Well, just played 1 and 2 and I was right-review

[shadow9d9]

The idea of episodic adventure gaming always sounded troublesome to me. For FPSs, it made sense. For adventures, I assumed that since each episode would be short, the fun part of adventure gaming would be missing. Puzzling. The combination of fewer locations and fewer items would lead to a lack of puzzle amount and challenge. I decided to wait until all episodes were released.

In checking out Myst Online, I found that for 99 cents I could join gametap for a month. After signing up I figured I might as well play the sam and max sooner rather than later since it is included.

Good points: Fantastic graphics, fairly amusing dialogue, good voice acting.

Bad points: Long and frequent load times, very few items(6 in the first episode) leads to easy puzzles, forced to watch intro movie and ending credits with no way of bypassing, few locations, super short and predictable stories.

Unfortunately, my fears were justified. Despite fantastic graphics and decent, if over the top stabs at humor, the game felt completely watered down. The fun of adventure gaming comes from slowly accumulating new items, talking to people, and trying to figure out what the next logical step is amongst all the items/puzzles/characters/locations. As such I felt little motivation to play-"well, I might as well finish since I get it free with gametap."

The idea that the full season will "equal" 15 hours total or whatever is really misleading. It is more like 6 x 2-3 hours of gaming. The difference is that you'll never have a ton of items and a ton of places where they could possibly be used, which would require you to slowly explore your options and think.

I'd rather have nothing than these kind of episodes to be honest. It is great financially for telltale, but not good for the gamer.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but the episodes were even more simplistic than I imagined, even after preparing myself with the reviews. I don't even think I'll end up playing episode 3, which I get for free.

Adventure gaming isn't dead, and with new games like Barrow Hill, Al Emmo, Runaway 2 still coming out, why settle for less?

[jp-30]

The idea that the full season will "equal" 15 hours total or whatever is really misleading. It is more like 6 x 2-3 hours of gaming. The difference is that you'll never have a ton of items and a ton of places where they could possibly be used, which would require you to slowly explore your options and think.

Many, many beloved adventure games (Grim Fandango is the classic example) have distinct 'chapters', from where you cannot return to past locales, and the transitions are often accompanied by a significant loss of inventory.

I'd rather have nothing than these kind of episodes to be honest.

So, don't play them then.

To each their own of course, but I don't agree with much of your assessment myself, nor at least 2 of your 3 recommended alternate adventure games to play.

[numble]

The idea that the full season will "equal" 15 hours total or whatever is really misleading. It is more like 6 x 2-3 hours of gaming. The difference is that you'll never have a ton of items and a ton of places where they could possibly be used, which would require you to slowly explore your options and think.


We're all entitled to our own gaming habits, but to me 12-18 hours of gaming total (6 x 2-3 hours) where most of that total time is spent seeing/hearing new content at a consistent pace is a lot better than a 15 hour game where most of that time is spent slowly wandering around and having content arrive at a slow pace. I've tried Myst Online, but while intriguing, I really didn't have the time or patience to spend hours and hours on the puzzles--just not the pace for me.

---

And anyway, wouldn't Myst Online actually sort of qualify as episodic adventuring, since new content (locations, puzzles, and storyline) are supposed to arrive at a consistently scheduled pace? The difference with Sam and Max is that Sam and Max are following a more-or-less stand-alone episodic model (akin to a TV sitcom like Seinfeld or The Simpsons) while Myst is more of a serial episodic model (ala 24 and Lost).

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting Myst Online.

[Mishakun]

I fail to understand why you think episodic gaming with first person shooters make sense. I don't know about you, but FPS would be in my mind worse examples on episodic gaming. This is because:

* Half Life 2 Episode 2 is delayed and it's release has been pushed into 2007
* Release date for the second Sin has yet to be announced
* Who actually plays the episodic games from Kuma?

Lets not hope Half Life and Sin will have its episodes be on Forever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_nukem_forever) development.

On the other hand, Sam and Max Season 1 episodes are coming out on reliable releases. Not to mention the writing is excellent. So yeah, I think episodic gaming for adventure games make more sense than FPS. The latter type of game is more difficult to develop and keep a schedule.

[shadow9d9]

We're all entitled to our own gaming habits, but to me 12-18 hours of gaming total (6 x 2-3 hours) where most of that total time is spent seeing/hearing new content at a consistent pace is a lot better than a 15 hour game where most of that time is spent slowly wandering around and having content arrive at a slow pace. I've tried Myst Online, but while intriguing, I really didn't have the time or patience to spend hours and hours on the puzzles--just not the pace for me.

---

And anyway, wouldn't Myst Online actually sort of qualify as episodic adventuring, since new content (locations, puzzles, and storyline) are supposed to arrive at a consistently scheduled pace? The difference with Sam and Max is that Sam and Max are following a more-or-less stand-alone episodic model (akin to a TV sitcom like Seinfeld or The Simpsons) while Myst is more of a serial episodic model (ala 24 and Lost).

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting Myst Online.

I am trying myst online for 99 cents... it is beta... plus, each age is much much longer than one s and m episode, which is the point. You never get stuck in s and m.. you often get stuck in a myst age.
I am trying it because I want a coop game with my wife... I only brought it up because its promotion of 99 cents for a month let me try sam and max for free.

Did you read what I enjoy about adventure gaming? Enough areas/items/puzzles to present a challenge... myst's ages are long enough to accomplish that, unless you think myst games are easy....

[shadow9d9]

I fail to understand why you think episodic gaming with first person shooters make sense. I don't know about you, but FPS would be in my mind worse examples on episodic gaming. This is because:

* Half Life 2 Episode 2 is delayed and it's release has been pushed into 2007
* Release date for the second Sin has yet to be announced
* Who actually plays the episodic games from Kuma?

Lets not hope Half Life and Sin will have its episodes be on Forever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_nukem_forever) development.

On the other hand, Sam and Max Season 1 episodes are coming out on reliable releases. Not to mention the writing is excellent. So yeah, I think episodic gaming for adventure games make more sense than FPS. The latter type of game is more difficult to develop and keep a schedule.

Did you read why I complained about adventure game episodes? I explained it in detail and it had nothing to do with the release schedule. Perhaps you should go back and read it.

I don't care if each s and m episode was released a day after another, they suffer from lack of locations/items/puzzles to make a compelling adventure game...no challenge/no exploration/little thought needed... therefore contrived.

[fhqwhgads]

Well, It's obvious that you won't be convinced. It's your opinion and you are welcome to it. We just have a different opinion from you. :)

[Mishakun]

Did you read why I complained about adventure game episodes? I explained it in detail and it had nothing to do with the release schedule. Perhaps you should go back and read it.

No, I'm pretty sure I've read it several times.

But I have to confess that I'm still confused to why you start off arguing FPS is better for episodic gaming than adventure games. I thought it was the same thing, i.e. taking a full game and make it in smaller chunks instead. Am I being stupid? :confused:

[shadow9d9]

No, I'm pretty sure I've read it several times.

But I have to confess that I'm still confused to why you start off arguing FPS is better for episodic gaming than adventure games. I thought it was the same thing, i.e. taking a full game and make it in smaller chunks instead. Am I being stupid? :confused:

Well, I explained what makes adventure games unique... fps games are straight forward.. just need to add more landscape...can make it as hard or easy as you want,...

Adventure games require items/puzzles... Sam and max episode 1 had a whole 6 items and about 6 total locations... It was easy, lacking thought needed.. therefore, what is the point in bothering? I play adventure games to think...

[shadow9d9]

Well, It's obvious that you won't be convinced. It's your opinion and you are welcome to it. We just have a different opinion from you. :)

Feel free to explain to me what you enjoy in adventure games if not for enjoying the challenge of figuring out what items goers where/puzzling... I explained what makes adventure games enjoyable and how this game is lacking in those categories... what am I missing?

No one has commented on the long loading times, forced watching of credits in the beginning and end, etc of my cons btw.

[Mishakun]

I can comment on the long loading times with a question mark. What are these long loading times you are speaking of? :) Maybe my two year old computer is not so old as I thought it was.

I play adventure games to think as well. The language in Sam and Max is actually difficult and rich in vocabulary (for non-native-english this would be a challenge in itself). But I don't want to play puzzles where you have to bring in this stuffed cat from two scenes ago and together with duct tape combine it with a phone booth in order to call all the hip cats just so you can get some swiss cheese. Ludicrous! That wierd kind of puzzles is what killed adventure games genre in the first place (according to Old Man Murray).

[shadow9d9]

I can comment on the long loading times with a question mark. What are these long loading times you are speaking of? :) Maybe my two year old computer is not so old as I thought it was.

I play adventure games to think as well. The language in Sam and Max is actually difficult and rich in vocabulary (for non-native-english this would be a challenge in itself). But I don't want to play puzzles where you have to bring in this stuffed cat from two scenes ago and together with duct tape combine it with a phone booth in order to call all the hip cats just so you can get some swiss cheese. Ludicrous! That wierd kind of puzzles is what killed adventure games genre in the first place (according to Old Man Murray).

So every game should have 1 item per screen? Why would having more items and locations imply illogical puzzle design? I don't see the correlation!

Come on now. There are plenty of adventure games that are completely logical with plenty of items and locations. Discworld 2 is a game I'm almost done with.. amazingly funny, plenty of locations, lots of items, and I have yet to get stuck for more than a half hour so far... completely logical.

[Mishakun]

Nah, I was thinking it is a bit dangerous to tell adventure game designers to make their puzzles harder. I agree that the games should contain more items, but that in turn would lead to a lot of red herrings in a small episodic game. The balance of items and puzzles in the games as it stands right now, is good, and I'd just hate to see it broken.

[shadow9d9]

Nah, I was thinking it is a bit dangerous to tell adventure game designers to make their puzzles harder. I agree that the games should contain more items, but that in turn would lead to a lot of red herrings in a small episodic game. The balance of items and puzzles in the games as it stands right now, is good, and I'd just hate to see it broken.

Again, you miss the point. The problem with this format is that less times/locations is the side effect. This makes it super simple and watered down. Therefore, exactly what adventure games are not about. That was my whole point.

I don't enjoy 6 item and puzzle games...period...too simple, too boring.

[THAiSi]

Well I must say I have the same feeling as sadow9d9. I really like Sam and Max, and I enjoy the episodes, but the lack of inventory use and locations (basically the amount of options at a certain moment) are making the 'puzzles' very basic and simple.

And about the loading times, every time you enter an location for the first time in a play session, it takes a long time on my machine. When I revisit a location in a play session it's much faster.

I'm not sure how much memory the game requires but I wasn't able to play the second episode in one playsession because I think all locations are being cached into memory to speedup loading times and therefor before I'm able to get to the end the game throws an access violation and returns to windows. Then I have to kill the process manually and restart the game and continue with the latest autosave.

I'm still hoping later episodes will get longer and harder with more locations (I don't care if they are recycled or not) and more inventory use.

[Mishakun]

Am I missing the point when you're comparing an episode as if it was a full game? Episodic adventure games is a fairly new concept and we've only been playing the first two episodes of a whole season.

So far I thought the game had challenging and logic puzzles that didn't feel watered down. But I do agree that an episode is small, yes. But the consequence of adding more items and locations would mean that you have to spend more time looking at your inventory and walking around locations where you don't have to be. And in a small episode game like S&M that would just seem like a waste of inventory space and walking-around time.

Actually one of my gripes with the game is that Telltale hasn't implemented the double click warping to relieve the boring walking-around aspect of the game. But I guess it's not in there just to prolong the game a bit.

[shadow9d9]

Am I missing the point when you're comparing an episode as if it was a full game? Episodic adventure games is a fairly new concept and we've only been playing the first two episodes of a whole season.

So far I thought the game had challenging and logic puzzles that didn't feel watered down. But I do agree that an episode is small, yes. But the consequence of adding more items and locations would mean that you have to spend more time looking at your inventory and walking around locations where you don't have to be. And in a small episode game like S&M that would just seem like a waste of inventory space and walking-around time.

Actually one of my gripes with the game is that Telltale hasn't implemented the double click warping to relieve the boring walking-around aspect of the game. But I guess it's not in there just to prolong the game a bit.


I'll give another example with the previously mentioned DIscworld 2. The first 2 chapters are maybe 6 hours long tops each. However, there are plenty of items(all used logically) and at least 15 different screens of interactions in each chapter. If discworld 2's first 2 chapters were divided into the episodic format, being each chapter is one episode, it would be a fine example of how to do episodic gaming right!

Not 6-9 items and 6 locations, wham bam, done.

Or something like Broken sword 1 divided by 3 would make decent episodic adventuring because there is enough content to fill 3 compelling episodes.

[Sir Lemming]

I find this guy's assessment exaggerated, but he does have a good point. As much as I do love these episodic games, I know I'm not going to really feel that the new Sam & Max adventure game franchise has reached its full potential until another full, epic quest comes out. To use a rather obvious analogy, it's like comparing TV shows and movies. Somehow I don't think Lord of the Rings: The TV Series would take off quite like the movies did. They'd have to be downscaled a bit.

With these current games, Telltale can alleviate this issue a bit by having more items and stuff that carry over from one episode to another. I think they did that pretty well with the ketchup puzzle in episode 2. But as long as the car is unable to drive anywhere other than the locations in the current game, there will have to be fewer options, thus limiting the puzzles' difficulty in that particular dimension.

[swissrebel]

After playing the second episode, i'm feeling slightly unsatiated by the puzzles and story length. I appreciate they're episodic, and I know telltale's doing something new, and in fairness, they're doing it well. The reviews are all glowing, even if the common theme is that it's just not much of a challenge :)

Some people won't care, because they love seeing their favourite dog and rabbity-thing back in action. I'm one of the people who's still lusting after ridiculous puzzles to match the ridiculous dialogue and story. I liked the lack of logic.

I'm content to play through series one and not complain about difficulty again, but I want telltale to consider the possibility of making a regular-length S&M game, with "traditional" (severed hand-golf-ball-retriever) puzzles, just because making those stupid gadgets was... well, stupid. And awesome :)

I could even punch the "old-school" view of - sod-it, just make it in 2D.

But i'll leave that for today :)

[numble]

I am trying myst online for 99 cents... it is beta... plus, each age is much much longer than one s and m episode, which is the point. You never get stuck in s and m.. you often get stuck in a myst age.
I am trying it because I want a coop game with my wife... I only brought it up because its promotion of 99 cents for a month let me try sam and max for free.

Did you read what I enjoy about adventure gaming? Enough areas/items/puzzles to present a challenge... myst's ages are long enough to accomplish that, unless you think myst games are easy....

Yes, my point is that you start off saying that episodic adventuring is troublesome and is "not good for the gamer" but now you're pointing out why episodic Myst is alright or how you'd do Discworld in an episodic sense--in the end it just actually is that you find the first two episodes of Sam and Max too easy. That's fine, and many have expressed that point, but it's not the episodic model to blame.

Anywho, I find that it's only going to be the hardcore play-as-many-of-them type of adventure gamer that often will play both Myst and Sam and Max--just like you'd find that there are few ER fans that watch 24--they may fall into the same genre/model, but they're different animals altogether, and the most extreme complaints from one side about the other might not make sense to one another.

[shadow9d9]

Yes, my point is that you start off saying that episodic adventuring is troublesome and is "not good for the gamer" but now you're pointing out why episodic Myst is alright or how you'd do Discworld in an episodic sense--in the end it just actually is that you find the first two episodes of Sam and Max too easy. That's fine, and many have expressed that point, but it's not the episodic model to blame.

Anywho, I find that it's only going to be the hardcore play-as-many-of-them type of adventure gamer that often will play both Myst and Sam and Max--just like you'd find that there are few ER fans that watch 24--they may fall into the same genre/model, but they're different animals altogether, and the most extreme complaints from one side about the other might not make sense to one another.

Well, your first paragraph shows that you didn't read WHY it is troublesome and not good for the gamer. When you go back and read my explanations and address them, you should have a better understanding.

You are trying to argue semantics with my words while ignoring the REASON for saying them.

Btw, Myst Online, which I have not even begun to play btw, has enough content to start as a full game, because, it IS actually a full game-Uru... They plan to add a new age at launch and more in the future. A Myst age usually takes quite a while to beat and consists of often dozens upon dozens of screens, many many puzzles etc.

Please go back to the REASONS I gave for why TELLTALE's version of episodic gaming is bad for the adventure gaming. Also, read and try to understand how the alternatives I gave(discworld, broken sword) would remedy the problem inherent in the Sam and Max model.

[shadow9d9]

"in the end it just actually is that you find the first two episodes of Sam and Max too easy."

No, that isn't what I said, please try again.

"The difference is that you'll never have a ton of items and a ton of places where they could possibly be used, which would require you to slowly explore your options and think."
"they suffer from lack of locations/items/puzzles to make a compelling adventure game...no challenge/no exploration/little thought needed... therefore contrived."

This actually amounts to me saying that the games are too short, and a side effect is lack of challenge and a huge disconnect from episode to episode that really makes the game feel watered down.

For yet another example, take Discworld 2's first and second act again. The second act keeps ALL the locations from the first, while adding the same amount of locations-to about 25-30 or so total. This keeps the game connected and part of a whole. THAT would be the way to do episodic content. Keep building upon what you start with and making it more and more complex. Not starting over each time and having another 2 hours of just a few locations and very few items.

[numble]

Btw, Myst Online, which I have not even begun to play btw, has enough content to start as a full game, because, it IS actually a full game-Uru... They plan to add a new age at launch and more in the future. A Myst age usually takes quite a while to beat and consists of often dozens upon dozens of screens, many many puzzles etc.

"in the end it just actually is that you find the first two episodes of Sam and Max too easy."

No, that isn't what I said, please try again.

"The difference is that you'll never have a ton of items and a ton of places where they could possibly be used, which would require you to slowly explore your options and think."
"they suffer from lack of locations/items/puzzles to make a compelling adventure game...no challenge/no exploration/little thought needed... therefore contrived."

This actually amounts to me saying that the games are too short, and a side effect is lack of challenge and a huge disconnect from episode to episode that really makes the game feel watered down.


Yes, but I've earlier argued about a stand-alone versus serial episodic model--comparing Seinfeld to to 24 or Lost--24 and Lost actually frontloads you with 4 and 6 hours (respectively) of content before starting up on a regularly distributed model, the same with Myst--and you arguably have to be in for the whole ride. The stand-alone model of Sam and Max is that you can jump in at any episode--ala Seinfeld.

In Seinfeld or the Simpsons, you want to know about what kinds of trouble the guys run up to this episode, or what elements of pop culture are going to be made fun of this time, any ongoing story arc is secondary--in 24 and Lost you want to find out, first and foremost, how the ongoing story is going to unravel. Critiquing the lack of length or depth in the former or the lack of independent episodes in the latter is missing the point of what their respective creators are striving for.

[Mishakun]

Critiquing the lack of length or depth in the former or the lack of independent episodes in the latter is missing the point of what their respective creators are striving for.
I agree. We haven't got all the content yet. One could argue the point of the game being watered down, but that's because you haven't played the whole thing yet. But no-o-o, I "didn't read" and I "don't get it". Seriously dude... that argument is starting to get old.

I find that this is starting to be analogous to going to the cinema, leaving only having seen 2/6th of the movie, and then complaining about how shallow the movie was. It is rediculous, but then again it seems that some movie reviewers seem to work this way. :D

Jokes aside, I do want to see S&M have more puzzles involving some amount of serendipity in the future.

[shadow9d9]

You are trying to say that they are striving for a game with 6 screens and 6-9 puzzles with 6-9 items because otherwise it would be inaccessible. Who in their right mind would buy sam and max act 5 without buying 1-4? Let's assume this is somehow the case and the creators are purposely creating it like it is. That is fine!

However, my criticism stands the same. Whether they intention it to be like it is or not, the review is of their finished products and my opinions on them. I offered suggestions to improve the model, and if they want to continue doing it like this, more power to them. I, and others like me, will not be buying. If you think that this doesn't matter to them, well, what is the point of feedback then? I am expressing my opinion to them and the opinion does not hold only to me as you've seen. There are many lurkers, like me, who have been thinking that the episodic content AS DELIVERED by Telltale amounts to contrived super short games. I am posting this more to them and to the developers than to people who've decided they like it.

Hey, people like American Idol and no amount of me telling them what garbage it is will do anything. I could only vote with my wallet and my opinion.

[shadow9d9]

"I find that this is starting to be analogous to going to the cinema, leaving only having seen 2/6th of the movie, and then complaining about how shallow the movie was. It is rediculous, but then again it seems that some movie reviewers seem to work this way."

Then, again, you didn't understand what I was trying to say. That is a terrible terrible analogy. It would be appropriate if compared to FPS episodic content... or to first person adventure like content the size of a Myst Age.. or to inventory based games with the length of a discworld 2 act 1 or 2... but not to inventory based adventure games of shorter length for the above reasons. If you still don't understand it, then there is no other way for me to explain it.

[numble]

On a different note, since I feel my Myst and television comparisons might be getting old, I'll point out that I think that Telltale is gradually moving towards a definition of the different types of episodes they will be doing: the different structure for episodes of Bone, CSI, and Sam and Max would sort of prove that point--they admittedly still look to be refining each model, however.

Oh no, I can't find the right analogies, so I have to fall back on the entertainment model again (sorry). Bone episodes are working out to be have the length and depth (and release schedule) like a miniseries or Movie trilogy, the CSI episodes are akin to the hour-long dramas (like CSI!) on TV, with a stronger overall arc/continuity and longer episode times, and the Sam and Max episodes are working out to be those short entertaining (and stand-alone) sitcoms with short release times.

Having not played CSI yet, I may be wrong.

[Hero1]

I agree with shadow. The short episodic model is holding back the "gaming." I think the puzzles design and solutions are all very good, but because there is so few items and locations it is very simple to work out. I would much rather wait 6 months between "episodes" or "games" or "chapters" however you wanna call it.. Spend my $35 and get a full 10 hour long adventure game. Compared to six 2-3 hour short episodes. I would rather have a full meal that satisfies than 6 short sweets that feel good going down but then leave you wanting more afterwards. Its easy to say "make the episodes harder" but when you have only got 2 hours of gameplay and maybe 6 locations(3 re-used) and 5 inventory items that is just hard to work with. Episodes 4-5-6 are supposed to be harder and longer, so I'm anxiously waiting to see how those turn out. I still think Bone: The Great Cow Race was harder than these sam and max episodes even though that was directed at a younger audience, I think the length of the game is a factor in adventures. The more places to explore the harder it is.

[numble]

Happy birthday, by the way Hero1 (unless it's no longer your birthday in Oz...)

[Hero1]

Happy birthday, by the way Hero1 (unless it's no longer your birthday in Oz...)

haha thank you kind sir. :D No better birthday present than discussing the difficulty of the new sam and max episodes with you tho! hahahah :D

[shadow9d9]

I agree with shadow. The short episodic model is holding back the "gaming." I think the puzzles design and solutions are all very good, but because there is so few items and locations it is very simple to work out. I would much rather wait 6 months between "episodes" or "games" or "chapters" however you wanna call it.. Spend my $35 and get a full 10 hour long adventure game. Compared to six 2-3 hour short episodes. I would rather have a full meal that satisfies than 6 short sweets that feel good going down but then leave you wanting more afterwards. Its easy to say "make the episodes harder" but when you have only got 2 hours of gameplay and maybe 6 locations(3 re-used) and 5 inventory items that is just hard to work with. Episodes 4-5-6 are supposed to be harder and longer, so I'm anxiously waiting to see how those turn out. I still think Bone: The Great Cow Race was harder than these sam and max episodes even though that was directed at a younger audience, I think the length of the game is a factor in adventures. The more places to explore the harder it is.

Well said.

[ShaggE]

If I may chime in for a second... All I'm getting from this thread is:

"I dislike the new S&M games."

"I, for one, enjoy the new S&M games."

"Well, I don't."

"That's fine."

"You must not have read my post, I clearly said...."

And so on. Nobody is saying your opinion is wrong, shadow. At most, they are saying you should give the remaining episodes a chance, as you never know if it'll grow on ya.

[Oilers99]

You do realize that some people like to play games at a pace that's faster than a half-dead elephant crawling up mount everest that has been covered by five feet of molasses, right?

People love to complain about how the puzzles in Sam and Max aren't challenging, and how the situations never get particularly complex. Well, yeah. And my game doesn't have to come to a total standstill every few puzzles, either. It's a slickly paced comedic presentation that actually pays attention to pacing, something that few other graphic adventure games can claim. That Telltale is actually planning an overall game that only amounts to fifteen hours is a Godsend as far as I'm concerned, because they clearly have the right idea; graphic adventure games are, in a lot of ways, horrific messes. They have flaws that it seems most have become numb to. By comparison, easy puzzles are nothing compared to having nothing to do. And the more that Telltale leans that way, rather than trying to absolutely kill you with its puzzle design, the better off their games are.

You don't have to like these games, and I don't really feel any ill-will towards you. But your ideas would wreck the promising things about what Telltale is actually doing right now, and that would be unfortunate, to say the least.

[fhqwhgads]

Well, one thing I am seeing here is that most of the people complaining about difficulty and length are hardcore old school adventure gamers.

I do not want to bring up the "is adventure gaming dead" argument again, but one thing anyone would have to agree on, is for a genre to stay viable, it has to grow. Now I'm not saying adventure gaming has not grown. The other genres have just grown exponentially faster!

I think Telltale is doing a brave thing with the current model for Sam & Max. In a way, this is a new sub-genre (and thus not fair to compare to old school adventures).

I think they do try to cover a lot of the bases though. Not only do they lure the old adventurers by using a well known classic franchise, but they are making the games shorter for the 'instant gratification' generation. Not only are they trying to accommodate the old, but also the new.

Unfortunately, you can't please everyone all of the time and it seem that people like shadow9d9 fall into the non-pleased category. I understand that you do not like the new Sam & Max and it is your right to do so. It is also your right then not to support telltale.

If what you say is correct, and the games are 'bad for gamers', by not supporting them, they wil realise the games does not sell and change their business model!

What I do not appreciate is while I respect your opinion, you clearly do not respect mine. You question why I enjoy adventure games and say '...I explained what makes adventure games enjoyable and how this game is lacking in those categories...'. That explanation may hold true for yourself, but not for many gamers out there (if you can believe the gametap rankings, for instance).

I say again, I do respect your opinion, but please, do not try to force it on me. I, for one, can't wait for the next episode. Being in the position where I only have an hour or two per day to play games, the short episodes are just the right length and difficulty and very much entertaining for the short amount of time I can afford to play. And considering what we pay for it, I think we can hardly complain.

[Princess_Frosty]

So every game should have 1 item per screen? Why would having more items and locations imply illogical puzzle design? I don't see the correlation!

Come on now. There are plenty of adventure games that are completely logical with plenty of items and locations. Discworld 2 is a game I'm almost done with.. amazingly funny, plenty of locations, lots of items, and I have yet to get stuck for more than a half hour so far... completely logical.

It's not illogical, I think what he meant was that with only a handful of inventory items and locations, the possible combination of items/interactions is low, especially if you consider lack of interaction between inventory items.

With a greater veriety you can't just take stabs in the dark, you have to think about your puzzle in a more logical manner to work out the solution.

By the time you're mid way into games like monkey island 3 (one of my fave puzzle adventures) you have somethnig like 20+ items all of which could potentially be used with one of the other items, or on the environment, with numerous scenes available, possible combinatons increase exponentially and it keeps you thinking all the time

[ShaggE]

Well, one thing I am seeing here is that most of the people complaining about difficulty and length are hardcore old school adventure gamers.

I find that funny, to be honest. I remember in the heyday of adventure gaming, most people complained about pixel-hunts and extremely difficult puzzles. Now, they complain about games not having pixel hunts and extremely difficult puzzles. (I'm guilty of that myself, I finally got my hands on a copy of Bad Mojo, and I HATED the short length, by the time I got into the story, it was already over.)

I think the problem lies in memories. An example: I recently replayed The 11th Hour, one of my favorite games, for the first time in quite a few years. Long story short, I couldn't even be bothered to finish it. It just wasn't as good as I remembered it to be. About the only part of the game that was as good as I remembered was the hand-severing flashback, which still makes my wrist hurt just thinking about the incredible FX job they did there.

My point is, we all want to relive playing our favorites for the first time, and very rarely are the games as good as we remember. Thus when we get a new adventure game, especially one that breaks tradition, some will never even give it the time of day.

[shadow9d9]

Oh god, what is it with the gametap rankings.. gametap is 99% OLD GAMES>.. to be in the top is nothing special whatsoever! I know you want to feel justified in your opinions..

I played Sam and Max for 99 cents... because of gametap!

[shadow9d9]

"Well, one thing I am seeing here is that most of the people complaining about difficulty and length are hardcore old school adventure gamers."

Yeah right. I never played most of the old sierra games(matter of fact I found king's quest remake 3 and 5 so bad that I stopped playing sierra games completely) and I have literally 20+ adventure games still sitting and waiting to be played as I get around to them. This includes moment of silence, gk2, 3, ankh, myst 4-5, al emmo, dark fall 2, obsidian, morpheus, still life, discworld noir, etc... Yet I am hardcore!? Yeah right!

I have never played any text adventure game or any text parser game, never played maniac mansion or game of that era... what about me and adventure games could possible be considered hardcore? Because I prefer an adventure game with more than 6-9 items to use in 6 locations? Read the adventuregamers.com review of episode 3.. their sentiments are mine exactly.

Why do people make up assumptions to justify their opinions? I know the fans want to come and defend their love, but don't assume things like .. "well, they must be hardcore adventure guys!""Yeah, that's it!"

[csmithrd]

While I empathise on the challenge factor point that you bring up, as it's a legitimate one, I find it interesting that you dislike the games to the point of not wanting to play them. To me, the charm of the Sam & Max is brought to life through the excellent writing in both games; the dialog is smartly written and I enjoy little things such as the "Have you got any..." dialogs Sam has with Bosco as much as completing the main plot.

So while the game may not be the most challenging, you're one of the first I've heard who didn't even want to enjoy the experience of once again being in the world of Sam & Max.

[ShaggE]

............. What the hell? I just typed out this rather large reply, clicked "send", and lost the entire post! Grrr... next time I'm making sure to copy my posts before sending....

Anyway, to sum up what the original post said, in a shorter, less frustrating-if-lost way.....


Shadow9d9, your grasping for straws at this point. Nobody's arguing your opinions, so I don't see why you feel the need to get more and more sarcastic with each post you make. You don't like Sam and Max, you never played adventure games from "that era" (Which was the only era of adventure games*see bottom of post* until the last couple years, so what adventure games HAVE you played?), and you take comments about adventure gaming in general and somehow read them as attacks on you. We get it, enough with the one-man arguements already.

(On another note) I noticed you said that "old" games on GameTap are no competition for newer titles. How do you figure that? Is there a magical cutoff date for when games go from "good" to "it r teh suxx0rz lolololz" that I'm not aware of?


*Clarification from earlier* By "adventure games" in that context, I mean as a whole genre, which had only one true era. I'm aware that certain sub-genres of adventure gaming had multiple eras.

[shadow9d9]

............. What the hell? I just typed out this rather large reply, clicked "send", and lost the entire post! Grrr... next time I'm making sure to copy my posts before sending....

Anyway, to sum up what the original post said, in a shorter, less frustrating-if-lost way.....


Shadow9d9, your grasping for straws at this point. Nobody's arguing your opinions, so I don't see why you feel the need to get more and more sarcastic with each post you make. You don't like Sam and Max, you never played adventure games from "that era" (Which was the only era of adventure games*see bottom of post* until the last couple years, so what adventure games HAVE you played?), and you take comments about adventure gaming in general and somehow read them as attacks on you. We get it, enough with the one-man arguements already.

(On another note) I noticed you said that "old" games on GameTap are no competition for newer titles. How do you figure that? Is there a magical cutoff date for when games go from "good" to "it r teh suxx0rz lolololz" that I'm not aware of?


*Clarification from earlier* By "adventure games" in that context, I mean as a whole genre, which had only one true era. I'm aware that certain sub-genres of adventure gaming had multiple eras.

Once people have played a game they are less and less likely to want to keep playing it. Therefore it should come at no surprise that newer games are higher ranked.

I did play some games "from that era", but am no means a "hardcore adventure gamer" because of my comments. My first adventure was DOTT, then Sam and Max, then Monkey Island 2, etc...

I went on to enjoy Zork Nemesis(my favorite adventure game), indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Syberia(wasn't too crazy about), The longest Journey(one of my favorites, Riven, Myst 3, Dark Fall, Barrow Hill, Scratches(disliked), King's quest 1 and 2 remakes, 3 and 5 which I disliked. Also played a bunch of others when I was younger but barely remember such as one of the point and click space quests and dagger of amon ra. As I said, I still have a huge backlog of games, but I don't just like adventure games, so it takes time to get through them all. I also played but disliked the controls of Grim Fandango. I loved Broken Sword 1 and 2 and hated 3.

If you think my arguments are "grasping at straws", that is fine. All the reviews for each successive episode has been getting worse for the reasons I have listed and a 3.5/5 from adventuregamers.com is by no means a tremendous success.

As for the previous guy, sure, I like the world of Sam and Max, but that doesn't give the developer a pass when it comes to a lacking and contrived adventure game just because they have a good license.

I just don't play adventure games to hear random dialogues that are semi humorous(but often fall short). I play them for puzzles foremost.

[ShaggE]

My apologies, I misread your post, it looked like you were saying you never played ANY adventure game from that period, save for King's Quest.

And I do see what you meant about GameTap, again, I misconstrued your tone.

Thank you for finally posting a more comprehensive reason why you dislike the games, in that light I can better see where your criticisms stem from. I still disagree, (even though I love puzzles too) but being a gamer who never really cared for the immensely popular Final Fantasy series, I know what it's like to try to explain why you don't like something to avid fans :P

[dunkpork]

RE:

I still think it's a little early to make this judgement, however from early reviews of Episode 3 I'm going to have to agree. The season certainly does not feel like a 15 hour game. Instead, it feels like a collection of 2 hour games.

Obviously the episodic content is the reason for this. I feel that the episodic content could be pulled off, but when playing episode 2 the technique didn't hit quite right. I guess I felt like there needed to be just a little more rumination on the transition from episode 1 to episode 2, and exposition on the overarching story.

I think the biggest problem is that Sam & Max are forced to be self contained, such that an individual who pays $8.50 for Episode 3 before ever playing any other part of the series will be able to understand the entire experience in that one self contained product. This forces a certain amount of redundancy, a certain amount of "self-containedness", that keeps the product from feeling like a continuation, or even a link, in a greater whole.

Now, I understand why the episodic approach is necessary, especially when working in conjunction with that big distribution site, but there is a certain amount of collaborative energy that is lost when creating 6 little self-contained products. If those products were 6 segments of one greater product, their effect would be multiplied. As it is, their effect is additive. *Wonders if that makes sense*

I'm certainly not unhappy with S&M. I enjoyed the first two episodes, and am looking forward to the third. I'm sure there will be some overarching storyline that will satisfactorily tie the entire whole together.

I just think that, as it stands, the amount of work the team is doing does not appear to be making a product that builds upon itself. One example is in the original game: Because the product is one coherent whole, the player can revisit any site previously visited. But, since each Season 1 episode is self-contained, there are sites that cannot be revisited in later episodes. An example is Brady Culture's theater after episode 1. While this seems frivolous, and I agree that it mostly is, "old school" gamers may find themselves feeling like the game is thus "smaller", and subjectively they may transfer that feeling to their enjoyment of the product.

That said, I still hope that an overarching story will pull the episodes together to feel more coherent. I think that, as Telltale continues to work on their production style, they will get better at it (:p). I am happy with what is being produced thus far, though I wish each episode were 30-60 minutes longer.

[Optimaximal]

Just for the record, SiN Episodes collapsed on itself because they couldn't a) keep up with the rapid developments of the changing Source codebase (why they didn't just pick a codebase and stick with it I dunno) and b) financially sustain an entire team for a lengthy development cycle.

Think of how quickly Telltale would fall apart if they had to sustain longer development times with no money coming in the short term? Gametap would quickly lose interest (or not be interested at all) because it's the main draw for their network at the moment and the entire company would be running on life support. And then we wouldn't necessarily get a better (or even half-baked) product because it would be forced out of the door barely feature complete like so many PC games from recent years.

Episodic gaming is good in certain cases. Where the developer has the means to keep itself financially afloat (i.e. Valve) it's just a money-making pit of sloth, meaning they can overcharge for less content (Episode 1 was abysmally priced, unless you live in the UK and bought it from Steam for £12 - i.e. ME!).

[ShaggE]

Shame about what happened to SiN, I loved the original game, so I was hyped for the new ones.

[dunkpork]

Certainly.

And I think part of the anxiety is that we have to wait 30 days for each new episode. If we got the entire thing all at once I think the subjective satisfaction of the customer would overwhelm some of the smaller complaints about the product.

[ShaggE]

30 days is nothing though, as far as episodic games go. Especially when compared to Half-Life 2 episodes.... they could have made a full sequel during all the times they've pushed back Episode 2's release date...

(I get what your saying, but I had to take the opportunity to rant about Valve lol)

[numble]

"Well, one thing I am seeing here is that most of the people complaining about difficulty and length are hardcore old school adventure gamers."

Yeah right. I never played most of the old sierra games(matter of fact I found king's quest remake 3 and 5 so bad that I stopped playing sierra games completely) and I have literally 20+ adventure games still sitting and waiting to be played as I get around to them. This includes moment of silence, gk2, 3, ankh, myst 4-5, al emmo, dark fall 2, obsidian, morpheus, still life, discworld noir, etc... Yet I am hardcore!? Yeah right!

Well here's the thing--if somebody owned 20+ fighting games, or 20+ sports games, or 20+ racing games, 20+ rpgs, 20+ FPS's, whatever--I would call them hardcore--who wouldn't?

Read the adventuregamers.com review of episode 3.. their sentiments are mine exactly.
If you're trying to prove that you're not a hardcore adventure gamer, it doesn't necessarily help your cause if, when thinking of reviews, your first inclination is to bring up a review from a site geared towards adventure gamers--like a fighting game fan pointing to a review from a fighting game site, etc.. (Yes, I know it's possible to find some other review--PC Gameworld perhaps--but first inclinations are first inclinations)

Oh god, what is it with the gametap rankings.. gametap is 99% OLD GAMES>.. to be in the top is nothing special whatsoever! I know you want to feel justified in your opinions..

Gametap rankings matter since Gametap provided the funding that literally guaranteed that the 6 episodes would be made with no financial risk to Telltale--basically, with Gametap funding, it was assured that Telltale would at least break even. Being popular on Gametap, along with the 15 day exclusivity, is the reward that Gametap gets for funding Telltale. If it turned out to not be popular on Gametap, then they would want to discontinue such an arrangement (now or in the future), and it's continued popularity on Gametap prevents that from happening, and it also would be leverage for Telltale to maybe ask for more money the next time around. Being popular on Gametap also lets Gametap knows what their gamers like, and what attracts them to Gametap--which leads to Gametap plastering Sam and Max ads on IGN, Mad Magazine, and even television commercials--you don't see them necessarily advertising their (new and exclusive) Mini-golf or soduku games.

And once again, have you seen the games that showed up on the Gametap rankings in the past months? Silent Hill 2, Deus Ex, Civilization 3, Toejam and Earl, Sonic the Hedgehog, etc. Please explain how these old games were able to get on there at all, when Gametap now already has a stable selection of new titles that could fill that up?

[fhqwhgads]

I give up.

You missed my point totally. I did not give the gametap rankings as a cast-iron argument. Just as an indication that SOME PEOPLE DISAGREE (with some being a number larger than 1).

My point was that I saw your point, respect it, and ask you to respect mine (and the 1 or more people that agree with me). You seem to enjoy being sarcastic and stomping on my opinions as if I'm selling them as fact, which I didn't.

There's no point in continuing this conversation if that is the way you are going to react.

[Hero1]

has anyone seen IGN's review of episode 3? http://pc.ign.com/objects/852/852358.html

they make some interesting points about the puzzles and difficulty

it got a 6.6, episode 1 got an 8.7, episode 2 a 7.8

[shadow9d9]

"Well here's the thing--if somebody owned 20+ fighting games, or 20+ sports games, or 20+ racing games, 20+ rpgs, 20+ FPS's, whatever--I would call them hardcore--who wouldn't?"

I guess I have a different definition of hardcore. I go in and out of phases of what kind of game I am into. It took me 7 years to finish Curse of Monkey Island. I got stuck once, stopped for 3 years, stuck again... stopped for 4 years and then beat it.

I started playing adventure games again after that about mid last year to try to get my wife into some computer gaming. Played 3 or so games... took a year off again. The reason I have all of these games stockpiled is because I just went on a buying spree on ebay and bought em for chump change-$7-15 each. It could take me years to beat them all at my rate.

Hardcore to me would mean that I play adventure games all the time, get all the new games, etc. That is not me. I have a ton of other hobbies including other genres of computer games that take me attention away for weeks, months, and sometimes, as my example above showed, years at a time. If you consider that hardcore...

[shadow9d9]

"Well here's the thing--if somebody owned 20+ fighting games, or 20+ sports games, or 20+ racing games, 20+ rpgs, 20+ FPS's, whatever--I would call them hardcore--who wouldn't?"

They might matter to telltale, but it isn't an indication of what people like. Compared to older games, if people pay to subscribe to gametap to play older games, and a new one comes out that they get access to for free, they are very likely to jump on it just because it is a new game that is free with their subscription.

[numble]

I don't even think I'll end up playing episode 3, which I get for free.


Compared to older games, if people pay to subscribe to gametap to play older games, and a new one comes out that they get access to for free, they are very likely to jump on it just because it is a new game that is free with their subscription.

Here's where the logic sort of fails--you argue that you don't even think you'll play other episodes because of such poor quality, even though you get it for "free," yet you later argue that many masses of people will play it just for the sake of playing it, despite the poor quality which you maintain.

If I subscribe to HBO, I won't go out of my way to watch whatever new 1-hour show they have since it's new if I believe it to be crap--I have better things to do with my time--the Sam and Max games require even more of a time commitment--either way, your logic dictates that Gametap users aren't as judgmental in the quality problems you see (you claim you might not play episode 3 because of the poor quality, while they still will.)

[Linque]

I introduced Sam & Max, episodes 1 & 2 to a person who has never before played any videogames whatsoever. At most, she has played about 10 hours of games total before in her life. She really liked the S&M games - granted, it was pretty slow learning into how to solve some of the puzzles ( for example taking out the soda poppers in episode one proved to be a bit too much to handle ).

However, once she was done with those, I asked her if she'd like to try out 'The Curse of Monkey Island'. She did, and got totally hooked. She really got engrossed in the story and wanted to figure out the next puzzle to see what happens next. This wasn't the case with Sam & Max, where she might not play at all for a few days, then come back to it.

Granted, there are many factors that give an advantage to CMI: better voice acting, really good 2D art and animation, excellent premise and so forth. But still, it begs to ask the question whether adventure games are better off as big epic quests rather than episodes. With big quests you can build a better introduction, hooking up the gamer early on and providing an enjoyable adventure you don't want to miss. This certainly might be possible to pull of with episodic gaming as well, but I have not seen it done yet with the Telltale adventure games. The Bone games was a bit better than Sam & Max, as Bone has the story about the dragon and the evil monsters lurking around every now and then. Sam & Max doesn't really have that kind of a hook - the hypnotism storyline doesn't really work, at least for me.

The Sam & Max episodes are ok adventure games, but IGN speaks the truth this time - they're not awesomely good, expecially for non-fans. I truly do want for Telltale to make a second season of S&M (since an old-fashioned adventure game probably isn't going to happen), but being honest, I have to say that I'm going to hold out ordering it until the first episode appears and I can read some comments and reviews about it.

It's not about the memories of old adventure games being rosy. They were actually better than what's coming out nowdays. Even for non-gamers, even with the inferior graphics. Well, at least for one "test subject".

[jp-30]

Did she finish CMI? If not, will she?

[ShaggE]

"It's not about the memories of old adventure games being rosy. They were actually better than what's coming out nowdays. Even for non-gamers, even with the inferior graphics. Well, at least for one "test subject"."

I definitely agree that the old adventure games are much better than most games in ANY genre these days. While we still get a few gems, most games now are either:

Sequels nobody wanted, sequels everybody wanted but turned out to be rushjobs, remakes nobody wanted, licensed games that play exactly like the 500,000 before them, the same game repackaged with updated stats and useless features *cough Madden cough*, WW2 games, sequels to WW2 games, spinoffs of WW2 games, ports of WW2 games, expansion packs of WW2 games, card battle games, DDR clones, or (Popular Game Series) Vs. (Popular Capcom Characters) fighting games. And more WW2 games.

I think I covered the vast majority there :P


(Also, many many more WW2 games)

[Linque]

Did she finish CMI? If not, will she?

She's currently in part IV. I'm very, very surprised at how good she's become. There are some cases where she has had to rely on the Universal Hint System or me, but mostly it's been her own doing. Rottingham's Swordfight has been one of the biggest obstacles so far.

Next up is Grim Fandango and perhaps eventually the original Sam & Max: Hit the Road. At that point I can make the ultimate comparison with old/new. But that's ways away, I think a break is in order after CMI is done. :p


ShaggE:
Ah, one more who agrees me with that there are a couple of thousand too many WW2 titles out there. Wargames in general are coming out of my ears - I have totally lost all interest in them, even if they are good. I used to love Battlefield 1942 and the sorts, but now it's just too much.

[ShaggE]

Amen to that. I still enjoy playing a good one every now and then, and I loves me some Wolfenstein,(the Wolfenstein franchise doesn't count toward the plague of WW2 games in my opinion, since it has sci-fi elements) but if I see another Medal of Honor or Brothers in Arms preview on X-Play or in EGM, I shalt pinch a scalpel betwixt my pointer finger and thumb, and partake in poking every offending game developer in the eye. I will then wipe off the blade, and do the same to every game developer who has put jumping puzzles or sewer levels in a FPS while I'm at it. :P

[shadow9d9]

Here's where the logic sort of fails--you argue that you don't even think you'll play other episodes because of such poor quality, even though you get it for "free," yet you later argue that many masses of people will play it just for the sake of playing it, despite the poor quality which you maintain.

If I subscribe to HBO, I won't go out of my way to watch whatever new 1-hour show they have since it's new if I believe it to be crap--I have better things to do with my time--the Sam and Max games require even more of a time commitment--either way, your logic dictates that Gametap users aren't as judgmental in the quality problems you see (you claim you might not play episode 3 because of the poor quality, while they still will.)

You assume too much. The flaw in your logic is simple. I am rather extreme in deciding not to play another episode when it is free. Most people are not so. As long as they were mildly entertained, they are likely to play since it costs no extra and there are no other new games on gametap.

"either way, your logic dictates that Gametap users aren't as judgmental in the quality problems you see"

Exactly. People aren't judgmental when it comes to something free. And gametap gives access to all games, including sam and max... so since they pay no extra, they might as well. Sales are much much more indicative. Do you think many people are going to pay $8(or even $5) for 1.5 hours of a sam and max episode with no challenge and few puzzles? Do you think after 3.5/5 star reviews and 90% of reviews pointing to a decline in game length and puzzles and locations that people who were disappointed in the first or second will go to the third?

Let's say there are 100 potential customers that all buy the first game.. 90 of them give the second game the benefit of the doubt but they notice that the trends are continuing and there are less puzzles, locations, challenge, length. Then 65 buy the third and so on... that is indicative. Plus, some people(who are foolish imo) paid for the whole season upfront giving telltale the benefit of the doubt. If they end up being unhappy by the 2nd or 3rd, it doesn't bode well for their future purchases with the company, even if the 2nd season improves. Most people don't like feeling ripped off.

They should succeed financially because the full amount(if you buy) goes to them if you download. No middle man. If they find people keep buying their games at a shorter length at 5-8 bucks a piece it actually encourages them to keep the games short. Maximum profit.

[numble]

Sales are much much more indicative. Do you think many people are going to pay $8(or even $5) for 1.5 hours of a sam and max episode with no challenge and few puzzles? Do you think after 3.5/5 star reviews and 90% of reviews pointing to a decline in game length and puzzles and locations that people who were disappointed in the first or second will go to the third?

Let's say there are 100 potential customers that all buy the first game.. 90 of them give the second game the benefit of the doubt but they notice that the trends are continuing and there are less puzzles, locations, challenge, length. Then 65 buy the third and so on... that is indicative.

Honestly, where is your "indicative" evidence at all? Theoretical hashings based on what you personally feel of the games, (when you already admitted that what you feel is different from "most people") is not any indicative evidence at all. I see 3.5/5 as pretty good for a $6 game, Many people see a 6.7/10 as really good for $60 console games.
Plus, some people(who are foolish imo) paid for the whole season upfront giving telltale the benefit of the doubt. If they end up being unhappy by the 2nd or 3rd, it doesn't bode well for their future purchases with the company, even if the 2nd season improves. Most people don't like feeling ripped off.


People are foolish for saving $18.75 on the season pre-order ($53.70 if you buy each individually, versus $34.95)?

Just like you keep talking on and on about Gametap's 99 cents deal (you've talked about it on more than one site) most people like a deal and most people have talked about what a deal it is to get Sam and Max for as cheap as they are--there are more people talking about what a deal it is to play Sam and Max (even some people offering to pay 25%-50% more) than there are talking about how they are getting ripped off, and in my opinion, in lieu of sales figures, that is pretty indicative about what people are feeling about whether they feel they are being ripped off with the series so far.

[dunkpork]

Just finished Episode 3.

All I can add to this discussion (argument) is that it was short. One hour, thirty minutes, listening to most of the dialogue options and playing Whack-da-Rat twice (high score 21). If I listened to every dialogue option I probably could have spent 2 hours, total.

I think the puzzles could be ramped up in difficulty a little bit, at this point. They're still pretty simple. I hope the second half of the season is a little more thought provoking.

How about some box stacking puzzles? *Laughs* That's always a good cop out puzzle =p

[dunkpork]

Oh yeah, and I thought the mini-game was very well done. The controls were quick and responsive, and the game itself had good art, good timing, and good sound. Some kind of high score meter might have been nice (didn't notice one).

Hrm. That doesn't sound right. What I mean is that after beating the mini-game, a high score mode would have been nice =)

[shadow9d9]

Honestly, where is your "indicative" evidence at all? Theoretical hashings based on what you personally feel of the games, (when you already admitted that what you feel is different from "most people") is not any indicative evidence at all.

People are foolish for saving $18.75 on the season pre-order ($53.70 if you buy each individually, versus $34.95)?

Just like you keep talking on and on about Gametap's 99 cents deal (you've talked about it on more than one site) most people like a deal and most people have talked about what a deal it is to get Sam and Max for as cheap as they are--there are more people talking about what a deal it is to play Sam and Max (even some people offering to pay 25%-50% more) than there are talking about how they are getting ripped off, and in my opinion, in lieu of sales figures, that is pretty indicative about what people are feeling about whether they feel they are being ripped off with the series so far.

I don't mean to be rude here, but I have a feeling that either english is not your native language or you are rushing through what you are reading.

In my sales example, declining numbers vs steady numbers would be indicative. This is why I am saying that sales matter much more than gametap rankings.

The second part of your response also shows a lack of understanding. I am saying that they would be foolish to pay for something upfront without knowing what the end quality will end up being. You could pay for a full season after the fact too I believe. Unless you have an extensive history loving a company and all its work, it is foolish to pay for something before you have a chance to sample a majority of the product. In my opinion.

And you think people "talking" about how they feel here are indicative of how things are. Sadly, people that post in forums are a super small vocal minority. If you think they represent the majority, you are quite wrong. There is a small vocal base for even the worst of games. Sales define success for a company. Not people on a forum. Sorry to say, but I don't understand how you think that the vocal minority means more than how sales figures would indicate people think.

And I added in, that if people paid upfront and don't like the quality they are getting, they cannot do anything about it until after the season. Which is why I said that if people end up feeling ripped off by not getting what they thought they were going to get, they are likely never to buy from them again.

[numble]

Hey dunkpork,

I didn't feel the urge to play it more than twice too, until Brendan (one of the game designers) mentioned that it gets harder as you play more. I agree some elements could be added to make people want to play it more.

[dunkpork]

Hey dunkpork,

I didn't feel the urge to play it more than twice too, until Brendan (one of the game designers) mentioned that it gets harder as you play more. I agree some elements could be added to make people want to play it more.

Yeah?

I'll go back and play it some more, then. Thanks for the heads up =)

[Udvarnoky]

Let's say there are 100 potential customers that all buy the first game.. 90 of them give the second game the benefit of the doubt but they notice that the trends are continuing and there are less puzzles, locations, challenge, length. Then 65 buy the third and so on... that is indicative. Plus, some people(who are foolish imo) paid for the whole season upfront giving telltale the benefit of the doubt. If they end up being unhappy by the 2nd or 3rd, it doesn't bode well for their future purchases with the company, even if the 2nd season improves. Most people don't like feeling ripped off.

The problem with these numbers is that they were pulled out of your ass, and aren't based on anything other than your apparent belief that 10%-25% of the people who bought an episode were not only unhappy with it, but aren't going to buy the subsequent episode. For one thing I don't think any of us know enough to start assigning percentage values to the number of people who liked/disliked the game. (Weren't you the one who said that forumites represent a very small minority of the consumer base and therefore no conclusion about general happiness/contempt for the product can be drawn?) Not to mention that not everyone who disliked episode 1 (or at least had issues with it) stopped buying later episodes. If that were true people wouldn't be complaining about the length/difficulty mid-season; they'd have simply disappeared.

You call the people who pre-ordered the season foolish, but you assume that everyone who did so shares your opinion and will be unhappy with the second half of the season. Let's, just for the sake of argument say that some of those full season buyers in fact liked the games (I know, it's an insane notion, but humor me). By purchasing the season upfront rather than buying all the games separately, they saved close to twenty dollars.

I find it hard to believe that many people will feel ripped off by these games considering the pricing structure. $9 for one episode? $35 for all six? Someone who shoveled out the dough for these games thinking they were going to be vastly different from what they turned out to be were simply not paying attention, didn't do their research, and are my idea of foolish. People who paid for the whole season knew it was something of a gamble, but those people were also probably Sam & Max fans and read enough to have an idea of what to expect about difficulty and length, and anyone who falls under that category is unlikely to be disappointed.

[shadow9d9]

Although it is a tad presumptuous I suppose, Agon(which I have not played yet but I just bought on ebay for 14 bucks) seems to do episodic right. 4-7 hours an episode seems about right. However, they are certainly not rushing the episodic content(1 game per month now they say for sam and max). It smacks of rush job/cashing in to me with the fact that they keep getting shorter coincidentally right as their schedule has moved up to 1 month per episode.

[dunkpork]

I do think the 1 month per episode schedule is a cause of the short content. You just can't do enough in a month, including testing. Even 1 month 2 weeks would be a vast improvement.

Also, I wonder how much storyboarding Telltale is doing? Storyboarding is an effective design and planning tool.

[shadow9d9]

The problem with these numbers is that they were pulled out of your ass, and aren't based on anything other than your apparent belief that 10%-25% of the people who bought an episode were not only unhappy with it, but aren't going to buy the subsequent episode. For one thing I don't think any of us know enough to start assigning percentage values to the number of people who liked/disliked the game. Not to mention that not everyone who disliked episode 1 (or at least had issues with it) stopped buying later episodes. If that were true people wouldn't be complaining about the length/difficulty mid-season; they'd have simply disappeared.

You call the people who pre-ordered the season foolish, but you assume that everyone who did so shares your opinion and will be unhappy with the second half of the season. Let's, just for the sake of argument say that some of those full season buyers in fact liked the games (I know, it's an insane notion, but humor me). By purchasing the season upfront rather than buying all the games separately, they saved close to twenty dollars.

I find it hard to believe that many people will feel ripped off by these games considering the pricing structure. $9 for one episode? $35 for all six? Someone who shoveled out the dough for these games thinking they were going to be vastly different from what they turned out to be were simply not paying attention, didn't do their research, and are my idea of foolish. People who paid for the whole season knew it was something of a gamble, but those people were also probably Sam & Max fans and read enough to have an idea of what to expect about difficulty and length, and anyone who falls under that category is unlikely to be disappointed.


"For one thing I don't think any of us know enough to start assigning percentage values to the number of people who liked/disliked the game."

Umm, why are people having comprehension problems. I was showing HOW sales would be very indicative. If they either went down or stayed flat. The point being that sales are MUCH more indicative of popularity than gametap ratings.. This is not complicated people. I even step by step showed you WHY sales would be more important.. and instead of getting that, you get mad at a example I give and assume it is fact? Huh!?

People need to understand that an example is not reality. Example is to show a point, which went right over the rabid fans' heads. It is NOT a prediction. It shows how trends would show significance way more than gametap. Get it?



If each episode continues to be 1.5 hours and they paid upfront, I sure as hell would feel ripped. Again, I gave an EXAMPLE of what COULD happen if things keep going in the current trend.

Quit the rabid fan syndrome and try to understand what I posted before responding in haste.

[numble]

I don't mean to be rude here, but I have a feeling that either english is not your native language or you are rushing through what you are reading.

In my sales example, declining numbers vs steady numbers would be indicative. This is why I am saying that sales matter much more than gametap rankings.

The second part of your response also shows a lack of understanding. I am saying that they would be foolish to pay for something upfront without knowing what the end quality will end up being. You could pay for a full season after the fact too I believe. Unless you have an extensive history loving a company and all its work, it is foolish to pay for something before you have a chance to sample a majority of the product. In my opinion.

And you think people "talking" about how they feel here are indicative of how things are. Sadly, people that post in forums are a super small vocal minority. If you think they represent the majority, you are quite wrong. There is a small vocal base for even the worst of games. Sales define success for a company. Not people on a forum. Sorry to say, but I don't understand how you think that the vocal minority means more than how sales figures would indicate people think.

And I added in, that if people paid upfront and don't like the quality they are getting, they cannot do anything about it until after the season. Which is why I said that if people end up feeling ripped off by not getting what they thought they were going to get, they are likely never to buy from them again.

Please stop resorting to the argument that people don't understand what you're saying or speak English--it really is getting old.

I don't have to explain again why the success on Gametap does matter, and why it translates to a financial boon to Telltale. Dan Connors even mentions in a recent interview how much Gametap has done to make their company a success.

There are indications that the pre-order deal will not last for long--(I can dig out the URLs if you want) and why would it? Why would you charge people willing to pre-order the same price for people who are waiting until the end?

I'm fully aware that people on forums are a super-small minority, but I base what people say about price not on this forum but on a lot of mainstream places like 1up, Kotaku, and Joystiq. Not to mention things gleaned from interviews and posts from people like Dan Connors, Dave Grossman and other Telltale people that indicate that many of the things people say on the forums are less indicative of the general public, especially in regards to the difficulty debate.

[Udvarnoky]

shadow9d9, who is this nonexistent person who said that Gametap rankings were more important than sales? Everyone here knows that sales are what matters to the company. I was saying that I don't think your example makes sense, but besides that it's unnecessary because it's arguing against a claim that was never made.

The reason Gametap rankings were brought up in the first place is that Gametap is the company that funded these games, ergo if Gametap is happy with how the games are performing on their end, it makes the possibility of a second season more likely. Of course, the fact that a Sam & Max game often appears on that list doesn't necessarily mean much, but Gametap is significant because they're very much part of the reason the Sam & Max episodes got made in the first place.

If each episode continues to be 1.5 hours and they paid upfront, I sure as hell would feel ripped.

But you didn't pay upfront. The majority of people who would blind buy a game for 35 bucks are the kind of people who are diehard Sam & Max fans and who read up enough to know what they were buying. (Fun fact: Dan Connors said that each episode would be ~1.5-2 hours in length before the first episode was released.) In the case of most people I would say that if you feel ripped in pre-ordering the whole dang season you have yourself to blame.

Again, I gave an EXAMPLE of what COULD happen if things keep going in the current trend.

What COULD happen? In other words, your example's worthless.

[shadow9d9]

shadow9d9, who is this nonexistent person who said that Gametap rankings were more important than sales? Everyone here knows that sales are what matters to the company. I was saying that I don't think your example makes sense, but besides that it's unnecessary because it's arguing against a claim that was never made.

The reason Gametap rankings were brought up in the first place is that Gametap is the company that funded these games, ergo if Gametap is happy with how the games are performing on their end, it makes the possibility of a second season more likely. Of course, the fact that a Sam & Max game often appears on that list doesn't necessarily mean much, but Gametap is significant because they're very much part of the reason the Sam & Max episodes got made in the first place.



But you didn't pay upfront. The majority of people who would blind buy a game for 35 bucks are the kind of people who are diehard Sam & Max fans and who read up enough to know what they were buying. (Fun fact: Dan Connors said that each episode would be ~1.5-2 hours in length before the first episode was released.) In the case of most people I would say that if you feel ripped in pre-ordering the whole dang season you have yourself to blame.



What COULD happen? In other words, your example's worthless.

No, the example gives all possibilities. Either the sales have slumped or the sales have stayed the same or somewhere in between. Say it with me: the example is used to show why sales would be more indicative than gametap.

"shadow9d9, who is this nonexistent person who said that Gametap rankings were more important than sales? "

Someone said gametap was important as an indication. I responded saying that sales would be more indicative and explained how. Say it with me: Point was that sales would be more indicative. Refer to the example for HOW.

[shadow9d9]

Please stop resorting to the argument that people don't understand what you're saying or speak English--it really is getting old.

I don't have to explain again why the success on Gametap does matter, and why it translates to a financial boon to Telltale. Dan Connors even mentions in a recent interview how much Gametap has done to make their company a success.

There are indications that the pre-order deal will not last for long--(I can dig out the URLs if you want) and why would it? Why would you charge people willing to pre-order the same price for people who are waiting until the end?

I'm fully aware that people on forums are a super-small minority, but I base what people say about price not on this forum but on a lot of mainstream places like 1up, Kotaku, and Joystiq. Not to mention things gleaned from interviews and posts from people like Dan Connors, Dave Grossman and other Telltale people that indicate that many of the things people say on the forums are less indicative of the general public, especially in regards to the difficulty debate.

As I said, gametap is a financial success. However, it does little to gauge consumer content compared to sales, which was the point trying to be made.

It may be a pre-order deal, but it very well could be a package deal too. For example, Agon is $10 per episode but 3rd one free with "subscription" of first 2. Keeping a package deal would be logical, even if the deal is not as good as the pre-order deal.

[Mel]

The season certainly does not feel like a 15 hour game. Instead, it feels like a collection of 2 hour games.

I never got the impression Season 1 was meant to be a 15 hour (or however many hours you want to use) game. It was meant to be standalone episodes that had a common theme and an overall plot. They are standalone games. Much of the disappointment comes from the expectations that the players bring into it and when those aren't met, it becomes the game's fault which seems unfair to me.

Everyone comes to the table with different gaming needs and if your (I'm speaking to no one specifically) particular needs aren't being met, find the game that will meet them and stop pissing all over the games that don't do it. It just gets tiresome to hear the bitching and moaning that goes on when expectations aren't met (especially when you've only spent $0.99 to play the games. If you had dropped $30-$40, I might have more sympathy).

[shadow9d9]

I never got the impression Season 1 was meant to be a 15 hour (or however many hours you want to use) game. It was meant to be standalone episodes that had a common theme and an overall plot. They are standalone games. Much of the disappointment comes from the expectations that the players bring into it and when those aren't met, it becomes the game's fault which seems unfair to me.

Everyone comes to the table with different gaming needs and if your (I'm speaking to no one specifically) particular needs aren't being met, find the game that will meet them and stop pissing all over the games that don't do it. It just gets tiresome to hear the bitching and moaning that goes on when expectations aren't met (especially when you've only spent $0.99 to play the games. If you had dropped $30-$40, I might have more sympathy).

You need to spend money in order to give criticisms in hope of better future games? They have it for 99 cents, should I pay more just to have my opinion heard? And at least 5 people out of the ten who hav responded here actually agree with me.. imagine that!

[Mel]

But you've far surpassed your $0.99. ;)

[numble]

And at least 5 people out of the ten who hav responded here actually agree with me.. imagine that!

And you think people "talking" about how they feel here are indicative of how things are. Sadly, people that post in forums are a super small vocal minority. If you think they represent the majority, you are quite wrong.

Imagine that!

[jp-30]

The title of this thread speaks volumes;

Well, just played 1 and 2 and I was right-review

Before you played the game(s) you had preconceived ideas of how it wouldn't live up to your expectations. And lo and behold...

[shadow9d9]

The title of this thread speaks volumes;

Well, just played 1 and 2 and I was right-review

Before you played the game(s) you had preconceived ideas of how it wouldn't live up to your expectations. And lo and behold...

Keeping low expectations leads to being able to be pleasantly surprised. And if I were the only one to think that way, I'd call it as you do. But I don't.

Plus the fact that the original Sam and Max was amazing.. I hoped for the best and that maybe the reviews would be wrong...

[numble]

Someone said gametap was important as an indication. I responded saying that sales would be more indicative and explained how. Say it with me: Point was that sales would be more indicative. Refer to the example for HOW.

As has been pointed out many other times, nobody ever questioned that sales was not more indicative or more important--the problem with looking at sales figures is that only Telltale is privy to that information, so the layman must use other factors (Gametap rankings, comments on mainstream websites, comments by Telltale employees that reveal the general level of feedback they're receiving) if they want to gauge general satisfaction.

This was the point I was trying to make, but I'll concede that maybe the point didn't come across in my writing--in effect, my bad, not yours--I'll assume you read my posts multiple times and that you are a native speaker of English.

[shadow9d9]

Imagine that!


Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow9d9 View Post
And at least 5 people out of the ten who hav responded here actually agree with me.. imagine that!

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow9d9 View Post
And you think people "talking" about how they feel here are indicative of how things are. Sadly, people that post in forums are a super small vocal minority. If you think they represent the majority, you are quite wrong.

It is easy to quote out of context.

The first quote was to show that I am not the ONLY one with my feelings, which could lead to the conclusion that I am a lone skeptic.

The second is referring to the sales/success of a game as a whole.

Again, you fail at comprehension, which requires context.

[shadow9d9]

But you've far surpassed your $0.99. ;)

I'd agree with you.

However, I paid the .99 to try out Myst Online, and got sam and max as a free bonus. Almost like an extended demo. Which ironically was what the combined length of the 2 episodes is equivalent to.

Oh smack!

[Hero1]

I think Gamespot and IGN's reviews show a trend on how the games are progressing.

Gamespot
Episode 1: 7.7
Episode 2: 7.4
Episode 3: 7.1

IGN
Episode 1: 8.7
Episode 2: 7.8
Episode 3: 6.6

That my friends is not a good sign. These reviewers each point to the puzzle difficulty and hence the shortness of the episodes as its downfall. Now episodes 4-5-6 are supposed to be harder..and longer.. but they need to be. At the moment the series is on a decline...

[numble]

It is easy to quote out of context.

The first quote was to show that I am not the ONLY one with my feelings, which could lead to the conclusion that I am a lone skeptic.

The second is referring to the sales/success of a game as a whole.


Eh, context doesn't matter--the point still stands that, using the logic of the 2nd quote, the sentiments expressed here--from either 1 person or many--are the sentiments of a super small vocal minority and that it would be sad/wrong to believe that the majority would feel that way. Did anyone say that you were a lone skeptic?

Again, you fail at comprehension, which requires context.

Again, no need to resort to personal attacks here.

[shadow9d9]

Eh, context doesn't matter--the point still stands that, using the logic of the 2nd quote, the sentiments expressed here--from either 1 person or many--are the sentiments of a super small vocal minority and that it would be sad/wrong to believe that the majority would feel that way. Did anyone say that you were a lone skeptic?



Again, no need to resort to personal attacks here.

Not a personal attack. Just an observation. You continue to misunderstand basic points and take things out of context. I explained both quotes. Ignore them if you'd like.

[numble]

Not a personal attack. Just an observation. You continue to misunderstand basic points and take things out of context. I explained both quotes. Ignore them if you'd like.

Maybe you misconstrued what I said--all I said was "Imagine that!"

Now if I had added "What a hypocrite!" you would have had a case there, but when I highlighted the quote about the super small vocal minority of forum posters, I was only highlighting that 5/10 still qualifies under your super small vocal minority thesis, lest anybody looked at your 5/10 figure and were led to the conclusion that you represent some majority view. (Yes, nobody said anything about your views being the majority, but on the other hand, nobody said you were some lone skeptic either).

Anyway, there have been plenty of people such as Oilers99, fhqwhgads, Mel and Optimaximal that have brought up some good points about things such as pacing in comedies and the demands/expectations from different types of games. I've even brought up the issue of varying episodic content (compared to miniseries, sitcoms, and serial dramas) that it seems Telltale is trying to establish (and Dan Connors alludes to this somewhat in his recent GWJ interview (http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/30108)). But most of the time you seem to be dismissing a lot of good thoughts with a variation routine of "You didn't read what I said, please try to understand me, try again, you must not be a native speaker of English," and arguing about some of the most obscure tangents such as why sales figures are more important than Gametap rankings (when nobody ever claimed otherwise).

[shadow9d9]

"But most of the time you seem to be dismissing a lot of good thoughts"

Name one.

Some people don't mind it. That is great. Some do for the reasons the reviews and I stated. That is all and well and fine too. What else do you want me to examine? The point of this thread is to express criticism to telltale and to warn lurkers. It also let's them know about the 99 cents deal that would essentially let them try the first 3 games for free.

[numble]

Your response to Oilers99 (non-existent).

I also brought up the fact that these are purposely made to be stand-alone, which you dismissed outright with "Who in their right mind would buy sam and max act 5 without buying 1-4?" when there is evidence that people do (http://telltalegames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2055) partake in such activity.

[numble]

As to fhqwhgads, you zeroed in only on his "hardcore adventure gamer" remark and his slight mention of Gametap, while ignoring a lot of what he said about Telltale striving for a subgenre, pleasing different audiences, or how he likes the games short.

[shadow9d9]

Your response to Oilers99 (non-existent).

I also brought up the fact that these are purposely made to be stand-alone, which you dismissed outright with "Who in their right mind would buy sam and max act 5 without buying 1-4?" when there is evidence that people do (http://telltalegames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2055) partake in such activity.

This is what oilers said:
"graphic adventure games are, in a lot of ways, horrific messes. They have flaws that it seems most have become numb to. By comparison, easy puzzles are nothing compared to having nothing to do."

Essentially that the easier the puzzles, the better, because he finds regular adventure games too difficult and somehow horrific messes. I guess a game this simple is perfect for him. What else should I say? Good for him, sucky for people who play games for challenges instead of walks in the park looking at the pretty scenery. If I wanted brainless movie viewing, I'd *gasp*, watch a movie!

Your second point: As I said, Agon has standalone episodic adventuring for 5-7 hours each. 1.5 hours is hardly compareable. Standalone or not. Agon obviously didn't succumb to the problem I found here which is that there is such a small game, the puzzles are few, items are few, and locations are few.


The issue is that Telltale is pumping them out once a month now and these problems are the side effects. If they took more time and made 5-7 hour standalone installments, I would have absolutely no problem with them. It would alleviate all the problems I mentioned.

[shadow9d9]

As to fhqwhgads, you zeroed in only on his "hardcore adventure gamer" remark and his slight mention of Gametap, while ignoring a lot of what he said about Telltale striving for a subgenre, pleasing different audiences, or how he likes the games short.

Because those points are ridiculous. Who wants short games? I mean, really. Do you think a majority of gamers want the games to be this short? 90%+ of reviews have criticized it for this and you want me to forget about the length because of 1 guy's liking of short games? How do you want me to respond? Good for him.

Subgenre and pleasing different audiences are just catchphrases that are used as an excuse for what telltale is doing. I think it's good for them financially while screwing the game. To each his own. How else should I respond to this one?

If we both saw a movie and you thought it was terrible and I started saying... "well, it was artistic!" or "I like thoughtless movies!" or "I like 26 minute movies because I can't sit still for more than that!!" or "I like that they only used 3 sets, it feels more independent filmy!".. would you bother responding to me?

[numble]

Agon is not standalone at all--it is a serialized episodic game, you really do need to play the first before playing the second, or else you don't know anything about what's going on when you first start up the second.

Again, compare S&M to CSI and Bone, and you can see that Telltale will divide each episodically, but approach them differently, no differently than a TV studio approaching a sitcom, a drama, and serialized mini-series differently.

90% of reviews have criticized it for being a shorter game, not for being a short game. Therein lies the difference--many still give it better review grades than games that take 2 years to develop, and are still mostly laudatory that the phrase "first true episodic game" can be found in probably most reviews. They like the idea of monthly episodes. They like the idea of bite-size standalone gaming chunks. But this game feels shorter than the rest--that's it. There are no diatribes about how the episodic paradigm is screwing the game, or how you might feel ripped off. It's still averaging 7+ grades, and I'd prefer six episodes at 7+ than three episodes at 8+.

If we both saw a movie and you thought it was terrible and I started saying... "well, it was artistic!" or "I like thoughtless movies!" or "I like 26 minute movies because I can't sit still for more than that!!" or "I like that they only used 3 sets, it feels more independent filmy!".. would you bother responding to me?
We've been down this road before. More apt would be complaints that ask for things that the creators aren't aiming for. It would be idiotic to complain about why the Simpsons or Seinfeld don't have episodes as long as 24 or Lost, don't have as much depth/drama as them, etc, or why you can't watch Lost and 24 out of order, or why Lost and 24 can't be 22 minute chunks and be funny like sitcoms are. Or for that matter complaining about why the Lord of the Rings Trilogy wasn't done as a television series, or why Seinfeld couldn't have been told as a movie trilogy. Or complaining that Glengarry Glen Ross is not action-packed enough...

[shadow9d9]

Agon is not standalone at all--it is a serialized episodic game, you really do need to play the first before playing the second, or else you don't know anything about what's going on when you first start up the second.

Again, compare S&M to CSI and Bone, and you can see that Telltale will divide each episodically, but approach them differently, no differently than a TV studio approaching a sitcom, a drama, and serialized mini-series differently.

90% of reviews have criticized it for being a shorter game, not for being a short game. Therein lies the difference--many still give it better review grades than games that take 2 years to develop, and are still mostly laudatory that the phrase "first true episodic game" can be found in probably most reviews. It's still averaging 7+ grades, and I'd prefer six episodes at 7+ than three episodes at 8+.


We've been down this road before. More apt would be complaints that ask for things that the creators aren't aiming for. It would be idiotic to complain about why the Simpsons or Seinfeld don't have episodes as long as 24 or Lost, don't have as much depth/drama as them, etc, or why you can't watch Lost and 24 out of order, or why Lost and 24 can't be 22 minute chunks and be funny like sitcoms are. Or for that matter complaining about why the Lord of the Rings Trilogy wasn't done as a television series, or why Seinfeld couldn't have been told as a movie trilogy. Or complaining that Glengarry Glen Ross is not action-packed enough...

You are arguing semantics with terms like episodic. I think Agon is similar to Sam and Max. You don't. Accept that. Feel free to think you have the true definition. I don't care.

The developers can choose whatever "aim" they want. I have the right to criticize it. So do others.

Agree to disagree will you?

Adventure gamers-"Still, the sad truth is that even though there may be some extra puzzle-solving time involved, Episode 3 is an extremely short game, definitely the shortest of the three so far."

They don't think it is a short game? "Episode 3 is an extremely short game." It is ALSO the shortest of the 3. But it is an extremely short game in and of itself.

Gamespy- "First, Episode 3 is really short. " Plus, under cons- "Very short; extremely easy puzzles;"

PCgameworld- " If this is the direction Sam & Max is headed, I think Telltale should either pull the plug or give themselves more time for the remaining three episodes. At minimum, 2 months each.""The running time is getting dangerously close to a mere hour (I clocked out at 90 minutes), and the plot is in many respects becoming formulaic and predictible, which is the very antithesis of Sam & Max."

Eurogamer-"Part of the 'problem', if you like, is the general lack of locations and objects on your person - inevitably it's not long before you join the dots."

IGN-"The puzzles are much easier this time around and the story is just too short to give the writers room to explore its potential...We managed to finish this one in a little less than an hour and a half. There are fewer puzzles this time around and virtually no confusion about what you're supposed to do next."

Gamer's temple- "There is only one location beyond Sam’s and Max’s now familiar neighborhood and it’s the rather small (three screen) Ted E. Bear's Mafia-free Casino and Playground. Making a short game feel even shorter are the puzzles, which are pretty much simple and straightforward."

honestgamers.com-"Episodic gaming is custom built for short, sharp bursts of gameplay, but Episode 3 can be conformably beaten in one sitting by even the least experienced pixel hunters. "

Shorter than the other 2 and short in and of itself. They don't need to be exclusive.

[numble]

Go ahead and find that 90%... this link will help you (http://telltalegames.com/community/blogs/page-2).

I'm willing to wager it's not even 90% at all.

--update--
And just looking at that link--it looks like Episode 3 actually got higher marks overall than you've been leading me to believe.

[shadow9d9]

Go ahead and find that 90%... this link will help you (http://telltalegames.com/community/blogs/page-2).

I'm willing to wager it's not even 90% at all.

--update--
And just looking at that link--it looks like Episode 3 actually got higher marks overall than you've been leading me to believe.

Did I say it got low marks? I just said it was shorter and suffered from my criticisms of 1 and 2, but worse.

I just quoted a whole bunch of you. 90% is not a statistic certainty. It means a majority. If I stated "I did an analysis and 88.7% show this", then you could argue.. but it isn't meant literally. I don't see how you could think so, but if you misunderstood, I apologize and amend it to majority for your better understanding of my true meaning.

Sleep time, be back in the morning.

Some of the reviews have the nerve to say it'll take 3-4 hours when it is clearly not the case, btw. They are just quoting what was told to them it seems. 90 minutes cannot be extended to 3-4 hours unless you go idle(in the brain). Don't take this literally! It is just my opinion!

I quoted enough for emphasis. A good lot of them.

[numble]

Did I say it got low marks? I just said it was shorter and suffered from my criticisms of 1 and 2, but worse.


I may have misconstrued you, but...

All the reviews for each successive episode has been getting worse for the reasons I have listed and a 3.5/5 from adventuregamers.com is by no means a tremendous success.


Do you think after 3.5/5 star reviews and 90% of reviews pointing to a decline in game length and puzzles and locations that people who were disappointed in the first or second will go to the third?

[numble]

Some of the reviews have the nerve to say it'll take 3-4 hours when it is clearly not the case, btw. They are just quoting what was told to them it seems. 90 minutes cannot be extended to 3-4 hours unless you go idle(in the brain). Don't take this literally! It is just my opinion!

The Gamers With Jobs podcast interviewer said he took 5 hours to complete Culture Shock, and I personally took 3-4 hours on Episode 3 (I tried to find every easter egg and dialog option though). It's possible that some people that buy and plan to play 20+ adventure games have a leg up in the puzzling department. It is just my opinion!

90% is not a statistic certainty. It means a majority.
Okay, no wonder you've been constantly finding that I don't seem to understand what you're saying. Next time somebody says "I'm 90% positive," or "we will get a majority of the votes" I will understand them better.
90% = Majority, gotcha.

[matan]

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. shadow9d9, for some reason you come off extremely hostile towards everyone's different opinion, and then start getting angry saying people are hostile towards your opinion, blaming them for not understanding you. I actually get the feeling you just have a very different gaming taste from most people here. A clear testimony of this, for me, is your constant reference to discworld 2, which is a horrible game in my opinion. I also know some people like Myst, which I find a total agony to play. This is fine, and I'm happy I have games like Sam&Max that I'm able to play, and you have games like Discworld etc, which you enjoy. No one is pressuring you to play Sam&Max games.

I'm doing enough thinking studying for my exams. When I play episode 3, I want to rest a bit, watch some funny scenes, listen to some funny dialog, and play the Sam&Max characters in another quirky plot. For me, it's much more important to feel as if I'm playing the main characters in a comic then to solve some puzzles. I think in a past discussion I once referenced a great genre in Interactive Fiction, in my opinion, in which you just walk through the story, without solving puzzles at all (like Photopia (http://adamcadre.ac/if.html) or All Roads (http://www.ingold.fsnet.co.uk/if.htm))

(By the way, if I really wanted to do some thinking, I could just start doing my Computational Geometry homework which I keep putting off. Adventure games, even the "tough" one like Discworld, don't really "make you think" that much)

Also, regarding all the reviews mentioning the game shortness - of course they will mention it! It's one of the most noticable features of the game. If no one told me the game is supposed to be short, and I'd buy it thinking it's a full-length game, I'd be awfully disappointed, so it's the reviewers duty to inform the readers that this is a short game. I mean, I think the game have perfect length, and I'd still mention the game is very short if I'd write a review of it.

[shadow9d9]

The Gamers With Jobs podcast interviewer said he took 5 hours to complete Culture Shock, and I personally took 3-4 hours on Episode 3 (I tried to find every easter egg and dialog option though). It's possible that some people that buy and plan to play 20+ adventure games have a leg up in the puzzling department. It is just my opinion!


Okay, no wonder you've been constantly finding that I don't seem to understand what you're saying. Next time somebody says "I'm 90% positive," or "we will get a majority of the votes" I will understand them better.
90% = Majority, gotcha.

If you take everything literally, you will have problems living in society. Conext clues and basic english should help you.

If someone says I am so hungry I could eat a horse, they don't literally want horse.

[shadow9d9]

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. shadow9d9, for some reason you come off extremely hostile towards everyone's different opinion, and then start getting angry saying people are hostile towards your opinion, blaming them for not understanding you. I actually get the feeling you just have a very different gaming taste from most people here. A clear testimony of this, for me, is your constant reference to discworld 2, which is a horrible game in my opinion. I also know some people like Myst, which I find a total agony to play. This is fine, and I'm happy I have games like Sam&Max that I'm able to play, and you have games like Discworld etc, which you enjoy. No one is pressuring you to play Sam&Max games.

I'm doing enough thinking studying for my exams. When I play episode 3, I want to rest a bit, watch some funny scenes, listen to some funny dialog, and play the Sam&Max characters in another quirky plot. For me, it's much more important to feel as if I'm playing the main characters in a comic then to solve some puzzles. I think in a past discussion I once referenced a great genre in Interactive Fiction, in my opinion, in which you just walk through the story, without solving puzzles at all (like Photopia (http://adamcadre.ac/if.html) or All Roads (http://www.ingold.fsnet.co.uk/if.htm))

(By the way, if I really wanted to do some thinking, I could just start doing my Computational Geometry homework which I keep putting off. Adventure games, even the "tough" one like Discworld, don't really "make you think" that much)

Also, regarding all the reviews mentioning the game shortness - of course they will mention it! It's one of the most noticable features of the game. If no one told me the game is supposed to be short, and I'd buy it thinking it's a full-length game, I'd be awfully disappointed, so it's the reviewers duty to inform the readers that this is a short game. I mean, I think the game have perfect length, and I'd still mention the game is very short if I'd write a review of it.

See, you are a fan, so you see me as hostile instead of the people who can't seem to understand basic sentence structure and context.

They mention length in the reviews and then lower the review score because of it. They are not just using it as a description. If you read the above quotes you would have known that though.

I could substitute m example of discworld 2 with 1000 other good games like DOTT, the original sam and max, monkey island 2, the longest journey, etc. It was just the first game that came to mind. Surely you like one of them. THey all would work well dividing their game by 3 and using that as a comparison of length/locations/puzzles as what I and others are looking for in episodic content instead of an 1.5 hour game.

[shadow9d9]

I may have misconstrued you, but...

God. There is a difference between low marks and mediocre marks. 3.5 is mediocre, not low.

[matan]

See, you are a fan, so you see me as hostile instead of the people who can't seem to understand basic sentence structure and context.

Ironically, I d