The Walking Dead: The Game

I agree with that, really. If saving a character just means they fade into the background until a much less climactic death, I'd rather the games not put up the pretense. It's too painfully clear where the corners are being cut to really contribute to the illusion of choice.

I'll say, if the scene where Sarah gets saved happened in a TV show or something, I would assume that Sarah dying afterward would have to be a huge deal narratively, because Clem rescuing her was demonstrating a core part of her philosophy in spite of Jane's protests. Say, underscoring the hopelessness of the situation by showing that Clem can't save people no matter how hard she tries.

Only vaguely relevant, but did anyone else tell Sarah they saved her because they're friends, and get "No, we're not" as a response? I'm sort of guessing that's a call back to me choosing silence when Sarah brought it up before.

Man, you guys are all making good points, but I have to say, every death still got me. Except maybe Nick's, but even Reggie, despite his bad voice acting, got me a little sad.

edited 12th Sep '14 10:50:09 AM by Mukora

I just finished episode 5. I can understand everybody's complaints about this season, but man, it still got me. I didn't cry like at the end of season 1, but I still feel... just emotionally drained.

Much of how Season Two treats the "weak" characters is clearly inspired by Chuck's speech about living in the apocalypse, about how you can't be a child in this world. They ignored the part where Chuck also says you're not strong or smart, adopting the quote into a survival of the fittest mentality. Sarah and Nick are treated as being not suited for this world by their nature, not a lack of preparation.

Basically, Carver is depicted as being right, no matter how monstrous he is.

edited 13th Sep '14 10:38:40 PM by SilentColossus

While I ran with it thinking that "everyone is precious, for they are alive."

That is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more optimistic than you would have any reason to expect from the franchise.

Yeaaaaah. Leads to me being all alone in the end.

I don't know. If your only exposure to the franchise was season one of the game, I think it's pretty understandable.

Hell, I still played the game that way despite knowing I wouldn't be allowed to.

I worded that poorly. Regardless, most of the characters who die have died because they were unlucky, rather than because they weren't strong enough.

Edit: The comics and tv show don't have as many "weak" characters. So we don't have much to compare.

edited 13th Sep '14 11:10:44 PM by SilentColossus

Lizzie and Mika.

The Grove is pretty much a better-written version of Clem's relationship with Sarah over the course of Season Two. You can try, and try, and try, but in the end, some people just can't be saved.

The problem is that Sarah's death doesn't really affect Clem all that much. It doesn't actually change her, unless it changes the player (who would then start giving different responses than they otherwise may have. But Sarah wasn't really endearing, so players weren't bonding with her in a way that her death might actually hurt them.

I haven't seen Season Four yet, but from what I've been able the gather, Lizzie murdered her sibling. While I'm still not sure if this is a good portrayal of mental illness (from I've read, Lizzie isn't really a sociopath per-say, but dangerously delusional), but its not really the equivalent of someone being a "burden" due to social, developmental and/or anxiety disorders. Or Nick's self-worth and possibe depression.

As a bunch of other people have said about this subject; people like Sarah and Nick really do suffer in real life because they believe they are burdens. They don't need to see this reinforced in media.

edited 14th Sep '14 5:13:48 PM by SilentColossus

I didn't say they were literally the same as Sarah. I said they were a prominent (and, in my opinion, excellent) example of how brutal this world can be to people not prepared to survive it.

Mika had trouble bringing herself to kill if she needed to. Her instinct was always to run, even when it was safer to fight. Eventually she learned to handle walkers, but couldn't be convinced that people are just as dangerous now, and so was vulnerable when Lizzie attacked her.

Lizzie wasn't delusional, she was emotionally disturbed. She couldn't understand that the walkers were truly dead. That the people they used to be are not in there any more. She was feeding them like pets (which drew hordes of them to the prison), and was more devastated by her favourite being killed than the death of her own father. After the prison fell, even with Carol trying to help her, she just got worse, to the point that she killed her sister, and was about to kill Judith and herself, thinking that they would be safer if they were walkers.

They are different examples of people not equipped to handle the post-infection world. Carol knew the places they needed to be reinforced, and tried to instil in them that their strengths would balance each other out, but ultimately their weaknesses cost them both. Mika knew there was something wrong with Lizzie (the "look at the flowers" mantra is obviously something that dates back to well before the prison, and possibly even the infection itself), but couldn't believe that her sister might pose a danger to her, and Lizzie's psychosis made her dangerous to other people in a misguided attempt to help.

Sarah is also an example of someone who isn't equipped to survive. Carlos never bothered to teach her, preferring to keep her hidden away from the horror that the world has become, and when Clem tries to help her, she shows a total unwillingness to learn.

Sarah is a dark reflection of Clementine. She's the proof of what Chuck tells Lee. Children can't just be children anymore. They need to know how to survive. Lee taught Clem, and Clem learned. Sarah never could, and didn't even seem to want to.

And I think that's why a lot of fans were relieved, or grateful when she died. Because she was completely unhelpful the entire season. You had to fight tooth and nail to help Sarah, often putting yourself at a disadvantage if you did, and there's never any payoff for doing so. She's just as helpless the next time something bad happens as the last time. As a thematic construct, she's super interesting. As a character that you have to interact with, she's incredibly frustrating.

Which is probably my main complaint about Season 2. It has a lot of really awesome ideas and explores the ideas in interesting ways, but it doesn't make sense as a narrative. Compare to The Wolf Among Us, which is a compelling narrative first, and only at the end do you realize that there was much more in play than you were led to believe.

Edit: Deleted the rest.

Anyways, in Episode Two, Sarah was willing to learn to protect herself. She wanted to learn how to use a gun. Remember how she avoided Carver? She messed up by closing the door and with the photo, but for the most part she proved competent. This is yet another example of the writers of this season negating character traits. Her personality contorts itself to fit with the story.

But let's drop it. I've argued it poorly from the start, so we won't get anywhere.

edited 14th Sep '14 9:39:36 PM by SilentColossus

Anyway, I've decided to replay the Season (despite my complaints I still adore it). As I said before, I have to decide if I'll go for a different ending. I went for the Wellington ending, so I let Kenny kill Jane, but since I purposefully went for the Wellington ending I was obviously spoiled. And that kinda sucks, as it was not a "natural" decision.

I have also replayed Season One, and replaying it after the whole of Season Two made me notice something I hadn't before: much of those hub conversations were unnatural. They're leagues ahead of something from Mass Effect or Fallout (which are pretty much long expositions - they're great games, but going through them can be a pain, especially on subsequent playhroughs), but getting multiple options of what to talk about ("Hey Lilly, maybe we should leave", "about you and Kenny", ect.) and then being allowed to choose the others after picking one is strange. Anyone else think so too or am I full of it? It's a small thing, but its very jarring now.

edited 1st Oct '14 10:02:47 PM by SilentColossus

It depends on the order you choose them. There usually is a way to pick all the options and make it seem like a natural conversation, but you're not always going to pick an order that works.

Yeah-huh. For example, during the first (optional) conversations with Katjaa, I always go "You two look relaxed -> How did you handle getting through the city? -> What did you do before?".

But I'm just saying that looking back, Season One is not without its flaws when it comes to structure. And I do see even more clearly about how it is sometimes very "gamey" compared to Season Two and The Wolf Among Us.

edited 1st Oct '14 10:17:53 PM by SilentColossus

That happens in games with a dialogue wheel I've noticed like Mass Effect and Dragon Age II.

Yeah.

Anyway, I've been adding a lot negativity to this thread lately. Sorry if I've been bothering anybody.

edited 1st Oct '14 10:26:12 PM by SilentColossus

I for one find your posts very interesting to read.

Yeah, they weren't natural entirely, but once you looked past that, you at least got to know the characters. Season 2 didn't have much development of its cast. Nick and Sarah were arguably the most developed and, equally, the least valued by the writers.

I think that's being overly sentimental about Season 1. We knew very little about some of the people who picked up with the group in Season 1. Chuck, Vernon, Molly. We didn't even really know much about Christa by the end of Season 1. And let's not forget Mark, the random guy who joins you between episodes, gets exactly zero development, and then dies.

Season 1 had just as many, if not more, cast issues as Season 2.

I still knew Lilly and Larry and Kenny and Katja and Ben's characters. I'll admit that Vernon and Chuck lacked much character too, but at least we knew something about someone and at least we cared about them before they got to their shocking deaths. Season 2 gave me little reason to care about people beside whatever tragic event had happened (possible pregnancy by rape, daddy issues, etc) rather than their actual character.

I thought it was interesting.

I just finished season 2. I liked it, but not as much as 1. It feels too bleak at times and much of the cast is a little underdeveloped, only existing to die horribly and then never be mentioned again. There needed to be a few more quiet moments to get to know the cast, especially Mike, who you never really get to talk to. The tendency for the characters to treat an 11 year-old like an adult was also pretty strange.

The Lee/Clem relationship was the heart and soul of season 1. Without something that positive to contrast with the horror occuring all the time, things just got a little too damn dark for much of the story. I did love the ending I got though. The Stay with Kenny ending was just about perfect and made me really excited for Season 3.

That isn't to say that the ending was the only emotionally-powerful moment. The Walter/Nick situation, The Downer Beginning, and Nick in the Moonshining bunker were all really memorable. Plus, the game made me feel even worse about chopping off Sarita's arm and then mercy-killing her than I felt about stealing the stranger's supplies. Sarita dying so horribly and Kenny losing another person he loves and then lashing out at Clem was hard to watch.

Also: Fuck Arvo. If he's in Season 3, I'm going to try and do to him what Kenny did to Carver.

edited 4th Nov '14 8:05:46 PM by millardkillmoore

You know who I think is going to be the main character of Season 3? Arvo