User Avatar Image

BTTF "Share your disappointment" Thread

posted by ADAMATION on - last edited - Viewed by 2K users
Okay, so 2 months or so ago, I posted a comment about how this game was going to suck for the following reasons..

A.) Point and click
B.) Linear gameplay

After getting bitched out by telltale radicals I thought, well...maybe it won't be as bad as I am thinking. And at least it's a modern, 3D BTTF game. God was I wrong. After playing the demo and watching in horror at the gameplay videos online..I totally lost all hope in getting an awesome BTTF game. And the worst part is, look at the Jurassic Park trailer. It looks awesome. It's not cartoony, and from what Ive read its NOT going to be point and click. Apparently the designer said it wouldnt feel right to walk around aimlessly solving puzzles..? So why the hell is the Back to the Future game just that?! Whats the difference between BTTF and JP? Theyre both adventure movies. So why does JP get to be an awesome adventure game and BTTF, which is probably more popular anyway, is a cartoony, restricted, puzzle game? I just don't get it.....And to those of you out there who are going to rip me to shreads about not knowing what BTTF is about or sarcasticly tell me theyre sorry that its not like GTA, this time I know I am right that BTTF did not get the game it deserved.

So anyone out there who agrees with me, share your story. And if you disagree with me, please tell me why I should like the BTTF game.

87 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • The idea of a free roam Back to the Future game is obviously appealing but at the end of the day it all comes down to gameplay. If someone was able to come up with a really fun free roam game that was absent of shooting/combat and still stayed true to the spirit of the films then I'd be all for it. Otherwise, it would just end up being a virtual world with nothing to do; maybe fun to mess around in for five minutes or so but ultimately boring.
  • Having played the first episode, I have a few gripes. Firstly, the invisible barriers, whilst obviously a necesssity, were a tad annoying. Secondly, I had no idea what on earth a Speakeasy was. I've kind of guessed (was it just a place you could buy alcohol when it was illegal in the US?), but i'm still unsure. I guess that's to be expected from a timetravel game with characters from before I was born travelling to when my grandparents were born. Thirdly, It was a little buggy. I encountered a bug when ontop of the gazebo (i tried to use docs journal on Einstein), and it teleported me down there, rendered me invisible and rooted the camera to the spot.

    I've no doubt the future episodes will perfect the formula, and overall it was a good game (if a little short).
  • ChrisLaughlin;454796 said:
    My question is this. Who would be satisfied with these games? Who is the target audience? Gamers have come to expect a very high level of polish, challenge and overall quality from their games. BTTF is buggy, boring, bad storytelling, bad adventure-gaming, bad puzzle-gaming, bad action-gaming, etc, etc, etc. Who, exactly, is this supposed to appeal to? Adventure gamers? No. Puzzle-gamers? No. Action-gamers? No. The only category left are "casual gamers," and I doubt that even they would really enjoy this. So who is Telltale aiming for and why do they think they need to dumb down the BTTF games so much?

    Remember Telltale, many of the most successful games have been the most sophisticated and complex for their time - the early Sierra and Lucasarts games, Myst, the Civilization series, all the amazing games put out by Bioware, the Modern Combat games, Bioshock, etc. Gamers want rich, complex, challenging experiences. Where do you get the idea that they want dumbed down, insipid, boring, diluted rubbish like the first two BTTF games? Who do you think your customers are?
    I'm with you -- I want rich, complex, challenging games. For me, it's the challenges, whether adventure- or action-oriented, that make for an immersive experience, not just the story-telling (and certainly not the cinematics).

    But whether we like it or not, casual gamers are a large and growing segment of the gaming market. Though I personally don't see the appeal, there are many non-traditional game consumers willing to pay for pseudo-gaming experiences with lots of hand-holding. If you think BTTF is rubbish, take a look at the crap cranked out by so many casual game companies -- they can't make 'em fast enough.

    It's very disheartening that Telltale -- having built a decent 3D game engine and name recognition in the gaming industry by cultivating the traditional, "hard-core" adventure-game audience -- has chosen to go after a larger market with dumbed-down products. But it would be a mistake to argue that it's a bad business decision.
  • Triloge;454816 said:

    Yeah, it has ATROCIOUS action gaming! It's so bad, it has......none of that at all.

    Bad storytelling? What game are you playing?

    Lastly, I think it's pretty clear at this point that Back to the Future: The Game is NOT FOR ADVENTURE GAMERS! It's for fans of the movies, and many of those are not too great at games. Therefore, the game is toned down in difficulty and complexity.

    It's not for gamers, adventure or otherwise. It's for those who liked the Back to the Future story and wanted to see more.
    I am an adventure gamer but i still love the bttf games that are out, they are too easy for me tho but that's because I'm used to harder puzzles, i would never say the story sucked tho cause i absolutely loved the story and i like to replay them. in fact when all 5 episodes are out i'll play all 5 back to back after figuring out exactly what to do in each episode.
  • JuntMonkey;455275 said:
    What does that matter? AAA games cost money. The game "recording some of your actions" is the only aspect of that description that would be unreasonable compared to other A+ games of today, and that part is acknowledged in the post as unlikely with current hardware.

    Older movie licenses such as The Godfather 1 & 2, Scarface, and The Warriors have recently been made into open world games, and Ghostbusters as a regular action game. All were well received except for GF2. To say that BTTF is not worthy of an A+ budget and development cycle doesn't really fly.
    The Godfather 1 & 2 and Scarface were made into terrible open-world games that were not evocative of the movies on which they were based. Scarface was a sequel, for fuck's sake, of a movie where the main character... you know. Their free-roam environments were not nearly as well-developed as GTA IV or Red Dead Redemption, which were highly-detailed and took years to make.

    The Warriors was a Rockstar pet project throwback to old-school beat-'em-ups based on a decent movie that lent itself to the beat-'em-up; not free roam. I didn't find Ghostbusters: The Video Game very funny, although the gameplay was okay, if a repetitive Gears of War clone.

    The fact is, Back to the Future is a great film franchise, but I don't see how a company like Telltale (whom Universal chose to create games based on a franchise that had been in limbo since the early '90s) could throw all of its resources at a Back to the Future game the way Rockstar does with games like L.A. Noire, Red Dead Redemption, and GTA IV. To do what Rockstar does, they would have to drop all other properties and focus on one game a year to make the definitive Back to the Future game, which may or may not sell. That's quite a risk.
  • ADAMATION;455331 said:
    Your on foot for this game too....
    Yes, but because you're not having to roam all over Hill Valley and know pretty much where you need to go, it's not as dull as if, say, you were playing GTA without doing the missions and couldn't kill anybody.

    I personally love the game. I don't mind the ease of the game, or the length, and that's for several reasons. I like to beat games. I don't like being unable to do so because of difficulty or whatnot. And I like being able to finish the first part and be ready for part 2 when it comes out. And finally, when all of them are out, I want to be able to sit down, relax, and play through all 5 episodes in a row and immerse myself in the story. The easiness of the games makes that possible. In the end, I'm not playing this game to drive around the DeLorean and do whatever. I have GTA: Hill Valley for that. I'm playing TellTale's game for the continuation of one of my favorite movie series of all time. I'm playing it for the story, for the humor, and most of all, for the plain and simple fact that this is most likely the LAST ADVENTURE for Doc and Marty. I wouldn't miss this ride for the world. :D
  • ChrisLaughlin;454796 said:
    Gamers have come to expect a very high level of polish
    and overall quality from their games.
    all the amazing games put out by Bioware

    Oh my... you're killing me here. Play System Shock 2. Then play BioShock again. You'll instantly know everything wrong with your statement and why you're so funny to me with your blatent lies and obliviousness.
  • Um... can I just point out that it's kind of odd that you're complaining about Telltale making an adventure game when that's... kind of what they do. That would be like complaining about Ford making cars, or Rolex making watches... they're an adventure game company; ergo they make adventure games.

    Also the open world Back to the Future idea wouldn't work. I mean, it would be fun to travel through time in realtime, but other than that small novelty it would suck. The big problem is that you need some kind of consistent game mechanic, otherwise it would just end up being tons of driving with lots of mini games in between. Have you ever played "The Simpsons: Hit and Run"? Because it sucked. Well I imagine it would be like that. Also failing the mission every time you hit someone sounds like it would either make the game very difficult or very boring, because you've have to travel really slow everywhere.

    And am I the only person that thinks that "going around and looking for clues" sounds a lot like... I don't know... an adventure game?

    It would have been cool if you could have traveled through time at will though at some point during the game. Especially if you could do stuff in the past and then go back to the future and see the effects.
  • McSuperfly101;453836 said:
    I think a point and click adventure game is the PERFECT genre for a Back to the Future game, I've always thought this right back to when the movies were actually new. My only gripe is that the puzzles are way too easy.

    Maybe they could've given us something with more realistic graphics and made it similar to something like Fahrenheit or Heavy Rain in terms of gameplay but seriously, it's Back to the Future. It's never going to be a 3rd person shooter or an FPS is it?
    This. What else would you want, a Back to the Future platformer? We already got that, it sucked, and most importantly there's just no real way to incorporate BttF into any other genre. They aren't action movies, they're about a teenager and a kooky old man having funny adventures through time. Nothing more, nothing less. The story is what makes it great, and a point and click adventure game is really the only way to adapt something that relies on storytelling alone.

    Though am I the only one pleased with the difficulty level of these games? The only way an adventure game ever gets hard is when puzzle solutions are extremely random and obscure, with the only solution being that the player has to take everything from their inventory and spend the next several hours of their lives using everything on everything just to advance to the next insanely random puzzle. This game was perfect, never once did I feel like I had to keep an FAQ open for me to make progress. I DID get stuck now and then, but never for more then 15 or 20 minutes, which I think is perfect. And of course if I did start getting frustrated, there was always the hint system, which can either point you in a general direction or flat-out tell you what to do, based on the players preference. Most importantly: it's optional. If you don't like it or need it, then you don't have to use it.

    Point and click adventure games aren't supposed to be heavy on gameplay, otherwise they wouldn't be point and click. Story always has been and always should be the main focus, and BttF The Game hit a home run on as far as that goes. I'd hate to see Season 2 go the Grim Fandango route and require you to get a specific sort of balloon to fill with a specific sort of paste to drop down a random chute so you can access a machine that's being blocked by a fat guy that won't leave unless you oh my god HOW DID ANYONE FIGURE THIS OUT AND MAKE AN FAQ ABOUT IT!!?? (The game had a great story, though) I just don't understand why anyone would want a game to be that difficult. It's not even a puzzle at that point, it's just being left in a dark room all by yourself with no guidance or direction to the door. Most importantly: it isn't fun.
    JuntMonkey;455121 said:
    Since it was a general video game forum and not just people who think adventure games are the only valid storytelling genre (like here), it was very well received
    You're missing the point. What other genre could BttF possibly fit into? As others have pointed out, an open world game would run into problems as soon as you're on foot. Do you turn it into a platformer? No, that would be unfitting. A shooter? Obviously not. Forsake on foot sections and stick to vehicles? But then it would be pointless to make it into an open-world game, not to mention the novelty would wear off after an hour or two. The only suggestion I've seen in this thread that would work is to "let the player run around and search for clues to advance the story." But then it becomes an adventure game...that we already have.
  • I'm disappointed that people were disappointed in this game. It was an excellent addition to the BTTF series. There are few things I could have wanted more from a sequel. It felt a bit restricted by the adventure game genre of gameplay (though I couldn't think of a better genre for it).

    Long story short, I was pleasantly surprised by it, not let down.
Add Comment