SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Joined: Feb 01 2013 Location: Vestal, New York Posts: 12

Does anyone else not think this game lives up to all the hype it's getting?
It's has a good storyline but that's where it ends. I just fail to see what is "Game of the Year" worthy about picking what sentence you get to say for the whole game.

Posted: Feb 13 2013 10:09 am

I never played the game but that a hyped and super famous series, is spawing hyped super famous games, is kinda obvious if the game is nearly half decent.

Posted: Feb 13 2013 10:46 am

From what I heard about it there's just an absolute minimum of gameplay and it's actually more of a CG animated movie with a few branches.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

It's a good game with a good story. It would be great if your choices had more impact on the plot than just window dressing. Better than most stuff out there right now though, in my opinion. Then again, I look more towards story than graphics.

Excel is right that it's more like an interactive movie.

Lee Everett is a great character though. Maybe I just think that cuz he's a history professor though, heh. The voice actor also did a great job with his voice.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

The-Excel wrote:

From what I heard about it there's just an absolute minimum of gameplay and it's actually more of a CG animated movie with a few branches.

This is as false as saying any Lucasarts or Sierra adventure game is just an interactive movie. There is far more action and involving aspects of this game than any adventure game I've ever played, and I've played literally hundreds.

I can honestly say it's one of my favorite games I've ever played. The story line is so involving, the adventure game aspects are just perfect, and the characters feel so real and fleshed out. It honestly makes most of the comic book characters seems shallow and silly by comparison. I recommend it to ANY person who grew up on point and click games.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

The-Excel wrote:

From what I heard about it there's just an absolute minimum of gameplay and it's actually more of a CG animated movie with a few branches.

I presume you've never played a point and click game before?

Because that is basically what it is.

Posted: Feb 13 2013 08:08 pm

I've heard way more about the cutscenes than anything else of it. It's all anyone ever talks about. With most other point and clicks, people talk about how great the puzzles are. The impression I have of this is that it's an hour of cutscenes for every five minutes of gameplay, and the episodes are four hours long.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

The-Excel wrote:

The impression I have of this is

That ignorant impression, obviously.

I can see someone not enjoying this if they've literally never played an adventure game before, maybe the kind of people who are used to goofy fighting games, XTREME action games, or overly Japanese niche market games. If that's the case, no you probably won't like it. But calling it an "interactive movie" is a huge disservice. Most of the complaints I've read are from people basically saying "If there are zombies in a game, why can't I attack them with a chainsaw? Where are the cleavage shots and blonde bimbos? Why can't I just shoot things whenever I want?" and these are the worst kind of people.

Basically, it is literally the spiritual successor to LucasArts adventure games (especially since TellTale has Lucasarts alumni), except you can die in this one, unlike the vast majority of LucasArts games. The puzzles are fairly simple, the gameplay is basic but any rational person would know that going into it. The game is 100% about the story, the dialogue and the outcome.

Most of the people upset about it receiving game of the year in multiple publications are people who aren't patient enough to play a game without constant action, or people who are just flat out mad that their favorite game didn't win. It's a case of contrarians everywhere. "Oh shit, a game I don't understand and have not even touched is being critically acclaimed? Better talk shit about it ignorantly and constantly."

Posted: Feb 13 2013 09:55 pm

I have to say that although I am not a fan of the source material this was indeed an excellent point and click game. Definitely one of the best games of the last 10 years.

Joined: Feb 01 2013 Location: Vestal, New York Posts: 12

It all felt too restrictive. I would have liked more control over the character. It does do storytelling extremely well. I honestly do think it's more of an interactive movie with a branching storyline that you can control the outcome of mainly through dialogue. Sure there are minor puzzles here and there but nothing too in depth. It's not because I haven't played adventure games but more because I've enjoyed point and click games less as I've gotten older for some reason or other.

Posted: Feb 13 2013 11:44 pm

JoshWoodzy wrote:

The-Excel wrote:

The impression I have of this is

That ignorant impression, obviously.

I can see someone not enjoying this if they've literally never played an adventure game before, maybe the kind of people who are used to goofy fighting games, XTREME action games, or overly Japanese niche market games. If that's the case, no you probably won't like it. But calling it an "interactive movie" is a huge disservice. Most of the complaints I've read are from people basically saying "If there are zombies in a game, why can't I attack them with a chainsaw? Where are the cleavage shots and blonde bimbos? Why can't I just shoot things whenever I want?" and these are the worst kind of people.

Basically, it is literally the spiritual successor to LucasArts adventure games (especially since TellTale has Lucasarts alumni), except you can die in this one, unlike the vast majority of LucasArts games. The puzzles are fairly simple, the gameplay is basic but any rational person would know that going into it. The game is 100% about the story, the dialogue and the outcome.

Most of the people upset about it receiving game of the year in multiple publications are people who aren't patient enough to play a game without constant action, or people who are just flat out mad that their favorite game didn't win. It's a case of contrarians everywhere. "Oh shit, a game I don't understand and have not even touched is being critically acclaimed? Better talk shit about it ignorantly and constantly."

I wasn't trying to knock it or anything. In fact, I wasn't giving it any judgment whatsoever. My impression of it is as ignorant as it gets, but this thread is literally the first time I heard anyone even compare it to the old-school adventure games. The people praising it are all too busy talking about how great the characters and story are and even YouTube videos showing it off de-emphasize everything else for their sake.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

ReasonableRam wrote:

It all felt too restrictive. I would have liked more control over the character. It does do storytelling extremely well. I honestly do think it's more of an interactive movie with a branching storyline that you can control the outcome of mainly through dialogue. Sure there are minor puzzles here and there but nothing too in depth. It's not because I haven't played adventure games but more because I've enjoyed point and click games less as I've gotten older for some reason or other.

I can understand it feeling restrictive. Your choices don't matter as much as I'd like, but I enjoy it for what it is.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Comparing the old Sierra & LucasArts games to the new TWD game is like comparing night and day. Those old 80s games were hard as hell and had tons of items to confuse you in where to use each one. In TWD, you're restricted to usually two items per area or chapter. A trained monkey could figure out the game's puzzles.

I'm glad an adventure game is finally getting attention again, but the simplicity of the game belies the entire purpose of being an "adventure game." It's weird, games in the 80s were typically too hard, and nowadays they're too easy. There needs to be a happy medium.

Like I said though, I really like the game, probably more than the TV show. I actually cared for some of the characters instantly, unlike the show.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

The game is just something people aren't used to. It really feels like its own genre. It's point-and-click in a way, but beyond what we're used to. PAC adventures that we've come to know typically have the formula of "pick up item, combine/alter item, use item to progress," but The Walking Dead mixes certain elements of other games into a mix of game and interactive story.

The best example I can think of with this comes in chapter 1 or 2 (forget which), where you have to rescue a girl from a motel room. The motel has a few zombies wandering around, so you have to make your way to the second floor of the motel without any real weapons or without making any noise to alert any zombies to your presence. You have no mini-map, no zoom-out camera, no stealth acrobat moves, kill moves, etc., and you're limited to only seeing what Lee can see in the few times you're allowed to poke your head out of the few alloted safe walls and cover to hide behind. I was in control in a way, but it was presented very well, and having restrictions was what made it difficult and incredibly intense as I got more and more close to revealing my location with each chance and movement I made. If it was a full-control stealth game, I don't think I would have enjoyed it as much as I did.

Typically, with full-control gameplay, you have to give certain concessions to how characters physically act/interact with each other and their environment. You tend to rightfully excuse odd physical collisions or animation because it is intensely difficult as a designer to mix AI and player actions in a smooth and believable manner. You've seen a million shitty gaming webcomics make the point about dumb AIs seeing their bullet-riddled buddy in the snow, looking around for a second, and going "Well, I guess it was nothing," and going back to eternally stare at a wall while talking to themselves.

On the other side of the spectrum are the "interactive movie" style games like visual novels or QTE-style gameplay. While these allow for more visual story-telling or just visual flair, you can feel disconnected from the game, as you feel like you could have just rented a DVD and played with your remote control.

The Walking Dead mixes these two rather well. Think of a tense cutscene in a game where a character has to make a difficult decision as a threat looms just behind them. Now imagine if you had just enough control and vulnerability so that you were in control of the character, but not in control of the situation. It's a nice change, and since you'll have moments of stealth, mystery, action, and other, even unique gameplay scenarios, it's really hard to nail TWD down as either a game or interactive story.

I gushed here, but I feel like the game never gets a good write-up from either supporters or detractors. I'm personally enjoying the hell out of it (just having finished chapter 3 and feeling like the worst person ever). I will also give it credit in that it is one of a few games that I'd label as truly "mature" or even "realistic." though I'm really stretching what most people think of the latter word when it comes to games or media in general.

Posted: Feb 14 2013 01:32 am

Game of the Year? Nah. But I dig this game a lot for what it is, even if a good portion of it is merely an "interactive movie". I don't have any problem with that. It's kind of nice after certain sections where you've spent a good amount of time finding shit to move on. I'm on my second playthrough now...this time I'm going total dick-mode the whole way. I was way too nice the first time around.

I've played a few other point-and-click games and I got bored with them very quickly. I remember everyone telling me to play Broken Sword, how it's fucking great. Snoozefest. But the Walking Dead kept me very interested the whole time. Probably because of the source material, but that's fine. I enjoyed the whole thing from start to finish.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

Cattivo wrote:

Comparing the old Sierra & LucasArts games to the new TWD game is like comparing night and day. Those old 80s games were hard as hell and had tons of items to confuse you in where to use each one. In TWD, you're restricted to usually two items per area or chapter. A trained monkey could figure out the game's puzzles.

I'm glad an adventure game is finally getting attention again, but the simplicity of the game belies the entire purpose of being an "adventure game." It's weird, games in the 80s were typically too hard, and nowadays they're too easy. There needs to be a happy medium.

Like I said though, I really like the game, probably more than the TV show. I actually cared for some of the characters instantly, unlike the show.

This, really.

I mean it's a Point and Click but not in the traditional sense. Point and Click has sort of became this sort of different entity since it really went onto Telltale Games.

The games now are perhaps more story driven and less complex puzzle solving. Whereas perhaps in the past it was more the opposite of that - less dialogue and more puzzles.

At least in most games I can think of from back then there was a story sort of established and then all dialogue with characters was regarding puzzle items or problems that needed solved.

I mean I do think that there is now definitely more reliance on story than puzzle solving. I mean the solutions to the puzzles in TWD are generally on the same screen as you are on.

Like [SPOILERS ALERT] in the 2nd episode where you have to build the swing and all the components are on the same screen or you have to mess up the generator (walk over and pick up the screwdriver and then walk back). I mean they aren't even difficult puzzles, fuck, I wouldn't even call them puzzles.

Puzzles in the traditional sense would usually be something so ridiculous and obtuse that you couldn't even think about it.

What's funny about Telltale though is that the "puzzles" weren't always this stupidly easy. The three seasons of Sam and Max they did actually had some difficult and out of the box puzzles. I think Back to the Future was the real beginning of them "dumbing it down".

Though understand I don't mean that in a bad way. I really like the game, but it's not really a puzzle game. Point and Click has rapidly changed over the years.

Though I would think that due to the fact that BttF and TWD are based on actual properties that it could be the reason why the puzzles have been toned down.

I mean it makes sense really. Those titles are aimed for a mass audience and it I would imagine (due to the death of Point and Click for a long time) that it would be many peoples first game of that type.

I mean I doubt that many people would want to play it if the puzzles were fucking ridiculous. The fact that it is a game based on the Walking Dead meant that it would attract a lot of interest and from a sales perspective it would not make sense to design it in the way of the older Point and Click games.

Again I must say that I have no problem with this. I mean some of the puzzles from the older games made me outright just stop playing the game. The Secret of Monkey Island especially.

However one of the most enjoyable aspects of those games for me was never the puzzles it was always the setting and dialogue. The reason why DOTT is my favorite Point and Click is due to the fact that it's story is ridiculous and the dialogue (even though it is not story driven particularly) was fucking hilarious.

TWD differs to this as I guess it's not meant to be a funny game but it gives you choices that most other games would not give you. The game does lack a bit of freedom in the respect that it's a linear sort of game. I mean the game was designed to have a start and end and it only has one ending (not really a spoiler). Your choices do in fact change the game throughout though and I mean yes there were some bullshit examples of where your choice did not even fucking matter - I refer to Shawn vs Duck where even if you try to save Shawn, Duck still fucking lives and he dies. It makes sense from a real life perspective in that even your attempts can fail but from a game perspective it makes it feel like you've been fucked over and in fact had no choice at all.

So yeah it's a good game lol..