Sarah. I'd like to learn more about Arvo, but I care about Sarah's character far more and I feel like she could grow into an unstoppable badass if trained correctly.
Again, I don't think they need to explain why they have that opinion in great depth. They like his character. It's an emotion they have towards his arc, development and potential.
Well... er... no. But still, it's not like I'm bashing you for hating Arvo. If you hate Arvo, hate his fuckin' guts for all I care. But attacking others for their opinions is a bit of a dick move, wouldn't you say?
Well... er... no. But still, it's not like I'm bashing you for hating Arvo. If you hate Arvo, hate his fuckin' guts for all I care. But attacking others for their opinions is a bit of a dick move, wouldn't you say?
I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "stalking". I am simply replying to your comments on how I feel about them, and though I am a bit harsh, I do respect your opinion as long as you respect other's opinions. I am within my rights to do that. You act as if I'm purposely following you everywhere you go, commenting on everything you comment on and trying to gain knowledge of where you live, when really I just stumbled across this thread, became interested and got slightly frustrated at the way you were speaking to people who chose Arvo. It's not cool.
There are other ways to attack people for their opinions that aren't "Go fuck yourself". There's shit like questioning them for their opinions and calling them stupid and saying their reasons are stupid. They don't need to justify how they feel about Arvo, dude.
Sarah. She helped Clementine in her time of need. That wound wasn't going to heal itself. We bonded over a special moment when I showed my bloody dog bite to her. She never pointed a gun at me, nor try and rob me, and shoot me over a clear misunderstanding. She's just unlucky I guess, but so is Arvo.
Depends entirely on the situation if everything occurred very similarly to how it has, then I'd choose Sarah, not only is she one of the kindest characters introduced but, in my play-through, I had already established a friendship with her, plus, it was evident that she wanted to learn how to survive and she might've been a good asset to the group had someone actually taught her how to defend herself.
It would be nice if we got a choice that instead forces you to pick between A & B, also gave you the option to choose both or neither, adds some complexity in my opinion.
Please don't antagonize me for my choice. I understand that Arvo is disliked among the fans, but I don't have to backup my liking for him with paragraphs.
I feel like she could grow into an unstoppable badass if trained correctly.
Really? I mean Sarah is nice enough as a person but I didnt see much potential in her. At least in that sense anyway, she doesn't seem like a fighter. Maybe she could have done something if given training and a chance but she never showed much potential in any survival area during the game.
Sarah. I'd like to learn more about Arvo, but I care about Sarah's character far more and I feel like she could grow into an unstoppable badass if trained correctly.
That's bullshit. Reggie was such a coward lying piece of shit. He tried to make us think Carver is a good guy. His arm wasn't even amputated to be rescued, it was for punishment. He didn't help Sarah help with her chores when they had a lot of time. He caused his own death.
Sarita? Are you kidding me? The escape plan was the worst idea I've ever heard. Instead of staying in a safe place with people protecting the place, the group risked its own neck going through a herd of walkers where there were gunshots everywhere. This is how the group fall apart. Sarah had nothing to do with this. Everyone who blames Sarah for Sarita's death should just... fuck off. Carlos was shot by Carver's men, did Sarah order them to? The group would have been killed at any minute. Sarah didn't kill anyone, did she even want to?
His arm wasn't even amputated to be rescued, it was for punishment
Not thats not true. Thats just some theory that doesnt really make sense anyway. Its way more likely it was included to let people know that surviving a bite via amputation was possible, given the sarita choice at the end.
Caused the deaths of Reggie and Sarita.
That's bullshit. Reggie was such a coward lying piece of shit. He tried to make us think Car… morever is a good guy. His arm wasn't even amputated to be rescued, it was for punishment. He didn't help Sarah help with her chores when they had a lot of time. He caused his own death.
Sarita? Are you kidding me? The escape plan was the worst idea I've ever heard. Instead of staying in a safe place with people protecting the place, the group risked its own neck going through a herd of walkers where there were gunshots everywhere. This is how the group fall apart. Sarah had nothing to do with this. Everyone who blames Sarah for Sarita's death should just... fuck off. Carlos was shot by Carver's men, did Sarah order them to? The group would have been killed at any minute. Sarah didn't kill anyone, did she even want to?
His arm wasn't even amputated to be rescued, it was for punishment
Not thats not true. Thats just some theory that doesnt really mak… moree sense anyway. Its way more likely it was included to let people know that surviving a bite via amputation was possible, given the sarita choice at the end.
The bite amputation thing seems to work if the plot deems it should work and anyway its kind of off point here anyway. Reggie revealing he survived the bit via amputation is to let people who just play the game know that is an option. Otherwise people may have chosen differently at the end as they would believe that amputation never works. Also so he doesnt look serious...why does that mean hes lying? I mean the game isnt subtle about stuff, if he was lying the game would make it obvious or reveal it later. There is no evidence the arm was removed as a punishment bar some tinfoil theory
Also if you she didn't exist, Clementine would have died by the dog bite, you know?
she got bit cos of Sarah's scream
No, it's because the escape plan was stupid, I would stay a peaceful place instead of risking my own neck going through a tons of walkers with gunshots shot above me.
The bite amputation thing seems to work if the plot deems it should work and anyway its kind of off point here anyway. Reggie revealing he s… moreurvived the bit via amputation is to let people who just play the game know that is an option. Otherwise people may have chosen differently at the end as they would believe that amputation never works. Also so he doesnt look serious...why does that mean hes lying? I mean the game isnt subtle about stuff, if he was lying the game would make it obvious or reveal it later. There is no evidence the arm was removed as a punishment bar some tinfoil theory
What is to laugh about? Sarah gave her peroxide to disinfect Clem's bite.
Sarita would have survived if it wasn't for Sarah.
"Facepalm". I'm telling you again, the group would have been killed at any minute, the only reason how most of the group survived is because of the plot.
I am just paraphrasing here. At some point, Reggie says "guy's kind of a dick when he's tired, but, like I said, he saved my life so… I put up with that shit," which pretty much confirms that, if somebody amputated Reggie's arm while the latter was working, it was Mike, successfully saving his life. This also makes sense, considering that Reggie, Mike and Jane would recurrently put to work together as laborers—the three were the ones who lived at the plant nursery.
Technically speaking, Sarah did contribute to the death of Sarita—indirectly.
Sarah screamed her lungs out after witnessing her father being devoured, which led to Sarita approaching Sarah and Clementine, killing the rotters that had been driven to them, and thus, calling attention to herself, accidentally dropping her hatchet and winding up bitten in the process.
This in no way means that Sarah is immoral, nor to blame, for the death of Sarita. This does mean that Sarah played a role, and if that role had not been played, it is likely that Sarita wouldn't have died. However, it is clear that Sarah did not voluntarily scream, and that is what matters to me in the subject of blame.
Caused the deaths of Reggie and Sarita.
That's bullshit. Reggie was such a coward lying piece of shit. He tried to make us think Car… morever is a good guy. His arm wasn't even amputated to be rescued, it was for punishment. He didn't help Sarah help with her chores when they had a lot of time. He caused his own death.
Sarita? Are you kidding me? The escape plan was the worst idea I've ever heard. Instead of staying in a safe place with people protecting the place, the group risked its own neck going through a herd of walkers where there were gunshots everywhere. This is how the group fall apart. Sarah had nothing to do with this. Everyone who blames Sarah for Sarita's death should just... fuck off. Carlos was shot by Carver's men, did Sarah order them to? The group would have been killed at any minute. Sarah didn't kill anyone, did she even want to?
Technically speaking, Sarah did contribute to the death of Sarita—indirectly.
Sarah screamed her lungs out after witnessing her father be… moreing devoured, which led to Sarita approaching Sarah and Clementine, killing the rotters that had been driven to them, and thus, calling attention to herself, accidentally dropping her hatchet and winding up bitten in the process.
This in no way means that Sarah is immoral, nor to blame, for the death of Sarita. This does mean that Sarah played a role, and if that role had not been played, it is likely that Sarita wouldn't have died. However, it is clear that Sarah did not voluntarily scream, and that is what matters to me in the subject of blame.
I would say that she is indirectly responsible for the death, not to blame.
You see, screaming upon the brutal death of a loved one is an instictual impulse that most cannot suppress. I would only say that Clementine and Sarah are to blame if they purposely attracted the attention of walkers to get Lee and Sarita to die.
About being to blame for attracting walkers—they sure are. But that is different.
I think it is. Mike never revealed he did save Reggie's life.
Mike never confirms something the plot already told us? I mean if anyone at any time suggested that reggies arm being cut was as a punishment maybe but they never do. There is absolutely nothing that confirms this bizzare theory that Carver chopped off reggies arm, everything the plot tells us is that mike chopped it off following a bite, there is nothing suggesting anything else.
Yes, thats exactly what they are saying. Her being to blame for it doesnt mean shes a bad person however she is the main cause of sarita getting bit, whether she intended to or not.
Also to your point yes clem would be to blame if she did that (worth noting pretty much that exact thing happened to clementine in season 1 and she didnt scream)
Yes, thats exactly what they are saying. Her being to blame for it doesnt mean shes a bad person however she is the main cause of sarita get… moreting bit, whether she intended to or not.
Also to your point yes clem would be to blame if she did that (worth noting pretty much that exact thing happened to clementine in season 1 and she didnt scream)
It would be nice if we got a choice that instead forces you to pick between A & B, also gave you the option to choose both or neither, adds some complexity in my opinion.
Hijacking this comment in three, two…
Going along the topic of new dynamics of determinant characters, I would like it if only a determinant character has the ability of saving another character sometime later in the game. For example, we have Janey and Rich, and the protagonist can only save one, and the other dies. An episode later, Janey and Rich, who now cannot be in the same gameplay together, are in a situation where only they can save, let's say, Larry. If you have Janey with you, she will be able to save Larry successfully, whereas, if you have Rich with you, he will miss his shot, killing Larry instead, leading him to sink into depression.
They can kill Janey and Rich afterwards for all we care, but after they die, the choice that you made will still have an impact—Larry's fate.
Depends entirely on the situation if everything occurred very similarly to how it has, then I'd choose Sarah, not only is she one of the kin… moredest characters introduced but, in my play-through, I had already established a friendship with her, plus, it was evident that she wanted to learn how to survive and she might've been a good asset to the group had someone actually taught her how to defend herself.
It would be nice if we got a choice that instead forces you to pick between A & B, also gave you the option to choose both or neither, adds some complexity in my opinion.
(worth noting pretty much that exact thing happened to clementine in season 1 and she didnt scream)
Because her parents were walkers, they didn't die in front of her
There's a big difference between seeing the exact moment where a loved one is shot in the neck and is then brutally torn apart by a group of walkers right in front of you, and seeing your loved having become walkers since possibly a good few months since the outbreak. Sarah saw the exact instant of her father's death, Clementine saw the aftermath of her parents' death.
I'd think that even Clementine in Season 1 would scream bloody murder if she saw Lee eaten alive in front of her while trying to sneak past a walker herd.
Choosing someone because they're less of a "liability" (physicial in this case) is Crawford style. I'm just poiniting that out. Nothing more, nothing less.
Arvo is more a liability. He has a broken leg and is slower than Sarah. Also, he is a troublemaker. You choose a troublemaker over a poor defenseless little girl?
Choosing someone because they're less of a "liability" (physicial in this case) is Crawford style. I'm just poiniting that out. Nothing more, nothing less.
Choosing someone because they're less of a "liability" (physicial in this case) is Crawford style. I'm just poiniting that out. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't think that rock climbing scenario is an accurate comparison. Sarita was bitten because of a specific set of circumstances, not just because Sarah screamed. It is not as direct as "person A killed person B."
Also, not even taking Sarah's disability into account, it's not like it's some damning trait for a young girl to scream after witnessing her father brutally dying in front of her. This is different than the blueberry scenario with Reggie, because it was a gut instinct, not a choice. It wasn't smart, but anyone close with their father could have done that.
No, you didn't use the exact phrase "damning trait," but you still used her screaming and indirectly getting Sarita killed as a reason to call her a troublemaker and a liability, is what I'm getting at. I just don't think that's fair given it could have been anyone that might scream in that situation.
I think everybody has untapped potential. Sarah could learn, she just needed time. To be fair, training her to survive right after her father died, (which she knew, but was in denial about) wasn't exactly the best situation. However, if the crew had trained Sarah some time were she could cope, I feel like she could become extremely useful. As I said, everyone has untapped potential, it just needs a spark.
I feel like she could grow into an unstoppable badass if trained correctly.
Really? I mean Sarah is nice enough as a person but I di… morednt see much potential in her. At least in that sense anyway, she doesn't seem like a fighter. Maybe she could have done something if given training and a chance but she never showed much potential in any survival area during the game.
Comments
I asked why love him, not like him. They like him, it's fine but love?
Wow you're just kind of a dick when it comes to opinions. Though I already addressed that above so meh.
Sarah. I'd like to learn more about Arvo, but I care about Sarah's character far more and I feel like she could grow into an unstoppable badass if trained correctly.
Is it necesary?
Again, I don't think they need to explain why they have that opinion in great depth. They like his character. It's an emotion they have towards his arc, development and potential.
Looks like you're just stalking me. Stop that.
Well... er... no. But still, it's not like I'm bashing you for hating Arvo. If you hate Arvo, hate his fuckin' guts for all I care. But attacking others for their opinions is a bit of a dick move, wouldn't you say?
I didn't say shit like "Go fuck yourself for liking Arvo". I just said their reasons don't seem fair
I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "stalking". I am simply replying to your comments on how I feel about them, and though I am a bit harsh, I do respect your opinion as long as you respect other's opinions. I am within my rights to do that. You act as if I'm purposely following you everywhere you go, commenting on everything you comment on and trying to gain knowledge of where you live, when really I just stumbled across this thread, became interested and got slightly frustrated at the way you were speaking to people who chose Arvo. It's not cool.
There are other ways to attack people for their opinions that aren't "Go fuck yourself". There's shit like questioning them for their opinions and calling them stupid and saying their reasons are stupid. They don't need to justify how they feel about Arvo, dude.
Sarah. She helped Clementine in her time of need. That wound wasn't going to heal itself. We bonded over a special moment when I showed my bloody dog bite to her. She never pointed a gun at me, nor try and rob me, and shoot me over a clear misunderstanding. She's just unlucky I guess, but so is Arvo.
Depends entirely on the situation if everything occurred very similarly to how it has, then I'd choose Sarah, not only is she one of the kindest characters introduced but, in my play-through, I had already established a friendship with her, plus, it was evident that she wanted to learn how to survive and she might've been a good asset to the group had someone actually taught her how to defend herself.
It would be nice if we got a choice that instead forces you to pick between A & B, also gave you the option to choose both or neither, adds some complexity in my opinion.
You only need to explain your opinion if you want to
Really? I mean Sarah is nice enough as a person but I didnt see much potential in her. At least in that sense anyway, she doesn't seem like a fighter. Maybe she could have done something if given training and a chance but she never showed much potential in any survival area during the game.
lol, I'd kill Arvo even if it didn't save anyone else...
That's bullshit. Reggie was such a coward lying piece of shit. He tried to make us think Carver is a good guy. His arm wasn't even amputated to be rescued, it was for punishment. He didn't help Sarah help with her chores when they had a lot of time. He caused his own death.
Sarita? Are you kidding me? The escape plan was the worst idea I've ever heard. Instead of staying in a safe place with people protecting the place, the group risked its own neck going through a herd of walkers where there were gunshots everywhere. This is how the group fall apart. Sarah had nothing to do with this. Everyone who blames Sarah for Sarita's death should just... fuck off. Carlos was shot by Carver's men, did Sarah order them to? The group would have been killed at any minute. Sarah didn't kill anyone, did she even want to?
Not thats not true. Thats just some theory that doesnt really make sense anyway. Its way more likely it was included to let people know that surviving a bite via amputation was possible, given the sarita choice at the end.
Yeah and Reggie would stop us from escaping. Carlos would still get shot and Sarita get bitten, none of this is because of Sarah.
Reggie didn't look serious about it. Sarita would have still died because Clem had her hatchet covered in blood and would get into Sarita's blood.
The bite amputation thing seems to work if the plot deems it should work and anyway its kind of off point here anyway. Reggie revealing he survived the bit via amputation is to let people who just play the game know that is an option. Otherwise people may have chosen differently at the end as they would believe that amputation never works. Also so he doesnt look serious...why does that mean hes lying? I mean the game isnt subtle about stuff, if he was lying the game would make it obvious or reveal it later. There is no evidence the arm was removed as a punishment bar some tinfoil theory
Also if you she didn't exist, Clementine would have died by the dog bite, you know?
No, it's because the escape plan was stupid, I would stay a peaceful place instead of risking my own neck going through a tons of walkers with gunshots shot above me.
I think it is. Mike never revealed he did save Reggie's life.
What is to laugh about? Sarah gave her peroxide to disinfect Clem's bite.
"Facepalm". I'm telling you again, the group would have been killed at any minute, the only reason how most of the group survived is because of the plot.
I am just paraphrasing here. At some point, Reggie says "guy's kind of a dick when he's tired, but, like I said, he saved my life so… I put up with that shit," which pretty much confirms that, if somebody amputated Reggie's arm while the latter was working, it was Mike, successfully saving his life. This also makes sense, considering that Reggie, Mike and Jane would recurrently put to work together as laborers—the three were the ones who lived at the plant nursery.
Technically speaking, Sarah did contribute to the death of Sarita—indirectly.
Sarah screamed her lungs out after witnessing her father being devoured, which led to Sarita approaching Sarah and Clementine, killing the rotters that had been driven to them, and thus, calling attention to herself, accidentally dropping her hatchet and winding up bitten in the process.
This in no way means that Sarah is immoral, nor to blame, for the death of Sarita. This does mean that Sarah played a role, and if that role had not been played, it is likely that Sarita wouldn't have died. However, it is clear that Sarah did not voluntarily scream, and that is what matters to me in the subject of blame.
So if Clementine's parents died in front of her and Clem screamed for them which would caused Lee to die, she is to blame for attracting walkers?
I would say that she is indirectly responsible for the death, not to blame.
You see, screaming upon the brutal death of a loved one is an instictual impulse that most cannot suppress. I would only say that Clementine and Sarah are to blame if they purposely attracted the attention of walkers to get Lee and Sarita to die.
About being to blame for attracting walkers—they sure are. But that is different.
Mike never confirms something the plot already told us? I mean if anyone at any time suggested that reggies arm being cut was as a punishment maybe but they never do. There is absolutely nothing that confirms this bizzare theory that Carver chopped off reggies arm, everything the plot tells us is that mike chopped it off following a bite, there is nothing suggesting anything else.
Yes, thats exactly what they are saying. Her being to blame for it doesnt mean shes a bad person however she is the main cause of sarita getting bit, whether she intended to or not.
Also to your point yes clem would be to blame if she did that (worth noting pretty much that exact thing happened to clementine in season 1 and she didnt scream)
Because her parents were walkers, they didn't die in front of her
Hijacking this comment in three, two…
Going along the topic of new dynamics of determinant characters, I would like it if only a determinant character has the ability of saving another character sometime later in the game. For example, we have Janey and Rich, and the protagonist can only save one, and the other dies. An episode later, Janey and Rich, who now cannot be in the same gameplay together, are in a situation where only they can save, let's say, Larry. If you have Janey with you, she will be able to save Larry successfully, whereas, if you have Rich with you, he will miss his shot, killing Larry instead, leading him to sink into depression.
They can kill Janey and Rich afterwards for all we care, but after they die, the choice that you made will still have an impact—Larry's fate.
Yeah because seeing your rotting zombified parents isnt just as upsetting, clem was also still certain they were alive
There's a big difference between seeing the exact moment where a loved one is shot in the neck and is then brutally torn apart by a group of walkers right in front of you, and seeing your loved having become walkers since possibly a good few months since the outbreak. Sarah saw the exact instant of her father's death, Clementine saw the aftermath of her parents' death.
I'd think that even Clementine in Season 1 would scream bloody murder if she saw Lee eaten alive in front of her while trying to sneak past a walker herd.
Choosing someone because they're less of a "liability" (physicial in this case) is Crawford style. I'm just poiniting that out. Nothing more, nothing less.
No, it's choosing someone who makes trouble around on purpose or someone who regrets making trouble around
No its isnt.... Crawford flat out refused to allow anyone weak, that different to prioritizing someone who is more useful
I don't think that rock climbing scenario is an accurate comparison. Sarita was bitten because of a specific set of circumstances, not just because Sarah screamed. It is not as direct as "person A killed person B."
Also, not even taking Sarah's disability into account, it's not like it's some damning trait for a young girl to scream after witnessing her father brutally dying in front of her. This is different than the blueberry scenario with Reggie, because it was a gut instinct, not a choice. It wasn't smart, but anyone close with their father could have done that.
No, you didn't use the exact phrase "damning trait," but you still used her screaming and indirectly getting Sarita killed as a reason to call her a troublemaker and a liability, is what I'm getting at. I just don't think that's fair given it could have been anyone that might scream in that situation.
I think everybody has untapped potential. Sarah could learn, she just needed time. To be fair, training her to survive right after her father died, (which she knew, but was in denial about) wasn't exactly the best situation. However, if the crew had trained Sarah some time were she could cope, I feel like she could become extremely useful. As I said, everyone has untapped potential, it just needs a spark.
Then why mention liability?