Telltale's last Sam & Max game only came out three years ago. The license is still in better hands with Telltale than it was at LucasArts, as the amount of time between releases is a lot better than the 13 years between Sam & Max: Hit the Road and Sam & Max: Season One (Season 1: 2006-2007, Season 2: 2008, Season 3: 2010, Poker Night: 2010, Poker Night 2: 2013).
Telltale is going to make more Sam & Max games. They've already said so (making Sam & Max in a much better position than the other games outside of The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones, as Telltale hasn't said a word about whether they'd make any more games with any of their other licenses). In 2013, Telltale's co-founder and current CEO, Kevin Bruner, stated that they intend to release more games with Sam & Max in the future. However, he noted that the games are likely to be Poker Night sized, as opposed to a full season.
The thing to remember is that Sam & Max is not a hugely popular franchise. It is a license with a small, but loyal, fanbase. No one outside of Telltale has ever expressed any desire to make a Sam & Max game. If Telltale were to stop making Sam & Max games and give up the license, we would get zero new Sam & Max games. At least with Telltale, they've confirmed that we'll be getting a new Sam & Max game in a few years.
Telltale's last Sam & Max game only came out three years ago. The license is still in better hands with Telltale than it was at LucasA… morerts, as the amount of time between releases is a lot better than the 13 years between Sam & Max: Hit the Road and Sam & Max: Season One (Season 1: 2006-2007, Season 2: 2008, Season 3: 2010, Poker Night: 2010, Poker Night 2: 2013).
Telltale is going to make more Sam & Max games. They've already said so (making Sam & Max in a much better position than the other games outside of The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones, as Telltale hasn't said a word about whether they'd make any more games with any of their other licenses). In 2013, Telltale's co-founder and current CEO, Kevin Bruner, stated that they intend to release more games with Sam & Max in the future. However, he noted that the games are likely to be Poker Night sized, as opposed to a full season.
The thing to remember is that… [view original content]
It's OK if you don't like the Poker Night games, but it's incorrect to state that they're not Sam & Max games. Sam & Max don't cameo in the Poker Night games, they co-star in the Poker Night games. A cameo is an appearance when a character just shows up without adding to the plot (like Sam & Max's cameos in many LucasArts games). The cameos in Poker Night and Poker Night 2 include Doug from The Walking Dead, Trixie Trotter from Back to the Future: The Game, and Monty Muzzled from Wallace & Gromit's Grand Adventures, as those are a few of the many characters who just show up in the game, rather than starring in them.
Max is one of four main characters in Poker Night at the Inventory, and as such, the stories he tells are central to the storyline of the game. Sam is one of five main characters in Poker Night 2, and his stories are central to the storyline of that game. They are games with an ensemble cast, but they're still Sam & Max games. No one would say that John Ratzenberger only made a cameo in Cheers simply because he was part of an ensemble cast.
The Poker Night games fit thematically with the characters too. While the majority of their games have been adventure games (currently 1/3 of the games released so far), Sam & Max are first and foremost comic book characters. In the comics, they do everything from going on adventures in exotic places to just hanging around and talking about random things. Therefore, it fits their characters perfectly to hang around a speakeasy talking about their cases and playing poker as much as it does going off on wild adventures and saving the world.
Telltale's last Sam & Max game only came out three years ago. The license is still in better hands with Telltale than it was at LucasA… morerts, as the amount of time between releases is a lot better than the 13 years between Sam & Max: Hit the Road and Sam & Max: Season One (Season 1: 2006-2007, Season 2: 2008, Season 3: 2010, Poker Night: 2010, Poker Night 2: 2013).
Telltale is going to make more Sam & Max games. They've already said so (making Sam & Max in a much better position than the other games outside of The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones, as Telltale hasn't said a word about whether they'd make any more games with any of their other licenses). In 2013, Telltale's co-founder and current CEO, Kevin Bruner, stated that they intend to release more games with Sam & Max in the future. However, he noted that the games are likely to be Poker Night sized, as opposed to a full season.
The thing to remember is that… [view original content]
Sam and Max stories are just way too.. childish for me. It has no content that can get it rated T. Like, what the shit?
I'm guessing you are saying this from only looking at the series at face value because it has cartoon animals? The series has a lot of dark humor, and part of the humor comes the jokes being delivered by cartoon animals. (Also, I believe Seasons 1/2 were rated T.) That would be a bit like saying Family Guy, Futurama, Bojack Horseman, etc are also kiddie cartoons just because they are animated.
And another thing, being T/M rated doesn't automatically make a game good/interesting.
Of course only T/M rated are good. If a game doesn't have blood, gore, deaths, etc, then it's shit. That's why a lot of critics must've been reallly high when they gave Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 perfect scores, leading to both having a metascore of 97. But they're both rated E, which means they're shit. In fact, the Mario series along with other E rated platformers are all shit. The E rated Zelda games are also terrible, especially Wind Waker, amirite?
Games like this one are the only true masterpieces.
Sam and Max stories are just way too.. childish for me. It has no content that can get it rated T. Like, what the shit?
I'm guessing… more you are saying this from only looking at the series at face value because it has cartoon animals? The series has a lot of dark humor, and part of the humor comes the jokes being delivered by cartoon animals. (Also, I believe Seasons 1/2 were rated T.) That would be a bit like saying Family Guy, Futurama, Bojack Horseman, etc are also kiddie cartoons just because they are animated.
And another thing, being T/M rated doesn't automatically make a game good/interesting.
But yeah, Hatred didn't get that much praise while game like Party Hard that was less graphically brutal got praised. Even though both games has a mission of finishing off bunch of civilians.
Of course only T/M rated are good. If a game doesn't have blood, gore, deaths, etc, then it's shit. That's why a lot of critics must've been… more reallly high when they gave Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 perfect scores, leading to both having a metascore of 97. But they're both rated E, which means they're shit. In fact, the Mario series along with other E rated platformers are all shit. The E rated Zelda games are also terrible, especially Wind Waker, amirite?
Games like this one are the only true masterpieces.
It's only been 3 years since Poker Night 2 which had Sam & Max both involved. Telltale loves Sam & Max and I'm sure they want to work on another project as soon as things start slowing down. There's been talk about a smaller Sam & Max game in the scale of Poker Night and they want to start working on it as soon as things slow down for them. I trust Telltale more than I will ever trust Lucas Arts. They let the license rot for several years, finally had plans for a game and flat out cancelled it because adventure games were "dead". Telltale exists all because so many people loved Sam & Max and didn't want to see it die.
Of course only T/M rated are good. If a game doesn't have blood, gore, deaths, etc, then it's shit. That's why a lot of critics must've been… more reallly high when they gave Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 perfect scores, leading to both having a metascore of 97. But they're both rated E, which means they're shit. In fact, the Mario series along with other E rated platformers are all shit. The E rated Zelda games are also terrible, especially Wind Waker, amirite?
Games like this one are the only true masterpieces.
Many of the episodes actually were rated T by the ESRB because of violent and suggestive content. It seems like you're judging the characters by the fact that they're a dog and a rabbit, rather than actually having ever played any of the games. A lot of people judged A Wolf Among Us as being childish before it was released too, just based on the fact that the first screenshots showed Colin, the talking pig, but after anyone had ever played A Wolf Among Us, they'd never call it childish. If anyone ever played season three of Sam & Max, they'd never call that childish either.
Take Season Three Episode Three for example. It starts with a decapitated Max, who had his brain removed. The fact that someone had dismembered Max causes Sam to go overly brutal, and he starts beating up people and threatening them at gunpoint in order to get information on who had butchered his partner.
Despite the fact that it stars a talking dog and a rabbit, that plot line is hardly something that you could call "childish" (just as you wouldn't call A Wolf Among Us childish because of the talking pigs, toads, etc).
No one insulted you. Suggesting that you may not have played a game based on your response is not an insult. It merely appeared that way, as you were suggesting that there was no content that would make the game be rated T, and that is definitely not true.
The story line in season three gets much more interesting beyond episode 1, as I pointed out above. Plus, the video above shows perfectly the reason why it deserves to be rated T for Teen. A lifeless corpse with the top part of it's head cut off, and the main character hitting suspects while interrogating them, as well as aiming his gun at suspects, directly in their face to threaten them is not something that would ever be rated E for everyone.
The point of the Sam & Max license, even in the original comics, was to juxtapose the cute and cuddly characters with their love of violence. They appear child-friendly, but they definitely are not. It's like South Park, or (maybe even an even better analogy since it has violent cute animal characters) Happy Tree Friends.
Everyone misread my point and is insulting me for no reason. Oh my god, what is this?
I said Sam and Max shouldnt be rated T, like what t… morehe shit are your problems? Everyone gets so aggressive at me for no reason everytime I make a post.
And I have played S3 of Sam and Max but got bored in episode 1. I find the characters and story way too childish.
No one insulted you. Suggesting that you may not have played a game based on your response is not an insult. It merely appeared that way, … moreas you were suggesting that there was no content that would make the game be rated T, and that is definitely not true.
The story line in season three gets much more interesting beyond episode 1, as I pointed out above. Plus, the video above shows perfectly the reason why it deserves to be rated T for Teen. A lifeless corpse with the top part of it's head cut off, and the main character hitting suspects while interrogating them, as well as aiming his gun at suspects, directly in their face to threaten them is not something that would ever be rated E for everyone.
The point of the Sam & Max license, even in the original comics, was to juxtapose the cute and cuddly characters with their love of violence. They appear child-friendly, but they definitely are not. It's like South Park, or (maybe e… [view original content]
That post wasn't an insult, but I do agree that the framing parts of that post was needlessly aggressive, and have edited it...
That said though, none of the other posts were aggressive towards you. The rest of the posts in this thread are perfectly within the forum guidelines. You are free to express your opinions, but everyone is also free to respond with their own opinions in their replies.
What the shit right? A game that doesn't need to be rated 16+ to be good... get the fuck out of here.
is and insult.
Anyway, i do… morent want to discuss further with thise people. Im just expressing my opinion here, i dont see the problem in that.
That post wasn't an insult, but I do agree that the framing parts of that post was needlessly aggressive, and have edited it...
That said… more though, none of the other posts were aggressive towards you. The rest of the posts in this thread are perfectly within the forum guidelines. You are free to express your opinions, but everyone is also free to respond with their own opinions in their replies.
Forums are literally made for debate (the Usenet newsgroup system, which were the precursors to internet forums, had an organizational system that created multiple newsgroups that were created specifically to foster debate on a number of topics). Not everyone will agree with what you post, and will post their own opinions that are counter to your own, but that's just the nature of internet forums. Try not to take things so personally.
Yep, instead of simply deciding that they won't buy the game, due to the content, people just have to bitch about its content on social, and then either the devs have to slam their game with the censorship hammer or just not release it in certain countries/ cancel it.
Yep, instead of simply deciding that they won't buy the game, due to the content, people just have to bitch about its content on social, and… more then either the devs have to slam their game with the censorship hammer or just not release it in certain countries/ cancel it.
Plus, people complaining about the content of the game actually leads to more sales because of the publicity. That's why I think it's silly for people to get seriously outraged over the twitter complaints and feminist critiques because they think people complaining and pointing out tropes in games will "ruin games" as it will stop controversial games from ever being made again. It doesn't work that way, it never has. Controversial games have existed as long as the games industry has been around (the Atari 2600 had the controversial Custer's Revenge in 1982!). Controversy drives sales. Even if some retailers pull the games in some places (which is their complete right to do so as owners of a retail outlet), the publicity will just cause the game to sell more in other places.
Hatred is selling well because of the controversy, Grand Theft Auto V sold well because of the controversy, Postal sold well because of the controversy, Mortal Kombat sold well because of the controversy, Night Trap sold well because of the controversy. In all of these cases, some stores didn't stock the game at some point because of the controversy (or in Hatred's case, it was briefly taken off Steam Greenlight).
Some of these games were quite good, and they continued to sell after the controversy died down. Some of them weren't. Night Trap was in the latter category, and Hatred appears to be somewhere in the middle - not bad, and not great (it's often described in terms similar to those applied to Duke Nukem Forever - bland level design, repetitive gameplay, with the controversial content being the only real selling point of the game).
Comments
Or at least sell the license to someone who will make Sam and Max games.
Guess they have to sell it now.
They did mention a while ago they would do something with them, just not a full season or anything.
Telltale's last Sam & Max game only came out three years ago. The license is still in better hands with Telltale than it was at LucasArts, as the amount of time between releases is a lot better than the 13 years between Sam & Max: Hit the Road and Sam & Max: Season One (Season 1: 2006-2007, Season 2: 2008, Season 3: 2010, Poker Night: 2010, Poker Night 2: 2013).
Telltale is going to make more Sam & Max games. They've already said so (making Sam & Max in a much better position than the other games outside of The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones, as Telltale hasn't said a word about whether they'd make any more games with any of their other licenses). In 2013, Telltale's co-founder and current CEO, Kevin Bruner, stated that they intend to release more games with Sam & Max in the future. However, he noted that the games are likely to be Poker Night sized, as opposed to a full season.
The thing to remember is that Sam & Max is not a hugely popular franchise. It is a license with a small, but loyal, fanbase. No one outside of Telltale has ever expressed any desire to make a Sam & Max game. If Telltale were to stop making Sam & Max games and give up the license, we would get zero new Sam & Max games. At least with Telltale, they've confirmed that we'll be getting a new Sam & Max game in a few years.
I don't count poker nights as a Sam and Max game only as a cameo. The last Sam and Max game was 2010
It's OK if you don't like the Poker Night games, but it's incorrect to state that they're not Sam & Max games. Sam & Max don't cameo in the Poker Night games, they co-star in the Poker Night games. A cameo is an appearance when a character just shows up without adding to the plot (like Sam & Max's cameos in many LucasArts games). The cameos in Poker Night and Poker Night 2 include Doug from The Walking Dead, Trixie Trotter from Back to the Future: The Game, and Monty Muzzled from Wallace & Gromit's Grand Adventures, as those are a few of the many characters who just show up in the game, rather than starring in them.
Max is one of four main characters in Poker Night at the Inventory, and as such, the stories he tells are central to the storyline of the game. Sam is one of five main characters in Poker Night 2, and his stories are central to the storyline of that game. They are games with an ensemble cast, but they're still Sam & Max games. No one would say that John Ratzenberger only made a cameo in Cheers simply because he was part of an ensemble cast.
The Poker Night games fit thematically with the characters too. While the majority of their games have been adventure games (currently 1/3 of the games released so far), Sam & Max are first and foremost comic book characters. In the comics, they do everything from going on adventures in exotic places to just hanging around and talking about random things. Therefore, it fits their characters perfectly to hang around a speakeasy talking about their cases and playing poker as much as it does going off on wild adventures and saving the world.
Sam and Max stories are just way too.. childish for me. It has no content that can get it rated T. Like, what the shit?
mod edit: Try not to be as aggressive with your post in the future. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions.
What the shit right? A game that doesn't need to be rated 16+ to be good.
Childish? Are you familiar with Sam and Max characters?
To be honest, Telltale Games toned them down for their games. In other stuff they're quite brutal at times.
I'm guessing you are saying this from only looking at the series at face value because it has cartoon animals? The series has a lot of dark humor, and part of the humor comes the jokes being delivered by cartoon animals. (Also, I believe Seasons 1/2 were rated T.) That would be a bit like saying Family Guy, Futurama, Bojack Horseman, etc are also kiddie cartoons just because they are animated.
And another thing, being T/M rated doesn't automatically make a game good/interesting.
Of course only T/M rated are good. If a game doesn't have blood, gore, deaths, etc, then it's shit. That's why a lot of critics must've been reallly high when they gave Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 perfect scores, leading to both having a metascore of 97. But they're both rated E, which means they're shit. In fact, the Mario series along with other E rated platformers are all shit. The E rated Zelda games are also terrible, especially Wind Waker, amirite?
Games like this one are the only true masterpieces.
Rock star having a bad hair day...
But yeah, Hatred didn't get that much praise while game like Party Hard that was less graphically brutal got praised. Even though both games has a mission of finishing off bunch of civilians.
It's only been 3 years since Poker Night 2 which had Sam & Max both involved. Telltale loves Sam & Max and I'm sure they want to work on another project as soon as things start slowing down. There's been talk about a smaller Sam & Max game in the scale of Poker Night and they want to start working on it as soon as things slow down for them. I trust Telltale more than I will ever trust Lucas Arts. They let the license rot for several years, finally had plans for a game and flat out cancelled it because adventure games were "dead". Telltale exists all because so many people loved Sam & Max and didn't want to see it die.
What a piece of crap.
So what? Some of the best games to ever exist are rated E for everyone.
Many of the episodes actually were rated T by the ESRB because of violent and suggestive content. It seems like you're judging the characters by the fact that they're a dog and a rabbit, rather than actually having ever played any of the games. A lot of people judged A Wolf Among Us as being childish before it was released too, just based on the fact that the first screenshots showed Colin, the talking pig, but after anyone had ever played A Wolf Among Us, they'd never call it childish. If anyone ever played season three of Sam & Max, they'd never call that childish either.
Take Season Three Episode Three for example. It starts with a decapitated Max, who had his brain removed. The fact that someone had dismembered Max causes Sam to go overly brutal, and he starts beating up people and threatening them at gunpoint in order to get information on who had butchered his partner.
Sam & Max Episode 3
Despite the fact that it stars a talking dog and a rabbit, that plot line is hardly something that you could call "childish" (just as you wouldn't call A Wolf Among Us childish because of the talking pigs, toads, etc).
Everyone misread my point and is insulting me for no reason. Oh my god, what is this?
I said Sam and Max shouldnt be rated T, like what the shit are your problems? Everyone gets so aggressive at me for no reason everytime I make a post.
And I have played S3 of Sam and Max but got bored in episode 1. I find the characters and story way too childish.
No one insulted you. Suggesting that you may not have played a game based on your response is not an insult. It merely appeared that way, as you were suggesting that there was no content that would make the game be rated T, and that is definitely not true.
The story line in season three gets much more interesting beyond episode 1, as I pointed out above. Plus, the video above shows perfectly the reason why it deserves to be rated T for Teen. A lifeless corpse with the top part of it's head cut off, and the main character hitting suspects while interrogating them, as well as aiming his gun at suspects, directly in their face to threaten them is not something that would ever be rated E for everyone.
The point of the Sam & Max license, even in the original comics, was to juxtapose the cute and cuddly characters with their love of violence. They appear child-friendly, but they definitely are not. It's like South Park, or (maybe even an even better analogy since it has violent cute animal characters) Happy Tree Friends.
is and insult.
Anyway, i dont want to discuss further with thise people. Im just expressing my opinion here, i dont see the problem in that.
That post wasn't an insult, but I do agree that the framing parts of that post was needlessly aggressive, and have edited it...
That said though, none of the other posts were aggressive towards you. The rest of the posts in this thread are perfectly within the forum guidelines. You are free to express your opinions, but everyone is also free to respond with their own opinions in their replies.
I don't know why everyone always tries to prove me wrong whenever I say something in this forum...
Forums are literally made for debate (the Usenet newsgroup system, which were the precursors to internet forums, had an organizational system that created multiple newsgroups that were created specifically to foster debate on a number of topics). Not everyone will agree with what you post, and will post their own opinions that are counter to your own, but that's just the nature of internet forums. Try not to take things so personally.
Doesn't that happen with quite a lot of games nowadays?
Yep, instead of simply deciding that they won't buy the game, due to the content, people just have to bitch about its content on social, and then either the devs have to slam their game with the censorship hammer or just not release it in certain countries/ cancel it.
The Hatred devs did neither of those things.
Plus, people complaining about the content of the game actually leads to more sales because of the publicity. That's why I think it's silly for people to get seriously outraged over the twitter complaints and feminist critiques because they think people complaining and pointing out tropes in games will "ruin games" as it will stop controversial games from ever being made again. It doesn't work that way, it never has. Controversial games have existed as long as the games industry has been around (the Atari 2600 had the controversial Custer's Revenge in 1982!). Controversy drives sales. Even if some retailers pull the games in some places (which is their complete right to do so as owners of a retail outlet), the publicity will just cause the game to sell more in other places.
Hatred is selling well because of the controversy, Grand Theft Auto V sold well because of the controversy, Postal sold well because of the controversy, Mortal Kombat sold well because of the controversy, Night Trap sold well because of the controversy. In all of these cases, some stores didn't stock the game at some point because of the controversy (or in Hatred's case, it was briefly taken off Steam Greenlight).
Some of these games were quite good, and they continued to sell after the controversy died down. Some of them weren't. Night Trap was in the latter category, and Hatred appears to be somewhere in the middle - not bad, and not great (it's often described in terms similar to those applied to Duke Nukem Forever - bland level design, repetitive gameplay, with the controversial content being the only real selling point of the game).