I've had some time to think about the game's ending and it's narrative as a whole and I came to the conclusion that it was my GOTY 2012. Over the past few days I've seen a couple of "Let's Play" videos and I've participated in several forum discussions and it sounds like the vast majority of people were greatly impacted by the emotional punch the game delivered in the final episode. The game had some technical issues (I experienced a few) and it might not have branched as much as people would have liked, but it seemed like people forgave its shortcomings.

I think it's a landmark title in regards to storytelling and character building. Agree?

Storytelling was great I just wish the choices you made branched out more into other storytelling paths. After beating a couple of episodes I decided to replay some of them in order to see what differences the choices made. Pretty much all of them connected back the same path, I think the only episode that gave you a real branching pathway for the choices you made was the first episode.

No it's not. The game had serious issues that were never addressed. I will not address them here just to prove my point. The Walking Dead was living upon arrival because it allowed a new story telling derivative to survive much like the game itself. In the zombie world, it's all full of shit and we live to die while we survive even if every thing around us sucks. Pick and choose and watch that timer! Hit "A". Play the game!

@Claude: Are you not into character-driven narratives? I'm only asking this because I feel like the game did exceptionally well at giving the player choices/dialog options that heavily impacted the characters you interacted with, which I think is a very fresh concept despite the nature of the game. There are other games where decisionmaking ultimately boils down to a flowchart of causality, but I feel like in The Walking Dead the decisions and dialogue allowed for richer, dynamic character development in spite of its "ultimate" ending. Even then, I was more than satisfied by the conclusion.

I'd like to understand what "serious issues" you thought were never addressed -- especially if you think they have anything to do with what I mentioned since that's where I thought the game was strongest.

No, not really. Don't get me wrong. I liked Walking Dead a lot, heck the game had me actually crying in the end. But its for the most part hardly a game. It tells a good story with good voice actors, but thats about it.

It's a landmark tittle for the genre, but I'm not sure its a landmark tittle in video games. It doesn't do it's own thing, rather take good things out of other things and make them better.

I don't feel like it did anything, mechanically, different from, say, Mass Effect. Or that it capitalized on the splintering, tailored storylines as much as it (or the people really supporting it) would have you believe.

But, the general craft of the game, the lovingly rich dialogue and attention to character detail, is beyond much of what we've seen in video games. I think the way The Walking Dead coerces the player into vesting some interest, some palpable value, into Clementine is nothing short of magnificent.

Is it a landmark? Well, I don't know. It's a special game. But a landmark might be pushing it.

@Claude: I see what you're getting at, then.

I think it can still be a landmark in spite of those issues because of some precedents its setting in terms of narratives in a video game. Although, I guess it would be too early to claim it is setting any precedents and we'd have to wait for those precedents (particularly in the area I discussed on my last post) to be followed through with. We might have to revisit this topic in a year or two.

I can sort of forgive a lot of its hitches when I look at it as an evolved point-and-click adventure (I played The Walking Dead on PC) that was heavy on dialogue and player choices. Considering the last point-and-click adventure I played was Gemini Rue, and that also had an exceptionally strong narrative, I was definitely in love with this game.

@Claude: I see what you're getting at, then.

I think it can still be a landmark in spite of those issues because of some precedents its setting in terms of narratives in a video game. Although, I guess it would be too early to claim it is setting any precedents and we'd have to wait for those precedents (particularly in the area I discussed on my last post) to be followed through with. We might have to revisit this topic in a year or two.

I can sort of forgive a lot of its hitches when I look at it as an evolved point-and-click adventure (I played The Walking Dead on PC) that was heavy on dialogue and player choices. Considering the last point-and-click adventure I played was Gemini Rue, and that also had an exceptionally strong narrative, I was definitely in love with this game.

@HistoryInRust said:

I don't feel like it did anything, mechanically, different from, say, Mass Effect. Or that it capitalized on the splintering, tailored storylines as much as it (or the people really supporting it) would have you believe.

But, the general craft of the game, the lovingly rich dialogue and attention to character detail, is beyond much of what we've seen in video games. I think the way The Walking Dead coerces the player into vesting some interest, some palpable value, into Clementine is nothing short of magnificent.

Is it a landmark? Well, I don't know. It's a special game. But a landmark might be pushing it.

I played 3 games this year that dealt with choices as a way to push their narrative and they were Mass Effect 3, The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings, and The Walking Dead. I would say that all three games attempted to have the player invest more of themselves into their story by using "choice". Here is how I saw things go down and please note that all three games had GOTY potential as I played and finished them.

Mass Effect 3 already had the benefit of 2 strong games driving its narrative before I even began to play. It already had characters that I cared about given that I made sure that they all survived going into the suicide mission. I played the game and cared about the outcome of several characters; outcomes that nearly had me in tears. I wont mention the characters, but people that played the game probably know which ones I'm talking about. The problem wasn't the writing or the voice acting or anything like that. It was all top notch. The problem was that all the choices had essentially been made for me via their Paragon/Renegade system. I saw blue and I selected blue. I didn't feel like I was having a direct impact on the world or the characters despite the dialogue wheel showing me several options. It was more like pressing the continue button on any given cutscene and watching the evens unfold.

The Witcher 2 touted its choice system as not having any black and white morality choices and I will agree that the majority of the choices felt very grey. I didn't have the same attachment to the characters like I did in ME3 because I never played the first Witcher, but I appreciated the richness of the world and the writing/voice acting for the characters. I will say that I didn't feel like the choices I made were on auto pilot because I actually did put a great deal of thought into my responses. The problem is that my choices were driven by achievements, items/equipment, and quest selection. Parts of the game were closed to the player based on your decisions and some items were only attainable if you played a quest in a very specific way. The nature of this system required a second playthough to see all of the story and several alterations in the final chapter to get all the achievements. It was on me to play the game this way, but the choice system presented by the game didn't deter me from doing it.

The choice system in The Walking Dead succeeded where the two other games failed because everything I did was completely at the service of the story and the characters. All of my interactions with Kenny for example were all based on what was happening at that moment in the game. I would say that I supported Kenny about 40% of the time because all the other times he was completely unreasonable. Right before the Duck scene I was ready to dump Kenny for any other character that came along, but when it came down to shooting Duck I knew there was no way I was going to let Kenny kill his own son. Fast forward to the next episode and the zombie boy and there was no doubt in my mind that Kenny had to shoot that kid to deal with with his unresolved issues regarding Duck. Ben had a very similar arc where I wished death upon him several times for his actions and yet I ultimately cheered when he finally told Kenny off in episode 5.

I originally said that it was a landmark game for its story and character building, but I guess I never explained how its choice system succeeded where other games attempting a similar thing and failed so there you go (not you in particular, but the general you).

The people who are shunning that Walking Dead is a landmark game are disregarding a couple of points. The nebulous nature of the notion of having a choice in video games lends itself to a complicated system. When you open the hood on a game like this you have some basic elements:

• Contextualized UI
• Checkpoint-ed "Choice" system based on game-play sequences or dialogue tree options
• Quick-time events for cut scenes
• Adventure game puzzles
• Multiple scripted events for branching game-play

With this engine, although you can just plug in a narrative and it works - the payout of each choice has to be carefully considered. I think the biggest barrier is how far reaching and how much impact each decision will have is limited. The best that can be done now is to address each choice, the "Survivor X will remember that" was presented often and shows the illusion of choice but ultimately leads to a couple fork in the road moments.

The fatal flaw of this system is that the end of a branch can be completely self contained. A player can expect to make an impactful decision and the situation is resolved separately. One could assume that there would have been completely different outcomes for some of the decisions that were made, but when people discuss things on the internet you pull back the curtain and your dreams are spoiled a bit by seeing the gears turn.

I feel this game only drops the ball on some of the UI and control elements. I figured out the best control is having on hand on the mouse and one hand on a controller - this allowed me to use a controller for button mash sequences and the mouse for the House of the Dead sequences. Using just the controller was insufficient for when you would have to hit the white dot on a flailing zombie. There were a couple of points where the controls completely inhibited the game-play: having multiple monitors and accidentally clicking off screen instead of the game just locking the cursor, quitting out after an episode and not having it save progress, et cetera. All of that stuff is just stupid and unacceptable.

Where did Telltale go right specifically? The front end loader for the episodes. Having one entry on my Steam library list is awesome - I'm looking at you Sam & Max, Wallace & Gromit - get your act together. However I'm sure working with an IP that lends itself to an overarching narrative was a big factor here. Also this game was priced right from the start, and when it's part of Steam sales it should not be passed up.

I need me some narrative nowadays. Walking Dead did a lot of things right in showing people that a good story goes a long way, but really I want the whole package with control and game-play.

I don't even know what a landmark anything would be anymore. It's a really good game though.

I don't think it should be considered a landmark, except perhaps in the sense that it seems to have had an impact on a lot of people.

Throughout playing this game I had no investment in anything that happened, and that made the little choices that were made in each episode (and other people seemed to agonize over and take as seriously as reality) ring hollow. I found the story uninspired, the characters lame stereotypes, the antagonists worn-out and overused, the voice work decent at best, the gameplay a frustrating series of quick time events and key-pounding, and the "big choices" to be nothing but illusions.

I only just started episode 4, and I'm enjoying it thoroughly.  With that said, it's clear to me that the standout aspects of this game have very little to do with the fact that it's a game.  The fact that you are making important decisions that impact the story is the extent to which the interactivity is engaging.  I find the story interesting, but I don't think it would suffer terribly if it were translated into the linear format of a book or movie.  For me to consider The Walking Dead a landmark title for games, I would have to first consider its most spectacular qualities to be specific to games, which I don't think they are.

Granted, I haven't finished all the episodes yet, but my game of the year is Journey. I bring that up because I think The Walking Dead and Journey are very similar in what they accomplish, but they way they accomplish it is very different.

Journey uses its mechanics, visuals, and multiplayer to create this unbelievable experience. It's an experience I've never had before, and I think it is something completely unique to games because of the interaction you have with them. I'm basically referring to the multiplayer, and, even more specifically, the end segments of climbing up the mountain and then getting to the end of the game. There's this level of interaction with another human being that so closely mimics the real thing it's truly magical. It's something that couldn't happen if I was playing it with a friend, or if I was able to directly talk with the person. I had this incredible experience of actually being on a journey and fighting my way up this mountain in a blizzard. I didn't think this journey was actually real, but the feelings I had toward my companion were. The interaction we had with each other, and the interaction with this world was as real as anything else in the world.

On the other hand, The Walking Dead does a great job of taking what makes other mediums like books and movies, and puts it in game form. Yes, it uses the choice mechanics to great effect, but the really impressive thing about The Walking Dead is the story created by the writers. I think The Walking Dead is ground breaking because it does an amazing job of telling a story, when most game stories are complete garbage. The TV show is critically acclaimed show that is really good, and I still think this game has a better story. I think that, right there, is a testament to it's quality.

I rank Journey over The Walking Dead because Journey's quality is solely derived from what makes games unique. It's not something that another medium could emulate in any way. It is completely dependent on that reaction between players in a world. The Walking Dead does some amazing things with its mechanics as a game, but these choices aren't the only thing that make the game great. The writing, story telling, and voice acting is key to the experience. These contribute just as much, if not more, to the quality of the game. For that reason, I put Journey above The Walkind Dead as my GOTY. I would completely understand if someone thinks the ability to create such an amazing story within a game is more significant than what Journey did, but I consider it more valuable that Journey's quality is completely reliant on it being a game.

If you're looking for a good, and rather emotional at times playthrough of Episode 5 then you should definitely check out DarksydePhil's videos. I know he gets a lot of flack for burping and whatnot during videos but he is by far one of the more original guys to do playthroughs in my opinion. In any case, hate him or not, he seems to really enjoy The Walking Dead and you should watch him play it. Ep5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VwFvXsan2k&list=PL_QtSMEGimbzmIyuiIvPio2-2RwJkNNjE&feature=plcp

Not really, good story that gave you the illusion of choice. Whatever way you play the game it ends the same way.

was it the most emotional story this year? Yes, but I really wouldn't call it the best story and the game has serious issues (mostly the puzzles weren't very fun).

In my opinion, yes.

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

Not really, good story that gave you the illusion of choice. Whatever way you play the game it ends the same way.

This.

Now this is just going a little too far because everyone is still on the hype train after finishing The Walking Dead. If the story and dialogue weren't this fucking sharp and solid then I think this would have been a flop because the story side of things is letting me give the simple/mediocre gameplay a pass. I wouldn't call it a landmark because Mass Effect was what brought "choice" into the spotlight. This game just does it better by making it feel like your choices are impactful when in the overall scheme of things they actually didn't change a whole lot.

It could be, it all depends what lessons people learn from it. In the now, it's truly important, in terms of emotion in gaming, and also how ill-defined games are as a medium (films and books are pretty easy to identify, but games far less so). If this signifies companies taking notice of holy shit, people will pay for quality storytelling and we've been focusing on just multiplayer all this time ahhhghhghg, then yes, it is a landmark game. However it could equally just be another really great Telltale game, and Telltale continue to do their thing without having that huge an effect on the industry.

It's impossible to say, so... ask me in 3 years.

Obviously it's the most emotionnal impactfull story to come out of a video game and it's the best story of the year. It's a landmark title in the sense that it will inspire other devellopers to up their game in the storytelling departement. The way it makes you think that's your specific story that plays out and it would be completly different if you made different choices, it's truely masterfull.

As for a GoTY win, it highly unlikely. Most sites choose their GoTY by debating. There's to much wrong or sub par in the walking dead's gameplay to ignore in a serious GoTY discussion. It deserves every nomination it will get but the top spot is for a less janky, better playing game to fill.

I think so, the sorts of things that people are saying about this game, and the sorts of discussions that are taking place, are unprecedented.

I certainly think that Lee and Clementine will be a point of reference for character development for years to come.

Unless Far Cry 3 really surprises me, GOTY.

Episodes 1,2, and 3 were pretty good. 2 especially was some great horror story telling. Ep 4 was kind of bad all the way through and 5 felt short.

It was a fun story but it wasn't much of a game. That's alright, there is room in the industry to crossbread graphic novels and point and click adventure games. But seriously, they could have made this a DVD "game" where you basically jump around different chapter markers.

It's excellent interactive fiction but it's not a landmark game. That's not a slam against it. It's well worth $25 and it was very fun to watch play out. Gfx novel publishers might want to take notice. This could be more of a landmark product for their industry rather than the gaming industry.

Hard to say at this point. These things are always more apparent in retrospect. For now it's just really fucking good.

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

Not really, good story that gave you the illusion of choice. Whatever way you play the game it ends the same way.

This.

Now this is just going a little too far because everyone is still on the hype train after finishing The Walking Dead. If the story and dialogue weren't this fucking sharp and solid then I think this would have been a flop because the story side of things is letting me give the simple/mediocre gameplay a pass. I wouldn't call it a landmark because Mass Effect was what brought "choice" into the spotlight. This game just does it better by making it feel like your choices are impactful when in the overall scheme of things they actually didn't change a whole lot.

The term "illusion of choice" gets thrown around a lot, but I feel that people are incorrectly applying it to what's happening in the game. I go again to the scene with Duck's death because that perfectly illustrates how wrong it is to say that about the game. Through the dialogue choices you an arrive at 3 outcomes in that scene. You can have Lee kill duck. You can have Kenny kill Duck. You can leave Duck alone and let him become a walker. It is completely up to the player how they want the scene to play out. What the player DOES NOT GET is the ability to have the world bend to their whims. There is nothing you can do to prevent Duck from dying, but your choices do have an impact on how they perceive you as a character and the events that are happening around them.

I have seen the decisions made in that Duck scene carry through episode 4 all the way to episode 5. I know in episode 5 that Kenny agonizes over the fact that you allowed Duck to become a walker in episode 3. I have seen a Kenny that was very close to Lee and another that was cold because of the choices made throughout all the other episodes. The same could be said for other characters.

People get tied up in the idea that their choices should allow them to carve out completely different scenarios despite the developers talking about choices shaping characters. I don't see the "illusion of choice" when people opted to drop Ben for being such a screw up while others saved him because they wanted him to find redemption. The choices in the game allowed the players to feel a sense of ownership in the story and that isn't something that can be accomplished by popping in a DVD and watching the thing.

Maybe a landmark title for the Adventure game genre, but not for the entire industry. But I haven't played enough adventure games to justify my own statement, I've played like... three?

I've only played through the game once to completion but I intend on playing it again and doing the complete opposite of what I did the first time and see how much my choices actually matter. Though I suspect some events will still be exactly the same or the characters will be just a little angrier at Lee and everyone else.

None of that stops it from being a F***ing amazing game though, In my opinion. Short of some crazy late year release, were probably looking at the best game of 2012.

I'm also just a sucker for a good story. Regardless of medium.