[thom-22]

Originally Posted by JuntMonkey

I am in complete agreement in preferring exploration and gameplay to a focus on a linear spoon-fed "story" and dialogue. What I don't see is why you think that S1-2 were any better from that standpoint. There was just as much dialogue, often a chore to sit through. ... The puzzles as a whole were marginally harder in S1-2, but I don't feel like it's that extreme. I've been fairly satisfied with S3's puzzles, and I've played well over 100 adventure games to completion since King's Quest, so I'm no slouch.

It's not just the individual difficulty of the puzzles. It's that in S1-2, the latter especially, one got the feeling that more of them were going on at the same time; that's mostly what I mean when I talk about complexity. We were usually exposed to elements (hotspots, inventory items, visual and spoken clues) of multiple puzzles in ways that didn't telescope their eventual use.

Originally Posted by JuntMonkey

The overall presentation was just a poor man's version of S3, with not as much care and resources put into it.

I disagree with that characterization. While it is no doubt true Telltale had fewer resources to invest in the first two seasons, I think they were made with just as much attention to detail, albeit perhaps in a different way. The art style looked just as good, the environments were just as interesting. Season 3 was made with too much care for the non-interactive aspects of presentation.

Originally Posted by JuntMonkey

The Tomb of Sammun-Mak itself is a bigger and better set piece/environment to explore than anything in the first two seasons.

The Tomb of Sammun-Mak was indeed bigger than the average S&M episode. More importantly, you had access to most of its locations fairly early and could move among them -- had to move among them -- to solve the puzzles. It's the exception, though. The other Season 3 episodes might have had as many locations as those of earlier seasons, but too often they were broken up into segments or you were funneled through them for limited purpose. The interactive complexity of a gameworld is more important than its size or location count.

Originally Posted by JuntMonkey

With a fully controllable and rotatable camera it would be outstanding for an adventure game.

As a big fan of action-adventure games, I would certainly not be opposed to having four walls instead of three and a controllable chase camera. I don't see it as that big a deal, though, when the mode of interaction (if not the character movement) is still fundamentally point-and-click and rarely depends on precision or timing. I've always been pretty happy with Telltale's in-game camera work. (Have I read there are camera issues in BTTF? I've only played Ep. 1 so I'm not conversant with that series.)

Originally Posted by JuntMonkey

I think that, for me, part of why S3 is better is because I'm playing it on the PS3. Long dialogue sequences and dull cinematics are significantly more tolerable when you are relaxing on the couch rather than sitting upright with your hand on a mouse. Since the game is clearly designed first and foremost as a console game, this might be a big factor.

Where is it written that the game is intended for consoles foremost? When I sit down to play a game, long dialogue sequences and dull cinematics are just as intolerable to me regardless of where I'm actually sitting.