The Walking Dead

[Woodsyblue]

Seeing as it seems like the obvious front runner for Telltale's new mystery project I thought we should start a thread about The Walking Dead. Just a place where people can share their thoughts on the comic books/TV series and whether or not people think it has the potential for a good game.

I live in Australia where the show hasn't aired yet so I haven't seen it but one of my friends has a copy so I'm probably going to end up watching it some time in the next couple of weeks. I have been interested in seeing it for some time now, largely for the big part Frank Darabont played in production. I've never read any of the comics.

[GuybrushWilco]

I only watched the first episode, and still have the rest on DVR because I was busy with finals. It's a very well made and well shot TV show, very intense as well. At least that's what I got from the first episode. It's also quite disturbing and not for people with weak stomachs, just as a warning :)

[Rather Dashing]

*Ahem* (http://goo.gl/F5hjY)

[Irishmile]

I've read the books and watched the show.... If they make the game I will be pleased..

[fire2box]

I've only watched the show and loved it all asides for episode 5. That was boring and severed little use to further the show.

Anyways, if telltale does make it (finger's crossed) i'm wondering how much humor they'll inject into the game.

[Falanca]

Seeing as it seems like the obvious front runner for Telltale's new mystery project...
Is it really that obvious? I hope it's not that obvious.

[Secret Fawful]

I watched the Walking Dead, and was hooked for good as soon as I saw the tank scene. It really could be one of the greatest TV shows of all time if they play their cards right. It has the right amount of drama, horror, gore, and action, as well as well-written characters you can root for. I'd love an adventure game set in that world; I think it could lend itself well to some fantastic puzzles. Also-

*Ahem* (http://goo.gl/F5hjY)

Am I a horrible person for finding that to be fricking hilarious.

[Irishmile]

he would easily be the most disturbed villain in a TTG game yet... I keep wondering how the show will do that character.

I kind of think they might make Michael Rooker's character into that character and scrap what the books did.

[Woodsyblue]

Is it really that obvious? I hope it's not that obvious.

Well it's the most likely, given the clues. Mostly because nobody can think of anything else it could possibly be. I mean we won't know for sure until February 17th but I haven't heard any likely alternatives.

[Falanca]

Well it's the most likely, given the clues. Mostly because nobody can think of anything else it could possibly be. I mean we won't know for sure until February 17th but I haven't heard any likely alternatives.

Why not Inception? Yes, it also says "TV" but maybe it's a misfired foreshadowing by someone who doesn't know about Inception?

I'll take anything but Walking Dead, really. Say it's a game about Friends and I'll buy it.

[Woodsyblue]

Why not Inception? Yes, it also says "TV" but maybe it's a misfired foreshadowing by someone who doesn't know about Inception?

I'll take anything but Walking Dead, really. Say it's a game about Friends and I'll buy it.

I think if it were Inception I think the media would have mentioned it was based off a recent film that was a box-office smash but it's a good thought and there is a game being made by an unknown publisher.

I mean you can say you don't want it to be The Walking Dead but that doesn't mean it's not still the most likely choice given the facts. I still haven't watched it yet so I have no idea if it'd make a good game or not.

[Falanca]

Maybe it's Modern Family. Are there any Modern Family comics?

[Woodsyblue]

Afraid not.

[adventureaddict]

Afraid not.

That's a shame.
I haven't seen any of The Walking Dead.. but I'm already convinced its better than JP so I won't complain :)

No, I don't particularly 'hate' JP, I'm just not interested. Only game of TT I won't own so far.

[Falanca]

That's a shame.
I haven't seen any of The Walking Dead.. but I'm already convinced its better than JP so I won't complain :)

No, I don't particularly 'hate' JP, I'm just not interested. Only game of TT I won't own so far.

The reason I don't want it to be The Walking Dead IS because I don't want to raise the amount of TTG games I wouldn't like to own one more.

[adventureaddict]

Well I'm open minded.. If it does turn out to be The Walking Dead I'll most likely give it a chance. If it's not my cup'o'tea, then it's not my cup'o'tea. They can't please everybody, sadly. (Unless they make ToMI2 :p)

[Woodsyblue]

Telltale with never abandon quirky adventure games like Sam & Max and Monkey Island, it's their bread and butter. I for one like that they are expanding and exploring different things but they'll always go back to what they are known for, otherwise us fans would hold an uprising :)

[Irishmile]

I posted this in another thread.... but even if TTG do not announce that they are making the game... you all should all still read the books and watch the show... Its a good story even if you are not all that into zombies.

here is the first book on Image comics page.
http://www.imagecomics.com/iconline.php?title=walking_dead_001&page=cover&resize=now

and the page for the show on AMC
http://www.amctv.com/originals/The-Walking-Dead/

Motion Comic... I usually hate these but this one was done well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riKsI6covPA

and just because its has an awesome song by the eels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ocZtE9U29w

[Rather Dashing]

Telltale with never abandon quirky adventure games like Sam & Max and Monkey Island, it's their bread and butter. I for one like that they are expanding and exploring different things but they'll always go back to what they are known for, otherwise us fans would hold an uprising :)
Right! They wouldn't do something that is mostly realistic with unrealistic elements, like Back to the Future or Jurassic Park! And they'd NEVER do anything unfunny or grim like CSI!

[Woodsyblue]

Right! They wouldn't do something that is mostly realistic with unrealistic elements, like Back to the Future or Jurassic Park! And they'd NEVER do anything unfunny or grim like CSI!

Without going back to the games that made them great, like Sam & Max and Monkey Island, yes.

[Rather Dashing]

If the "games that made them great" make far less money than the "games with big-name media licenses that people have actually heard of", you can bet your ass they won't go back to them.

[Irishmile]

Dashing is right on this .... reference Lucasarts mid and late 90's

[Woodsyblue]

If the "games that made them great" make far less money than the "games with big-name media licenses that people have actually heard of", you can bet your ass they won't go back to them.

Last time I checked ToMI has been their most successful game thus far and it was the early success of Sam & Max seasons 1 and 2 brought them into the limelight. Not to mention that their biggest disappointment, sales-wise, was the licenced game Wallace & Gromit's Grand Adventures. So moving away form traditional adventure games forever hardly seems like a worrying issue.

Fan's of adventure games like games like MI and S&M and at the end of the day Telltale make their money off Adventure game fans. We are their niche.

Anyway, back on point I just watched the first episode of The Walking Dead with some of my friends and quite enjoyed it. It was very slow at points but never painfully so and there were most of the standard eye-rolling zombie movie cliches but the characters were interesting and there were some moments of great humor. I'm looking forward to watching the rest of the season.

[Rather Dashing]

LucasArts made tones of money off their adventures too. Secret of Monkey Island wasn't some niche game, it sold extremely well in its own market environment. Around the time of Grim Fandango, though, they found a revenue stream that produced far more dough. Grim Fandango wasn't even a failure, it sold relatively well, but the trade-off between doing something like that and doing Star Wars again was obvious: You get more money out of putting less work into a Star Wars game. So they did.

[Irishmile]

Interestingly Full Throttle was their biggest money making adventure game.... I think I read that in an interview with Tim Schafer... Yeah Lucasarts learned pretty fast that a game didnt even have to be all that good to sell if it had Star Wars on the box....

[thesporkman]

here is the first book on Image comics page.
http://www.imagecomics.com/iconline....ver&resize=now

and the page for the show on AMC
http://www.amctv.com/originals/The-Walking-Dead/

Motion Comic... I usually hate these but this one was done well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riKsI6covPA

and just because its has an awesome song by the eels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ocZtE9U29w

I had seen the first episode of the show before, and I thought it was pretty good. It was well acted, the writing was okay, and the human drama was really intense and believable. I just read the first issue of the comic from that link. Man, compared to the show, that was really terrible. There was none of the detail, emotion, or character development that the show had. It felt like a rough skeleton of a plot, like the artist was just rushing to get through the story as quickly as possible without stopping to develop and flesh anything out. The writing in the show was alright, but the dialogue in the comic was really bad. It almost felt like placeholder dialogue, like he was going to go back and rewrite it later.

[Woodsyblue]

LucasArts made tones of money off their adventures too. Secret of Monkey Island wasn't some niche game, it sold extremely well in its own market environment. Around the time of Grim Fandango, though, they found a revenue stream that produced far more dough. Grim Fandango wasn't even a failure, it sold relatively well, but the trade-off between doing something like that and doing Star Wars again was obvious: You get more money out of putting less work into a Star Wars game. So they did.

Well thankfully Telltale don't have a department that exclusively churn out Star Wars games at an unsustainable rate :rolleyes: The history of LucasArts is well documented. I can't see Telltale going down that path because aside from a couple of poker games and a puzzle game, they exclusively make adventure games and the most profitable kinds of adventure games are the the quirky fun ones like Monkey Island. I can't see them up and abandoning their market, a market that has been very good to them, by completely changing the kind of games they make.

Edit: It's also worth pointing out that several Telltale employees used to work at the LusasArts Adventure Game department and were spurned by that whole experience so they have the benefit of hindsight.

[nomecopies]

Er... there are FUTURAMA comics too...

[Woodsyblue]

But it's not a just launched TV property. Futurama's TV launch was in 1999.

[Rather Dashing]

LucasArts didn't develop Star Wars games either, until 1993. From 1986 to 1992, they made almost exclusively adventure games with original IPs, with a couple LucasFilm license games and flight sims aside. That's six years free of the Star Wars license, about as long as Telltale has been around and making games. If you said, around the release of X-Wing in 1993, that LucasArts was all about Star Wars games? People would think the idea pretty odd as well. In a process over the next 7 years, they killed off the genre's presence in their studio(going into hiatus a couple times, so it's not like it was 7 years of constant development). And then over the past 10 years, we have two remakes and a character skin thrown into another release as a cross-promotional afterthought.

It's not like the adventure genre hadn't at one time "treated LucasArts well", it's not like they stopped being profitable. Other things became MORE profitable. If a new audience for action blockbuster games is far larger and more profitable than the one you're in, then you can be sure you'll be tossed out like last month's leftovers.

You can't see a company wanting to make more money? Give it time. Like a few more companies, even after massive amounts of staff leave the building. Over time, you'll learn that it's not something that is impossible. Hell, it's not even a possibility, it's a law of the fucking universe.

[Woodsyblue]

It's not like the adventure genre hadn't at one time "treated LucasArts well", it's not like they stopped being profitable. Other things became MORE profitable. If a new audience for action blockbuster games is far larger and more profitable than the one you're in, then you can be sure you'll be tossed out like last month's leftovers.

I see what you are saying and your point is well made but I still disagree. First off Telltale doesn't have a lucrative licence like Star Wars just sitting in it's back pocket like LucasArts did. Every game they licence they will owe a share of the profits to the rightful owners, thus diminishing their returns. Second off even the licence games they make, like Back to the Future and Wallice & Gromit, are designed just like the classic adventure games (with the exception of being episodic). They are still fun and quirky adventures in the same vein and structure as the LucasArts classics. I'm also willing to bet that future games, like Jurassic Park, will be as well, though admittedly they have to experiment to try and ad an element of danger, but at the end of the day it will still be an adventure game.

LucasArts was an exception in the industry because they had licences like Star Wars and Indy sitting around that appeal far more to mainstream audiences. LucasArts is sinking its own ship though, the Star Wars licence is becoming stagnant, more and more gamers are realising that rushed crappy games like the Force Unleashed just isn't worth their time. If it wasn't for the mega hype surrounding their licences they'd probably already be under.

[Rather Dashing]

I see what you are saying and your point is well made but I still disagree. First off Telltale doesn't have a lucrative licence like Star Wars just sitting in it's back pocket like LucasArts did. Every game they licence they will owe a share of the profits to the rightful owners, thus diminishing their returns.
Which is universally the same. It's the same for Sam and Max and Back to the Future, it's the same between Tales and the supposed Walking Dead game. It's not like you're comparing owned IP to licensed properties here, Telltale has thus far ONLY done licensed properties. They've made this trade-off for EVERY game they've made, and they seem to think it's a worthwhile trade.

Second off even the licence games they make, like Back to the Future and Wallice & Gromit, are designed just like the classic adventure games (with the exception of being episodic). They are still fun and quirky adventures in the same vein and structure as the LucasArts classics. I'm also willing to bet that future games, like Jurassic Park, will be as well, though admittedly they have to experiment to try and ad an element of danger, but at the end of the day it will still be an adventure game.
Last I checked, adventure games need to contain puzzles. In their last two games, they've done their best to deny and hide the existence of in-game puzzles. Back to the Future, their latest game, provides not one, not two, not three, but four sources of hints for a game that has very few points of possible interaction, a very small inventory, and a game design that prods you with the answer at every given opportunity no matter how much you try to shake it off. This is because they want to crack the "Grossman's Mother-In-Law" demographic, because once that person is drawn in, they most assuredly have everyone(as per the referenced article). Telltale chasing a non-adventure audience isn't speculation on my part, it's the current reality.

LucasArts was an exception in the industry because they had licences like Star Wars and Indy sitting around that appeal far more to mainstream audiences. LucasArts is sinking its own ship though, the Star Wars licence is becoming stagnant, more and more gamers are realising that rushed crappy games like the Force Unleashed just isn't worth their time.
No, they aren't. The Force Unleashed broke sales records (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/09/force-unleash-2/), and the sales for the second game were strong on both (http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/41802/star-wars-the-force-unleashed-ii/) major console platforms (http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/41803/star-wars-the-force-unleashed-ii/) for which it was released. It's nice to live in a world where good guys win, where poor judgement and lazy, slipshod efforts lead to financial failure. But this world, the one that we actually live in, is not that world.

If it wasn't for the mega hype surrounding their licences they'd probably already be under.
If it wasn't for the Star Wars license, they might be under. And as far as Telltale's finances are concerned, if a certain license puts them well into the black regardless of effort put into it, I think that Telltale will do what everyone else in recorded human history has done and follow the money to more mainstream pastures.

[Comrade Pants]

Rather Dashing: minting new nihilists since 1989.

[Irishmile]

Its true though.... Companies will do what they will to make money.. its not really that hard to understand.... Right now TTG is known as the little company that makes decent adventure games... but lets say Universal really likes BTTF and JP, and they say ..... How about you make the next Bourne movie tie in game.... and we will pay you a ton to do it... fans will buy it up and everyone gets a huge payday.

BUT it has to be a shooter.... You honestly think that TTG would say no?

Now lets say THAT shooter puts them on the map as a company that makes great shooters.. and they make more money doing that than Sam & Max.... eventually they would say... "you know we make more money doing this why are we still making adventure games for a small group of gamers when we can make a bunch more making shooters?"

all that is an example but its pretty much what killed adventure games in the past.

[Woodsyblue]

Which is universally the same. It's the same for Sam and Max and Back to the Future, it's the same between Tales and the supposed Walking Dead game. It's not like you're comparing owned IP to licensed properties here, Telltale has thus far ONLY done licensed properties. They've made this trade-off for EVERY game they've made, and they seem to think it's a worthwhile trade.

This is true but you seem to think Telltale is going to find a licence that will allow them abandon the pursuit of quality. I personally don't see that happening for reasons I will outline below.

Last I checked, adventure games need to contain puzzles. In their last two games, they've done their best to deny and hide the existence of in-game puzzles. Back to the Future, their latest game, provides not one, not two, not three, but four sources of hints for a game that has very few points of possible interaction, a very small inventory, and a game design that prods you with the answer at every given opportunity no matter how much you try to shake it off. This is because they want to crack the "Grossman's Mother-In-Law" demographic, because once that person is drawn in, they most assuredly have everyone(as per the referenced article). Telltale chasing a non-adventure audience isn't speculation on my part, it's the current reality.

That you imply that the BttF doesn't contain puzzles is personal opinion. It contains puzzles just like the LucasArts games of old, they just aren't as challenging so you have decided to deem them invalid. I won't deny that they are much easier, because they are, but making games easier is an industry wide epidemic.

The simple truth is that all games are easier now than they were twenty years ago. Adventure games are not alone. Mario Galaxy is a cakewalk compared to the original Mario Bros. Your modern day shooter can't even be muttered in the same breath with Wolfenstein.

I personally have no problems with Telltale adding hint options to their games as long as they continue to keep the option to turn them off. Turning away potential costumers because their games are too hard doesn't serve anyone. Telltale just need to find that balance between satisfying the hardcore games without scaring away potential newcomers. How well they do at that will always be a matter of debate.

No, they aren't. The Force Unleashed broke sales records (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/09/force-unleash-2/), and the sales for the second game were strong on both (http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/41802/star-wars-the-force-unleashed-ii/) major console platforms (http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/41803/star-wars-the-force-unleashed-ii/) for which it was released. It's nice to live in a world where good guys win, where poor judgement and lazy, slipshod efforts lead to financial failure. But this world, the one that we actually live in, is not that world.

LucasArts survive because of the mega hype surrounding their licences. They are very lucky in this regard. If a game like The Force Unleashed didn't have a Star Wars Licence it would sell like garbage and I personally believe that future FU games sales will suffer as a result of the poor quality of their predecessors.

If it wasn't for the Star Wars license, they might be under. And as far as Telltale's finances are concerned, if a certain license puts them well into the black regardless of effort put into it, I think that Telltale will do what everyone else in recorded human history has done and follow the money to more mainstream pastures.

You are working under the assumption that Telltale will find a magical licence that will allow them to make money without putting any effort in. These licences are very rare and usually get gobbled up by the major publishers like EA and Activision. You can remain pessimistic if you like but I just don't see it happening. The Telltale dream licence was Monkey Island and I believe that is their best series to date, though that is just my personal opinion.

Edit:
Its true though.... Companies will do what they will to make money.. its not really that hard to understand.... Right now TTG is known as the little company that makes decent adventure games... but lets say Universal really likes BTTF and JP, and they say ..... How about you make the next Bourne movie tie in game.... and we will pay you a ton to do it... fans will buy it up and everyone gets a huge payday.

BUT it has to be a shooter.... You honestly think that TTG would say no?

I think that would be stupid business by both parties. A bad move from Universal to ask a niche adventure game developer to abandon all that they are good at to make a shooter and bad business on Telltales part to accept a game so outside their field of expertise.

While it is true that game companies aren't confined to one genre, Retro Studios is a fantastic example if a company that switched genres when they made Donkey Kong Country Returns, I just don't see it happening for Telltale. They've established themselves as a maker of adventure games and have created a very successful business model from it. Changing all that to make a kind of game they have no experience in would be incredibly risky for them.

[Woodsyblue]

Sorry for double posting but I really want to get this thread back on point. We've gone way off topic and that's as much my fault as anyone's.

I've watched the first three episodes of The Walking Dead and so far I'm quite enjoying it. There is a good mix of likable characters and fun to hate characters and humor is good.

It would be well suited to an adventure game format. A straight action game wouldn't make as much sense. Characters are discouraged to fire loud weapons like guns and are forced to use their brains more to escape predicaments (read: zombies). I don't know how the danger would be handled but I think it has a lot of potential to work as an adventure game (not that anything has been confirmed :))

Also: this (http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/the-walken-dead2-465x689.png)!

[Rather Dashing]

I think it would work far more as a Survival Horror game. Though the two genres have their roots in the same place, they branched off into distinctly different genres some time ago.

Also, not reading the comic? For shame.

[Woodsyblue]

A Survival Horror game would also work great. Something akin to the older Res Evil games, or even Amnesia. The dynamic would work really well because firing a gun would be a last desperate resort.

I don't really read many comics but after I finish the show I think I'll look into it :)

[Rather Dashing]

If you don't read comics, you're missing out. The vast majority of long-running series from DC and Marvel aren't worth a damn these days, but there's a lot of classics in the medium that really are worth reading.

Also, I really think the comic should be read first because the show is adapted from it, and it gives you a far greater understanding of where the show comes from. You can go "Oh, I see what they did there. They moved this element up a few episodes". Or "oh, I see, they added those characters to this scenario. Actually, it probably works better on TV.", and "OH MY GOD WHERE DID THAT COME FROM" and "OH MY GOD WHERE DID THAT COME FROM IT IS AWESOME". Seriously, the show is a GREAT supplement to the comic book, and you don't have to read much of it to catch up to the show's run. I highly advise you to change priorities on this one.

[Woodsyblue]

hmmm, I'm going out tomorrow, I'll see what Borders has. Trying to find any kind of book or comic like that is a pain in Australia. Borders is the only place with any section and it doesn't matter where you go it's all grossly overpriced. Every time I go to America I come back with a suitcase worth of books because it's just so much cheaper to buy them over there. Their hardbacks are cheaper than our paperbacks of the same book, no jokes. I'm probably going to end up buying this stuff online.

[Rather Dashing]

hmmm, I'm going out tomorrow, I'll see what Borders has.
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walking_Dead#Collected_editions) is a guide to the various releases. There are the Issues, released monthly, then there are the trade paperbacks(or "volumes") that contain 6 of those, etc etc all up to the Compendium which contains 48 monthly issues. The limited editions cost far more per issue, the Compendium is really cheap per-issue.

Also, I'm not sure what might be different in Austraila, but I assume you get at least one of these.

[Secret Fawful]

The simple truth is that all games are easier now than they were twenty years ago. Adventure games are not alone. Mario Galaxy is a cakewalk compared to the original Mario Bros. Your modern day shooter can't even be muttered in the same breath with Wolfenstein. I would like to say this is just an opinion, but the facts are against you. For one thing, it is impossible for all games to be easier than they were twenty years ago. It's even impossible for most games to be easier than they were twenty years ago. Mario Galaxy 2 is a bitch in the difficulty area. Syberia 1 and 2 are very difficult adventure games that still manage to find a great balance. Every Megaman game ever made, and every Zelda game ever made are all incredibly hard. That's way more than over a dozen games listed just there, if we're just talking the last decade. Oh, and as far as Wolfenstein..really? I always found Wolfenstein to be fairly easy, as well as Doom and Doom II, but that's just me. I could keep listing games, but I think I've made my point.

Turning away potential costumers because their games are too hard doesn't serve anyone.

There is a difference between making a game too hard and making a game hard enough to give you the option of thinking. I don't think Telltale even knows how to make a game too hard, and to be honest I wish they did. Because if they did they would also know how to find a balance between too easy and too hard, but they obviously can't. Heehee, they can prove me and countless others wrong if they want though. You want to know one of the best examples of a not too easy-not too hard 3D adventure game-ish puzzle I've played? It's from Conker's Bad Fur Day, in the caveman world. You have to get into a giant stone T-Rex head. To do this, you have to go into another room, and sit on a giant egg to hatch it. Then you have to lead a baby T-Rex back to the stone head room, and then use your slingshot to hit a button to raise a stone slab off of an altar. Next you have to lead the baby onto the altar. Then you have to hit another button with your slingshot to cause the stone slab to drop, killing the baby T-Rex and serving as a sacrifice to open the T-Rex's mouth. However, the tongue that rolls out is covered in mucus and you can't cross it. Mucus is also coming out of its nostrils. A monk with a stone tablet walks out of the mouth when it opens. You have to stand on the monk's tablet, at which point he'll fling you up onto the T-Rex's snout. Then you have to drop down into each nostril when it's not steaming, and pour pepper into each one to cause him to sneeze, relieving the mucus and allowing you passage into the head. There you go, a perfect 3D adventure game puzzle, and it only required jumping (platforming) once, and that was just to get onto the monk's tablet. Sh-boom! Oh, and that was from a game from 2001, within the last decade.

And I didn't even realize that this was The Walking Dead topic until I finished this post...

[Falanca]

Super Meat Boy is also one of those games acclaimed PRETTY well just last year, BECAUSE of its immense difficulty.

[Rather Dashing]

Super Meat Boy is also one of those games acclaimed PRETTY well just last year, BECAUSE of its immense difficulty.
Saying that Super Meat Boy is great and critically acclaimed due to its difficulty is entirely underselling it, but yeah, it's difficult, and it's fairly well-liked. =P

[Woodsyblue]

I would like to say this is just an opinion, but the facts are against you. For one thing, it is impossible for all games to be easier than they were twenty years ago. It's even impossible for most games to be easier than they were twenty years ago. Mario Galaxy 2 is a bitch in the difficulty area. Syberia 1 and 2 are very difficult adventure games that still manage to find a great balance. Every Megaman game ever made, and every Zelda game ever made are all incredibly hard. That's way more than over a dozen games listed just there, if we're just talking the last decade. Oh, and as far as Wolfenstein..really? I always found Wolfenstein to be fairly easy, as well as Doom and Doom II, but that's just me. I could keep listing games, but I think I've made my point.

I really want to keep this on topic but I'll address a couple of things here and if it goes too long we'll have to make another thread. You are citing a couple of extreme examples here and not looking at the industry as a whole. Games today are so much more forgiving. You say you found Wolfenstein and the Dooms easy but put them next to the average shooter today that takes an average of under six hours to beat and you can't tell me Wolfenstein is easier. And trust me, I know about Zelda, I've beaten them all and don't you dare say the new ones are hard. The recent ones, like Twilight Princess and Wind Waker are cake-wakes compared to the old ones. They don't even compare to 64 era OoT or MM let alone the NES era ones. Zelda II: The Adventures of Link is insanely hard. These days boss fights are gimmes. They put pots filled with all the hearts you'd ever need in each boss room. It's a joke. Also, I found Mario Galaxy too extremely easy too, with the exception of the final star which was just laborious. Difficulty-wise it doesn't even compare to the original or the third.

I'm not saying all * games these days are easier, though just about. But on the whole are games easier than they where? Absolutely. Absolutely! Games these days get auto-saves and unlimited continues as default. When you die in a game you aren't even punished.

As far as Telltale making not making their games hard enough I'm not going to argue. I rarely get stuck for a long periods of time but I don't mind that in Adventure games. When you get stuck in an Adventure game it usually isn't a good kind of stuck, it's usually forgetting to not checking the rat hole at the start in the office or not realising that your spit has to be green. That being said I do miss getting stuck like that to some degree but it's not something I'm going to beg for.

Edit: Yes I know I did use the word 'all' but that was rhetoric. I still think you'd be hard pressed to find a game harder now then the sort of stuff they were bringing out twenty years ago, and even if you did it would be an extreme example and not an accurate reflection of games today.

Double edit: ahhhhhh, so off topic, what's wrong with me? >:I

[Woodsyblue]

Well I guess the speculation can finally end (http://www.telltalegames.com/community/blogs/id-763). I'm personally really looking forward to this.

[Secret Fawful]

I really want to keep this on topic but I'll address a couple of things here and if it goes too long we'll have to make another thread. You are citing a couple of extreme examples here and not looking at the industry as a whole. Games today are so much more forgiving. You say you found Wolfenstein and the Dooms easy but put them next to the average shooter today that takes an average of under six hours to beat and you can't tell me Wolfenstein is easier. And trust me, I know about Zelda, I've beaten them all and don't you dare say the new ones are hard. The recent ones, like Twilight Princess and Wind Waker are cake-wakes compared to the old ones. They don't even compare to 64 era OoT or MM let alone the NES era ones. Zelda II: The Adventures of Link is insanely hard. These days boss fights are gimmes. They put pots filled with all the hearts you'd ever need in each boss room. It's a joke. Also, I found Mario Galaxy too extremely easy too, with the exception of the final star which was just laborious. Difficulty-wise it doesn't even compare to the original or the third.

I'm not saying all * games these days are easier, though just about. But on the whole are games easier than they where? Absolutely. Absolutely! Games these days get auto-saves and unlimited continues as default. When you die in a game you aren't even punished.

I apologize for not seeing this sooner. I can't really argue with you now because I don't remember what reasoning I had at the time to lead me to say what I did, and just re-reading it from a general standpoint, I kind of disagree with myself, which is weird because I only posted it a month ago. Now I have to spend some time rethinking this whole issue.

[Woodsyblue]

I apologize for not seeing this sooner. I can't really argue with you now because I don't remember what reasoning I had at the time to lead me to say what I did, and just re-reading it from a general standpoint, I kind of disagree with myself, which is weird because I only posted it a month ago. Now I have to spend some time rethinking this whole issue.

Oh looking back at it the problem was my wording in an older post. It was poorly worded, ambiguous and could easily be misinterpreted. I only realised that AFTER I wrote out that big long come back and I didn't want to delete it because I spent so much time writing it :o

The whole thing was a misunderstanding, plain and simple.

[Rather Dashing]

The game is based on the comic book universe, not the TV universe. I am very pleasantly surprised by this decision. Easily the right way to go, and now I at least want to see what they're going to do for visuals, even if I have no interest in actually playing this(pending any pre-release statements that this is a game with actual gameplay, with none of that "accessible" crap).

[Woodsyblue]

I think basing it off the comic is the right call. It gives them a lot more licence as far as artistic direction and the like is concerned, plus it allowed them to go after their own interpretation of the original text, rather than trying to convert someone else's interpretation of the text, which would give them a lot less freedom.

[Krinkle K]

Hi. I am an adventure gamer, but I would like to know, will we be able to kill, or re-kill the dead if this becomes a game? It would be useless trying to survive this story without killing the dead, again. Plus, does anyone know if we will have new characters or will the game be based on the TV characters only.

[Rather Dashing]

Hi. I am an adventure gamer, but I would like to know, will we be able to kill, or re-kill the dead if this becomes a game? It would be useless trying to survive this story without killing the dead, again. Plus, does anyone know if we will have new characters or will the game be based on the TV characters only.
According to an interview with Kirkman, the game is based on the comics. Not the TV show.

And they haven't said anything about the game other than that. We don't know anything about the gameplay whatsoever.