Kenny appreciates what you did
June 14, 2013 9:23 AM Subscribe
I Can't Break 'The Walking Dead' I’ve tried breaking The Walking Dead down to its core components. I’ve tried to analyze it from a distance to figure out how it’s able to so effectively hook my emotions, but I can't break it. I can't "game" it.
You don’t play The Walking Dead like you play other games. You don’t approach it as a game. It doesn’t allow for that kind of thinking.
Because it plays out mostly in your head, which - unlike your gaming system - is perfectly suited to simulating the interplay between human beings, and the human beings themselves, as recently discussed.
Note to self: maybe I should play The Walking Dead after all.
posted by hat_eater at 9:39 AM on June 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Because it plays out mostly in your head, which - unlike your gaming system - is perfectly suited to simulating the interplay between human beings, and the human beings themselves, as recently discussed.
Note to self: maybe I should play The Walking Dead after all.
posted by hat_eater at 9:39 AM on June 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
The game doesn’t assign benefits or drawbacks to a choice, I do that myself when I make a decision. Therefore, if I go back and make the opposite decision, it feels inherently wrong because it goes against my own logical thought process.
I'm really not understanding what the author is getting at here. Not having played the game, this sentence isn't describing a game, per se, but a choose-your-own-adventure. If a game is defined as "a system of interesting choices," then they're interesting only when there is a cost-benefit associated with it. If there's nothing to the choice but your own interpretation, you're reading a novel, not playing a game.
But that cost-benefit could be "access to specific aspects of the storyline," which happens in BioWare games all the time (e.g. you pissed off the mayor; now he won't send you on a quest). As a player, you may not know this has even happened.
Is the author missing something here?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:41 AM on June 14, 2013
I'm really not understanding what the author is getting at here. Not having played the game, this sentence isn't describing a game, per se, but a choose-your-own-adventure. If a game is defined as "a system of interesting choices," then they're interesting only when there is a cost-benefit associated with it. If there's nothing to the choice but your own interpretation, you're reading a novel, not playing a game.
But that cost-benefit could be "access to specific aspects of the storyline," which happens in BioWare games all the time (e.g. you pissed off the mayor; now he won't send you on a quest). As a player, you may not know this has even happened.
Is the author missing something here?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:41 AM on June 14, 2013
I was intrigued by all the hype and downloaded the game a while ago. I can't say I was won over--it was a very easy game to put down and never think about again. I also think I approach games differently than the author of the linked piece. He seems to suggest that TWD was unique because, without "scorekeeping," he approached the questions in the game as if they were real and acted as if he would in real life. Is this a disconnect for other gamers? I really always approach the choices in games the way I would in real life. If an NPC's cat is stuck in a tree, I help get it down, I don't shoot it with a rocket launcher. Put another way, I play games to be me in a different setting; he seems to suggest he plays a different person, because he wants to "game the game."
That's why I find most of these branching path games tedious--I'm not going to replay the game just to kill the cat so I can see the alternate ending. I much rather have a big sandbox than adaptive storylines, because I'll only ever play one storyline and seems like a waste.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 10:00 AM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
That's why I find most of these branching path games tedious--I'm not going to replay the game just to kill the cat so I can see the alternate ending. I much rather have a big sandbox than adaptive storylines, because I'll only ever play one storyline and seems like a waste.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 10:00 AM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I’m thinking about people, not points. And that’s the only kind of thinking that this game allows for, since there are no points to begin with... I can’t manipulate the logical systems of the game because there aren’t any logical systems to manipulate.
See, I didn't know this was the case when I was playing the game, and that made all the difference for me. I thought (and maybe still do?) that there are logical systems that work in-game, they're just purposefully never revealed to you. There are "points" that the game tallies, maybe a fairly deep friendship system under the hood, but you don't need to know about it. Like, people you care about die all the time, and it's because of choices you make. So it's logical to believe that things could go really wrong with Kenny if you don't calm down his anger or side with him enough. He could end up killing himself or someone innocent in your group, or block off a path to victory. This is game-like, even if there's no meter telling you something. Apparently that may not be the case? If I knew that my choices only mattered superficially then I wouldn't be as invested in them. I'm sort of confused on whether the choices you make are actually meaningfui in a game-like way or not. I was also totally invested in protecting that sweet little girl that I was the guardian of, and that was something that got me really into making the right choices. I don't think she can die, though?
posted by naju at 10:01 AM on June 14, 2013
See, I didn't know this was the case when I was playing the game, and that made all the difference for me. I thought (and maybe still do?) that there are logical systems that work in-game, they're just purposefully never revealed to you. There are "points" that the game tallies, maybe a fairly deep friendship system under the hood, but you don't need to know about it. Like, people you care about die all the time, and it's because of choices you make. So it's logical to believe that things could go really wrong with Kenny if you don't calm down his anger or side with him enough. He could end up killing himself or someone innocent in your group, or block off a path to victory. This is game-like, even if there's no meter telling you something. Apparently that may not be the case? If I knew that my choices only mattered superficially then I wouldn't be as invested in them. I'm sort of confused on whether the choices you make are actually meaningfui in a game-like way or not. I was also totally invested in protecting that sweet little girl that I was the guardian of, and that was something that got me really into making the right choices. I don't think she can die, though?
posted by naju at 10:01 AM on June 14, 2013
Cool Papa Bell-- It's been widely discussed (and also criticized) that TWD offers more the illusion of choice than a real branching narrative. There are some major branching decisions, but most of your 'choices' are emotional rather than plot-based, if that makes sense-- how you treat a certain character, what you say to the person relying on you, how you respond to someone who insults you. Those characters respond, but it doesn't (usually) drastically change the narrative. The end game is always the same. I wouldn't call those decisions superficial, though-- they're the whole point.
So I think what the author is saying is that playing the game a different way is difficult because he's attached and invested in those 'emotional' decisions he made and the way the story played out emotionally for him. Most people play Lee (the main character) as themselves, or as close as the game allows them to. The whole point of the game is that you approach it from an emotional standpoint, rather than a cost/benefit one. I think in a way you can describe it as a choose-your-own adventure, but it's more complex than that, I think (there is a course a man behind the curtain, and all your decisions and actions are weighed in some vast spreadsheet behind the scenes, but gaming that system, if you even can, is a pointless exercise).
posted by sonmi at 10:04 AM on June 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
So I think what the author is saying is that playing the game a different way is difficult because he's attached and invested in those 'emotional' decisions he made and the way the story played out emotionally for him. Most people play Lee (the main character) as themselves, or as close as the game allows them to. The whole point of the game is that you approach it from an emotional standpoint, rather than a cost/benefit one. I think in a way you can describe it as a choose-your-own adventure, but it's more complex than that, I think (there is a course a man behind the curtain, and all your decisions and actions are weighed in some vast spreadsheet behind the scenes, but gaming that system, if you even can, is a pointless exercise).
posted by sonmi at 10:04 AM on June 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
TWD is amazing and a watershed in game design. It's very important.
Not having played the game, this sentence isn't describing a game, per se, but a choose-your-own-adventure.
There are a lot of indie games out now that try to stretch the medium and to explore the narratological possibilities of the medium, and the authors of game columns and Internet comments always want to say that they're so far out there that they aren't really "games" any more. It's like "game" is an honorific. But whenever someone tries to offer a definition of "game" the definition is subject to a bunch of clear counterexamples. Last century, Wittgenstein wrote that concepts couldn't be defined in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions -- the members of a concept share a family resemblance, but you can't really define a family resemblance. The example that of a concept that he used was "game." So there is something ironic about the fact that people really care now about whether a game really is a game or not. It's like arguing about whether two cousins look all that similar to one another.
One of the things that TWD does is just try to be an amazing experience instead of what we'd pigeonhole as a game. The first episode has some things that are more gamey (there are puzzles that are more like something out of an adventure game, including one really dumb one, and there are shooting sequences). They eventually drop these. (Imagine if Bioshock Infinite had gotten rid of the combat. That game was great, but the combat sequences were the worst part of the game... included mostly so that people would count it as a game.) That's why a lot of people just characterize it as a choose-your-own-adventure. But it doesn't feel like one. Your responses are timed. You can walk around and explore your environments. It feels like you have agency in a way that CYOAs don't. Really, you could think of every video game as a hugely branching CYOA, if you wanted.
I'm stoked for the new episode coming out. Apparently, there are five interlocking stories that you can play in any order, and your choices in the first ones impact the events in the later ones. That sounds kinda like an interactive version of what the new season of Arrested Development was initially going for. It's narratologically exciting, and I am stoked.
I really always approach the choices in games the way I would in real life. If an NPC's cat is stuck in a tree, I help get it down, I don't shoot it with a rocket launcher.
Well, most choices in games come down to things like "would you like to save the baby, or defenestrate it?" The choices in TWD really were morally ambiguous, and the timer made a huge difference. I often felt conflicted, made a snap decision, then immediately regretted it but had to live with it. It was a pretty unique experience.
posted by painquale at 10:07 AM on June 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Not having played the game, this sentence isn't describing a game, per se, but a choose-your-own-adventure.
There are a lot of indie games out now that try to stretch the medium and to explore the narratological possibilities of the medium, and the authors of game columns and Internet comments always want to say that they're so far out there that they aren't really "games" any more. It's like "game" is an honorific. But whenever someone tries to offer a definition of "game" the definition is subject to a bunch of clear counterexamples. Last century, Wittgenstein wrote that concepts couldn't be defined in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions -- the members of a concept share a family resemblance, but you can't really define a family resemblance. The example that of a concept that he used was "game." So there is something ironic about the fact that people really care now about whether a game really is a game or not. It's like arguing about whether two cousins look all that similar to one another.
One of the things that TWD does is just try to be an amazing experience instead of what we'd pigeonhole as a game. The first episode has some things that are more gamey (there are puzzles that are more like something out of an adventure game, including one really dumb one, and there are shooting sequences). They eventually drop these. (Imagine if Bioshock Infinite had gotten rid of the combat. That game was great, but the combat sequences were the worst part of the game... included mostly so that people would count it as a game.) That's why a lot of people just characterize it as a choose-your-own-adventure. But it doesn't feel like one. Your responses are timed. You can walk around and explore your environments. It feels like you have agency in a way that CYOAs don't. Really, you could think of every video game as a hugely branching CYOA, if you wanted.
I'm stoked for the new episode coming out. Apparently, there are five interlocking stories that you can play in any order, and your choices in the first ones impact the events in the later ones. That sounds kinda like an interactive version of what the new season of Arrested Development was initially going for. It's narratologically exciting, and I am stoked.
I really always approach the choices in games the way I would in real life. If an NPC's cat is stuck in a tree, I help get it down, I don't shoot it with a rocket launcher.
Well, most choices in games come down to things like "would you like to save the baby, or defenestrate it?" The choices in TWD really were morally ambiguous, and the timer made a huge difference. I often felt conflicted, made a snap decision, then immediately regretted it but had to live with it. It was a pretty unique experience.
posted by painquale at 10:07 AM on June 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
I think all of your choices really came home to roost in the last episode when (and I don't think this is a spoiler, but be forewarned anyway) your character is confronted and berated for each one throughout the game. Though I have read that the developers are trying to make the next installment reflect the choices you made in the first. Not sure if that would change how the story ultimately plays out, though.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 10:11 AM on June 14, 2013
posted by C'est la D.C. at 10:11 AM on June 14, 2013
I totally agree with the author of the linked article. I can't imagine replaying this game (any time soon at least). Savescumming in order to explore all the options in a dialogue tree would really ruin this game. In a game like Mass Effect, I want to see all the cutscenes that I locked myself out of by choosing one thing rather than another, so I just look them up on YouTube. In this game, it'd feel like a betrayal to the story I crafted.
I actually think it's a feature of the game, not a bug, that the narrative only offers the illusion of branching a lot. It doesn't tempt me to check out the other variants. I like how somni says that the choices are emotional rather than plot-based. That's a good description.
posted by painquale at 10:20 AM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I actually think it's a feature of the game, not a bug, that the narrative only offers the illusion of branching a lot. It doesn't tempt me to check out the other variants. I like how somni says that the choices are emotional rather than plot-based. That's a good description.
posted by painquale at 10:20 AM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I wasn't aware of this game until I saw this FPP. It sounds awesome and I definitely want to check it out.
posted by asnider at 10:20 AM on June 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by asnider at 10:20 AM on June 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I absolutely loved it, but still think it would be so much more brilliant if your choices could have a devastatingly permanent impact. I want to make a bad call, and realize I made a bad call, and watch in horror as all my plans go to shit. And a game over would mean starting back at Episode 1. (I guess I'm part of the roguelike school of games-reflecting-life, for better or worse.)
posted by naju at 10:29 AM on June 14, 2013
posted by naju at 10:29 AM on June 14, 2013
Imagine if Bioshock Infinite had gotten rid of the combat. That game was great, but the combat sequences were the worst part of the game.
Totally. Coming from the world of Nintendo, I recently started playing my son's XBox and bought Bioshock Infinite for myself. The brilliant music and the whole steampunky retro-future vibe is so engrossing but I'm always taken out of it, and frequently annoyed, when I have to slaughter another herd of soldiers or whatever. Totally not into the combat thing at all, but I'm old I guess.
That said, I'm struggling to get into Skyrim; seems like I'm just endlessly searching barrels and finding salt or carrots.
Sounds like I definitely have to check out Walking Dead.
posted by chococat at 10:33 AM on June 14, 2013
Totally. Coming from the world of Nintendo, I recently started playing my son's XBox and bought Bioshock Infinite for myself. The brilliant music and the whole steampunky retro-future vibe is so engrossing but I'm always taken out of it, and frequently annoyed, when I have to slaughter another herd of soldiers or whatever. Totally not into the combat thing at all, but I'm old I guess.
That said, I'm struggling to get into Skyrim; seems like I'm just endlessly searching barrels and finding salt or carrots.
Sounds like I definitely have to check out Walking Dead.
posted by chococat at 10:33 AM on June 14, 2013
I totally agree with the author of the linked article. I can't imagine replaying this game (any time soon at least). Savescumming in order to explore all the options in a dialogue tree would really ruin this game. In a game like Mass Effect, I want to see all the cutscenes that I locked myself out of by choosing one thing rather than another, so I just look them up on YouTube. In this game, it'd feel like a betrayal to the story I crafted.
I feel this way too, and so does everyone I know who has played it, which is really interesting! What makes it so much better than Mass Effect et al is hard to say-- better writing, definitely, more ambiguous, personal choices (instead of >kill alien >save alien), probably. More focus on talking than shooting, for sure. More than any other game I've played, I think TWD is an example of how an interactive narrative can do things traditional narrative can't, and do them well.
chococat, playing the Walking Dead as a parent is one hell of an experience, or so I've heard!
posted by sonmi at 10:43 AM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I feel this way too, and so does everyone I know who has played it, which is really interesting! What makes it so much better than Mass Effect et al is hard to say-- better writing, definitely, more ambiguous, personal choices (instead of >kill alien >save alien), probably. More focus on talking than shooting, for sure. More than any other game I've played, I think TWD is an example of how an interactive narrative can do things traditional narrative can't, and do them well.
chococat, playing the Walking Dead as a parent is one hell of an experience, or so I've heard!
posted by sonmi at 10:43 AM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
TWD is the best game I have played in years, and I completely agree with the linked article and disagree with those saying they wish the choices had more important in-game consequences. If you get ending 1 if you save the baby and ending 2 if you save the dog then a lot of players (not everyone obviously) is going to save one and then play again and save the other, because their motivation is to see each ending. Or at the very least they are going to base their decision on what they think will be the most beneficial in terms of in-game results. TWD eliminates that motivation by having all choices lead to the same result. Many reviewers complained about that aspect of the game. They felt cheated by the fact that their choices didn't have real consequences. But as the article pointed out, that lack of consequence may have been the game's greatest strength. Because most players went into the experience knowing that there were no in-game consequences to their choices, it freed them to stop being a person playing a game when confronted with those choices and to make those choices as close as possible to being themselves faced with that situation.
Everyone considering playing this game, I strongly recommend you do so.
posted by ND¢ at 10:43 AM on June 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Everyone considering playing this game, I strongly recommend you do so.
posted by ND¢ at 10:43 AM on June 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
That said, I'm struggling to get into Skyrim
I'm going to get razed for saying this but Skyrim's main storyline is total weak sauce. The open world gameplay is fun, the side stories can be fun, but all quickly lose their shine. Most people lose about two weeks to Skyrim and never finish it. When you get bored just look up some cheat codes and put them in, you'll get a good few hours of fun out of that before you give it up entirely.
posted by Malice at 10:53 AM on June 14, 2013
I'm going to get razed for saying this but Skyrim's main storyline is total weak sauce. The open world gameplay is fun, the side stories can be fun, but all quickly lose their shine. Most people lose about two weeks to Skyrim and never finish it. When you get bored just look up some cheat codes and put them in, you'll get a good few hours of fun out of that before you give it up entirely.
posted by Malice at 10:53 AM on June 14, 2013
chococat, playing the Walking Dead as a parent is one hell of an experience, or so I've heard!
Oh no, there isn't dying children is there? I just about had a panic attack when Carl got shot in the show.
posted by chococat at 11:01 AM on June 14, 2013
Oh no, there isn't dying children is there? I just about had a panic attack when Carl got shot in the show.
posted by chococat at 11:01 AM on June 14, 2013
I don't normally play video games except this one had so many good reviews. It has echoes of The Road. Worth checking out of you care about narrative, plot and character. Art is great too, but then many games have great art. Look forward to more of this series and type, and hope they take the high road in adapting literature.
posted by stbalbach at 11:03 AM on June 14, 2013
posted by stbalbach at 11:03 AM on June 14, 2013
Oh no, there isn't dying children is there? I just about had a panic attack when Carl got shot in the show.
Can't really say without spoiling anything. Let's just say that this game is mostly about being a father figure to a young girl. It will wreck you, but you won't be mad at it.
posted by painquale at 11:07 AM on June 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Can't really say without spoiling anything. Let's just say that this game is mostly about being a father figure to a young girl. It will wreck you, but you won't be mad at it.
posted by painquale at 11:07 AM on June 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
One of the more interesting and emotionally compelling games I've ever played. I knew that had to be true when in the last episode, I found myself far more on the edge of my seat when the main character (whose name I'm forgetting) was walking on a plank connecting two buildings. The scene, if you want to call it that, had nothing jumping out at you or anything like that -- it was just a sustained experience of nervously crossing the buildings at a great height and thinking you might fall. When that became one of the more compelling scenes I'd ever experienced, I knew something miraculous was happening inside the engine. Thanks for posting the article.
posted by scunning at 11:08 AM on June 14, 2013
posted by scunning at 11:08 AM on June 14, 2013
Oh no, there isn't dying children is there? I just about had a panic attack when Carl got shot in the show.
I can PM you with spoilers if you like. But what I meant was that the game is about being a father figure, so people with kids especially seem to have really strong reactions to it. Not in a bad way!
edit: I mean unless you count "sobbing like a baby" to be "bad" but that happens to everybody
posted by sonmi at 11:12 AM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I can PM you with spoilers if you like. But what I meant was that the game is about being a father figure, so people with kids especially seem to have really strong reactions to it. Not in a bad way!
edit: I mean unless you count "sobbing like a baby" to be "bad" but that happens to everybody
posted by sonmi at 11:12 AM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
> Not having played the game, this sentence isn't describing a game, per se, but a choose-your-own-adventure
It sounds like it, but the experience (so far, I've only played the first episode) feels very different. I would liken a standard choose-your-own-adventure to exploring all the passages in a labyrinth, whereas TWD is like being trapped in a life raft with fellow survivors. The raft is going with the current no matter what you do, but who's alive and how they feel about you at the end is what the game's about.
The fact that you can't catastrophically fail is key, really. If you could fail, you could reload and make the right decision. There are no right decisions; I've already had painquale's experience of doing something in a split-second that I immediately regretted. My instinct was to redo it, but that doesn't make sense in TWD. I didn't fail, or use up too many bullets on a boss battle. Even if I replayed it, there was nothing to optimize on the second try. And it would have felt narratively wrong. Living with the consequences is the game, and it's how you play the story.
I need to fix my computer so I can play the rest.
posted by postcommunism at 11:26 AM on June 14, 2013
It sounds like it, but the experience (so far, I've only played the first episode) feels very different. I would liken a standard choose-your-own-adventure to exploring all the passages in a labyrinth, whereas TWD is like being trapped in a life raft with fellow survivors. The raft is going with the current no matter what you do, but who's alive and how they feel about you at the end is what the game's about.
The fact that you can't catastrophically fail is key, really. If you could fail, you could reload and make the right decision. There are no right decisions; I've already had painquale's experience of doing something in a split-second that I immediately regretted. My instinct was to redo it, but that doesn't make sense in TWD. I didn't fail, or use up too many bullets on a boss battle. Even if I replayed it, there was nothing to optimize on the second try. And it would have felt narratively wrong. Living with the consequences is the game, and it's how you play the story.
I need to fix my computer so I can play the rest.
posted by postcommunism at 11:26 AM on June 14, 2013
Also, the last paragraph of the article is spot on.
posted by postcommunism at 11:29 AM on June 14, 2013
posted by postcommunism at 11:29 AM on June 14, 2013
How is this game mechanically different than Telltale's Jurassic Park game? In my limited look at the game it looks very similar (cinematic, decisions, some event stuff with failure states). I'd tried the Jurassic Park game and loathed it. It felt somehow hollow, like they were trying to do a nicer version of a visual novel and didn't quite make it.
posted by caphector at 11:49 AM on June 14, 2013
posted by caphector at 11:49 AM on June 14, 2013
I really enjoyed this game, though playing it during the same week that my wife and I had to put one of our cats to sleep made certain aspects a little uncomfortable.
I've tried to go back and replay while making different decisions, but Lee comes with his own narrative and moral trajectory. My efforts to make him a callous, aspiring tyrant didn't really fit with his personality in the cut scenes, so I gave up after the first episode.
Really looking forward to the next installments, though.
posted by malocchio at 11:54 AM on June 14, 2013
I've tried to go back and replay while making different decisions, but Lee comes with his own narrative and moral trajectory. My efforts to make him a callous, aspiring tyrant didn't really fit with his personality in the cut scenes, so I gave up after the first episode.
Really looking forward to the next installments, though.
posted by malocchio at 11:54 AM on June 14, 2013
caphector: I honestly think the one key game-mechanical difference between JP and WD is the dialogue timers. In most cases, when you're talking to someone, you have a limited amount of time to pick your responses, and if you don't, the story keeps moving anyway. This sounds terrible, but I think it's a big part of the attachment people have to their choices. When you don't have time to think, you go with your gut.
posted by baf at 12:06 PM on June 14, 2013
posted by baf at 12:06 PM on June 14, 2013
Until there is a word that means "story told interactively through a computer program" or "imagined reality or experience presented through a computer program", "game" will have to include those meanings (among many others).
posted by Drexen at 12:44 PM on June 14, 2013
posted by Drexen at 12:44 PM on June 14, 2013
I'm fond of the idea of using "interactive fiction" to describe these things, expanding the term from its current meaning that specifies "text adventure".
posted by Drexen at 12:45 PM on June 14, 2013
posted by Drexen at 12:45 PM on June 14, 2013
This Kotaku article did an excellent job of explaining why The Walking Dead worked.
posted by Green Winnebago at 1:17 PM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Green Winnebago at 1:17 PM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
postcommunism:
The fact that you can't catastrophically fail is key, really. If you could fail, you could reload and make the right decision. There are no right decisions."
This reminds me of this wonderful talk on the design of another critical darling, Amnesia, about how keeping players from fail states was very important to evoking strong emotions.
posted by Proofs and Refutations at 2:31 PM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
The fact that you can't catastrophically fail is key, really. If you could fail, you could reload and make the right decision. There are no right decisions."
This reminds me of this wonderful talk on the design of another critical darling, Amnesia, about how keeping players from fail states was very important to evoking strong emotions.
posted by Proofs and Refutations at 2:31 PM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Even reading and understanding explanations of why the Walking Dead was so successful (and I thoroughly enjoyed my playthrough and was left feeling affected by it for days) the thing that still amazes me is the friend I recommended it to who has been as blown away by it as seemingly everyone else.
The thing being, he has tried to play countless RPGs that I and my friends love, and his reaction is to just kill everyone who vaguely annoys him and wind up left with no one to give him quests and a lack of immersion that ruins it all. With Walking Dead he's been as struck by his attachment to and desire to protect Clem, as well as his willingness to work through his issues with other characters in it, partially due to their believability (strongly justaposing everything about the characters in the TV version!)
posted by opsin at 3:00 PM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
The thing being, he has tried to play countless RPGs that I and my friends love, and his reaction is to just kill everyone who vaguely annoys him and wind up left with no one to give him quests and a lack of immersion that ruins it all. With Walking Dead he's been as struck by his attachment to and desire to protect Clem, as well as his willingness to work through his issues with other characters in it, partially due to their believability (strongly justaposing everything about the characters in the TV version!)
posted by opsin at 3:00 PM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
... but Lee comes with his own narrative and moral trajectory. My efforts to make him a callous, aspiring tyrant didn't really fit with his personality in the cut scenes, so I gave up after the first episode.
I enjoyed TWD, but this, I think, is it's major flaw. As good as the writing was, it's going to tell you a certain story, whether or not you think your choices should have led elsewhere. There can be a pretty severe disconnect between the repercussions you'd expect from certain actions and what actually happens, for the sake of that narrative. It's an emotionally effecting bit of legerdemain, but legerdemain nonetheless.
posted by Amanojaku at 3:07 PM on June 14, 2013
I enjoyed TWD, but this, I think, is it's major flaw. As good as the writing was, it's going to tell you a certain story, whether or not you think your choices should have led elsewhere. There can be a pretty severe disconnect between the repercussions you'd expect from certain actions and what actually happens, for the sake of that narrative. It's an emotionally effecting bit of legerdemain, but legerdemain nonetheless.
posted by Amanojaku at 3:07 PM on June 14, 2013
The characters are so well-developed and illicit real emotional responses from players, and I think that counts for more than just about anything else.
posted by naju at 3:14 PM on June 14, 2013
posted by naju at 3:14 PM on June 14, 2013
caphector: I honestly think the one key game-mechanical difference between JP and WD is the dialogue timers. In most cases, when you're talking to someone, you have a limited amount of time to pick your responses, and if you don't, the story keeps moving anyway. This sounds terrible, but I think it's a big part of the attachment people have to their choices. When you don't have time to think, you go with your gut.
Alpha Protocol did something similar although you were never sure what your character would end up saying. I bought TWD recently, so I'm looking forward to it.
posted by ersatz at 3:20 PM on June 14, 2013
Alpha Protocol did something similar although you were never sure what your character would end up saying. I bought TWD recently, so I'm looking forward to it.
posted by ersatz at 3:20 PM on June 14, 2013
A lot of what people are getting at is the way choices function in games. Usually choices operate in a 'make a choice > unlock certain game play mechanics' or 'make a choice > go down this story branch' kind of way.
The Walking Dead game's choices serve neither game play mechanics or story branches. All they really change is how Lee feels and reacts to the situation around him. This makes the unraveling of the group more tragic though, because I think most players were trying their hardest to keep everything together. The character who is fighting against fate but fails is just intrinsically sad if you see them fight. In TWD we have direct evidence of how they were trying to change things because we were the ones directing the action.
I feel like our expectations of what a game should be shaped that experience too. In a normal game if we make the right choices and try to save people we can, but in the Walking Dead we can try to keep everyone together but things will still go to shit.
In some ways the deterministic nature of the game mirrors the universe. Try all you want but forces greater than you are going to bring you down and the only thing you can really control are your thoughts and actions, which are in the end, fairly insignificant. No saving the world. No happy ending. The cynic in me really enjoyed this game is what I'm saying.
posted by john-a-dreams at 3:21 PM on June 14, 2013
The Walking Dead game's choices serve neither game play mechanics or story branches. All they really change is how Lee feels and reacts to the situation around him. This makes the unraveling of the group more tragic though, because I think most players were trying their hardest to keep everything together. The character who is fighting against fate but fails is just intrinsically sad if you see them fight. In TWD we have direct evidence of how they were trying to change things because we were the ones directing the action.
I feel like our expectations of what a game should be shaped that experience too. In a normal game if we make the right choices and try to save people we can, but in the Walking Dead we can try to keep everyone together but things will still go to shit.
In some ways the deterministic nature of the game mirrors the universe. Try all you want but forces greater than you are going to bring you down and the only thing you can really control are your thoughts and actions, which are in the end, fairly insignificant. No saving the world. No happy ending. The cynic in me really enjoyed this game is what I'm saying.
posted by john-a-dreams at 3:21 PM on June 14, 2013
If you have any interest in games as storytelling devices, you need to play The Walking Dead. It's by far the best execution I've ever seen.
For those who have played all the way through, here is a flowchart of every major decision in the game.
posted by Sibrax at 4:14 PM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
For those who have played all the way through, here is a flowchart of every major decision in the game.
posted by Sibrax at 4:14 PM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
The characters are so well-developed and illicit real emotional responses from players, and I think that counts for more than just about anything else.
Well, I mostly agree, but if the characters were just as well developed, but in a five hour animated mini-series, would they have been as affecting? I'm honestly not really sure if the game worked because of the interactive elements, or in spite of them, which I think is kind of relevant.
posted by Amanojaku at 4:20 PM on June 14, 2013
Well, I mostly agree, but if the characters were just as well developed, but in a five hour animated mini-series, would they have been as affecting? I'm honestly not really sure if the game worked because of the interactive elements, or in spite of them, which I think is kind of relevant.
posted by Amanojaku at 4:20 PM on June 14, 2013
For me, this game was like playing Kobayashi Maru Simulator. Worse, like you were watching someone else play Kobayashi Maru Simulator and you knew what was coming, that none of the choices really mattered anyway. That, and everything felt obvious and ham-handed; forced situations like "if you do X then something bad might happen... oh look, something bad happened."
It's fitting in a horror context, because I felt like the guy yelling "Don't open that door, you idiot!" in the theater. But since this is an interactive video game where I'm supposed to be playing it and not watching it get played out, I couldn't really get into it.
posted by TheFlamingoKing at 4:38 PM on June 14, 2013
It's fitting in a horror context, because I felt like the guy yelling "Don't open that door, you idiot!" in the theater. But since this is an interactive video game where I'm supposed to be playing it and not watching it get played out, I couldn't really get into it.
posted by TheFlamingoKing at 4:38 PM on June 14, 2013
... but Lee comes with his own narrative and moral trajectory. My efforts to make him a callous, aspiring tyrant didn't really fit with his personality in the cut scenes, so I gave up after the first episode.
I enjoyed TWD, but this, I think, is it's major flaw. [...] It's an emotionally effecting bit of legerdemain, but legerdemain nonetheless.
I don't think that's a flaw. Lee isn't a tyrant; you shouldn't be able to make him one. The legerdemain that you mention is exactly what we should want from a game. Legerdemain and illusion are the heart of the medium.
A game might be advertised with the sentence, "travel to distant worlds!", but gamers won't get upset that they don't really travel to distant worlds (they stay on the couch) when they play the game. It's good enough to travel to distant worlds in the fiction of the game. The game exploits various cognitive and perceptual faculties in order to instill the illusion of being on another world. This is, as you say, a kind of legerdemain. If the fiction of a game is set on a distant planet, but it isn't built well enough to keep up the illusion, it'll be a bad game.
When a game is advertised with the sentence, "make choices that affect the outcome of the story," there are two ways of reading the claim. On one hand, it might mean that you, the player, should be able to determine the ending by choosing what branch to go down at various branch points. On the other hand, it might mean that you make choices within the fiction of the game; the game will use legerdemain to make the outcome feel like it was caused by you. We have cognitive mechanisms that determine which actions are felt as agential --- there's a felt difference between raising your arm and having someone else raise your arm. There are also disorders of agency, where people can inappropriately feel certain agential actions as nonagential and vice-versa: some schizophrenics claim to be controlling the direction of traffic outside their window, because it feels to them that they are.
It's possible to engender agential illusions like those in non-schizophrenics in cognitive science labs. Just as there are perceptual illusions, there are illusions of agency. So, just as the game designer exploits quirks of the visual system to make it look like you're on Mars, she can exploit quirks of the visual system to make an action feel like it is one that you authored. These illusions are the heart of the medium: they're what the author manipulates to get effects in the viewer. Video games are an especially cool medium, I think, because they're the only medium I know of that exploits our agential-experience system to produce illusions of agency.
So, if we see a game ad that says, "make choices that affect the outcome of the story," which interpretation should we hope for? Gamers all seem to want the former: they want to have a bunch of different endings, and they want their choices to influence which they see. But that seems to me to be exactly the thing that doesn't really matter. Imagine two games: one that made you feel like you're making choices even though it was deterministically funneling you along a path, and another one in which it felt like you were funneled along a path, even though there were actually a bunch of branches you were choosing that had big ramifications on the plot (unknown to you). It's pretty clear to me that the first is preferable. This equivocation on what it means to "make choices" in a video game is something that causes confusion and makes game designers needlessly put in a bunch of endings, when it doesn't suit their goals to do so.
That's why I don't get why people care so much about being able to really affect the outcome of a game or really determine a character's personality. It sounds to me like demanding that when you play Halo, you should really get to go to space. I know that The Walking Dead is deterministic when I play it (just like I know that I'm not really in Savannah), but it doesn't matter as long as it skillfully keeps up the perceptual, agential, and emotional illusion that I'm controlling the story. TWD is one of the first games I've seen that has been aware of the equivocation and dealt with it appropriately.
Well, I mostly agree, but if the characters were just as well developed, but in a five hour animated mini-series, would they have been as affecting? I'm honestly not really sure if the game worked because of the interactive elements, or in spite of them, which I think is kind of relevant.
I don't think it would have been that great as a mini-series. When Lee struggled to get up in one scene, and I was slamming on the space bar like nobody's business, I wasn't just a passive observer. Moments like those make up most of my memories from the game.
posted by painquale at 4:43 PM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I enjoyed TWD, but this, I think, is it's major flaw. [...] It's an emotionally effecting bit of legerdemain, but legerdemain nonetheless.
I don't think that's a flaw. Lee isn't a tyrant; you shouldn't be able to make him one. The legerdemain that you mention is exactly what we should want from a game. Legerdemain and illusion are the heart of the medium.
A game might be advertised with the sentence, "travel to distant worlds!", but gamers won't get upset that they don't really travel to distant worlds (they stay on the couch) when they play the game. It's good enough to travel to distant worlds in the fiction of the game. The game exploits various cognitive and perceptual faculties in order to instill the illusion of being on another world. This is, as you say, a kind of legerdemain. If the fiction of a game is set on a distant planet, but it isn't built well enough to keep up the illusion, it'll be a bad game.
When a game is advertised with the sentence, "make choices that affect the outcome of the story," there are two ways of reading the claim. On one hand, it might mean that you, the player, should be able to determine the ending by choosing what branch to go down at various branch points. On the other hand, it might mean that you make choices within the fiction of the game; the game will use legerdemain to make the outcome feel like it was caused by you. We have cognitive mechanisms that determine which actions are felt as agential --- there's a felt difference between raising your arm and having someone else raise your arm. There are also disorders of agency, where people can inappropriately feel certain agential actions as nonagential and vice-versa: some schizophrenics claim to be controlling the direction of traffic outside their window, because it feels to them that they are.
It's possible to engender agential illusions like those in non-schizophrenics in cognitive science labs. Just as there are perceptual illusions, there are illusions of agency. So, just as the game designer exploits quirks of the visual system to make it look like you're on Mars, she can exploit quirks of the visual system to make an action feel like it is one that you authored. These illusions are the heart of the medium: they're what the author manipulates to get effects in the viewer. Video games are an especially cool medium, I think, because they're the only medium I know of that exploits our agential-experience system to produce illusions of agency.
So, if we see a game ad that says, "make choices that affect the outcome of the story," which interpretation should we hope for? Gamers all seem to want the former: they want to have a bunch of different endings, and they want their choices to influence which they see. But that seems to me to be exactly the thing that doesn't really matter. Imagine two games: one that made you feel like you're making choices even though it was deterministically funneling you along a path, and another one in which it felt like you were funneled along a path, even though there were actually a bunch of branches you were choosing that had big ramifications on the plot (unknown to you). It's pretty clear to me that the first is preferable. This equivocation on what it means to "make choices" in a video game is something that causes confusion and makes game designers needlessly put in a bunch of endings, when it doesn't suit their goals to do so.
That's why I don't get why people care so much about being able to really affect the outcome of a game or really determine a character's personality. It sounds to me like demanding that when you play Halo, you should really get to go to space. I know that The Walking Dead is deterministic when I play it (just like I know that I'm not really in Savannah), but it doesn't matter as long as it skillfully keeps up the perceptual, agential, and emotional illusion that I'm controlling the story. TWD is one of the first games I've seen that has been aware of the equivocation and dealt with it appropriately.
Well, I mostly agree, but if the characters were just as well developed, but in a five hour animated mini-series, would they have been as affecting? I'm honestly not really sure if the game worked because of the interactive elements, or in spite of them, which I think is kind of relevant.
I don't think it would have been that great as a mini-series. When Lee struggled to get up in one scene, and I was slamming on the space bar like nobody's business, I wasn't just a passive observer. Moments like those make up most of my memories from the game.
posted by painquale at 4:43 PM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm going to get razed for saying this but Skyrim's main storyline is total weak sauce.
Of course it was. Anyone who's read a couple of published fantasy novels would laugh at it. But that's fine with me. Skyrim's strength lies elsewhere, such as in its open world. I think the Dragonborn storyline was added just to give a bit more marketability to the game. Frankly I feel the game would have been better without it. Oh look, I am a special person born with amazing powers! I must save the world! I wish it had cast the character as someone ordinary.
On the other hand, a game like Dragon Age has no such excuse. It plays very linearly and doesn't have a world to explore, so its main storyline should have been stronger. Would it kill a game studio to hire someone who's known to write good fiction? (Or an actual proofreader for their text?) I get the impression that game developers generally ask their programmers to volunteer for various non-programming tasks, with the exception of artwork and music. Most people can't write a good story. And it seems that most people think they can, and will not swallow their pride long enough to hire a professional.
I haven't played 'The Walking Dead', but it sounds like an actual storyteller was involved in its creation. I'm looking forward to playing it.
posted by yath at 5:18 PM on June 14, 2013
Of course it was. Anyone who's read a couple of published fantasy novels would laugh at it. But that's fine with me. Skyrim's strength lies elsewhere, such as in its open world. I think the Dragonborn storyline was added just to give a bit more marketability to the game. Frankly I feel the game would have been better without it. Oh look, I am a special person born with amazing powers! I must save the world! I wish it had cast the character as someone ordinary.
On the other hand, a game like Dragon Age has no such excuse. It plays very linearly and doesn't have a world to explore, so its main storyline should have been stronger. Would it kill a game studio to hire someone who's known to write good fiction? (Or an actual proofreader for their text?) I get the impression that game developers generally ask their programmers to volunteer for various non-programming tasks, with the exception of artwork and music. Most people can't write a good story. And it seems that most people think they can, and will not swallow their pride long enough to hire a professional.
I haven't played 'The Walking Dead', but it sounds like an actual storyteller was involved in its creation. I'm looking forward to playing it.
posted by yath at 5:18 PM on June 14, 2013
This fucking game made me cry, goddammit. And I love it.
People have described it as being more of an "interactive movie" than a game, and they're right. But it's a piece of art - and the claustrophobic, panicky, and inescapable style of gameplay suits the story narrative perfectly.
posted by Pseudonumb at 10:32 PM on June 14, 2013
People have described it as being more of an "interactive movie" than a game, and they're right. But it's a piece of art - and the claustrophobic, panicky, and inescapable style of gameplay suits the story narrative perfectly.
posted by Pseudonumb at 10:32 PM on June 14, 2013
Has anyone played the iOS version? Any thoughts on it?
I've only played it on iPad, so I can't compare the versions, but I can report that it works and looks perfectly fine and I've had no problems.
And thanks to the thread for reminding me that I need to finish it. I got distracted after episode 2.
posted by rifflesby at 2:57 AM on June 15, 2013
I've only played it on iPad, so I can't compare the versions, but I can report that it works and looks perfectly fine and I've had no problems.
And thanks to the thread for reminding me that I need to finish it. I got distracted after episode 2.
posted by rifflesby at 2:57 AM on June 15, 2013
I got my iPhone 5 after all the episodes were already out and I couldn't put it down. It works fine on iOS.
posted by IndigoRain at 2:27 AM on June 16, 2013
posted by IndigoRain at 2:27 AM on June 16, 2013
« Older Making the Weather: Six Politicians who shaped our... | Punk is Not Dead ... yet Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by C'est la D.C. at 9:39 AM on June 14, 2013 [1 favorite]