Yes the story is great, but the parts that make it a video game are not good. Story is one aspect of a game. The game did not look very good. The gameplay was not very good. Don't forget the save bug that make it unplayable for many people. It should be a top 5 game on it great story alone, but its flaws do not make it GOTY.

Who cares what it is, as long as it's fun or thought provoking?

Good on them for straddling the line between mediums. It shouldn't be a crime. If it's good, it's good.

So wait.....where do babies come from again?

@TheHT said:

@Deusoma said:

the overwhelming majority of The Walking Dead consists of sitting back and watching.

you mean like the overwhelming majority of text adventures is me sitting back and reading?

You guys should really go and play some text adventure games before you leap into the conversation and start saying things.

@Deusoma said:

the overwhelming majority of The Walking Dead consists of sitting back and watching.

you mean like the overwhelming majority of text adventures is me sitting back and reading?

i come here to learn how babies are made...

...no?

Just this conversation again, huh?

First "total garbage" is a little harsh for Far Cry 3's story...it was typical video game storytelling which pushed in a little decent writing, believable characters, which made the overall story seem a little more absurd but, "total garbage"? Though, yeah, the endings were both shitty.

I feel when people get up in arms about being disappointed by a game because of it's bad story, in truth, it also lacked compelling gameplay (Mass Effect, i'm looking at you).

I find, personally, the best way to handle storytelling in games is to create an open world and let the players discover story telling through the characters they meet in that world. If you take GTA4 for example, the cast of characters Niko meets all have interesting stories of how their lives play out in the crime scene but when you bring the arch back to the main character (usually the one the player is playing) it tends,overall, to come across as absurd.

So in other words, make stories another form of collectible in games. The player's story is the one he/she can tell of their experiences. I think that's how you mix interactivity with story telling.

Since the only opinions I've read so far are either "this gameplay is bad, fuck everything else" or "yes, this gameplay is bad, but the rest makes up for it," I'll ask: was I the only one who thought the action-y portions of the game were genuinely well-executed?

It was true to me. I belonged in the game. I played the game. It was a game to be played and played by me it was a treat to behold. To play, to play, to play at a game of a narrative form of injustice of all we've become accustomed too. My honest nature surely has been mislead to lead me to a video game being a game of the year candidate.

@Animasta said:

hotline miami has plenty of story what you talking about

I actually haven't even played it; I based that statement completely on the trailer...

@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.

@l4wd0g said:

Aren’t games supposed to be about enjoyment?

No, not necessarily. Are TV shows or movies or books about 'enjoyment?' If so, why have i found myself occasionally crying over them throughout my life?

Any art medium is about creating a compelling experience. Creating a connection. Conveying something. Sometimes it is total escapism fun, sometimes it is uncovering parts of life you are unaware of, sometimes it is creating a plausible reality that you could never possibly experience (science fiction, historical drama, etc). Sometimes it is completely abstract.

I most definitely played The Walking Dead. It was a video game. I came to inhabit the central character, we were in lockstep. I was him. I absolutely hammered on the 'A' button while tears welled in my eyes at one point and found it to be a shocking immersive gaming experience (while it seems absurdly simple on paper). I have no time for the argument that this isn't a game. Or is somehow less of a game than Halo 4 (any example).

'Enjoyable' is an adjective that can be used to describe video games. 'Memorable' is one as well. There are a lot of emotions a game can evoke. On the whole, nothing got more out of me across-the-board in 2012 than 'The Walking Dead' did.

It seems to have almost nothing in common with Spleunky, Fez, or Need For Speed: Most Wanted; all other games i've enjoyed this year. But when it comes to books, movies, or graphic art, it's very easy to come up with examples that have nearly nothing in common. No one debates the fact that 'Zero Dark Thirty' and 'Spaceballs' are both movies. Or that Jay Z and the Beatles both producing music albums. You get the point.

We all love to debate the merits of things, which is why we are here. But it's crazy to pretend that this game doesn't belong, or is somehow less of a game because of what you feel a game should be.

@bushpusherr said:

@Milkman said:

But even if those choices that you make don't have a huge effect on what happens at the end, the choices matter in that moment to the player.

The choices matter in that moment to the player because the game builds the illusion that your choices will have lasting impact. The post of mine you replied to was explaining exactly that. That incident shattered that illusion for me, so the ability to "choose" things became less significant, and the experience less profound.

yep. I think if you go back and play something over again it ruins a lot of the charm that game has.

@Milkman said:

But even if those choices that you make don't have a huge effect on what happens at the end, the choices matter in that moment to the player.

The choices matter in that moment to the player because the game builds the illusion that your choices will have lasting impact. The post of mine you replied to was explaining exactly that. That incident shattered that illusion for me, so the ability to "choose" things became less significant, and the experience less profound.

I played the first episode and couldn't finish it the game play and art direction put me off I don't think just having a great story qualifies it as game of the year alot of games have great stories but lack in other departments

if walking dead is a potential game of the year spec ops the line should be considered just for the story

yeah gameplay is #1 on the list, always. Interaction and a spectrum of possibilities and events are what games are about. The tighter the scripting, the more limited and controlled the gameplay actions are, and the less agency the player has in the potential outcomes - all things that cripple a gaming experience and make it a lesser experience.

The Walking Dead was alright. It was a pretty good story experience. For it's scope and $$$ it was a good time. But it's no GOTY. It's just not a very good game. There isn't even much game in there. If the choices actually mattered and there was ultimately more than one outcome, that would have been a good place to start.

@gladspooky said:

@Zeik said:

@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.

But they've been making and selling the same game since like 2005.

I wasn't aware that The Walking Dead has been around that long.

@Zeik said:

@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.

But they've been making and selling the same game since like 2005.

Oh.... I thought we were gonnna have "the talk". Consider me disappointed.

The Walking Dead was the game I enjoyed the most this year. Therefore, it's my GOTY. That's the extent of my internal debate.

@bushpusherr said:

@Atlas: I felt similarly. The "surprise" of Ep. 3 really struck a negative chord with me. There was no reason it had to happen, I did everything within my power and seemed like I was mediating the situation just fine, but I had no control over it. It just shattered all illusions of the story being "mine" from then on. It would have happened earlier in Ep. 2 if I had made a different choice in the cellar, but I didn't realize until afterwards that that particular decision had zero impact either.

Sometimes in life, shit happens. And there's nothing you can do about. You think you have the power to change everything but sometimes, things happen and all you can do is watch it happen. Telltale never said this was your story. In the end, it was the story they wrote and you're just experiencing it. But even if those choices that you make don't have a huge effect on what happens at the end, the choices matter in that moment to the player. Even though everyone who played the Walking Dead ends up in the same spot, I feel like my game was my story and the Lee that I crafted was my Lee.

This idea that "oh, you're not really changing anything" is misguided, I think. Because it's not that kind of game. You're not Commander Shepard, commanding a fleet to save the galaxy. You're just a dude and you're going to do the best you can but in the end, the chips will fall where they may.

@Atlas: yeah I sort of agree with you, though I definitely got caught up in it at the time...

(also don't worry about lilly)

"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.

@Atlas: I felt similarly. The "surprise" of Ep. 3 really struck a negative chord with me. There was no reason it had to happen, I did everything within my power and seemed like I was mediating the situation just fine, but I had no control over it. It just shattered all illusions of the story being "mine" from then on. It would have happened earlier in Ep. 2 if I had made a different choice in the cellar, but I didn't realize until afterwards that that particular decision had zero impact either.

I feel like the hype around the narrative is primarily because, while not particularly excellent on it's own merits, it's a lot better than what most video games do, so people are going bananas over it. And I personally never approached anywhere close to that level of sadness. Call me cold heart'd I guess, but given that it's the "Zombie Apocalypse" , you should come in expecting some occasional dark shit to go down. Also, I was antagonistic with a good chunk of the characters at one point or another, I wasn't in love with any of them, so most of the death's in the game didn't really bother me.

@Atlas: I saw Incendies on a first date. Mistakes were made.

Remember when flOw wasn't a game? THOSE WERE THE DAYS.

@l4wd0g said:

What do you think? Should gameplay trump story.

In a well made properly crafted video game they go hand in hand. Needless to say TWD isn't anywhere near my game of the year. Frankly it's story isn't that spectacular either.

I have played the first three chapters, and yes, The Walking Dead is a video game. Whether you think it's a good video game, and for what reasons, is an entirely different matter.

The third chapter was a very interesting moment for me playing the game, as it made me start to question what was really going on, and whether I was into it - ironic, considering I'd gotten the impression that Episode Three was the best of the bunch. I think maybe that there are aspects of TWD that people are blowing out of proportion, because it's daring in a way that a lot of games are not daring. It's ambitious, and that's a good thing - but it doesn't always work, and there are times where I feel like you can see the seams. At it's core, it's mechanical storytelling.

I also take issue with some of the characterisation; I have a nasty feeling that people talk about them being good characters because TWD goes to lengths to characterise them, which in no way makes them good characters by itself. There's too much arbitrariness and pettiness in the behaviour of characters, and a lot of their actions aren't contextualised except on a superficial level. What's really interesting about Carley's character? Katjea is purely an archetypal mother of the group, but doesn't really have any defining characteristic aside from that. And don't get me started on Kenny and Lilly; by the beginning of the third episode, the feud between those two has gotten really, really tiresome.

I just have this nasty feeling that even as the characters get deeper and deeper into this situation, nothing is really changing, and nothing matters. I can already get a sense of this, but hearing the Bombcast guys talk about it just confirms my...unease about the whole thing. We're going from A to B, and all I'm doing is deciding how we get there, which is...fine, but not quite what I was sold.

There are some beautiful moments in this game, some great atmosphere, and some great dialogue. But great storytelling? I'm not convinced. And if the film Incendies didn't make me cry - I came damn close - then sure as hell this game isn't going to.

@Inkerman said:

I'll just throw this out there, but isn't the closest thing to the walking dead a 'choose your own adventure' book?

Isn't the closest thing to Rock Band playing instruments?

I'll just throw this out there, but isn't the closest thing to the walking dead a 'choose your own adventure' book?

@bushpusherr said:

@Zeik said:

I'm not sure what else to say besides the fact that we have to agree to disagree, because there's nothing that's going to convince me TWD is any less deserving of the title of "video game" than anything else. This might sound a little harsh, but anyone who doesn't consider it a game is just going to have to get over it. People consider this a game and voted it as "GOTY". That's just the world we live in now.

Again, I don't really give a shit about the VGA's at all. The only GOTY opinions I'm really even interested in hearing are those of Giant Bomb. And there is really nothing to get over, it isn't that big of a deal. I just don't think the game deserves to be GOTY, that's all.

I was speaking generally there. Some people seem much more worked up over the fact that a supposed "non-game" could win the GOTY award. But many of us do consider it a game and see value in what it does as a game, which is why it won that award.

@bushpusherr:

And that's absolutely fine. Video games, after all, are a subjective medium.

One of the best 'gameplay' moments of the year for me was unnecessarily smashing that babysitter's head completely in having not realized I had already killed it out of pure panic.

@Zeik said:

I'm not sure what else to say besides the fact that we have to agree to disagree, because there's nothing that's going to convince me TWD is any less deserving of the title of "video game" than anything else. This might sound a little harsh, but anyone who doesn't consider it a game is just going to have to get over it. People consider this a game and voted it as "GOTY". That's just the world we live in now.

Again, I don't really give a shit about the VGA's at all. The only GOTY opinions I'm really even interested in hearing are those of Giant Bomb. And there is really nothing to get over, it isn't that big of a deal. I just don't think the game deserves to be GOTY, that's all.

@cexantus said:

@bushpusherr:

And I understand that; but then it's really a matter of opinion--and I don't think that has anything to do with whether or not TWD is an actual game.

but has everything to do with why I don't think it deserves to be GOTY. And of course, it was never about anything other than expressing opinions.

@bushpusherr:

And I understand that; but then it's really a matter of opinion--and I don't think that has anything to do with whether or not TWD is an actual game.

@bushpusherr: I feel like we're talking in circles.

We clearly have different definitions of "gameplay", which I think is exactly the problem here. You seem to believe that TWD's idea of "gameplay" is too different from the traditional definition to be put in the same category as more traditional games. I think TWD's gameplay is just as worthy of being placed alongside any other form of gameplay, and thus being considered for "GOTY" is perfectly acceptable.

I'm not sure what else to say besides the fact that we have to agree to disagree, because there's nothing that's going to convince me TWD is any less deserving of the title of "video game" than anything else. This might sound a little harsh, but anyone who doesn't consider it a game is just going to have to get over it. People consider this a game and voted it as "GOTY". That's just the world we live in now.

vid·e·o game

@cexantus said:

@bushpusherr said:

And the two games you mention happen to have those stories that draw you in, but they ALSO have the gameplay to back them up. That's the point. They didn't abandon gameplay for the sake of the narrative. In my opinion, a game who's sole quality is that it's "fun to play" is much less deficient than a game who's sole quality is that it has "awesome writing".

And this is, sadly, where I'm going to have to drop the "well, like, that's just your opinion" card because I certainly believe that TWD also had gameplay to back up its narrative.

But you can at least see the distinction between them right? The gameplay between Assassin's Creed and the Persona games involves tactics, strategy, and forethought. It's not hard to see from that why people take issue with calling "Choose option A, B, C, or D" a gameplay moment in quite the same way, right?

@OneManX said:

In the last.. day the one big complaint is... It's a not a game.. like really?

"Its not a game" or "Its barely a game" is just shorthand for saying that it is massively deficient in one of the core pillars of what is expected of a game: gameplay.

@bushpusherr said:

@Zeik: I separated the terms that way because when people say The Walking Dead isn't a game, that's what they are referring to. Again, this distinction isn't even important at all until it comes to comparing video games against one another. The comparison just comes off as misguided, it's like judging a Balet Dancer against a Rugby Player for Athlete of the year. I just doesn't make sense.

@OneManX said:

Just get the fuck over it.

Simple as that, it is a video game, call it whatever you want, at the end of the day, it is a video game... this is the lamest debate I've seen in a loooonnnnngggggg time. If you don't like it, just say it... and move on.

Getting sooooo bent out of shape because this game got more attention than *insert niche game that appeal to small audience here* (because let's not kid ourselves... that seems to be where the convo steers toward) it wouldn't of gotten that attention regardless if this game would of came out or not.

It's good, it's really good. And if you are sick of it now, then I suggest you take a break from game media for like a month, because it is gonna get heavier.

You seem to be the one most bent out of shape here. Some people don't think it's as good as you do. Maybe you should get the fuck over it.

In the last.. day the one big complaint is... It's a not a game.. like really?

@bushpusherr said:

And the two games you mention happen to have those stories that draw you in, but they ALSO have the gameplay to back them up. That's the point. They didn't abandon gameplay for the sake of the narrative. In my opinion, a game who's sole quality is that it's "fun to play" is much less deficient than a game who's sole quality is that it has "awesome writing".

And this is, sadly, where I'm going to have to drop the "well, like, that's just your opinion" card because I certainly believe that TWD also had gameplay to back up its narrative.

@Zeik: I separated the terms that way because when people say The Walking Dead isn't a game, that's what they are referring to. Again, this distinction isn't even important at all until it comes to comparing video games against one another. The comparison just comes off as misguided, it's like judging a Balet Dancer against a Rugby Player for Athlete of the year. I just doesn't make sense.

@OneManX said:

Just get the fuck over it.

Simple as that, it is a video game, call it whatever you want, at the end of the day, it is a video game... this is the lamest debate I've seen in a loooonnnnngggggg time. If you don't like it, just say it... and move on.

Getting sooooo bent out of shape because this game got more attention than *insert niche game that appeal to small audience here* (because let's not kid ourselves... that seems to be where the convo steers toward) it wouldn't of gotten that attention regardless if this game would of came out or not.

It's good, it's really good. And if you are sick of it now, then I suggest you take a break from game media for like a month, because it is gonna get heavier.

You seem to be the one most bent out of shape here. Some people don't think it's as good as you do. Maybe you should get the fuck over it.

@bushpusherr: That's why I think you're just messing with semantics for no reason. Yes, video games have evolved into something more than simple [video][games]. "Video games" is it's own term that encompasses a broad range of experiences. You can't just take the words apart and define them individually. It's like the term RPG (Role-playing-game). That term has long since evolved into something more than it's literal definition of a game where you "role-play". People like to have pointless debates of whether some RPGs (like many JRPGs) actually deserve to be called "RPGs" without a strong role-playing element to define it that way, but that's missing the point.

Video games are video games, we don't need to come up with another term to describe them just because they've evolved into something more than what the term originally defined. The Walking Dead is a "video game" with "gameplay" because those are the colloquialisms used in the medium. My interactions and decisions in TWD alter the state of the game, those interactions and decisions also enhance the experience beyond a passive experience like other mediums. That is "gameplay".

@Zeik said:

@bushpusherr: If you care about GOTY awards enough to need to define what is a "game" then you care too much about them. That's my point.

This is silly. If you are giving out awards for something called "Game Of The Year", how do you expect to do that when you can't even define what a video game is? If criteria for consideration is not important, then the awards aren't important enough to be done at all.

@cexantus said:

@bushpusherr:

I never said that gameplay isn't important, and in my most recent post, I said as much. What I am saying is that gameplay and narrative should co-exist, each of which playing off of the other and I think that's the case with TWD Obviously, I don't think I should have to say that not all games have to do this; games like Hotline Miami can certainly work without much focus on the story.

However, if it's a game like "Assassin's Creed" or "Persona" where the characters are at the forefront of the action, then absolutely I expect a good narrative to draw me in. A games whose sole quality is that it's "fun to play" is no different than a sub-standard action film: they're fun to look at enjoy for a couple hours; but then you put it back and don't really think about it.

I responded to exactly what you said, I can't be expected to simply know all of your caveats ahead of time.

And the two games you mention happen to have those stories that draw you in, but they ALSO have the gameplay to back them up. That's the point. They didn't abandon gameplay for the sake of the narrative. In my opinion, a game who's sole quality is that it's "fun to play" is much less deficient than a game who's sole quality is that it has "awesome writing".

I'd argue that this The Walking Dead is one of the few (yet increasing) instances where the interactivity inherit to this medium is what gives its story so much power. The end of The Walking Dead wouldn't have had anywhere near as much impact on me if I didn't have to make that decision. Telltale should be lauded for not just creating a great story despite it being a video game, but instead creating something that had a great story because it was a video game.

The Walking Dead isn't the only example of that kind of thing this year, but it's definitely the most clear of video games maturing as a medium.

Easily. GOTY.

@Zeik said:

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.

You should reread the entirety of the post you quoted of mine. I think I make a pretty clear distinctions between the word "game" in a traditional sense ( a challenge/competition/trial, something with rules, conditions for victory and defeat, points, etc. Like Chess, Basketball, Poker), and how that definition of the word game has become completely irrelevant to how we define "video games". You don't need to be that type of "game" anymore to be a video game, which is why the term "video game" misrepresents the medium as it's currently known. /* I'll continue to explicitly say video games when I mean video games, and "game" when I mean the broader term, so as not to be misunderstood */

And that traditional sense of the word "game" is precisely why we use the word "play" to describe our interaction with them. As a video game moves away from being a "game" and into being just a general interactive experience, the word play doesn't make any sense anymore. You don't "play" TWD, you engage with it. You don't "beat" TWD, you complete/finish it. I'm sure you should be able to see now why I don't consider dialogue trees to be gameplay.

Just get the fuck over it.

Simple as that, it is a video game, call it whatever you want, at the end of the day, it is a video game... this is the lamest debate I've seen in a loooonnnnngggggg time. If you don't like it, just say it... and move on.

Getting sooooo bent out of shape because this game got more attention than *insert niche game that appeal to small audience here* (because let's not kid ourselves... that seems to be where the convo steers toward) it wouldn't of gotten that attention regardless if this game would of came out or not.

It's good, it's really good. And if you are sick of it now, then I suggest you take a break from game media for like a month, because it is gonna get heavier.

@bushpusherr:

I never said that gameplay isn't important, and in my most recent post, I said as much. What I am saying is that gameplay and narrative should co-exist, each of which playing off of the other and I think that's the case with TWD Obviously, I don't think I should have to say that not all games have to do this; games like Hotline Miami can certainly work without much focus on the story.

However, if it's a game like "Assassin's Creed" or "Persona" where the characters are at the forefront of the action, then absolutely I expect a good narrative to draw me in. A games whose sole quality is that it's "fun to play" is no different than a sub-standard action film: they're fun to look at enjoy for a couple hours; but then you put it back and don't really think about it.

@Zeik said:

@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.

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.

Exactly. I'm gonna throw out an overly complex word here: Ludonarrative dissonance--where gameplay and narrative are completely separate from each other. Basically, it's like how the Uncharted series does it's damned hardest to present Nathan Drake as this likable, down-to-earth hero, only for him to be given a gun and turned into a mindless psychopath the moment control is given to the player. As Zeid already said: TWD achieves resonance because the gameplay works hand-in-hand with the narrative. That's why people are reacting so strongly to that game. It offers you no release; there's no moment where the game lets you have "fun" and mow down a bunch of zombies. When you take control of Lee you're still someone who is completely overwhelmed by his situation and essentially made to feel helpless. That's why TWD provides such a harrowing experience.

@bushpusherr: If you care about GOTY awards enough to need to define what is a "game" then you care too much about them. That's my point.

GOTY awards are not important enough in the grand scheme to necessitate a discussion on what does and does not deserve to be a "game". People liked The Walking Dead, it won an award, that's pretty much all there is to it. People liked other games too, and they're bound to win awards too. There's no reason The Walking Dead needs to be singled out as not deserving to be included just because it didn't do something particular that games do, even if you think other games deserved the award more. This is not going to change the state of gaming as we know it.

Wasn't Journey one of the other nominees anyway?

@cexantus said:

@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?

It's not a matter of being point-and-click, it's what those points and clicks are doing that people have taken issue with. Myst, Maniac Mansion, and all those old adventure games were full of puzzles, and had objectives to complete. They were games in the traditional sense of the word "game", not just in the nebulous definition of "video games" that we've adopted.

@cexantus said:

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 don't think big-budget expectations really had anything to do with it; I think TWD lacks the quality gameplay I've come to expect of something calling itself a game. And if no one sane judges a game based on a single aspect, you should have a chat with Patrick to make sure he's OK, because he tossed Farcry3 off of his GOTY list only because he didn't like the story.

And I would disagree that it combines all those game elements into a cohesive package; I don't consider dialogue trees to be gameplay. If I was given the option to choose to go out on scavenging expeditions, to search for supplies for my group, and depending on what I was able to find and bring back it actually affected the story in a meaningful way? And if I chose to go to a dangerous area or I was't careful, I might bring harm to my group? THAT is story being influenced by gameplay, not picking dialogue from a static list of choices.

@cexantus said:

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.

I think you have this backwards. Most of the complaints are saying that just because the narrative is so good, that shouldn't mean that the gameplay is unimportant. And if you are saying that games shouldn't just get by on gameplay, are you telling me that Geometry Wars should have had a story? Some games don't need them, they don't make sense for what they are trying to do.