DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited January 2013
Yeah. Like I said.
I personally wouldn't have put TWD in my top 3 from what I've seen of it. But that's because the game depends mostly on its story/characters and I didn't think the story was that special.
But for people who really enjoyed it, the story is probably more than enough for them to ignore the gameplay. Just like how for a lot of the games some of us like, the gameplay is probably enough for us to ignore the story(since a lot of games have bad ones).
It's worth noting that this really, *really* was not a remotely close poll. TWD won in kind of a landslide, and it wins by every method of counting I've got. It won in first place votes, it won in number of list inclusions. Out of 471 voters, 194 put TWD on their lists. That's like nearly half of participants, it's 41%. TWD got more second place votes than ME3 got first place votes. This game won because it was incredibly popular.
The difference between Mass Effect 3 and The Walking Dead is that one of those games has a rabid tiny minority of player obsessed with slandering it and the other has a rabid tiny minority obsessed with portraying it as god's gift to gaming.
Also, one of those games has choices that matter despite what the rabid minority says and the other has choices that don't matter despite with the rabid minority says.
But if a bunch of TWD fanatics multi-voting for a game serves as sufficient proof that it's better than another game, then good for you.
Hell, I'm just glad I wasn't the only one who voted for I Am Alive. Download only, low-budget, non-horror survival game that scratched a very specific itch for me.
I was also one of those handful of people who voted. Although I'll admit that it is a deeply deeply flawed game but I'm a sucker for games where you get to climb really really tall things and it's kind of interesting to see a game whose bleakness is comparable to Cormac McCarthey's The Road
Game was ruined by that awful, awful stamina meter. Though, the mental image of that dude hanging 100+ feet off the ground going "Can't... hold...on..." cracking open a can of fruit cocktail with one hand, *arrrrgleblarrrrggllle* slopping it down Popeye style and suddenly he's all "WOOOOO fuck yeah!" sprinting up the side of the building, was amusing.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
Yeah, while I agree people are going a little overboard about how "amazing" TWD is, these polls are supposed to be just for fun. Don't take it too seriously.
Yeah I get where people are coming at. But when I voted: I voted for the "overall package" when it comes to a game. Sure it didn't have the best gameplay or the best graphics... But the story was off the charts good which brought it over the top for me. I actually just recently started XCOM and I can see exactly why people loved this game... I didn't vote for it because I didn't play it at the time. Wish I had now.
Agreed. Gameplay is just one factor of many. It's the overall package and experience that is actually important. If gameplay were the only factor involved then why didn't Bayonetta win every video game award known to man in 2010? Instead it went to Mass Effect 2, which I really liked, but honestly, had pretty mediocre mechanics.
It's worth noting that this really, *really* was not a remotely close poll. TWD won in kind of a landslide, and it wins by every method of counting I've got. It won in first place votes, it won in number of list inclusions. Out of 471 voters, 194 put TWD on their lists. That's like nearly half of participants, it's 41%. TWD got more second place votes than ME3 got first place votes. This game won because it was incredibly popular.
The difference between Mass Effect 3 and The Walking Dead is that one of those games has a rabid tiny minority of player obsessed with slandering it and the other has a rabid tiny minority obsessed with portraying it as god's gift to gaming.
Also, one of those games has choices that matter despite what the rabid minority says and the other has choices that don't matter despite with the rabid minority says.
But if a bunch of TWD fanatics multi-voting for a game serves as sufficient proof that it's better than another game, then good for you.
Your first post and this is what you have to say? Yeah, okay buddy, sure thing, it's aaaaaall a conspiracy theory.
*Backs out of the room slowly*
Mass Effect 3 was so bad, it didn't even make my top 20. Assassin's Creed 3 too.
After some deliberation with @mcc from last year, I would call it "of the games a person thought were the best 20, this is where they ranked it on average in their top 20" ranking. Or something. mcc suggested "fervency" last year.
Just popping in again to say that Far Cry 3 is fucking amazing and I want to thank all the people here that voted for it, you're doing God's work
It has an awful story but in spite of that it's just...damn
A hell of a game
TWD was my #1 for sure until it hit, and they are the complete opposite: one with an excellent story and and somewhat lackluster gameplay (but that doesn't really matter) and one with tense, exciting, unpredictable gameplay and a shitshow of a story (but that doesn't really matter)
Anyone that missed out on FC3 due to it coming so late in the year, make a mental note to grab it on a Steam sale or something
+1
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
If the majority of the forums found TWD the most entertaining thing they played all year then that's pretty much all she wrote. And from what I've read from a lot of people on this board since the very first episode of the game hit, I'm not surprised it won.
I'm also not surprised that I'm the only person who voted for Carrier Command: Gaea Mission.
despite going through the list 3 times, I somehow missed voting for: The Secret World, Rainslick 3 & Dustforce - all excellent games.
also, I just started playing Mark of the Ninja a couple days ago, and that would've been a top 3 game for sure
MongerI got the ham stink.Dallas, TXRegistered Userregular
Far Cry 3 seemed like a better Assassin's Creed 3 than Assassin's Creed 3 was. Far Cry 3 is the kind of game that I would expect to have multiple evil presidents in it. Evil presidents punching sharks.
I didn't get around to buying or playing it, though. Sort of like I didn't get around to buying or playing Fez.
I recently started playing Sleeping Dogs and RE: Revelations, and man. Those would have been on the list too.
I need to stop playing crap games. Or so many games. So many crap games. Something like that.
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Far Cry 3 is a very good game. I have yet to beat it, but it's one of those games where you can walk away for a couple of months, come back, and still enjoy yourself.
Far Cry 3 seemed like a better Assassin's Creed 3 than Assassin's Creed 3 was. Far Cry 3 is the kind of game that I would expect to have multiple evil presidents in it. Evil presidents punching sharks.
I didn't get around to buying or playing it, though. Sort of like I didn't get around to buying or playing Fez.
I've said this before but that's exactly what it is
Things Far Cry 3 does better than AC3:
Stealth
Assassination missions
Hunting missions
Viewpoints/vertical platforming
Taking over enemy forts
Air assassinations
Archery
Crafting
It's crazy
+1
RandomHajileNot actually a SnatcherThe New KremlinRegistered Userregular
That is a significantly better ranking for Xenoblade & Virtue's Last Reward, and I approve.
Yeah, I think that is what is neat about it. You can kind of catch those games that just enough people played and loved enough to put in their top 20. It's like people are saying "MORE PEOPLE SHOULD PLAY THESE GAMES, Y'ALL!" (mcc's fervency metric.)
But is that actually a good point to get to? Should game play not be an important part of games?
Yeah, but "good gameplay" is not all that thrilling a reward these days, at least for me. Barring certain limitations, good gameplay keeps on giving and you can keep playing those games year after year, so there's no expiration date. You can replay a game for a good story but you can only experience it the first time once, after which your familiarity with it lessens the impact. Gameplay typically doesn't stick with me long beyond the experience of playing it, whereas story does. If TWD actually had bad gameplay instead of a type of gameplay that may not be especially exciting but fulfills its function (not only offering a means of interaction but one that contributes to the larger goals of the game, by which I mean the ponderous adventure mechanics do a good job representing a sort of helplessness and panic in reaction better than all these games where you are The Golden God of Murder), it might have been hurt, and realistically I'd say it's much better gameplay than most adventure games, a genre I generally dislike for its moon logic and trial clicking.
"Good story" is rare in videogames, and I weigh that much more heavily than gameplay. TWD's gameplay didn't get in the way, so I didn't have any demerits.
SoundsPlush on
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
edited January 2013
e: Herp derp, nevermind. You have Oblivion listed as just "Oblivion", while Skyrim is under it's full title.
e: Herp derp, nevermind. You have Oblivion listed as just "Oblivion", while Skyrim is under it's full title.
Blame mcc. My script just parses the results of his polls over the years.
Also, I have the calculations for prior years, and I can slice the numbers up in different ways. I used to do an "overrated" list, but the logic for that list is specious at best.
But is that actually a good point to get to? Should game play not be an important part of games?
Yeah, but "good gameplay" is not all that thrilling a reward these days, at least for me. Barring certain limitations, good gameplay keeps on giving and you can keep playing those games year after year, so there's no expiration date. You can replay a game for a good story but you can only experience it the first time once, after which your familiarity with it lessens the impact. Gameplay typically doesn't stick with me long beyond the experience of playing it, whereas story does. If TWD actually had bad gameplay instead of a type of gameplay that may not be especially exciting but fulfills its function (not only offering a means of interaction but one that contributes to the larger goals of the game, by which I mean the ponderous adventure mechanics do a good job representing a sort of helplessness and panic in reaction better than all these games where you are The Golden God of Murder), it might have been hurt, and realistically I'd say it's much better gameplay than most adventure games, a genre I generally dislike for its moon logic and trial clicking.
"Good story" is rare in videogames, and I weigh that much more heavily than gameplay. TWD's gameplay didn't get in the way, so I didn't have any demerits.
Yeah, just an agree to disagree thing I guess. Game play is a huge deal to me, because that's how I interact with the game.
It's all intersectional. I rated Dishonored #2 even though its story is pretty blasé, because it had good gameplay, great atmosphere, was a new IP and a return to form of the best of the late 90s/early 00s games. I rated Far Cry 3 like #13 or something, because even though its gameplay is fun as hell it didn't really grab me with anything else and a year from now I probably won't even remember it, whereas there were 12 titles I thought contributed something more interesting, valuable, or memorable.
So yeah, everyone's got their own scoring rubric.
+1
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
e: Herp derp, nevermind. You have Oblivion listed as just "Oblivion", while Skyrim is under it's full title.
Blame mcc. My script just parses the results of his polls over the years.
Also, I have the calculations for prior years, and I can slice the numbers up in different ways. I used to do an "overrated" list, but the logic for that list is specious at best.
Yeah, the herp derp was at myself for not seeing it, not at you for having it listed that way. My original point was something about Oblivion being on the list while Skyrim wasn't, but my reading comprehension had simply failed me.
It's all intersectional. I rated Dishonored #2 even though its story is pretty blasé, because it had good gameplay, great atmosphere, was a new IP and a return to form of the best of the late 90s/early 00s games. I rated Far Cry 3 like #13 or something, because even though its gameplay is fun as hell it didn't really grab me with anything else and a year from now I probably won't even remember it, whereas there were 12 titles I thought contributed something more interesting, valuable, or memorable.
So yeah, everyone's got their own scoring rubric.
Yeah, we're very different in that regard. FC3 is the type of game I'll still be playing a year from now, simply because the game play is that good. It's the type of game you can fire up, play for two hours, and have endless fun, simply because the game play is so well put together.
There are certainly games on the other end of the spectrum for me (Mass Effect immediately comes to mind), where it's the story and characters that will stick with me...but I can get great interest and memory value out of stellar game play as well.
Far Cry 3 seemed like a better Assassin's Creed 3 than Assassin's Creed 3 was. Far Cry 3 is the kind of game that I would expect to have multiple evil presidents in it. Evil presidents punching sharks.
I didn't get around to buying or playing it, though. Sort of like I didn't get around to buying or playing Fez.
I've said this before but that's exactly what it is
Mass Effect 3 didn't suffer so much from its ending as I thought, but I cannot help but be immensely pleased to see this forum follow the general trend and Walking Dead and XCOM: EU rate so very highly. Both were fantastic games and it's great to see "dead" genres take top honors here (Adventure Games and Turn Based Strategy).
Concerning Mass Effect 3 and Far Cry 3, one thing to keep in mind is that a voting system such as this one inherently favors a game which is played by the largest number of people - it works opposite to how a lot of award systems do (rewarding games later in the year which are fresh in the mind), but rather tends to favor games which came out earlier in the year. This would help to explain Far Cry 3's position - ME3, on the other hand, was legitimately high on a number of peoples' lists, but it's also fair to consider the fact that more people had more time to play it, which allowed it to land on more lists.
Concerning turnout, might some mods on the forum have any info re: forum traffic compared to earlier years? I'd be mildly curious as to whether there's a correlation.
It's hardly a scientific survey, but it seems like every other list in the last thread said something along the lines of I wanted to put X on my list but I haven't played it yet, or all the games I played this year were from 2011, or other stuff along those lines. If it weren't for the drop in participation, I'd strongly lobby @mcc to actually run it later, but if a few weeks dropped it that much, oh well
Also, that crusader kings 2 only showed up on the first past e post list. I guess being so niche hurt it. Also, PC exclusive, and a steategy game, both major appeal penalties
We know deep down in our hearts it's the best and that's all that really matters.
And if you go through the game quickly, then yeah you might finish in 60 hours.
Oh good.
If you do everything, the game is gonna take you at least 120 hours or so.
Thankfully, you can ignore much of the sidequest content if you want to and just keep progressing through the main story.
I didn't get that far into Xenoblade, but I found the best way to play it was to cut off my normal "do everything" instincts and just stay in a zone until I was getting a bit bored, then move on.
Posts
I personally wouldn't have put TWD in my top 3 from what I've seen of it. But that's because the game depends mostly on its story/characters and I didn't think the story was that special.
But for people who really enjoyed it, the story is probably more than enough for them to ignore the gameplay. Just like how for a lot of the games some of us like, the gameplay is probably enough for us to ignore the story(since a lot of games have bad ones).
nah
anyway only 471 votes? a lot lower than usual
The difference between Mass Effect 3 and The Walking Dead is that one of those games has a rabid tiny minority of player obsessed with slandering it and the other has a rabid tiny minority obsessed with portraying it as god's gift to gaming.
Also, one of those games has choices that matter despite what the rabid minority says and the other has choices that don't matter despite with the rabid minority says.
But if a bunch of TWD fanatics multi-voting for a game serves as sufficient proof that it's better than another game, then good for you.
Game was ruined by that awful, awful stamina meter. Though, the mental image of that dude hanging 100+ feet off the ground going "Can't... hold...on..." cracking open a can of fruit cocktail with one hand, *arrrrgleblarrrrggllle* slopping it down Popeye style and suddenly he's all "WOOOOO fuck yeah!" sprinting up the side of the building, was amusing.
Agreed. Gameplay is just one factor of many. It's the overall package and experience that is actually important. If gameplay were the only factor involved then why didn't Bayonetta win every video game award known to man in 2010? Instead it went to Mass Effect 2, which I really liked, but honestly, had pretty mediocre mechanics.
Your first post and this is what you have to say? Yeah, okay buddy, sure thing, it's aaaaaall a conspiracy theory.
*Backs out of the room slowly*
After some deliberation with @mcc from last year, I would call it "of the games a person thought were the best 20, this is where they ranked it on average in their top 20" ranking. Or something. mcc suggested "fervency" last year.
The rest of the list:
Now to work on integrating these into the "all-time (actually 2004-2012) average re-ranking" metric.
This is a clickable link to my Steam Profile.
It has an awful story but in spite of that it's just...damn
A hell of a game
TWD was my #1 for sure until it hit, and they are the complete opposite: one with an excellent story and and somewhat lackluster gameplay (but that doesn't really matter) and one with tense, exciting, unpredictable gameplay and a shitshow of a story (but that doesn't really matter)
Anyone that missed out on FC3 due to it coming so late in the year, make a mental note to grab it on a Steam sale or something
I'm also not surprised that I'm the only person who voted for Carrier Command: Gaea Mission.
also, I just started playing Mark of the Ninja a couple days ago, and that would've been a top 3 game for sure
That game is so dumb but I can't help but love it when I'm using a combine harvester to chew up zombies to You Spin Me Round.
I didn't get around to buying or playing it, though. Sort of like I didn't get around to buying or playing Fez.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
I need to stop playing crap games. Or so many games. So many crap games. Something like that.
This "all-time" ranking is sorted simply on the percentage of people who cast a voted for that game anywhere in their rankings:
This is a clickable link to my Steam Profile.
I've said this before but that's exactly what it is
Things Far Cry 3 does better than AC3:
Stealth
Assassination missions
Hunting missions
Viewpoints/vertical platforming
Taking over enemy forts
Air assassinations
Archery
Crafting
It's crazy
This is a clickable link to my Steam Profile.
Yeah, but "good gameplay" is not all that thrilling a reward these days, at least for me. Barring certain limitations, good gameplay keeps on giving and you can keep playing those games year after year, so there's no expiration date. You can replay a game for a good story but you can only experience it the first time once, after which your familiarity with it lessens the impact. Gameplay typically doesn't stick with me long beyond the experience of playing it, whereas story does. If TWD actually had bad gameplay instead of a type of gameplay that may not be especially exciting but fulfills its function (not only offering a means of interaction but one that contributes to the larger goals of the game, by which I mean the ponderous adventure mechanics do a good job representing a sort of helplessness and panic in reaction better than all these games where you are The Golden God of Murder), it might have been hurt, and realistically I'd say it's much better gameplay than most adventure games, a genre I generally dislike for its moon logic and trial clicking.
"Good story" is rare in videogames, and I weigh that much more heavily than gameplay. TWD's gameplay didn't get in the way, so I didn't have any demerits.
Also, I have the calculations for prior years, and I can slice the numbers up in different ways. I used to do an "overrated" list, but the logic for that list is specious at best.
This is a clickable link to my Steam Profile.
Yeah, just an agree to disagree thing I guess. Game play is a huge deal to me, because that's how I interact with the game.
Everyone weighs these things differently though.
So yeah, everyone's got their own scoring rubric.
Yeah, the herp derp was at myself for not seeing it, not at you for having it listed that way. My original point was something about Oblivion being on the list while Skyrim wasn't, but my reading comprehension had simply failed me.
Yeah, we're very different in that regard. FC3 is the type of game I'll still be playing a year from now, simply because the game play is that good. It's the type of game you can fire up, play for two hours, and have endless fun, simply because the game play is so well put together.
There are certainly games on the other end of the spectrum for me (Mass Effect immediately comes to mind), where it's the story and characters that will stick with me...but I can get great interest and memory value out of stellar game play as well.
Yep.
Depends on how you define "grindfest". I don't think it's grindy at all.
And if you go through the game quickly, then yeah you might finish in 60 hours.
Oh good.
If you do everything, the game is gonna take you at least 120 hours or so.
Thankfully, you can ignore much of the sidequest content if you want to and just keep progressing through the main story.
High five! I hated no more heroes, but this was utterly wonderful.
Also I must be slightly weird but I enjoyed the gameplay of The Walking Dead as well as the plot and the characters.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch