Who'd you side with?
Calvalcade of Junkfood: Who would you choose?
Formerly Loyalty; Who did you save?
In the choice based gameplay of TWDG, players are often asked to choose between two or more options, often with the theme of siding with another character. Two of the most iconic choices in this regard are A New Day's "Who would you save?" choice with Carley/Doug and the Loyalty choices throughout Season 2, the most trendy of which being a major plot element that the writers/develops intentionally hyped up people during the production of Season 2 later episodes by hinting at something using the term "Pizza or Ice Cream," with Kenny and Luke being the obvious assumption.
. https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=440235501849550848
This thread has actually been in the works for several months now, but I'm only just now getting the drive to actually post it. And because of that, I think it's fair to give some backstory as to what I've felt about these concepts over time. To be blunt, I felt that deliberately hyping Season 2 up with a fight for the sake of controversy was cheap and stupid. Primarily because it's a recurring problem with many things in these newer games: instead of truly testing your mindset as an ethical person or tailoring the experience to your gameplay choices, it's just there for the sake of easy drama and because it's iconic.
I mean let's look at them:
"Should you go help Pete even though he's bitten or do you go to Nick for your own safety?"
"Are you Team Luke or Team Kenny?"
"Do you want to rattle Carver's cage with Kenny or is cooperating with Reggie the smarter option?"
"Do you want to help the Cabin Group or join the dark side of Howe's Hardware?"
"Who deserves to be Clementine's girlfriend more: Sarah or Jane?"
"Is Mike wrong for wanting to leave or has Kenny gone too far?"
"Who will Clementine decide should ride or die for her: Kenny or Jane?"
However, as time went on, I started to see some legit merit and potential for interesting stories behind using such a concept in this game series, particularly after finally getting to see Captain America:Civil War. At the very least, having such a conflict in this type of story means there is this "in-house" debate over which form of leadership and survival is the best, as well as an indirect attempt at a personal conflict on Clementine's part--not to mention both having followers inside the same group to support and potentially add to the idea of it being political alongside ideological.The problem with many of the either/or choices, particularly "Pick this character over the other because Controversy for the sake of controversy" recurring theme in Season 2, is that they tend to just be cheap popularity contests rather than a story-relevant dilemma for the player. Honestly, Pete or Nick is probably the only good example of that in Season 2 because it's not relying exclusively on internal conflict and it actually affects something. So with all that in mind, I thought it would be interesting to have a thread dedicated to talking about our thoughts, feelings, and opinions about the concept.
Who did you pick and/or side with in certain situations?
When did you find yourself conflicted over picking a side?
Why did you prefer one choice over the other?
How could the story have better utilized these conflicts?
Where did the opposing side have points that seemed appealing despite their flaws?
What are some hypothetical dichotomies you think would've been interesting to see?
Feel free to get creative!
Comments
In that Star Wars picture, is Jane Maul and Sarah Qui-Gon? I hope so.
In my playthrough, I actually agreed to whatever Carver said when he called over Clem. I just wish that, based on whatever I said, he reacted differently towards Clem as Kenny caved his face in.
I also wish that in A House Divided, Clem didn't automatically react hostile towards Carver. That and what I mentioned above could have impacted their relationship. If she was willing to listen, maybe he could have started offering her more "advice" and perhaps he could even have started making life at Howe's easier for her.
Inevitably, she would have betrayed his trust, but how she went about it would have been interesting. If they trusted each other, perhaps Clem wouldn't have watched Kenny go full Negan on Carver out of guilt, but if she disliked him, she would have stayed (the direct choice of watching or leaving wouldn't have existed).
Finally, during No Going Back, Clem could've opened up to Jane about how she truly felt about Carver as they were discussing how, rather than a bad person, he was just a damaged one.
It's a shame that Carver just ended up as the "villain-that-sees-in-protagonist-what-others-don't" stereotype. His relationship with Clem had a lot of potential.
Awesome thread
nicely put together
Who did you pick and/or side with in certain situations?
Luke, whenever I had the chance. He was there for you since the beginning and was geniunely worried for your safety, while at the same time, not underestimating you. He lost Nick, one of his best friends, Sarah, one of the few he swore to protect, and Pete. But he still kept his sanity for the sake of the group - something Kenny and Jane couldn't do.
When did you find yourself conflicted over picking a side?
Carly vs Doug in season 1. I eventually chose Carly.
Kenny vs Jane. I'm gonna get hate for this but I let Kenny kill Jane for killing AJ... then I killed Kenny. Not because I didn't like him, but because I felt like he had been through enough. Lost his child, his wife, his friends. It was slowly turning into a repeating cycle.
Why did you prefer one choice over the other?
I take sides with the people who have been on mine. As for Carly and Doug, I chose Carly because she knew how to use a gun, and she was a journalist with a useful radio.
How could the story have better utilized these conflicts?
Luke VS Kenny. LUKE VS KENNY! I understand why they chose Jane in the end, though. They made you choose between a sister-like figure and a father-like figure, but the problem was that Jane was unlikable to a lot of people. She was the kind of person Lee told you to stay away from.
What are some hypothetical dichotomies you think would've been interesting to see?
Someone grab my dictionary
I agree.
Who did you pick and/or side with in certain situations? Kenny because he's Kenny.
When did you find yourself conflicted over picking a side? Meat Locker. Carley and Doug deserves a shout.
Why did you prefer one choice over the other? Killing him is the obvious choice but irl I don't think I could have done that.
How could the story have better utilized these conflicts? A conflict that could have been better is Jane vs Kenny because for some pople it's the easiest choice in the game which is something you don't want in your final choice.
Where did the opposing side have points that seemed appealing despite their flaws? Lilly and Kenny. Lilly can lead, has military experience while Kenny was a family man who cared about the people close to him and during the meat locker choice it was hard to pick.
What are some hypothetical dichotomies you think would've been interesting to see? Carver vs Cabin Group was the most wasted thing of S2. I was interested to see if Carver was the wronged one and that the Cabin group got skeletons in their closet.
Did you choose to side with your own brother who you've known for your entire life and hopefully loved near and dear to your heart... or... that fucking girl that hates your brother and is still with him anyway and cheats on him by flirting with you?
David was nice until episode 5.
Kate... I only realize she's a bitch after the season ended.
Oh, this is the thread you mentioned! Ah, well then, yes I suppose that Carver really should've been a villain with
a few actual good points given that was the opposite of what most of the Cabin Group was meant to be. Plus, that would also require actually delivering on that lore and mystery that they were building up.
I was gonna make fun of how you fucked up such an obvious identification using less iconic characters, but then I realized you were just being spiteful.
While hearsay meant I didn't start liking him until In Harm's Way, I definitely sided with the Cabin Group over Kenny(and Jane) most of the time.
Agreed.
Makes sense.
Yes, I definitely agree more than ever. Though I wouldn't say she was unlikable so much as unsympathetic.
I means throw out a few match ups you would've liked to have seen, wise guy.
Of course.
Interesting.
Pretty much. I mean, it's nice to have a side you prefer, but you're right.
Agreed.
To be fair, that was pretty much stated quite a few times in the first two episodes, so I assume you meant you wanted it to be developed more.
Can I say I don't really get this? I mean, thinking David was "nice" is one thing, but Kate definitely isn't a bitch. Someone who finds herself conflicted about her relationships and obligations to people, sure. Someone who needs to learn to get her own priorities straight, maybe. But not a bitch. It's one of the reasons I really liked her in Part 1 and feel she's the 2nd most wasted character in ANF.
Also, I'm pretty sure she didn't hate David.
Who did you pick and/or side with in certain situations?
S1 - I mostly sided with Kenny because I felt he had the right mindset in most situations - such as helping strangers (morally, not logically in terms of survival) and leaving the Motor Inn (as resources were evidently scarce and bandits were the neighbors).
S2 - I found myself mostly being in the middle, agreeing to both perspectives - honestly, they made it kind of easy to do that in S2.
When did you find yourself conflicted over picking a side?
Why did you prefer one choice over the other?
I was never fully conflicted when choosing between people in choices, the closest ones would be:
S1 - Doug or Carley, I chose Carley because she seemed to have more of a character than Doug and had more of a role in the story but it was still difficult as I liked both their characters and was a bit worried about Carley possibly scheming to make Lee look antagonistic towards the group.
S2 - Who to have dinner with. I quickly came to love the Cabin Group but it conflicted with my nostalgia and curiosity of seeing Kenny again with his new family. I ended up choosing Kenny's group, mostly because I thought it would've been nice to reconnect.
How could the story have better utilized these conflicts?
Build the conflicts up little by little, my biggest gripe with the Kenny and Jane conflict is that it only happens in the final episode and they don't even personally conflict until halfway through it. The Lilly and Kenny conflict is probably the best in my opinion, they had clear and understandable reasons for disliking each other but at the end of the day, they still respected each other despite their opposing mindsets.
Where did the opposing side have points that seemed appealing despite their flaws?
Although not exactly opposing, I'd say Vernon's offer to care for Clementine (as it can technically count as a Lee-Vernon rivalry), I thought it could've been safer for Clementine to be in other peoples' hands who know how to care for kids and considering the low morale and group dynamic at the time, it seemed like a rather nice possibility.
What are some hypothetical dichotomies you think would've been interesting to see?
Carlos vs Sarah, it was evident that Sarah wanted to learn to defend herself despite her father attempting to exclusively shelter her. I would've liked to see Sarah stand up for herself and Carlos thinking of the possibility of Sarah being alone without him to care for her. It would've made Sarah a more intriguing character and actually give Carlos a form of development.
If you side with him a lot, he actually is nice until he has his meltdown.
I agree that Kate isn't a bitch. But she does seem to hate David. She never shows any sort of affection for him and wants to get away from him as soon as possible.
Sure, she has reasons (bad marriage pre-apocalypse, in love with Javier, etc.). But he hating him seems like a valid stance.
Who did you pick and/or side with in certain situations?
Kenny (except the meat locker): Generally, I agreed with him most of the time. Though I thought we should do a little more to try to save Larry (even if he's in the top three of most hated TellTale characters: the others being Arvo and Sam from the Michonne game with honorable mention going to Eleanor). I forget where I fell in Season 2, but I picked him over Jane. She sacrificed a baby and drew a weapon first.
David: He was my brother, and I was more interested in Eleanor until I realized that the initial flirting was all I was going to be able to do.
When did you find yourself conflicted over picking a side?
Doug and Carley: I wound up picking Carley because she can use a gun. This also colored my view of Lilly for the longest time since her murder seemed worse with Carley than Doug.
The Cabin Group vs Kenny's group: I really liked the Cabin Group after they stop being dicks. But Kenny was Kenny and I really wanted to get to know him. It's a little easier now days because while I still love Kenny, my view on certain Cabin Survivors has dimmed (mainly Luke).
Kenny and Jane: I'm pretty sure I paused the game and thought about it.
Why did you prefer one choice over the other?
Doug and Carley: Like I said, Carley can use a gun. It's still a hard choice because both are characters and influence the story in different ways (Doug's alarms, Carley letting you confess to others).
Cabin Group vs Kenny's group: I figured Clem would be interested in what a man she had been with for months and that she thought was dead until a few hours ago had to say more than people she had met less than a week ago. It's easier now that I've grown fairly neutral to minor negative feelings towards Luke. But usually, I go with my original logic.
Kenny and Jane: Ultimately, I felt that Jane throwing AJ away was terrible, and she did draw a weapon first. It was a really hard choice. Every playthrough since then, it has been easy. Never Jane. I'll shoot Kenny in some, but I never leave with Jane. Her plan was too reckless, too manipulative for me to ever consider siding with her. Best case scenerio: she murders a man without upsetting the young girl they are traveling with. I just feel like this psychopathic levels of manipulation here. Worst scenario: she dies and Kenny and Clem don't find AJ.
For the record, while I find her to be an absolutely awful human being, I don't dislike her. As a character, I find her to be pretty interesting. I would say I mildly like her as a character, just not as a person.
How could the story have better utilized these conflicts?
Generally, I agree with prink34320 above. More build up for the ones that seem to come together at the last minute. And also more of the ones where seeds were place. While Kenny vs everyone was fairly effective, I think I would have like Walter to live a longer and have the intergroup conflict be between the Cabin Survivors and the Ski Resort Survivors.
Where did the opposing side have points that seemed appealing despite their flaws?
I would say MOST choices have valid choices, and I tend to pick them at least once in one of my playthroughs. Even the ones I NEVER pick (stealing Arvo's medicine, leaving Sarah in the trailer park, leaving with Jane), I see the appeal. It's more my personal taste.
What are some hypothetical dichotomies you think would've been interesting to see?
I talked a little about it in a previous answer. Cabin Survivors vs Ski Resort Survivors. They have a good reason to be pissed (they were minding their own business until these people came and screwed it all up). Probably the most effective thing to do is kill Carlos in Walter's place. Have Sarah shut down causing the troubles (with Jane talking about her sister earlier on and bonding with Clem earlier on). They could still have the same thing with Sarah fleeing after someone (probably Walter) getting shot and finally shutting down totally in the trailer park.
Again, another one where seeds were laid, but never gone into: Carver vs the Cabin Survivors. Oh. It's there, but we see only one side. We see hints with Carver talking to Alvin and Carlos about people they killed. I want to see more of Carver's side and what the Cabin Survivors actually did. Honestly, if they killed people, he's being remarkably nice to everyone except Alvin and Rebecca (Alvin because he tortures him, Rebecca because he wants the baby, so killing her isn't in his best interest).
Kate almost causes the death of Javier because she knew a dead guy, she barely shows affection for David ever, she is an asshole to Gabe in part 1 but it gets better in part 2, she shows no emotions when David dies, she wants to leave the man she was married to after not seeing him for 4 years, I can't think of anything else but my point stands.
you're not the only one who's brain died XD I had to open up google to find out and I still don't understand what a dichotomy is XD I knew what a hypothesis was but now I just don't
Who did you pick and/or side with in certain situations? For the most part, I tried to remain neutral, especially when it came to Kenny and Lilly. The only times I definitely stuck to one side were in Amid the Ruins. I was pretty anti-Jane when she said we should leave Sarah and rob Arvo.
When did you find yourself conflicted over picking a side? The moments like this for me were probably the same as for most other players: Doug and Carley (to the point where I still keep separate save files for them), Luke and Kenny at dinner (I don't remember who I went with first, but I did pause the game and get up to think about it), and I think Duck and Shawn?
Why did you prefer one choice over the other? I always prefer to save what characters would be considered liabilities (yes, even Larry) because they're usually nicer and more interesting, and it's not fair to have the writers, players, or other characters kill them off. Me identifying with some of them may or may not be a factor. Also gays because we shouldn't keep being shoved into the metaphorical closet (or exterminated).
How could the story have better utilized these conflicts? Honestly, sometimes there should be a third option, either willingly or by being too indecisive. Aside from the fact that players don't like being lied to about how our choices tailor the story, there are probably ways that could've made certain choices work. Like with Kenny and Jane in that finale: we got to go it alone whether the characters died or not, which is a decent example, but since the problem here is that they shoved Luke out of the plot for a more "dynamic" dichotomy, it could've been solved by just having him be in the car for the argument (like in the back seat watching over Clem) and then have him try to stop the fight somehow--how Clem talks to Luke here or how previous events/flags triggered (don't start, that's not funny) could decide whether he's the lone survivor or he dies and a specific other person gets saved, akin to what happened in the New Frontier ending. I was kinda hoping they'd do this with the scene with Mike and the others trying to ditch us, but at most, we have different people showing concern for a shot Clem and Arvo being determinantly remorseful about shooting her.
Where did the opposing side have points that seemed appealing despite their flaws? In the meat locker, even though I lean towards reviving Larry, I do understand that we can save ourselves a potential losing battle by keeping him from reanimating by using the salt lick immediately. I think what persuaded me to save him, though, was that, if he survived, we not only would save ourselves from being called murderers, we would potentially have an ally for a crucial moment, if only until he dies from not getting the meds he needed.
What are some hypothetical dichotomies you think would've been interesting to see? Most of them are replacements for the Kenny/Jane battle at the end. Kenny vs. Luke because that's what it was building up to, Carver vs. anyone because he was an interesting moral dilemma, Kenny vs. anyone in the cabin group or Bonnie because we spent more time with them than with Jane, Christa vs. people because it would've had a payoff...
dude really?
I know right.
...What?
I'm not quite sure if we saw the same thing there. On the surface, she and Gabe definitely clashed, but it was also subtly(if even that, given how obvious and frequent I thought it was) implied that she always had a paradoxical favoritism(which itself is actually a holdover from the a relatively late change, but whatever) towards him.
She was just being a strict parent to him and Marianna for the purpose of keeping the family safe. In fact, she ended up being right when Max arrested Javier for attacking Lonnie, she(and Gabe?) covered Marianna's escape before getting backed into a corner themselves, and Badger eventually shot both of the females when their guard was down.
I honestly don't know if I should bother saying anything here.
She wanted to leave David because she was afraid--maybe not of him specifically--but definitely of his cohorts, the New Frontier: the people who abducted Javier, killed Mariana, critically injured her, and destroyed a settlement trying to get at Javier, not to mention misdirecting Eleanor by not sending someone to find Kate. And considering she was still recovering from said injuries at their mercy, it makes sense that she'd feel uncomfortable.
She clearly grew apart from him over the years, which wasn't helped by the fact that they constantly argued before that happened, but it's noticeable that while she may not wanna be with him anymore, she still cared about him on some level. If she's the one who comes to break Javier out from his cell, she honestly asks how David's doing and makes it clear that she intends save him despite their relationship not working out. She even personally comes along with Javier, Clementine(who honestly has no reason to be there , but this isn't about her), and Gabe to steal the armored truck and accepts the job of driving it to help get David to safety(which invokes another point that kinda bothers me, but I'll forgive it). Plus, if Javier returns her feelings and mentions that she doesn't have to talk to David because he already did, she reprimands him because he's not David's trophy wife. And finally, she saves him from her Evil Knockoff and wholeheartly goes along with his plan to save Richmond, even sticking with it after he decides to call it quits.
Hell, wasn't she the one who wanted to go bury him in the first place? Given she was married to the man for however long, she likely knows how he'd feel about things after his death. Could she have been a little more graceful with it? Sure, but it's like David himself said: she spent so long thinking he was dead that she barely reacts when it actually happens because she already made her peace with it.
While I understand your view of trying to help Larry (pretty close to mine, since I also helped Larry), this was never going to happen. You save his life in Episode 1 by breaking into the pharmacy and getting him his meds, and he repays you being trying to murder you.
Same, though I tended to side with the Cabin Group and Arvo over Kenny and the Howe's Defects on occasion.
That's good reasoning.
Agree with you 100% .
Yeah, I am even more convinced that was originally supposed to happen not only because as a natural step in their character development or even because it's become clear that Kenny and Sarita got scenes that were likely written for them, but also because Sarah was already at a point where she was willing to do things behind his back and even determinately stands up to Carver.
He would still try to get his daughter out of the meat locker.
Huh. Is there really that many people who hate Sam, though? Like, I know she invoked an unfortunate double standard a while back, but still.
Ah, but of course.
I had a similar thought myself, since while Kenny was clearly overpowered anyway, it was still just him and Sarita for a while, with Rebecca and occasionally Mike falling in.
So, what you're saying is...Fuck Jane?
Leadership really would fall on Luke in that event. Though it'd probably make Jane's actions even worse, but whatever.
Yeah, one of the many reasons as to why In Harm's Way was such a weak episode.
Don't forget Sarah. One of the few times he seemed to be calculating or not, he was still mostly being a dick to her for little to no reason.
I'm surprised it took this long for someone to comment on it.
well my answer is Bonnie
Same.
That is an understately tough one. I honestly think I ended up letting the timer run out on one playthrough.
Definitely. I actually grew to consider that word a slur, incidentally.
Also, I didn't really consider Larry to be one, but whatever.
That's a very good point with very good examples.
Pretty much.
Mhm....
True. Though I'm having trouble settling on who would've worked best outside of Luke.
Oh shit, we goin to court!
wrong. mariana.
Because she's a terrible person, and you're forced to side with her. I mean, she keeps stealing from Monroe even after they let her off the first time. This shows they're good people for the most part. They have to do something or otherwise she will keep stealing from them. Sam could have gone to them in the open and ask for help. She could have tried to have her family join them. But no. She kept screwing over these people who were just trying to survive.
And then she drags Michonne into this trying to claim they were part of the group. I dunno if it's determinant (I will probably never play that game again), but she was waving a gun in my face just before she got captured (EDIT: I want to point out that I didn't fight for the bag, if they said it was theirs, I believed them and told them to take it). Now, she's trying to get Michonne in the same trouble.
Sam a deceitful person who can't give a damn about anyone else outside of her friends and family. She doesn't care who she hurts. I guess she does sacrifice herself if Michonne chooses to stay with her daughters. So, good for her. She is not 100% a monster. But for me, it is too little, too late (especially since it is determinant, and I never saw it).
Honestly, I could have liked her as a character if it wasn't for the fact we are forced to side with her. That just left a bad taste in my mouth. In no other TellTale game have I spent that much time hating the way the story was forcing me to go.
EDIT: Just for clarification, I am talking about MY most hated characters. New to this board, I have no idea what people's feelings are on characters in general. Sorry, for not being more clear.
lol. You know, until you said, I didn't realize those were all things Jane advocated for. I guess, I should have included some Season 1 examples (always kill the St. John's, always show bite).
Though to be fair, Jane only factors into the last one. I hate Arvo as I stated above and never want to give him the moral high ground. And I really liked Sarah, so I never abandon her even in the game when we weren't friends.
I'm not sure how it would Jane's actions make it worse. Just more of a build up to the Sarah choice. If anything, with Jane being more active early on, they could have her agreeing with Kenny's side some to show her actions were motivated by Kenny's reactions to Sarita and Walter's deaths.
Good point. Obviously, she wasn't involved in any murder.
Ahhh more stupid thread names that make most people ignore them...one day you will have to understand the k.i.s.s. rule of marketing......Keep It Simple Stupid. Great threads...moronic names.
wrong. Sarita
Yeah. I wasn't saying he wouldn't do anything that wouldn't be in his own interest. Just nothing would change afterwards.
I suppose now that there are 10 posts, it's time for me to personally answer these questions for once.
In Season 1, I generally stayed neutral for the sake of not showing too much favoritism and keeping the peace amongst the group. I occasionally sided with Kenny on smaller things, but usually sided with Lilly on bigger things when I had to pick one.
In Season 2, Sarah, Luke, Alvin, and Arvo were the characters I generally sided with.
In ANF, I honestly found it hard to consistently pick a side. Whether that's an indication of the gameplay and storytelling quality is up for debate. With that said, I favored Kate, Gabe, Conrad, and Ava.
"Who did you Save?" situations tend to stump me for obvious reasons.
As for specific side picking choices, Kenny vs. Jane is one that comes to mind for objective reasons.
I obviously prefer choices that involve a character I really like, are the safer/passive options, and fit in with my personal methods.
I also tend to avoid intentionally killing anyone unless I really have to or the rare occasions where I feel it's completely applicable.
I think these games really could've benefited making things feel less like competitions for the sake of controversy and more like legitimately clashing viewpoints of realistic, complicated individuals that occasionally invites other members of the group to feel conflicted and/or pick sides based on individual preferences.
Another Franchise Original Sin is the tendency for the writing/storytelling direction to overly favor one side over the other. It's an issue that gets worse and more transparent with each installment and one that can be solved by actually giving both sides equal chances via strengths, weaknesses, and commonalities that flesh both out as that come into conflict with each other.
For the sake of emphasizing the opposing aspect, let's use Jane in the "Compassion" choice in Amid the Ruins. Now on one hand, it's a situation where the bad choice involves robbing Arvo of Natasha's medicine to help the surviving group members recover after escaping Howe's Hardware; on the other hand, it's one of the many examples of Season 2's issues with bidementional choices- it asks you to pick an extreme without taking other related factors leading up to it into account or/and and being able to take a third option that has allows everyone to benefit.
I actually stated way back when I first joined this community that, despite my many gripes with the so-called subplot as presented, the concept of Sarah vs. Jane was actually not a bad one; the problem with what we got is that it was essentially a developer/executive's Self-Insert fanfic that was blatantly one-sided, biased, and frankly pathetic in Jane's favor. And whereas Luke vs. Kenny was clearly meant to be significant aspect of Season 2 that quickly became the plot point equivalent of an Advertised Extra, these two would create a arc where Clementine can either pick one side over another or, as she'd realistically be expected to do, get between them and use her more neutral character to balance the two out. It really helps that not only are the two made out to be opposite extremes from each other, but that both can be seen as aspects of Clementine herself taken to logical(and/or emotional) extremes AND with enough distinctions to still be their own things.
I know. That's why I'm accepting of it, though in hindsight the quotation marks might suggest otherwise.
I suppose. The problem is that from the way it's shown to us throughout the Season, it seems much less like she hates him specifically and more like she simply doesn't grew adverse to being around him due to their tendency to fight and especially his connections to the New Frontier. In fact, it's very easy to think that she does still love him deep down, but prefers to keep herself at a distance--she does decide that she wants to save him, after all.
Really, if her hating or at the very least resenting him was indeed the intent at one point, it was a relatively poorly conveyed plot point that went out the window completely by Thicker than Water.
Ah, so Sarah it is!
...Kenny? ...Jane? Is that you?
Eh, fair point. I never actually played the Michonne DLC, so my experience is very hands off. I personally enjoyed what I saw well enough, especially considering what a change of pace it was from Season 2, but I'll admit that they still could've handled a few things better.
Chyeah, probably.
Because she'd actually get to know the group early on rather than keeping her distance until the opportunity arrives for all of them to escape. Thus, she'd have a greater understanding of Clementine and Sarah, making her decision in the trailer even worse than it already is.
S1: Doug instead of Carley ((Because i thought that while Carley was good with a gun someone smart like Doug would help out more but since he died way too early we never had a chance to see what could have been .))
S2: Saved Jane from Kenny but then went alone after seeing her great plan... and then immediatelly rewinded to save Kenny.
S3: David and Gabe were saved but Unfortunately Kate became a walker.
Unpopular option but with the choice of chopping Sarita's arm or not, I chose not to do it from what I knew about the consequences of doing so. Lee and Reggie's situations are good examples of what I mean. Reggie for example had been bitten at Howe's, which had a already established group of armed survivors, who could fend off the walkers if the situation was too dire (before Howe's was completely overrun). As well as this Reggie is able to have his amputation much more easily than Sarita, as the many walls and doors provide many safe environments to guard and amputate without worrying about the risk of noise (Similar with Lee). Sarita was unable to have the safety of closed environments to amputate her hand, because as far as we knew Howe's was compromised, and the nearest safe haven wouldn't be found by both the player and characters until the next episode. The advantage however from making this choice is that the rest of the group could've better dealt with Sarita outside (when she eventually turns), rather than a claustrophobic environment (Meat locker). It also prevented instant death from blood loss/shock with no tourniquet at the ready, giving Kenny and the rest of the survivors a chance to say a proper farewell to Sarita.
(EDIT: I know this may not tie in to what you initially meant for the thread, but I can delete it if you like?).
No, it's fine. The questions are really just there to provide some optional direction and trigger your neurons in case you can't think of anything specific. You and Rodrik are the first to actually deviate from that model, so good on you!
Anyway, good points on the Sarita situation.