Pffff People saying the writing is bad? I disagree!
I thought the dialogue was awesome, Like after Clem stitches her arm up and kills the walker, The group bursts in like "WTF" and Clem can say "I'm still. NOT. Bitten. I never was! And you left me out here to die!"
Or when Clem asks about the baby (as blackmail) and then says "You ought to be nicer to me, Just my advice" and with that sly grin of hers that line is amazing! and awesome!
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I know,right? most people here assume clem as a weak innocent child that needs to be nurtured for the rest of her life,I can see their resemblance as carlos
I've found most people who complain about the writing seem to want bland, cookie cutter and predictable plots. Others just don't actually understand good writing. Example, people complaining about the 16 month jump and no christa baby news. Well, Its pretty darn obvious that it will be explored later as a recollection of what happened. Like the table conversation with Luke about Lee. The events of what happened will be made knows to the viewer later. Clem already knows what happens. It's good writing you will see.
Good points, It just goes to show. People criticize things too much instead of just enjoying the episode. People would rather complain about it.
Yeah, I mean there's 4 more episodes right, just have patience, I mean, it's suspense after all.
I completely agree with this thread. The attitude in this forum is so negative about season 2 it's sickening. It makes me feel like they did not play the episode before looking at spoilers, because I played it blind and came to the forum after wondering if we'd even played the same game. Let's be positive people! (:
Yep, and the people that weren't happy with this episode are never gonna be happy. I mean this episode had everything! Action, Sadness, Witty remarks by Clem lol and had some gut-wrenching moments like having to stitch your own arm up too.
So say we all.
Well said
I want to explain basic plot construction to the people who complain about no news of Christa's baby.
Y'know why writers sometimes do that, guys? Because it intentionally builds the suspense. It puts the question in the heads of your audience without providing an answer, puts everyone on the edge of their seats to find out, so that when the answer eventually does come it hits that much harder.
Its like pissing on the writing of Season 1 for not showing a detailed flashback of Lee killing the senator in the first episode.
" i can't talk to the group like i could in season one"
well there was never a real moment to talk to the group on your own. you know they were to busy being afraid you were a walker.
Pete: ok guys before we trow her in the shed. lets stand around and explain our back stories to her even thoe she s a threat.
That actually is a legitimate complaint and one I hope they address in Episode 2. And there was a perfect opportunity to talk to the group on your own: just before Clem, Pete and Nick headed down to the river to fish, near the very end of the episode. They should have had a sequence in which Clem was allowed to walk around the house that morning, see what everyone was doing, and basically get to know people a bit better before they went fishing, in the same way Lee was allowed to walk around chatting to everyone before distributing food in Episode 2.
I also thought this was a brilliant episode, most of the negativity on this forum is mainly petty stuff. But i do wish there was a little more time to have the random conversations with the characters like in the pharmacy in season 1.
The writing wasn't perfect, but then nothing is especially not season 1 which people are comparing it too when saying tis bad.
I thought the writing was really good actually
I think most people are comparing 1 episode of season 2 to all the episodes of season 1 which i don't think is fair, they should at least wait for all the episodes to come out before making a comparison.
For S2 Episode 1 Telltale needed to make sure that new players who might have only purchased season 2 learn some back story and the game mechanics, Hopefully we get more of a story in the next episodes and see where the game is heading in terms of what the ultimate goal will be and the possibilities of further seasons depending on how the game ends.
I can see how a a lot of the first episode's pacing wouldn't allow for it, but that is a good point.
I'm glad that Nick and Pete both had some interactions before the final choice, but I hope that there's a break in the tension at the start of next episode for more of a chance to explore the other characters.
Most negative reviews revolve around Clementine being too "Carl" - meaning the way she handles things are way too much for a 10 yr old. In my opinion, I don't think so. Clementine is a smart girl and she can quickly adapt to almost anything. She doesn't need to be nurtured 24/7 anymore, this episode shows you that. People over exaggerate too much on her being able to take on multiple Walkers and people. I played Season 2 - Episode 1 numerous of times and what she did was like any other normal trained kids would do. Maybe the negative reviewers needs to be taught a lesson by placing them in the woods for 3 days so they can realize what you must do to survive.
I personally think they're mostly blinded by the fact that not long ago, Clem was an 8-9 yr old innocent child being taken care of by an adult.
I think writing is good. Also 16 months time jump doesn't matter for me. Story is still very good.
Honestly I see a lot of "bad writing" posts whenever something happens that people dislike. Omid's death, for one (to take a recent one). A lot of people chalk that up to "bad writing" but mostly it just seems that they didn't like that he died. That doesn't make it bad writing though. Same goes for Christa's baby, it's hasn't been explained--yet--so that's apparently also "bad writing". Now I'm sure that there are those who does legitimately think that the writing is bad, but most of the time those comments are directly linked to things happening that people didn't like. At least that's my two cents.
Complaining is allowed obviously, but I think the best thing about all of the complaining is that people were desperately wanting the game to be released and wanted a release date. When it does get released? People complain.
It's the same situation for absolutely every game really.
I just find it all amusing.
Everywhere else I look, for example the let's plays and Steam, people seem to be happy with the game by and large (which surprises me not because I think the game's poor, but rather that people normally complain everywhere). I'm surprised the critics didn't give better reviews though.
Hahahahahahahaha yeah when the I am Still.Not.Bitten choice appeared i was like: i just stitched ny arm and fought and killed a zombie in a shed, my innoncy is far way behind. And chose the option XD loooooved thay dialog
The dialogue between Nick and Pete beginning with "why didn't you wait for me?" "You know where the lake is". Then they argue and Nick up and leaves with: "I know where the fucking lake is". That is a textbook example of how to put together good dialogue. It is something you can show aspiring writers as an example.
The writing is pretty bad, it has been pointed out many times why it is bad. For example (this is just one of many):
Season 2 has some of the worst and most uninspired writing that I have ever seen in a game. And it's not just the illogical and unbelievable situations, but the bland and underdeveloped characters and character interaction.
If you dont like the writing, dont play the game.
Oh, but I do love the game, it one of the best ever made. Only season two is bad, season one is fantastic.
Its not bad written,but to kill of someone that early in the game! that was a bad idea.
Well dont play season 2 then. Do you think writing this game is easy? everyone is having high expectations and some small flaw and suddenly the writing is bad. Give me a break. I doubt you'd do better
If you can't accept negative opinions, then leave the forum. Nobody forces you to hang around here.
Agreed.
I can accept it, and I did. These people from TTG are doing their best. They cant make it perfect for everyone.
Just because a certain character dies in the wrong manner, or people can't say what they want, they think the writing is bad. No, the writing is gutwrenching (in the good way!), rich in detail, and although sometimes my choices don't lead into a whole tree of different endings, I still feel that the world is in my hand, and I'm the one that's building the story.
Completely agreed.
I don't think the writing was that bad. However, my opinion of this first episode is that it isn't a patch on episode one, season one. This is for the following reasons. Firstly there was no opportunity to get to know the various new characters. In episode one of season one, you had a pretty good idea of each characters personality. Not to mention a bit of background to each one.
Secondly, Killing Omid off like that was ridiculous. The whole scenario just didn't make any sense. Christa had a go at Lee before, for his lack of parental skills. Yet, he did a damn sight better in all the time he was in charge of Clementine. What adult would let an eight or nine year old girl go on their own into a public toilet, in a zombie infested world. To compound this error, they didn't even keep watch outside. Yet Christa blames Clementine for Omid's death. If anything, Christa needs to look in a mirror to see who to blame.
Thirdly the dog Sam fiasco. I won't go into why I think this whole section is daft again. As I have done so in another thread. Needless to say, I don't believe it would happen that way.
Lastly Clementine herself. I realise shes got a little older after the big time jump. As such, she would obviously be better at defending herself etc. But to me, she seems a little too false. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I can't make the same sort of connection with her this time round as I did in season one.
Yes I know this is only the first episode, that's exactly why I will give Telltale the benefit of the doubt and continue to play when the next episodes are released. I just hope that things improve dramatically.
I also think the writers did a fine job with episode 1. While a having a set piece before the fishing trip where Clem wanders the house talking to the group would have been a nice place to pause the story and take a breath, I understand why they did not go with it. Episode one is almost hyper focused on Clem, it gives the player a chance to not only reacquaint themselves with the game, but also reacquaint ourselves with Clem. She is no longer a porcelain doll we protect at all costs, she is now an actual person with agency and motivations all her own not motivations we project on to her. I do not mean this as a knock against season 1, but season 1 Clem is almost a cipher character, seen only through the prism of Lee. Focusing on Clem in this manner during episode one allows the player to shatter the doll and find the person she is underneath.
I always find it sad when people chalk up writing choices they don't agree with as "bad writing" when it's actually spectacular writing they wished had taken a different tact.
I know I'm going to get killed for this, but I disagree. I thought Season two lacked a lot of the most basic tenets of engaging storytelling. (Or at least storytelling that expects me to care about what happens next to the characters.) Most of the interesting parts seemed entirely dependent on riding on the coattails of our positive memories of season one. ("Ooh, I wonder if it's Kenny that Clem is talking to in the preview!")
Yeah, it's cool that Clem has Arnold-like one-liners and is being manipulative; and that's fun because it contrasts off our memory of her from season one. But it's also a double-edged sword. By making her so capable and lacking vulnerability (and the group irrationally talking to her like she's Bruce Willis), what exactly is our pressing concern as the audience? Is there anything she can't handle better than an adult at this point? They've introduced an entire cast of characters that seem functionally retarded (see the thread about "worst doctor ever), so it's impossible to respect them or fear for their safety like we did for Clem, Lee, even Lilly, in season one. And Clem seems far more capable of survival (almost cartoonishly so) than any of them. So what are we hoping for her, exactly? It's not like she'd be any better off hooking up with adults with the way they've presented the world.
Yes, it was cool having Clementine sneak around the house, but at the same time, the whole premise only served to completely undermine any respect or concern I had for any cast members not named Clem. I mean, am I supposed to care about these people?
Also, in stark contrast with season one (and in most engaging stories) no one seems to have any hopes or goals in season two beyond carrying on with life like they have been. That's cool if you're making a movie like The Ice Storm and are trying to portray apathy, but when you really want the audience to root for something, you need the characters to care about things. (I'm talking about motivations beyond, "I hope we catch fish this morning so we can have a nice dinner.") These are the basic tenets of storytelling. In season one the audience could empathize with every single member of the cast. Because in addition to their individual motivations, they all remembered a "normal life" and were all fiercely motivated by a hope (impossible as it was) that life could go back to being that way. That's something the audience could automatically latch onto. Additionally, Lee was very motivated to protect Clementine, Clem was very motivated to find her parents, Glen was motivated by hoping his loved ones were okay, etc.
However, the group in Season two--in addition to having the IQ's of stumps--seem to have no motivations or goals at all. They seem pretty well settled in zombie world, content to be bitchy pregnant ladies and just survive. It's a perpetual state of homeostasis, which is not the way to make characters interesting. (It really was shooting themselves in the foot to kill off Omid, the one surviving character whose personality seemed to inherently be full of energy and puncture the complacent tone of any situation.) Even Clem doesn't seem all that concerned about finding Christa--it's a vague afterthought, unlike Lee's constant concern for Clem in season one; so there's not much for us to vicariously root for there. The only member of season two that seems to have actual pressing motivation is Carlos, who genuinely seems to want to protect his daughter--but even this was neutralized by making him the most moronic of the group, threatening Clementine like he's Mel Gibson and she's the foreign diplomat badguy in Lethal Weapon 2, and him not understanding how fevers and infections work.
In season one, even though everyone was part of the same group, it was very engaging all the different group dynamics that they established even in just a short time. Kenny and Lee shouting at Larry, different alliances forming, etc. However, the group in season two all seem to act with one hivemind. Luke is supposed to be the guy we like, but even he is just a castrated "Yes, dear" drone when it comes decision time. (He also seemed to have the IQ of a hammer. "Check your bite? Oh, sure, that's just a trick. You're probably just a zombie trying to trick us into getting closer!") Honestly, Sarah is the most interesting of the new characters. I know people were annoyed by her, but at least she seemed to be a bit of a loose cannon with her own motivations other than, "Well, I guess I'll do whatever the group wants."
The way episode one ends, the player has no real pressing need to see what happens next because the characters themselves don't have any goals. (And no, I don't count "Next Time on the Walking Dead" as a legitimate way of writing suspense. Anyone can write a tease for a next episode in which someone says, "I thought you were dead" and have the audience wondering who it is; hoping it's a character from season one with an actual personality.) Yes, some vague ominous mentions of "Carver" have been made, and we know he's a "bad guy" simply because we're familiar with storytelling tropes. But that doesn't mean the audience really fears or cares about him. They've been given no reason to. Since the entire cast of season two has been presented as unsympathetic, unlikable morons, and Clem herself doesn't even seem to be an actual part of their group, why would I be afraid of another character who might be a threat to them?
Excellent post. Two thumbs up.
You make a few decent points but none of them really stick, nor do they indicate poor writing. I'm going to pick on one here.
What motivations should this new group have 2 years deep into the ZA? The world is obviously beyond repair, so there is no longer the motivation to find help or a place to hold up until this all blows over. By now any loved ones they had have to be dead or at least gone with no chance of them finding them again. Those 2 motivations were the only motivations any character had in season one episode one. After 2 years in the ZA the only motivations anyone has beyond a those of a personal nature is Survival, this group obviously wants to be bunkered down and left alone. Their only motivation is "leave us alone". Maybe not the most gripping motivation but a true one all the same. The complaints like your (which your entitled to) all seem to stem from your not finding this new as interesting or as well rounded as season 1's group. But we had multiple episodes to establish them, we have had about 10 minutes to get to know this new group if after episode 2 they have not been developed your complaints would hold water right I don't agree.
The writing was fantastic, but as I've mentioned on another thread, it was just a bit too short.
Maybe Clementine was afraid that the lady was armed? You don't think clearly when you are afraid. And Omid dying isn't as unrealistic as you make it sound, bad situations happen in real life, too.
There were also some plotholes and asspulls in season one, like when Lee found a nice melee weapon in a seemingly looted house.
"What motivations should this new group have 2 years deep into the ZA? The world is obviously beyond repair, so there is no longer the motivation to find help or a place to hold up until this all blows over..."
That's the challenge of writing a story like this. That's the job of a writer. It almost sounds like you're agreeing with me that the story fails on these levels on engagement but are okay with it by saying, "Writing is hard." The audience knew that the dinosaurs were screwed at the beginning of Land Before Time and would soon go extinct, yet they still managed to create likable, diverse characters and a goal for them that we empathized with.
Even if you accept the idea that characters have accepted things will never be normal again, that doesn't mean it's a requirement that the characters also be of low-intelligence, unlikable, are in concordance with one another, and rudderless.
Also, I disagree about how the group dynamic needed multiple episodes to establish. As I said, in season one, right off the bat characters were infinitely more engaged with one another than anyone in season two. Lee (and us) were instantly engaged in concern for Clem. There were sparks flying immediately between the different factions of Lilly/Larry, Lee/Clementine, Kenny/Katja/Duck, etc.
They already did make it perfect for everyone. It was called season 1.