Tamuel, you're being too hard on the community as a whole. I think it's far better than you give it credit for, with most of the long-term or truly active members being quite accepting of an open dialog. Alan and Vainamoinen have openly defended detractor's right to say whatever they want. Alan is forwarding our concerns to the staff(whether or not that will do any good or actually get noticed is another matter entirely), and Vainamoinen actually agrees with most of the detractor's basic sentiments at the very least. I have not felt persecuted by the vast majority of the community, and you shouldn't paint those disappointed with the product in a bad light by directly and negatively assessing the entire community based on the actions of a few members. I agree that there have been a few times that Ive seen mod powers taken farther than I personally would have used them, but I think their position has almost always been at the very least defensible and it's obvious that there is not a directed effort to shut down a certain viewpoint, as you can see from my own posts and threads that, at a certain point, seem to be almost completely filled with those who dislike the product we've been given. Don't try to force being some sort of martyr. You should be better than that.
Seriously, in any gathering of people, someone is going to get offended over something that they should not be offended by. In videogame forums, that is often another user's opinion of something they personally enjoy or despise. On the whole, I think we've bucked the average, and I think that should be openly appreciated and embraced. That doesn't mean anyone has to stop being cynical or critical, but don't forget to base that criticism on something solid. Seriously, as far as this goes, at most I think it would deserve a couple mod notices that yes, people are allowed to think what they want about a product as long as they don't directly insult other board members or break any common sense conventions of decency(no blatant hateful comments to any group or person, stay on topic or within the general flow of conversation, don't post pornography without at least a hyperlink and a warning, stuff like that).
It should be obvious that i wasn't directing my critics at everyone on the forum but in the last months, whilst things were heating up a bit, you could witness an increase in unsubstantial argumentation especially from one side again and again.
I remember this forum once beeing one of the more open minded games related places on the internet. First it was tiny and friendly, then after some time it also got more controversial but still beeing open to the idea of having different opinions and stating them.
Don't get me wrong, personally i don't mind getting into a more rough conversation as well as i can shoot back if it bothers me and i can be pretty direct as well but it just seems that those arguments vs. zombie talk bubbles are getting more and more.
But i think you have to be a Back to the Future fan to really enjoy it.
No! It's not true! I never heard of Back To The Future and I never saw a movie, so I don't consider myself a fan , but I really enjoyed the first episode. You gotta think this way, every game that's made by Telltale is a good game, so you gotta buy it to see more games.
If we do that, then where's the incentive for them to make good games? I myself am guilty of having bought their every game up to present, but I think I'll pass up on a pre-order for once with Jurassic Park.
I'm disappointed with how easy I've found BTTF so far but I don't regret buying it one bit. I love the story, the characters, the music etc. so I can overlook the puzzles. I think telltale made a mistake by introducing the hint system and dumbing down the puzzles, I can understand why but would have made more sense to have the hint system deal with the novices while having more complicated puzzles for the rest of us. I have a feeling the future episodes will be harder now that telltale has had time to listen to their fans and critics and those new to adventure games have gotten used to the format.
Again, and this is the same opinion I have about a lot of games, some people are going to love them, some are going to like them but know it could have been better, some are going to dislike them because they could be better, and some are going to outright hate them.
I'm going to use this discussion as an excuse to re-post an anecdote I told on the subject a little while back. I can't think of any better way to sum up my feelings on the matter:
[A couple of months ago] one of my friends was trying to get his girlfriend into adventures games (something for her to do while he plays Counter-Strike lol). He wanted her to try Broken Sword, a fine choice to be sure, but I suggested that BttF might be a better game to introduce someone with no former experience to adventure games.
I pointed out that it was more player friendly than the old games and that if you got stuck you could get hints, to which she replied, "I don't want any hints!" This really made me think, Telltale are trying to open their audience up to more than just hardcore adventure game players but nobody wants to be babied, even casuals who have never even tried adventure games before in their life.
By making their new games too easy I believe Telltale are doing themselves a grave disservice, not just because it alienates older fans, but because by trying to make a game that can be played by everyone they are actually making a game that appeals to no one.
If Telltale continues down this path nobody wins. They will have lost their niche and players new and old will be turned off by their games.
Played the free Episode 1 release, here are my thoughts:
Story: 7/10
In the same vein as other BttF stories, lots of fanservice, generally fun stuff, though the first part in the lab was a bit irritating - there's no backstory provided for why Doc's gone or when he left, and while that might be in the third movie, I haven't seen it in 15 years, so no dice there.
Gameplay: 2/10
A couple of the puzzles are clever enough to have made it into better games, but not many (notably the rocket fuel one, which was easy but still fun). Way too easy for the most part, and the gameplay, as many have said, is served in bite-sized chunks and therefore too limited for most AG fans. One of the big commandments of AG design that they break at least a couple times is the 'solving puzzles before you know they're puzzles' deal - there are at least a couple puzzles where I'm still not 100% sure which of my actions were necessary and which just happened to occur around the same time or location. Lack of items and hotspots was a huge issue as well, not only does it make the game easier, but it really flattens the game world - there were almost no non-puzzle hotspots at all, and those that were there weren't very interesting. Also, the console friendly control scheme and nobody-friendly camera angle changes that plagued ToMI and S&M: Season 3 were back. I appreciate that a camera change doesn't alter the player's course anymore, but it's still a chore trying to navigate with the camera limiting your field of vision and occasionally forcing the player to take unnecessarily circuitous paths to where they're going.
Length: 1/10
Less than half the length of most of TTG's episodic adventures, each act is obscenely short. If I had paid for the season only to find out each episode was half-length I would be ticked.
Other: 6/10
Good voice acting (Biff being at least one notable exception), graphics up to par with other TTG stuff, maybe even better. Music's good too, though it pretty much sticks to the original soundtrack. Bugs (req. admin permission to run - probably not a bug, but avoidable, weird lines around Marty, minimize during credits are the ones I noticed) were a bit of an irritation, but not game breaking.
Overall: 4/10
Okay, I recognize that the target audience is likely to be more generous with their reviews, but my personal take on BttF Episode 1 is that its shiny exterior and decent story are wrapped around a very dubious adventure game, and that it's almost criminally short. In that light, 4/10 is actually fairly generous, but I can't completely discount the fact that I am not the target audience of this particular TTG series.
My hope for TTG is that the abundance of projects recently unveiled indicates that TTG will continue to produce games for the more "hardcore" AG fans among us alongside the easier, entry-level casual games like BttF (which I won't buy) or Puzzle Agent (which I would buy more of). And as a corollary, that they can manage to keep up or even increase the quality of their games while producing more games to reach their different audiences. If the casual stuff takes over entirely, or if quantity becomes job one, I'm jumping ship.
I feel that my post here will be inadequate compare to many of the other analytical posts in this thread. A number of people who dislike the BttF game have elaborated in detail specific factors which made the game not enjoyable for them.
I enjoyed the game, but I can't layout detailed reasons why. Coming into this I was absolutely thrilled for a BttF licensed game. I am a huge fan of the trilogy and love the unique story of the BttF Universe. I am not a game connoisseur, and I have only ever bought one other game from TellTale (Poker Night). A reason I enjoy and still wait with anticipation for more "BttF: The Game" is similar to why I bought Poker Night: it took a continuity I loved and expanded upon it. I am not a person who wholeheartedly loves sequels, I realize that sometimes continuing a franchise means watering it down. With Poker Night while the dialogue was relatively small and the gameplay rudimentary, it expanded upon each character's view of their universe and the in-game universe of The Inventory. I enjoy seeing this sort of interaction. BttF: The Game is the unofficial BttF Part IV in my book. I have no standard for point-and-click games, and if I think about it too much maybe this really isn't worthy of being a "game".
I spent $25.00 for my ticket to see Back to the Future Part IV, and that's what I'm getting. I am not disappointed in its storyline in the slightest, so every other aspect is a non-issue. If it were released as just an animated Direct-to-DVD special, I'd probably buy it. So maybe once TellTale is done with marketing the game, they could try reaching a secondary market with a DVD version of the story.
I spent $25.00 for my ticket to see Back to the Future Part IV, and that's what I'm getting.
That's the crux - it sounds like you're in the target audience for the game, and your experience highlights that they hit their target pretty well. Those of us who wanted an adventure game first and possibly an homage to BttF secondarily have been disappointed, but the fact is that our demographic is more of an afterthought in this particular series.
What I wonder, though, is what sort of success Telltale has had reaching the target audience. Your post highlights that they seem to have produced a product that works for the audience, but I wonder if they've succeeded in getting the product to a level of saturation among that audience that it's really viable, considering that Point and Click adventure games aren't exactly a proven medium among the BttF fanbase.
I spent $25.00 for my ticket to see Back to the Future Part IV, and that's what I'm getting.
This is how most people in this topic seem to feel about the game, but with more of a disappointed outlook. I don't think many have complained about the story; most have enjoyed it. However this game is incredibly easy compared to other adventure titles and offers little challenge so it feels more like an interactive movie.
In terms of the difficulty, I'm not making any judgements until the third episode. The third episode is the halfway point of the game and if there's a noticeable increase in difficulty, we can expect that the last two episodes will also increase in difficulty. If, however, the third episode has the same difficulty has its predecessors, we can safely assume that the game remain at a relatively easy level.
In terms of the difficulty, I'm not making any judgements until the third episode. The third episode is the halfway point of the game and if there's a noticeable increase in difficulty, we can expect that the last two episodes will also increase in difficulty. If, however, the third episode has the same difficulty has its predecessors, we can safely assume that the game remain at a relatively easy level.
For now, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt.
That's equivalent to a 60-hour RPG having 24 hours' worth of walking down hallways beating low-level flunkies in boring, simple battles before the world actually opens up. I don't think it's "okay" for a game to be insanely, stupidly easy on a flat difficulty curve for 40% of it and then suddenly ramp up in the last 60%.
I don't think it's "okay" for a game to be insanely, stupidly easy on a flat difficulty curve for 40% of it and then suddenly ramp up in the last 60%.
I'm not saying that the game will go from solving crude puzzles to solving near impossible puzzles in one episode. I'm saying that they might gradually work up the difficulty to lead up to a larger and possibly more complex puzzle in the final episode.
The first episode is more of an introduction to the game, if anything. Most of the puzzles required little statregy and everything seemed spelled out for you. I think the purpose of the episode was to focus on the story introduction rather than the puzzles themselves.
The second episode, while the difficulty still remained at a low level, did have slightly more planning involved. The plot moved at a slower rate than the first episode and it seemed to shift it's focus towards the character interactions and the puzzles.
Granted, I completed both episodes without the use of a hint system extremely fast and I do agree that the puzzles could be a little harder. I'm just trying to be optimistic.
That's equivalent to a 60-hour RPG having 24 hours' worth of walking down hallways beating low-level flunkies in boring, simple battles before the world actually opens up. I don't think it's "okay" for a game to be insanely, stupidly easy on a flat difficulty curve for 40% of it and then suddenly ramp up in the last 60%.
I personally disagree with the analogy. Under the perhaps excessive assumption that the team is listening to the customers mid-season, it's possible that they're tweaking the design docs going forward to increase the difficulty of the later episodes. Likewise, it's possible that, similar to what Martin McFly was suggesting, the first couple episodes were easier to provide an introduction to the genre for those uninitiated in the genre (which includes a large portion of the target audience), with a gradual ramping up of difficulty to get those same players to hone their skills in increasingly challenging (though not too challenging) puzzles, thus drawing them into the genre and potentially capturing some of them as future customers or short-term consumers of previous game seasons. Really, that would be a pretty clever strategy...
Besides, while the gameplay of the first episode (and presumably the second as well) was weak, there was a lot of plot advancement, so it wasn't a particularly boring ride, just not a particularly satisfying one for a player who came to solve puzzles. And while your 24/60 ratio is correct, Episodes 1 and 2 are hardly likely to suck up an entire day of someone's life, so the investment in what you (and I, to a probably lesser extent) consider fairly weak and boring is hardly as big as in your analogy.
I personally disagree with the analogy. Under the perhaps excessive assumption that the team is listening to the customers mid-season, it's possible that they're tweaking the design docs going forward to increase the difficulty of the later episodes.
Which would mean that, prior to customer feedback, the first two episodes are still bad, and a rapid increase in quality reflects only on those later episodes, not the two we have now. Again, it stands that 40% is terrible, 60% potentially could be good. Whether they made it all at once or in 20% chunks doesn't really matter.
Likewise, it's possible that, similar to what Martin McFly was suggesting, the first couple episodes were easier to provide an introduction to the genre for those uninitiated in the genre (which includes a large portion of the target audience), with a gradual ramping up of difficulty to get those same players to hone their skills in increasingly challenging (though not too challenging) puzzles, thus drawing them into the genre and potentially capturing some of them as future customers or short-term consumers of previous game seasons. Really, that would be a pretty clever strategy...
No, it's not a clever strategy, and there is no attempt to draw the casual market "into" the adventure game market. You can tell, because these games take absolutely no pains to teach the player anything. If anything, they are very much against the idea of teaching the player anything, afraid that the player might get frustrated or upset or leave because he can't understand a thing. So the game takes everything down to his level. Never slightly higher, never raising the bar. Not once. You know what happens when you stoop down and lower everything to a level a new person can understand? They're spoiled, they don't learn anything, they don't aspire to anything. At the rate of "ramping up" that we're going, we'd be in more or less the same place 50 episodes from now.
Besides, while the gameplay of the first episode (and presumably the second as well) was weak, there was a lot of plot advancement, so it wasn't a particularly boring ride, just not a particularly satisfying one for a player who came to solve puzzles.
So to those who bought a game wanting a movie, it's satisfactory. For those who bought a game wanting a fucking game, it was one of the biggest creative failures to come out of any company in the history of the medium. Comforting.
And while your 24/60 ratio is correct, Episodes 1 and 2 are hardly likely to suck up an entire day of someone's life, so the investment in what you (and I, to a probably lesser extent) consider fairly weak and boring is hardly as big as in your analogy.
For a single game, sure. But let's say this is an "acceptable" strategy for 10-hour games(2 hours each, 5 episodes) from here on out. If the first four hours are considered to be more or less an "acceptable loss" in a ten-hour game, you've completely thrown out a day's worth of time on monotonous busywork after six titles. And that is assuming that not only do episodes 3-5 ramp up to adventure-game quality greatness, but that they do so fast. I believe that, by the end of it all, you could place a marble on this game's difficulty curve, and it would sit completely still.
I'm closing this thread for now as it's kind of just turned into a back and forth between positive comment then negative comment. If anyone honestly feels it's anything more than that, please PM me and state your case (and I will consider re-opening), but in my opinion, nothing new is really being said.
That said, I do absolutely encourage open conversation here, it just feels like this thread in particular, wasn't really that.
Comments
Seriously, in any gathering of people, someone is going to get offended over something that they should not be offended by. In videogame forums, that is often another user's opinion of something they personally enjoy or despise. On the whole, I think we've bucked the average, and I think that should be openly appreciated and embraced. That doesn't mean anyone has to stop being cynical or critical, but don't forget to base that criticism on something solid. Seriously, as far as this goes, at most I think it would deserve a couple mod notices that yes, people are allowed to think what they want about a product as long as they don't directly insult other board members or break any common sense conventions of decency(no blatant hateful comments to any group or person, stay on topic or within the general flow of conversation, don't post pornography without at least a hyperlink and a warning, stuff like that).
I remember this forum once beeing one of the more open minded games related places on the internet. First it was tiny and friendly, then after some time it also got more controversial but still beeing open to the idea of having different opinions and stating them.
Don't get me wrong, personally i don't mind getting into a more rough conversation as well as i can shoot back if it bothers me and i can be pretty direct as well but it just seems that those arguments vs. zombie talk bubbles are getting more and more.
No! It's not true! I never heard of Back To The Future and I never saw a movie, so I don't consider myself a fan , but I really enjoyed the first episode. You gotta think this way, every game that's made by Telltale is a good game, so you gotta buy it to see more games.
Story: 7/10
In the same vein as other BttF stories, lots of fanservice, generally fun stuff, though the first part in the lab was a bit irritating - there's no backstory provided for why Doc's gone or when he left, and while that might be in the third movie, I haven't seen it in 15 years, so no dice there.
Gameplay: 2/10
A couple of the puzzles are clever enough to have made it into better games, but not many (notably the rocket fuel one, which was easy but still fun). Way too easy for the most part, and the gameplay, as many have said, is served in bite-sized chunks and therefore too limited for most AG fans. One of the big commandments of AG design that they break at least a couple times is the 'solving puzzles before you know they're puzzles' deal - there are at least a couple puzzles where I'm still not 100% sure which of my actions were necessary and which just happened to occur around the same time or location. Lack of items and hotspots was a huge issue as well, not only does it make the game easier, but it really flattens the game world - there were almost no non-puzzle hotspots at all, and those that were there weren't very interesting. Also, the console friendly control scheme and nobody-friendly camera angle changes that plagued ToMI and S&M: Season 3 were back. I appreciate that a camera change doesn't alter the player's course anymore, but it's still a chore trying to navigate with the camera limiting your field of vision and occasionally forcing the player to take unnecessarily circuitous paths to where they're going.
Length: 1/10
Less than half the length of most of TTG's episodic adventures, each act is obscenely short. If I had paid for the season only to find out each episode was half-length I would be ticked.
Other: 6/10
Good voice acting (Biff being at least one notable exception), graphics up to par with other TTG stuff, maybe even better. Music's good too, though it pretty much sticks to the original soundtrack. Bugs (req. admin permission to run - probably not a bug, but avoidable, weird lines around Marty, minimize during credits are the ones I noticed) were a bit of an irritation, but not game breaking.
Overall: 4/10
Okay, I recognize that the target audience is likely to be more generous with their reviews, but my personal take on BttF Episode 1 is that its shiny exterior and decent story are wrapped around a very dubious adventure game, and that it's almost criminally short. In that light, 4/10 is actually fairly generous, but I can't completely discount the fact that I am not the target audience of this particular TTG series.
My hope for TTG is that the abundance of projects recently unveiled indicates that TTG will continue to produce games for the more "hardcore" AG fans among us alongside the easier, entry-level casual games like BttF (which I won't buy) or Puzzle Agent (which I would buy more of). And as a corollary, that they can manage to keep up or even increase the quality of their games while producing more games to reach their different audiences. If the casual stuff takes over entirely, or if quantity becomes job one, I'm jumping ship.
I enjoyed the game, but I can't layout detailed reasons why. Coming into this I was absolutely thrilled for a BttF licensed game. I am a huge fan of the trilogy and love the unique story of the BttF Universe. I am not a game connoisseur, and I have only ever bought one other game from TellTale (Poker Night). A reason I enjoy and still wait with anticipation for more "BttF: The Game" is similar to why I bought Poker Night: it took a continuity I loved and expanded upon it. I am not a person who wholeheartedly loves sequels, I realize that sometimes continuing a franchise means watering it down. With Poker Night while the dialogue was relatively small and the gameplay rudimentary, it expanded upon each character's view of their universe and the in-game universe of The Inventory. I enjoy seeing this sort of interaction. BttF: The Game is the unofficial BttF Part IV in my book. I have no standard for point-and-click games, and if I think about it too much maybe this really isn't worthy of being a "game".
I spent $25.00 for my ticket to see Back to the Future Part IV, and that's what I'm getting. I am not disappointed in its storyline in the slightest, so every other aspect is a non-issue. If it were released as just an animated Direct-to-DVD special, I'd probably buy it. So maybe once TellTale is done with marketing the game, they could try reaching a secondary market with a DVD version of the story.
That's the crux - it sounds like you're in the target audience for the game, and your experience highlights that they hit their target pretty well. Those of us who wanted an adventure game first and possibly an homage to BttF secondarily have been disappointed, but the fact is that our demographic is more of an afterthought in this particular series.
What I wonder, though, is what sort of success Telltale has had reaching the target audience. Your post highlights that they seem to have produced a product that works for the audience, but I wonder if they've succeeded in getting the product to a level of saturation among that audience that it's really viable, considering that Point and Click adventure games aren't exactly a proven medium among the BttF fanbase.
This is how most people in this topic seem to feel about the game, but with more of a disappointed outlook. I don't think many have complained about the story; most have enjoyed it. However this game is incredibly easy compared to other adventure titles and offers little challenge so it feels more like an interactive movie.
For now, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not saying that the game will go from solving crude puzzles to solving near impossible puzzles in one episode. I'm saying that they might gradually work up the difficulty to lead up to a larger and possibly more complex puzzle in the final episode.
The second episode, while the difficulty still remained at a low level, did have slightly more planning involved. The plot moved at a slower rate than the first episode and it seemed to shift it's focus towards the character interactions and the puzzles.
Granted, I completed both episodes without the use of a hint system extremely fast and I do agree that the puzzles could be a little harder. I'm just trying to be optimistic.
I personally disagree with the analogy. Under the perhaps excessive assumption that the team is listening to the customers mid-season, it's possible that they're tweaking the design docs going forward to increase the difficulty of the later episodes. Likewise, it's possible that, similar to what Martin McFly was suggesting, the first couple episodes were easier to provide an introduction to the genre for those uninitiated in the genre (which includes a large portion of the target audience), with a gradual ramping up of difficulty to get those same players to hone their skills in increasingly challenging (though not too challenging) puzzles, thus drawing them into the genre and potentially capturing some of them as future customers or short-term consumers of previous game seasons. Really, that would be a pretty clever strategy...
Besides, while the gameplay of the first episode (and presumably the second as well) was weak, there was a lot of plot advancement, so it wasn't a particularly boring ride, just not a particularly satisfying one for a player who came to solve puzzles. And while your 24/60 ratio is correct, Episodes 1 and 2 are hardly likely to suck up an entire day of someone's life, so the investment in what you (and I, to a probably lesser extent) consider fairly weak and boring is hardly as big as in your analogy.
No, it's not a clever strategy, and there is no attempt to draw the casual market "into" the adventure game market. You can tell, because these games take absolutely no pains to teach the player anything. If anything, they are very much against the idea of teaching the player anything, afraid that the player might get frustrated or upset or leave because he can't understand a thing. So the game takes everything down to his level. Never slightly higher, never raising the bar. Not once. You know what happens when you stoop down and lower everything to a level a new person can understand? They're spoiled, they don't learn anything, they don't aspire to anything. At the rate of "ramping up" that we're going, we'd be in more or less the same place 50 episodes from now.
So to those who bought a game wanting a movie, it's satisfactory. For those who bought a game wanting a fucking game, it was one of the biggest creative failures to come out of any company in the history of the medium. Comforting.
For a single game, sure. But let's say this is an "acceptable" strategy for 10-hour games(2 hours each, 5 episodes) from here on out. If the first four hours are considered to be more or less an "acceptable loss" in a ten-hour game, you've completely thrown out a day's worth of time on monotonous busywork after six titles. And that is assuming that not only do episodes 3-5 ramp up to adventure-game quality greatness, but that they do so fast. I believe that, by the end of it all, you could place a marble on this game's difficulty curve, and it would sit completely still.
That said, I do absolutely encourage open conversation here, it just feels like this thread in particular, wasn't really that.