|
Post by Rock114 on Jul 23, 2014 22:47:39 GMT
You know... at least TTG put some effort into Nick's walker hatless jaw-cut model! More effort than they actually put into giving him presence in the story after Episode 2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 23:03:45 GMT
Oh yeah, guys? For anybody who reads my story: Nick's not going to get this bullshit death if I even kill him at all. Sarah too plz. I can't remember if you included the gun training, but if you did, let her help out when they're defending the deck or something.
|
|
|
Post by Bioshock Infinite WD on Jul 23, 2014 23:04:17 GMT
You know... at least TTG put some effort into Nick's walker hatless jaw-cut model! Now that is a pythic victory, but true, it does look good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 23:04:41 GMT
Part of me wishes he always had no hat. "Dammit, Carlos, don't be weird about it!" I wonder if Vivec can get the no-hat to work on his non-walker model.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 23:08:34 GMT
Part of me wishes he always had no hat. "Dammit, Carlos, don't be weird about it!" I wonder if Vivec can get the no-hat to work on his non-walker model. I looked for one of the HeadNoHat mesh file (like there is for Clem) but I couldn't find one.
|
|
|
Post by Michael7123 on Jul 23, 2014 23:10:56 GMT
Oh yeah, guys? For anybody who reads my story: Nick's not going to get this bullshit death if I even kill him at all. Sarah too plz. I can't remember if you included the gun training, but if you did, let her help out when they're defending the deck or something. Oh I have Sarah planned out. Be careful what you wish for, my sweet friend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 0:10:05 GMT
I have to say, Nick and Sarah's deaths are part of something that I hate about this season. Not the removal of the illusion of choice, or shitty characterization, because I've talked about both of those to death.
I hate their deaths because it shows the theme of the game, and the ONLY theme. Don't help helpless people. They will either die, or make your life a living hell, but if they die earlier, then things will go better. Sarah was helpless. She couldn't go on. I tried to save her, to make her move on, but the game had different plans. Think about every helpless character this season. Reggie, Sarah, Nick, and Arvo. Let's think about what makes them helpless, and what happens to each of them.
Reggie was armless, and was killed off by Carver. Nothing bad happened because Carver killed him early.
Sarah was broken. She couldn't function. If you kill her, very little is different. However, if you save her, she could end up getting Jane hurt, if you try to save her again.
Nick was also broken. His family was all gone, and he was breaking from the pressure. If he dies, everybody is a little unhappy. That's the last of it. If he's saved, he just puts Luke in a position where he's waiting for Nick forever. If Jane and Clementine hadn't come along, Luke would've died because of Nick.
Arvo had a bad leg, and bad aim. Jane and Clementine let him go, and what do they get, even if they let him keep the pills? They get robbed by Arvo's friends.
|
|
|
Post by Bioshock Infinite WD on Jul 24, 2014 0:13:32 GMT
Oh boy, I can't wait, that last comment made me super optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by Zeruis on Jul 25, 2014 2:55:33 GMT
I could get over Nick's death.
Now Sarah. Carlos died for Sarah's character development, plain and simple. She wasn't developed at all during the whole episode. Sarah could've died in the beginning of E4 and show no difference in her character if she survived from the trailer park. If that isn't shoehorning two characters out of the narrative, I don't know what is.
Not sad or anything, but I'm kinda angry.
|
|
|
Post by DomeWing333 on Jul 25, 2014 3:41:21 GMT
I could get over Nick's death. Now Sarah. Carlos died for Sarah's character development, plain and simple. She wasn't developed at all during the whole episode. Sarah could've died in the beginning of E4 and show no difference in her character if she survived from the trailer park. If that isn't shoehorning two characters out of the narrative, I don't know what is. Not sad or anything, but I'm kinda angry. Well, she did change after his death. But change doesn't always mean progress [insert mandatory "thanks, Obama" joke here]. With Carlos out of the picture, Sarah regressed into a near-infantile state and stayed that way despite any attempts by Clem to reach her. So, really, Carlos died to show that Sarah's character couldn't develop. Not on her own and not in that world.
|
|
|
Post by Carmen on Jul 25, 2014 5:38:32 GMT
To be honest, the whole "sometimes people can't be saved" philosophy that Sarah was supposed to highlight was not needed at all.
We already know sometimes people can't be saved; they've already told this story. It's called every goddamn chapter of the game. Pete dies no matter what. Alvin dies no matter what. Sarita barely lives 20 minutes into your climactic chapter 3 choice, if that.
Forcing Sarah into that theme along with them is just flat-out redundant.
|
|
|
Post by DomeWing333 on Jul 25, 2014 6:09:31 GMT
I think the difference with Sarah is that her character will always need saving. Once you saved Pete or Alvin or Sarita, Hooray! you're done. You've accomplished something. The person you saved might be weakened or out a limb, but from there on out they can at least somewhat take care of themselves and maybe help others to a small extent.
Sarah can't. She will always be someone who needs saving and never be one who can save others. She epitomizes the term "liability." The question the game asks is whether or not someone like that is worth saving. Will Clem be the type of person who, when given every opportunity to stop, continues to carry such a heavy burden for as long as she can?
|
|
|
Post by Carmen on Jul 25, 2014 7:02:59 GMT
The thing is, Sarah is not an object. She's not an unnecessary load that needs to be thrown off while those who patiently stick with her are seen as saints. She's not some broken mule that needs to be put out of her misery, like Jane seems to think and is even grossly reinforced in the narrative. To call her a liability that needs to be tossed aside is scarily reminiscent of the last season's episode 4, with Crawford, and it's kind of alarming to me that after they built Crawford up to be an absolutely awful place, this episode 4 is encouraging the player to wholly embrace its philosophy.
And most of all, Sarah is a fictional character. She did not spring up out of the ground fully formed, with her own thoughts and ideas. Telltale made a conscious decision to steer her character in that direction when most of the assumptions of her uselessness comes from preconceived notions about mentally ill people. And if she was that helpless? Sarah would have died ages ago. Do you really think Carver cares if she's the doctor's daughter, with his philosophy of pulling weakness out by the roots?
Sarah could have been a much better character than she was. Rather than being yet another in a long line of unsaveable people, she could have shown that not all survivors are cut from the same cloth. That no one is born strong, and everyone has the capacity to find strength within themselves. That even at your lowest, you can keep going long after you think you can't. She had the potential to be this in the beginning. Instead they turn her into another death that can't even be called a plot device because it held no impact on the story as everyone almost immediately acts like she never existed after her death. The Sarah they chose, from all angles, does not represent a story that needs to be told and is in fact contradictory to previous themes.
I'm angry and sad at Sarah's death, but not for the right reasons. While I'm aware that real people don't always get satisfying deaths, these aren't real people, and The Walking Dead Game is not real life. It's a continuing story, and stories need consistent themes and characterization (which Sarah doesn't have). Sarah's, Sarita's, Nick's, and Rebecca's deaths and arguably their entire characters are pointless, and I mean that from a story-telling perspective.
|
|
|
Post by DomeWing333 on Jul 25, 2014 7:55:50 GMT
No more than the Ben decision in Episode 4 encouraged you to embrace Crawford's philosophy. They just left the choice there. It's up to the player as to whether or not they would take it.Actually, I think that's precisely why she was spared. You don't kill or exile your only doctor's daughter. If he had done so, you think Carlos would have done anything else with the rest of his life than get revenge?Isn't this pretty much the crux of Clem's story? She was normal girl who found strength within herself to struggle and continue onward despite an endless barrage of pain and misfortune. Sarah serves as a foil to that. A person who doesn't have the capacity to find strength within herself. I called her a liability. I never said she needed to be tossed aside. The old and feebled, the young and helpless, the injured and weak. These people are undeniably liabilities to any group in a survival situation. The smart, pragmatic, survival-minded thing to do would be to abandon them. But that's not what humanity does. We shelter our weak. We defend them. We prioritize their safety above others and our own. Even in the most dire of circumstances, even when things seem hopeless, even when death is imminent, we don't forsake our fallen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 8:03:54 GMT
No more than the Ben decision in Episode 4 encouraged you to embrace Crawford's philosophy. They just left the choice there. It's up to the player as to whether or not they would take it.Isn't this pretty much the crux of Clem's story? She was normal girl who found strength within herself to struggle and continue onward despite an endless barrage of pain and misfortune. Sarah serves as a foil to that. A person who doesn't have the capacity to find strength within herself. I called her a liability. I never said she needed to be tossed aside. The old and feebled, the young and helpless, the injured and weak. These people are undeniably liabilities to any group in a survival situation. The smart, pragmatic, survival-minded thing to do would be to abandon them. But that's not what humanity does. We shelter our weak. We defend them. We prioritize their safety above others and our own. Even in the most dire of circumstances, even when things seem hopeless, even when death is imminent, we don't forsake our fallen. Actually, the game slaps the player on the wrist for killing Ben, and seems wholly against it. Because if you kill Ben, Clementine is mad at you, and plus, you lose the gun, and a lot of dialogue. Plus, if Ben is saved, he has the opportunity of saving Lee. And he shoots some zombies in the hallway. Whereas Sarah spends the rest of her life freaking out, and depending on Clementine like a leech, only to die regardless. It's left up to the player, sure, but the game has an opinion, and in between the seasons, the game switched its opinion. Not really. Clementine's story is more breaking, and losing innocence than overcoming adversity to find strength. But right from the start, you see a strength, an intuition that shows she can survive. Seeing Sarah do anything to protect herself or others at the end would have made her character fill that story. The game seems to say both of those things, though, and that's what stings me the most.
|
|