User Avatar Image

Movie "feeling"(., ?)

posted by doodo! on - last edited - Viewed by 173 users

Does this game have what may or may not be considered a movie feeling? May it (or may it not) be the case, I thought that I may have heard TTG intends(-s ,+ed) to may have given this game a" movie feeling"(.,?)

Regardless of how they may precieved their intent for the game, how do you validate the end result ," the character of the game.What may you consider the "flavor" , what may you consider the "visual intellectual perspective", ("front") of the story telling?

They worked through the game, they may have percieved their efforts in one way ,however they may have set out for a certain result, you may percieve that result and those efforts differently than "they" have. (expectations, perhaps).

"They", because several people were involved, I may find it difficult to generalize the over all "texture" this game was set out for. The individuals involved may(of) ha(ve, d) (a) unique perspective(s)...

(.,?)

13 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @jp-30 said: Yes.



    I believe this may be quite a brilliant response, really. ":D"

    And he said..."yes", brilliant!

    Because it may be a statement and (or) a question and you said yes!

  • Some of it does, some of it doesn't.

    Some things that jumped out at me as being not-authentic (I'll stick to the very beginning to avoid spoilers):

    -Lorraine speaks from offscreen, and never appears onscreen. Very awkward, felt more like a workaround to not having a model for her, rather than an artistic choice.
    -The opening credits are a quiet series of panning shots through Doc's lab, during which nothing at all happens.
    -Before traveling through time, Marty simply walks offscreen, then walks back onscreen with a set of 1930s-appropriate clothes.

    Little things like that make the presentation really feel much more like an episodic game, and much less like a movie.

    But I do think they captured the spirit of the movie, in terms of characters and interactions and all that.

  • [quote]-The opening credits are a quiet series of panning shots through Doc's lab, during which nothing at all happens.[/quote]

    Have you forgotten how BttF 1 starts?

  • To be fair, there WAS more happening during the BTTF1 opening credits than the game's opening credits.

    But the game's opening credits have more visual interest than BTTF2's opening credits, so it evens out!

  • @Origami said: Have you forgotten how BttF 1 starts?



    Quite the opposite. Compare the two sequences. BTTF1's opening credit sequence is an amazing display of cleverly revealed exposition. BTTF:TG's opening credit sequence is a showcase for their decent 3D recreation of Doc's lab.

    That said, I have no memory at all of BTTF2's opening credits.

  • @LuigiHann said: Quite the opposite. Compare the two sequences. BTTF1's opening credit sequence is an amazing display of cleverly revealed exposition. BTTF:TG's opening credit sequence is a showcase for their decent 3D recreation of Doc's lab.

    That said, I have no memory at all of BTTF2's opening credits.



    Just a shot of clouds in the blue sky slowly turning to stormy ones as they enter 2015.

  • @LuigiHann said: Quite the opposite. Compare the two sequences. BTTF1's opening credit sequence is an amazing display of cleverly revealed exposition. BTTF:TG's opening credit sequence is a showcase for their decent 3D recreation of Doc's lab.



    Ummm, the only difference between the two is that Doc's crazy morning gizmos are all working, and the game's intro had music.

  • For me the whole episode one felt more like an interactive movie than an adventure game.
    Allthough I enjoyed it very much I have mixed feelings.
    On one hand I think, if it is the intention to recreate the movie feeling and you want to provide a rather cinematic experience it is WRONG to choose a cartoony art design.
    Especially in some scenes the lack of animation or facial expression or vehicle physics kills a bit of the atmosphere.
    On the other hand I think, if you choose a cartoony design and want to create more a game than a movie (which I am very OK with), there should be at least more GAMEPLAY than it was in the first episode.

    Now that I have seen the first screenshots of the Jurassic Park Game Telltale is working on I am not quite sure if it was the right decision to recreate the BTTF franchise in the looks of a comic.
    But despite all of that I am looking forward to the next episode. I simply like BTTF very much and at least I think TTG did a good job (but they can even do better I think).

  • @Shadowknight1 said: Ummm, the only difference between the two is that Doc's crazy morning gizmos are all working, and the game's intro had music.



    Not really. The opening shot of BTTF1 is loaded with new information. Aside from containing action (granted, in small amounts) by showing the gizmos working, the opening shot:
    [LIST]
    [*]Firmly establishes the "time" motif of the film
    [*]Foreshadows the hanging-off-of-the-clocktower scene
    [*]Establishes that the lab has been abandoned for a few days
    [*]Creates intrigue by establishing the theft of the plutonium
    [/LIST]
    Just to name a few. The only new information the game's credit's give us is the estate sale sign. Other than that, it's just a look at a location we already know.

    Not to say that's a BAD thing, mind you. It's effective in amping up the nostalgia. But the functions of the credit sequences are completely different.

Add Comment