However, I paid the .99 to try out Myst Online, and got sam and max as a free bonus. Almost like an extended demo. Which ironically was what the combined length of the 2 episodes is equivalent to.
That my friends is not a good sign. These reviewers each point to the puzzle difficulty and hence the shortness of the episodes as its downfall. Now episodes 4-5-6 are supposed to be harder..and longer.. but they need to be. At the moment the series is on a decline...
The first quote was to show that I am not the ONLY one with my feelings, which could lead to the conclusion that I am a lone skeptic.
The second is referring to the sales/success of a game as a whole.
Eh, context doesn't matter--the point still stands that, using the logic of the 2nd quote, the sentiments expressed here--from either 1 person or many--are the sentiments of a super small vocal minority and that it would be sad/wrong to believe that the majority would feel that way. Did anyone say that you were a lone skeptic?
Again, you fail at comprehension, which requires context.
Again, no need to resort to personal attacks here.
Eh, context doesn't matter--the point still stands that, using the logic of the 2nd quote, the sentiments expressed here--from either 1 person or many--are the sentiments of a super small vocal minority and that it would be sad/wrong to believe that the majority would feel that way. Did anyone say that you were a lone skeptic?
Again, no need to resort to personal attacks here.
Not a personal attack. Just an observation. You continue to misunderstand basic points and take things out of context. I explained both quotes. Ignore them if you'd like.
Not a personal attack. Just an observation. You continue to misunderstand basic points and take things out of context. I explained both quotes. Ignore them if you'd like.
Maybe you misconstrued what I said--all I said was "Imagine that!"
Now if I had added "What a hypocrite!" you would have had a case there, but when I highlighted the quote about the super small vocal minority of forum posters, I was only highlighting that 5/10 still qualifies under your super small vocal minority thesis, lest anybody looked at your 5/10 figure and were led to the conclusion that you represent some majority view. (Yes, nobody said anything about your views being the majority, but on the other hand, nobody said you were some lone skeptic either).
Anyway, there have been plenty of people such as Oilers99, fhqwhgads, Mel and Optimaximal that have brought up some good points about things such as pacing in comedies and the demands/expectations from different types of games. I've even brought up the issue of varying episodic content (compared to miniseries, sitcoms, and serial dramas) that it seems Telltale is trying to establish (and Dan Connors alludes to this somewhat in his recent GWJ interview). But most of the time you seem to be dismissing a lot of good thoughts with a variation routine of "You didn't read what I said, please try to understand me, try again, you must not be a native speaker of English," and arguing about some of the most obscure tangents such as why sales figures are more important than Gametap rankings (when nobody ever claimed otherwise).
"But most of the time you seem to be dismissing a lot of good thoughts"
Name one.
Some people don't mind it. That is great. Some do for the reasons the reviews and I stated. That is all and well and fine too. What else do you want me to examine? The point of this thread is to express criticism to telltale and to warn lurkers. It also let's them know about the 99 cents deal that would essentially let them try the first 3 games for free.
I also brought up the fact that these are purposely made to be stand-alone, which you dismissed outright with "Who in their right mind would buy sam and max act 5 without buying 1-4?" when there is evidence that people do partake in such activity.
As to fhqwhgads, you zeroed in only on his "hardcore adventure gamer" remark and his slight mention of Gametap, while ignoring a lot of what he said about Telltale striving for a subgenre, pleasing different audiences, or how he likes the games short.
I also brought up the fact that these are purposely made to be stand-alone, which you dismissed outright with "Who in their right mind would buy sam and max act 5 without buying 1-4?" when there is evidence that people do partake in such activity.
This is what oilers said:
"graphic adventure games are, in a lot of ways, horrific messes. They have flaws that it seems most have become numb to. By comparison, easy puzzles are nothing compared to having nothing to do."
Essentially that the easier the puzzles, the better, because he finds regular adventure games too difficult and somehow horrific messes. I guess a game this simple is perfect for him. What else should I say? Good for him, sucky for people who play games for challenges instead of walks in the park looking at the pretty scenery. If I wanted brainless movie viewing, I'd *gasp*, watch a movie!
Your second point: As I said, Agon has standalone episodic adventuring for 5-7 hours each. 1.5 hours is hardly compareable. Standalone or not. Agon obviously didn't succumb to the problem I found here which is that there is such a small game, the puzzles are few, items are few, and locations are few.
The issue is that Telltale is pumping them out once a month now and these problems are the side effects. If they took more time and made 5-7 hour standalone installments, I would have absolutely no problem with them. It would alleviate all the problems I mentioned.
As to fhqwhgads, you zeroed in only on his "hardcore adventure gamer" remark and his slight mention of Gametap, while ignoring a lot of what he said about Telltale striving for a subgenre, pleasing different audiences, or how he likes the games short.
Because those points are ridiculous. Who wants short games? I mean, really. Do you think a majority of gamers want the games to be this short? 90%+ of reviews have criticized it for this and you want me to forget about the length because of 1 guy's liking of short games? How do you want me to respond? Good for him.
Subgenre and pleasing different audiences are just catchphrases that are used as an excuse for what telltale is doing. I think it's good for them financially while screwing the game. To each his own. How else should I respond to this one?
If we both saw a movie and you thought it was terrible and I started saying... "well, it was artistic!" or "I like thoughtless movies!" or "I like 26 minute movies because I can't sit still for more than that!!" or "I like that they only used 3 sets, it feels more independent filmy!".. would you bother responding to me?
Agon is not standalone at all--it is a serialized episodic game, you really do need to play the first before playing the second, or else you don't know anything about what's going on when you first start up the second.
Again, compare S&M to CSI and Bone, and you can see that Telltale will divide each episodically, but approach them differently, no differently than a TV studio approaching a sitcom, a drama, and serialized mini-series differently.
90% of reviews have criticized it for being a shorter game, not for being a short game. Therein lies the difference--many still give it better review grades than games that take 2 years to develop, and are still mostly laudatory that the phrase "first true episodic game" can be found in probably most reviews. They like the idea of monthly episodes. They like the idea of bite-size standalone gaming chunks. But this game feels shorter than the rest--that's it. There are no diatribes about how the episodic paradigm is screwing the game, or how you might feel ripped off. It's still averaging 7+ grades, and I'd prefer six episodes at 7+ than three episodes at 8+.
If we both saw a movie and you thought it was terrible and I started saying... "well, it was artistic!" or "I like thoughtless movies!" or "I like 26 minute movies because I can't sit still for more than that!!" or "I like that they only used 3 sets, it feels more independent filmy!".. would you bother responding to me?
We've been down this road before. More apt would be complaints that ask for things that the creators aren't aiming for. It would be idiotic to complain about why the Simpsons or Seinfeld don't have episodes as long as 24 or Lost, don't have as much depth/drama as them, etc, or why you can't watch Lost and 24 out of order, or why Lost and 24 can't be 22 minute chunks and be funny like sitcoms are. Or for that matter complaining about why the Lord of the Rings Trilogy wasn't done as a television series, or why Seinfeld couldn't have been told as a movie trilogy. Or complaining that Glengarry Glen Ross is not action-packed enough...
Agon is not standalone at all--it is a serialized episodic game, you really do need to play the first before playing the second, or else you don't know anything about what's going on when you first start up the second.
Again, compare S&M to CSI and Bone, and you can see that Telltale will divide each episodically, but approach them differently, no differently than a TV studio approaching a sitcom, a drama, and serialized mini-series differently.
90% of reviews have criticized it for being a shorter game, not for being a short game. Therein lies the difference--many still give it better review grades than games that take 2 years to develop, and are still mostly laudatory that the phrase "first true episodic game" can be found in probably most reviews. It's still averaging 7+ grades, and I'd prefer six episodes at 7+ than three episodes at 8+.
We've been down this road before. More apt would be complaints that ask for things that the creators aren't aiming for. It would be idiotic to complain about why the Simpsons or Seinfeld don't have episodes as long as 24 or Lost, don't have as much depth/drama as them, etc, or why you can't watch Lost and 24 out of order, or why Lost and 24 can't be 22 minute chunks and be funny like sitcoms are. Or for that matter complaining about why the Lord of the Rings Trilogy wasn't done as a television series, or why Seinfeld couldn't have been told as a movie trilogy. Or complaining that Glengarry Glen Ross is not action-packed enough...
You are arguing semantics with terms like episodic. I think Agon is similar to Sam and Max. You don't. Accept that. Feel free to think you have the true definition. I don't care.
The developers can choose whatever "aim" they want. I have the right to criticize it. So do others.
Agree to disagree will you?
Adventure gamers-"Still, the sad truth is that even though there may be some extra puzzle-solving time involved, Episode 3 is an extremely short game, definitely the shortest of the three so far."
They don't think it is a short game? "Episode 3 is an extremely short game." It is ALSO the shortest of the 3. But it is an extremely short game in and of itself.
Gamespy- "First, Episode 3 is really short. " Plus, under cons- "Very short; extremely easy puzzles;"
PCgameworld- " If this is the direction Sam & Max is headed, I think Telltale should either pull the plug or give themselves more time for the remaining three episodes. At minimum, 2 months each.""The running time is getting dangerously close to a mere hour (I clocked out at 90 minutes), and the plot is in many respects becoming formulaic and predictible, which is the very antithesis of Sam & Max."
Eurogamer-"Part of the 'problem', if you like, is the general lack of locations and objects on your person - inevitably it's not long before you join the dots."
IGN-"The puzzles are much easier this time around and the story is just too short to give the writers room to explore its potential...We managed to finish this one in a little less than an hour and a half. There are fewer puzzles this time around and virtually no confusion about what you're supposed to do next."
Gamer's temple- "There is only one location beyond Sam’s and Max’s now familiar neighborhood and it’s the rather small (three screen) Ted E. Bear's Mafia-free Casino and Playground. Making a short game feel even shorter are the puzzles, which are pretty much simple and straightforward."
honestgamers.com-"Episodic gaming is custom built for short, sharp bursts of gameplay, but Episode 3 can be conformably beaten in one sitting by even the least experienced pixel hunters. "
Shorter than the other 2 and short in and of itself. They don't need to be exclusive.
--update--
And just looking at that link--it looks like Episode 3 actually got higher marks overall than you've been leading me to believe.
Did I say it got low marks? I just said it was shorter and suffered from my criticisms of 1 and 2, but worse.
I just quoted a whole bunch of you. 90% is not a statistic certainty. It means a majority. If I stated "I did an analysis and 88.7% show this", then you could argue.. but it isn't meant literally. I don't see how you could think so, but if you misunderstood, I apologize and amend it to majority for your better understanding of my true meaning.
Sleep time, be back in the morning.
Some of the reviews have the nerve to say it'll take 3-4 hours when it is clearly not the case, btw. They are just quoting what was told to them it seems. 90 minutes cannot be extended to 3-4 hours unless you go idle(in the brain). Don't take this literally! It is just my opinion!
All the reviews for each successive episode has been getting worse for the reasons I have listed and a 3.5/5 from adventuregamers.com is by no means a tremendous success.
Do you think after 3.5/5 star reviews and 90% of reviews pointing to a decline in game length and puzzles and locations that people who were disappointed in the first or second will go to the third?
Some of the reviews have the nerve to say it'll take 3-4 hours when it is clearly not the case, btw. They are just quoting what was told to them it seems. 90 minutes cannot be extended to 3-4 hours unless you go idle(in the brain). Don't take this literally! It is just my opinion!
The Gamers With Jobs podcast interviewer said he took 5 hours to complete Culture Shock, and I personally took 3-4 hours on Episode 3 (I tried to find every easter egg and dialog option though). It's possible that some people that buy and plan to play 20+ adventure games have a leg up in the puzzling department. It is just my opinion!
90% is not a statistic certainty. It means a majority.
Okay, no wonder you've been constantly finding that I don't seem to understand what you're saying. Next time somebody says "I'm 90% positive," or "we will get a majority of the votes" I will understand them better. 90% = Majority, gotcha.
Okay, this is getting ridiculous. shadow9d9, for some reason you come off extremely hostile towards everyone's different opinion, and then start getting angry saying people are hostile towards your opinion, blaming them for not understanding you. I actually get the feeling you just have a very different gaming taste from most people here. A clear testimony of this, for me, is your constant reference to discworld 2, which is a horrible game in my opinion. I also know some people like Myst, which I find a total agony to play. This is fine, and I'm happy I have games like Sam&Max that I'm able to play, and you have games like Discworld etc, which you enjoy. No one is pressuring you to play Sam&Max games.
I'm doing enough thinking studying for my exams. When I play episode 3, I want to rest a bit, watch some funny scenes, listen to some funny dialog, and play the Sam&Max characters in another quirky plot. For me, it's much more important to feel as if I'm playing the main characters in a comic then to solve some puzzles. I think in a past discussion I once referenced a great genre in Interactive Fiction, in my opinion, in which you just walk through the story, without solving puzzles at all (like Photopia or All Roads)
(By the way, if I really wanted to do some thinking, I could just start doing my Computational Geometry homework which I keep putting off. Adventure games, even the "tough" one like Discworld, don't really "make you think" that much)
Also, regarding all the reviews mentioning the game shortness - of course they will mention it! It's one of the most noticable features of the game. If no one told me the game is supposed to be short, and I'd buy it thinking it's a full-length game, I'd be awfully disappointed, so it's the reviewers duty to inform the readers that this is a short game. I mean, I think the game have perfect length, and I'd still mention the game is very short if I'd write a review of it.
The Gamers With Jobs podcast interviewer said he took 5 hours to complete Culture Shock, and I personally took 3-4 hours on Episode 3 (I tried to find every easter egg and dialog option though). It's possible that some people that buy and plan to play 20+ adventure games have a leg up in the puzzling department. It is just my opinion!
Okay, no wonder you've been constantly finding that I don't seem to understand what you're saying. Next time somebody says "I'm 90% positive," or "we will get a majority of the votes" I will understand them better. 90% = Majority, gotcha.
If you take everything literally, you will have problems living in society. Conext clues and basic english should help you.
If someone says I am so hungry I could eat a horse, they don't literally want horse.
Okay, this is getting ridiculous. shadow9d9, for some reason you come off extremely hostile towards everyone's different opinion, and then start getting angry saying people are hostile towards your opinion, blaming them for not understanding you. I actually get the feeling you just have a very different gaming taste from most people here. A clear testimony of this, for me, is your constant reference to discworld 2, which is a horrible game in my opinion. I also know some people like Myst, which I find a total agony to play. This is fine, and I'm happy I have games like Sam&Max that I'm able to play, and you have games like Discworld etc, which you enjoy. No one is pressuring you to play Sam&Max games.
I'm doing enough thinking studying for my exams. When I play episode 3, I want to rest a bit, watch some funny scenes, listen to some funny dialog, and play the Sam&Max characters in another quirky plot. For me, it's much more important to feel as if I'm playing the main characters in a comic then to solve some puzzles. I think in a past discussion I once referenced a great genre in Interactive Fiction, in my opinion, in which you just walk through the story, without solving puzzles at all (like Photopia or All Roads)
(By the way, if I really wanted to do some thinking, I could just start doing my Computational Geometry homework which I keep putting off. Adventure games, even the "tough" one like Discworld, don't really "make you think" that much)
Also, regarding all the reviews mentioning the game shortness - of course they will mention it! It's one of the most noticable features of the game. If no one told me the game is supposed to be short, and I'd buy it thinking it's a full-length game, I'd be awfully disappointed, so it's the reviewers duty to inform the readers that this is a short game. I mean, I think the game have perfect length, and I'd still mention the game is very short if I'd write a review of it.
See, you are a fan, so you see me as hostile instead of the people who can't seem to understand basic sentence structure and context.
They mention length in the reviews and then lower the review score because of it. They are not just using it as a description. If you read the above quotes you would have known that though.
I could substitute m example of discworld 2 with 1000 other good games like DOTT, the original sam and max, monkey island 2, the longest journey, etc. It was just the first game that came to mind. Surely you like one of them. THey all would work well dividing their game by 3 and using that as a comparison of length/locations/puzzles as what I and others are looking for in episodic content instead of an 1.5 hour game.
See, you are a fan, so you see me as hostile instead of the people who can't seem to understand basic sentence structure and context.
Ironically, I did not understand the structure of that particular sentence
(do you mean that I see you as hostile but the people who can't seem to understand basic sentence structure (which I assume is numble?) don't see you as hostile but should instead of me?)
In any case, here you are again reverting to insulting everybody. Stop assuming people are not understanding sentences. Everyone here seems to understand each other just fine. The fact that you're the only one whose sentences fail to be understood should give you a hint that maybe you should practice your sentence structuring skills
They mention length in the reviews and then lower the review score because of it. They are not just using it as a description. If you read the above quotes you would have known that though.
Gee, then I guess I shouldn't have just skipped all those quotes and just respond mindlessly!
Anyway, it's understandable that the lower the score because of it. If a friend asked me - "I have 5 movie choices - Requiem for a Dream, Adaptation, The Holy Grail, Mulholland Drive or a Seinfeld episode. What choice would you recommend?" - I'd probably say - "a Seinfeld episode is really funny but on the downside it's pretty short so if you feel like watching a movie, you should not choose that episode". That's a valid thing to say when comparing an episode to a movie, and it's what the reviews are doing (and are supposed to do as the reviews are part of a GAMING magazine supposed to compare the episodes to other games) when they are saying:
Pros:
very funny dialogs
Cons:
Very short
This is exactly the pros and cons I would give watching a seinfeld episode rather than watching a movie.
I could substitute m example of discworld 2 with 1000 other good games like DOTT, the original sam and max, monkey island 2, the longest journey, etc. It was just the first game that came to mind. Surely you like one of them. THey all would work well dividing their game by 3 and using that as a comparison of length/locations/puzzles as what I and others are looking for in episodic content instead of an 1.5 hour game.
I understand what you're saying. If we were living in a world where episodic games were abundant, and you had 20 episodic games coming out simultaneously, I'd say it'd be great if some of them had longer and "more epic" episodes. However, I'd still like, once a while, to be a able to play a game with bite-size episode, that I can play as an afternoon snack. That's what the Sam&Max games are supposed to be, like a one-page comic, where you get a crazy plot, and a few good laughs. Maybe there is room for other type of episodic adventure games in the world, but no one has succeeded in doing those yet.
Ironically, I did not understand the structure of that particular sentence
(do you mean that I see you as hostile but the people who can't seem to understand basic sentence structure (which I assume is numble?) don't see you as hostile but should instead of me?)
In any case, here you are again reverting to insulting everybody. Stop assuming people are not understanding sentences. Everyone here seems to understand each other just fine. The fact that you're the only one whose sentences fail to be understood should give you a hint that maybe you should practice your sentence structuring skills
Gee, then I guess I shouldn't have just skipped all those quotes and just respond mindlessly!
Anyway, it's understandable that the lower the score because of it. If a friend asked me - "I have 5 movie choices - Requiem for a Dream, Adaptation, The Holy Grail, Mulholland Drive or a Seinfeld episode. What choice would you recommend?" - I'd probably say - "a Seinfeld episode is really funny but on the downside it's pretty short so if you feel like watching a movie, you should not choose that episode". That's a valid thing to say when comparing an episode to a movie, and it's what the reviews are doing (and are supposed to do as the reviews are part of a GAMING magazine supposed to compare the episodes to other games) when they are saying:
Pros:
very funny dialogs
Cons:
Very short
This is exactly the pros and cons I would give watching a seinfeld episode rather than watching a movie.
I understand what you're saying. If we were living in a world where episodic games were abundant, and you had 20 episodic games coming out simultaneously, I'd say it'd be great if some of them had longer and "more epic" episodes. However, I'd still like, once a while, to be a able to play a game with bite-size episode, that I can play as an afternoon snack. That's what the Sam&Max games are supposed to be, like a one-page comic, where you get a crazy plot, and a few good laughs. Maybe there is room for other type of episodic adventure games in the world, but no one has succeeded in doing those yet.
1. There were no insults. It a fact that some people in this thread can't read. An observation is not an insult.
"Everyone here seems to understand each other just fine. "
If you say so.
"The fact that you're the only one whose sentences fail to be understood should give you a hint that maybe you should practice your sentence structuring skills "
Or it could be that there is correlation between the people who find easy puzzles to be adequate for them and the same 2-3 people can't seem to understand english well. The people who found the puzzles to easy and the game short had absolutely no problems with my sentence structure. WHat a coincidence!
2. I;m glad you enjoyed the episode. We don't all agree.
1. There were no insults. It a fact that some people in this thread can't read. An observation is not an insult.
...
it shows me the quality and education of the 2 people who can't seem to understand basic english and context.
I guess this sort of proves my point - I see you as hostile not because I am a fan, but because you are extremely rude. I'm sorry if the people here don't have enough "quality" for your taste.
God. There is a difference between low marks and mediocre marks. 3.5 is mediocre, not low.
Remember the context and the clues--what did I say for you to offer this gem? I said looking at the review page, I find that the reviews were much higher than you led me to believe, which is right--Metacritic has more reviews above your "mediocre grade" than at or below.
The semantics of whether that is low or mediocre doesn't make a difference--it's another tangent you decided to insert into the conversation. Selectively choosing the things you wish to semantically argue--which you bring up without any indication that others believe otherwise--is not going to help your cause:
- Yeah right, I'm not hardcore, I've bought 20+ games that I plan on playing, but haven't played yet--a hardcore gamer would have played them already!
- Sales are so much more important than gametap rankings! Nobody said otherwise
- Did I say low rankings? No, but neither did I--I only said the grades are higher than you made me thought
- 90% means majority! Well this one I acknowledged--I never knew that 90% meant majority
...especially when you won't bother with the opinions people make on the definitions of episodic, which are brought up and seem to be believed to be valid by more than one person.
I guess this sort of proves my point - I see you as hostile not because I am a fan, but because you are extremely rude. I'm sorry if the people here don't have enough "quality" for your taste.
If it is rude to point out that someone continues to misunderstand basic english in context, then rude I am! I can't think of a more polite way to explain something basic to someone other than encouraging them to reread and explaining in depth over and over.
You said ""The fact that you're the only one whose sentences fail to be understood should give you a hint that maybe you should practice your sentence structuring skills " which is "hostile"(although of course you don't see it that way)... I responded in kind.-
Or it could be that there is correlation between the people who find easy puzzles to be adequate for them and the same 2-3 people can't seem to understand english well. The people who found the puzzles to easy and the game short had absolutely no problems with my sentence structure. WHat a coincidence!
It is funny to me that you suggest that I should make my posts more simple and less complex for the people who enjoyed and defend a game that is simple and less complex than what I'd like. Do you not see the irony here?
:
Remember the context and the clues--what did I say for you to offer this gem? I said looking at the review page, I find that the reviews were much higher than you led me to believe, which is right--Metacritic has more reviews above your "mediocre grade" than at or below.
Read the post I quoted from... here is the whole post:
" Originally Posted by shadow9d9 View Post
Did I say it got low marks? I just said it was shorter and suffered from my criticisms of 1 and 2, but worse.
I may have misconstrued you, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow9d9 View Post
All the reviews for each successive episode has been getting worse for the reasons I have listed and a 3.5/5 from adventuregamers.com is by no means a tremendous success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow9d9 View Post
Do you think after 3.5/5 star reviews and 90% of reviews pointing to a decline in game length and puzzles and locations that people who were disappointed in the first or second will go to the third?"
You are claiming that I posted about them getting low marks... and you gave those 2 examples. My response is that those are mediocre marks, so you did indeed misconstrue. Stop wasting my time please.
Looks like this amicable discussion has wrapped itself up!
I'm going to close this thread now, though, because if people have something else to say I'd rather they read the whole thing and then started their own followup thread, instead of getting half way through, and relighting the fires by posting a quick reply to one of the earlier vitriolic pages.
Comments
I'd agree with you.
However, I paid the .99 to try out Myst Online, and got sam and max as a free bonus. Almost like an extended demo. Which ironically was what the combined length of the 2 episodes is equivalent to.
Oh smack!
Gamespot
Episode 1: 7.7
Episode 2: 7.4
Episode 3: 7.1
IGN
Episode 1: 8.7
Episode 2: 7.8
Episode 3: 6.6
That my friends is not a good sign. These reviewers each point to the puzzle difficulty and hence the shortness of the episodes as its downfall. Now episodes 4-5-6 are supposed to be harder..and longer.. but they need to be. At the moment the series is on a decline...
Eh, context doesn't matter--the point still stands that, using the logic of the 2nd quote, the sentiments expressed here--from either 1 person or many--are the sentiments of a super small vocal minority and that it would be sad/wrong to believe that the majority would feel that way. Did anyone say that you were a lone skeptic?
Again, no need to resort to personal attacks here.
Not a personal attack. Just an observation. You continue to misunderstand basic points and take things out of context. I explained both quotes. Ignore them if you'd like.
Maybe you misconstrued what I said--all I said was "Imagine that!"
Now if I had added "What a hypocrite!" you would have had a case there, but when I highlighted the quote about the super small vocal minority of forum posters, I was only highlighting that 5/10 still qualifies under your super small vocal minority thesis, lest anybody looked at your 5/10 figure and were led to the conclusion that you represent some majority view. (Yes, nobody said anything about your views being the majority, but on the other hand, nobody said you were some lone skeptic either).
Anyway, there have been plenty of people such as Oilers99, fhqwhgads, Mel and Optimaximal that have brought up some good points about things such as pacing in comedies and the demands/expectations from different types of games. I've even brought up the issue of varying episodic content (compared to miniseries, sitcoms, and serial dramas) that it seems Telltale is trying to establish (and Dan Connors alludes to this somewhat in his recent GWJ interview). But most of the time you seem to be dismissing a lot of good thoughts with a variation routine of "You didn't read what I said, please try to understand me, try again, you must not be a native speaker of English," and arguing about some of the most obscure tangents such as why sales figures are more important than Gametap rankings (when nobody ever claimed otherwise).
Name one.
Some people don't mind it. That is great. Some do for the reasons the reviews and I stated. That is all and well and fine too. What else do you want me to examine? The point of this thread is to express criticism to telltale and to warn lurkers. It also let's them know about the 99 cents deal that would essentially let them try the first 3 games for free.
I also brought up the fact that these are purposely made to be stand-alone, which you dismissed outright with "Who in their right mind would buy sam and max act 5 without buying 1-4?" when there is evidence that people do partake in such activity.
This is what oilers said:
"graphic adventure games are, in a lot of ways, horrific messes. They have flaws that it seems most have become numb to. By comparison, easy puzzles are nothing compared to having nothing to do."
Essentially that the easier the puzzles, the better, because he finds regular adventure games too difficult and somehow horrific messes. I guess a game this simple is perfect for him. What else should I say? Good for him, sucky for people who play games for challenges instead of walks in the park looking at the pretty scenery. If I wanted brainless movie viewing, I'd *gasp*, watch a movie!
Your second point: As I said, Agon has standalone episodic adventuring for 5-7 hours each. 1.5 hours is hardly compareable. Standalone or not. Agon obviously didn't succumb to the problem I found here which is that there is such a small game, the puzzles are few, items are few, and locations are few.
The issue is that Telltale is pumping them out once a month now and these problems are the side effects. If they took more time and made 5-7 hour standalone installments, I would have absolutely no problem with them. It would alleviate all the problems I mentioned.
Because those points are ridiculous. Who wants short games? I mean, really. Do you think a majority of gamers want the games to be this short? 90%+ of reviews have criticized it for this and you want me to forget about the length because of 1 guy's liking of short games? How do you want me to respond? Good for him.
Subgenre and pleasing different audiences are just catchphrases that are used as an excuse for what telltale is doing. I think it's good for them financially while screwing the game. To each his own. How else should I respond to this one?
If we both saw a movie and you thought it was terrible and I started saying... "well, it was artistic!" or "I like thoughtless movies!" or "I like 26 minute movies because I can't sit still for more than that!!" or "I like that they only used 3 sets, it feels more independent filmy!".. would you bother responding to me?
Again, compare S&M to CSI and Bone, and you can see that Telltale will divide each episodically, but approach them differently, no differently than a TV studio approaching a sitcom, a drama, and serialized mini-series differently.
90% of reviews have criticized it for being a shorter game, not for being a short game. Therein lies the difference--many still give it better review grades than games that take 2 years to develop, and are still mostly laudatory that the phrase "first true episodic game" can be found in probably most reviews. They like the idea of monthly episodes. They like the idea of bite-size standalone gaming chunks. But this game feels shorter than the rest--that's it. There are no diatribes about how the episodic paradigm is screwing the game, or how you might feel ripped off. It's still averaging 7+ grades, and I'd prefer six episodes at 7+ than three episodes at 8+.
We've been down this road before. More apt would be complaints that ask for things that the creators aren't aiming for. It would be idiotic to complain about why the Simpsons or Seinfeld don't have episodes as long as 24 or Lost, don't have as much depth/drama as them, etc, or why you can't watch Lost and 24 out of order, or why Lost and 24 can't be 22 minute chunks and be funny like sitcoms are. Or for that matter complaining about why the Lord of the Rings Trilogy wasn't done as a television series, or why Seinfeld couldn't have been told as a movie trilogy. Or complaining that Glengarry Glen Ross is not action-packed enough...
You are arguing semantics with terms like episodic. I think Agon is similar to Sam and Max. You don't. Accept that. Feel free to think you have the true definition. I don't care.
The developers can choose whatever "aim" they want. I have the right to criticize it. So do others.
Agree to disagree will you?
Adventure gamers-"Still, the sad truth is that even though there may be some extra puzzle-solving time involved, Episode 3 is an extremely short game, definitely the shortest of the three so far."
They don't think it is a short game? "Episode 3 is an extremely short game." It is ALSO the shortest of the 3. But it is an extremely short game in and of itself.
Gamespy- "First, Episode 3 is really short. " Plus, under cons- "Very short; extremely easy puzzles;"
PCgameworld- " If this is the direction Sam & Max is headed, I think Telltale should either pull the plug or give themselves more time for the remaining three episodes. At minimum, 2 months each.""The running time is getting dangerously close to a mere hour (I clocked out at 90 minutes), and the plot is in many respects becoming formulaic and predictible, which is the very antithesis of Sam & Max."
Eurogamer-"Part of the 'problem', if you like, is the general lack of locations and objects on your person - inevitably it's not long before you join the dots."
IGN-"The puzzles are much easier this time around and the story is just too short to give the writers room to explore its potential...We managed to finish this one in a little less than an hour and a half. There are fewer puzzles this time around and virtually no confusion about what you're supposed to do next."
Gamer's temple- "There is only one location beyond Sam’s and Max’s now familiar neighborhood and it’s the rather small (three screen) Ted E. Bear's Mafia-free Casino and Playground. Making a short game feel even shorter are the puzzles, which are pretty much simple and straightforward."
honestgamers.com-"Episodic gaming is custom built for short, sharp bursts of gameplay, but Episode 3 can be conformably beaten in one sitting by even the least experienced pixel hunters. "
Shorter than the other 2 and short in and of itself. They don't need to be exclusive.
I'm willing to wager it's not even 90% at all.
--update--
And just looking at that link--it looks like Episode 3 actually got higher marks overall than you've been leading me to believe.
Did I say it got low marks? I just said it was shorter and suffered from my criticisms of 1 and 2, but worse.
I just quoted a whole bunch of you. 90% is not a statistic certainty. It means a majority. If I stated "I did an analysis and 88.7% show this", then you could argue.. but it isn't meant literally. I don't see how you could think so, but if you misunderstood, I apologize and amend it to majority for your better understanding of my true meaning.
Sleep time, be back in the morning.
Some of the reviews have the nerve to say it'll take 3-4 hours when it is clearly not the case, btw. They are just quoting what was told to them it seems. 90 minutes cannot be extended to 3-4 hours unless you go idle(in the brain). Don't take this literally! It is just my opinion!
I quoted enough for emphasis. A good lot of them.
I may have misconstrued you, but...
The Gamers With Jobs podcast interviewer said he took 5 hours to complete Culture Shock, and I personally took 3-4 hours on Episode 3 (I tried to find every easter egg and dialog option though). It's possible that some people that buy and plan to play 20+ adventure games have a leg up in the puzzling department. It is just my opinion!
Okay, no wonder you've been constantly finding that I don't seem to understand what you're saying. Next time somebody says "I'm 90% positive," or "we will get a majority of the votes" I will understand them better.
90% = Majority, gotcha.
I'm doing enough thinking studying for my exams. When I play episode 3, I want to rest a bit, watch some funny scenes, listen to some funny dialog, and play the Sam&Max characters in another quirky plot. For me, it's much more important to feel as if I'm playing the main characters in a comic then to solve some puzzles. I think in a past discussion I once referenced a great genre in Interactive Fiction, in my opinion, in which you just walk through the story, without solving puzzles at all (like Photopia or All Roads)
(By the way, if I really wanted to do some thinking, I could just start doing my Computational Geometry homework which I keep putting off. Adventure games, even the "tough" one like Discworld, don't really "make you think" that much)
Also, regarding all the reviews mentioning the game shortness - of course they will mention it! It's one of the most noticable features of the game. If no one told me the game is supposed to be short, and I'd buy it thinking it's a full-length game, I'd be awfully disappointed, so it's the reviewers duty to inform the readers that this is a short game. I mean, I think the game have perfect length, and I'd still mention the game is very short if I'd write a review of it.
If you take everything literally, you will have problems living in society. Conext clues and basic english should help you.
If someone says I am so hungry I could eat a horse, they don't literally want horse.
See, you are a fan, so you see me as hostile instead of the people who can't seem to understand basic sentence structure and context.
They mention length in the reviews and then lower the review score because of it. They are not just using it as a description. If you read the above quotes you would have known that though.
I could substitute m example of discworld 2 with 1000 other good games like DOTT, the original sam and max, monkey island 2, the longest journey, etc. It was just the first game that came to mind. Surely you like one of them. THey all would work well dividing their game by 3 and using that as a comparison of length/locations/puzzles as what I and others are looking for in episodic content instead of an 1.5 hour game.
God. There is a difference between low marks and mediocre marks. 3.5 is mediocre, not low.
Ironically, I did not understand the structure of that particular sentence
(do you mean that I see you as hostile but the people who can't seem to understand basic sentence structure (which I assume is numble?) don't see you as hostile but should instead of me?)
In any case, here you are again reverting to insulting everybody. Stop assuming people are not understanding sentences. Everyone here seems to understand each other just fine. The fact that you're the only one whose sentences fail to be understood should give you a hint that maybe you should practice your sentence structuring skills
Gee, then I guess I shouldn't have just skipped all those quotes and just respond mindlessly!
Anyway, it's understandable that the lower the score because of it. If a friend asked me - "I have 5 movie choices - Requiem for a Dream, Adaptation, The Holy Grail, Mulholland Drive or a Seinfeld episode. What choice would you recommend?" - I'd probably say - "a Seinfeld episode is really funny but on the downside it's pretty short so if you feel like watching a movie, you should not choose that episode". That's a valid thing to say when comparing an episode to a movie, and it's what the reviews are doing (and are supposed to do as the reviews are part of a GAMING magazine supposed to compare the episodes to other games) when they are saying:
Pros:
very funny dialogs
Cons:
Very short
This is exactly the pros and cons I would give watching a seinfeld episode rather than watching a movie.
I understand what you're saying. If we were living in a world where episodic games were abundant, and you had 20 episodic games coming out simultaneously, I'd say it'd be great if some of them had longer and "more epic" episodes. However, I'd still like, once a while, to be a able to play a game with bite-size episode, that I can play as an afternoon snack. That's what the Sam&Max games are supposed to be, like a one-page comic, where you get a crazy plot, and a few good laughs. Maybe there is room for other type of episodic adventure games in the world, but no one has succeeded in doing those yet.
1. There were no insults. It a fact that some people in this thread can't read. An observation is not an insult.
"Everyone here seems to understand each other just fine. "
If you say so.
"The fact that you're the only one whose sentences fail to be understood should give you a hint that maybe you should practice your sentence structuring skills "
Or it could be that there is correlation between the people who find easy puzzles to be adequate for them and the same 2-3 people can't seem to understand english well. The people who found the puzzles to easy and the game short had absolutely no problems with my sentence structure. WHat a coincidence!
2. I;m glad you enjoyed the episode. We don't all agree.
I guess this sort of proves my point - I see you as hostile not because I am a fan, but because you are extremely rude. I'm sorry if the people here don't have enough "quality" for your taste.
Remember the context and the clues--what did I say for you to offer this gem? I said looking at the review page, I find that the reviews were much higher than you led me to believe, which is right--Metacritic has more reviews above your "mediocre grade" than at or below.
The semantics of whether that is low or mediocre doesn't make a difference--it's another tangent you decided to insert into the conversation. Selectively choosing the things you wish to semantically argue--which you bring up without any indication that others believe otherwise--is not going to help your cause:
- Yeah right, I'm not hardcore, I've bought 20+ games that I plan on playing, but haven't played yet--a hardcore gamer would have played them already!
- Sales are so much more important than gametap rankings! Nobody said otherwise
- Did I say low rankings? No, but neither did I--I only said the grades are higher than you made me thought
- 90% means majority! Well this one I acknowledged--I never knew that 90% meant majority
...especially when you won't bother with the opinions people make on the definitions of episodic, which are brought up and seem to be believed to be valid by more than one person.
If it is rude to point out that someone continues to misunderstand basic english in context, then rude I am! I can't think of a more polite way to explain something basic to someone other than encouraging them to reread and explaining in depth over and over.
You said ""The fact that you're the only one whose sentences fail to be understood should give you a hint that maybe you should practice your sentence structuring skills " which is "hostile"(although of course you don't see it that way)... I responded in kind.-
Or it could be that there is correlation between the people who find easy puzzles to be adequate for them and the same 2-3 people can't seem to understand english well. The people who found the puzzles to easy and the game short had absolutely no problems with my sentence structure. WHat a coincidence!
It is funny to me that you suggest that I should make my posts more simple and less complex for the people who enjoyed and defend a game that is simple and less complex than what I'd like. Do you not see the irony here?
:
Read the post I quoted from... here is the whole post:
" Originally Posted by shadow9d9 View Post
Did I say it got low marks? I just said it was shorter and suffered from my criticisms of 1 and 2, but worse.
I may have misconstrued you, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow9d9 View Post
All the reviews for each successive episode has been getting worse for the reasons I have listed and a 3.5/5 from adventuregamers.com is by no means a tremendous success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow9d9 View Post
Do you think after 3.5/5 star reviews and 90% of reviews pointing to a decline in game length and puzzles and locations that people who were disappointed in the first or second will go to the third?"
You are claiming that I posted about them getting low marks... and you gave those 2 examples. My response is that those are mediocre marks, so you did indeed misconstrue. Stop wasting my time please.
Kudos to Telltale for allowing a critical thread to remain. I hope they improve the game to a point where I may reconsider. If not, be well.
Just doing my part to facilitate in providing everyone with some needed unintentional comedy
I'm going to close this thread now, though, because if people have something else to say I'd rather they read the whole thing and then started their own followup thread, instead of getting half way through, and relighting the fires by posting a quick reply to one of the earlier vitriolic pages.