Zero Punctuation: Top 5 of 2012

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Baldry:
FINALLY. Some list agrees spec ops is the game of the year, I can die happy.

I'm here, friend. The unpopularity of the line just shows the state of the industry. The game is a mind fuckingly amazing, but people won't buy it, because the reviewers gave it an 8 and not a 9.

Astro:
Because it's unnecessary, time consuming, money consuming, and stupidly difficult to implement. Do you want a videogame story with carefully put together pacing, structure, and coherent arcs, or do you want one which lets you nihilistically drive a probably shitty story on your own? It's unrealistic to expect both, no game has ever pulled it off and from a business standpoint it's unlikely to be funded in a manner more extreme than Mass Effect. It's one or the other, and the ability to make meaningful choices doesn't trump enjoying a good story just because choice is integrated into the method of delivery in videogames.

When game tells me "choose A or B" I want to see the consequence of choice B instead of "shut up, we're going with A anyway".

Good point of comparison (although executed way, WAY worse) is that godawful quest in act III of Dragon Age II, when you discover a group of Templars and Mages, that try to overthrow Meredith and Orsino, to create "No Prejudice" team. I thought that it was the best idea in the world, and I did everything so they could succeed... Only for Bioware, to tell me "no it won't work this way, for the most ridiculous reasons we can come up with (for example my character "working" with Meredith, despite me being a Mage and telling her to fuck off at every possible opportunity). We don't know why we put option to help them, if you couldn't actually do anything with it, but fuck off, and pick between hating Mages or Templars, no middle ground".

Don't get me wrong, TWD is my #3 on my "Best of 2012" list (after #2 XCOM and #1 Spec Ops, which marks one of those few moments when I totally agree with Yahtzee), because it was still a really powerful experience. It would be no doubt #1 though, if I would know that it would be my experience, and someone else, making different choices would get entirely DIFFERENT powerful experience. I know it's extremely difficult to pull it off, but the game that will actually do it correctly will be my favorite game of all time, because I'm waiting for it ever since I started caring for plot in games (IE since Baldurs Gate).

Modern military shooter takes top slot, indie-developed survival horror game is the game Yahtzee considers even worse than Kane and Lynch. The Mayans weren't predicting end times, they were predicting the year the game's industry went snooker loopy.

JoaoJatoba:
I'm playing The Walking Dead, and don't get me wrong, the character developing and story are great, but I feel cheated: the game promises me that the game changes to fit my gameplay and that the my choices change the story, and both just don't happen.

My choice seems only to change the relations between the characters and the gameplay just don't seem to change at all.

What I expected was that my choices would change completely the story, but I'm bound to a linear path, at least on the big picture. Sure, the choices can change the characters relations, but it's not up to the promised features.

Bottom line: great game, unfulfilled promises.

Yes, this is true. What happens in the game is roughly the same no matter what choices you make, BUT, I also kind of think that's the point. The Walking Dead game is extremely existential, in the sense that YOU - and only you - are responsible for your own choices as well as having to deal with the consequences of those choices. You can't make anyone else's choices for them, you can't change how they behave, and you can't change their fates. Whether a character dies in episode 1 or episode 3 -- it doesn't matter, their lives are their lives and you can't help how they turn out.

I think the game is purposely trying to show us that we DON'T have control over everything as we may think, just like in our own lives. We can choose what kind of people we are going to be, but the bottom line is, things are going to happen without our choosing anyway. The Walking Dead understands this, and so as you make Lee's decisions you're not meant to change the entire course of his life, you are only deciding what kind of human being he's going to be; what kind of principles he's going to live by; how he's going to relate to others in a bleak world, etc. And as others have said, these choices come full swing, particularly in episode 5.

It's a wonderful game, not because of the gameplay, which is very minimalistic, or even the story, which is excellent -- it's great because it makes us analyze ourselves and has us question what kind of people we want to be.

Blegh. I did a poor job of explaining that, but I hope it made sense.

I hate how he's constantly hating on shooters, it's so clear that he doesn't like shooters and I wish he would stop reviewing them if he only does so to complain about them.

Yes, that is sarcasm that comes out of my annoyance from all of those who complain on all his reviews of shooters.

As for the list I have been unable to play most of the games he mentioned (I'm staying away from bottom 5), but I have bought Spec Ops The Line because of his praise for it and I'm looking forward to the day I'll finally have time to play it. X-com was a game I wanted to buy on day 1, but my backlog was too big at the time (still is) so I am putting that on hold for a while.

Existentialistme:

JoaoJatoba:
I'm playing The Walking Dead, and don't get me wrong, the character developing and story are great, but I feel cheated: the game promises me that the game changes to fit my gameplay and that the my choices change the story, and both just don't happen.

My choice seems only to change the relations between the characters and the gameplay just don't seem to change at all.

What I expected was that my choices would change completely the story, but I'm bound to a linear path, at least on the big picture. Sure, the choices can change the characters relations, but it's not up to the promised features.

Bottom line: great game, unfulfilled promises.

Yes, this is true. What happens in the game is roughly the same no matter what choices you make, BUT, I also kind of think that's the point. The Walking Dead game is extremely existential, in the sense that YOU - and only you - are responsible for your own choices as well as having to deal with the consequences of those choices. You can't make anyone else's choices for them, you can't change how they behave, and you can't change their fates. Whether a character dies in episode 1 or episode 3 -- it doesn't matter, their lives are their lives and you can't help how they turn out.

I think the game is purposely trying to show us that we DON'T have control over everything as we may think, just like in our own lives. We can choose what kind of people we are going to be, but the bottom line is, things are going to happen without our choosing anyway. The Walking Dead understands this, and so as you make Lee's decisions you're not meant to change the entire course of his life, you are only deciding what kind of human being he's going to be; what kind of principles he's going to live by; how he's going to relate to others in a bleak world, etc. And as others have said, these choices come full swing, particularly in episode 5.

It's a wonderful game, not because of the gameplay, which is very minimalistic, or even the story, which is excellent -- it's great because it makes us analyze ourselves and has us question what kind of people we want to be.

Blegh. I did a poor job of explaining that, but I hope it made sense.

You did make sense. And I think TWD it's a wonderfull game so far. But there is a big warning at the beginning of each episode that says more or less "This games changes to fit your gameplay" what is just not true. All I'm saying it's a promise that remains unfulfilled this far in the game (I'm on episode 3).

JoaoJatoba:
I'm playing The Walking Dead, and don't get me wrong, the character developing and story are great, but I feel cheated: the game promises me that the game changes to fit my gameplay and that the my choices change the story, and both just don't happen.

My choice seems only to change the relations between the characters and the gameplay just don't seem to change at all.

What I expected was that my choices would change completely the story, but I'm bound to a linear path, at least on the big picture. Sure, the choices can change the characters relations, but it's not up to the promised features.

Bottom line: great game, unfulfilled promises.

they say the story adapts to your choices they never said your actions completely change the story

wombat_of_war:

JoaoJatoba:
I'm playing The Walking Dead, and don't get me wrong, the character developing and story are great, but I feel cheated: the game promises me that the game changes to fit my gameplay and that the my choices change the story, and both just don't happen.

My choice seems only to change the relations between the characters and the gameplay just don't seem to change at all.

What I expected was that my choices would change completely the story, but I'm bound to a linear path, at least on the big picture. Sure, the choices can change the characters relations, but it's not up to the promised features.

Bottom line: great game, unfulfilled promises.

they say the story adapts to your choices they never said your actions completely change the story

adapt [əˈdpt]
vb
1. (often foll by to) to adjust (someone or something, esp oneself) to different conditions, a new environment, etc.
2. (tr) to fit, change, or modify to suit a new or different purpose: to adapt a play for use in schools
[from Latin adaptāre, from ad- to + aptāre to fit, from aptus apt]

Yossarian1507:

Astro:
Because it's unnecessary, time consuming, money consuming, and stupidly difficult to implement. Do you want a videogame story with carefully put together pacing, structure, and coherent arcs, or do you want one which lets you nihilistically drive a probably shitty story on your own? It's unrealistic to expect both, no game has ever pulled it off and from a business standpoint it's unlikely to be funded in a manner more extreme than Mass Effect. It's one or the other, and the ability to make meaningful choices doesn't trump enjoying a good story just because choice is integrated into the method of delivery in videogames.

When game tells me "choose A or B" I want to see the consequence of choice B instead of "shut up, we're going with A anyway".

Good point of comparison (although executed way, WAY worse) is that godawful quest in act III of Dragon Age II, when you discover a group of Templars and Mages, that try to overthrow Meredith and Orsino, to create "No Prejudice" team. I thought that it was the best idea in the world, and I did everything so they could succeed... Only for Bioware, to tell me "no it won't work this way, for the most ridiculous reasons we can come up with (for example my character "working" with Meredith, despite me being a Mage and telling her to fuck off at every possible opportunity). We don't know why we put option to help them, if you couldn't actually do anything with it, but fuck off, and pick between hating Mages or Templars, no middle ground".

Don't get me wrong, TWD is my #3 on my "Best of 2012" list (after #2 XCOM and #1 Spec Ops, which marks one of those few moments when I totally agree with Yahtzee), because it was still a really powerful experience. It would be no doubt #1 though, if I would know that it would be my experience, and someone else, making different choices would get entirely DIFFERENT powerful experience. I know it's extremely difficult to pull it off, but the game that will actually do it correctly will be my favorite game of all time, because I'm waiting for it ever since I started caring for plot in games (IE since Baldurs Gate).

There is a seed of this kind of games in the Visual Novel genre (see Katawa Shoujo). If only someone could make it work in a smaller scale in a regular game...

I've officially become a wanker indie PC gaming hipster and my my top 5 games are all independents, roguelikes, mods and grand strategy games.

1) Hotline Miami. Damn this game's good. A masterful deconstruction of narrative vs. gameplay.

2) FTL. The simple mechanics of this game add together to create something really deep. Although I really wish it was about space trading rather than outrunning an all powerful enemy.

3) Don't Starve. Great rogue like with cutesy graphics. I've yet to survive more than 4 days. Really wish I know how to get manure.

4) Crusader Kings II. A marriage and succession simulator. Seriously. There's combat but you do far more pimping out of yours and other people's offspring and then inviting them over for dinner fighting. Nobody seems to try to marry into your dynasty without you asking though, like you're the only entity in the world with any agency.

5) DayZ. A zombie mod where people are infinitely more terrifying than the undead. The devs really need to turn up the impact of exposure, make the game more about building a zombie proof shelter. Make zombies more problematic, perhaps make slow them down but make them a one hit kill. Get rid of the more ridiculous guns and NGVs. Force people to play at night and use torches. Make food rarer. Add food/water poisoning. Have hunger make you weaker. Currently it's more about wide area team deathmatch than survival.

Games I found disappointing but get honorable mentions are:

Dishonored. Fascinating world with unfortunately no real depth to it. Really needs a DLC prequal that establishes what it is you exacly do for the Empreress Overall really good but just slightly anaemic and thus disappointing. Big hopes for the sequal though.

XCOM. Again really good but the lack of customisation for your squad members felt limiting. If I want to give the sniper a rocket launcher or the support squaddie a heavy machine-gun then why do you want to stop me? At least let me choose which skill tree I want to develop for each team-member. And learn how to procedurally generate maps. It feels likes there's 5 on rotation sometimes. Seriously. Randomised squad classes and set maps? That's a little backwards.

Civ5 Gods & Kings. Really didn't add much. The AI is better I guess but I've played this sort of game so many different ways that I've lost all interest. Somebody need to make a CIV with multiplayer slow realtime play.

The only thing this list did was to remind me how few games I have acutally played this year. I still have a lot of catching up to do.

Also, spunkgargleweewee is still a really stupid term.

Kuomon:
Thank god for Yathzee remembering Spec-Ops: The Line, most videogame commentators I follow completely forgot about it or didn't think it was deserving enough

Well Spec-Ops: The Line is mostly a left wing anti-war/anti-military wank dressed up as a game. It's really great if you happen to agree with it's message, then you can claim it's profound, needed commentary, on something people try and overlook. If you belong to the other 50% of the population then it's just a mediocre game with a misguided piece of political propaganda sewn in which it insists on constantly bludgeoning you over the head and shoulders with.

As a result, "Spec-Ops: The Line" is something a critic, like Yahtzee can praise on the merits of it's message, if they happen to agree (which you might guess Yahtzee does, given all of his anti-US military rants in various reviews), but something a person with more pretensions of being a reviewer can't in good conscience lionize because really aside from that "message" it has nothing going on, and really it's something not everyone is going to agree with.

It doesn't really surprise me as being on Yahtzee's list, given that I felt 2012 was really short on stand out games. Much like 2011 it seemed like a year in which everything that was supposed to be really huge fell flat, and anything that looks especially good is being pushed up. To be honest with most of the truely huge developments like whatever Blizzards "Project Titan" is planned for the end of 2013 at the earliest, I expect 2013 to largely be a dry year.

It seems like we're looking at a 3-4 year cycle of in terms of bunches of really good games coming out, with the intervening time largely filled by rush projects (no matter how long it's claimed they were in development), quick cash ins, and rubber stamped franchise sequels. Among these there are some relative gems, especially among the new IPs that come out as experiments, but for the most part it's differant variations on bland.

This is just my opinion.

For all my pretend sophistication I still laugh at raspberries as much as when I was two years old.

:/

Epyc Wyn:
Kind of disappointed you didn't list Rayman Origins.

Rayman Origins came in 2011.

OT: Glad to see XCOM: Enemy Unknown up there on the top 5 best list.

Although I can't help but wonder what you would have thought of Journey, assuming you even played it.

Therumancer:

Well Spec-Ops: The Line is mostly a left wing anti-war/anti-military wank dressed up as a game. It's really great if you happen to agree with it's message, then you can claim it's profound, needed commentary, on something people try and overlook. If you belong to the other 50% of the population then it's just a mediocre game with a misguided piece of political propaganda sewn in which it insists on constantly bludgeoning you over the head and shoulders with.

As a result, "Spec-Ops: The Line" is something a critic, like Yahtzee can praise on the merits of it's message, if they happen to agree (which you might guess Yahtzee does, given all of his anti-US military rants in various reviews), but something a person with more pretensions of being a reviewer can't in good conscience lionize because really aside from that "message" it has nothing going on, and really it's something not everyone is going to agree with.

Not trying to be confrontational, but did you play The Line? I was actually very surprised at how understated the explicit anti-war elements were. It's more focused on deconstructing the mindset of a shooter protagonist. There are a few bits where it brings up current events (surprise surprise the CIA is evil) but aside from that it's relatively apolitical. I liked it because it's a fairly convincing portrayal of a man's tragic fall mixed with a deconstruction of shooters.

As much as I liked the Resident Evil series, I wish they'd just stop.

JoaoJatoba:

wombat_of_war:

JoaoJatoba:
I'm playing The Walking Dead, and don't get me wrong, the character developing and story are great, but I feel cheated: the game promises me that the game changes to fit my gameplay and that the my choices change the story, and both just don't happen.

My choice seems only to change the relations between the characters and the gameplay just don't seem to change at all.

What I expected was that my choices would change completely the story, but I'm bound to a linear path, at least on the big picture. Sure, the choices can change the characters relations, but it's not up to the promised features.

Bottom line: great game, unfulfilled promises.

they say the story adapts to your choices they never said your actions completely change the story

adapt [əˈdpt]
vb
1. (often foll by to) to adjust (someone or something, esp oneself) to different conditions, a new environment, etc.
2. (tr) to fit, change, or modify to suit a new or different purpose: to adapt a play for use in schools
[from Latin adaptāre, from ad- to + aptāre to fit, from aptus apt]

....

Are you seriously arguing semantics?

Please don't.

Also, your comment doesn't really say anything about why you dislike The Walking Dead.

Probably because you copied the definition for "adapt" from some dictionary website and used it as a substitute for your own opinion.

FallenMessiah88:
The only thing this list did was to remind me how few games I have acutally played this year. I still have a lot of catching up to do.

Also, spunkgargleweewee is still a really stupid term.

I believe that's the point of the newfangled terminology.

Therumancer:

Well Spec-Ops: The Line is mostly a left wing anti-war/anti-military wank dressed up as a game. It's really great if you happen to agree with it's message, then you can claim it's profound, needed commentary, on something people try and overlook. If you belong to the other 50% of the population then it's just a mediocre game with a misguided piece of political propaganda sewn in which it insists on constantly bludgeoning you over the head and shoulders with.

"Propaganda"? At least it isn't totally historically revisionist like Black Ops. But all this really shows is that you missed Spec-Ops' real meaning.

It's is an indictment of unthinking jingoism but not an indictment of thoughtful muscular foreign policy. However it's more anti-military shooter and anti-violence porn than anti-war. A forth-wall breaking comment on how little the games we play as entertainment actually reflect on the massive amounts of violence that they allow us to perpetuate in their imaginary worlds.

Errant Signal probably analyzes this game best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlBrenhzMZI

But it's typical of you that you think that because a military shooter isn't unashamedly pro-war you think that it must be propaganda. Military shooters represent none of the real effects of war, rather they fetishize combat into something that is completely imaginary.

Spec-Ops fetishizes the combat in the same way and then asks you why you're doing it. It has nothing to say about any real war or current military conflict (Really, the situation depicted in Spec-Ops is absurd.) apart from perhaps the fact that violence brutalizes everyone around it including it's perpetrators.

If you wanted a real anti-war game you'd probably have to make the protagonist a woman fleeing with small children from their village as it was hit by a sectarian murder patrol or a US military airstrike.

Vault101:

Sylveria:

Of course it was.. you saw how much advertising ME3 had here and how fervently most of The Escapist contributors were to defend EA and condemn the consumer outcry.

yes...obviously foul play is the only answer....

To be perfectly honest, anyone would've stood up for EA when Zeel was still running around.

MegaManOfNumbers:

wombat_of_war:

they say the story adapts to your choices they never said your actions completely change the story

JoaoJatoba:
adapt [əˈdpt]
vb
1. (often foll by to) to adjust (someone or something, esp oneself) to different conditions, a new environment, etc.
2. (tr) to fit, change, or modify to suit a new or different purpose: to adapt a play for use in schools
[from Latin adaptāre, from ad- to + aptāre to fit, from aptus apt]

....

Are you seriously arguing semantics?

Please don't.

Also, your comment doesn't really say anything about why you dislike The Walking Dead.

Probably because you copied the definition for "adapt" from some dictionary website and used it as a substitute for your own opinion.

If someone says something adapts to other thing, I expect that something CHANGES. So, yeah, semantics... It matters when some one says that something adapts but doesn't change.

About my opinion, you seem lazy, cause it's right there on your quote, so I'll give the short answer: I don't dislike it, I LOVE IT. I just feel that they don't deliver what is promised on the warning before the title screen.

Long version, copied and pasted below.

JoaoJatoba:
I'm playing The Walking Dead, and don't get me wrong, the character developing and story are great, but I feel cheated: the game promises me that the game changes to fit my gameplay and that the my choices change the story, and both just don't happen.

My choice seems only to change the relations between the characters and the gameplay just don't seem to change at all.

What I expected was that my choices would change completely the story, but I'm bound to a linear path, at least on the big picture. Sure, the choices can change the characters relations, but it's not up to the promised features.

Bottom line: great game, unfulfilled promises.

DataSnake:

Xman490:
Even Far Cry 3, as good as I might guess it is from the opinions of a banana and other fruity folk, makes me shudder at the thought of signing in to Ubisoft's DRM BS every time I want to play. And it's an open-world shooter (like Just Cause 2) with plenty of guns (fullfilled by Valve games and Killing Floor).

Actually, I'd say it's more of a stealth-em-up than a shooter. Sure, there are boomsticks aplenty, but I spent most of the game hiding in the brush waiting for an enemy to wander too close so I could jump out, stab him, pull the pin on the grenade in his belt, and throw his body into a group of his friends.

It feels even better for me who preps for night time and waits in the shadows before climbing up a steel container, stabbing one guy in the chest,hopping down to stab another and pull the pin and then stab another to throw a knife towards the second to last guy and finally pop the other in the head with a silenced SMG and all that while playing background MGS sneak music.

It's my first far Cry game but it's also a recent favourite of mine since we are rewarded just as well for using stealth tactics rather than most shooters these and sandboxes these days where it's best to go in guns blazing.

Plus I love watching my enemies freak out when they find one of their stabbed buddies only for the dead to serve as mere bait for another.

I don't get the fuss about Spec Ops. I played for about 2 hours and was just bored and didn't find it in the least bit interesting enough to continue. Maybe I'll push through to figure out what all the hype is about but honestly, it screamed "samey boring shooter" to me. Doesn't help that on PC they decided to just 1:1 convert gamepad buttons instead of giving things their own buttons like they're supposed to. Basically, the controls felt like I was driving a very large school bus full of fat children instead of a coupe.

But the bigger question is: Is Yahtzee still a banana?

Balkan:

Baldry:
FINALLY. Some list agrees spec ops is the game of the year, I can die happy.

I'm here, friend. The unpopularity of the line just shows the state of the industry. The game is a mind fuckingly amazing, but people won't buy it, because the reviewers gave it an 8 and not a 9.

No, I think it's more about the poor mechanics, and that playing it is exactly like hitting yourself in the face with the history book as illustrated in the video. Some people don't want to buy a game that's really, really not fun, and I can respect that. In fact, it's sort of wise to avoid it because you can't really stop playing it once you get into it like in that movie Saw where you have to cut your leg off to escape.

Wolfram23:
I don't get the fuss about Spec Ops. I played for about 2 hours and was just bored and didn't find it in the least bit interesting enough to continue. Maybe I'll push through to figure out what all the hype is about but honestly, it screamed "samey boring shooter" to me. Doesn't help that on PC they decided to just 1:1 convert gamepad buttons instead of giving things their own buttons like they're supposed to. Basically, the controls felt like I was driving a very large school bus full of fat children instead of a coupe.

1. They made the beginning part of the game samey ON PURPOSE.
2. Keep playing. Heh heh heh.

Here's my list of top 5 games of 2012, top to bottom. Top is best:

    - The Walking Dead
    - Borderlands 2
    - Farcry 3
    - Black Ops II
    - Mass Effect 3

I liked Yahtzee's list, and I really really REALLY want to check out Spec Ops: The Line now ... everyone's talking about it. Again, I felt it was just another generic shooter at first but now it's got way more to it where people are loving it and being very emotional. Crap I need to see .. no, play this!

Also mind you, I like Black Ops II. It's fun, despite how it's got flaws and the number of people who hate Call of Duty, it's still awesome and addictive. However it's the only game that gets me upset enough where I need to take breaks, campers are not appreciated.

josh4president:
Genuinely surprised Black Ops 2 didn't make his 'Worst' list for how much vitriol he spewed about it.

He actually wasn't THAT down on it.

josh4president:
Genuinely surprised Black Ops 2 didn't make his 'Worst' list for how much vitriol he spewed about it.

What he didn't like was that not much has changed, not that it was utterly terrible.

Oh, and it was racist.

Didn't make it the "worst" as Warfighter is clearly worse.

JoaoJatoba:
I'm playing The Walking Dead, and don't get me wrong, the character developing and story are great, but I feel cheated: the game promises me that the game changes to fit my gameplay and that the my choices change the story, and both just don't happen.

My choice seems only to change the relations between the characters and the gameplay just don't seem to change at all.

What I expected was that my choices would change completely the story, but I'm bound to a linear path, at least on the big picture. Sure, the choices can change the characters relations, but it's not up to the promised features.

Bottom line: great game, unfulfilled promises.

It says its "tailored" to the choices you make. While character relations change, the story is yours regardless. Won't get into the end, but some choices pay off, and you're given more. Do one full playthrough blind, then go back and change some choices around.

It's like what people expected about Mass Effect. I only played the first 2 games mind you, but both followed a linear plot structure, and only character relationships - and some deaths - changing. But the plot? No, that seems to always remain the same. I don't know why people expected so many endings for ME3. It felt more binary as there were clear paragon and renegade choices. In TWD there are no good choices.

Don't know how far you got, but...(as non-spoilery as possible)

josh4president:
Genuinely surprised Black Ops 2 didn't make his 'Worst' list for how much vitriol he spewed about it.

Black Ops 2 and the entire MMS genre (baring Spec Ops: The Line) was represented by Warfighter.

Yopaz:
I hate how he's constantly hating on shooters, it's so clear that he doesn't like shooters.

May I direct your attention to his Warfighter/Doom 3 Review? He loves shooters - he hates Spunkgargleweewee.

JoaoJatoba:

I know that, but why can't we have both? There space for both kind of decisions: decisions that changes the path we take, and decisions about other characters that develop relations.

Honestly? Money. AND the episodic structure. Considering that, I think they do a good job. The game was a surprise hit, as their Jurassic Park game was a total flop.

Honestly, I think they did a better job than the Mass Effect series. All the decisions are clearly dilemmas. And characters clearly change around you as you make decisions. But the plot remains largely the same despite how many times they tell you otherwise.

JoaoJatoba:

For example, early in the first episode you can choose to stay in one location or to leave. Whatever the choice we end up in the same place... Why cant we have different outcomes for a decision that is purely about "where to go now"?

You're teaching Clem. Do you have hints on? I played without hints on, and apparently I missed the whole "Clem will remember this..." dialog. Also, the hints really mess with you in later episodes. When I replay, I will with hints.

In this case, you end up at the same location, but you didn't choose it. This undermines you as a leader to the rest of the group. Also later, with the tractor, who you choose to save doesn't change who gets saved. However character reactions change toward you. I actually got annoyed about how many times Kenny tells me how he feels, but apparently others didn't understand that this actually had a lasting effect (and certainly effects his decisions later on in the game).

Yopaz:
I hate how he's constantly hating on shooters, it's so clear that he doesn't like shooters and I wish he would stop reviewing them if he only does so to complain about them.

Yes, that is sarcasm that comes out of my annoyance from all of those who complain on all his reviews of shooters.

As for the list I have been unable to play most of the games he mentioned (I'm staying away from bottom 5), but I have bought Spec Ops The Line because of his praise for it and I'm looking forward to the day I'll finally have time to play it. X-com was a game I wanted to buy on day 1, but my backlog was too big at the time (still is) so I am putting that on hold for a while.

Playing XCom at the moment (got it yesterday) and it's brilliant. It's definitely in my top 5 of the year - though I haven't played Spec Ops or Dishonoured yet.

My top 5:

Hotline: Miami
The Walking Dead
Mark of the Ninja
XCOM
FTL

I'm fairly certain that will shift around a bit, but this year was clearly the year for the small downloadable title.

Astro:
I'm shocked that Assassin's Creed 3 wasn't in the bottom five. I'd say it earned its place over Resident Evil 6 because we don't expect this magnitude of shit from the AC series after a two game warm-up.

I don't recall it being shit as much as astoundingly average from most reviewers. Even Yahtzee.

JoaoJatoba:

Astro:

Because it's unnecessary, time consuming, money consuming, and stupidly difficult to implement. Do you want a videogame story with carefully put together pacing, structure, and coherent arcs, or do you want one which lets you nihilistically drive a probably shitty story on your own?

I don't see how having multiple storylines in a episodic game that can get enough funds solely by the name in the cover a impossible task. Look at Katawa Shoujo.

Not impossible. Costly. In this case it's voice acting and writing. Gary Whitta (writer) is a comic book writer and novelist with substantial credits. Even though this is an adaptation of a high profile comic (no, Whitta is not the comic's writer, though he works closely with Kirkman), it only became high profile after the TV show went as well as it did. The rights to the game were sold before the TV rights, and didn't have nearly enough money behind it. When Activision got rights to the TV Show, they had to rush it out even more in order to compete with what looks to be yet another zombie shooter.

Telltale's earlier efforts do okay, but not nearly as well as The Walking Dead did. Jurassic Park and Back to the Future should have been printing money as well, but they weren't. TWD was a surprise hit and no one knew it'd do as well as it did.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here