I think these reviews are done by people who have never seen the original film.
I LOVE literally the entire saga and (trying to be objective) this game IS Jurassic Park, is what i wanted to feel returning to Isla Nublar, independently of my love for the movies.
There's all. Dinosaurs, places, vehicles, people references, interaction, ecc. ecc. but above all there's the original Jurassic Park atmosphere, the situations...
So, I sure would like to play a sand box game inspired by the film, but THIS Telltale game has the ability to represent the true atmosphere of the film... The strong point of this TTgame is the story and how it is told, with an unusual gameplay BUT perfect for reliving the real feeling of Jurassic Park.
The thing with IGN is that their reviews tend to side with hype. GTA 4 got 10/10, same with MGS4 and many other games that people talk high of before they come out(go check out how they rated the titles released this past month too). It's almost like they start rating those games at a 9 and go up and down from there. While both the games I mentioned were fun, neither is in my top 20 of all time. Seriously, GTA4 isnt even my favourite GTA game.
Is this topic Paranoid Park ? All the legit websites that have already published a review are bashing the game big time. It will eventually get a terrible score on Metacritic.
Did any of you guys actually READ the review? This reviewer points out some very real and valid problems with the game, both from a fundamental design standpoint, and a storytelling standpoint.
I see that as well. Nonetheless, his most striking point IS the gameplay, where Zeros' comment comes into play:
I find it a bit unfair to review a game because that game is not the genre you would have preferred it to be, it should be based on the game as it is. It would be like saying "i didnt like call of duty because its not an adventure game" or "i didnt like world of warcraft because its not a first person shooter".
I see the problem, though I'm not sure how the situation can be remedied. It's true that many reviewers give some genres less favorable reviews, but they are seldom that biased that they hand out 50% ratings like candy just because it's a certain game genre. But reviews are always subjective, and reviewers always have to give their subjective impression whether they like a game or not. That's why I find the IGN review to be at least a valid one for the purpose of discussion.
It is, however, not a surprising result from this site. IGN had looked at the game at PAX and voiced its concerns already (as was discussed in the "IGN is worried..." thread on this forum).
Is this topic Paranoid Park ? All the legit websites that have already published a review are bashing the game big time. It will eventually get a terrible score on Metacritic.
Would you mind to post links to those "legit" websites?
I'd be really interested.
Would you mind to post links to those "legit" websites?
I'd be really interested.
Check on 1UP or Game Informer. The game is likely to get, at best, a 60 on Metacritic (and I'm being pretty generous here), which is terrible for in this industry.
Oh yeah, that's a really horrible idea. Nobody would ever play a Jurassic Park like that, and it wouldn't sell any copies.</sarcasm>
And are you telling me that if a JP game like that came out, you wouldn't play it? LOL don't lie, you know you would.
I would never play a game like that. I'd much rather drill a hole in my head than play a GTA-like Jurassic Park, as that would be more rewarding and much more fun.
Stop being delusional, JPTH is getting, at best, average scores which, in the videogame industry, means that the game is REALLY disappointing.
I find it more dissapointing that people need opinion of others to find enjoyment in a product. I can't even remember how many amazing games i've played that have received mediocre scores, and how many awful games I've played that received 9+ scores.
I find it more dissapointing that people need opinion of others to find enjoyment in a product. I can't even remember how many amazing games i've played that have received mediocre scores, and how many awful games I've played that received 9+ scores.
Well that's why a proper review discusses the aspects of the game and opinion is supposed to come secondary. Not start off with opinion and sprinkling it throughout your article. While some points were quite valid, some were not. The point about being able to randomly select objects and dialogue, again, valid...but who the hell does that. No wonder the writer couldn't get immersed into the game. As previously stated, this game was obviously not the reviewer's preferred style of gameplay, but a good writer will not let that shine through their article. The game appeals to a certain demographic and I wouldn't be surprised if the average gamer only rated this around 6. That is why you discuss HOW the game is played, what kind of game it is, what demographic it is intended for and make comparisons in style. THIS is what interested buyers want to read about...not the fact you didn't like it.
The review is just badly done...and it isn't the first time I've seen this from IGN. Their articles can be very amusing and interesting, but their reviews always seem slanted and that isn't professional, it's tabloid journalism.
I see that as well. Nonetheless, his most striking point IS the gameplay, where Zeros' comment comes into play:
Yeah, but that's just it, the game is advertised as an "adventure game", a specific genre of game with specific expectations for gameplay and design, and he basically points out several ways JP doesn't live up to these expectations.
Let's face it, IGN are a bunch of adolescent 360 playing, closeted men who beat off to space marines in high def.... They'll give a 9/10 to anything that has a man with large muscles sweating and grappling with other men....
PS: Anyone thinking I'm making a serious attempt at discrediting IGN. There should be a switch that says push to close, push it and your brain should be re-attached to your spinal chord.....Remember they'll give 9/10s to things with large breasted women in too, they have to keep up appearances :P
They did give The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword a 10/10 and it has neither.
I would never play a game like that. I'd much rather drill a hole in my head than play a GTA-like Jurassic Park, as that would be more rewarding and much more fun.
So are you telling me you wouldn't love to explore the entire island? Why WOULDN'T anyone like that?
You saying that a GTA-like Jurassic Park is a terrible idea is like saying that hot fudge chocolate sundaes are terrible. DOES NOT COMPUTE.
The thing with IGN is that their reviews tend to side with hype. GTA 4 got 10/10, same with MGS4 and many other games that people talk high of before they come out(go check out how they rated the titles released this past month too). It's almost like they start rating those games at a 9 and go up and down from there. While both the games I mentioned were fun, neither is in my top 20 of all time. Seriously, GTA4 isnt even my favourite GTA game.
MGS4 is definitely in my top ten best games ever. Actually I just put the entire MGS series at my number 1 spot, it's my favorite series for it's extremely high quality gameplay, constant innovation, and really great story. See? Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it was just a "hyped" up score it didn't deserve. I'm pretty sure the hype has worn off by this point, being several years later, and I still give MGS4 a 10/10.
As for GTAIV, it's hard to argue that game wasn't extremely well made and Rockstar just took it even further with Red Dead Redemption. Rockstar deserves every bit of praise it gets. They consistently put out high quality products.
Listen guys, quit making excuses, if IGN or any other reviewer didn't like Jurassic Park but you did, then just forget about it. You already bought the damn game anyway, why are you reading reviews for crying out loud.
Gamers are far too obsessed with reviews, it's ridiculous really.
Gamers are far too obsessed with reviews, it's ridiculous really.
Quoted for truth. Honestly, just try the darn game. I've loved games that others have hated. I've hated games that others have loved. Sonic Unleashed for example. The reviews were good, it sounded promising. After playing through some of it, I would have given it a 5/10 for half the game being good, but the other half boring and not very well thought out.
The fact is, everyone REALLY wanted a free-roaming sandbox type of Jurassic Park game where you actually get to roam wherever you wanted in the park. That's my dream Jurassic Park game.
No, not everyone. Having had free roam in the "limited" world of Fallout 3, I really don't want the ability to roam all over the island. I honestly think that free roaming in an island where dinosaurs could jump out of nowhere and rip your head off before you blink just wouldn't be fun.
There is probably a happy medium somewhere between what we have here and free roam but the screen scrolling really isn't any worse that just moving Guybrush around exploring. It doesn't make the game more exciting as you have to wait for your character to walk from x to y for the umpteenth time.
IGN is definitely biased. So is GameSpot, GameSpy, GameInformer, etc. and more than likely a majority of gamers who read those sites. And they're biased all in the same direction, to wit: modern video games (in stark contrast to movies) are judged on the extent to which they allow the player to define his or her own experience.
This is the ultimate root of just about every non-graphics-related criticism of JP:TG I've seen, whether coming from gamers who boil it down to the word "sandbox", or those who favor games with deeply-branching plots, and even those adventure gamers, such as myself, who relish the experience of exploring an environment rich with mysteries to solve -- rather than shit-easy, one-at-a-time, escape-the-room type puzzles -- no matter how good the story is.
Open-world environments and Heavy Rain-style non-linearity are not just fads or the province of the immature and shallow; they're the current pinnacles of the direction video gaming has been heading since its inception, the very thing that distinguishes video games from movies -- increasing the degrees of freedom players have to meet whatever challenges are embedded in the gameworld and thereby flesh out the story with their own actions.
Moreover there are plenty of games that don't go so far as open-world or branching plotlines yet still offer players opportunities to tailor their own experiences. The supposed dichotomy between "sandbox" and "story-driven" is not only false, it's absurd. You're kidding yourselves if you think that substantive, flexible gameplay has to be sacrificed in order for a Jurassic Park game to have a high-quality, true-to-the-franchise story. Anyone who says that sandbox games skew the "pacing" of a story could only be approaching gaming as an exercise in consumption. In contrast, most non-casual gamers see themselves as participants, not consumers, and as the source of all manner of details in the writing of the story, including its pacing. Who's to say that your or my telling-by-playing story would be less faithful to JP than Telltale's?
So to all of you casual gamers, JP fans who are happy to just "be there", and adventure gamers who believe story is more important than gameplay: Suck it up. Stop pretending that negative reviews are about genre or any other kind of bias rather than widely accepted standards. The gaming press knows when it sees a title that falls far short of what most non-casual gamers are looking for in games -- including so-called story-driven games -- these days.
How would you open-world a Jurassic Park game without including a hit-point system or make it a shooter(ugh)? Have the dinosaurs stand in one spot while you roam around? While I agree there could have been free-roaming portions such as sealed rooms or parts outside, I disagree with the feasibility of wandering around when there are dinosaurs right there.
(I'll also add, which I haven't mentioned... IGN gave it a 5.5 where I said I would have given it 6 for general gamers. My problem wasnt with the facts in the article or the score..but with how the article was written. It really didn't seem very professional to me)
IGN is definitely biased. So is GameSpot, GameSpy, GameInformer, etc. and more than likely a majority of gamers who read those sites. And they're biased all in the same direction, to wit: modern video games (in stark contrast to movies) are judged on the extent to which they allow the player to define his or her own experience.
This is the ultimate root of just about every non-graphics-related criticism of JP:TG I've seen, whether coming from gamers who boil it down to the word "sandbox", or those who favor games with deeply-branching plots, and even those adventure gamers, such as myself, who relish the experience of exploring an environment rich with mysteries to solve -- rather than shit-easy, one-at-a-time, escape-the-room type puzzles -- no matter how good the story is.
Open-world environments and Heavy Rain-style non-linearity are not just fads or the province of the immature and shallow; they're the current pinnacles of the direction video gaming has been heading since its inception, the very thing that distinguishes video games from movies -- increasing the degrees of freedom players have to meet whatever challenges are embedded in the gameworld and thereby flesh out the story with their own actions.
Moreover there are plenty of games that don't go so far as open-world or branching plotlines yet still offer players opportunities to tailor their own experiences. The supposed dichotomy between "sandbox" and "story-driven" is not only false, it's absurd. You're kidding yourselves if you think that substantive, flexible gameplay has to be sacrificed in order for a Jurassic Park game to have a high-quality, true-to-the-franchise story. Anyone who says that sandbox games skew the "pacing" of a story could only be approaching gaming as an exercise in consumption. In contrast, most non-casual gamers see themselves as participants, not consumers, and as the source of all manner of details in the writing of the story, including its pacing. Who's to say that your or my telling-by-playing story would be less faithful to JP than Telltale's?
So to all of you casual gamers, JP fans who are happy to just "be there", and adventure gamers who believe story is more important than gameplay: Suck it up. Stop pretending that negative reviews are about genre or any other kind of bias rather than widely accepted standards. The gaming press knows when it sees a title that falls far short of what most non-casual gamers are looking for in games -- including so-called story-driven games -- these days.
Thom-22, I don't know why, but I consistently find myself wanting to stand up and applaud your posts. Very well said. Bravo!
One reviever wrote this I am not gonna say which one
No hold on, Jurrasic Park is not some game that was obliterated by competition, or the building of a larger gaming industry. Jurrasic Park, uh, *had* their shot, and the gamers *selected* it for extinction!
I disagree concerning the characters. This is over the top quality as used from Telltale. Great camera work and somewhat filled with suspension. Feels like some professional movie screen-play...
But what about gaming? Pressing buttons in the right moment does not qualify for a game. This is more like an interactive movie (Dragon's Lair anyone??)
I hope, that Telltale is not losing the adventure element like I did start noticing with BTTF (waaaay too easy). Sam and Max or TOMI is the way to go...
No hold on, Jurrasic Park is not some game that was obliterated by competition, or the building of a larger gaming industry. Jurrasic Park, uh, *had* their shot, and biases website reviewers *selected* it for extinction!
I knew IGN would do this - they only give good reviews to the hyped-up games.
That is patently untrue.
Orcs Must Die, Bastion, Blocks that Matter, Machinarium, and a lot more. Those are all indie games (not blockbusters, not hyped-up games) that scored 8.5 and above in the last few weeks. IGN may not be the best gaming site out there, but they're nowhere near as bad as how you paint them to be.
modern video games (in stark contrast to movies) are judged on the extent to which they allow the player to define his or her own experience.
Open-world environments and Heavy Rain-style non-linearity are not just fads or the province of the immature and shallow; they're the current pinnacles of the direction video gaming has been heading since its inception, the very thing that distinguishes video games from movies -- increasing the degrees of freedom players have to meet whatever challenges are embedded in the gameworld and thereby flesh out the story with their own actions.
That is why fallout 1&2, arcanum, system shock 1&2 ultima series and similar games are surpassed by the majority of modern games when it comes to the extent of defining your own experience.... oh wait, no they're not. And i'm sure older gamers could point out even older gems that make skyrim fell like call of duty of RPG's in comparison.
The pinnacle of the direction of mainstream modern gaming is graphical presentation,ease of accessibility, and franchising, definitely not the extent of interactivity.
I would say that JP is getting low scores because its exploring the medium in a way that mainstream critics aren't equipped to deal with. The medium is not accepted as an art form yet, and in such a position you really can't expect the mainstream critics to be qualified to judge works outside the scope of their limited understanding. JP reviewed by IGN, is like having Einstein's paper submitted for peer review at some college fraternity.
I ended up sounding as pretentious as you, didn't I? oh well it is a discussion after all.
That is why fallout 1&2, arcanum, system shock 1&2 ultima series and similar games are surpassed by the majority of modern games when it comes to the extent of defining your own experience.... oh wait, no they're not. And i'm sure older gamers could point out even older gems that make skyrim fell like call of duty of RPG's in comparison.
The pinnacle of the direction of mainstream modern gaming is graphical presentation,ease of accessibility, and franchising, definitely not the extent of interactivity.
I would say that JP is getting low scores because its exploring the medium in a way that mainstream critics aren't equipped to deal with. The medium is not accepted as an art form yet, and in such a position you really can't expect the mainstream critics to be qualified to judge works outside the scope of their limited understanding. JP reviewed by IGN, is like having Einstein's paper submitted for peer review at some college fraternity.
I ended up sounding as pretentious as you, didn't I? oh well it is a discussion after all.
Congratulations! You win the most idiotic post of the thread award!
Now Jurassic Park: The Game is high art, and the IGN critic the boorish philistine who simply can't grasp its genius!
I think a free roaming Jurassic Park game would be brilliant and fun.. but maybe not really faithful to the story...
For one... you would need massive mobs of dinosaurs spread all over the island... and as most fans of the books and movies know they were NOT that plentiful.
Plus while it MAY prove to be a great experience I think people wanting something faithful to the source material would be put off on having the T-Rex show up on every area of the Island especially if you had managed to kill it off with you're stolen 90's Ford Explorer during your drive by shooting..
Sure I would totally play that game and probably like it.. but I think there is room for special games like this that are more story focused and less mainstream.... Not all games have to be Skyrim or GTA..
I think a free roaming Jurassic Park game would be brilliant and fun.. but maybe not really faithful to the story...
For one... you would need massive mobs of dinosaurs spread all over the island... and as most fans of the books and movies know they were NOT that plentiful.
Plus while it MAY prove to be a great experience I think people wanting something faithful to the source material would be put off on having the T-Rex show up on every area of the Island especially if you had managed to kill it off with you're stolen 90's Ford Explorer during your drive by shooting..
Sure I would totally play that game and probably like it.. but I think there is room for special games like this that are more story focused and less mainstream.... Not all games have to be Skyrim or GTA..
A modern version of Tresspasser would definitely be great. That game was simply made before the tech was up to speed. It could work nowadays, but obviously, it would never mimic the movie to the extent that this game did.
That is what makes this game so special for me. It gave me back that magical feeling that the original movie gave me when i was still a kid.
However, I would definitely not complain if rockstar or bethesda made a JP licensed rpg/sandbox game.
I think a free roaming Jurassic Park game would be brilliant and fun.. but maybe not really faithful to the story...
Not only that but ign would have most likely still have given it a poor review. He complains of "a little girl" being able to outrun the rex (which btw happend in the lost world too) and that raptors can be taken on one on one with a knife and lose, and that was just one scene with a tough bad*** who barely survied, and who is
killed later on by more raptors
Just imagine the complaints hed have when your outrunning all the dinosaurs mowing down raptors with a machine gun if it were a sandbox/survivor or fps (as some people have stated they would have rather had)
Actually, it's funny how gamespy was mentioned, they actually gave it a more positive review than ign did. I do have to admit even though I don't agree with Greg's review, he did bring up some good points. It would have been nice to feel like a game half the time it felt like a movie instead of more like an interactive movie. The puzzles are too simplistic and not challenging enough, but I guess that comes with limited area to explore without the options to backtrack and the lack of an inventory system. That would have been nice to have. However, I praise the story and voice acting and, of course, the wonderful action sequences. Those dinos look great. The death scenes are a blast to watch too, lol. I can honestly say this game brings out my morbid curiosity. That is one thing I do disagree with: The unintentionally funny death that detracts from the suspenseful immersion. What about when the lawyer got eaten off the toilet? That was actually pretty hilarious to most of us and the scene still manged to capture the suspense. I didn't feel the death scenes were unintentional in their humor and felt it added to the experience which made dying in a game fun for once. But hey, that's just my opinion. I would probably give this game a 7 to 8 out of 10, but am somewhat sad it is almost over already.
That is why fallout 1&2, arcanum, system shock 1&2 ultima series and similar games are surpassed by the majority of modern games when it comes to the extent of defining your own experience.... oh wait, no they're not.
I think by associating it too closely with RPG gameplay you're distorting the more robust concept of players defining their own gaming experiences. While RPG gameplay is certainly an effective means of giving players choices and greater freedom to play games in their own ways, it's only one of a growing number of such means; the games you list might be your preferred way for personalizing the gaming experience, but I don't see any objective basis for saying that they surpass other kinds of games that use different mechanisms for enabling players to tailor their experiences. In other words, the (lack of) popularity of deep RPGs is hardly appropriate as the sole measure of gamers' desires.
Your point is also kind of silly in that most people will regard the "elite few" of one era as surpassing the majority of any other era, for whatever quality is being judged. The five best movies from the 1950s are better than the majority of movies today. So what. The statement has no bearing on determining whether movies from the 1950s are better, on the whole, than movies of today or vice versa, let alone on the trends that have occurred between then and now.
Incidentally, while I'm aware of the trend toward making RPGs more accessible, this is not necessarily the direct opposite of the trend I'm talking about. In fact, role-playing elements are being increasingly used in non-RPGs -- shooters and other action and hybrid games -- which I would cite as further demonstration (along with popularity of sandbox games and Heavy Rain and non-linearity already mentioned) of the value non-casual players place on choice and gameplay flexibility.
I would say that JP is getting low scores because its exploring the medium in a way that mainstream critics aren't equipped to deal with. The medium is not accepted as an art form yet, and in such a position you really can't expect the mainstream critics to be qualified to judge works outside the scope of their limited understanding. JP reviewed by IGN, is like having Einstein's paper submitted for peer review at some college fraternity.
Oh, please. :rolleyes: The critics aren't bored by this game because it's too intellectually or artistically challenging for them.
Okay, I enjoyed the story and characters and the QTEs kept me on my toes(which makes sense considering the peril that the characters were in). Good game. I personally enjoyed Back to the Future a little more because I love that franchise more. However, both games have their flaws. Simply put, masterpieces they ain't. I can definitely see someone not liking them. I respect TellTale a great deal for stepping outside their usual boundaries, and I hope that they step up the pace in subsequent installments for JP and BTTF, but I also hope that they take some of the criticisms into account. Heck, if the high-and-mighty Square-Enix can do it, surely so can TellTale.
Comments
Oh yeah, that's a really horrible idea. Nobody would ever play a Jurassic Park like that, and it wouldn't sell any copies.</sarcasm>
And are you telling me that if a JP game like that came out, you wouldn't play it? LOL don't lie, you know you would.
I LOVE literally the entire saga and (trying to be objective) this game IS Jurassic Park, is what i wanted to feel returning to Isla Nublar, independently of my love for the movies.
There's all. Dinosaurs, places, vehicles, people references, interaction, ecc. ecc. but above all there's the original Jurassic Park atmosphere, the situations...
So, I sure would like to play a sand box game inspired by the film, but THIS Telltale game has the ability to represent the true atmosphere of the film... The strong point of this TTgame is the story and how it is told, with an unusual gameplay BUT perfect for reliving the real feeling of Jurassic Park.
I see that as well. Nonetheless, his most striking point IS the gameplay, where Zeros' comment comes into play:
I see the problem, though I'm not sure how the situation can be remedied. It's true that many reviewers give some genres less favorable reviews, but they are seldom that biased that they hand out 50% ratings like candy just because it's a certain game genre. But reviews are always subjective, and reviewers always have to give their subjective impression whether they like a game or not. That's why I find the IGN review to be at least a valid one for the purpose of discussion.
It is, however, not a surprising result from this site. IGN had looked at the game at PAX and voiced its concerns already (as was discussed in the "IGN is worried..." thread on this forum).
Would you mind to post links to those "legit" websites?
I'd be really interested.
Which is why they gave Heavy Rain a 9.
Stop being delusional, JPTH is getting, at best, average scores which, in the videogame industry, means that the game is REALLY disappointing.
Check on 1UP or Game Informer. The game is likely to get, at best, a 60 on Metacritic (and I'm being pretty generous here), which is terrible for in this industry.
I would never play a game like that. I'd much rather drill a hole in my head than play a GTA-like Jurassic Park, as that would be more rewarding and much more fun.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/jurassic-park-user-reviews-abused-6346288/?tag=updates%3Beditor%3Ball%3Btitle%3B2
Already discussed here.
That would have worked if we hadn't stopped you.
I find it more dissapointing that people need opinion of others to find enjoyment in a product. I can't even remember how many amazing games i've played that have received mediocre scores, and how many awful games I've played that received 9+ scores.
Well that's why a proper review discusses the aspects of the game and opinion is supposed to come secondary. Not start off with opinion and sprinkling it throughout your article. While some points were quite valid, some were not. The point about being able to randomly select objects and dialogue, again, valid...but who the hell does that. No wonder the writer couldn't get immersed into the game. As previously stated, this game was obviously not the reviewer's preferred style of gameplay, but a good writer will not let that shine through their article. The game appeals to a certain demographic and I wouldn't be surprised if the average gamer only rated this around 6. That is why you discuss HOW the game is played, what kind of game it is, what demographic it is intended for and make comparisons in style. THIS is what interested buyers want to read about...not the fact you didn't like it.
The review is just badly done...and it isn't the first time I've seen this from IGN. Their articles can be very amusing and interesting, but their reviews always seem slanted and that isn't professional, it's tabloid journalism.
Yeah, but that's just it, the game is advertised as an "adventure game", a specific genre of game with specific expectations for gameplay and design, and he basically points out several ways JP doesn't live up to these expectations.
They did give The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword a 10/10 and it has neither.
So are you telling me you wouldn't love to explore the entire island? Why WOULDN'T anyone like that?
You saying that a GTA-like Jurassic Park is a terrible idea is like saying that hot fudge chocolate sundaes are terrible. DOES NOT COMPUTE.
MGS4 is definitely in my top ten best games ever. Actually I just put the entire MGS series at my number 1 spot, it's my favorite series for it's extremely high quality gameplay, constant innovation, and really great story. See? Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it was just a "hyped" up score it didn't deserve. I'm pretty sure the hype has worn off by this point, being several years later, and I still give MGS4 a 10/10.
As for GTAIV, it's hard to argue that game wasn't extremely well made and Rockstar just took it even further with Red Dead Redemption. Rockstar deserves every bit of praise it gets. They consistently put out high quality products.
Listen guys, quit making excuses, if IGN or any other reviewer didn't like Jurassic Park but you did, then just forget about it. You already bought the damn game anyway, why are you reading reviews for crying out loud.
Gamers are far too obsessed with reviews, it's ridiculous really.
Quoted for truth. Honestly, just try the darn game. I've loved games that others have hated. I've hated games that others have loved. Sonic Unleashed for example. The reviews were good, it sounded promising. After playing through some of it, I would have given it a 5/10 for half the game being good, but the other half boring and not very well thought out.
No, not everyone. Having had free roam in the "limited" world of Fallout 3, I really don't want the ability to roam all over the island. I honestly think that free roaming in an island where dinosaurs could jump out of nowhere and rip your head off before you blink just wouldn't be fun.
There is probably a happy medium somewhere between what we have here and free roam but the screen scrolling really isn't any worse that just moving Guybrush around exploring. It doesn't make the game more exciting as you have to wait for your character to walk from x to y for the umpteenth time.
This is the ultimate root of just about every non-graphics-related criticism of JP:TG I've seen, whether coming from gamers who boil it down to the word "sandbox", or those who favor games with deeply-branching plots, and even those adventure gamers, such as myself, who relish the experience of exploring an environment rich with mysteries to solve -- rather than shit-easy, one-at-a-time, escape-the-room type puzzles -- no matter how good the story is.
Open-world environments and Heavy Rain-style non-linearity are not just fads or the province of the immature and shallow; they're the current pinnacles of the direction video gaming has been heading since its inception, the very thing that distinguishes video games from movies -- increasing the degrees of freedom players have to meet whatever challenges are embedded in the gameworld and thereby flesh out the story with their own actions.
Moreover there are plenty of games that don't go so far as open-world or branching plotlines yet still offer players opportunities to tailor their own experiences. The supposed dichotomy between "sandbox" and "story-driven" is not only false, it's absurd. You're kidding yourselves if you think that substantive, flexible gameplay has to be sacrificed in order for a Jurassic Park game to have a high-quality, true-to-the-franchise story. Anyone who says that sandbox games skew the "pacing" of a story could only be approaching gaming as an exercise in consumption. In contrast, most non-casual gamers see themselves as participants, not consumers, and as the source of all manner of details in the writing of the story, including its pacing. Who's to say that your or my telling-by-playing story would be less faithful to JP than Telltale's?
So to all of you casual gamers, JP fans who are happy to just "be there", and adventure gamers who believe story is more important than gameplay: Suck it up. Stop pretending that negative reviews are about genre or any other kind of bias rather than widely accepted standards. The gaming press knows when it sees a title that falls far short of what most non-casual gamers are looking for in games -- including so-called story-driven games -- these days.
(I'll also add, which I haven't mentioned... IGN gave it a 5.5 where I said I would have given it 6 for general gamers. My problem wasnt with the facts in the article or the score..but with how the article was written. It really didn't seem very professional to me)
Thom-22, I don't know why, but I consistently find myself wanting to stand up and applaud your posts. Very well said. Bravo!
No hold on, Jurrasic Park is not some game that was obliterated by competition, or the building of a larger gaming industry. Jurrasic Park, uh, *had* their shot, and the gamers *selected* it for extinction!
I disagree concerning the characters. This is over the top quality as used from Telltale. Great camera work and somewhat filled with suspension. Feels like some professional movie screen-play...
But what about gaming? Pressing buttons in the right moment does not qualify for a game. This is more like an interactive movie (Dragon's Lair anyone??)
I hope, that Telltale is not losing the adventure element like I did start noticing with BTTF (waaaay too easy). Sam and Max or TOMI is the way to go...
fixed
That is patently untrue.
Orcs Must Die, Bastion, Blocks that Matter, Machinarium, and a lot more. Those are all indie games (not blockbusters, not hyped-up games) that scored 8.5 and above in the last few weeks. IGN may not be the best gaming site out there, but they're nowhere near as bad as how you paint them to be.
That is why fallout 1&2, arcanum, system shock 1&2 ultima series and similar games are surpassed by the majority of modern games when it comes to the extent of defining your own experience.... oh wait, no they're not.
The pinnacle of the direction of mainstream modern gaming is graphical presentation,ease of accessibility, and franchising, definitely not the extent of interactivity.
I would say that JP is getting low scores because its exploring the medium in a way that mainstream critics aren't equipped to deal with. The medium is not accepted as an art form yet, and in such a position you really can't expect the mainstream critics to be qualified to judge works outside the scope of their limited understanding. JP reviewed by IGN, is like having Einstein's paper submitted for peer review at some college fraternity.
I ended up sounding as pretentious as you, didn't I?
Congratulations! You win the most idiotic post of the thread award!
Now Jurassic Park: The Game is high art, and the IGN critic the boorish philistine who simply can't grasp its genius!
My God. I think I actually just got dumber.
For one... you would need massive mobs of dinosaurs spread all over the island... and as most fans of the books and movies know they were NOT that plentiful.
Plus while it MAY prove to be a great experience I think people wanting something faithful to the source material would be put off on having the T-Rex show up on every area of the Island especially if you had managed to kill it off with you're stolen 90's Ford Explorer during your drive by shooting..
Sure I would totally play that game and probably like it.. but I think there is room for special games like this that are more story focused and less mainstream.... Not all games have to be Skyrim or GTA..
A modern version of Tresspasser would definitely be great. That game was simply made before the tech was up to speed. It could work nowadays, but obviously, it would never mimic the movie to the extent that this game did.
That is what makes this game so special for me. It gave me back that magical feeling that the original movie gave me when i was still a kid.
However, I would definitely not complain if rockstar or bethesda made a JP licensed rpg/sandbox game.
Not only that but ign would have most likely still have given it a poor review. He complains of "a little girl" being able to outrun the rex (which btw happend in the lost world too) and that raptors can be taken on one on one with a knife and lose, and that was just one scene with a tough bad*** who barely survied, and who is
Just imagine the complaints hed have when your outrunning all the dinosaurs mowing down raptors with a machine gun if it were a sandbox/survivor or fps (as some people have stated they would have rather had)
A lot of you guys sound as narrow-minded as what you claim the reviewers, gamers, and developers you're insulting are.
I think by associating it too closely with RPG gameplay you're distorting the more robust concept of players defining their own gaming experiences. While RPG gameplay is certainly an effective means of giving players choices and greater freedom to play games in their own ways, it's only one of a growing number of such means; the games you list might be your preferred way for personalizing the gaming experience, but I don't see any objective basis for saying that they surpass other kinds of games that use different mechanisms for enabling players to tailor their experiences. In other words, the (lack of) popularity of deep RPGs is hardly appropriate as the sole measure of gamers' desires.
Your point is also kind of silly in that most people will regard the "elite few" of one era as surpassing the majority of any other era, for whatever quality is being judged. The five best movies from the 1950s are better than the majority of movies today. So what. The statement has no bearing on determining whether movies from the 1950s are better, on the whole, than movies of today or vice versa, let alone on the trends that have occurred between then and now.
Incidentally, while I'm aware of the trend toward making RPGs more accessible, this is not necessarily the direct opposite of the trend I'm talking about. In fact, role-playing elements are being increasingly used in non-RPGs -- shooters and other action and hybrid games -- which I would cite as further demonstration (along with popularity of sandbox games and Heavy Rain and non-linearity already mentioned) of the value non-casual players place on choice and gameplay flexibility.
Oh, please. :rolleyes: The critics aren't bored by this game because it's too intellectually or artistically challenging for them.