I wonder if Telltale Games realized this would be their demographic when they started up in 2004.
No, No, you've got it all wrong mate.
Its just a very small minor insignificant statement of my natural feelings for the game because I don't really care for the puzzles concerning the bttf game. I was more interested in the continuation of the story.
I know telltales main target market and psychographics concern individuals who are deeply into puzzle solving, using your brain etc. Im played most of their other game releases and im just saying that for this particular one, I don't mind that the puzzles were easy.
Makes me wonder though, if a different game developer made this exact same game. I wonder what the peoples reactions would be.
YES!! YES!!! AND YES!!!! I would DEFINITELY buy season 2, 3, 4 and as many as telltale wants to make as long as the stories don't start getting cheesy. But if they keep up the good work, the YES I would always buy them, it's my, and about 1 million others', favorite film and now film based game.
So Telltale: PLEASE KEEP THEM COMING!!! Looking forward to the new season, hopefully this year around Christmas, BUT NO RUSH, rushing makes bad games. So take your time and "thrill me!" (Those who have played OUTATIME will understand my reference quote)
I would, I just like to see the story more than want to play a game. While some elements were a little weak, I think after seeing the success and feedback of S1 and the demand for a S2 they will take our suggestions serious enough to make the story stronger and the game play more challenging. If they do, S2 will be an enormous hit. Here's to hoping.
I would absolutely buy a second season! After finishing Episode 5 and looking back on the overall experience, Telltale has convinced me that they can make a fun BTTF game that is true to the feel of the movies. I can sympathize with people who want harder puzzles, though.
I'd be careful with that. While not stellar, Back to the Future's reviews have been fairly positive. There is only one professional reviewer that I've found that wasn't completely asleep at the wheel. Most reviews seem like they're just phoning it in, and they barely even take note of the genre as they sweep this thing by with middling scores between giving 9s and 10s to majorly hyped titles that buy advertising from them.
Yes, obviously every reviewer with a different opinion then yours is phoning it in, even if they're the majority. Dude, seriously?
Anyways, I would buy a Season 2 in a heartbeat. I was sad to see this end.
Yes, obviously every reviewer with a different opinion then yours is phoning it in, even if they're the majority. Dude, seriously?
Anyways, I would buy a Season 2 in a heartbeat. I was sad to see this end.
Anyone reviewing it as a game is obligated to give it an abysmally low score, because, quite simply, it is a marginally interactive movie. It is by no means a game, as games must require either thought or skill on the part of the player. Love the storyline and characters and whatever other elements you want, but as a game, it is putrid.
I would definitely buy a second season. In fact I would pre-order it the second telltale notified me of my opportunity to do so
They are pretty busy with a several new franchises in development, I'd rather wait longer for a follow-up than have the talented people who make a telltale game a telltale game spread too thin across many projects.
The 'telltale style' of their games (strong stories and characters, the style of humour, the kind of puzzles) is something I really hope they keep as they grow as a company.
Would love more difficult puzzles and more of them, but I thoroughly enjoyed the balance they struck with season 1 even if it was IMO too easy even with hints turned off (thanks to the team for at least providing the multiple hint levels option).
I wasn't sure about how this game would stack up, but it was obvious that the Telltale team put a lot of love and hard work into it -- it had so many nods to the trilogy in events, images, spoken lines and other areas that it really rang true.
The new characters -- Artie, Trixie, Judge Brown, Danny Parker, and Edna -- all fit well within the established universe.
As one who is not much of a "gamer," I enjoyed the pace, and thought the puzzles were just right. I wanted to have a "cinematic" experience, and that was delivered beautifully.
Extra kudos to Christopher Lloyd, A.J. Locascio (he is the discovery of the year!), Claudia Wells, Michael J. Fox(!) and the rest of the cast for making it everything I hoped it would be.
If the same team works on a second "season," I'd be more than happy to hop on board the time train!
Anyone reviewing it as a game is obligated to give it an abysmally low score, because, quite simply, it is a marginally interactive movie. It is by no means a game, as games must require either thought or skill on the part of the player. Love the storyline and characters and whatever other elements you want, but as a game, it is putrid.
There a lot of people in this thread who really need to click on that.
There a lot of people in this thread who really need to click on that.
There are almost no interactive objects on each screen. Fact.
The majority of screens can be completed simply by clicking on any clickable objects on screen. Fact.
You almost never have to (or are even able to) leave an area in order to complete a puzzle. Fact.
Just because you like the story does not make it a good game. It is objectively a bad game, in that the player is treated as though they have the mental capacity of a 3 year old. The game holds your hand every step of the way.
When the genre your game places itself in demands a nice helping of challenging puzzles, and your game provides approximately none, you have a bad game on your hands. If someone made an FPS where there was only 1 enemy per level and he was a pushover, it would be a bad game, regardless of how good the presentation and storyline was.
There a lot of people in this thread who really need to click on that.
I clicked on it and played (and got it all right! Yay!).
Is it a fact, or an opinion, that BttF doesn't have a lot of puzzles, and that the existing puzzles often involve clicking on the only clickable item?
Is it a fact, or an opinion, that a dialogue tree with only one option is an interactive cutscene?
Is it a fact, or an opinion, that games require thought or skill on the part of the player? (to quote Shodan)
In my opinion, BttF qualifies as a game (barely) but not as a good game. I think when it's more enjoyable to watch a walkthrough than play it yourself, there is a problem.
There a lot of people in this thread who really need to click on that.
That game is obviously aimed at children, and in my opinion it is actually more challenging than BTTF in that there is actually a chance of getting things wrong. The BTTF game holds your hand so much, with all its hints and limited interactions, that it is barely more complex than "Binky's Facts and Opinions". For example, the young Emmett / his father reconciliation "puzzle" in episode 5. It's not a puzzle. Say everything to Emmett's father. Say everything to Emmett. Repeat until cutscene ensues. (Contrast this with the dialogue puzzles in Tales of Monkey Island, which are actual puzzles where you must use some kind of knowledge and/or reasoning to select the correct option). I would say that BTTF's "just click everything" approach is actually LESS complex than the Binky's Facts and Opinions "click the one correct answer" model.
I enjoyed the BTTF game's story, but was disappointed in the lack of opportunity for interaction in the game as a whole. Easy puzzles are actually totally fine by me. But when my sole job is to run through the tunnel of invisible walls between cutscenes (ep 4), or click on the single available dialogue option to make the cutscene keep going (ep 5), then I will be disappointed at my lack of opportunity to interact with the game world in any meaningful way.
I guess I'm just an adventure gamer from childhood, and although I love BTTF, I love the challenge and sense of discovery in a real adventure game more.
There are almost no interactive objects on each screen. Fact.
The majority of screens can be completed simply by clicking on any clickable objects on screen. Fact.
You almost never have to (or are even able to) leave an area in order to complete a puzzle. Fact.
Just because you like the story does not make it a good game. It is objectively a bad game, in that the player is treated as though they have the mental capacity of a 3 year old. The game holds your hand every step of the way.
When the genre your game places itself in demands a nice helping of challenging puzzles, and your game provides approximately none, you have a bad game on your hands. If someone made an FPS where there was only 1 enemy per level and he was a pushover, it would be a bad game, regardless of how good the presentation and storyline was.
The problem is that you assume everyone plays adventure games for the puzzles alone. That's fine if you do, but to a lot of people the puzzles are secondary, maybe even unnecessary depending on who you ask. You're also assuming everyone else views these traits as bad things- news flash: you're wrong. More importantly: I completely 100% disagree with you that the puzzles here are too easy. While I'm by no means a connoisseur, I've played my share of adventure games. The thing is, I never find adventure game puzzles to be hard. The only times when they get hard is when the game forces you to take everything in your inventory and rub it on everything else in the game because it has given you absolutely no idea what needs to be done next, forcing you to do random things until you stumble upon a random answer. That isn't a puzzle, as a puzzle has visible pieces and generally gives you an idea of what needs to be done. No, it's leaving you blindfolded in a large room that has no visible door. It's challenging, but for the wrong reasons.
If that's your idea of fun, then that's fine. If you don't like BttF The Game for whatever reason, that's fine. It's just that to me, and a lot of other people for that matter, the gameplay was fine. Believe it or not, there actually were times that I got stuck. While it never took me more than fifteen or twenty minutes to solve a puzzle, I don't see why I should consider that a bad thing. If it takes any longer then that, then odds are we have one of those completely random wander-around-aimlessly-for-hours 'puzzles' that I mentioned before. By that point, the game would immediately stop being fun and I'd probably just end up watching someone else play it on Youtube. Could they have been a little harder and have avoided that problem? Sure, in fact I'd welcome some good dialogue-box puzzles like the ones puzzlebox mentioned. That doesn't mean I can't like what we got, though.
I just kindly ask that you stop replying to every single person who disagrees and shoving your opinion down their throats. Believe it or not, there's no such thing as objectively bad. There's subjectively bad, there's even "everyone on the Earth hates it and thinks it's bad" but guess what? That's still subjectively bad. In order for something to be objective, it has to have basis in facts. The things you listed may be facts (Though even that's disputable, but I have no desire to go picking through the entire game and that's besides the point anyways), but that doesn't make them bad, since not everyone sees those as bad traits You can say the game objectively has few puzzles, you can say the game objectively has few clickable objects, you can even say it's objective that a lot of people don't like the game. But fact of the matter is, there are a lot of people who do like the game- in fact, they seem to be the majority. While no one's calling the game a masterpiece, you're not going to convince the people who like it that it sucks, just as I can't force you to like the game. What does it matter if people disagree with you, I liked Shadow the Hedgehog and didn't like Beyond Good & Evil for crying out loud. Live with it. We can respect your opinions, why can't you respect ours?
That game is obviously aimed at children, and in my opinion it is actually more challenging than BTTF in that there is actually a chance of getting things wrong. The BTTF game holds your hand so much, with all its hints and limited interactions, that it is barely more complex than "Binky's Facts and Opinions". For example, the young Emmett / his father reconciliation "puzzle" in episode 5. It's not a puzzle. Say everything to Emmett's father. Say everything to Emmett. Repeat until cutscene ensues. (Contrast this with the dialogue puzzles in Tales of Monkey Island, which are actual puzzles where you must use some kind of knowledge and/or reasoning to select the correct option). I would say that BTTF's "just click everything" approach is actually LESS complex than the Binky's Facts and Opinions "click the one correct answer" model.
I enjoyed the BTTF game's story, but was disappointed in the lack of opportunity for interaction in the game as a whole. Easy puzzles are actually totally fine by me. But when my sole job is to run through the tunnel of invisible walls between cutscenes (ep 4), or click on the single available dialogue option to make the cutscene keep going (ep 5), then I will be disappointed at my lack of opportunity to interact with the game world in any meaningful way.
I guess I'm just an adventure gamer from childhood, and although I love BTTF, I love the challenge and sense of discovery in a real adventure game more.
This is one of the best posts I've read in a long time and it makes me smile.
I'm pretty freaking sick of the cries of PUZZLES EASY, RUINED FOREVER!!!1! The whole game is about the story, NOT the puzzles, not the gameplay. To address some common complaints:
1. It's barely a game!
You've missed the point, friend. Sorry you misinterpreted the purpose of the game. It's about Back to the Future, the characters, the story. Everything else serves those purposes, everything else takes a back seat. That includes gameplay.
Some of you say it's barely more than an interactive movie, that there are more cutscenes than game.
Try Metal Gear Solid 4 and come back. BTTF is not the worst offender in this regard.
As for the puzzles, some of them could have been better (the worst offender being trapping Kid Tannen in the rocket car, and I still have no idea exactly what I'm supposed to be doing aiming the flux links. Am I aiming for a sweet spot or keeping aim steady for a set time? I think the game just mercifully let me pass.) but they're hardly the worst ever. I thought the soup kitchen puzzle was clever, and the password one, and several more I don't feel like listing because I'm going off track.
2.Handholding
I don't remember what the default hint level was in episode 1, but I think it was pretty low later on. If you mean your goals periodically popping up, I think every open world game ever does that. I like it since it makes me feel like I'm progressing. It's sort of rewarding. If you mean the new hint system, that's bull. You don't ever have to use it. It isn't annoying, either. Would you rather have "HEY, LISTEN! HEY, LISTEN!" ?
Not to say there are no problems. I find the animation to be the worst part of the game. I like the art style, but as is the animation is REALLY bad, and it makes the game feel unfinished. In fact, the sequence where you escape with FCB in episode 4 was downright embarrassing. Also, the voice acting of certain characters (Biff, Lorraine in episode 1) really pulled me out of the game because of how bad they were.
But even with all its flaws, it's still a great game. Comparing this with the likes of ET and Big Rigs is.... I don't even
Anyway, I think people (maybe even I) are taking this WAY too seriously. It's a video game, it's not a valid reason to be at each others throats.
The problem is that you assume everyone plays adventure games for the puzzles alone. That's fine if you do, but to a lot of people the puzzles are secondary, maybe even unnecessary depending on who you ask. You're also assuming everyone else views these traits as bad things- news flash: you're wrong.
Being an adventure game IS entirely about puzzles. If you don't include puzzles, it is an interactive movie, not an adventure game.
but that doesn't make them bad, since not everyone sees those as bad traits You can say the game objectively has few puzzles, you can say the game objectively has few clickable objects
When the entire point of the adventure game genre existing is puzzles and interactivity, and the game is severely lacking in BOTH, how does that not make it objectively bad at being an adventure game?
You've missed the point, friend. Sorry you misinterpreted the purpose of the game. It's about Back to the Future, the characters, the story. Everything else serves those purposes, everything else takes a back seat. That includes gameplay.
The fact remains, it is supposed to be a game (or at least, the name implies as much), therefore, it must feature some form of gameplay that is engaging and fun for the player. Instead, it features a storyline where you essentially click to continue watching it. Even as far as simply being an interactive movie, it fails due to its complete and utter lack of interactivity, or any meaningful choices. It may as well have simply been a machinima and not required any player input.
I like the art style, but as is the animation is REALLY bad, and it makes the game feel unfinished. In fact, the sequence where you escape with FCB in episode 4 was downright embarrassing. Also, the voice acting of certain characters (Biff, Lorraine in episode 1) really pulled me out of the game because of how bad they were.
No one ever said that it didn't mean you couldn't like it. It just means it's not a good game.
Dude, whenever you call a game 'objectively bad', whenever you say that all the reviewers are wrong for not sharing your opinion and are 'obligated' to give the game a bad score, whenever you say something like:
Love the storyline and characters and whatever other elements you want, but as a game, it is putrid.
that is EXACTLY what you're doing. You are telling us we can like the game, but we can't like the gameplay, which makes no sense.
Also, puzzles really aren't as mandatory as you're make them out to be. It's less like having an FPS with only one enemy and more like having an FPS without multiplayer. It's expected, but it's not necessary and you can still make a great game without it. (That, and I've always viewed adventure games as being little more then interactive movies to begin with) It's fine if you want puzzles, but it's possible to have a fantastic adventure game that's really just about the story with hardly any puzzles. I'd like to quote a comment I read on Blistered Thumbs by the guy who wrote the BttF Episode 3 review. In some ways it's not really all that different from what I said earlier, but he put it way better then I ever could.
Actually I do not have to admit to anything. While I certainly respect your right to your own opinion, I in no way share it. The puzzles are well integrated into the plot. They may or may not be easy, but they all more or less make sense within the context of what is happening around Marty.
Also, I have always felt that the point of adventure games, far more than almost any other genre within the medium, is to tell a story and create an interactive experience. You can see this idea in the text adventure games that were the earliest form of the genre. Puzzles are secondary to this. You can have an amazing, wonderful adventure game that is entirely dialogue and character driven and that has not a single ‘puzzle’, in the classical sense, in it at all. An adventure game should not be jugded, in my opinion, by how many arbitrary puzzles are thrown into the game.
Nor did I say I thought the puzzles in EP 3 were hard or easy, but instead simply stated that those who were not challenged by previous episodes would likely feel the same way about this one. I have not been ‘challenged’ by any Telltale game I have ever played nor am I often stymied in adventure games in general. The only time that I find a true ‘challenge’ in adventure games is when developers throw in non-sequitur/nonsense puzzles and quiet frankly those are experiences I am more than happy to do with out. I play adventure games, and games in general for that matter, as much for the experience as anything else and that is what BttF:tG excels at: creating a memorable experience.
Finally, if you believe that this is first and foremost an adventure game aimed at a more casual audience, why then are you complaining about the aspects of it that reflect this? Are you really stating that you think it would have been appropriate for Telltale to make a Back to the Future game with ‘Serria Hard’ level of difficulty? Or are you simply disappointed by them making a causal friendly game in the first place? Either way, it is a bit of fallacy to imply that only Telltale fans who have been angered by Back to the Future are the loyal ones. BttF is exactly what I expected from the company, ie a fun and challenge light series of adventure games, and I say this as someone who has purchased every tittle they have released (except the poker one cause well I have never enjoyed that game). If you were honestly expecting anything else, I respectfully believe that you were deluding yourself. Thanks for the comment, hopefully you will enjoy Telltale’s future projects more, though if you cannot stand cinematic games I doubt Jurassic Park will be your cup of tea.
Also, puzzles really aren't as mandatory as you're make them out to be. It's less like having an FPS with only one enemy and more like having an FPS without multiplayer. It's expected, but it's not necessary and you can still make a great game without it. (That, and I've always viewed adventure games as being little more then interactive movies to begin with) It's fine if you want puzzles, but it's possible to have a fantastic adventure game that's really just about the story with hardly any puzzles.
Talk about not understanding the difference between fact and opinion! Who says gameplay is optional in adventure games, that adventure games are only about story? If story is more important to you -- that's fine. But please refrain from defining the genre based on your personal preferences. Any objective study of the history of the adventure game genre, or familiarity with the adventure game community, would indicate that both story and puzzles are equally important; different games will balance the two differently, but neither is optional. All adventure games widely recognized as great, that still show up on top 10 lists years after their release -- games like Sierra's, Lucasarts', Broken Sword, Myst, Zork, etc. -- are known for both story and puzzles/gameplay.
Talk about not understanding the difference between fact and opinion! Who says gameplay is optional in adventure games, that adventure games are only about story? If story is more important to you -- that's fine. But please refrain from defining the genre based on your personal preferences. Any objective study of the history of the adventure game genre, or familiarity with the adventure game community, would indicate that both story and puzzles are equally important; different games will balance the two differently, but neither is optional. All adventure games widely recognized as great, that still show up on top 10 lists years after their release -- games like Sierra's, Lucasarts', Broken Sword, Myst, Zork, etc. -- are known for both story and puzzles/gameplay.
I never said they weren't common or unexpected, or that the genre is not known for having puzzles, and I absolutely never put anything more then my opinion on there. All I am saying is that it's perfectly possible to make a great adventure game and not have the puzzles define the majority of the gameplay. Gameplay =/= Puzzles. What I'm trying to say is that puzzles, common as they may be, are still secondary to what makes the adventure genre great. Are you going to remember an adventure game that had a crappy story and crappy characters but had good puzzles? Probably not, because the story is the meat and bones of what makes the genre work. If you take an adventure game and remove the puzzles, you still have an adventure game. But if you take away the story and keep the puzzles, then it's now a puzzle game. Just because they're common doesn't make them 100% vital.
Phoenix Wright would fit this description. While it might not be a 'traditional' adventure game in the sense we're talking about, it still has all the common elements and is officially classified as one. The most it has to offer in terms of puzzles are Where's Waldo-esque sequences and having to spot contradictions using basic logic. You never have to combine items, and you literally can't use items on other items. There are absolutely no puzzles of the traditional kind. If there are, then they're incredibly simplistic and forgettable. (I do remember having to glue a vase back together, but it shouldn't take anyone more then ten seconds. That, and it's one puzzle out of five games) But here's the kicker- It's an extremely popular franchise that's helped to revive the genre. People love the characters and the stories, and you never hear anyone going "Man I felt so smart when I found the safe code on the back of that slip of paper."
To summarize: Just because puzzles are common in adventure games, it doesn't make them vital. Even if the puzzles are good, the game is going to suck big-time if the story is bad and forgettable. But if you take the puzzles out, it can still be awesome.
Also, puzzles really aren't as mandatory as you're make them out to be. It's less like having an FPS with only one enemy and more like having an FPS without multiplayer. It's expected, but it's not necessary and you can still make a great game without it.
You've completely missed the point of adventure gaming if you think puzzles are optional. Puzzles are as optional for an adventure game as shooting is for a shooter.
Also, the "ALL PUZZLES IN ALL ADVENTURE GAMES ARE SO EASY FOR ME THAT I DIDN'T NOTICE BTTF'S PUZZLES WERE THE EASIEST AND MOST POORLY DESIGNED IN HISTORY" argument is total bull, by the way. If you think the only options for puzzle difficulty are "so easy it solves itself" and "completely impossible without resorting to random item combination", I don't know what to tell you, but there are plenty of great puzzles in Monkey Island, Sam and Max, Broken Sword, Day of the Tentacle, etc. that are neither immensely easy nor illogical. The entire reason that most of these games are enjoyable to play is that you feel like you have actually accomplished something by completing a puzzle using rational thought. When the solution is given to you on a silver platter, it's just not satisfying at all.
You've completely missed the point of adventure gaming if you think puzzles are optional. Puzzles are as optional for an adventure game as shooting is for a shooter.
Also, the "ALL PUZZLES IN ALL ADVENTURE GAMES ARE SO EASY FOR ME THAT I DIDN'T NOTICE BTTF'S PUZZLES WERE THE EASIEST AND MOST POORLY DESIGNED IN HISTORY" argument is total bull, by the way.
So is putting words in my mouth, thank you. Just because I didn't see the puzzles as being harder then any other (good) adventure game doesn't mean I would excuse them for being too easy. But the thing is, as hard as this is apparently for you to grasp: I don't think these puzzles were extremely easy, poorly designed, or not fun to play. I liked the soup kitchen puzzle, the word game puzzle, the guitar duel puzzle (ESPECIALLY that one), aging the cleaning formula, Emmet's mental alignment meter, the glass house, rescuing FCB from Edna, saving the saloon, getting insane Edna to relive her memories and all the other ones for that matter. (Light on puzzles my ass, by the way)
Look, this is reaching the point where I can't really say anything that I haven't already said, or quote people that I haven't already quoted. We have both wasted far too much time arguing this trivial crap. By all means type a response to this if you want (So long as it has substance and doesn't just insult my intelligence for liking "Easy puzzles", anyway) I might even read it in a day or two. But for now, I'm done.
What I'm trying to say is that puzzles, common as they may be, are still secondary to what makes the adventure genre great.
Again, puzzles might be secondary in adventure games to you, but that's your personal preference, your personal opinion and you are not entitled to define the genre on that basis.
... because the story is the meat and bones of what makes the genre work.
Again, your personal opinion; there are vast numbers of adventure game players who would disagree, who even believe that puzzles are the meat and bones of adventure games, that gameplay is "what makes the genre work", as it does for any game genre. It would be wrong for them to define adventure games on that preference, and it's wrong for you to define it on yours.
If you take an adventure game and remove the puzzles, you still have an adventure game.
No you do not. You have interactive fiction, an interactive movie, an interactive "entertainment software product" of some kind, and it might even be a great one. But you do not have an adventure game without gameplay.
How about you guys leave the BITCHING somewhere else? This is a thread about a simple question. There are two threads, one for people to praise the game, another for people who are disappointed. Dig them up if you must, but stop going around in circles about this.
Phazon, face it. Some people just do not like the game, and no endless amount of any words you could throw at them will convince them otherwise. I personally played this game for the story, and I'm not the only one of my BTTF-nerd friends that loved this game. But I'm not going to try and convince nay-sayers to change their minds. Just like I won't let them change mine. What's important is HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT.
Now, that said, to get back on the ACTUAL TOPIC: I would like to say that I'd definitely buy a season 2 given two provisos: 1) The entire voice cast comes back and 2) That they follow up on the ending well, and not have it be a throwaway plot point like BTTF2.
To say that a story is all that is necessary for an adventure game is to entirely misunderstand the structure of the genre. Is your favorite film an adventure game? It doesn't contain puzzles or gameplay, but most likely has a narrative you find compelling, moreso even than the greatest adventure games. If that film is, indeed, not a great adventure game, then why? If it's missing only an optional aspect of the experience, what makes it not a great adventure game?
"What makes the genre work", in no uncertain terms, is the marriage of world and puzzles. While many of the great adventure games have been inherently narrative, the first real adventure game, "Colossal Cave Adventure", was essentially just an interactive maze based on the designer's spelunking experiences. The lack of a narrative or story does not keep a game from being an adventure, as long as you are solving puzzles, or perhaps a single large puzzle, throughout the experience, in a world that is created in such a way as to react to your actions. Narratives have become a genre staple for a reason, however. They provide excellent incentive to continue, they provide a framing and direction for the world you're in, they provide a role for the player character, they include characters with whom to interact, and they provide framing and set-up for puzzles that are otherwise impossible in a world that simply exists. For these reasons, though narrative is ostensibly optional, it is such a useful tool that it is included in almost all adventures. All the same, a person simply cannot confuse the skeleton for the meat, or proclaim that a beast can function fine without a skeleton. When either is missing or entirely deficient, or the two simply do not work in tandem(say, if puzzles rely on moon logic that doesn't seem to flow naturally from the game world), then you have an adventure game that is simply poorly constructed.
Wow, I usually don't agree with Rather Dashing's posts, but that last one was pure win. In my eyes, a game does not need to have an epic story. It just needs to be fun and engaging to play. Take Mario or Sonic, for example. They have next to no plot, but they are still fun to play (in my opinion).
Also, for the record, I voted "No!" on this poll. What are the mods going to do, delete me?
Wow, I usually don't agree with Rather Dashing's posts, but that last one was pure win. In my eyes, a game does not need to have an epic story. It just needs to be fun and engaging to play. Take Mario or Sonic, for example. They have next to no plot, but they are still fun to play (in my opinion).
Also, for the record, I voted "No!" on this poll. What are the mods going to do, delete me?
This isn't a game that is advertising its compelling game play, it is one advertising its story. That is what most people come to play this game for, the story.
You sir are why Telltale Games is now making interactive movies and not adventure games.
Don't blame me because a formula works. Perhaps for Jurassic Park the game play is more of the picture, but if I watch any of the trailers, it all shows off the story, and no game play. Bttf isn't about game play. It is a nice addition, but it isn't the core of the game.
This is no interactive movie, there is a slight challenge to it. The reason you keep on playing is to see more parts of the story. This is why they show off the next episode like they would in the movie, it keeps you going. Not the puzzles. Yet those puzzles still exist.
Think what you want, but bttf will always be this way, it is how the movies were set up, it is how the games are too. Story comes first in such a game. It is being advertised as such.
This isn't a game that is advertising its compelling game play, it is one advertising its story. That is what most people come to play this game for, the story.
And yet, it includes "The Game" prominently in the title.
Yes, it does. Because it's a game based on Back to the Future. A game. The fact that it is a game is basically inarguable. Just because you don't like it does not make it not a game.
And having 'The Game' in the title does not mean they're advertising gameplay. It's differentiating itself from the film of the same name.
Yes, it does. Because it's a game based on Back to the Future. A game. The fact that it is a game is basically inarguable. Just because you don't like it does not make it not a game.
And having 'The Game' in the title does not mean they're advertising gameplay. It's differentiating itself from the film of the same name.
By the nature of being a game, it must contain quality and somewhat challenging gameplay in order to be considered a satisfying experience as a game.
Also, I have never seen any advertising for BttF:TG that said "THIS GAME IS ALL ABOUT THE STORY, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE GAMEPLAY, THERE'S BARELY ANY" so why on earth would I ever expect the gameplay to be atrociously simple? Further, how is that an excuse for bad gameplay?
And to paraphrase Dashing's post earlier, if gameplay is so optional to the experience, then there have already been 3 prior BttF "adventure games" made, by the names of Back to the Future, Back to the Future Part II, and Back to the Future Part III. Those were such great games. Oh, and there was already an episodic "adventure game" made by the name of Back to the Future: The Animated Series, too, I guess.
i've been reading some comments and a lot of people are disappointed in the BTTF game series. yes i admit its kind of a crappy game, but at the same time great!! why would a person buy this is they weren't BTTF fans? the whole point in why i bought this was to see a continuing story with doc, einie, and marty. It was a FANTASTIC plotline. I love it!!! I would so buy a second season of this to see what happens. I'm actually dying to see what happens!!
if people bought this as a "game," sorry you weren't fully satisfied. But as a loyal fan of the BTTF movie franchise, this wholly thrilled me with each of its complicated concepts, hilarious dialogue, and shocking plot twists!
Comments
I wonder if Telltale Games realized this would be their demographic when they started up in 2004.
No, No, you've got it all wrong mate.
Its just a very small minor insignificant statement of my natural feelings for the game because I don't really care for the puzzles concerning the bttf game. I was more interested in the continuation of the story.
I know telltales main target market and psychographics concern individuals who are deeply into puzzle solving, using your brain etc. Im played most of their other game releases and im just saying that for this particular one, I don't mind that the puzzles were easy.
Makes me wonder though, if a different game developer made this exact same game. I wonder what the peoples reactions would be.
So Telltale: PLEASE KEEP THEM COMING!!! Looking forward to the new season, hopefully this year around Christmas, BUT NO RUSH, rushing makes bad games. So take your time and "thrill me!" (Those who have played OUTATIME will understand my reference quote)
But somehow episode 5 was actually fun to play.
So that changed my mind and gets me into wanting another season.
I think it was that stand-off with Edna and Beauregard and the twin DeLorean chase. That was the coolest thing ever.
Plus, HOVERBOARD.
Yes, obviously every reviewer with a different opinion then yours is phoning it in, even if they're the majority. Dude, seriously?
Anyways, I would buy a Season 2 in a heartbeat. I was sad to see this end.
I think this is Telltale's new slogan.
Anyone reviewing it as a game is obligated to give it an abysmally low score, because, quite simply, it is a marginally interactive movie. It is by no means a game, as games must require either thought or skill on the part of the player. Love the storyline and characters and whatever other elements you want, but as a game, it is putrid.
They are pretty busy with a several new franchises in development, I'd rather wait longer for a follow-up than have the talented people who make a telltale game a telltale game spread too thin across many projects.
The 'telltale style' of their games (strong stories and characters, the style of humour, the kind of puzzles) is something I really hope they keep as they grow as a company.
Would love more difficult puzzles and more of them, but I thoroughly enjoyed the balance they struck with season 1 even if it was IMO too easy even with hints turned off (thanks to the team for at least providing the multiple hint levels option).
The new characters -- Artie, Trixie, Judge Brown, Danny Parker, and Edna -- all fit well within the established universe.
As one who is not much of a "gamer," I enjoyed the pace, and thought the puzzles were just right. I wanted to have a "cinematic" experience, and that was delivered beautifully.
Extra kudos to Christopher Lloyd, A.J. Locascio (he is the discovery of the year!), Claudia Wells, Michael J. Fox(!) and the rest of the cast for making it everything I hoped it would be.
If the same team works on a second "season," I'd be more than happy to hop on board the time train!
There a lot of people in this thread who really need to click on that.
There are almost no interactive objects on each screen. Fact.
The majority of screens can be completed simply by clicking on any clickable objects on screen. Fact.
You almost never have to (or are even able to) leave an area in order to complete a puzzle. Fact.
Just because you like the story does not make it a good game. It is objectively a bad game, in that the player is treated as though they have the mental capacity of a 3 year old. The game holds your hand every step of the way.
When the genre your game places itself in demands a nice helping of challenging puzzles, and your game provides approximately none, you have a bad game on your hands. If someone made an FPS where there was only 1 enemy per level and he was a pushover, it would be a bad game, regardless of how good the presentation and storyline was.
I clicked on it and played (and got it all right! Yay!).
Is it a fact, or an opinion, that BttF doesn't have a lot of puzzles, and that the existing puzzles often involve clicking on the only clickable item?
Is it a fact, or an opinion, that a dialogue tree with only one option is an interactive cutscene?
Is it a fact, or an opinion, that games require thought or skill on the part of the player? (to quote Shodan)
In my opinion, BttF qualifies as a game (barely) but not as a good game. I think when it's more enjoyable to watch a walkthrough than play it yourself, there is a problem.
That game is obviously aimed at children, and in my opinion it is actually more challenging than BTTF in that there is actually a chance of getting things wrong. The BTTF game holds your hand so much, with all its hints and limited interactions, that it is barely more complex than "Binky's Facts and Opinions". For example, the young Emmett / his father reconciliation "puzzle" in episode 5. It's not a puzzle. Say everything to Emmett's father. Say everything to Emmett. Repeat until cutscene ensues. (Contrast this with the dialogue puzzles in Tales of Monkey Island, which are actual puzzles where you must use some kind of knowledge and/or reasoning to select the correct option). I would say that BTTF's "just click everything" approach is actually LESS complex than the Binky's Facts and Opinions "click the one correct answer" model.
I enjoyed the BTTF game's story, but was disappointed in the lack of opportunity for interaction in the game as a whole. Easy puzzles are actually totally fine by me. But when my sole job is to run through the tunnel of invisible walls between cutscenes (ep 4), or click on the single available dialogue option to make the cutscene keep going (ep 5), then I will be disappointed at my lack of opportunity to interact with the game world in any meaningful way.
I guess I'm just an adventure gamer from childhood, and although I love BTTF, I love the challenge and sense of discovery in a real adventure game more.
The problem is that you assume everyone plays adventure games for the puzzles alone. That's fine if you do, but to a lot of people the puzzles are secondary, maybe even unnecessary depending on who you ask. You're also assuming everyone else views these traits as bad things- news flash: you're wrong. More importantly: I completely 100% disagree with you that the puzzles here are too easy. While I'm by no means a connoisseur, I've played my share of adventure games. The thing is, I never find adventure game puzzles to be hard. The only times when they get hard is when the game forces you to take everything in your inventory and rub it on everything else in the game because it has given you absolutely no idea what needs to be done next, forcing you to do random things until you stumble upon a random answer. That isn't a puzzle, as a puzzle has visible pieces and generally gives you an idea of what needs to be done. No, it's leaving you blindfolded in a large room that has no visible door. It's challenging, but for the wrong reasons.
If that's your idea of fun, then that's fine. If you don't like BttF The Game for whatever reason, that's fine. It's just that to me, and a lot of other people for that matter, the gameplay was fine. Believe it or not, there actually were times that I got stuck. While it never took me more than fifteen or twenty minutes to solve a puzzle, I don't see why I should consider that a bad thing. If it takes any longer then that, then odds are we have one of those completely random wander-around-aimlessly-for-hours 'puzzles' that I mentioned before. By that point, the game would immediately stop being fun and I'd probably just end up watching someone else play it on Youtube. Could they have been a little harder and have avoided that problem? Sure, in fact I'd welcome some good dialogue-box puzzles like the ones puzzlebox mentioned. That doesn't mean I can't like what we got, though.
I just kindly ask that you stop replying to every single person who disagrees and shoving your opinion down their throats. Believe it or not, there's no such thing as objectively bad. There's subjectively bad, there's even "everyone on the Earth hates it and thinks it's bad" but guess what? That's still subjectively bad. In order for something to be objective, it has to have basis in facts. The things you listed may be facts (Though even that's disputable, but I have no desire to go picking through the entire game and that's besides the point anyways), but that doesn't make them bad, since not everyone sees those as bad traits You can say the game objectively has few puzzles, you can say the game objectively has few clickable objects, you can even say it's objective that a lot of people don't like the game. But fact of the matter is, there are a lot of people who do like the game- in fact, they seem to be the majority. While no one's calling the game a masterpiece, you're not going to convince the people who like it that it sucks, just as I can't force you to like the game. What does it matter if people disagree with you, I liked Shadow the Hedgehog and didn't like Beyond Good & Evil for crying out loud. Live with it. We can respect your opinions, why can't you respect ours?
I'm pretty freaking sick of the cries of PUZZLES EASY, RUINED FOREVER!!!1! The whole game is about the story, NOT the puzzles, not the gameplay. To address some common complaints:
1. It's barely a game!
You've missed the point, friend. Sorry you misinterpreted the purpose of the game. It's about Back to the Future, the characters, the story. Everything else serves those purposes, everything else takes a back seat. That includes gameplay.
Some of you say it's barely more than an interactive movie, that there are more cutscenes than game.
Try Metal Gear Solid 4 and come back. BTTF is not the worst offender in this regard.
As for the puzzles, some of them could have been better (the worst offender being trapping Kid Tannen in the rocket car, and I still have no idea exactly what I'm supposed to be doing aiming the flux links. Am I aiming for a sweet spot or keeping aim steady for a set time? I think the game just mercifully let me pass.) but they're hardly the worst ever. I thought the soup kitchen puzzle was clever, and the password one, and several more I don't feel like listing because I'm going off track.
2.Handholding
I don't remember what the default hint level was in episode 1, but I think it was pretty low later on. If you mean your goals periodically popping up, I think every open world game ever does that. I like it since it makes me feel like I'm progressing. It's sort of rewarding. If you mean the new hint system, that's bull. You don't ever have to use it. It isn't annoying, either. Would you rather have "HEY, LISTEN! HEY, LISTEN!" ?
Not to say there are no problems. I find the animation to be the worst part of the game. I like the art style, but as is the animation is REALLY bad, and it makes the game feel unfinished. In fact, the sequence where you escape with FCB in episode 4 was downright embarrassing. Also, the voice acting of certain characters (Biff, Lorraine in episode 1) really pulled me out of the game because of how bad they were.
But even with all its flaws, it's still a great game. Comparing this with the likes of ET and Big Rigs is.... I don't even
Anyway, I think people (maybe even I) are taking this WAY too seriously. It's a video game, it's not a valid reason to be at each others throats.
Being an adventure game IS entirely about puzzles. If you don't include puzzles, it is an interactive movie, not an adventure game.
No one ever said that it didn't mean you couldn't like it. It just means it's not a good game.
When the entire point of the adventure game genre existing is puzzles and interactivity, and the game is severely lacking in BOTH, how does that not make it objectively bad at being an adventure game?
Good story does not excuse awful gameplay. If the ET video game had the best storyline ever written, it would still be a shitty game.
The fact remains, it is supposed to be a game (or at least, the name implies as much), therefore, it must feature some form of gameplay that is engaging and fun for the player. Instead, it features a storyline where you essentially click to continue watching it. Even as far as simply being an interactive movie, it fails due to its complete and utter lack of interactivity, or any meaningful choices. It may as well have simply been a machinima and not required any player input.
At least you can play an enjoyable game in between the cutscenes with MGS4.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.
I ... agree? (This caught me off guard)
The only throat I'm at is BttF's.
Dude, whenever you call a game 'objectively bad', whenever you say that all the reviewers are wrong for not sharing your opinion and are 'obligated' to give the game a bad score, whenever you say something like: that is EXACTLY what you're doing. You are telling us we can like the game, but we can't like the gameplay, which makes no sense.
Also, puzzles really aren't as mandatory as you're make them out to be. It's less like having an FPS with only one enemy and more like having an FPS without multiplayer. It's expected, but it's not necessary and you can still make a great game without it. (That, and I've always viewed adventure games as being little more then interactive movies to begin with) It's fine if you want puzzles, but it's possible to have a fantastic adventure game that's really just about the story with hardly any puzzles. I'd like to quote a comment I read on Blistered Thumbs by the guy who wrote the BttF Episode 3 review. In some ways it's not really all that different from what I said earlier, but he put it way better then I ever could.
Talk about not understanding the difference between fact and opinion! Who says gameplay is optional in adventure games, that adventure games are only about story? If story is more important to you -- that's fine. But please refrain from defining the genre based on your personal preferences. Any objective study of the history of the adventure game genre, or familiarity with the adventure game community, would indicate that both story and puzzles are equally important; different games will balance the two differently, but neither is optional. All adventure games widely recognized as great, that still show up on top 10 lists years after their release -- games like Sierra's, Lucasarts', Broken Sword, Myst, Zork, etc. -- are known for both story and puzzles/gameplay.
I never said they weren't common or unexpected, or that the genre is not known for having puzzles, and I absolutely never put anything more then my opinion on there. All I am saying is that it's perfectly possible to make a great adventure game and not have the puzzles define the majority of the gameplay. Gameplay =/= Puzzles. What I'm trying to say is that puzzles, common as they may be, are still secondary to what makes the adventure genre great. Are you going to remember an adventure game that had a crappy story and crappy characters but had good puzzles? Probably not, because the story is the meat and bones of what makes the genre work. If you take an adventure game and remove the puzzles, you still have an adventure game. But if you take away the story and keep the puzzles, then it's now a puzzle game. Just because they're common doesn't make them 100% vital.
Phoenix Wright would fit this description. While it might not be a 'traditional' adventure game in the sense we're talking about, it still has all the common elements and is officially classified as one. The most it has to offer in terms of puzzles are Where's Waldo-esque sequences and having to spot contradictions using basic logic. You never have to combine items, and you literally can't use items on other items. There are absolutely no puzzles of the traditional kind. If there are, then they're incredibly simplistic and forgettable. (I do remember having to glue a vase back together, but it shouldn't take anyone more then ten seconds. That, and it's one puzzle out of five games) But here's the kicker- It's an extremely popular franchise that's helped to revive the genre. People love the characters and the stories, and you never hear anyone going "Man I felt so smart when I found the safe code on the back of that slip of paper."
To summarize: Just because puzzles are common in adventure games, it doesn't make them vital. Even if the puzzles are good, the game is going to suck big-time if the story is bad and forgettable. But if you take the puzzles out, it can still be awesome.
You've completely missed the point of adventure gaming if you think puzzles are optional. Puzzles are as optional for an adventure game as shooting is for a shooter.
Also, the "ALL PUZZLES IN ALL ADVENTURE GAMES ARE SO EASY FOR ME THAT I DIDN'T NOTICE BTTF'S PUZZLES WERE THE EASIEST AND MOST POORLY DESIGNED IN HISTORY" argument is total bull, by the way. If you think the only options for puzzle difficulty are "so easy it solves itself" and "completely impossible without resorting to random item combination", I don't know what to tell you, but there are plenty of great puzzles in Monkey Island, Sam and Max, Broken Sword, Day of the Tentacle, etc. that are neither immensely easy nor illogical. The entire reason that most of these games are enjoyable to play is that you feel like you have actually accomplished something by completing a puzzle using rational thought. When the solution is given to you on a silver platter, it's just not satisfying at all.
So is putting words in my mouth, thank you. Just because I didn't see the puzzles as being harder then any other (good) adventure game doesn't mean I would excuse them for being too easy. But the thing is, as hard as this is apparently for you to grasp: I don't think these puzzles were extremely easy, poorly designed, or not fun to play. I liked the soup kitchen puzzle, the word game puzzle, the guitar duel puzzle (ESPECIALLY that one), aging the cleaning formula, Emmet's mental alignment meter, the glass house, rescuing FCB from Edna, saving the saloon, getting insane Edna to relive her memories and all the other ones for that matter. (Light on puzzles my ass, by the way)
Look, this is reaching the point where I can't really say anything that I haven't already said, or quote people that I haven't already quoted. We have both wasted far too much time arguing this trivial crap. By all means type a response to this if you want (So long as it has substance and doesn't just insult my intelligence for liking "Easy puzzles", anyway) I might even read it in a day or two. But for now, I'm done.
Again, puzzles might be secondary in adventure games to you, but that's your personal preference, your personal opinion and you are not entitled to define the genre on that basis.
Again, your personal opinion; there are vast numbers of adventure game players who would disagree, who even believe that puzzles are the meat and bones of adventure games, that gameplay is "what makes the genre work", as it does for any game genre. It would be wrong for them to define adventure games on that preference, and it's wrong for you to define it on yours.
No you do not. You have interactive fiction, an interactive movie, an interactive "entertainment software product" of some kind, and it might even be a great one. But you do not have an adventure game without gameplay.
Phazon, face it. Some people just do not like the game, and no endless amount of any words you could throw at them will convince them otherwise. I personally played this game for the story, and I'm not the only one of my BTTF-nerd friends that loved this game. But I'm not going to try and convince nay-sayers to change their minds. Just like I won't let them change mine. What's important is HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT.
Now, that said, to get back on the ACTUAL TOPIC: I would like to say that I'd definitely buy a season 2 given two provisos: 1) The entire voice cast comes back and 2) That they follow up on the ending well, and not have it be a throwaway plot point like BTTF2.
"What makes the genre work", in no uncertain terms, is the marriage of world and puzzles. While many of the great adventure games have been inherently narrative, the first real adventure game, "Colossal Cave Adventure", was essentially just an interactive maze based on the designer's spelunking experiences. The lack of a narrative or story does not keep a game from being an adventure, as long as you are solving puzzles, or perhaps a single large puzzle, throughout the experience, in a world that is created in such a way as to react to your actions. Narratives have become a genre staple for a reason, however. They provide excellent incentive to continue, they provide a framing and direction for the world you're in, they provide a role for the player character, they include characters with whom to interact, and they provide framing and set-up for puzzles that are otherwise impossible in a world that simply exists. For these reasons, though narrative is ostensibly optional, it is such a useful tool that it is included in almost all adventures. All the same, a person simply cannot confuse the skeleton for the meat, or proclaim that a beast can function fine without a skeleton. When either is missing or entirely deficient, or the two simply do not work in tandem(say, if puzzles rely on moon logic that doesn't seem to flow naturally from the game world), then you have an adventure game that is simply poorly constructed.
Also, for the record, I voted "No!" on this poll. What are the mods going to do, delete me?
This isn't a game that is advertising its compelling game play, it is one advertising its story. That is what most people come to play this game for, the story.
Don't blame me because a formula works. Perhaps for Jurassic Park the game play is more of the picture, but if I watch any of the trailers, it all shows off the story, and no game play. Bttf isn't about game play. It is a nice addition, but it isn't the core of the game.
This is no interactive movie, there is a slight challenge to it. The reason you keep on playing is to see more parts of the story. This is why they show off the next episode like they would in the movie, it keeps you going. Not the puzzles. Yet those puzzles still exist.
Think what you want, but bttf will always be this way, it is how the movies were set up, it is how the games are too. Story comes first in such a game. It is being advertised as such.
And yet, it includes "The Game" prominently in the title.
And having 'The Game' in the title does not mean they're advertising gameplay. It's differentiating itself from the film of the same name.
Can't wait
By the nature of being a game, it must contain quality and somewhat challenging gameplay in order to be considered a satisfying experience as a game.
Also, I have never seen any advertising for BttF:TG that said "THIS GAME IS ALL ABOUT THE STORY, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE GAMEPLAY, THERE'S BARELY ANY" so why on earth would I ever expect the gameplay to be atrociously simple? Further, how is that an excuse for bad gameplay?
And to paraphrase Dashing's post earlier, if gameplay is so optional to the experience, then there have already been 3 prior BttF "adventure games" made, by the names of Back to the Future, Back to the Future Part II, and Back to the Future Part III. Those were such great games. Oh, and there was already an episodic "adventure game" made by the name of Back to the Future: The Animated Series, too, I guess.
i've been reading some comments and a lot of people are disappointed in the BTTF game series. yes i admit its kind of a crappy game, but at the same time great!! why would a person buy this is they weren't BTTF fans? the whole point in why i bought this was to see a continuing story with doc, einie, and marty. It was a FANTASTIC plotline. I love it!!! I would so buy a second season of this to see what happens. I'm actually dying to see what happens!!
if people bought this as a "game," sorry you weren't fully satisfied. But as a loyal fan of the BTTF movie franchise, this wholly thrilled me with each of its complicated concepts, hilarious dialogue, and shocking plot twists!