Why Amid the Ruins Tried to be the Antithesis to Around Every Corner, and Failed
In trying to search for some tangible meaning we got from this otherwise lackluster episode from telltale, I’ve come to some conclusions as to why Season 2 Episode 4 might have been written how it was. This reason was to serve as a parallel to last season’s Episode 4.
The question is, does this excuse the writing isolated in this episode, and the answer I’ve come to is a resounding no.
First of all, let me list the ways the two episodes are similar. In both, we have:
- Kenny mourning the death of a loved one (Katjaa and Duck; Sarita)
- A toughened lone-wolf older sister that lost her disabled little sister, helping the group and leaving at the end of the episode (Molly; Jane)
- A resonating quote that serves as a theme throughout the rest of the episode (“ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee”; “fallen but never forsaken”)
- A character sidelined for most of the episode but whose health is a major concern to the rest of the group (Rebecca going into labor; Omid and his infected leg)
- Hubs in a new area that serve as opportunities to bond with new characters and get needed supplies (the nurse’s office, the classroom, and the garage in Crawford; the museum and the observation deck at the Civil War site)
- Kenny distracting from his loss with a new hope (Boat; Rebecca’s baby)
- Meeting a stranger who can supply medical help to the sidelined character, but comes back to endanger the group anyways despite the player’s actions (Vernon; Arvo)
- A character that can help Clementine escape from zombies dies off-screen (Chuck; Nick)
- A choice given to the player to kill or save a character who is typically viewed as a liability to the group (Ben; Sarah)
There are a few more but these were the ones worth mentioning, the other parallels being inconsequential since they also appear in other episodes (ending on a cliffhanger).
In almost all of these parallels, Season 2 tries to be grittier, presenting an antithesis to the lessons learned in the last season. But in trying to do so, the writing is more forced and contrived, creating a weaker lesson that seems to undermine rather than parallel. I’m going to go through all the similarities listed and explain why it worked so much better in Season 1.
Kenny mourning the death of a loved one
In season 1, after his son was put down after being bitten and his wife committed suicide, Kenny had seemingly no family left. This was the family he had since before the apocalypse, the family he had known for years, all dead within a few months of the outbreak. And he mourned for them, becoming moody and sometimes lashing out at the player if you took his side in things or not. But he was still obviously a good guy. He would drink himself silly, yell and blame, but he carried the empathy that allowed the player to care for his character because of his circumstances.
That critical empathy in Season 2 is almost gone, only there because of what we felt for him in Season 1 and In Harm’s Way. And worse yet, this is a rehashed point in his character arc that was already resolved in the first season. It feels like this Kenny is just a rebooted sequel of the original, lacking the heart he had two years ago seemingly as a way to get players to feel pushed away from him and make a more even choice between Luke and Kenny. I’m not saying it’s understandable that he’d be angrier and tired; he lost his eye, his humanity in beating Carver to death, and the only family he could say he had. You can also argue his lashing out at Clementine is still in line with his character, after the mean-spirited blame that he put on Ben for his family’s death. But that doesn’t excuse the fact this was already a large part of his character that had apparently been resolved in his process of forgiving Ben if given the chance.
A toughened lone-wolf older sister that lost her disabled little sister, helping the group and then leaving at the end of the episode
At first glance, Molly and Jane are nearly identical, for the reasons listed above. They are both older adult sisters, survivalist experts even, who prefer to be on their own after their little sisters died. Their little sisters both had disabilities, as Molly’s had diabetes and Jane’s had depression, and this made them both difficult to care for in this new world.
But this is where their two characters diverge into complete opposites. Molly did everything and anything in her power to keep her sister from dying. She sold her body for medicine, allying herself with a group that did not share her views but were the only ones who could keep her sister safe. It wasn’t until Crawford found out about the disability that she lost her sister outside of her control, and left without any sympathy for them.
Jane on the other hand lost her sister because she couldn’t force her sister to move from harm’s way, after months battling with her and her debilitating depression. This in itself isn’t bad or opposite to Molly’s mindset, but it is the attitude she develops after this experience that is. Now Jane believes anyone who exhibits some kind of resistance or crippling disability should be left behind, because they either don’t want to live and/or are going to bring the ones that do want to live down. And that mostly aligns with Crawford’s mindset, which Molly hated.
So, Jane is supposed to serve as an antithesis of Molly, even when leaving while the episode’s conflict seems to be resolving and the sidelined character is healed and can travel again. But the problem with Jane is that her mentality is presented as morally grey, maybe even the correct way of thinking. Of course, this wasn’t a surprise, since this at least carried one of the themes from the previous episode: Will you become like Carver? The problem with this is that in Around Every Corner and even In Harm’s Way, aligning with Crawford’s and Carver’s philosophy was painted wrong in every way. Crawford were monsters, as everyone, including the player character Lee, will agree, despite what the player actually thinks. Carver was a bad guy, as everyone will agree, Clementine most of the times depending on your choices. But Jane? Not really. Maybe it is because she has some semblance of empathy and guilt that makes her character seem more human than mean. But her mentality is shown to have some merit for truth, which is not the lesson in Season 1 at all, and again instead of becoming an antithesis comes off more as undermining the previous message.
A resonating quote that serves as a theme throughout the rest of the episode
Here’s the gist of what Chuck’s quote, “Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee”, means in the context of the poem it is an excerpt from.
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."
In other words, we are losing a piece of ourselves if other people, other smaller pieces in the larger picture of humanity, are lost. We should be striving to preserve humanity, preserving other’s lives, so that we do not lose our own. And in essence, that is what I love about The Walking Dead Game, and perhaps I’ll write another essay about that later.
My point is that this quote is carried out so well throughout the episode, even after Chuck dies. When the choice comes down to dropping Ben to his death, this decision is made on a bell tower, hearkening back to that all-encompassing quote.
In contrast, “fallen but never forsaken” was an extremely poorly-handled quote if that’s the message telltale was going for. This quote suggests that even when our friends die, their memories and lives with continue to have meaning. When they fall, we will not leave them behind and forsake them. Yet, the only character this quote is ever connected to directly is Jane, looking up at the statue behind the quote’s plaque and therefore alluding to her younger sister, whose death had meaning to her but not very much to the players. It also doesn’t reference any other death in the episode, since they are given but a passing conversation after they die, if that.
A character is sidelined for most of the episode but whose health is a major concern to the rest of the group
There’s not really much to talk about this one, other than both injuries left players with a major moral decision: Bring Clementine to Crawford or let her stay with Omid, and steal medicine from Arvo for Rebecca or let him leave with it. The difference is that the first decision actually makes an impact to the ending of the episode, which is Omid and Christa will still want to come with you to find Clementine if you didn’t show them the bite, a pretty significant deviation of choices in the game. The latter decision does not make a huge difference, you may get a few more lines with Rebecca but she will die regardless, and Arvo will track you down regardless.
Hubs in a new area that serve as opportunities to bond with new characters and get needed supplies
One good thing Amid the Ruins did was give us much-needed hubs that were very much lacking this whole season. And they did what they were supposed to, which was to get us more emotionally evolved with side characters and see their development in branching conversations.
The bad news is that this was still handled worse than Around Every Corner. Sure, the experience the player had with Bonnie and Mike was probably one of the most entertaining and light-hearted this whole season, arguably even more so than the ones in Around Every Corner. But what last season’s hubs had were actual conversation choices, given during idle time rather than mandatory time. There is no branching conversations for Mike and Bonnie, there are only conversation choices when you discover something important for moving the plot. Jane has only one of these options, and only some conversations were possible in Rebecca’s and Kenny’s case if you had the supplies to talk about.
In contrast you could have several minutes of optional conversation between Clementine, Ben, Christa, Vernon, Brie, and Molly in their varying points in Crawford despite what you had in inventory. Another point that made these hubs superior were demanding puzzles, like the medicine safe and the car lift, even an option to get Molly’s video that can unlock Molly’s back story, dependent on if you wanted to solve the puzzle at all. Season 2 had you find the water cooler, the town, and Arvo in very linear ways that did not feel like problem solving but just random clicking.
Kenny distracting from his loss with a new hope
Once again, this is another reused point in his already-resolved character arc that did not need to be brought up again, but so is the challenge of bringing back a character with an already complete character arc.
In Season 1, Kenny distracted himself from his family’s death by finding a boat. This wasn’t just some random side-project Kenny thought up to take his mind off things, this particular plan was mentioned back in Episode 1 when we first meet Kenny. His mental state depends on the prospect of finding said boat, appearing okay when there’s still hope of finding one, desperate when it seems the plan might be failing, and drunk and depressed when the reality sets in that there isn’t hope at all. We had plenty of opportunities to calmly disagree with him or try to talk him out of his obsession with this plan.
In Season 2, Kenny seems to turn his attention so suddenly to the baby after Sarita’s death (especially if you didn’t cut off her arm), that the transition doesn’t seem organic. He very quickly goes from “Nobody needs me,” to “This baby is the most important thing,” making his obsession with the baby even more unsettling than what he did with the boat. That’s not to say I don’t like this particular direction, I think if they were going to reuse this point of his arc again this would be a good way to do it, even if it does seem like another way to bring Kenny into a darker characterization. It’s just so fast when it happens the player doesn’t have enough time to think his condition through and address it properly. We don’t get very many opportunities to denounce his behavior, and when we do, we either get to say a simplified “it’s getting bad” to third parties, or directly belittle Kenny’s pain.
Meeting a stranger who can supply medical help to the sidelined character, but comes back to endanger the group anyways despite the player’s actions
They both have their moral decisions: did you steal from Arvo and did you threaten Vernon, both of which are important in distinguishing the kind of character you want Lee or Clementine to be. They also both accuse you of being a bad person, especially if you choose to threaten or steal from them.
What Season 1 did better was fleshing out Vernon’s character. While in the process of talking him down, we may learn he is a doctor, he is part of a cancer survivor group hiding from Crawford, and he lost a daughter in the beginning of the apocalypse, convincing him to help you find Clementine. He was going to help you despite how you first treated him, but afterwards he will have choice words to say to you that could effect how you reacted to his offer. Arvo was not very fleshed out, in fact we know very little about him as he appeared randomly and we could only use observations as clues to his back story. He know he has a leg brace, that he’s Russian, and that he may or may not have a sick sister, and in comparison this is not as much of an incentive to be kind to him. He will treat you about the same at the end no matter what you did.
A character that can help Clementine escape from zombies dies off-screen
Now is really what I wanted to talk about. The themed quote I discussed above, while you can definitely say they apply to Ben and Sarah, are also very closely associated with Chuck and Nick. Chuck was the one who said the quote, he was the one who valued human life over his need to survive. The fact that he dies to protect a little girl, even off-screen, is probably the best death for his character. His body is later found by Lee, partially eaten by zombies but isn’t one because he shot himself in the head. Not only does this spare the player a drawn-out process of putting Chuck down, but it also gives Lee genuine time to give his last respectful words to him, remembering all he did to save his little piece of humanity.
Take all that beauty and mash it up into an unrecognizable pile of garbage and you get what is Nick’s death. Nick has the potential to save Clementine from zombies if you chose Nick at the river and try to convince him to go with you. But this ultimately wasn’t what his character was about. He had made a mistake, taking an innocent life, and his character had been built-up to be given eventual redemption.
Don’t get me wrong, I expected Nick to die in Episode 4 if he lived through Episode 2. But his whole promising character arc was cut short for nothing. The promise of redemption, even if he sacrificed his own life for it, was never evident. Dying in a fence was no reward for keeping him alive, and made no change in any character’s life. And when telltale tries to make this drawn-out death scene emotional and powerful with each blow to the head, it ends up falling flat. We are forced to accept that if we promised Pete to take care of him, the game wanted that promise to mean you would put him out of his misery. Not keep him out of trouble, not keep convince Walter to spare him, but to kill him ourselves. And this realization does not come off as tragic or meaningful. Just… disappointing. We should not be deceived into investing emotionally into certain characters to receive no pay back for our efforts. And just when we think that perhaps telltale may at least use his death as a way to preach their own lesson “fallen but never forsaken,” and that we may get to talk about Nick and what Pete wanted for him, Jane immediately moves us along to the next unrelated task. It’s as if the game itself forgot about Nick and Pete, and it’s own message.
A choice given to the player to kill or save a character who is typically viewed as a liability to the group
Similar to the parallel between Molly and Jane, this choice is about whether the Crawford way was really the right way. In Around Every Corner, the answer was undoubtedly no. If you let Ben fall from the tower, you get punished for it. Clementine and Vernon may be upset with you, and your game play in Episode 5 will be lacking, especially concerning Kenny’s development.
In Amid the Ruins, the answer ranges from maybe to yes. If you let Sarah die in the trailer, you are not punished for it. Luke will be upset (mostly with himself) and Rebecca will cry, but nothing more. But, if you save Sarah in the trailer park, you are punished for it. You have to slap her to get her to move, Jane will try to convince you why saving her may have been the wrong call, you get very limited interaction with Sarah, you are given another chance to leave her behind at the possible expense of another character, and her second death is more desperate and painful for Sarah than the first.
This is not what the game is about. Yes, it is based two years later than Crawford, and the point is to develop Clementine’s morality from outside influences. But Clementine would have been killed in Crawford, we should not ever figure that they were in the right. Sure, Jane may not line up 100% with what Crawford was for, but she is reinforcing the idea that seeing certain people as irredeemable liabilities justifies devaluing their human life, which was the opposite of what Chuck died for.
To try to make this season an antithesis of of the first is not recreating it in a unique way or presenting new emotional and conflicting perspectives for these situations, like it could do with better writing. It is undermining the lessons that made The Walking Dead Game so great, the game that forced those players that wanted Ben to die so badly to rethink their choices and humanity even in the zombie apocalypse. But instead, this season rewards casual disregard for characters’ lives, and that is what is creating a disconnect and a disservice to not only the colorful characters telltale creates but to the a season as a whole. I just hope that Episode 5 may salvage what was left of the heart this season showed promise of having.
Comments
Have a question for you, OP. Do you actually bring anything of your own on the table, so to speak, or you're just reposting Tumblr?
Yeah I post comments sometimes, I say my thoughts. You see, on tumblr it's not much about discussing, it's more about agreeing with the point (when you like/reblog). And I just want to know what people here think about the point that I'm agreeing with.
Well, as you can see, the forums are not Tumblr, so it's actually more about discussing than agreeing with the point. And bringing your own insight helps too, in case if it furthers/solidifies the point made. Copying someone else's work/text and just saying "I agree, nothing to add here" is a bit lazy, IMO. But, that is only in case if you really don't have anything to add. In that case, it's unnecessary to add anything.
Then again, this is more of a rant on my part that you don't feel like it to make a point of your own and rather just copy a text from Tumblr. I like to rant, you see.
You're right. But I wouldn't say it better than the authors of the essays I'm sharing here. I never claim them to be my own writings, so what is your problem? I'm not doing it for 'thumbs up', I'm just really curious what people think. If I would just post a link, not many of the forum users would click it, even less would read it. So in this case I would prefer if you didn't draw attention to me, but actually read the essay.
And I would never share someone's work I'm not at least 70% agree with.
It's hardly about claiming or not claiming them as their own, it's about not making your own points. Copying an article is fine and dandy, how about trying to write your own? Bring up your own points? But, I guess you've responded to that already.
As for reading the article, no, thank you, I'll pass. I don't trust Tumblr or any of its discussions/blogs about Telltale's TWD. Not to mention that I actually like the Episode 4, and the articles I've seen so far we're criticizing them till the last drop of blood.
Just comment this on the other 50 threads, dont make a new one.
This would be a pretty long comment
I'm not only about copying articles, but I guess you haven't chance to see it. When I'll think of something I've never seen before, I'll definitely share my thoughts.
It's silly to fence yourself from everything except this forum. I liked Amid the Ruins too, and the essay doesn't make you hate it, it's only about similarities between S1 and S2.
I think that's the point of it all. It would have been easier, cleaner if he had died back when he made his self sacrifice for Ben/Christa. But he didn't die. Things weren't resolved for Kenny. He's still the same flawed man, trudging through this same tired existence of his, feeling the same hurts he was feeling two years ago. "Nothing's changed. I'm still taking a beating. Every day. No hope. No rest." You're thinking to yourself "What's the point of this? Why couldn't Kenny have just died back then?" He's thinking the same thing.
I disagree with this. The game forces you (and, thus, Clem) to watch her get torn apart while calling your name and crying out for help. For an emotionally-based game like this, I think that's a pretty good punishment.
But we're supposed to pity Jane for her emotionally detached outlook on life. Jane is shown to be a very broken, lonely person. She hates herself for being as ruthless as she is. Just listen at her at 4:11:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PuLlUcmtDg&t=251
You're supposed to be impressed with Jane for her prowess as a survivor but also realize what a miserable person she is. She can't bring herself to get attached to people because she's such an emotional coward that she can't stand to stay and watch them die. She shows you how desolate the life of a "true survivor" is.
Very good points.
I've seen you comment around here. From what I've seen, it's mostly arguing for the articles you link/post. I might not have seen everything, but I don't see everything.
Oh, it's silly now, isn't it? I just don't trust posts that come from the same source that outright blames a certain unnamed figure, who you know very well, of misogyny, as if that is of any relevance to the topic at hand. These might be different people, but their articles' place of origin remains the same.
And this article, from what I've read, actually takes a critical point, and besides, it supposedly talks about how, acting as an antithesis, S2E4 is weaker in its moral lessons/themes than S1E4. It's not just about similarities.
These are absolutely different threads, don't bring it here.
And you think not any of the listed points make sense? Fine then.
Stop putting the words in my mouth. I never said they make no sense, I said it's deeper than just simple comparison like you called it earlier.
I didn't mean to, that's only how I interpreted what you said. It is deeper indeed.
Yes, and both had sisters, both loners. They're like two sides of one coin.
But honestly when are you ever punished for anything in this game, last season it kind of frustated me that "goodie goodies" were never impacted. I mean refuse to steal you get the food anyway and dont die of starvation, dont kill larry he still gets killed and no one dies because of it, dont shoot the girl and walkers attack anyway. I actually made some of those choices but it makes more sense for the moral to be punished in this world than the pragmatic,
And if anything this season is showing that their is no special punishment for being good or bad. If anything the punishment in that situation would be to stick around too long and get someone killed, people have a weird view that bad people get punished and the good survive. I think people who are good get more frustated because they are used to being rewarded. The whole point of this season is being a good person is often the wrong decision, Walter and Matthew both die for this reason, Sarita dies in the horde for helping Sarah. The walking dead is constantly showing that life isnt fair and the people who survive often begin questioning whether they deserve it.
People complaining about choice are the "goodie goodie's" who before got every outcome they wanted, apart from maybe the stranger
regarding nick's death, not everyone gets a redemption or a sacrifice, otherwise it'd be too unrealistic imo, but i didn't really mind nick's death since he died in a realistic scenario - a failed attempt to get help
Good stuff OP
Brace yourself though, the Telltale apologists are going to come out swinging when they see this
I see you've already met a few of them
I did mind, because it was like his first rescue didn't mean anything. He wasn't given a single line in ep4.
Thanks, glad you find it good
I did, but that's okay.
Nick was a failure, everything else was good. I think ep 4 might be my favourite this season it definatley beat ep 1 and 3 of this season and for me ep 5 and 1 of last season as well.
Season 2 is dogshit when compared to Season 1, big surprise.
You know, not everyone who likes season two is a telltale apologist. You should learn to accept other people's opinions.
Just sayin'
I'm gonna hate myself for asking but why. Season 2 has problems sure but season 1 had plenty as well. I think the main problem is most people complaining played season 1 in one go without waiting inbetween and also as with all sequels season 1 was played with next to no expectations along with the fact for many it was their first experience of the franchise and added nostalgia. A ton of walking dead fans get used to it after a season or voulme of the show or comic and find it hard to connect with new characters as they know their likely gonna die
You shouldn't take it personally, nor think that I'm implying someone in particular on this forum. I'm not native speaker and sometimes misunderstand. By "that's okay" I meant that I'm okay with others people opinions, even if they vary from my own.
This wasn't a reply to you, but to iknowjack123. He has made various offensive comments towards people who enjoy season two. He's described them as "telltale asskissers" and "telltale apologists". That's why I flagged his post as offensive.
As to this thread: I don't agree with it, but it's a legitimate opinion. As long as this stuff does not become bitching over a soundfile, I can understand every criticism made about season two. For some people this is a reason not to like the game, personally, it does not bother me that much. Season one and season two are two vastly different gaming experiences. Season one is slower, more quiet, whereas season two is faster and more brutal. While replaying, I enjoy season two more than season one, but season one was a far more exciting experience.
amid the ruins was better than around every corner anyway
Oh, okay. I'm becoming way too inattentive, time to go to bed.
I personally enjoyed both of them except of very few moments. TellTale love symbolism, and I just found it interesting how some things happen to repeat things that happen before. Like a new loop of time or something. We'll see how they gonna wrap it all in the final episode
Yep, I'm excited for the finale. A26 hopefully, that way I'd get to play it before I have my university exams.
I hope it will come out in August at the least. Good luck with your exams.
Thanks man. I'm studying six hours a day right now. I'd puke if it wouldn't be over soon. :P
i heard that nick's VA wasn't avaliable at the time so they didn't give him lines or something like that
I'm gonna try to understand your logic...keyword being TRY.
If I offer arguments as to why I liked the generally, negatively reviewed Spider-Man 3, a film that was directed by the same man who did the other two films, does that make my an apologist?
Or how about if I offer arguments as to why I like Call Of Duty: Modern Wafare 3 or Black Ops 2. Two Call Of Duty games that the general fanbase hate for some reason. Am I still an apologist for that?
I want you to get actually understand this, because I really hate how you keep using this word incorrectly:
You're an apologist if you blindly defend what's considered a controversial topic of discussion. For example...
I know there are games that have been on the news for being controversial, but it's usually for touching on a sort of taboo subject. As far as I know, this game hasn't crossed any of those lines
I don't think it's asking much for you to not use the word "apologist" so ignorantly.
Bro I don't think you understand the word yourself.
Apologist - : a person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people without offering any kind of counter argument other than basically saying "Your wrong".
That is literally the definition right there. People post up arguments why Season 2 is bad, you offer no counter-explanations, yet will constantly go out of your way to defend Telltale blindly. Thus why I say people like you are apologists.
Do you understand now?
You serious?