WorkerOne

I'm always a little depressed reading how defensive posts in these kind of topics read. It seems that people, instead of responding with something as noncommittal as "I'm not sure I see it as a problem, but I'll think about it and maybe see if it appears in my life so I don't perpetuate it", prefer to respond with "You think you've got it bad? There's no problem here!"

I think it's important to rationally separate yourself as a white man from the "white man", and just realize that all you can do as an individual is try to show respect to other individuals. If someone points out something that occurred in the past that made them feel uncomfortable, it isn't your job to go back there and set it straight. You don't need to somehow justify what happened by listing all the ways some subset of the population has been wronged in past or present. No one will feel better when you've dug up the most extreme extrapolation of views from the "other side" and posted them to support your case. All you can do is take what happened and try to apply it to your own life, and realize not everyone is coming from the same place as you.

What kind of things were people berated for in the scene with the stranger? I tend to play games pretty goody two shoes (maybe "neutral good"?), and I think he ended up chewing me out for three things: bringing Clementine into the farm, letting a guy get pulled out a window to save the pretty girl with a gun, and for bringing Clementine into the most dangerous place in the city.

For the first one, I guess I'm not remembering that as a choice; I thought Clem basically just showed up at the farm. Though maybe it is one of those choices where Lee can say not to bring her, and she shows up anyway.

With the second one, I assume he just gives you grief no matter who you chose to save, but I'd be interested in a confirmation.

In the last one, I can see why he would complain about bringing her with you to Crawford, but I can also see this being flipped with him complaining about leaving her alone with the injured Omid who could have turned. Again, I'd be interested to hear if he says anything if you don't bring Clementine to Crawford.

As a side, I also didn't take the food with the car, and told the stranger that it was because it would have been the wrong thing to do; he largely brushed it off as "aren't you so noble?". I never liked that decision much, because it felt like Lee was taking the moral high ground while still reaping the benefit of getting the supplies when the others took them anyways.

For completeness, my episode five choices were:

• Cut off the arm. I kind of channeled my inner Lee here, and was thinking that yeah, someone who was bitten might try anything to prevent turning.
• Stayed calm with Kenny. Generally, I find it pretty easy to stay calm in a video game when someone is "yelling at me", so I was able to largely let it roll off my back. I'll admit though, there was a moment where I was nervous that he was going to bash Lee with the statue.
• Kept my weapons. This was kind of a game-y moment for me: I tried to sneak a weapon by because I figured if he searched me and found it, what was he going to do? Shoot me? Though I guess in some ways that might mirror what someone would actually think in real life when trying to sneak a weapon by a captor.
• Let Clementine kill the Stranger. I was actually trying to pacify the stranger without killing him. Even though I had a weapon, I didn't try to kill him with it, and when I was choking him I deliberately let off the button mash. Looking online some, it sounds like you might be able to incapacitate him without killing him, and I'd be interested to hear if that plays out differently in any meaningful way.
• Didn't have Clem shoot Lee. I figured "I/Lee" was handcuffed and no threat, and thus there wasn't a reason for Clem to go through with having to shoot "me/him". I don't really view zombification as a fate worse than death, or anything like that.

Lastly, if you couldn't guess by the quantity I've written, this is definitely my GotY.

I definitely don't agree with all the Molly-tape-hate going on here. I guess I felt that the implied deal of sex for medicine was pretty blatant (the pant zip + "Its been fun" + "We had a deal"). And it really doesn't require insane speculation to come up with reasons for why he would create and keep a tape of the event, especially if he knew the deal was coming to an end. The reasons for keeping incriminating evidence might not be the most competent ones, but at the same time it isn't like the tape is out on a counter somewhere; it is locked away in his locker.

As for where the tape starts, I tend to agree with an earlier poster who pointed out the doctor probably would have watched the parts he was interested in, and stopped the tape when those parts had wrapped up. If anything, I would say it makes more sense for that tape to be in the correct position than the stabbing tape, since it seems to be implied that the doctor carried the stabbing tape directly from the camcorder after filming, turning soon after since there was so much blood lost.

There are probably people out there who understood all of that (or at least didn't feel the need to claim it made no sense), and didn't like it as a plot device for other reasons, viewing it as contrived or whatever. That's fine; you're welcome to your opinion. But it is a bit depressing to see people bashing a scene as making no sense, when it simply didn't hit them over the head with each point of information.

For me, the only thing that made me go "huh??" was actually the car battery weight thing as well. I also half expected to get electrocuted getting the battery, since I was just flailing around with the terminals while trying to pull it out.

@plaintomato said:

@JayHitcher said:

Hatfieldnate

“George Orwell once said that “if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” I’m certainly saying something that some people don’t want to hear; namely that you being offended doesn’t matter to me, and I resent being subjected to the whims of the vocal when I don’t, in turn, project the things that offend me onto you.”

Your inability to grasp the irony in using a quote about being able to say things people don’t want to hear, while complaining about people saying things you don’t want to hear, is both amusing and idiotic.

That quote sums up your opinion; not the article. The article was essentially about how annoying, and potentially damaging, all of the endless whining can be.

It's a question of degree: Which is more annoying, and potentially damaging?

1. A producer generates content you don't like.
2. People who produced nothing endlessly rail against what was produced, whining and balling and even demanding the content be altered.
3. Somebody complains about all of the self-righteous whining.

My vote for most annoying, and most potentially damaging to the "right to say things people don't want to hear", is definitely for number 2. That's where you fit in, see? In number 1 content/expression (good or bad) is produced, in number 3 the right to produce that content/expression regardless of its merits is defended - it's number 2 where the closest thing to an attempt to restrict content/expression is happening.

I completely disagree. You're mischaracterizing all criticism as whining and balling, and ignoring its impact on future work. "Producers" don't create in a vacuum, completely by themselves. Do they have an obligation to respond and/or address to all criticism? Of course not. But somehow trying to argue that criticism of criticism is more valid (or less annoying) than criticism alone seems a little crazy to me, and is based entirely upon your subjective "side" in the argument.

I haven't tested this, so I don't know if it is correct, but isn't the choice actually before trying to chop off his leg? Don't they ask you if you're going to help or not?

Also, I was under the impression the 50/50 thing was more about choices in which you had to pick who you saved. If the split is skewed 75-25 (like I think the last choice in the first episode is), then that means they kind of failed in creating two useful and/or appealing characters.

Edit - Clarified that I meant the last choice in the first episode.