You know, I wonder how much of this was the result of interference from Universal. Execute meddling, if you will, enforcing a certain level of difficulty--that is, barely none--in the game. It might be that in order to keep the license, Telltale was forced into making the game in a certain way, ordered to do certain things, not allowed to do what they usually do.
I mean there has to be a good explanation for why they chose to make this game the way they did. It makes me very curious indeed to know. They've obviously alienated a significant portion of their fanbase, but they must have a reason as to why.
generally having fun with the whole BttF universe.
Except that you're not allowed to interact with anything, anyone or anywhere. It's barely more interactive than a regular film, and far less entertaining than one.
Hey Dashing, you know what? I take back everything I said about you having reasoned arguments. Go away and play Witcher 2 and leave the FUN to those of us that know how to have it. Clearly you have no clue what it takes to enjoy something without feeling intellectually smug about it in front of everyone else.
Hey Dashing, you know what? I take back everything I said about you having reasoned arguments. Go away and play Witcher 2 and leave the FUN to those of us that know how to have it. Clearly you have no clue what it takes to enjoy something without feeling intellectually smug about it in front of everyone else.
A game is not enjoyable if it expects nothing from the player. It'd be like if you were playing a game of (American) football, and the defense just stood still and asked you kindly to not walk into the end zone with the football, but did nothing to stop you. Is that a satisfying way to play?
Enjoy the experience all you want, but the game is atrociously bad.
Hey Dashing, you know what? I take back everything I said about you having reasoned arguments. Go away and play Witcher 2 and leave the FUN to those of us that know how to have it. Clearly you have no clue what it takes to enjoy something without feeling intellectually smug about it in front of everyone else.
Considering I have a massive soft spot for sitcoms, this isn't anywhere even close to true.
Anyway, you've obviously either misread me or I've poorly represented myself. I mean to say that "balance" is not a word that works with Back to the Future: The Game, because it VERY strongly leans to one side in everything it does.
In gameplay and story, gameplay often advances at the expense of solid gameplay(note the many times the plot advances in episode 3 without being linked, narratively, to a thing the player does).
In being for casuals and hardcore players, the lean is heavily in favor of the casual player. This is proven by the implementation of very limited inventory use, heavy story and cutscene leads, an extensive hint system with a large button, as well as several hint levels.
You may like the end product, but I just don't think use of the word balance can be justified. Unless you meant something else entirely that I simply missed, I can't really get where you're coming from if you're saying this title has balance to it.
Hey Dashing, you know what? I take back everything I said about you having reasoned arguments. Go away and play Witcher 2 and leave the FUN to those of us that know how to have it. Clearly you have no clue what it takes to enjoy something without feeling intellectually smug about it in front of everyone else.
Hey Dashing, you know what? I take back everything I said about you having reasoned arguments. Go away and play Witcher 2 and leave the FUN to those of us that know how to have it. Clearly you have no clue what it takes to enjoy something without feeling intellectually smug about it in front of everyone else.
You know, I was busy being in exile; but certain people brought this post to my attention and I just had to say something.
ANYWAY, did you know that to stupid people the act of intelligent people deriving amusement and joy from purely intelligent things may appear smug? This seems like it might be of use to you. Ta!
ANYWAY, did you know that to stupid people the act of intelligent people deriving amusement and joy from purely intelligent things may appear smug? This seems like it might be of use to you. Ta!
Why would you undermine your own defence? No one will ever take you seriously ever. I'd take up drinking if I were you, as it only gets harder from here.
I believe it was perfectly balanced for what they were aiming at. There is no balance between hardcore and casual, except to appeal to fans of the middle ground, which is in this case the franchise itself. Which is the first and foremost criteria I judged it on as something enjoyable, and it passed that criteria with flying colours.
Anyway, I know some people who actually think Big Bang Theory is funny and well written, instead of just a re-hash of every sitcom you've ever seen wrapped in a bunch of outdated stereotypes, so I guess it takes all sorts to make a world.
Anyway, I know some people who actually think Big Bang Theory is funny and well written, instead of just a re-hash of every sitcom you've ever seen wrapped in a bunch of outdated stereotypes, so I guess it takes all sorts to make a world.
But the Big Bang Theory IS a funny and well written show. And I'm relatively sure that I have a fully functioning brain. I know since I can see it in it's little jar on my desk.
...Well, what do you expect? Make a stupid post get a stupid response.
Flaming Telltale? They developed a game that, by many an adventure gamer's standards, could be considered a sub-standard product. Several TTG-forum goers just feel perpetually compelled to point it out in various ways.
Of course, then there is the issue of beating a dead horse so much that it no longer can be classified as a horse so much as an unrecognizable bloody mass, but there we are.
Flaming Telltale? They developed a game that, by many an adventure gamer's standards, could be considered a sub-standard product. Several TTG-forum goers just feel perpetually compelled to point it out in various ways.
...I think he meant the Comrade Pants, Alcoremortis, and POSSIBLY my or Overture's most recent posts(I'm not sure) for rude forum member to forum member conduct.
I don't get it. I've never beaten, molested, wacked or physically abused a horse, dead or living, ever before in my life in any way, shape or form.
I may have occasionally beaten other dead creatures before but that's beside the point. I don't even own a horse.
It would be too expensive for me to pay for feeding and stabling besides it's a very unconventional way of travel. I prefer using a car although I've never beaten a car before. Does it work?
The tabs are on the same line as the Menu button when "Tabs on top" is selected and FF is maximized, but that makes the address bar and toolbars opaque. I'm glad you mentioned it otherwise I hadn't have noticed it updated and messed up.
If the second is true, then I've never beaten a dead car before, but I've seen people beating a dead car at a school fair in high school.There is no evidence to support the prospect of beating a car having any positive effect on the car's performance, though. I have also ridden a horse, but it was not dead and did not need to be beaten nor persuaded to move at all, because this was on a horse trail that the horse had travelled so many times before that it could have walked the trail in its sleep.
If the second is true, then I've never beaten a dead car before, but I've seen people beating a dead car at a school fair in high school.There is no evidence to support the prospect of beating a car having any positive effect on the car's performance, though. I have also ridden a horse, but it was not dead and did not need to be beaten nor persuaded to move at all, because this was on a horse trail that the horse had travelled so many times before that it could have walked the trail in its sleep.
Ah, thank you, now I know. And knowing is half the battle!
Though surely beating the live horse would have increased its performance and made it traverse the trail faster.
And why a horse anyway? Why not say...a badger or a kangaroo?
I know, Guru. It's one of those game threads now where you don't get post count points and everyone has given up a productive discussion. I intend to move it there in a minute.
-.- No it's not. You guys are too obsessed with making sure post counts only represent on-topic discussion.
The thread got off-topic because I responded to Dashing, Shodan and MI among others continuing to say at length how and why the game is too fricken easy, with my post saying that they/we are beating a dead horse at this point about it (at least about BTTF.)
Someone then asked me what I meant, which I explained and then joked about, meanwhile Dashing said my browser looked weird.
This isn't a forum game. Dang, if we can't get off-topic once in a while, where's the fun in conversing at all?
How hard is it to believe BttF is just a bait-and-don't-switch-but-make-them-pay-for-the-other-games-as-well-with-gignormous-discounts-oh-and-we've-got-merchandise-this-game-prints-money?
Comments
I mean there has to be a good explanation for why they chose to make this game the way they did. It makes me very curious indeed to know. They've obviously alienated a significant portion of their fanbase, but they must have a reason as to why.
Except that you're not allowed to interact with anything, anyone or anywhere. It's barely more interactive than a regular film, and far less entertaining than one.
A game is not enjoyable if it expects nothing from the player. It'd be like if you were playing a game of (American) football, and the defense just stood still and asked you kindly to not walk into the end zone with the football, but did nothing to stop you. Is that a satisfying way to play?
Enjoy the experience all you want, but the game is atrociously bad.
Anyway, you've obviously either misread me or I've poorly represented myself. I mean to say that "balance" is not a word that works with Back to the Future: The Game, because it VERY strongly leans to one side in everything it does.
In gameplay and story, gameplay often advances at the expense of solid gameplay(note the many times the plot advances in episode 3 without being linked, narratively, to a thing the player does).
In being for casuals and hardcore players, the lean is heavily in favor of the casual player. This is proven by the implementation of very limited inventory use, heavy story and cutscene leads, an extensive hint system with a large button, as well as several hint levels.
You may like the end product, but I just don't think use of the word balance can be justified. Unless you meant something else entirely that I simply missed, I can't really get where you're coming from if you're saying this title has balance to it.
You know, I was busy being in exile; but certain people brought this post to my attention and I just had to say something.
ANYWAY, did you know that to stupid people the act of intelligent people deriving amusement and joy from purely intelligent things may appear smug? This seems like it might be of use to you. Ta!
(returns to exile)
Poop jokes.
Why would you undermine your own defence? No one will ever take you seriously ever. I'd take up drinking if I were you, as it only gets harder from here.
And you know what else is funny?
When guys get hit in the balls.
Haha, nutshots.
Your mom.
Anyway, I know some people who actually think Big Bang Theory is funny and well written, instead of just a re-hash of every sitcom you've ever seen wrapped in a bunch of outdated stereotypes, so I guess it takes all sorts to make a world.
But the Big Bang Theory IS a funny and well written show. And I'm relatively sure that I have a fully functioning brain. I know since I can see it in it's little jar on my desk.
...Well, what do you expect? Make a stupid post get a stupid response.
Of course, then there is the issue of beating a dead horse so much that it no longer can be classified as a horse so much as an unrecognizable bloody mass, but there we are.
Also a Big Lebowski joke.
Ooooooh, it's beating a dead horse, not beating off a dead horse.
I don't get it. I've never beaten, molested, wacked or physically abused a horse, dead or living, ever before in my life in any way, shape or form.
I may have occasionally beaten other dead creatures before but that's beside the point. I don't even own a horse.
It would be too expensive for me to pay for feeding and stabling besides it's a very unconventional way of travel. I prefer using a car although I've never beaten a car before. Does it work?
The tabs are on the same line as the Menu button when "Tabs on top" is selected and FF is maximized, but that makes the address bar and toolbars opaque. I'm glad you mentioned it otherwise I hadn't have noticed it updated and messed up.
Okay then.
Oh and also nobody answered my question, about what kind off activity beating a dead horse is.
I'm not sure if you're making a joke, as either the idiom could have been misunderstood, or you're intentionally taking it too seriously.
If the first is true, then yes I did.
If the second is true, then I've never beaten a dead car before, but I've seen people beating a dead car at a school fair in high school.There is no evidence to support the prospect of beating a car having any positive effect on the car's performance, though. I have also ridden a horse, but it was not dead and did not need to be beaten nor persuaded to move at all, because this was on a horse trail that the horse had travelled so many times before that it could have walked the trail in its sleep.
Looks close enough to me.
Ah, thank you, now I know. And knowing is half the battle!
Though surely beating the live horse would have increased its performance and made it traverse the trail faster.
And why a horse anyway? Why not say...a badger or a kangaroo?
Perhaps, but using a cattle prod in this case would be easier.
The thread got off-topic because I responded to Dashing, Shodan and MI among others continuing to say at length how and why the game is too fricken easy, with my post saying that they/we are beating a dead horse at this point about it (at least about BTTF.)
Someone then asked me what I meant, which I explained and then joked about, meanwhile Dashing said my browser looked weird.
This isn't a forum game. Dang, if we can't get off-topic once in a while, where's the fun in conversing at all?
But of course, I did it with the intention of bringing this thread back on track. Wherever that is.
Dang, if mods can't joke around once in a while, where's the fun in doing it at all?
Oh. Okay then.
I don't know why you posted a Chick-Fil-A sandwich.
But I DO know that now I want one.
Bastard.
How hard is it to believe BttF is just a bait-and-don't-switch-but-make-them-pay-for-the-other-games-as-well-with-gignormous-discounts-oh-and-we've-got-merchandise-this-game-prints-money?