Dberg

@Christoffer said:

@Dberg said:

@Christoffer said:

@pleasedaddyno said:

half of the people in the comments DID NOT READ the article. ugh. please overcome your urge to react just to the heading, when the greater article already addresses your concerns--and not even that far in.

Haha, I noticed that to. I don't know what's worse. If they commented without reading the article, or if they read it without comprehending it.

In either way, it's just sad.

Allow me to shed some light on this as a person who did not read the article: It has a sensationalist headline. As a dude who still read tabloids from time to time, I'm no stranger to being lured to an article I don't care about, at which point I leave my tangentially related thoughts on the headline before bailing out.

Quick fix: Stop being lured, stop reading tabloids. I hope you didn't expect us to find you non-readers less idiotic because of your non-explanation.

Nah, that's okay. I'm nowhere near optimistic enough to think people will stop bitching about other people in comment fields.

@mr_shoeless said:

@Dberg said:

Admittedly I only read the lead paragraph here, but if a project on Kickstarter is just barely at its mark by the skin of its teeth, then that kind of proves it's not popular enough. In this case, if none of the bidders could be bothered kicking in an extra 28 bucks, what does that say about the viability of the project itself?

If you had read the article, you would know. Why do people comment on articles they haven't read?

Why do people answer rhetorical questions?

@Christoffer said:

@pleasedaddyno said:

half of the people in the comments DID NOT READ the article. ugh. please overcome your urge to react just to the heading, when the greater article already addresses your concerns--and not even that far in.

Haha, I noticed that to. I don't know what's worse. If they commented without reading the article, or if they read it without comprehending it.

In either way, it's just sad.

Allow me to shed some light on this as a person who did not read the article: It has a sensationalist headline. As a dude who still read tabloids from time to time, I'm no stranger to being lured to an article I don't care about, at which point I leave my tangentially related thoughts on the headline before bailing out.

@GaspoweR said:

Well, @patrickklepek we broke 1600 again.

YOU CREATED THIS MONSTER.

And to everyone's surprise, the Internet can not come to an agreement in this comments field.

@ChrisTilton said:

The game seemed to establish that you become a zombie if you die (sans dying by shot to the head), not if you become bitten. I guess you do become a zombie also if you've been bitten? I don't remember the game establishing that, so I was very confused as to why being bitten at the end was a big deal.

The bite kills you because zombie-magic-poison. Then you come back because you're dead.

@Klei said:

Telltale wouldn't have the balls to allow Clementine to get killed. That's for sure.

Gees, man, don't challenge them on that! Losing Clem would be much more devastating than losing Aerith in Final Fantasy 7, and it's probably the first idea to come to their mind :(

This will almost certainly get a second season. It's too good not to. The ramifications of that make me very curious to what they have in store for Lee and Clem though. I feel you can't have one without the other, but classic zombie stories would end with one of them dead.