The Walking Dead's TV debut put it into the upper echelon of zombie fanfare. The result of which, has led to it's success on a grand scale. Of course, one could argue that it was successful as a comic series, but a comic could never do what a TV show could. As a TV show, The Walking Dead was introduced to many people who were unaware of it. Thus, leading to it's now, massive popularity, which has pushed it's namesake into video games.
The first of which was TellTale's, which was a well written and overall good introduction as a video game. However, it lacked a key element that such a game should have, and that is full control over the main character. This is a crucial aspect of any such game, as it immerses the player into the game, rather than making them an observer. It seems developers lack the insight to understand this.
The second game was Activision's Walking Dead: Survival Instinct, a FPS walking dead, which was horrendous, on so many levels. Yet, it was marketed and priced as a AAA title. The Walking Dead namesake can only do so much, sound gamers will call it as they see it. Survival Instinct was a failed attempt at a walking dead video game. In reality, it was Activision banking on the walking dead name, to make money.
In both, looking at and playing the game, anyone can see no real effort was put into the game, as far as mechanics go. It's nothing more than a low grade generic FPS, with the walking dead name attached. At this point, neither TellTale nor Activision has created a walking dead video game, that is 100% befitting of it's name. The ideal approach to what a walking dead game should be, is essentially what I want to point out.
First and foremost, a walking dead video game should be a third-person shooter. The basis of which, allows for better interaction with the environment. It also needs to be multiplayer (2-4), which is based on the fact that there are an abundance of characters. One may say, well...what if one of the characters someone's playing with is killed, in the actual story of the game?
My response would be, the game could do something like Obscure: The Aftermath, in which, if a character that someone is playing with is killed,(which does happen) that player must pick another character to play as. The next aspect a true to walking dead video game should have, is character skills (single, i.e. one per character), much like TellTale's game. For ex. Carley was a good shot and Doug was smart. Another aspect, that is present in Obscure: The Aftermath.
Now, one might say, you want a walking dead game to be like this Obscure game, but that's not true in the least. It is only the two aspects above, due to the fact, they fit into walking dead scenarios. Characters die, new characters are introduced, and they all posses one skill or another. The skill doesn't have to even be definitive (i.e. a marksman), just the ability to use a weapon (bat, pipe, knife, etc...), is skill enough. After all, the main goal is to survive, and protect the group.
The multiplayer aspect, is as one might expect, as far as two players go, splitscreen. (horizontal of course) However, due to the number of characters, an online component should be included too, that allows for 4 player co-op. Thus, offering something for both offline (splitscreen/couch co-op) and online (those unable to play in same location and or abroad) multiplayer fans.
The game's central theme should incorporate all of the following: freedom of choice, (unlike TellTale's game) in which characters (players) can choose to separate or diverge from group, resulting in a certain event (i.e. attacked by zombies, bandits, find a survivor, supplies, etc...) a variety of weapons, ( very limited ammo for guns) with an emphasis on melee weapons and use of environment to kill or escape zombies. A limited (car/motorcyle models) variety of vehicles should be incorporated as well, as this would provide a wide range of scenarios.
Therefore, missions would be varied, from saving a member of the group, to moving to another location. Every (major) action would have an effect on the game, and each action would have at least 4 outcomes, 2 good, 2 bad. Of course, many might say, well...this would take a long time and a lot of money to make. My response, would be, it's worth it, for a proper walking dead video game!
Dive into the challenges faced by Xbox physical games enthusiasts. Read about the community's vocal response to recent changes.
Speaking for myself... I pretty much stopped buying physical. Unless its some cool collector edition. I find it easier to just buy from the respective eshop.... if its not on a rental service that is.
Going into the 7th gen I was staunchly against the idea of digital game. Even the few PC games I played were physical. It wasn't until digital only games starting catching my eye that I changed my mind. Now I buy mostly digital these days out of convenience but also because I have too many phyical games. SNES, GG, GB, GBA, N64, Dreamcast, DS, 3DS, GCN, Wii, Wii U, PS1-5 and Switch. That's hoarders level of gaming right there. 🤣
Anyway digital sales in several parts of the world, including here in the US have been on the rise. Factor in the Series S being the go two model for Xbox owners it just makes sense for Microsoft to scale back in regards to physical media. That and Xbox published games stay high on PSN. 😆
Unfortunate really since I am an avid collector of physical on Nintendo consoles and I bought Black Ops 6 on disc.
Wonder's role as Persona 5: The Phantom X's protagonist has thrust him into the spotlight, and there are clear parallels to the original's hero Joker.
The Xbox version of Final Fantasy XVI has failed to enter the platform's top 20 paid games list, indicating weak launch sales performance.
If it ain't on gamepass, they ain't interested.
Great job MS for training most of your player base to not want to actually buy games, maybe SE will realise releasing FF on xbox isn't somehow going to help them match their exaggerated sales targets. Hopefully remake fairs better, probably will on Switch 2 at least.
No game, especially a AAA one, deserves strong sales after taking years to arrive on a platform and still asking the same price as everywhere else. You can’t just ignore a platform for that long and then expect people to be excited by the release. That cycle came and went already, there is no hype for it anymore.
Either you're all in from the start or you're not. This lazy, bare-minimum approach of tossing out a late port and calling it a day shouldn't be rewarded. If you're not willing to respect the platform, don't bother showing up at all.
"My response, would be, it's worth it, for a proper walking dead video game!"
Question becomes how much are the fans willing to play for it?
The production costs are already very high, and if they want to do a game w/ that big of a scope... it'll be hard to not only fund the game but to sell the game at a 60$ price point. Not even the publishers of Walking Dead (Show) would be willing to invest that much unf. It is a business and passion only takes you oh so far.
I say and still stand that travelers tale walking dead game is phenomenal. Now instead of a third person shooter how about a survival third person game. Hunting for food, makeshift weapons by scavenging the environment, deal with dehydration, hunger and stamina. Play solo or online.........
With the current influx of zombie games, it's difficult to make anything that stands out. Personally, I enjoyed the Telltale game more than I enjoyed watching the actual show.
I'm waiting to see State of Decay, and the MMO (Class4) that it spawns. Right now, they're the only thing that's got my attention in the zombie genre.
interesting I will check it out :-)