Quote:
Originally Posted by thom-22
I've heard of all of this before. Long-winded "defenses" that are nothing more than generalities about what Telltale has done in the past.
|
Nothing I said was untrue though (you argued with me about the difficulty of The Devil's Playhouse. Fair enough, as a level of difficulty can be neither true nor untrue as it is subjective). Telltale hasn't released a game based on an adventure property since 2010, so we have to base our expectations on that release (based on Dan Connors own words that their games are broken up into categories). It's like casual games in 2009. Telltale hadn't released a casual game since 2007. They didn't drop them, they just took a break from them. Thus, it's logical that the same is true this time around, but in the opposite direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom-22
I don't agree with that. Or at least I don't think being merely "respectful" (which is really too vague for useful analysis) is an adequate measure of how successful they are in adapting a license. Telltale has on occasion done what they wanted to do, regardless of whether it fit with the property or not. There were a number of aspects of Tales that I found to be quite un-Monkey Island-like. The Devil's Playhouse had a significantly different tone and style of humor than the previous seasons.
|
They changed things around in The Devil's Playhouse and Tales of Monkey Island, no doubt (the complete overhaul of game mechanics in The Devil's Playhouse, a much more murderous LeChuck in Tales of Monkey Island, etc). Any change is due to alienate some portion of the fanbase, but I'm of the mind that change can be good. And I thought the change in those two franchises were worthwhile. The Monkey Island creators Ron Gilbert and Dave Grossman thought the changes were good in Tales (and even contributed to them). Sam & Max creator Steve Purcell thought the changes in Sam & Max: The Devil's Playhouse were good (and ditto with the contributing to them). King's Quest creator Roberta Williams has offered advice to Telltale for King's Quest, which the team found "invaluable". So, it's likely there will be change. But, the change could be good for the franchise. We'll just have to wait and see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom-22
Rewind back to the time between The Devil's Playhouse and BTTF, their first "EZ" adventure. If you had said BTTF would follow a pattern established by previous games, you would have been wrong! You have absolutely no way of knowing that the pattern you're describing will hold.
|
It does follow a pattern though. There were four Telltale CSI games starting in 2007, each an EZ adventure, and that was a licensed property not based on adventure games. Back to the Future is a licensed property not based on adventure games (or based on a property that already had an adventure game). Following that pattern, it would make sense that Back to the Future was an EZ adventure like CSI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom-22
It's simply not an answer to the things Telltale has repeatedly been saying in interviews and elsewhere about their game design philosophy. They didn't say, "we don't think walking around is important for how we want to do our Jurassic Park game in particular"; they said, "Walking around is boring." Period.
|
It may not have been said explicitly, but it turned out to be referring just to the game play of Jurassic Park. There is walking around and exploring in The Walking Dead.
The biggest point I was trying to make was about Dan Connors realizing that Back to the Future is a different category than Sam & Max and Monkey Island. This is a very good thing. Before that, I was worried too that they would carry the casual gameplay to King's Quest and any future adventure based property. The fact they know that Back to the Future is not a traditional adventure game is a load off my mind.