It kind of bugs me that some people have to be told everything and cant seem to put two and two together. If the baby is not with Christa than it more than likely died and that contributed to her embittered and sad attitude. It's like when Mark showed up in episode 2 of the first season and people were mad because we didnt get a whole scene showing him joining the group. I thought it was more than adequately explained in the dialogue how he got there.
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,… more 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 dont know. I dont necessarily feel like we needed that in the first episode. I feel like when Clem gets more comfortable with the group, and considering what they did to her, I can imagine her not wanting to chat it up with everyone, we'll see more of that kind of interaction going forward.
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 … moreyour 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.
Well, she's 11 now. I think her changes in character have been appropriate considering how much time she's spent in the world, almost two years and the things she learned from Lee, Christa and Omid. I feel like some people just want her to stay this innocent girl that they took care of in season 1 instead of letting Clem learn to take care of herself. I totally agree with you that she didnt do anything anyone else wouldnt have done who was fighting for their life. She mostly used her legs to kick and push away from her and spent a lot of time running and hiding. Thats not superhuman behavior.
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 … moreopinion, 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.
If after episode 2 the complaints you make hold up and these individuals still have no agency of their own then yes I will agree with you. But right now were on chapter 1 and have had minimal time to explore this groups dynamic. That's why I think the most valid complaint of episode one is it brevity. I think the writers choice to focus in Clem and not fully establish each new character gives rise to complaints like yours. But also its still chapter one, give it time and let the story develop, if it doesn't your right, the story is lacking, but there is no established rule that says every characters motivation must be established immediately, ambiguity can be our friend at least at first. Also the motivations of this group while not firmly established, there are rough out lines for them. Rebekah/Alvin have a baby daddy drama brewing, Carlos/Sarah have the over protective father dynamic, Pete/Nick have the surrogate father being to hard on the son dynamic, these dynamics will be explored I'm certain of it. The only blank slate is Luke, and he needs a lot of work still.
"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 motivat… moreion 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 ne… [view original content]
Season 1 wasnt perfect for everyone either. It had its share of detractors. I honestly dont understand how you can claim to love season one and spew so much hate for this one episode of season 2. Its not like the game has changed that much fundamentally.
Episode two could turn out to be the best written thing ever. But I don't see how that would make my criticisms of episode one invalid. It's also going to be hard for the characters to "recover" from their introduction in episode one. As mentioned in that "worst doctor" thread, these characters were immediately established as morons, all of them. There's no way to fix that other than suddenly making them smart in later episodes and hoping the audience forgets episode one.
If after episode 2 the complaints you make hold up and these individuals still have no agency of their own then yes I will agree with you. But… more right now were on chapter 1 and have had minimal time to explore this groups dynamic. That's why I think the most valid complaint of episode one is it brevity. I think the writers choice to focus in Clem and not fully establish each new character gives rise to complaints like yours. But also its still chapter one, give it time and let the story develop, if it doesn't your right, the story is lacking, but there is no established rule that says every characters motivation must be established immediately, ambiguity can be our friend at least at first. Also the motivations of this group while not firmly established, there are rough out lines for them. Rebekah/Alvin have a baby daddy drama brewing, Carlos/Sarah have the over protective father dynamic, Pete/Nick have the surrogate father being to hard on the son… [view original content]
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 talkin… moreg 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.
First impressions do make a lasting impression, but mostly their uninformed impressions and usually wrong. We can harp on that doctors lack of skills, and I agree they are lacking, but where is the rule saying "all doctors must be good doctors".
The only moron I saw in that group was Luke. But our only perspective on these people is that of Clem's, and seeing as they were denying her medical treatment, they didn't come off very. But that's not poor writing that opens the door for some very interesting writing. Can these people prove themselves to be good folks worthy of standing with or any number of avenues they could run with. And if episode 2 ends up being the greatest thing ever, or just good. Your arguments will be invalid, because episode 1 is part of a whole, but inversely if its a turd my arguments will be invalid.
Episode two could turn out to be the best written thing ever. But I don't see how that would make my criticisms of episode one invalid. It's… more also going to be hard for the characters to "recover" from their introduction in episode one. As mentioned in that "worst doctor" thread, these characters were immediately established as morons, all of them. There's no way to fix that other than suddenly making them smart in later episodes and hoping the audience forgets episode one.
You apparently haven't figured this out yet, but the narrative is the fundamental aspect of the series.
Season one had great writing and season two has terrible writing. So yes, the games are very different.
Season 1 wasnt perfect for everyone either. It had its share of detractors.
Yeah, and those people won't bother to play season 2 either. So what is you point? Oh, right, you don't have one, you're just trying to build a straw man.
Season 1 wasnt perfect for everyone either. It had its share of detractors. I honestly dont understand how you can claim to love season one an… mored spew so much hate for this one episode of season 2. Its not like the game has changed that much fundamentally.
You apparently haven't figured this out yet, but the narrative is the fundamental aspect of the series.
Season one had great writing and sea… moreson two has terrible writing. So yes, the games are very different.
Season 1 wasnt perfect for everyone either. It had its share of detractors.
Yeah, and those people won't bother to play season 2 either. So what is you point? Oh, right, you don't have one, you're just trying to build a straw man.
The reason I called them all morons is because they were all in concordance with one another through their actions. The doctor and the pregnant lady were leading the moron charge, but everyone else was complicit in it. Also, none of them seem to understand how zombie bites work. (When Luke was freaking out, Pete wasn't exactly arguing with him that he was wrong.) They all seem to think that they're dealing with the Rage virus from 28 days later. It might be possible in real life for an entire group to be of such low-intelligence and have no individualistic integrity, but it doesn't make for compelling storytelling.
Imagine if in the first episode of Season one when Larry is screaming that they have to throw Duck out, what if every other cast member turned into Eeyore and said, "Well, okay. Whatever, man. I guess I'll do whatever you want. I just don't want to get in trouble with Larry." That would be a hell of a way to handicap the entire cast in the audience's eyes. That's what they've done with season two.
I don't believe my argument would be rendered invalid if episode two is good. Because I was specifically talking about the strength of episode 1 compared to the strength of episode 1 of last season. I said that the audience was presented with no rooting interest or pressing need to see what happens with these characters later on; those deficiencies of episode one will remain regardless of episode two.
We can only go by what we've been given so far. If criticisms of episode one would automatically become invalid with a higher quality of later episodes, then the opposite would also have to be true. If it turns out that episode 3 sucks, does that disprove the original poster saying that some of the dialogue in episode one was cool?
First impressions do make a lasting impression, but mostly their uninformed impressions and usually wrong. We can harp on that doctors lack of… more skills, and I agree they are lacking, but where is the rule saying "all doctors must be good doctors".
The only moron I saw in that group was Luke. But our only perspective on these people is that of Clem's, and seeing as they were denying her medical treatment, they didn't come off very. But that's not poor writing that opens the door for some very interesting writing. Can these people prove themselves to be good folks worthy of standing with or any number of avenues they could run with. And if episode 2 ends up being the greatest thing ever, or just good. Your arguments will be invalid, because episode 1 is part of a whole, but inversely if its a turd my arguments will be invalid.
You apparently haven't figured this out yet, but the narrative is the fundamental aspect of the series.
Season one had great writing and sea… moreson two has terrible writing. So yes, the games are very different.
Season 1 wasnt perfect for everyone either. It had its share of detractors.
Yeah, and those people won't bother to play season 2 either. So what is you point? Oh, right, you don't have one, you're just trying to build a straw man.
Calling these people morons (Luke excluded) is hyperbole at best and vitriolic at worse. They have good reason to fear a bite victim after what happened to Nicks mom. They have absolutely no reason to help Clem, none what so ever. Rebekah arguing for turning away Clem may not endear her us but its a valid characterization. When Larry tried to throw Duck out we were only a few days into the ZA, these people are 2 years in, living in an isolated group, of course they have a bit of a hive mind going on, of course the plight of one child will no longer play on the heartstrings as much as it once would have. Outside of some poor doctoring and Luke nothing in this situation is moronic. It's writing you don't agree with not bad writing.
Episode 2 will stand on the back of the ground work laid in episode 1. If episode 2 is good it will be because episode 1 set it up to be, and the same for episode 3,4 and 5. So one of us will be proven wrong, Ill be able to admit it, if you can't that's you short coming not mine.
The reason I called them all morons is because they were all in concordance with one another through their actions. The doctor and the pregna… morent lady were leading the moron charge, but everyone else was complicit in it. Also, none of them seem to understand how zombie bites work. (When Luke was freaking out, Pete wasn't exactly arguing with him that he was wrong.) They all seem to think that they're dealing with the Rage virus from 28 days later. It might be possible in real life for an entire group to be of such low-intelligence and have no individualistic integrity, but it doesn't make for compelling storytelling.
Imagine if in the first episode of Season one when Larry is screaming that they have to throw Duck out, what if every other cast member turned into Eeyore and said, "Well, okay. Whatever, man. I guess I'll do whatever you want. I just don't want to get in trouble with Larry." That would be a hell of a way to handicap the ent… [view original content]
No, I can't accept your negative opinion because it doesn't make sense. You seem to want the game to be absolutely perfect in every way and it will never be like that. Games always have flaws but the good parts outweigh the bad.
I wrote a longer post explaining their lack of intelligence in the "worst doctor thread." And no, they never explained what happened to Nick's Mom. Notice how vague that story was when they talked to Clem about it? It was vague because there was no way the writers could plausibly make that situation similar to how Clem was behaving, justifying the group's behavior towards Clem.
In regards to that past experience, they said they "thought they could control it." From what the audience knows about the "zombie rules" there is no way that what happened with Nick's Mom in any way resembled how Clem was behaving. Nick's Mom would HAVE to have been leaning way over someone who was CLEARLY about to die or was already dead or already a zombie for her to have been attacked. This does not at all jibe with Clementine speaking cogently and Luke throwing her to the ground and the rest of the group acting like she was a threat to immediately attack them, like she was actually a zombie just pretending to be a normal person.
Even if we give them the complete benefit of the doubt and say it's realistic for all of them to be on same page with their illogical actions and cowed hivemind, this isn't real life. It's a story. And it's not compelling to have an entire cast embodying the same apathy and mindset.
Calling these people morons (Luke excluded) is hyperbole at best and vitriolic at worse. They have good reason to fear a bite victim after wha… moret happened to Nicks mom. They have absolutely no reason to help Clem, none what so ever. Rebekah arguing for turning away Clem may not endear her us but its a valid characterization. When Larry tried to throw Duck out we were only a few days into the ZA, these people are 2 years in, living in an isolated group, of course they have a bit of a hive mind going on, of course the plight of one child will no longer play on the heartstrings as much as it once would have. Outside of some poor doctoring and Luke nothing in this situation is moronic. It's writing you don't agree with not bad writing.
Episode 2 will stand on the back of the ground work laid in episode 1. If episode 2 is good it will be because episode 1 set it up to be, and the same for episode 3,4 and 5. So one of us will be proven wrong, Ill be able to admit it, if you can't that's you short coming not mine.
They have good reason to fear a bite victim after what happened to Nicks mom.
Yes
They have absolutely no reason to help Clem, none what so ever.
Oh, but they did help her. Completely out of the blue (about 1-2 hours later) they decided that they weren't scared shitless of Clem anymore and let her in the house and gave her something to eat. rofl
Like Maxwell_Horse said, does the author want to portray them as complete retards and morons to the player or does he just have no talent and can only write uninspired bs? ^^
Calling these people morons (Luke excluded) is hyperbole at best and vitriolic at worse. They have good reason to fear a bite victim after wha… moret happened to Nicks mom. They have absolutely no reason to help Clem, none what so ever. Rebekah arguing for turning away Clem may not endear her us but its a valid characterization. When Larry tried to throw Duck out we were only a few days into the ZA, these people are 2 years in, living in an isolated group, of course they have a bit of a hive mind going on, of course the plight of one child will no longer play on the heartstrings as much as it once would have. Outside of some poor doctoring and Luke nothing in this situation is moronic. It's writing you don't agree with not bad writing.
Episode 2 will stand on the back of the ground work laid in episode 1. If episode 2 is good it will be because episode 1 set it up to be, and the same for episode 3,4 and 5. So one of us will be proven wrong, Ill be able to admit it, if you can't that's you short coming not mine.
I can accept your opinion even though it doesn't make sense to me. I'm not going around flaming you at every possibility.
But please, continue. I have no problem with this thread constantly being bumped up to the top. I'm sure some people would like to read why the writing it so bad.
No, I can't accept your negative opinion because it doesn't make sense. You seem to want the game to be absolutely perfect in every way and it will never be like that. Games always have flaws but the good parts outweigh the bad.
Almost all of that was supposition, I don't see how I can defend a point against it. You have decided that you know what went down with Nick's mom getting bit as result of helping a bite victim. Well we don't know the specifics, but the situations are similar enough to give the group pause. There reactions from an objective view point are perfectly reasonable. Had the group taken the time to explain the details of the first incedent to Clem it may have cleared up their motivations but it would have been lazy writing to shoe horn it in. The group has no reason to explain themselves to Clem at that point. They offered the bare minimum of help, that's not bad writing it brave in my opinion.
Yes this is a story, it The Walking Dead it an absolutely brutal story. Your either up for the misery tour or your not.
I wrote a longer post explaining their lack of intelligence in the "worst doctor thread." And no, they never explained what happened to Nick'… mores Mom. Notice how vague that story was when they talked to Clem about it? It was vague because there was no way the writers could plausibly make that situation similar to how Clem was behaving, justifying the group's behavior towards Clem.
In regards to that past experience, they said they "thought they could control it." From what the audience knows about the "zombie rules" there is no way that what happened with Nick's Mom in any way resembled how Clem was behaving. Nick's Mom would HAVE to have been leaning way over someone who was CLEARLY about to die or was already dead or already a zombie for her to have been attacked. This does not at all jibe with Clementine speaking cogently and Luke throwing her to the ground and the rest of the group acting like she was a threat to immediately attack them… [view original content]
Based off one episode. . . and I think the writing in that episode was amazing. As I said in another thread, the writers had a very difficult task of moving onto a completely different storyline pretty quickly. I think they did that very well. The episode as well as episodes 2,3, and 4 are just setups to the finale.
Diux so agree that the group had good motivation to lock Clem in the shed, but poor motivation to let her out after her bite was proven to not be a walker bite. They agreed to help if she was not a bite victim, and when it was obvious she was not infected they provided her with the help they promised. How us any of that a contradiction? There are some legit gripes to be made, this not one of them.
They have good reason to fear a bite victim after what happened to Nicks mom.
Yes
They have absolutely no reason to help Clem, n… moreone what so ever.
Oh, but they did help her. Completely out of the blue (about 1-2 hours later) they decided that they weren't scared shitless of Clem anymore and let her in the house and gave her something to eat. rofl
Like Maxwell_Horse said, does the author want to portray them as complete retards and morons to the player or does he just have no talent and can only write uninspired bs? ^^
You're right about one thing. I cant figure you out. I really do not get where you are coming from. And I think you got my point, you're just being obtuse.
You apparently haven't figured this out yet, but the narrative is the fundamental aspect of the series.
Season one had great writing and sea… moreson two has terrible writing. So yes, the games are very different.
Season 1 wasnt perfect for everyone either. It had its share of detractors.
Yeah, and those people won't bother to play season 2 either. So what is you point? Oh, right, you don't have one, you're just trying to build a straw man.
When was it proven that it wasn't a walker bite? After she stole some supplies and killed a walker in self defense? Yes, that is certainly some darn good and unchallengeable proof right there. rofl
Diux so agree that the group had good motivation to lock Clem in the shed, but poor motivation to let her out after her bite was proven to not… more be a walker bite. They agreed to help if she was not a bite victim, and when it was obvious she was not infected they provided her with the help they promised. How us any of that a contradiction? There are some legit gripes to be made, this not one of them.
What motivations did the group from season one have? At the end of episode one, that is?
Waiting... that was it. They waited. For the apocalypse to be ended. Kenny wasn't even on the RV-repairing, yet. Ok, Clem wanted to find her parents. But no one else wanted that. Because they were most likely dead, in their opinion.
I think people are comparing the first season with the episode of the new season. Because the human mind cannot differentiate memories correctly (eye witness accounts are way overrated in trials, for example). So you (unwllingly) remember how great the season was, and think that was already the case after episode one.
"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 motivat… moreion 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 ne… [view original content]
See? That's just annoying now. You're on every thread posting the same one to two lines, without actually making points, apart from the gun thing, which I actually agree with.
I thought the writing was great and actually quite realistic. A lot of complaints seem to be skewed in every way to try and detriment season 2 episode 1 (S2E1). Though I've noticed a few main complaints which I'll go into here.
The first main complaint is how it was bad storytelling to kill of Omid, and I don't see how people could be more wrong. Omid was a great character and it was a tragedy for him to die, though It's not bad storytelling because we felt engaged with the character and when we died it caused a surge of emotions. Sort of like Carly in Season 1. Now the events before his death also get a lot of crap like 'Why wouldn't Clem bring her gun into the stall?' Well my response is why should she? Clem had already cleared out the bathroom of walkers and she knew Omid and Christa were next door so that probably gave her a sense of security so she didn't feel like sh needed a gun for a 10 second trip into a stall. Now because we have laid the episode we know she should of but at the time she didn't think like someone was gonna come in and take her gun then proceed to shoot Omid with it. This is what I like to call realistic characters. Now back to Omid, so I don't think it's right to call his death bad storytelling, I suppose you could call it a bad idea if you want, but not bad storytelling.
Now the next big complaint I see is not showing what happened to Christa's baby. Well this is what I like to call implied storytelling. It's when something is not shown, but it can be implied what happened, and generally it's told what happened later on. A lot of media does this and they do it because it causes suspense and mystery keeps you wondering. Even season 1 did this wit Lee's wife, it can be implied she was cheating from what happened throughout the story, or Mark we never got to see how he got to the group but could be implied by the games context and dialogue, or even the bear trap in the woods it can be implied later on the Saint Johns put it there when a bear trap is shown in their meat locker. Now with Christa's baby it can be implied just by the fact that it is never shown and Christa doesn't have it that it was either killed or was a miscarriage. That's great storytelling to me.
Now the next complaint Is how Clem can fight off a grown man, and zombies, well I think this is just a blatant misinterpretation of what is shown, by that I mean look when she she 'fights' the grown man, she's constantly running away and only doing stuff to get him off her, she' not getting into a fistfight like Lee would, she's basically kicking the man away and in one case biting off his finger, and in that situation what else was she going to do, the scene shows that she was never trying to fight the man just run away, how she was able to fend him off? Well there's something called adrenaline in human bodies, it causes a human to be more physically fit than normal, it's the stuff that allowed a women to lift a car slightly off the ground to save her kids, or for a man to knock a 1000 pound rock off of him, In Clem's case it could of been that that help her avoid the man even though her reactions seemed pretty normal, but you know.
The next complaint I always see as well, is not being able to interact with the characters, well why would Clem honestly after what happened. She talks to the characters that were nice to her like Pete and Luke, but why would she talk to anyone else really. It's called having a realistic character. Let's look back at season 1 when Vernon asks to take Clem, no matter what you say you can't give him Clem. Why? because it would not be in Lee's character to do so right away, or Lilly, no mater what she steals the RV if you bring here with you. Why? Because it's in her character to do so. Same thing here I don't think Clem would find a good reason to talk to complete strangers about their past especially when they all were basically mean to her.
Now the final complaint is that Clem is becoming to much like Carl. Well she could be if you play her a certain way, but you could play her like an innocent girl if you wanted as well which I tried, so if your Clem is acting like Carl it's because you are probably picking all the Carl choices, rather than her always being Carl no matter what decisions are made.
Now S2E1 isn't without it's faults, but it's far from a bad sorry, in fact I'll even say S2E1 has even less plot holes that make no sense than S1E1, like (And this is all comming from someone whos favorite game of all time is season 1 of the walking dead) the farm scene, or how no says anything after Larry punches lee clearly Clem and lee saw and maybe even Kenny, why Kenny acts like lee wasn't going to help Shawn even though the scene showed Lee saying "Now Shawn," the proceeding to run towards him, How the game makes it looks like the walkers notice lee after Doug yells to run even though the game makers probably intended otherwise, How Carly couldn't just pistol whip the walker holding her, ect.
So yeah that's my overarching consensus of the complaints of S2E1.
I agree with everyone on this thread. I do also think that many people are simply butthurt because of Omid's and the dog's deaths.
I have no problems with the writing so far, eventhough I agree that there is still room for improvement.
But heck, nobody's perfect, not even our miracle-writers from Telltale.
See, how people are able to voice points they have issues with? That is a post people can discuss.
More so than constantly repeating "uninspired", "lazy" and "down the drain"
Comments
It kind of bugs me that some people have to be told everything and cant seem to put two and two together. If the baby is not with Christa than it more than likely died and that contributed to her embittered and sad attitude. It's like when Mark showed up in episode 2 of the first season and people were mad because we didnt get a whole scene showing him joining the group. I thought it was more than adequately explained in the dialogue how he got there.
I dont know. I dont necessarily feel like we needed that in the first episode. I feel like when Clem gets more comfortable with the group, and considering what they did to her, I can imagine her not wanting to chat it up with everyone, we'll see more of that kind of interaction going forward.
Well, she's 11 now. I think her changes in character have been appropriate considering how much time she's spent in the world, almost two years and the things she learned from Lee, Christa and Omid. I feel like some people just want her to stay this innocent girl that they took care of in season 1 instead of letting Clem learn to take care of herself. I totally agree with you that she didnt do anything anyone else wouldnt have done who was fighting for their life. She mostly used her legs to kick and push away from her and spent a lot of time running and hiding. Thats not superhuman behavior.
If after episode 2 the complaints you make hold up and these individuals still have no agency of their own then yes I will agree with you. But right now were on chapter 1 and have had minimal time to explore this groups dynamic. That's why I think the most valid complaint of episode one is it brevity. I think the writers choice to focus in Clem and not fully establish each new character gives rise to complaints like yours. But also its still chapter one, give it time and let the story develop, if it doesn't your right, the story is lacking, but there is no established rule that says every characters motivation must be established immediately, ambiguity can be our friend at least at first. Also the motivations of this group while not firmly established, there are rough out lines for them. Rebekah/Alvin have a baby daddy drama brewing, Carlos/Sarah have the over protective father dynamic, Pete/Nick have the surrogate father being to hard on the son dynamic, these dynamics will be explored I'm certain of it. The only blank slate is Luke, and he needs a lot of work still.
Season 1 wasnt perfect for everyone either. It had its share of detractors. I honestly dont understand how you can claim to love season one and spew so much hate for this one episode of season 2. Its not like the game has changed that much fundamentally.
Episode two could turn out to be the best written thing ever. But I don't see how that would make my criticisms of episode one invalid. It's also going to be hard for the characters to "recover" from their introduction in episode one. As mentioned in that "worst doctor" thread, these characters were immediately established as morons, all of them. There's no way to fix that other than suddenly making them smart in later episodes and hoping the audience forgets episode one.
And like somebody said before, I don't see Clem really chatting it up with the group after what they did to her.
lol that is my one complaint, I wish it was longer
First impressions do make a lasting impression, but mostly their uninformed impressions and usually wrong. We can harp on that doctors lack of skills, and I agree they are lacking, but where is the rule saying "all doctors must be good doctors".
The only moron I saw in that group was Luke. But our only perspective on these people is that of Clem's, and seeing as they were denying her medical treatment, they didn't come off very. But that's not poor writing that opens the door for some very interesting writing. Can these people prove themselves to be good folks worthy of standing with or any number of avenues they could run with. And if episode 2 ends up being the greatest thing ever, or just good. Your arguments will be invalid, because episode 1 is part of a whole, but inversely if its a turd my arguments will be invalid.
You apparently haven't figured this out yet, but the narrative is the fundamental aspect of the series.
Season one had great writing and season two has terrible writing. So yes, the games are very different.
Yeah, and those people won't bother to play season 2 either. So what is you point? Oh, right, you don't have one, you're just trying to build a straw man.
And you are just way too negative. Learn to appreciate things instead of just criticizing everything you see and calling it "bad writing"
The reason I called them all morons is because they were all in concordance with one another through their actions. The doctor and the pregnant lady were leading the moron charge, but everyone else was complicit in it. Also, none of them seem to understand how zombie bites work. (When Luke was freaking out, Pete wasn't exactly arguing with him that he was wrong.) They all seem to think that they're dealing with the Rage virus from 28 days later. It might be possible in real life for an entire group to be of such low-intelligence and have no individualistic integrity, but it doesn't make for compelling storytelling.
Imagine if in the first episode of Season one when Larry is screaming that they have to throw Duck out, what if every other cast member turned into Eeyore and said, "Well, okay. Whatever, man. I guess I'll do whatever you want. I just don't want to get in trouble with Larry." That would be a hell of a way to handicap the entire cast in the audience's eyes. That's what they've done with season two.
I don't believe my argument would be rendered invalid if episode two is good. Because I was specifically talking about the strength of episode 1 compared to the strength of episode 1 of last season. I said that the audience was presented with no rooting interest or pressing need to see what happens with these characters later on; those deficiencies of episode one will remain regardless of episode two.
We can only go by what we've been given so far. If criticisms of episode one would automatically become invalid with a higher quality of later episodes, then the opposite would also have to be true. If it turns out that episode 3 sucks, does that disprove the original poster saying that some of the dialogue in episode one was cool?
dlux_ They should employ you as an episode writer since you have much more experience than their current writers
Maybe you should learn how to respect opinions that differ from yours and stop crying and flaming at every possibility.
Nice straw man BTW.
Yep, because I'm totally crying at your opinion and flaming mad! lol.
Maybe they should employ you as their white knight in shining armor and give you the title "holy defender and praiser of shitty writing"
What you are doing is called flaming, you're a little whining white knight. I'm not surprised that you don't know that though. Really, I'm not.
I think you are just too defensive of your own opinion, and when someone calls you out on it you get all mad and say they're "flaming"
Calling these people morons (Luke excluded) is hyperbole at best and vitriolic at worse. They have good reason to fear a bite victim after what happened to Nicks mom. They have absolutely no reason to help Clem, none what so ever. Rebekah arguing for turning away Clem may not endear her us but its a valid characterization. When Larry tried to throw Duck out we were only a few days into the ZA, these people are 2 years in, living in an isolated group, of course they have a bit of a hive mind going on, of course the plight of one child will no longer play on the heartstrings as much as it once would have. Outside of some poor doctoring and Luke nothing in this situation is moronic. It's writing you don't agree with not bad writing.
Episode 2 will stand on the back of the ground work laid in episode 1. If episode 2 is good it will be because episode 1 set it up to be, and the same for episode 3,4 and 5. So one of us will be proven wrong, Ill be able to admit it, if you can't that's you short coming not mine.
No, you're too defensive of your opinion and flame because you can't accept my negative opinion.
No, I can't accept your negative opinion because it doesn't make sense. You seem to want the game to be absolutely perfect in every way and it will never be like that. Games always have flaws but the good parts outweigh the bad.
I wrote a longer post explaining their lack of intelligence in the "worst doctor thread." And no, they never explained what happened to Nick's Mom. Notice how vague that story was when they talked to Clem about it? It was vague because there was no way the writers could plausibly make that situation similar to how Clem was behaving, justifying the group's behavior towards Clem.
In regards to that past experience, they said they "thought they could control it." From what the audience knows about the "zombie rules" there is no way that what happened with Nick's Mom in any way resembled how Clem was behaving. Nick's Mom would HAVE to have been leaning way over someone who was CLEARLY about to die or was already dead or already a zombie for her to have been attacked. This does not at all jibe with Clementine speaking cogently and Luke throwing her to the ground and the rest of the group acting like she was a threat to immediately attack them, like she was actually a zombie just pretending to be a normal person.
Even if we give them the complete benefit of the doubt and say it's realistic for all of them to be on same page with their illogical actions and cowed hivemind, this isn't real life. It's a story. And it's not compelling to have an entire cast embodying the same apathy and mindset.
Mad level over 9000
Yes
Oh, but they did help her. Completely out of the blue (about 1-2 hours later) they decided that they weren't scared shitless of Clem anymore and let her in the house and gave her something to eat. rofl
Like Maxwell_Horse said, does the author want to portray them as complete retards and morons to the player or does he just have no talent and can only write uninspired bs? ^^
Flaming whiner level over 9000.
I can accept your opinion even though it doesn't make sense to me. I'm not going around flaming you at every possibility.
But please, continue. I have no problem with this thread constantly being bumped up to the top. I'm sure some people would like to read why the writing it so bad.
I completely agree. Writing is phenomenal. If it wasn't, I don't think we would all be so attached to a point-and-click animation game.
Almost all of that was supposition, I don't see how I can defend a point against it. You have decided that you know what went down with Nick's mom getting bit as result of helping a bite victim. Well we don't know the specifics, but the situations are similar enough to give the group pause. There reactions from an objective view point are perfectly reasonable. Had the group taken the time to explain the details of the first incedent to Clem it may have cleared up their motivations but it would have been lazy writing to shoe horn it in. The group has no reason to explain themselves to Clem at that point. They offered the bare minimum of help, that's not bad writing it brave in my opinion.
Yes this is a story, it The Walking Dead it an absolutely brutal story. Your either up for the misery tour or your not.
I agree that the writing is phenomonal. Not for season 2 though.
Based off one episode. . . and I think the writing in that episode was amazing. As I said in another thread, the writers had a very difficult task of moving onto a completely different storyline pretty quickly. I think they did that very well. The episode as well as episodes 2,3, and 4 are just setups to the finale.
Diux so agree that the group had good motivation to lock Clem in the shed, but poor motivation to let her out after her bite was proven to not be a walker bite. They agreed to help if she was not a bite victim, and when it was obvious she was not infected they provided her with the help they promised. How us any of that a contradiction? There are some legit gripes to be made, this not one of them.
You're right about one thing. I cant figure you out. I really do not get where you are coming from. And I think you got my point, you're just being obtuse.
When was it proven that it wasn't a walker bite? After she stole some supplies and killed a walker in self defense? Yes, that is certainly some darn good and unchallengeable proof right there. rofl
See, how people are able to voice points they have issues with? That is a post people can discuss.
More so than constantly repeating "uninspired", "lazy" and "down the drain"
What motivations did the group from season one have? At the end of episode one, that is?
Waiting... that was it. They waited. For the apocalypse to be ended. Kenny wasn't even on the RV-repairing, yet. Ok, Clem wanted to find her parents. But no one else wanted that. Because they were most likely dead, in their opinion.
I think people are comparing the first season with the episode of the new season. Because the human mind cannot differentiate memories correctly (eye witness accounts are way overrated in trials, for example). So you (unwllingly) remember how great the season was, and think that was already the case after episode one.
See? That's just annoying now. You're on every thread posting the same one to two lines, without actually making points, apart from the gun thing, which I actually agree with.
I thought the writing was great and actually quite realistic. A lot of complaints seem to be skewed in every way to try and detriment season 2 episode 1 (S2E1). Though I've noticed a few main complaints which I'll go into here.
The first main complaint is how it was bad storytelling to kill of Omid, and I don't see how people could be more wrong. Omid was a great character and it was a tragedy for him to die, though It's not bad storytelling because we felt engaged with the character and when we died it caused a surge of emotions. Sort of like Carly in Season 1. Now the events before his death also get a lot of crap like 'Why wouldn't Clem bring her gun into the stall?' Well my response is why should she? Clem had already cleared out the bathroom of walkers and she knew Omid and Christa were next door so that probably gave her a sense of security so she didn't feel like sh needed a gun for a 10 second trip into a stall. Now because we have laid the episode we know she should of but at the time she didn't think like someone was gonna come in and take her gun then proceed to shoot Omid with it. This is what I like to call realistic characters. Now back to Omid, so I don't think it's right to call his death bad storytelling, I suppose you could call it a bad idea if you want, but not bad storytelling.
Now the next big complaint I see is not showing what happened to Christa's baby. Well this is what I like to call implied storytelling. It's when something is not shown, but it can be implied what happened, and generally it's told what happened later on. A lot of media does this and they do it because it causes suspense and mystery keeps you wondering. Even season 1 did this wit Lee's wife, it can be implied she was cheating from what happened throughout the story, or Mark we never got to see how he got to the group but could be implied by the games context and dialogue, or even the bear trap in the woods it can be implied later on the Saint Johns put it there when a bear trap is shown in their meat locker. Now with Christa's baby it can be implied just by the fact that it is never shown and Christa doesn't have it that it was either killed or was a miscarriage. That's great storytelling to me.
Now the next complaint Is how Clem can fight off a grown man, and zombies, well I think this is just a blatant misinterpretation of what is shown, by that I mean look when she she 'fights' the grown man, she's constantly running away and only doing stuff to get him off her, she' not getting into a fistfight like Lee would, she's basically kicking the man away and in one case biting off his finger, and in that situation what else was she going to do, the scene shows that she was never trying to fight the man just run away, how she was able to fend him off? Well there's something called adrenaline in human bodies, it causes a human to be more physically fit than normal, it's the stuff that allowed a women to lift a car slightly off the ground to save her kids, or for a man to knock a 1000 pound rock off of him, In Clem's case it could of been that that help her avoid the man even though her reactions seemed pretty normal, but you know.
The next complaint I always see as well, is not being able to interact with the characters, well why would Clem honestly after what happened. She talks to the characters that were nice to her like Pete and Luke, but why would she talk to anyone else really. It's called having a realistic character. Let's look back at season 1 when Vernon asks to take Clem, no matter what you say you can't give him Clem. Why? because it would not be in Lee's character to do so right away, or Lilly, no mater what she steals the RV if you bring here with you. Why? Because it's in her character to do so. Same thing here I don't think Clem would find a good reason to talk to complete strangers about their past especially when they all were basically mean to her.
Now the final complaint is that Clem is becoming to much like Carl. Well she could be if you play her a certain way, but you could play her like an innocent girl if you wanted as well which I tried, so if your Clem is acting like Carl it's because you are probably picking all the Carl choices, rather than her always being Carl no matter what decisions are made.
Now S2E1 isn't without it's faults, but it's far from a bad sorry, in fact I'll even say S2E1 has even less plot holes that make no sense than S1E1, like (And this is all comming from someone whos favorite game of all time is season 1 of the walking dead) the farm scene, or how no says anything after Larry punches lee clearly Clem and lee saw and maybe even Kenny, why Kenny acts like lee wasn't going to help Shawn even though the scene showed Lee saying "Now Shawn," the proceeding to run towards him, How the game makes it looks like the walkers notice lee after Doug yells to run even though the game makers probably intended otherwise, How Carly couldn't just pistol whip the walker holding her, ect.
So yeah that's my overarching consensus of the complaints of S2E1.
I agree with everyone on this thread. I do also think that many people are simply butthurt because of Omid's and the dog's deaths.
I have no problems with the writing so far, eventhough I agree that there is still room for improvement.
But heck, nobody's perfect, not even our miracle-writers from Telltale.
Man, you're like a fucking broken record. rofl
Uhh... likewise?