well, I took his recommendation here, and went and bought it straight after seeing this video. I already finished it and must say it was worth every penny. After Christmas I'm going to have another run through it, it was so engrossing.
I bought it all as one on steam as soon as the video ended. If you mean retail though, I can't help you there.Fappy said:I've heard they're planning to release all the episodes as one game soon. Any chance anyone knows when that'll be available?
Strange thing was, I never hated him. I always just pitied him so much. Every action he did, he thought he was helping, but every time it made things worse. The only time I actually felt truly angry at him was when I left him on watch for Clem, and he didn't seem to take it seriously.lockgar said:
Liability tier?
No mention to perhaps one of the most hated characters in the game. Who simple existence caused so much harm and misery to those around him?
This game is amazing how they made me hate a character so much despite he is never actually doing anything against you intentionally.
Although I'm against the games decision of not letting you get rid of him as you see him.
I agree. I never hated him either. Some people despised him with a fiery passion, but all I ever felt was pity. In a way he honestly kind of reminded me of myself. He had a good heart and did things he thought would help. He wasn't the brightest of the group, and he caused more misery then any other. But he didn't do it out of malice. He did it out of misplaced kindness. And I have to respect that more then anything.Dr. Crawver said:Strange thing was, I never hated him. I always just pitied him so much. Every action he did, he thought he was helping, but every time it made things worse. The only time I actually felt truly angry at him was when I left him on watch for Clem, and he didn't seem to take it seriously.
In the end though, when I had the choice to let him die, or risk everyone to save him, I listened to his pitiful pleas to let him go, and I thought at least he gets to choose his end, and he fell.
And then I realized in horror as he survived the fall, and had probably given him one of the worst deaths of the group. All because he was such a klutz. He never deserved that.
Great game.
I hated that guy with a passion by the end of the game, my friend tried to make a case for to me to like him but there just isn't anything there that makes me want too.lockgar said:snip
ccdohl said:Well, some might argue that games are about the experience and, as long as I enjoyed the experience, then there is no reason to worry about how much interactivity or gameplay that there is in the game.Delcast said:I know it's a very Nintendo fanboy card to play, but games are about Gameplay, and gameplay should enhance the experience of the story.
There's no reason to think that there is a minimum level or type of interactivity or gameplay that is required to enhance an experience, as long as the experience is good, right? This was a phenomenal experience for what it was.
The whole point of a game is to offer an interactive experience. The Walking Dead does this and more. An emphasis on storytelling does not mean multiple endings, and the whole point of the choices are to put you on the spot. Of all titles released in 2012, no game is more deserving of such an award, because it was such a sheer emotional powerhouse.ExtraDebit said:Walking Dead was a good experience but can hardly be called a "game", there's hardly any gameplay in it. It's more like an interactive movie and for something with its main emphasis on story it doesn't even have multiple endings. In addition for people who played the scenarios multiple times they'll realized the player's choice is an illusion which doesn't really change anything. The people who are going to die are going to die and the ones that's going to live will live.
While it certainly deserves mentioning, it's by no way "game of the year".
To be fair, this is one of the few games that truly aligned the player's motivations with the protagonist's: protecting Clementine.Delcast said:ccdohl said:Well, some might argue that games are about the experience and, as long as I enjoyed the experience, then there is no reason to worry about how much interactivity or gameplay that there is in the game.Delcast said:I know it's a very Nintendo fanboy card to play, but games are about Gameplay, and gameplay should enhance the experience of the story.
There's no reason to think that there is a minimum level or type of interactivity or gameplay that is required to enhance an experience, as long as the experience is good, right? This was a phenomenal experience for what it was.
Yep I agree, engagement doesn't fully respond to gameplay (about that term "interactivity", don't get me started, but a game is not more interactive because you can press more buttons, that has nothing to do with engagement or interactivity), but then there are more issues with the Walking Dead.
To keep it on the less theoretical side, it wasn't a bad experience for sure, but I did not think the game iself was enhanced by the functional implementation(in fact, the structured nature of the game often managed to break the 4th wall, particularly when dealing with the few puzzles of the game), particulary in some situations where I KNEW EXACTLY -what- to do, but not -how- to do it (the old try everything everywhere philosophy of adventure games).
It is all a matter of experience for sure, but when you -feel- that you are doing what the game wants you to be doing, rather than whay you think you should be doing, it shatters the illusion, and it heavily hampers the experience. Great games make you want to do what the game wants you to do, aligning the goals, mantaining this projection of yourself within the game. A great example of this is the way that Journey uses wind gusts to subtly veer you into the path, without putting a rigid YOU SHALL NOT PASS wall.
Yes but once again, that is a story resource, not a gameplay aspect. And that works as a motivation, but doesn't fix the problems of the game.Milkman said:To be fair, this is one of the few games that truly aligned the player's motivations with the protagonist's: protecting Clementine.Delcast said:ccdohl said:*snip*
Well, some might argue that games are about the experience and, as long as I enjoyed the experience, then there is no reason to worry about how much interactivity or gameplay that there is in the game.
There's no reason to think that there is a minimum level or type of interactivity or gameplay that is required to enhance an experience, as long as the experience is good, right? This was a phenomenal experience for what it was.
Yep I agree, engagement doesn't fully respond to gameplay (about that term "interactivity", don't get me started, but a game is not more interactive because you can press more buttons, that has nothing to do with engagement or interactivity), but then there are more issues with the Walking Dead.
To keep it on the less theoretical side, it wasn't a bad experience for sure, but I did not think the game iself was enhanced by the functional implementation(in fact, the structured nature of the game often managed to break the 4th wall, particularly when dealing with the few puzzles of the game), particulary in some situations where I KNEW EXACTLY -what- to do, but not -how- to do it (the old try everything everywhere philosophy of adventure games).
It is all a matter of experience for sure, but when you -feel- that you are doing what the game wants you to be doing, rather than whay you think you should be doing, it shatters the illusion, and it heavily hampers the experience. Great games make you want to do what the game wants you to do, aligning the goals, mantaining this projection of yourself within the game. A great example of this is the way that Journey uses wind gusts to subtly veer you into the path, without putting a rigid YOU SHALL NOT PASS wall.