I played it with the hints enabled. Was in it for the story and not for the pixel hunting. Played this way, I think the game was just about right in terms of length.

From what I've seen, it doesn't really influence difficulty in any way, shape or form, it just... Basically, with hints, the game is both less annoying and less immersive, without them, it's precisely the other way around, you get the feeling that it's 'you' doing all the crap as opposed to the hint system. You also notice more details with hints off.

I've only played without. In the first episode, the hotspots for items or environment are in some... weird places, they fix that issue with the other episodes.

Regardless, I imagine playing with UI hints is pretty shit. Puzzles are pretty darn trivial and not the point of this game, so one thing UI hints would do, is get in the way of immersion.

Alright, I'll play without any hints and see how it goes. Thanks everyone.

I haven't played the game, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a way to toggle hints on and off in the options menu.

Now here's a game where a hint system is pretty much pointless. There's relatively few items/people to interact with as is. You'd have to try real hard to actually miss things.

I love how this is basically just a movie but is getting all these gaming awards. And I say that as someone who prioritizes story in games more than most.

We've gone totally off the rails the last few years when it comes to what a game story should be.

Well we don't have any official genre for interactive movies yet, and as Walking Dead is one and movies are inheritely non-interactive, well... Videogames are the only genre where it can belong.

And that's fine I guess, but to me the best game stories value the interactivity of the medium. Games that emulate movies annoy me, I would rather just watch a movie. It shouldn't be celebrated as the game of the year when it inherently undermines what gaming is to emulate a more successful art-form.

rant rant rant...

Is The Walking Dead (the game) good? Because I've never seen the TV show and I've never read the comics. I just want to know. I cannot afford buying games now so I cannot buy it. But I find it really interesting.

Amen. I played the demo, got to the part where when I try to leave, he says "I should explore the yard more" and turned it off. People who buy it are either those that:

A) fall for licensed drivel. Pro tip: everything "The Walking Dead" that's not the original comic sucks.
B) Not educated about telltales scam. Every one of their "games" is identical, and ridiculously overpriced.

In my book it's definitely worth the tenner, i.e. wait for another sale.

I completely disagree with this.

I think people with this complaint have just missed the new type of gameplay TWD has brought about, that is Emotional Gameplay.

It's difficulty lies in the decisions you have to make and requires you to be emotionally invested in the story and characters to shine (which ofcourse requires them to be very well written and acted, it's a very big gamble to be able to hit these out of the park).

I don't see it as undermining gaming, but bringing about an evolution in gaming. To me that's why it's getting all of these accolades. It's not something everyone understands yet, or realises the medium is even capable of (like Roger Ebert for example) but I'm glad that it's something the industry has understood and taken notice of.

Those decisions and such are presented like cutscenes though, in a movie-like fashion. It's not presented as a game, as interactive, it's like a DVD menu choosing which scene to play.

Think about Half Life 2. It's story is told in a fully interactive way, most of it not even spoken but more experienced. Think of an older Western RPG, which presented it's story through discovery and flexible dialogue and offered choice through action without railroad signs.

Walking Dead is an interactive movie. And that's fine, I would probably even enjoy it. It's not progressing gaming storytelling though, it's killing it.