Don’t Worry, Activision Also Has A Walking Dead Game

By Nathan Grayson on July 7th, 2012 at 11:00 am.

Quietly now, everyone. If we catch him while he's posing, he probably won't notice us.

So, those comic-based Walking Dead games from Telltale are pretty great, huh? Well, if you’re worried about some “There ain’t enough room in this town for the two of uuuuuuh [jaw falls off]” showdown, don’t be. Activision’s take on the one zombie franchise to rule them all is an entirely different animal – by which I mean it’s the same animal as a lot of other animals: a first-person shooter. Also, it’s based on AMC’s Walking Dead television show instead of the comics. Terminal Reality, they of the recent Ghost Busters game and, er, Kinect Star Wars, is on development duty, promising an emphasis on scarce supplies and survival over all-out action.

IGN brings word that it’ll star brothers Daryl and Merle Dixon undertaking a “haunting, unforgiving quest to make their way to the supposed safety of Atlanta.” Apparently, you’ll also have to choose whether or not to trust other characters, make “major decisions,” and carefully hoard food, ammo, and other such supplies – presumably in order to subsist on bullets and defeat zombies via foodfight.

Stealth will also play a major role, so I’m definitely interested in seeing how exactly Terminal Reality pulls all of this off – though I have my doubts about whether a more action-based formula can house the tension-laden character drama that’s been responsible for Walking Dead’s sudden surge in popularity.

It’ll begin walking among the living in 2013. To be frank, I can’t tell you much else, as I’ve only seen one episode of the show and am horrible with names. I remember that a bunch of people got angry, and two of them decided to have a manly Punchbattle while their youthful quarry escaped, though. Then zombies showed up, because they can smell ideological conflict. So there you have it: the full extent of my knowledge about The Walking Dead television program.

Perhaps, however, this teaser trailer will be of more use. Or maybe not, because it doesn’t actually show any gameplay footage.

__________________

« | »

, , .

64 Comments »

  1. Njordsk says:

    yay, let’s tease trailer, people will get overexcited over this indeed.

  2. Kaira- says:

    “Also, it’s based on AMC’s Walking Dead television show instead of the comics. ”

    Instant pass.

    • Vorphalack says:

      They had me at Activision.

      • GamerOS says:

        Bad console port, shoddy after sale support and a horrible DLC scheme.
        Activation can keep their games to themselves in my opinion.

    • Anthile says:

      Yeah, the show itself is an abomination. I don’t have much faith in this.

      • Defiant Badger says:

        I actually much prefer the tv series to the comics, and I’m quite a comics guy. To me the tv series does it’s best to remove the rather, in my opinion, infantile elements and develop the better ones which are cut short in the comics. Sure it has it’s fair share of ocaisional terribleness (such as the first season finale, and a few elements of the second one, which was mostly good), but I really don’t think it’s fair to write it off like that.

        • woodsey says:

          I remember thinking the pilot was fantastic, and from there it just got dull, and fairly unevenly written. Seemed like terrible writing to me to have the racist arse hole go missing at the beginning of the series, and then simply not mention it again (presumably it’s resolved in the next one).

          Not to mention the fact that it obviously wants to be a character-piece, yet gives almost zero insight into the characters.

          • Defiant Badger says:

            I have to disagree with you there, it gives excellent insight into the characters, far more than the comics did. And the thing about Merylr or whatever his name is the affect it had on his brother. I don’t think it’s terrible writing for one of the loose ends to be tied up magically for the sake of short term closure, the implications of him going missing with the van still could be relevant to the characters now.

          • codename_bloodfist says:

            It’s not a character piece, it’s Jackass with zombies. “How many stupid things can you do before getting yourself killed?” seems to be the central question of the series.

            The most obvious example of this being the absolutely horrible parenting of the protagonist’s son. Has anybody, ANYBODY AT ALL, ever paid attention to what he’s doing? My parents would have given me absolute hell if I just started wandering off whereever I like and, contrary to the little brat, I grew up in a city that wasn’t infested with zombies.

            Don’t even get me started on the bit where every character who seems to an education level above that of a highschool dropout is a suicidal, depressed twat.

          • abandonhope says:

            The TV series is far from perfect, and the character motivations are not always sensible. However, I suspect that the show bothers people so much because it depicts a group of people whose biggest challenge is not zombies, much like the premise for the upcoming Dead State. It angers people that the characters routinely do stupid things. Occasionally, they are too stupid to believe. But that’s more in line with reality than a group of very different people coming together to kick zombie ass after a hard reset on civilization.

            One of my least favorite things about the show is the way it acts like it’s creating a dramatic effect by altogether ignoring a plot line by having characters just not address it. That can be hard to avoid when the writers are trying to weave different threads together and maintain a decent pace, but it adds to the sense that we’re watching a group of absolute morons, hard reset or not. However, there’s something to be said for the boldness of not having hardly any likable characters. It could almost be viewed as a kind of realistic workplace drama, where people divide into micro-groups and otherwise don’t like the people they have to cooperate with, except here they die when they fail.

            Despite finding it watchable, I do agree with codename that it doesn’t function well as a character piece. These aren’t great characters steeped in their own self-sabotaging nature and bad decisions in the vein of Walter White, Tony Soprano, or David Brent; they’re realistically humdrum, unlikable characters who do inexplicably stupid things with more frequency than they do interestingly stupid things.

          • Wisq says:

            “Realistic workplace drama”? Christ, I’m glad I don’t work where you work. ;)

          • porcelain_gods says:

            The lead character rides on a HORSE into a zombie infested city, we are all morons for not turning off after that.

          • Defiant Badger says:

            @codename_bloodfist: ‘It’s not a character piece, it’s Jackass with zombies’.

            It really sounds like you haven’t watched the program, because that is not what it’s like at all.

            @abandonhope

            I don’t really understand the whole dislike for every character. Maybe it’s just me but the way in which they do act irrationally occasionally and do have their reason blurred by emotion make them all the more enjoyable to watch. And besides Dale was pretty cool.

            For me at least they, the ones that haven’t lost their minds spectacularly, haven’t done too many actually stupid things to validate them being called morons; and the way in which they can’t quite accomplish what they want to achieve (securing the farm for example) makes all the more human.

          • aerozol says:

            Yes… the series is pretty retarded.
            But the comics are just as bad, and often worse. That’s the point here.

        • Syra says:

          agreed the comics are kinda rubbish…

        • roryok says:

          +1. I’ve read the comic up to issue 60 something, and watched the entire TV show. TV show is definitely better. The comic just feels poorly written, and Kirkman really wrote himself into a corner

        • Pamplemousse says:

          +1: TV show is way better. The comics weren’t so hot and the characters are a little less one dimensional on the show. I could barely make it through the first few comics; there had to be a reason why I’d go out and buy the next editions, and I really couldn’t find one.

      • zeroskill says:

        I have an opinion and obviously my opinion is the right one.

        • Defiant Badger says:

          Yes because I definitely made my opinion the objective truth in this matter by saying ‘I actually much prefer…’

          Sheesh, get over yourself.

          • Phantoon says:

            No, but you began the resonance cascade of “I DIDN’T LIKE THE COMICS BECAUSE I DID NOT READ THEM!”

            They’re really not comparable. The pacing is completely different. In the show, nothing happens. For multiple episodes. In the comic, things are happening, all the time, forever, even when things aren’t happening.

            It’s the difference between enjoying a scenic bike ride and riding a roller coaster.

          • Defiant Badger says:

            I don’t know how you got that impression, but I have read them, and as we’re on the matter of comparing I expressed my opinion that overall, I prefer the Tv series.

          • Kestilla says:

            @Phantoon

            Badger made immediate and obvious references to the comic series in relation to the TV show, so where you got that he hasn’t read the comics (probably your ass) I won’t venture to guess. Disagreeing is one thing, impugning the integrity of another person’s opinion which is seemingly as educated as yours is ungentlemanly.

          • Phantoon says:

            Congratulations, none of you realize that to be guilty of a bandwagon is not the same as actually being guilty of the same things as the bandwagon.

            But continue to get defensive when the comic and show are clearly different in direction, pacing, etc.

            Also, I enjoy bike rides.

  3. Marijn says:

    The worst publisher joins forces with a bad developer to produce a game based on the mediocre TV adaptation of The Walking Dead. That’s about four degrees of separation from quality.

    • Jay says:

      That just about sums up my feelings about the whole thing. I did enjoy Ghostbusters to some degree, but everything else they’ve done has been massively disappointing from Nocturne onwards, and Kinect Star Wars looks actively terrible. Still, makes it easier to keep avoiding Activision games I suppose.

  4. RakeShark says:

    My guess? They’re taking cues from DayZ. But somehow, everything’s indoors…
    Or on an elevated highway with cars everywhere…
    Or on a farm with stacked haybarrels everywhere…
    Or in a forest with felled trees everywhere…

    Or am I being too harsh thinking this might be a corridor shooter?

  5. Gnoupi says:

    Spoiler alert: a month after release, they fire the devs.

  6. Dowr says:

    A licensed title from Activision? Ah, get away!

  7. Paul says:

    Daryl is by far most fun character on the show. I hope they won’t fuck this up.

  8. Degor says:

    Look it has BOWS!!!

  9. max_1111 says:

    I…. I don’t think i’ve cared less about a game before…
    Wait…. no that’s not true…. I have several times. Guess i’ll just throw it on the ever increasing pile of other yawn inducing junk.

    • mondomau says:

      And yet you comment…

      • max_1111 says:

        Oh i’m sorry, i forgot i’m not allowed to express distaste.
        I’ll make sure i only comment on stuff that is about unicorns shitting rainbows from now on and talk about how awesome the state of gaming is these days.
        Ass.

        • nearly says:

          as bored as you are by the concept of this game, your comment is far worse and we can’t add it to the pile of yawn inducing — I’m not actually going to look back up to see what you wrote to make a parallel because I could not care less.

          see? is this an interesting comment or avenue for discussion to you?

          • max_1111 says:

            Your first mistake was to assume that i left that comment in an effort to create meaningful discussion.
            Hint: I did not, nor did i leave it in the hope of being admired by my “peers”…
            What are you driving at exactly?
            Do you understand how opinions work or that, as they say, like assholes, everyone has one?

            Perhaps i should have punctuated my statements with more curse words or created more parallels to phalluses? I hear that appeals to the cool kids these days.

  10. theblazeuk says:

    I don’t think I’ve cared less about a comments thread before. The apathy paradox is strong in this one!

  11. imallinson says:

    The description makes it sound like a single player DayZ. But it’s Activision and a terrible developer so I’m not expecting much.

    • Phantoon says:

      Single player Day Z defeats the entire purpose. In fact, with the way Day Z works, it’s basically the game for The Walking Dead.

  12. Chris D says:

    Activision: For when one bandwagon just isn’t enough.

    • Jay says:

      Actually screw it, let’s just launch a whole fleet of them one after another. We could charge passengers by the mile until they get sick of the whole idea of travelling. Then we could run them off this cliff and torch the evidence. Who cares, there’ll be another one along in a minute.

  13. sbs says:

    Now we only need Uwe Boll to direct a movie based on the game based on the tv-show based on the comic and we will soon have come full circle.

    • Jay says:

      We could get actively crazy modern-day Frank Miller to adapt Uwe Boll’s movie into a new comic series.

      Kinda curious to see how that’s turn out now actually.

      • Dilapinated says:

        Cheesecake everywhere, bravenoble white guys talking about how zombie survival is war, and the pain of each bite tells them they’re alive, and not like the hordes of (suspiciously middle eastern) zombies. Oh, and random bold on every other word.

  14. zeroskill says:

    This surely will be a licenced product by Activision worth playing. Ho ho ho.

    • EPICTHEFAIL says:

      Am I the only the only one who thinks releasing two zombie games at the same time is incredibly stupid on Activi$ion`$ part?

      • mondomau says:

        No, but you are the only person that thinks that using a $ sign is somehow edgy or clever. Grow up mate, It’s not the 90s anymore.

        • lurkalisk says:

          Hey now, that’s not quite fair to the ’90s…

        • max_1111 says:

          y u so mad brah?

        • Phantoon says:

          I think he didn’t use enough. In fact, we should just rename EA, Activision, and Ubisoft to “those assholes”.

          Assassin’s whatever: the sequeling won’t have offline play? Those French Assholes.
          Blizzard’s real money auction house? Shit-Eating Grin Assholes.
          Tiger Woods: Rehab Edition 2013? We’ve Killed All Your Favorite Companies From the 90s Assholes.

          See? Easy! Rolls off the tongue.

  15. fakedtales says:

    It’s amazing how quickly the mention of Activision or EA turns me flaccid these days. It instantly brings to mind the idea of a Walking Dead Elite Pass, some day one DLC expensive DLC through the release cycle, a mandatory multiplayer mode. If there’s anything interesting and creative, then the dev team will be let go and a more “broadly appealing” version for the sequel, removing any actual character.

    At least there’s the wonderful TT version to play for a Walking Dead fix.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>