/lisg/ - Life is Strange General #780

I seriously hope you don't believe this tumblrinia rant/article/essay trash and actually try playing the game.

I agree 100%. I liked Chloe in S1 but it took a while for me to warm up to her because they fail to really justify why she's the way she is (which would be fine if she wasn't simultaneously so important out of the gate). BtS might take the obvious route in explaining her but I can enjoy and understand the obvious route.

>The Chloe argument is just some typical tumblrinia essay bullshit
???
>You play as Chloe, you understand how she works. What makes her happy, wht makes her sad. You see everything through her eyes.
It goes beyond that. BtS Chloe can simply do no wrong. When she does, not only she suffers zero consequences for it, but the game shoves in your face what great person she is. Everybody (literally everybody) in the game loves her. Even people who canonically shouldn't, like Vic or Frank.
Look at how they handled Max and Chloe falling off with each other. The fault was completely dumped on Max's shoulders. Chloe tried to very end to keep contact but mean, evil Maxine wasn't having it.

I always felt that BtS Chloe was just wrong somehow. This sort of explains it. Chloe was never a heroic figure up until the very end (although Max was the motivation for that final sacrifice, and it was born out of the protective instinct she has for her), but BtS makes her out to be one

I never once got the feeling that BtS was trying to make her "heroic".

But I think the point is that when she *does* blame someone in BtS, they're obviously at fault and Chloe is obviously in the right - as she is in every situation.
This post is basically correct.

Not really. She blames the school when she's the one failing. She blames her mom when she's just trying to fix her family. I would consider the David situation more of a tie with equal blame on both.

What's your point? Chloe should've done something completely unreasonable and unnecessarily bad/wrong (like she did in LiS) just for the sake of becoming morally grey and also risk logic, character progression and likability? First Rachel was called a mary sue, now Chloe. Brilliant.

It's literally brought up in that post
>the biggest example of this, though, is how she’s treated by other characters. even when chloe does shit that’s objectively fucked up, she’s narratively forbidden from suffering the consequences. when chloe breaks into drew’s room to steal his money (which she’s of course browbeaten into by frank, and not something she’d do of her own accord), leading to her direct involvement in either drew’s leg or mikey’s arm being broken, neither sibling resents her for it in the least. they both reassure her that she did the right thing, and mikey messages her from the hospital, for some reason, to tell her she’s 'stronger than anything’. when chloe calls over frank to meet with her and rachel (which is of course something she only does with rachel’s best intention at heart, because rachel begged her to), leading to rachel being stabbed half to death, neither one of rachel’s parents holds it against her. never mind that james is characterized as so insanely protective of rachel that he would straight up murder her innocent mother just to keep her away from her. can you imagine facing the person who got your precious little brother’s arm broken while trying to steal your desperately-needed cash, or who got your daughter nearly murdered by drug dealers after you specifically asked her to keep her safe, and feeling… no anger? none at all? not blaming her for a single part of it?

It's really apparent that BtS's writing pretty much falls apart under any examination honestly