultimately on the choices within the episode so can you really blame them for not going on a tangent regarding whether it's justifiable to hate Sarah or not? If I were in their position I certainly wouldn't. I'd just be glad that one of my characters was eliciting different responses from players and accept their opinions on said character, without being unnecessarily argumentative.
The amount of people intent on starting witch-hunts and hating on Telltale in general because of their vision for the story is frankly sickening. It's fine if you're constructive but if you're to have a solid foundation for an argument then you need to stop clutching at straws and make valid points. Mark Darin and Jason Latino aren't monsters for not acting the way you personally would have in that interview.
Comments
One thing we can ALL Agree on is...
Fuck Greg Miller.
Wait, you're asking if people have a sense of proportion on the internet?
Greg went on a ginormous tangent about his hatred for Sarah. His whole argument literally was "I laughed when she died because she sucks." And Telltale went along with that.
Telltale's employees reflect their company as a whole, and for them to sit there and laugh and agree with him instead of making a move to defend their own character was just not cool. Not even addressing how people are offended by it, from a purely writing standpoint, it's like Greg was saying "LOL Your character was useless and pointless to the plot and I'm glad she's gone" and they went "Yeah, pretty much, haha!"
I'd say they were acting professional by not indulging him. They quickly laughed and wanted to move on to another topic... Better they do that than start arguing about the ethics behind Greg's personal thoughts, which obviously no one gives a shit about.
People seem to be acting as if Telltale went and publicly declared Sarah and Nick as liabilities, but they really did nothing of the sort. Hell, maybe they're just a socially awkward couple of guys and didn't want to go through the bother of that kind of deep discussion with someone who's blatantly egotistic, which in my opinion would be understandable.
It's hard to say what Darin and Latino think of the characters they've helped design... We can't determine their judgement simply from something they didn't bother to say during some shite IGN interview.
JK Simmons is legendary and that GIF made me laugh, cheers. But yeah... I'm probably asking too much from people.
But seriously, fuck Greg..
It's understandable that people get upset when people trash a character when they feel like they can relate to that character. The insults feel meant for them because they feel like the type of person they are is getting trashed. While not disagreeing with someone is not the same as agreeing with them, it's still not disagreeing with them. Ergo, the type of person that is being mocked it a joke to be laughed it.
It's not their job to defend people's honor. It can be disappointing to certain when they don't, but it shouldn't be expected that they do. I can understand why people feel like Miller is a prick. At the end of the day, people will have different opinions and certain opinions will get under people's skins. The best thing to do is to not validate that person by getting offended and not supporting that person by watching his show. If you feel like Telltale doesn't appreciate the type of person that you are, then don't buy their games. At the end of the day, those are the most realistic expectations that you have at voicing your displeasure. Otherwise, people will just look at you as oversensitive and ignore you.
But they didn't just indulge him and then move on, they talked about Sarah for quite some time. The only positive thing they have to say about her is that it was "interesting" that the choice to save her was split. They said some of their own employees couldn't wait to kill her. And then laughed at the fact that you can finally have the "satisfaction" of slapping her, but you have to save her in order to do that, what a bummer! Does this really show any investment or respect whatsoever to their own character?
I agree that they did react awkwardly to Greg's first outburst of "Fuck Sarah, man!" but they only stopped to ask his opinion why, and afterwards did nothing further to question him. They continued to punctuate his points with nods and "right, right", with no defense or opposing view.
Mark Darin even specifically says at 5:30 "the right thing to do is I can't save her, it's going to be a danger". So the only possible way they want her to be portrayed is "a danger", and for it to be "right" when she dies. They specifically intended Sarah to be seen as nothing more than a liability.
You can go back and watch the first bit of the interview yourself to see what I mean.
The fact that people are being offended is not the only reason people are making this a big deal. I disagree: as a writer, it IS your job to defend your character's honor.
Sean Vanaman, lead writer of season 1, had an interview where he explained his writing process in response to a character being hated. You can see the full interview here but it's very long
Sean explains that they responded to character hate by trying to figure out how THEY failed in the writing, and how to make it stronger.
(I would upload gifs of it but they're not working. See them on the forum here http://www.telltalegames.com/community/discussion/comment/1457554#Comment_1457554)
None of Telltale's characters exist with such a one-sided view. (Except in s2, where Carver pretty much only exists to be hated and as a result ends up very underwhelming.) We have such an emotional investment and response to the story because there were always to sides to everything, and the writers make the characters feel that much more real when everything is not black and white.
Their recent treatment of Sarah's character is just yet another area where this season has fallen flat.
I don't think it's fair to claim that they only wanted her portrayed as a danger. Why would they want to make choices regarding her character insanely one-sided? It's clear they specifically designed her to induce sympathy but people like Greg Miller lack the intelligence and empathy to identify that. The player has to decide whether it's worth saving her life and potentially training her into a worthy survivor at the risk of getting others killed... Much like the Season 1 Ben bell-tower choice.
Jason and Mark were clearly intrigued by Greg's unwarranted hate, and they questioned him on that. They then closely listened to his opinion and gave some of their thoughts on the decision to save Sarah. Jason stated that it was practically the right decision, but also ethically unacceptable and that he found it exciting to see people struggle with the choice. They remained entirely neutral on the matter, and from what was said I think it's clear they saw the reasoning behind both possible decisions.
I'm quite sure they just wanted to maintain their integrity rather than delve into an off-topic debate revolving around morals. They may have chuckled about Sarah haters being conflicted between the options of slapping her or leaving her, but that doesn't mean they dislike the character or support such viewpoints. Also, as someone who's pretty damn socially awkward I don't think I'd have wanted to pull apart Greg's view in their position. You've gotta cut them a bit of slack.
Why?
That was Mark Darin's exact words, "the right thing to do is I can't save her, it's going to be a danger". That's a quote, not my own interpretation.
I don't remember anyone ever giving any indication that it was "ethically unacceptable". Morals weren't really discussed at all.
Towards Sarah's character, they were silent in their defense, and active in the offense. To me, that's pretty clear.
People who are need to get lives, seriously.
Oops, confused Mark Darin and Jason Latino, lol.
But Mark doesn't say that all. Right from 5:09 he talks specifically about how it was a tough decision and that there were lots of people who chose either option.
These are his exact words;
"You're making this big decision to let somebody die... You know it's kinda the right decision, but it's also morally the wrong decision and it's a really tough place to be in so it's been exciting to see how all the people struggle with that and to see how it's split is really cool. People aren't just saying 'Well, I'm playing a video game and I'm trying to save everyone no matter what.' There are just as many people saying 'The right thing to do is... I can't save her. And that's going to be a danger.'"
He never states his own opinion on the matter. He discusses the playerbase.
Anyone else think this is the last interview Telltale will give Greg Miller. LOL
Ok, I didn't pay enough attention to that part so you're right that he does touch on the moral situation.
But he directly says
His statement still points out that according to the game, the "correct" decision is to abandon her. Even if he is not directly being offensive in this statement, he is affirming that the game itself is portraying this offensive view: that anyone who is "weak" or "useless" should be left behind and has no hope or purpose to live.
They still did not directly defend her being badmouthed as a character, at best she was reduced to a tool to judge whether or not you've kept your morals. She should not have been reduced to that, it was lazy and wasteful to build her up and then dump her like that for no reason.
Rebecca: "That would be lucky."
This thread just saved my life. A rational forum user. Amazing.
Well, for me it's hard to deny that leaving her was the most practical way of dealing with the situation. Attempting to save her at that moment was directly risking the lives of Clem, Jane and Luke so you could easily argue it was the correct decision. It's not what I chose, but it's absolutely fine for the narrative to try and persuade me to. It makes me challenge my judgement on whether it's ethical to abandon a 15 year old sheltered girl simply because she's endangering others.
The fact the game is provoking this kind of thought is a success on the part of the writers, surely not a failure. I do agree that more could have been done with Sarah and Nick but them dying in the way they did emphasizes the sheer brutality of The Walking Dead universe. I'd probably roll my eyes if they both died in a more dramatic manner, but I simply don't know. I'm satisfied with what we got at any rate.
No, Mark and Jason didn't stubbornly defend Sarah's honour, but they certainly didn't attack her either. I don't think it's fair for anyone to say that they don't care about their characters... There's not enough evidence to suggest that. If they actually joined in on Greg's little rant then I'd agree with you, but they didn't.
Because what he said about Sarah.
Hehe, well, giant bandwagons irritate me... Especially ones that seem to be concocted out of thin air. I don't mind and encourage people making constructive threads regarding Season 2 and Telltale's flaws but I do mind when people are negatively picking at absolutely every move Telltale makes. It's disrespectful.
Sadly, there are not many forum users like you and that feel the same way.
But there was no other side to this. It used to be that those who chose to abandon the weak members of the group were the bad guys. But now, suddenly the ones who don't want to accept this are being told that we are the wrong ones. It's no longer treated as a tragedy, instead it is a relief to be rid of these "liabilities".
I've been through this argument so many times.
The Walking Dead Game =/= Zombie Realism Simulator. This is not real life, it is a story. Characters have meaning, they have consequence to the themes and to the plot, they have purposeful buildup and importance. They are not suddenly dropped with no emotion or consequence, with the only explanation being "welp that's life."
As far as I'm concerned, they pretty much did though. They pointed out that it was funny that the only way to save her included an option to slap her, catering to the people who hated her. They were basically saying "too bad you can't both slap her and leave her behind." It's like they didn't even think about how inaccurate or disrespectful it was to their own character, let alone to the Sarah fans.
They laughed along to his tirade that he hated Sarah, that she "sucks". making no move to defend their own writing. They agreed with him that she deserved to die simply because she "was still not normal". There has been nothing to suggest that they did care about her, but multiple things suggesting that they didn't.
Clem is clearly traumatized by leaving Sarah if you choose to do so and some really hard-hitting music kicks in. Luke ponders on whether it was the right choice and everyone seems uneasy. It most definitely is treated as a tragedy, but depending on your viewpoint it could provide a sense of relief as well.
The Walking Dead Game =/= Zombie Realism Simulator. This is not real life, it is a story. Characters have meaning, they have consequence to the themes and to the plot, they have purposeful buildup and importance. They are not suddenly dropped with no emotion or consequence, with the only explanation being "welp that's life."
I never claimed The Walking Dead universe was reality. Sarah and Nick are by no means dropped with no emotion or consequence... Take a glance at the forums, take a glance at what you're writing... There's undeniably been a metric fuckton of emotion. I was personally distraught after seeing Sarah's death under the deck in particular, and Nick's death was a shock.
And yes, while fictional characters in both literature and media need to be larger in life in order to be interesting, there's a defined fine line between giving a satisfying, purposeful end to a character and then just being plain overdramatic. Sarah and Nick's deaths served the purpose of making the player realize that this world Clem's living in isn't going to get any easier... There aren't always last words. There aren't always goodbyes and there isn't always redemption.
If Sarah overcame her anxiety and became Clem's little sidekick that'd be cheesy and too good to be true. If Nick overcame his depression and sacrificed himself for the group that'd also be cheesy. Maybe the deaths could have been done better. But then maybe Darth Vader's death at the end of Return of the Jedi could have been done better. Maybe Mark's death in Season 1 could have been done better... You could say that about anything, but what Telltale have delivered satisfied me. It was poignant and it drove the plot's meaning home.
Well, that's as far as you're concerned. Don't slander them simply because they gave you a certain vibe... As far as I'm concerned they were just being good guests and were friendly with their host despite his obnoxiousness which is admirable. Greg Miller would be hard to deal with.
They had no reason to defend their writing to him. It would have been distasteful and out of place as I've said... They instead took the most informative approach for the audience and compared Greg's opinion to everyone else's. It seems they chuckled at the slapping ordeal because the way in which people reacted to that option amused them, which is perfectly understandable. I also found humour in the fact that some of those who disliked Sarah saved her just so they could receive the satisfaction of essentially assaulting her. It's amusing albeit pathetic
EDIT: I'm off to sleep now. 3AM in the UK. Thanks for arguing with me logically and not being an asshole.
Fuck Sarah , hope she's burning in hell along side that bum nick
Sarah was the worst and also not normal
You just enraged almost everyone on the forums
I have gone through the exact same arguments many times so far in the forum, so I'm just going to copy paste my relevant answers (italics are where it's copy-pasted)
I agree that Sarah's first death is treated at least with the semblance of emotional weight/purpose to the story. But besides Clem's expression and the music, there is nothing in the writing that acknowledges Sarah's death as a tragedy in itself, or a logical end to a character arc. Instead, Sarah's death was not about her own resolution, it was all about Jane and Luke's reactions, and about this sudden new plot about people apparently being "not made for this world".
After [leaving Jane], Luke says "I didn't think you'd leave her." Clem's answers are "we didnt have a choice", "you left her too", or "what was I supposed to do". There is no option or dialogue to express that Sarah was Clem's friend, or that she is sad that she died, nothing to indicate that her death was meant to be harrowing or tragic. "What was I supposed to do", the most emotional reply, is an expression of frustration, not sadness.
Her death is never treated as the logical and emotional end to a developed arc, instead it feels more like an expression of frustration and futility. It seems more like it was just crammed in at the last minute by writers who didn't understand who this character was supposed to be or what she was supposed to represent in the first place.
[When] Jane starts in with her speech about her sister, and how neither of them couldn't make it in this world. Luke then agrees, "I guess there was nothing we could do." Clem's responses to this idea are "I thought I could trust you" or "would you leave me behind?". This makes the issue all about JANE, and not Sarah. There is nothing to indicate that this was supposed to be about the tragic loss of a young girl at the cost of our own morality. Nothing to indicate that the characters are grieving for her loss, instead it's all about them. And the most emotion that they show is remorse that they "might have been able to try harder".
I disagree. We're not upset that these characters died. We're upset that they died and nobody cared. Their deaths were pointless to the story, they only minimally affected any of the characters; at best they only served to reflect weak themes that only show up in episode 4. Their deaths don't have a strong purpose; they just happen, with minimal reactions or significance in the story.
Nick was one of episode 1 and 2's most developed characters, several major decisions revolved around him, the majority of fans saved him, and he was one of the most talked-about characters in the fanbase. In response to this, Telltale thinks it's a good idea to give him no further involvement and then kill him offscreen and leave him stuck on a fence? His treatment is a disservice both to to fans and to prior writing which built him to have a purposeful if not happy [or heroic] ending. Instead, he has no purpose at all, he's suddenly just dead and then we move on, and he is forgotten.
As for Sarah's death, I was struck not by emotion or tragedy, but at how bad the writing was. Suddenly we're defying the laws of physics and Sarah ends up underneath the deck she had been previously been standing on. Suddenly Jane is the only person with the power to help Sarah, but she is unable to save her because a random plank smacks her in the face.
*Regardless of whether or not you previously made friends with Sarah, no one -not even Clem- expresses sadness [at this second] death. Every response after Jane fails to save her is focused on Jane, and not the person who just was just eaten alive. You can say "I know you tried," or "It was hopeless", or "You didn't try hard enough."
There is no "Sarah was my friend", no option to give a shit. Nobody cares, and then before you know it we're supposed to forget all about it, and move on to a heartwarming scene with Rebecca's new baby, celebrating sisterly bonds, while the corpse of an innocent girl rots directly below us. It wasn't tragic, it was distasteful.
People are not complaining that these characters did not go out with a bang, or recieve some heroic final scene. We don't need to have a heroic death in order for it to count as good writing. Remember Carley and Doug? What about Katjaa? And Duck? None of these deaths were heroic, but they were extremely emotional, because the story treated the situation with the proper gravity, purpose, and reaction. Compare that to episode 4, where it's just like "whoa, you're dead now?.....Why?... Oh well, moving on. It's not like this character meant anything anyway."
They didn't give me a certain vibe. I pointed out directly in my earlier posts that their own words is what I had a problem with, it's not just "well I just didn't care for their attitude".
What possible reason would they have not to defend their own writing? There's no reason not to, they could have easily offered a differing viewpoint on Greg's opinion without making it awkward. How could it be out of place to defend your own character, who was being disrespected and slandered simply because she "was not normal"? The only distasteful thing here was their decision not to defend her.
-10/10, try not to troll.
Just ignore it. Most of these people just like to bitch and over blow shit they see read. Soon they going to shit on TT for their own employees using social media
You troll
Don't rest in peace Sarah ....
)