I felt cathartic joy when I cried

beano wrote:

In an episode of QI Fry took the word game back to Greek origins, where it's translation was something along the lines of:

A joyful way to waste time.

Hmmm. I don't consider time spent on a good game to be wasted, though.

Interactive fiction is one thing- choose your own adventure and all that- and games are quite another.

Which bucket TWD falls into is a matter for debate, but is also rather academic. Plus as I've not played it I can't offer up an opinion, other than, it doesn't matter.

NOT THAT IT MATTERS but the best definition for game isn't that far away from Beano's quote: "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement." I'd say that covers 90% of all the time I put into games. NOT THAT IT MATTERS.

NOT THAT IT MATTERS.

Exactly.

NOT THAT IT MATTERS.

Playing is "engaging with a game for enjoyment"

NOT THAT IT MATTERS

Did you either 

a. Not engage with TWD?

or 

b. Not enjoy it?


Again, I stress NOT THAT IT MATTERS. It is a game, you played it, as much as you would have played near enough any other point and click. Might have been easier, but still a game. A game. 100% a game thing. A thing that is a game.

It's even bold enough to call itself The Walking Dead: The Game

Classic pointos didn't get much of a free pass on this shit either as I recall. They lasted in the canon for their scripts, by and large.

I'd accept CYOA books are games. I mean they totally have lose conditions and that.

Will say though that expectations have grown, and that more players would like to think their choices were within something more alive and messy and organic than a CYOA. This was the promise of sandboxtypes, and it casts a shadow.

Brooks wrote:

I'd accept CYOA books are games. I mean they totally have lose conditions and that. Will say though that expectations have grown, and that more players would like to think their choices were within something more alive and messy and organic than a CYOA. This was the promise of sandboxtypes, and it casts a shadow.

I was chattin' with @chattinwithchet chet about TWD and choices and ME3 and all that malarky etc and CYOA books are what these games are. There is a beginning and an end, except by the end you might have the stripped glove of slapping with which to defeat the monster, and you may have let the slaves free at some point because you got the key by going left instead of right, but you still either win or lose to the big bad at the end. 

We digressed onto the expectations of branching stories and stuff and I'm not sure any developer can fulfill what we expect, due to the immense amount of work required, and the situations explained here before: Why would anyone pay for a game that had swathes of content that could be missed out? The entertainment industry has mainly bozos with cash, and they equate 'not seen hours' to a pointless cost.

Will we ever see what we desire? I doubt it.

Even ME3 had multiple endings, and multiple ways to resolve different situations along the way.

The gold standard is ME2 and your actions across the whole game culminating in your final outcome.

I owned the story in ME2, I owned the story in ME3.

I was told a story in TWD.

Mod74 wrote:

I owned the story in ME2, I owned the story in ME3. I was told a story in TWD.

Well put.

I don't see how the choices in mass effect were less illusory than in walking dead. For every guy that died there was a guy to fill his shoes.

mistercrayon wrote:

I don't see how the choices in mass effect were less illusory than in walking dead. For every guy that died there was a guy to fill his shoes.

↑ THIS ↑

I loved Mass Effect 2 but I remember saying how clever the game was at making you think you'd made a difference.

MattyJ wrote:

*checks thread* Oh still arguing over TWD being a game *leaves thread*

And Jaffacakes are biscuits? Right?*

*Arguably the best page turn so far this year... : P