Destroying the emotional cores of stories generally doesn't work, especially in episodic narratives that have legacies to consider. Attempting to insert new characters to be replacements for it as you've suggested goes even worse.
Then again TT has a fairly good track record, so chances are they won't do this.
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… more 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.
Not really, no.
Destroying the emotional cores of stories generally doesn't work, especially in episodic narratives that have legacies to c… moreonsider. Attempting to insert new characters to be replacements for it as you've suggested goes even worse.
Then again TT has a fairly good track record, so chances are they won't do this.
Give me a few examples where emotional core characters have been killed and it went wrong? I never suggested replacements, replacements would imply they would continue the story and they wouldn't. TT has a very good track record so chances are you have no idea what they have planned. (Me neither, but speculation is fun.)
Not really, no.
Destroying the emotional cores of stories generally doesn't work, especially in episodic narratives that have legacies to c… moreonsider. Attempting to insert new characters to be replacements for it as you've suggested goes even worse.
Then again TT has a fairly good track record, so chances are they won't do this.
Doesn't really happen, and I'm sure when they do they're on shows that aren't memorable because they're written by people who don't know what they're doing.
If anything the onus is on you to provide comparable examples in episodic narrative where it succeeded, since it's deservedly abnormal.
Moreover the fact that you suggest we shift emotional investment away from Clementine (which can't really be done in how the series works) to some new character suggests an implicit open-ended continuation of the story through a new character, so your argument that the story wouldn't continue is moot.
Give me a few examples where emotional core characters have been killed and it went wrong? I never suggested replacements, replacements would … moreimply they would continue the story and they wouldn't. TT has a very good track record so chances are you have no idea what they have planned. (Me neither, but speculation is fun.)
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.
I protest. The story may be open ended but there is no reason for a continuation. Take Christa for example, we have the choice to leave her with the bandits or draw their attention, most thought she was deserving enough of their aid so they tried to draw their attention, if Clem had died there we would not have followed Christa. "But that didn't happen," right, but hypothetically if it had the story would have been left open and we wouldn't have cared enough to follow. Same idea here except she would die, we would be ok with her dying, and we still wouldn't follow the survivor. Since episodic narratives are in and of themselves rare I shall give you examples from other forms, two off the top of my head right now would be I am Legend and Romeo and Juliet. Also, why does it fall to my responsibility to offer examples for my arguement and not the same on your end?
Doesn't really happen, and I'm sure when they do they're on shows that aren't memorable because they're written by people who don't know what … morethey're doing.
If anything the onus is on you to provide comparable examples in episodic narrative where it succeeded, since it's deservedly abnormal.
Moreover the fact that you suggest we shift emotional investment away from Clementine (which can't really be done in how the series works) to some new character suggests an implicit open-ended continuation of the story through a new character, so your argument that the story wouldn't continue is moot.
That wouldn't happen because it's entirely unsatisfying.
That you suddenly add the presupposition "but here's another instance where we'd be ok with Clem's death so it would be ok" is both circular and not agreed upon.
I am Legend works similarly to the First Season of the Walking Dead game in that we're alright with the main character dying due to his legacy living on through the two survivors he sends off with or without the cure, I know there are two endings to that film and I forget which one they used.
In the Walking Dead game that legacy is Clementine. That's why her. death. doesn't. work. It invalidates the established narrative.
Romeo and Juliet is a self contained tragic play, not episodic television or an IP or a franchise. Not applicable.
I protest. The story may be open ended but there is no reason for a continuation. Take Christa for example, we have the choice to leave her wi… moreth the bandits or draw their attention, most thought she was deserving enough of their aid so they tried to draw their attention, if Clem had died there we would not have followed Christa. "But that didn't happen," right, but hypothetically if it had the story would have been left open and we wouldn't have cared enough to follow. Same idea here except she would die, we would be ok with her dying, and we still wouldn't follow the survivor. Since episodic narratives are in and of themselves rare I shall give you examples from other forms, two off the top of my head right now would be I am Legend and Romeo and Juliet. Also, why does it fall to my responsibility to offer examples for my arguement and not the same on your end?
Unsatisfying by your standards. "but here's another instance where we'd be ok with Clem's death so it would be ok" If we had this agruement during S1 with Lee and I had used the case at the pharmacy where he nearly died and given that as an example to forshadow being ok with him dying (like he did in E5) you would have called it unsatifying, which from that point it would have been, but most people were satisfied with the actual outcome. Just because I can't give an example of what would happen over the next 4 episodes to make us ok with her dying, within the context of a single post and the span of a few minutes, doesn't mean it isn't possible. Clem isn't the legacy, Kirkman has shown many times throughout his workings that his world is not limited to a single group, person, or idea. The legacy of this game to me, is hope, and a continued fight. But again this is all perspective, what you see as a legacy I see as a character. The vaccine in I am Legend and Clementine are not the same thing.
That didn't make any sense whatsoever.
That wouldn't happen because it's entirely unsatisfying.
That you suddenly add the presupposition… more "but here's another instance where we'd be ok with Clem's death so it would be ok" is both circular and not agreed upon.
I am Legend works similarly to the First Season of the Walking Dead game in that we're alright with the main character dying due to his legacy living on through the two survivors he sends off with or without the cure, I know there are two endings to that film and I forget which one they used.
In the Walking Dead game that legacy is Clementine. That's why her. death. doesn't. work. It invalidates the established narrative.
Romeo and Juliet is a self contained tragic play, not episodic television or an IP or a franchise. Not applicable.
Look if you keep digging the subjective/relativist hole nobody will even be able to find your argument.
Clem being shot in the head by the grey-haired bandit in the forest at the start of S2 would not, by any appreciative standard, be satisfying.
If that's not agreed upon then we're just spinning wheels.
Clem is the story. This isn't an issue up for any reasonable debate.
Our investment is, has, and will be intrinsically about her.
The TT Walking Dead game is ultimately the story of her continued survival.
That's what made it work in S1. That's why the ending and the story that came before it was satisfying.
That's why it works so far in S2.
It's not subservient to "Kirkman's workings", the world of the Walking Dead is just the setting for this story about Clementine's continued survival and our personal investment in that.
Arguments to the contrary purely that: contrarian.
Unsatisfying by your standards. "but here's another instance where we'd be ok with Clem's death so it would be ok" If we had this agruement du… morering S1 with Lee and I had used the case at the pharmacy where he nearly died and given that as an example to forshadow being ok with him dying (like he did in E5) you would have called it unsatifying, which from that point it would have been, but most people were satisfied with the actual outcome. Just because I can't give an example of what would happen over the next 4 episodes to make us ok with her dying, within the context of a single post and the span of a few minutes, doesn't mean it isn't possible. Clem isn't the legacy, Kirkman has shown many times throughout his workings that his world is not limited to a single group, person, or idea. The legacy of this game to me, is hope, and a continued fight. But again this is all perspective, what you see as a legacy I see as a character. The vaccine in I am Legend and Clementine are not the same thing.
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 he… morer 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
Arguments are always to the contrary, otherwise they would be agreements. Being the contratian is fun and interesting, but back to the discussion... The S2E1 death of Clem was not to be taken literally, as I said before. It was a representation of how that situation could play out at the end of season 2, much as the example I gave of Lee during S1. Clem is the main subject of the story now, but she is not the story. My investment is, has, and will be about maintaining morality in the scope of the ZA. The ultimate story of TT's walking dead is about survival, not necessarily hers. Selflessness could be the theme of S2. Selflessness is what could make it work in S2.
Look if you keep digging the subjective/relativist hole nobody will even be able to find your argument.
Clem being shot in the head by the … moregrey-haired bandit in the forest at the start of S2 would not, by any appreciative standard, be satisfying.
If that's not agreed upon then we're just spinning wheels.
Clem is the story. This isn't an issue up for any reasonable debate.
Our investment is, has, and will be intrinsically about her.
The TT Walking Dead game is ultimately the story of her continued survival.
That's what made it work in S1. That's why the ending and the story that came before it was satisfying.
That's why it works so far in S2.
It's not subservient to "Kirkman's workings", the world of the Walking Dead is just the setting for this story about Clementine's continued survival and our personal investment in that.
Arguments to the contrary purely that: contrarian.
Arguments are always to the contrary, otherwise they would be agreements. Being the contratian is fun and interesting, but back to the discuss… moreion... The S2E1 death of Clem was not to be taken literally, as I said before. It was a representation of how that situation could play out at the end of season 2, much as the example I gave of Lee during S1. Clem is the main subject of the story now, but she is not the story. My investment is, has, and will be about maintaining morality in the scope of the ZA. The ultimate story of TT's walking dead is about survival, not necessarily hers. Selflessness could be the theme of S2. Selflessness is what could make it work in S2.
Selflessness made it work so it can't be used again? What a nice innuendo that would be, of all the things Lee taught her selflessness topped the list, but since you believe it shouldn't be done, it shouldn't be done.
Selflessness already made it work.
Selflessness in the service of protecting Clementine in S1 becomes, in S2, the story of her continued su… morervival.
Whatever else you make it about is your business, but it's not the continuation of the story, sorry.
Viva, there comes a point when you have to accept that your personal read of the story or themes you ascribe to it aren't what's fundamental to it.
That point is now.
The story is about Clem in S1, with regard to Lee's selflessness in protecting her and his personal redemption in doing so.
The story is about Clem in S2, in regards to her continued survival and the lessons of survival Lee taught her, which I'm fairly sure didn't include "selflessly get yourself killed".
Selflessness made it work so it can't be used again? What a nice innuendo that would be, of all the things Lee taught her selflessness topped the list, but since you believe it shouldn't be done, it shouldn't be done.
And you must do the same. You don't get to lay down the fundamentals of what this story is unless you are the one writing it. You view Clem as the only thing in the game, I view her as a way of driving home the theme of selflessness. Lee taught her many things, survival being only one.
Viva, there comes a point when you have to accept that your personal read of the story or themes you ascribe to it aren't what's fundamental t… moreo it.
That point is now.
The story is about Clem in S1, with regard to Lee's selflessness in protecting her and his personal redemption in doing so.
The story is about Clem in S2, in regards to her continued survival and the lessons of survival Lee taught her, which I'm fairly sure didn't include "selflessly get yourself killed".
The story is about Clem.
This is established.
And you must do the same. You don't get to lay down the fundamentals of what this story is unless you are the one writing it. You view Clem as… more the only thing in the game, I view her as a way of driving home the theme of selflessness. Lee taught her many things, survival being only one.
This story is about selflessness.
This is established.
Lee lives on through her actions. Selflessness lives through her actions. From a narrative stand point this is a fantastic way to bring about her death. You are so worried about us being solely invested in her when we are invested in what she stands for.
Lee's story was about selflessness and redemption, absolutely.
But Lee's story is over.
This was established when he fucking died. The only way he lives on is through Clem.
Lee lives on through her actions. Selflessness lives through her actions. From a narrative stand point this is a fantastic way to bring about … moreher death. You are so worried about us being solely invested in her when we are invested in what she stands for.
Pretty sure that was implied when he died finding and saving her. An argument could be made he never taught her to be smart since IQ stems from genetics. But fight technicalities if you wish.
Pretty sure that was implied when he died finding and saving her. An argument could be made he never taught her to be smart since IQ stems from genetics. But fight technicalities if you wish.
It's implied when you care about something you go to great lengths to save it. Like Lee did. Clem isn't so closed minded to think herself more important than everyone else combined. No one wants to play an arrogant PC.
It's implied when you care about something you go to great lengths to save it. Like Lee did. Clem isn't so closed minded to think herself more important than everyone else combined. No one wants to play an arrogant PC.
Well Lemoncakes it has been a very interesting and actually thought provoking conversation, but seeing as... the others... have arrived I'm guessing this is going to drop to another bickering and insult prone thread so until next time! All of your comments get an upvote from me
I do.
They should think about being nicer to us.
Also Euiseiseki go hibernate until March like you promised us it'll give you time to be less of a terrible poster, thanks.
I sincerely doubt she'll die, she's went through too much development to be killed off at this point. Even if The Walking Dead series ends in this Season (which I also doubt) I'm pretty positive Clementine will be alive and breathing.
I see where you're coming from though over the choice of sacrifice (I too, played Fallout 3) but I don't think you'll really get a chance to have something like that happen. In this world, you fend for yourself and while sacrificing yourself was something Lee would do without question to save Clementine (as a matter of fact, that's how I was predicting Season One would go down towards it's finale, which it KINDA did) I don't see Clementine having as much an emotional bond with anyone, she'll meet people she's fond of sure (she's already got a liking towards Luke and Pete) but she can't be a mother-figure due to her age. And I don't see a new "Lee" enter her world with how much rougher she is after what happened in the last Season. Plus, my Clementine is more about survival over anything else, while I normally liked to stay on the side of good in Season One for Clementine's sake, in Season Two... I feel like I can bend my morals a bit more to survive. And I love it too, I feel like Clementine is having some brilliant character growth. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not making her actually bad, just being a bit more rougher around people who try to push her around or manipulate her. After all, she's a little girl. She needs to fend for herself.
Got kind of-topic there but it was relevant (I hope), I don't see this type of scenario happening in Season Two (I do have an idea of HOW something like this could happen) but I don't see one where you sacrifice yourself. But who knows, Telltale always surprise us. Especially with how they ended Season One.
Good thread but i dont see Clem dying at all in this season. Maybe a Sacrifice Choice in the 3rd season where shes like 17 or older, But as a little girl i think people should sacrifice themselves for clem instead of her doing it
Good thread but i dont see Clem dying at all in this season. Maybe a Sacrifice Choice in the 3rd season where shes like 17 or older, But as a little girl i think people should sacrifice themselves for clem instead of her doing it
Im going to follow up about the little girl part.As you saw through out the EP there two types of Clem the jerk or Clem the mature/sincere.
when you meet the characters you have an option to be a total dick to them and make all of them your enemy except for Pete for obvious reason.
You can ignore and be mean to luke.
you can threaten Alvin and Rebecca
You can refuse Nick's apology and be a dick to Carlos.
In the end in the Rebecca scene she will tell them you fooled them out there as being a little girl is an excuse for Clem only if you been nice and Rebecca is wrong only if you used I'm a little girl option all the time that means your using this excuse to have pity on you (just like WHO DO APPEAL TO YOU THE MOST PART) the I'm just a little girl option does't make change in the game but in perception way.
The gives to show that being a little girl the world isn't going to be easy and while being a little girl you can be unexpectedly mature and a dick
100% agreed. Though I normally steered clear of Rebecca's way, except for the "Who's baby is it?" line, because I just couldn't resist saying it. I'm pretty sure it's just hormones that she's being as rude as she is to Clementine. Pete said so himself. And to be honest, being pregnant during the zombie apocalypse is a rather unpleasant thing I'd say. Still though, do think it's wrong she's using Clem as an excuse to get angry at something. Is rather pitiful.
Im going to follow up about the little girl part.As you saw through out the EP there two types of Clem the jerk or Clem the mature/sincere.
… more when you meet the characters you have an option to be a total dick to them and make all of them your enemy except for Pete for obvious reason.
You can ignore and be mean to luke.
you can threaten Alvin and Rebecca
You can refuse Nick's apology and be a dick to Carlos.
In the end in the Rebecca scene she will tell them you fooled them out there as being a little girl is an excuse for Clem only if you been nice and Rebecca is wrong only if you used I'm a little girl option all the time that means your using this excuse to have pity on you (just like WHO DO APPEAL TO YOU THE MOST PART) the I'm just a little girl option does't make change in the game but in perception way.
The gives to show that being a little girl the world isn't going to be easy and while being a little girl you can be unexpectedly mature and a dick
Comments
Not really, no.
Destroying the emotional cores of stories generally doesn't work, especially in episodic narratives that have legacies to consider. Attempting to insert new characters to be replacements for it as you've suggested goes even worse.
Then again TT has a fairly good track record, so chances are they won't do this.
Check your PMs
Give me a few examples where emotional core characters have been killed and it went wrong? I never suggested replacements, replacements would imply they would continue the story and they wouldn't. TT has a very good track record so chances are you have no idea what they have planned. (Me neither, but speculation is fun.)
Doesn't really happen, and I'm sure when they do they're on shows that aren't memorable because they're written by people who don't know what they're doing.
If anything the onus is on you to provide comparable examples in episodic narrative where it succeeded, since it's deservedly abnormal.
Moreover the fact that you suggest we shift emotional investment away from Clementine (which can't really be done in how the series works) to some new character suggests an implicit open-ended continuation of the story through a new character, so your argument that the story wouldn't continue is moot.
Over the top heroic would've been perfect. I would have been laughing, also, but it would be twice as memorable.
I protest. The story may be open ended but there is no reason for a continuation. Take Christa for example, we have the choice to leave her with the bandits or draw their attention, most thought she was deserving enough of their aid so they tried to draw their attention, if Clem had died there we would not have followed Christa. "But that didn't happen," right, but hypothetically if it had the story would have been left open and we wouldn't have cared enough to follow. Same idea here except she would die, we would be ok with her dying, and we still wouldn't follow the survivor. Since episodic narratives are in and of themselves rare I shall give you examples from other forms, two off the top of my head right now would be I am Legend and Romeo and Juliet. Also, why does it fall to my responsibility to offer examples for my arguement and not the same on your end?
Lol. I'm just talking about the subject.
That didn't make any sense whatsoever.
That wouldn't happen because it's entirely unsatisfying.
That you suddenly add the presupposition "but here's another instance where we'd be ok with Clem's death so it would be ok" is both circular and not agreed upon.
I am Legend works similarly to the First Season of the Walking Dead game in that we're alright with the main character dying due to his legacy living on through the two survivors he sends off with or without the cure, I know there are two endings to that film and I forget which one they used.
In the Walking Dead game that legacy is Clementine. That's why her. death. doesn't. work. It invalidates the established narrative.
Romeo and Juliet is a self contained tragic play, not episodic television or an IP or a franchise. Not applicable.
Unsatisfying by your standards. "but here's another instance where we'd be ok with Clem's death so it would be ok" If we had this agruement during S1 with Lee and I had used the case at the pharmacy where he nearly died and given that as an example to forshadow being ok with him dying (like he did in E5) you would have called it unsatifying, which from that point it would have been, but most people were satisfied with the actual outcome. Just because I can't give an example of what would happen over the next 4 episodes to make us ok with her dying, within the context of a single post and the span of a few minutes, doesn't mean it isn't possible. Clem isn't the legacy, Kirkman has shown many times throughout his workings that his world is not limited to a single group, person, or idea. The legacy of this game to me, is hope, and a continued fight. But again this is all perspective, what you see as a legacy I see as a character. The vaccine in I am Legend and Clementine are not the same thing.
Look if you keep digging the subjective/relativist hole nobody will even be able to find your argument.
Clem being shot in the head by the grey-haired bandit in the forest at the start of S2 would not, by any appreciative standard, be satisfying.
If that's not agreed upon then we're just spinning wheels.
Clem is the story. This isn't an issue up for any reasonable debate.
Our investment is, has, and will be intrinsically about her.
The TT Walking Dead game is ultimately the story of her continued survival.
That's what made it work in S1. That's why the ending and the story that came before it was satisfying.
That's why it works so far in S2.
It's not subservient to "Kirkman's workings", the world of the Walking Dead is just the setting for this story about Clementine's continued survival and our personal investment in that.
Arguments to the contrary purely that: contrarian.
I feel like Clem dying from a random shot to the head is a really cheap way to kill the character we've been with for 2 seasons
Arguments are always to the contrary, otherwise they would be agreements. Being the contratian is fun and interesting, but back to the discussion... The S2E1 death of Clem was not to be taken literally, as I said before. It was a representation of how that situation could play out at the end of season 2, much as the example I gave of Lee during S1. Clem is the main subject of the story now, but she is not the story. My investment is, has, and will be about maintaining morality in the scope of the ZA. The ultimate story of TT's walking dead is about survival, not necessarily hers. Selflessness could be the theme of S2. Selflessness is what could make it work in S2.
If there is a sacrifice choice, I'm choosing the option where Clem lives.
Selflessness already made it work.
Selflessness in the service of protecting Clementine in S1 becomes, in S2, the story of her continued survival.
Whatever else you make it about is your business, but it's not the continuation of the story, sorry.
Selflessness made it work so it can't be used again? What a nice innuendo that would be, of all the things Lee taught her selflessness topped the list, but since you believe it shouldn't be done, it shouldn't be done.
Viva, there comes a point when you have to accept that your personal read of the story or themes you ascribe to it aren't what's fundamental to it.
That point is now.
The story is about Clem in S1, with regard to Lee's selflessness in protecting her and his personal redemption in doing so.
The story is about Clem in S2, in regards to her continued survival and the lessons of survival Lee taught her, which I'm fairly sure didn't include "selflessly get yourself killed".
The story is about Clem.
This is established.
And you must do the same. You don't get to lay down the fundamentals of what this story is unless you are the one writing it. You view Clem as the only thing in the game, I view her as a way of driving home the theme of selflessness. Lee taught her many things, survival being only one.
This story is about selflessness.
This is established.
Lee's story was about selflessness and redemption, absolutely.
But Lee's story is over.
This was established when he fucking died. The only way he lives on is through Clem.
Lee lives on through her actions. Selflessness lives through her actions. From a narrative stand point this is a fantastic way to bring about her death. You are so worried about us being solely invested in her when we are invested in what she stands for.
Lee didn't teach her to be selfless.
He taught her to be smart and to stay alive.
Pretty sure that was implied when he died finding and saving her. An argument could be made he never taught her to be smart since IQ stems from genetics. But fight technicalities if you wish.
It's not implied to Clem that she should get herself killed for other people, no.
It's implied that her life is important and that Lee loves her.
It's implied when you care about something you go to great lengths to save it. Like Lee did. Clem isn't so closed minded to think herself more important than everyone else combined. No one wants to play an arrogant PC.
I do.
They should think about being nicer to us.
Also Euiseiseki go hibernate until March like you promised us it'll give you time to be less of a terrible poster, thanks.
Well Lemoncakes it has been a very interesting and actually thought provoking conversation, but seeing as... the others... have arrived I'm guessing this is going to drop to another bickering and insult prone thread so until next time! All of your comments get an upvote from me
I sincerely doubt she'll die, she's went through too much development to be killed off at this point. Even if The Walking Dead series ends in this Season (which I also doubt) I'm pretty positive Clementine will be alive and breathing.
I see where you're coming from though over the choice of sacrifice (I too, played Fallout 3) but I don't think you'll really get a chance to have something like that happen. In this world, you fend for yourself and while sacrificing yourself was something Lee would do without question to save Clementine (as a matter of fact, that's how I was predicting Season One would go down towards it's finale, which it KINDA did) I don't see Clementine having as much an emotional bond with anyone, she'll meet people she's fond of sure (she's already got a liking towards Luke and Pete) but she can't be a mother-figure due to her age. And I don't see a new "Lee" enter her world with how much rougher she is after what happened in the last Season. Plus, my Clementine is more about survival over anything else, while I normally liked to stay on the side of good in Season One for Clementine's sake, in Season Two... I feel like I can bend my morals a bit more to survive. And I love it too, I feel like Clementine is having some brilliant character growth. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not making her actually bad, just being a bit more rougher around people who try to push her around or manipulate her. After all, she's a little girl. She needs to fend for herself.
Got kind of-topic there but it was relevant (I hope), I don't see this type of scenario happening in Season Two (I do have an idea of HOW something like this could happen) but I don't see one where you sacrifice yourself. But who knows, Telltale always surprise us. Especially with how they ended Season One.
Good thread but i dont see Clem dying at all in this season. Maybe a Sacrifice Choice in the 3rd season where shes like 17 or older, But as a little girl i think people should sacrifice themselves for clem instead of her doing it
"should"
Im going to follow up about the little girl part.As you saw through out the EP there two types of Clem the jerk or Clem the mature/sincere.
when you meet the characters you have an option to be a total dick to them and make all of them your enemy except for Pete for obvious reason.
You can ignore and be mean to luke.
you can threaten Alvin and Rebecca
You can refuse Nick's apology and be a dick to Carlos.
In the end in the Rebecca scene she will tell them you fooled them out there as being a little girl is an excuse for Clem only if you been nice and Rebecca is wrong only if you used I'm a little girl option all the time that means your using this excuse to have pity on you (just like WHO DO APPEAL TO YOU THE MOST PART) the I'm just a little girl option does't make change in the game but in perception way.
The gives to show that being a little girl the world isn't going to be easy and while being a little girl you can be unexpectedly mature and a dick
100% agreed. Though I normally steered clear of Rebecca's way, except for the "Who's baby is it?" line, because I just couldn't resist saying it. I'm pretty sure it's just hormones that she's being as rude as she is to Clementine. Pete said so himself. And to be honest, being pregnant during the zombie apocalypse is a rather unpleasant thing I'd say. Still though, do think it's wrong she's using Clem as an excuse to get angry at something. Is rather pitiful.