@bushpusherr said:

I think a lot of the people who don't consider TWD "GOTY" material, including myself, actually mostly enjoyed the experience of playing through it. In a vacuum, it's easy to praise the best parts of that game. But, the game of the year awards take it out of the vacuum and pit it against all the rest of the year's best games. That's why the issue of gameplay has become such an important one, because you are comparing The Walking Dead to all of these other awesome games that have fantastic gameplay. If it wasn't a competition, I seriously doubt anyone would really care. I don't think it's a "hipster-esque" backlash against something popular.

People have different ideas of what makes "good gameplay". Look at something like Call of Duty. It's a much more traditional definition of a "game", and there are lot of people who think it has "awesome gameplay", but I personally think just running around shooting people is kind of boring. Yeah, the actual shooting is more engaging than the action set pieces in The Walking Dead, but the parts where TWD actually excelled was when it engaged the player in the narrative, made them get involved in what was happening in the game and made the experience matter. That's why TWD excels as a game, and why it was more enjoyable to play than something like CoD.

Clearly other people different ideas of what they look for in a game. Shooting up stuff all day may be more engaging than interacting with a narrative through dialogue and actions, which is fine, but it's kind of arrogant to suggest the aspects of gaming you prefer are more important to the very concept of a "game" than someone else's. This shouldn't be discussion of what defines a game when it's merely a difference in what people look for in games.

The Walking Dead's gameplay mechanics may not be the best, but by letting you take control of Lee it allows for a much more personal story than most books or movies allow.

Also it totally is a game. Saying it isn't is silly.

By trying to restrict certain things to a medium you do more harms to games in the long run.

@BeachThunder: Agreed. People have this really limited idea of what defines something as a "video game." Has no one played Myst or Maniac Mansion or any other point-and-click adventure game when they were younger? Or are we just going to pretend they never existed and that games like Call of Duty have always been the standard for gaming?

Now to answer directly to the OP, I will say this: Taken by itself, I guess you can argue that the gameplay of The Walking Dead lacks the kind of quality we've come to expect from most big-budget video games. But since no one judges a game based on a single aspectit--at least, no one who's sane anyways--as a whole TWD certainly deserves every accolade it receives because it does the one thing that most games just can't do: it combines every aspect of gaming (narrative, graphics, gameplay) into a cohesive package that resonates. When a game makes you sweat because you actually care about the characters, that is a game worth playing.

I hate this notion that just because video games are about player-interaction, that narrative somehow isn't important. Games have come a long way have become far too complex to get by merely on gameplay.

@Zeik said:

You care way too much about "GOTY" awards then. VGA's GOTY specifically even. These aren't the Ocar's or Golden Globe's. They may air it on TV on put on a show like it's a big thing, but their awards don't actually have much more meaning than the GOTY awards that Giantbomb or IGN or Kotaku give out. They're not all going to name TWD their GOTY.

And even if they did it still shouldn't matter that much. Maybe it's because I've grown up liking more niche games, but the games I think truly deserve to be considered for GOTY almost never are. I've come to accept that. Everyone has their own opinion on what deserves to be GOTY, even if my choice does not win any actual awards it doesn't change how I feel. Hell, I don't think I would actually call The Walking Dead my personal GOTY either, but it sure as hell deserves it more than a lot of games that have won it in the past.

I'm not sure what I wrote that gave you the idea that I give a fuck about the VGA's, or that I care SO much about GOTY awards? I don't know where you are from, but I've never considered "bummed" to be a particularly strong word.

Journey isn't even my GOTY. I was just stating that I hope it at least gets the recognition and celebration it deserves, because those people made a really awesome experience that really utilized what makes games special from other mediums. I think it would be a bummer if that game got pushed under the rug in favor of awarding another game's strong writing.

@Rasmoss said:

It's interactive. Therefore it falls into the broad definition of the medium. Games haven't been "games" for years and years. And the interaction is meaningfull. Mulling over what dialogue options to choose is the backbone of the experience. Saying the choices doesn't really matter is both not really true and missing the point.

Unless someone can guide me to one, there doesn't seem to be a definition of the medium on Giant Bomb, so I've gone to Google. "A game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or display." Now, it's fairly obvious that over time we have moved away from the word "game" being important here. And I mean "game" in the traditional sense of the word; winners, losers, rules, points, strategy, etc. If interactivity with digital computer images is all it takes to be considered a video game these days, then I'm literally not joking when I say that, by this definition, electronically voting for the president qualifies as playing a video game.

Now, of course this is absurd, which is why it should be obvious that our definition of "video games" is totally inappropriate for where the medium has gone. They aren't limited to just "games" anymore (again, games in the traditional sense, not the video sense). The term no longer fits, or least doesn't fit for the entire range of products we currently use it for.

Some video games are still meant to be played; they have a challenge to them, victory/defeat conditions, strategy, objectives to complete. Other games are meant to be experienced, not played( again, played in a traditional sense); they can focus on story or atmosphere, building emotional connections, etc. Some video games you "beat", other video games you "finish". /* and of course, these facets aren't limited to these specific types of games, they can intermingle, but you get the point */

@Revan_NL said:

Heavy Rain was a game. So was Fahrenheit. And so is the Walking Dead, difference being that the latter is well written. I really don't get it, The Walking Dead should get the credits for what it does with story but now it gets the well-earned recognition it's 'not interactive enough' or game X,Y and Z did some gameplay elements better. Where were these points of critique prior to the VGA's? Or has it become cool to hate the game just because it has been awarded by such a prize? It's perfectly fine to say that you don't like a game for various readons, yet still be able to recognize its importance to the industry. I don't like Half-Life 2 or Portsl or World of WarCraft, but I can still see what those games meant for the medium.

Whether or not something is a "video game" is really only an issue come the end of the year awards season, because otherwise, what's the point of arguing about it? Just consume what entertains you.

I think a lot of the people who don't consider TWD "GOTY" material, including myself, actually mostly enjoyed the experience of playing through it. In a vacuum, it's easy to praise the best parts of that game. But, the game of the year awards take it out of the vacuum and pit it against all the rest of the year's best games. That's why the issue of gameplay has become such an important one, because you are comparing The Walking Dead to all of these other awesome games that have fantastic gameplay. If it wasn't a competition, I seriously doubt anyone would really care. I don't think it's a "hipster-esque" backlash against something popular.

And all of that comes back to the way we define the term "video game", and how the way it has morphed over the years doesn't really necessitate that a video game be a "game" anymore (and finally, I mean "game" in the traditional sense).

@Animasta said:

@BeachThunder said:

What makes a point and click adventure less of a game than a point and click shooter?

I said this in another thread but I would love to see a poitn and click call of duty

I think a Spec Ops: The Line kind of thing as an adventure game would be interesting :o

@BeachThunder said:

What makes a point and click adventure less of a game than a point and click shooter?

I said this in another thread but I would love to see a poitn and click call of duty

What makes a point and click adventure less of a game than a point and click shooter?

I haven't played a ton of games that came out this year, but I have played a ton of games this year period and I enjoyed Walking Dead more than all of them, even though I absolutely hate the TV show. Whether you call it a game or a gajillamaroo, it was still the best thing I played on my playstation this year.

@Zeik: most of them are, though, considering the nature of the VGA's.

@bushpusherr said:

I really only care if something is a game or not when it comes to things like "GOTY", otherwise I totally don't give a shit.

I personally think gameplay is the most important part of the package, or at the very least a crucial part of the package. It's what makes games unique to other mediums. I'd prefer to celebrate games that actually take advantage of that difference. Journey is a game that did that this year, and it shined in a way that only games can. I think what Journey did is much more impressive, much more worthy of praise, and I will be totally bummed out if it doesn't get its propers because another game had strong writing.

You care way too much about "GOTY" awards then. VGA's GOTY specifically even. These aren't the Ocar's or Golden Globe's. They may air it on TV on put on a show like it's a big thing, but their awards don't actually have much more meaning than the GOTY awards that Giantbomb or IGN or Kotaku give out. They're not all going to name TWD their GOTY.

And even if they did it still shouldn't matter that much. Maybe it's because I've grown up liking more niche games, but the games I think truly deserve to be considered for GOTY almost never are. I've come to accept that. Everyone has their own opinion on what deserves to be GOTY, even if my choice does not win any actual awards it doesn't change how I feel. Hell, I don't think I would actually call The Walking Dead my personal GOTY either, but it sure as hell deserves it more than a lot of games that have won it in the past.

@mlarrabee: hotline miami has plenty of story what you talking about

I really only care if something is a game or not when it comes to things like "GOTY", otherwise I totally don't give a shit.

I personally think gameplay is the most important part of the package, or at the very least a crucial part of the package. It's what makes games unique to other mediums. I'd prefer to celebrate games that actually take advantage of that difference. Journey is a game that did that this year, and it shined in a way that only games can. I think what Journey did is much more impressive, much more worthy of praise, and I will be totally bummed out if it doesn't get its propers because another game had strong writing.

A great game is a great game regardless of how it balances its components.

Van Gogh is famous not for his subjects but for his technique.

Die Hard is a great movie. There Will Be Blood is another great movie. They are completely dissimilar, and they claim their greatness in very differing ways.

I'm so glad that we're getting to the point when Hotline Miami and The Walking Dead can both be hailed as great games. One throws off story in favor of gameplay while the other discards gameplay for story.

I strongly believe people voted for 'The Walking Dead' as GOTY because there has not been ONE game this year that has been worthy of the title. Like an act of defiance or something. It's like awarding the Book of the Year to a very informative Atlas.

Seriously though, I didn't like Spike's stupid show to begin with but by awarding their BIGGEST prize for videogames to a Quick Time Event game with excellent narrative was silly. If anything, it should have maybe just won a category...not the entire event.

The developer award was bullshit too...TELLTALE GAMES MADE JURASSIC PARK YOU FOOLS! That was really, really bad. Why encourage them to release more shite?

Walking Dead is NOT the Game of the Year.

I was actually contemplating this last night. I absolutely love The Walking Dead and it's my game of the year. Yeah the gameplay isn't the best. But it has a story that was excellent. In a year or two if you ask me things about Darksiders II, Assassin's Creed III, RE6, Max Payne 3, and Walking Dead, Walking Dead is definitely the game I'm going to remember more of than any of the others.

@warxsnake said:

You have all the animation budget in the world to create wonderful animations because theres not much going on technically in the Walking Dead. Way more available memory than most games out there (some open world games wink wink) that have to use memory on other things like AI, navmesh, and so on, and most of those games end up with way better animations.

Who is this "you"? Because it's certainly not Telltale that has "all the animation budget in the world". You seem to be lumping this game in with AAA games with way higher budgets and way larger development teams.

That's not to say the game's flaws are entirely excusable, but it's still apples and oranges.

I don't understand the problem you pose.

I thought The Walking Dead was totally alright. That's really all that matters.

I loved the walking dead, I loved its characters and the story, and before Season 3 of the show was out, the game was pretty much my favorite representation of Walking Dead. It still kind of is.  

The only thing that I didn't like with the game (and anything telltale has done) are the very poor animations and scripted events. There is no excuse for having such blocky animations or janky transtions when: 
1. Your game's focus is Character interaction 
2. You have all the animation budget in the world to create wonderful animations because theres not much going on technically in the Walking Dead. Way more available memory than most games out there (some open world games wink wink) that have to use memory on other things like AI, navmesh, and so on, and most of those games end up with way better animations.    
I really hope they improve animations in the next season as the blocky nature of their animations constantly breaks all the immersion the dialog and plot strive to maintain. 
 
But it's still one of the best games I've played this year, and they deserve that VGA award for creating such great content in such little time.  
 
If its any consolation to the OP, I worked on FC3

Heavy Rain was a game. So was Fahrenheit. And so is the Walking Dead, difference being that the latter is well written. I really don't get it, The Walking Dead should get the credits for what it does with story but now it gets the well-earned recognition it's 'not interactive enough' or game X,Y and Z did some gameplay elements better. Where were these points of critique prior to the VGA's? Or has it become cool to hate the game just because it has been awarded by such a prize? It's perfectly fine to say that you don't like a game for various readons, yet still be able to recognize its importance to the industry. I don't like Half-Life 2 or Portsl or World of WarCraft, but I can still see what those games meant for the medium.

...But fuck it. Specifying game versus not game is the type of navel gazing I find just dumb as shit. 

It's interactive. Therefore it falls into the broad definition of the medium. Games haven't been "games" for years and years. And the interaction is meaningfull. Mulling over what dialogue options to choose is the backbone of the experience. Saying the choices doesn't really matter is both not really true and missing the point.

I think fun can be achieved though vicarious misery but I do question whether a game with so llittle gameplay deserves to win video game of the year.

I only say this because combining deep game play mechanics with an engaging story is one of the biggest challenges in creating a videogame. Telltale completely avoided this huge challenge by making an interactive movie, and in a lot of ways The Walking Dead's victory is saying that game play is secondary (which, I guess a lot of today's gamers agree with, but not me).

But, lesser things have won greater awards and it is nice to see something different win for a change, so whateves :)

@CornBREDX said:

I would argue it fits because the challenge was different. The challenge was making choices that are difficult to make and also an emotional challenge (except maybe to those who feel nothing anymore). Ya, it's a very different game as the game play is defined more by how you choose to do things rather then the challenge of doing them, but it's still a challenge and requires thought and interactivity. A good example of something that is interactive but is not a game is Dear Esther. Great interactive piece of fiction, but Dear Esther is in no way a game.

I don't know dude. Like I said I think the idea of specifying game versus not game is a fool's errand. But Dear Esther is all about exploration. Some of my favorite aspects of my favorite games are based around exploration. So wouldn't that make it an interactive experience and a game?

But fuck it. Specifying game versus not game is the type of navel gazing I find just dumb as shit.

Whenever I hear the bombcast saying "It's barely a game..." I think "Who cares?". I just want good experiences in this medium. Just make good shit. It doesn't matter if it is or isn't enough of a game.

@Hizang: I appreciate you going through the trouble of listing off all the high-profile releases this year, and I'm glad you enjoyed them, but none of them save for a couple really stick out to me.

Maybe it IS me, and I admit that. It's very possible that I've spent so much of my life gaming that I just can't get excited about those releases. I enjoyed some of them at the time, but only two or three managed to stick with me at all.

I'm growing less and less interested in games. Maybe I'm getting too old.

P.S. You forgot one of my favorite games this year, Kid Icarus: Uprising.

I would argue it fits because the challenge was different. The challenge was making choices that are difficult to make and also an emotional challenge (except maybe to those who feel nothing anymore). 
 
Ya, it's a very different game as the game play is defined more by how you choose to do things rather then the challenge of doing them, but it's still a challenge and requires thought and interactivity. 
 
A good example of something that is interactive but is not a game is Dear Esther. Great interactive piece of fiction, but Dear Esther is in no way a game.

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@l4wd0g: Somebody on the bombcast brought up Text adventures, if they are games then so is The Walking Dead.

Text adventures have way more interaction in them than The Walking Dead.

Wait what, how does that work exactly?

Like I just said. Text adventures have more interaction in them.

Wait sorry is that you just repeating yourself because you have no answer to my question? Ok, I'll bite.

The Walking Dead has every single thing in a text adventure + extra, so please explain to me how a Text Adventure game has more interaction than The Walking Dead. If your answer is just "Like I said" or there is no answer, I am a happy man.

Well, you've clearly never played a text adventure, so there's really not much to say that'll convince you. Go play one, I guess?

I think you will find a text adventure has zero gameplay outside of choosing paths that the story goes in,

Nope. Wrong. Try again.

You're thinking of Dragon's Lair.

Dragons Lair isn't a text adventure, seeing as there is no text.

Then why are you thinking about it?

I wasn't, you brought it up!

@Hizang said:

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@l4wd0g: Somebody on the bombcast brought up Text adventures, if they are games then so is The Walking Dead.

Text adventures have way more interaction in them than The Walking Dead.

Wait what, how does that work exactly?

Like I just said. Text adventures have more interaction in them.

Wait sorry is that you just repeating yourself because you have no answer to my question? Ok, I'll bite.

The Walking Dead has every single thing in a text adventure + extra, so please explain to me how a Text Adventure game has more interaction than The Walking Dead. If your answer is just "Like I said" or there is no answer, I am a happy man.

Well, you've clearly never played a text adventure, so there's really not much to say that'll convince you. Go play one, I guess?

I think you will find a text adventure has zero gameplay outside of choosing paths that the story goes in,

Nope. Wrong. Try again.

You're thinking of Dragon's Lair.

Dragons Lair isn't a text adventure, seeing as there is no text.

Then why are you thinking about it?

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@l4wd0g: Somebody on the bombcast brought up Text adventures, if they are games then so is The Walking Dead.

Text adventures have way more interaction in them than The Walking Dead.

Wait what, how does that work exactly?

Like I just said. Text adventures have more interaction in them.

Wait sorry is that you just repeating yourself because you have no answer to my question? Ok, I'll bite.

The Walking Dead has every single thing in a text adventure + extra, so please explain to me how a Text Adventure game has more interaction than The Walking Dead. If your answer is just "Like I said" or there is no answer, I am a happy man.

Well, you've clearly never played a text adventure, so there's really not much to say that'll convince you. Go play one, I guess?

I think you will find a text adventure has zero gameplay outside of choosing paths that the story goes in,

Nope. Wrong. Try again.

You're thinking of Dragon's Lair.

Dragons Lair isn't a text adventure, seeing as there is no text.

@Hizang said:

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@gladspooky said:

@Hizang said:

@l4wd0g: Somebody on the bombcast brought up Text adventures, if they are games then so is The Walking Dead.

Text adventures have way more interaction in them than The Walking Dead.

Wait what, how does that work exactly?

Like I just said. Text adventures have more interaction in them.

Wait sorry is that you just repeating yourself because you have no answer to my question? Ok, I'll bite.

The Walking Dead has every single thing in a text adventure + extra, so please explain to me how a Text Adventure game has more interaction than The Walking Dead. If your answer is just "Like I said" or there is no answer, I am a happy man.

Well, you've clearly never played a text adventure, so there's really not much to say that'll convince you. Go play one, I guess?

I think you will find a text adventure has zero gameplay outside of choosing paths that the story goes in,

Nope. Wrong. Try again.

You're thinking of Dragon's Lair.

@Jimbo said:

@Hizang said:

@yinstarrunner said:

But the thing is... games this year just... weren't that great.

I don't know what your talking about there.

• Mass Effect 3.

Yes you do.

Mass Effect 3 I thought was a great game, sure it wasn't the best game ever created but its still a fantastic game.

Yes, I had fun playing The Walking Dead. Fuck you.

@Hitchenson said:

It's a game. It's also the best one that came out this year.

Done and done. That's all that needs to be said.

It's not Gameplay of the Year or Mechanics of the Year, it's Game of the Year. Unless you're willing to invent an entirely new entertainment medium to categorize it as, The Walking Dead is a game. And it had a stronger effect on most people than any other game this year. Hence, GotY.

Actually, no. We don't need to have this conversation. If you don't like The Walking Dead, that's great. And while I disagree and think I won't remember a game this generation more fondly when it is all said and done, you have your opinion and I have mine.

Remember, the VGA's were awarded by multiple votes cast by multiple people. A majority of the people who were asked felt one way and it won. Awarding it the title of "Game of the Year" based on a small sample size doesn't make your opinion any more right or wrong, and it doesn't make the game better or worse.

Just shut up and enjoy playing the games you want to instead of worrying about pointless things. (I understand that's essentially what the internet is, but that's why I don't visit many message boards).

I agree that it's a bit of a weird to argue for the validity of TWD as a game, it most certainly is, despite how disposable all the of the gameplay is. Having said that, pfffffffft...whaaaaaaatever. This game was "okay". I find a little ridiculous this game gets as much praise as it's getting, I couldn't roll my eyes anymore without causing permanent damage after hearing it that it got GOTY, but whatever, tyranny of the majority n' all that. C'est la vie.

@l4wd0g said:

...What I didn’t like about The Walking Dead was the gameplay, or more specifically the lack thereof. It was more of an interactive movie than a game, which is fine, but it seems to me that gameplay should trump storytelling.

Aren’t games supposed to be about enjoyment? Did the gameplay bring you enjoyment?

...

What I’m trying to say is the difference between movies and games is the interactivity....

Did you have fun playing The Walking dead?

It’s great, just on the wrong medium.

What do you think? Should gameplay trump story.

Wrong question. This isn't gameplay vs story, it's gameplay vs gameplay. Or really total experience vs total experience.

Walking Dead is already in two other mediums, tv and comic books, this version surpasses both because of the interactive gameplay. The gameplay is what made the story work so well. The Quick Time Events when you are jumped by a zombie, the mini shooting sequences and the time sensitive dialogue choices. Not real sophisticated stuff by shooter or fighting game standards but it does it's job real well in conveying the emotion of the story for the player. It really helps you connect to the characters.

You take this story and put it on TV without those dialogue choices and mini puzzle/action sequences, it would have been a pretty mediocre TV show. A far weaker one than the one that's airing now in its' third season.

Now you may not care for the gameplay style but at least recognize it is the interactivity that makes that story so effective and this game worth playing.

That's also why this year Walking Dead is a better GotY than FarCry3 imo, although FarCry3 is a pretty damn good game. What FarCry3 did was execute pretty darn well on existing open world shooters with an awesome depiction of a villian, but Walking Dead took adventure games to the next level. There is a novelty factor that is really working in Walking Dead's favor. It's not FarCry3's fault that Borderlands 2 and the myriad of other shooters came out this year but it does make it feel more part of the norm than Walking Dead is.

The Walking Dead is a game that's going to remembered for a long time for it's impact, I doubt that will be as true for FarCry3.

@MattyFTM said:

"There’s really no need to maintain such a narrow view of gaming. The answer to the question “what is game?” changes every year. If you disqualify The Walking Dead now, would you disqualify Monkey Island back in 1990? Zork in 1980?
All of those games fall on slightly different spots on the play-to-watch scale, I suppose, but to say that The Walking Dead isn’t even a game is a bit much.
Instead of worrying about what gaming is or isn’t, focus on what you like about games and why. It’s perfectly OK to think that The Walking Dead is lame, boring, or not for you. But to go all the way to the end and start saying that it doesn’t even fit in the same category as other, “real” games starts to feel a bit elitist, right?"

- Jeff Gerstmann, doing a better job of answering this post than I ever could. Via his Tumblr.

I was going to copy/paste this over into this thread, but as you have already done it, I'm going to eat a sandwich instead.

@JoeyRavn said:

I guess nobody will take those as valid arguments, right? So why "go read a book if you want a good story" is even a possibility? If we're talking about video games, we have to judge video games based on their intrinsic characteristics and the limitations and potential of the medium in itself. I don't think anybody would ever question the importance of a good story in a movie, even though it's a primarily visual medium, right? So why is it always such a loathed concept when it comes to video games?

I think it's because that there are people that feel a game isn't actually a "game" if you spend a large amount of the time watching non-interactive sequences rather than doing any actual "playing", or only have a limited amount of interactivity. I do not agree with this argument; I am only stating how I perceive it.

I have not played The Walking Dead, nor do I have any real desire in doing so. I enjoy horror stories, whether they be book, movie, or game, but there's just something about TWD that prevents it from catching my interest. So congratulations to the game for winning and to its fans, but all I can really do in this case is shrug and quietly think to myself about how Xenoblade was the best game of the year.

The Walking Dead tells a very good story, and the gameplay is used to facilitate it. Those are the kinds of games I want to play. Games take quite a few liberties when trying to mix gameplay and realism--especially action games--for the sake of scope. As much as I love Uncharted, it's kind of ridiculous just how many times Nathan Drake gets shot. By taking out more free-form action segments, Telltale created an experience that, while definitely guided, was as immersive as hell. There's no other way it could've worked as a game, and if it lacked its interactivity, I wouldn't have felt nearly as strong of a connection with Lee (because I am him) or Clementine (because she is my responsibility).

i am as interested in playing twd as i am in playing a text adventure. I give no fucks.

@MattyFTM said:

"There’s really no need to maintain such a narrow view of gaming. The answer to the question “what is game?” changes every year. If you disqualify The Walking Dead now, would you disqualify Monkey Island back in 1990? Zork in 1980?
All of those games fall on slightly different spots on the play-to-watch scale, I suppose, but to say that The Walking Dead isn’t even a game is a bit much.
Instead of worrying about what gaming is or isn’t, focus on what you like about games and why. It’s perfectly OK to think that The Walking Dead is lame, boring, or not for you. But to go all the way to the end and start saying that it doesn’t even fit in the same category as other, “real” games starts to feel a bit elitist, right?"

- Jeff Gerstmann, doing a better job of answering this post than I ever could. Via his Tumblr.

Sums up my thoughts on people calling this "not a game" perfectly.

Don't like the game? Fine, you don't have to. But it is a game, just as much as any other adventure game, regardless of what you thing games "should" be. If you hate games that emphasize story so much then go back to playing tetris, or Call of Duty, or what ever floats your boat. You're not convincing anyone who likes the game by constantly trying to devalue it, so shut up and go troll somewhere else.

I don't think this was a "bad" year for video games, just not a great one. I've played most of the major releases this year and they have mostly been a little disappointing, if not majorly disappointing. Sequels to games that I love (Borderlands 2, Diablo III, Mass Effect III, Darksiders II, New Super Mario Bros. 2), which should have been some of my top favorites this year, didn't even make my list. I don't even know if I could come up with a list, because I would be making a list of 10 where 5 of them I don't even like that much. Spec Ops: The Line and The Walking Dead, games that would have been near the bottom of my top 10 in a normal year, are not my top two. XCom is up there, too.

And I think the original poster has a valid point. It is pretty much a choose-your-own-adventure book. I think it's awesome, but it's a valid criticism. I also think text adventures have more interactivity. There are way more choices in text adventures than there are in The Walking Dead. There are also puzzles and obstacles, of which there are very few in The Walking Dead. I think it's great, but I think he brings up a good point.

@Vinny_Says said:

@Castermhief117 said:

You tell me if I can decide the choice between saving one life or another on a television series and make meaningful decisions that carry on throughout the show.

You know, one day they'll bring the existing concept of American Idol and all that shit to all TV shows and you'll regret that comment.

As for the game, I haven't played it but I've never heard anyone say anything about the gameplay in TWD. Nothing at all, nothing good, nothing bad, just nothing and that worries me. If we're just going to play video games for story then why have this industry even exist?

Want a story? Go read a book, they have the best stories, always.

As it's been previously said, the gameplay in TWD is that of a graphic adventure: pick up an item, use it on other item, do adventuring. The concept is extremely simple, yet it has been around for decades now. If the argument is that there's not "enough" adventuring as in, say, Monkey Island... well, I really don't know how to answer that. I just don't see anyone complaining that the latest Halo or Call of Duty doesn't have enough "shooting" in them. How does someone like @gladspooky come to the conclusion that the interaction in TWD is not enough to classify it as a graphic adventure is beyond me. It doesn't help that he plainly refuses to give reasons or examples why it is so. The gameplay in TWD does what it tries to do, nothing more, nothing less.

As for your "go read a book" argument... Well, if you want interaction, go do something in real life. Want to shoot a gun? Go buy a gun. Want to drive recklessly? Get in a car and drive recklessly. What better interaction that first hand experience? And real life has the best first hand experience, always. Oh, wait.

I guess nobody will take those as valid arguments, right? So why "go read a book if you want a good story" is even a possibility? If we're talking about video games, we have to judge video games based on their intrinsic characteristics and the limitations and potential of the medium in itself. I don't think anybody would ever question the importance of a good story in a movie, even though it's a primarily visual medium, right? So why is it always such a loathed concept when it comes to video games?

Music expanded when we accepted The Plastic Ono Band and Brian Eno, even if many of their experiments are ultimately not songs. I agree with the sentiment that effectiveness does not equal medium.

However, The Walking Dead is definitely a game. There are puzzles, combat scenarios, quick-time events, and a handful of choices that really do significantly affect the way characters treat you throughout the story. It's not even really necessary to defend it.

But there is no reason to feel "threatened" by The Walking Dead supplanting the kind of game you like, and you should actively seek out publications that reward your Game of the Year. I know I visit Destructoid regularly thanks to their adoration of Deadly Premonition their 2010 Game of the Year and unquestionably one of my all-time favorite games. Generally speaking, I tend not to read much not written by anyone there but Sterling, but that's because the others just don't have as strong a written voice as he does.

Spike's VGAs represent a general consensus between the more populist gamer (i.e. the judge from Entertainment Weekly) and the deeply-involved writers (like Jeff here at Giant Bomb.) That consensus is easily not definitive, though I can guarantee you'll see a lot of awards float The Walking Dead's way this year. There will be places and people who reward other games, and you should find them and follow their writing.

However, there's a bigger problem in your post.

@l4wd0g said:

Aren’t games supposed to be about enjoyment?

No. No, they don't have to be, at least not for everybody.

Ask Amnesia: The Dark Descent's intense and constant terror, or Hotline Miami's swift addiction to brutality and self-hatred.

Ask Metal Gear Solid 4's disdain for the people who adored Metal Gear Solid 2, or the Persona games' heartwrenchingclimaxes and Social Links.

Ask I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream's drastic and powerful intensity.

Ask anyone who's fallen in love in Air, or Katawa Shoujo, or Analogue: A Hate Story, or Journey.

Ask those who found themselves wandering lost through Dear Esther.

Ask anyone involved in #onereasonwhy that found themselves given a voice by dys4ia or Mainichi.