I'm not sure if this a good idea for TTG!

Telltale is really best at making adventure games! The Jurassic Park concept doesn't, for the most part, lend itself to adventure games! The best type of Jurassic Park game is one where you you get a bunch of different weapons and shoot at a bunch of cool looking dinosaurs! This isn't the type of game Telltale has made thus far and I'm not sure if they will start now! And Jurassic Park has, for the most part, no humor, so thats out! Unless your gonna spend you whole time running around looking for keys to open doors with dinosaurs chasing you or something, I don't really see what they can do with this!
«1

Comments

  • edited September 2010
    Don't be so certain, Jurassic Park is not really about shooting Dinosaurs it's more about Atmosphere and story, and telltale is capable to do that, all I ask is they capture both those qualities and I'll be pleased.
  • edited September 2010
    Well, apparently Jurassic Park is going to be adapted into a game slightly different than anything Telltale have done before. They said it'll feel more like there's a sense of danger and urgency, and it won't necesarilly be finding out puzzle solutions at your own pace, becuase there may be a dinosaur coming right around the corner. I think this could be pretty exciting.

    As I believe somebody on the Mixnmojo podcast said, Jurassic Park is not so story based as it is running from dinosaurs based. In that respect, Telltale could better the movies.
  • Sinaz20Sinaz20 Telltale Alumni
    edited September 2010
    Telltale is really best at making adventure games! The Jurassic Park concept doesn't, for the most part, lend itself to adventure games! The best type of Jurassic Park game is one where you you get a bunch of different weapons and shoot at a bunch of cool looking dinosaurs! This isn't the type of game Telltale has made thus far and I'm not sure if they will start now! And Jurassic Park has, for the most part, no humor, so thats out! Unless your gonna spend you whole time running around looking for keys to open doors with dinosaurs chasing you or something, I don't really see what they can do with this!

    I wholeheartedly disagree. Shooting dinosaurs makes for a great Turok or Dino Crisis game... but not Jurassic Park.

    Also, Jurassic Park has its humor-- not in dinosaurs doing funny songs and dances or anything, but simply in situational gags and dialog. I laughed often watching those movies. Malcom's wit. Grant avoiding the kids. The lawyer getting eaten off the can-- Jurassic Park is full of comic relief.

    What makes Jurassic Park a great license for adventure gaming is matching wits with the brutal instinctive nature of these creatures. Horror. Suspense. And interesting characters with conflicting agendas.

    In the first Jurassic Park movie there was one type of weapon-- a shotgun. And we never get to see a dinosaur get shot. In fact, the only one that does get shot is the Raptor being loaded into the paddock at the beginning of the movie, and the scene cuts before we see it. Muldoon mentions having to put another down.

    In JP II, dinosaurs are shot at... but none are killed by gunfire. In fact, most of the shooting is done with tranquilizers. JP III, the Spinosaurus is simply chased off with a flare gun.

    It's not a combat movie franchise.

    I hope you'll give JP a chance, even though it's not going to be a run-and-gun Turok clone. I think you'll understand where we saw the "adventure" in the franchise.
  • edited September 2010
    Yes! Finally a dinosaur game that isn't going to be a mindless shooting. Thanks for your comments, Sinaz20, you just gave me even more hope for this game!

    It's gonna rock!
  • edited September 2010
    Jurassic Park as an Adventure should work pretty well considering that both Islands have a high-security infrastructure that can laid out like a maze in the game.
  • edited September 2010
    I think the adventure genre fits Jurassic Park better than any other videogame genre. It really has all the hallmarks. You've got an isolated location, tons of locked doors and fences that need keys or power rebooted or whatnot, potential danger around every corner. The characters are often lost and have to find their way to safety. There's usually a complex abandoned structure to be explored. It really has a great setup for a great adventure game.

    And it's a wonderful opportunity for Telltale because it gives them a chance to tell a story that is more realistic and doesn't hinge on completely absurd situations and characters (and yes, I realize how strange it is to say that about a story with dinosaurs in it).

    I know Telltale has said this won't be a "point and click dinosaur game" but I hope they don't stray too far from the adventure game genre just because they think people want a Jurassic Park game that is more about shooting dinosaurs. There's a lot of adventure potential there.
  • edited September 2010
    As I've mentioned before, I'm more excited for the Back to the Future game, but I'm more interested to see how the Jurassic Park game turns out. BttF fits perfectly into BttF's wheelhouse. Jurassic Park on the other hand... not as much. That's not to say they can't use it, but the JP game should really show some from TTG that we haven't seen yet.
  • edited September 2010
    @Sinaz20
    You're definately the first person i know who says that JP has interesting characters.

    I think the best aspects about JP (part 1 was way better than the rest) are Spielberg's capabilities, the dinos, ILM, Sam Neill & Jeff Goldblum, maybe some of the humour, did i mention the dinos already?
  • edited September 2010
    Spykes wrote: »
    That's not to say they can't use it, but the JP game should really show some from TTG that we haven't seen yet.

    That's the great part. Everyone's been saying for years that Telltale should try their hand at a more serious, plot-driven game and here it is. It's a chance for them to branch out.
  • edited September 2010
    Spykes wrote: »
    As I've mentioned before, I'm more excited for the Back to the Future game, but I'm more interested to see how the Jurassic Park game turns out. BttF fits perfectly into BttF's wheelhouse. Jurassic Park on the other hand... not as much. That's not to say they can't use it, but the JP game should really show some from TTG that we haven't seen yet.

    Yeah, to be honest, I think TTG would be definitely be better suited to Back to the Future than JP. Only time will tell.
  • Sinaz20Sinaz20 Telltale Alumni
    edited September 2010
    taumel wrote: »
    @Sinaz20
    You're definately the first person i know who says that JP has interesting characters.
    Maybe "interesting" isn't the right word for the films. But, a majority of the science in the first film is delivered by dialog-- thus, to me, the characters are "interesting." But, for the game, we've written some interesting characters.
    I think the best aspects about JP (part 1 was way better than the rest) are Spielberg's capabilities, the dinos, ILM, Sam Neill & Jeff Goldblum, maybe some of the humour, did i mention the dinos already?
    So, you liked Sam Neill and Jeff Goldblum, but didn't find their characters interesting? Or were you saying I'm the first person who had a similar opinion to yours?
  • edited September 2010
    The Characters In the films and the novel are interesting to me at least, because of there personalities and some of the mannerisms they have.

    But then again the characters from the movies are different from their novel counterparts, well at least thats the way I see it.
  • edited September 2010
    Personally, I prefer Hammond's film version to the novel one. I don't know exactly why, but he has always been my favorite character in the movies.
    And Hammond is probably the most interesting character, at least in my opinion: He's trying to do good things, but ends up doing bad ones.

    How come that isn't interesting???
  • edited September 2010
    Trenchfoot wrote: »
    Personally, I prefer Hammond's film version to the novel one. I don't know exactly why, but he has always been my favorite character in the movies.
    And Hammond is probably the most interesting character, at least in my opinion: He's trying to do good things, but ends up doing bad ones.

    How come that isn't interesting???

    Well Hammond in the novel, was a mean old man, and didn't care about anything but himself.

    While in the movie, he was a jolly old man. Who cared about everybody.
  • edited September 2010
    I spent over an hour crafting a thoughtful response to SINAZ, only to come back and find that it never actually posted! Stupid computer! Stupid Internet! Computer why do hate me so? BTW I was always planning on buying TT's JP! This was more of a I hope TT didn't shoot themselves in the foot type thing!
  • edited September 2010
    I spent over an hour crafting a thoughtful response to SINAZ, only to come back and find that it never actually posted! Stupid computer! Stupid Internet! Computer why do hate me so? BTW I was always planning on buying TT's JP! This was more of a I hope TT didn't shoot themselves in the foot type thing!

    Don't worry about it. It's just that there are so many newbies that post "OH MY GAWD TT CAN'T DO JP LOLOLOL" that we are kinda used to defend Telltale.

    But I think they really know what they're doing :)
  • Sinaz20Sinaz20 Telltale Alumni
    edited September 2010
    I spent over an hour crafting a thoughtful response to SINAZ, only to come back and find that it never actually posted! Stupid computer! Stupid Internet! Computer why do hate me so? BTW I was always planning on buying TT's JP! This was more of a I hope TT didn't shoot themselves in the foot type thing!

    You can PM me if you want to respond in bitesize retorts.
  • edited September 2010
    @Sinaz20
    I think they are stereotypical characters and so not really interesting, interesting characters really look different to me. I like Sam Neill as an actor and Jeff Goldblum has a few funny lines in the film but that doesn't make their characters more interesting, at least imho.
  • edited September 2010
    To me the story's not about Grant or Malcolm. They're just there to provide some context to the bigger story that's unfolding around them. While most stories need interesting characters to move forward, in this one they're more like observers (our window into the island) of a new world, which is the driving force.

    The dinos have more personality than the actors, but then they are the actual stars of the movie.
  • edited September 2010
    I think that Jurassic Park I is a very well done movie, II and III sometimes even feel like b-movies, and it is an very entertaining one for the whole family but it doesn't provide interesting characters. The magic of the movie comes from Spielberg's ability of making a good movie of Crichton's story, the softly flowing story, the Dinos and ILM. I suspect most of the kids at some point were interested in dinos and Jurassic Park, for the first time, delivered real looking and moving dinos.

    I expect the game to be a mix of an adventure and an action game which sometimes can will be frightening as well. I also expect it to be a good game but somehow i also again also don't expect it to a amazing or radical different game. You know just no Rage, no Bioshock, no Half Life, no The Dig, no Broken Sword, no Machinarium.

    Entertaining but just not brilliant and to this a Jurassic Park scenario fits quite well. Personally i would prefer puzzling myself through some more serious spaceship/planet instead with interesting characters/situations but that's nothing new i guess... :O)
  • edited September 2010
    Why is everyone talking about the films? Michael Crichton was a brilliant writer.. Read Jurassic Park, Congo, Prey, Timeline .. Fantastic stories, characters & action ..which can be translated into a game.
  • edited September 2010
    Because the Telltale License is with Universal Pictures, not with Crichton's estate, maybe?
  • edited September 2010
    jp-30 wrote: »
    Because the Telltale License is with Universal Pictures, not with Crichton's estate, maybe?

    I think Crihtons estate still has a say in anything Jurassic Park. which is the reason it's been dormant for nine years, I could be wrong though.
  • Sinaz20Sinaz20 Telltale Alumni
    edited September 2010
    Icedhope wrote: »
    I think Crihtons estate still has a say in anything Jurassic Park. which is the reason it's been dormant for nine years, I could be wrong though.

    They don't, really-- we have the rights to the films, and the canon of the films. We don't have rights to aspects of the book that were not in the films.

    One small example of this-- we have to consider the fates of characters in the movies-- Spoiler (though, I think the statue of limitations has passed)
    for instance, John Hammond and Malcom survived the events of Jurassic Park, as presented in the film, but not in the book.
  • edited September 2010
    thats a shame. the books were the true gold.
  • edited September 2010
    Sinaz20 wrote: »
    They don't, really-- we have the rights to the films, and the canon of the films. We don't have rights to aspects of the book that were not in the films.

    One small example of this-- we have to consider the fates of characters in the movies-- Spoiler (though, I think the statue of limitations has passed)
    for instance, John Hammond and Malcom survived the events of Jurassic Park, as presented in the film, but not in the book.

    Ohh I didn't realise this. There's a lot of great Cricton material in the books to be mined. Still the movies are classics, so I'm still looking forward to this.
  • Sinaz20Sinaz20 Telltale Alumni
    edited September 2010
    Hero1 wrote: »
    Ohh I didn't realise this. There's a lot of great Cricton material in the books to be mined. Still the movies are classics, so I'm still looking forward to this.

    Don't forget, though-- that we are telling a new original story. So, though there may be great material in the books that could be mined, we don't really need that because we've developed our own original characters and storyline that fit within the canon of the films-- we've also been consulting with leading paleontologists for new scientific ideas to incorporate and add authenticity to the science part of our fiction.

    We won't be adding feathers to raptors (because the film has already established otherwise, unfortunately) but some other interesting dino-science has come to light in the last couple decades that we think is pretty cool and hasn't been touched by either books or films.
  • edited September 2010
    We won't be adding feathers to raptors

    Thank GOD!!! I can't wait to see what you guys are cooking :D

    If I might ask, will you be doing a "What do you want to see in the JP game?" survey like the one that was done for BTTF?

    As always, thanks in advance :)
  • edited September 2010
    Sinaz20 wrote: »
    They don't, really-- we have the rights to the films, and the canon of the films. We don't have rights to aspects of the book that were not in the films.

    One small example of this-- we have to consider the fates of characters in the movies-- Spoiler (though, I think the statue of limitations has passed)
    for instance, John Hammond and Malcom survived the events of Jurassic Park, as presented in the film, but not in the book.

    malcom did survive we just don't figure it out til the second book.
  • Sinaz20Sinaz20 Telltale Alumni
    edited September 2010
    koiboi59 wrote: »
    malcom did survive we just don't figure it out til the second book.

    Forgot about that-- but still, the sequence of events that we have to consider is that of the movies.
  • edited September 2010
    Sinaz20 wrote: »
    Forgot about that-- but still, the sequence of events that we have to consider is that of the movies.

    well it won't be so bad. the movies were still good too.
  • edited September 2010
    JP's characters were interesting. Malcolm was in fact the most interesting in the first movie and the books. But, in the second movie Malcolm wasn't Malcolm anymore which i didn't like. But Grant has a well rounded character. He starts off in the movie hating kids and he is a work-coholic. At the end, his views change. he's hugging the children as they sleep. They really are great characters, and people who don't agree just don't quite listen to the message of the story, and how the characters contributed with it.

    That is why i think a good story that matches JP's message would make an excellent game. Action and adventure are just the interactive part, but the rest should be a well rounded story.
  • edited September 2010
    Sinaz20 wrote: »
    Forgot about that-- but still, the sequence of events that we have to consider is that of the movies.

    IDW seems not to have such restrictions.

    They killed some of the surviving characters in Redemption and one will most likely return from the dead.

    I mean its pretty vague to determine who died anyway because many were killed off-screen to lower the shown violence in the movies.
  • edited September 2010
    Sinaz20 wrote: »
    Don't forget, though-- that we are telling a new original story. So, though there may be great material in the books that could be mined, we don't really need that because we've developed our own original characters and storyline that fit within the canon of the films-- we've also been consulting with leading paleontologists for new scientific ideas to incorporate and add authenticity to the science part of our fiction.

    We won't be adding feathers to raptors (because the film has already established otherwise, unfortunately) but some other interesting dino-science has come to light in the last couple decades that we think is pretty cool and hasn't been touched by either books or films.

    Thanks for the info, it's fantastic to hear you are consulting with leading paleontologists.

    JD, what do you think are the elements that made Jurassic Park a great franchise. Why was it so popular?
  • edited September 2010
    Umm... my guess...
    IT HAD FREAKING DINOSAURS!
  • edited September 2010
    jp-30 wrote: »
    Umm... my guess...
    IT HAD FREAKING DINOSAURS!

    Quoted for truth, sir.
  • edited September 2010
    Sinaz20 wrote: »
    We won't be adding feathers to raptors (because the film has already established otherwise, unfortunately) but some other interesting dino-science has come to light in the last couple decades that we think is pretty cool and hasn't been touched by either books or films.

    Wait, didn't JPIII add feathers to some of its raptors? Or...at least little spiny things on their heads that looked like feathers.

    raptor.jpg
  • edited September 2010
    Wait, didn't JPIII add feathers to some of its raptors? Or...at least little spiny things on their heads that looked like feathers.

    raptor.jpg

    There actually is a reason for that in the films.

    During the time frame of JP III The raptors grew the quills, and there body colors changed to attract mate.

    So only when mating season come to the JP World will they have feathers.
  • Sinaz20Sinaz20 Telltale Alumni
    edited September 2010
    Icedhope wrote: »
    There actually is a reason for that in the films.

    During the time frame of JP III The raptors grew the quills, and there body colors changed to attract mate.

    So only when mating season come to the JP World will they have feathers.
    Yeah, but we aren't going to feather them up like chickens. It's just off license. [shrug]
  • edited September 2010
    Do you remember the time when the Jurassic Park-franchise was trying to contain the most accurate and up-to-date depiction of dinosaurs?

    Anyway:

    2mpfkfn.jpg

    *stares in the skies and whistles*
Sign in to comment in this discussion.