@turtlethetaffer: I would argue against the reviewers observation that multiple plays bought little cohesion, and thus multiple replays weren't rewarded the way they should in a game based around the idea that you would keep playing. Because I got that from my three hours or so with the game. But I have found in general with games like this that your satisfaction is often reliant on how you play, because it is so open ended that the developer leaves themselves little control over how your overarching narrative progresses, so it is on the player to make uninformed choices that end up creating a cohesive sense of progression. Before reading this review I had assumed the progression was a little more controlled, because me and the few friends I have that are playing it I would say have had a very different experience to this reviewer.
From my experience, it's an easy sell. But after reading this dissenting opinion showing how different that experience can be, it's a $15 game constructed of 20 minute rounds that relies on you getting it right (with no idea what the leniency is) too make replaying worth while, which is a harder sell. I'd still say it is worth checking out if $15 for a short evenings entertainment isn't a problem for you. Maybe not a great value proposition, but potentially much more rewarding than this 5/10 would suggest.
@Gelugon_baat: I'll happily defend the game. The way that you interact with it can greatly change the narrative outcomes, and that is a very satifying loop. One play takes me about 20 minutes, and I've played through about 10 times or something. I want to get back to Call of Pripyat now, but I will probably revisit the game again soon, because the way that the game develops over multiple plays is interesting to me, and I want to see how far I can take that progression.
@kee1haul: The save data will all be lost? Heavy... My PS4 bricked so hard after a day that I had to reinstall the OS from a USB. Fortunately all I had played was a few hours of Knack, so it was a pretty good excuse too not keep playing it.
@FinalPreator: With Telltale I definitely prefer waiting until the end, because their release schedule is choppy, too say the least. Life is Strange did pretty well, having a very steady 8 weeks between chapters. One thing that I really love about the episodic structure is that it gives you a bit of time where so many players want to talk about the little details in each episode, and you miss that playing at the end, where there is so much game too talk about that most of it focuses on the broad strokes.
Thinking on the investment aspect further, I was watching a podcast earlier this year that had a look at the episodic nature of the new Hitman game, and the business wisdom of such a decision. They looked at Steam achievement data, and SteamSpy (a reasonably accurate sales counter), for a bunch of Telltale games, and found that between episode 1 and 2, 20% of the audience dropped off, and between 2 and 3 a further 40% dropped off, but after that most people who got to the end of episode three finished the game. I've had a gander over Google too see how that meshes with achievements in normal games, to see whether a similar drop off occurs, but I couldn't find any decent sounding average for such a disparate sample. Any way, that data suggests that by episode four less than half of the players who started the game will still be around, so from that perspective you're self-selecting for players who have a real investment in the game, especially considering that engagement levels appear to drop off quickly, but remain rather steady in the back-end.
@FinalPreator: In Goldberg's texts on storytelling (the guy that wrote the book on the Hero's Journey, and codified the 3 act story), the three act basis was the simplification of a greater narrative structure. The heroes journey itself has 12 components, but the important thing in terms of narrative pacing is the arc. So 3, 5, 7, etc, act structures can all fit. In a five act structure, the 4th is generally designated the lull before the finale. Such is the case in this game. The third act ends with the realisation of the immediate goal being sought in the first three acts, but of course a complication must occur. That's why you find in similar 5 act games, like the Telltale games, the fourth act does comparatively little to drive the plot, except for the very ending, and usually contains minimal action (though in this case the action is heavy, but very different in tone). The point of the fourth act is usually to reinforce character and the characters relationships, before the eventual despair and catharsis of the ultimate act.
I'm simplifying that, too, because each individual episode does usually conform to its own act structure, as part of the overriding structure (see how RE:Revelations 2 fails as an episodic game, because it was clearly not designed to be so, chapters there don't have proper arcs or resolutions).
So perhaps the issue is that your average consumer who has made it this far is more emotionally involved with the characters they are playing? As opposed to a reviewer who just has to play the whole thing though to get a review out. So when the fourth episode slows down to adapt and reinforce the players relationship with the character, the mindset is different between those two very different styles of play? And I don't mean to say that reviewers don't feel invested, they clearly often do, but I think maybe the immediacy of a reviewers intent, compared to a normal gamer, might go some way to explaining why the 4th act disconnect occurs so frequently.
jecomans' comments