You know when you put all the BTTF games together like a normal game would be. The play time you be at least 15 hours.
At least? I've found runs of Back to the future to hover closer to 2 hours and change rather than 3. I'd say it's more along the lies of 10-15, rather than 15+.
And, of course, there is no value in length alone. A game that had 14 hours of cutscenes and an hour of play would have little value, as well as a game that included within its world long, empty hallways which took many hours to traverse.
Having been a fan of the movies for as long as I can remember, I decided rather early on (I didn't play it immediately upon release so I quickly realized based on what people were writing that the game basically has no challenge) to treat these episodes as small interactive movies rather than adventure games.
It's pretty much how I've ended up seeing Telltale games as a whole these days... and I save their games for the occasional days here and there when I actually feel like just going through something without putting in any effort... just to relax and see what the story brings.
I've completely given up on letting myself getting in any way upset because of the very low difficulty level in Telltale games... I'm not saying people shouldn't complain or anything like that, just that personally I'm through with all of that.
I see it as a total waste of energy, it seems obvious to me trying to somehow convince Telltale into making more difficult games is futile, a hopeless battle.
So better to just take their products for what they are and enjoy them the occasional times I'm in the mood for stuff like that.
For me, they have one last chance with King's Quest to get it right. After that I'm through. I refuse to support a company who garnered their near entire fanbase from adventure refugees, led them along with promises of favourite adventure reboots, and delivered nothing but challengeless minor monthly distractions. I mean they never once told us that BTTF wasn't going to be difficult due to licensing let along as difficult as the rest of their games (which are all only slightly less easy). And now they've taken King's Quest. The very symbol, icon, and mascot of adventure itself. This is their last chance in my eyes. I know they don't care if I go, but I just don't feel right giving them my money after so much misleading.
I refuse to support a company who garnered their near entire fanbase from adventure refugees, led them along with promises of favourite adventure reboots..
I can't be the only one who wanted totally brand new games, right? I remember Telltale, 2 years ago, talking about how they wanted to do new IPs and was just waiting for themselves to be known to do so. Well, they're well known enough to do BttF & JP as well as the ability to hold their own press conference party. The only thing that really resembles a new IP is Puzzle Agent. I have no qualms with that, but now they have nothing new in their pipeline for what looks like the next two years.
No, I wanted brand new games too....but we never got any of that. What I meant was that they led us along to believe that they would be bringing back the classic adventure genre with all the classic adventure reboots they were bringing. I was very vocal a couple years back about Telltale creating unique IPs. I've since accepted that that's never going to happen.
The whole past season was a joke, and they're going to start releasing actual GAMES starting now, beginning with an entirely redone episode 1 that actually isn't painful to slog through.
As an aside, this is literally the only thing that would make this entire project anything but a huge waste of time on everyone's behalf.
You know, everyone is free to their own opinion.
That said my opinion is that your opinion is incredibly annoying.
Have you thought for one second about the sheer number of non-adventurer gamers this game was likely to attract to the genre? How it was made easier as a result of that, not to scare people off but to ease them in? To keep the higher audience?
No, probably not. You probably didn't think beyond the fact that it didn't suit your exacting, high performance needs, and so therefore have spent the entire rest of its existence constantly bad-mouthing Telltale on their own forums.
He does exactly what he wants. He paid for something incredibly bad in his taste, while it was advertised otherwise.
That's his complete right.
Also, here's Fawful's post :
The facts:
Fact A. My opinion is that having an opinion that annoys someone like you is an opinion worth having.
Fact B. His needs are hardly high performance or exacting. He wanted a good game. In his opinion, Back to the Future is a horrible game.
Fact C. If bad-mouthing Telltale is giving an honest opinion on a, in my opinion, poor product they put out, and a poor company direction, is wrong, then I don't wanna be right.
Fact D. Complaining about bad-mouthing Telltale while telling someone they're annoying and you'd like to punch them in the face is stupid.
Conclusion:
You're a raving, insulting, ****. And someday when you try to punch Rather Dashing, and he has no choice but to defend himself by hitting you back, I'll be glad to call you a waambulance.
Have you thought for one second about the sheer number of non-adventurer gamers this game was likely to attract to the genre? How it was made easier as a result of that, not to scare people off but to ease them in? To keep the higher audience?
For the audience you're talking about, one episode should have been enough to "ease them in" and prepare them for a rising difficulty curve in subsequent episodes. But...
Have you thought for one second about the sheer number of non-adventurer gamers this game was likely to bore out of their skulls? How it was made so easy and limited in its interactivity that it did scare them off?
Generally, yes. Especially in terms of works of art. However, a game is also a mechanical thing, a challenge that can be rated and compared numerically to other things. Not with ratings(a la a metascore), but by comparing the mechanical workings of the game to the mechanical workings of others, and comparing the working pieces to their intended function.
It is literally impossible to hold the opinion that these games are good without actually being wrong. As puzzle games, their structure is so inherently broken that I am by no means exaggerating when I say that toddler shape-matching puzzles are far more complex in their set-up. Because the games are inherently stupid, factually so, objectively so, the gameplay is entirely pointless. Stripped bare, the puzzle mechanics are literally less complex than those shape matching puzzles. There are less options available, there is less need for a logical link between the structure of the puzzle and the structure of the pieces you have, the correct option is always large and in your face, the incorrect pieces lock themselves out for your use(as if an adult was taking away the wrong shapes for a given slot until only one was left), and a large variety of other mechanically broken aspects that make it impossible for this game to be considered "good" by any definition. This game is about as bad as bad gets without the the entire structure actually collapsing in on itself, ie the game being a crashing mess that you can't even properly RUN.
Have you thought for one second about the sheer number of non-adventurer gamers this game was likely to attract to the genre? How it was made easier as a result of that, not to scare people off but to ease them in? To keep the higher audience?
No, probably not. You probably didn't think beyond the fact that it didn't suit your exacting, high performance needs, and so therefore have spent the entire rest of its existence constantly bad-mouthing Telltale on their own forums.
I have thought of them. Accessibility is actually a rather admirable goal, and a great way to bring new people into the genre. However, there's a very stark difference between "accessibility" and "dumbing a thing down to the point that even a slobbering ape that would hate the genre otherwise can unceremoniously bash their way through".
"Accessibility" only works to the extent that it takes your existing content and allows a new audience to experience that content. If your audience never actually GETS to the core experience, your attempt at accessibility has literally failed. As it is, Back to the Future: The game has not gotten appreciably more difficult over time. The difficulty curve is a slightly messy but overall flat line that does its best to remain under "Tutorial" levels of difficulty. You can actually literally compare the complexity of the puzzles and environments in the Sam and Max: Season Two tutorial and have the latter come out favorably compared to the entirety of the Back to the Future series.
Anyone who might love the genre would not like the new Back to the Future game. It lacks everything that makes the genre even remotely enjoyable. It is an insult to my intelligence, to your intelligence, and to everyone else's intelligence. I was a five year-old boy when I first picked up Secret of Monkey Island. Many were about the same age when they played the more age-appropriate PuttPutt series starring a cartoon car that went on adventures, which themselves are far more complex than anything in Back to the Future. And I don't mean that in a vague sense, either. You can count the number of interactive elements in any given scene, count the number of inventory items, and come up with an average "complexity number" that is consistently higher than Back to the Future's without even considering things like context(does it make sense to use the demerits on the squawk box or the newspaper on Jennifer?). You can count how many non-solution combinations have unique dialogs, and the children's game comes out on top. This is because Back to the Future is not an accessible game that opens up the genre to a new audience that will love and appreciate it. It is a dumb, poorly crafted, broken excuse for a game that has absolutely no value as a game no matter how you try to slice it or who you try to give it to. Back to the Future is a glaringly strong candidate for worst adventure game ever made, and follows in the franchise's video game footsteps in regards to making horrible, broken games. The only difference now is that the horrendousness of the design makes the game EASY rather than HARD FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS.
By the way, to translate that, "To keep the higher audience" essentially boils down to "We made it stupid, for stupid people, because we wanted more money at the expense of the game. Because, hey, our audience is pretty fucking stupid."
Guys, if you don't like Dashing, ignore him. I admit he can be pretty annoying, but he has his own well thought-out reasons for his opinions, and as long as he's not delivering death threats or anything he's allowed to say what he wants.
Generally, yes. Especially in terms of works of art. However, a game is also a mechanical thing, a challenge that can be rated and compared numerically to other things. Not with ratings(a la a metascore), but by comparing the mechanical workings of the game to the mechanical workings of others, and comparing the working pieces to their intended function.
It is literally impossible to hold the opinion that these games are good without actually being wrong. As puzzle games, their structure is so inherently broken that I am by no means exaggerating when I say that toddler shape-matching puzzles are far more complex in their set-up. Because the games are inherently stupid, factually so, objectively so, the gameplay is entirely pointless. Stripped bare, the puzzle mechanics are literally less complex than those shape matching puzzles. There are less options available, there is less need for a logical link between the structure of the puzzle and the structure of the pieces you have, the correct option is always large and in your face, the incorrect pieces lock themselves out for your use(as if an adult was taking away the wrong shapes for a given slot until only one was left), and a large variety of other mechanically broken aspects that make it impossible for this game to be considered "good" by any definition. This game is about as bad as bad gets without the the entire structure actually collapsing in on itself, ie the game being a crashing mess that you can't even properly RUN.
So no, at this point, it's not an opinion.
It is a fact. Objective. Quantifiable. Proven.
I have thought of them. Accessibility is actually a rather admirable goal, and a great way to bring new people into the genre. However, there's a very stark difference between "accessibility" and "dumbing a thing down to the point that even a slobbering ape that would hate the genre otherwise can unceremoniously bash their way through".
"Accessibility" only works to the extent that it takes your existing content and allows a new audience to experience that content. If your audience never actually GETS to the core experience, your attempt at accessibility has literally failed. As it is, Back to the Future: The game has not gotten appreciably more difficult over time. The difficulty curve is a slightly messy but overall flat line that does its best to remain under "Tutorial" levels of difficulty. You can actually literally compare the complexity of the puzzles and environments in the Sam and Max: Season Two tutorial and have the latter come out favorably compared to the entirety of the Back to the Future series.
Anyone who might love the genre would not like the new Back to the Future game. It lacks everything that makes the genre even remotely enjoyable. It is an insult to my intelligence, to your intelligence, and to everyone else's intelligence. I was a five year-old boy when I first picked up Secret of Monkey Island. Many were about the same age when they played the more age-appropriate PuttPutt series starring a cartoon car that went on adventures, which themselves are far more complex than anything in Back to the Future. And I don't mean that in a vague sense, either. You can count the number of interactive elements in any given scene, count the number of inventory items, and come up with an average "complexity number" that is consistently higher than Back to the Future's without even considering things like context(does it make sense to use the demerits on the squawk box or the newspaper on Jennifer?). You can count how many non-solution combinations have unique dialogs, and the children's game comes out on top. This is because Back to the Future is not an accessible game that opens up the genre to a new audience that will love and appreciate it. It is a dumb, poorly crafted, broken excuse for a game that has absolutely no value as a game no matter how you try to slice it or who you try to give it to. Back to the Future is a glaringly strong candidate for worst adventure game ever made, and follows in the franchise's video game footsteps in regards to making horrible, broken games. The only difference now is that the horrendousness of the design makes the game EASY rather than HARD FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS.
By the way, to translate that, "To keep the higher audience" essentially boils down to "We made it stupid, for stupid people, because we wanted more money at the expense of the game. Because, hey, our audience is pretty fucking stupid."
So, in your opinion, everyone that enjoys Back to the Future The Game is "pretty fucking stupid"? THAT is fucking stupid. Frankly, I've enjoyed this game's story and I appreciate that the graphic style doesn't make my computer explode.
So, in your opinion, everyone that enjoys Back to the Future The Game is "pretty fucking stupid"? THAT is fucking stupid. Frankly, I've enjoyed this game's story and I appreciate that the graphic style doesn't make my computer explode.
So did you not pay attention or read these posts?
I said that, to say that the game is the way it is in order to draw in a larger audience, is to say that Telltale thinks very poorly of the people it is making the games for. Notice that the portion is in quotations and refers to something that was said in the post I quoted, meaning that it referred to the hypothetical Telltale that exists when you simply say that they made the game the way it was to bring in more people.
Essentially, the design of the games is an insult to anyone that plays it. I'm not saying you're pretty fucking stupid, that's what I'm inferring that TELLTALE is saying, albeit by proxy.
So, in your opinion, everyone that enjoys Back to the Future The Game is "pretty fucking stupid"? THAT is fucking stupid. Frankly, I've enjoyed this game's story and I appreciate that the graphic style doesn't make my computer explode.
I noticed you didn't say that you enjoyed the gameplay. That is our primary criticism of the game. The complete and utter lack of any challenge. If it were called "Back to the Future: The Interactive Movie", no one would care.
(But I also think the animation is terrible and the texture quality is wildly inconsistent and makes it look sloppy and unprofessional. Btw, this is not judging the game to Crysis, or anything ridiculous like that, this is judging the game compared to Telltale's own previous games. It looks like a rushed hackjob.)
I noticed you didn't say that you enjoyed the gameplay. That is our primary criticism of the game. The complete and utter lack of any challenge. If it were called "Back to the Future: The Interactive Movie", no one would care.
(But I also think the animation is terrible and the texture quality is wildly inconsistent and makes it look sloppy and unprofessional. Btw, this is not judging the game to Crysis, or anything ridiculous like that, this is judging the game compared to Telltale's own previous games. It looks like a rushed hackjob.)
See, here's the deal. I'm a HUGE BTTF nut. I'm not playing this game to break my brain to figure out some puzzle. I'm playing this game because of the characters and the story. Both are consistent with what I love and what I wanted from this game. I have no problems with the gameplay. Nor have I noticed any of the bugs a lot of people have reported with this game. Only one time has Marty been called something other than the name I initially chose for him. As for the animations, I wouldn't call them terrible. I'd call them decent. Same with the textures. Nothing ground-breaking, but this game isn't meant to be ground-breaking. It's meant to cater to fan-service, and there's plenty of that, what with a story made with help by Bob Gale, and Christopher Lloyd returning as Doc Brown...hopefully not for the last time.
Guys, if you don't like Dashing, ignore him. I admit he can be pretty annoying, but he has his own well thought-out reasons for his opinions, and as long as he's not delivering death threats or anything he's allowed to say what he wants.
Oh I intend to ignore him from now on. I said my piece and that's really all there is to it--I can't be bothered to care more than that.
Comments like that make me wonder what Dashing is doing right that I'm doing wrong. People just want him permabanned because they can't take the heat. Faceslasher is a wuss. A tiny little wuss trying to hide behind admins who he hopes will do his dirty work for him and rid him of the evil scary Dashing.
Comments like that make me wonder what Dashing is doing right that I'm doing wrong. People just want him permabanned because they can't take the heat. Faceslasher is a wuss. A tiny little wuss trying to hide behind admins who he hopes will do his dirty work for him and rid him of the evil scary Dashing.
See, I don't agree with some of his comments, especially regarding BTTF:TG, but I don't think he should be permabanned. That's a little harsh. We're all allowed opinions.
And no Dashing, they're not wrong. That's why they're opinions.
And I was worried that people here would think I was bad for preferring the idea of another company doing another Back to the Future over seeing Telltale Games doing a second season.
It's okay if people don't like the game, but they should not be insulting the intelligence of those who do happen to like it. I understand why some of the more hardcore gamers might be disappointed in the game - but I'm quite certain that there are plenty of casual gamers (and even non-gamers) who are here strictly for the story. Maybe a little more understanding for both sides would help.
I'd also like to point out that there's a small niche of gamers like me who just in general don't like adventure games. Granted, as a kid and even now I love the Quest for Glory series, but apart from that I'm just not a big fan of adventure games period. I find the puzzles a lot more difficult to solve than most people, and whether that's just because I think about things differently or there's some other reason, it seriously hurts my enjoyment of them.
As such I enjoy the BTTF game for its story, and that's about it. I couldn't care less about the puzzles and their difficulty; what matters to me is the quality of the story. And whilst I do have a few minor issues with it, they're quibbling, and mostly due to my own views of the BTTF series as inspired and shaped through the fanfiction of Kristen Shelley and Mary Jean Holmes.
The only reason Rather Dashing, Falanca, and etc's opinions have bothered me at all is the way they're written, in that they insult people who view the game as I do. Fine if you don't like the game, and fine if you view certain aspects of it as objectively bad--indeed I'd even agree with a few of those complaints, such as how the puzzles are very easy for the genre. But please don't insult me for not caring about such issues.
Rather Dashing. You seriously need to be permabanned already.
Why? Just about everything he's saying about BTTF is making perfect sense. Just because he's not pulling his punches, it doesn't mean his conclusions are inaccurate or baseless.
The games don't really match my ficverse ideas of the BTTF Universe, either - but I'm definitely open to other interpretations. If we all had the same ideas about the BTTF Universe, it would be pretty boring. There are some theories that I feel quite strongly about, such as Doc's overall reputation in town and whether or not memories update with the new timeline - but, at the end of the day, I know it'd be wrong to try to forcibly get everyone to see things me way.
The same thing can, of course, apply to people's views on the game play. Some think it's a bit hard, some think it's too easy, and other think it's just right. You just have to accept that not everyone will view things the same way you do. It doesn't make it right to insult other people, though - and that's the issue I have with the naysayers. Fan haters are just as bad as moral guardians.
Hey, I'm well aware that it's minimal. I'd love to see more of the throwaway lines messing with all the non-plot items that you get in the speak-easy at the end of Ep. 4. That was enjoyable, and there's not enough of it. I'm just a little less black-and-white about forgiving the faults.
How can you forgive the faults when the faults are so numerous that they completely obscure any redeeming qualities?
It's like trying to dig a tiny diamond out of a mountain of rhinoceros feces.
Can't you guys just accept the fact that some people happened to like the game and that doesn't make them stupid or anything, it just means that they/we have differing tastes. At the end of the day it's all about your own personal opinion, and opinions cannot be wrong.
And no Dashing, they're not wrong. That's why they're opinions.
Generally, yes.
But games aren't only art. They're also mechanical things, with objective means of measurement. Saying the game is good is like claiming this cosplay is well-constructed. They're very similar, in fact, as the cosplay is there, you can tell what it is trying to be, and it's technically not falling apart for the most part.
The main difference being that, with the Gundam box, the creator knew perfectly well what he was doing, and did it for laughs.
The game is bad. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. The story is also bad, but this is harder to quantify(though I probably could try). Still, one could argue that the characterization(which is pretty good) and the voicework(fairly well pulled off) is worth the complete lack of a natural character or story arc. That it's an artistic decision. The decision to make the game what it is, though, that was a completely cynical, marketing-based decision to sell a product to idiots that never wanted a game in the first place. It was a marketshare decision. It was a decision made solely because whoever made it has a complete lack of respect for this game's customer base. It is not only "not good", it is something that is made so bad as an insult to ANYONE WHO BUYS IT that people have every reason, right, and possibly even DUTY to be angry about it. The whole thing is a slap in the face to all of us, it was made that way because they see you as an idiot.
Of course, "they" is vague. It doesn't refer to everyone at Telltale, nor does it refer to people who are suckered into enjoying an objectively broken product. The blame lies solely on whoever made that decision, whether it was an executive or a marketing guy or the director for the season or each individual episode director. Someone made the deliberate choice to say people were too dumb for anything but click-to-continue gameplay, they did it because they think we're all dumb, and they did it for the cynical, business-based reason that they want to swindle money out of people they consider to be morons.
Can't you guys just accept the fact that some people happened to like the game and that doesn't make them stupid or anything, it just means that they/we have differing tastes. At the end of the day it's all about your own personal opinion, and opinions cannot be wrong.
I'm not saying you're [...] stupid, that's what I'm inferring that TELLTALE is saying, albeit by proxy.
This.
He's saying that the dumbed down gameplay (among other things) is an insult to the intelligence of the target market for this game, and while I wouldn't have personally said it as harshly or at such length, I can't help but agree with his overall assessment.
Oh shut up. Why is it that the Telltale community has you type of people?
Someone has to feed the trolls. If you eat your Wheaties every day, you too could grow up to be a member of the community who actually gives us some respect before asking ours in return. Until then, no, you shut up.
Sorry for calling out on Rather Dashing. And being a jerk all the way. Its just i had a horrible day (Pulled over, Got 2 tickets in the mail.) and i was just mad. I could not forget it. So im SORRY. Very truly sorry. Can we put our differences behind us? For the sake of TTG? You monster? (JK about the monster thing)
But games aren't only art. They're also mechanical things, with objective means of measurement. Saying the game is good is like claiming this cosplay is well-constructed. They're very similar, in fact, as the cosplay is there, you can tell what it is trying to be, and it's technically not falling apart for the most part.
The main difference being that, with the Gundam box, the creator knew perfectly well what he was doing, and did it for laughs.
The game is bad. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. The story is also bad, but this is harder to quantify(though I probably could try). Still, one could argue that the characterization(which is pretty good) and the voicework(fairly well pulled off) is worth the complete lack of a natural character or story arc. That it's an artistic decision. The decision to make the game what it is, though, that was a completely cynical, marketing-based decision to sell a product to idiots that never wanted a game in the first place. It was a marketshare decision. It was a decision made solely because whoever made it has a complete lack of respect for this game's customer base. It is not only "not good", it is something that is made so bad as an insult to ANYONE WHO BUYS IT that people have every reason, right, and possibly even DUTY to be angry about it. The whole thing is a slap in the face to all of us, it was made that way because they see you as an idiot.
Of course, "they" is vague. It doesn't refer to everyone at Telltale, nor does it refer to people who are suckered into enjoying an objectively broken product. The blame lies solely on whoever made that decision, whether it was an executive or a marketing guy or the director for the season or each individual episode director. Someone made the deliberate choice to say people were too dumb for anything but click-to-continue gameplay, they did it because they think we're all dumb, and they did it for the cynical, business-based reason that they want to swindle money out of people they consider to be morons.
Sorry but it is still an opinion. There is no point trying to force your opinions onto others.
I bought it and I wasn't insulted. You say that telltale made it this way because they think we are all idiots? That is an outrageous claim to make. They made it for the casual audience (all age ranges). You may find the puzzles easy but a 5 year old wouldn't. I see it more like an interactive movie. Playing a back to the Future game brought back nostalgia and I play it for the story and to be immersed in the universe. That's one of the things that Telltale done right. They have done justice to the franchise, and it really felt like watching a Back to the Future 4.
Without no evidence, I think it is unfair to make such claims, as you don't work for Telltale so you have no idea what they based their decisions on.
You may find the puzzles easy but a 5 year old wouldn't. I see it more like an interactive movie. Playing a back to the Future game brought back nostalgia and I play it for the story and to be immersed in the universe. That's one of the things that Telltale done right.
A 5 years old from the 80s might. A nowadays 5 years old wouldn't. Clicking is not hard, the game requires no thought AT ALL. With the facebook/Iphone/Tweeter generation, you really have to think they're pretty stupid if they're not able to figure "hey, I have to click stuff to get the plot forward".
As for interactive movie, it's pretty insulting to the genre. Interacting movies LETS you interact. This "game" doesn't. It's just "click" and see stuff in the order it was meant to, you have no control over anything, no freedom AT ALL. Blade Runner the game, Heavy Rain, L.A. Noire, those could be considered "interactive movies" and they offer so much more than BTTF, in any level.
So, "interactive movie", it's more like an actual movie, where there are some pauses... There are minor exceptions in the game, but it's "too little too late".
They have done justice to the franchise
No.
and it really felt like watching a Back to the Future 4.
No you're wrong. See that's how wonderful it is, it's not an opinion here. In the game, everything relies on "happy coincidences". It takes ALL THE CREDIBILITY AWAY. It's not subtle AT ALL. Also, there are way too many convenient "coincidences" and worst, completely out of spirit stuff, like Einstein GPS tracking through time, the few item puzzles we had, the overall feeling of the game and cut scenes contradicting themselves (like Hill valley absolutely deserted in the game while it seemed alive in cutscenes).
There's always "random" things that show up for absolutely no reason just when it needs to, to get the plot forward.
That's sloppy writing. It can be done in a funny or smart way, it was the case in the MOVIES, but in this game it's just horrible to believe anything.
I mean, I'm still trying to get over the "oh yeah BTw I invented a Marty tracker on the time machine so it would pop up randomly where you would be to help me in time, cauz you know, my family that is more used to time travel couldn't do it by themselves, I had to risk EVERYTHING by doing that, ignoring the fact that anybody could have found the car and that you're probably not the right person for the job since you have no idea of the context I'm in".
That was just the first one, then we got another thirty stuffs like that.
So I'm sorry, you can say you like it, you can say you feel it's like the movies, but in NO WAY, is it possible to see that as a part 4.
Or your expectations were so low you're actually insulting the franchise. (Cauz Insulting the adventure and interactive movies genre wasn't enough obviously)
Just added a poll to this thread. I don't want to kick off the argument again (there's certainly been plenty said already on both sides), but I'm curious to see what the actual numbers are like.
Comments
Hell I can get through the halo games in a lot less than that and I think there great.
And, of course, there is no value in length alone. A game that had 14 hours of cutscenes and an hour of play would have little value, as well as a game that included within its world long, empty hallways which took many hours to traverse.
See? Even people who can't form complete sentences or use proper punctuation, spelling, or grammar think the puzzles are too easy! Come on, Telltale!!
It's pretty much how I've ended up seeing Telltale games as a whole these days... and I save their games for the occasional days here and there when I actually feel like just going through something without putting in any effort... just to relax and see what the story brings.
I've completely given up on letting myself getting in any way upset because of the very low difficulty level in Telltale games... I'm not saying people shouldn't complain or anything like that, just that personally I'm through with all of that.
I see it as a total waste of energy, it seems obvious to me trying to somehow convince Telltale into making more difficult games is futile, a hopeless battle.
So better to just take their products for what they are and enjoy them the occasional times I'm in the mood for stuff like that.
I can't be the only one who wanted totally brand new games, right? I remember Telltale, 2 years ago, talking about how they wanted to do new IPs and was just waiting for themselves to be known to do so. Well, they're well known enough to do BttF & JP as well as the ability to hold their own press conference party. The only thing that really resembles a new IP is Puzzle Agent. I have no qualms with that, but now they have nothing new in their pipeline for what looks like the next two years.
That said my opinion is that your opinion is incredibly annoying.
Have you thought for one second about the sheer number of non-adventurer gamers this game was likely to attract to the genre? How it was made easier as a result of that, not to scare people off but to ease them in? To keep the higher audience?
No, probably not. You probably didn't think beyond the fact that it didn't suit your exacting, high performance needs, and so therefore have spent the entire rest of its existence constantly bad-mouthing Telltale on their own forums.
That's his complete right.
Also, here's Fawful's post :
For the audience you're talking about, one episode should have been enough to "ease them in" and prepare them for a rising difficulty curve in subsequent episodes. But...
Have you thought for one second about the sheer number of non-adventurer gamers this game was likely to bore out of their skulls? How it was made so easy and limited in its interactivity that it did scare them off?
It is literally impossible to hold the opinion that these games are good without actually being wrong. As puzzle games, their structure is so inherently broken that I am by no means exaggerating when I say that toddler shape-matching puzzles are far more complex in their set-up. Because the games are inherently stupid, factually so, objectively so, the gameplay is entirely pointless. Stripped bare, the puzzle mechanics are literally less complex than those shape matching puzzles. There are less options available, there is less need for a logical link between the structure of the puzzle and the structure of the pieces you have, the correct option is always large and in your face, the incorrect pieces lock themselves out for your use(as if an adult was taking away the wrong shapes for a given slot until only one was left), and a large variety of other mechanically broken aspects that make it impossible for this game to be considered "good" by any definition. This game is about as bad as bad gets without the the entire structure actually collapsing in on itself, ie the game being a crashing mess that you can't even properly RUN.
So no, at this point, it's not an opinion.
It is a fact. Objective. Quantifiable. Proven.
I have thought of them. Accessibility is actually a rather admirable goal, and a great way to bring new people into the genre. However, there's a very stark difference between "accessibility" and "dumbing a thing down to the point that even a slobbering ape that would hate the genre otherwise can unceremoniously bash their way through".
"Accessibility" only works to the extent that it takes your existing content and allows a new audience to experience that content. If your audience never actually GETS to the core experience, your attempt at accessibility has literally failed. As it is, Back to the Future: The game has not gotten appreciably more difficult over time. The difficulty curve is a slightly messy but overall flat line that does its best to remain under "Tutorial" levels of difficulty. You can actually literally compare the complexity of the puzzles and environments in the Sam and Max: Season Two tutorial and have the latter come out favorably compared to the entirety of the Back to the Future series.
Anyone who might love the genre would not like the new Back to the Future game. It lacks everything that makes the genre even remotely enjoyable. It is an insult to my intelligence, to your intelligence, and to everyone else's intelligence. I was a five year-old boy when I first picked up Secret of Monkey Island. Many were about the same age when they played the more age-appropriate PuttPutt series starring a cartoon car that went on adventures, which themselves are far more complex than anything in Back to the Future. And I don't mean that in a vague sense, either. You can count the number of interactive elements in any given scene, count the number of inventory items, and come up with an average "complexity number" that is consistently higher than Back to the Future's without even considering things like context(does it make sense to use the demerits on the squawk box or the newspaper on Jennifer?). You can count how many non-solution combinations have unique dialogs, and the children's game comes out on top. This is because Back to the Future is not an accessible game that opens up the genre to a new audience that will love and appreciate it. It is a dumb, poorly crafted, broken excuse for a game that has absolutely no value as a game no matter how you try to slice it or who you try to give it to. Back to the Future is a glaringly strong candidate for worst adventure game ever made, and follows in the franchise's video game footsteps in regards to making horrible, broken games. The only difference now is that the horrendousness of the design makes the game EASY rather than HARD FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS.
By the way, to translate that, "To keep the higher audience" essentially boils down to "We made it stupid, for stupid people, because we wanted more money at the expense of the game. Because, hey, our audience is pretty fucking stupid."
So, in your opinion, everyone that enjoys Back to the Future The Game is "pretty fucking stupid"? THAT is fucking stupid. Frankly, I've enjoyed this game's story and I appreciate that the graphic style doesn't make my computer explode.
I said that, to say that the game is the way it is in order to draw in a larger audience, is to say that Telltale thinks very poorly of the people it is making the games for. Notice that the portion is in quotations and refers to something that was said in the post I quoted, meaning that it referred to the hypothetical Telltale that exists when you simply say that they made the game the way it was to bring in more people.
Essentially, the design of the games is an insult to anyone that plays it. I'm not saying you're pretty fucking stupid, that's what I'm inferring that TELLTALE is saying, albeit by proxy.
I noticed you didn't say that you enjoyed the gameplay. That is our primary criticism of the game. The complete and utter lack of any challenge. If it were called "Back to the Future: The Interactive Movie", no one would care.
(But I also think the animation is terrible and the texture quality is wildly inconsistent and makes it look sloppy and unprofessional. Btw, this is not judging the game to Crysis, or anything ridiculous like that, this is judging the game compared to Telltale's own previous games. It looks like a rushed hackjob.)
See, here's the deal. I'm a HUGE BTTF nut. I'm not playing this game to break my brain to figure out some puzzle. I'm playing this game because of the characters and the story. Both are consistent with what I love and what I wanted from this game. I have no problems with the gameplay. Nor have I noticed any of the bugs a lot of people have reported with this game. Only one time has Marty been called something other than the name I initially chose for him. As for the animations, I wouldn't call them terrible. I'd call them decent. Same with the textures. Nothing ground-breaking, but this game isn't meant to be ground-breaking. It's meant to cater to fan-service, and there's plenty of that, what with a story made with help by Bob Gale, and Christopher Lloyd returning as Doc Brown...hopefully not for the last time.
Oh I intend to ignore him from now on. I said my piece and that's really all there is to it--I can't be bothered to care more than that.
...what?
See, I don't agree with some of his comments, especially regarding BTTF:TG, but I don't think he should be permabanned. That's a little harsh. We're all allowed opinions.
And no Dashing, they're not wrong. That's why they're opinions.
It's okay if people don't like the game, but they should not be insulting the intelligence of those who do happen to like it. I understand why some of the more hardcore gamers might be disappointed in the game - but I'm quite certain that there are plenty of casual gamers (and even non-gamers) who are here strictly for the story. Maybe a little more understanding for both sides would help.
As such I enjoy the BTTF game for its story, and that's about it. I couldn't care less about the puzzles and their difficulty; what matters to me is the quality of the story. And whilst I do have a few minor issues with it, they're quibbling, and mostly due to my own views of the BTTF series as inspired and shaped through the fanfiction of Kristen Shelley and Mary Jean Holmes.
The only reason Rather Dashing, Falanca, and etc's opinions have bothered me at all is the way they're written, in that they insult people who view the game as I do. Fine if you don't like the game, and fine if you view certain aspects of it as objectively bad--indeed I'd even agree with a few of those complaints, such as how the puzzles are very easy for the genre. But please don't insult me for not caring about such issues.
Why? Just about everything he's saying about BTTF is making perfect sense. Just because he's not pulling his punches, it doesn't mean his conclusions are inaccurate or baseless.
The same thing can, of course, apply to people's views on the game play. Some think it's a bit hard, some think it's too easy, and other think it's just right. You just have to accept that not everyone will view things the same way you do. It doesn't make it right to insult other people, though - and that's the issue I have with the naysayers. Fan haters are just as bad as moral guardians.
How can you forgive the faults when the faults are so numerous that they completely obscure any redeeming qualities?
It's like trying to dig a tiny diamond out of a mountain of rhinoceros feces.
But games aren't only art. They're also mechanical things, with objective means of measurement. Saying the game is good is like claiming this cosplay is well-constructed. They're very similar, in fact, as the cosplay is there, you can tell what it is trying to be, and it's technically not falling apart for the most part.
The main difference being that, with the Gundam box, the creator knew perfectly well what he was doing, and did it for laughs.
The game is bad. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. The story is also bad, but this is harder to quantify(though I probably could try). Still, one could argue that the characterization(which is pretty good) and the voicework(fairly well pulled off) is worth the complete lack of a natural character or story arc. That it's an artistic decision. The decision to make the game what it is, though, that was a completely cynical, marketing-based decision to sell a product to idiots that never wanted a game in the first place. It was a marketshare decision. It was a decision made solely because whoever made it has a complete lack of respect for this game's customer base. It is not only "not good", it is something that is made so bad as an insult to ANYONE WHO BUYS IT that people have every reason, right, and possibly even DUTY to be angry about it. The whole thing is a slap in the face to all of us, it was made that way because they see you as an idiot.
Of course, "they" is vague. It doesn't refer to everyone at Telltale, nor does it refer to people who are suckered into enjoying an objectively broken product. The blame lies solely on whoever made that decision, whether it was an executive or a marketing guy or the director for the season or each individual episode director. Someone made the deliberate choice to say people were too dumb for anything but click-to-continue gameplay, they did it because they think we're all dumb, and they did it for the cynical, business-based reason that they want to swindle money out of people they consider to be morons.
umm...
This.
He's saying that the dumbed down gameplay (among other things) is an insult to the intelligence of the target market for this game, and while I wouldn't have personally said it as harshly or at such length, I can't help but agree with his overall assessment.
Someone has to feed the trolls. If you eat your Wheaties every day, you too could grow up to be a member of the community who actually gives us some respect before asking ours in return. Until then, no, you shut up.
Hey, there's no need for this! He may throw your baby in a lake, but there's good reasoning behind that!
Sorry for calling out on Rather Dashing. And being a jerk all the way. Its just i had a horrible day (Pulled over, Got 2 tickets in the mail.) and i was just mad. I could not forget it. So im SORRY. Very truly sorry. Can we put our differences behind us? For the sake of TTG? You monster? (JK about the monster thing)
Sorry but it is still an opinion. There is no point trying to force your opinions onto others.
I bought it and I wasn't insulted. You say that telltale made it this way because they think we are all idiots? That is an outrageous claim to make. They made it for the casual audience (all age ranges). You may find the puzzles easy but a 5 year old wouldn't. I see it more like an interactive movie. Playing a back to the Future game brought back nostalgia and I play it for the story and to be immersed in the universe. That's one of the things that Telltale done right. They have done justice to the franchise, and it really felt like watching a Back to the Future 4.
Without no evidence, I think it is unfair to make such claims, as you don't work for Telltale so you have no idea what they based their decisions on.
As for interactive movie, it's pretty insulting to the genre. Interacting movies LETS you interact. This "game" doesn't. It's just "click" and see stuff in the order it was meant to, you have no control over anything, no freedom AT ALL. Blade Runner the game, Heavy Rain, L.A. Noire, those could be considered "interactive movies" and they offer so much more than BTTF, in any level.
So, "interactive movie", it's more like an actual movie, where there are some pauses... There are minor exceptions in the game, but it's "too little too late".
No.
No you're wrong. See that's how wonderful it is, it's not an opinion here. In the game, everything relies on "happy coincidences". It takes ALL THE CREDIBILITY AWAY. It's not subtle AT ALL. Also, there are way too many convenient "coincidences" and worst, completely out of spirit stuff, like Einstein GPS tracking through time, the few item puzzles we had, the overall feeling of the game and cut scenes contradicting themselves (like Hill valley absolutely deserted in the game while it seemed alive in cutscenes).
There's always "random" things that show up for absolutely no reason just when it needs to, to get the plot forward.
That's sloppy writing. It can be done in a funny or smart way, it was the case in the MOVIES, but in this game it's just horrible to believe anything.
I mean, I'm still trying to get over the "oh yeah BTw I invented a Marty tracker on the time machine so it would pop up randomly where you would be to help me in time, cauz you know, my family that is more used to time travel couldn't do it by themselves, I had to risk EVERYTHING by doing that, ignoring the fact that anybody could have found the car and that you're probably not the right person for the job since you have no idea of the context I'm in".
That was just the first one, then we got another thirty stuffs like that.
So I'm sorry, you can say you like it, you can say you feel it's like the movies, but in NO WAY, is it possible to see that as a part 4.
Or your expectations were so low you're actually insulting the franchise. (Cauz Insulting the adventure and interactive movies genre wasn't enough obviously)