2517 réponses à ce sujet

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

I'm partial to Kenny hug 2.0 myself. 

 

"Not bad, old man."

"Thanks, asshole."

[HiddenInWar]

Spoiler

Well she's probably gonna die of zombification or blood loss so she's screwed either way.

Spoiler

could you just imagine kenny's reaction to her dying? that would actually probably send him off the deep end and fully transform him into a villain

 

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

Spoiler

I just didn't want to give Carver the smug satisfaction of dying thinking he was right about Clem.

Plus, my Clem is strong enough to take that shit now, she just doesn't care to watch it.

[Jaison1986]

Spoiler

I had Clem to watch. It felt right for the moment. Like part of her development as she toughen herself up.

[Mr.House]

Spoiler

I had Clem to watch. It felt right for the moment. Like part of her development as she toughen herself up.

Same reason too.

[HiddenInWar]

I feel like her watching was a way of taunting him. He was powerless in that moment, and she was the one standing over him this time. 

[Milan92]

Speaking of characters that aren't useless. 

Spoiler

What does everyone think of Jane? She seems to be one of the few dependable characters we've met so far but could also be crazy. I think she could end up being a good character as long as she doesn't immediately disappear like Molly did.

 

I liked Jane, she seems to know what she is doing, which will most likely benefit the group.

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

I feel like her watching was a way of taunting him. He was powerless in that moment, and she was the one standing over him this time. 

 

Yeah, and my Clem didn't care for that. Way I've played her, the world has hardened her, and she's willing to make some tough calls, but it hasn't made her have any particular enjoyment of death or reveling in revenge. 

 

My Lee would have been proud of her. 

[CrazyRah]

Spoiler

My Clem never watched, she's hardened alright but she'd gain nothing by watching. Besides that i see walking away as denying him his vision that Clem and him are the same and that his vision that Clem would take over was just the dillusion of a madman. So yeah, Clem totally denied a dying man his vision

[Bugsie]

I really hate when people say crap like this.
 
I know several children. But if I was in a zombie Apocalypse you know the first person I'm dropping? The child that's not mine. Especially if that child is like Sarah. Children often are hardheaded, loud and prone to stupidity. (which is only fair considering their brains aren't even fully developed.)
 
(And yeah I know Clem's not related to Lee but first it's the beginning of the zombie Apocalypse so everything hasn't gone completely to s*** and I felt that was a redemption mission on Lee's part. Clem has no need to go on a redemption mission let alone for someone older than her especially when she's having a hard enough time keeping herself safe. It also helps that Clem saved his life.)
 
Also dragging around loads is not something to me that's going to increase Clem's survival rate. I have to agree with that...what's that chick's name? The one who shot the jerkwad in the balls That group she's in is gonna get her killed. She and Kenny need to bounce.

And I feel the pain of those so quick to drop everything to survive. You can say that it's a redemption mission for Lee, I say because the mans a decent human being to start with. You could invoke a 'got my own **** (or family to look after)' like Kenny did in season 1 (and where did that get him?) or a 'weakest link' argument that Carver invokes but there a lot of people of the mindset of trying to save as many as possible and not be selfish or tyrants. I still like Kenny, even if he's all over the place, but Carver is the worse humanity can dredge up.

One of the themes of the walking dead is that it's not just the walkers people fear, humanity sucks. All for one, drop the weak those unable to fend, the young, the elderly the sick or disabled. I measure a society on how it treats it most vulnerable and this society is a damn sick one. But not everyone wants to drop their humanity to do so, because it's not the only way. Carver was a tyrant, fear is the first thing people try and overcome. When the greater fear comes from inside your shelter, the first thing you're gonna do is look for a better shelter.

And maybe i was wrong to state 'not having children argument' because even when you do it doesn't often change peoples overall view of society (in fact in probably polarises ones views) and I should have recognised that, However, I totally get the sheltering my kid thing that Carlos does and non parents telling parents how to do their job, ha, yeah that never goes down well even in non-apocalyptic setting! I think Carlos was fleeing partly for that reason. I understand people want to take a misanthropic view of the game. However, that's not my view. Apologies if I offended anyone for feeling differently about it.

As I've only ever glanced at the comics, I'd be interested in Kirkmans views on the dystopia he's created. Anyone have a good link for me to follow up on that?

[Mr.House]

And I feel the pain of those so quick to drop everything to survive. You can say that it's a redemption mission for Lee, I say because the mans a decent human being to start with. You could invoke a 'got my own **** (or family to look after)' like Kenny did in season 1 (and where did that get him?) or a 'weakest link' argument that Carver invokes but there a lot of people of the mindset of trying to save as many as possible and not be selfish or tyrants.
 

How good has that worked out for people in TWD?

[Bugsie]

It's a dystopian story, not well obviously? My point being that having only one way out (selfish or selfless) is not an answer in itself. Isn't the whole thing about dystopian universes about exploring what it means to be human? About the fundamental nature of humans under stress? Isn't dystopian fiction all about seeing how we progress as humans into the future? Lost hope or otherwise.

[Jaison1986]

How good has that worked out for people in TWD?

 

It's the truth, as brutal as it is. Often, the characters that try to stay moral usually are the ones that die more quickly in TWD series. It's an theme brought up many times in the series in fact. "You are trying to use rules and values from an world that doesn't exist anymore" is something that we hear from time to time. I'm not saying people should all turn into Carvers, hell, that would make things only worse, but I guess the point is that the "trying to save everyone" mentality doesn't cut it anymore.

[Bugsie]

No. It's about zombies and cool men with beards and eyepatches.

LOL okay. is it okay to say something deep and meaningful about Kenny's beard? Because there's some deep **** to be said about it.

[Mr.House]

It's a dystopian story, not well obviously? My point being that having only one way out (selfish or selfless) is not an answer in itself. Isn't the whole thing about dystopian universes about exploring what it means to be human? About the fundamental nature of humans under stress? Isn't dystopian fiction all about seeing how we progress as humans into the future? Lost hope or otherwise.

To be fair, Kenny lost his familly because of Ben. He didn't even want Ben in the group, along with Lilly, why tthe group kept him I will always wonder, my Lee wanted to kick him out too. Ben is a big reason why you don't want to take every single person with you. Carley, well that's a debate between would it have gotten that bad if Larry was alive but Ben still would have stole those supplies, Kens family still would have died and Larry would have killed Ben even if Kenny did not kill Larry.

 

If Kenny lost his family because he made a rash choice that got them killed himself  then ya that would be his fault, but his family died by a incompetent person who got many people killed.

[Mr.House]

*brofist*

 

F*ck Ben and his f*cking scrawny pube beard.

Ben was dropped, it was glorious.

[Ryzaki]

And I feel the pain of those so quick to drop everything to survive. You can say that it's a redemption mission for Lee, I say because the mans a decent human being to start with. You could invoke a 'got my own **** (or family to look after)' like Kenny did in season 1 (and where did that get him?) or a 'weakest link' argument that Carver invokes but there a lot of people of the mindset of trying to save as many as possible and not be selfish or tyrants. I still like Kenny, even if he's all over the place, but Carver is the worse humanity can dredge up.

One of the themes of the walking dead is that it's not just the walkers people fear, humanity sucks. All for one, drop the weak those unable to fend, the young, the elderly the sick or disabled. I measure a society on how it treats it most vulnerable and this society is a damn sick one. But not everyone wants to drop their humanity to do so, because it's not the only way. Carver was a tyrant, fear is the first thing people try and overcome. When the greater fear comes from inside your shelter, the first thing you're gonna do is look for a better shelter.

And maybe i was wrong to state 'not having children argument' because even when you do it doesn't often change peoples overall view of society (in fact in probably polarises ones views) and I should have recognised that, However, I totally get the sheltering my kid thing that Carlos does and non parents telling parents how to do their job, ha, yeah that never goes down well even in non-apocalyptic setting! I think Carlos was fleeing partly for that reason. I understand people want to take a misanthropic view of the game. However, that's not my view. Apologies if I offended anyone for feeling differently about it.

As I've only ever glanced at the comics, I'd be interested in Kirkmans views on the dystopia he's created. Anyone have a good link for me to follow up on that?

 

Trying to save as many people as possible has constantly blown up in people's faces in the games. Now we agree on Carver being a waste of space but that's because he was a controlling, overzealous asswipe. Not because he was pragmatic. You can be survival of the fittest without killing people by throwing them off rooftops and slapping little girls (and then beating someone who didn't even want to be there in the first place half to death. That's not gonna result in a dangerous increase in resentment no sir )

 

Considering there's not much of a society to start with of course people are gonna go back to basic fend for self mentality. When fending for those unable to fend for themselves results in a large increase in death why wouldn't they? But yes Carver's issue was he made the shelter inhospitable for Luke's group and then instead of cutting them as losses he decided to waste energy and resources getting them back. It blew up in his face as it should've. Morality will be changed. Everyone's not gonna turn into OMG you didn't do your work? *stab* people (nor should they) but being overly trusting and trying to save people from themselves can often get you killed.

 

Well yeah I wouldn't suggest people cut their kids loose for difficulty in normal civilization cause you can get a lot of help and support. (If you know where to look) That doesn't stop people from still doing it though. Feeling differently wasn't my issue it was the whole assumption one must never have been around kids thing. 

 

It's the truth, as brutal as it is. Often, the characters that try to stay moral usually are the ones that die more quickly in TWD series. It's an theme brought up many times in the series in fact. "You are trying to use rules and values from an world that doesn't exist anymore" is something that we hear from time to time. I'm not saying people should all turn into Carvers, hell, that would make things only worse, but I guess the point is that the "trying to save everyone" mentality doesn't cut it anymore.

 

Agreed. I'm especially not keen on trying to save everyone on someone who's already extremely vulnerable to begin with. Clem doesn't need a load on her back when she's already trying to stay afloat. Especially not an older and highlights absolutely everything I despise in child characters load.

 

I would've been much more forgiving of the whole load business as Lee. I was with Ben.

[Bugsie]

To be fair, Kenny lost his familly because of Ben. He didn't even want Ben in the group, along with Lilly, why tthe group kept him I will always wonder, my Lee wanted to kick him out too. Ben is a big reason why you don't want to take every single person with you. Carley, well that's a debate between would it have gotten that bad if Larry was alive but Ben still would have stole those supplies, Kens family still would have died and Larry would have killed Ben even if Kenny did not kill Larry.

 

If Kenny lost his family because he made a rash choice that got them killed himself  then ya that would be his fault, but his family died by a incompetent person who got many people killed.

You're right, but I could equally say that Kenny contributed to the death of Shawn Greene (if you help Shawn you get a chance to then help Kenny with Duck - Duck always survives no matter the choice) if however you help Kenny save Duck, Kenny then runs off and doesn't help you save Shawn.  They get kicked off the farm in any case and that I blamed partly on Kenny.  Hershel recognised that having such people around would not be to his benefit.

 

Did Shawn die because Kenny was incompetent?  No, he died because Kenny was being a selfish bastard, and to say he needed to punch down on Ben because Ben did the same doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Also, if they had stayed on the farm who's to say it would have been any better or any worse?  It is of course, more complex than that.  Also - if Kenny and Lee aren't on good terms Kenny flat out refuses to go help Lee rescue Clem.  And that is after his family are gone.  Also Kenny is not the only one to have lost family, Ben says as much about his circumstances.

 

Maybe the brand of selfishness is okay as long as you have epic beardiness  

[Bugsie]

Trying to save as many people as possible has constantly blown up in people's faces in the games. Now we agree on Carver being a waste of space but that's because he was a controlling, overzealous asswipe. Not because he was pragmatic. You can be survival of the fittest without killing people by throwing them off rooftops and slapping little girls (and then beating someone who didn't even want to be there in the first place half to death. That's not gonna result in a dangerous increase in resentment no sir )

 

Considering there's not much of a society to start with of course people are gonna go back to basic fend for self mentality. When fending for those unable to fend for themselves results in a large increase in death why wouldn't they? But yes Carver's issue was he made the shelter inhospitable for Luke's group and then instead of cutting them as losses he decided to waste energy and resources getting them back. It blew up in his face as it should've. Morality will be changed. Everyone's not gonna turn into OMG you didn't do your work? *stab* people (nor should they) but being overly trusting and trying to save people from themselves can often get you killed.

 

Well yeah I wouldn't suggest people cut their kids loose for difficulty in normal civilization cause you can get a lot of help and support. (If you know where to look) That doesn't stop people from still doing it though. Feeling differently wasn't my issue it was the whole assumption one must never have been around kids thing. 

 

 

Agreed. I'm especially not keen on trying to save everyone on someone who's already extremely vulnerable to begin with. Clem doesn't need a load on her back when she's already trying to stay afloat. Especially not an older and highlights absolutely everything I despise in child characters load.

 

I would've been much more forgiving of the whole load business as Lee. I was with Ben.

Yeah I think in this sort of environment its difficult to back who's trustworthy and who isn't. Who's flaky and who isn't.  I think there needs to be a balance of selfishness and selfless acts to survive.  Definitely a level of pragmatism is needed to not only survive but to lead a group.  And who knows when you might need that selfless act from a stranger later on.  As far as the kids thing, that was dumb of me to phrase it like that (because I know when I didn't have kids that bugged the hell out of me when people said that).  However I don't think we can back away from them being around and provide a measure of support for them, even the annoying ones  .  I think it was the assumption that you need to just dump the ones who aren't currently or never will be resilient is what bugged me about it, because who's to say they wont become reliable or play a part of something bigger. Sarah or someone else considered equally useless may save Clem or a group member at the last minute.  Or she could remain flaky and weak and be an even bigger burden.  Who knows?

 

I still maintain the primary dislike of her is because she's weak, (the toughen up/grow up princess/you should know better thing always irks me.  When attributed to children and teens even more so) and Clem being the more mature of them really isn't unusual considering the relative experiences of both the characters.  Also I would say Clem being wise beyond her years is an exception, not a rule and I hope that the cognitive dissonance I might feel,  about being an adult playing as a child, can be kept at bay (I've certainly heard some reviewers say it's a little unsettling and unrealistic for them).

 

Also - being a community with out children or the sick/vulnerable didn't work out so well for Crawford.  To me, Woodbury seemed reasonably okay, egalitarian on first acquaintance - if it weren't for the Governor being a complete psycho.  Surely there has to be at least one non-dysfunctional group in this universe!