I find it fascinating that Anakin is defending Telltale so much and slamming KQ fans (TSL, me, Dashing, anybody who isn't looking forward to TT's KQ). For me, I've realised that this whole Telltale KQ license thing has put a lot of my misgivings about TSL into perspective. It all just seems like a bunch of silly squabbling amongst ourselves (the KQ fan community) because we didn't have anything better to do. Now the KQ legacy and its reputation and official canonical future is potentially at risk for the first time since MOE (which we all got over). I just don't see the big deal with what TSL did anymore. Sure I don't agree with it but....whatever. I'm a lot more worried about how the previously negatively outspoken Telltale (in regards to Sierra games) will ruin the series....or better it. I'm hopeful, but I am not optimistic.
But I don't hate Telltale or their KQ game. How can I? Telltale is a business like any other and I haven't even played the game yet. Once I play the demo then I'll decide if I hate it or not.
I don't think that he is slamming KQ fans, because I believe that he is a KQ fan himself. However he is slamming the fan game communities, especially the TSL community, which are somewhat related, but separate communities. You can be KQ fan without being friend of fan games, you can be fan of fangames without even playing the originals or you can belong to both groups. I believe that, like myself, Anakin is KQ fan, but not a member of fan game community. Although I don't understand why he doesn't just ignore the fan fiction if it's not his cup of tea, like most of us do.
Personally I don't understand extremely pessimistic attitude towards TTG, which some posters have. Josh's comments (actual topic of this thread) did sound somewhat promising and personally I have enjoyed playing their Wallace & Gromit, Monkey Island and Sam & Max games, which are much better than many other recent commerical adventure games.
Personally I don't understand extremely pessimistic attitude towards TTG, which some posters have. Josh's comments (actual topic of this thread) did sound somewhat promising and personally I have enjoyed playing their Wallace & Gromit, Monkey Island and Sam & Max games, which are much better than many other recent commerical adventure games.
The concern stems from their most recent projects(Sam and Max Season Three: The Devil's Playhouse and Back to the Future: The Game), their next upcoming project(Jurassic Park), and articles like this one and many other public statements made at press events and in interviews.
For a taste of the real problem here, someone has to play an episode of the poster boy for terrible adventure games, Back to the Future. Luckily, the first episode can be played for free, so it's very easy to give a playable example of why someone would be, at the very least, worried by Telltale having control over the license to the King's Quest series.
The concern stems from their most recent projects(Sam and Max Season Three: The Devil's Playhouse and Back to the Future: The Game), their next upcoming project(Jurassic Park), and articles like this one and many other public statements made at press events and in interviews.
For a taste of the real problem here, someone has to play an episode of the poster boy for terrible adventure games, Back to the Future. Luckily, the first episode can be played for free, so it's very easy to give a playable example of why someone would be, at the very least, worried by Telltale having control over the license to the King's Quest series.
Like Sierra never made a crappy adventure game. :rolleyes:
I'd like to see the source backing up that statement. Al has an entire section on his website dedicated to the game.
It's not quite as extreme as I thought in the case of Freddy Pharkas. Read this thread, especially Josho's (Josh Mandel) posts. It's about Sierra's "star" system:
On the other hand, I thought it was telling that when Freddy came out, it was given a capsule review in Newsweek that said something like, "Al Lowe has found his truest voice yet." I really had to laugh.
The concern stems from their most recent projects(Sam and Max Season Three: The Devil's Playhouse and Back to the Future: The Game), their next upcoming project(Jurassic Park), and articles like this one and many other public statements made at press events and in interviews.
For a taste of the real problem here, someone has to play an episode of the poster boy for terrible adventure games, Back to the Future. Luckily, the first episode can be played for free, so it's very easy to give a playable example of why someone would be, at the very least, worried by Telltale having control over the license to the King's Quest series.
When I was a child... I used to watch Back to the Future over and over again, back to back to back. It was my favorite movie.
When Telltale revealed they were making a game based on the movies, I decided to give them a chance. I like what they have done. I happen to think the game is good. I also happen to like The Devil's Playhouse as well as Tales from Monkey Island. They are both franchises I followed very closely since their inception.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Not all fans are going to hate what Telltale has done. I for one love this company for at least giving franchises, that for the most part, have been ignored by the industry a chance.
Like Sierra never made a crappy adventure game. :rolleyes:
Sierra never made an interactive insult to the adventure game genre as a whole, especially three in a row, while continuing to say that they feel like the adventure genre and its core gameplay are outdated, unwieldy, and inaccessible. They also never made an adaptation of a title that they were badmouthing design-wise only a few months earlier.
When Telltale revealed they were making a game based on the movies, I decided to give them a chance. I like what they have done. I happen to think the game is good.
Not only do I not understand what a person could find "fun" about the game, I simply do not understand how a person could think there is a game in there at all. At the very least, the part where the player actually plays seems to be an afterthought at best.
When Telltale revealed they were making a game based on the movies, I decided to give them a chance. I like what they have done. I happen to think the game is good. I also happen to like The Devil's Playhouse as well as Tales from Monkey Island. They are both franchises I followed very closely since their inception.
I agree with you, I am finding alot of enjoyment out of BTTF, and I enjoyed Devil's Playhouse. There are elements of both that I think could have been improved, but overall they are alot of fun.
They have kept me interested enough, that I will continue to support their company. I will even try out Jurassic Park. If it turns out something that I somehow don't like, I'm certainly not forced to buy future games.
It's as simple as that if I don't like a game, I don't buy it. I may make informed decisions based on demos/previews. But ultimately its up to me to decide if I get the game or not.
Not only do I not understand what a person could find "fun" about the game, I simply do not understand how a person could think there is a game in there at all. At the very least, the part where the player actually plays seems to be an afterthought at best.
There are a couple of old sayings that are apropos;
There's no accounting for taste.
I.E. There are no explanations for people's preferences.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
I.E. Something that one person considers worthless may be considered valuable by someone else.
Please avoid attacking/insulting other people for their opinions thank you.
Sierra never made an interactive insult to the adventure game genre as a whole, especially three in a row, while continuing to say that they feel like the adventure genre and its core gameplay are outdated, unwieldy, and inaccessible. They also never made an adaptation of a title that they were badmouthing design-wise only a few months earlier.
Not only do I not understand what a person could find "fun" about the game, I simply do not understand how a person could think there is a game in there at all. At the very least, the part where the player actually plays seems to be an afterthought at best.
TT is indeed the worst company ever to exist, right Dashing?
Come on dude..let it out...let it out. you know you're just itching to.
I wish you'd gtf off this board. It's obvious you dont wanna see this game come out or be made, you aren't going to like it no matter what, YOU are the definition of a troll.
Seriously, go. We get you hate TT now, and that you hate this game. You made your point. Go play TSL.
I didn't like Lighthouse... I know some may scoff at the idea.. but I feel like Myst is a big part of what killed adventure games.. I know they were popular and people loved them but it was the link between proper adventure games and modern games.. Lighthouse was pretty much a myst rippoff.
Anakin, I believe the line is drawn between criticising products and targeting your fellow posters. Your latest message here seems to do only the latter.
I don't really get the "Myst killed the adventure games" argument. Sierra made one imitation that I recall (Lighthouse, were there any others?) and Lucasarts didn't make any. (Some of the puzzles in The Dig were a bit Myst-ish, but that doesn't count.) I think the lack of adventure games coincides more with the renewed success of consoles over PCs for gaming.
I wasn't too big of a fan of the Myst clone Sierra games either... They were far too derivative...
I also didn't like the direction of Phantasmagoria... Rape scene just for the sake of adding a rape scene (that had little impact on the plot).
It kind of suited to the story where possessed husband became more and more abusive, although I think that it felt bit added, because the game never really explored it's effects to the main character. Usually rape victims don't act like nothing happened 5 minutes later.
I think the myst killed AGs viewpoint is around because that is what developers thought they needed to compete with ... and then the next step they took was "3D" shooters.. Once those types of games took off and made tons of money... Nobody wanted to risk making adventure games anymore... when shooters where proved sellers and fighting games didn't require a plotted out story... Adventure games became too much work.....
Please avoid attacking/insulting other people for their opinions thank you.
When I say "I don't understand what a person finds fun, and I don't understand how a person can think this is a game", I literally mean just that. I don't get it. There's no insult implied in there. I just don't understand why you think the way you do. Again, they've streamlined gameplay to the point that there is now nothing in the title that could be called gameplay. All points of interactivity are entirely pointless chores.
I don't enjoy fighting games either, but I understand why people like them. They're competitive, can result in a series of successive matches fairly easily, and they have very deep combat mechanics that take time and effort to master. I don't enjoy the majority of shooters, but I can see why people can enjoy shooters. There's gameplay there, and it's about competition, just using a different(but no less valid) skillset than I use in my competitive genres of choice(turn-based strategy, mainly).
I seriously want someone to tell me why the gameplay of this game is fun, because I don't understand what goes on in that person's head. It's not that I'm unilaterally calling people who enjoy this game dumb(I will call the game dumb, but that's a different story). Strangely enough, when I say I don't understand something about a person, I'm not saying they're dumb. In fact, I'm saying I don't understand something about a person. I didn't think I was being at all obscure about this, personally. If I was, I apologize.
TT is indeed the worst company ever to exist, right Dashing?
Come on dude..let it out...let it out. you know you're just itching to.
I'm not "itching to" anything. I don't seek out any posts I can find by Telltale staff and laugh at and goad them. I am not directly seeking out any single person, attacking them at every turn. I'm not stalking anyone. I have no agenda other than to offer a dissenting viewpoint to the company's direction until they give me some reason to believe that it's either far too late to do any good or proof that the resulting product will actually turn out in a way that is not in tune with their most recent projects.
Telltale is not going in the right direction. The removal of the gameplay from a video game genre is not a good thing. Puzzles and exploration are important, and when you take them out like this, you're harming the genre as a whole. Sam and Max: Season Two(now rebranded as "Beyond Time and Space") was my favorite game of its respective year. I still love Maythe work of certain people who still work with the company, with Jake, Sean Vanaman, and Jared Emerson-Johnson being the names to come off the top of my head. I feel like a company that I once felt can do no wrong is going down a path that is destructive to an entire genre, and to any games they might release.
I don't know, maybe I'm naive when I think that the company is small enough that a small group of dissenters on the forum might be able to turn the tide back. Maybe I'm naive to think that talking about the faults with previous products, what we want and don't want to see in King's Quest, and deeply analyzing why adventure games are fun on their forums might do some good, somewhere down the line. And I'm probably wasting my time trying to get people, here specifically, to think about their games and what really makes the "game" part of a game engaging and fun. But as of right now, Telltale has a hold on three licenses that I love dearly, those being The Walking Dead, Fables, and of course King's Quest. Of these, King's Quest is obviously the most worrisome and the one that most requires a change in Telltale's design philosophy in comparison to their two movie titles. Not only do they need to do a 180 to go back to where they were before, but they need to go farther than they've ever gone before to capture the approval of the community of gamers they're attempting to ensnare by acquiring this license. They need to, for a short time, put themselves in a Sierra-like mindset, get help from Sierra minds, and on the whole entirely revamp the way they do things, at least for this one title. This is something that is hard, but I think it is possible, and I think it's the only right thing to do. They have to treat this franchise with reverence and respect, not as something that was a broken competition that they've now defeated, that they can now hold up as a trophy, and that they can now fix using modern gaming conventions similar to those they've implemented in Back to the Future and Jurassic Park.
I wish you'd gtf off this board.
That is not your call. That is the call of the moderators and Telltale staff with moderating powers on this board. If I overstep my bounds, if I go beyond what the rules allow me to do, then I'll accept any warning or ban that comes. I just hope that it's because I actually made an infraction at the time. For now, I know and like most of the people on this board with moderating powers, and I trust them to make measured decisions in this regard. Not "decisions in my favor", as I've probably deserved a warning or a one-week ban in the past, but I believe they won't make a decision based on not liking the way I think about a certain thing. If I am banned, I'm sure I'll agree with the charge, because the guys who have that call are great people who are far more level-headed than I am. I've been trying, as of late, to avoid insulting other forum members, something I wrongly lapsed into during my experience with Sam and Max: Season Three and the start of Back to the Future. As it stands, I hope to be an active, constructive member of the community for as long as I have the stamina to do so, which honestly is probably only a couple more Back to the Future-style games from evaporating completely.
It's obvious you dont wanna see this game come out or be made, you aren't going to like it no matter what, YOU are the definition of a troll.
The definition of a troll is a person who seeks out trouble with other people, who instigates others without provocation, just for the fun of getting a rise out of them. Someone who laughs off and doesn't care about goading other forum members just to get a reaction out of them.
What does not fit under the definition of a troll is a false version of a person you made up so you can vilify them, a person who disagrees with you, or a person that doesn't like where company's current momentum could take one of his favorite franchises.
Seriously, go. We get you hate TT now, and that you hate this game.
I don't think it's any forum member's right to ask another to "leave". You're not a moderator, I'm not a moderator. Neither of us can just turn to another person and say "GTFO". Now, if you see an infraction on my part, or a series of infractions, try reporting them to a moderator and bring their attention to my malfeasance. Since I don't want to be a troll, a caustic force in the community, or any such thing like that, I'd rather receive official reprimands than continue to do so, if that is in fact what I've been doing.
I can't hate this game. I don't even "hate" Telltale. The company is going in a direction that I strongly disagree with, and I even hate the last thing I've purchased from them, but I don't yet hate the company.
You made your point. Go play TSL.
I'm still not a fan of that game, and I'm still not sure how this is an insult?
As to the 'rape' scene in Phantasmagoria: I do remember and understand the controversy. I think the controversy was from two areas: the fact that I was the writer and designer of that game and was known for family-friendly games and that the subject matter of Phantasmagoria was fairly graphic in many respects. As a creative person, it's always fun and interesting to branch out into other areas of creativity. Even though I dearly loved King's Quest and the other games that I had worked on, I felt like I wanted to do something a bit different, plus, I happen to find the horror genre interesting and wanted to experiment with it as an adventure game. I had always been intrigued by the emotional aspect of adventure gaming – the fact that people get so personally involved – and so, I wanted to see if that emotionality could be translated to horror as well. In fact, in order for horror to succeed the player needs to be passionate and committed. (That's true for books and movies as well.) The build-up of suspense is all emotion. Being 'scared' is gut wrenching. Even though it's always been important to me that players would be personally committed to all of my games, it was even more important for them to become very emotionally involved with Phantasmagoria in order to create the suspense and terror necessary for a successful horror story. I relished the idea of trying.
So, in creating Phantasmagoria, I needed a character (Adrienne) who would be very empathetic to most people; most women would relate to her, and most men would want to protect her. However, she also had to become strong and to survive horrific circumstances. It's not easy, in fact, I would say downright impossible, to portray horrendous circumstances without terrible things happening. If I had tried to candy-coat the story or 'back off' a little, the story of Phantasmagoria wouldn't have worked and it would have been a terrible flop. As it was, it was the most successful game that we had developed up to that point (1994). It sold more than a million copies in less than a year, which, in those days, was phenomenal. I'm sure that nowadays, a game that 'only' sold a million copies in a year would be considered a monumental failure, but, in those days, a 'million-seller' was something that we all strived for; especially noteworthy when it's remembered that Phantasmagoria only ran on computers and not on any game machines. So, in answer to your question about the controversy of the 'rape scene': In my opinion, in order to make the story believable and to emotionally bring the player into the action, it was a necessary scene.
I thought that you think that it was unnecessary scene, while I think that it wasn't bad scene per se, but they failed to use it's full dramatic potential or even half of it.
Although I'm so tired after today's workload that I wouldn't be surprised if I misinterpret your thoughts.
Let's put it this way I'm not a big fan of TV and movies I'd rather have some interactivity with the entertainment I partake in. Telltale has struck a balance in my opinion between a virtual tv/movies sequels but also given me first hand interaction in the story. Its not quite holodeck but it's one step closer to the idea of the 'holonovel'.
Also to a certain degree I've wanted some kind of continuation of BTTF movies, but all the actors are too old for it (or incapable of acting). So this is the next best way.
I've also found fun with Ace Attorney games which are essentially interactive novels with little interactivity.
I thought that you think that it was unnecessary scene, while I think that it wasn't bad scene per se, but they failed to use it's full dramatic potential or even half of it.
No i'm not against those kinds of scenes even explicit sex scenes if they are used in a way that they truly influence the plot, and add to the drama. Like you said she should have been affected alot more than the game showed.
What I meant before was it seemed more gratuitous because it had little direct impact on her personality after the scene.
Let's put it this way I'm not a big fan of TV and movies I'd rather have some interactivity with the entertainment I partake in. Telltale has struck a balance in my opinion between a virtual tv/movies sequels but also given me first hand interaction in the story. Its not quite holodeck but it's one step closer to the idea of the 'holonovel'.
So, interactivity makes all things better? Like, even if it's just you walking between rooms and doing the things you're told to do?
So, interactivity makes all things better? Like, even if it's just you walking between rooms and doing the things you're told to do?
Or am I totally misrepresenting here?
I think some people just like the illusion that they're taking part in the story even if they're not actually influencing it or doing anything significant. Some people like to watch medical dramas on TV. Some people wish they were the doctor, trying to figure out the problem and save the patient. Other people are content with being the guy asked to hand the doctor the scalpel. They can feel like they're playing an important part in the events without the weight of actually having to figure it all out themselves. You're someone who likes to be the doctor. Many fans of Telltale's newer games like to be the other guy in the room. I like being the actual "actor" in games too, but I can understand why other people might enjoy being the "helper."
I like all sorts of styles and I don't expect everything will conform to a 20 year old model for certain game genres. I think stories and the way the user is allowed to interact can be varied.
Culturally speaking the interactive novel was quite popular in Asia, never picked up in the west at least until the release of the DS and Wii. Telltale is going more towards that style than western style adventure games.
Radical Dreamers (a Chrono Trigger sequel) is probably one of my favorite of the traditional Japanese style interactive novels.
I like all sorts of styles and I don't expect everything will conform to a 20 year old model for certain game genres. I think stories and the way the user is allowed to interact can be varied.
But is it really a case of varied interaction? I mean, is it changing the way I'm interacting with Mario to remove the bottomless pits, take out the enemies, and remove all moving obstacles? Or is that just taking away ways to interact because we think some generation or some subset of people is too dumb to figure out that you're supposed to jump when you see a nasty guy?
Like, at what point would you say you're not "changing" anything, but instead simply removing elements and creating something that is just less interactive?
Because I was behind the idea of keyboard controls, I am not against different means of solving puzzles(my favorite adventure games buck the trends of their eras and remain some of the most unique games of all time), and I'm all for innovation and changes(for example, Season Three's "powers" was not an inherently bad idea, just executed poorly.
This may be coming off as accusatory or argumentative, and I'm not sure I'm wording it properly. I'm not trying to be that at all. I'm really wanting to open a dialog about this sort of thing.
I don't think it's about designing things 'for the stupid people' as you suggest. Nor do I think some choices are made to 'dumb down' or limit interactivity. For some decisions of this kind it's more fore style and presentation. It it is a type of art after all.
For example some developers intentionally go retro 8-bit style on some of the new games. This is not because they are too cheap to make HD graphics bit because it is intentionally the look and presentation they want for the product.
The visual novel/interactive film is a style and way of presenting a story. One of many ways of presenting stories, western adventure games are another. Different people appreciate these various presentations.
Seriously if they made BTTF play like old KQ games it really wouldn't have been true to the source material. Marty doesn't really go about stuffing junk down his pants. He's largely running, chasing, dodging kind of action hero. He is not McGyver. Marty talks his way out of most predicaments. So really TT could have screwed over what BTTF is. In my opinion and opinions can vary they have seriously nailed what BTTF is. They have remained very true to the series.uch more than can be said about the old BTTF games on NES and other systems.
By the way I'd get a kick if TT decided to go retro 8-bit era with the graphics with certain modern bells and whistles like lighting and 2.5D!
But is it really a case of varied interaction? I mean, is it changing the way I'm interacting with Mario to remove the bottomless pits, take out the enemies, and remove all moving obstacles? Or is that just taking away ways to interact because we think some generation or some subset of people is too dumb to figure out that you're supposed to jump when you see a nasty guy?
Like, at what point would you say you're not "changing" anything, but instead simply removing elements and creating something that is just less interactive?
This. What Telltale has been consistently doing with their games is not "innovation." It is simply a removing of elements that used to make these types of games fun and challenging. If they continue "innovating" as they have with their last several games, we will all eventually be paying thirty dollars to watch Telltale's most recent episodic movie series.
I don't think it's about designing things 'for the stupid people' as you suggest. Nor do I think some choices are made to 'dumb down' or limit interactivity. For some decisions of this kind it's more fore style and presentation. It it is a type of art after all.
How is the choice to limit the number of interactive objects, to write the script to provide strong hints, to aim the camera at the next thing you're supposed to grab, and all those other things "stylistic"?
The visual novel/interactive film is a style and way of presenting a story. One of many ways of presenting stories, western adventure games are another. Different people appreciate these various presentations.
See, this is what I don't get. When player interaction doesn't matter, then why does the player even need to be interacting? Even in past interactive movies, reflexes were required(and even then, they were a side novelty in arcades), and visual novels generally give the player some form of choice(and don't advertise puzzle-solving in pre-release media).
It seems to me that they're presenting stories in exactly the same way as they always have, but they are removing elements in a way that assumes the player has the effective reasoning abilities of an infant. Hell, in the Mother-in-Law article, Grossman says that he went to far too assume that his players knew that things could be behind other things. Effectively, he doesn't even think we have object permanence.
Comments
LMAO Nicely played.
Sounds like Belligerent Sexual Tension to me.
<laughs villainously over the time that many will lose to that link>
I'm sorry, but I've been looking for some excuse to use that line since I first heard it.
I know not, stand back... Tis' beyond my reach.
That game may have not been the best in the series, but I think it's dialogue brings the biggest smile to my face at times.
The only King's Quest game to have Ye Olde English... If you can even call it that, lol
I don't think that he is slamming KQ fans, because I believe that he is a KQ fan himself. However he is slamming the fan game communities, especially the TSL community, which are somewhat related, but separate communities. You can be KQ fan without being friend of fan games, you can be fan of fangames without even playing the originals or you can belong to both groups. I believe that, like myself, Anakin is KQ fan, but not a member of fan game community. Although I don't understand why he doesn't just ignore the fan fiction if it's not his cup of tea, like most of us do.
Personally I don't understand extremely pessimistic attitude towards TTG, which some posters have. Josh's comments (actual topic of this thread) did sound somewhat promising and personally I have enjoyed playing their Wallace & Gromit, Monkey Island and Sam & Max games, which are much better than many other recent commerical adventure games.
For a taste of the real problem here, someone has to play an episode of the poster boy for terrible adventure games, Back to the Future. Luckily, the first episode can be played for free, so it's very easy to give a playable example of why someone would be, at the very least, worried by Telltale having control over the license to the King's Quest series.
Like Sierra never made a crappy adventure game. :rolleyes:
It's not quite as extreme as I thought in the case of Freddy Pharkas. Read this thread, especially Josho's (Josh Mandel) posts. It's about Sierra's "star" system:
http://forums.adventuregamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22057
The quote I was thinking of is from a different thread here:
http://forums.adventuregamers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=526433&postcount=55
Josh says:
When I was a child... I used to watch Back to the Future over and over again, back to back to back. It was my favorite movie.
When Telltale revealed they were making a game based on the movies, I decided to give them a chance. I like what they have done. I happen to think the game is good. I also happen to like The Devil's Playhouse as well as Tales from Monkey Island. They are both franchises I followed very closely since their inception.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Not all fans are going to hate what Telltale has done. I for one love this company for at least giving franchises, that for the most part, have been ignored by the industry a chance.
Not only do I not understand what a person could find "fun" about the game, I simply do not understand how a person could think there is a game in there at all. At the very least, the part where the player actually plays seems to be an afterthought at best.
I agree with you, I am finding alot of enjoyment out of BTTF, and I enjoyed Devil's Playhouse. There are elements of both that I think could have been improved, but overall they are alot of fun.
They have kept me interested enough, that I will continue to support their company. I will even try out Jurassic Park. If it turns out something that I somehow don't like, I'm certainly not forced to buy future games.
It's as simple as that if I don't like a game, I don't buy it. I may make informed decisions based on demos/previews. But ultimately its up to me to decide if I get the game or not.
There are a couple of old sayings that are apropos;
I.E. There are no explanations for people's preferences.
I.E. Something that one person considers worthless may be considered valuable by someone else.
Please avoid attacking/insulting other people for their opinions thank you.
TT is indeed the worst company ever to exist, right Dashing?
Come on dude..let it out...let it out. you know you're just itching to.
I wish you'd gtf off this board. It's obvious you dont wanna see this game come out or be made, you aren't going to like it no matter what, YOU are the definition of a troll.
Seriously, go. We get you hate TT now, and that you hate this game. You made your point. Go play TSL.
I also didn't like the direction of Phantasmagoria... Rape scene just for the sake of adding a rape scene (that had little impact on the plot).
It kind of suited to the story where possessed husband became more and more abusive, although I think that it felt bit added, because the game never really explored it's effects to the main character. Usually rape victims don't act like nothing happened 5 minutes later.
I don't enjoy fighting games either, but I understand why people like them. They're competitive, can result in a series of successive matches fairly easily, and they have very deep combat mechanics that take time and effort to master. I don't enjoy the majority of shooters, but I can see why people can enjoy shooters. There's gameplay there, and it's about competition, just using a different(but no less valid) skillset than I use in my competitive genres of choice(turn-based strategy, mainly).
I seriously want someone to tell me why the gameplay of this game is fun, because I don't understand what goes on in that person's head. It's not that I'm unilaterally calling people who enjoy this game dumb(I will call the game dumb, but that's a different story). Strangely enough, when I say I don't understand something about a person, I'm not saying they're dumb. In fact, I'm saying I don't understand something about a person. I didn't think I was being at all obscure about this, personally. If I was, I apologize.
I'm not "itching to" anything. I don't seek out any posts I can find by Telltale staff and laugh at and goad them. I am not directly seeking out any single person, attacking them at every turn. I'm not stalking anyone. I have no agenda other than to offer a dissenting viewpoint to the company's direction until they give me some reason to believe that it's either far too late to do any good or proof that the resulting product will actually turn out in a way that is not in tune with their most recent projects.
This is all I want to let out:
I don't know, maybe I'm naive when I think that the company is small enough that a small group of dissenters on the forum might be able to turn the tide back. Maybe I'm naive to think that talking about the faults with previous products, what we want and don't want to see in King's Quest, and deeply analyzing why adventure games are fun on their forums might do some good, somewhere down the line. And I'm probably wasting my time trying to get people, here specifically, to think about their games and what really makes the "game" part of a game engaging and fun. But as of right now, Telltale has a hold on three licenses that I love dearly, those being The Walking Dead, Fables, and of course King's Quest. Of these, King's Quest is obviously the most worrisome and the one that most requires a change in Telltale's design philosophy in comparison to their two movie titles. Not only do they need to do a 180 to go back to where they were before, but they need to go farther than they've ever gone before to capture the approval of the community of gamers they're attempting to ensnare by acquiring this license. They need to, for a short time, put themselves in a Sierra-like mindset, get help from Sierra minds, and on the whole entirely revamp the way they do things, at least for this one title. This is something that is hard, but I think it is possible, and I think it's the only right thing to do. They have to treat this franchise with reverence and respect, not as something that was a broken competition that they've now defeated, that they can now hold up as a trophy, and that they can now fix using modern gaming conventions similar to those they've implemented in Back to the Future and Jurassic Park.
That is not your call. That is the call of the moderators and Telltale staff with moderating powers on this board. If I overstep my bounds, if I go beyond what the rules allow me to do, then I'll accept any warning or ban that comes. I just hope that it's because I actually made an infraction at the time. For now, I know and like most of the people on this board with moderating powers, and I trust them to make measured decisions in this regard. Not "decisions in my favor", as I've probably deserved a warning or a one-week ban in the past, but I believe they won't make a decision based on not liking the way I think about a certain thing. If I am banned, I'm sure I'll agree with the charge, because the guys who have that call are great people who are far more level-headed than I am. I've been trying, as of late, to avoid insulting other forum members, something I wrongly lapsed into during my experience with Sam and Max: Season Three and the start of Back to the Future. As it stands, I hope to be an active, constructive member of the community for as long as I have the stamina to do so, which honestly is probably only a couple more Back to the Future-style games from evaporating completely.
The definition of a troll is a person who seeks out trouble with other people, who instigates others without provocation, just for the fun of getting a rise out of them. Someone who laughs off and doesn't care about goading other forum members just to get a reaction out of them.
What does not fit under the definition of a troll is a false version of a person you made up so you can vilify them, a person who disagrees with you, or a person that doesn't like where company's current momentum could take one of his favorite franchises.
I don't think it's any forum member's right to ask another to "leave". You're not a moderator, I'm not a moderator. Neither of us can just turn to another person and say "GTFO". Now, if you see an infraction on my part, or a series of infractions, try reporting them to a moderator and bring their attention to my malfeasance. Since I don't want to be a troll, a caustic force in the community, or any such thing like that, I'd rather receive official reprimands than continue to do so, if that is in fact what I've been doing.
I can't hate this game. I don't even "hate" Telltale. The company is going in a direction that I strongly disagree with, and I even hate the last thing I've purchased from them, but I don't yet hate the company.
I'm still not a fan of that game, and I'm still not sure how this is an insult?
-Source
I thought that you think that it was unnecessary scene, while I think that it wasn't bad scene per se, but they failed to use it's full dramatic potential or even half of it.
Although I'm so tired after today's workload that I wouldn't be surprised if I misinterpret your thoughts.
Also to a certain degree I've wanted some kind of continuation of BTTF movies, but all the actors are too old for it (or incapable of acting). So this is the next best way.
I've also found fun with Ace Attorney games which are essentially interactive novels with little interactivity.
No i'm not against those kinds of scenes even explicit sex scenes if they are used in a way that they truly influence the plot, and add to the drama. Like you said she should have been affected alot more than the game showed.
What I meant before was it seemed more gratuitous because it had little direct impact on her personality after the scene.
Or am I totally misrepresenting here?
I think some people just like the illusion that they're taking part in the story even if they're not actually influencing it or doing anything significant. Some people like to watch medical dramas on TV. Some people wish they were the doctor, trying to figure out the problem and save the patient. Other people are content with being the guy asked to hand the doctor the scalpel. They can feel like they're playing an important part in the events without the weight of actually having to figure it all out themselves. You're someone who likes to be the doctor. Many fans of Telltale's newer games like to be the other guy in the room. I like being the actual "actor" in games too, but I can understand why other people might enjoy being the "helper."
Culturally speaking the interactive novel was quite popular in Asia, never picked up in the west at least until the release of the DS and Wii. Telltale is going more towards that style than western style adventure games.
Radical Dreamers (a Chrono Trigger sequel) is probably one of my favorite of the traditional Japanese style interactive novels.
Like, at what point would you say you're not "changing" anything, but instead simply removing elements and creating something that is just less interactive?
Because I was behind the idea of keyboard controls, I am not against different means of solving puzzles(my favorite adventure games buck the trends of their eras and remain some of the most unique games of all time), and I'm all for innovation and changes(for example, Season Three's "powers" was not an inherently bad idea, just executed poorly.
This may be coming off as accusatory or argumentative, and I'm not sure I'm wording it properly. I'm not trying to be that at all. I'm really wanting to open a dialog about this sort of thing.
It was such a shame... I would have liked Sam Neill for the part if they were casting Hollywood.
For example some developers intentionally go retro 8-bit style on some of the new games. This is not because they are too cheap to make HD graphics bit because it is intentionally the look and presentation they want for the product.
The visual novel/interactive film is a style and way of presenting a story. One of many ways of presenting stories, western adventure games are another. Different people appreciate these various presentations.
Seriously if they made BTTF play like old KQ games it really wouldn't have been true to the source material. Marty doesn't really go about stuffing junk down his pants. He's largely running, chasing, dodging kind of action hero. He is not McGyver. Marty talks his way out of most predicaments. So really TT could have screwed over what BTTF is. In my opinion and opinions can vary they have seriously nailed what BTTF is. They have remained very true to the series.uch more than can be said about the old BTTF games on NES and other systems.
By the way I'd get a kick if TT decided to go retro 8-bit era with the graphics with certain modern bells and whistles like lighting and 2.5D!
This. What Telltale has been consistently doing with their games is not "innovation." It is simply a removing of elements that used to make these types of games fun and challenging. If they continue "innovating" as they have with their last several games, we will all eventually be paying thirty dollars to watch Telltale's most recent episodic movie series.
See, this is what I don't get. When player interaction doesn't matter, then why does the player even need to be interacting? Even in past interactive movies, reflexes were required(and even then, they were a side novelty in arcades), and visual novels generally give the player some form of choice(and don't advertise puzzle-solving in pre-release media).
It seems to me that they're presenting stories in exactly the same way as they always have, but they are removing elements in a way that assumes the player has the effective reasoning abilities of an infant. Hell, in the Mother-in-Law article, Grossman says that he went to far too assume that his players knew that things could be behind other things. Effectively, he doesn't even think we have object permanence.