Good approach for a argument. It clearly is a statistical argument that hypothetically demonstrates a wide variety of games and age groups. It's a very decent and clever way to argue the competitive quality of this game for a audience that is intended for everyone.
Several E for everyone games have been more challenging in the past.
A good example would be a E for everyone game that serves as more of a challenge.
Atleast I'm into the story. I sort of play just to get through the story, but, that doesn't make for much of a game.
I still enjoy the series. When I get stuck it's because I missed a object, or a text option, something like that.
Good approach for a argument. It clearly is a statistical argument that hypothetically demonstrates a wide variety of games and age groups. It's a very decent and clever way to argue the competitive quality of this game for a audience that is intended for everyone.
Several E for everyone games have been more challenging in the past.
A good example would be a E for everyone game that serves as more of a challenge.
Atleast I'm into the story. I sort of play just to get through the story, but, that doesn't make for much of a game.
I still enjoy the series. When I get stuck it's because I missed a object, or a text option, something like that.
"E for Everyone" doesn't quite fit, I don't think. That's a content rating. While it can partially be used to attribute the intended audience, remember that the "age rating" comes ONLY from what the ESRB considers "objectionable" for a given age range. It would be VERY easy to make a game which is mechanically VERY complex and obviously intended for an older audience without including those things. While less common in narrative genres like RPGs and Adventure games or inherently violent genres like fighters, beat-em-ups and shooters, don't discount this and be sure to mentally differentiate "age rating" from "intended audience".
Well, I was thinking about adventure games, personally. I thought that was the real argument here, games in general, could go any which way. I once rode roller coasters with a 10 year old kid who was designing them. So, you can imagine he was a mathematical genius and could argue very well , logical, rational, puzzle solving skills come easily to a kid like that.That's why a statistical argument is perhaps the smart way to look at this. Age range, I would say is another statistical factor to base things on.
I thought BTTF would be a E for everyone adventure game. Is it? It seems like it would be.
I agree that they are a little more objective (unbiased) than they are subjective coming up with a difficultly, age rating, especially now a days, so I can see why the games are "simple"...
You're argument, or actually interesting point you seem to bring up is that a game can have mature, intellectual content that raises it's rating, rather than simply the game play itself. This would refer to the obvious, language, violence, blood, fantasy elements, sexual undertones, how mature the game is, how witty, etc etc.
BTTF is a licensed franchise that is portrayed in mostly one light, and I'd say that is truthfully portrayed in the games. And even if for the cartoon feel to it, there was a animated series. (Which I never saw, that sort of established how the licensed franchise feels in a animated style)
I can say that I don't agree or disagree with you. But, I do seem to remember that you think the same thing about every TTG game.
I can say that I don't agree or disagree with you. But, I do seem to remember that you think the same thing about every TTG game.
This is particularly inaccurate. Sam and Max Season Two was my favorite game of its year. I also loved SBCG4AP, Wallace and Gromit, and found Tales to be far better than anyone could reasonably expect it to be under the licensing circumstances. It was only relatively recently, with The Devil's Playhouse, that I really started to have major misgivings about the company's direction.
Taking a potential storyline for a fourth film and turning it into a series of episodic games.
How is that a "monumental experiment"? Writing a sequel to something as a game has been done hundreds of times. If anything, it's a "safe bet" more than a "monumental experiment".
I thought BTTF would be a E for everyone adventure game. Is it? It seems like it would be.
What Dashing is saying though, is that ESRB's rating "E for Everyone" has nothing to do with DIFFICULTY. It is a rating of CONTENT. As in, whether or not the game has inordinate violence, sex, language, etc. that would be inappropriate for children. Difficulty doesn't factor into it at all. I'm not trying to attack, just not sure what the basis of your argument is.
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.
None of that changes the fact that as a game, BttF is terrible.
In order to be even a decent adventure game, it absolutely must have a large amount of puzzles that require some level of thought. It does not have even a small amount of puzzles, it has almost none.
The fact that it is so painfully simple to progress in the game is absolutely unacceptable for something advertised as a game, much less as an adventure game. We aren't even discussing whether or not the game contains fan-service or not.
The difference here seems to be that those of us who wanted an enjoyable adventure game to play are disappointed, while people who are content to just hear Marty and Doc have a conversation couldn't care less about the fact that the game treats them like a toddler with a learning disability.
I'd definitely like another season if possible. My hope would be that they would learn from what has and what hasn't worked from Season 1 and apply that to Season 2. It might be hard to get some of the bigger names, well, I guess the only big name, Christoph Lloyd, back though.
I'd also hope that they cater the next season (if there is one) more toward normal gamers instead of casual/non-gamers.
I'd definitely like another season if possible. My hope would be that they would learn from what has and what hasn't worked from Season 1 and apply that to Season 2. It might be hard to get some of the bigger names, well, I guess the only big name, Christoph Lloyd, back though.
I'd also hope that they cater the next season (if there is one) more toward normal gamers instead of casual/non-gamers.
I wouldn't hold out much hope. If Telltale made money off the game, they're not likely to change the formula, despite how awful it is. In financial terms, they won't learn their lesson until the next game, when everyone waits til the reviews to decide whether or not to purchase it. Then, and only then, we might see some changes made--but I still doubt it. Telltale is in it to make the most buck with the least work. They've more than proven that at this point.
How is that a "monumental experiment"? Writing a sequel to something as a game has been done hundreds of times. If anything, it's a "safe bet" more than a "monumental experiment".
As an episodic adventure game, and for a series as well loved by so many, not just gamers? I'm talking about continuing the narrative of a series here. True narrative sequels.
The only ones I can think of off the top of my head that aren't just a rehash / parallel of the original plot is the recent Ghostbusters game, and Tron 2.0. Oh, the Matrix tried it, and sucked. And those were action games, and their content leant themselves to that style of game.
Indiana Jones. That did it, and worked, I'll admit. I'd hardly call it a safe bet though.
I can't think of any others that took the adventure game route, especially post-adventure videogame world that were up until relatively recently living in. I'm open to more examples of course. I may be convinced to retract the word "monumental", but I still think it was an experiment.
Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Evil Dead, Alien vs Predator, Star Trek, James Bond, Hulk, Spider-man, X-men, Justice League, Batman, The Simpsons, and hundreds more that I can't think of off the top of my head right now.
How does it matter what genre the game is? Does it specifically matter that it was a movie license rather than a book or comic book license? The variables you're selecting to qualify it as an experiment are seemingly random. If an action game based on a movie license isn't "an experiment", but an adventure game with the same storyline based on the same movie license somehow is, that makes absolutely no sense to me. It's not like they came up with the adventure genre specifically for this game (not only that, the game barely plays like an adventure game, and instead is more akin to an interactive movie, and a lackluster one, at that).
Making an adventure game with a new story based on an existing license isn't an experiment. If that's the case, almost everything TTG has done other than Bone was an experiment, Strong Bad, Wallace and Gromit, CSI, all "experiments".
I love starting a sh*tfight. No but seriously though.
In today's climate I would call creating an FPS or an RPG a "safe bet". Not as much an adventure game. The quality of the game, I don't care. I agree this is closer to an interactive movie, but you know what? I think it works. I think a fourth movie is what people would ultimately have liked. This way people get to poke around with the character interactions but still get their fourth movie.
The experiment part I'm justifying because it's an actual continuation of the series. James Bond doesn't count - you could write a million of them, and they wouldn't have any script consultation by Fleming. By that token I call the Lustbader extension of the Bourne series an experiment. One which worked well, it seems.
Lord of the rings games, quality aside, were set in the book / movie universe and timeline, they weren't an extension. Can you imagine someone writing a sequel to the LOTR trilogy? Imagine a Star Wars movie written with no input from Lucas? (Yeah ok, it would probably rock, but the arguments in the fanbase would be cataclysmic)
Simpsons, Star Trek, etc. These universes are episodic by their nature. There's room in their canon to go nuts. And more often than not these games were consulted on by the original writers if not written by them. I know this game is supposed to be set in a "what-if" idea of the future timeline but at least it has Gale on board. And they're safe franchises with a very long history of episodic content. BTTF was a self contained trilogy with a definite conclusion, many years ago. You could explore the timelines from those movies, but you'd want to make damn sure you didn't mess with the original movie content or again you'd alienate your fanbase far too much. Hence experimenting beyond these times, at either end. And it seems, this is happening - you only have to look around these boards to see the division of the fan-base. So I still maintain it was an experiment.
In today's climate I would call creating an FPS or an RPG a "safe bet". Not as much an adventure game. The quality of the game, I don't care. I agree this is closer to an interactive movie, but you know what? I think it works. I think a fourth movie is what people would ultimately have liked. This way people get to poke around with the character interactions but still get their fourth movie.
My only problem with it is that they have the audacity to call it a game in the first place, much less an adventure game. It's like making a first person shooter where all you do is shake peoples' hands and offer them hugs.
The experiment part I'm justifying because it's an actual continuation of the series. James Bond doesn't count - you could write a million of them, and they wouldn't have any script consultation by Fleming. By that token I call the Lustbader extension of the Bourne series an experiment. One which worked well, it seems.
Of course, Fleming can't consult on it, at least, not until Z-Day.
Lord of the rings games, quality aside, were set in the book / movie universe and timeline, they weren't an extension. Can you imagine someone writing a sequel to the LOTR trilogy?
Incorrect. Many of them have original stories that are set within the framework of Tolkien's storyline and world. The Third Age featured a unique storyline that weaves into the established storyline, as does LOTRO. War in the North will also feature a wholly original storyline.
Imagine a Star Wars movie written with no input from Lucas? (Yeah ok, it would probably rock, but the arguments in the fanbase would be cataclysmic)
I do know that at least The Force Unleashed is considered "G-canon", meaning Lucas himself considers the story to have taken place, making it an official expansion of the movie lore.
BTTF was a self contained trilogy with a definite conclusion, many years ago. You could explore the timelines from those movies, but you'd want to make damn sure you didn't mess with the original movie content or again you'd alienate your fanbase far too much.
Ghostbusters had only 2 self contained movies, and they made a game to continue the story 20 years later.
I guess I just don't understand why you consider it so unexpected and out of the question to make a game (regardless of genre, though adventure is essentially the only genre that would work, since a game with McFly punching people out or shooting them to death would violently urinate on the established canon) based on Back to the Future that has an original storyline.
The Third Age featured a unique storyline that weaves into the established storyline, as does LOTRO. War in the North will also feature a wholly original storyline.
I do know that at least The Force Unleashed is considered "G-canon", meaning Lucas himself considers the story to have taken place, making it an official expansion of the movie lore.
Whoa, I'd forgotten about The Third Age...I need to find that game again.
Well, The Force Unleashed, while canon, has stirred up more gamer anger than BTTF has. I hadn't seen as much hate towards Lucas Studios since Jar Jar Binks as when TFU2 came out. Maybe I'm just an oddball. I love BTTF:TG, I love TFU2, and I love FFXIII. *shrugs*
Even if BTTF wasn't shit, I still REALLY wish Telltale'd stop doing licensed stuff (or at least minimize the amount) and pull together a really cool new IP.
I guess we have two different groups of fans on this forum. We have those who are fans of Telltale Games first - and then we have those who are fans of Back to the Future first. That would certainly explain some of the friction we see occur here.
I would buy a second season, the first was only 25 bucks and I have found it relatively enjoyable. Seriously how hurt can some of you be? 25 dollars US..... If this is an amount that makes you feel justified in feeling ripped off for getting a (arguably) 10-12 hour game, you really need to chill.
I guess we have two different groups of fans on this forum. We have those who are fans of Telltale Games first - and then we have those who are fans of Back to the Future first. That would certainly explain some of the friction we see occur here.
I would say it's actually three groups: Those who are fans of ADVENTURE GAMES, those who are fans of TELLTALE GAMES, and those who are fans of Back to the Future (the movie.) The first and third, and the second and third are not mutually exclusive. The first and second, however, have been becoming increasingly mutually exclusive as time has gone on.
I guess we have two different groups of fans on this forum. We have those who are fans of Telltale Games first - and then we have those who are fans of Back to the Future first. That would certainly explain some of the friction we see occur here.
I don't think so. I'm a massive fan of both but I'm willing to give TT the benefit of the doubt and enjoy the games without over-analyzing it until it's not possible to get any fun out of them. Personally I reckon we're lucky that we got these games at all and that they didn't make a mess of them.
I've been a TTG fanboy for as long as they've been around, and I am a fan of Back to the Future as well, but this game is terrible. They almost had to try to make it as brainless as it is to solve. It's literally an interactive movie, except that there isn't a branching storyline, so it's a crappy interactive movie, too. It has no business being called a game.
This "game" is as much an adventure game as Myst was a first person shooter.
I've been a TTG fanboy for as long as they've been around, and I am a fan of Back to the Future as well, but this game is terrible. They almost had to try to make it as brainless as it is to solve. It's literally an interactive movie, except that there isn't a branching storyline, so it's a crappy interactive movie, too. It has no business being called a game.
This "game" is as much an adventure game as Myst was a first person shooter.
Then you hire Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown and you go out and do better.
Then you hire Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown and you go out and do better.
Wow, what a compelling argument. "The game is good because SHODANFreeman can't make a better game by himself."? Just because it's the least horrible BttF game doesn't mean it's a good game, by any stretch of the imagination, and just because you like the characters and story also doesn't make it a good game.
Making an adventure game without puzzles is literally the same thing as if id Software made Doom 4, and left out 99% of the enemies because they wanted the game to be "more accessible" to FPS newbies, and the insanely few enemies that they did leave in the game were so incompetent that you could punch them to death without being hit once.
Making a game more accessible does not mean they have to remove any and all challenge from the entire game, it means they should use the hint system and blatant walkthrough system to help out players that need it, and leave the players that don't need/want the help to solve it on their own.
I would buy a second season, the first was only 25 bucks and I have found it relatively enjoyable. Seriously how hurt can some of you be? 25 dollars US..... If this is an amount that makes you feel justified in feeling ripped off for getting a (arguably) 10-12 hour game, you really need to chill.
Paying one dollar for the Star Wars Holiday Special doesn't make it good because you're only paying a buck for a 2 hour movie.
just because you like the characters and story also doesn't make it a good game.
And here is where our opinions differ sir. I prefer a compelling story and characters over "mechanics". That's why in games like GTA4, I never follow the story and just fart around and never advance very far. The story was crap and the protagonist wasn't a compelling character.
@GiantTope; Who in their right mind WOULD watch that? Heck, even Lucas wants it removed from existence, the same way Nintendo probably wishes people would forget the Mario and Zelda games on the CD-i
And here is where our opinions differ sir. I prefer a compelling story and characters over "mechanics". That's why in games like GTA4, I never follow the story and just fart around and never advance very far. The story was crap and the protagonist wasn't a compelling character.
I think you misunderstand Shodan.
You're saying that story and characters are more important than gameplay. Shodan (as I intepret him) is saying that story and characters do not exclusively make a good game.
The arguements don't fit. Shodan isn't disputing the importance of good story, but rather he's saying that story alone isn't good enough.
And here is where our opinions differ sir. I prefer a compelling story and characters over "mechanics". That's why in games like GTA4, I never follow the story and just fart around and never advance very far. The story was crap and the protagonist wasn't a compelling character.
So... You play video games for the story? Then why don't you just skip the bullshit and go straight for books or movies? You're sounding like you think the game part of a video game is merely a trivial aspect.
Excuse me for sounding rude, but that just makes little sense to me.
That and BttF the game doesn't have a spectacular story either. You can say that you have to be a big BttF fan in order to enjoy it, but that's not really giving the story merit, now isn't it?
I think Telltale should have come right out in advance and said that BTTF was primarily a puzzle-based game; heavier on the movie aspect and light on "adventuring."
Giving people fair warning of what to expect might have lessened the "WTF?" response.
Then why don't you just skip the bullshit and go straight for books or movies? You're sounding like you think the game part of a video game is merely a trivial aspect.
Maybe because there is no book or movie featuring Edna, Trixie, the Hill Valley of 1931, or the Citizen Brown timeline. Maybe he's just craving another BTTF story that is semi-official, and the fact that it just so happens to be a game is second nature to him. I think he is well within his right to uphold that opinion.
Except that the opinion is wrong, in that it's like saying a termite-infested table with a missing leg is excellent simply because it comes with a very intricately-woven tablecloth.
Maybe because there is no book or movie featuring Edna, Trixie, the Hill Valley of 1931, or the Citizen Brown timeline. Maybe he's just craving another BTTF story that is semi-official, and the fact that it just so happens to be a game is second nature to him. I think he is well within his right to uphold that opinion.
I think what we have here is, in the one camp there are those who say that a game should be a good game first regardless of the story world, be it a story-driven franchise or not; and in the other camp there are those who say that, especially given a game world involving a popular story-driven franchise (ie. originally movie-based), telling a good story comes first before overall gameplay interaction- and that if this is the best/only recent addition to the franchise then we should be happy we get anything at all.
I'd have to say that you shouldn't have to sacrifice gameplay for the sake of story or vice versa. Both are important. Differing preferences of certain gameplay styles aside, no game should be come at half-assed in any aspect.
Comments
Several E for everyone games have been more challenging in the past.
A good example would be a E for everyone game that serves as more of a challenge.
Atleast I'm into the story. I sort of play just to get through the story, but, that doesn't make for much of a game.
I still enjoy the series. When I get stuck it's because I missed a object, or a text option, something like that.
I love this game
Still Life (18 and up)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still_Life_%28video_game%29
But, I haven't beat it yet. Some of the puzzles are a bit challenging and aren't really obvious, you have to be creative and think a bit abstract.
I thought BTTF would be a E for everyone adventure game. Is it? It seems like it would be.
I agree that they are a little more objective (unbiased) than they are subjective coming up with a difficultly, age rating, especially now a days, so I can see why the games are "simple"...
You're argument, or actually interesting point you seem to bring up is that a game can have mature, intellectual content that raises it's rating, rather than simply the game play itself. This would refer to the obvious, language, violence, blood, fantasy elements, sexual undertones, how mature the game is, how witty, etc etc.
BTTF is a licensed franchise that is portrayed in mostly one light, and I'd say that is truthfully portrayed in the games. And even if for the cartoon feel to it, there was a animated series. (Which I never saw, that sort of established how the licensed franchise feels in a animated style)
I can say that I don't agree or disagree with you. But, I do seem to remember that you think the same thing about every TTG game.
Taking a potential storyline for a fourth film and turning it into a series of episodic games.
How is that a "monumental experiment"? Writing a sequel to something as a game has been done hundreds of times. If anything, it's a "safe bet" more than a "monumental experiment".
What Dashing is saying though, is that ESRB's rating "E for Everyone" has nothing to do with DIFFICULTY. It is a rating of CONTENT. As in, whether or not the game has inordinate violence, sex, language, etc. that would be inappropriate for children. Difficulty doesn't factor into it at all. I'm not trying to attack, just not sure what the basis of your argument is.
None of that changes the fact that as a game, BttF is terrible.
In order to be even a decent adventure game, it absolutely must have a large amount of puzzles that require some level of thought. It does not have even a small amount of puzzles, it has almost none.
The fact that it is so painfully simple to progress in the game is absolutely unacceptable for something advertised as a game, much less as an adventure game. We aren't even discussing whether or not the game contains fan-service or not.
The difference here seems to be that those of us who wanted an enjoyable adventure game to play are disappointed, while people who are content to just hear Marty and Doc have a conversation couldn't care less about the fact that the game treats them like a toddler with a learning disability.
I'd also hope that they cater the next season (if there is one) more toward normal gamers instead of casual/non-gamers.
I wouldn't hold out much hope. If Telltale made money off the game, they're not likely to change the formula, despite how awful it is. In financial terms, they won't learn their lesson until the next game, when everyone waits til the reviews to decide whether or not to purchase it. Then, and only then, we might see some changes made--but I still doubt it. Telltale is in it to make the most buck with the least work. They've more than proven that at this point.
As an episodic adventure game, and for a series as well loved by so many, not just gamers? I'm talking about continuing the narrative of a series here. True narrative sequels.
The only ones I can think of off the top of my head that aren't just a rehash / parallel of the original plot is the recent Ghostbusters game, and Tron 2.0. Oh, the Matrix tried it, and sucked. And those were action games, and their content leant themselves to that style of game.
Indiana Jones. That did it, and worked, I'll admit. I'd hardly call it a safe bet though.
I can't think of any others that took the adventure game route, especially post-adventure videogame world that were up until relatively recently living in. I'm open to more examples of course. I may be convinced to retract the word "monumental", but I still think it was an experiment.
Edit: If you want to trawl, try here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_games_based_on_films
How does it matter what genre the game is? Does it specifically matter that it was a movie license rather than a book or comic book license? The variables you're selecting to qualify it as an experiment are seemingly random. If an action game based on a movie license isn't "an experiment", but an adventure game with the same storyline based on the same movie license somehow is, that makes absolutely no sense to me. It's not like they came up with the adventure genre specifically for this game (not only that, the game barely plays like an adventure game, and instead is more akin to an interactive movie, and a lackluster one, at that).
Making an adventure game with a new story based on an existing license isn't an experiment. If that's the case, almost everything TTG has done other than Bone was an experiment, Strong Bad, Wallace and Gromit, CSI, all "experiments".
Star Wars? That's a crap shoot.
Star Trek?? That's had even fewer good games than BttF. So, sorry, you're not helping your point.
The quality of the games is not what is in question, the supposedly experimental nature of making the games, however, is.
If we're only going to talk about quality games, then BttF hasn't had one of those yet, either.
I contest this. The Battle for Middle Earth was an excellent RTS. True to the feel of the books and fun to play.
In today's climate I would call creating an FPS or an RPG a "safe bet". Not as much an adventure game. The quality of the game, I don't care. I agree this is closer to an interactive movie, but you know what? I think it works. I think a fourth movie is what people would ultimately have liked. This way people get to poke around with the character interactions but still get their fourth movie.
The experiment part I'm justifying because it's an actual continuation of the series. James Bond doesn't count - you could write a million of them, and they wouldn't have any script consultation by Fleming. By that token I call the Lustbader extension of the Bourne series an experiment. One which worked well, it seems.
Lord of the rings games, quality aside, were set in the book / movie universe and timeline, they weren't an extension. Can you imagine someone writing a sequel to the LOTR trilogy? Imagine a Star Wars movie written with no input from Lucas? (Yeah ok, it would probably rock, but the arguments in the fanbase would be cataclysmic)
Simpsons, Star Trek, etc. These universes are episodic by their nature. There's room in their canon to go nuts. And more often than not these games were consulted on by the original writers if not written by them. I know this game is supposed to be set in a "what-if" idea of the future timeline but at least it has Gale on board. And they're safe franchises with a very long history of episodic content. BTTF was a self contained trilogy with a definite conclusion, many years ago. You could explore the timelines from those movies, but you'd want to make damn sure you didn't mess with the original movie content or again you'd alienate your fanbase far too much. Hence experimenting beyond these times, at either end. And it seems, this is happening - you only have to look around these boards to see the division of the fan-base. So I still maintain it was an experiment.
Anyway, continue the fight.
*fans flames*
My only problem with it is that they have the audacity to call it a game in the first place, much less an adventure game. It's like making a first person shooter where all you do is shake peoples' hands and offer them hugs.
Of course, Fleming can't consult on it, at least, not until Z-Day.
Incorrect. Many of them have original stories that are set within the framework of Tolkien's storyline and world. The Third Age featured a unique storyline that weaves into the established storyline, as does LOTRO. War in the North will also feature a wholly original storyline.
I do know that at least The Force Unleashed is considered "G-canon", meaning Lucas himself considers the story to have taken place, making it an official expansion of the movie lore.
Ghostbusters had only 2 self contained movies, and they made a game to continue the story 20 years later.
I guess I just don't understand why you consider it so unexpected and out of the question to make a game (regardless of genre, though adventure is essentially the only genre that would work, since a game with McFly punching people out or shooting them to death would violently urinate on the established canon) based on Back to the Future that has an original storyline.
Timothy Zaan did this YEARS AGO, and the result is better than the original trilogy, in my opinion. Certainly better than the prequels.
Whoa, I'd forgotten about The Third Age...I need to find that game again.
Well, The Force Unleashed, while canon, has stirred up more gamer anger than BTTF has. I hadn't seen as much hate towards Lucas Studios since Jar Jar Binks as when TFU2 came out. Maybe I'm just an oddball. I love BTTF:TG, I love TFU2, and I love FFXIII. *shrugs*
I would say it's actually three groups: Those who are fans of ADVENTURE GAMES, those who are fans of TELLTALE GAMES, and those who are fans of Back to the Future (the movie.) The first and third, and the second and third are not mutually exclusive. The first and second, however, have been becoming increasingly mutually exclusive as time has gone on.
I don't think so. I'm a massive fan of both but I'm willing to give TT the benefit of the doubt and enjoy the games without over-analyzing it until it's not possible to get any fun out of them. Personally I reckon we're lucky that we got these games at all and that they didn't make a mess of them.
Edit: ^^^ What he said.
http://kotaku.com/5803192/in-defense-of-back-to-the-future-the-video-game
This "game" is as much an adventure game as Myst was a first person shooter.
Then you hire Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown and you go out and do better.
Wow, what a compelling argument. "The game is good because SHODANFreeman can't make a better game by himself."? Just because it's the least horrible BttF game doesn't mean it's a good game, by any stretch of the imagination, and just because you like the characters and story also doesn't make it a good game.
Making an adventure game without puzzles is literally the same thing as if id Software made Doom 4, and left out 99% of the enemies because they wanted the game to be "more accessible" to FPS newbies, and the insanely few enemies that they did leave in the game were so incompetent that you could punch them to death without being hit once.
Making a game more accessible does not mean they have to remove any and all challenge from the entire game, it means they should use the hint system and blatant walkthrough system to help out players that need it, and leave the players that don't need/want the help to solve it on their own.
Paying one dollar for the Star Wars Holiday Special doesn't make it good because you're only paying a buck for a 2 hour movie.
Hell, I wouldn't watch the thing for free.
And here is where our opinions differ sir. I prefer a compelling story and characters over "mechanics". That's why in games like GTA4, I never follow the story and just fart around and never advance very far. The story was crap and the protagonist wasn't a compelling character.
@GiantTope; Who in their right mind WOULD watch that? Heck, even Lucas wants it removed from existence, the same way Nintendo probably wishes people would forget the Mario and Zelda games on the CD-i
I think you misunderstand Shodan.
You're saying that story and characters are more important than gameplay. Shodan (as I intepret him) is saying that story and characters do not exclusively make a good game.
The arguements don't fit. Shodan isn't disputing the importance of good story, but rather he's saying that story alone isn't good enough.
So... You play video games for the story? Then why don't you just skip the bullshit and go straight for books or movies? You're sounding like you think the game part of a video game is merely a trivial aspect.
Excuse me for sounding rude, but that just makes little sense to me.
That and BttF the game doesn't have a spectacular story either. You can say that you have to be a big BttF fan in order to enjoy it, but that's not really giving the story merit, now isn't it?
I wonder this about BTTF the game all the time.
Giving people fair warning of what to expect might have lessened the "WTF?" response.
Maybe because there is no book or movie featuring Edna, Trixie, the Hill Valley of 1931, or the Citizen Brown timeline. Maybe he's just craving another BTTF story that is semi-official, and the fact that it just so happens to be a game is second nature to him. I think he is well within his right to uphold that opinion.
I think what we have here is, in the one camp there are those who say that a game should be a good game first regardless of the story world, be it a story-driven franchise or not; and in the other camp there are those who say that, especially given a game world involving a popular story-driven franchise (ie. originally movie-based), telling a good story comes first before overall gameplay interaction- and that if this is the best/only recent addition to the franchise then we should be happy we get anything at all.
I'd have to say that you shouldn't have to sacrifice gameplay for the sake of story or vice versa. Both are important. Differing preferences of certain gameplay styles aside, no game should be come at half-assed in any aspect.
EDIT:
that made me lol.