Why are there so many negative people on this board saying this game sucks now?
It's sort of insane.
People don't realize what telltale are. They are a small budget studio, they don't have the scope or the resources to produce games that are on the same level (in terms of production or vision) compared to heavy rain, or beyond 2 souls.
This is an independent studio that charges it's customers 5$ per episode, 20$ in all..while most studios charge you 60$ + 50$ of DLC.
You guys are so ungrateful. Sure did the walking dead have flaws? Sure, absolutely. But was it not a masterpiece? I truly think it was.
The game was the first time i ever gave 2 shits about the characters and there struggles. It's the first time that it presented characters going through real human struggles, and the writers brilliantly showed the audience the use of the human condition through lee and clementine.
The writing was brilliant as well..I mean seriously pick up gears of war, pick up hitman absolution..pick up any game off the gamestop rack and just compare it to the walking dead's writing, and narrative and it will just make you laugh and open your eyes how truly terrible narrative and writing it is currently in video games.
What telltale was able to do with a shoe string budget and limited scope and vision is nothing short of amazing.
All I hope is that the sales of the walking dead will truly be the stepping stone for them to grow as a company.
People don't realize what telltale are. They are a small budget studio, they don't have the scope or the resources to produce games that are on the same level (in terms of production or vision) compared to heavy rain, or beyond 2 souls.
This is an independent studio that charges it's customers 5$ per episode, 20$ in all..while most studios charge you 60$ + 50$ of DLC.
You guys are so ungrateful. Sure did the walking dead have flaws? Sure, absolutely. But was it not a masterpiece? I truly think it was.
The game was the first time i ever gave 2 shits about the characters and there struggles. It's the first time that it presented characters going through real human struggles, and the writers brilliantly showed the audience the use of the human condition through lee and clementine.
The writing was brilliant as well..I mean seriously pick up gears of war, pick up hitman absolution..pick up any game off the gamestop rack and just compare it to the walking dead's writing, and narrative and it will just make you laugh and open your eyes how truly terrible narrative and writing it is currently in video games.
What telltale was able to do with a shoe string budget and limited scope and vision is nothing short of amazing.
All I hope is that the sales of the walking dead will truly be the stepping stone for them to grow as a company.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Not just because of this but because of the whole success of the WD, they (Telltale) must be apploused standing.
Some were expecting an open world/choose your own adventure... which I find amusing.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but these are the two most common ones from what I can tell.
This was a flawed masterpiece at best. I think too many people are getting wrapped up in the whole emotion of the story to see the flaws.
I loved the acting, the writing... It was a great game in many respects. BUT it was sold as "your choices will have consequences." But they didn't. Not really. Nobody's fate was changed. Those who died, die in every iteration. Lee still does the same things with one arm or two. Nothing you say or do really impacts the story at all. If TTG want to claim that that story is tailored by the players' choices in a meaningful way... Then those choices need to be meaningful and not illusory.
Finally the "twist" was not well executed and felt hugely contrived. The Stranger was a poorly thought out plot device that collapses under continued scrutiny. It's not just his plan that makes no sense, it's his actual presence. (Not to forget his magical walkie talkie that seems to be capable of having a massive range...)
Now a lot of this can be forgiven - but with having the players choices amount to a conversation that ultimately plays out the same with the same accusations regardless of those decisions... I just hope TTG put a bit more thought into their next season finale, and how player choice needs to make the story actually tailor itself instead of just paying lip service via conversations.
I think gamers expect too much sometimes. To paraphrase a post by someone on another forum, gaming seems to be the only hobby where the participants actively complain and campaign against their own passion. Even readers and movie-goers accept what they are given. They don't have to like it, but at least you don't hear them complaining that they were entitled to a better ending or whatever...
I went into this game with nothing but the expectation that it was taking place in the world of The Walking Dead, and I obviously knew what that meant (zombies, drama and tragedy). I didn't expect my decisions to have any major outcomes on the ending, really. Sure, maybe they could have added more consequence and maybe fleshed out the final chapter better, but overall it was an amazing experience, and I was in no way disappointed.
But then, I'm a pretty easy-going person when it comes to this kind of thing. I realise the game is made by normal people and not super-humans. I'm also fussy about my taste in fiction, and if something can keep me hooked past the first episode/chapter/hour etc, then I'm going to invest in it, see it through to the end, and most importantly, enjoy it.
Actually reality is the complete opposite.
Gaming is about the only industry where fans just let crap storytelling have a free ride and when someone does even a half decent story they are lauded as geniuses.
On the other hand, television and film is constantly bombarded with criticism. Check metacritic sometime.
Film makers and television productions get their fair share of emails and letters from fans complaining about the things they didn't like. And usually in numbers that make video gamers look positively restrained.
Some shows will get MILLIONS of complaints - and that isn't exaggeration.
Meanwhile in the gaming world, any complaint no matter how valid gets shouted down with a "you should be thankful for what you DID get."
What the real problem here is that the video games industry has had it pretty easy for years and seems to really struggle with criticism.
And if you think complaining gets you nowhere... Ubisoft went on record saying that they preferred the complaints about Assassin's Creed over the praise because the complaints helped them work out what needed to be improved in AC2 - and the difference between those two games was quite an improvement.
So to those who can't handle the negative comments, maybe you need to just take a step back and not take it so personally that some people wanted more.
Because some of those negative critiques might just help TTG identify where they can make the second season even better than the first. Imagine that. If you liked the first season, how cool would it be to see the second season be considerably better still?!
The only way that will happen is for TTG to be able to get feedback BOTH positive and negative.
Edit: Also, for the record, I didn't think the game sucked. I just don't think it was the revolutionary masterpiece that it is being touted as. It was very well done, but it didn't actually do anything that hasn't been done before.
Fair enough about TV shows getting a lot of complaints. But, again, to them, I would also say "Be happy with what you get". Maybe it's just me - I'm a bit weird in that I don't really care about gameplay, as long as it's a genre I enjoy and the plot is to my taste. I actually prefer linear games than ones with branching options (the main exception there being Heavy Rain).
There is a difference between constructive criticism and just acting butt-hurt and hating the company. Any artist should be willing to listen to criticism in order to improve, that's obvious. I'm assuming this thread was started after the OP read the venting thread, which, while people have good points, many posts are over the top in their hatred. There's nothing wrong with a thread that counters another, especially since a few posts there said to defenders that they shouldn't be there, as it is a 'venting' thread.
I don't think there's anybody that can't 'handle' the negative comments. People just want to share their opinions. I don't know; I've just never felt it was my place to complain about what we are given. For me, there are positives and negatives in everything, even my favourite games ever. Everything has flaws. I'm just happy to have experienced what I perceive to be an exceptional story.
I have to say - I have not seen that much over the top hatred at all. What I *have* seen is a lot of "this game is flawless, stop being so butthurt" type stuff in the venting thread.
Sharing your opinion is not a defence against having that opinion questioned. I see a lot of "it's just my opinion" being used as if it was some kind of talisman against being challenged over what you said. As long as people are civil, they should be able to question each other's arguments. From both sides of the issue regarding the ending of the series.
That's an unusual position to hold and one I see being presented more and more often in gaming. The fact is, you paid money for this game. That gives you the right to complain if what you paid for was not what you felt you were promised.
Never be afraid to complain about the things that didn't work for you, even if you loved most of it. Just be civil about it and make sure you mention that *did* work as well.
Like I said, the voice acting and the writing was fantastic. I loved the aesthetic and style of the game. But I'm not going to be shy in saying that if they want to have choices in the game, then those choices should matter and that I did not feel that they did matter in this game.
Saying everything has flaws doesn't mean you should politely ignore them. It means you should point them out to help with identifying them. Especially if you forked out cash - regards of whether it was $2 or $200.
What I am against, though, is being rude about it. Like the guys who say "the writing was crap" or "this was s**t" - that's not helpful.
For example, I thought the writing was great... but it had its flaws. The Stranger was a weak plot device and needed a lot more development to make him work as a twist in the tale. As it was presented, he's too contrived and upon scrutiny his presence and actions raise far too many awkward questions.
But I wouldn't call it lazy writing. The Catalyst in Mass Effect 3 was lazy writing. At least The Stranger was foreshadowed and there was some attempt to give his motivations a link to the overall story.
And I too loved the parallels to Episode 1 in the final scene between Lee and Clem.
My biggest beef is that none of your choices changed anyone's fate. Clem ends up in the same place regardless, Ben still dies, Kenny still dies, Lilly still leaves the group, Doug AND Carly both die just in a different order after both helping at the exact same time to get the exact same result...
Choices do matter, and the idea that nothing we do has any impact is not a realistic view of the world.
The biggest problem is that too many companies have done the "choices don't really matter but we'll claim they do" gameplay before. Honestly, there is little about The Walking Dead that is actually innovative or revolutionary. Good storytelling, good voice acting, a touching story - these have all been done before and in one package. That TTG did it really well is great, but they still made the same "choices don't matter" mistake - and for a lot of gamers like me, we're kind of sick and tired of being promised that a game is going to be tailored to a personal experience only to end up being the same experience with mild cosmetic changes.
Especially when Heavy Rain, The Witcher, The Witcher 2, Alpha Protocol, Fallout: New Vegas and the like have all shown that you *can* make choices cause big narrative ripples without undoing the strength of the narrative - and in the case of Witcher 2 it makes the game much more personal because your choices greatly change how things play out. (To the tune of 16 possible unique endings.)
Well, you see, I didn't feel like I was promised anything other than a game set in the world of The Walking Dead. I know other people expected more, but I got what I personally was 'promised'. But then, I didn't feel the need to read the developers interviews and such. I just heard 'The Walking Dead' and 'adventure game' and nearly wet myself :P
That's another good point actually, there are so few adventure games just now, especially on xbox, my preferred console. I appreciate all I can get of a (hopefully not) dying genre!
I'm certainly not afraid to complain, but then, I seem to be more forgiving than most gamers. I also usually come to appreciate the flaws for what they are, if I love a game enough. I don't ignore or deny them. Some of my favourite games have horrible translations, contrived plots, wonky controls. Some of my favourite films, books and TV series are poorly executed in some ways, too.
I think this game doesn't bother me too much because I tend to judge fiction on its overall plot, message, and most importantly, how it makes me feel.
EDIT - I'm Scottish and female. Complaining is something I excel at, if I feel the need
Yep Dread pretty much summed most of the haters up. There are also
Those who are angry at the ep being so short
Those who are angry that their decisions didn't seem to matter.
I think quality not quantity applies to the first group and I still don't understand the second group. TT only has so much recourses, they can't make two completely different plot lines. Also if they say made a way for Lee or Carely to survive then everyone would go back and make the right decisions, which is stupid.
Also another Scot in this forum! Yay!
*High five*
Okay, as someone who has written professionally and currently is working on a couple of projects for funding, I'm going to let you in on a little secret.
Writing two different plot lines does not take up any more resources than writing one. In fact the development process of writing usually sees *dozens* of plot lines created and tweaked.
This game could have run exactly the same for four episodes and had a simple branching into a number of alternate plot lines in episode 5 with only a few small scene changes with the large bulk of the "multiple endings" only showing up in the final scene - and it would have all felt the every choice along the way impacted the story.
They didn't need to have dozens of endings. Even just three or four would have worked - and these would just be in the epilogue.
TTG have already shown they have resources to have alternate conversations and scenes. So what this seems to have come down to is that they had decided from the outset to not have a branching storyline but a single story that gave the illusion that the player had any choices.
That's not a resource issue, that's an ambition/creative choice issue.
*Bro fist*
Also wouldn't branching plot lines mean you have to make and edit different scenes like Ben/Kenny or Christa/Kenny death scenes. Wouldn't that mean extra work for the VA, not to mention its not like they have a huge amount of time to make episodes in the first place.
Do you want a Fallout style thing were decisions only seem to matter at the end maybe in a slide-show or cutscenes. I think the problem with that is if people get a "bad" ending, like maybe Clem gets killed and Lee dies, and there is a "good" ending where Clem lives then I bet most people will just go back and play it that way, which ruins the point of having even small choices anyway. For most people "bad" endings will be just fancy game over scenes and they will just start again which ruins the whole theme of the walking dead.
Feels like I didn't put down by point on decisions down clearly. Hope it makes sense.
I acutally haven't seen anyone yet say that the game sucks. I only see people point out things that they would have liked to seen improved (mostly stuff like better ending, and more impact on choices). I myself did many posts on how I am disappointed about how little to none impact all choices have. But I still liked the game. I just thought the marketing was wrong and maybe it gave me some hope for something that wasn't gonna happen.
Still, the writing, the voiceacting, the story etc. are superb. Yet I complain a lot about choices have no impact but that doesn't mean I say the game sucks.
There doesn't need to be a "good" or "bad" ending. What there should have been is a stronger indication as to what Clem's future holds and the multiple endings just needed to be a case of who survived to protect Clem after Lee died.
That's the thing about the game - they could have kept everything just as is right up to episode 5 and just had the scene where Kenny and Ben die change to be one where Kenny OR Ben die based on who goes with you through that area. Then have the conversations on the hospital roof and in the manor attic choose who out of Kenny/Ben/Christa and Omid/combination thereof will make it through to the end to meet up with Clem at the end of the game.
It would have been pretty simple to do too - just have Kenny or Ben escape and agree to meet up later, just like with Christa and Omid at the sign.
Voila! You would have been left with the impression that your decisions had mattered, there wouldn't have been a "good" or "bad" ending and there would have been still room for season 2.
Then at the start of season 2 it can be as simple as Clem decides to break away from whoever she ended up with. Or have a new Protagonist who crosses paths with Clem and the survivor she teamed up with to learn how well they are getting on.
The demand on resources would not have been much more than was already being commited to the scenes they had coded and recorded.
I mean, TTG has really excelled in making likable and realistic characters. Too bad it had to be a TWD game where people die every now and then. Because you get attached to them and when they die, it hurts.
One thing I'd like to point out regarding the lack of resolution in Clem's story is that this series of episodes deals with Lee's story and fittingly ends with his death. Really there shouldn't be an epilogue scene (as I believe that is the only scene in the game that Lee isn't in) but that's the way Telltale decided to go.
So anyway, my basic point is that just because this isn't how you would end the game it doesn't mean that it isn't perfectly valid and besides it's not as if you have much choice really.
Yeah, I guess some people ended this last episode and got a bit frustated. I did. But then...here I am talking about the game.
Could have some more options, etc, but it kept me going interested on it.
I don't want to put myself in their place, defending or trying to say I know what everyone is thinking but I guess many of those who jumped saying it was awful and worst it was because they lived the game with some intensity. Let them have their time to calm down. If we could stand kenny to the end, we must wait for them to calm down and maybe their intentions were not that bad either. They're just stressed, still living the intensity of the game and they had their hopes for a different end.
For the crew that made this game possible, just want to say thanks
Except, of course, that his motivation was kind of questionable and his ability to get to Savannah, find The Marsh House, set up a trap and wait while the city is overrun - not to mention his Walkie Talkie and the logistics of how he kept up with the train - all begger belief.
Seriously. How did the guy manage to get his car to Savannah without anyone noticing, as quickly as a train, on roads over-run with Walkers and debris without having any issues with petrol?
It felt very unrealistic at that point in the game because the number of pure coincidences and events that would had to have happened to allow him to get there at that time... makes it very contrived.
All well made points. I think his character was great and was simply stating why I thought he made for a final antagonist while others were disappointed because he simply wasn't a stereotypical bad guy; I loved that entire sequence with him in it. His motivation seemed to be revenge intially, but I think that was more of a mask for this man to cope with his own failings as a father and person and put them on Lee's character to hate him and kill him as a twisted form of dealing with his own insecurities. That's why no matter how good Lee can be, this man will always find a reason to torture and kill him and take Clem away from him since he needs someone to focus his hatred on, who better than the people than who stole from him; that's the "villain" inside him.
As for his actions, I definitely agree that it required a little too many leaps of faith to accept how he stayed alive and traveled for so long. I think it boils down to the fact that Telltale just wanted to make it a given that this man was very resourceful and intelligent; many groups have survived, so it was plausible this man could as well. I, for one second, don't believe that this man did not have to rely on horrible measures himself to survive; he seems to be trying to convince himself when he speaks to Lee that he is a good man, implying to me that he did horrible things before himself to survive.
The roads to Savannah were pretty deserted when the group was in the RV and the train did need to stop several times to get to Savannah. Campman having a car made it much easier for him to navigate into the city and the Marsh House was in plain site. Everything else, I didn't think it was necessary to tell how he survived since we've seen so many other people do it; the guy was obviously intelligent and resourceful. I agree though that it's very contrived in places, but once it became apparent that this guy wanted some type of revenge and was in range, it was always going to be contrived.
The thing is - his motivation and execution was weak. I liked the idea that they were going for, personally. I liked that he wasn't a cat stroking, moustache twirling, laser aiming bond villain.
But he was an obvious plot device to challenge Lee's motives. His revenge was just an excuse to have a character who challenged Lee.
The problem is that his revenge plan was poorly planned out by the writers - he is the weakest point in the story because he is so blatantly a device rather than a fully developed character. Even his story about his family is full of plot holes about the timing of events and the motivations of himself and his wife. Which is a shame because most of the characters even the consequential ones were well developed.
I think at that point TTG were kind of rushing themselves to get to a November deadline rather than being willing to take the time to get that scene perfect.
Which isn't to say it sucked - it was still a good scene. It just needed to have been developed more and it needed to be more acknowledging of the different types of Lee people had played up to that point.
How is that not a resource issue?
Creating more cutscenes or scenarios equals paying your developers to put extra time into the game..which means your paying them by the hour until they finish.
Sure you do - and of course all of those cutscenes, art assets and all that alternate VA work makes itself and for free too.
Still costs money dude
I didn't know what I was expecting. I just remember reading a review when the first episode came out. It had good responses. Then a friend gifted it to me on Steam. Was the best gift I've ever gotten.
I'm glad it wasn't open world honestly. The story was so gripping it made up for not being some over the top action game. I'd rather play this than that up coming walking dead FPS game. :rolleyes:
The profit margins are much different selling your game for 20$ compared to 60$ +50$ of dlc equating to roughly 110+ dollars per copy...
Plus it's not like everyone bought the season pass. Some people just bought 1 or 2 episodes
Could you explain why?
Episode 5 was probably the best in the series imo (and for many other people as well). Why did you hate it, besides the lack of choice and the predictable (even though in the comic book rick lived after cutting his arm) ending..
In short, bad writing and plot holes everywhere. There weren't even fun little adventure game puzzles to keep me occupied.
We only know about him from what he told us in the short amount of time he was in episode 4. He and his group are trying their hardest to survive. Their only source of extra supplies is gone now that it has been over-run by walkers. He was also hurt by Brie becoming a zombie, so it's not a stretch at all to assume that the whole speech about the boat being a bad idea was a diversionary tactic so he could get the boat himself. The Walking Dead is all about seeing what good people get twisted into after they're pushed too far.
It fits Kenny's character, he may have talked the talk when he told Lee not to give up, but he still felt he had nothing left. He felt bad about complaining about Ben when he heard his back story, so he felt like it was both a chance to help Ben and to end his own suffering. Also, Kenny confirms this if you tell him that "Katjaa wouldn't have wanted this". He says "Yes she would. And either way I get to save Ben or be with my family again."
He didn't beat Lee because he's tormented inside and because he wanted Lee to know the pain he's gone through. If you wait too long to grab him after Clem smashes the vase over his head, you can see that he is very quick, as he doesn't hesitate in shooting you at all after his talk is over. It's not surprising at all that he could be a very dangerous foe when he's determined and his mind is not wandering.
He never said they were hunting for fun. He took his son out to train him how to hunt, like Lee taught Clem how to shoot. Lee and Mark were hunting for food during the zombie apocalypse at the beginning of episode 2, so it's no surprise that another group of people would be hunting for food as well.
Lee didn't arbitrarily faint. He was dying by that point. A major effect of the infection from the zombie bite is a fever. A major effect of fever is going in and out of consciousness. As for Clem being able to drag Lee, it's not surprising that she was able to drag him to safety. She's a healthy girl who was scared that she was going to lose her only friend left. That would have definitely given her a dose of adrenaline, which is known to momentarily increase the strength of people in fight or flight situations (of which that certainly was one).
Kenny was still reeling from the death of his son and his wife (you don't just move on from that, no matter how much you talk the talk, especially not in the short span between episode 3 and episode 5), so it's not surprising he would sacrifice himself no matter who was in danger. As for the others, it's still not known what season 2 is going to do with the season one save files, so all these might matter in the future.
I thought the season wrapped up well. Yes, I do agree Omid and Christa could have been fleshed out more, and it did end on a cliff-hanger (after the credits with Clem and the mysterious duo), but we knew that season two was coming for a long time now, so it's not surprising. But, episode 5 wrapped up Lee's story well in my opinion, so it was still gratifying to me.
Ditto on the negative critiques on movies, just look at The Dark Knight Rises.
Meh. It featured an excellent emotional payoff between Lee and clem that I think many will remember for a long time.
I agree, but his reason for taking Clem. was stupid IMO.
As for the OP just ignore them, this has been my best experience this year and I'm sure for a lot of others as well, there mostly just trolls (some of them might actually not like the game, which is fine but a lot of them are just doing it for their idea of funnsies)
I give the overall game an 8/10.
Gary Whitta did a good job with episode 4 until the end with that bullshit cliffhanger. Episode 5 was just terrible. Only redeeming thing was Clem and Lee's final moments together.
He stalked the survivors because he lost his son, his wife, his daughter and that was centered around his failure. Failure to secure anything including their food and supplies. He has nothing left to lose so why not take what's precious to those he blames? It's not like there's anything else to do in the apocalyptic zombie wastes.
As far as "none of the hard choices making a difference". It's fatalistic, you are to believe they will work and things will be okay or at least better. Then they get worse, much worse. It's realistic, and tragic. Tragedy doesn't end with a happy ending and everything neatly wrapped up, I think consumers of entertainment are far to used to happy endings.
To me Lee is an Oedipus character, he's doomed from the start and when you first started the game you should have realized things were not going to go well. As people continually died and futility of most if not all of their plans set in, it became increasingly obvious. The early predictions that Lee wouldn't survive became more and more viable. Rather than having him give up or check himself out, he cut of his arm and kept going. Until the end, despite the certainty of failure.
That's a story that tries to say something. Rather than say, Lee picks up some Zombrex and they find the CDC and it's full of said Zombrex and him and Clem live out their days there till he passes away of old age in his sleep and she shoots him so he doesn't come back.
yeah but doesn't chapman come after you even if you don't take the supplies?
Your group took the supplies no matter what you say, so that's why he went off for revenge. He wasn't exactly after Lee and Clementime, but he knows what Lee has done in the game and tries to take Clementime away from him.