I can concede that the Uncharted franchise may not be the most thrilling to many people considering it's more linear narrative style... However, it is a linear narrative that features player input being addressed through overcoming a challenge. Actually moving from cover-to-cover, planning out strategic moves quickly that keeps your character alive, actually doing something within the linearity. Not merely watching a scene and sometimes pressing a button-prompt quickly to activate an invisible stopwatch only to be rewarded with more of that same cutscene.
I, personally, have never found games like Uncharted or Call of Duty extremely horrid for their strict gameplay scripting because it is gameplay in the first place. Something where overcoming an obstacle is the foundation of it's narrative, not clicking a key real fast to open a door.
Game's are all about rewarding the player with either more perks, a new shiny weapon, or just more story... but there must be a risk in a game for there to have any sentiment of reward.
Control and agency can come in more forms than simply directing the physical movements of a character model. in this case it (ideally) comes… more from making decisions and having those decision effects future events, then reacting to those results and so on. Decision making is a form of agency, and it can be a fulfilling gameplay loop if handled correctly.
Uncharted 4 may offer you physical control of a character but half of that game was walking in straight lines and climbing ledges, gameplay which was not exactly fulfilling nor necessary in my humble opinion. Personally I've always felt that the Uncharted games are padded with way too much pointless filler "gameplay". Each game in that series could be cut in half time-wise and be better of for it.
I really liked what i saw ,thank you pal for posting , didn't heard of it before .
you probably can guess by my picture that i love planet of the apes .
I'm looking forward to play and i certainly will buy it , although i'm pretty sure it will be delayed given how it looked like but we'll see , perhaps not .
I mean when telltale walking dead came out , my brother saw the graphics and some gameplay and said it was crap , but i was optimist like i am right now , never played any telltale game before , then i bought the first and only episode that came out back in the day, and we kept playing it because it was good . and it was a successful game .
Now given it's only 3 hours long , i hope the choice will really have an impact and really be tailored by how we play . I love story driven games , and i love planet of the apes .
And i hope it's short lenght will be justified by its quality .
I mean what do you consider a movie game anymore though. Do you mean a game based of exactly what the movie was about or a game set in a movie universe because this is a game set in the movie universe not based exactly on what the movie was about. And all I know is their is plenty of amazing games set in movie universes. Shadow of mordor at the time I personally thought was the best next gen game yet and it won game of the year and is getting a sequel that also looks amazing. You can't instantly think a game is gonna suck because it's set in a movie universe that's just stupid.
And that's what? 4 movie games out of 60 others?
It's not uncommon to think this might flop like many others have before.
But, we'll have to wait and see.
If it's only 3 hours long I think that's either a bad sign or a good sign. The reason I think it's gonna be a good sighn is because this game has such high production value that they could really (and I mean really) make choices go a long way.
If it's only 3 hours long I think that's either a bad sign or a good sign. The reason I think it's gonna be a good sighn is because this game has such high production value that they could really (and I mean really) make choices go a long way.
Super interested in the look of this. With the high production value and time that's within approximately "movie" runtime this seems like it… more's trying to establish itself as an "interactive movie" installment in the franchise. People streaming the new Apes movies on their PS4 or X1 will be able to hop over to this no problem.
Really interesting stuff.
It's an extremely long time to make an educated decision approximated from previous "games" of similar nature about whether or not I myself am interested in another cutscene-with-minimal-player-input "game" however.
And 6 minutes of footage isn't exactly a long time for you to know if the game is good or bad
You don't know that . We'll only see if it's true once it's out , not before .
The Order was pretty bad, but that game is more like Uncharted than a Telltale game so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up in argument against what I've said.
Are you justifying that all video games should try to act like movies? Are you a fan of The Order 1886? That game was shit, the graphics couldn't even save the game from how short and cutscened it was.
but there must be a risk in a game for there to have any sentiment of reward.
The risk in these games is in your decision making and the consequences of it.
It's funny because all of your criticisms I have heard before.. except people were directing it at Telltale games. "No agency, no control, it's a movie not a game" etc.
I can concede that the Uncharted franchise may not be the most thrilling to many people considering it's more linear narrative style... Howe… morever, it is a linear narrative that features player input being addressed through overcoming a challenge. Actually moving from cover-to-cover, planning out strategic moves quickly that keeps your character alive, actually doing something within the linearity. Not merely watching a scene and sometimes pressing a button-prompt quickly to activate an invisible stopwatch only to be rewarded with more of that same cutscene.
I, personally, have never found games like Uncharted or Call of Duty extremely horrid for their strict gameplay scripting because it is gameplay in the first place. Something where overcoming an obstacle is the foundation of it's narrative, not clicking a key real fast to open a door.
Game's are all about rewarding the player with either more perks, a new shiny weapon, or just more story... but there must be a risk in a game for there to have any sentiment of reward.
Uncharted doesn't have cutscenes that last for 10 minutes.
You're saying like Planet of the Apes game will be a good game but that game doesn't even let you control a character. Uncharted was more than just trying to be movie.
No, I'm not talking about "all" games.
The Order was pretty bad, but that game is more like Uncharted than a Telltale game so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up in argument against what I've said.
The consequences are comprised of characters either immediately praising or demonizing your "choice" through terribly written banter or having the scene change who and who is not in a pre-determined scene. The pacing is always the similar though and the ending is always the exact same no matter what series of choices you happen to make.
In the end of the game, the only choice that matters is the final one, which is extremely discouraging to people who want a truly realized free-flowing narrative and is why I specifically used Dead Rising as an example against a lot of these "choice-driven narrative games." Dead Rising can continue for as long as you want it to, you can essentially negate every piece of story in exchange for dicking around, something most games don't have the courage to allow. It also helps that it's a fairly fleshed out experience with fun gameplay incentivizing playing even after "failing" to complete the story.
So there's that also. You can't "fail" a TT style game, only fumble and return a few seconds prior to continue on again.
but there must be a risk in a game for there to have any sentiment of reward.
The risk in these games is in your decision making and… more the consequences of it.
It's funny because all of your criticisms I have heard before.. except people were directing it at Telltale games. "No agency, no control, it's a movie not a game" etc.
No, other posters are claiming that the concept of the game means it will automatically be bad. All I'm saying is that it can be good or it can be bad, just depends on the final execution. I'm simply not going to discount this and all games off-the-bat which focus on the story and choice elements.
Again, "control" does not have to be limited to the physical movements of a character, it can also mean controlling their decision making and choices.
Uncharted doesn't have cutscenes that last for 10 minutes.
You're saying like Planet of the Apes game will be a good game but that game doesn't even let you control a character. Uncharted was more than just trying to be movie.
People still consider prolonged cutscenes dressing themselves up as compelling films with distracting DVD-style menu prompts in center-frame to "accentuate" agency as a video game?
Yes because by definition interactive movies are classified as video games. Objectively they are no less of a game than Uncharted 4 or Dead Rising, only by your standards of what constitutes as adequate agency.
As I've said many time previously, games have an identity crisis when it comes to understanding what makes a narrative strength in it's medium so compelling. With films, it's undressing the shots, the composition, the editing techniques, the structural foundation. In novels, it's the use of words strung together, the descriptive form, the pacing of sentence structure. In games, it's control, it's direct agency.
If the truth was that black and white then games like The Walking Dead and Life Is Strange would not have been as well received by the gaming community as they are. If the only way to successfully build a compelling narrative in games is to provide as much control to the player as possible how come so many gamers and critics alike were so riveted by the stories these games presented, going as far as giving them game of the year awards and hailing them as pioneers in video game storytelling? You're free to disagree with the opinions of those people but don't act like you know what's best for the industry (and yes I know not everyone in the gaming community think highly of those kinds of games). Video games aren't in a "crisis", they are continuing to branch out into new and innovative varieties of gameplay and ways to interact with a narrative.
It's not looking at a shitty cutscene of character's popping in (seriously, I saw texture load-ins and pop-ins around 3 times in the span of 6 minutes)
Yes because it's not like games "that actually have gameplay" feature any immersion breaking bugs and technical hiccups. Even so glitches are more of a problem of the product and not the genre itself.
While people are justifying "playing" a nearly 3-5 hour slog of yet another Telltale-style snooze-a-thon, I'll be having a blast playing fun narratives that actually have gameplay like Dead Rising or Uncharted 4.
And I have no problem with you doing so. You don't have to enjoy these types of games, and people don't need to justify anything if they enjoy playing them.
People still consider prolonged cutscenes dressing themselves up as compelling films with distracting DVD-style menu prompts in center-frame… more to "accentuate" agency as a video game?
As I've said many time previously, games have an identity crisis when it comes to understanding what makes a narrative strength in it's medium so compelling. With films, it's undressing the shots, the composition, the editing techniques, the structural foundation. In novels, it's the use of words strung together, the descriptive form, the pacing of sentence structure. In games, it's control, it's direct agency.
It's not looking at a shitty cutscene of character's popping in (seriously, I saw texture load-ins and pop-ins around 3 times in the span of 6 minutes) or moving the analog stick left or right to pick what is essentially a scene-select on a DVD menu cause that's what apparently amounts to games being more "mature" or "compelling."
While people are j… [view original content]
If the truth was that black and white then games like The Walking Dead and Life Is Strange would not have been as well received by the gaming community as they are. If the only way to successfully build a compelling narrative in games is to provide as much control to the player as possible how come so many gamers and critics alike were so riveted by the stories these games presented, going as far as giving them game of the year awards and hailing them as pioneers in video game storytelling? You're free to disagree with the opinions of those people but don't act like you know what's best for the industry (and yes I know not everyone in the gaming community think highly of those kinds of games). Video games aren't in a "crisis", they are continuing to branch out into new and innovative varieties of gameplay and ways to interact with a narrative.
As I've previously stated, there's a sad identity crisis in video game narratives that tend to equate not have the thing the medium was based around somehow makes it more mature because it's no longer a "kid's interactive past-time" and is now more like the other forms of entertainment are (an extremely patronizing gesture), just less like them... a more diluted version, if you will.
And I couldn't care less about what is and isn't critically viable or successful, I enjoy whatever I care to, no matter how many out-of-touch game critics rate something because off a check and a handshake handed out by the studio advertisers to sell more copies. At this point, considering how toxic criticism has been constructed around VG's is, I don't take many reviews seriously about them anymore. I know I don't consider cut scenes with light gameplay sprinkled in only in hub segments to be an exactly compelling foundation for a video game narrative.
I want something I can do, something I can work toward, something I have input to accomplish and overcome. Not sitting with one hand on a controller and the other poised up to my face in boredom, only occasionally clicking a button prompt, eventually doing that until the credits roll.
People still consider prolonged cutscenes dressing themselves up as compelling films with distracting DVD-style menu prompts in center-frame… more to "accentuate" agency as a video game?
Yes because by definition interactive movies are classified as video games. Objectively they are no less of a game than Uncharted 4 or Dead Rising, only by your standards of what constitutes as adequate agency.
As I've said many time previously, games have an identity crisis when it comes to understanding what makes a narrative strength in it's medium so compelling. With films, it's undressing the shots, the composition, the editing techniques, the structural foundation. In novels, it's the use of words strung together, the descriptive form, the pacing of sentence structure. In games, it's control, it's direct agency.
If the truth was that black and white then games like The Walking Dead and Life Is Strange would not have been as well received… [view original content]
Exactly !
and when you say cutscene-with-minimal-player-input game
you think the order 2847 ( never played or seen )
but when you say that
I think of until dawn , walking dead like previously mentionned . Of course there is interactions and puzzles on those . Although for me this kind of interractions are just there to fill in the blanks for the narrative .
But how do you know there's none of it in this game ?
We've only seen 6 minutes of it . Of course you're allowed to tell your apriorism just like i am allowed to say mine .
But what i meant to say is that you can't know whether or not 3 hours is enough for the game to have a deep narrative scheme .
what i didn't mean to say is not for you to have an opinion whether or not the game would be good or bad .
Sorry for the misunderstanding .
It's an extremely long time to make an educated decision approximated from previous "games" of similar nature about whether or not I myself am interested in another cutscene-with-minimal-player-input "game" however.
Exactly !
and when you say cutscene-with-minimal-player-input game
you think the order 2847 ( never played or seen )
but when you say… more that
I think of until dawn , walking dead like previously mentionned . Of course there is interactions and puzzles on those . Although for me this kind of interractions are just there to fill in the blanks for the narrative .
But how do you know there's none of it in this game ?
We've only seen 6 minutes of it . Of course you're allowed to tell your apriorism just like i am allowed to say mine .
But what i meant to say is that you can't know whether or not 3 hours is enough for the game to have a deep narrative scheme .
what i didn't mean to say is not for you to have an opinion whether or not the game would be good or bad .
Sorry for the misunderstanding .
I made this discovery not too long ago. Yeah, they are like two completely different games. One of the few examples of a console version being superior to the PC version (that I know of).
I made this discovery not too long ago. Yeah, they are like two completely different games. One of the few examples of a console version being superior to the PC version (that I know of).
Oh yeah, I loved the PS2 version, hence why I was shocked to find out about the PC version. It's about time Spider-Man got another good game after the shit we've had the last few years.
I'm ambivalent in all honesty. I was a bit surprised when I heard about this, but also interested. I'm a fan of Rise and Dawn and I plan on seeing War, eventually. I may just watch someone else play it first. It seems like a good idea though, to make it closer to a movie than an actual game. There have been good games based off of movies, sure, but there aren't that many, or at least that I know of.
Also, people clearly have misconceptions about what Telltale games are actually like in the comments. There is actual freedom to move around in hub's and QTE's, so they are closer to being games than this is.
Also the company that's making this game has never made a game before so it's kind of hard to tell if they will innovate the "interactive movie" genre. It could suck a lot I think we simply just don't know enough about the game.
I think people need to remember that there should be different sorts of games for different sorts of people, and some enjoy story driven games where there's a film quality to it. I mean I can't stand games which are forcing COD style multiplayer on a gamer, but I know there would be others who consider multiplayer a far more essential quality.
Maybe this game will be great, maybe it won't but don't assume there isn't an audience for it.
People still consider prolonged cutscenes dressing themselves up as compelling films with distracting DVD-style menu prompts in center-frame… more to "accentuate" agency as a video game?
As I've said many time previously, games have an identity crisis when it comes to understanding what makes a narrative strength in it's medium so compelling. With films, it's undressing the shots, the composition, the editing techniques, the structural foundation. In novels, it's the use of words strung together, the descriptive form, the pacing of sentence structure. In games, it's control, it's direct agency.
It's not looking at a shitty cutscene of character's popping in (seriously, I saw texture load-ins and pop-ins around 3 times in the span of 6 minutes) or moving the analog stick left or right to pick what is essentially a scene-select on a DVD menu cause that's what apparently amounts to games being more "mature" or "compelling."
While people are j… [view original content]
I think the developer said a full single play through is about 2-3 hours, but there will be a lot of impactful choices in dialogue so that a second run will be different with numerous endings. Hopefully more than just 'apes win', 'humans win' and 'peace and cake for all'.
I really liked what i saw ,thank you pal for posting , didn't heard of it before .
you probably can guess by my picture that i love planet… more of the apes .
I'm looking forward to play and i certainly will buy it , although i'm pretty sure it will be delayed given how it looked like but we'll see , perhaps not .
I mean when telltale walking dead came out , my brother saw the graphics and some gameplay and said it was crap , but i was optimist like i am right now , never played any telltale game before , then i bought the first and only episode that came out back in the day, and we kept playing it because it was good . and it was a successful game .
Now given it's only 3 hours long , i hope the choice will really have an impact and really be tailored by how we play . I love story driven games , and i love planet of the apes .
And i hope it's short lenght will be justified by its quality .
As I've previously stated, there's a sad identity crisis in video game narratives that tend to equate not have the thing the medium was based around somehow makes it more mature because it's no longer a "kid's interactive past-time" and is now more like the other forms of entertainment are (an extremely patronizing gesture), just less like them... a more diluted version, if you will.
I see what you mean, though I don't necessarily agree that combining the interactivity of video games with the elements of what makes the narratives of other mediums compelling inherently makes the end result diluted, though that definitely can be the case. I think the problem is that it's difficult to strike a perfect balance between gameplay and story. A bigger focus on story and cinematic presentation often results in sacrificing some time devoted to gameplay and vice versa. That doesn't mean that games that do have a bigger focus on narrative are objectively lesser products though, it's all based on the gamer's preference really.
I can understand why you would have such a distaste for these types of games though, it's alright if you prefer games that focus more on gameplay.
If the truth was that black and white then games like The Walking Dead and Life Is Strange would not have been as well received by the gamin… moreg community as they are. If the only way to successfully build a compelling narrative in games is to provide as much control to the player as possible how come so many gamers and critics alike were so riveted by the stories these games presented, going as far as giving them game of the year awards and hailing them as pioneers in video game storytelling? You're free to disagree with the opinions of those people but don't act like you know what's best for the industry (and yes I know not everyone in the gaming community think highly of those kinds of games). Video games aren't in a "crisis", they are continuing to branch out into new and innovative varieties of gameplay and ways to interact with a narrative.
As I've previously stated, there's a sad identity crisis in video game narratives that tend … [view original content]
I was thinking about getting it, but it being 3 hours sorta kills it for me, also I don't really want to play as humans, I really don't get why that's necessary.
So it can show both sides of the conflict and demonstrate no one is really the villain. No doubt there will be bad humans and bad apes like Korba and the General, but the context of why they act that way will be understandable.
I was thinking about getting it, but it being 3 hours sorta kills it for me, also I don't really want to play as humans, I really don't get why that's necessary.
The graphics look decent enough for the current generation, however the short length is concerning. 3 hours seems way too short, but that just depends on the story.
And I'd like to point out one detail that put me off from the gameplay video:
Looks like another MA:E case, the eyes are so blank and just stares into you.
As was stated previously they said 2 to 3 hours for a single play through, given that choice is the core mechanic at the heart of it I assume - the developers said you should get a dialogue choice every 10 to 20 seconds - there should be numerous ways the story can end for both groups. They're effectively giving you your own interactive Planet of the Apes movie.
Hopefully the graphics will be worked on. I think the Apes are pretty decent right now, the humans need some work, but with some tweaking in the next few months they could pull off a great experience for Planet of the Apes fans. Between Telltale, games like Until Dawn and Detroit: Become Human and this, as well as Netflix announcing a Choose Your Own Adventure set of productions on their service, I can imagine we will see more of these things which blur the line between movie and video game.
The graphics look decent enough for the current generation, however the short length is concerning. 3 hours seems way too short, but that ju… morest depends on the story.
And I'd like to point out one detail that put me off from the gameplay video:
Looks like another MA:E case, the eyes are so blank and just stares into you.
So it can show both sides of the conflict and demonstrate no one is really the villain. No doubt there will be bad humans and bad apes like Korba and the General, but the context of why they act that way will be understandable.
I do believe that there are companies and games are way better than what telltale do, like until dawn, beyond two sould etc.. even LIS is better in terms on branching + originality.. they take those set franchises that are bound to have restriction not only on what they can create but also the lore and all, I will give this a chance because in my mind those graphics are what telltale should aim at.
I do believe that there are companies and games are way better than what telltale do, like until dawn, beyond two sould etc.. even LIS is be… moretter in terms on branching + originality.. they take those set franchises that are bound to have restriction not only on what they can create but also the lore and all, I will give this a chance because in my mind those graphics are what telltale should aim at.
Just curious if anyone has played this since the game was accidentally leaked by Sony for a short period, so some people on PS4 have it already. It's also been revealed that there will be three core endings - humans win, apes win and a peace between the two groups - but there will be a good amount of smaller changes within an ending depending on who have survived and other decisions made during the game as Bryn and Jess (the two main POV characters whose dialogue you influence). And that like Telltale's voting system for Batman, Minecraft, GOTG and the like you can play it via the new Playlink app with up to four players.
IGN has also put the first 17 minutes of the game up, which shows some better examples of decisions in the game.
Comments
I can concede that the Uncharted franchise may not be the most thrilling to many people considering it's more linear narrative style... However, it is a linear narrative that features player input being addressed through overcoming a challenge. Actually moving from cover-to-cover, planning out strategic moves quickly that keeps your character alive, actually doing something within the linearity. Not merely watching a scene and sometimes pressing a button-prompt quickly to activate an invisible stopwatch only to be rewarded with more of that same cutscene.
I, personally, have never found games like Uncharted or Call of Duty extremely horrid for their strict gameplay scripting because it is gameplay in the first place. Something where overcoming an obstacle is the foundation of it's narrative, not clicking a key real fast to open a door.
Game's are all about rewarding the player with either more perks, a new shiny weapon, or just more story... but there must be a risk in a game for there to have any sentiment of reward.
That's what I was thinking to. Being only 3 hours long I simply can't believe that they wouldn't make choices really actually matter.
I really liked what i saw ,thank you pal for posting , didn't heard of it before .
you probably can guess by my picture that i love planet of the apes .
I'm looking forward to play and i certainly will buy it , although i'm pretty sure it will be delayed given how it looked like but we'll see , perhaps not .
I mean when telltale walking dead came out , my brother saw the graphics and some gameplay and said it was crap , but i was optimist like i am right now , never played any telltale game before , then i bought the first and only episode that came out back in the day, and we kept playing it because it was good . and it was a successful game .
Now given it's only 3 hours long , i hope the choice will really have an impact and really be tailored by how we play . I love story driven games , and i love planet of the apes .
And i hope it's short lenght will be justified by its quality .
I mean what do you consider a movie game anymore though. Do you mean a game based of exactly what the movie was about or a game set in a movie universe because this is a game set in the movie universe not based exactly on what the movie was about. And all I know is their is plenty of amazing games set in movie universes. Shadow of mordor at the time I personally thought was the best next gen game yet and it won game of the year and is getting a sequel that also looks amazing. You can't instantly think a game is gonna suck because it's set in a movie universe that's just stupid.
If it's only 3 hours long I think that's either a bad sign or a good sign. The reason I think it's gonna be a good sighn is because this game has such high production value that they could really (and I mean really) make choices go a long way.
3 hours isn't exactly a long time for choices to amount to much in a grander narrative scheme.
Yeah, Andy Serkis's mocap company is doing this, so I expect excellent technological stuff.
And 6 minutes of footage isn't exactly a long time for you to know if the game is good or bad
You don't know that . We'll only see if it's true once it's out , not before .
It all reminds more of Until Dawn with a mix of The Order 1886. To those who have played Until Dawn
It's an extremely long time to make an educated decision approximated from previous "games" of similar nature about whether or not I myself am interested in another cutscene-with-minimal-player-input "game" however.
No, I'm not talking about "all" games.
The Order was pretty bad, but that game is more like Uncharted than a Telltale game so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up in argument against what I've said.
The risk in these games is in your decision making and the consequences of it.
It's funny because all of your criticisms I have heard before.. except people were directing it at Telltale games. "No agency, no control, it's a movie not a game" etc.
Uncharted doesn't have cutscenes that last for 10 minutes.
You're saying like Planet of the Apes game will be a good game but that game doesn't even let you control a character. Uncharted was more than just trying to be movie.
The consequences are comprised of characters either immediately praising or demonizing your "choice" through terribly written banter or having the scene change who and who is not in a pre-determined scene. The pacing is always the similar though and the ending is always the exact same no matter what series of choices you happen to make.
In the end of the game, the only choice that matters is the final one, which is extremely discouraging to people who want a truly realized free-flowing narrative and is why I specifically used Dead Rising as an example against a lot of these "choice-driven narrative games." Dead Rising can continue for as long as you want it to, you can essentially negate every piece of story in exchange for dicking around, something most games don't have the courage to allow. It also helps that it's a fairly fleshed out experience with fun gameplay incentivizing playing even after "failing" to complete the story.
So there's that also. You can't "fail" a TT style game, only fumble and return a few seconds prior to continue on again.
No, other posters are claiming that the concept of the game means it will automatically be bad. All I'm saying is that it can be good or it can be bad, just depends on the final execution. I'm simply not going to discount this and all games off-the-bat which focus on the story and choice elements.
Again, "control" does not have to be limited to the physical movements of a character, it can also mean controlling their decision making and choices.
Yes because by definition interactive movies are classified as video games. Objectively they are no less of a game than Uncharted 4 or Dead Rising, only by your standards of what constitutes as adequate agency.
If the truth was that black and white then games like The Walking Dead and Life Is Strange would not have been as well received by the gaming community as they are. If the only way to successfully build a compelling narrative in games is to provide as much control to the player as possible how come so many gamers and critics alike were so riveted by the stories these games presented, going as far as giving them game of the year awards and hailing them as pioneers in video game storytelling? You're free to disagree with the opinions of those people but don't act like you know what's best for the industry (and yes I know not everyone in the gaming community think highly of those kinds of games). Video games aren't in a "crisis", they are continuing to branch out into new and innovative varieties of gameplay and ways to interact with a narrative.
Yes because it's not like games "that actually have gameplay" feature any immersion breaking bugs and technical hiccups. Even so glitches are more of a problem of the product and not the genre itself.
And I have no problem with you doing so. You don't have to enjoy these types of games, and people don't need to justify anything if they enjoy playing them.
As I've previously stated, there's a sad identity crisis in video game narratives that tend to equate not have the thing the medium was based around somehow makes it more mature because it's no longer a "kid's interactive past-time" and is now more like the other forms of entertainment are (an extremely patronizing gesture), just less like them... a more diluted version, if you will.
And I couldn't care less about what is and isn't critically viable or successful, I enjoy whatever I care to, no matter how many out-of-touch game critics rate something because off a check and a handshake handed out by the studio advertisers to sell more copies. At this point, considering how toxic criticism has been constructed around VG's is, I don't take many reviews seriously about them anymore. I know I don't consider cut scenes with light gameplay sprinkled in only in hub segments to be an exactly compelling foundation for a video game narrative.
I want something I can do, something I can work toward, something I have input to accomplish and overcome. Not sitting with one hand on a controller and the other poised up to my face in boredom, only occasionally clicking a button prompt, eventually doing that until the credits roll.
Exactly !
and when you say cutscene-with-minimal-player-input game
you think the order 2847 ( never played or seen )
but when you say that
I think of until dawn , walking dead like previously mentionned . Of course there is interactions and puzzles on those . Although for me this kind of interractions are just there to fill in the blanks for the narrative .
But how do you know there's none of it in this game ?
We've only seen 6 minutes of it . Of course you're allowed to tell your apriorism just like i am allowed to say mine .
But what i meant to say is that you can't know whether or not 3 hours is enough for the game to have a deep narrative scheme .
what i didn't mean to say is not for you to have an opinion whether or not the game would be good or bad .
Sorry for the misunderstanding .
Fair enough.
I made this discovery not too long ago. Yeah, they are like two completely different games. One of the few examples of a console version being superior to the PC version (that I know of).
Sucks for PC players but I really enjoyed it as a kid. Glad Insomniac gets a Spider-Man game right.
Oh yeah, I loved the PS2 version, hence why I was shocked to find out about the PC version. It's about time Spider-Man got another good game after the shit we've had the last few years.
I'm ambivalent in all honesty. I was a bit surprised when I heard about this, but also interested. I'm a fan of Rise and Dawn and I plan on seeing War, eventually. I may just watch someone else play it first. It seems like a good idea though, to make it closer to a movie than an actual game. There have been good games based off of movies, sure, but there aren't that many, or at least that I know of.
Also, people clearly have misconceptions about what Telltale games are actually like in the comments. There is actual freedom to move around in hub's and QTE's, so they are closer to being games than this is.
Also the company that's making this game has never made a game before so it's kind of hard to tell if they will innovate the "interactive movie" genre. It could suck a lot I think we simply just don't know enough about the game.
I think people need to remember that there should be different sorts of games for different sorts of people, and some enjoy story driven games where there's a film quality to it. I mean I can't stand games which are forcing COD style multiplayer on a gamer, but I know there would be others who consider multiplayer a far more essential quality.
Maybe this game will be great, maybe it won't but don't assume there isn't an audience for it.
I think the developer said a full single play through is about 2-3 hours, but there will be a lot of impactful choices in dialogue so that a second run will be different with numerous endings. Hopefully more than just 'apes win', 'humans win' and 'peace and cake for all'.
I see what you mean, though I don't necessarily agree that combining the interactivity of video games with the elements of what makes the narratives of other mediums compelling inherently makes the end result diluted, though that definitely can be the case. I think the problem is that it's difficult to strike a perfect balance between gameplay and story. A bigger focus on story and cinematic presentation often results in sacrificing some time devoted to gameplay and vice versa. That doesn't mean that games that do have a bigger focus on narrative are objectively lesser products though, it's all based on the gamer's preference really.
I can understand why you would have such a distaste for these types of games though, it's alright if you prefer games that focus more on gameplay.
I was thinking about getting it, but it being 3 hours sorta kills it for me, also I don't really want to play as humans, I really don't get why that's necessary.
So it can show both sides of the conflict and demonstrate no one is really the villain. No doubt there will be bad humans and bad apes like Korba and the General, but the context of why they act that way will be understandable.
All it is is just choosing their words. Not their actions. And you only get two options.
The graphics look decent enough for the current generation, however the short length is concerning. 3 hours seems way too short, but that just depends on the story.
And I'd like to point out one detail that put me off from the gameplay video:
Looks like another MA:E case, the eyes are so blank and just stares into you.
As was stated previously they said 2 to 3 hours for a single play through, given that choice is the core mechanic at the heart of it I assume - the developers said you should get a dialogue choice every 10 to 20 seconds - there should be numerous ways the story can end for both groups. They're effectively giving you your own interactive Planet of the Apes movie.
Hopefully the graphics will be worked on. I think the Apes are pretty decent right now, the humans need some work, but with some tweaking in the next few months they could pull off a great experience for Planet of the Apes fans. Between Telltale, games like Until Dawn and Detroit: Become Human and this, as well as Netflix announcing a Choose Your Own Adventure set of productions on their service, I can imagine we will see more of these things which blur the line between movie and video game.
This honestly does not look interesting to me at all for whatever reason. I guess I got too many Telltale Jurassic Park vibes from it or something.
Do we need multiple playable characters to do that? It sorta hurts the novelty of playing as apes.
It's up to you, but personally I like the idea of being both sides, and I doubt it would be too problematic playing the humans as well.
A Telltale style game with apes seemed really cool, the human part looks boring and like it will get in the way.
I love the new Plamet of Apes franchise so I'm gonna try this out just for the sake of the movie.
I do believe that there are companies and games are way better than what telltale do, like until dawn, beyond two sould etc.. even LIS is better in terms on branching + originality.. they take those set franchises that are bound to have restriction not only on what they can create but also the lore and all, I will give this a chance because in my mind those graphics are what telltale should aim at.
You mean that game full of cringey dialogues and underwhelming characters?
Yeah, a game full of terrible QTEs and choices that don't mean jack shit until the end of the game.
Graphics don't mean anything if the gameplay is shit.
Just curious if anyone has played this since the game was accidentally leaked by Sony for a short period, so some people on PS4 have it already. It's also been revealed that there will be three core endings - humans win, apes win and a peace between the two groups - but there will be a good amount of smaller changes within an ending depending on who have survived and other decisions made during the game as Bryn and Jess (the two main POV characters whose dialogue you influence). And that like Telltale's voting system for Batman, Minecraft, GOTG and the like you can play it via the new Playlink app with up to four players.
IGN has also put the first 17 minutes of the game up, which shows some better examples of decisions in the game.