The narrator is really awesome. I hope we will see more of him in the future episodes. Maybe, he's the devil?
Seriously -- this guy is totally original and unique. Not to mention he opens the first season with the best line ever.
Any classy gamer worth his/her salt would take a boon like this any day over a character like Hugh Bliiii....uh, can't even say his name without getting the shivers.
He's the best thing that could have happened to the game.
I think he's a good character, but the use of the narration seems to be a crutch for somewhat lackluster writing. Typically if one wants a narrator, one picks a transitional character to tell the story. A completely third-party narration is ... unseemly?
Don't get me wrong, the dialogs and puzzles are very good (in fact probably the best of the S&M games thus far), and perhaps the narrator is a clever parody of 60's scifi, but to me at least he seems to be dropped in for the purpose of the initial tutorial (which is clearly for the new console players) and to explain the (relatively) complex reverse-causality puzzle system in the new season. (Both of which could have been approached in a different way.)
It remains to be seen if "the narrator" has any actual role in the story. Perhaps he is the devil to whom the toychest belongs ( or the devil's advocate )? If so his presence is more acceptable, but I still think he was overused in this first game.
Theory: the Narrator is the present form of the previous being to acquire all the toys and ascend to unspeakable godhood. Rather than fulfill his role as destroyer of the universe, he left the universe to observe it from outside. His rose is one of those squirty joke flowers - one of the Toys of Power. It's insurance, you see - the other toys were scattered across the universe by the Great Comet, but the Narrator kept one, to keep the set from being reunited. Perhaps in Episode 5 Max gets the rest of the toys, tears a hole in reality and visits the Narrator himself to complete the set.
I think he's a good character, but the use of the narration seems to be a crutch for somewhat lackluster writing. Typically if one wants a narrator, one picks a transitional character to tell the story. A completely third-party narration is ... unseemly?
Are you saying that The Twilight Zone, possibly the best television series ever produced, is poorly written?
I have already voiced my support for the narrator.. but let me elaborate... He adds to the b-movie scifi vibe of the series... he also helps pass along useful information and or back story.. without Sam or Max have to spell things out blatantly... this way they can remain in character the entire time and not break the forth wall too much.
Isn't one of Sam & Max's (original) character traits to overexplain everything they do? I vaguely remember reading that somewhere...
I really like the narrator. In my opinion he's the best new character of the new season so far. And I'm glad TellTales is using new characters. Of course we miss Bosco, Cybil, Lincoln, and so on and so on. They are great chracters, but overusing them would reduce their greatness and sooner or later every episode would feel the same. The narrator ensures that this episode feels indeed very different from previous ones.
btw: Is nobody wondering about the brain and the narrator having the same voice? (Or am I wrong here???). They even use a similar vocabulary. The biggest difference seems to be that they have a pretty different way to pronounce "power".
(The narrator pronounces it in a more funny kind of way.)
The brain say's it formerly had an appearance similar to an platypus, but with a bit of imagination the narrator resembles a platypus too, doesn't he? XD
I also wouldn't say that the narrator is unrelated to the story. Even if he is not related to the brain, we still can't say that for sure. I wouldn't be surprised to find out later on that he's the season's main villain, manipulating Max in order to make him destroy the universe or something like that...
btw: Is nobody wondering about the brain and the narrator having the same voice? (Or am I wrong here???). They even use a similar vocabulary. The biggest difference seems to be that they have a pretty different way to pronounce "power".
I think narration is correctly suited for short stories where each story has a different set of main characters and a different setting. There is no more direct way to start and end the story in those instances.
If they wanted to put the narrator in as a purely parodic character, then that would have looked a little different. As it is, its hard to tell where he fits in the story, and thus far its certainly not consistent with previous S&M episodes.
To draw a slight analogy. If a comedy show (like Southpark for example), were to introduce narration for just one season, initially as a parody, but then ended up leaning on the narration to tell the story, where previously they had not needed to, then I would call this bad writing.
It's not 'bad writing' to use a 3rd-person omniscient narrator, regardless of whether that character remains removed from the action entirely or enters into the story in any capacity himself; it's only 'bad writing' if the story is...well...written badly.
This entire season is clearly intended to be framed like a 50s-60s Twilight Zone-style sci-fi/fantasy/horror/general weirdness television program (of which Twilight Zone was just the archetypal example: Outer Limits and Rod Serling's Twilight Zone follow-up Night Gallery come to mind as well); the Narrator is integral to creating the necessary tone and overall effect of one of those shows. The recurring Narrator, in addition to his actual narrative role, acts also as a linking device to demonstrate the union of all 5 parts of the story arc. Also, as a 3rd-person omniscient narrator, he has access to information that no one in the story can possibly know yet, so he can deal out ominous (well, mock-ominous anyway) foreshadowing, providing hints to future events (even if those hints turn out to be misleading or 'red herrings,' since that is another role of the Twilight Zone narrator). And of course, let's not forget one of the main components of the Serling-style narrator, the use of often wacky pseudo-morals and oddball aphorisms inserted at the episode's beginning and end (and often elsewhere as well), which are key to the overall Twilight Zone feel.
Remember folks, there are no absolute 'laws of narrative.' Everything hinges on the overall effect and the intended goal of the creator(s). If a literary technique or dramatic device moves the overall effect towards the author's ultimate goal, it works, and if it weakens the overall intended effect, then it is a mistake. Based on The Penal Code alone, the Narrator seems to fit perfectly into Telltale's plan for the season and therefore is clearly not an example of 'bad writing.' One doesn't have to like the Serling-esque storytelling model, but that is what Telltale is clearly trying to achieve here (albeit in a tongue-in-cheek, mocking fashion), so it isn't a fault of the writers, merely a preference of some of the players. Comme si, comme ça.
i have to admit it did drive me crazy how the narrator appears and how he tells you stuff you already know, but thats it. i don't really like or hate the narrator guy.
The recurring Narrator, in addition to his actual narrative role, acts also as a linking device to demonstrate the union of all 5 parts of the story arc. Also, as a 3rd-person omniscient narrator, he has access to information that no one in the story can possibly know yet, so he can deal out ominous (well, mock-ominous anyway) foreshadowing, providing hints to future events (even if those hints turn out to be misleading or 'red herrings,' since that is another role of the Twilight Zone narrator). And of course, let's not forget one of the main components of the Serling-style narrator, the use of often wacky pseudo-morals and oddball aphorisms inserted at the episode's beginning and end (and often elsewhere as well), which are key to the overall Twilight Zone feel.
As of episode 1, I hate the narrator. His voice is an annoying drone, his appearance puzzlingly dull, I agree that his "Only YOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUU!" breaking of the 4th wall is tedious, his interruptions break game flow and I really don't see why he is necessary at all. While I am sure he'll get fleshed out more in the coming episoders, I really hope you'll dispense with the 4th wall breaking at least. That's only funny when Sam and Max does it.
Actually the voice for the brain is William Kasten (Max).
I liked the narrator, but he shouldn't be constantly reminding me that I'm playing a game and that it's an epic saga with 5 episodes.
Actually the voice is Andrew Chaikin (Phoney Bone, and Max in the first Episode of Season One)
The first thing I thought when I heard the brain was "Hey! It's that guy!"
Comments
Don't be a fool.
Seriously -- this guy is totally original and unique. Not to mention he opens the first season with the best line ever.
Any classy gamer worth his/her salt would take a boon like this any day over a character like Hugh Bliiii....uh, can't even say his name without getting the shivers.
S
I think he's a good character, but the use of the narration seems to be a crutch for somewhat lackluster writing. Typically if one wants a narrator, one picks a transitional character to tell the story. A completely third-party narration is ... unseemly?
Don't get me wrong, the dialogs and puzzles are very good (in fact probably the best of the S&M games thus far), and perhaps the narrator is a clever parody of 60's scifi, but to me at least he seems to be dropped in for the purpose of the initial tutorial (which is clearly for the new console players) and to explain the (relatively) complex reverse-causality puzzle system in the new season. (Both of which could have been approached in a different way.)
It remains to be seen if "the narrator" has any actual role in the story. Perhaps he is the devil to whom the toychest belongs ( or the devil's advocate
The term is 'caucasian'
btw: Is nobody wondering about the brain and the narrator having the same voice? (Or am I wrong here???). They even use a similar vocabulary. The biggest difference seems to be that they have a pretty different way to pronounce "power".
(The narrator pronounces it in a more funny kind of way.)
The brain say's it formerly had an appearance similar to an platypus, but with a bit of imagination the narrator resembles a platypus too, doesn't he? XD
I also wouldn't say that the narrator is unrelated to the story. Even if he is not related to the brain, we still can't say that for sure. I wouldn't be surprised to find out later on that he's the season's main villain, manipulating Max in order to make him destroy the universe or something like that...
Get hit by a fast truck. After you recover from your coma and the shock that you lost twenty years of your life plus your memory, replay Season One.
No need to bring back characters - especially dead ones - unless they are irreplaceable.
What? They sound completely different.
(Check this out?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Desilu_Playhouse
I think narration is correctly suited for short stories where each story has a different set of main characters and a different setting. There is no more direct way to start and end the story in those instances.
If they wanted to put the narrator in as a purely parodic character, then that would have looked a little different. As it is, its hard to tell where he fits in the story, and thus far its certainly not consistent with previous S&M episodes.
To draw a slight analogy. If a comedy show (like Southpark for example), were to introduce narration for just one season, initially as a parody, but then ended up leaning on the narration to tell the story, where previously they had not needed to, then I would call this bad writing.
And sometimes a banana is just a banana, and a narrator a narrator. Wheter that is the case here though... no idea.
This entire season is clearly intended to be framed like a 50s-60s Twilight Zone-style sci-fi/fantasy/horror/general weirdness television program (of which Twilight Zone was just the archetypal example: Outer Limits and Rod Serling's Twilight Zone follow-up Night Gallery come to mind as well); the Narrator is integral to creating the necessary tone and overall effect of one of those shows. The recurring Narrator, in addition to his actual narrative role, acts also as a linking device to demonstrate the union of all 5 parts of the story arc. Also, as a 3rd-person omniscient narrator, he has access to information that no one in the story can possibly know yet, so he can deal out ominous (well, mock-ominous anyway) foreshadowing, providing hints to future events (even if those hints turn out to be misleading or 'red herrings,' since that is another role of the Twilight Zone narrator). And of course, let's not forget one of the main components of the Serling-style narrator, the use of often wacky pseudo-morals and oddball aphorisms inserted at the episode's beginning and end (and often elsewhere as well), which are key to the overall Twilight Zone feel.
Remember folks, there are no absolute 'laws of narrative.' Everything hinges on the overall effect and the intended goal of the creator(s). If a literary technique or dramatic device moves the overall effect towards the author's ultimate goal, it works, and if it weakens the overall intended effect, then it is a mistake. Based on The Penal Code alone, the Narrator seems to fit perfectly into Telltale's plan for the season and therefore is clearly not an example of 'bad writing.' One doesn't have to like the Serling-esque storytelling model, but that is what Telltale is clearly trying to achieve here (albeit in a tongue-in-cheek, mocking fashion), so it isn't a fault of the writers, merely a preference of some of the players. Comme si, comme ça.
Point well made.
The first thing I thought when I heard the brain was "Hey! It's that guy!"