Walking Dead: The Aftermath.

[Barnox]

So you wanted to shape the narrative? Congratulations, because you did!

Characters reacted differently depends on how you were. The events still played out, but in different ways.
It gives the illusion of choice. Had I not read other people's reactions, I'd have no idea who could be saved or who would always die. It reacted well enough to my play style that I couldn't guess what points were story-critical or which were chosen by me.

And the gameplay?
It's an adventure game with QTEs. For me, I played it as I would a visual novel, just with more gameplay. Maybe that's why I'm not complaining about it not being a dakka manshoot/puzzle game.

[Kadayi]

Actually, I'm trying to challenge your belief that Walking Dead is anything other than complete garbage.

Well, given your approach seems to consist of nothing more than repeatedly insisting it is garbage, you're going to have to do a lot better (dare one even say....raise your game?).

I don't doubt that you enjoyed The Walking Dead. My point is that you did so because, like many PC gamers, you're starved for good, coherent story telling.

Like many PC gamers? Exactly what games do you consider have good coherent Storylines? And why do you say that TWD storyline isn't coherent?

You spend a lot of time playing games where the story is a notch below "Full retard," so that when an ordinary "Retard" story comes along, you blow a gasket.

I do? Do you have a webcam in my room? A hack of my gaming accounts? Do you have some secret server farm deep in the heart of Texas profiling every gamer in the world?

The fact your only response is to say "Naner naner you don't know everything!!," rather than defend The Walking Dead's linearity, cliched story line and meaningless game play, suggests I'm right.

You haven't outlined any specific criticisms. Generally it's the way of narrative that it goes in a particular direction. This is true for games as it is for books, TV shows and films. Sure games can offer you a bit of choice as to how you arrive at your final destination but ultimately If you learn you have to throw the ring into the fires of Mount Doom at the beginning, that's what you need to do to bring an end to the narrative.

As regards cliche. I can't think of many games where I've had to teach a small child to shoot zombies, make a choice over who gets fed, persuade a man to kill his dying son or hack my arm off but maybe I've just not been playing the right games.

[georgetownhoya]

And the gameplay?
It's an adventure game with QTEs. For me, I played it as I would a visual novel, just with more gameplay. Maybe that's why I'm not complaining about it not being a dakka manshoot/puzzle game.

I never complained it's not a manshoot or puzzle game. Not sure who you are talking to.

It reacted well enough to my play style that I couldn't guess what points were story-critical or which were chosen by me.

Didn't react well to mine, at all. I didn't want to go with the cannibals. Overruled. Didn't want the crazy lady in the park to die. Overruled. Didn't want the old man with a heart attack to get face crunched. Overruled. Etc. Etc. You're easily fooled, I guess.

[georgetownhoya]

Like many PC gamers? Exactly what games do you consider have good coherent Storylines? And why do you say that TWD storyline isn't coherent?

Probably Planescape: Torment. My favorite games over the past several years have been games, not stories, though: Civilization IV, Rome Total War, XCOM, Starcraft 1, COD 4, Hitman: BM, Natural Selection, Counterstrike.

Too often in TWD, things happen without any sense of narrative purpose. At the end of Ep 1, why exactly does either the fat man or the hot lady have to die? Certainly wasn't any rational plot-driven reason for it. That should be a BIG moment -- there should be real weight to a major character death.

But no...They just...got attacked by zombies and, lo and behold, only one can be saved. Contrived. Also, characters are schizophrenic and stupid too often for the purposes of fulfilling the plot. Throughout Episode 2, despite obvious evidence the farm was dangerous and that a character was being turned into stew, no one thought to go looking for him.

As regards cliche. I can't think of many games where I've had to teach a small child to shoot zombies, make a choice over who gets fed, persuade a man to kill his dying son or hack my arm off but maybe I've just not been playing the right games.

Not videogame cliched. Story cliched. As in, you've seen it a zillion other times. Just not in this medium.

I do? Do you have a webcam in my room? A hack of my gaming accounts? Do you have some secret server farm deep in the heart of Texas profiling every gamer in the world?

It's a reasonable assumption you play a lot of games.

[DeekyFun]

It sounds like, overall (disregarding Planescape), you're probably more interested in emergent game play, which TWD doesn't really provide. It's about the story, and your choice of actions within that narrative. I liked the story. I don't know how it rates against everything I've ever read, watched or thought about, and I don't really care to do so. I'm not on here saying I enjoyed it because as a Gamer, I'm not used to quality. I just enjoyed the game - it did what I thought it needed to do. It obviously didn't do that for you, which is fine and dandy.

[georgetownhoya]

Do you think it is fair to say this is more of an interactive story -- told in a novel way -- and that maybe the novelty of it helped you overlook shortcomings that you might not have if, say, it were a TV season?

When I played Episode 2, I remember thinking it was cool not because the story was any good, but just because so few games even touch on brutality in a semi serious way.

[Kadayi]

I mean, for god's sake, the whole first episode is just meeting survivors and fixing a radio until one arbitrarily dies, then the second episode there's a totally unrelated trip to a cliched maneating creepy farm where Lenny acts insane. Then he becomes super changed when his RIDICULOUS looking wife dies and finally behaves honorably.

One arbitarily dies?

Whose lenny?

You don't think the sudden death of a wife and son might not have an impact on a characters personality?

What's the appearance of the wife got to do with anything exactly?

You even said yourself Lenny has a "character arc" like it's something special. Those have been around since 2,000 years ago.

Not in games though. So you're point is what exactly? That games shouldn't have narrative? Shouldn't have character arcs? That somehow character arcs are bad things and are not a stable ingredient of storytelling?

Yes, Walking Dead uses plot devices. But it uses them poorly. And until videogamers recognize that, they will continue to get shit and call it steak.

Poorly how? Poorly because? How is it that you see the walking dead game is somehow a negative for the industry? You just want more CoD? Or tactical sandboxes?

Didn't react well to mine, at all. I didn't want to go with the cannibals. Overruled. Didn't want the crazy lady in the park to die. Overruled. Didn't want the old man with a heart attack to get face crunched. Overruled. Etc. Etc. You're easily fooled, I guess.

But going back to what Stella said earlier on, you're not in charge of the actions of the other characters. This isn't Skyrim where you can have your follower stand their idly by whilst you kill everyone in the village.

Probably Planescape: Torment. My favorite games over the past several years have been games, not stories, though: Civilization IV, Rome Total War, XCOM, Starcraft 1, COD 4, Hitman: BM, Natural Selection, Counterstrike.

So basically beyond one game the bulk of what you like are either sandbox, stratregy or multi-player games? Maybe just maybe adventure games aren't you cup of tea.

Too often in TWD, things happen without any sense of narrative purpose. At the end of Ep 1, why exactly does either the fat man or the hot lady have to die? Certainly wasn't any rational plot-driven reason for it. That should be a BIG moment -- there should be real weight to a major character death.

Because you're defending the building from an ovewhelming zombie attack and you can only help one of them because there's not enough time to save both?

Also, characters are schizophrenic and stupid too often for the purposes of fulfilling the plot.

Provide an example, and let's see if we can't put that schizophrenic accusation to rest.

Not videogame cliched. Story cliched. As in, you've seen it a zillion other times. Just not in this medium.

Name them.

Also what exactly is the problem you have with game narrative? The rules on narrative are fairly well established. Albeit interactive media is a new arena, it can hardly evolve it's own language overnight without recourse to referencing the existing structure.

It's a reasonable assumption you play a lot of games.

Oh I have, but that's not what you said is it: -

You spend a lot of time playing games where the story is a notch below "Full retard," so that when an ordinary "Retard" story comes along, you blow a gasket.

Given the overall paucity of story based titles you play, I don't really feel you're really equipped to make any judgement calls about the standard of narrative of the sort of games I play tbh.

Do you think it is fair to say this is more of an interactive story -- told in a novel way -- and that maybe the novelty of it helped you overlook shortcomings that you might not have if, say, it were a TV season?

Hows it any more novel than any other game exactly? DA:O has a story and is interactive. How can we assess it Vs that of a passive medium like Television?

[DWZippy]

Kadayi banned me from looking at this thread till I'm finished, but I've started to stroll through the game and having a brain, I have had some thoughts about my experiences.


Episode 1
Episode 2

Just about to start on episode 3, and a blog will no doubt appear after that - It's heavy going!

[DeekyFun]

I would agree with you that it's an interactive story. To be fair to the genre, however, graphic adventures do predominantly feature this style of gameplay - moving around, object or dialogue based puzzles, with in engine and out of engine cut scenes to push to story forward. In that way I see very little difference between TWD and it's older relations, and I don't think that's a bad thing, since I enjoy these types of game (that's not to say I don't enjoy other types either).

Regarding over quality, I honestly don't know. I feel these things take time to evaluate, to digest properly. Original across the entire trope of Zombie based entertainment, no - I think it sits comfortably within the bracket. We've seen these situations before, but I think TWD did bring you closer, often very uncomfortably, to experiencing those things than other media can. All I can say is that after finishing each episode I was engaged, fairly consistently. I'm not sure, within this genre, it could do much to alleviate the problems you have with it. I will concede that I think too much was made of the "your choice - your game" bit, as I think that was bound to cause complaints. I actually think if they'd made no fanfare about that it would have made the choices that are actually there more pleasing to a wider ranger of people.

Btw, even if you are right, and it's only being praised because it's slightly better dross than normal dross, I don't understand what you wish people to do about that? Surely praising it for trying to raise the bar despite your opinion of it's failings might encourage more games to try the same with more success?

[Drake Sigar]

I do? Do you have a webcam in my room? A hack of my gaming accounts? Do you have some secret server farm deep in the heart of Texas profiling every gamer in the world?

Throwing out a lot of assumptions isn't he? Maybe we should make a similar snap judgement based on his moronically misplaced Tropic Thunder reference.

Too often in TWD, things happen without any sense of narrative purpose. At the end of Ep 1, why exactly does either the fat man or the hot lady have to die? Certainly wasn't any rational plot-driven reason for it. That should be a BIG moment -- there should be real weight to a major character death.

The Walking Dead is this oppressive bleak place where friends are violently snatched away in moments, and the world generally doesn't allow them the satisfaction of a dignified Hollywood sendoff. Carley/Doug's first death reinforced that notion, it was not pointless. Kenny's drawn out 'noble sacrifice' meanwhile, was kinda cheesy and fucking stupid.

[georgetownhoya]

I'm loathe to continue a quote-for-quote battle with you Kadayi, so this should get to the point of it:

But going back to what Stella said earlier on, you're not in charge of the actions of the other characters.

My point is not that you should be in charge of other characters. It's that you lack agency entirely -- your actions do nothing to upset the inevitable major character deaths or plot arcs. At best, you change a few lines of dialogue and a minor character's skin for a few episodes.

I would love for my behavior to have a discernible, logical narrative impact on other characters. Instead, all I get is kneejerk, temporary and highly schizophrenic responses -- for example, after fellating Kenny all throughout Ep. 1, he suddenly wants me DEAD in Episode 2 -- literally -- he wants me to die and refuses to help when I'm nearly killed by a cannibal in front of his eyes. Why? Because I disagreed with him about killing an old man with a heart problem a few minutes before.

Seriously. That's not good characterization. That's just gamey, done for the express purpose of presenting the player the illusion of "choice." It made FAR MORE SENSE for the girl to want me dead after that sequence in the cannibal's basement than for Kenny to want me dead.

Btw, even if you are right, and it's only being praised because it's slightly better dross than normal dross, I don't understand what you wish people to do about that? Surely praising it for trying to raise the bar despite your opinion of it's failings might encourage more games to try the same with more success?

Not in games though. So you're point is what exactly? That games shouldn't have narrative? Shouldn't have character arcs? That somehow character arcs are bad things and are not a stable ingredient of storytelling?

I think gamers should seek to have a game that merges story and gameplay. After all, if you're just in it for the story, why not read a book or watch a movie -- media that are both far better suited to telling in-depth stories, with far better writers?

What gamers should push Telltale for is the ability to actually fluidly shape the narrative in ways only games can. What we have with TWD is a terrible QTE game married to a passable zombie plotline, thus totally missing the whole point of playing videogames in the first place and making me regret not spending the $27 on a Hulu subscription.

[Kadayi]

I'm loathe to continue a quote-for-quote battle with you Kadayi, so this should get to the point of it

Well, tbh that just reads like you've got nothing. Answer the questions.

My point is not that you should be in charge of other characters. It's that you lack agency entirely -- your actions do nothing to upset the inevitable major character deaths or plot arcs. At best, you change a few lines of dialogue and a minor character's skin for a few episodes.

I would love for my behavior to have a discernible, logical narrative impact on other characters. Instead, all I get is kneejerk, temporary and highly schizophrenic responses -- for example, after fellating Kenny all throughout Ep. 1, he suddenly wants me DEAD in Episode 2 -- literally -- he wants me to die and refuses to help when I'm nearly killed by a cannibal in front of his eyes. Why? Because I disagreed with him about killing an old man with a heart problem a few minutes before.

Seriously. That's not good characterization. That's just gamey, done for the express purpose of presenting the player the illusion of "choice." It made FAR MORE SENSE for the girl to want me dead after that sequence in the cannibal's basement than for Kenny to want me dead.

Again with the schizophrenic statement. There's nothing schizophrenic about how Kenny acts, because the man is clearly volatile in nature. That should of been obvious from the first episode. There's a powerplay right at the beginning of the episode between Kenny & Lily and both are looking to you for loyalty. Lily wants to stay at the Motel and Kenny wants to move on once the RV is fixed and have you and clementine come with him. The way Kenny reads the situation in the freezer is that you're siding with Lily in which case why should he help you? The end of the episode with the station wagon & food also reinforces the fact that Kenny really doesn't give much of a damn about anyone but his family at the end of the day. If you're not with him 100% then you're no good to him.

Also why would Lily want to kill you? You were angry at what Kenny did. It makes zero sense that she'd want you to die.

I think gamers should seek to have a game that merges story and gameplay. After all, if you're just in it for the story, why not read a book or watch a movie -- media that are both far better suited to telling in-depth stories, with far better writers?

So you're entire criticism of storyline in games comes down to people not being very good at it at this point in time (in your view?). With an attitude like that we'd still be living up trees. How long would you give an infant before you tell it to stop trying to walk exactly? compared to Books or films, as far as mediums go computer games are still very much in their infancy. This idea that developers should somehow give up is laughable.

What gamers should push Telltale for is the ability to actually fluidly shape the narrative in ways only games can.

And how exactly would you hope to achieve that? Outline how it can be done. With any form of branching dialogue the dialogue has to be written. If you're after a sandbox game with emergent game play though, it already exists it's called The Sims 3.

[soldant]

It isn't a game, it's just a cutscene with quick time events and sometimes you're allowed to move around in a small square area every once in awhile.

It's far closer to being a game than all of the crappy indie art "games" like Dear Esther or The Path or 90% of the nonsense they're churning out to make a dollar. You're right that it's a bunch of QTEs and conversations strung together, but it's a point and click adventure game, that's pretty much all they ever are. There's nothing inherently wrong with that because the primary focus is on the story. It's still most definitely a game.

It's that you lack agency entirely -- your actions do nothing to upset the inevitable major character deaths or plot arcs. At best, you change a few lines of dialogue and a minor character's skin for a few episodes.

I sort of agree that some of your actions are a bit too gamey, in that they have quite dramatic immediate results which shouldn't logically occur (perhaps not even irrationally), and the Kenny thing is one example. But I don't think it's a problem that you can't stop people form dying or dramatically changing the plot arcs. The game has a set story and a set direction, you're able to influence it to a degree, not write the story yourself. It's still fairly linear. As some of the others have said you seem to be more interested primarily in gameplay mechanics and not story, so I can totally get why you don't enjoy it.

I think gamers should seek to have a game that merges story and gameplay. After all, if you're just in it for the story, why not read a book or watch a movie -- media that are both far better suited to telling in-depth stories, with far better writers?

I agree in part because I've seen a LOT of crap pieces of art masquerading as "games" mostly to cash in on the art-game circle-jerk that occasionally pops up. I don't classify most of them as being games, because as you say you could watch them on Youtube and it wouldn't make a significant difference, and don't have things like a fail state or defined gameplay rules or... well, gameplay at all really. All that said, TWD clearly isn't in the same category because you do get to influence the storyline and it does have a failure state (which revolves entirely around failing a QTE). You may not get the kind of influence that you want, but it is there.

The problem with your statement about how it should be more fluid ultimately comes down to content - namely that it would require a lot of it, and you haven't really told us how to get around that. For every branch you're adding on more and more voice acting, models, scenes and sequences, etc... how do you propose they manage all that?

[Protoman]

I think gamers should seek to have a game that merges story and gameplay. After all, if you're just in it for the story, why not read a book or watch a movie -- media that are both far better suited to telling in-depth stories, with far better writers?

On the contrary, I think that gaming has the potential to be just as good of a story-telling platform as novels and drama. Immersion is a powerful tool when used right, and it can make your connections to the characters and plot even more impactful than a movie or novel could.

On the story of the walking dead: just because you don't like something doesn't mean you should go on some sort of crusade against it. What was your end-game for this argument? Getting this entire forum to take up pitchforks and torches, and curse the name of TellTale Games? Because the people who enjoyed it enjoyed it rightfully so. The characters were well developed, and their demises clearly had a serious impact on the player. The sad moments of the game didn't have that horrible, cliche'd "CRY NOW!" feel to them, letting the player figure out their feelings themselves. It did a very good job of tricking you into thinking that you could steer the group away from trouble, when in all reality Lee's fate had been sealed from the beginning of the game. It was overall a really pretty good story. It reminded me of Of Mice and Men.

As for a branching/player-controlled narrative, it's simple- Telltale only has the budget and development time to make so much content. They can either make it narrow and long or short and wide. Wouldn't you rather have a linear yet detailed and lengthy story than one episode with a branching plotline?

[deano2099]

Can you imagine reading a book that made no sense with on the last page a complete explanation of everything?

But don't lots of books and films do that? The Sixth Sense? The Usual Suspects? Anything with a well-done twist basically brings in to focus anything confusing in the rest of the tale and shows it in a different light. Hell, Ever 17 is one of the best interactive narratives around, and relies entirely on a five-hour finale of revelation after revelation that makes the preceding 35 hours look entirely different.

[georgetownhoya]

You're right that it's a bunch of QTEs and conversations strung together, but it's a point and click adventure game, that's pretty much all they ever are.

Very false. That's all Telltale is capable of, but adventure games used to be mostly about puzzle solving. The cleverer the puzzles, the better the game. QTEs are a sign of a lazy developer who's half-assing games.

Telltale TWD puzzle = Find batteries. Put them in the radio.

Yeah, noo. The game's atrocious by adventure game standards.

As for a branching/player-controlled narrative, it's simple- Telltale only has the budget and development time to make so much content. They can either make it narrow and long or short and wide. Wouldn't you rather have a linear yet detailed and lengthy story than one episode with a branching plotline?

It's too bad their budget is small, but why should I care? This isn't a pity party, and I don't care that the game sucks because Telltale is broke, or their mom died, or whatever. All I'm talking about is the quality of the game. If they had a budget like Call of Duty, I'm sure they could make a game where player choice mattered in substantial ways. (Note: Mass Effect didn't even attempt this, probably because it's mostly a shooter.)

Your question is really a false choice. No game has been made that really allows for a true branching storyline, because it'd require a lot of inventiveness and good writing. I'd much rather have a true branching game, even if it's relatively short, if only as a proof of concept.

On the contrary, I think that gaming has the potential to be just as good of a story-telling platform as novels and drama.

Yes. Key word: potential.

Well, tbh that just reads like you've got nothing. Answer the questions.

"Got nothing?" What is this, a schoolyard fight? If you cannot accept these statements as true:

A) It is unreasonable for a character like Kenny, however brash, to try to kill you for not helping bash in some old man's head in a basement;
B) It is reasonable for a character, like Lilly, to try to kill you after you bash in her father's head in said basement,

Then there is no way to have a logical discussion with you. You are hell-bent on justifying even the most schizophrenic, unrealistic character behavior.

[Protoman]

It's too bad their budget is small, but why should I care? This isn't a pity party, and I don't care that the game sucks because Telltale is broke, or their mom died, or whatever. All I'm talking about is the quality of the game. If they had a budget like Call of Duty, I'm sure they could make a game where player choice mattered in substantial ways. (Note: Mass Effect didn't even attempt this, probably because it's mostly a shooter.)

Your question is really a false choice. No game has been made that really allows for a true branching storyline, because it'd require a lot of inventiveness and good writing. I'd much rather have a true branching game, even if it's relatively short, if only as a proof of concept.

I wasn't talking about their budget being small; obviously they don't have 100 million dollars like Rockstar to make a game, but they still have something relatively decent. It's just, like you said, ridiculously cost-ineffective to make a truly branching story while making each playthrough significantly lengthy, well-written and detailed. If you want a game with a branching path play Starfox 64.
I said absolutely nothing about the quality of the content or how their budget relates to that. I'm not taking pity on telltale for not having a AAA budget, and I have no idea where you extrapolated that from.

Yes. Key word: potential.

I kind of agree with you. While TWD was pretty good, it was too safe with its story telling. Sticking to tried and tested methods of plot development that have existed for decades instead of ones that make sense in a video game. I didn't feel disassociated with Lee but there were times that I felt I would have reacted differently if the option were given. Even if there are 2 scripted outcomes, you should let the player react themselves. I still thought the story was pretty strong, though... you keep mentioning other forms of media as if their modern equivalents have far better plots than TWD does.

A) It is unreasonable for a character like Kenny, however brash, to try to kill you for not helping bash in some old man's head in a basement;
B) It is reasonable for a character, like Lilly, to try to kill you after you bash in her father's head in said basement,

Then there is no way to have a logical discussion with you. You are hell-bent on justifying even the most schizophrenic, unrealistic character behavior.

A) I took that path (tried to save Lenny) and Kenny never tried to kill me. He was certainly spiteful, likely because he thought he wouldn't have looked like a sociopathic dick if you had sided with him. But he never attacked me. I have to assume either your save got glitched or you were being a jerk to him before the Lenny ordeal.
B) It's reasonable but not necessary. Some people don't become homicidal just because things are going horribly wrong. And Lily was characterized as the sort of person that would try her hardest to keep it together "for the sake of the group." It would have been really out of character if she turned around and attacked Lee right after Lenny died. Instead she kept herself together until chapter 3 where she lost it and killed Carly/Doug.

[georgetownhoya]

Wait -- if you tried to save Larry, doesn't Kenny just sit and watch as the cannibal brother tries to kill you? You know, when you're up against the electric fence, and Lee looks over to get help, and Kenny just shakes his head? Maybe I'm not remembering it right, but I am 99.99% sure that happens if you don't kill Larry in the basement. (If you do kill Larry, it's Lilly staring at you instead of Kenny)

I kind of agree with you. While TWD was pretty good, it was too safe with its story telling. Sticking to tried and tested methods of plot development that have existed for decades instead of ones that make sense in a video game. I didn't feel disassociated with Lee but there were times that I felt I would have reacted differently if the option were given. Even if there are 2 scripted outcomes, you should let the player react themselves. I still thought the story was pretty strong, though... you keep mentioning other forms of media as if their modern equivalents have far better plots than TWD does.

I guess I should clarify: the BEST of other media are much better plot-wise than the best of videogames. Certainly, TWD's plot is better than some medicore novels or television shows out there.

I wasn't talking about their budget being small; obviously they don't have 100 million dollars like Rockstar to make a game, but they still have something relatively decent. It's just, like you said, ridiculously cost-ineffective to make a truly branching story while making each playthrough significantly lengthy, well-written and detailed. If you want a game with a branching path play Starfox 64.
I said absolutely nothing about the quality of the content or how their budget relates to that. I'm not taking pity on telltale for not having a AAA budget, and I have no idea where you extrapolated that from.

I guess what I am saying is that, with enough interest, it would become cost effective and practical for a company to invest millions in a purely player-driven story game.

[Protoman]

Wait -- if you tried to save Larry, doesn't Kenny just sit and watch as the cannibal brother tries to kill you? You know, when you're up against the electric fence, and Lee looks over to get help, and Kenny just shakes his head? Maybe I'm not remembering it right, but I am 99.99% sure that happens if you don't kill Larry in the basement. (If you do kill Larry, it's Lilly staring at you instead of Kenny)

I don't remember that at all; My Lee never asked for help in that fight iirc.

I guess I should clarify: the BEST of other media are much better plot-wise than the best of videogames. Certainly, TWD's plot is better than some medicore novels or television shows out there.

Gaming is also much younger than both of those forms of media, to be fair. But no, no one has made citizen kane the game yet, that doesn't mean you should complain when something isn't citizen kane the game.

I guess what I am saying is that, with enough interest, it would become cost effective and practical for a company to invest millions in a purely player-driven story game.

The audience of story-driven games is relatively niche. It's going to take a social cataclysm in the "average gamer" for it to be worth it to pour millions of dollars into one.
That's not to say that you won't see good story driven games, they're just going to be a lot more linear than what seems to fit your taste.

[soldant]

Very false. That's all Telltale is capable of, but adventure games used to be mostly about puzzle solving. The cleverer the puzzles, the better the game. QTEs are a sign of a lazy developer who's half-assing games. Telltale TWD puzzle = Find batteries. Put them in the radio. Yeah, noo. The game's atrocious by adventure game standards.

Why, because it doesn't rely on absolutely ridiculous puzzle-game logic like "use the cigarette lighter on the left pipe six times to cause the balloon to pop to startle the bird to cause it to fly off and take a dump in a tin can that falls onto a ball to let you get the key"? People really miss that sort of absurd nonsense?