SHP Forums

Here's a fantastic thread on the Telltale forums about an article written by Sean Howard (a writer for Deathspank) and his opinion on Telltale and their approach to game design. It's spectacular! He articulates exactly into words what I have always thought but could never articulate myself. Really worth a read. I've been trying to figure out if I'm a fan of Telltale or not and then someone posted something profound that I find my self in agreement with. I'm a fan of Telltale's writers, artists, musicians, etc but not their games. They sacrifice GREAT humour for only decent humour so they can make their schedule. They sacrifice GREAT puzzles for shallow puzzles to make their schedule. They need to sacrifice their schedule once in a while so that the games can be better. Telltale has a LOT of talented people on board with a lot of potential, but they don't take advantage of it and instead take the "safe road." Hopefully Telltale takes notice and picks up their game, but I doubt it.

Alternatively, hopefully other game developers (like Himalaya, Infamous Adventures, or even Phoenix Online Studios) rise to the challenge of feeding the poor challenge-starved adventure community that's only surviving from the scraps thrown at them from Telltale's very bountiful table. When ever episode of every season of every franchise Telltale puts out is the same formula over and over again it gets boring. 3 acts with 3 puzzles each and then one final puzzle at the end.

http://www.telltalegames.com/forums/sho ... hp?t=23126

A link to the article itself by Sean Howard

http://www.squidi.net/blog/index.php#02.19.11

Well, I guess to counter that... TellTale games is also getting contracts from Jurassic Park, Back To The Future, and now even King's Quest. So they must be doing something right in the eyes of some folks out there.

Well, in my opinion they're doing what everyone else is doing. Making mediocre products. Maybe that's their whole plan that they're ok with. But they certainly aren't pushing the envelope to make things better. Everything is "just ok" and makes money.

MusicallyInspired wrote:Well, in my opinion they're doing what everyone else is doing. Making mediocre products. Maybe that's their whole plan that they're ok with. But they certainly aren't pushing the envelope to make things better. Everything is "just ok" and makes money.

In today's market and economy I am not sure it's even wise to be risk takers.

Not unlike movies, where studios pump out clones and "reboots" because they are safe. The real money money makers have tended to be projects that were fresh and bold. Granted, it also is more likely that it could lose money, too, hence why so many companies play it safe. Corporate mentality of better to make a small profit than to risk losing for the chance to make a hit. Problem with that is that sooner or later the well will run dry, since you will rarely expand your customer base. If you look at the thread that MI links you will see that for many of the Telltale fans, their formula is wearing thin. Also, constantly appealing to the same demographic can lead them to wrong conclusions about who the potential market might be for a particular property, i.e. making a Sierra game to appeal to the LA fans.

I think movies, games and television all fall into this trap eventually. There are only so many variations on the same genre anyone can make.

Part of the reason Adventures nearly died is because they got stale. That's currently happening to FPS, RTS and to a much lesser extent, RPGs. Flight Sim and Mech games DID die because of this problem. How many different ways can you fly a plane or pilot a mech, right?

BioWare is keeping RPGs going strong, but without them, they'd be in the same position Adventures are today or worse. It was, after all, Baldur's Gate (a BioWare product) that revived the RPG genre.

As far as Adventures go... TellTale is doing a fairly good job at keeping Adventure genre alive. True, they're style isn't the most innovative (what is?), but considering the lack of alternatives or at least, GOOD alternatives, TellTale is really the best source for Adventures right now.

They're the only source. And that's a problem. They're hoarding the genre. We need some variety. More companies to rival Telltale to keep things interesting. Telltale has no competition and thus can do whatever they want without losing fans because the fans have no where else to turn to and spend their money on.

MusicallyInspired wrote:They're the only source. And that's a problem. They're hoarding the genre. We need some variety. More companies to rival Telltale to keep things interesting. Telltale has no competition and thus can do whatever they want without losing fans because the fans have no where else to turn to and spend their money on.

And that is part of the reason that there were so many good adventures in the heyday. Sierra, LucasArts and, in the earlier days, Infocom all gave the others competition and their innovations fed each other. This is not to dismiss that most early arts and industries are usually more innovative before corporate entities notice the profits and take over.

I agree that competition makes for a better product. The problem is finding a GOOD competitor. Right now TellTale isn't the only Adventure game developer, but they are the only good one.

Look at most of the so-called Adventure alternatives:

• First-person Myst-clones.
• Mostly button-mashing mini-games (MCL was like this).
• Terrible controls (Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit).
• Find the hidden object (too many to count)
• Almost all or too many cutscenes.

Some Adventure games aren't TOO bad, like Lost Horizon, Runaway: A Road Adventure and of course, Dreamfall. But those aren't the norm and most Adventures made within the last five or even ten years have been terrible, even if they were based on good ideas.

It's not that I'm love with TellTale. To be honest, I didn't think Back to the Future: Episode 1 was that good; not bad, but not good, either.

I'm also concerned about how they'll develop Fables. Maybe that's not a well known series outside those who like comic books, but it's something Maia and I like reading. Messing it up would give lots of people -- those who haven't read the series -- a very bad impression.

DeadPoolX wrote: I didn't think Back to the Future: Episode 1 was that good; not bad, but not good, either.

Of course that was the whole point of the blog entry linked.

Collector wrote:

DeadPoolX wrote: I didn't think Back to the Future: Episode 1 was that good; not bad, but not good, either.

Of course that was the whole point of the blog entry linked.

I know. I was giving my opinion on it.

I liked their old formula. Narrative, puzzle, and pacing-wise, it always worked and gave each episode some substance.

Their formula was:
-Opening puzzle (Usually a Mini-Boss Battle)
-Three First-Half Puzzles
-Mid-point puzzle
-Three Second-Half Puzzles
-The Ending Puzzle (Boss Battle)

But now they don't do that anymore, and I wish they would. When they mix it up, the episodes start feeling unfinished. At least I could gauge my own progress based on the goals I've completed. Now I'm not sure if the game will end after the next puzzle, or if I've still got a whole night ahead of me.

There have been cases where they go beyond. Many puzzles in Homestar Runner actually had three mini-puzzles to go with each objective. And TOMI's "Rise of the Pirate God" kept me going for hours. Then there S&M's "The Tomb of Sammun-Mak" which followed the actual formula, but did it non-chronologically, forcing me to think outside-the-box. They have made some seriously great games, sometimes with chapters that can outdo full-length adventures. So I do agree that they need to get their crap back in-line.

Best bet is to just keep complaining on the forums unless they clue in: Puzzles. Want more. Hopefully this will be the case with KQ.

As a follow-up, I just noticed a similar pattern in BioWare games...

- Opening Levels (until the main character is granted a special status - Jedi, Spectre, Grey Warden)
-Then you go on 3-4 main missions to different planets or cities.
-Then there's a story-related mid-point mission.
-Then you either get three new optional side-missions (or a ton of mini side-quests)
-But otherwise, you can just choose to go straight to the point-of-no-return and end the game (Reaper IFF, Landsmeet, etc.)

Bioware and Telltale both seem to have a style that's somewhat reminiscent of "The Hero's Journey" formula - but it seems they've tailor-suited the formula to work for video games instead.

Datadog wrote:As a follow-up, I just noticed a similar pattern in BioWare games...

- Opening Levels (until the main character is granted a special status - Jedi, Spectre, Grey Warden)
-Then you go on 3-4 main missions to different planets or cities.
-Then there's a story-related mid-point mission.
-Then you either get three new optional side-missions (or a ton of mini side-quests)
-But otherwise, you can just choose to go straight to the point-of-no-return and end the game (Reaper IFF, Landsmeet, etc.)

Bioware and Telltale both seem to have a style that's somewhat reminiscent of "The Hero's Journey" formula - but it seems they've tailor-suited the formula to work for video games instead.

You are certainly not alone in that theory - as a matter of fact someone nearly phrased the same thing as you!

I would like to point out this hilarious image of "The Bioware Formula" that made it's rounds back when Dragon Age was just released...

(You may have to click on the image several times to get the full size)...

That chart is eerily correct but also extremely vague as to fit everything in its compartments