I am going to warn everyone that these arguments are definitely becoming circular and insular.
Everyone who reads either this thread or the one which I closed earlier is now well aware of the issues raised, and where each individual participant stands on those issues. All that remains now, though, is the same circle of people trying to convince each other to listen to each other. I don't much see the point in that, as nobody in this thread who already hasn't "listened to reason" or whatever the problem is, on either side of the current debate, is going to suddenly do an about face with their emotions or opinions on the subject.
That said, Shadow and the rest, what you're saying doesn't fall on deaf ears (this is, after all, a forum run, maintained and read by Telltale Games), and please also rest assured that Telltale does in fact keep a close eye on sales numbers, sales trends, and what people across the Internet and press are writing and saying about our games. We're all about the Internet, and we're well aware that the Internet is a two-way medium.
I am going to warn everyone that these arguments are definitely becoming circular and insular.
Everyone who reads either this thread or the one which I closed earlier is now well aware of the issues raised, and where each individual participant stands on those issues. All that remains now, though, is the same circle of people trying to convince each other to listen to each other. I don't much see the point in that, as nobody in this thread who already hasn't "listened to reason" or whatever the problem is, on either side of the current debate, is going to suddenly do an about face with their emotions or opinions on the subject.
That said, Shadow and the rest, what you're saying doesn't fall on deaf ears (this is, after all, a forum run and maintained by Telltale Games), and please also rest assured that Telltale does in fact keep a close eye on sales numbers, sales trends, and what people across the Internet and press are writing and saying about our games. We're all about the Internet, and we're well aware that the Internet is a two-way medium.
Yup, i haven't really understood why people "defend" companies' products, well unless they're getting paid.
(The same goes for Playstation 3 (which has soooo many flaws) just because it's a Playstation and iTunes/iPod/iPhone just because it comes from Apple!)
And how many people who have played the games are not complaining about the story, the level of difficulty and the lack of edgier humour?
That's usually the thing -- it's way easier to complain than to praise something, and the complainers are always more noticed. People love to complain.
Yup, i haven't really understood why people "defend" companies' products, well unless they're getting paid.
(The same goes for Playstation 3 (which has soooo many flaws) just because it's a Playstation and iTunes/iPod/iPhone just because it comes from Apple!)
This is slightly off-topic, but I think it goes both ways--places like Joystiq, Kotaku, Gizmodo, Engadget and their ilk are filled with people spouting criticisms/defenses both ways. There are probably equal amounts of people that believe anything Sony does is bad, anything Microsoft or Nintendo (choose your fandom) does is good, and vice versa. And there are plenty of people who like to spout on about "Micro $oft" and why Apple is better--and vice versa. And throw in the unwillingness to acknowledge the valid points of the other side--of course--which stirs things even more.
Most of the rabid fan responses to my thread weren't good at comprehension either. They want so much to respond with defense to what that like that they ignore context/comprehension skills.
When I love things, I criticize them more strongly because I care about them more. I don't blindly defend them against valid complaints.
Hey shadow. I don't want to continue the fruitless discussion here on the forum, so I've sent you a private message regarding this.
(I'm saying it here because I assume otherwise you probably won't notice)
Why would a person defend a product? Same reason a person defends a nation.
It provides something they like that they can't get elsewhere. It is the only one of its kind, and they like it. It touched them in some way. It's what they're used to. It's the best of all available options. Etc.
A person may also feel that if they don't "defend" a product they like from virulent criticism, it may one day turn out that the virulent criticism will sway consumers to the criticizer's viewpoint. Therefore they want to give a counter view to the critic.
There's some snappy quote about good men being silent, or doing nothing, when evil rears its head, or some such nonsense. It sort of applies to this situation, though not so dramatically.
We are consumers. We depend on companies for entertainment. We invest thought, emotion, and time into our purchases. The old joke that women make shopping a way of life has a bit of truth, in the amount of emotion behind money, and the stress of deciding how to spend that money.
The video game world is littered with great games that never got a sequel because the masses weren't hipped to them, franchises that were crushed by sequilitis and opinion, companies that couldn't overcome a history of bad releases, of sleeper titles that became cult classics, of small titles that by word of mouth grew into mega franchises.
Now the internet has given fans a voice into the process, a way to transmit their gaming desires straight to the companies and to other fans.
It is, to me, perfectly obvious why a person would "defend" a product.
What mystifies me is how someone couldn't understand that
Sorry if I did horrible orthographic english errors, but I'm actually french and I'm only 15, so...^^
Well, I wanted to tell you some things about what did Mill says and my opinion about the sam and max season 1 episodes:
-I agree with you about the difficulty of the game! It's really really too easy! Why do you guys at telltale just increase a little bit the difficulty of the game in each episodes? I mean episode 1: Very easy; episode 2: Easy; episode 3: A bit harder, etc etc...? The gameplay is not perfect too, I've found the solution of some puzzles by chance! Just because I can click on this or this object and not on that thingy! I suggest that some trap-object must be added sometimes, no? And as evryone said: why not a combine-object system, huh?
-The graphics are perfect for now, and the animation of the character is getting better, keep the good work The cut-scene are really well-animated!
-The humor is GOOD! Don't change it! Mr. Purcell and the other dids a good work! No really, enter a toy mafia... That was so funny
So, I've paid 40 USD for the complete season (with tax^^), and I hope that you guys at telltale will improve and improve the game for the next seasons with the money you've earned! Listen to all our suggestions, and it would be great! Anyway, thanks for having made live again sam and max in video games! Keep improving your games, they are nice!;)
EDIT: Sorry if I've don't read the entire topic, but I think I've read the most important parts
I am going to warn everyone that these arguments are definitely becoming circular and insular.
Much agreed. I won't feed in to the flames anymore. We should all move on, we're here to talk gaming, not argue about reading comprehension. I say we all settle our differences with a dance-off and an Irish jig.
That's usually the thing -- it's way easier to complain than to praise something, and the complainers are always more noticed. People love to complain.
This is a very insightful post. I think that is indeed something to consider. You may see lots of people complaining about the game, but odds are, Telltale knows exactly what percentage of the people that bought it that is, and it's probably pretty low. Of course, since I don't work for Telltale, I could be totally wrong, too.
It's a sort of disease. I propose this syndrom needs a name, and I suggest that we call it "Battlestar Galactica-syndrome"
Wrong comparison
Neo-BSG is made by people who hate and despise the original, and are more concerned about having sex and nudity in Sci-Fi than in satisfying the fanbase of the real BSG. They specifically go out of their way to get things wrong, and change things just for the sake of changing them (ex- they have the Rising Star,but they have Cloud 9 take the Rising Star's role in the show. Why? So they can give the finger to the real fans, there can be no other purpose in making such a change. ex2- Adama was the man of faith, and Col Tigh was the skeptic. He was the one who kept Adama grounded in reality, he's not a drunk and a waste of space.). The new show has no involvement from Glen Larson, other than the fact that hey send him a check (apparently it was a "we're doing whatever we want, you can take or leave a check, but we're still going to wreck your show"). The new show is in many ways a direct affront to what the original stood for. Sure, it was cheesy,but there was a magnificent show there at the heart, that very easily could have been revived a-la Doctor Who, with full respect and a continuation of the past, just massaged into something acceptible to the modern audience, something that fans old and new can embrace and love. Instead they raped the people like me who fought for 25 years to get our show back with a cactus with a bad remake of Space Above and Beyond shoehorned into the barest outline of BSG. They couldn't even keep the someone unique origins of the Cylon War, they had to go the SAAB/Terminator route.
See a realBSG revival that was so close to happening they were building the sets, that respected the original and had Glen Larson's cooperation,and the support of almost all the original cast. Make sure to check out all thesections for lots of pictures of the cylons, the vipers and the bridge.
Larson owns the movie rights, and DeSanto is currently trying to find the financing to realize it as a movie. The only real benefit of the cancellation of BSG-DeSanto was that the money was then shifted over to create Firefly, another show that was cancelled unfairly (BSG was a top 10 show, but ABC had a bad habit of cancelling shows if they thought another one might squeeze a couple extra bucks)) and will probably be ruined by some other hack down the line who lacks the perfection of our lord and savior of quality filmed entertainment.
Sam and Max are made by people who love and respect the original, and with the full involvement from the creator, Steve Purcell, who as the creator is the only person who can approve alterations to his creation. Steve is happy, The original game and the comic books do appear to have happened, as much as legally allowable in these new games. I agree, I totally miss the longer narrative and edgier humor, but let them get their feet wet and re-establish the franchise. The games are by no means perfect, but I find them acceptible. They need to be at least 3 hours in length, and a good 3 hours. I do agreee that I am not happy with the shorter and shorter playtimes.
Perhaps a way to expand playtime without blowing the budget is to give some side quests at pre-existing locations?
Neo-BSG is made by people who hate and despise the original, and are more concerned about having sex and nudity in Sci-Fi than in satisfying the fanbase of the real BSG. They specifically go out of their way to get things wrong, and change things just for the sake of changing them (ex- they have the Rising Star,but they have Cloud 9 take the Rising Star's role in the show. Why? So they can give the finger to the real fans, there can be no other purpose in making such a change. ex2- Adama was the man of faith, and Col Tigh was the skeptic. He was the one who kept Adama grounded in reality, he's not a drunk and a waste of space.). The new show has no involvement from Glen Larson, other than the fact that hey send him a check (apparently it was a "we're doing whatever we want, you can take or leave a check, but we're still going to wreck your show"). The new show is in many ways a direct affront to what the original stood for. Sure, it was cheesy,but there was a magnificent show there at the heart, that very easily could have been revived a-la Doctor Who, with full respect and a continuation of the past, just massaged into something acceptible to the modern audience, something that fans old and new can embrace and love. Instead they raped the people like me who fought for 25 years to get our show back with a cactus with a bad remake of Space Above and Beyond shoehorned into the barest outline of BSG. They couldn't even keep the someone unique origins of the Cylon War, they had to go the SAAB/Terminator route.
See a realBSG revival that was so close to happening they were building the sets, that respected the original and had Glen Larson's cooperation,and the support of almost all the original cast. Make sure to check out all thesections for lots of pictures of the cylons, the vipers and the bridge.
Larson owns the movie rights, and DeSanto is currently trying to find the financing to realize it as a movie. The only real benefit of the cancellation of BSG-DeSanto was that the money was then shifted over to create Firefly, another show that was cancelled unfairly (BSG was a top 10 show, but ABC had a bad habit of cancelling shows if they thought another one might squeeze a couple extra bucks)) and will probably be ruined by some other hack down the line who lacks the perfection of our lord and savior of quality filmed entertainment.
Sam and Max are made by people who love and respect the original, and with the full involvement from the creator, Steve Purcell, who as the creator is the only person who can approve alterations to his creation. Steve is happy, The original game and the comic books do appear to have happened, as much as legally allowable in these new games. I agree, I totally miss the longer narrative and edgier humor, but let them get their feet wet and re-establish the franchise. The games are by no means perfect, but I find them acceptible. They need to be at least 3 hours in length, and a good 3 hours. I do agreee that I am not happy with the shorter and shorter playtimes.
Perhaps a way to expand playtime without blowing the budget is to give some side quests at pre-existing locations?
That would be great if the new BSG wasn;t the best and most intelligent show on tv right now... You probably thought the original star trek was better than TNG too right? You sound bitter .
That would be great if the new BSG wasn;t the best and most intelligent show on tv right now... You probably thought the original star trek was better than TNG too right? You sound bitter
It's not though. They're running around in circles because they have absolutely no clue where they're going with it, even a lot of fans admit that and by the ratings, they're starting to bail. Wouldn't it be so much better if you could have your cake and eat it to? That it was a show that actually followed its namesake instead of Ron Moore's project grafted onto an available franchise? He loves the idea of the Exodus, but he has no idea what to do with it once he gets beyond the Ten Commandments. Moore's a good writer, as long as he's under someone else to control him as he proved on DS9, but it's obvious from Ira Behr's work afterwards that it was his careful guiding hand that made that show great, and the truely ignored more intelligent series of the last decade (or as TV Guide finally called it "the greatest show nobody watched)
And yes, in many ways the original Trek WAS better than TNG. The characters were more dynamic and felt more like real people, and much less preachy. They tried to have the story communicate the ideas instead of having Picard lecture them. Both shows are products of their time It certainly had a magnificent writing staff too, with many great SF writers contributing stories and scripts like Ted Sturgeon, Harlan Ellison, David Gerrold etc. but TNG was once again made with the FULL cooperation, endorsement, and even the same creator, Gene Roddenberry. It both continued and respected the original instead of doing gross alteration.
Both shows are products of their time, but they still respect the original, and respect the fans that enabled them to come back. Had they done the same thing to Trek that they did to BSG, there would have been lynch mobs. Pitchforks, torches, the works. It's the equiv of a teetotaling Scotty, a wild and crazy Spock, and a Kirk who's a manhating lesbian stereotype.
It's not though. They're running around in circles because they have absolutely no clue where they're going with it, even a lot of fans admit that and by the ratings, they're starting to bail. Wouldn't it be so much better if you could have your cake and eat it to? That it was a show that actually followed its namesake instead of Ron Moore's project grafted onto an available franchise? He loves the idea of the Exodus, but he has no idea what to do with it once he gets beyond the Ten Commandments. Moore's a good writer, as long as he's under someone else to control him as he proved on DS9, but it's obvious from Ira Behr's work afterwards that it was his careful guiding hand that made that show great, and the truely ignored more intelligent series of the last decade (or as TV Guide finally called it "the greatest show nobody watched)
And yes, in many ways the original Trek WAS better than TNG. The characters were more dynamic and felt more like real people, and much less preachy. They tried to have the story communicate the ideas instead of having Picard lecture them. Both shows are products of their time It certainly had a magnificent writing staff too, with many great SF writers contributing stories and scripts like Ted Sturgeon, Harlan Ellison, David Gerrold etc. but TNG was once again made with the FULL cooperation, endorsement, and even the same creator, Gene Roddenberry. It both continued and respected the original instead of doing gross alteration.
Both shows are products of their time, but they still respect the original, and respect the fans that enabled them to come back. Had they done the same thing to Trek that they did to BSG, there would have been lynch mobs. Pitchforks, torches, the works. It's the equiv of a teetotaling Scotty, a wild and crazy Spock, and a Kirk who's a manhating lesbian stereotype.
The original Trek was awful, from terrible acting to terrible scripts. TNG and DS9 were 1000s of lightyears better. Same with the new bsg. Sorry you don't like it. Many people cling to the past. If you don't like the new bsg, don't watch it. For the rest of us, it is the most intelligent show on tv with a definite direction. Moore is a brilliant writer. He has been since TNG and his 20+ brilliant DS9 episodes. He has brought a staff of amazing writers including bradley thompson and david weddle(also from ds9).. the show has some amazing actors. It has got everything. Couldn't ask for more.
The original Trek was awful, from terrible acting to terrible scripts. TNG and DS9 were 1000s of lightyears better. Same with the new bsg. Sorry you don't like it. Many people cling to the past. If you don't like the new bsg, don't watch it. For the rest of us, it is the most intelligent show on tv with a definite direction. Moore is a brilliant writer. He has been since TNG and his 20+ brilliant DS9 episodes. He has brought a staff of amazing writers including bradley thompson and david weddle(also from ds9).. the show has some amazing actors. It has got everything. Couldn't ask for more.
I agree completely. People always love things from their childhood, it's human nature. Though it's true there's a big difference between the Sam & Max revival and the BSG revival, BSG was more of a re-envisioning to be honest. And it's brilliant also. Apart from the cheesy love drama of season 3. Moore needs to stop doin' that teenage-angst type romance.
Hey, I think the original Trek is amazingly great. I still watch it today, given the chance. Shatner's acting in the series is very enjoyable, dare I say "good", as are most of the other actors. The stories are so whacky they're fun. The set designs are inspired. Etc.
And it is NOT from my childhood. I didn't see the original Trek until after TNG.
Automatically crediting someone's enjoyment of something to an inherent bias is not thoughtful to that other person.
Hey, I think the original Trek is amazingly great. I still watch it today, given the chance. Shatner's acting in the series is very enjoyable, dare I say "good", as are most of the other actors. The stories are so whacky they're fun. The set designs are inspired. Etc.
And it is NOT from my childhood. I didn't see the original Trek until after TNG.
Automatically crediting someone's enjoyment of something to an inherent bias is not thoughtful to that other person.
I'm not saying you can't enjoy TOS or the original BSG now as an adult, I'm just saying that if you watched a show as a young child, you'll mostly likely remember it slightly more fantastic than it really was. I still love TOS, as much as I love TNG and DS9, I only watched the original BSG after I saw the new one and thought it was crap. I only played Hit the Road after I played culture shock and thought it was great! (despite the fact that I never finished it)
Shadow9d9, there was plenty of criticism of the games on this forum before you came along. A lot of people have been criticizing the games' length, easiness, and most of the other stuff you talked about. The main difference is that it's usually been more optimistic, whereas your criticism was more pessimistic. And that's fair, because if you honestly don't think the games are worth playing because of these flaws, that's your call to make. But just because some people think the games are still worth playing (as I do, since they're just so well-written), don't call them sheep or whatever it is that you said. The hostility isn't necessary; it rarely is.
Additionally, I've found that people generally don't respond well to someone whose first message board thread is an argument. Whether it's fair or not, it's just the way people tend to work. It's all too easy to be angry at the outsider.
Finally, yes, the old Star Trek pales in comparison to TNG, DS9, and probably Enterprise. Whatever good qualities it had were more than made up for by the cheesiness of 75% of its episodes.
Voyager... well, I'll leave that alone.
P.S. Star Trek, like religion and politics, is a source of never-ending debate on the internet, and even the most scholarly minds have not been able to find the true answers to these questions. Let us not expect to.
The number of room is too few as well ? but you just combine the first half of a project ! We all want more, and more, and more, but you know what, sam&max is the greatest adventure game I played since Grim Fandango. Name something better recently, and okay, you'll be able to tell they failed. But you know what ? you don't fail until the run's over. And we are on the first half.
Hotel Dusk is a better game than Sam and Max, and is probably my favorite adventure game since Grim Fandango as well. I don't see why a game has to be comparable to the best graphic adventure game released to be worthy, though.
When you'd paid for a full game, then you can complain about a game that's too short to be one. You can complain about the difficulty too, but keep in mind that Sam and Max almost destroyed its own excellent material by grinding the game to a halt repeatedly for its poorly designed puzzles.
Look, let's drop the sci-fi, please. It's WAY off-topic. Maybe start a thread in General Discussion if you want.
Thread derailments are a part of any good forum. If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine, but we don't have to put discussion in particular boxes.
Hahaha, no one listens to my suggestions, as they always end in screaming, dismemberment, trout flinging, or other unpleasant results. For example, my suggestion to serve gazpacho soup hot ended in the Great Depantsing of 1774... ah, memories...
Hahaha, no one listens to my suggestions, as they always end in screaming, dismemberment, trout flinging, or other unpleasant results. For example, my suggestion to serve gazpacho soup hot ended in the Great Depantsing of 1774... ah, memories...
Hotel Dusk is a better game than Sam and Max, and is probably my favorite adventure game since Grim Fandango as well. I don't see why a game has to be comparable to the best graphic adventure game released to be worthy, though.
When you'd paid for a full game, then you can complain about a game that's too short to be one. You can complain about the difficulty too, but keep in mind that Sam and Max almost destroyed its own excellent material by grinding the game to a halt repeatedly for its poorly designed puzzles.
Hotel Dusk is not the same kind of game, why compare them ? Hotel Dusk is one of these serious games, I talk about those fun games with laughs at each line, those game you play because your day was sad and you just want to decompress participating to an interactive joke. Then, complain about a game you have bought but you haven't got yet, is just like saying "I don't like this book, but I just read two pages".
I really love the humour of all of the games, but gameplay wise they are just getting shorter per game (1st/3hr, 2nd/2hr, 3rd/45min.) =/
Puzzles are even more linear with the third game, and all of them follow the same pattern of "do the starting task, do 3 tasks in any order, driving scene, "boss-battle"". I love the games for the humour, so i wont stop buying them, but at this rate Sam & Max is getting pretty predictable.
Hotel Dusk is not the same kind of game, why compare them ? Hotel Dusk is one of these serious games, I talk about those fun games with laughs at each line, those game you play because your day was sad and you just want to decompress participating to an interactive joke. Then, complain about a game you have bought but you haven't got yet, is just like saying "I don't like this book, but I just read two pages".
What does the tone of the game have to do with anything? They're both adventure games. I derive enjoyment from all graphic adventure games for the same basic reasons.
First off, thanks Telltale for waking Sam and Max up again.
You have many fans who will just buy the game automatically because it's Sam and Max. I am one of those. But you are killing us. I'm pretty sure the fanbase will be cut in half since the advent of the new Sam and Max game. Why? Read on.
I've bought the whole season, and played through ep one, two and today three as well. Episode one and two took about three hours for me to finish, and episode three about one hour and a half. The first two were kind of annoying (the kids you know), so even though the last one was the easiest and shortest episode, it was the one I liked the best.
It seems like everyone are complaining about it being too easy and too short. So do I. You (Telltale) said that you didn't want to scare off new adventurers by making the first one too hard. That's a good idea. Normally games are easier in the beginning and harder later on. Not in this case though, atleast not so far.
So why is it too easy? One thing is that is in 3D, and the game is not nearly as detailed as the old 2D counterpart (which I like). Add that you can't combine objects, and that all objects are used throughout the game. The number of "rooms" are way too few as well (yes, even if you combine ep 1+2+3).
I (and the majority of the other buyers) wish that you guys make Sam and Max 3 not in episode style, harder, with more Max, more detailed, and preferably in 2D as well. And a better story, the ones so far are too bad, and too childish. The target audience for this game is around 10 year old kids, and I'm betting the ones who have bought this game are 25+ in average.
You have to realize that Telltale games have to get more gamers into a dying genre for it to be profitable. The reason why the game isn't harder is that they don't want to drive way any new players who aren't used to adventure games. Besides, harder puzzle doesn't always been more challenging or better. I cannot remember which forum I have read this at (probably here or at the kq9 fanmade silver lining forums; l think it is the kq one since I recall a dark layout,) where someone made a great point on how difficulty can lead to illogical puzzles like the puzzle seen in Gabriel Knight 3, where the protagonist has to diguise himself by getting hair from a cat by chasing him into a hole with tape around, resultin in hair sticking onto the tape. The protagonist then makes it into a mustache with honey and uses the mustache to diguise himself as someone else who doesn't have a mustache.
Another one I remember is Phantasmogora 2 where the guy has to put cheese or something to the rate hole so that the rat can go under the couch and pull out the car keys?
I really do not want to play a game with a puzzle so illogical like Sam has to rescue a tied up and a outcold max from whatever by combining ketchip and toothpaste and use it on the stairs, so that Max can wake up by smelling the scent and then bites off his binds.
So far, telltale did an excellent job with ep 3, even though it is short and I can't wait to play the final version of ep 4
Another one I remember is Phantasmogora 2 where the guy has to put cheese or something to the rate hole so that the rat can go under the couch and pull out the car keys?
I actually had no trouble with that puzzle, it just clicked for me for some reason. (Oddly, I had a hell of a time figuring out the passwords on his office computer, even though the solution was so obvious)
I really should play that again, I encountered a glitch in the second psychiatrist visit where I did everything I was supposed to, but nothing happened afterwards, they just sat there. *kicks self for not saving the game since the beginning*
What does the tone of the game have to do with anything? They're both adventure games. I derive enjoyment from all graphic adventure games for the same basic reasons.
I don't put Another Code and Day of the Tentacle in the same bag, I'm sorry. Then if you do, it's all right, just consider when I say there is for me nothing such as Season 1 since so many times, I don't refere to the adventure game kind, but to the humouristic LucasArts (and co) style. I liked Another code, I didn't played Hotel Dusk, but as I can see, from Ruanway to Hotel Dusk, it's not as funny as a single episode of Sam&Max. Then, they surely are great games, I find Runaway boring but it's not a bad game, I don't know well hotel dusk but some people seems to like it. I prefer humouristic adventure games, that's all I loved Sanitarium, I can't compare it to Curse of Monkey Island... I love them both, but it's not the same thing.
You have to realize that Telltale games have to get more gamers into a dying genre for it to be profitable. The reason why the game isn't harder is that they don't want to drive way any new players who aren't used to adventure games. Besides, harder puzzle doesn't always been more challenging or better. I cannot remember which forum I have read this at (probably here or at the kq9 fanmade silver lining forums; l think it is the kq one since I recall a dark layout,) where someone made a great point on how difficulty can lead to illogical puzzles like the puzzle seen in Gabriel Knight 3, where the protagonist has to diguise himself by getting hair from a cat by chasing him into a hole with tape around, resultin in hair sticking onto the tape. The protagonist then makes it into a mustache with honey and uses the mustache to diguise himself as someone else who doesn't have a mustache.
Another one I remember is Phantasmogora 2 where the guy has to put cheese or something to the rate hole so that the rat can go under the couch and pull out the car keys?
I really do not want to play a game with a puzzle so illogical like Sam has to rescue a tied up and a outcold max from whatever by combining ketchip and toothpaste and use it on the stairs, so that Max can wake up by smelling the scent and then bites off his binds.
So far, telltale did an excellent job with ep 3, even though it is short and I can't wait to play the final version of ep 4
First of all, it is a myth that adventure gaming is a dieing genre. There have been over 20 quality AAA games released in the last 5 years... how many quality computer rpgs have been released in that time? Half? A quarter?
Difficult!= illogical. Quit repeating that because it is not true.
You are making your arguments based on faulty assumptions.
First of all, it is a myth that adventure gaming is a dieing genre. There have been over 20 quality AAA games released in the last 5 years... how many quality computer rpgs have been released in that time? Half? A quarter?
The quality and success of games don't go hand in hand.
Just FYI.
The quality and success of games don't go hand in hand.
Just FYI.
Dieing implies not being produced anymore. A dieing genre has less releases til extinction... and this is not the case.. no one complains about the dieing rpg genre.. yet they complain about the dieing of the adventure genre with tons more games.
I don't get what your response is referring to.
The sales, if I understand what I've been hearing correctly is that the sales are similar to the 90s, they just haven't grown proportionately with market growth. This makes it niche, but not dieing.
First of all, it is a myth that adventure gaming is a dieing genre. There have been over 20 quality AAA games released in the last 5 years... how many quality computer rpgs have been released in that time? Half? A quarter?
How many quality World War 2 games were released in the last 5 years? Yet, WW2 games are as popular as ever, despite being clones of each other in nearly every aspect. Quality is relative to each consumer. For instance: I hate Halo, yet it's one of the most popular FPSs ever made. Same with Counterstrike. I'm dead tired, so I don't know if I'm making much sense, but my point (I think lol) is that AAA titles mean nothing if no one buys them. Adventure gamers aren't nearly as numerous as they were in the early 90's, so the games don't sell as much as they would have back then. Ergo, Adventure is indeed dying, despite the reprieve it's seen in the last couple years.
How many quality World War 2 games were released in the last 5 years? Yet, WW2 games are as popular as ever, despite being clones of each other in nearly every aspect. Quality is relative to each consumer. For instance: I hate Halo, yet it's one of the most popular FPSs ever made. Same with Counterstrike. I'm dead tired, so I don't know if I'm making much sense, but my point (I think lol) is that AAA titles mean nothing if no one buys them. Adventure gamers aren't nearly as numerous as they were in the early 90's, so the games don't sell as much as they would have back then. Ergo, Adventure is indeed dying, despite the reprieve it's seen in the last couple years.
As I already said, while it has not gained market share, it is still selling in the same numbers. Which means it remains stagnant. In order to die, you need to lose numbers of both games and sales and quality. None of which applies here.
If games keep coming out at the rate and quality of the last 5 yeras.. when will the genre be "dead" if you claim it is "dieing" now?
Semantics aside, if doom saber had said the word "stagnant" instead of "dying," then I believe his point still holds.
FPSs, RPGs and other games are blossoming on consoles because that is where the sales are (100 million PS2s sold, capturing just 9% of this market = 9 million sales). Yes, specific sales data would be useful, but we aren't privy to that, so we must look at other factors. The fact that Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony appear to be courting Telltale for development on their respective consoles seems to indicate that they believe Telltale's games would be successful on consoles (rare for a typical niched adventure game). The fact that third party adventure developers (Ankh, Al Emmo, Samorost, et al) put their wares in the Telltale Store (voluntarily accepting a profit loss) seems to indicate that they believe that Telltale would be successful at capturing non-niche audiences.
Semantics aside, if doom saber had said the word "stagnant" instead of "dying," then I believe his point still holds.
FPSs, RPGs and other games are blossoming on consoles because that is where the sales are (100 million PS2s sold, capturing just 9% of this market = 9 million sales). Yes, specific sales data would be useful, but we aren't privy to that, so we must look at other factors. The fact that Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony appear to be courting Telltale for development on their respective consoles seems to indicate that they believe Telltale's games would be successful on consoles (rare for a typical niched adventure game). The fact that third party adventure developers (Ankh, Al Emmo, Samorost, et al) put their wares in the Telltale Store (voluntarily accepting a profit loss) seems to indicate that they believe that Telltale would be successful at capturing non-niche audiences.
Oh yeah--Disco isn't dead!
That is all and great, but stagnant is not growing.. dieing is DIEING. They are complete opposites.
Ankh was also sold in box form, as was al emmo... this is just an alternative way-downloading.
Samarost is a super short game made by a college student or 2.
Comments
Everyone who reads either this thread or the one which I closed earlier is now well aware of the issues raised, and where each individual participant stands on those issues. All that remains now, though, is the same circle of people trying to convince each other to listen to each other. I don't much see the point in that, as nobody in this thread who already hasn't "listened to reason" or whatever the problem is, on either side of the current debate, is going to suddenly do an about face with their emotions or opinions on the subject.
That said, Shadow and the rest, what you're saying doesn't fall on deaf ears (this is, after all, a forum run, maintained and read by Telltale Games), and please also rest assured that Telltale does in fact keep a close eye on sales numbers, sales trends, and what people across the Internet and press are writing and saying about our games.
Thanks : ).
(The same goes for Playstation 3 (which has soooo many flaws) just because it's a Playstation and iTunes/iPod/iPhone just because it comes from Apple!)
That's usually the thing -- it's way easier to complain than to praise something, and the complainers are always more noticed. People love to complain.
This is slightly off-topic, but I think it goes both ways--places like Joystiq, Kotaku, Gizmodo, Engadget and their ilk are filled with people spouting criticisms/defenses both ways. There are probably equal amounts of people that believe anything Sony does is bad, anything Microsoft or Nintendo (choose your fandom) does is good, and vice versa. And there are plenty of people who like to spout on about "Micro $oft" and why Apple is better--and vice versa. And throw in the unwillingness to acknowledge the valid points of the other side--of course--which stirs things even more.
Hey shadow. I don't want to continue the fruitless discussion here on the forum, so I've sent you a private message regarding this.
(I'm saying it here because I assume otherwise you probably won't notice)
It provides something they like that they can't get elsewhere. It is the only one of its kind, and they like it. It touched them in some way. It's what they're used to. It's the best of all available options. Etc.
A person may also feel that if they don't "defend" a product they like from virulent criticism, it may one day turn out that the virulent criticism will sway consumers to the criticizer's viewpoint. Therefore they want to give a counter view to the critic.
There's some snappy quote about good men being silent, or doing nothing, when evil rears its head, or some such nonsense. It sort of applies to this situation, though not so dramatically.
We are consumers. We depend on companies for entertainment. We invest thought, emotion, and time into our purchases. The old joke that women make shopping a way of life has a bit of truth, in the amount of emotion behind money, and the stress of deciding how to spend that money.
The video game world is littered with great games that never got a sequel because the masses weren't hipped to them, franchises that were crushed by sequilitis and opinion, companies that couldn't overcome a history of bad releases, of sleeper titles that became cult classics, of small titles that by word of mouth grew into mega franchises.
Now the internet has given fans a voice into the process, a way to transmit their gaming desires straight to the companies and to other fans.
It is, to me, perfectly obvious why a person would "defend" a product.
What mystifies me is how someone couldn't understand that
This is one of the most arrogant things I've seen written on the Internet in the last few months, and I've seen a lot. Good job, sir!
Oh, sorry, didn't intend to.
Sorry if I did horrible orthographic english errors, but I'm actually french and I'm only 15, so...^^
Well, I wanted to tell you some things about what did Mill says and my opinion about the sam and max season 1 episodes:
-I agree with you about the difficulty of the game! It's really really too easy! Why do you guys at telltale just increase a little bit the difficulty of the game in each episodes? I mean episode 1: Very easy; episode 2: Easy; episode 3: A bit harder, etc etc...? The gameplay is not perfect too, I've found the solution of some puzzles by chance! Just because I can click on this or this object and not on that thingy! I suggest that some trap-object must be added sometimes, no? And as evryone said: why not a combine-object system, huh?
-The graphics are perfect for now, and the animation of the character is getting better, keep the good work
-The humor is GOOD! Don't change it! Mr. Purcell and the other dids a good work! No really, enter a toy mafia... That was so funny
So, I've paid 40 USD for the complete season (with tax^^), and I hope that you guys at telltale will improve and improve the game for the next seasons with the money you've earned! Listen to all our suggestions, and it would be great! Anyway, thanks for having made live again sam and max in video games! Keep improving your games, they are nice!;)
EDIT: Sorry if I've don't read the entire topic, but I think I've read the most important parts
Much agreed. I won't feed in to the flames anymore. We should all move on, we're here to talk gaming, not argue about reading comprehension. I say we all settle our differences with a dance-off and an Irish jig.
This is a very insightful post. I think that is indeed something to consider. You may see lots of people complaining about the game, but odds are, Telltale knows exactly what percentage of the people that bought it that is, and it's probably pretty low. Of course, since I don't work for Telltale, I could be totally wrong, too.
Wrong comparison
Neo-BSG is made by people who hate and despise the original, and are more concerned about having sex and nudity in Sci-Fi than in satisfying the fanbase of the real BSG. They specifically go out of their way to get things wrong, and change things just for the sake of changing them (ex- they have the Rising Star,but they have Cloud 9 take the Rising Star's role in the show. Why? So they can give the finger to the real fans, there can be no other purpose in making such a change. ex2- Adama was the man of faith, and Col Tigh was the skeptic. He was the one who kept Adama grounded in reality, he's not a drunk and a waste of space.). The new show has no involvement from Glen Larson, other than the fact that hey send him a check (apparently it was a "we're doing whatever we want, you can take or leave a check, but we're still going to wreck your show"). The new show is in many ways a direct affront to what the original stood for. Sure, it was cheesy,but there was a magnificent show there at the heart, that very easily could have been revived a-la Doctor Who, with full respect and a continuation of the past, just massaged into something acceptible to the modern audience, something that fans old and new can embrace and love. Instead they raped the people like me who fought for 25 years to get our show back with a cactus with a bad remake of Space Above and Beyond shoehorned into the barest outline of BSG. They couldn't even keep the someone unique origins of the Cylon War, they had to go the SAAB/Terminator route.
See a realBSG revival that was so close to happening they were building the sets, that respected the original and had Glen Larson's cooperation,and the support of almost all the original cast. Make sure to check out all thesections for lots of pictures of the cylons, the vipers and the bridge.
http://www.cylon.org/bsg/bsg-desanto-01.html
Larson owns the movie rights, and DeSanto is currently trying to find the financing to realize it as a movie. The only real benefit of the cancellation of BSG-DeSanto was that the money was then shifted over to create Firefly, another show that was cancelled unfairly (BSG was a top 10 show, but ABC had a bad habit of cancelling shows if they thought another one might squeeze a couple extra bucks)) and will probably be ruined by some other hack down the line who lacks the perfection of our lord and savior of quality filmed entertainment.
Sam and Max are made by people who love and respect the original, and with the full involvement from the creator, Steve Purcell, who as the creator is the only person who can approve alterations to his creation. Steve is happy, The original game and the comic books do appear to have happened, as much as legally allowable in these new games. I agree, I totally miss the longer narrative and edgier humor, but let them get their feet wet and re-establish the franchise. The games are by no means perfect, but I find them acceptible. They need to be at least 3 hours in length, and a good 3 hours. I do agreee that I am not happy with the shorter and shorter playtimes.
Perhaps a way to expand playtime without blowing the budget is to give some side quests at pre-existing locations?
That would be great if the new BSG wasn;t the best and most intelligent show on tv right now... You probably thought the original star trek was better than TNG too right? You sound bitter
It's not though. They're running around in circles because they have absolutely no clue where they're going with it, even a lot of fans admit that and by the ratings, they're starting to bail. Wouldn't it be so much better if you could have your cake and eat it to? That it was a show that actually followed its namesake instead of Ron Moore's project grafted onto an available franchise? He loves the idea of the Exodus, but he has no idea what to do with it once he gets beyond the Ten Commandments. Moore's a good writer, as long as he's under someone else to control him as he proved on DS9, but it's obvious from Ira Behr's work afterwards that it was his careful guiding hand that made that show great, and the truely ignored more intelligent series of the last decade (or as TV Guide finally called it "the greatest show nobody watched)
And yes, in many ways the original Trek WAS better than TNG. The characters were more dynamic and felt more like real people, and much less preachy. They tried to have the story communicate the ideas instead of having Picard lecture them. Both shows are products of their time It certainly had a magnificent writing staff too, with many great SF writers contributing stories and scripts like Ted Sturgeon, Harlan Ellison, David Gerrold etc. but TNG was once again made with the FULL cooperation, endorsement, and even the same creator, Gene Roddenberry. It both continued and respected the original instead of doing gross alteration.
Both shows are products of their time, but they still respect the original, and respect the fans that enabled them to come back. Had they done the same thing to Trek that they did to BSG, there would have been lynch mobs. Pitchforks, torches, the works. It's the equiv of a teetotaling Scotty, a wild and crazy Spock, and a Kirk who's a manhating lesbian stereotype.
The original Trek was awful, from terrible acting to terrible scripts. TNG and DS9 were 1000s of lightyears better. Same with the new bsg. Sorry you don't like it. Many people cling to the past. If you don't like the new bsg, don't watch it. For the rest of us, it is the most intelligent show on tv with a definite direction. Moore is a brilliant writer. He has been since TNG and his 20+ brilliant DS9 episodes. He has brought a staff of amazing writers including bradley thompson and david weddle(also from ds9).. the show has some amazing actors. It has got everything. Couldn't ask for more.
I agree completely. People always love things from their childhood, it's human nature. Though it's true there's a big difference between the Sam & Max revival and the BSG revival, BSG was more of a re-envisioning to be honest. And it's brilliant also. Apart from the cheesy love drama of season 3. Moore needs to stop doin' that teenage-angst type romance.
And it is NOT from my childhood. I didn't see the original Trek until after TNG.
Automatically crediting someone's enjoyment of something to an inherent bias is not thoughtful to that other person.
I'm not saying you can't enjoy TOS or the original BSG now as an adult, I'm just saying that if you watched a show as a young child, you'll mostly likely remember it slightly more fantastic than it really was. I still love TOS, as much as I love TNG and DS9, I only watched the original BSG after I saw the new one and thought it was crap. I only played Hit the Road after I played culture shock and thought it was great! (despite the fact that I never finished it)
Additionally, I've found that people generally don't respond well to someone whose first message board thread is an argument. Whether it's fair or not, it's just the way people tend to work. It's all too easy to be angry at the outsider.
Finally, yes, the old Star Trek pales in comparison to TNG, DS9, and probably Enterprise. Whatever good qualities it had were more than made up for by the cheesiness of 75% of its episodes.
Voyager... well, I'll leave that alone.
P.S. Star Trek, like religion and politics, is a source of never-ending debate on the internet, and even the most scholarly minds have not been able to find the true answers to these questions. Let us not expect to.
Hotel Dusk is a better game than Sam and Max, and is probably my favorite adventure game since Grim Fandango as well. I don't see why a game has to be comparable to the best graphic adventure game released to be worthy, though.
When you'd paid for a full game, then you can complain about a game that's too short to be one. You can complain about the difficulty too, but keep in mind that Sam and Max almost destroyed its own excellent material by grinding the game to a halt repeatedly for its poorly designed puzzles.
Thread derailments are a part of any good forum. If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine, but we don't have to put discussion in particular boxes.
Darn, no one listened to you... There's been no dancing or jigging.
Pfft... you're only dancing because you already played Abe Lincoln Must Die! =P
LOL!
Hotel Dusk is not the same kind of game, why compare them ? Hotel Dusk is one of these serious games, I talk about those fun games with laughs at each line, those game you play because your day was sad and you just want to decompress participating to an interactive joke. Then, complain about a game you have bought but you haven't got yet, is just like saying "I don't like this book, but I just read two pages".
Puzzles are even more linear with the third game, and all of them follow the same pattern of "do the starting task, do 3 tasks in any order, driving scene, "boss-battle"". I love the games for the humour, so i wont stop buying them, but at this rate Sam & Max is getting pretty predictable.
What does the tone of the game have to do with anything? They're both adventure games. I derive enjoyment from all graphic adventure games for the same basic reasons.
You have to realize that Telltale games have to get more gamers into a dying genre for it to be profitable. The reason why the game isn't harder is that they don't want to drive way any new players who aren't used to adventure games. Besides, harder puzzle doesn't always been more challenging or better. I cannot remember which forum I have read this at (probably here or at the kq9 fanmade silver lining forums; l think it is the kq one since I recall a dark layout,) where someone made a great point on how difficulty can lead to illogical puzzles like the puzzle seen in Gabriel Knight 3, where the protagonist has to diguise himself by getting hair from a cat by chasing him into a hole with tape around, resultin in hair sticking onto the tape. The protagonist then makes it into a mustache with honey and uses the mustache to diguise himself as someone else who doesn't have a mustache.
Another one I remember is Phantasmogora 2 where the guy has to put cheese or something to the rate hole so that the rat can go under the couch and pull out the car keys?
I really do not want to play a game with a puzzle so illogical like Sam has to rescue a tied up and a outcold max from whatever by combining ketchip and toothpaste and use it on the stairs, so that Max can wake up by smelling the scent and then bites off his binds.
So far, telltale did an excellent job with ep 3, even though it is short and I can't wait to play the final version of ep 4
I actually had no trouble with that puzzle, it just clicked for me for some reason. (Oddly, I had a hell of a time figuring out the passwords on his office computer, even though the solution was so obvious)
I really should play that again, I encountered a glitch in the second psychiatrist visit where I did everything I was supposed to, but nothing happened afterwards, they just sat there. *kicks self for not saving the game since the beginning*
I don't put Another Code and Day of the Tentacle in the same bag, I'm sorry. Then if you do, it's all right, just consider when I say there is for me nothing such as Season 1 since so many times, I don't refere to the adventure game kind, but to the humouristic LucasArts (and co) style. I liked Another code, I didn't played Hotel Dusk, but as I can see, from Ruanway to Hotel Dusk, it's not as funny as a single episode of Sam&Max. Then, they surely are great games, I find Runaway boring but it's not a bad game, I don't know well hotel dusk but some people seems to like it. I prefer humouristic adventure games, that's all
First of all, it is a myth that adventure gaming is a dieing genre. There have been over 20 quality AAA games released in the last 5 years... how many quality computer rpgs have been released in that time? Half? A quarter?
Difficult!= illogical. Quit repeating that because it is not true.
You are making your arguments based on faulty assumptions.
The quality and success of games don't go hand in hand.
Just FYI.
Dieing implies not being produced anymore. A dieing genre has less releases til extinction... and this is not the case.. no one complains about the dieing rpg genre.. yet they complain about the dieing of the adventure genre with tons more games.
I don't get what your response is referring to.
The sales, if I understand what I've been hearing correctly is that the sales are similar to the 90s, they just haven't grown proportionately with market growth. This makes it niche, but not dieing.
How many quality World War 2 games were released in the last 5 years? Yet, WW2 games are as popular as ever, despite being clones of each other in nearly every aspect. Quality is relative to each consumer. For instance: I hate Halo, yet it's one of the most popular FPSs ever made. Same with Counterstrike. I'm dead tired, so I don't know if I'm making much sense, but my point (I think lol) is that AAA titles mean nothing if no one buys them. Adventure gamers aren't nearly as numerous as they were in the early 90's, so the games don't sell as much as they would have back then. Ergo, Adventure is indeed dying, despite the reprieve it's seen in the last couple years.
As I already said, while it has not gained market share, it is still selling in the same numbers. Which means it remains stagnant. In order to die, you need to lose numbers of both games and sales and quality. None of which applies here.
If games keep coming out at the rate and quality of the last 5 yeras.. when will the genre be "dead" if you claim it is "dieing" now?
FPSs, RPGs and other games are blossoming on consoles because that is where the sales are (100 million PS2s sold, capturing just 9% of this market = 9 million sales). Yes, specific sales data would be useful, but we aren't privy to that, so we must look at other factors. The fact that Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony appear to be courting Telltale for development on their respective consoles seems to indicate that they believe Telltale's games would be successful on consoles (rare for a typical niched adventure game). The fact that third party adventure developers (Ankh, Al Emmo, Samorost, et al) put their wares in the Telltale Store (voluntarily accepting a profit loss) seems to indicate that they believe that Telltale would be successful at capturing non-niche audiences.
Oh yeah--Disco isn't dead!
That is all and great, but stagnant is not growing.. dieing is DIEING. They are complete opposites.
Ankh was also sold in box form, as was al emmo... this is just an alternative way-downloading.
Samarost is a super short game made by a college student or 2.