User Avatar Image

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

posted by Gman5852 on - last edited - Viewed by 7.4K users

So I just received this in my twitter feed...

I have a bad feeling about this.

695 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Darth Marsden said: Just a friendly reminder to try and keep it civil, if you would.

    Also, Kotaku aren't fans.

    Well... it's Kotaku. Do people still take it seriously?

  • Polygon hated it too. It doesn't look like this game will be winning any GOTY awards.

  • @mosfet said: Polygon hated it too. It doesn't look like this game will be winning any GOTY awards.

    Most blatant cash-grab award goes to ----- Terminal Reality, for their work on The Walking Grab: Survival of Duty!

  • all the haters have been vindicated i reckon..

  • I have to say I have to pass on this game. I watched the entire game. The killing was redundant, few jumpscares, small plot and story, and mostly just violence. I admit I love my share of action games and the like, but this game just goes extreme(I won't say, since I don't want to spoil) but there are parts like "wtf? This is realistic?" Whenever Daryl gets hit, he just loses health. That sounds kind of stupid in my opinion. TWD once you get a bite or scratch, it's over unless you amputate. Also, Merle is a mega a-hole in this game, which will only sour people's opinion of him more.

    I'd say Survival Instinct is about... a 5 out of ten? Small plots, small storyline changes, unnecessary violence(not always a bad thing, but it's basically the whole game), a $50 price tag, decent graphics(like Telltale's better), maybe 3-5 hour game(depending on how skilled you are, pointless and undeveloped characters(except for a few, but no spoilers), weird situations(gun clips in a hospital?), and overpowered weapons. In the beginning, you have very little ammo and weak melee weapons, then guns that kill you more than save you, and then a CERTAIN weapon that you can just kill everything. In the last mission, there is a weapon that just tears everything to shreds.

    This game just seemed like an excuse for Activision to use it's great developers to put together a game really quickly and sell it due to the popularity of the Walking Dead franchise. I thought it would be a lot better than it is, and I was deeply disappointed, but that seems to be the case with Activision these days. The game is probably only worth $20 if that, but is priced at $50, which is more than most of the best games ever made.

    I don't mean to waver anyone's opinions, so I suggest you watch playthroughs(yeah, people beat the game yesterday, the day it came out), and if you like it play it for yourself. Yeah, it's a Walking Dead game, but it doesn't feel like the Walking Dead(the walkers charge btw). I loved Telltale's TWD game, and I voted it for GOTY and voted it a 10, where this game... scares me for the lack of effort. But yeah, that's my opinion. No hatred, just look up the game for yourselves. There are a few cool moments, but overall, I wasn't impressed :/ Oh well, skipping it!

  • @mosfet said: Polygon hated it too. It doesn't look like this game will be winning any GOTY awards.

    It really scares me :S

  • @Mark$man said: I have to say I have to pass on this game. I watched the entire game. The killing was redundant, few jumpscares, small plot and story, and mostly just violence. I admit I love my share of action games and the like, but this game just goes extreme(I won't say, since I don't want to spoil) but there are parts like "wtf? This is realistic?" Whenever Daryl gets hit, he just loses health. That sounds kind of stupid in my opinion. TWD once you get a bite or scratch, it's over unless you amputate. Also, Merle is a mega a-hole in this game, which will only sour people's opinion of him more.

    I'd say Survival Instinct is about... a 5 out of ten? Small plots, small storyline changes, unnecessary violence(not always a bad thing, but it's basically the whole game), a $50 price tag, decent graphics(like Telltale's better), maybe 3-5 hour game(depending on how skilled you are, pointless and undeveloped characters(except for a few, but no spoilers), weird situations(gun clips in a hospital?), and overpowered weapons. In the beginning, you have very little ammo and weak melee weapons, then guns that kill you more than save you, and then a CERTAIN weapon that you can just kill everything. In the last mission, there is a weapon that just tears everything to shreds.

    This game just seemed like an excuse for Activision to use it's great developers to put together a game really quickly and sell it due to the popularity of the Walking Dead franchise. I thought it would be a lot better than it is, and I was deeply disappointed, but that seems to be the case with Activision these days. The game is probably only worth $20 if that, but is priced at $50, which is more than most of the best games ever made.

    I don't mean to waver anyone's opinions, so I suggest you watch playthroughs(yeah, people beat the game yesterday, the day it came out), and if you like it play it for yourself. Yeah, it's a Walking Dead game, but it doesn't feel like the Walking Dead(the walkers charge btw). I loved Telltale's TWD game, and I voted it for GOTY and voted it a 10, where this game... scares me for the lack of effort. But yeah, that's my opinion. No hatred, just look up the game for yourselves. There are a few cool moments, but overall, I wasn't impressed :/ Oh well, skipping it!

    You watched an entire playthrough? I found it hard to watch Totalbiscuit's first impressions, lol.

  • @Riadon said: You watched an entire playthrough? I found it hard to watch Totalbiscuit's first impressions, lol.

    I did to an extent. I skimmed through a lot of boring head mashing and killing. It was really pointless so I skipped through quite a bit. It was hard though. I had to convince myself not to buy the game, since I am a huge Walking Dead fan, and no lie this game almost made me vomit(and not the good kind)

  • @ZeroShoot said: I agree so far, I would like to see such a game one day.

    But you can't mean that serious, do you? If Terminal Reality works with TellTale, Activision's gonna want the rights, that means they will publish it, and that means, that they'll be the ones putting money into it, and guess what that means? That means, that TellTale's opinion won't matter too much anymore, if Activision was involved, it would be like this:
    ACTIVISION > telltale
    Activision would get greedy again, and thus fuck the game up, or at least make something below of it's actual potential.

    I would say, Rockstargames, a publisher and developer known for high quality open world games, good story writing and preeminently great characters, just like TellTale, would be a better partner for this. Also R* puts tons of effort into their games, and the last thing they would want to do, is disappointing their fans, just like TellTale, seriously that would be a dream-team. But if a game like that was to happen, it should be another, whole new story.

    I want TellTale's S2 to become basically like S1, just with some more, bigger choices, which could maybe even influence the story, if possible, inventory management and that's about it.

    If there one day will be plans to create another game, maybe even an open world game, it should have another original story, something whole new.

    Just because TR is working on it doesn't mean activsion would be in charge of it. Also I'm not looking for open world. Survival Instinct wasn't open world. the areas were just.. well... open. It's hard to explain. Just compare the areas of Half Life 2 to Grand Theft Auto. That's what I mean.

    Also I don't mind if Telltale keeps season 2 the same. I don't blame them either. I still stand by my statement that the game was overrated. But that must mean that people love that type of game. I wouldn't expect them to change it because someone like me challenges the statements about how good the game actually is.

    After all it's the fans that are important. Not review scores. Most of the review scores however also overrate the game which is really the main thing that pissed me off.

    What I think must be fixed with season 2 is 3 things.

    The ability to create your own decisions and outcomes instead of choosing path A or B. Then have the story written around the gameplay. For example let's say someone dies and starves because I refused to share food and he had none. How do people react to that? Do they blame me for his death? It seems like Season 1's gameplay (choices) were created from an already written story. That makes it feel scripted.

    More exploration. The areas are way to small. Those invisible walls remind me I'm playing a low budget game. I don't think we need a huge open world but at least the ability to go where ever we want in a small town or something.

    And lastly a challenge. That's really the core of gameplay. Even some of the dumbed down shooters have some form of challange despite how easy it is. But walking around, watching cutscenes, and QTEs. It just doesn't seem like I'm "playing". Stealth/survivor horror would work perfectly for the game. Also more skillful point and clicks. AKA if you miss the head don't have the character automatically hit the head because I clicked on the zombie. Like the grab parts in Survival Instinct.

    @ZeroShoot said: 1. Yes I do know Telltale has a bunch of QTEs in there game too, I never said it was good there either.
    2. I never watched the tv series beyond 2 episodes, so I have no clue if they can run in the series or not(which after a quick youtube search.
    3.Thank you for the gameplay footage.

    Wow, way to sound like a jerk. If you are just going to call everyone who's opinions are different than yours "worthless", no one will take you seriously.

    So far that is actually sounding like my impressions on the game too. It doesn't look as bad as what people are saying, but it isn't high up on the "to play" list either.


    And then I go back to not taking you seriously again.

    Yes I can be a jerk sometimes but it pisses me off when people just talk shit to a game that isn't even bad. Because I have played bad games. Like reallly, really bad games. Unplayable games with broken game design and completely boring gameplay. Games with absoultly no good qualities at all that made the studios shut down in humiliation.

    This game isn't comparable to the blockbusters coming out. But for someone to say "worst game ever" is stupid. These people don't know what a bad game really is. What they really mean is "this game isn't like awesome so it must suck"

    So yeah I'm a jerk but his opinion is still worthless so we're even (Cookies if you got the reference).

    @ZeroShoot said: Polygon hated it too. It doesn't look like this game will be winning any GOTY awards.

    Of coarse it's not GOTY material. I don't think anyone's saying this.

    @ZeroShoot said: I have to say I have to pass on this game. I watched the entire game. The killing was redundant, few jumpscares, small plot and story, and mostly just violence. I admit I love my share of action games and the like, but this game just goes extreme(I won't say, since I don't want to spoil) but there are parts like "wtf? This is realistic?" Whenever Daryl gets hit, he just loses health. That sounds kind of stupid in my opinion. TWD once you get a bite or scratch, it's over unless you amputate. Also, Merle is a mega a-hole in this game, which will only sour people's opinion of him more.

    I'd say Survival Instinct is about... a 5 out of ten? Small plots, small storyline changes, unnecessary violence(not always a bad thing, but it's basically the whole game), a $50 price tag, decent graphics(like Telltale's better), maybe 3-5 hour game(depending on how skilled you are, pointless and undeveloped characters(except for a few, but no spoilers), weird situations(gun clips in a hospital?), and overpowered weapons. In the beginning, you have very little ammo and weak melee weapons, then guns that kill you more than save you, and then a CERTAIN weapon that you can just kill everything. In the last mission, there is a weapon that just tears everything to shreds.

    This game just seemed like an excuse for Activision to use it's great developers to put together a game really quickly and sell it due to the popularity of the Walking Dead franchise. I thought it would be a lot better than it is, and I was deeply disappointed, but that seems to be the case with Activision these days. The game is probably only worth $20 if that, but is priced at $50, which is more than most of the best games ever made.

    I don't mean to waver anyone's opinions, so I suggest you watch playthroughs(yeah, people beat the game yesterday, the day it came out), and if you like it play it for yourself. Yeah, it's a Walking Dead game, but it doesn't feel like the Walking Dead(the walkers charge btw). I loved Telltale's TWD game, and I voted it for GOTY and voted it a 10, where this game... scares me for the lack of effort. But yeah, that's my opinion. No hatred, just look up the game for yourselves. There are a few cool moments, but overall, I wasn't impressed :/ Oh well, skipping it!

    I find it weird that you're doing a semi full review even though you haven't played it but I don't blame you for skipping it. To me it looks like a fun game. But I'm not buying JUST a fun game. Especially when Bioshock comes out next week which is going to be an amazing game. If I were to get this I would wait for a price drop (it's inevitable for these games that people hate on. Reember DNF?) and play it on a dead week.

    Also all new games are $60 so it's not more expensive. Just saying.

  • @Tornreaper said:


    Your argument is so full of shit it's not even worth countering. You don't know what a bad game is. Let me direct you to Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly.

    This bro tries to act smart than says this? Yeah alright. LMAO

Add Comment