People have been complaining about this scene since this episode came out. Although the scene killed me it was not in vain. The whole idea wit… moreh Sam is two things:
* They needed the new group to think you were bitten, since you spent like half the episode trying to convince and survive the group. The whole bite incident was the central conflict in episode 1.
* It shows how the world has changed to the point where a dog would back stab you for a can of beans. I thought it was symbolic showing how selfish humanity has become and now you don't know who you can trust. Ironic since dogs are supposed to be the most loyal animal on the planet (I could be wrong about that though).
People have been complaining about this scene since this episode came out. Although the scene killed me it was not in vain. The whole idea wit… moreh Sam is two things:
* They needed the new group to think you were bitten, since you spent like half the episode trying to convince and survive the group. The whole bite incident was the central conflict in episode 1.
* It shows how the world has changed to the point where a dog would back stab you for a can of beans. I thought it was symbolic showing how selfish humanity has become and now you don't know who you can trust. Ironic since dogs are supposed to be the most loyal animal on the planet (I could be wrong about that though).
In case you haven't noticed by now, The Walking Dead is not a kind universe. It's merciless and cruel. Billions of human beings are lurkers, humanity is on the verge of extinction, bandits and dictators show the worst of humanity, psychos are around every corner, and almost everybody has lost family members.
So according to you, killing one dog is somehow more cruel than the ENTIRE population of Earth being whipped out. A dog that attacked Clementine, no less!
People have been complaining about this scene since this episode came out. Although the scene killed me it was not in vain. The whole idea wit… moreh Sam is two things:
* They needed the new group to think you were bitten, since you spent like half the episode trying to convince and survive the group. The whole bite incident was the central conflict in episode 1.
* It shows how the world has changed to the point where a dog would back stab you for a can of beans. I thought it was symbolic showing how selfish humanity has become and now you don't know who you can trust. Ironic since dogs are supposed to be the most loyal animal on the planet (I could be wrong about that though).
And how about them releasing a virus that causes the recently deceased to rise up with an insatiable hunger for the flesh of the living, just to add a bit of drama to their game? It's like, come on guys, we get that you're serious about story-telling in gaming but bringing on the apocalypse just makes it look like you're trying too hard.
Which makes it even worse for me because I thought the dog's behaviour seemed poorly written. I'm pretty sure a starving and lost-for-god-knows-how-long dog doesn't go befriending a stranger (consider it should think most people are trying to kill it since there are walkers) and then seconds later start butchering her when she opens a can of food. I know little about dogs but I really didn't buy that. It seemed like one of those "there-to-shock-you moments"
Which makes it even worse for me because I thought the dog's behaviour seemed poorly written. I'm pretty sure a starving and lost-for-god-know… mores-how-long dog doesn't go befriending a stranger (consider it should think most people are trying to kill it since there are walkers) and then seconds later start butchering her when she opens a can of food. I know little about dogs but I really didn't buy that. It seemed like one of those "there-to-shock-you moments"
Null and Void. Dogs don't think, they act or react. Clementine posed no threatening traits, ergo the dog was not threatened. The dog reacted when food was within reach. Completely realistic? Perhaps not, but it is a work of fiction. Get over it.
There was a debate like that earlier. We came to the conclusion that the dog had "food aggression" meaning a completely friendly dog can go mad if food is involved.
Which makes it even worse for me because I thought the dog's behaviour seemed poorly written. I'm pretty sure a starving and lost-for-god-know… mores-how-long dog doesn't go befriending a stranger (consider it should think most people are trying to kill it since there are walkers) and then seconds later start butchering her when she opens a can of food. I know little about dogs but I really didn't buy that. It seemed like one of those "there-to-shock-you moments"
Null and Void. Dogs don't think, they act or react. Clementine posed no threatening traits, ergo the dog was not threatened. The dog reacted when food was within reach. Completely realistic? Perhaps not, but it is a work of fiction. Get over it.
Which makes it even worse for me because I thought the dog's behaviour seemed poorly written. I'm pretty sure a starving and lost-for-god-know… mores-how-long dog doesn't go befriending a stranger (consider it should think most people are trying to kill it since there are walkers) and then seconds later start butchering her when she opens a can of food. I know little about dogs but I really didn't buy that. It seemed like one of those "there-to-shock-you moments"
There was a debate like that earlier. We came to the conclusion that the dog had "food aggression" meaning a completely friendly dog can go mad if food is involved.
Null and Void. Dogs don't think, they act or react. Clementine posed no threatening traits, ergo the dog was not threatened. The dog reacted when food was within reach. Completely realistic? Perhaps not, but it is a work of fiction. Get over it.
While it's true that nature is brutal, to say that animals lack morals or aren't "innocent" because they do exactly what their instincts direct them to is a pretty weird argument. It's true, sure, but only because you're pushing human concepts onto them where they obviously don't fit by establishing the conclusion of "innocence", which is something only we can judge, and then picking out natural brutal behavior that doesn't jive with the human point of view on what innocence is. In other words, animals aren't innocent, true... but not because they're bad, they aren't innocent because innocence is not an animal concept. (Edited for my deplorable grammar before :P)
Animals don't attack you because they're evil or enjoy the thought of hurting you. Human beings are the ones who do that. Hell, the things humans have done throughout history and today make animals look like friggin' saints in comparison. Animals react out of instinct, protectiveness of their young from stupid people who wandered into their territory, or hunger.
But hey, as long as we can all agree that the OP is being utterly ridiculous and that humans are the most despicable things on this planet, bar none, I guess none of this really matters. :P
Animals are NOT innocent! They are savage, ruthless, and moral-less! They do whatever it takes to survive. Racoons and other small creature… mores dig into your food stash, causing you to starve. A bear mauls you because you are to close for comfort. A mountain lion murders you out of starvation and kills you. A dog bites you and gives you an infection for a can of beans. Animals are far from innocent; it is the worst you can be. When a domestic dog turns savage, is kill or be killed; I don't care anymore what it once was, it is now a savage.
People have been complaining about this scene since this episode came out. Although the scene killed me it was not in vain. The whole idea wit… moreh Sam is two things:
* They needed the new group to think you were bitten, since you spent like half the episode trying to convince and survive the group. The whole bite incident was the central conflict in episode 1.
* It shows how the world has changed to the point where a dog would back stab you for a can of beans. I thought it was symbolic showing how selfish humanity has become and now you don't know who you can trust. Ironic since dogs are supposed to be the most loyal animal on the planet (I could be wrong about that though).
Putting human concepts on something is the only way of a human identifying it. It's like saying a rat is brown, it doesn't know it is brown but a human identifies it as such, because otherwise we couldn't determine it was a rat (obviously other identifiers apply since we are talking about a rat and not just the color brown.) Point is without applying human concepts of what something is then we don't know what that something is. By our concepts an animal is cruel because it kills without mercy, for one reason or another, it does. An animal is disgusting, most animals do little to no cleaning, making them by our standards, unclean. In the end our ideas of what makes that animal what it is, is all that animal is (philosophical perspective, not scientific perspective). I can't wait until a dog has sentient thought and points out our flaws...
While it's true that nature is brutal, to say that animals lack morals or aren't "innocent" because they do exactly what their instincts direc… moret them to is a pretty weird argument. It's true, sure, but only because you're pushing human concepts onto them where they obviously don't fit by establishing the conclusion of "innocence", which is something only we can judge, and then picking out natural brutal behavior that doesn't jive with the human point of view on what innocence is. In other words, animals aren't innocent, true... but not because they're bad, they aren't innocent because innocence is not an animal concept. (Edited for my deplorable grammar before :P)
Animals don't attack you because they're evil or enjoy the thought of hurting you. Human beings are the ones who do that. Hell, the things humans have done throughout history and today make animals look like friggin' saints in comparison. Animals react out of instinct, protectiveness … [view original content]
are you mentally ill? you've watched shows where people get ripped to part. killed for no reason or just plain tortured. But watching a dog die, that is "TO MUCH" The dog didn't go "berzerk" it was starving. you ever try to take a food bowl from a dog while its eating? Even the most docile dog will snap at you if not growl the moment your hand hovers near. You have a very moronic and childish outlook on the world. And if the zombies ever did come, you'd be in a sad state. "i can't shoot that dog thats mauling me. its someones pet!"
What kind of sociopath likes to see animals getting killed? Because worse things happen to animals on a day to day basis is WHY I don't need t… moreo see it in the games I play.
Besides, it didnt make any sense whatsoever. It was a pet that was used to being fed. it played fetch and was docile around clem. Telltale just made the dog go beserk cause they dont have a clue how real life works and in the process ruined a perfectly good game.
I have no problems if a person dies in a game, chances are a person had it coming.
Animals are innocent (and children) which is why you don't do this sort of thing.
True. But a butthurt user can also become a troll anytime they choose if they start to feel like they don't have a leg to stand on.
My guess is that TC expected more positive responses to his misguided point of view, and when he got well-reasoned arguments against it instead he started getting belligerent 'cuz he doesn't have the chops to make a rebuttal.
I'd call him a troll of convenience; shifting into "derp" mode to cover for the fact that he was feeling all these confusing emotions that nobody shares.
agreed, the scene was meant to show "you're never safe in this world, even your closed ally will turn on you at a moments notice if you have something it wants" the issue was to have you ask "how do you react" do you let the little beast suffer for attacking you, or do you show mercy either because you are still kind or because you know it didn't do it out of malice and why let it suffer?
Children and animals are innocent. Wtf? Wow let's base a whole game on one quick meaningless scene. Get over it. It's just a videogames dude. Get off here while your at it. People don't need or care about your negative comments. Bye now.
Comments
"Man's best friend is Clem's worst enemy"
nope your wrong telltale should have never killed that dog even for the story thats just cruel.
it breaks my heart that telltale go do that to that poor dog ;_;
In case you haven't noticed by now, The Walking Dead is not a kind universe. It's merciless and cruel. Billions of human beings are lurkers, humanity is on the verge of extinction, bandits and dictators show the worst of humanity, psychos are around every corner, and almost everybody has lost family members.
So according to you, killing one dog is somehow more cruel than the ENTIRE population of Earth being whipped out. A dog that attacked Clementine, no less!
Multiple accounts? I see the game you're playing at...
Honestly not my account. But i appreciate the back up.
you have to admit jaydenaceryder is wrong because killing that dog was for nothing but to shock us which is not right
And how about them releasing a virus that causes the recently deceased to rise up with an insatiable hunger for the flesh of the living, just to add a bit of drama to their game? It's like, come on guys, we get that you're serious about story-telling in gaming but bringing on the apocalypse just makes it look like you're trying too hard.
I don't know what the word "fiction" means.
No; The entire episode was based around that bite. Had the dog not bit her, the episode would only be a half hour long.
Twins??
no it wasnt there was plenty of scenes that was not based on the bite
Which makes it even worse for me because I thought the dog's behaviour seemed poorly written. I'm pretty sure a starving and lost-for-god-knows-how-long dog doesn't go befriending a stranger (consider it should think most people are trying to kill it since there are walkers) and then seconds later start butchering her when she opens a can of food. I know little about dogs but I really didn't buy that. It seemed like one of those "there-to-shock-you moments"
Yeah, but as I said, If the episode was only based on those scenes, it would be only a half hour long, and that's pushing it.
see im not the only one here who feels like it was only there for shock value
how am i just supposed to get over a dogs death that served no purpose
There was a debate like that earlier. We came to the conclusion that the dog had "food aggression" meaning a completely friendly dog can go mad if food is involved.
Null and Void. Dogs don't think, they act or react. Clementine posed no threatening traits, ergo the dog was not threatened. The dog reacted when food was within reach. Completely realistic? Perhaps not, but it is a work of fiction. Get over it.
if it was food agression as soon as clem dropped the food one the ground he would have stopped attacking
No purpose? You must not have played the rest of the episode. Until you can give an answer to that question yourself.... well bye.
This has to be the most ignorant comment ive ever heard. You know nothing about dogs, shut your mouth before you make yourself look even more idiotic.
Not necessarily: perhaps the dog felt it was necessary to kill Clementine to keep her from taking the food.
But don't argue with me, go to the thread I mentioned. I'll give you the link if you want.
LOL, he's the one embarrassing himself?
While it's true that nature is brutal, to say that animals lack morals or aren't "innocent" because they do exactly what their instincts direct them to is a pretty weird argument. It's true, sure, but only because you're pushing human concepts onto them where they obviously don't fit by establishing the conclusion of "innocence", which is something only we can judge, and then picking out natural brutal behavior that doesn't jive with the human point of view on what innocence is. In other words, animals aren't innocent, true... but not because they're bad, they aren't innocent because innocence is not an animal concept. (Edited for my deplorable grammar before :P)
Animals don't attack you because they're evil or enjoy the thought of hurting you. Human beings are the ones who do that. Hell, the things humans have done throughout history and today make animals look like friggin' saints in comparison. Animals react out of instinct, protectiveness of their young from stupid people who wandered into their territory, or hunger.
But hey, as long as we can all agree that the OP is being utterly ridiculous and that humans are the most despicable things on this planet, bar none, I guess none of this really matters. :P
Stop feeding the trolls please.
By reminding yourself that it wasn't a real dog!
Says the guy with pie
Says the guy who got poked
)
I suspect that the dog is still loyal... (To its owners, hence why it's staying in the area still) Just not to Clem.
I'll be honest that moment traumatized me, and I even questioned if I'd play future episodes but
I got over it and now I'm keen for episode 2.
Stop the non senses about that stupid dog scene get over it all ready
If Vangallus is a troll, he typed too much in his second post to be a particularly good one.
Putting human concepts on something is the only way of a human identifying it. It's like saying a rat is brown, it doesn't know it is brown but a human identifies it as such, because otherwise we couldn't determine it was a rat (obviously other identifiers apply since we are talking about a rat and not just the color brown.) Point is without applying human concepts of what something is then we don't know what that something is. By our concepts an animal is cruel because it kills without mercy, for one reason or another, it does. An animal is disgusting, most animals do little to no cleaning, making them by our standards, unclean. In the end our ideas of what makes that animal what it is, is all that animal is (philosophical perspective, not scientific perspective). I can't wait until a dog has sentient thought and points out our flaws...
A troll is a troll, no matter how much they type. :P
are you mentally ill? you've watched shows where people get ripped to part. killed for no reason or just plain tortured. But watching a dog die, that is "TO MUCH" The dog didn't go "berzerk" it was starving. you ever try to take a food bowl from a dog while its eating? Even the most docile dog will snap at you if not growl the moment your hand hovers near. You have a very moronic and childish outlook on the world. And if the zombies ever did come, you'd be in a sad state. "i can't shoot that dog thats mauling me. its someones pet!"
In 2012 peta killed 90% of the animals they were given, or found stray. This isnt anything new though.
True. But a butthurt user can also become a troll anytime they choose if they start to feel like they don't have a leg to stand on.
My guess is that TC expected more positive responses to his misguided point of view, and when he got well-reasoned arguments against it instead he started getting belligerent 'cuz he doesn't have the chops to make a rebuttal.
I'd call him a troll of convenience; shifting into "derp" mode to cover for the fact that he was feeling all these confusing emotions that nobody shares.
agreed, the scene was meant to show "you're never safe in this world, even your closed ally will turn on you at a moments notice if you have something it wants" the issue was to have you ask "how do you react" do you let the little beast suffer for attacking you, or do you show mercy either because you are still kind or because you know it didn't do it out of malice and why let it suffer?
someone call PETA
So what you're saying is they saved 10% more than should have been.
The Lion King killed a lion for the story.
Clearly Disney's entire staff is made up of psychopaths.