I undestand your view, altought Luke was my second favourite character in season 2 ( Clemetine's the first :P ), I just wanted to know the reason for you not to like him :>
Hopefully this doesn't get me get into an argument, I really don't want to debate whether characters are good guys or scumbags which is why … moreI didn't go into detail(given you're curious, I guess I'll tell you) I thought he was a huge dick in episode 4, he has no sympathy for what just happened to Kenny, hypocritically more concerned with how Kenny's depression will drag them down, ironic given this wasn't an issue for him and Nick.
He develops a strange admiration for Jane, suggesting she's the one they should follow even though her philosophy is in conflict with Luke's(if you agree with Jane's philosophy, fine but it doesn't match up with Luke's) He seems to be willing to forget his values for some chick that he just met, this makes what happens later 10 times as frustrating.
After Rebecca's water breaks, he's sent to do a very important job which he abandons to get laid, this wasn't a scenario where it was normal guard duty and something… [view original content]
To be fair, there have been mentions made of that subject matter in the game.
Jolene in Starved for Help refers to the bandits as "rapist monsters", presumably for what they did to her daughter.
While not rape, Molly must give the doctor in Crawford sexual favors for medicine.
Danny in 400 days is incarcerated for rape of a teenage girl, and Russell later voices his concern about Becca's safety had Danny still been there.
There is deleted background information on Troy and Jane's characters, suggesting telltale originally planned for Troy to be sexually abusing Jane while at Howe's.
It's left ambiguous as to whether or not Carver raped Rebecca it if it was consensual.
While none of those are explicit attempts, I've always sort of appreciated that Telltale doesn't feel the need to rely on sex for their stories, even in sex-heavy narratives like Game of Thrones or The Wolf Among Us. Of course that could just be because of animation limitations, but I would highly doubt Telltale would include anything more explicit than say, Rodrik and Elaena in bed, or Narissa in the strip club. If anything, the attempt could be shown but be unsucessful with characters still mostly clothed, or be attempted and then finished off-screen, which would be pretty terrifying and definitely earn a mature rating.
I´m gonna make a controversial and very unpopular opinion right now: I want an attempt of rape to happen in the game.
I know it sound hor… morerible but hear me out: Both the comics and the TV series have eluded to it, most of the series has the zombies as a background but for the most part the scariest part and the real horror are the survivors that had gone crazy or fall into their darkest impulses and desires, yet we haven´t see something like this. Besides, I really think the "meet new people, they are violent" plot can gets boring eventually. I want the game to introduce us to a character that we instantly like and turns out to be the worst kind of monster possible.
You know our group started this, right? We attacked first, just to get some supplies from people (Hilltops) we met just a few episodes ago. So far (not a comic reader) Negan seems like the type of guy that defends his own
You forgot to mention that he raped his undead niece as a habit, and ordered people's head to be chopped so that he could stare at them unti… morel he didn't fear them anymore. He also overthrew Woodbury's original leader, as revealed in the novel series.
I don't necessarily agree that we all love Negan, though. I hate his guts, and I am still waiting for the day he is killed. Why couldn't he be one of those in Issue 144…
Idk if they expect us to hate the antagonists from the start, but it sucks meeting ppl like carver, Nate and even Randall now and not being able to learn more about them. Carver we got a lil bit of that.
The stranger was such a good antagonist because he was more developed than anyone else and we only saw him at the end of the game! He wasn't perfect but at least we could talk to him like a human being. Unlike anyone else.
I undestand your view, altought Luke was my second favourite character in season 2 ( Clemetine's the first :P ), I just wanted to know the reason for you not to like him :>
Exactly. Like we can speculate why carver hates the group but we can't speculate for Randall at all. Can't speculate for Nate either cause they're just portrayed as maniacal murderers.
Can the bad guy for season three just be clementine so we can realize that we created a monster in her. We need a good bad guy.
The thread is "unpopular" walking dead opinions, not "nonsensical" walking dead opinions. You just made the jump so you could say that, admit it. Or you're trolling.
Exactly. Like we can speculate why carver hates the group but we can't speculate for Randall at all. Can't speculate for Nate either cause t… morehey're just portrayed as maniacal murderers.
Can the bad guy for season three just be clementine so we can realize that we created a monster in her. We need a good bad guy.
And idk about morally right because what defines right. I'd have liked (or maybe it will still happen) to get to actually negotiate with Norma. She seemed to be the closest thing to a morally right antagonist. But now it's war
You know, Randall does strike me as having some intrigue, actually. I don't see him as just a murderous maniac. I think there's some actual ideology to what he does and what he thinks about this world. I mean, the guy's definitely mental to some degree, no doubt about that, but I still think there's more to him than just murderous maniac.
I've seen him as a foil of sorts to Michonne. Instead of being haunted by his demons, he's someone that just outright embraced them.
"There ain't no heaven up there, honey. And there ain't no hell down below. There's only this shit, everyday until you die."
He's someone that decided to give up trying to be a good guy, or hell, even trying to be a bad guy, in a way. He's given up agonizing over the things he does, or the things he's seen. There's a philosophy here: in his eyes, the way the world is now, there isn't anything or anyone to 'rise above', and nothing to 'sink below' to. And he's someone that also shares the belief that the world isn't going to be able to recover from this, at least not to a point like it used to be ("Don't tell me you still believe in that lie, Michonne..."), so that further supports his own viewpoint; what's the point of doing things in the name of good if there's not really anything for that good to build towards, and when most people will just take advantage of it? Why bother being evil for the sake of being evil when it really doesn't get you any further than being good does? There's no systems in place to judge your actions. There's no society to write you off as some kind of degenerate. There's nothing. So why not just spare the expense, and do what you want without worrying about the ethics? I'm not going to argue that Randall's a fully sane individual, though. If those comments about his dad beating him are any indication, he's been fucked up before the apocalypse ever hit. But what I don't believe is that he's just a crazy motherfucker doing bad shit for the hell of it; he has an actual philosophy to his actions. I'm not saying that philosophy is right, but hey, it counts for something, right?
Randall's the kind of guy that doesn't believe there's a metric for good or evil anymore, and pretty much sees his actions as just that; actions. Neither good or bad. He isn't doing evil shit with the intent of being evil; he's kind of like Nate in that he's just doing his own thing. No allegiance to either side. To him, the apocalypse basically just gave him the freedom to be himself. Not to be good or to be evil, but to be himself. No rules or metrics as to what's good and what's bad anymore, no systems to judge him like the world before would have, so he's taking full advantage of that. It's liberating; if someone's being an asshole, you can gun them down without really having to worry about it. And I think that him trying to rile people up and egg them on is his own twisted way of trying to get other people to see the world the way he does; he's inviting people to smack him around, because hey, whose going to judge you? Whose going to punish you? No one, so why even worry about it? Just do what you want and live with it. Don't lose any sleep over it. Because that's exactly what he's chosen to do in this world.
But hey, maybe that's just me seeing the character in a completely different light
Also, I wouldn't consider Nate to be a one-dimensional psycho, either. Nate's the perfect example of a wildcard; wholly unpredictable, with a personality that is nearly impossible to pin down. A guy that goes from being friendly and supportive of you, to nearly getting you killed, to trusting you with a gun after nearly getting you killed, to insulting you, to saving your life, to not really caring about having just saved your life, to being more concerned over the fact that the guy shooting at you made a racist remark than the fact that he was shooting at you, to joking about killing two people, to joking about you 'breaking up' with him, to actually killing the two people, all over the course of about 15 minutes. You see multiple sides to this guy. He's not just purely evil or bad. We don't really see his motivations or what made him that way, sure, but we don't just see some cookie-cutter bad guy, either. At least I don't think we do.
Exactly. Like we can speculate why carver hates the group but we can't speculate for Randall at all. Can't speculate for Nate either cause t… morehey're just portrayed as maniacal murderers.
Can the bad guy for season three just be clementine so we can realize that we created a monster in her. We need a good bad guy.
They also had planned according to unused audio that Ben and Travis' classmates have been raped and killed by the bandits causing him trauma as he was forced to watch
To be fair, there have been mentions made of that subject matter in the game.
* Jolene in Starved for Help refers to the bandits as "ra… morepist monsters", presumably for what they did to her daughter.
* While not rape, Molly must give the doctor in Crawford sexual favors for medicine.
* Danny in 400 days is incarcerated for rape of a teenage girl, and Russell later voices his concern about Becca's safety had Danny still been there.
* There is deleted background information on Troy and Jane's characters, suggesting telltale originally planned for Troy to be sexually abusing Jane while at Howe's.
* It's left ambiguous as to whether or not Carver raped Rebecca it if it was consensual.
While none of those are explicit attempts, I've always sort of appreciated that Telltale doesn't feel the need to rely on sex for their stories, even in sex-heavy narratives like Game of Thrones or The Wolf Among Us. Of course that could just be because of… [view original content]
That's a really great way to look at both characters and definitely is apparent in the two individuals (especially when you use Michonnes silence). I was liking Randall until it became abundantly clear that we would become enemies and I had to stop having fun with him.
That's a really great way to put it. While michonne is still tryin to convince herself that things and ppl can change, Randall's stopped wasting his time breathing life into (what he believes is) a lost cause and started lookin at the world for what it is; Death.
Nate I really want to show back up because I feel like he's a mix of your description of Randall and Nate. Yes he is a wild card most the time but his motivation for being a wild card is probably similar to that of Randall's. The world is over as they used to know it and now everyone can be what they wanted to be. Doesn't mean they have to be killers but killing has to become almost a second nature in this new world.
I hope ttg tricked us into thinking we were gonna fight Norma whether we had her brother or not, but in fact the episodes end up to play out very differently depending on the severity of his injuries (Randall) and most importantly if he's still alive.
You may have convinced me to replay the first two episodes
You know, Randall does strike me as having some intrigue, actually. I don't see him as just a murderous maniac. I think there's some actual … moreideology to what he does and what he thinks about this world. I mean, the guy's definitely mental to some degree, no doubt about that, but I still think there's more to him than just murderous maniac.
I've seen him as a foil of sorts to Michonne. Instead of being haunted by his demons, he's someone that just outright embraced them.
"There ain't no heaven up there, honey. And there ain't no hell down below. There's only this shit, everyday until you die."
He's someone that decided to give up trying to be a good guy, or hell, even trying to be a bad guy, in a way. He's given up agonizing over the things he does, or the things he's seen. There's a philosophy here: in his eyes, the way the world is now, there isn't anything or anyone to 'rise above', and nothing to 'sink below' to. And he's someone t… [view original content]
Something is considered morally-right when it is in concordance with your moral standards. This, by definition, varies from individual to individual. A morally-right antagonist would be one acts in a way that he fits your moral standards, but it's very rare to ever see that in media.
I dislike the term "bad guys," because it is based off the idea that all antagonists are considered morally-wrong by everyone, which is far from the truth
Lol I like that it makes me cringe at the sound.
And idk about morally right because what defines right. I'd have liked (or maybe it will… more still happen) to get to actually negotiate with Norma. She seemed to be the closest thing to a morally right antagonist. But now it's war
This is funny. I think we agree on what kind of character we'd like to see but it's just the terminology.
In a sense we could say that Randall and almost every antagonist in telltales TWD are morally right antagonists based on what they value.
When I say a good bad guy, it'd be someone like Larry, Kenny or even the Stranger. People that we are opposing but they aren't necessarily bad ppl. Like Norma is right now. Like Daniel from FTWD and if Clem became the antagonist in season 3, she'd not only be a morally right antagonist but a good "bad" guy.
I don't really like morally right because I don't feel right judging ppl who I haven't grown up with (Randall, Jane, and other mixed bag characters) based off of how I grew up and developed my morals. Even after all that's happened how do we know Randall isn't just saying all the things he's said to protect his family, just like us? Just cause they don't match up with my morals doesn't mean they're morally wrong.
Something is considered morally-right when it is in concordance with your moral standards. This, by definition, varies from individual to in… moredividual. A morally-right antagonist would be one acts in a way that he fits your moral standards, but it's very rare to ever see that in media.
I dislike the term "bad guys," because it is based off the idea that all antagonists are considered morally-wrong by everyone, which is far from the truth
I kinda like them bringing in ppl outside of the group and having them assimilate. Compared to the comics were dale survived for ages without anyone realizing that he's old and probably wouldn't survive too long
I liked Noah but was waste of a character seeing as he never did much then got ripped apart.
I prefer the comic to the show - i'm sure others agree though. This is more of a split opinion between fans than an unpopular decision.
That's the fun part. Morality is a matter of opinion as it is. My moral code can—and most likely does—differ from yours, but that doesn't mean either of us is wrong.
Now ethics come into play. Ethics are the group of standards that society, or a specific community, hold. Your moral standards could overlap with the ethical standards of the place where you currently live, or they could not.
Chances are, some antagonists like Randall don't hold moral standards anymore, as @Deltino's post below kind of explains, acting freely as they wish. Others follow their own moral code, a different one from conventional ethics.
Anyway, this topic interests me a lot, so I can get carried away. Take my apology if I wrote down a rant.
This is funny. I think we agree on what kind of character we'd like to see but it's just the terminology.
In a sense we could say that Ra… morendall and almost every antagonist in telltales TWD are morally right antagonists based on what they value.
When I say a good bad guy, it'd be someone like Larry, Kenny or even the Stranger. People that we are opposing but they aren't necessarily bad ppl. Like Norma is right now. Like Daniel from FTWD and if Clem became the antagonist in season 3, she'd not only be a morally right antagonist but a good "bad" guy.
I don't really like morally right because I don't feel right judging ppl who I haven't grown up with (Randall, Jane, and other mixed bag characters) based off of how I grew up and developed my morals. Even after all that's happened how do we know Randall isn't just saying all the things he's said to protect his family, just like us? Just cause they don't match up with my morals doesn't mean they're morally wrong.
That's the fun part. Morality is a matter of opinion as it is. My moral code can—and most likely does—differ from yours, but that doesn't me… morean either of us is wrong.
Now ethics come into play. Ethics are the group of standards that society, or a specific community, hold. Your moral standards could overlap with the ethical standards of the place where you currently live, or they could not.
Chances are, some antagonists like Randall don't hold moral standards anymore, as @Deltino's post below kind of explains, acting freely as they wish. Others follow their own moral code, a different one from conventional ethics.
Anyway, this topic interests me a lot, so I can get carried away. Take my apology if I wrote down a rant.
I liked Noah but was waste of a character seeing as he never did much then got ripped apart.
I prefer the comic to the show - i'm sure others agree though. This is more of a split opinion between fans than an unpopular decision.
Strand and Nick make the show worth it. Strand is one of the most interesting vignettes we've had so far. We've had people from all kinds of different backgrounds and walks of life come and go in TWD, but Strand is one type of person that we really haven't seen yet; the rich, wealthy, influential type, as well as a guy that is all but implied to be involved in some kind of underground organization/ring. Nick also falls into the interesting category, since the only other notable addict that has shown up in TWD franchise so far would be Bonnie, and even then, her addiction wasn't really a central point or conflict for her character. I like that they haven't downplayed Nick's problems, either. They've actually treated that side of him pretty respectably so far.
FTWD definitely has it's problems, but if there are two things this show has undoubtedly done right so far, it's the characters of Nick and Strand.
I feel like when season three hits and we realize how important strand is, and nick for that matter, we might all switch shows.
Strand isn't a millionaire for no reason.
I've stopped reading the comics due to emotional distress. I felt so bad for Eugene and Michonne.
Couldn't get passed that one issue. though I like the idea of focusing on human progression after the end of the world, I want to see this come to an end with some sort of resolve. I don't think there is much resolve for the comics. Just zombies drama and death.
For a second I was hoping they wouldn't abandon his addiction problems
Then he started looking for pills in the guys house. I was like, "Oh Nick".
Strand is underground for either beneficial reasons or maybe some parasitical reasons. @Deltino I think we should start a theory thread. I know you got some ideas.
Strand and Nick make the show worth it. Strand is one of the most interesting vignettes we've had so far. We've had people from all kinds of… more different backgrounds and walks of life come and go in TWD, but Strand is one type of person that we really haven't seen yet; the rich, wealthy, influential type, as well as a guy that is all but implied to be involved in some kind of underground organization/ring. Nick also falls into the interesting category, since the only other notable addict that has shown up in TWD franchise so far would be Bonnie, and even then, her addiction wasn't really a central point or conflict for her character. I like that they haven't downplayed Nick's problems, either. They've actually treated that side of him pretty respectably so far.
FTWD definitely has it's problems, but if there are two things this show has undoubtedly done right so far, it's the characters of Nick and Strand.
I like Episode 1 of Season two more than Episode 1 of Season one
Playing Clem is more fun than playing Lee
I liked Carver and Randall (Carver because he was charismatic and because of his voice, Randall because he is smart, a good hand-to-hand fighter and doesn't give a shit about Michonne's torture)
I liked Sarah
Hated all of Season two's endings except the one where you stay at Wellington and Kenny leaves (mostly because it is the only one that made me cry, especially when Kenny says "I'm real glad to have met you, Clementine")
Hated Jane (because she is pretty much useless, she teaches Clem everything she already knew like hitting a walker's knee, looting them (clem does that in ep1) and I feel like she is only there to fight Kenny)
I think Arvo's shooting was kinda justified because Clem killed his sister, he showed anger towards Clem after that moment
I like the Michonne mini-series
I care about Sam and actually felt bad for her when she got shot
They were supposed to be the same Lilly, but the novels decided to explore Lilly Caul's background, so then they were set to be different, f… morerom that point on. The achievement that the player received after Lilly left or took off was originally called "Woodbury Bond," but then they changed the name to "What Now?"
Yeah, didn´t went to specifics but precisely this is why I think it will fit, we already had those moments both in the comics and in the TV series. That Carl scene ShadowHunter mentions was, well, way more hardcore than I expected an AMC TV show to go.
If it's worth anything, there has been rape in the comics. The Governor raped Michonne. The show obviously doesn't do things like that, and I somewhat doubt the game would have it, but you know, whatever it has is whatever it has.
Forgot about Jolene.Danny I won´t count ´cause it happen before the zombies. And Molly and Rebeca, it´s very unclear like you say how much was consensual or, let´s face it, out of desperation in the case of Molly and who knows if Rebeca as well. While the subject of rape is present in the world with examples as the one with Danny, what I meant was an actual attempt to rape, like the one mentioned above for Carl or the full rape and torture of Michonne in the comics (which should be canon in the videogames). Maybe now that Clem is getting bigger the developers will add some sub-plot or action event on this premise? Who knows, I just think that, as much as it´s a touchy subject that can disturb and certainly harm the feelings of some players, it´s needed in post-apocalyptic themed universes, at least for me and my level of disbelieve towards that property, mainly because I know is something that will happen in reality. i think that it will happen more than people going guns crazy, which is where most Walking Dead plots lead to (comic, tv and videogame).
To be fair, there have been mentions made of that subject matter in the game.
* Jolene in Starved for Help refers to the bandits as "ra… morepist monsters", presumably for what they did to her daughter.
* While not rape, Molly must give the doctor in Crawford sexual favors for medicine.
* Danny in 400 days is incarcerated for rape of a teenage girl, and Russell later voices his concern about Becca's safety had Danny still been there.
* There is deleted background information on Troy and Jane's characters, suggesting telltale originally planned for Troy to be sexually abusing Jane while at Howe's.
* It's left ambiguous as to whether or not Carver raped Rebecca it if it was consensual.
While none of those are explicit attempts, I've always sort of appreciated that Telltale doesn't feel the need to rely on sex for their stories, even in sex-heavy narratives like Game of Thrones or The Wolf Among Us. Of course that could just be because of… [view original content]
Hear hear. Such boring show, such hateful and stupid emo characters.
I saw a promo for a new Walking Dead show where a guys walk towards a sign of Rome. I hope this means we are getting a new spin-off series and Fear The Walking Dead gets finished and ended in this second season. Also, ZOMBIES IN EUROPE!! FUCKING FINALE!!! I don´t want to sound insulting but, you Americans have it SUPER EASY on zombie apocalypses, one of the biggest countries in the world, tons of space and not that much population on relationship with the size of the country, guns everywhere... Now, the narrowed, labyrinth, with 0 guns street of most western Europeans countries? That´s fucking scary. I live in an island that is the size of one famous American airport (can´t remember which one, but one that is around 2.000 km2) and there´s less deadly guns in the entire island that what we have seeing already in the TV show.
Addiction problems?? As someone who had actually consume cocaine, speed, mdmc, mushrooms, acid and still consumes marijuana and hash on daily doses but has try to leave it several times I can assure you, Nick is the less believable drug addict ever created on television. They had him not wash his hair and that´s it. No mood changes, no rage outburst, no "shakes" (I don´t know if english addicts also call it like that, but I´m talking about general physical pains and uncontrollable small twitches depending on the drug you´re leaving behind). It´s very clear the writers wanted to approach the subject not really understand it about it. I never got addicted to the hardcore drugs and i just step out of it after some years of experiences, it wasn´t for me and I got really scare after meeting with some people who consumed the stuff for longer time periods, 30 year old people that looked like 50 and had the mind of a 90s alzheimer patient, and this is people that consumed those things I mentioned, more common and "soft" stuff than heroin.
Heroin is a death sentence, if you have injected more than 10 times in your life you´re already fuck, hell, most people got fucked up in the first shoot as the addiction is so strong that they ar unable to escape it unless professional help intervenes. The "cleaning up" scene in Trainspotting doesn´t even begging to describe the pain heroin addicts get when getting the stuff out of the system, not to mention that Nick is getting out of the stuff without medical placebos or any kind of prescription.
Nick feels like a guy that stopped smoking cigarettes yesterday and is doing kind of ok "beating the monkey" (which is probably where the writers get their addiction experience) , if I don´t consume cannabis in any form during 12 hours I can get waaaaaay more unpredictable and dangerous than he has in the entirety of the show. I fucking hate Nick, that kind of misinformed idea of heavy drugs is what makes some people start consuming it to begging with, I can vouch for that.
For a second I was hoping they wouldn't abandon his addiction problems
Then he started looking for pills in the guys house. I was like, "… moreOh Nick".
Strand is underground for either beneficial reasons or maybe some parasitical reasons. @Deltino I think we should start a theory thread. I know you got some ideas.
Comments
I undestand your view, altought Luke was my second favourite character in season 2 ( Clemetine's the first :P ), I just wanted to know the reason for you not to like him :>
I agree.
To be fair, there have been mentions made of that subject matter in the game.
While none of those are explicit attempts, I've always sort of appreciated that Telltale doesn't feel the need to rely on sex for their stories, even in sex-heavy narratives like Game of Thrones or The Wolf Among Us. Of course that could just be because of animation limitations, but I would highly doubt Telltale would include anything more explicit than say, Rodrik and Elaena in bed, or Narissa in the strip club. If anything, the attempt could be shown but be unsucessful with characters still mostly clothed, or be attempted and then finished off-screen, which would be pretty terrifying and definitely earn a mature rating.
You know our group started this, right? We attacked first, just to get some supplies from people (Hilltops) we met just a few episodes ago. So far (not a comic reader) Negan seems like the type of guy that defends his own
Idk if they expect us to hate the antagonists from the start, but it sucks meeting ppl like carver, Nate and even Randall now and not being able to learn more about them. Carver we got a lil bit of that.
The stranger was such a good antagonist because he was more developed than anyone else and we only saw him at the end of the game! He wasn't perfect but at least we could talk to him like a human being. Unlike anyone else.
I liked him as well until episode 4.
Exactly. Like we can speculate why carver hates the group but we can't speculate for Randall at all. Can't speculate for Nate either cause they're just portrayed as maniacal murderers.
Can the bad guy for season three just be clementine so we can realize that we created a monster in her. We need a good bad guy.
I would say Fear The walking Dead sucks and is boring with lazy writing. Though, that actually is a popular opinion of the show.
She's trolling. She always does that.
Nvm, someone convinced me to hate her, and I hate her now.
Shivers at that term. We need a morally-right antagonist?
Lol I like that it makes me cringe at the sound.
And idk about morally right because what defines right. I'd have liked (or maybe it will still happen) to get to actually negotiate with Norma. She seemed to be the closest thing to a morally right antagonist. But now it's war
You know, Randall does strike me as having some intrigue, actually. I don't see him as just a murderous maniac. I think there's some actual ideology to what he does and what he thinks about this world. I mean, the guy's definitely mental to some degree, no doubt about that, but I still think there's more to him than just murderous maniac.
I've seen him as a foil of sorts to Michonne. Instead of being haunted by his demons, he's someone that just outright embraced them.
"There ain't no heaven up there, honey. And there ain't no hell down below. There's only this shit, everyday until you die."
He's someone that decided to give up trying to be a good guy, or hell, even trying to be a bad guy, in a way. He's given up agonizing over the things he does, or the things he's seen. There's a philosophy here: in his eyes, the way the world is now, there isn't anything or anyone to 'rise above', and nothing to 'sink below' to. And he's someone that also shares the belief that the world isn't going to be able to recover from this, at least not to a point like it used to be ("Don't tell me you still believe in that lie, Michonne..."), so that further supports his own viewpoint; what's the point of doing things in the name of good if there's not really anything for that good to build towards, and when most people will just take advantage of it? Why bother being evil for the sake of being evil when it really doesn't get you any further than being good does? There's no systems in place to judge your actions. There's no society to write you off as some kind of degenerate. There's nothing. So why not just spare the expense, and do what you want without worrying about the ethics? I'm not going to argue that Randall's a fully sane individual, though. If those comments about his dad beating him are any indication, he's been fucked up before the apocalypse ever hit. But what I don't believe is that he's just a crazy motherfucker doing bad shit for the hell of it; he has an actual philosophy to his actions. I'm not saying that philosophy is right, but hey, it counts for something, right?
Randall's the kind of guy that doesn't believe there's a metric for good or evil anymore, and pretty much sees his actions as just that; actions. Neither good or bad. He isn't doing evil shit with the intent of being evil; he's kind of like Nate in that he's just doing his own thing. No allegiance to either side. To him, the apocalypse basically just gave him the freedom to be himself. Not to be good or to be evil, but to be himself. No rules or metrics as to what's good and what's bad anymore, no systems to judge him like the world before would have, so he's taking full advantage of that. It's liberating; if someone's being an asshole, you can gun them down without really having to worry about it. And I think that him trying to rile people up and egg them on is his own twisted way of trying to get other people to see the world the way he does; he's inviting people to smack him around, because hey, whose going to judge you? Whose going to punish you? No one, so why even worry about it? Just do what you want and live with it. Don't lose any sleep over it. Because that's exactly what he's chosen to do in this world.
But hey, maybe that's just me seeing the character in a completely different light
Also, I wouldn't consider Nate to be a one-dimensional psycho, either. Nate's the perfect example of a wildcard; wholly unpredictable, with a personality that is nearly impossible to pin down. A guy that goes from being friendly and supportive of you, to nearly getting you killed, to trusting you with a gun after nearly getting you killed, to insulting you, to saving your life, to not really caring about having just saved your life, to being more concerned over the fact that the guy shooting at you made a racist remark than the fact that he was shooting at you, to joking about killing two people, to joking about you 'breaking up' with him, to actually killing the two people, all over the course of about 15 minutes. You see multiple sides to this guy. He's not just purely evil or bad. We don't really see his motivations or what made him that way, sure, but we don't just see some cookie-cutter bad guy, either. At least I don't think we do.
They also had planned according to unused audio that Ben and Travis' classmates have been raped and killed by the bandits causing him trauma as he was forced to watch
Why does this not have more thumbs up!!!
That's a really great way to look at both characters and definitely is apparent in the two individuals (especially when you use Michonnes silence). I was liking Randall until it became abundantly clear that we would become enemies and I had to stop having fun with him.
That's a really great way to put it. While michonne is still tryin to convince herself that things and ppl can change, Randall's stopped wasting his time breathing life into (what he believes is) a lost cause and started lookin at the world for what it is; Death.
Nate I really want to show back up because I feel like he's a mix of your description of Randall and Nate. Yes he is a wild card most the time but his motivation for being a wild card is probably similar to that of Randall's. The world is over as they used to know it and now everyone can be what they wanted to be. Doesn't mean they have to be killers but killing has to become almost a second nature in this new world.
I hope ttg tricked us into thinking we were gonna fight Norma whether we had her brother or not, but in fact the episodes end up to play out very differently depending on the severity of his injuries (Randall) and most importantly if he's still alive.
You may have convinced me to replay the first two episodes
Something is considered morally-right when it is in concordance with your moral standards. This, by definition, varies from individual to individual. A morally-right antagonist would be one acts in a way that he fits your moral standards, but it's very rare to ever see that in media.
I dislike the term "bad guys," because it is based off the idea that all antagonists are considered morally-wrong by everyone, which is far from the truth
I liked Noah but was waste of a character seeing as he never did much then got ripped apart.
I prefer the comic to the show - i'm sure others agree though. This is more of a split opinion between fans than an unpopular decision.
I only recently started watching. It's average at best. Only pulling in viewers such as me and others because of the 'Walking Dead' branding etc.
This is funny. I think we agree on what kind of character we'd like to see but it's just the terminology.
In a sense we could say that Randall and almost every antagonist in telltales TWD are morally right antagonists based on what they value.
When I say a good bad guy, it'd be someone like Larry, Kenny or even the Stranger. People that we are opposing but they aren't necessarily bad ppl. Like Norma is right now. Like Daniel from FTWD and if Clem became the antagonist in season 3, she'd not only be a morally right antagonist but a good "bad" guy.
I don't really like morally right because I don't feel right judging ppl who I haven't grown up with (Randall, Jane, and other mixed bag characters) based off of how I grew up and developed my morals. Even after all that's happened how do we know Randall isn't just saying all the things he's said to protect his family, just like us? Just cause they don't match up with my morals doesn't mean they're morally wrong.
I kinda like them bringing in ppl outside of the group and having them assimilate. Compared to the comics were dale survived for ages without anyone realizing that he's old and probably wouldn't survive too long
I feel like when season three hits and we realize how important strand is, and nick for that matter, we might all switch shows.
Strand isn't a millionaire for no reason.
That's the fun part. Morality is a matter of opinion as it is. My moral code can—and most likely does—differ from yours, but that doesn't mean either of us is wrong.
Now ethics come into play. Ethics are the group of standards that society, or a specific community, hold. Your moral standards could overlap with the ethical standards of the place where you currently live, or they could not.
Chances are, some antagonists like Randall don't hold moral standards anymore, as @Deltino's post below kind of explains, acting freely as they wish. Others follow their own moral code, a different one from conventional ethics.
Anyway, this topic interests me a lot, so I can get carried away. Take my apology if I wrote down a rant.
I love these kinds of conversations. Can't really talk about this with my peers so don't apologize.
I'm kinda motivated to do my strand theory post now.
I go back on forth on whether I prefer the comics or show.
Strand and Nick make the show worth it. Strand is one of the most interesting vignettes we've had so far. We've had people from all kinds of different backgrounds and walks of life come and go in TWD, but Strand is one type of person that we really haven't seen yet; the rich, wealthy, influential type, as well as a guy that is all but implied to be involved in some kind of underground organization/ring. Nick also falls into the interesting category, since the only other notable addict that has shown up in TWD franchise so far would be Bonnie, and even then, her addiction wasn't really a central point or conflict for her character. I like that they haven't downplayed Nick's problems, either. They've actually treated that side of him pretty respectably so far.
FTWD definitely has it's problems, but if there are two things this show has undoubtedly done right so far, it's the characters of Nick and Strand.
I've stopped reading the comics due to emotional distress. I felt so bad for Eugene and Michonne.
Couldn't get passed that one issue. though I like the idea of focusing on human progression after the end of the world, I want to see this come to an end with some sort of resolve. I don't think there is much resolve for the comics. Just zombies drama and death.
For a second I was hoping they wouldn't abandon his addiction problems
Then he started looking for pills in the guys house. I was like, "Oh Nick".
Strand is underground for either beneficial reasons or maybe some parasitical reasons. @Deltino I think we should start a theory thread. I know you got some ideas.
ah, I see
Episode 2 of Season 2 was forgettable to me.
Yeah, didn´t went to specifics but precisely this is why I think it will fit, we already had those moments both in the comics and in the TV series. That Carl scene ShadowHunter mentions was, well, way more hardcore than I expected an AMC TV show to go.
Season one is overrated. Season two was better in my eyes.
Forgot about Jolene.Danny I won´t count ´cause it happen before the zombies. And Molly and Rebeca, it´s very unclear like you say how much was consensual or, let´s face it, out of desperation in the case of Molly and who knows if Rebeca as well. While the subject of rape is present in the world with examples as the one with Danny, what I meant was an actual attempt to rape, like the one mentioned above for Carl or the full rape and torture of Michonne in the comics (which should be canon in the videogames). Maybe now that Clem is getting bigger the developers will add some sub-plot or action event on this premise? Who knows, I just think that, as much as it´s a touchy subject that can disturb and certainly harm the feelings of some players, it´s needed in post-apocalyptic themed universes, at least for me and my level of disbelieve towards that property, mainly because I know is something that will happen in reality. i think that it will happen more than people going guns crazy, which is where most Walking Dead plots lead to (comic, tv and videogame).
Hear hear. Such boring show, such hateful and stupid emo characters.
I saw a promo for a new Walking Dead show where a guys walk towards a sign of Rome. I hope this means we are getting a new spin-off series and Fear The Walking Dead gets finished and ended in this second season. Also, ZOMBIES IN EUROPE!! FUCKING FINALE!!! I don´t want to sound insulting but, you Americans have it SUPER EASY on zombie apocalypses, one of the biggest countries in the world, tons of space and not that much population on relationship with the size of the country, guns everywhere... Now, the narrowed, labyrinth, with 0 guns street of most western Europeans countries? That´s fucking scary. I live in an island that is the size of one famous American airport (can´t remember which one, but one that is around 2.000 km2) and there´s less deadly guns in the entire island that what we have seeing already in the TV show.
Addiction problems?? As someone who had actually consume cocaine, speed, mdmc, mushrooms, acid and still consumes marijuana and hash on daily doses but has try to leave it several times I can assure you, Nick is the less believable drug addict ever created on television. They had him not wash his hair and that´s it. No mood changes, no rage outburst, no "shakes" (I don´t know if english addicts also call it like that, but I´m talking about general physical pains and uncontrollable small twitches depending on the drug you´re leaving behind). It´s very clear the writers wanted to approach the subject not really understand it about it. I never got addicted to the hardcore drugs and i just step out of it after some years of experiences, it wasn´t for me and I got really scare after meeting with some people who consumed the stuff for longer time periods, 30 year old people that looked like 50 and had the mind of a 90s alzheimer patient, and this is people that consumed those things I mentioned, more common and "soft" stuff than heroin.
Heroin is a death sentence, if you have injected more than 10 times in your life you´re already fuck, hell, most people got fucked up in the first shoot as the addiction is so strong that they ar unable to escape it unless professional help intervenes. The "cleaning up" scene in Trainspotting doesn´t even begging to describe the pain heroin addicts get when getting the stuff out of the system, not to mention that Nick is getting out of the stuff without medical placebos or any kind of prescription.
Nick feels like a guy that stopped smoking cigarettes yesterday and is doing kind of ok "beating the monkey" (which is probably where the writers get their addiction experience) , if I don´t consume cannabis in any form during 12 hours I can get waaaaaay more unpredictable and dangerous than he has in the entirety of the show. I fucking hate Nick, that kind of misinformed idea of heavy drugs is what makes some people start consuming it to begging with, I can vouch for that.
One more: I don't want Clementine to be PC in Season 3
I hope Arvo somehow comes back in season 3, but not because I want him to get shot, but because I actually like him. Same with Bonnie and Mike.
Justified Crazy
that was an awesome scene.
The Claimers really got to me for some reason, and i was real happy to see them suffer.
You like them even though they betrayed and shot you?