The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct FPS based on the TV show, published by Activision

1679111218

Comments

  • edited January 2013
    Fabrimuch wrote: »
    Anyone seen the launch date trailer? The fact that they´ve announced the launch date (which is only three months ahead) and we haven´t seen one bit of footage from the game past alpha isn´t very promising.

    I liked the Launch Date Trailer but it was hardly related to the game at all, except them speaking 'bout it and the game cover at the end of the video.

    Maybe they know how bad the gameplay is right now, and so they skipped for the moment. Let's not be too pessimistic about it, it might turn out to be an okay survival first person view game.
  • edited January 2013
    Should be interesting to see how they squeeze a story out of these two characters. One being a violent, drug abusing racist, and straight up villain. It took over two seasons of the show for the other to develop some empathy. That journey is a big part of the characters popularity. At the onset I have trouble seeing a justification for the pair to seek aid from the government. Especially given their proven survival skills. I'm willing to give it a look before passing judgment.
  • edited January 2013
    I'd also like to point out they announced a release date before they showed any gameplay... At all...
  • edited January 2013
    I've still not see any gameplay promo's, only the adverts about it. Does anyone have a link to the actual game play itself? Has any screenshots been made public yet?

    I've been looking forward to this I must say, but it does seem to be coming quickly. I hope they do it justice and dont ruin it just to get it in our hands for the money!

    I'll wait a few weeks and look for reviews or playthroughs before I buy it,
  • edited January 2013
    Looks pretty shit. I love The Walking Dead, but this is just Activision doing what it's best at: Hogging money.
    I hope they payed Merle and Derle a lot of cash to be the voice actors though :D
  • edited January 2013
    Jennifer wrote: »
    So, Activision's doing the same thing Telltale did and holding a contest to turn fans' pictures of themselves into characters in the game.

    Wtf..Copycats :D
  • edited January 2013
    Sutinen wrote: »
    Looks pretty shit. I love The Walking Dead, but this is just Activision doing what it's best at: Hogging money.
    I hope they payed Merle and Derle a lot of cash to be the voice actors though :D

    It's not the publishers that make the games. It's the developers. I hate this mentality.
  • edited January 2013
    Tornreaper wrote: »
    It's not the publishers that make the games. It's the developers. I hate this mentality.

    But they do have their say to how the game ends up, Call of Duty is Activision's cashcow which is pretty much the same every single year.

    I'm thinking of buying Black Ops 2 but solely for the purpose of knifing people on Xbox 360's online mode to make peeps mad. :p

    The multiplayer mode on many games for me has made the single player obsolete.
  • edited January 2013
    This game looks horrible, the zombies look like plastic dolls, there seems to be no stealth system. The weapons and animations look jagged and choppy, it screen-tears every second you move. Fire effects, and lighting effects aren't even decent and there seems to be no use to weapons that 'Daryll or his brother have, in fact there's no indication of a story-mode at all.

    If there is a stealth system, and we do different objectives using Daryll and his brother to do different task with specific abilities then I may get it.

    If it's just going to be from what I've seen of the gameplay trailer- A brain-blowing underdeveloped pile of sh*t fps like the other 1000 on the gaming market. Then count me out, hopefully Walking Dead Season 2 is announced and it pile drives this pile of crap with the 'Walking Dead' name because no one else would buy it if it had a different name.
  • edited January 2013
    I think it's clear that activision doesn't understand /why/ people like the zombie-centric setting and honestly, this is one more thing we /don't/ need is more misrepresentation.
  • edited January 2013
    Two months out from release, and so far we've only seen some alleged "screenshots" and alleged "beta footage", and the same three seconds of footage shown during each TWD commercial break on AMC. Why do I get the feeling this is going to have a review embargo?
  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited January 2013
    Personally, I'm looking forward to those reviews. ;)
  • edited January 2013
    I'm guessing this is gonna be a huge flop.
  • edited January 2013
    Ya never know.

    There could be a gem under all of that - graphics aren't everything.
  • edited January 2013
    I really want it to be good.

    I just have this feeling that it won't be. I mean, Activision is in the equation.
  • edited January 2013
    DreadMagus wrote: »
    graphics aren't everything.

    Please, just stop saying that, it's pointless.

    For this generation all retail and arcade games (indie games do not require since it's small developers just starting) are required to have decent graphics for their games.

    The graphics of Call of Duty games all look great, and the gameplay is superb too without flaws (except people complaining that it's the same thing always).

    So anyway, give this game decent graphics and decent gameplay, and people will buy it. Black Ops 2 already has Zombie Survival mode so the sales might not be CoD-fied.
  • edited January 2013
    Phil_TWD wrote: »
    Please, just stop saying that, it's pointless.

    For this generation all retail and arcade games (indie games do not require since it's small developers just starting) are required to have decent graphics for their games.

    The graphics of Call of Duty games all look great, and the gameplay is superb too without flaws (except people complaining that it's the same thing always).

    So anyway, give this game decent graphics and decent gameplay, and people will buy it. Black Ops 2 already has Zombie Survival mode so the sales might not be CoD-fied.

    Call of Duty games have terrible graphics (especially on console).
  • edited January 2013
    I don't find the graphics of Call of Duty terrible they're actually pretty good on Xbox 360 and PS3, unless you're referring to the Wii version. :p
  • edited January 2013
    Phil_TWD wrote: »
    Please, just stop saying that, it's pointless.
    .

    No.

    Graphics are NOT everything.

    Not everyone is beguiled by shiny objects nor eye-candy.

    If all a person wants is pretty visuals, you can get that from a movie. Games are about mechanics and systems and game-play.
  • edited January 2013
    Personally, I'm looking forward to those reviews. ;)

    Aye, that I be as well.
  • edited January 2013
    Personally, I'm looking forward to those reviews. ;)

    A playable demo would make me decide whether or not to buy this game.

    Demo = Try before buy
    DreadMagus wrote: »
    Graphics are NOT everything.

    Not everyone is beguiled by shiny objects nor eye-candy.

    If all a person wants is pretty visuals, you can get that from a movie. Games are about mechanics and systems and game-play.

    If a retail game has god awful graphics in this day and age, and it's especially a first person shooter it will damage its image but if it makes it to one of the best, it'd be nothing to worry about.

    The graphics of this game look really dated and weird. Doom 3 on Xbox Original looked actually better, to me, than this.
  • edited January 2013
    DreadMagus wrote: »
    No.

    Graphics are NOT everything.

    Not everyone is beguiled by shiny objects nor eye-candy.

    If all a person wants is pretty visuals, you can get that from a movie. Games are about mechanics and systems and game-play.
    That is true, but in this case the game is just as bad as it looks :D
  • edited January 2013
    Sutinen wrote: »
    That is true, but in this case the game is just as bad as it looks :D

    You've played it?
  • edited January 2013
    I agree that graphics aren´t everything, but they do play an important part in the experience. If a game is downright painful to look at, it´s going to taint the rest of the experience, no matter how excellent the gameplay. Try grabbing a PS1 game you have no nostalgia for and you´ll see what I mean. When I played the first Silent Hill a few years back, I couldn´t take most of the creatures seriously.

    In any case, as the folks at Extra Credits said, what really defines how good a game looks are aesthetics not graphics. But considering Activision´s TWD aesthetics are bland as hell, and their graphics are way below average, I can´t blame anyone for disliking the game.

    P.S. Here´s Graphics vs. Aesthetics for those who haven´t seen it -> http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics
  • edited January 2013
    Fabrimuch wrote: »
    I agree that graphics aren´t everything, but they do play an important part in the experience. If a game is downright painful to look at, it´s going to taint the rest of the experience, no matter how excellent the gameplay. Try grabbing a PS1 game you have no nostalgia for and you´ll see what I mean. When I played the first Silent Hill a few years back, I couldn´t take most of the creatures seriously.

    In any case, as the folks at Extra Credits said, what really defines how good a game looks are aesthetics not graphics. But considering Activision´s TWD aesthetics are bland as hell, and their graphics are way below average, I can´t blame anyone for disliking the game.

    P.S. Here´s Graphics vs. Aesthetics for those who haven´t seen it -> http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics

    good aesthetics is why Telltale's TWD game is good looking even though it doesn't use all the modern Graphics that are available, i personally don't care about better graphics any more, i think if graphics technology didn't get any better for the next ten years it wouldn't matter at all as long as the aesthetics and mechanics of games were good and interesting
  • edited January 2013
    DreadMagus wrote: »
    You've played it?
    Just take a look at the gameplay trailer. That's all I have to say.
  • edited January 2013
    Sutinen wrote: »
    Just take a look at the gameplay trailer. That's all I have to say.

    That was a fake, it was a fan made thing.
  • edited January 2013
  • edited January 2013
  • edited January 2013
    Haha.
    That, my good sir, is some gameplay footage from a FAR from finished Walking Dead FPS by Activision.... allegedly
  • edited January 2013
    I see... That explains the shitty quality.
  • edited January 2013
    I second the idea of a TWD tactical Jagged Alliance-type game. Great idea!
  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited January 2013
    Arsun97 wrote: »
    That was a fake, it was a fan made thing.

    Made exclusively with real gameplay footage, cut from the videos presented by Activision employee Glenn Gamble in the Up at Noon show.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=B2KdJ--kRVo

    Make no mistake, the footage itself is no fake. Please don't forget that, it's only been four pages back! ;)
    JordyLicht wrote: »
    Haha.
    That, my good sir, is some gameplay footage from a FAR from finished Walking Dead FPS by Activision.... allegedly

    91 days from release is not "far from finished". Also, not "allegedly". Activision has released this footage for purposes of presentation. So they at least thought it represented something they WANTED to show, whatever that could have been. :D
  • edited January 2013
    Really? ... sjees. If this looks anything like the end result, it will end up being a laughable game.
    It looks like a fan-made Counterstrike map...
  • edited January 2013
    Releasing that footage seems to have harmed the games image much more than supported it. I still have hope it may be decent, but time will tell.
  • edited January 2013
    so.... any other updated news on this game yet other than the "alpha footage" shown on up at noon?
  • edited January 2013
    so.... any other updated news on this game yet other than the "alpha footage" shown on up at noon?

    Aside from a WiiU port and that the game comes out in March.... nope.

    I'm all for "wait until release", but given the lack of news about this game and what info we've got(beyond them getting the lead actors to voice for it) has been suspicious at best, I can't see this game being any good, but we'll see.

    I also can't be the only one to see the many times were a zombie had the perfect moment to bite you and instead stood there just long enough to get stabbed.
  • JenniferJennifer Moderator
    edited January 2013
    Gman5852 wrote: »
    I also can't be the only one to see the many times were a zombie had the perfect moment to bite you and instead stood there just long enough to get stabbed.
    This part also makes me suspicious as to the game's adherence to the rules of the license, as well as the white flashes that happen sometimes when a zombie attacks you (are those supposed to be bites? If you get bit in the Walking Dead universe, you're almost certainly a goner).
  • edited January 2013
    I just watched the Up At Noon footage. They talk about choice and even applaud the Telltale choice system, then the developer says "We have choices too! You'll have vehicles with limited seating and you'll have to make the tough choice, do I leave this survivor behind or do I get another vehicle with more seats?"

    Imagine if TWD were that easy:
    "No Lee! You can't be bitten! I have a sedan!"
    "Really? Wow, I feel great now, sweet pea."
This discussion has been closed.