The Walking Dead, absolutely the best game of 2012

[alphamalet]

Holy shit look at all the people who don't understand what a story-driven game is.

Didn't we all agree that games are starting to become, and should be, more than just tic-tac-toe with shiny eye-candy? You know, all that talk about how videogames are becoming more than games and we should find some other term for them?

Because you're being really obtuse, complaining about "gameplay" in a title such as this.

GOTY is still Dark Souls for me, because I'm a PC gamer. The waiting was worth it. But Walking Dead was pretty good too.
Though I still prefer some of my visual novels and other obscure shit I read if we're to only take the story part into account.

I think most intelligent posters here understand what a story-driven game is, that isn't the issue here. The problem with The Walking Dead is that it doesn't really have much gameplay. What it mostly has is basic interactivity, that helps shape the narrative that it tells. When there is a bit of gameplay, it lacks agency, is unsatisfying, is far too easy, and a lot of the time has very poor controls. I think most people would agree that the actual segments of gameplay in The Walking Dead got in the way of what the game's primary focus was, its narrative. When you have a game whose gameplay feels like frivolous trite, then why are you making a game?

I understand minimalistic game design, and I am sure many of you will argue that having minimalistic gameplay was not only a choice of the developer, but also better serves the experience that The Walking Dead attempts to create. I wholeheartedly disagree. Let's take a look at Journey, another game that came out this year. The gameplay of Journey was very minimalistic. You spend most of your time walking, there is really nothing that goes on in the world you traverse, and the only method of communication you have with other players is a fleeting light that is accompanied by a chiming noise.

Here's the difference between The Walking Dead, and Journey though. The juxtaposition of minimalistic gameplay accompanied by the Journey's atmosphere and tone aids the overall emotions that the game attempts to evoke. Walking from point A to point B evokes feelings of isolation and hopelessness as your ultimate destination seems so far away, almost to the point of being unobtainable. Cultivating emotional attachment to fellow players that you come across while playing the game, despite the utter lack of any means of sufficient communication, demonstrates our ability to sympathize, humanize, and collaborate with beings we can relate to and share a commonality with.

In The Walking Dead, the gameplay of the game did nothing to serve the emotions it attempted to evoke, and in most cases pulled you out of the experience. The controls during the shooting sections were terrible. The puzzles were laughably simple, and felt more like a chore. The sections where you had to find a specific object in a confined space to progress through the narrative were both boring, and interrupted the pace of what was happening.

What I, and others are arguing is when you have a game whose gameplay gets in the way of the experience, something has gone terribly wrong. I for one don't think that the devaluation of gameplay is evidence that the medium is evolving, and definitely don't think that such efforts deserve accolades like "Game of the Year." Gameplay, not interactivity, is the one thing that makes video games as a medium unique. Why not embrace it?

I know some of you are going to challenge me on what I mean by interactivity versus what I mean by gameplay, so to stop pointless squabbles about that, I'll define what both mean.

Interactivity purely means to be able to have input in a system, with a result.
Gameplay is the partaking of a challenge within a system, defined by rules, in which a quantifiable outcome results.

The dialogue choices in The Walking Dead do accept input, and do have a result. They do not present a challenge that results in a quantifiable outcome. You obviously can't fail the dialogue choices in the game, and the results of the dialogue choices are not quantifiable; they elicit different emotional responses from each player that are both relative and can't be measured. Calling the dialogue choices in The Walking Dead gameplay would be like calling the ability to move your mouse and click icons on your desktop gameplay. You don't play your desktop, you interact with it, just like you don't play the dialogue choices in the Walking Dead, you interact with them.

 

[veloper]

But most here wouldn't even know about Primordia, because it's a small indie title.

LOOOOOOOL!

You are aware this is where indie game hipsters congregate, right?

Also..... "+/- retro style('90s) graphics."

This is a plus now?!?

A plusminus, but you already decided on a minus.

Indie gamers are a minority here. Most here care much about their fancy gfx like you do. Indie gamers who also play puzzle-adventure games may be even fewer still.

Spoiler: LOOOOL

Bad graphics aren't a plus =/= I care too much about fancy gfx!!!!!

Indie gamers aren't in a minority here. Sorry to make you feel less like a special snowflake.... But no. And puzzle lovers are in somewhat of an abundance here too. Not really surprisingly, the two cross over.

Lots of people here have a steam account, and there's an indie puzzle game on sale every other week.

We all have Steam. That doesn't mean all play indie games, let alone know the AG scene. Sales don't imply we buy everything.
I've been around here long enough to know it's a minority here. Steam doesn't come into it.

How can you even decide on a GOTY when you don't know about the good releases this year?
I wouldn't have made a big deal about it, if it just were another triple-A blockbuster shooter winning this year, but now we have the ignorant reviewers putting the decline of the adventure game genre on a big pedestal.

Everyone has heard about Deponia, and that's probably a better example of a straight up adventure game than the Walking dead.... Yet people still choose the walking dead over it.... Because it has a fantastic story, not because it's an adventure game.

Machinarium is probably my favourite adventure game, mainly because of it's light hearted story, quirky art style and awesome sound track. Doesn't mean I'm going to throw a hissy fit because someone is gushing over a game I don't rate as highly.

What I'm saying in a round about way is, get off your high horse and stop thinking you're a special little snowflake who knows so much more about games because you buy the odd indie game off of steam, or because you hang around indieDB. Your opinion here isn't worth any more than an 'ignorant reviewer' because you have a Desura account.

Most TWD fans wouldn't even have played Deponia and that is actually one of the higher profile adventure games. Not that I would nominate that. Sitting on a high horse is good when you're standing in the dirt.

My question still stands: how can you even decide on a GOTY when you don't know about the good releases this year?
A cross genre GOTY is a stupid contest in any case, but now we can focus on just adventure games since a GOTY implies the AGOTY aswell.

 

[veloper]

We all have Steam. That doesn't mean all play indie games, let alone know the AG scene. Sales don't imply we buy everything.
I've been around here long enough to know it's a minority here. Steam doesn't come into it.

Because valve puts things in the sale they know they aren't going to shift...

They wouldn't still be putting indie games up if they didn't have a buzzing market for them. Even if it is only the "Eh, it's only a pound. May aswell get it." crowd.

Any game they sell is profit. That's the advantage of digital distibution. No, these games don't shift alot. Enough to keep the devs afloat hopefully, but it's still a niche segment.

Indie game players aren't in a minority here. No matter how many times you say it, it's not going to be true. There's a massive concentration of them here. Every other week you see a thread made simply to bash AAA games because they "focus on teh grapheex not da gamplays" or "as anyouse erd about dis game... I beets nawt coz its an underground gam. let me tell you why you suck for nawt nowings eet."

Notice that those topics are made by only a handful of members. It doesn't take a crowd to make new topics.

Most TWD fans wouldn't even have played Deponia and that is actually one of the higher profile adventure games.

No shit!?!

That wouldn't have been why I said "Everyone has heard about Deponia" would it? Nah, can't be.

You can do better than that. Higher does not mean high. Higher in a niche genre is still fairly obscure.
Did they play it? Most of them didn't. Hear about or read atleast a review? Maybe a handful more.

My question still stands: how can you even decide on a GOTY when you don't know about the good releases this year?
A cross genre GOTY is a stupid contest in any case, but now we can focus on just adventure games since a GOTY implies the AGOTY aswell.

The Walking Dead comes along and totally ousts Journey as MY CHOICE of GOTY for 2012.

Now I know you probably didn't actually read the OP and just wanted to show of how special you are because you have a Desura account and play those super secret games you don't think anyone else has heard about.

That's weak. TWD is receiving many GOTY now, from users and prominent reviewers alike. The question was a general question; we have an audience here. How can anyone decide on a GOTY when they don't know about the good releases this year?

You're not required to have played or even heard about every game to come out that year to choose your own, personal GOTY. And again, I think you'd be [un]pleasantly surpsied at how many people have played the games you seem to think are so obscure.

Anyone can. Anyone else can also call them out for their unfounded opinions. An opinion being personal doesn't grant total immunity; that is only a copout. That's not the issue.
These GOTY nominations are so poorly justified they deserve flak. People should play more games before they hand out GOTYs or a GOTY is too much random luck which games one happened to pick up.

So back to niches. The indie AG scene is scraping by. Cannot be that many who play those games.

 

[veloper]

We all have Steam. That doesn't mean all play indie games, let alone know the AG scene. Sales don't imply we buy everything.
I've been around here long enough to know it's a minority here. Steam doesn't come into it.

Because valve puts things in the sale they know they aren't going to shift...

They wouldn't still be putting indie games up if they didn't have a buzzing market for them. Even if it is only the "Eh, it's only a pound. May aswell get it." crowd.

Any game they sell is profit. That's the advantage of digital distibution. No, these games don't shift alot. Enough to keep the devs afloat hopefully, but it's still a niche segment.

But the objective is to shift as many units as possible. They certainly wouldn't keep highlighting indie games if there wasn't at least a marginally large audience willing to buy them.

Marginally large is an interesting choice of words. I would simply say small.

Indie game players aren't in a minority here. No matter how many times you say it, it's not going to be true. There's a massive concentration of them here. Every other week you see a thread made simply to bash AAA games because they "focus on teh grapheex not da gamplays" or "as anyouse erd about dis game... I beets nawt coz its an underground gam. let me tell you why you suck for nawt nowings eet."

Notice that those topics are made by only a handful of members. It doesn't take a crowd to make new topics.

Do you not notice how many people reply in agreement?

Sure, those posters usually belong to that same small audience.

Most TWD fans wouldn't even have played Deponia and that is actually one of the higher profile adventure games.

No shit!?!

That wouldn't have been why I said "Everyone has heard about Deponia" would it? Nah, can't be.

You can do better than that. Higher does not mean high. Higher in a niche genre is still fairly obscure.
Did they play it? Most of them didn't. Hear about or read atleast a review? Maybe a handful more.

Deponia was plastered all over steam for weeks.

It may not have sold like CoD. But it's hardly an obscure title.

The rare gamer who is looking for some recent AG titles will definitely stumble upon Deponia. I'll grant you it's not really obscure, just niche.

My question still stands: how can you even decide on a GOTY when you don't know about the good releases this year?
A cross genre GOTY is a stupid contest in any case, but now we can focus on just adventure games since a GOTY implies the AGOTY aswell.

The Walking Dead comes along and totally ousts Journey as MY CHOICE of GOTY for 2012.

Now I know you probably didn't actually read the OP and just wanted to show of how special you are because you have a Desura account and play those super secret games you don't think anyone else has heard about.

That's weak. TWD is receiving many GOTY now, from users and prominent reviewers alike. The question was a general question; we have an audience here. How can anyone decide on a GOTY when they don't know about the good releases this year?

Do you think you live in some alternate reality where you get to hear about all these top secret games that the rest of us riff raff never know about?

Because that's what it sounds like.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I asked a question. To clarify: it's not like some gamers cannot find those AGs if they looked for them; it's that they simply don't look and then name their GOTYs.

You're not required to have played or even heard about every game to come out that year to choose your own, personal GOTY. And again, I think you'd be [un]pleasantly surprised at how many people have played the games you seem to think are so obscure.

Anyone can. Anyone else can also call them out for their unfounded opinions.

LOOOOL

An opinion being personal doesn't grant total immunity;

LOOOOOOOOOOOOL

that is only a copout. That's not the issue.

No, the issue is that you seem to think that you're some sort of oracle that has on the pulse knowledge that no one else possesses.

Hardly. I'm merely judging. As are you.

This is what makes a topic so much more interesting than a thread of posters just voicing their humble opinions in turn and ignoring eachothers posts.
Atleast we are making our entertainment here and you can't deny that.

These GOTY nominations are so poorly justified they deserve flak.

'A person really likes a game I don't personally rate.

THEY WILL SUFFER FOR THIS INDIGNITY!

Not quite that, but I'm never satisfied with just a lame "I liked it".
I'd respect it more if a TWD fan would flat out say that all he or she wants is some sentimental sob story, no gameplay required.

People should play more games before they hand out GOTYs or a GOTY is too much random luck which games one happened to pick up.

'No, I'm sorry, you haven't fulfilled your quota for this year. You are not allowed an opinion. Please move along before I'm forced to call the obscure hipster police and have them write you a ticket for not having played the games I deem worth of praise.'

Without all the exageration on your part, yes, if you think you can properly judge an AGOTY, then you really should play all the recent AGs that came highly recommended in the AG scene. It's the only way to know.

So back to niches. The indie AG scene is scraping by. Cannot be that many who play those games.

'Doesn't sell as much as high profile AAA titles?

Must only sell it to connoisseurs like me.'

Not at all and in fact quite the opposite. I think more people should play the good stuff. Especially if they consider themselves judge enough to hand out GOTYs.

 

[Racecarlock]

I'm just glad that walking dead exists if it means people will get off my ass about enjoying call of duty.

 

[alphamalet]

snip

No, I don't think they do. It's the same crap that got everyone up in arms over Dear Esther and its lack of "gameplay".

Again, I don't think you are giving people enough credit. Yes, we know what a story-driven game is. The problem we start having is when you emphasize story over more pertinent aspects of the medium. As stated in my previous post, gameplay is what makes games unique. Bioware makes heavily story-driven games, but still have deep and robust gameplay to accompany it, The Walking Dead does not. When this sort of thing happens, people like me ask, "Why make a game if you are deemphasizing what makes a game a game."

Because some people can appreciate an interactive experience whose sole purpose in building the interactivity is to add to the experience, not to construct mindless fun through mechanics or challenge the brain in solving puzzles. They're only calling it a "game" because that's the common word for these. I call visual novels games too, though they don't have the standard definition of gameplay, only a few set choices.

I totally understand being able to appreciate an interactive experience. Like you said, visual novels offer a lot of what The Walking Dead tried to do. However an interactive experience IS NOT a game. There is plenty of room for both of these, but when I want a video game I'll play a video game, and when I want an interactive experience, i'll partake in one. The issue with The Walking Dead is that it straddles the line between the two, poorly in my opinion, and suffers because of it. The gameplay of The walking Dead is simply not good. Nobody up to this point has argued it. Why not make it a visual novel instead? I think it would have come out much better. Instead we essential have an interactive experience with some token and poorly implemented gameplay section masquerading as a "video game" and receiving accolades. I, and others don't agree with that.

Irelevant because they couldn't be more different if they tried. Journey uses gameplay to build narrative, Walking Dead uses gameplay to augment it.

You have established in both posts that you believe that The Walking Dead is a story-driven game, and I'm sure you would agree that narrative can be considered the primary focus of the game. If that's the case, why not use the gameplay to build the narrative? That would have embraced the medium the developers chose (ending this entire debate), and possibly lead to a more cohesive experience. You claim that they instead used gameplay to augment the narrative. I don't see how simplistic puzzles added to anything, and certaintly don't see how it helped benefit the "story-driven" game's primary purpose. Again, most people in the thread aren't arguing against the fact that the sections of actual gameplay in the game were poorly done.

And just to clarify, I don't think that Journey and The Walking Dead are apples to oranges. Like I said both have minimalistic gameplay. The difference is that one utilizes the minimalistic gameplay to further what the game attempts to do. The other seems to reluctantly indulge in gameplay every now and then to remind us that they attempted to make a "video game".

It pulled YOU out of the experience, maybe. Not everyone can enjoy a point-and-click adventure game, but subjective tastes does not an objective point of view make.

It's not just me. Mostly everyone in this thread agrees that the gameplay did not serve to better the experience, meaning it pulled them out of it. Secondly, I know what a point-and-click game is, and the Walking Dead barely even qualifies as that. Point-and-click games usually revolve around scanning an environment to find items that help you solve puzzels and continue progression. There are bits of this in The Walking Dead, but again, it is mostly narrative interactivity. The bits that could qualify as point-and-click are poorly done, with terribly easy puzzles, and in my opinion break the pace of the game.

1. The Walking Dead gameplay is unintrusive and not complicated. It does not get in the way of the experience. The Walking Dead without its interactivity is less meaningful.
2. Stop attacking a different position than the one I was arguing. Giving credit to a well written game to encourage further works and set an example for things to come is not trying to "devaluate" your precious mechanics.
3. Board games have gameplay. Card games have gameplay. Tic-tac-toe and other children's games have gameplay. You might want to rethink that statement.
4. Because diversity is needed and if it takes getting a few closed-minded people's underpants in a knot to bring it forth in a medium such as this, then so be it.

1. I think you are mixing up interactivity with gameplay. Surely the game would be far less meaningful without its interactivity, but I don't feel the same about its gameplay. Check my other post if you are confused by what I meant by this statement, or perhaps you just mistyped.
2. I'm not attacking a point you haven't made. In your first post you didn't agree with people complaining about the gameplay of the game. Emphasizing and valuing gameplay, something absolutely precious and what makes games unique, is not being obtuse.
3. Yes I know that all of these have gameplay. I specifically said "video games" so that my point wasn't lost (since we are talking about digital forms of entertainment here), but you are right. A video game is a game. Gameplay is what makes all games unique from any other medium of expression.
4. I'm surely not close-minded. Like I said earlier, I welcome both interactive experiences and video games. I don't think it is close-minded to voice an opposing position to the praise a "game" is garnering as it ungracefully straddles the line between both an interactivity experience and a video game.

Also, your response to my original post came off as a bit agitated. I certainly didn't mean to offend you, and hope to continue this discourse with you if you feel as though you have something meaningful to offer.

 

[BrotherRool]

I'd give it Game of the Year probably, maybe close with Spec Ops. It wasn't my favourite game narrative, that would be To The Moon or Katawa Shoujo (probably Katawa Shoujo. Wow that story leaves an impact) but it was the best overall package.

For the people decrying it as not being game enough. I don't like that argument, games always have restricted interactivity to some extent and that can cover a huge range of appropriate ideas. I don't see the point of limiting the idea of 'game' to things which are challenge/skill based in terms of engagement. We need a word for 'interactive works' and I think game fits there well.

It's not important how 'much' interactivity there is, more interactivity doesn't necessarily make a better game. A button that allows you to control Mario's knees doesn't make Super Mario Bros better. It's okay to say you didn't like TWD because you enjoy challenge/skill based play, or that it didn't hold your attention, but thats a much more useful critcism than arguing that it isn't 'game' enough. Whats important is that the interactivity is used well. Katawa Shoujo and To The Moon have minimal interactivity, but the reason they didn't get GOTY from me is that they used it poorly.

Whereas I challenge anyone to argue that another game released this year understood interactivity better than The Walking Dead. They knew what every choice, every button press, every game hint meant and exactly how it would affect the player and create a bond to the story. You know what? The story of The Walking Dead isn't that great. If it were a film it would seem ridiculously cliched. They went through pretty much every post apocalyptic trope and chose the most normal basic 'girl and parent figure' story to tell. Compare it to The Road, or The Book of Elijah and look at the similarities. But it used the gameplay and choices to make you feel attachment, guilt, pressure, panic. They let you have the gnawing feeling in your mind that 'perhaps if I hadn't done that things wouldn't have gone wrong'

In fact I would argue its almost the first example of games as art, because everything, every aspect of gameplay was designed with their main theme in mind (except for a few puzzles).

So I'd be interested if anyone has got an example of another game that did all that with gameplay.



Personally I was put off by the end though. It was too cruel and they didn't understand that I had attachments to Clementine but also to the other people to. Sure I was sad by the end, but whilst I was sad I was also aware of the feeling that it was a very forced sad caused by an almost sadistic amount of bad stuff happening. The bad stuff didn't feel deserved. Particularly in the teaser at the end.

 

[momijirabbit]

The Walking Dead is more of a choose your own adventure book then a game, how it won GOTY... not even god knows.

 

[alphamalet]

snip

I have attempted to engage you in a civil tone, yet you seem incapable of addressing me, and everyone else in this thread, in a polite and tactful manner. You already said you don't want to continue this conversation, so I won't bother inquiring for a response. I will set the record straight on some of what you said, however.

You're glossing over what I previously said. That video games and interactive experiences are the same thing nowadays.

Interactive experiences and games ARE NOT the same thing. Not even close. Interactive experiences lack gameplay. Gameplay transcends interactivity. I don't know how much clearer I can put it. Refer back to my first post if you are still confused, or perhaps do some research on the subject material before making such a claim.

Besides, my entire point that you seemed to have "glossed over" and have yet to respond to is that The Walking Dead might have been better if it wasn't a game. I think this would have been a far more meaningful conversation to have, and one that I was attempting to have.

Because this works too? Because it's a different kind of story told in a different way? I fail to see why The Walking Dead has to be Journey to be a good title.

You have completely missed my point, twice. I'm not saying that the Walking Dead has to be Journey. I used Journey as, in my opinion, a successful example of minimalistic gameplay aiding in the experience a game was attempting to create.

Why does the Walking Dead's gameplay style work? How does it effectively "augment" the narrative? You have made the assertion that it does twice now, but unlike me, you have not explained the rationale as to why you think so. All you have done is state your position.

If you got the impression that I was arguing The Walking Dead has great gameplay, you got the wrong impression.

The few times they've tried to put puzzles in, they ended up with less impact on what the game's built on. As in, the puzzles were crap as puzzles.

I didn't get that impression, but I'm glad we agree on that. Do you think either of the things you state right here are benchmarks for "Game of the Year". If you do, then fine, but I surely don't.

Stop attacking a different position than the one I was arguing.

How in the world am I attacking a point you haven't made? In your first post you said this:

Didn't we all agree that games are starting to become, and should be, more...

you're being really obtuse, complaining about "gameplay" in a title such as this.

I then went on to say:

I for one don't think that the devaluation of gameplay is evidence that the medium is evolving

Where did I go wrong? You first state that games are evolving, implying that The Walking Dead is evidence of this, and then state that we shouldn't focus on the gameplay in the case of The Walking Dead, a product of this evolution. I have no idea how I am creating a strawman.

To end this post, I am going to be rather blunt.

Holy shit look at all the people who don't understand what a story-driven game is.

You expressed sentiments like this a few times in your posts. After reading your responses, I doubt you're the smartest person in this thread right now.

 

[veloper]

Marginally large is an interesting choice of words. I would simply say small.

And I'd say marginally large.

Indie games aren't AAA titles, they don't have the omnipresent marketing and hundreds of thousands of man hours behind them to really contend with a properly published title.

That doesn't mean their audience has to be small. If it breaks the hundreds of thousands mark then it's been very successful. And I'd call that a marginally large audience of people willing to buy it, and other games like it.

Whatever we call it and wherever you set your limit for "small", it's a smaller audience. Relative.

Sure, those posters usually belong to that same small audience.

Hundreds of replies to one thread with the majority in agreement does not a small audience make. Not in the context of how many people are actually active users here.

Even a couple hundred doesn't have to mean alot. How many users does this site have? I've seen thousands of handles.

The rare gamer who is looking for some recent AG titles will definitely stumble upon Deponia. I'll grant you it's not really obscure, just niche.

Niche doesn't really mean anything on the internet any-more. Survival Horror is a 'niche' market. But the biggest games in it still nearly break the million sales mark.

Niche just means it's not a headline grabber. (even though things like Amnesia are.)

Niche here basicly means the opposite of mainstream. Niche is always smaller. And a million sales wordwide is not a big deal. Anything less than a million is a failure for a big production.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I asked a question. To clarify: it's not like some gamers cannot find those AGs if they looked for them; it's that they simply don't look and then name their GOTYs.

If someone isn't interested in a specific genre then they won't be looking for it.

I can still name my GOTY, despite the fact that I couldn't name a JRPG that has come out in the past 4-5 years.

You don't have to know every game to have come out that year to name your GOTY. Even you with all your obscure titles, won't know half of the games that actually came out this year. It's not reasonable to expect anyone to know and have played every title to have come out within a 12 month period. Not even professional reviewers. We're humans, not time altering, multi tasking demi gods.

Even when you dismiss all the genres you dislike offhand, which makes a GOTY more hollow already, you should still atleast know the games in the genres you claim to like, else you game of the year becomes "some-random-game-I-played-and really-liked of the year".

I'm not asking much here. You can even get away with only playing the recommended stuff in the genre, from only one single year.
To make it easier, a mediocre game doesn't need to played to it's end to judge as mediocre. As for shit can be identified by the smell alone, so you don't need to eat it and still know it's shit.
You're already discarding whole genres, so aswell you can identify and discard the real turds through reviews and youtube, which leaves at most a dozen games per genre per year.

If that's too much then the GOTY is completely worthless and the judging should be left to others who know their stuff.

Hardly. I'm merely judging. As are you.

This is what makes a topic so much more interesting than a thread of posters just voicing their humble opinions in turn and ignoring eachothers posts.
Atleast we are making our entertainment here and you can't deny that.

You're saying people can't have opinions if they're not omniscient.

I'm just having a ball laughing at this.

What a clumsy jab. You can do better than that.
Knowing what you're actually talking about when you hand out big recommendations, is not the same as being omniscient.

Not quite that, but I'm never satisfied with just a lame "I liked it".
I'd respect it more if a TWD fan would flat out say that all he or she wants is some sentimental sob story, no gameplay required.

They've pretty much already said this. Except, obviously not with your wording.

They've all said the gameplay is irrelevant. They just liked the story. And really, it's character development was top notch. Characters had actual arcs. Which isn't something you always find with games.

You know what, if such recommendations come preceded by the relevant qualifiers such as "don't care about gameplay" or "didn't play any other adventure games this year", etc. that would almost be acceptable.
Still worthless, but more honest.

Without all the exageration on your part, yes, if you think you can properly judge an AGOTY, then you really should play all the recent AGs that came highly recommended in the AG scene. It's the only way to know.

Again, we're not time altering, multi tasking demi gods. And these people aren't judging an AGOTY, they're giving their GOTY. As in, their favourite game they've played all year.

And this had made you tip all your toys over and throw your dummy at people.

No, they're just too disinterested to play and therefore shouldn't be making recommendations. Every year is a poor year in AG land; it's not like that there's many games to qualify for an AGOTY.

Not at all and in fact quite the opposite. I think more people should play the good stuff. Especially if they consider themselves judge enough to hand out GOTYs.

What you consider good, others will not. That's the beauty of opinions. They're like arseholes yada yada they all stink yada yada.

Not if you take the easy way. Go with all the common scene recommendations and play those games and judge those by your compatible standards. This is acceptable.
Or, if your opinion is alien, you can take the hard way and play a much wider selection and tell your readers where you come from.
Those two are the wiped arseholes of opinion. Every other opinion on games is an unwiped arsehole.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Just to let people know, it is actually now confirmed that The Walking Dead sale is today on XBLA. The first episode is free, and the other episodes are 200 Microsoft Points each (50% off each).

I'm now downloading them as we speak!

Thanks tippy for crediting me earlier =P

 

[veloper]

Whatever we call it and wherever you set your limit for "small", it's a smaller audience. Relative.

So in context of what you're saying. If it isn't CoD, it's small.

Nope, just a couple million sales is a good benchmark. COD is at a higher order of magnitude still.

Even a couple hundred doesn't have to mean alot. How many users does this site have? I've seen thousands of handles.

Implying everyone who plays indie games feels the need to comment in those threads.... or even reads them.

Implying no such thing. Just that 100 replies isn't very impressive.

Niche here basicly means the opposite of mainstream. Niche is always smaller. And a million sales wordwide is not a big deal. Anything less than a million is a failure for a big production.

A million sales is a pretty big deal when you consider they haven't been published. Fully published games don't always break that mark.

FAILURES of full budget productions don't break that mark. A million isn't very impressive. For an indie game a million is great though.

Even when you dismiss all the genres you dislike offhand, which makes a GOTY more hollow already,

Nope, makes it your personal opinion

A hollow personal opinion.

You should still atleast know the games in the genres you claim to like,

When did anyone here claim to like adventure games. Liking one example of genre doesn't mean you like the genre itself. Especially when it's not a traditional entry for that genre.

I never said you may not LIKE it. You may like X and X may be shit. It's only when you claim that X isn't shit, that you become fair game for criticism.
It's not about just liking something. It's about making the recommendation aswell.

To give you some context. I like the Sweeney Todd musical with Johnny Depp. But I don't like musicals. If I was then going to go and say 'it was the best musical of the year.' People would be well within their rights to go 'what other musicals did you watch.' because it probably isn't a good example fo what people look for in musicals. Depp doesn't exactly have the voice of a tenner. But I'd be well within my rights to say 'that was my favourite film of the year.' (it wasn't, but for the sake of argument.) I don't have to have watched all the other musicals to have come out that year to make that statement. Or even all the other films. I'm simply giving my opinion of the films I've seen.

This is what Daystar did and it really shouldn't be making you have a tantrum.

He said more than that. A GOTY is a recommendation and a very big one.
So in your musical example you are free to LIKE the musical, but since it's not your thing, you are not the person to be giving advice on the matter.

else you game of the year becomes "some-random-game-I-played-and really-liked of the year".

Implying GOTY means anything in the first place. It's always going to be biased because that's what opinions are. You can't be objective about a subjective media.

A GOTY is a very big recommendation. Objectivity has nothing to do with it, but knowledge and experience has.
That is what seperates the informed opinion from the random opinion.

I'm not asking much here.

Nah, just that people know about and play every game to come out in a 12 month period before having the audacity to form an opinion.

Pretty standard stuff really.

You can even get away with only playing the recommended stuff in the genre, from only one single year.
To make it easier, a mediocre game doesn't need to played to it's end to judge as mediocre. As for shit can be identified by the smell alone, so you don't need to eat it and still know it's shit.
You're already discarding whole genres, so aswell you can identify and discard the real turds through reviews and youtube, which leaves at most a dozen games per genre per year.

And I'm sure some other [insert random genre connoisseur here] would moan about something you neglect by doing it your way.

And that would be cause for another argument, which is good. An argument between fans who actually know their subject material can be great fun. For now you will have to do.

If that's too much then the GOTY is completely worthless and the judging should be left to others who know their stuff.

Like you, I suppose?

GOTY's are a way for people to go "Hey guys, I really liked this game I played earlier this year. Go check it out."

No actually, I'm always looking for knowledgeable gamers who can give solid game recommendations to me.
What I don't need is random, baseless opinions by people who don't even know their genres.
Same as with any form of advice, recommendations shouldn't be made lightly. That's of use to noone.

What a clumsy jab. You can do better than that.
Knowing what you're actually talking about when you hand out big recommendations, is not the same as being omniscient.

Knowing about every game that comes out in every genre and being able to give an adequate breakdown of each of them so you can form a truly consise opinion is pretty much omnission.

Maybe it would seem that way to the disinterested and the lazy. You don't have to play all games as I said before.
I'm not asking much.

You know what, if such recommendations come preceded by the relevant qualifiers such as "don't care about gameplay" or "didn't play any other adventure games this year", etc. that would almost be acceptable.
Still worthless, but more honest.

They more or less all came saying "The gameplay is nothing to braga bout, but the story makes up for it."

More or less. Now to turn those statements into qualifiers.

No, they're just too disinterested to play and therefore shouldn't be making recommendations. Every year is a poor year in AG land; it's not like that there's many games to qualify for an AGOTY.

No one gave it an AGOTY. Stop ignoring the point.

I don't think anyone but you have even referred to it as an adventure game. They've simply said "Hey y'all, it's a good game. Go get it."

Which is all a recommendation should be.

No a recommendation should be much more than that and when you give a GOTY to an adventure game you give an AGOTY aswell. Logically, if another AG was better still, then that game should replace your previous GOTY nomination.
You cannot have a best game of the year, that is not as good as another release in the same year. So in this case GOTY and AGOTY.

Fuck saying "it's an adequate entry to the adventure game genre."

Is it fun? What does it have going for it? Would you recommend it?

Pretty much all you need to answer for a recommendation.

That's only enough for liking a game. As a recommendation that will serve nobody.

Not if you take the easy way. Go with all the common scene recommendations and play those games and judge those by your compatible standards. This is acceptable.
Or, if your opinion is alien, you can take the hard way and play a much wider selection and tell your readers where you come from.
Those two are the wiped arseholes of opinion. Every other opinion on games is an unwiped arsehole.

Or you could simply give your opinion and fuck everyone who tries to tick box the fuck out of it.

I'd go with that one personally.

You're going with the unwiped arsehole.

 

[CommanderL]

So I've just finished the final chapter of The Walking Dead, and I'm just... speechless.

I played Journey this year, that game was my game of the year, that has been the one game that I've been talking up all year, the one game, that if you had to buy only one this year, Journey be it.

And now, not days away from the new year, The Walking Dead comes along and totally ousts Journey as my choice of GOTY for 2012.

It is absolutely fucking amazing.

If you have any interest in the storytelling aspect of video game, you need to buy the Walking Dead. The mechanics of the game aren't amazing, but this isn't something you buy to play, if anyone ever asks for an example of good video game writing, point to The Walking Dead, it is the best told story of any game I have ever had the pleasure of experiencing..

You don't play The Walking Dead.

You fucking live it for 10-12 hours.





Thoughts? Have you played it? Are on the fence?

I'm having so many feels right now.

It made me cry...

Checked this thread bought and finished it just now you where right daystar You where right game of the year Plays with your heartstrings like a damn fiddle and the ending I cried hard poor clem