I’m not a fan of any kind of design per se. I like both: Sierra and Lucas Arts. I think that both companies have made excellent, good, ok and even some bad games (well, maybe Lucas Arts hadn’t any bad games, but that is only because Sierra not only had more titles but also was more “experimental” with their designs and, if one experiments more, it is easier to make some bad things). If I have to choose the best adventure game I have played, I can’t do it. I would at least have to choose one of Sierra and one of Lucas Arts (I think that I would choose Gabriel Knight and Sam & Max, Hit the Road; no, wait, maybe Grim Fandango and Quest for Glory 4; no… well, you get the idea).
I’m saying this because many times I see people that try to defend one design over the other, but don’t value each game for what it tries to achieve. Obviously, if I don’t like western movies, even if I watch The Wild Bunch or Once Upon a Time in the West, two of the best western movies ever made, I’m not going to like them. But this is a problem of the spectator and not of the movies themselves. I think it’s the same here: if you don’t like dying in adventure games, then you aren’t going to like Sierra design. And this goes for the other side too: if you like to feel that you have some risky situations where you can die, then you aren’t going to like the Lucas Arts games. But this is a problem of the player and not of the game. So if the discussion don’t part from the agreement that both design have their pros and cons then the discussion isn’t relevant anymore.
Now let’s get to the topic. I’m also not sure if Telltale can make a good King’s Quest game. In my opinion, like various posters have said, this is due first and foremost to Telltale following the design rules of Lucas Arts, which are opposite to Sierra games’. If, for example, there aren’t any deaths in the game, well, it isn’t going to feel as a King’s Quest game. So, I can understand all the worries about this. But saying that Telltale only makes mediocre games, like some people have said, well, I think that isn’t true. I will try to explain this.
I can’t talk about all of Telltale games. I can only talk about Season One and Two of Sam and Max, because those are the only games I have played. I will focus only on season two because I have played it recently and I was greatly surprised by it. I’m not going to talk about the story, the graphics, the music, the writing, etc., because, from what I have read in various posts the problem that some people has with Telltale games lies in the easiness of the puzzles. And I think that Second Season as a whole is very good in that department and it’s on par with some of the oldies, and sometimes better. It’s true that it has easier and more “straight” puzzles than creative and difficult ones, but the ones presents are very good. For example, how you have to deal with the piranhas and what you have to do to get Stinky’s special in the second episode are really creative puzzles. You really have to use “lateral thinking” to solve those puzzles, or, in episode five, dealing with the diorama of Santa and the little elf. And various of the temporal puzzles of the fourth episode are also very good. Yes, they could have more of this kind and less of the really easy ones. And they definitely should allow the player to combine items in the inventory. And they could benefit from using and interface with various icons and not only one, like in the old Lucas Arts games. But saying that “Telltale games are mediocre in the puzzle department” isn’t true. Maybe some people have overgeneralized from some of their games, but I think that is a simplification.
Of all the recent games I have played in the last few years, including some indies, Sam and Max Season Two is one of the few where some of the puzzles were really good. Perry Rhodan, Gray Matter, The Black Mirror, even the loved The Longest Journey were easier than Sam and Max and the puzzles were not as creative as some found in Season Two. And of the indies, the only one where I remember being stuck sometimes was the remake of King’s Quest 2, by AGDInteractive (which, after playing all their remakes, including their last, King’s Quest 3, I think is their best game). I like, for example, the Dave Gilbert games, but they are really easy. I have played the AGS games nominated this year and all of them are easy too. Right now, I’m playing Gemini Rue and The Whispered World. I hope they will pose some challenge. And I have the Season Three of Sam and Max waiting.
I can’t talk about all of Telltale games. I can only talk about Season One and Two of Sam and Max, because those are the only games I have played. I will focus only on season two because I have played it recently and I was greatly surprised by it. I’m not going to talk about the story, the graphics, the music, the writing, etc., because, from what I have read in various posts the problem that some people has with Telltale games lies in the easiness of the puzzles. And I think that Second Season as a whole is very good in that department and it’s on par with some of the oldies, and sometimes better. It’s true that it has easier and more “straight” puzzles than creative and difficult ones, but the ones presents are very good. For example, how you have to deal with the piranhas and what you have to do to get Stinky’s special in the second episode are really creative puzzles. You really have to use “lateral thinking” to solve those puzzles, or, in episode five, dealing with the diorama of Santa and the little elf. And various of the temporal puzzles of the fourth episode are also very good. Yes, they could have more of this kind and less of the really easy ones. And they definitely should allow the player to combine items in the inventory. And they could benefit from using and interface with various icons and not only one, like in the old Lucas Arts games. But saying that “Telltale games are mediocre in the puzzle department” isn’t true. Maybe some people have overgeneralized from some of their games, but I think that is a simplification.
Of all the recent games I have played in the last few years, including some indies, Sam and Max Season Two is one of the few where some of the puzzles were really good.
Sam and Max Seasons One and Two are excellent games that I happen to love dearly. But Telltale's staff has changed a lot since those two seasons, and a lot of aspects of their design have changed since then. When people express strong and measured concern over Telltale's treatment of King's Quest, they aren't thinking of Sam and Max Season Two, or at least, I don't think they are. Season Two is still not a Sierra game, and I wouldn't want a King's Quest game to be like it. But it is Telltale at their very best as far as I'm concerned.
And I have the Season Three of Sam and Max waiting.
....ouch.
See, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I worry about King's Quest? I think about Season Three of Sam and Max(and the Back to the Future game). Not even the entire season, but just play episode 1. I dunno, someone looking for clever and inventive puzzles may want to look elsewhere. The core design idea of the powers was very good, but it was applied to some really simplistic puzzle design that left the avid adventurer out in the cold.
You guys aren't being entirely fair. These games were made for free. If they were fully funded and financially backed the graphics would be a heck of a lot better and the overall quality would be even better than the current remakes are now. There's a huge difference in quality that occurs when the same team does something for money rather than for free and out of the goodness of their hearts and I don't think some of you are really considering that at all. Look at the quality of the artwork in the KQ remakes (and how they've been revamped and improved over the years to this point) and then think how much better that would be if everyone was getting paid. Look at Himalaya's new Mage's Initiation project. Granted, the screenshots available aren't that big right now (just wait for that), but the graphics are twice as good as the KQ remakes, trust me.
The mage game does look better, but I am more concern about storyline if they make an official KQ game. I want to see them create a KQ game that doesn't have a plot that feels like their KQ2+ or TSL aka fanfiction
The mage game does look better, but I am more concern about storyline if they make an official KQ game. I want to see them create a KQ game that doesn't have a plot that feels like their KQ2+ or TSL aka fanfiction
I don't think AGDI's games and TSL should be ever mentioned in the same breath. At least AGDI's plot additions, though fan fiction-y, are fairly well-written. There's a HUGE difference if you start comparing the dialogue between the two.
You guys aren't being entirely fair. These games were made for free. If they were fully funded and financially backed the graphics would be a heck of a lot better and the overall quality would be even better than the current remakes are now.
What? I thought the whole point of making the games look the way they do is to match the graphics of KQ 5 and 6.
Besides, you can't make the music any better for KQ3R. I want the soundtrack (plzoplzyesiknowyou'reworkingonithurryupalreadylol.)
I have to admit, I'm still sort of bugged about Al Emmo. I really don't like that game. And yet, Himalaya is selling it for real money.
Now, since I see this Mage's Initiation stuff, I feel a lot better. It looks really good.
@RD, I so thought that would have been the perfect cue for a rant on CMI and such. I'm surprised at you.
LucasArts made bad SEQUELS(Curse of Monkey Island, Day of the Tentacle), and games with badly designed ELEMENTS and SECTIONS to them. All the same, overall I can't think of a LucasArts adventure that is bad enough to be considered a BAD GAME if it's taken apart and analyzed on a gameplay level separate from everything else. The two games that I absolutely despise from them are sequels that are generations apart that don't feel like they belong together, making them the worst titles in their respective series(and, for differences in design, design philosophy, tone and story from their predecessors, they get my ire and I don't care to think about them very much, but they're still mostly solidly designed games).
Also that rant would be off-topic. As is this one.
I don't think AGDI's games and TSL should be ever mentioned in the same breath. At least AGDI's plot additions, though fan fiction-y, are fairly well-written. There's a HUGE difference if you start comparing the dialogue between the two.
While true, both games has an element of fanfic in them. AGDI less so than TSL. I completely agree about the writing in the AGDI games is better than the ones seen in TSL
A good example is Alexander. His dialoge feels so similar to KQ6 whereas in TSL, the ferryman's personality is different than how he is protrayed in KQ6.
I don't think AGDI's games and TSL should be ever mentioned in the same breath. At least AGDI's plot additions, though fan fiction-y, are fairly well-written. There's a HUGE difference if you start comparing the dialogue between the two.
First, AGDI is head and shoulders (knees and toes) better in game design than POS is. Sorry Phoenix. TSL really just doesn't fit the feel of the canon games.
Second... Fan-fiction? You're saying that KQ2+ is like FAN-FICTION? What the.... KQ2+ is one of the best adventure games out there, retail or otherwise. I'd agree with maybe "expanded universe" or "Special Edition" (eww, no. not SE. George Lucas is a retard) but not fan-fiction.
You make it sound like substandard work. As though because it is both free and a remake that makes it contrived and unnecessary.
First, AGDI is head and shoulders (knees and toes) better in game design than POS is. Sorry Phoenix. TSL really just doesn't fit the feel of the canon games.
Second... Fan-fiction? You're saying that KQ2+ is like FAN-FICTION? What the.... KQ2+ is one of the best adventure games out there, retail or otherwise. I'd agree with maybe "expanded universe" or "Special Edition" (eww, no. not SE. George Lucas is a retard) but not fan-fiction.
You make it sound like substandard work. As though because it is both free and a remake that makes it contrived and unnecessary.
I beg to differ. I really do.
Oh, I agree with you. I just meant fan-fiction-y in the sense that KQ2+ does attempt to weave in backstory that ties the series together in a way that is probably distinctly different than what the original series' designers ever intended. I love the additions they made, for the most part.
And believe me, I would never say that the concept of a game being both free and a remake makes it contrived or unnecessary. I'd be damn hypocritical if I did.
Oh, I agree with you. I just meant fan-fiction-y in the sense that KQ2+ does attempt to weave in backstory that ties the series together in a way that is probably distinctly different than what the original series' designers ever intended. I love the additions they made, for the most part.
... perhaps they hadn't thought of or planned such a backstory because of budget constraints, disk size limitations or publishing deadlines, but I would bet real money that if AGDI's three KQ games were released under the Sierra Online banner back in the day when KQ6 was released (meaning when Sierra Online still existed and adventure games looked like this and not cartoony yet) and sold at retail prices, no one would have been able to tell the difference.
With this in mind, they rank much higher than fan-fiction for me. They only just so happen to be made by fans and are released as freeware.
First, AGDI is head and shoulders (knees and toes) better in game design than POS is. Sorry Phoenix. TSL really just doesn't fit the feel of the canon games.
Second... Fan-fiction? You're saying that KQ2+ is like FAN-FICTION? What the.... KQ2+ is one of the best adventure games out there, retail or otherwise. I'd agree with maybe "expanded universe" or "Special Edition" (eww, no. not SE. George Lucas is a retard) but not fan-fiction.
You make it sound like substandard work. As though because it is both free and a remake that makes it contrived and unnecessary.
I beg to differ. I really do.
This is the problem with opinions. I understand my opinion is different from yours and I respect that. If you like KQ2+, then more power to you. I don't. I am sorry for having a different opinion than yours.
... perhaps they hadn't thought of or planned such a backstory because of budget constraints, disk size limitations or publishing deadlines, but I would bet real money that if AGDI's three KQ games were released under the Sierra Online banner back in the day when KQ6 was released (meaning when Sierra Online still existed and adventure games looked like this and not cartoony yet) and sold at retail prices, no one would have been able to tell the difference.
With this in mind, they rank much higher than fan-fiction for me. They only just so happen to be made by fans and are released as freeware.
Again we agree--mostly.
I don't think the original KQ designers ever had any kind of deep all-connecting backstory in mind for the entire series. Any kind of all-connecting backstory, even a well-written one, feels somewhat contrived in the context of the original games. The only game that really suggested any kind of connection like that was KQ6, and that was just the result of classic Jane Jensen over-complication.
That said, I agree that if KQ2+ and KQ3 Redux had been released in the early 90s, nobody would have been able to tell them from any other KQ game. They fit the TONE of the series perfectly, which is the most important part.
You know what Lucasarts game I hate? Zak McKracken. I used to dig it back when I was younger, but recently I played it and realized that wow...it is indeed a steaming pile of shit. I love the absurdity of the story, but god, the game is just terribly designed.
Escape was horrible but Curse was okay. And DOTT is one of their best games ever.
Again, let's just presume the idea that they're good and/or great is entirely accurate. Even if Curse of Monkey Island and Day of the Tentacle are the greatest games ever created(and in the case of DotT, many people think so), it doesn't change the fact of them being bad sequels. Guybrush's character, and that of various characters throughout the Monkey Island universe, changed drastically between LeChuck's Revenge and Curse. Curse carries with it a completely different art style from LeChuck's Revenge. Again, you can point to the few cartoony animations all you want, but for general idling around, the world generally kept realistic proportions. Puzzles followed a cartoon sort of logic in Curse, which wasn't really the way it went in the original games. And the original games borrowed a lot from pirate films(of the Errol Flynn tradition most specifically) and from Pirates of the Caribbean(the original ride). Curse does not ever elicit any of these feelings. Finally, LeChuck's Revenge had an ending that...you couldn't follow up satisfactorily. And they dedicated a whole segment to explaining it, which doesn't really work.(This is the most subjective of my points, and probably shouldn't have been my last one, but it's a train of thought thing)
Day of the Tentacle is an even "worse" sequel, in that it's very far divorced from what the original game was. There are kids with different skills and you use those skills to solve puzzles. One of the kids is the same, and some elements are carried over(the mansion, tentacles, and the Edisons). However, this is pretty superficial. The first game was a spoof of B horror films, the second is a cartoon. This extends as an issue(in terms of faithfulness of a sequel, not whether or not the game is "good) in the style of story being told, the style of world the games take place in, the type of logic used to beat puzzles, and the general ambiance of the game as a whole. Many innovative and special features from the original game are ripped out rather than expanded upon or given a distinct twist: You can't pick your team, there is only one solution to every puzzle, there is only one ending, and the world doesn't make an attempt to "live". On that last point, scripts were used in the original game to make non-player characters move about and have routines. By contrast, Day of the Tentacle just kind of sits there, waiting for you to do something. Another thing that Day of the Tentacle removed relative to its predecessor is even the most minor attempt at horror in terms of gameplay, that is, nothing makes you feel like you have to be "careful" or "look out".
They're not bad sequels because they're bad games. Look above, and you'l see that I'm not even getting into that. They're bad at being sequels because they differ drastically from their predecessors in style, basic design philosophy, art direction, and various other areas that change both the immediate impression and the overall feel of the universe irrevocably.
I disagree with the feelings you have for those specific games, but I totally do understand why you feel the way you do.
Also just so you know, I wasn't trying to be rude in my earlier comment (about not letting you hear), I just was enjoying the thought of poking a sleeping bear.
Second... Fan-fiction? You're saying that KQ2+ is like FAN-FICTION? What the.... KQ2+ is one of the best adventure games out there, retail or otherwise. I'd agree with maybe "expanded universe" or "Special Edition" (eww, no. not SE. George Lucas is a retard) but not fan-fiction.
It IS fanfiction. It's additional fiction written by fans. That's not an insult, that's a category. I love KQ2+ more than some games in the original series, just like I love some Star Wars fanfilms more than canon Star Wars entries. Doesn't stop them from being fanfiction.
Sam and Max Seasons One and Two are excellent games that I happen to love dearly. But Telltale's staff has changed a lot since those two seasons, and a lot of aspects of their design have changed since then. When people express strong and measured concern over Telltale's treatment of King's Quest, they aren't thinking of Sam and Max Season Two, or at least, I don't think they are. Season Two is still not a Sierra game, and I wouldn't want a King's Quest game to be like it. But it is Telltale at their very best as far as I'm concerned.
I understand you better now, Rather Dashing. I’m not really a follower of companies and their staffs (well, not now; in the old times, I was a follower of Origin, Sierra and Lucas Arts), so I don’t know who were the staff of Sam and Max for the first two seasons and who are Telltale’s staff now. And, as I said, I have only played the first two Sam and Max games, so, when I think of Telltale, I think of those two games. And yes, Season Two is still not a Sierra game, and I also think that, even if Season Two is great, I’m not sure the design of Telltale is “compatible” with the old Sierra games.
My critics were more on the side that I have recently seen various posts at some sites bashing ALL Telltale games, including thefirst two seasons of Sam and Max, because of their puzzles. And I think that bashing those games is exaggerated and doesn’t correspond with the reality, especially if one compares those two games with other recent adventures.
See, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I worry about King's Quest? I think about Season Three of Sam and Max(and the Back to the Future game). Not even the entire season, but just play episode 1. I dunno, someone looking for clever and inventive puzzles may want to look elsewhere. The core design idea of the powers was very good, but it was applied to some really simplistic puzzle design that left the avid adventurer out in the cold.
Well, I have Season 3 waiting since the beginning of the year. I haven´t played it yet because, even if I like Season 2 a lot, my main problem with this season was the structure of the episodes. Having a puzzle at the beginning, three more later and then one puzzle at the end in all the episodes (except 5, I think, where they have 1-3-3-1, if I remember correctly) could be a little tiresome. And to me this is one of the weak points of the new Sam and Max. So I can understand if someone that has played all games from Telltale is tired if they have followed that structure (I don’t know this. RD, please, confirm) But after finishing Gemini Rue and The Whispered World, I will definitely play it.
I understand your complaints and share them, in part. I really think that Curse of Monkey Island is an inferior sequel to their predecessors in all respects: art design, story, humor, characters and puzzles. I like Curse, and I think it is a good game, but only if you forget about the two originals. As you said, it has good gameplay, even if it is sometimes a little too easy, and the other aspects were good, but they don’t live up to the expectations. One thing, for example, where you note that Curse is only “recreating” the first two games instead of “creating” a new good sequel is how they follow some conventions there which are in the originals too: rescue Elaine, recrew three members, Lechuk is now a Demon, the sword fight… What I really like of Monkey Island 2 is that it feels like a real sequel without repeating the same things of the first game. You have the same characters, the same tone, the same humor, but the story is totally different. And the puzzles too. They weren't afraid of eliminating things as the sword fighting. For curse it was as if Lucas Arts had thought: “Well, let’s redo Monkey Island” instead of “Well, let’s do a sequel”. Maybe I’m being a little unfair with the game, because, in its own, is a good one. But not great.
Now, regarding DOTT, I don’t feel the same. First, because I have never really seen as a sequel of the original game. I saw it more like some kind of “spin of”, so I wasn’t bothered by it not being a “true sequel” of Maniac Mansion.The game even has a title that doesn’t resemble the original one. But I can understand that if you look at it as a sequel, yes, it turns out not to be faithful to the original, because of the different reasons you have mentioned. Second, I am one of the people that thinks that DOTT is one of the greatest adventure games ever made. Even if I judge it as a sequel and believe it isn’t true to the original, the game is so good in its own that I take my hat off. DOTT shines not only in the gameplay department, but also in art direction, characters, humor, etc. In this respect, it is different to Curse: Curse isn’t a great game even if one haven’t played the originals. It’s good, but not great. However, one can only bash Day of the Tentacle if one expects a faithful sequel to Maniac Mansion. And I prefer a sequel which is not true to the original but excellent that a sequel which, being true to the original, is nothing more than only ok or good. Obviously, I prefer a true excellent sequel, as Monkey 2.
You know what Lucasarts game I hate? Zak McKracken. I used to dig it back when I was younger, but recently I played it and realized that wow...it is indeed a steaming pile of shit. I love the absurdity of the story, but god, the game is just terribly designed.
I haven’t played Zak Mckracken. It’s the only Lucas Arts game I haven’t played. Maybe in the future. I have it in my game collection so…
LucasArts made bad SEQUELS(Curse of Monkey Island, Day of the Tentacle), and games with badly designed ELEMENTS and SECTIONS to them. All the same, overall I can't think of a LucasArts adventure that is bad enough to be considered a BAD GAME if it's taken apart and analyzed on a gameplay level separate from everything else.
After reading your post and rereading what I have written, I have to rectify myself. Escape from Monkey Island is a mediocre-bad game. I continually forget about that title. I only played it because it was a Monkey Island game. And I have never replayed it. It’s the only Lucas Arts game that I have never have replayed it. , I have even replayed Full Throttle and The Dig, which I consider only ok games, for different reasons. And, again, I agree with you, RD, that Lucas Arts has some badly designed elements and sections in some of their games, but I think this could be said of all companies.
I understand you better now, Rather Dashing. I’m not really a follower of companies and their staffs (well, not now; in the old times, I was a follower of Origin, Sierra and Lucas Arts), so I don’t know who were the staff of Sam and Max for the first two seasons and who are Telltale’s staff now. And, as I said, I have only played the first two Sam and Max games, so, when I think of Telltale, I think of those two games. And yes, Season Two is still not a Sierra game, and I also think that, even if Season Two is great, I’m not sure the design of Telltale is “compatible” with the old Sierra games.
My critics were more on the side that I have recently seen various posts at some sites bashing ALL Telltale games, including thefirst two seasons of Sam and Max, because of their puzzles. And I think that bashing those games is exaggerated and doesn’t correspond with the reality, especially if one compares those two games with other recent adventures.
Well, I have Season 3 waiting since the beginning of the year. I haven´t played it yet because, even if I like Season 2 a lot, my main problem with this season was the structure of the episodes. Having a puzzle at the beginning, three more later and then one puzzle at the end in all the episodes (except 5, I think, where they have 1-3-3-1, if I remember correctly) could be a little tiresome. And to me this is one of the weak points of the new Sam and Max. So I can understand if someone that has played all games from Telltale is tired if they have followed that structure (I don’t know this. RD, please, confirm) But after finishing Gemini Rue and The Whispered World, I will definitely play it.
I understand your complaints and share them, in part. I really think that Curse of Monkey Island is an inferior sequel to their predecessors in all respects: art design, story, humor, characters and puzzles. I like Curse, and I think it is a good game, but only if you forget about the two originals. As you said, it has good gameplay, even if it is sometimes a little too easy, and the other aspects were good, but they don’t live up to the expectations. One thing, for example, where you note that Curse is only “recreating” the first two games instead of “creating” a new good sequel is how they follow some conventions there which are in the originals too: rescue Elaine, recrew three members, Lechuk is now a Demon, the sword fight… What I really like of Monkey Island 2 is that it feels like a real sequel without repeating the same things of the first game. You have the same characters, the same tone, the same humor, but the story is totally different. And the puzzles too. They weren't afraid of eliminating things as the sword fighting. For curse it was as if Lucas Arts had thought: “Well, let’s redo Monkey Island” instead of “Well, let’s do a sequel”. Maybe I’m being a little unfair with the game, because, in its own, is a good one. But not great.
Now, regarding DOTT, I don’t feel the same. First, because I have never really seen as a sequel of the original game. I saw it more like some kind of “spin of”, so I wasn’t bothered by it not being a “true sequel” of Maniac Mansion.The game even has a title that doesn’t resemble the original one. But I can understand that if you look at it as a sequel, yes, it turns out not to be faithful to the original, because of the different reasons you have mentioned. Second, I am one of the people that thinks that DOTT is one of the greatest adventure games ever made. Even if I judge it as a sequel and believe it isn’t true to the original, the game is so good in its own that I take my hat off. DOTT shines not only in the gameplay department, but also in art direction, characters, humor, etc. In this respect, it is different to Curse: Curse isn’t a great game even if one haven’t played the originals. It’s good, but not great. However, one can only bash Day of the Tentacle if one expects a faithful sequel to Maniac Mansion. And I prefer a sequel which is not true to the original but excellent that a sequel which, being true to the original, is nothing more than only ok or good. Obviously, I prefer a true excellent sequel, as Monkey 2.
I haven’t played Zak Mckracken. It’s the only Lucas Arts game I haven’t played. Maybe in the future. I have it in my game collection so…
After reading your post and rereading what I have written, I have to rectify myself. Escape from Monkey Island is a mediocre-bad game. I continually forget about that title. I only played it because it was a Monkey Island game. And I have never replayed it. It’s the only Lucas Arts game that I have never have replayed it. , I have even replayed Full Throttle and The Dig, which I consider only ok games, for different reasons. And, again, I agree with you, RD, that Lucas Arts has some badly designed elements and sections in some of their games, but I think this could be said of all companies.
I think the difficulties with Curse of Monkey Island was that it was a transition point for the series to a multimedia experience. Though I think the art in it is lightyears better than its predecessors, from basic background designs to actual implementation in terms of technology. The waterpainted look and the kooky designed characters were superbly entertaining.
It's interesting that I agree with a lot of what Rather Dashing has to say against Telltale and Lucasarts and in favor of Sierra, yet in many ways we're at opposite ends at the spectrum. I've played all of S&M1, 201-203, and 301-304 (seasons 2 & 3 are currently being played), and I think S3 is wayyy better than 1-2.
Part of it is the Twilight Zone presentation (which I've been a real sucker for after a recent ride on the Tower of Terror), and much better presentation in general. Part of it is probably the console thing...I prefer consoles, and since S3 really seems designed with consoles in mind, that could be a major knock on it if you played it on the PC. The extended dialogue sequences in Telltale/modern adventure games are a huge problem in my opinion, and that becomes much more tolerable when you're relaxing on the couch.
The biggest factor though is that it finally does something a little different with the genre. I loved episode 2 with the movie reels, Max's powers add a new gameplay mechanic while still completely following the "rules" of the genre, and the flashbacks spice things up a bit as well.
My critics were more on the side that I have recently seen various posts at some sites bashing ALL Telltale games, including thefirst two seasons of Sam and Max, because of their puzzles. And I think that bashing those games is exaggerated and doesn’t correspond with the reality, especially if one compares those two games with other recent adventures.
There's a lot of variation among critics of Telltale. Even among those who are concerned mostly with gameplay, there are differences of opinion as to when it started going "downhill" or if it was ever "uphill" in the first place. I agree with Dashing that the first two S&M seasons were terrific. I even enjoyed playing Wallace and Gromit: though the puzzles were less difficult they were paced well and integrated with the unfolding of the stories. My disappointment really started with S&M Season 3, when gameplay took a backseat to "cinematic presentation".
Well, I have Season 3 waiting since the beginning of the year.
Just so you don't go into season 3 totally discouraged there are some good puzzles in there. Telltale deserves credit for some innovations in puzzle-solving mechanics, even though they didn't quite add up to a satisfying adventure game as solutions became more and more obvious. I thought episode 2 was rather good, actually, and gave the best sense that I was discovering the story while working to solve the puzzles.
Incidentally I will take any of those old puzzle formulae you mentioned over what seems to be the formula for BTTF, which is more like: go through the motions to "solve" what barely passes for a puzzle, have some story thrown at you, go through the motions to "solve" what barely passes for a puzzle, have some story thrown at you, etc.
It IS fanfiction. It's additional fiction written by fans. That's not an insult, that's a category. I love KQ2+ more than some games in the original series, just like I love some Star Wars fanfilms more than canon Star Wars entries. Doesn't stop them from being fanfiction.
With modern technology, the games can be every bit as hard as the old games puzzle wise, but still be more forgiving by implementing an accessible built-in progressive hint system, as well as AUTOMATICALLY making save checkpoints as you progress, so there is a guaranteed way to restore your game only as far back as is needed, to minimize back pedaling.
The thing that made King's quest interesting and fun was not just the raw challenge, but cultivating the player's need to inspect EVERYTHING using multiple senses, like sight, touch, and voice. Items needed to sometimes be manipulated and changed, or used in unexpected ways, and sometimes there were multiple solutions to a common problem.
And before anyone argues that this is just old nostalgia talking, I only RECENTLY played most of the Kings Quest games. The only one I played long ago was KQ5. I just played through the whole collection with a friend of mine (my friend has never played any of them before at all). And we both found the games very challenging, but very fun in a new way. At times we cursed the difficulty, but ultimately, it was all that more enjoyable when you solved something.
However, we were forced to seek outside help on a few occasions, hence my idea for the updated saving system and the built-in hint system.
Chyron do you have bugged games? I've been able to turn off the hints on my system, none of those suggestions of what to do, given by the player characters.
There is a 5 bar selection on Telltale's latest hint options. You can have full bars or no bars. You don't have to stick to one bar as that's not the lowest setting.
Chyron do you have bugged games? I've been able to turn off the hints on my system, none of those suggestions of what to do, given by the player characters.
You're telling me that you haven't played Tales of Monkey Island with the hints all the way down and still had Guybrush give you subtle hints when you take too long to solve a puzzle?
It has happened to me. I specifically remember checking the Hint level setting more than once on both ToMI and S&M3 because I was getting subtle hints even when I had the blasted meter turned all the way down. If it's a bug then it shows laziness; if it's not a bug then it shows incompetence.
You're telling me that you haven't played Tales of Monkey Island with the hints all the way down and still had Guybrush give you subtle hints when you take too long to solve a puzzle?
It has happened to me. I specifically remember checking the Hint level setting more than once on both ToMI and S&M3 because I was getting subtle hints even when I had the blasted meter turned all the way down. If it's a bug then it shows laziness; if it's not a bug then it shows incompetence.
And let's not forget the first episode of BttF, when regardless of hint meter or goals selection, the game plays itself for the first 10 minutes, with GIANT FUCKING TEXT popping up on the screen explaining what it's doing as it does it. Well, really, the whole series plays itself, but that's another complaint.
It seems to me as though the hint slider only effects pop up hints whereas in game hints still occur from dialog from the characters regardless of the hint setting.
I've never had a dialog-based hint given me in BTTF. Not that I'd need it. But you can turn the dialog hints completely off. Like I said, there's 5 bars. 1 bar is not the lowest setting. No bars is.
Or maybe I just beat each puzzle too quickly to notice any dialog hints.
It still happens, though. I distinctly remember the first time I played ToMI ep. 1 and wandering through the jungle. When I got distracted by the wind idol thingys instead of doing whatever else it was I came there for, Guybrush started telling me what I should be doing next.
I think most people can play TOMI and TDP without seeing what Chyron is talking about. But there was at least one reproducible example noted when this was discussed on the S&M forum during TDP production -- Sam would give a hint at a particular time/location even for those playing with hints set to no bars. So there is an issue with the existing hint system, but whether it's a bug or intentional, I don't know.
I think the original point by GaMEChld stands -- adventure games can (and should, in many cases, especially KQ) be made difficult for experienced players; they can be made less difficult for other players by implementing a proper, working hint system. By proper, I mean one that experienced players are able to turn off completely. That the current hint system is either not proper or not working is just another reason why some of us long-time adventure fans have lost confidence in Telltale. But it shouldn't call into question the legitimacy of hint systems in general for making games accessible.
I noticed a couple of little "hints" given with 0 bars in ToMI and/or S&M3. I didn't think it was egregious, and just considered it normal for adventure games. For example, in older games sometimes you'd try something twice and it would say "that doesn't seem to be working...I might have to somehow do x first". Things that were too confusing in playtesting maybe.
Games like Portal add elements to the game world in playtesting when it's not clear what a goal should be...visuals to attract your attention to the ceiling for example. Those are not "hints" though in the sense that you mean it, it's just part of the overall design.
I didn't think it was egregious, and just considered it normal for adventure games. ... Those are not "hints" though in the sense that you mean it, it's just part of the overall design.
It's certainly normal to provide clues in adventure games, as in the examples you give. But clues are usually things to be discovered through exploration/interaction, they shouldn't come via the main character just blurting stuff out randomly. Those are usually considered hints in TT games, so it is not at all clear whether it's part of the overall design or a bug in the hint system. And frankly, it doesn't matter -- it's either crappy design or crappy programming, take your pick.
LucasArts made bad SEQUELS(Curse of Monkey Island, Day of the Tentacle), and games with badly designed ELEMENTS and SECTIONS to them. All the same, overall I can't think of a LucasArts adventure that is bad enough to be considered a BAD GAME if it's taken apart and analyzed on a gameplay level separate from everything else.
If you think Day of the Tentacle is a 'bad sequel'? Then I can't take you seriously... Its leaps and abounds better than the original... I don't think I've ever really completed the original (I never understood huge cast of playable characters in it, and which groups to choose)...
And I absolutely loved the hilarious time travel elements in DoTT!
As for Curse, its well, I do agree its not as good as the first two. But its seriously great game on its own... Only the last chapter was a bit anticlimactic...
DOTT is not "leaps and bounds better than the original." That's a subjective opinion on taste. The correct statement is that it's leaps and bounds nothing like the original. So it isn't a good sequel. The only thing it has in common with the original is that you control 3 kids. Both games are fun and DOTT is a great game, but it's horrible from a sequel point of view. It might as well have been a reboot.
Comments
I’m saying this because many times I see people that try to defend one design over the other, but don’t value each game for what it tries to achieve. Obviously, if I don’t like western movies, even if I watch The Wild Bunch or Once Upon a Time in the West, two of the best western movies ever made, I’m not going to like them. But this is a problem of the spectator and not of the movies themselves. I think it’s the same here: if you don’t like dying in adventure games, then you aren’t going to like Sierra design. And this goes for the other side too: if you like to feel that you have some risky situations where you can die, then you aren’t going to like the Lucas Arts games. But this is a problem of the player and not of the game. So if the discussion don’t part from the agreement that both design have their pros and cons then the discussion isn’t relevant anymore.
Now let’s get to the topic. I’m also not sure if Telltale can make a good King’s Quest game. In my opinion, like various posters have said, this is due first and foremost to Telltale following the design rules of Lucas Arts, which are opposite to Sierra games’. If, for example, there aren’t any deaths in the game, well, it isn’t going to feel as a King’s Quest game. So, I can understand all the worries about this. But saying that Telltale only makes mediocre games, like some people have said, well, I think that isn’t true. I will try to explain this.
I can’t talk about all of Telltale games. I can only talk about Season One and Two of Sam and Max, because those are the only games I have played. I will focus only on season two because I have played it recently and I was greatly surprised by it. I’m not going to talk about the story, the graphics, the music, the writing, etc., because, from what I have read in various posts the problem that some people has with Telltale games lies in the easiness of the puzzles. And I think that Second Season as a whole is very good in that department and it’s on par with some of the oldies, and sometimes better. It’s true that it has easier and more “straight” puzzles than creative and difficult ones, but the ones presents are very good. For example, how you have to deal with the piranhas and what you have to do to get Stinky’s special in the second episode are really creative puzzles. You really have to use “lateral thinking” to solve those puzzles, or, in episode five, dealing with the diorama of Santa and the little elf. And various of the temporal puzzles of the fourth episode are also very good. Yes, they could have more of this kind and less of the really easy ones. And they definitely should allow the player to combine items in the inventory. And they could benefit from using and interface with various icons and not only one, like in the old Lucas Arts games. But saying that “Telltale games are mediocre in the puzzle department” isn’t true. Maybe some people have overgeneralized from some of their games, but I think that is a simplification.
Of all the recent games I have played in the last few years, including some indies, Sam and Max Season Two is one of the few where some of the puzzles were really good. Perry Rhodan, Gray Matter, The Black Mirror, even the loved The Longest Journey were easier than Sam and Max and the puzzles were not as creative as some found in Season Two. And of the indies, the only one where I remember being stuck sometimes was the remake of King’s Quest 2, by AGDInteractive (which, after playing all their remakes, including their last, King’s Quest 3, I think is their best game). I like, for example, the Dave Gilbert games, but they are really easy. I have played the AGS games nominated this year and all of them are easy too. Right now, I’m playing Gemini Rue and The Whispered World. I hope they will pose some challenge. And I have the Season Three of Sam and Max waiting.
....ouch.
See, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I worry about King's Quest? I think about Season Three of Sam and Max(and the Back to the Future game). Not even the entire season, but just play episode 1. I dunno, someone looking for clever and inventive puzzles may want to look elsewhere. The core design idea of the powers was very good, but it was applied to some really simplistic puzzle design that left the avid adventurer out in the cold.
The mage game does look better, but I am more concern about storyline if they make an official KQ game. I want to see them create a KQ game that doesn't have a plot that feels like their KQ2+ or TSL aka fanfiction
ugh. Don't say that. It makes me sad for Sam & Max:Freelance Police.
Don't let Rather Dashing hear you say that.
[edit:] Too late.
@RD, I so thought that would have been the perfect cue for a rant on CMI and such. I'm surprised at you.
I don't think AGDI's games and TSL should be ever mentioned in the same breath. At least AGDI's plot additions, though fan fiction-y, are fairly well-written. There's a HUGE difference if you start comparing the dialogue between the two.
What? I thought the whole point of making the games look the way they do is to match the graphics of KQ 5 and 6.
Besides, you can't make the music any better for KQ3R. I want the soundtrack (plzoplzyesiknowyou'reworkingonithurryupalreadylol.)
I have to admit, I'm still sort of bugged about Al Emmo. I really don't like that game. And yet, Himalaya is selling it for real money.
Now, since I see this Mage's Initiation stuff, I feel a lot better. It looks really good.
Also that rant would be off-topic. As is this one.
...Dammit.
While true, both games has an element of fanfic in them. AGDI less so than TSL. I completely agree about the writing in the AGDI games is better than the ones seen in TSL
A good example is Alexander. His dialoge feels so similar to KQ6 whereas in TSL, the ferryman's personality is different than how he is protrayed in KQ6.
First, AGDI is head and shoulders (knees and toes) better in game design than POS is. Sorry Phoenix. TSL really just doesn't fit the feel of the canon games.
Second... Fan-fiction? You're saying that KQ2+ is like FAN-FICTION? What the.... KQ2+ is one of the best adventure games out there, retail or otherwise. I'd agree with maybe "expanded universe" or "Special Edition" (eww, no. not SE. George Lucas is a retard) but not fan-fiction.
You make it sound like substandard work. As though because it is both free and a remake that makes it contrived and unnecessary.
I beg to differ. I really do.
Oh, I agree with you.
And believe me, I would never say that the concept of a game being both free and a remake makes it contrived or unnecessary. I'd be damn hypocritical if I did.
... perhaps they hadn't thought of or planned such a backstory because of budget constraints, disk size limitations or publishing deadlines, but I would bet real money that if AGDI's three KQ games were released under the Sierra Online banner back in the day when KQ6 was released (meaning when Sierra Online still existed and adventure games looked like this and not cartoony yet) and sold at retail prices, no one would have been able to tell the difference.
With this in mind, they rank much higher than fan-fiction for me. They only just so happen to be made by fans and are released as freeware.
This is the problem with opinions. I understand my opinion is different from yours and I respect that. If you like KQ2+, then more power to you. I don't. I am sorry for having a different opinion than yours.
Again we agree--mostly.
I don't think the original KQ designers ever had any kind of deep all-connecting backstory in mind for the entire series. Any kind of all-connecting backstory, even a well-written one, feels somewhat contrived in the context of the original games. The only game that really suggested any kind of connection like that was KQ6, and that was just the result of classic Jane Jensen over-complication.
That said, I agree that if KQ2+ and KQ3 Redux had been released in the early 90s, nobody would have been able to tell them from any other KQ game. They fit the TONE of the series perfectly, which is the most important part.
Escape was horrible but Curse was okay. And DOTT is one of their best games ever.
Day of the Tentacle is an even "worse" sequel, in that it's very far divorced from what the original game was. There are kids with different skills and you use those skills to solve puzzles. One of the kids is the same, and some elements are carried over(the mansion, tentacles, and the Edisons). However, this is pretty superficial. The first game was a spoof of B horror films, the second is a cartoon. This extends as an issue(in terms of faithfulness of a sequel, not whether or not the game is "good) in the style of story being told, the style of world the games take place in, the type of logic used to beat puzzles, and the general ambiance of the game as a whole. Many innovative and special features from the original game are ripped out rather than expanded upon or given a distinct twist: You can't pick your team, there is only one solution to every puzzle, there is only one ending, and the world doesn't make an attempt to "live". On that last point, scripts were used in the original game to make non-player characters move about and have routines. By contrast, Day of the Tentacle just kind of sits there, waiting for you to do something. Another thing that Day of the Tentacle removed relative to its predecessor is even the most minor attempt at horror in terms of gameplay, that is, nothing makes you feel like you have to be "careful" or "look out".
They're not bad sequels because they're bad games. Look above, and you'l see that I'm not even getting into that. They're bad at being sequels because they differ drastically from their predecessors in style, basic design philosophy, art direction, and various other areas that change both the immediate impression and the overall feel of the universe irrevocably.
You know... I understand what you mean.
I disagree with the feelings you have for those specific games, but I totally do understand why you feel the way you do.
Also just so you know, I wasn't trying to be rude in my earlier comment (about not letting you hear), I just was enjoying the thought of poking a sleeping bear.
It IS fanfiction. It's additional fiction written by fans. That's not an insult, that's a category. I love KQ2+ more than some games in the original series, just like I love some Star Wars fanfilms more than canon Star Wars entries. Doesn't stop them from being fanfiction.
I understand you better now, Rather Dashing. I’m not really a follower of companies and their staffs (well, not now; in the old times, I was a follower of Origin, Sierra and Lucas Arts), so I don’t know who were the staff of Sam and Max for the first two seasons and who are Telltale’s staff now. And, as I said, I have only played the first two Sam and Max games, so, when I think of Telltale, I think of those two games. And yes, Season Two is still not a Sierra game, and I also think that, even if Season Two is great, I’m not sure the design of Telltale is “compatible” with the old Sierra games.
My critics were more on the side that I have recently seen various posts at some sites bashing ALL Telltale games, including thefirst two seasons of Sam and Max, because of their puzzles. And I think that bashing those games is exaggerated and doesn’t correspond with the reality, especially if one compares those two games with other recent adventures.
Well, I have Season 3 waiting since the beginning of the year. I haven´t played it yet because, even if I like Season 2 a lot, my main problem with this season was the structure of the episodes. Having a puzzle at the beginning, three more later and then one puzzle at the end in all the episodes (except 5, I think, where they have 1-3-3-1, if I remember correctly) could be a little tiresome. And to me this is one of the weak points of the new Sam and Max. So I can understand if someone that has played all games from Telltale is tired if they have followed that structure (I don’t know this. RD, please, confirm) But after finishing Gemini Rue and The Whispered World, I will definitely play it.
I understand your complaints and share them, in part. I really think that Curse of Monkey Island is an inferior sequel to their predecessors in all respects: art design, story, humor, characters and puzzles. I like Curse, and I think it is a good game, but only if you forget about the two originals. As you said, it has good gameplay, even if it is sometimes a little too easy, and the other aspects were good, but they don’t live up to the expectations. One thing, for example, where you note that Curse is only “recreating” the first two games instead of “creating” a new good sequel is how they follow some conventions there which are in the originals too: rescue Elaine, recrew three members, Lechuk is now a Demon, the sword fight… What I really like of Monkey Island 2 is that it feels like a real sequel without repeating the same things of the first game. You have the same characters, the same tone, the same humor, but the story is totally different. And the puzzles too. They weren't afraid of eliminating things as the sword fighting. For curse it was as if Lucas Arts had thought: “Well, let’s redo Monkey Island” instead of “Well, let’s do a sequel”. Maybe I’m being a little unfair with the game, because, in its own, is a good one. But not great.
Now, regarding DOTT, I don’t feel the same. First, because I have never really seen as a sequel of the original game. I saw it more like some kind of “spin of”, so I wasn’t bothered by it not being a “true sequel” of Maniac Mansion.The game even has a title that doesn’t resemble the original one. But I can understand that if you look at it as a sequel, yes, it turns out not to be faithful to the original, because of the different reasons you have mentioned. Second, I am one of the people that thinks that DOTT is one of the greatest adventure games ever made. Even if I judge it as a sequel and believe it isn’t true to the original, the game is so good in its own that I take my hat off. DOTT shines not only in the gameplay department, but also in art direction, characters, humor, etc. In this respect, it is different to Curse: Curse isn’t a great game even if one haven’t played the originals. It’s good, but not great. However, one can only bash Day of the Tentacle if one expects a faithful sequel to Maniac Mansion. And I prefer a sequel which is not true to the original but excellent that a sequel which, being true to the original, is nothing more than only ok or good. Obviously, I prefer a true excellent sequel, as Monkey 2.
I haven’t played Zak Mckracken. It’s the only Lucas Arts game I haven’t played. Maybe in the future. I have it in my game collection so…
After reading your post and rereading what I have written, I have to rectify myself. Escape from Monkey Island is a mediocre-bad game. I continually forget about that title. I only played it because it was a Monkey Island game. And I have never replayed it. It’s the only Lucas Arts game that I have never have replayed it. , I have even replayed Full Throttle and The Dig, which I consider only ok games, for different reasons. And, again, I agree with you, RD, that Lucas Arts has some badly designed elements and sections in some of their games, but I think this could be said of all companies.
I think the difficulties with Curse of Monkey Island was that it was a transition point for the series to a multimedia experience. Though I think the art in it is lightyears better than its predecessors, from basic background designs to actual implementation in terms of technology. The waterpainted look and the kooky designed characters were superbly entertaining.
Part of it is the Twilight Zone presentation (which I've been a real sucker for after a recent ride on the Tower of Terror), and much better presentation in general. Part of it is probably the console thing...I prefer consoles, and since S3 really seems designed with consoles in mind, that could be a major knock on it if you played it on the PC. The extended dialogue sequences in Telltale/modern adventure games are a huge problem in my opinion, and that becomes much more tolerable when you're relaxing on the couch.
The biggest factor though is that it finally does something a little different with the genre. I loved episode 2 with the movie reels, Max's powers add a new gameplay mechanic while still completely following the "rules" of the genre, and the flashbacks spice things up a bit as well.
There's a lot of variation among critics of Telltale. Even among those who are concerned mostly with gameplay, there are differences of opinion as to when it started going "downhill" or if it was ever "uphill" in the first place. I agree with Dashing that the first two S&M seasons were terrific. I even enjoyed playing Wallace and Gromit: though the puzzles were less difficult they were paced well and integrated with the unfolding of the stories. My disappointment really started with S&M Season 3, when gameplay took a backseat to "cinematic presentation".
Just so you don't go into season 3 totally discouraged
Incidentally I will take any of those old puzzle formulae you mentioned over what seems to be the formula for BTTF, which is more like: go through the motions to "solve" what barely passes for a puzzle, have some story thrown at you, go through the motions to "solve" what barely passes for a puzzle, have some story thrown at you, etc.
So true.
also i hope it will be with old characters
All they'd have to do is implement a progressive Hint system built into the game, akin to what this website has done for the old KQ games:
http://www.uhs-hints.com/uhsweb/hints/kq1/1.php
With modern technology, the games can be every bit as hard as the old games puzzle wise, but still be more forgiving by implementing an accessible built-in progressive hint system, as well as AUTOMATICALLY making save checkpoints as you progress, so there is a guaranteed way to restore your game only as far back as is needed, to minimize back pedaling.
The thing that made King's quest interesting and fun was not just the raw challenge, but cultivating the player's need to inspect EVERYTHING using multiple senses, like sight, touch, and voice. Items needed to sometimes be manipulated and changed, or used in unexpected ways, and sometimes there were multiple solutions to a common problem.
And before anyone argues that this is just old nostalgia talking, I only RECENTLY played most of the Kings Quest games. The only one I played long ago was KQ5. I just played through the whole collection with a friend of mine (my friend has never played any of them before at all). And we both found the games very challenging, but very fun in a new way. At times we cursed the difficulty, but ultimately, it was all that more enjoyable when you solved something.
However, we were forced to seek outside help on a few occasions, hence my idea for the updated saving system and the built-in hint system.
You're telling me that you haven't played Tales of Monkey Island with the hints all the way down and still had Guybrush give you subtle hints when you take too long to solve a puzzle?
It has happened to me. I specifically remember checking the Hint level setting more than once on both ToMI and S&M3 because I was getting subtle hints even when I had the blasted meter turned all the way down. If it's a bug then it shows laziness; if it's not a bug then it shows incompetence.
And let's not forget the first episode of BttF, when regardless of hint meter or goals selection, the game plays itself for the first 10 minutes, with GIANT FUCKING TEXT popping up on the screen explaining what it's doing as it does it. Well, really, the whole series plays itself, but that's another complaint.
Or maybe I just beat each puzzle too quickly to notice any dialog hints.
I know that. I've always known that.
It still happens, though. I distinctly remember the first time I played ToMI ep. 1 and wandering through the jungle. When I got distracted by the wind idol thingys instead of doing whatever else it was I came there for, Guybrush started telling me what I should be doing next.
I think the original point by GaMEChld stands -- adventure games can (and should, in many cases, especially KQ) be made difficult for experienced players; they can be made less difficult for other players by implementing a proper, working hint system. By proper, I mean one that experienced players are able to turn off completely. That the current hint system is either not proper or not working is just another reason why some of us long-time adventure fans have lost confidence in Telltale. But it shouldn't call into question the legitimacy of hint systems in general for making games accessible.
Games like Portal add elements to the game world in playtesting when it's not clear what a goal should be...visuals to attract your attention to the ceiling for example. Those are not "hints" though in the sense that you mean it, it's just part of the overall design.
It's certainly normal to provide clues in adventure games, as in the examples you give. But clues are usually things to be discovered through exploration/interaction, they shouldn't come via the main character just blurting stuff out randomly. Those are usually considered hints in TT games, so it is not at all clear whether it's part of the overall design or a bug in the hint system. And frankly, it doesn't matter -- it's either crappy design or crappy programming, take your pick.
If you think Day of the Tentacle is a 'bad sequel'? Then I can't take you seriously... Its leaps and abounds better than the original... I don't think I've ever really completed the original (I never understood huge cast of playable characters in it, and which groups to choose)...
And I absolutely loved the hilarious time travel elements in DoTT!
As for Curse, its well, I do agree its not as good as the first two. But its seriously great game on its own... Only the last chapter was a bit anticlimactic...