The thing that led Emmett astray was the decision not to see Frankenstein, which meant Emmett never learned the danger of combining mad science and megalomania.
The thing that led Emmett astray was the decision not to see Frankenstein, which meant Emmett never learned the danger of combining mad science and megalomania.
so in ep3 we get a doc brown that doesnt give a f*** about changing history as long as it's to his advantage :eek:
and thats also why doc's on the big sign of hill valley, cause he owns everything and stuff, cause in this timeline he also invented a time machine and changed history to his advantage!
But it seems Doc hasn't invented the time machine for when Marty gets back to 1986 the time circuits make the same noise that they did when they were breaking in BTTF Part 2. Plus it would explain why Marty lost control of the delorean when he arrived in 1986.
But it seems Doc hasn't invented the time machine for when Marty gets back to 1986 the time circuits make the same noise that they did when they were breaking in BTTF Part 2. Plus it would explain why Marty lost control of the delorean when he arrived in 1986.
It could just be that he did invent the time machine in this timeline, but now it's damaged (sparks before going to 1986) and incomplete as some key elements dissapeared with Doc after temporal displacement.
It could just be that he did invent the time machine in this timeline, but now it's damaged (sparks before going to 1986) and incomplete as some key elements dissapeared with Doc after temporal displacement.
Could be. Or he may have invented time machine in a different manner. He has more money in the newer time like so maybe theres a better but more expensive way to make it than a delorean with a flux capacitor. I'm sure FCB does not need to rip off libyans to get plutonium. So it's quite possible if FCB has aspirations to invent time travel he is able to do it much earlier than 1985. Even if he doesn't invent it til october 1985, we are still nine months later so he could have done any number of things.
Maybe the flux capacitor is apparent to Edna without Emmet needing to hit his head in 1955!
Could be. Or he may have invented time machine in a different manner. He has more money in the newer time like so maybe theres a better but more expensive way to make it than a delorean with a flux capacitor. I'm sure FCB does not need to rip off libyans to get plutonium. So it's quite possible if FCB has aspirations to invent time travel he is able to do it much earlier than 1985. Even if he doesn't invent it til october 1985, we are still nine months later so he could have done any number of things.
Maybe the flux capacitor is apparent to Edna without Emmet needing to hit his head in 1955!
I'd like to note that the new logo of improved Hill Valley (a man with his arms outstretched) somewhat resembles the flux capacitor.
The ending was fairly predictable, but I did enjoy the use of montage. Effective builder of tension, even if it was a departure from the usual BTTF style of editing.
I agree that the ending was predictable. I saw it coming a mile away. But, despite that, the way it was handled was so well done that it still ended up taking me by surprise.
Thank you Telltale for reviving titles such as "Monkey Island" and "Back to the future". I am very excited about Back to the future game and the story is totally relevant with the movie trilogy.
But, I feel the game is too easy and episodes finish too quickly. I remember when I was playing Monkey island episodes, it really took me much time to finish and puzzles were much more challenging.
I guess that episode 3 must be almost ready to release. So if it's not too late for episodes 4 and 5, please make them a bit more difficult.
I agree. The first episode indeed was short and easy, and I saw some discussion about this in the forums. For some reason the second episode didn't feel all that short, but when I look at the clock I see that it sure didn't take as long to finish as, for example, Sam & Max or Monkey Island episodes. Get Tannen! took me three hours to finish while I recall spending up to six hours with some episodes from previous Telltale adventures.
The puzzles(?) in Get Tannen! still were ranging between easy and obvious, and the game railroaded you forward all the time and never made you wonder what to do or where to go. There's wasn't really that much exploring and talking to random NPCs to do. I sure hope that the coming episodes will be more challenging, and I'd of course appreciate if they are made longer than the first two.
I agree with you completely. I never had to use the hint feature and I found that most of the puzzles could be solved simply by talking to the other characters. I noticed this especially with the Get Tannen episode.
I hope that episodes 3 through 5 will increase in difficulty so that the game lasts longer. As much as I loved the episodes one and two, both were quite short due to the easiness of the puzzles.
I have high hopes for the third episode since it has a promising teaser and, since it's the halfway point, it will determine whether the episodes will increase in difficulty.
Now, as of this very moment I've only played the first episode so I don't know if the second has increased in difficulty, but was I the only one who thought the first one was super easy?
It could just be because this game features characters that were portrayed by real people and tried to fall in the realm of "reality" that hindered it. I'm used to out of the box puzzles found in Sam and Max and Tales of Monkey Island that feature unrealistic character, places, and situations that allow for a lot more creativity.
BttF:E1 also felt very short. I suppose that could have added to the delfated feeling I had when playing this series.
I bought the whole season and intend to continue playing, but this one definitely isn't my favorite. I'm giving Telltale the benefit of the doubt and assuming there are 101 things holding them back, but I'm also hoping things will pick up as the game progresses!
Now, as of this very moment I've only played the first episode so I don't know if the second has increased in difficulty, but was I the only one who thought the first one was super easy?
It could just be because this game features characters that were portrayed by real people and tried to fall in the realm of "reality" that hindered it. I'm used to out of the box puzzles found in Sam and Max and Tales of Monkey Island that feature unrealistic character, places, and situations that allow for a lot more creativity.
BttF:E1 also felt very short. I suppose that could have added to the delfated feeling I had when playing this series.
I bought the whole season and intend to continue playing, but this one definitely isn't my favorite. I'm giving Telltale the benefit of the doubt and assuming there are 101 things holding them back, but I'm also hoping things will pick up as the game progresses!
No worries, TT. I still love you. ♥
I think the intention from the beginning was for this game to tell the story and remain true to the Back to the Future universe, with the actual puzzle-based gameplay coming in as a second priority. You have to keep in mind that this game is being received by three different audiences:
1. Hardcore Point-and-Click Adventure Game/Telltale Fans I would assume you fit into this category, judging from your past experiences with ToMI and S&M. Obviously, those well-versed in this type of game are going to expect more, and are just more experienced at this type of game, and therefore will find the puzzles to be easier.
2. Casual BTTF/Adventure Fans The middle ground. These fans will probably find a puzzle or two a bit tricky, just from lack of adventure gaming experience, and may or may not feel propelled by the story.
3. Straight-off-the-boat BTTF Fans There's no doubt that this game has and is attracting many loyal BTTF fans, who may be looking to play this as more of a BTTF Part 4 and less as an adventure game that happens to feature BTTF.
Now I fit somewhere in between 1 and 3. My point-and-click days stem back to the Police Quest series, but I'm also a loyal BTTF fan. I do find the puzzles a bit on the easy side, but the story is too engaging for me to really care at this point.
Keeping these categories in mind, I think Telltale is really trying a juggling act. Make it too hard, you turn off 2 and 3. Make it too easy, and you discourage 1 (as is obviously happening, and I completely understand your points). But that's what happens when you deal with a movie-licensed game - you have to keep your entire audience in mind.
I figured there were quite a few reasons Telltale was approaching this one differently. I always tend to go easy on them because I know for a fact that they produce quality and if something doesn't meet what I concider higher standards, I know it's not because there's a gas leak that has caused some major nerve damage.
Also, they apparently have quite a whiny fan-base as the recent Netflix offer has proven in spades. I almost pity them at times.
Here's some extra love to get you through what's left of this impossibly long Wednesday. ♥♥♥
I am also a huge fan of the BttF franchise, which is why I was somewhat excited when there was going to be the marrying of both a trilogy I adore and one of my favorite gaming producers/studios. My expectations were a bit to high, I guess, but with the explaination I totally understand why.
Mayhap BttF also felt short because I flew right through it.
Oh well. There's still stuff on the TT horizon that I'm really looking foward to.
Dont get me wrong I'm enjoying the BTTF episodes if only for nostalgias sake, but its more like an interactive cartoon.
Theres a Hint System (with 4 levels)
Pop up text & Notifications of Martys next task.
I get it, TT is trying to be as broad as possible age wise but it just feels so babyish, I had to complete PnC's without Internet! Being frustrated at finding bizzare solutions to bizzare complications isnt the best way to be entertained but BTTF is just so blatently obvious A leads to B leads to C leads to D.
Talk to this person complete line of enquiry A new person appears, and drops an item , person wont allow you to take item out of area (Item OBVIOUSLY must be used in that area!) ugh In classic games you have tons of items and sometimes you have to try tons of combinations.
Perhaps this is just the downside to having shortened 'Episodic' episodes, but I think TT has developed a good reputation with many fans, Perhaps an episode a month is financially viable, but I'd really hope to see a bigger more complex stand alone game (preferabally kings quest)
Disclaimer:
These are just my opinions im not a hater so dont throw me on the troll wagon, just because my opinion may differ from yours.
BTTF is the first TT game that I've actually bought ahead of time and had to wait the month-to-month to play. I've previously bought and played ToMI and all the S&M games in their entirety at my own discretion, and loved them to death.
I acknowledge that they dumbed BTTF down since it was basically their first title that was for the masses, rather than just the adventure gamers. But even with what amounts to super-easy puzzles and gameplay, I figured that at least the episodes would be longer to compensate. Ep 1, being the introduction basically, was the easiest and shortest of all. Ep 2 was still easy, but I was actually able to space out my play over a couple weeks to help fill the void of waiting for the next ep.
I figured Ep 3 would be at least as long as Ep 2, and that I could also space it out while waiting for Ep 4, but apparently I was wrong, or Ep 3 was just sooooo super-easy that I blew right through it. Seriously, I completed it in one night, over the course of about 4 hours. I couldn't even believe it. Now here I am, waiting an entire month again. ::sigh::
I want to say in the future that I'll wait until a title has run its course (or at least is 3 episodes in) before I buy it, but I don't know. Some of the upcoming titles I'm really excited for (JP, KQ), and I'm not sure if I could keep myself from getting them on day 1. I'm crossing fingers that those titles will have drastically longer/more difficult episodes more suited to those of us that take adventure gaming very seriously.
To their credit though, the story in BTTF has been very entertaining, the voice acting is superb (with very few exceptions), and the style of animation is perfect.
I actually felt like Episode 3 was the best one so far. It was pretty easy but I felt like it was long enough and at least intuitive enough to be enjoyable. I felt like Episode 2 was waaaaay too short and much shorter than 3.
TT are just making the games too easy now. I mean, come on. I miss the challenge of old adventure games like Day of the Tentacle and the Sierra/ old Lucasarts games. I completed most of them without a walkthrough and it was genuinely pleasant to have them as projects you spent days, even weeks to complete.
The current games are more like videos and cutscenes you just click your way through. You can't even call the tasks in the game puzzles; there is just no thinking required anymore.
What's wrong with adding a little challenge?
I thought the puzzles were pretty good in this episode, especially during the first "three trials" part. The episode got a little easier and more linear and cutscene- and dialogue-heavy after that, but the story was engaging enough that I didn't mind. I never got stuck, but for the most part the puzzle solutions felt clever, and the whole experience was really entertaining.
It may feel too easy for some, but it fits the source material better. Also, hard puzzles alone make a good game does not.
Puzzles are the only interaction the player gets. If they are designed trivially, this is bad. If they come off as an afterthought because either:
1. The logic is unique to the designer, and the puzzle becomes difficult because a very obscure combination that has no connection even to in-world logic
2. The puzzle answer is simply placed in front of the end user, and they are just expected to advance by interacting with the first thing they see or by selecting all of the dialog options.
A good adventure does NEITHER of these things. A good adventure game will take the player and immerse them in the world and have the player SHARE IN, rather than be pushed along, the character's struggles. In a good adventure, the player is expected to feel as though the world is a real place, with tons of things to interact with. The player is led on not because the right thing is the only thing they CAN do, but because the game teaches the player, through interaction and exploration, the logic of the world around them that will then cause the player to put the parts of a working system together. The player, in a good adventure game, does not advance the plot if he doesn't understand WHY the plot is advancing. A person could blindly click on everything on-screen in Back to the Future: The Game and for the vast majority of gameplay this would be enough. Since the designers of Back to the Future take great pains to make sure that the correct answer the most prominent thing in a scene and either the only thing available or the vast majority of things available, it would likely be successful quite quickly as well.
I don't think the only means by which a person could make a faithful Back to the Future game is to make a bad game. While history certainly suggests this, I doubt that game designers have to resign to making a bland and barely-interactive experience in order to actually ship something with the Back to the Future name on it that is compelling in any way, even if only for the story. And if that IS a requirement for the franchise, then they shouldn't be making it into an adventure game in the first place, and it's by no means an excuse for what is obviously inexcusable.
Honestly, I think BTTF series by TellTale, although I also noticed easier puzzles, is maybe one of my favorites because of how epic and great the storyline is. Sometimes Sam and Max, although it's true the puzzles are more imaginative and harder at times, didn't always have a story that, well, made sense to me. It also helps I'm a big BTTF fan. So far Episode 3 is my favorite, although I'm sure that'll change once all the episodes are out and that "I just played an awesome game" feeling gets through my system. It wasn't until after I played it that I realized it was short and the puzzles were easy. I didn't really care because I was drawn too far into the story telling! And I think that's what makes the BTTF game very successful to me. But, you're right, Sam and Max and Tales of Monkey Island were more imaginative and difficult in the puzzles. But still not as difficult as I remember older adventure games to be. ;-)
I play adventure games for the story, not strictly the game play I admit. I thought BTTF has had great game play so far, despite any shortness or lack of puzzle difficulty. The puzzle in young Emmet's lab in Episode 1 was fairly challenging. I think Episode 2 was pretty good. It's true that Episode 3 wasn't very challenging, but if this wasn't brought up here I would have walked away completely satisfied that I got a great and totally EPIC story about Marty and Doc.
Puzzles are the only interaction the player gets. If they are designed trivially, this is bad. If they come off as an afterthought because either:
1. The logic is unique to the designer, and the puzzle becomes difficult because a very obscure combination that has no connection even to in-world logic
2. The puzzle answer is simply placed in front of the end user, and they are just expected to advance by interacting with the first thing they see or by selecting all of the dialog options.
A good adventure does NEITHER of these things. A good adventure game will take the player and immerse them in the world and have the player SHARE IN, rather than be pushed along, the character's struggles. In a good adventure, the player is expected to feel as though the world is a real place, with tons of things to interact with. The player is led on not because the right thing is the only thing they CAN do, but because the game teaches the player, through interaction and exploration, the logic of the world around them that will then cause the player to put the parts of a working system together. The player, in a good adventure game, does not advance the plot if he doesn't understand WHY the plot is advancing. A person could blindly click on everything on-screen in Back to the Future: The Game and for the vast majority of gameplay this would be enough. Since the designers of Back to the Future take great pains to make sure that the correct answer the most prominent thing in a scene and either the only thing available or the vast majority of things available, it would likely be successful quite quickly as well.
I don't think the only means by which a person could make a faithful Back to the Future game is to make a bad game. While history certainly suggests this, I doubt that game designers have to resign to making a bland and barely-interactive experience in order to actually ship something with the Back to the Future name on it that is compelling in any way, even if only for the story. And if that IS a requirement for the franchise, then they shouldn't be making it into an adventure game in the first place, and it's by no means an excuse for what is obviously inexcusable.
In your opinion, which doesn't match mine and that's fine and dandy.
In your opinion, which doesn't match mine and that's fine and dandy.
Back to the Future being terrible, or at least not a game, is quantifiable. Due to the severe lack of possibilities, 80% of them returning a generic response, and the correct responses being the first thing any given person is likely to try, the only logical conclusion is that this title has absolutely no justification for being interactive.
I keep wondering if BTTF is only easy at Universal's request. Because I notice that both Jurassic Park and BTTF are packaged into the same "Universal" forum as if it were a reminder to everyone that these are Universal Games, not Telltale Games. How the game-play shifts from S&M3 to BTTF just seems way too drastic for Telltale to be doing this out of their own free will. Making three-hour cut-scenes just doesn't seem to be their style.
Are you playing Tetris or something. The main source of interaction is dialogue. Any adventure game that was strictly interaction through puzzles would get dull very quickly. Even MYST, which was mostly puzzles, had cutscenes and dialogue.
Are you playing Tetris or something. The main source of interaction is dialogue. Any adventure game that was strictly interaction through puzzles would get dull very quickly. Even MYST, which was mostly puzzles, had cutscenes and dialogue.
I wouldn't say it is the main source of interaction but it is a source of interaction. One of the problems with BttF though is there is very little choice in the dialogue. There isn't that sense of exploration in the dialog that you can get in some adventure games. The game forces you into dialog when it is required, sometime going so far as to not let you do anything else unless you click on a certain person and then you don't so much get to choose what to talk about but rather just select the order in which things are said. I personally find it rather dull.
Good adventure games strike a balance between puzzles and dialog so neither gets overexposed. Though there are always exceptions like Machinarium, a wonderful adventure game that has no dialog, just speech-bubbles of moving pictures.
I think Day of the Tentacle must have been the most puzzle-intense game I've ever played through to completion. Dialogue was there, but I think dialogue needs to be moderate. Not too much, not too scarce. Most LucasArts games (90-96) did this very well. The amount of time spent on puzzles should, imo, exceed the amount of time spent in dialogue. I think it's the puzzles that makes it a game. A game is something that needs to be beaten, something that provides a challenge and obstacles for you to overcome. Dialogue is not a challenge or a puzzle (usually).
Are you playing Tetris or something. The main source of interaction is dialogue. Any adventure game that was strictly interaction through puzzles would get dull very quickly. Even MYST, which was mostly puzzles, had cutscenes and dialogue.
....Seriously? Is that the opinion of adventure games nowadays? Talking is the main source of interaction? Wow. Honestly, I think the game has too much talking. And isn't talking a huge source of the puzzle interaction anyway? Ultimately, I think an equal amount of talking and non-talking-based puzzles is paramount. BTTF is completely unbalanced in this regard. Have you even played a Sierra adventure for instance?
The person you're quoting here doesn't quite go far enough.
For one thing, combinations are actually very rarely required. As far as the inventory goes, you have:
-Give teenage girl booze. You have three things to interact with in this scene and you can't leave, so the need for inventory is quickly advertised to the player. Furthermore, it's heavily implied that you have something, and you know you can't move, etc etc. It's obvious, and it's not like the player at this point is unfamiliar with the existence of the inventory, unless they've suffered memory loss at this point.
-Use tire iron on tire. Riveting deduction, Marty!
-Use battery on exposed wiring.
After getting over the fence, the next required use of the inventory comes in one of the "three trials". This particular inventory item's use is restricted to one area, so it can only possibly be used with less than 5 things total.
And that's it. There are four puzzles which require inventory use*. So, trying everything with everything understates the issue. All but four problems can simply be solved by clicking everything in the room. In the case of the second-to-last puzzle, it involves clicking the only two items on screen in the correct order, but everything else can be solved by blindly clicking things. And the solution is always on the same screen as the problem has been presented to you, and the number of possible things to click on in any given sequence is a handful at most.
Now, as far as the classic adventures go, it is certainly possible to solve puzzles by "trying everything on everything", but in general this is not the best or most efficient policy. There are generally a good number of interactive objects across multiple rooms, there is generally more use of the inventory(and thus far more combinations than just "click five things"), there is generally a LARGER inventory, and in many adventures you had more possible actions than "Look at" or "use this on". So, while "try using everything with everything" was a last-ditch strategy, generally speaking it was wisest to try and understand the puzzle's logic and thus reach that satisfying "A-ha!" moment through your own ingenuity.
*The guitar battle and getting caught with booze elements require that these items be IN your inventory, but you don't need to use them from the inventory screen(and in the case of the guitar, you're punished for using it).
Are you playing Tetris or something. The main source of interaction is dialogue. Any adventure game that was strictly interaction through puzzles would get dull very quickly. Even MYST, which was mostly puzzles, had cutscenes and dialogue.
Dialog, at least through the implementation used in Back to the Future, is not interaction, it's heavily guided exposition. You are expected to click each of the options and listen to the character's prattle on about plot points and jokes, and there are only three points during which player choice changes what a character says and all other options collapse out of existence(and one of them only changes one unrelated word). While technically given a list, the player is generally expected to go through all available dialog options, so it's less a choice of 'what" than it is a choice of "in what order". Player control is a mere contrivance by which they can avoid the segment being a cutscene.
In a good adventure game, the dialog is interwoven with the puzzles, and is a requirement for truly understanding the interlocking systems that come together to form the puzzle logic. The dialog is exposition, and exposition is meant to be integral to the puzzle-solving experience. But it's not here, since "use everything with everything" is replaced here with "click the most prominent thing on screen"(or, if we're getting REALLY complex, click it again) as the most viable last ditch strategy. Considering clicking the most prominent thing on screen is something players will do right away ANYWAY, you never need to use it as such.
This means the player is never frustrated**, but it also means that the player is never truly engaged, challenged, or respected.
**Unless they see through the particularly thin excuses for interaction and see that behind it there is a concerted effort in development based on the core idea that THEY ARE STUPID. This is an entirely separate kind of frustration, though.
Are you playing Tetris or something. The main source of interaction is dialogue. Any adventure game that was strictly interaction through puzzles would get dull very quickly. Even MYST, which was mostly puzzles, had cutscenes and dialogue.
Machinarium was an excellent adventure game, and perhaps the one of the most memorable games I've ever played, that had absolutely no dialog. It was never dull for a second. The story was told through visual means, and even then, very little "visual exposition" is needed to understand what's going on.
Comments
so in ep3 we get a doc brown that doesnt give a f*** about changing history as long as it's to his advantage :eek:
and thats also why doc's on the big sign of hill valley, cause he owns everything and stuff, cause in this timeline he also invented a time machine and changed history to his advantage!
O-M-G!!!! :eek:
It could just be that he did invent the time machine in this timeline, but now it's damaged (sparks before going to 1986) and incomplete as some key elements dissapeared with Doc after temporal displacement.
Could be. Or he may have invented time machine in a different manner. He has more money in the newer time like so maybe theres a better but more expensive way to make it than a delorean with a flux capacitor. I'm sure FCB does not need to rip off libyans to get plutonium. So it's quite possible if FCB has aspirations to invent time travel he is able to do it much earlier than 1985. Even if he doesn't invent it til october 1985, we are still nine months later so he could have done any number of things.
Maybe the flux capacitor is apparent to Edna without Emmet needing to hit his head in 1955!
I'd like to note that the new logo of improved Hill Valley (a man with his arms outstretched) somewhat resembles the flux capacitor.
I agree that the ending was predictable. I saw it coming a mile away. But, despite that, the way it was handled was so well done that it still ended up taking me by surprise.
I didn't catch that before, but now I totally see it XD
Thank you Telltale for reviving titles such as "Monkey Island" and "Back to the future". I am very excited about Back to the future game and the story is totally relevant with the movie trilogy.
But, I feel the game is too easy and episodes finish too quickly. I remember when I was playing Monkey island episodes, it really took me much time to finish and puzzles were much more challenging.
I guess that episode 3 must be almost ready to release. So if it's not too late for episodes 4 and 5, please make them a bit more difficult.
Anybody else here agree with me?
The puzzles(?) in Get Tannen! still were ranging between easy and obvious, and the game railroaded you forward all the time and never made you wonder what to do or where to go. There's wasn't really that much exploring and talking to random NPCs to do. I sure hope that the coming episodes will be more challenging, and I'd of course appreciate if they are made longer than the first two.
Here's by the way a long thread on the topic: http://www.telltalegames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21680
I hope that episodes 3 through 5 will increase in difficulty so that the game lasts longer. As much as I loved the episodes one and two, both were quite short due to the easiness of the puzzles.
I have high hopes for the third episode since it has a promising teaser and, since it's the halfway point, it will determine whether the episodes will increase in difficulty.
It could just be because this game features characters that were portrayed by real people and tried to fall in the realm of "reality" that hindered it. I'm used to out of the box puzzles found in Sam and Max and Tales of Monkey Island that feature unrealistic character, places, and situations that allow for a lot more creativity.
BttF:E1 also felt very short. I suppose that could have added to the delfated feeling I had when playing this series.
I bought the whole season and intend to continue playing, but this one definitely isn't my favorite. I'm giving Telltale the benefit of the doubt and assuming there are 101 things holding them back, but I'm also hoping things will pick up as the game progresses!
No worries, TT. I still love you. ♥
I think the intention from the beginning was for this game to tell the story and remain true to the Back to the Future universe, with the actual puzzle-based gameplay coming in as a second priority. You have to keep in mind that this game is being received by three different audiences:
1. Hardcore Point-and-Click Adventure Game/Telltale Fans I would assume you fit into this category, judging from your past experiences with ToMI and S&M. Obviously, those well-versed in this type of game are going to expect more, and are just more experienced at this type of game, and therefore will find the puzzles to be easier.
2. Casual BTTF/Adventure Fans The middle ground. These fans will probably find a puzzle or two a bit tricky, just from lack of adventure gaming experience, and may or may not feel propelled by the story.
3. Straight-off-the-boat BTTF Fans There's no doubt that this game has and is attracting many loyal BTTF fans, who may be looking to play this as more of a BTTF Part 4 and less as an adventure game that happens to feature BTTF.
Now I fit somewhere in between 1 and 3. My point-and-click days stem back to the Police Quest series, but I'm also a loyal BTTF fan. I do find the puzzles a bit on the easy side, but the story is too engaging for me to really care at this point.
Keeping these categories in mind, I think Telltale is really trying a juggling act. Make it too hard, you turn off 2 and 3. Make it too easy, and you discourage 1 (as is obviously happening, and I completely understand your points). But that's what happens when you deal with a movie-licensed game - you have to keep your entire audience in mind.
Also, they apparently have quite a whiny fan-base as the recent Netflix offer has proven in spades. I almost pity them at times.
Here's some extra love to get you through what's left of this impossibly long Wednesday. ♥♥♥
I am also a huge fan of the BttF franchise, which is why I was somewhat excited when there was going to be the marrying of both a trilogy I adore and one of my favorite gaming producers/studios. My expectations were a bit to high, I guess, but with the explaination I totally understand why.
Mayhap BttF also felt short because I flew right through it.
Oh well. There's still stuff on the TT horizon that I'm really looking foward to.
Theres a Hint System (with 4 levels)
Pop up text & Notifications of Martys next task.
I get it, TT is trying to be as broad as possible age wise but it just feels so babyish, I had to complete PnC's without Internet! Being frustrated at finding bizzare solutions to bizzare complications isnt the best way to be entertained but BTTF is just so blatently obvious A leads to B leads to C leads to D.
Talk to this person complete line of enquiry A new person appears, and drops an item , person wont allow you to take item out of area (Item OBVIOUSLY must be used in that area!) ugh In classic games you have tons of items and sometimes you have to try tons of combinations.
Perhaps this is just the downside to having shortened 'Episodic' episodes, but I think TT has developed a good reputation with many fans, Perhaps an episode a month is financially viable, but I'd really hope to see a bigger more complex stand alone game (preferabally kings quest)
Disclaimer:
These are just my opinions im not a hater so dont throw me on the troll wagon, just because my opinion may differ from yours.
I acknowledge that they dumbed BTTF down since it was basically their first title that was for the masses, rather than just the adventure gamers. But even with what amounts to super-easy puzzles and gameplay, I figured that at least the episodes would be longer to compensate. Ep 1, being the introduction basically, was the easiest and shortest of all. Ep 2 was still easy, but I was actually able to space out my play over a couple weeks to help fill the void of waiting for the next ep.
I figured Ep 3 would be at least as long as Ep 2, and that I could also space it out while waiting for Ep 4, but apparently I was wrong, or Ep 3 was just sooooo super-easy that I blew right through it. Seriously, I completed it in one night, over the course of about 4 hours. I couldn't even believe it. Now here I am, waiting an entire month again. ::sigh::
I want to say in the future that I'll wait until a title has run its course (or at least is 3 episodes in) before I buy it, but I don't know. Some of the upcoming titles I'm really excited for (JP, KQ), and I'm not sure if I could keep myself from getting them on day 1. I'm crossing fingers that those titles will have drastically longer/more difficult episodes more suited to those of us that take adventure gaming very seriously.
To their credit though, the story in BTTF has been very entertaining, the voice acting is superb (with very few exceptions), and the style of animation is perfect.
The current games are more like videos and cutscenes you just click your way through. You can't even call the tasks in the game puzzles; there is just no thinking required anymore.
What's wrong with adding a little challenge?
Enjoyable episode, but too short.
1. The logic is unique to the designer, and the puzzle becomes difficult because a very obscure combination that has no connection even to in-world logic
2. The puzzle answer is simply placed in front of the end user, and they are just expected to advance by interacting with the first thing they see or by selecting all of the dialog options.
A good adventure does NEITHER of these things. A good adventure game will take the player and immerse them in the world and have the player SHARE IN, rather than be pushed along, the character's struggles. In a good adventure, the player is expected to feel as though the world is a real place, with tons of things to interact with. The player is led on not because the right thing is the only thing they CAN do, but because the game teaches the player, through interaction and exploration, the logic of the world around them that will then cause the player to put the parts of a working system together. The player, in a good adventure game, does not advance the plot if he doesn't understand WHY the plot is advancing. A person could blindly click on everything on-screen in Back to the Future: The Game and for the vast majority of gameplay this would be enough. Since the designers of Back to the Future take great pains to make sure that the correct answer the most prominent thing in a scene and either the only thing available or the vast majority of things available, it would likely be successful quite quickly as well.
I don't think the only means by which a person could make a faithful Back to the Future game is to make a bad game. While history certainly suggests this, I doubt that game designers have to resign to making a bland and barely-interactive experience in order to actually ship something with the Back to the Future name on it that is compelling in any way, even if only for the story. And if that IS a requirement for the franchise, then they shouldn't be making it into an adventure game in the first place, and it's by no means an excuse for what is obviously inexcusable.
In your opinion, which doesn't match mine and that's fine and dandy.
Maybe for the reflexes (barely) but certainly not for your reasoning skills.
You mean like most other adventure games?
Far fetched, in BttF, never. (that's sarcasm there folks)
Are you playing Tetris or something. The main source of interaction is dialogue. Any adventure game that was strictly interaction through puzzles would get dull very quickly. Even MYST, which was mostly puzzles, had cutscenes and dialogue.
I wouldn't say it is the main source of interaction but it is a source of interaction. One of the problems with BttF though is there is very little choice in the dialogue. There isn't that sense of exploration in the dialog that you can get in some adventure games. The game forces you into dialog when it is required, sometime going so far as to not let you do anything else unless you click on a certain person and then you don't so much get to choose what to talk about but rather just select the order in which things are said. I personally find it rather dull.
Good adventure games strike a balance between puzzles and dialog so neither gets overexposed. Though there are always exceptions like Machinarium, a wonderful adventure game that has no dialog, just speech-bubbles of moving pictures.
....Seriously? Is that the opinion of adventure games nowadays? Talking is the main source of interaction? Wow. Honestly, I think the game has too much talking. And isn't talking a huge source of the puzzle interaction anyway? Ultimately, I think an equal amount of talking and non-talking-based puzzles is paramount. BTTF is completely unbalanced in this regard. Have you even played a Sierra adventure for instance?
For one thing, combinations are actually very rarely required. As far as the inventory goes, you have:
-Give teenage girl booze. You have three things to interact with in this scene and you can't leave, so the need for inventory is quickly advertised to the player. Furthermore, it's heavily implied that you have something, and you know you can't move, etc etc. It's obvious, and it's not like the player at this point is unfamiliar with the existence of the inventory, unless they've suffered memory loss at this point.
-Use tire iron on tire. Riveting deduction, Marty!
-Use battery on exposed wiring.
After getting over the fence, the next required use of the inventory comes in one of the "three trials". This particular inventory item's use is restricted to one area, so it can only possibly be used with less than 5 things total.
And that's it. There are four puzzles which require inventory use*. So, trying everything with everything understates the issue. All but four problems can simply be solved by clicking everything in the room. In the case of the second-to-last puzzle, it involves clicking the only two items on screen in the correct order, but everything else can be solved by blindly clicking things. And the solution is always on the same screen as the problem has been presented to you, and the number of possible things to click on in any given sequence is a handful at most.
Now, as far as the classic adventures go, it is certainly possible to solve puzzles by "trying everything on everything", but in general this is not the best or most efficient policy. There are generally a good number of interactive objects across multiple rooms, there is generally more use of the inventory(and thus far more combinations than just "click five things"), there is generally a LARGER inventory, and in many adventures you had more possible actions than "Look at" or "use this on". So, while "try using everything with everything" was a last-ditch strategy, generally speaking it was wisest to try and understand the puzzle's logic and thus reach that satisfying "A-ha!" moment through your own ingenuity.
*The guitar battle and getting caught with booze elements require that these items be IN your inventory, but you don't need to use them from the inventory screen(and in the case of the guitar, you're punished for using it).
Dialog, at least through the implementation used in Back to the Future, is not interaction, it's heavily guided exposition. You are expected to click each of the options and listen to the character's prattle on about plot points and jokes, and there are only three points during which player choice changes what a character says and all other options collapse out of existence(and one of them only changes one unrelated word). While technically given a list, the player is generally expected to go through all available dialog options, so it's less a choice of 'what" than it is a choice of "in what order". Player control is a mere contrivance by which they can avoid the segment being a cutscene.
In a good adventure game, the dialog is interwoven with the puzzles, and is a requirement for truly understanding the interlocking systems that come together to form the puzzle logic. The dialog is exposition, and exposition is meant to be integral to the puzzle-solving experience. But it's not here, since "use everything with everything" is replaced here with "click the most prominent thing on screen"(or, if we're getting REALLY complex, click it again) as the most viable last ditch strategy. Considering clicking the most prominent thing on screen is something players will do right away ANYWAY, you never need to use it as such.
This means the player is never frustrated**, but it also means that the player is never truly engaged, challenged, or respected.
**Unless they see through the particularly thin excuses for interaction and see that behind it there is a concerted effort in development based on the core idea that THEY ARE STUPID. This is an entirely separate kind of frustration, though.
Machinarium was an excellent adventure game, and perhaps the one of the most memorable games I've ever played, that had absolutely no dialog. It was never dull for a second. The story was told through visual means, and even then, very little "visual exposition" is needed to understand what's going on.