I have a confession: I'm starting to hate Chuck.
When I first encountered Chuck, I thought he was a likable guy, if a little cagey. I didn't see eye-to-eye with a few of his points about the world and Clementine's place in it, but I agreed with him enough to know that Clem needed to learn to fend for herself.
This trailer changed all that.
Now don't get me wrong. I think it's terrific, and does exactly what it sets out to do: Get old players (as well as new ones) excited for what's ahead. It's more of Telltale's decision to promote Chuck's character into the "voice" of the trailer - and probably season 2 - instead of Lee that concerns me.
Chuck is dead - having died a lonely, ignominious death, no less. But in this trailer, Telltale seems to be suggesting that Chuck's grim "realist" philosophy will live on, and ultimately turn out to be the "right" one (i.e. ice-cold pragmatism in the face of an unforgiving reality). I can't say I'll want to play the rest of season 2 with much anticipation if that turns out to be true.
Part of the entertainment of having played through season 1 (for me, at least) was the option of projecting my own attitude and beliefs upon the characters. That's something you can't do in the comic book or TV show, simply because of the nature of the format. But through the choice of dialogue and altered scenarios, I could imbue my own cumulative "tone" to Lee and Clementine's story that added up to something more optimistic, even if the basic story itself remained the same.
But Chuck's narration points towards a potentially nastier gaming experience that might indirectly "punish" the player for refusing to abide by the rules of the zombie apocalypse, even if that isn't Telltale's intent. I have no personal animosity towards Chuck, but I had Clementine walk away from my version of Lee instead of shooting him through the head for a reason. It was my way of showing my middle finger to the zombie apocalypse's rules...and in turn, Chuck's rules. In my opinion, following Chuck's attitude to the letter only leads to the same barren universe Roman and Lily trapped themselves in.
If Telltale wants to portray the rest of the cast in S2 as completely vicious, miserable assholes, that's their right, because they're outside our control. But when we become Clem, she in turn becomes "us", and we should be allowed to shape her outlook on the world around her as we see fit.
Comments
was under realistic events
Why do you think Chuck was an ice-cold pragmatist? What he says maybe grim but it's the reality they live in, and if he hadn't have given that speech to Lee I don't think Clem would have made it...
I don't think Telltale will force us to play the game that way
"Grim 'realist' philosophy" I can agree with, but I don't see how you can associate "ice-cold pragmatism" with Chuck given what he did in the end. Despite the fact that he sees the world as harsh and unforgiving as it really is, he still behaves in a way that conforms to his sense of humanity.
He doesn't ignore the world around him or put up any illusions about it; he just acts according to his conviction with full understanding of the consequences of his choices. Just because you accept the rules doesn't mean you have to play the game a certain way.
Chuck is a hero -- period. His view is right, and he died knowing it, while saving others.
I think the inclusion of Chuck's line was less about implying that the game will force you to make pragmatic choices, instead implying that the world has gone further to hell since Season 1 and that Clementine will encounter people taking their own drastic measures for survival. That's my interpretation/two cents, anyways.
Chucks "speech" gave some light into the zombie apocalypse and he is right. in a world ruled by the dead you have to start living as the comics say and chuck explains that more. youre not a girl or a boy your not smart or strong your ALIVE.
But the moment you accept the rules, you ARE playing the game, regardless of "how" you choose to play it. Why do you think the people on the ferries refused to blow up each other up in THE DARK KNIGHT? Because they refused to play by the Joker's rules - rules that the Joker himself believed were the world's. The Joker looks flabbergasted when nobody blows up exactly because his nihilistic view of the human race is so complete, any kind of scenario that contradicts it is beyond his comprehension.
I'm not saying Chuck is the Joker - far from it. But he espouses a similar attitude of "this is the way things are" which can lead down its own dark path, as I mentioned with Lily and Roman. Chuck himself said that seeing Clem die "might just do him in". He didn't specify whether that meant killing himself, or going completely bonkers. The Joker was obviously once a man like you and me, who went "completely bonkers" due to some unknown tragedy (or tragedies) in his life. Are you starting to see the danger?
Yes, Chuck rescued Clem from certain death, but this was a Chuck who hadn't been "done in" yet, and at that point he was probably certain he would soon become just another monster - zombie or human, it doesn't really matter. (There's something telling about how some of Lee's first words to Clem can be "I'm not a monster"). I don't want to see that outlook infect Clem.
I'm a bit stumped that anyone could read Chuck's philosophy as "ice-cold pragmatism." He wasn't advocating screwing over the living to save yourself and your group like so many of the worst survivors. He was simply pointing out an obvious truth Lee may have preferred to ignore: the dead afford no mercy to you just because you're a little girl, so you'd better start preparing Clem for this new world or else she's likely to end up a victim of it. That's not cynical or cold or ruthless; that's just common sense.
Pretty much sums it up in my opinion.
Like it or not, Chuck was right. It's a kill or be killed world. You either make choices to survive or you die. It doesn't matter who or what you were before all hell broke loose. Your age, your sex, your profession. None of it matters and it certainly doesn't matter if you die. What matters is what you are now (alive) and what you want to be later (alive or dead). Reality is harsh. Chuck was a bum before the zombies so obviously had a rather pessimistic view making him want to be by himself, but in the end, he was right. Can't say the guy was all bad, though. He did sacrifice himself so the group could live. That was his choice. Hershel's speech regarding how you live and what you die for in the TV show certainly makes sense here, but Telltale couldn't use that. In The Walking Dead, it's not a matter of if you'll die but when and how you go out.
And you left Lee to become a walker as a middle finger toward Chuck and the zombie apocalypse? Regardless if you left Lee or shot him, it's still the reality of that world. He either became a walker and a potential threat later (decay would eventually let him get out of those handcuffs if you used them on him) or you released him from that so he wouldn't become a walker and be a threat later. Would be a terrible irony if a zombie Lee came back in a later episode and kills someone close to Clem (or even kills her). That decision has to come back in some capacity later.
Speaking from personal experience, all I can say is that I've known a lot of people who have called a lot of legitimately ruthless decisions "common sense". I honestly don't know how I've been able to stump you; I've tried to be as clear as possible. Chuck's views, as I see them, are those of a pragmatist. If they weren't ice-cold then, they would have been in time.
Ooooh. "The Chuckler." I like it. If only this forum didn't make me use Gravatar, I would have a new profile picture.
Back on topic, though, what do you think those people on those ferries thought when they made the choice not to blow each other up? "We're all going to die," probably. And they would have if not for, you know, Batman. But there isn't a Batman in the Walking Dead. (Well, not anymore. [moment of silence for Lee]). There's only a world gone mad and that world doesn't care whether or not you "decide" to play its game, it'll still punish you for making a bad move.
Look, you can tell a zombie apocalypse to go fuck itself until you pass out from exhaustion, it'll still be there when you wake up and gnaw your face off. The only way to proceed is to understand that there's a world out there that's trying to turn you into a monster, one way or another, and try to do everything in your power to stop that from happening. Maybe that means stealing to get what you need. Maybe that means risking your life for the sake of another. That's for you to decide.
I can relate to the original poster's concerns. When I saw "Becca" in 400 Days, I pretty much hated her. Don't get me wrong. She was realistic. It's pretty common for a teen to be apathetic, worldly and insensitive. And I suppose being such a young person in a zombie apocalypse would be even more likely. However, as realistic as she was, I had no desire to play Season 2 if that was the direction they were going to take Clementine. It would be pretty much impossible to care about and follow such a character for the long haul.
What added to my concerns were a ton of the Youtube comments posted under uploads of that section of 400 Days. All kinds of weird John Wayne macho talk about how "that's how you have to be" in an apocalypse. You have to screw others over to survive, and you gotta be a man, and all that stuff. (Which was kind of weird that that seemed to be the prevailing sentiment among the fans--since the characters in Season one were appealing for the very reason that they tried to hold onto their humanity. I mean, would we care about Lee if he was some flippant narcissist who only cared about himself?)
I know Youtube comments don't reflect the mindset of Telltale, but I was concerned that Telltale would read such comments and use it as focus testing for "what the audience wants."
There's no such thing as "ruthless decisions" in the zombie apocalypse. It's only survival. That's the new world, the new way of life. I can see how it can dishearten someone, but it's the gruesome truth. I see your view as a question of straight up morality, but not of Telltale impeding our decisions.
Where is the ruthlessness in 'teach your kid to take care of herself in case you're ever not around to do it for her'? There is nothing said in such a philosophy about how to treat other survivors, except that in an extreme situation such as a zombie apocalypse people need to learn to protect themselves and prepare for the worst.
I fully agree. While Chuck was a great character and I miss him, I didn't agree with his "Kirkman" ideal at all of advocating that you hand over your humanity to stay alive. While I cannot doubt that we will have to make choices that rely on cold, hard, ideals in S2, I'd very much like to have Clem retain her humanity for as long as possible.
So yeah. I don't agree with Chuck. At all.
I just don't see it. At all.
You can be warm, friendly, compassionate, help other survivors, give supplies to the needy, refuse to steal, refuse to murder and teach a little girl how to survive and protect herself from the swarms of corpses trying to eat everyone in case you're ever not around. The last one has nothing at all to do with all of the others and nothing to do with losing your humanity.
He never ever said that. Ever. Ever ever ever. He said not to treat Clementine as a kid. That's it. His line was a response to Lee saying "She's a little girl" which is basically saying "she's a frail little thing that needs to be protected because she can't fend for herself." Chuck's point was that no matter how strong or weak, how resilient or delicate, how wise or naive you are, you need to prepare yourself for what the world has in store in you want to survive. That's it.
There was nothing in there about abandoning your humanity or looking out for yourself and no one else. Learning how to shoot a gun and cutting your hair so it can't be grabbed does not constitutes losing part of your humanity. Innocence, maybe but not your humanity. I don't know how you could think that Chuck is a great character if you believe he really thought that way and then still ended up sacrificing himself for others. That's just pure hypocrisy.
Chuck bluntly saying to Clem's face "Hey kid, you're gonna die just like Duck" less than a few minutes after he expired has nothing to do with teaching a child how to survive and protect herself. Sorry.
To be honest, I understand what you are saying. But what you are also saying is that you don't want to be afflicted by whatever choice you make in the apocalypse and that is not how The Walking Dead functions. You can keep your morals in that game but know that there will be complications. There are few shades of black and white in The Walking Dead universe. Chuck's advice provides the player how the season two will be. The characters may be exactly what he said. Having no morals or care for youth, a young girl will have to survive in that world and learn to deal with it. One way or another. It's up to you and how to approach the various situations in the game.
Well he is dead....
No need to hate him anymore
I'll admit that was a dick move (although she was paraphrasing so who knows exactly what Chuck said), but it still says nothing about his view towards the survival vs humanity debate. And while it doesn't directly teach her how to survive and protect herself, it conveys the survival state of mind that she needs to have: knowing that at any second, she could potentially end up dead, bitten, or worse. It's something she already knows implicitly, but by saying it plainly aloud to her, he's trying to get her to think about deeply about it in concrete detail so that she would be able to ready herself against it. So again, I'm not arguing that this was a tactful manner of presenting the information but it was still information she needed to know and comprehend.
I would say that Robin could take his place... But...
I think your a little late to the party.....yah know considering hes dead and all.....
Im not sure I understand. Chuck was just trying to make Lee understand that he cant shelter Clementine in a world that has just gotten crueler and more dangerous. He was trying to help her survive. I consider that hopeful. The world of the Walking Dead is a harsh one. Every incarnation has shown that and optimism is all well and good but you have to be a little bit realistic. This world will kick your butt and take you down if you dont know how to deal with it.
Well, he was eaten the fuck alive so he can't say much.
If anything, I'd say Chuck swings more toward the humanitarian side of the moral scale than the asshole survivalist side.
He might be blunt about how he shoves Clementine's inadequacy as an apocalypse survivor in she and Lee's face, but that's only because he wants what's best for her - just like Lee. The fact that he sacrifices himself for her in the very next episode further reinforces the fact that he'll choose the safety of others more defenceless than himself over ensuring his own survival.
All the advice he gives Lee about Clementine is valuable to any child who'd want to survive in a zombie apocalypse, whether they're compassionate or self-involved. Everything he recommends for her can coexist with being part of a group, helping those in need, and holding on to one's humanity just fine.
I feel that, more than anything, Chuck is a neutral character. Sure he's crass, blunt, and survival-minded... But he also shows empathy and a willingness to help those less fortunate. He's good as a Season 2 trailer voiceover for that reason - he does a good job of representing the fine line a person must walk in order to survive the apocalypse without losing one's self.
Lee just wouldn't be as appropriate as the trailer-voice. His personality is heavily dependent on player choice by the end of Season 1, so it would be inappropriate to hear him going on exclusively about survival and looking out for yourself when some players did everything they could to make him compassionate.
All Chuck ever said when he talked to Lee in my game was how to keep Clementine from becoming walker food. There was no coldness. It was warm blooded care that motivated that man. He says himself that he'd already seen a little girl die. He couldn't take it if he saw another one die, too. And that was the entire reason he was even saying anything to Lee about Clementine.
Chuck was not advocating Clem become disconnected from empathy like Becca can be, or a "savelot bandit"-esque thief, or some other horrible human being who gets that way in the name of "pragmatism". He was just advocating that Clementine be prepared for a life in the Zombie Apocalypse in which her protector wasn't there to guard her. He never said she had to hurt others or lose her humanity while doing it. That's just a bias the OP is assuming in his comments, for whatever reason.
Charles was my favorite character from season 1, and quite frankly you'd be lucky to have him on your side come the apocalypse.
Old man deserved better.
The way he went about presenting his POV was seriously screwed up, and I was always angered at the idea of Chuck flat out telling a little girl she's going to die like Duck right after it happens, but the POV itself was perfectly compatible with being a decent human being. He should have come to Lee directly instead of frightening a little girl.
The decision to use Chuck as the narrator, I think, isn't about Season 2 but the Game's universe. Everyone is equal, everyone wants the same; survival.