Log in or sign up to comment
240 Comments
Posted by Odog4ever

Definite GOTY canidate

Also Lee should be up for best character too

Posted by golguin

I don't know what I can say here that I haven't already said in the forum, buy I'll just say that the way the game made you care about your choices and characters was unprecedented. GOTY all the way.

Posted by Alorithin

@bkbroiler: In that episode. Twice if you saved food for yourself.

Posted by umdesch4

I would like to see this win GOTY, not because it had the best gameplay of anything I played this year, but to send a message to the industry that STORY MATTERS, and choice (or at least a compelling illusion of choice) can be done in a satisfying way. If more games that have excellent gameplay, graphics, and production values would strive for this level of storytelling, we'd all be better off...

Posted by Klei

I don't think Walking Dead is a masterpiece, but it was good fun. Now, if only there were some more gameplay elements and real, moral choices that do affect the storyline.

Edited by bkbroiler

@Rothbart said:

@Jiggaboojeeves said:

For example, the scene in episode 2 where you hand out food? Nobody cares except the player.

This choice quote invalidates your argument of it being a bad game. The fact that the player DOES, in fact, care about who gets the food is a tremendous accomplishment to characterization. Many times the illusion of choice is much more powerful than true choice; to wit, it doesn't really matter if the outcome of my choices are the same as the outcome of somebody else's choices, because the feelings we had while playing the game are entirely personal. When you're immersed in a game you don't need to peel back the layers of systems and such since you know that you did this or that, and it doesn't matter what you could have done because you didn't do that.

Long story short, even though my choices *technically* might not have had much impact, the feeling I had while making them certainly did.

Also it totally does come up again who you give the food to. Alex is is completely right in his review that your choices don't change the world, but they change how people think of you.

Edited by Nightfang

R.I.P. Lee Everett

Posted by MaFoLu
@Jiggaboojeeves said:

This is a bad review and really goes to show how game reviewers don't bother to dig into games beyond a surface level. If Alex had taken a look and tried, say, replaying the first two episodes and making different decisions, he'd learn how little if any meaningful interaction the player has with the world. The game relies on deception and putting up an illusion of interactivity to throttle you through linear, non-interactive moments that would be better suited to a film, than a game, because to make this a game, they've had to remove the player's ability to interact with any consequence.

For example, the scene in episode 2 where you hand out food? Nobody cares except the player. The game doesn't care what you do. The characters don't actually care. There's zero consequence for thinking about that segment in any meaningful way. Hell, the choice where you hand out the axe to one of two people plays out exactly the same way, down to the same animation of the fire axe getting stuck so that the player can be forced into a quick time event, regardless of how long or hard they thought about who to give the axe to.

The fact that The Walking Dead is getting such rave reviews is nothing but an indicator to publishers that players don't care about meaningful interaction, good gameplay, or anything beyond a linear, extremely non-interactive story with non-consequential gameplay. This review is a shame and a symptom of a larger problem - that reviewers and games press have become totally acceptable throwing actual interaction, what games are about, to the wayside for linear content told best in other mediums - film and literature.

This part right here, the player cares, is the important part.  
If the game can get the player to care about what choice he/she is going to make, then that is something that other mediums really can't replicate in the same way.  Take for example the part with the food that you mention.  It really couldn't have had the same impact if it was in a movie. The main character could have been tasked with handing out the food, and there could have been some touching scenes involved, but it still wouldn't have that personal impact.  
That moment where you start to go over your possible actions, and thinking about the possible consequences, is something that couldn't happen in a film. That moment right there, and the emotions it brings up, is the important part.
 
Now, I realize the importance of actually having consequences for the actions the player chooses, and I agree that it is one of the places where TWD and other games can still improve. Because if the player makes a choice and then feels like it didn't really have an impact, the next time a choice comes up it won't carry the same weight and the player won't care as much.  
 
This doesn't really matter when you are playing through it for the first time, though. When you aren't aware of how big or small the consequences will be, you feel like your choices really do matter a lot. Which leads to something a film really can't accomplish. Making a really free-form, non-linear story would of course make it even more impactful, but the fact that TWD manages to make as big of an impact as it does means that it by all means deserves to be praised, even if it is just a really well done illusion of choice.
Posted by mrfluke

@MysteriousBob said:

@Law313 said:

@BL1TZKRI3G said:

@leejunfan83 said:

it's not a game it's a QTE

Regardless of the degree of involvement this game requires, it's still the best way to experience the Walking Dead fiction.

I agree, but why wasn't the same reaction to this as it was to Heavy Rain. That in and of itself speaks VOLUMES for the industry.

Because Heavy Rain had terrible voice acting, a laughably bad story and awful pacing. Two things that are kind of important in 'interactive drama'.

this,

Posted by Droop

Your choices don't really matter as much as people seem to think.

Posted by Gordo789

@Xeirus said:

@Gordo789 said:

I haven't played the last two episodes yet, but after playing just the first three this is the most overrated game of the year in my opinion. Maybe that will change, but so far it seems like all your choices affect only the most meaningless parts of the game, while all the big things you wish you could choose are totally out of your hands. Like great, now this idiot character I hate likes me more/less - super. That's as much as you can really affect in this game. It's fun to be along for the ride, but it's just not much of a game.

I

Maybe don't try to judge a game based on playing half of it? Especially an adventure game...

Thanks

I think it's fair to judge a game based on half of it, and don't know why this would be especially unfair for an adventure game. After 3 episodes, I don't think this game is all that great. A lot of people seem to think it's GOTY material and FOR ME it is not that at all; not even close. It's a fine game, probably even one of the better games of the year, but my experience with it so far is not in line with all the praise it has received. Like I said, very clearly, this might change in the last two episodes, but as it stands I'm not that impressed.

Cheers.

Posted by giant_frying_pan

@Shtinky said:

@Sooty said:

@giant_frying_pan said:

Now make Jeff play it so he can't deny it GOTY like Red Dead.

Red Dead shouldn't get GOTY anyway for being dreadfully repetitive with too many "Ride shotgun with this guy!" moments.

That was not as bad as Brad denying Saints Row of GOTY in favour of Skyrim.

I don't disagree 2011's deliberation process was odd, but it was a different situation. At least last year the whole crew had played both games to some extent. That never happened in 2010 and because of that, RDR never got a look-in.

For the record, my own GOTY pick would have been Mario Galaxy 2 in 2010. Both it and Red Dead were better than Mass Effect 2 in my view.

Posted by LP3

Can Alex get some goddamn new avatar art already? Jesus fuck.

Posted by 2HeadedNinja

I'm so torn about this game ... There is no doubt I loved it. It made me cry, it made me angry and it made me laugh. None of that happens often with me in games. Even though deep down I realized quickly that the overall story wont change that much no matter what I do I still was sucked in by every single decision. Who gets the food? Doesnt mean a thing in the grand picture but I still was pondering for a while about that. Same with almost every other decision. Add to that the brilliant parts of the game where even QTE dont mean anything. There is no way you can succeed in certain QTEs (especially in EP5) but still, I was hammering the Q key and getting more and more desperate in the process. The ending of EP4 was a brilliant moment to ... the game lets you pick an answer to the guy that took Clem but never play it and it doesnt give you a "next on the walking dead" ... brilliant brilliant brilliant.

On the other hand the gamer in me sees that in parts Walking Dead is hardly a game. You walk around a bit and pick up stuff but thats it. Its not challenging, you dont have to think you just get from one story piece to the next as quick as possible.

GOTY? I cant really go that far ... I even think 5 Stars is a bit too much ... but there is no question that Walking Dead is a remarkable piece of software and I hope they can maybe build up the "game"-part of season two while keeping the level of storytelling ... and please please please ... dont bring Clem back. You made something special with her Telltale ... dont spoil it by using here as a cheap way to sell season two.

Posted by EnduranceFun

Who says Alex only gets to review bad games? He reviewed two frontrunners for GotY (Journey and now The Walking Dead)!

Posted by MysteriousBob

@Law313 said:

@BL1TZKRI3G said:

@leejunfan83 said:

it's not a game it's a QTE

Regardless of the degree of involvement this game requires, it's still the best way to experience the Walking Dead fiction.

I agree, but why wasn't the same reaction to this as it was to Heavy Rain. That in and of itself speaks VOLUMES for the industry.

Because Heavy Rain had terrible voice acting, a laughably bad story and awful pacing. Two things that are kind of important in 'interactive drama'.

Posted by Rothbart

@trolipo said:

I haven't played any of the episodes yet, but this is the most overrated game of the year in my opinion.

I haven't seen a James Bond film before, but Skyfall is the most overrated film of the year in my opinion.

See how that doesn't work?

Posted by Shaanyboi

easily my GOTY.

Posted by xbob42

@tourgen said:

@Jiggaboojeeves said:

This is a bad review and really goes to show how game reviewers don't bother to dig into games beyond a surface level. If Alex had taken a look and tried, say, replaying the first two episodes and making different decisions, he'd learn how little if any meaningful interaction the player has with the world. The game relies on deception and putting up an illusion of interactivity to throttle you through linear, non-interactive moments that would be better suited to a film, than a game, because to make this a game, they've had to remove the player's ability to interact with any consequence.

For example, the scene in episode 2 where you hand out food? Nobody cares except the player. The game doesn't care what you do. The characters don't actually care. There's zero consequence for thinking about that segment in any meaningful way. Hell, the choice where you hand out the axe to one of two people plays out exactly the same way, down to the same animation of the fire axe getting stuck so that the player can be forced into a quick time event, regardless of how long or hard they thought about who to give the axe to.

The fact that The Walking Dead is getting such rave reviews is nothing but an indicator to publishers that players don't care about meaningful interaction, good gameplay, or anything beyond a linear, extremely non-interactive story with non-consequential gameplay. This review is a shame and a symptom of a larger problem - that reviewers and games press have become totally acceptable throwing actual interaction, what games are about, to the wayside for linear content told best in other mediums - film and literature.

thank you. I couldn't have said it as well so I'm glad someone took the time.

I want my interaction with the game to be meaningful. I want the interactive pieces to be well designed, fairly detailed, and I want as wide a spectrum of outcomes as possible.

The Walking Dead is a marvel of animated storytelling. But it's a below average game.

It doesn't matter how good of a "game," it is in this context. It's purely an entertainment piece. It is there to keep you engaged. Not every great video game has to play great. And Alex absolutely did mention how the choices don't really matter. None of that really matters to him, or to me, though.

It's a shame video games are called "games," because there are far too many people who think every single one needs to play like the first time you played Super Mario Bros. It's like saying that because a movie is a visual medium, every single one has to rely on incredible cinematography to be good. It's silly, and does a disservice to gaming as a whole in my opinion.

Posted by tourgen

@Jiggaboojeeves said:

This is a bad review and really goes to show how game reviewers don't bother to dig into games beyond a surface level. If Alex had taken a look and tried, say, replaying the first two episodes and making different decisions, he'd learn how little if any meaningful interaction the player has with the world. The game relies on deception and putting up an illusion of interactivity to throttle you through linear, non-interactive moments that would be better suited to a film, than a game, because to make this a game, they've had to remove the player's ability to interact with any consequence.

For example, the scene in episode 2 where you hand out food? Nobody cares except the player. The game doesn't care what you do. The characters don't actually care. There's zero consequence for thinking about that segment in any meaningful way. Hell, the choice where you hand out the axe to one of two people plays out exactly the same way, down to the same animation of the fire axe getting stuck so that the player can be forced into a quick time event, regardless of how long or hard they thought about who to give the axe to.

The fact that The Walking Dead is getting such rave reviews is nothing but an indicator to publishers that players don't care about meaningful interaction, good gameplay, or anything beyond a linear, extremely non-interactive story with non-consequential gameplay. This review is a shame and a symptom of a larger problem - that reviewers and games press have become totally acceptable throwing actual interaction, what games are about, to the wayside for linear content told best in other mediums - film and literature.

thank you. I couldn't have said it as well so I'm glad someone took the time.

I want my interaction with the game to be meaningful. I want the interactive pieces to be well designed, fairly detailed, and I want as wide a spectrum of outcomes as possible.

The Walking Dead is a marvel of animated storytelling. But it's a below average game.

Posted by Milkman

@Law313 said:

@BL1TZKRI3G said:

@leejunfan83 said:

it's not a game it's a QTE

Regardless of the degree of involvement this game requires, it's still the best way to experience the Walking Dead fiction.

I agree, but why wasn't the same reaction to this as it was to Heavy Rain. That in and of itself speaks VOLUMES for the industry.

EDIT: Oh, and why isn't anyone giving love to "The Witcher 2: EE as GOTY?" Thats probably my favorite RPG of all time.

Because Heavy Rain's story was mostly horrible and The Walking Dead's story was almost universally amazing.

Posted by Jazzycola

@Xeirus said:

@Gordo789 said:

I haven't played the last two episodes yet, but after playing just the first three this is the most overrated game of the year in my opinion. Maybe that will change, but so far it seems like all your choices affect only the most meaningless parts of the game, while all the big things you wish you could choose are totally out of your hands. Like great, now this idiot character I hate likes me more/less - super. That's as much as you can really affect in this game. It's fun to be along for the ride, but it's just not much of a game.

I

Maybe don't try to judge a game based on playing half of it? Especially an adventure game...

Thanks

You can play about half of a game and be able to say it's crap or not. If the game is about the journey, as walking dead is, and the person playing this game is not having a great time for the first half of it then well that makes it not a great game for them.

Thanks.

Posted by re4ctor

It's a fantastic game, but I can't call it GOTY because the moment to moment gameplay is a pretty standard adventure game. It's not a game you play because it's fun, or challenging, or has innovative/interesting mechanics, you play it for the story and the characters. And it's totally worth playing just for that, but it can't be GOTY.

Posted by whitespider

Unlike some people here, I don't think the walking dead was my personal game of the year. It was a faulty game, with clumsy mechanics, and stiff character models that made it hard to initially sell it's honest story.

However it was one of the most affecting experiences of the year. It was completely honest. And it's choices, however meaningless in the mechanical outcomes of the game, did 'feel' like they had impact.

Is it "the best game ever made bro" . No. It's an extremely solid interactive movie, with some adventure game elements.

Some people get hung up on something having to BE what they expect. If it's a game it needs "this" "this" "this" and "this.

No, you are missing the point. On this planet we experience things. Experiencing something is not about fitting a format. It's about an experience And the walking dead, was a rather good experience. Overall.

We are going to die sooner than you think, let's take with us whatever we can.

Posted by TurboMan

GOTY

Posted by FilipHolm

Goddamnit I still need to play the last episode! Someone give me 5 dollars, now!

Posted by VarkhanMB

@Law313 said:

@BL1TZKRI3G said:

@leejunfan83 said:

it's not a game it's a QTE

Regardless of the degree of involvement this game requires, it's still the best way to experience the Walking Dead fiction.

I agree, but why wasn't the same reaction to this as it was to Heavy Rain. That in and of itself speaks VOLUMES for the industry.

EDIT: Oh, and why isn't anyone giving love to "The Witcher 2: EE as GOTY?" Thats probably my favorite RPG of all time.

I'm sorry, I fail to see what that says about the industry. Do you mean that the reason why people shat on Heavy Rain was because it was an original IP?

As for The Witcher 2, I personally wouldn't consider it for the list on the basis that the original game came out last year, but we all have different ways of seeing it.

Edited by Peanut

I said this in the thread about this as GOTY, but as much as I loved the characters and story, I simply can't forgive how poor of a game it is. It's not fun and I was done with the act of playing each episode about 10-15 minutes into each one, saying nothing of the lock-ups, bugs and 4/5 wiped save files.

However, I thought the story was fantastic. Some of the turns it took could be seen a mile away and some of the illusions of choice couldn't fool a 1st grader, but the way they somehow made you give a shit about the characters and the overall story, despite how much of it was cliche zombie bullshit, is still the thing that floors me.

Posted by trolipo

I haven't played any of the episodes yet, but this is the most overrated game of the year in my opinion.

Posted by GalacticPunt

This game was a hell of an experience. The most emotionally powerful game I've ever played through. The interactivity lets it get under your skin like few movies ever could. This is Game of the Year.

like dis if u cry everytim

Edited by Alorithin

@Xeirus said:

Maybe don't try to judge a game based on playing less than half of it? Especially an adventure game...

Thanks

The first three are par for the golf sized analogy. He's fit to decide on that selective bias.

Edited by Xeirus

@Gordo789 said:

I haven't played the last two episodes yet, but after playing just the first three this is the most overrated game of the year in my opinion. Maybe that will change, but so far it seems like all your choices affect only the most meaningless parts of the game, while all the big things you wish you could choose are totally out of your hands. Like great, now this idiot character I hate likes me more/less - super. That's as much as you can really affect in this game. It's fun to be along for the ride, but it's just not much of a game.

I

Maybe don't try to judge a game based on playing half of it? Especially an adventure game...

Thanks

Edited by Undeadpool

ALWAYS a delight to see trolls trying to be as effective as possible while CLEARLY only working off what they've picked up through trailers, articles and podcasts.

I don't even know WHAT the GOTY podcast is going to look like this year since this game has so much goodwill from both staff and users (and deservedly so).

Posted by Skytylz

Easily my game of the year, hopefully this game can be a pivotal moment in story telling in games.

Edited by Law313

@BL1TZKRI3G said:

@leejunfan83 said:

it's not a game it's a QTE

Regardless of the degree of involvement this game requires, it's still the best way to experience the Walking Dead fiction.

I agree, but why wasn't the same reaction to this as it was to Heavy Rain. That in and of itself speaks VOLUMES for the industry.

EDIT: Oh, and why isn't anyone giving love to "The Witcher 2: EE as GOTY?" Thats probably my favorite RPG of all time.

Edited by SoothsayerGB

Not a game.

Predictable story. If you've ever watching a shitty low quality horror film, you know how Walking Dead ends the second Clem is introduced. Simple stereo-typed characters. Nothing about any one is memorable. Just obvious filler for a zombie like audience, that's easily pleased. Cheap shot quick-time events, coupled with even cheaper jump scares.

Disappointing all round and if this makes GOTY. This is the worst year for video games in a long, long time. Which makes it a shoe-in considering how this year started.

Worst thing about it was how every damn character was loaded with person excess baggage, while the writers were trying in instill threads of realism through out the plot.

Best way to sum up The Walking Dead? Its like watching the hot sexy female always trip and fall over while the big bad monster is chasing. As lazy as...

Just another internet fade based on imposed morality. Let's Play anyone?

Actually I loved it but never actually played it. Just watched a trailer and a couple Let's Play. :D

Posted by Gordo789

I haven't played the last two episodes yet, but after playing just the first three this is the most overrated game of the year in my opinion. Maybe that will change, but so far it seems like all your choices affect only the most meaningless parts of the game, while all the big things you wish you could choose are totally out of your hands. Like great, now this idiot character I hate likes me more/less - super. That's as much as you can really affect in this game. It's fun to be along for the ride, but it's just not much of a game.

I

Edited by Bourbon_Warrior

@Mystyr_E said:

don't know if it's my #1 for GOTY but it's definitely going to make top 10, maybe even top 5

It will be in the top 3 for me, but I felt the last episode was a bit of a let down, there wasn't really meaningful choices to make, great story but felt like I was just pressing the play button unlike the other episodes.

Posted by dark1x

If it weren't for the game ruining save game bug, I would agree.

Posted by JSwan13

I really need to catch up on this

Edited by JoeyRavn

I agree with everything Alex said and, if you ask me, The Walking Dead should be GOTY.

#ForClementine.

@leejunfan83 said:

it's not a game it's a QTE

Spoken like someone who has absolutely no fucking idea what the Adventure genre is. But reading your posting history, I couldn't take your post any less seriously.

Posted by laserbolts

This game was great. The parts where you play the game are pretty bad. Like the cursor control is horrendous and some of the QTE stuff was pretty dumb but the rest of the game makes up for it. I personally wouldn't give it 5 stars because of the gameplay. I claimed GOTY after playing it but the more I think about it the more I realize I was just riding a high from that ending. Still a great game though.

Posted by divergence

love this series. Can't wait for season 2

Posted by Jrinswand

This is my GOTY for sure.

Posted by Rothbart

@Jiggaboojeeves said:

For example, the scene in episode 2 where you hand out food? Nobody cares except the player.

This choice quote invalidates your argument of it being a bad game. The fact that the player DOES, in fact, care about who gets the food is a tremendous accomplishment to characterization. Many times the illusion of choice is much more powerful than true choice; to wit, it doesn't really matter if the outcome of my choices are the same as the outcome of somebody else's choices, because the feelings we had while playing the game are entirely personal. When you're immersed in a game you don't need to peel back the layers of systems and such since you know that you did this or that, and it doesn't matter what you could have done because you didn't do that.

Long story short, even though my choices *technically* might not have had much impact, the feeling I had while making them certainly did.

Posted by Ares42

@haggis said:

People get hung up on there not being multiple endings, just as they got hung up on ME3's three (or four, I guess) endings. Never mind the variations that happen within the game itself as you're making choices. They weren't as obvious here, but after having played TWD's early episodes through a few times, I was actually amazed to see how differently somethings play out. I'd much rather have that than a few mildly different endings.

It's not the ending that matters, so much: when we're making choices, we care. Someone earlier said that handing out food in Episode 2 has no impact on gameplay, that the game doesn't care, only the player. The player is actually what matters. If the game succeeded in making you care enough to put thought into your choices, it succeeded--even if those in-game choices don't go anywhere. Just as the idea that Clementine might be watching made people choose different actions. That's what this game is about, and in that it's hard to argue it didn't succeed. Choice isn't just about narrative options and multiple endings, but about making the player feel responsibility for his or her actions within the game.

In that sense, TWD succeeds where ME3 fell short--ME3 forgot about halfway through that the decisions were supposed to be about immersion, not necessarily narrative. Once it became about narrative, the decision tree got way out of whack. People can talk about choice in these games being illusory, but it's a game. It's all an illusion. That's what storytelling is.

This is basically the major issue with these story-based games though. Gameplay-focused games revel in the fact that it's all an illusion, and they never let that fact be an obstacle for enjoying fun gameplay. However if you approach story-based games with the same mentality they just break down into shit. It all comes down to the players willingness to immerse himself.

Someone else said something like "it's YOU doing all those choices", but it actually isn't. It's a game. There are no real choices, or consequences. And the more the player is aware of this the worse the game becomes.

Edited by Mezmero

Great review Alex. As a gamer I might not agree with the score due to a few technical and game play issues I experienced on the console version. However as a fellow fan of zombies I'd say that this is one of the purest forms of zombie fiction I have ever experienced and it deserves every star. This is a story that is less about the zombie apocalypse at large and more about the humans that the apocalypse creates. I love the characters, the writing, and the pacing so damn much that I got choked up multiple times this season. I think it's a safe bet that grown-up Clementine will be the main protagonist of the next season.

Sure the events might unfold in an inconsequential way towards the end but I think it's meant to be judged on one and only one play through and to that I commend TellTale. Throw in the fact that it's $20 for this whole season and you've got an insane value on a masterpiece of an adventure game. I wouldn't make this my game of the year because X-Com is just too good but The Walking Dead rides a pretty close runner-up so far. Reading this review and the Hitman review was quite pleasant. Please continue writing as much as you can for the site and keep up the great work.

Edited by Ghostiet

@Jiggaboojeeves said:

This review is a shame and a symptom of a larger problem - that reviewers and games press have become totally acceptable throwing actual interaction, what games are about, to the wayside for linear content told best in other mediums - film and literature.

People need to get into their dense heads that there is no such thing as actual non-linearity in video games and there probably will never be.

Yes, you are right, games are about interaction. And this is what The Walking Dead DOES. It allows you to interact with the world and have semi-direct input into the story that is told. It's actually using the medium in a very good way by forcing you to be part of this linearity. Watching a beloved character die while the main character struggles to save them makes an impact. Actually having the player struggle to save that character, even if it's through mashing Q, makes it more tense in theory. TWD actually helps that.

Yes, the freedom of choice is illusionary in TWD. So is in Mass Effect. But so is in Nier and Spec Ops: The Line. And all of these games use that concept of player agency and linearity of the stories in games as narrative devices. It's about personalizing the story, not actually affecting it. Sure, it's the fault of marketing teams that they managed to delude everyone into believing in such a thing, but it's also the audience fault for actually falling for it and criticizing a game on a false pretense that it has no chance of ever achieving.

ME3's problem was not that it failed to deliver on the branching story - it was that the ending betrayed the very theme of the entire series, the conclusion came out of nowhere, it tried to tug at the wrong strings and most importantly, the marketing machine got way out of control. Among other things. TWD manages to avoid these traps fairly well.

This game features INTERACTIVITY. It's fucking there all the time. And the simple act of interactivity, even if it doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of the plot, makes it a unique experience. People were pouring their hearts out for the last 6 months or so about Clementine, how she began to grow on them and how her presence began to affect the way they chose their dialogue options and actions. She would still be an effective character if this were a book or a movie. But not as much.

So get off that high fucking horse. You are accusing people of falling for an illusion, while at the same time you demand that games should try to reach a goal that is impossible. The Walking Dead is as fucking interactive as Skyrim or The Witcher 2 is. Both games have more instances of interaction, but in both games there is pretty much the same amount of input your choices and decisions have on the story - exactly jack and shit. Is it bad? No. Because they still manage to make it a more personal experience. These are my choices and my reactions.

@haggis said:

It's not the ending that matters, so much: when we're making choices, we care. Someone earlier said that handing out food in Episode 2 has no impact on gameplay, that the game doesn't care, only the player. The player is actually what matters. If the game succeeded in making you care enough to put thought into your choices, it succeeded--even if those in-game choices don't go anywhere. Just as the idea that Clementine might be watching made people choose different actions. That's what this game is about, and in that it's hard to argue it didn't succeed. Choice isn't just about narrative options and multiple endings, but about making the player feel responsibility for his or her actions within the game.

QFT.

Posted by mellotronrules

@Jiggaboojeeves said:

The fact that The Walking Dead is getting such rave reviews is nothing but an indicator to publishers that players don't care about meaningful interaction, good gameplay, or anything beyond a linear, extremely non-interactive story with non-consequential gameplay.

...or you know, that people actually want quality writing in games, with fully realized characters and mature, thoughtful themes. why did you come to a light adventure game looking for deep gameplay? would you go to a horror film looking for romance?

any substantial amount of 'gameplay' would have lessened the effect of the story- at least for me. extended zombie shooting sequences wouldn't work, because that's antithetical to the nature of 'the walking dead' (it's about humans being awful to each other, zombies are just the excuse). really difficult puzzles with random solutions and pixel-hunting were the worst aspects of old school adventure games.

granted- this work toes the line between 'interactive story' and 'game'- but if they keep up the quality, who cares? either you enjoyed it or you didn't. it's unfair to expect deep 'gameplay' from a telltale game when they've been doing this for years now.

and for the record, if this sends the message to publishers that there's an audience for this sort of experience- i couldn't be more excited.

Posted by Alorithin

@haggis said:

It's not the ending that matters, so much: when we're making choices, we care. Someone earlier said that handing out food in Episode 2 has no impact on gameplay, that the game doesn't care, only the player. The player is actually what matters. If the game succeeded in making you care enough to put thought into your choices, it succeeded--even if those in-game choices don't go anywhere. Just as the idea that Clementine might be watching made people choose different actions. That's what this game is about, and in that it's hard to argue it didn't succeed. Choice isn't just about narrative options and multiple endings, but about making the player feel responsibility for his or her actions within the game.

So it's Day Z for people that don't like playing video games.

I understand the intent of your message. I just don't understand this new precedent to give a visual novel GOTY.