Serious Thread:Sacrifice Choice?
I was playing Fallout 3 and finished Spoilers where you choose to sacrifice your self for the greater good.
I don't want to be a dick here ,so I started thinking ,IF TTG wanted to become evil and decided to be KILL OFF Clem,do you think it will be a sacrifice or a sacrifice choice ?-different endings- Don't take me wrong I definitely don't want to see Clem die based on sacrifice or at all.
In 400 days there was a choice where you choose the sacrifice so the other can live but it is different.
Or if they don't become evil and want to keep Clem alive,will expect a sacrifice choice of course not sacrifice yourself for the greater good but sacrifice something you care about or other way of sacrifice?
Don't hate for this.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
as you said IF they would kill her off i think they ould do it this way
It doesn't matter to me how she dies, as long as it isn't cheap like Lee's.
What do you find cheap about Lee's death?
I could see them have a Clem dies or 'They' die situation. I can tell you now my Clem wouldn't die... This would end the series (at least the one based on Clem) but I honestly think it would be a fitting end.
Cheap?? I thought it was excellent writing!
You can't kill Clem without wrecking the series. There's no good way to do it. If she dies the entire series is rendered meaningless.
The story revolves around her development and so the themes and narratives would be literally incomprehensible without her.
It's pretty likely that Clementine won't die. They've killed off a protagonist before. It'd just seem like TellTale is out of ideas.
Well, I like characters in fiction to go out in a pretty awesome way. Lee died getting bit trying to pick up a walkie talkie. It didn't feel right to me.
Ok so you didn't like how he got bit. I thought you were refering to him going to find Clem and dying while saving her. Personally I rather liked the way he was bitten, it showed that you can survive everything but the moment you let your guard down you run the risk of failing.
If she does die, it pretty much makes the entire of Season 1 meaningless. All that time spent preparing her along with the extra year and a bit with Christa would just be seen as a huge waste. I seriously can't see her dying unless TellTale wanted to finish the franchise for some reason, but this is their best game so just hoping there's more
Which is what bothered me. Lee was a smart, careful guy. I could see Ben dying the way Lee did, but it just didn't sit well with me. I didn't have a problem with his actual death, though. I should've clarified that.
Zombies bite humans. I thought it was great. How else would you want Lee to die? He was walking down the street when a bandit popped outta nowhere and shot him? The 5th episode was great, was like a great ultimatum. Per example, inow that Lee's bit, you find out what friends you have (Who goes with you). You experience the pressure of being bitten. You have a considerable good amount of action (I prefer storyline over action, but some action bits in that episode were great). I think Lee's end was appropriate, and it was done in an awesome way!
If S2 is just as good as S1, or even better who knows? Rest assured, S3 will come. Although i don't want this series to be dragged. That being said, they could make 10 seasons,as long as the quality is good.
I guess to me it was just a way of showing he cared so much for Clem he didn't even hesitate when he though he found a clue that would help find her. Smart, careful, and to caring, but I do see your point.
I actually would've preferred Lee dying getting shot. Maybe not by a Bandit, but maybe the Stranger. His death was just pretty careless on his part.
I just thought of it as carelessness on his part. Him going through the horde to the Marsh House was the best showing of his care for Clementine, in my opinion.
How he reacts when she first goes MIA is as important as what he is willing to do to get her back.
I'm not sure I follow. When he goes outside looking for her? I'm not saying what he did was wrong, his execution was just bad. Going out in the open, knowing that zombies could be around. He should've known better.
We got a lot of heartfelt emotions when Lee died, imagine what you would feel when Clem dies to save another. Just saying.
It wouldn't be instantly fatal. It would be like Lee getting shot when he fights the Stranger in the hotel room. He would survive until he succumbed to his injury, at about the same time he died from his bite.
A death by gunshot would be the worse. If Lee got shot, it would be some seconds we would survive, after that he dies. He was bitten, so we had time to take in the pain, and give our advice to Clem of what she should do. We saw what an infection does to a person.
If he died with a bullet, he would just vanish instantly. People would be sad for the next minutes and then get over it. With Lee bit, we acumulated all the pain and sadness, and in the end we just let it out, and cry our loss.
Yeah, I just wished they had taken a different approach with it, it could've been something better to me.
He should have, but when his 'little girl' (for lack of better words) went missing that didn't matter. All that mattered was finding her, which in his haste and over-caring led to him being to careless.
One of those feelings would be the one where all emotional investment in the story leaves my body. Just saying.
I guess that's you. I would bawl like a baby.
If there is alternate endings where she lives or dies then great. Having a set ending on the final series would be kind of annoying particularly if she dies
You don't understand what's being said in this conversation, or the points being made about emotional investment.
Mind explaining what you mean? I usually understand things very well and it bothers me when I don't, so mind spending a few minutes and letting me in on what I'm missing?
Stories and narratives don't hinge on emotional shock value, the rely on investment by the audience.
Killing the sole emotional investment of a narrative because it would be "powerful" or "sad" or "make you cry" is useless because you're left with a narrative nobody has any stock in anymore. Clementine's the lens through which we experience the story, and without her the story, the themes, the plot, the characters are devoid of context.
The story would be meaningless and indecipherable, both retroactively and going forward.
TL;DR: You kill Clementine, people stop giving a shit.
That's why what happened to him only added to the bleakness of the game. The smallest slip up and you're screwed. No matter who you are or what you do...the apocalypse is gonna win. I would have laughed had it been something over the top heroic.
It seems you have this pegged as a "you can't continue forward" basis. Retroactively speaking I disagree that the story would seem devoid of importance because she would pass the investment onto another character (the one she saves?). If she were to just flat out die without cause or reason behind it then I would agree. There would be no moving forward from this though, if they did go through with it the series would stop here. It reminds me of the ending of I am Legend, where the character dies but what he stood for continues. Some loved the ending and others hated it for the same reason you would hate this ending, I was one of those who relished in the 'gave his life for a cause' idea they were going for. The only problem I see is they would need to put enough nurturing and care and time into the character who took up the role of importance to make it worth Clem's life. "You kill Clementine, people stop giving a shit," if the story is ending people don't need to keep giving a shit, because they already gave a shit.
Nobody would give a shit about a new character.
Nobody will give a 10th of a shit about Sarah or Rebecca's baby or Omid JR pt2 as they do Clementine, because that's how the story was structured.
Investment in Clementine works because you were asked to do it all throughout the first game through Lee, which is why it's ok for him to die.
For the narrative to go "ok ok, now we're doing it again and we're asking you to suddenly shift your investment from this character you've essentially groomed and raised from last season and now are asked to defend and protect in this season to a BRAND NEW CHARACTER!" is silly.
It doesn't work.
You were asked to invest in Clementine.
Tossing in a Scrappy Doo or Poochie the Dog character that we're now demanded to care about more than her is unworkable. The narrative isn't structured for it. Also not only is it a retread of the previous season's arc, but one character was a 37 year old man looking for redemption through the protection and care of an 8 year old girl and the other is the now 10 year old girl simply trying to survive.
Nah, I don't think they could've made Lee's death better if they tried. Some part of me wishes the walking dead game ended with Lee.
I have come to the conclusion you are the one who doesn't understand what's being said in this conversation. As I said before you are basing all of your ideas on the premise there should be and will be a continuation of the story, whereas I said if they do this it would be the completion of the series as a whole. "ok ok, now we're doing it again and we're asking you to suddenly shift your investment from this character you've essentially groomed and raised from last season and now are asked to defend and protect in this season to a BRAND NEW CHARACTER!" isn't what I am saying. We wouldn't need to have our investments compeletely transfered to another character for the point of following them and having them be our "lens" but rather feel they were worthy of saving through the death of Clem.
I hope clementine dies. i love the character but she has to go. But i would like a non dramatic death. where a bullet goes straight through her brain. or she gets bit on the neck (So it cant be amputated) and she has to see everyone she is with put her down
They're not going to conclude the series, it's too profitable.
You're not going to be able to make us care more about another character because that's not how it works with child characters you invest in over the course of one season and are asked to protect and survive with in the second.
If they did end the series, they still wouldn't kill Clementine; It's too destructive to the franchise. They still have to think about long-term sales even after years of the series being out and would want to leave the door open for future installments of some kind. Killing the emotional core of the story not only harms the story but harms the profitability of the IP.
To the point: There is no way to make your fantastical idea of "transferring our investments" to a super cool character you've got in your head that's like probably a lot like Clementine but like totally better so he or she would be like the new Clemetine(!!!)
Because that character would read like a garbage Mary Sueish self-insert and we'd immediately resent it for overshadowing Clem.
The. End.
You don't think Telltale has the nads to end a story? I have the feeling when Telltale is done with this series they are done with this series. There will be no future installments, there will be no spin offs or pick ups. I don't see them leaving the story up in the air very much. So I guess this entire arguement just comes down to whether you believe Telltale will leave loose ends or not. I don't, you do.
No. Sorry.
Squirreling into tough guy talk about having the "nads" to do something shocking is about on the same level as the cheap emotional shock value of killing emotional cores of stories: They ultimately don't matter and diminish the longevity of the work in a Devil's Bargain for pretentious sentimentality.
Cohesion in storytelling matters, as does trust from an audience and a sensible metanarrative.
Clementine dying throws all of that out of the window and diminishes the story.
Again, your point of view. Killing emotional cores of stories has been done and done well for centuries and won't end simply because you don't like it. I don't like stories where animals talk... do you think Disney heard me? Clementine dying throws none of that out the window and only diminishes the story by your standards. You have made good points, but they are only relative to what you consider a good story and what type of company you think Telltale is.