Journey is IGN's Game of the Year. Now Gamespot GOTY too! What in the world.....

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

Walking Dead is not like point and click adventure games of old. It is an extemely stripped down version of them. It is the equivalent of NG becoming a game where you press one or two buttons to instantly kill enemies, the core mechnics that made it what it was is gone. The worst part of the Walking Dead is when it allows you to walk around and use items on stuff, it just becomes a time waster cause you know everything you need is in front of you, there is no thinking involved. They might has well have gone full interative movie and cut that out, instead they leave the zombified corpse of an adventure game around to fill parts of the game.

I agree gameplay is not just shooting people in the face. Gameplay is the empowering of the player to feel like they are an active participant in the games event. Whether that means through shooting, fighting, puzzle solving, jumping, or talking. The game needs to make sure the player is in control, the player needs to feel a necessary a part of the experience, not a bystandard just watching what the director puts in front of you while you do minimal actions, that is more a movie than a game. A game like RE6 which is an action game of course puts the player into the action, yes it does some things poorly and it deserves to be criticized for it. A game like Walking Dead allows the player to make some choices in the story and it does it well but everything else is done poorly. Just cause the actions are not there doesn't mean they should be ignored. I am not a true participant in the story, I am just a guy that in certain points makes a choice to turn to one page or another, that is basically it. Everything else you do is simply move cursors over things and mash buttons when the game tells you, not good gameplay. What if I did have actual control, what if when a zombie attack did happen I could try multiple ways to excape, what if I actually had to use my brain to think my way out of the situation and not do the only possible interaction the game gives you. That is what I am talking about, Walking Dead is a step back in gameplay.

That said WOW does Walking Dead have a fantastic story!! And any fan of the show has to play this.

dvader654

Challenging puzzles are wonderful, but they should fit. If there isn't a convincing (in the context of the game) reason to do something, developer shouldn't do it. Coming across a door that could be only be opened by solving an elaborate riddle or putting seven cubes into the right holes would perhaps win the praise of puzzle fans but would pull people out of the game. For a game based on the Walking Dead (which is about survivors dealing with each other and zombies) elaborate puzzles don't really make sense. Puzzles of any sort and any difficulty are fine if they fit, but if they don't... To go with your Ninja Gaiden reference, the series has puzzles, but based on my experience with the first game (I skipped the sequels) the tendency to praise it for the action and block out the puzzles is perfectly understandable. Why include something for the sake of it being there if people don't enjoy it?

Your claim that The Walking Dead consists of moving your cursor over something and pressing a button is quite true and is pretty much the definition of a point and click game. Given that you have a deep problem with moving cursors and clicking as opposed to directly controlling a character, point and click adventures are probably not a good genre for you.

Question.

Answer.

I agree with what TC said. I'm sure it's a great experience (one of the few times I'll use the word) but I've seen the gameplay and it leaves a lot to be desired. Not that there's anything wrong with it mind you. It's just so mind numbingly simple and the game is way too short... there are more deserving games this year that deserve the title more, I think. They simply had better gameplay and other stuff.

Just finished episode 3 of The Walking Dead and I must I am impressed. Episode 2 is my favorite so far. I saw the twist coming but still had a few unexpected surprises. The Walking Dead is how Resident Evil 6 should have been story wise dealing with survival horror.

I played a little bit of Journey and the graphics impressed me more than the gameplay. Granted I respect the overall feel of Journey adding something fresh to the table. I can see Journey snatching a category win for creativity and a unique experience. But GOTY?If GOTY had to be an indie game, I'd pick The Walking Dead over Journey.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

Walking Dead is not like point and click adventure games of old. It is an extemely stripped down version of them. It is the equivalent of NG becoming a game where you press one or two buttons to instantly kill enemies, the core mechnics that made it what it was is gone. The worst part of the Walking Dead is when it allows you to walk around and use items on stuff, it just becomes a time waster cause you know everything you need is in front of you, there is no thinking involved. They might has well have gone full interative movie and cut that out, instead they leave the zombified corpse of an adventure game around to fill parts of the game.

I agree gameplay is not just shooting people in the face. Gameplay is the empowering of the player to feel like they are an active participant in the games event. Whether that means through shooting, fighting, puzzle solving, jumping, or talking. The game needs to make sure the player is in control, the player needs to feel a necessary a part of the experience, not a bystandard just watching what the director puts in front of you while you do minimal actions, that is more a movie than a game. A game like RE6 which is an action game of course puts the player into the action, yes it does some things poorly and it deserves to be criticized for it. A game like Walking Dead allows the player to make some choices in the story and it does it well but everything else is done poorly. Just cause the actions are not there doesn't mean they should be ignored. I am not a true participant in the story, I am just a guy that in certain points makes a choice to turn to one page or another, that is basically it. Everything else you do is simply move cursors over things and mash buttons when the game tells you, not good gameplay. What if I did have actual control, what if when a zombie attack did happen I could try multiple ways to excape, what if I actually had to use my brain to think my way out of the situation and not do the only possible interaction the game gives you. That is what I am talking about, Walking Dead is a step back in gameplay.

That said WOW does Walking Dead have a fantastic story!! And any fan of the show has to play this.

dvader654

Challenging puzzles are wonderful, but they should fit. If there isn't a convincing (in the context of the game) reason to do something, developer shouldn't do it. Coming across a door that could be only be opened by solving an elaborate riddle or putting seven cubes into the right holes would perhaps win the praise of puzzle fans but would pull people out of the game. For a game based on the Walking Dead (which is about survivors dealing with each other and zombies) elaborate puzzles don't really make sense. Puzzles of any sort and any difficulty are fine if they fit, but if they don't... To go with your Ninja Gaiden reference, the series has puzzles, but based on my experience with the first game (I skipped the sequels) the tendency to praise it for the action and block out the puzzles is perfectly understandable. Why include something for the sake of it being there if people don't enjoy it?

Your claim that The Walking Dead consists of moving your cursor over something and pressing a button is quite true and is pretty much the definition of a point and click game. Given that you have a deep problem with moving cursors and clicking as opposed to directly controlling a character, point and click adventures are probably not a good genre for you.

I was about to ask you the same question :P. As for beating up the Walking Dead for not matching the freedom of the magical game that you have sketched out in your head, that is a classic case of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

[QUOTE="Justin_G"]

should ME get GOTY for each individual part of the series? i mean, 2 already got best game awards. why should 3 get more? there are other games. Mass Effect had it's run for years now.

well, yeah. it is subjective. that's why it matters. if we were going to objectively name the GOTY, it would be pretty hard to do. what makes a "GOTY" then, if not for uniqueness or originality? the perfect game, as i see it, doesn't exist; IF NOT for uniqueness and originality.dvader654

Absolutely any game that has multiple parts that are ach eworthy of GOTY deserve to be praised. Just cause a game is a sequel it doesn't mean it is not unqiue. And orginallity is not the end all measurement, just one of many.

There is no way to objectively name a GOTY, in the end opinions are all subjective. I just feel there should be some level of standards. If you want to name Journey your favorite game of the year I have no problem with it, I think you are a bit weird but that is ok. You may think me weird cause I like ME3 so much, whatever. I felt that the guys you spent their whole lives playing games, guys who run major game websites would have more respect for what gameplay means to games. But it seems story over gameplay is becoming more and more favorable. I just don't like that, its more about that than the actual GOTY award.

They do, its too bad Bioware doesn't. If Bioware did, they wouldn't have gone in the direction they have (they look at whatever genre is popular, then sloppily implement the gameplay in an rpg) and they would polish their games rather than just frantically throw in stuff up until they ship.

Bioware Guy 1: We could make ME3 the most polished game in the series or we could throw in multiplayer.

Bioware Guy 2: Anyone that cares about game design/gameplay probably isn't a big fan of our modern games. To hell with quality! Throw in the multiplayer! More bullet points equal more sales!

I try the demo of Walking Dead and could not find decent game play to justify getting it.

I, for one, am very very happy that we're seeing some adventure games gaining popularity. And I'm very confused as to why some people think that they necessarily need puzzles. Try to remember a random adventure game you played 10 years ago or something, nothing recent. What do you remember about said game? I can tell you that, of all the adventure games that are not super-fresh in my memory, I can't remember one single puzzle. Not one. And I played a lot of them, and some puzzles were super hard, some were super interesting, etc. But none of them left a mark. What I remember from the adventure games I've played is characters, plots, explorating interesting locations, some dialogues.

I, for one, am very very happy that we're seeing some adventure games gaining popularity. And I'm very confused as to why some people think that they necessarily need puzzles. Try to remember a random adventure game you played 10 years ago or something, nothing recent. What do you remember about said game? I can tell you that, of all the adventure games that are not super-fresh in my memory, I can't remember one single puzzle. Not one. And I played a lot of them, and some puzzles were super hard, some were super interesting, etc. But none of them left a mark. What I remember from the adventure games I've played is characters, plots, explorating interesting locations, some dialogues.

ReddestSkies

I remember need to get pass this hotel man with some mental problems so you need to figure out how to get past. The plot, character, and so are a blur.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

I, for one, am very very happy that we're seeing some adventure games gaining popularity. And I'm very confused as to why some people think that they necessarily need puzzles. Try to remember a random adventure game you played 10 years ago or something, nothing recent. What do you remember about said game? I can tell you that, of all the adventure games that are not super-fresh in my memory, I can't remember one single puzzle. Not one. And I played a lot of them, and some puzzles were super hard, some were super interesting, etc. But none of them left a mark. What I remember from the adventure games I've played is characters, plots, explorating interesting locations, some dialogues.

wiouds

I remember need to get pass this hotel man with some mental problems so you need to figure out how to get past. The plot, character, and so are a blur.

I'll try to say it in the least condescending way I can (and boy, is it gonna be hard): your post talks about a character with some detail (hotel man with some mental problems) and a plot point (need to get passed him), not at all about the specifics of the puzzle.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

I, for one, am very very happy that we're seeing some adventure games gaining popularity. And I'm very confused as to why some people think that they necessarily need puzzles. Try to remember a random adventure game you played 10 years ago or something, nothing recent. What do you remember about said game? I can tell you that, of all the adventure games that are not super-fresh in my memory, I can't remember one single puzzle. Not one. And I played a lot of them, and some puzzles were super hard, some were super interesting, etc. But none of them left a mark. What I remember from the adventure games I've played is characters, plots, explorating interesting locations, some dialogues.

ReddestSkies

I remember need to get pass this hotel man with some mental problems so you need to figure out how to get past. The plot, character, and so are a blur.

I'll try to say it in the least condescending way I can (and boy, is it gonna be hard): your post talks about a character with some detail (hotel man with some mental problems) and a plot point (need to get passed him), not at all about the specifics of the puzzle.

Needed to get pass the character is the problem. I do not remember the character or the reason to get pass. I remember you can pretend to be character fro ma show the man was watching.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

I remember need to get pass this hotel man with some mental problems so you need to figure out how to get past. The plot, character, and so are a blur.

wiouds

I'll try to say it in the least condescending way I can (and boy, is it gonna be hard): your post talks about a character with some detail (hotel man with some mental problems) and a plot point (need to get passed him), not at all about the specifics of the puzzle.

Needed to get pass the character is the problem. I do not remember the character or the reason to get pass. I remember you can pretend to be character fro ma show the man was watching.

Unless you're not mentioning something, it's still not much of a puzzle in the sense used in this thread, i.e. look for item X and Y, combine them to create item Z which solves your problem when rubbed on the right spot. Pretending to be a character from the show he's watching sounds very much like dialogue to me

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

I'll try to say it in the least condescending way I can (and boy, is it gonna be hard): your post talks about a character with some detail (hotel man with some mental problems) and a plot point (need to get passed him), not at all about the specifics of the puzzle.

ReddestSkies

Needed to get pass the character is the problem. I do not remember the character or the reason to get pass. I remember you can pretend to be character fro ma show the man was watching.

Unless you're not mentioning something, it's still not much of a puzzle in the sense used in this thread, i.e. look for item X and Y, combine them to create item Z which solves your problem when rubbed on the right spot. Pretending to be a character from the show he's watching sounds very much like dialogue to me

You mean like getting a mask, costume and some heluim to dress up as the character? I don't remember the dialg since it was not important.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

Absolutely any game that has multiple parts that are ach eworthy of GOTY deserve to be praised. Just cause a game is a sequel it doesn't mean it is not unqiue. And orginallity is not the end all measurement, just one of many.

There is no way to objectively name a GOTY, in the end opinions are all subjective. I just feel there should be some level of standards. If you want to name Journey your favorite game of the year I have no problem with it, I think you are a bit weird but that is ok. You may think me weird cause I like ME3 so much, whatever. I felt that the guys you spent their whole lives playing games, guys who run major game websites would have more respect for what gameplay means to games. But it seems story over gameplay is becoming more and more favorable. I just don't like that, its more about that than the actual GOTY award.

dvader654

They do, its too bad Bioware doesn't. If Bioware did, they wouldn't have gone in the direction they have (they look at whatever genre is popular, then sloppily implement the gameplay in an rpg) and they would polish their games rather than just frantically throw in stuff up until they ship.

Bioware Guy 1: We could make ME3 the most polished game in the series or we could throw in multiplayer.

Bioware Guy 2: Anyone that cares about game design/gameplay probably isn't a big fan of our modern games. To hell with quality! Throw in the multiplayer! More bullet points equal more sales!

i wouldn't go that far. outside of a sticky cover system mapped to the sprint button to cause problems, it probably has the best core mechanics in the series out of pure iteration. however, bioware did all sorts of things to try to add diversity and messed most of them up. the big reoccurring parts are the turret sequences that are are all horribly balanced and forgo those generally good mechanics (the worst is one where nearly 10 husks sneaked by me, banged on the barrier while i shot down about as many brutes, and i only realized i missed some after i saw they barely made a dent). the side quests are these empty fetch quests without the good stuff in the middle that actually justifies fetch quests. then most of the main missions have some part where bioware completely drops the ball. there's an early chase sequence that you obviously can't win or lose so any tension is completely sapped out of it. there's a boss that can one hit you, but you may not be able to fire your only weapon in time because "helpers" won't stop talking. near the end, there's a disjointed combination of fail and no fail scenarios. there's more and it just all feels like bioware put a bunch of stuff in because games are supposed to be x hours long or genres are supposed to have feature y.

then the multiplayer doesn't feel thought out. bioware put in so much metagame stuff that it creates competition between players that goes against the cooperative goal. maybe the argument is their that the dynamic serves a (admittedly thinly conceived) purpose in the fiction, but then that makes it a bad game apparently :P

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"] The core of the point and click is using items on other items, puzzles, that is the core. Its not that you simply point and click, the entire adventure genre is built on puzzles, don't pretend to ignore this. Walking Dead doesn't need to have crazy illogical puzzles, why does every game have to fit into the mold of things before it. Why can't Walking Dead have a natural system of dealing with situations. A zombie is coming through a door, push a cabinet to it or grab a chair to put it into place, let them come in and deal with them with any weapon you find. Give options organically, not with glowy highlighted options that show this is the only way to do something. Have your choices truly effect the course of the game, not just the way people feel about you. Imagine a game where moment to moment your choices really impact the story, people die, entire locations change, not based on whether you choose A or B in a story option but because of what your actions as a player caused. That too me would be amazing, that would be GOTY. But I understand that would come at the expense of the story. A game with those many changes could not tell as strong a narrative as Walking Dead did. Well it could be it would also have a ton of different outcomes so not everyone would experience it the same way. And there comes the issue, story at the expense of gameplay and vice versa. Personally the game I described above is far more compelling to me.dvader654

Question.

Answer.

Removing all good elements of gaming is not the kind of originality I am looking for.

Yes, but you keep saying "That's not what a point and click adventure game is, it should be like this" and so on, but all your doing is limiting yourself to what a genre should be. Stop thinking of Walking Dead as a point and click adventure game, and think of it as The Walking Dead.

Personally, I think the gameplay elements that aren't there because of the genre it falls under is a good thing. The puzzles in most point and click adventure games are so stupid and random that they may as well have been Riddler puzzles from the Adam West era Batman. "What weighs 6 oz, sits in a tree, and is very different?" ... well obviously it's a squirrel with a machine gun.

And while I agree that The Walking Dead may be a bit too simplistic, it succeeds in keeping excellent pacing and delivering a memorable experience that's really only possible and engaging through game. Being disappointed that it's missing elements from a genre just seems silly, and expecting something out of genre or forcefully putting games under them (such as Journey, which doesn't really belong under any genre be it platformer or puzzle) brings the same pitfalls as being disappointed with metal music with clean vocals, or an action movie with too much talking.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

Needed to get pass the character is the problem. I do not remember the character or the reason to get pass. I remember you can pretend to be character fro ma show the man was watching.

wiouds

Unless you're not mentioning something, it's still not much of a puzzle in the sense used in this thread, i.e. look for item X and Y, combine them to create item Z which solves your problem when rubbed on the right spot. Pretending to be a character from the show he's watching sounds very much like dialogue to me

You mean like getting a mask, costume and some heluim to dress up as the character? I don't remember the dialg since it was not important.

Checkmate =P. I can understand better why the Walking Dead isn't your cup of tea now

I haven't played it yet, but from what I'm hearing about the game, it doesn't really have any qualifications for it to be GOTY. Sounds more like the honors were given to it as a statement purely for art's sake.JustPlainLucas

^^Agree with this. I've played a bit of it, though. It was given more as a way of saying "Hey look at us we can appreciate art, too."

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Unless you're not mentioning something, it's still not much of a puzzle in the sense used in this thread, i.e. look for item X and Y, combine them to create item Z which solves your problem when rubbed on the right spot. Pretending to be a character from the show he's watching sounds very much like dialogue to me

ReddestSkies

You mean like getting a mask, costume and some heluim to dress up as the character? I don't remember the dialg since it was not important.

Checkmate =P. I can understand better why the Walking Dead isn't your cup of tea now

Game play is the core of a game. Meaningful problem solving is the core of game play. Picking dialog, picking moral answers, and QTE are not meaningful problem sloving.

You could argue there's no challenge or skill involved in a lot of games. I found the majority of my time playing Assassins Creed holding the analogue stick up and holding the RT button for hours, thats it. But its a video game. Same could be said of Call of Duty games. Go from point a to point b whilt holding the RT button and moving.

Although i'd say the greatest, or at least my favourite, game this year was the Walking Dead. Annoyed the second batch of games doesnt come out for a long time.

It hasn't been a good year for gaming though all said and done has it?

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

You mean like getting a mask, costume and some heluim to dress up as the character? I don't remember the dialg since it was not important.

wiouds

Checkmate =P. I can understand better why the Walking Dead isn't your cup of tea now

Game play is the core of a game. Meaningful problem solving is the core of game play. Picking dialog, picking moral answers, and QTE are not meaningful problem sloving.

I disagree with all of this.

Story is the core of a lot of games. There are a lot of games that would never have been made if it wasn't with the intent of telling a story, and there are a lot of games that are only worth playing to experience the story. And there's nothing wrong with that.

The core of gameplay isn't always "meaningful" problem solving; a good example of that is the creative mode of Minecraft. There's a reason why sandbox games in general have become more and more popular over the years. When GTA 3 first came out, I personnally didn't care about doing actual missions and I mostly just ran around doing meaningless actions. I don't think I beat that game, now that I think about it. To me, the core gameplay of GTA 3 wasn't meaningful problem solving, it was running around doing random actions and seeing what happens.

Picking dialog, picking moral answers and QTE can be meaningful problem solving, if done right. There's no reason why not. In real life, I solve problems every day by saying the right things (i.e. picking dialog). No reason why it wouldn't be so in games.

Snakes and Ladders isn't a game because there's no "meaningful problem solving"

Although in my opinion, choosing not to kill a man who may or may not wake up from a heart attack, the choice ultimately affecting your relationship with either of two characters for the rest of the game, is a meaningful choice. A lot more meaningful than shooting a box at another box or putting a red gem in its right place.

Seems like some kind of weird elitism going on here predicated on bullsh!t

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

Removing all good elements of gaming is not the kind of originality I am looking for.

dvader654

Yes, but you keep saying "That's not what a point and click adventure game is, it should be like this" and so on, but all your doing is limiting yourself to what a genre should be. Stop thinking of Walking Dead as a point and click adventure game, and think of it as The Walking Dead.

Personally, I think the gameplay elements that aren't there because of the genre it falls under is a good thing. The puzzles in most point and click adventure games are so stupid and random that they may as well have been Riddler puzzles from the Adam West era Batman. "What weighs 6 oz, sits in a tree, and is very different?" ... well obviously it's a squirrel with a machine gun.

And while I agree that The Walking Dead may be a bit too simplistic, it succeeds in keeping excellent pacing and delivering a memorable experience that's really only possible and engaging through game. Being disappointed that it's missing elements from a genre just seems silly, and expecting something out of genre or forcefully putting games under them (such as Journey, which doesn't really belong under any genre be it platformer or puzzle) brings the same pitfalls as being disappointed with metal music with clean vocals, or an action movie with too much talking.

It's just an interesting debate of expectations regarding The Walking Dead or Journey being seen as games at all. Either Journey won multiple awards because it is seen as a unique experience among the gaming community or they wanted to appeal to the art house critics. And this has become something of a huge issue among the gaming community to the point where I think it's interesting how we're redifining what gaming is, for better or for worse.

All I'm saying, and this isn't necessarily against your points but rather critics of the games in question, is that a lot of people say they're missing various elements that even 'qualify' them to be nominated, suggesting there are some sort of strict guidelines that these websites use when picking out their awards. It's unique, as I can't think of a single game in the past that won an award and people sat back and said "It isn't even a game though".