The Walking Dead is not a good game, great story but horrible gameplay

[Dragoon]

Firstly I love the story of the game, don't get me wrong, but it really grinds my gears when people say it's the game of the year. The gameplay in it is almost none existent and what little there is consists of clicking on things and then a few quicktime events.

This is not good gameplay. I think the game would have been much better off as a straight up third person RPG style game rather than a point and click. I constantly found myself bored with the times where you just walked around and did extremely simple puzzles which is bad for a game.

Again I do like the story and characters were great, especially Clementine, but I just found the actual gameplay part sub standard.

 

[GamingAwesome1]

It's still got to be my Game Of The Year, if only because nothing else good story-wise came out this year.

 

[Full]

While I love the game myself, I agree with you. I've noticed, that in a lot of games recently, it tends to be: Good story? Broken gameplay or none at all. Good Gameplay? Nothing for a story and context. Want to try and have both? Clusterfuck of retardation. It seems the more shallow the gameplay, the better the story, and vice versa.

I could be exaggerating.

 

[Zhukov]

And the Captain Obvious award goes to...

...

It's still some of the most fun I've had this year, tissue thin gameplay and all. That makes it GOTY material in my book.

Besides, I rather doubt that being able to equip Lee with a +2 Axe of Amputation so I can do enough damage to kill those nine Level 4 Walkers would have improved the experience one jot.

 

[Nazulu]

Yeah, when I first saw it I thought it could use faster movement and jumping just for the sake of getting through it quicker or for mucking around when you have to wait.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

It is less game than interactive story. Any actual mechanical elements in place actually undermine any enjoyment you're likely to get out of the game in the first place. Functionally, it plays like a choose your own adventure book. Interactive certainly but without any real mechanics in place I wouldn't call it a game.

That doesn't mean it is bad or you aren't free to enjoy it. Just goes to show that attaching "game" to the medium is fairly poor at describing said medium.

 

[Dragoon]

It is less game than interactive story. Any actual mechanical elements in place actually undermine any enjoyment you're likely to get out of the game in the first place. Functionally, it plays like a choose your own adventure book. Interactive certainly but without any real mechanics in place I wouldn't call it a game.

That doesn't mean it is bad or you aren't free to enjoy it. Just goes to show that attaching "game" to the medium is fairly poor at describing said medium.

Exactly what I mean, it's barely a game so when people say it's their Game of the Year it annoys me slightly.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

It's a point and click adventure game when you get right down to it. By your definitions those are not games either? Besides, it had more interesting and varied gameplay than modern shooters like CoD or Battlefield 3.

That said, it can't be Game of the Year in the same year that saw Crusader Kings 2 out. But it is certainly better than 99% of the dreck that got released.

 

[wabbbit]

Hmm, where's my "Do not feed the troll" sign?
On topic,...
It depends what you class as "gameplay" I suppose. The Story was fantastic and the gameplay was choosing the path for your character. How is this any less of a game than anything else?

Easily gone into my top 10-20 games not only as it's the only PnC Adventure game I've actually enjoyed but the story was really well done.

 

[Nonomori]

It is less game than interactive story. Any actual mechanical elements in place actually undermine any enjoyment you're likely to get out of the game in the first place. Functionally, it plays like a choose your own adventure book. Interactive certainly but without any real mechanics in place I wouldn't call it a game.

That doesn't mean it is bad or you aren't free to enjoy it. Just goes to show that attaching "game" to the medium is fairly poor at describing said medium.

Exactly what I mean, it's barely a game so when people say it's their Game of the Year it annoys me slightly.

I don't understand why you care. That's a very personal decision, basically anything with image, sound and interactivity can be your "game of the year".

Do not get me wrong, but I think it's strange coming from you. Persona 4 is mostly a visual novel with ridiculously repetitive gameplay and very weak dungeon design, but you seem quite fond of it. It has the same appeal of The Walking Dead, don't you think? Long conversations, great characters, gameplay in the backseat. I'm not talking this to bother you, seriously, it's one of my favorite games. And Chie is always in my party. Not because of the dungeon crawling, I just like her.

 

[Dragoon]

It's a point and click adventure game when you get right down to it. By your definitions those are not games either? Besides, it had more interesting and varied gameplay than modern shooters like CoD or Battlefield 3.

That said, it can't be Game of the Year in the same year that saw Crusader Kings 2 out. But it is certainly better than 99% of the dreck that got released.

exactly right its a simple point and click adventure. you may not like the simplicity of the point and click mechanics but its still a game and belongs to one of the oldest genres

The problem with point and click games is that they were never much fun, you just played them for the story. The underlying gameplay was bad which means they aren't technically good games, just good stories.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Exactly what I mean, it's barely a game so when people say it's their Game of the Year it annoys me slightly.

It annoys you when people like things you don't like?

The problem with point and click games is that they were never much fun, you just played them for the story. The underlying gameplay was bad which means they aren't technically good games, just good stories.

I guess all that fun I had with point and click games back in the day was illusory, thanks for clearing that up.

And not to be pedantic, but we already had a thread discussing Walking Dead's shortcomings on the "game" side of the ledger. You couldn't have just posted your...thoughts...in that one?

 

[lapan]

It's a point and click adventure game when you get right down to it. By your definitions those are not games either? Besides, it had more interesting and varied gameplay than modern shooters like CoD or Battlefield 3.

That said, it can't be Game of the Year in the same year that saw Crusader Kings 2 out. But it is certainly better than 99% of the dreck that got released.

exactly right its a simple point and click adventure. you may not like the simplicity of the point and click mechanics but its still a game and belongs to one of the oldest genres

The problem with point and click games is that they were never much fun, you just played them for the story. The underlying gameplay was bad which means they aren't technically good games, just good stories.

Monkey Island 1-3 and Day of the Tentacle were some of the greatest fun i had with games. Your dislike of the point&click mechanics are hardly an universal fault of the genre and more an opinion you personally have. It's a different kind of game than the usual and it's good to see that there is still a few good adventures around in this time of shooter hype.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

The gameplay in it is almost none existent and what little there is consists of clicking on things

That is basically what Dragon Age: Origins was to me - click on an enemy, wait for them to die, click on another. Not to mention that game didn't have anything in the story or any characters at all that were the least bit interesting. The Walking Dead seemed to be more like a step up from a Point and Click Adventure, which I thought was good. I thought the story was good, but the ending was just sort of meh to me. All the characters I liked were already gone, and I found Clementine annoying more than anything. Episode 3 was a lot more emotional...

Spoiler: When...

When Carly was shot, because I really liked her. That almost made me quit the game.

But apparently, according to people on another site, I'm possess no human feelings because I wasn't attached to who the game told me to be attached to. As far as emotion goes, I think ending of Spec Ops: The Line was a lot more moving.

For what it is, the game play is fine. It isn't trying to be an RPG or anything and results with crappy game play. I had a lot of fun with Legacy of Time, which was a point and click game. It had puzzles and other things to solve, too.

 

[anthony87]

Something tells me that OP has never played a point and click adventure game....

 

[StupidNincompoop]

... point and click games CAN be good games. I've played quite a lot of point and click games that i'm happy to call great games. Metal dead and tiny bang story, both were good games (tiny bang story being better than metal dead). I've played quite a lot of others, but i can't really think of any other examples.

A point and click game that can't even get the basics right (being able to select things) doesn't really make a good GAME.