User Avatar Image

Should Jurassic Park The Game have a season 2?

posted by batboyshark9 on - last edited - Viewed by 9.7K users

As it says in the tittle should there be a second season vote and say why and what you would like to see in the game like, plot and characters if there already is a thread this one may be closed.

98 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @bloodkiller630 said: Who cares if it has horrible gameplay as long as it has a good story too it I am ok but it would have been better if activision or Lucas arts made the game��

    Let me explain the hierarchy of priorities when you're making a game.

    At the top, naturally, is gameplay. Video games are an interactive medium, so its interactivity needs to be handled well. If you fail here, it doesn't matter whether you've succeeded in the other areas or not. If a game isn't fun to play, it's not a good game. End of story. So to answer your question, everyone cares if it has horrible gameplay.

    After that comes the aesthetic aspect (graphics, art direction, music, voice acting, etc). You're expecting the player to pay attention to your game for a long time, and they'll be more willing to do that if it looks and sounds good. And yes, I am saying graphics matter (would you forgive a game that looks like the original Star Fox if it was released today?), but I'm not saying every game needs to look like Crysis. Super Mario Galaxy's graphics aren't too impressive from a technical perspective, but the graphics are good enough, and it has a bright, unique art direction, so it passes in this field.

    And then, at the bottom, there's story. Now, I'm not saying developers shouldn't focus on story. Everyone loves a good story, and if it's handled well it can help immerse the player even further in the game. A well-done story can make a good game better, but it can't make a bad game good. You'd better make sure you have a game that passes the first two fields before you worry about the plot. Granted, this is a little different since Telltale is an adventure developer, and adventure games generally have more emphasis on story than other genres. Even with an adventure game, though, the plot's worthless without some good puzzles to go with it. It's also probably worth mentioning that two of the best-known adventure games, Zork and Myst, have borderine-nonexistent stories.

    Also...

    >wanting Activision to do anything besides shut down

  • @ RAnthonyMahan

    Thats a bit narrow view on the medium. By gameplay you mean just how the interactivity overall is handled. Yes, that should be on top if you wanna use the potential of the medium. But its not correct saying it must be fun or challenging. You gotta see what the particular game wants to achieve. A game should be allowed to NOT be fun or challenging, puzzles or combat can stand in the way and damage the feeling. Also Story is NOT plot. Story can be told through the environment or other ways, it hasnt to mean a string of events and a game CAN only focus on exploring a story and be entertaining (not fun) and has a right to exist. Just remember that videogames are NOT only games.

    To see what I mean look at Dear Esther or The Path.

    And story should be incorporated with art direction, graphics sound etc. One can not be without the other unless it just wants to be random.

    Jurassic Park - The Game however I feel does not want to be a game, it really just want to tell a story cinematicly and just use some interactivity to make it more involving and/or to let it at least look like a game since thats the business they are working. Its ok for Jurassic Park to be not fun or challenging, BUT it should be made clear what the concept / intention was.

    I mean telltale calls it a game, advertises it as a game, and there are inconsequences in game-design like that medal system that pops up at the end of all scenes, which is nothing but unnecessary and annoying. If you dont want to focus on traditional game-aspects but only on the story, thats fine, but be consequent. And of course you can put this whole concept in question, since it really doesnt use the possibilities of the medium at all, but sometimes even works against it.

  • I wouldn't. I didn't have any problems with the story, but yeah... QTEs and one or two easy puzzles per episode do not make for a very entertained adventure game fan. Between this and Back to the Future, I'm sort of on my last legs with Telltale now.

  • They could bring a season 2 BUT:

    either they improve the technical issues of the game A LOT. I could forgive the missing of interactivity IF the visuals are really impressive. An interactive movie is okay, but then it has to look like a movie. Otherwise feelings of fear or suspense just doesn't work and it feels just goofy. Same goes with broken animations, repeated dialogue, missing audio and all those flaws that occured during the whole season 1.

    or (that's what I would actually prefer) they improve the actual gameplay. When TTG decided to base the gameplay on Heavy Rain they just missed a core design issue: Heavy Rain wasn't really about QTEs, but rather about decisions and consequences. About problem solving in several ways. About different outcomes.
    Plus you were able to control the protagonists directly.
    JPTG missed all that. The QTEs were just to keep the scripted scenes running, and keep the people alive. There wasn't anything to choose. Just make it or fail.

    Just staying true to the source material isn't a real argument for enjoying a game based on a certain franchise. I appreciate that but when nearly every other aspect is full of flaws I'm not in again.

    PLUS: I don't think that JPTG was a success for TTG. I mean they bought so many licenses during the last years which weren't that cheap I guess. To really make a benefit from that they need to sell their games like mad. BTTF:TG was a success and sold so well that it became TTGs most successfull game of all time. The reception was quite good too.
    But JP:TG was free for all the pre-orders from april. Plus it got just mediocre reviews. So I basically think it wasn't worth all the cost of development.

  • No.

    @RAnthonyMahan said: Video games are an interactive medium, so its interactivity needs to be handled well. If you fail here, it doesn't matter whether you've succeeded in the other areas or not. If a game isn't fun to play, it's not a good game. End of story.

    This. You know, when filmmakers adapt a novel, their first priority is to make a good movie! No matter how faithful they are to a book's content, they're not really doing it justice if they fail to make an enjoyable film. Telltale doesn't seem to understand that the same applies to games. Their product might be faithful to existing JP content in every possible respect, but they've done the franchise a massive disservice by failing to make a good game.

    @RAnthonyMahan said: To see what I mean look at Dear Esther or The Path.

    I don't see how a couple of modestly interactive niche art-pieces based on original IP validate turning a popular film trilogy into same. JP is an established property known for action and adventure and lush environments, as much as it's known for interesting stories and characters (no matter how much TT tried to bullshit people into believing otherwise).

    The franchise cries out for a real (non-casual) videogame, where the player has some role in shaping his or her experience through exploration and rich interaction with the gameworld. It doesn't even matter to me, personally, whether it's built around point-and-click puzzle-solving or substantive action-adventure mechanics or some innovative gameplay somewhere in between.

    The use of QTEs is not the whole of the problem either -- they occasionally worked well, mostly in dealing with surprise dinosaur encounters. I think QTEs, used infrequently and in place of cut-scenes, can make for entertaining interludes in some kinds of games, including adventures. But it boggles my mind that professional game designers thought using QTEs to hack through a jungle was a good idea.

    I "played" the game with a partner, who actually got the bulk of the controller-time. I was prepared to "watch" it, enjoy the story, relate to the characters blah blah blah and disregard the lack of gameplay. And you know what? It was a freakin' snoozefest. The plot and dialogs were boring and trite, and the characters ranged from dull to annoying. (My playing partner and I both spontaneously cheered when Sorkin bought it.)

    So, I'd like to see the license go to some other studio, one that would place the highest priority on making a good game, one that isn't under the mistaken impression that its stories and characters are so good they can neglect solid gameplay.

  • @thom-22 said: I don't see how a couple of modestly interactive niche art-pieces based on original IP validate turning a popular film trilogy into same.

    I havent related them to JP, I just wanted to make clear that it isnt a sacrilege to not focus on fun and challenging gameplay mechanics for the sake of other things. I dont like it when videogames are generally constrained to the priorities of traditional games. Same applies to Heavy Rain or Amnesia to a large extend if The Path is too niche for you.

    I totally agree however that for Jurassic Park, you just want to experience things and be immersed in the JP-Universe you love, which this game definetly never achieved. Here traditional game-design would have made sense to a certain degree, and if its just some direct character-control and some exploration mixed with suspense/escape-parts and Half Life-style cutscenes, which could have been easy and not-challenging as hell but at least it would be immersive. I did put this "cinematic adventure"-concept as they call it in question since it really isnt using the medium at all, its like making a film and overload it with narrated text.

    Now it should be allowed for videogames to do that when it really makes sense and when its clear from the beginning what it actually wants to be, but both were not the case for JP-TG.

    I enjoyed the story though.

  • I just thought it was the story that was the main point, all games got to have a good story otherwise its a fail and nobody would buy! There are some games, most graphical games would bound to go with the hunting games and the sport games! true check this graphical hunting game out!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcGH26tmO50

  • I liked JP the game a lot on the 360. It would be awesome to get a sequel. I want to see more of the park. Hey you know what would be awesome? As the game had an incomplete roller coaster the sequel should have an incomplete river ride (which was teased in the dinner slide show).

  • @bloodkiller630 said: I just thought it was the story that was the main point, all games got to have a good story otherwise its a fail and nobody would buy!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man

    You seem to be mistaken a MOVIE needs a good story, or else nobody will watch it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers:_Dark_of_the_Moon Oh wait... never mind.

  • @bloodkiller630 said: I just thought it was the story that was the main point, all games got to have a good story otherwise its a fail and nobody would buy! There are some games, most graphical games would bound to go with the hunting games and the sport games! true check this graphical hunting game out!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcGH26tmO50

    Yes, nobody would buy a game without a strong story. That's why the best-selling video game of all time is the infamous dramatic masterpiece, with a plot so unparalleled that not even Dostoyevsky himself could match its richness, Wii Sports.

    Like I said before, a video game is different from a book or movie. Story is not top priority.

Add Comment