charliesbass said:
I wouldn't say he hates Mass Effect, just that he thinks there's too much story and not enough game and that the gameplay isn't strong enough to hold everything up and certain aspects of the game suffer because of it. I'd say he rips on it about the same as most other games he reviews.
No, he's pretty fair to it, though I disagree with him. Not to mention the cover based shooting mechanics and the genre confusion it seems to have between RPG and Action. It was pretty clear he simply didn't like it. Though his experience with Dragon Age seems to be much more personal and dear to him, which is interesting in general.
JoaoJatoba said:
Second, Dude!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=117825586
If a GAME says it'll change based on how I play and that the GAME adapts to the choices I make, I greatly expect that either the gameplay or the story will change (gameplay + story = video game, for me), which I just didn't see happening so far. That's my only complain about TWD! They say on the first title screen that and that doesn't happen.
I get WHAT the game is about! It's about relations. It's about Lee and Clementine, how the grow together and how they interact with the other characters, and not about how you can change your fate. On the story level, it's wonderful and beautiful, but it doesn't change the fact that I, and I alone, feel there is an unfulfilled promise that the designers of the game stamped on the front of each episode. If that little warning before each episode was not on the game, I would not be ranting at all.
This game series adapts to the choices you make. It adapts is tailored to how you play.
Without giving away the ending, I'm going to say that this is true. And yes, I was very annoyed during initial playthroughs with the seeming lack of "choice" until I realized something very true. Lee has a plethora of choices, but like everyone in this situation, they're all reacting to what happens to them. They aren't acting per se. They are in a situation they can't easily get out of, like most characters. Aristotle generally heralded plot over character (though this is generally treated as if he thought character was unimportant, but that's not true, he just felt plot was something that happened to people rather than driven by people), and this hasn't really changed since.
But the game isn't lying. It is "tailored" to your choices. Like a suit is tailored to you. You can't choose the pattern on the suit, but you can make it fit. And that is what The Walking Dead is trying to do - make Lee fit you. Lee can change by your actions.
This is why I use Mass Effect as an example. This is a game series heralded for choice and had entire backlash of the ending is due to that. Though I never expected the ending to be that much of a choice as it hadn't been the entire time through. The plot structure of Paragon and Renegade isn't that much different, and yet it's treated as if it is. However there are very few "moral dillemmas" in the game, with a few great standouts (Rachnar Queen, Legion's loyalty mission, Mordin's development, etc). TWD is full of these dilemmas, and while the plot moves on with and without Lee's consent,
I likened Mass Effect's players' role to that of a film director. In the dialog wheel you don't choose dialog, you choose subtext. Shepard is "your" Shepard, but s/he isn't you. You cast him/her, and told him/her where to go, and what her choices are. But that's where the interaction lies. You could say the same about Lee.
I really would like to discuss the ending with you in the near future, but I can't say it or even my opinion of it without ruining it for you.
What I say is that going back and replaying it episode by episode to see how different things pan out can ruin it for you. It almost did for me. I decided around Episode 3 to play the whole thing blind and realized what it was trying to do. My feelings on the ending are mixed, but I have to say that it very much is tailored to you as a player. The percentage boards at the end of each episode also emphasize choice - though I think by now it's a bit flawed mainly due to people replaying it a lot now, whereas when it was initially released episodically the feedback was more instant.
I think Alpha Protocol is a better example of branching storylines. You even need to play through it multiple times to actually understand what the plot is about. Protagonists and Antagonists change based on your decisions even. This doesn't happen in any other game I've played that heralded choice so much, and Alpha Protocol barely marketed it that way, and people felt it to be a poor mans Mass Effect (it also introduced timed conversations, something followed by Deus Ex: Human Revolution and The Walking Dead). That and Planescape: Torment.
But I preferred the emotional experience I got out of The Walking Dead. I think the reason is consequence. You get a feeling of weight and consequence to your actions by the end. The game then asks the question, how much do these kinds of choices mean in this world?
Ed130 said:
If you hit quote for each different person they will stack up in the 'Reply to Thread' box.
All you have to do is snip the posts and Bam! everyone gets a quoted message in their inbox!
It'll help keep other posters and (possibly) mods off your case.
Thanks, trying it now.
lollerskating said:
That wire hanger abortion joke made me feel sick. That's honestly all I have to say about this since I've mostly played indie games and shit like Morrowind which is 10 years old this year. I mean last year. Dammit.
Yeah, that hit me a bit weird, too.
However, this was a great year for indie games, wasn't it? outside of Amy, most of the titles released this year have been rather amazing.