User Avatar Image

Why are there so many negative people on this board saying this game sucks now?

posted by DatDude on - last edited - Viewed by 309 users

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.

46 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Wrighty said: Also another Scot in this forum! Yay!



    *High five* :D

  • @Wrighty said: 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!



    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.

  • @voodoohandbag said: *High five* :D



    *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. :D

  • Most people are not saying the game sucks now, but there are some saying that episode five was a disappointment in some respects.

    Mainly that your choices do not end up mattering, the episode being too short, or the ending being very predictable (among other things). I would add that they also tried to hide a lot of the group's fate way too much just so they have the option of bringing them back later.

    And most of that is simply tied back to your choices not mattering. If people argue that your choices were never meant to change the story by much anyway, then what was the point of playing an interactive story game anyhow? The QTE?

  • Entirely disagree.
    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.

  • @Wrighty said: *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. :D



    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 haven't really heard anyone saying it sucks. Perhaps it's just people that got too depressed by the ending.

    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.

  • In any game with a strong storyline there are always going to be people not happy with the ending. Basically it's impossible to please everyone, as also proved by the Mass Effect trilogy. People have an idea of how they want a game to end and when that idea isn't met then anger happens.

    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.

  • A lot of people wanted Campman to be this incredibly horrible and malicious villain, whereas Walking Dead is not always about pure evil vs good. There is no such thing in this reality and Campman really made for a great reflection into that reality. People wanted a pure evil man who wanted Clem for some horrible purpose; that would've been lame in my opinion though. Campman was great because he made us question what we did and was quite disturbing himself; the simplicity of his vendetta made it realistic and great.

  • @Evinshir said: 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.)



    I agree 100%. The ending or (lack of) choices weren't the best, but the ending is not as bad as ME 3's. I'm more upset about it because I like The Walking Dead a lot more than I ever cared about ME.

Add Comment