Episode 1 and 2 were absolutely NOT good episodes.
Even the story failed.
You can't seriously compare this kind of quality to let's say, Tales of Monkey Island.
Episode 3 was still completely broken, but at least the writing was great, and (that's the key) it featured characters we actually knew and cared about, and gave them important roles.
It also set up a new "universe" which was funny (even if the lack of budget was felt) and interesting enough.
The writing was much better too.
So it's a good "episode" for Back to the Future, since this episode managed to be fun even with no puzzles, but as a game it still fails. compared to other (games, adventure games) Telltale's other games.
Thanks for the feedback everyone. It is interesting: although Back To The Future: The Game is light on puzzles, I still think it can be justified as a game.
I have a casual-gamer friend who loves the films and has played the games based on my recommendation. He has never really played an adventure game and the difficulty is perfect for him.
Telltale are obviously going for a slightly more non-gamer market here (I mean, look at the hints system). Is it as good gameplay-wise as Tales of Monkey Island? No, it isn't. But is it still a good game? Yes! Citizen Brown is, in my opinion, one of the best episodes they have ever made.
I wouldn't call any episode so far a failure and the writing for all the episodes has been pretty sharp in my opinion. As a reviewer, I certainly marked down last month's episode for its short length/easy difficulty. But this month, I had too much fun to really notice any of that. It was nice to just experience the game as a fan and switch my reviewer head off for a moment.
What people forget is, this storyline couldn't be done live-action. We couldn't have Claudia Wells playing a punk-rock 1986 Jennifer, or Michael J Fox having a guitar battle in an alleyway. More puzzles would sweeten the deal, but at the moment I am just enjoying the overall experience too much to really care.
Let me rephrase it, it's not an adventure game but an interactive movie which has choppy animations. It's not a "cartoon-game"; cartoon-games are awesome.
Many (great) adventure games had action sequences in it.
Sure they did. But again, what would be the point in driving around the Delorean? What bearing would it have on the story at all? Would it really even be that fulfilling? Personally, I think it's just moreso that people loved the movies largely for the car and therefore have this sensationalist need to drive it around just because it's the Delorean from the movie. And would traveling through time with it really be that exciting?
On second thought, anything might be better than the current design of the game. Driving the Delorean may at least be fun over forcing ourselves through the mindless click-to-cutscene fests they call puzzles.
What people forget is, this storyline couldn't be done live-action. We couldn't have Claudia Wells playing a punk-rock 1986 Jennifer, or Michael J Fox having a guitar battle in an alleyway. More puzzles would sweeten the deal, but at the moment I am just enjoying the overall experience too much to really care.
Well, of course we could.
They managed to have Jeff Bridges playing a 35 years old Kevin Flynn, so obviously they could.
Now Mj Fox can't really act the way he used to so that's another problem... maybe by mimicking actual footage from his performances in the past... I don't know.
Also, the episodes would absolutely not be possible in live action, since too many things remind us it's a game (like the huge items disappearing into pockets, and stuff)...
As for the difficulty, I think you should remember that there is a hint system. So no one CAN get stucked in this game. Don't you think they could have made it a little harder then ?
I also think the lack of areas to explore is, for an adventure game, a pretty nasty thing.
Especially with Back to Future, we could have seen the same areas but changed a lot through times, just like in the movies...
Also, I would love to hear what you think about the 1931 timeline, that is the core to the game's story.
Those are my main concern :
By doing that, they stripped Back to the Future from what made it so interesting. The first point of the movie always was to see how people Marty (and thus, the viewers) knew in different ways, weither it was how they were supposed to be or how they used to be.
This only works with Doc, now, and sure, it's great... But It's not enough... It's like they made Doc the central part of BTTF, while he actually wasn't.
Why are so many people pleased with the last episode ? Because we finally got to interact with characters from the movies (and not just the weak intro of episode 1, of the already boring Biff encounters).
We know how they're supposed to be, so it's great to see them differently.
But seeing people we absolutely don't care about (Edna, Kid tannen, even Arthur ...), jute because they wanted a young Doc in the story, I don't think it was worth it ...
Having Marty roaming with a moustache is just... Seriously, one episode would really be enough, but we're gonna eat the 1931 era for the whole game (episode 3 was just a pleasant break) ... So it's kinda sad in my opinion, with the potential of time travel, to set the plot in one (not very creative) main era ...
Even without the hint system there is no way to get stuck. I'm kind of hoping this is not the direction they will be taking with future games. There is almost no gameplay/challenge in these episodes. Not an adventure game imo, more like an interactive movie game The story is great though.
Sure they did. But again, what would be the point in driving around the Delorean? What bearing would it have on the story at all? Would it really even be that fulfilling? Personally, I think it's just moreso that people loved the movies largely for the car and therefore have this sensationalist need to drive it around just because it's the Delorean from the movie. And would traveling through time with it really be that exciting?
On second thought, anything might be better than the current design of the game. Driving the Delorean may at least be fun over forcing ourselves through the mindless click-to-cutscene fests they call puzzles.
Do you think that with the actual design and puzzles of the game, an action/adventure game wasn't possible ?
The only thing that makes it impossible, is the budget. They're just not able to create different areas, let alone large areas.
If they had the budget (and time, but it's linked), we could totally use a overboard to roam the streets, we could enter all those fancy doors we see, and have a few action sequences with the car.
There are games that try to avoid "genre", that just does whatever they want to do for the sake of the story/ entertainment.
Sure, I don't expect BTTF to be like "the Nomad Soul" (RPG, Fighting, FPS, Adventure, etc...), but do you really think a game based off the movies couldn't include at least one car chase, a usable overboard, areas to explore ? (Even in the actual movies the small town feels much larger...) I'm absolutely not talking about a GTA-like game as for the "exploring"... Just a regular adventure game... Free 3D roaming would be nice since it's in 3D. I mean, even in Orion Burger I think it was larger. When the town was small, you could enter things. In BTTF it's like you just can't. It's small and that's it. u_u
A good model would be Shadow of Memories.
1) Free roaming in a decent city (not a GTA like)
2) Evolution through time of the characters and city
3) Choices in the story to get different endings and scenes
4) Some action sequences
It's actually very short, but it came out when the ps2 just got out, and the fact that you had many endings was huge on the replay value (which is equivalent to 0 in the BTTF game).
Though I agree with you, including anything remotely close to a car chase or action sequence in the BTTF game we got, would be terrible.
Play Vice City with Hill Valley mod.
It's more enjoyable than this game but the fun factor lasts for like an hour or so.
Such areas without anything to do in those is pointless, in my opinion .
So the trade-off for it simply not being a game(or rather, a game in which player action doesn't count for shit) is that it's paced like a movie, and that deserves a damn near perfect score?
So the trade-off for it simply not being a game(or rather, a game in which player action doesn't count for shit) is that it's paced like a movie, and that deserves a damn near perfect score?
Just clarifying.
I never said it wasn't a game. In fact, I argued that it was a game just a few posts above. It gets a 'damn near perfect score' because as far as episodic gaming goes, this is one of Telltale's finest efforts in my opinion. I even say in my review: "The difficultly may be relatively low, keeping a perfect score just out of reach, but I would be lying if I said I hadn’t loved the entire experience of Episode 3: Citizen Brown." The low difficulty has almost stopped bothering me because of the overwhelming quality in every other department. I really enjoyed playing Citizen Brown - despite it being a relative breeze - and I couldn't slap it with a low score against my gut reaction.
Also, I never said it was "paced like a movie". I actually said "the pacing has never been better" which is an entirely different sentiment altogether.
I don't know if it was your intention or not, but your post came across as slightly agressive to me. My review is only an opinion and I do feel I have backed that opinion up. I hope that clarifies things somewhat for you. On a seperate note, I love your avatar... I will never, ever play hide and seek with a robot after seeing that short film!
I never said it wasn't a game. In fact, I argued that it was a game just a few posts above.
Right, hence the "or rather". Instead of it "not being a game", it's a game in which only the right answer produces a unique response and oftentimes the right answer is the only one presented, or one of 10 or less potential things you could do(or less than 5 things a player might do automatically). So sure, call it what you want semantically, but the player doesn't get to do shit. I've quantified this, there are a total of less than ten unique responses for incorrect combinations in the entire episode, there are at most four hotspots on any given screen with talk-back lines, and in many other ways one can actually PROVE that interactivity is at an all-time low. So fine, it's a game, I'll grant you the semantic win if that will avoid the semantic argument, but it's an extremely limited game in which the player isn't trusted.
It gets a 'damn near perfect score' because as far as episodic gaming goes, this is one of Telltale's finest efforts in my opinion. I even say in my review: "The difficultly may be relatively low, keeping a perfect score just out of reach, but I would be lying if I said I hadn’t loved the entire experience of Episode 3: Citizen Brown." The low difficulty has almost stopped bothering me because of the overwhelming quality in every other department. I really enjoyed playing Citizen Brown - despite it being a relative breeze - and I couldn't slap it with a low score against my gut reaction.
But you're a reviewer, and you're giving the implication of at least attempted objectivity. I can't see how this score can be justified in any logical way. I don't see what's so good about it. Hell, I played through the damn thing 5-10 times when writing my own analysis of the title, and all that did was cause the thing to crumble even more beneath the weight of actually thinking about the game's make-up and working pieces.
Also, I never said it was "paced like a movie". I actually said "the pacing has never been better" which is an entirely different sentiment. Please don't put words into my mouth!
Then how was it paced? How was pacing improved? If it's not due to the more film-like quality from far easier "click the only thing on screen" puzzles, then what improved pace? Is pace simply improved by being "faster" because the player doesn't have to spent even a minute of their time thinking, or is there something else to the idea that pace is improved?
I don't know if it was your intention or not, but your post came across as slightly agressive to me. My review is only an opinion and I do feel I have backed that opinion up. I hope that clarifies things somewhat.
It may come off that way, though I hope you see any aggression as being left-over aggression toward the game itself, and not toward you in particular. I simply cannot see or understand the positive qualities people are capable of seeing in this title, and I certainly don't understand how something that lacks even the pretense of interactivity can be considered almost perfect. After all, when a game hands over control to the player, they are making an agreement with the player, "Your Actions Matter". When your actions are LITERALLY often reduced to a single possible action, and even more often are by all practical definitions reduced to a single action, I can't see how that can be called "play", and I have been trying to understand what it is that people like or think they like about this series as a game. I can understand why Back to the Future is a bad game. I've spent the past few days doing a write-up of just that. Far more complex to me, and far more difficult to place my finger on, is what are the aspects that people enjoy about Back to the Future: The Game, especially when they aren't talking directly about story or characterization. And so, I turn to the most well-written adamant supporters, to ask why. It's not aggression on my part, it's respect and a desire to understand the working parts that can compel a person who is capable of typing full, grammatically-correct sentences that are then strung into paragraphs to actually find this title compelling.
I really hope that telltale do more Back to the Future games after this series.
They have done a fantastic job recreating the feel of the movies. Yes it has been a bit easy, especially episode 3 but it didnt bother me because I was enjoying the game too much. Telltale know how to tell a good story.
Rashing...Back to the Future is as much a "game" as Heavy Rain is. You are able to control your actions. It may seem like more like an interactive movie but it doesn't make it any less of a "game". Surely you know by now what to expect from Telltale.
I liked the episode. I love how the story is unfolding. And I don't care one jot that it's easier than other Telltale games as I feel it fits better with the tone of the story. In the films you don't see Marty taking everything that is not nailed down and so in the game that should also be true. If he's got a problem he uses whatever is at hand. And he does a lot of talking to people. I mean, take most of the plot of Part 1 and you see that Marty spends most of his time talking to George, trying to convince him to do what he was supposed to do.
All in all I have to say that I wanted a game that felt like the films and that is exactly what I feel I'm getting. More please.
I really hope that telltale do more Back to the Future games after this series.
They have done a fantastic job recreating the feel of the movies. Yes it has been a bit easy, especially episode 3 but it didnt bother me because I was enjoying the game too much. Telltale know how to tell a good story.
Rashing...Back to the Future is as much a "game" as Heavy Rain is. You are able to control your actions. It may seem like more like an interactive movie but it doesn't make it any less of a "game". Surely you know by now what to expect from Telltale.
Actually, there's MUCH more interactivity in Heavy Rain than in Telltale's BttF. And most importantly, the interactions you make in Heavy Rain have REAL TANGIBLE CONSEQUENCES and affect how the story plays out. In BttF, I could pull a Homer Simpson and place one of those Drinking Bird novelties on my mouse button, and it could practically play and beat the game for me. There is no comparison here.
If Telltale are so great at telling stories and capturing the feel of movies, then they should just make movies. I would at least feel like I was getting my money's worth.
In response to Rather_Dashing: I think I just don't like the use of the word 'shit' in every post. Call me a prude haha. :-P
I am a reviewer as you pointed out, but I do wish you wouldn't use words like "near perfect score" (although I can see your logic).
Let me explain. I say on my ratings page: "Please note that review scores are only used by AMO to give a basic guideline as to the quality of a reviewed product at first glance. The written words that make up a review are always what matter most."
Still, 9.5 does mean that it falls into the 'excellent' bracket (something I truly do believe, whereas perhaps you would perhaps choose a 4 for 'poor'). Now, I can understand why you might hate the game. In some ways, it is the reason that many people hate adventure games full stop. After all, all an adventure game really amounts to anyway is running through predetermined actions. Sure, there are distractions to stop you doing so right away, but that is basically what a traditional adventure game boils down to. Hence why many gamers hate the genre as a whole.
Now, I am aware as a reviewer that BTTF: The Game takes this criticism to a whole new level. I can see that the game is not only easy, but lowers interactivity as a result. I agree with you on this: the puzzles are too easy if you play adventure games solely for a challenge. If a player doesn't like Episode 1, they aren't going to suddenly love Episode 3. I even said at the end of my review for Episode 2 that: "Back To The Future: The Game could be in danger of becoming an interactive movie."
However, I can now accept the game for what it is: an easy adventure game based on a popular film franchise. There is a reason that this game is the way it is... I can't say I wouldn't prefer something more difficult, but I can now accept the way things are. I even get stuck occasionally and need to use a hint whilst playing. Tales Of Monkey Island is a game aimed mostly at lifelong, experienced adventurers... Back To The Future: The Game obviously isn't.
As for the pacing, I meant faster in the sense that characters would appear on the scene automatically after certain actions (I can see how the sentence could be misread). The one thing I liked about this episode is that I always knew exactly what I needed to do, where I needed to be and who I needed to talk to. Does that add a more cinematic speed to things? Absolutely, but I still feel there is a game there underneath it all. On that we shall have to agree to disagree.
Basically, I rated this episode based on the experience I had with it and what I expected from it. If I reviewed it alongside Gray Matter for example (which I am currently writing a review of right now) how would it compare? Poorly of course, because Gray Matter is in many ways a 'hardcore' adventure game and therefore trumps BTTF in the gameplay department. BTTF is a casual game that will be played by many non-gamers who want to revist the film universe. If I rate Gray Matter as a 9 then, does that mean this episode is better than the whole of Gray Matter? Of course not, which is why rating systems should only ever be used as a guide. Always read the words!
Therefore, my score doesn't suddenly shoot Citizen Brown into the upper echelons of gaming excellence. I am merely rating it as a part of the overall season. The difficulty, although somewhat dissapointing, was made up for this month (to me personally at least) with a really great story, graphics, voice acting etc. There was still gameplay involved - it just wasn't that hard to get through. I am reviewing it for what it is, rather than what I want it be. It will never be a hardcore adventure game unless the puzzles suddenly ramp up next month or the month after. From reading my reviews so far, people can understand that I have noted the easy difficulty, but that it also hasn't stopped me from having a great time.
There is obviously an audience for this sort of experience: Fabula vir completely agreed with my review and I have certainly noticed in the forums that for every person who hates this series, somebody else loves it. You must understand: I would consider myself a serious advenure gamer and can duly note your criticisms with this game. However, the low difficulty really isn't bothering me that much at all: I would still consider it a game, but even if you want to label it an 'interactive movie', I still enjoy it immensly and would recommend it to any Back To The Future fan regardless.
I hope you can see where I am coming from: I am not shooting down your arguement at all. Rather, I am arguing that this is actually an objective thing: if you hate easy games, you will hate these episodes. If you don't mind easy games if they excel in other areas... then these are some of the best available! Phew, I hope all of that makes sense anyway. I am doubting many people will read it!
In response to Rather_Dashing: I think I just don't like the use of the word 'shit' in every post. Call me a prude haha. :-P
Every post?
Huh.
Hadn't noticed. To me it's just a piece of my vocabulary, like any other word, and I don't gleam any inherent offensiveness from it.
For your benefit, I'll consciously avoid its usage here.
I am a reviewer as you pointed out, but I do wish you wouldn't use words like "near perfect score" (although I can see your logic).
Why not? 95 leaves 94 points of potential bad, 5 points of potential improvement. Gameplay being a "0" or "1" in this title, one can only assume that gameplay, and interactivity as a whole, only has a 4-6 point importance. Considering that the main thing that separates video games from videos is the interactive element, I simply can't see how this can be the case.
Let me explain. I say on my ratings page: "Please note that review scores are only used by AMO to give a basic guideline as to the quality of a reviewed product at first glance. The written words that make up a review are always what matter most."
Still, 9.5 does mean that it falls into the 'excellent' bracket (something I truly do believe, whereas perhaps you would perhaps choose a 4 for 'poor').
You can't put a number up and say it has no significance. You chose to use a numerical system. Not only that, but a very detailed numerical system, one which includes 100 points for fine-tuned assessment. Hell if I know the difference between an 86 and an 85, but that choice in terms of the system seems to imply to me that such a perceptible difference does exist in the eyes of those who implemented it.
All the same, the number has value, whether you renege on it afterwards or not.
Now, I can understand why you might hate the game. In some ways, it is the reason that many people hate adventure games full stop. After all, all an adventure game really amounts to anyway is running through predetermined actions. Sure, there are distractions to stop you doing so right away, but that is basically what a traditional adventure game boils down to. Hence why many gamers hate the genre as a whole.
That's ridiculous.
Almost every game is binary, in this way. There is a success state, a failure state, and a few states in-between. Mario's actions are binary, he's either alive or dead, and it's predetermined that you will jump over that pit, or Mario will not proceed. You must kill those 60 boars, or your WoW quest journal won't update. Games are very yes-or-no. Has he killed those boars yet? Has he jumped over that pit, or did he fall? Is he greater than 0 hit points? Y/N, etc. Computers are very binary beings, after all. The trick is in using human design to hide this as much as possible. Maybe throw up multiple binary possibilities at once, such as "has he fallen into the pit OR has he been hit by a projectile OR has he touched the bad guy without jumping on its head".
In adventures, the disguise is through world-logic and exploration. You only proceed by doing on predetermined action(or in some cases, one of a small set, as in Maniac Mansion), but it's everything else around it that grants the action value. If nothing else is around it then...that's all it is, a set of predetermined commands to the player. No dialog with the designer or the world, just....pull this, push that, and now you're on your way.
Now, I am aware as a reviewer that BTTF: The Game takes this criticism to a whole new level. I can see that the game is not only easy, but lowers interactivity as a result. I agree with you on this: the puzzles are too easy if you play adventure games solely for a challenge. If a player doesn't like Episode 1, they aren't going to suddenly love Episode 3. I even said at the end of my review for Episode 2 that: "Back To The Future: The Game could be in danger of becoming an interactive movie."
To say "in danger of" is well too kind. I believe in my own thread about the episode, I documented as many incorrect possible actions as I could find. There were....almost none. This is still more than those offered by, say, Dragon's Lair, but I'd say that Dragon's Lair also provided a good deal more challenge, albeit a somewhat empty one.
However, I can now accept the game for what it is: an easy adventure game based on a popular film franchise. There is a reason that this game is the way it is... I can't say I wouldn't prefer something more difficult, but I can now accept the way things are. I even get stuck occasionally and need to use a hint whilst playing. Tales Of Monkey Island is a game aimed mostly at lifelong, experienced adventurers... Back To The Future: The Game obviously isn't.
I played Secret of Monkey Island when I was four years old.
I've given the game, within the past three years, to a 10 year-old child.
Both figured out the entire thing, quite well. The only thing that stumps small children in that game is the red herring gag, as they're not likely to understand that turn of phrase.
I say this because, children are not experienced. In anything. And yet, what many consider to be the cornerstone of the genre is something that they can do. More than that, the way Back to the Future handles accessibility is the easiest, laziest means by which a person can do so.
A person is capable of learning. You can start them off at a certain level, or even take pains to explain systems through some early tutorial elements. But if the game takes no pains to TEACH these new people, then they'll never improve. Who is this for? People who don't want to play games? Because people who aren't experienced are still being actively insulted here, "Here's something you can handle, and that's all you'll ever be able to handle". I get the image, in my head, of a 20 year-old man being given one of those blocks through which toddlers are expected to figure out what block fits in what hole, because everyone around him sees the guy as incapable of anything better.
As for the pacing, I meant faster in the sense that characters would appear on the scene automatically after certain actions (I can see how the sentence could be misread).
I don't see how it can be read correctly, if that's what you're referring to. If you mean that, after a completely unrelated conversation, things would unfold in a way that lets you do one thing at a time because pressing an intercom button also causes Biff to go t the town square, then I'd say I can't see how that's a good thing. I can't see how else you want it read, and that certainly requires explanation on your part.
The one thing I liked about this episode is that I always knew exactly what I needed to do, where I needed to be and who I needed to talk to. Does that add a more cinematic speed to things? Absolutely, but I still feel there is a game there underneath it all.
Where? I dug pretty deep. I counted all possible outcomes for every sequence. I looked at hints, I looked at every line of dialog, I looked at camera angles, I looked at everything. And all I could find, for the entire run, was a picture that would change if I pushed the most prominent thing.
It will never be a hardcore adventure game... and it will therefore never score a 10
All of this sounds like lowering expectations causes raised scores, which I simply don't see as something tolerable.
It's not fair to Grey Matter, nor is it fair to the classics, to hold something that is TRYING to be great to a different set of standards than something that has chosen to be terrible as a conscious action. That something DECIDED to lower its own standards for excellence doesn't mean the entire world around it should then lower theirs as well, and make it relative brilliance by comparison.
There is obviously an audience for this sort of experience: Fabula vir completely agreed with my review and I have certainly noticed in the forums that for every person who hates this series, somebody else loves it. You must understand: I would consider myself a serious advenure gamer and can duly note your criticisms with this game. However, the low difficulty really isn't bothering me that much at all: I would still consider it a game, but even if you want to label it an 'interactive movie', I still enjoy it immensly and would recommend it to any Back To The Future fan regardless.
WHY do you consider it a game?
It's literally, quantifiably not. A person can literally, numerically, and logically show that this title has a range of options per screen that is equal to or on par with those available in interactive movie titles. One can make the argument that, in many cases, the interactivity is less than that in interactive movie titles, as those often have a timed failure state tied to one of(for example) four possible directional inputs, rather than simply waiting for the player to click the only gigantic hotspot.
I hope you can see where I am coming from: I am not shooting down your arguement at all. Rather, I am arguing that this is actually an objective thing: if you hate easy games, you will hate these episodes. If you don't mind easy games if they excel in other areas... then these are some of the best available! Phew, I hope all of that makes sense anyway. I am doubting many people will read it!
I don't think it makes any sense, I don't think that it succeeds in this way at all.
Even as an interactive story, I can't see how this succeeds. You can't DO anything. If the answer is obvious, why not let the player mess around, talk to people, look at things? Ease is one thing, but this title has less than five possible things to click on every screen. I know, I counted. Other areas of interactivity that have nothing to do with ease are broken. Why are the icons so huge, blocking my view of the world? Why is the inventory its own screen, with tons of dead space? Why can't it show me all my items at once? You get very little time to spend with Christopher Lloyd's Doc Brown before he scurries off. There's an entire crowd of people that only exists in cutscenes, but leaves the entire world barren and empty once the player gets a chance to walk around. If you TRY to use objects with unimportant things just for fun, you get chided with a generic "Can't use this with that" response. If you try solving puzzles by using the inventory items, for example by using the guitar on Jennifer, you are given a "failure state" response. "Oh, but you don't have an amp? Figures."(makes me wonder if an amp-obtaining puzzle existed in an early draft, actually, and this dialog was simply never removed...would explain the weird electric cart charging device). If you want to explore, you're met with lots of invisible walls that restrict you from going to places. Animations are often awkward, choppy, or limited. Marty is not allowed to run if he's in a small space, like the alley. There are many bugs, especially in the alleyway where either Jennifer or the can of paint might disappear from view. In the guitar battle, Leech can jump on the board as his challenge move, which won't defeat him. These have nothing to do with being "easy", but they're all major detriments that keep it from being great as well.
As for excellence in story, I don't see that either, especially in this episode. The vast majority is simply ripped from "A Clockwork Orange", and they don't even attempt to hide this fact. The Ludivico shot at the end, the overt mention of Big Brother(TWICE), Biff Tannen being an exact copy of Alex DeLarge, the whole damn thing.
I will grant you that the music was excellent, but that's all Jared-Emmerson Johnson, who has produced excellent work for ALL of Telltale's games, including far, far better ones.
Even as an interactive story, I can't see how this succeeds. You can't DO anything. If the answer is obvious, why not let the player mess around, talk to people, look at things? Ease is one thing, but this title has less than five possible things to click on every screen. I know, I counted. Other areas of interactivity that have nothing to do with ease are broken. Why are the icons so huge, blocking my view of the world? Why is the inventory its own screen, with tons of dead space? Why can't it show me all my items at once? You get very little time to spend with Christopher Lloyd's Doc Brown before he scurries off. There's an entire crowd of people that only exists in cutscenes, but leaves the entire world barren and empty once the player gets a chance to walk around. If you TRY to use objects with unimportant things just for fun, you get chided with a generic "Can't use this with that" response. If you try solving puzzles by using the inventory items, for example by using the guitar on Jennifer, you are given a "failure state" response. "Oh, but you don't have an amp? Figures."(makes me wonder if an amp-obtaining puzzle existed in an early draft, actually, and this dialog was simply never removed...would explain the weird electric cart charging device). If you want to explore, you're met with lots of invisible walls that restrict you from going to places. Animations are often awkward, choppy, or limited. Marty is not allowed to run if he's in a small space, like the alley. There are many bugs, especially in the alleyway where either Jennifer or the can of paint might disappear from view. In the guitar battle, Leech can jump on the board as his challenge move, which won't defeat him. These have nothing to do with being "easy", but they're all major detriments that keep it from being great as well.
Rather than us continue writing huge replies, let's just agree to disagree. I wasn't saying scores don't matter, I was trying to explain that everything is relative. If a romantic comedy is within the best of its genre, it should technically get a 'perfect' 10... but most reviewers won't see it that way. Then, if it does get a 10, does that make it perfect? A perfect film? On par with something in a completely different genre, such as Goodfellas? There are plenty of things I love that others hate and vice versa. I am not dismissing my own rating system on AMO. I am trying to explain how, no matter how detailed they are, rating systems are not infallible and it is always the words of the review that should ultimately count. You can make the best BTTF game in the world, but if somebody hated the films, they will probably feel the same about the games! Would that make a good game bad?
I haven't lowered my expectations and in the process boosted my score either. I actually thought Citizen Brown was an excellent episode, that came just shy of being a perfect episodic Telltale game due to its easy puzzles when compared to their past output. I do think there is a huge difference between reviewing a casual episodic adventure game based on a film licence and a full length traditional adventure game. My expectations are not lower necessarily, just different. I actually edited out the "never score a 10" comment because I disagreed with it as soon as I had written it (it was meant to come off as sarcasm and totally failed). These games CAN score a 10 if they manage to slightly increase the difficulty and maintain the high quality in other areas. Tales Of Monkey Island also had amazing voicework etc but the experience was elevated by the greater overall challenge. I can admit that.
It all boils down to personal opinion; I thought the story and overall experiance were excellent regardless. The overall experience including the easy gameplay, which I can live with. If you don't want to consider it a game as a result, I am totally cool with that. Each to their own. I understand what your point is, but I personally disagree.
As I said, if you don't mind easy games and are a BTTF fan, you will most likely dig these games. I don't understand how that doesn't make sense really. Thanks for a good debate anyway.
You can make the best BTTF game in the world, but if somebody hated the films, they will probably feel the same about the games! Would that make a good game bad?
In this case, is loving the movie what makes people think a bad game is a good one ?
That's an interesting question, are there people who didn't like/never watched the movies that are Telltale Fans and are playing this ? If so, what do they honeslty think of it ?
As I said, if you don't mind easy games and are a BTTF fan, you will most likely dig these games.
If you like having choices (story wise or puzzle wise), exploring (not in a GTA way, in an adventure game way... a thing you can't do in BTTF), if you like various areas, great animation, and if you expect to see many different timelines ...
If the idea of BTTF the game was so interesting, it wasn't because we wanted "a game where Marty talks to people a lot because he does that in the movie". It was because of the potential the franchise has, story wise (consequences, choices), character wise(evolution through time), and, I'm gonna shock you, gameplay wise (Time travel element, items from the future, Doc's inventions... it's really huge).
So the game might feel like the movies, it still fails at delivering the actual experience you could have felt by playing a BTTF game.
Or let's say that it's doing 2/10 of what it could have done ...
I won't deny that the film licence is lending a lot to the overall experience. I don't think these are bad games, but I can see that replying at 1.30am isn't yielding very good results.
I still felt I got to explore Hill Valley Strayth, I think the animation and graphics are pretty great, the voicework is superb, the music is great... it's just a bit too easy. But I still enjoy playing these games and would recommend them (especially Episode 3), hence my review.
I guess we shall all just have to just agree to disagree.
I'm not going to debate about the graphics (because they don't have the budget to do more, but if the models look Ok, the animation is really outdated, and the lyp sinc a disaster) nor the voice acting and music (it's cool, indeed).
But Exploring Hill Valley ?
Really ? You can't enter a freakin' thing !!!!!!! You have a square, an alley, and a garage !!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh and the front doors and the final area ... That's just ridiculous. Even without going to do a free roaming game, they could have made THE TOWN, that they could have changed through times, and put different npcs in those areas, instead of always the same ones ... (I think even Arthur was in Edna's appartement u_u)
They're recycling everything, to models to areas. It would be allright if there were MORE, much more, like an actual adventure game... It just feels so empty, so small ... And those invisible walls are just incredibly painful.
I'm just not feeling I'm in Hill Valley... Just in a dull area... That's sad.
Episode 3 was still completely broken, but at least the writing was great, and (that's the key) it featured characters we actually knew and cared about, and gave them important roles.
Episode 3 was a fun twist on the Back to the Future series...
But, on the other hand, the alternate reality is cliché and so much is just borrowed from other stories, A Clockwork Orange, 1984, and so on.
Add to that the fact that is just not believable that a controlled city could operate in such a closed off way without intervention from the government. The FBI busts into Mormon compounds, and considering violent confrontations like Ruby Rudge and Waco, I'd expect them to get in Citizen Brown's business.
Its also hard to believe that the Doc would be so naive about what he was doing, so unless we find out that Edna was able to brainwash him herself, with her own technology, I don't buy that he could have made the mistake he did with Hill Valley.
I was also hoping they wouldn't make Edna into a cartoonish villain, but they did.
Episode 3 was a fun twist on the Back to the Future series...
But, on the other hand, the alternate reality is cliché and so much is just borrowed from other stories, A Clockwork Orange, 1984, and so on.
Add to that the fact that is just not believable that a controlled city could operate in such a closed off way without intervention from the government. The FBI busts into Mormon compounds, and considering violent confrontations like Ruby Rudge and Waco, I'd expect them to get in Citizen Brown's business.
Its also hard to believe that the Doc would be so naive about what he was doing, so unless we find out that Edna was able to brainwash him herself, with her own technology, I don't buy that he could have made the mistake he did with Hill Valley.
I was also hoping they wouldn't make Edna into a cartoonish villain, but they did.
Well, I actually thought this.
But I guess I lowered my expectations so much after the debacle the first two episodes were that I was happy with what I got in episode 3.
I was totally satisfied with episode 3 story. When Marty met Doc, it was a very emotional scene.
The story has interesting meanings for the human race and the way people are controlled by many kinds of "big brothers". My english is not so good but I think you get the idea of what I 'm saying. For example, when you push the brick in the brick stationary wall Marty says "another brick in the wall".
I think Back to the future movie series, had always such meanings, but then in 1985 they were a bit different.
So I want to congratulate Telltale people for creating a story which makes you feel things and maybe think about things.
Furthermore, I liked the taste of the environment of the game (music, scenes, dialogues).
Just like the two first episodes, I was sad to see the "to be continued" message after playing for just 2-3 hours. I think again, the game was very short, but this time the quests were more challenging.
But I was expecting a time travel in the episode, I was sure this would happen at the end, but unfortunately the episode ended...
I was expecting a puzzle with the monitors in Marty's house. You could use the switches and the VCR, but eventually they were irrelevant with the game. Only at the end, you just switch one monitor. It was a good opportunity for a clever puzzle (like the maps in monkey island series).
Now i have to wait for a month for the next episode. Please make it harder and longer, but keep the good stuff I mentioned.
I am sad to say, that this series really didn't turn out well.
The story is good, the writing too, the character animation is well done, but the gameplay is an insult.
I understand, that it is supposed to be easy, but it is not easy, there is no difficulty to it most of the time. The only part of this particular episode, that can be called an adventure (an easy, but still very enjoyable one) is you trying to break the three rules. Everything else is just a click or two on a variation of three to four hotspots and a cutscene ensues.
Also the creativity of former Telltale games, that sprouted from their clever reusing of models and locations is totally absent in this series. There are models made just for short cutscenes (Biff's brothers) and locations you visit only once, without having any real puzzle to solve there (there are quite a lot of those, like the office of Citizen Brown). And this episode is the peak of all three, since there haven't been so few puzzles in any of the former episodes (the second being the best in this respect). Also most of the dialogue is rather useless, and only gives you some information about the timeline.
Also this is the first episode, that had an unexplained event, that does not fit the BTTF fictional universe, being Doc Brown disappearing from the delorian, to reappear as his alternate version. This never happened before and there is no sence of it happening now. Technically it was in the last episode, but I was hoping for an explanation in this one, since it was part of the cliffhanger.
I enjoy the games, since they are written well, but even the interactive movies, that died out for a reason, did have more interactivity to them, than this game. It is particullary depressing, when you expect the challenge of the game to go up a tad, after you've succeeded some puzzles, and then the game lets you down by jumping from one location to the next, forcing you to click once or twice. It's rather sad.
Actually, there's MUCH more interactivity in Heavy Rain than in Telltale's BttF. And most importantly, the interactions you make in Heavy Rain have REAL TANGIBLE CONSEQUENCES and affect how the story plays out. In BttF, I could pull a Homer Simpson and place one of those Drinking Bird novelties on my mouse button, and it could practically play and beat the game for me. There is no comparison here.
If Telltale are so great at telling stories and capturing the feel of movies, then they should just make movies. I would at least feel like I was getting my money's worth.
Wel tbh Back to the Future is cheap anyway compared to other games. If you add the playtime of all 5 episodes you are looking at about 10 hours at least.
I guess we have differing opinions of what we look for in the game. It is not to everybodys tastes. I care about story more than anything. That is the reason I play adventure games. Also you have to consider that Back to the Future is made for all audiences, not just the hardcore adventure gamer.
Even without the hint system there is no way to get stuck. I'm kind of hoping this is not the direction they will be taking with future games. There is almost no gameplay/challenge in these episodes. Not an adventure game imo, more like an interactive movie game The story is great though.
This is true. Call me a sadist, but my favorite part of adventure games was the "deaths" of your character.
This is true. Call me a sadist, but my favorite part of adventure games was the "deaths" of your character.
Yeah, I know where you're coming from. I understand that when playing a game that's liscensed like Back to the Future, you can't exactly kill characters off but a 'Game Over' screen certainly isn't out of the question. Of course, I don't mean just a black screen with the words 'Game Over' but maybe a short cutscene.
Example for Episode Three:
If you click on the speak box too many times, if you don't recycle properly or if you grafitti the city, Officer Parker takes you to the Dicipline Hall and you sit there awaiting punishment. Perhaps Officer Parker would say something like "Mrs. Citizen Brown will see you now." or even better "Mr. Strickland will see you now.", then after a quick reaction shot, fade to black.
That example was made off the top of my head and I admit it's awful but what I'm saying is that you could really take advantage of game over screens in a game like Back to the Future where there's so much pressure to succeed. Even ending the Game Over cutscene with a creepy line like "There's no future...for us." would have been fun and interesting.
Naturally, there's nothing Telltale can really do at this point given we're halfway done the series but it would have been a neat feature.
Comments
Even the story failed.
You can't seriously compare this kind of quality to let's say, Tales of Monkey Island.
Episode 3 was still completely broken, but at least the writing was great, and (that's the key) it featured characters we actually knew and cared about, and gave them important roles.
It also set up a new "universe" which was funny (even if the lack of budget was felt) and interesting enough.
The writing was much better too.
So it's a good "episode" for Back to the Future, since this episode managed to be fun even with no puzzles, but as a game it still fails. compared to other (games, adventure games) Telltale's other games.
I have a casual-gamer friend who loves the films and has played the games based on my recommendation. He has never really played an adventure game and the difficulty is perfect for him.
Telltale are obviously going for a slightly more non-gamer market here (I mean, look at the hints system). Is it as good gameplay-wise as Tales of Monkey Island? No, it isn't. But is it still a good game? Yes! Citizen Brown is, in my opinion, one of the best episodes they have ever made.
I wouldn't call any episode so far a failure and the writing for all the episodes has been pretty sharp in my opinion. As a reviewer, I certainly marked down last month's episode for its short length/easy difficulty. But this month, I had too much fun to really notice any of that. It was nice to just experience the game as a fan and switch my reviewer head off for a moment.
What people forget is, this storyline couldn't be done live-action. We couldn't have Claudia Wells playing a punk-rock 1986 Jennifer, or Michael J Fox having a guitar battle in an alleyway. More puzzles would sweeten the deal, but at the moment I am just enjoying the overall experience too much to really care.
notice that the last line of episode 3 was the same final line in episode 2?
Let me rephrase it, it's not an adventure game but an interactive movie which has choppy animations. It's not a "cartoon-game"; cartoon-games are awesome.
Sure they did. But again, what would be the point in driving around the Delorean? What bearing would it have on the story at all? Would it really even be that fulfilling? Personally, I think it's just moreso that people loved the movies largely for the car and therefore have this sensationalist need to drive it around just because it's the Delorean from the movie. And would traveling through time with it really be that exciting?
On second thought, anything might be better than the current design of the game. Driving the Delorean may at least be fun over forcing ourselves through the mindless click-to-cutscene fests they call puzzles.
It's more enjoyable than this game but the fun factor lasts for like an hour or so.
Well, of course we could.
They managed to have Jeff Bridges playing a 35 years old Kevin Flynn, so obviously they could.
Now Mj Fox can't really act the way he used to so that's another problem... maybe by mimicking actual footage from his performances in the past... I don't know.
Also, the episodes would absolutely not be possible in live action, since too many things remind us it's a game (like the huge items disappearing into pockets, and stuff)...
As for the difficulty, I think you should remember that there is a hint system. So no one CAN get stucked in this game. Don't you think they could have made it a little harder then ?
I also think the lack of areas to explore is, for an adventure game, a pretty nasty thing.
Especially with Back to Future, we could have seen the same areas but changed a lot through times, just like in the movies...
Also, I would love to hear what you think about the 1931 timeline, that is the core to the game's story.
Those are my main concern :
By doing that, they stripped Back to the Future from what made it so interesting. The first point of the movie always was to see how people Marty (and thus, the viewers) knew in different ways, weither it was how they were supposed to be or how they used to be.
This only works with Doc, now, and sure, it's great... But It's not enough... It's like they made Doc the central part of BTTF, while he actually wasn't.
Why are so many people pleased with the last episode ? Because we finally got to interact with characters from the movies (and not just the weak intro of episode 1, of the already boring Biff encounters).
We know how they're supposed to be, so it's great to see them differently.
But seeing people we absolutely don't care about (Edna, Kid tannen, even Arthur ...), jute because they wanted a young Doc in the story, I don't think it was worth it ...
Having Marty roaming with a moustache is just... Seriously, one episode would really be enough, but we're gonna eat the 1931 era for the whole game (episode 3 was just a pleasant break) ... So it's kinda sad in my opinion, with the potential of time travel, to set the plot in one (not very creative) main era ...
Do you think that with the actual design and puzzles of the game, an action/adventure game wasn't possible ?
The only thing that makes it impossible, is the budget. They're just not able to create different areas, let alone large areas.
If they had the budget (and time, but it's linked), we could totally use a overboard to roam the streets, we could enter all those fancy doors we see, and have a few action sequences with the car.
There are games that try to avoid "genre", that just does whatever they want to do for the sake of the story/ entertainment.
Sure, I don't expect BTTF to be like "the Nomad Soul" (RPG, Fighting, FPS, Adventure, etc...), but do you really think a game based off the movies couldn't include at least one car chase, a usable overboard, areas to explore ? (Even in the actual movies the small town feels much larger...) I'm absolutely not talking about a GTA-like game as for the "exploring"... Just a regular adventure game... Free 3D roaming would be nice since it's in 3D. I mean, even in Orion Burger I think it was larger. When the town was small, you could enter things. In BTTF it's like you just can't. It's small and that's it. u_u
A good model would be Shadow of Memories.
1) Free roaming in a decent city (not a GTA like)
2) Evolution through time of the characters and city
3) Choices in the story to get different endings and scenes
4) Some action sequences
It's actually very short, but it came out when the ps2 just got out, and the fact that you had many endings was huge on the replay value (which is equivalent to 0 in the BTTF game).
Though I agree with you, including anything remotely close to a car chase or action sequence in the BTTF game we got, would be terrible.
Such areas without anything to do in those is pointless, in my opinion
Just clarifying.
I never said it wasn't a game. In fact, I argued that it was a game just a few posts above. It gets a 'damn near perfect score' because as far as episodic gaming goes, this is one of Telltale's finest efforts in my opinion. I even say in my review: "The difficultly may be relatively low, keeping a perfect score just out of reach, but I would be lying if I said I hadn’t loved the entire experience of Episode 3: Citizen Brown." The low difficulty has almost stopped bothering me because of the overwhelming quality in every other department. I really enjoyed playing Citizen Brown - despite it being a relative breeze - and I couldn't slap it with a low score against my gut reaction.
Also, I never said it was "paced like a movie". I actually said "the pacing has never been better" which is an entirely different sentiment altogether.
I don't know if it was your intention or not, but your post came across as slightly agressive to me. My review is only an opinion and I do feel I have backed that opinion up. I hope that clarifies things somewhat for you. On a seperate note, I love your avatar... I will never, ever play hide and seek with a robot after seeing that short film!
But you're a reviewer, and you're giving the implication of at least attempted objectivity. I can't see how this score can be justified in any logical way. I don't see what's so good about it. Hell, I played through the damn thing 5-10 times when writing my own analysis of the title, and all that did was cause the thing to crumble even more beneath the weight of actually thinking about the game's make-up and working pieces.
Then how was it paced? How was pacing improved? If it's not due to the more film-like quality from far easier "click the only thing on screen" puzzles, then what improved pace? Is pace simply improved by being "faster" because the player doesn't have to spent even a minute of their time thinking, or is there something else to the idea that pace is improved?
It may come off that way, though I hope you see any aggression as being left-over aggression toward the game itself, and not toward you in particular. I simply cannot see or understand the positive qualities people are capable of seeing in this title, and I certainly don't understand how something that lacks even the pretense of interactivity can be considered almost perfect. After all, when a game hands over control to the player, they are making an agreement with the player, "Your Actions Matter". When your actions are LITERALLY often reduced to a single possible action, and even more often are by all practical definitions reduced to a single action, I can't see how that can be called "play", and I have been trying to understand what it is that people like or think they like about this series as a game. I can understand why Back to the Future is a bad game. I've spent the past few days doing a write-up of just that. Far more complex to me, and far more difficult to place my finger on, is what are the aspects that people enjoy about Back to the Future: The Game, especially when they aren't talking directly about story or characterization. And so, I turn to the most well-written adamant supporters, to ask why. It's not aggression on my part, it's respect and a desire to understand the working parts that can compel a person who is capable of typing full, grammatically-correct sentences that are then strung into paragraphs to actually find this title compelling.
They have done a fantastic job recreating the feel of the movies. Yes it has been a bit easy, especially episode 3 but it didnt bother me because I was enjoying the game too much. Telltale know how to tell a good story.
Rashing...Back to the Future is as much a "game" as Heavy Rain is. You are able to control your actions. It may seem like more like an interactive movie but it doesn't make it any less of a "game". Surely you know by now what to expect from Telltale.
All in all I have to say that I wanted a game that felt like the films and that is exactly what I feel I'm getting. More please.
Actually, there's MUCH more interactivity in Heavy Rain than in Telltale's BttF. And most importantly, the interactions you make in Heavy Rain have REAL TANGIBLE CONSEQUENCES and affect how the story plays out. In BttF, I could pull a Homer Simpson and place one of those Drinking Bird novelties on my mouse button, and it could practically play and beat the game for me. There is no comparison here.
If Telltale are so great at telling stories and capturing the feel of movies, then they should just make movies. I would at least feel like I was getting my money's worth.
I am a reviewer as you pointed out, but I do wish you wouldn't use words like "near perfect score" (although I can see your logic).
Let me explain. I say on my ratings page: "Please note that review scores are only used by AMO to give a basic guideline as to the quality of a reviewed product at first glance. The written words that make up a review are always what matter most."
Still, 9.5 does mean that it falls into the 'excellent' bracket (something I truly do believe, whereas perhaps you would perhaps choose a 4 for 'poor'). Now, I can understand why you might hate the game. In some ways, it is the reason that many people hate adventure games full stop. After all, all an adventure game really amounts to anyway is running through predetermined actions. Sure, there are distractions to stop you doing so right away, but that is basically what a traditional adventure game boils down to. Hence why many gamers hate the genre as a whole.
Now, I am aware as a reviewer that BTTF: The Game takes this criticism to a whole new level. I can see that the game is not only easy, but lowers interactivity as a result. I agree with you on this: the puzzles are too easy if you play adventure games solely for a challenge. If a player doesn't like Episode 1, they aren't going to suddenly love Episode 3. I even said at the end of my review for Episode 2 that: "Back To The Future: The Game could be in danger of becoming an interactive movie."
However, I can now accept the game for what it is: an easy adventure game based on a popular film franchise. There is a reason that this game is the way it is... I can't say I wouldn't prefer something more difficult, but I can now accept the way things are. I even get stuck occasionally and need to use a hint whilst playing. Tales Of Monkey Island is a game aimed mostly at lifelong, experienced adventurers... Back To The Future: The Game obviously isn't.
As for the pacing, I meant faster in the sense that characters would appear on the scene automatically after certain actions (I can see how the sentence could be misread). The one thing I liked about this episode is that I always knew exactly what I needed to do, where I needed to be and who I needed to talk to. Does that add a more cinematic speed to things? Absolutely, but I still feel there is a game there underneath it all. On that we shall have to agree to disagree.
Basically, I rated this episode based on the experience I had with it and what I expected from it. If I reviewed it alongside Gray Matter for example (which I am currently writing a review of right now) how would it compare? Poorly of course, because Gray Matter is in many ways a 'hardcore' adventure game and therefore trumps BTTF in the gameplay department. BTTF is a casual game that will be played by many non-gamers who want to revist the film universe. If I rate Gray Matter as a 9 then, does that mean this episode is better than the whole of Gray Matter? Of course not, which is why rating systems should only ever be used as a guide. Always read the words!
Therefore, my score doesn't suddenly shoot Citizen Brown into the upper echelons of gaming excellence. I am merely rating it as a part of the overall season. The difficulty, although somewhat dissapointing, was made up for this month (to me personally at least) with a really great story, graphics, voice acting etc. There was still gameplay involved - it just wasn't that hard to get through. I am reviewing it for what it is, rather than what I want it be. It will never be a hardcore adventure game unless the puzzles suddenly ramp up next month or the month after. From reading my reviews so far, people can understand that I have noted the easy difficulty, but that it also hasn't stopped me from having a great time.
There is obviously an audience for this sort of experience: Fabula vir completely agreed with my review and I have certainly noticed in the forums that for every person who hates this series, somebody else loves it. You must understand: I would consider myself a serious advenure gamer and can duly note your criticisms with this game. However, the low difficulty really isn't bothering me that much at all: I would still consider it a game, but even if you want to label it an 'interactive movie', I still enjoy it immensly and would recommend it to any Back To The Future fan regardless.
I hope you can see where I am coming from: I am not shooting down your arguement at all. Rather, I am arguing that this is actually an objective thing: if you hate easy games, you will hate these episodes. If you don't mind easy games if they excel in other areas... then these are some of the best available! Phew, I hope all of that makes sense anyway. I am doubting many people will read it!
Huh.
Hadn't noticed. To me it's just a piece of my vocabulary, like any other word, and I don't gleam any inherent offensiveness from it.
For your benefit, I'll consciously avoid its usage here.
Why not? 95 leaves 94 points of potential bad, 5 points of potential improvement. Gameplay being a "0" or "1" in this title, one can only assume that gameplay, and interactivity as a whole, only has a 4-6 point importance. Considering that the main thing that separates video games from videos is the interactive element, I simply can't see how this can be the case.
You can't put a number up and say it has no significance. You chose to use a numerical system. Not only that, but a very detailed numerical system, one which includes 100 points for fine-tuned assessment. Hell if I know the difference between an 86 and an 85, but that choice in terms of the system seems to imply to me that such a perceptible difference does exist in the eyes of those who implemented it.
All the same, the number has value, whether you renege on it afterwards or not.
That's ridiculous.
Almost every game is binary, in this way. There is a success state, a failure state, and a few states in-between. Mario's actions are binary, he's either alive or dead, and it's predetermined that you will jump over that pit, or Mario will not proceed. You must kill those 60 boars, or your WoW quest journal won't update. Games are very yes-or-no. Has he killed those boars yet? Has he jumped over that pit, or did he fall? Is he greater than 0 hit points? Y/N, etc. Computers are very binary beings, after all. The trick is in using human design to hide this as much as possible. Maybe throw up multiple binary possibilities at once, such as "has he fallen into the pit OR has he been hit by a projectile OR has he touched the bad guy without jumping on its head".
In adventures, the disguise is through world-logic and exploration. You only proceed by doing on predetermined action(or in some cases, one of a small set, as in Maniac Mansion), but it's everything else around it that grants the action value. If nothing else is around it then...that's all it is, a set of predetermined commands to the player. No dialog with the designer or the world, just....pull this, push that, and now you're on your way.
To say "in danger of" is well too kind. I believe in my own thread about the episode, I documented as many incorrect possible actions as I could find. There were....almost none. This is still more than those offered by, say, Dragon's Lair, but I'd say that Dragon's Lair also provided a good deal more challenge, albeit a somewhat empty one.
I played Secret of Monkey Island when I was four years old.
I've given the game, within the past three years, to a 10 year-old child.
Both figured out the entire thing, quite well. The only thing that stumps small children in that game is the red herring gag, as they're not likely to understand that turn of phrase.
I say this because, children are not experienced. In anything. And yet, what many consider to be the cornerstone of the genre is something that they can do. More than that, the way Back to the Future handles accessibility is the easiest, laziest means by which a person can do so.
A person is capable of learning. You can start them off at a certain level, or even take pains to explain systems through some early tutorial elements. But if the game takes no pains to TEACH these new people, then they'll never improve. Who is this for? People who don't want to play games? Because people who aren't experienced are still being actively insulted here, "Here's something you can handle, and that's all you'll ever be able to handle". I get the image, in my head, of a 20 year-old man being given one of those blocks through which toddlers are expected to figure out what block fits in what hole, because everyone around him sees the guy as incapable of anything better.
I don't see how it can be read correctly, if that's what you're referring to. If you mean that, after a completely unrelated conversation, things would unfold in a way that lets you do one thing at a time because pressing an intercom button also causes Biff to go t the town square, then I'd say I can't see how that's a good thing. I can't see how else you want it read, and that certainly requires explanation on your part.
Where? I dug pretty deep. I counted all possible outcomes for every sequence. I looked at hints, I looked at every line of dialog, I looked at camera angles, I looked at everything. And all I could find, for the entire run, was a picture that would change if I pushed the most prominent thing.
All of this sounds like lowering expectations causes raised scores, which I simply don't see as something tolerable.
It's not fair to Grey Matter, nor is it fair to the classics, to hold something that is TRYING to be great to a different set of standards than something that has chosen to be terrible as a conscious action. That something DECIDED to lower its own standards for excellence doesn't mean the entire world around it should then lower theirs as well, and make it relative brilliance by comparison.
WHY do you consider it a game?
It's literally, quantifiably not. A person can literally, numerically, and logically show that this title has a range of options per screen that is equal to or on par with those available in interactive movie titles. One can make the argument that, in many cases, the interactivity is less than that in interactive movie titles, as those often have a timed failure state tied to one of(for example) four possible directional inputs, rather than simply waiting for the player to click the only gigantic hotspot.
I don't think it makes any sense, I don't think that it succeeds in this way at all.
Even as an interactive story, I can't see how this succeeds. You can't DO anything. If the answer is obvious, why not let the player mess around, talk to people, look at things? Ease is one thing, but this title has less than five possible things to click on every screen. I know, I counted. Other areas of interactivity that have nothing to do with ease are broken. Why are the icons so huge, blocking my view of the world? Why is the inventory its own screen, with tons of dead space? Why can't it show me all my items at once? You get very little time to spend with Christopher Lloyd's Doc Brown before he scurries off. There's an entire crowd of people that only exists in cutscenes, but leaves the entire world barren and empty once the player gets a chance to walk around. If you TRY to use objects with unimportant things just for fun, you get chided with a generic "Can't use this with that" response. If you try solving puzzles by using the inventory items, for example by using the guitar on Jennifer, you are given a "failure state" response. "Oh, but you don't have an amp? Figures."(makes me wonder if an amp-obtaining puzzle existed in an early draft, actually, and this dialog was simply never removed...would explain the weird electric cart charging device). If you want to explore, you're met with lots of invisible walls that restrict you from going to places. Animations are often awkward, choppy, or limited. Marty is not allowed to run if he's in a small space, like the alley. There are many bugs, especially in the alleyway where either Jennifer or the can of paint might disappear from view. In the guitar battle, Leech can jump on the board as his challenge move, which won't defeat him. These have nothing to do with being "easy", but they're all major detriments that keep it from being great as well.
As for excellence in story, I don't see that either, especially in this episode. The vast majority is simply ripped from "A Clockwork Orange", and they don't even attempt to hide this fact. The Ludivico shot at the end, the overt mention of Big Brother(TWICE), Biff Tannen being an exact copy of Alex DeLarge, the whole damn thing.
I will grant you that the music was excellent, but that's all Jared-Emmerson Johnson, who has produced excellent work for ALL of Telltale's games, including far, far better ones.
I'm sorry, I've gotta stop you right there....
This. A thousand times, this. Well said, man.
I haven't lowered my expectations and in the process boosted my score either. I actually thought Citizen Brown was an excellent episode, that came just shy of being a perfect episodic Telltale game due to its easy puzzles when compared to their past output. I do think there is a huge difference between reviewing a casual episodic adventure game based on a film licence and a full length traditional adventure game. My expectations are not lower necessarily, just different. I actually edited out the "never score a 10" comment because I disagreed with it as soon as I had written it (it was meant to come off as sarcasm and totally failed). These games CAN score a 10 if they manage to slightly increase the difficulty and maintain the high quality in other areas. Tales Of Monkey Island also had amazing voicework etc but the experience was elevated by the greater overall challenge. I can admit that.
It all boils down to personal opinion; I thought the story and overall experiance were excellent regardless. The overall experience including the easy gameplay, which I can live with. If you don't want to consider it a game as a result, I am totally cool with that. Each to their own. I understand what your point is, but I personally disagree.
As I said, if you don't mind easy games and are a BTTF fan, you will most likely dig these games. I don't understand how that doesn't make sense really. Thanks for a good debate anyway.
In this case, is loving the movie what makes people think a bad game is a good one ?
That's an interesting question, are there people who didn't like/never watched the movies that are Telltale Fans and are playing this ? If so, what do they honeslty think of it ?
If you like having choices (story wise or puzzle wise), exploring (not in a GTA way, in an adventure game way... a thing you can't do in BTTF), if you like various areas, great animation, and if you expect to see many different timelines ...
You probably won't.
So the game might feel like the movies, it still fails at delivering the actual experience you could have felt by playing a BTTF game.
Or let's say that it's doing 2/10 of what it could have done ...
I still felt I got to explore Hill Valley Strayth, I think the animation and graphics are pretty great, the voicework is superb, the music is great... it's just a bit too easy. But I still enjoy playing these games and would recommend them (especially Episode 3), hence my review.
I guess we shall all just have to just agree to disagree.
But Exploring Hill Valley ?
Really ? You can't enter a freakin' thing !!!!!!! You have a square, an alley, and a garage !!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh and the front doors and the final area ... That's just ridiculous. Even without going to do a free roaming game, they could have made THE TOWN, that they could have changed through times, and put different npcs in those areas, instead of always the same ones ... (I think even Arthur was in Edna's appartement u_u)
They're recycling everything, to models to areas. It would be allright if there were MORE, much more, like an actual adventure game... It just feels so empty, so small ... And those invisible walls are just incredibly painful.
I'm just not feeling I'm in Hill Valley... Just in a dull area... That's sad.
Episode 3 was a fun twist on the Back to the Future series...
But, on the other hand, the alternate reality is cliché and so much is just borrowed from other stories, A Clockwork Orange, 1984, and so on.
Add to that the fact that is just not believable that a controlled city could operate in such a closed off way without intervention from the government. The FBI busts into Mormon compounds, and considering violent confrontations like Ruby Rudge and Waco, I'd expect them to get in Citizen Brown's business.
Its also hard to believe that the Doc would be so naive about what he was doing, so unless we find out that Edna was able to brainwash him herself, with her own technology, I don't buy that he could have made the mistake he did with Hill Valley.
I was also hoping they wouldn't make Edna into a cartoonish villain, but they did.
Well, I actually thought this.
But I guess I lowered my expectations so much after the debacle the first two episodes were that I was happy with what I got in episode 3.
I was totally satisfied with episode 3 story. When Marty met Doc, it was a very emotional scene.
The story has interesting meanings for the human race and the way people are controlled by many kinds of "big brothers". My english is not so good but I think you get the idea of what I 'm saying. For example, when you push the brick in the brick stationary wall Marty says "another brick in the wall".
I think Back to the future movie series, had always such meanings, but then in 1985 they were a bit different.
So I want to congratulate Telltale people for creating a story which makes you feel things and maybe think about things.
Furthermore, I liked the taste of the environment of the game (music, scenes, dialogues).
Just like the two first episodes, I was sad to see the "to be continued" message after playing for just 2-3 hours. I think again, the game was very short, but this time the quests were more challenging.
But I was expecting a time travel in the episode, I was sure this would happen at the end, but unfortunately the episode ended...
I was expecting a puzzle with the monitors in Marty's house. You could use the switches and the VCR, but eventually they were irrelevant with the game. Only at the end, you just switch one monitor. It was a good opportunity for a clever puzzle (like the maps in monkey island series).
Now i have to wait for a month for the next episode. Please make it harder and longer, but keep the good stuff I mentioned.
Thanks Thanks Thanks and sorry for the long post!
I couldn't care less if I could drive the car in an open world with a poor story.
The story is good, the writing too, the character animation is well done, but the gameplay is an insult.
I understand, that it is supposed to be easy, but it is not easy, there is no difficulty to it most of the time. The only part of this particular episode, that can be called an adventure (an easy, but still very enjoyable one) is you trying to break the three rules. Everything else is just a click or two on a variation of three to four hotspots and a cutscene ensues.
Also the creativity of former Telltale games, that sprouted from their clever reusing of models and locations is totally absent in this series. There are models made just for short cutscenes (Biff's brothers) and locations you visit only once, without having any real puzzle to solve there (there are quite a lot of those, like the office of Citizen Brown). And this episode is the peak of all three, since there haven't been so few puzzles in any of the former episodes (the second being the best in this respect). Also most of the dialogue is rather useless, and only gives you some information about the timeline.
Also this is the first episode, that had an unexplained event, that does not fit the BTTF fictional universe, being Doc Brown disappearing from the delorian, to reappear as his alternate version. This never happened before and there is no sence of it happening now. Technically it was in the last episode, but I was hoping for an explanation in this one, since it was part of the cliffhanger.
I enjoy the games, since they are written well, but even the interactive movies, that died out for a reason, did have more interactivity to them, than this game. It is particullary depressing, when you expect the challenge of the game to go up a tad, after you've succeeded some puzzles, and then the game lets you down by jumping from one location to the next, forcing you to click once or twice. It's rather sad.
Don't force your opinions on to me.
I guess we have differing opinions of what we look for in the game. It is not to everybodys tastes. I care about story more than anything. That is the reason I play adventure games. Also you have to consider that Back to the Future is made for all audiences, not just the hardcore adventure gamer.
This is true. Call me a sadist, but my favorite part of adventure games was the "deaths" of your character.
Yeah, I know where you're coming from. I understand that when playing a game that's liscensed like Back to the Future, you can't exactly kill characters off but a 'Game Over' screen certainly isn't out of the question. Of course, I don't mean just a black screen with the words 'Game Over' but maybe a short cutscene.
Example for Episode Three:
That example was made off the top of my head and I admit it's awful but what I'm saying is that you could really take advantage of game over screens in a game like Back to the Future where there's so much pressure to succeed. Even ending the Game Over cutscene with a creepy line like "There's no future...for us." would have been fun and interesting.
Naturally, there's nothing Telltale can really do at this point given we're halfway done the series but it would have been a neat feature.
Episode 3 was good stuff by the way.
Graphics: 7/10
Sound: 9/10
Length: 6/10 :eek:
Fun: 9/10
Overall: 7.5 :cool: