Season 1 episode 4 you have a choice to save ben or drop him. He is a liability to the group. Dropping him helps the group and Lee knows th… moreis but it takes away some of his humanity. Also, Clem just gave you a lecture on how you don't leave your friends.
Season 2 episode 4 you have a choice to save Sarah or leave her. She is a liability to the group. Leaving her helps the group and Clem knows this but it takes away some of her humanity. It also goes against what she originally stood by in season 1.
Season 1 episode 5 if you saved him, what he is standing on breaks so he then falls. He is unable to move and is then eaten by walkers.
Season 2 episode 4 if you saved her, what she is standing on breaks so she then falls. She is unable to move and is then eaten by walkers.
Season 1 episode 4 you have a choice to save ben or drop him. He is a liability to the group. Dropping him helps the group and Lee knows th… moreis but it takes away some of his humanity. Also, Clem just gave you a lecture on how you don't leave your friends.
Season 2 episode 4 you have a choice to save Sarah or leave her. She is a liability to the group. Leaving her helps the group and Clem knows this but it takes away some of her humanity. It also goes against what she originally stood by in season 1.
Season 1 episode 5 if you saved him, what he is standing on breaks so he then falls. He is unable to move and is then eaten by walkers.
Season 2 episode 4 if you saved her, what she is standing on breaks so she then falls. She is unable to move and is then eaten by walkers.
Season 1 episode 4 you have a choice to save ben or drop him. He is a liability to the group. Dropping him helps the group and Lee knows th… moreis but it takes away some of his humanity. Also, Clem just gave you a lecture on how you don't leave your friends.
Season 2 episode 4 you have a choice to save Sarah or leave her. She is a liability to the group. Leaving her helps the group and Clem knows this but it takes away some of her humanity. It also goes against what she originally stood by in season 1.
Season 1 episode 5 if you saved him, what he is standing on breaks so he then falls. He is unable to move and is then eaten by walkers.
Season 2 episode 4 if you saved her, what she is standing on breaks so she then falls. She is unable to move and is then eaten by walkers.
Ya'll just figurin that out? People were quick to compare her to him even before that despite her situation being vastly different (and less dangerous) than his because small reference pools I guess.
That's also why their respective portrayals/treatments by the story and reputations as the best and worst handled determinant character is so notable.
One of the many things that genuinely bothers me about that though is that all leaving them behind does is have one less pair of hands in the group and put needless blood on the PC's, especially in Sarah's case.
Season 1 episode 4 you have a choice to save ben or drop him. He is a liability to the group. Dropping him helps the group and Lee knows th… moreis but it takes away some of his humanity. Also, Clem just gave you a lecture on how you don't leave your friends.
Season 2 episode 4 you have a choice to save Sarah or leave her. She is a liability to the group. Leaving her helps the group and Clem knows this but it takes away some of her humanity. It also goes against what she originally stood by in season 1.
Season 1 episode 5 if you saved him, what he is standing on breaks so he then falls. He is unable to move and is then eaten by walkers.
Season 2 episode 4 if you saved her, what she is standing on breaks so she then falls. She is unable to move and is then eaten by walkers.
Season 1 episode 4 you have a choice to save ben or drop him. He is a liability to the group. Dropping him helps the group and Lee knows th… moreis but it takes away some of his humanity. Also, Clem just gave you a lecture on how you don't leave your friends.
Season 2 episode 4 you have a choice to save Sarah or leave her. She is a liability to the group. Leaving her helps the group and Clem knows this but it takes away some of her humanity. It also goes against what she originally stood by in season 1.
Season 1 episode 5 if you saved him, what he is standing on breaks so he then falls. He is unable to move and is then eaten by walkers.
Season 2 episode 4 if you saved her, what she is standing on breaks so she then falls. She is unable to move and is then eaten by walkers.
It was just a writing technique that telltale had used or accidentally used that most stories have. It isn't laziness, just a good idea to make us think about the things that have happened so we can put two and two together.
It was just a writing technique that telltale had used or accidentally used that most stories have. It isn't laziness, just a good idea to make us think about the things that have happened so we can put two and two together.
I was speaking to a few people a day ago on my ps4 community and we were just pointing out that the walking dead season 3 isn't as bad as everybody says it is, they just don't like it because it is different. And everybody wants realism and no returning characters because it wouldn't make sense, but we said a zombie apocalypse is hardly realistic in itself and it will only make for a better story and more emotion. I'd rather have a better story with a returning character than no returning characters at all.
Which one: the one that tried to be morally conflicting with mixed results or the one that was clearly shoe-horned in due to the contrived setup and obvious bias?
Oh boy, this reminds me of the period(s) before I joined this community, when there were a number of people who just immediately decried nearly everything in Season 2 as a ripoff, regardless of the key differences. Personally, I was always of the mindset that you can reuse a story or character concept as long as a. the new product is able to stand up on it's own thing or b. the new product at least goes in a different direction than the original. The saying goes that there are only seven original stories, after all--what really matters is how you tell them.
Of course, with that said, I have opened up to the idea that Season 2 definitely reused a few things over time, intentional or otherwise, and while it definitely sticks to my rules for the most part, it does feel like some of the ideas that are reused are done so in a way that either feels counter-intuitive to the story or flat out seems to lack understanding of what made the original work in it's implementation. I'd say the shoehorned (and weak) Ben parallels with Sarah in Season 2.5 definitely applied to the latter in terms of why Ben was portrayed the way he was and how that affect why the characters and story treated him in certain ways.
In ANF episode 3, two adults have to patiently explain to a child that their present location is not safe and the child stubbornly insists that they could stay and be safe.
In S1E3 the same argument is made except it is Lilly, a fully grown woman, who is stubbornly insisting to stay in an unsafe area.
In ANF episode 3, two adults have to patiently explain to a child that their present location is not safe and the child stubbornly insists t… morehat they could stay and be safe.
In S1E3 the same argument is made except it is Lilly, a fully grown woman, who is stubbornly insisting to stay in an unsafe area.
Okay I just realized: how is Joan still alive? She looks to be in her 60's and isn't exactly in the best shape. Not that I have something against people like that but what are the chances of a woman who fits that description surviving 4 years in the apocalypse? You need to run from walkers, run from bandits, Fight other people (heck, clem fought Winston in season 2). Has this woman never had to fight someone else using self defense? I find it hard to believe, I also find it hard to believe that she's capable of successfully taking someone down. What happened to survival of the fittest?
I think you meant to post this in the questions thread, but I'll bite.
She could easily be a case of Acrofatic on top of having leadership and diplomatic skills. Molly, Clementine, and arguably Arvo and Norma already proved that you shouldn't underestimate people by their stature--people will do what they have to if it means staying alive and/or getting their way.
What happened to survival of the fittest?
It went to back to Hell with Carver and Jane to take a hopefully lulling vacation.
Okay I just realized: how is Joan still alive? She looks to be in her 60's and isn't exactly in the best shape. Not that I have something … moreagainst people like that but what are the chances of a woman who fits that description surviving 4 years in the apocalypse? You need to run from walkers, run from bandits, Fight other people (heck, clem fought Winston in season 2). Has this woman never had to fight someone else using self defense? I find it hard to believe, I also find it hard to believe that she's capable of successfully taking someone down. What happened to survival of the fittest?
It went to back to Hell with Carver and Jane to take a hopefully lulling vacation.
Oh man, it's good to hear someone else denouncing this concept
Fuck all that 'survival of the fittest' horseshit
Not to mention that almost everyone's definition for it isn't even technically correct-- the 'fit' used in the phrase is the biological terminology, which mostly boils down to reproduction and the success thereof. It's not in strict reference to physical capabilities, because nature itself already contradicts that statement; just look at some of the species that are still alive to this day. A good portion of them should be extinct in accordance to the phrase... but they aren't. Not to mention that survival doesn't solely hinge on someone's (or something's) physical capabilities. Like, what the hell's a chameleon honestly capable of? You think it could kick a snake's ass? A bird's ass? Probably not, but you know what they can do? They can camouflage themselves. That's how they adapted and survived in their environment-- they made use of a different skill set, one that didn't depend on their physical prowess.
Similarly, you can bet there's going to be a share of people in an apocalyptic world that survive by virtue of having a persuasive/manipulative skill set. A good liar that can get people to protect them, a woman seducing men into sticking with her, a good speaker that's able to convince a group of people to follow and protect him... the list goes on. So it's not out of the question that someone that isn't in their physical prime can and most likely will fall back on the less physical skills they may have in order to stay alive.
But back to my main point-- the phrase 'survival of the fittest' is true to an extent, but the way its commonly construed by people-- or hell, just the way it's entered public lexicon-- is just a bunch of fallacious, borderline-elitist bullshit, as far as I'm concerned.
I think you meant to post this in the questions thread, but I'll bite.
She could easily be a case of Acrofatic on top of having leadership … moreand diplomatic skills. Molly, Clementine, and arguably Arvo and Norma already proved that you shouldn't underestimate people by their stature--people will do what they have to if it means staying alive and/or getting their way.
What happened to survival of the fittest?
It went to back to Hell with Carver and Jane to take a hopefully lulling vacation.
Episode 1 of ANF was supposed to have a 'Next time...' and was also supposed to be released sometime during summer 2016.
Job mentioned ha… moreving played the episode on 1st July.
It's likely whatever he played got rewritten or was scrapped. There is no way ties that bind pt2 took 5 months to develop.
Comments
And I have this wonderful feeling that it wasn't even intentional in the slightest
Oh damn
Clementine's adoptive mom is also her actual mom.
What...
Plot twist: Edith is actually Diana.
Goddammit, I still fucking hate Telltale for their mistakes and reused stuff,they never listen.
Yeah, I took that as a metaphor.
Ya'll just figurin that out? People were quick to compare her to him even before that despite her situation being vastly different (and less dangerous) than his because small reference pools I guess.
That's also why their respective portrayals/treatments by the story and reputations as the best and worst handled determinant character is so notable.
One of the many things that genuinely bothers me about that though is that all leaving them behind does is have one less pair of hands in the group and put needless blood on the PC's, especially in Sarah's case.
Yup she just didn't recognize her own daughter, checks out.
Her subconscious did, that's why she was the one to adopt her.
The same scream can also be heard in S1 E1 when you're talking to Hershell and Shawn gets attacked by walkers.
Damn, Gabe or Conrad might fall from a collapsing ground and eaten in the near future
Probably Conrad.
Strange tho Clem didn't seem to fazed when she saw Edith die, even tho she was supposedly a mother figure for two years.
She didn't really have time to grieve since she had to check on AJ and run from the evil group.
Then we'd be given the Sarah choice and attempt to save him again making him a triple determinant
She would have gotten a headshot as well if she didn't get the hell away from view
Yeah fair enough
She has clem's eyes. Just thought I'd point that out because people still think she's Asian
It was just a writing technique that telltale had used or accidentally used that most stories have. It isn't laziness, just a good idea to make us think about the things that have happened so we can put two and two together.
Doesn't change the fact how bad they're doing with these series.
I was speaking to a few people a day ago on my ps4 community and we were just pointing out that the walking dead season 3 isn't as bad as everybody says it is, they just don't like it because it is different. And everybody wants realism and no returning characters because it wouldn't make sense, but we said a zombie apocalypse is hardly realistic in itself and it will only make for a better story and more emotion. I'd rather have a better story with a returning character than no returning characters at all.
Which one: the one that tried to be morally conflicting with mixed results or the one that was clearly shoe-horned in due to the contrived setup and obvious bias?
It's your opinion, not a fact.
Oh boy, this reminds me of the period(s) before I joined this community, when there were a number of people who just immediately decried nearly everything in Season 2 as a ripoff, regardless of the key differences. Personally, I was always of the mindset that you can reuse a story or character concept as long as a. the new product is able to stand up on it's own thing or b. the new product at least goes in a different direction than the original. The saying goes that there are only seven original stories, after all--what really matters is how you tell them.
Of course, with that said, I have opened up to the idea that Season 2 definitely reused a few things over time, intentional or otherwise, and while it definitely sticks to my rules for the most part, it does feel like some of the ideas that are reused are done so in a way that either feels counter-intuitive to the story or flat out seems to lack understanding of what made the original work in it's implementation. I'd say the shoehorned (and weak) Ben parallels with Sarah in Season 2.5 definitely applied to the latter in terms of why Ben was portrayed the way he was and how that affect why the characters and story treated him in certain ways.
Maybe but they are making bad sequels for a game that made them so popular.
"It's like losing something you never knew you had."
-David Garcia
AJ dead confirmed
Plot twist: Edith is Clementine's father.
Episode 1 of ANF was supposed to have a 'Next time...' and was also supposed to be released sometime during summer 2016.
Job mentioned having played the episode on 1st July.
It's likely whatever he played got rewritten or was scrapped. There is no way ties that bind pt2 took 5 months to develop.
In ANF episode 3, two adults have to patiently explain to a child that their present location is not safe and the child stubbornly insists that they could stay and be safe.
In S1E3 the same argument is made except it is Lilly, a fully grown woman, who is stubbornly insisting to stay in an unsafe area.
I really don't mean to sound insensitive, especially towards Lily, but at least Gabe had actual reasons to initially wanna stay put when he did it.
Gabe, still more logical than Lilly.
Okay I just realized: how is Joan still alive? She looks to be in her 60's and isn't exactly in the best shape. Not that I have something against people like that but what are the chances of a woman who fits that description surviving 4 years in the apocalypse? You need to run from walkers, run from bandits, Fight other people (heck, clem fought Winston in season 2). Has this woman never had to fight someone else using self defense? I find it hard to believe, I also find it hard to believe that she's capable of successfully taking someone down. What happened to survival of the fittest?
I think you meant to post this in the questions thread, but I'll bite.
She could easily be a case of Acrofatic on top of having leadership and diplomatic skills. Molly, Clementine, and arguably Arvo and Norma already proved that you shouldn't underestimate people by their stature--people will do what they have to if it means staying alive and/or getting their way.
It went to back to Hell with Carver and Jane to take a hopefully lulling vacation.
Oh man, it's good to hear someone else denouncing this concept
Fuck all that 'survival of the fittest' horseshit
Not to mention that almost everyone's definition for it isn't even technically correct-- the 'fit' used in the phrase is the biological terminology, which mostly boils down to reproduction and the success thereof. It's not in strict reference to physical capabilities, because nature itself already contradicts that statement; just look at some of the species that are still alive to this day. A good portion of them should be extinct in accordance to the phrase... but they aren't. Not to mention that survival doesn't solely hinge on someone's (or something's) physical capabilities. Like, what the hell's a chameleon honestly capable of? You think it could kick a snake's ass? A bird's ass? Probably not, but you know what they can do? They can camouflage themselves. That's how they adapted and survived in their environment-- they made use of a different skill set, one that didn't depend on their physical prowess.
Similarly, you can bet there's going to be a share of people in an apocalyptic world that survive by virtue of having a persuasive/manipulative skill set. A good liar that can get people to protect them, a woman seducing men into sticking with her, a good speaker that's able to convince a group of people to follow and protect him... the list goes on. So it's not out of the question that someone that isn't in their physical prime can and most likely will fall back on the less physical skills they may have in order to stay alive.
But back to my main point-- the phrase 'survival of the fittest' is true to an extent, but the way its commonly construed by people-- or hell, just the way it's entered public lexicon-- is just a bunch of fallacious, borderline-elitist bullshit, as far as I'm concerned.
With the way they work at the company I wouldn't be surprised
Did anyone know that Michonne Mini-Series is long than A New Frontier?
Is there a vid?
7:17
Thank you my dude!