I’m sorry not everyone has the same exact tastes as you, Po. Please educate us on what type of things we should like, for I am but an ignorant peasant. :sad:
They can age her but I doubt it would be adult age. The games are in the comic book continuity. They can’t get ahead of themselves
No, its fine that you guys like that stuff… But it seems like every non-Sonichuman post is someone gushing over some boring ass shit*(to me)* that plays itself… That’s not my scene, and just like you all get tired of me saying "FUCK CAPCOM, WHERE ARE MY GOOD ACTION GAMES?" I tire of ***“OMG, THIS INTERACTIVE MOVIE HAS SUCH FEELS!”***.
If I wasn’t here to spice things up, every post would be about post-FF7 RPGs and lame talking and walking games…
I’m a living, breathing relic at this point… I’m literally Cranky Kong, telling everyone how much they suck, and why they don’t realize how bad they suck… How sad. :sad:
There’s no reason a game can’t sacrifice playability or a deep system of mechanics to provide a more cinematic and narrative experience. I really don’t get what the big deal is, nor do I see why it’s surprising that some people find that play style to be their cup of tea. -shrug-
That’s true, and all, but the issue lies with where the line between game and not-a-game is drawn. I don’t think a game should ever sacrifice playability in favor of story and narrative… It defeats the purpose of a video game, to be honest. What these people need to strive for, are creating deep, meaningful stories that captivate you while maintaining playability and function. If I wanted an amazing, deep storyline and nothing else, I’d watch a movie or a series. A game should play well first and foremost. The story, character quality, etc come second. If they’re top notch as well, you have a great game.
I actually watched my wife play through the first walking dead and thought it was a pretty good game. I’m interested in the second when I have enough in the budget to pick it up. I’m trying really hard not to spoil myself on anything. The gripe I had with the first one was that regardless of your choices in the game there’s at least 1 event that doesn’t get changed up.
So you’re basically griping over what we’re calling it? What level of interaction distinguishes a game from other mediums of entertainment, and who gets to decide where that line is drawn really?
If you enjoy the experience for what it is, the developer’s job was done successfully.
Nah, I don’t care what you want to call it. I’m just saying that certain “games” don’t quality as far as I’m concerned, and they don’t offer what I look for. I want to be able to actually play my games… A series of QuickTime events don’t cut it for me.
What’s funny is people don’t actually watch movies for the story either. Michael Bay says hi.
You actively take control of the character and do what needs to be done. Having to sneak into a house and gather medical supplies without getting caught isn’t done via QTEs. There’s conditions for failure just like any normal game. The level of interaction in these adventure games are fine.
I think somebody should do a playthrough of both seasons of The Walking dead by immediately setting down the controller. Just to demonstrate that it doesnt autopilot and that if you dont do anything it completely fucking sucks.
The Walking dead is fantastic. I haven’t read the comics but I imagine that the source material has a lot of weight in quality.
Oh, I know. I’ve watched a playthrough of the entire first season, I believe. To be clear, I’m not talking about TWD specifically, though it does fall loosely into the category. Think more along the lines of Asura’s Wrath and Heavy Rain.
I don’t believe that TWD and anything Telltale has done falls anywhere close to those two. Heavy Rain doesn’t have any failure states whatever so it fails to met even the basic requires of a game. Asura’s Wrath is auto-pilot as you don’t have to do anything and it will continue to go forward. Player interaction is much heavier driving force for adventures games than those two games were.
Heavy Rain and Asura’s Wrath dont really meet eye to eye though. Using the TotalBiscuit argument of, there needs to be conditions for failure where you can lose. You can actually die and have to restart in AW. Where as in Heavy Rain the show keeps trucking along no matter what happens. David Cage even stated that being able to get a game over screen is a failure on teh part of the developer(which is complete bullshit btw).
In that light I’d say Asura’s Wrath is in fact a game by just the smallest margin, but Heavy Rain does earn the title of an interactive movie. More emphasized by the fact that AW has a health bar implying the possibility to fuck up, where as Heavy Rain doesnt. Even the supposed stealth section in Beyond Two Souls felt stale and void of real control.
Did you guys even play Asura’s Wrath.
Because there were actually dozens of sections where you took literal control of Asura, even though most of the game was still QTE’s. 
I feel the best way to describe the game is “A shallow action game with QTE cutscenes to segue into the next section face punching”.
Hawkingbird come on man. You’re better than this. Calling AW autopilot is ignorant as hell. You do actually have to press buttons to make things happen
Honestly I don’t think you need failure states for something to be a game, just some form of interaction and influence. I can’t comment on Heavy Rain having never played it.
I would disagree. The idea that the show goes on, even without you, takes away from the satisfaction you get at the end of the ordeal IMO, and makes it less of a game and more “some thing I did that I kinda enjoyed on my Xbox.”
Games are all about the experience. I want to look back at a game I’ve played and say “it was a great experience” (or some other synonym). All about the experience.
I think my absolute worst experience wasn’t a game but a chapter. The final chapter of Wet damn near broke my soul.