Fanboy disappointment.

1235»

Comments

  • edited December 2010
    Giant Tope wrote: »
    Um.. Marty does use a gun in the movies. I honestly think you need to simmer down a bit. Your last couple of posts have been needlessly aggressive.

    He uses a gun one bloody time as a bloody joke and in the actual showdown with Biff he never uses his gun. Instead he drops it on the ground and later gives it to his ancestor. The only people who ever actively use guns in the movies are the villains. Give your bloody facts right.

    EDIT: Didn't see Vainamoinen's post on it before but his outline is right on the money.
  • edited December 2010
    Done. Edited by mods. It's coo.
  • edited December 2010
    It's enough already about the shooting. You're attacking a strawman, building up any open world proponent to be a moron who only wants to shoot things. I'm sure very few of the "GTA" advocates would want there to be shooting.
    tredlow wrote: »
    I would just like to point out that, like what JuntMonkey said, GTA clones don't have to be about killing people, like Simpsons Hit & Run for example, which was fun without killing people because the crazy missions are enough.

    HOWEVER, Hit & Run's craziness is only acceptable because it's The Simpsons. You can have a mission where you collect stuff by driving into them because the show is cartoony, so the game can be cartoony and unrealisitc as well. You can have a mission where Homer must destroy Smithers' car, with him in it, by crashing onto it, because that's how crazy Homer is.

    How can people want this level of craziness to BTTF when they're already pissed off about the cartoony character design? Do you want an ultra-realistically designed BTTF game where you drive around collecting floating clocks? You know, just like in the movies?

    I'll admit, though, that a sandbox game where you can go to different time periods would be cool, but making it a BTTF game would be a waste, since the game wouldn't be able to explore the full potential of the idea.

    You're falling into yet another trap of defining what an open world game should look like - there does not have to be ramming cars or collecting coins. L.A. Noire is going to be open world, and some of the previews specifically state that there are not going to be things to collect or side-missions. The world is there to explore if you want to, but the actual story is linear (and in fact seems like it might be an adventure game).
  • edited December 2010
    Typically gun use means shooting a gun. Marty did that. He shot cans. Does that mean I think BttF is all pew pew guns? No. By no means. But it's still gun use, so the statement that he never used a gun isn't true.

    The problem with violently attacking anyone who has an objection, no matter how silly, is that you fall into a rut of automatic rejection of anyone who doesn't have the same opinions. Not only that, but it just makes you look unable to make a proper statement.

    I do find that there's an issue with folks on this forum constantly believe that Telltale is some sort of golden cow. That they don't do wrong, and anytime there is a fault, there's always some sort of made up excuse or it's automatically forgiven. Sometimes the faults of the company are praised as accomplishments. Yes, forgiveness is important, but if we never acknowledge the problems or quickly write it off, there's no pressure to improve.

    JuntMonkey- I really would like to see you present how BttF would work in that format. Because your current description really sounds inefficient and bloated.
  • edited December 2010
    Giant Tope wrote:
    The problem with violently attacking anyone who has an objection, no matter how silly, is that you fall into a rut of automatic rejection of anyone who doesn't have the same opinions. Not only that, but it just makes you look unable to make a proper statement.

    Well, if you don't criticize people then there is no pressure on them to change their viewpoint. If they stubbornly hold to their wrong opinions, then they're the one with the problem, not the critical ones. Also, you only look unable to make a proper statement if you don't make a proper statement. It just sounds to me like you want everyone to be all nice and cuddly and pink rainbows all the time. Some of us just aren't nice people. We're not going to take it easy on pure bullshit. The only time I think criticizing crosses the line is when you literally question someone's intelligence, except in very very rare cases. I'll call one of these cases asking for a GTA-ish BTTF sandbox game, but that's just because I can't friggin figure out why the hell anyone wants this, and I haven't heard a convincing, intelligent argument for it yet.
  • edited December 2010
    An open world game that has no side quests, collecting, random combat, or crazy vehicular stunts sounds incredibly boring. Having a linear story set in an open world just forces your player to commute from point A to point B. Every other medium of entertainment with a linear narrative structure cuts out the uneventful "travel time" parts of the story. Imagine how boring and slow-paced movies would be if we always had to watch the characters drive from place to place. I think it's a mistake for Rockstar to shoehorn an open world element into LA Noire when it doesn't look like the game needs it at all.
  • edited December 2010
    jp-30 wrote: »
    And how many times did Marty shoot a gun in the 3 movies?

    Omg not you again geeze dude all I was doing is making a point that there is guns in the bttf movies, But since you dont know that much about the movie I guess I have to tell you how many times he shot a gun "wish people would just watch the movie lol" he shot a toy gun 1 time in bttf 2, In bttf3 he shot a real gun when he was shooting the targets.
  • edited December 2010
    Falanca wrote: »
    Yeah, that's a reason to turn this game into Scarface. There are some guns thrown here and there.

    Marty NEVER uses a gun in movies, even when he's given the opportunity. And you're playing as Marty in this game. So ditch this crap, you won't be shooting anything.

    Never once said to turn it into that kind of game, the original thread got moved to here and someone was saying that there is no guns being shot in the bttf movies. he does use guns, go watch the movie k. I dont care if there are guns in TT bttf game. If I wanted guns I would play gta.
  • edited December 2010
    Doc shooting at the terrorists: Vain attempt without bullets
    Terrorists shooting at Marty: Never hitting the mark, thank god!
    Marty playing the video game: Is that even considered shooting?
    Biff shooting George: Never shown
    Slackers shooting at Strickland: No dice.
    Strickland shooting at the slackers: vain & desperate move with the car way out of reach
    1985a Biff shooting at Marty: No dice.
    Marty shooting at inanimate moving objects: That's OK, isn't it?
    Buford shooting at Doc: One shot, no dice.
    Buford shooting at Marshall Strickland: Cut from the final movie for obvious movie spirit destruction
    Buford shooting at Marty: One shot, no dice.
    Marty shooting at Buford: Never happens.

    That would be one hell of a disappointing GTA! ;)

    Seriously, the entire third movie is about Marty NOT using a gun. It's in fact about putting the gun down and giving it to your ancestor for its $ value.

    Ok I dont know why everyone is thinking I want a gta based bttf game? Thanks for listing all the times guns were used in the bttf movies i guess...
  • edited December 2010
    Fawful, I know you know there's a difference between criticism and flat out personal attacks. The first encourages intellectual wealth. The latter makes you look stupid.
  • edited December 2010
    Fair enough. However I don't see where Falanca attacked anyone personally. You told him he needed to tone down his attitude, but except in the interests of "being nice" I don't see why.
  • edited December 2010
    JuntMonkey wrote: »
    You're falling into yet another trap of defining what an open world game should look like - there does not have to be ramming cars or collecting coins. L.A. Noire is going to be open world, and some of the previews specifically state that there are not going to be things to collect or side-missions. The world is there to explore if you want to, but the actual story is linear (and in fact seems like it might be an adventure game).

    Yes, the purpose for an open world, aside from the stuff collecting and the side missions is for exploration, which fits LA Noire because it's set in old, atmospheric LA, which is interesting to explore. Hill Valley, however, is a generic place outside the clock tower.

    There are three reasons open worlds work so well in Rockstar games; you can kill and crash without much consequences, there are plenty of stuff to do, and the world is vast and beautifully constructed. Take the killing and crashing out, and you'll have side missions, stuff collecting, and sight-seeing. Take the side missions and stuff collecting out, and you'll be left with sight-seeing and exploration. This would still work in Hit & Run and LA Noire because the settings are interesting, but I just don't see it working in a story set in Hill Valley.

    Also, I read that, while LA Noire IS mostly an adventure game, you still have a few shootouts and car chases in it, which gives the open world aspect a purpose other than exploration, and it makes sense, since you play a detective in a gritty crime drama. A BTTF game, however, doesn't need an open world.

    This is what a BTTF open world game would probably look like, but without the car ramming and the stuff collecting, but still pretty generic.
  • edited December 2010
    I'm just leaving that; I don't think I'm offending more than I'm offended. You can't use your sweettalking to convince people anymore. The invention of the term "troll" gave courage to many people to be completely stubborn asswipers, and most people try to avoid them rather than "feeding the troll". Hell with that, really, if someone violates my likes, that's it. I feel like if someone thinks I should get my facts straight, I compare his/her facts with mine. And if someone thinks this game looks like bullshit, I throw bullshit right in the middle of their faces so that they can make a better comparison.

    Attacking a bunch of people's shared likes is as bad as attacking one personally, maybe even worse since it spices things up.
  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited December 2010
    Falanca wrote: »
    And if someone thinks this game looks like bullshit, I throw bullshit right in the middle of their faces so that they can make a better comparison.

    If someone voices his dislikes in a civil tone, that's OK, even if she or he does so in a forum filled with TTG's (quoting Jake) "dearest and most hardcorest fans". A personal insult is something entirely different. If you do have problems distinguishing between the two, please do not participate in such discussions because you will get agitated for no reason at all. Trying to convince someone that he'd be quite pleased with the eventual game is one thing, but starting a flame war because someone thinks he will not like the game as much as he wishes is something else and we won't have it here. Your likes were not "violated" in any way - they were just, for once, not shared. If pluralism's not your cup of tea, you yourself will have to deal with it, but I don't want that to be the community's problem. You're not throwing any kind of shit anywhere.

    Adamation - who hasn't posted in the last three pages of this thread - has stated his points clearly and meant no insult. They were repetitive, and a lot of people would not share the argumentation, but that in no way justified your kind of scorn. Also, these posts were definitly not "trolling". Throwing shit, THAT is trolling, whatever the reason.
  • edited December 2010
    If someone voices his dislikes in a civil tone, that's OK, even if she or he does so in a forum filled with TTG's (quoting Jake) "dearest and most hardcorest fans". A personal insult is something entirely different. If you do have problems distinguishing between the two, please do not participate in such discussions because you will get agitated for no reason at all. Trying to convince someone that he'd be quite pleased with the eventual game is one thing, but starting a flame war because someone thinks he will not like the game as much as he wishes is something else and we won't have it here. Your likes were not "violated" in any way - they were just, for once, not shared. If pluralism's not your cup of tea, you yourself will have to deal with it, but I don't want that to be the community's problem. You're not throwing any kind of shit anywhere.

    Adamation - who hasn't posted in the last three pages of this thread - has stated his points clearly and meant no insult. They were repetitive, and a lot of people would not share the argumentation, but that in no way justified your kind of scorn. Also, these posts were definitly not "trolling". Throwing shit, THAT is trolling, whatever the reason.

    See, the message I really wanted to give out is that I'm treating everyone the same way they treat everyone else. Maybe it's because I overused the word "shit", so it looks kind of crude. People are literal and formalist that way. But the message still stays the same.

    I'm just being honest. It doesn't mean I ever launched a handful of shit on anyone in forums. I wouldn't do that, as you said, Adamantium's responses were repetitive more than trolling, so instead I clashed our facts. Did the same with bttf1985cc, albeit in a harsher way, as he questioned my facts. It's a shared, closed community inhabited by intellectually stabile but efficient people, therefore even the most recently registered forum user double checks their posts before submitting. That already works as a fail-safe for flame wars. Long story short, I don't think I ever said something that would start such an uproar other than those "open letters" I sent (the previous post and the post you've edited). They're not aimed at anyone in particular, but they might be "potentially discomforting" as you felt the need of replying in such a rejecting manner (not to mention felt the need of editing the other post). If it's that problematic, sure, I can keep myself from submitting those.

    As for the more intense "throwing bullshit back" part... I do that too. Mostly on Facebook or YouTube, in a more one-on-one behavior. The community there isn't as self-contained as the community here, so I do feel the need. If a real "troll" shows up in this forum, I think the other users and mods will handle it theirselves much before my realization anyway.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.