Talk:Back to the Future: The Game/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Promotion section

There is zero reason to be deleting the promo section. No, its not necessary for a vg article, as there's usually little major promotion to talk about, but when the promotion is covered by secondary sources, there's no reason to ignore it. I've done this for many featured articles, so its a case-by-case basis, and it makes sense here. Here there are two significant pieces of information that aren't in the development body and that otherwise don't fit (not to mention that the section is written too close to a timeline and not general considerations): The fact they announced this game a few days before PAX and pushed it there with the delorean, and the fact that the game's been tied into the 25th anniv. Blu-ray release. Those have been noted by secondary sources, and thus are important to the coverage of the game. Could they possibly be tied into other parts of the development I dunno yet, but together they make a start of a promotion section. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You have just pointed all the reason's why there's no need for the section. It was already stated in the development the game was announced in September and that they were at PAX to promote it. There no real need to go about how they did it - just that they did it. It not important that they were plugging the trilogy, what is, is that they were plugging the game. Which has been established in the development section.
Also why is the article's an issue? Nobody at the video game project has call this style into attention when other article development sections were written in this manor. I don't see how putting developments in chronological order is considered bad style or writing. Matter of fact, Dragon Ball: Raging Blast was pushed to a B with this method. It doesn't go against MOS, so why make it an issue? Sarujo (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I shouldn't use examples as other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Sarujo (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
While the development section does say when they announced it, the fact that they were interviewed at PAX is of no importance as long as we have a reliable source for that there was an interview; it is more important that they were *at* PAX selling this game via the Delorean photo-op (and this is because it was identified by secondary sources this was happening.)
The style that the development section is in is called proseline, in which you're writing "on MMM DD, YYYY, this happened." It is a style necessary for some statement (when the game was officially announced), and some time elements are important (like the game licensing being in June, the survey in July, and the announcement in Sept), but it is being written as the events of development happened and not to make it comprehensive. This is not saying proseline is not allowed, as it is useful for a starting article when there's details difficult to connect. But it is not usually accepted at GA or better articles. As there's now enough information to start addressing this development in larger groupings (announcement and promotion, writing, and voice acting) we should be thinking that way, and not to write it as more news comes out. --MASEM (t) 05:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Discussion of how Telltale promoted the game is clearly important, since reliable sources have discussed it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict)Again there is no need to single out such information especially when it was already made to use. They were at PAX and they talked about the game. There discussion regarding the game is important when it discussing the game development, what their adding, what their planning, who's involved. How is mentioning they passed out vouchers for the trilogy important to the development of this game? That comes of as crufty. Just being there is a promotion in itself.
There no mention of the year in the section, only month and day. You're describing it to be like timeline list. But this is in paragraph for - as it should be. None of it begins with a date. We see dates mentioned in mid-paragraph. Are you suggesting that dates be removed in certain places? Sarujo (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The information was used in a different way. Its appearance at PAX is a part of its development history. However, the mention of pamphlet distribution is NOT a part of its development history. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
But what does pamphlets about the 25th anniversary DVDs have to do with the game? I mean it was mentioned in an gamesite's article that the game was suppose to coincide with the DVDs, but advertising the DVDs in pamphlets is more about the films home release history rather about the game. A more direct promotion for this game would be if they were passing out SWAG bags with stuff related to this game. Like T-shirts, cups, or coupons to save money on a purchase of the game. Things like that. Sarujo (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I do understand one aspect you're coming from: "promotion" could be read as being an advertizement, etc. that is against WP:NPOV and WP:COI, but that's if it was all information coming straight from TTG only. Again, secondary sources (reliable gaming websites) noted that TTG was big at PAX with the DeLorean for photoops, and the same sites and others have noted that the game is being promoted in a highly acclaimed Blu-ray set (which TTG isn't publishing, that's Universal). We can't use peacock language in describing these, just that they happened as per the sources, but they are part of the history of the development of the game.
Also, the proseline style is not exactly having "month, day, year", it's just went the article is written exactly in the order that things happen without any considering of condensing points down more encyclopedic approaches. For example, there's a line about the exact date when Lloyd began voice work. First, we're not sure if that is THE first date Lloyd was in the studio, we know they took pictures of him on that day. Secondly, it's not that he was there on that date that is important for the article, considering the long view 1 year, 5 years, 10 years from now. It does say that, if the game came out in January 2011 (guessing) that voice work was started about four months prior to release. Similarly, it is important to note that Sept 1 the day of the official announcement was less than a week before their big PAX push, and clearly (well, in an OR way that we can't express) that they chose to announce it fully before heading off for PAX. It's the relative nature of the timing and not the exact details that's better to build on. And when you move away from proseline and a chronological approach, and coincide grouping of info like writing, voice acting, promotion, etc. you can end up with a better article overall. Presently, with as little as we have, there's no much to go on, so rewriting that much is premature until we have a better sense of how pieces go together, though clearly some themes are developing. --MASEM (t) 12:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
My problem was that you were insisting on putting emphasis on the promotion when there not much there to begin with. You talk a fair game on producing an article, but you seem very insistent on creating a stub section which will weigh down the article. Are you bank on either company to put out more promotion material in the future? That might fall under crystal. Plus, the section had other stuff that was already established in the development section just fatten it up. With exception of the lead, putting information in multiple sections is redundant.
On the contrary we are sure that that was his first day. Did you even read or look through any of the sources before calling foul on the development section. For one the blog entry is dated September 21, the entry states:
"Yesterday, some of the Telltale Games Back to the Future team sojourned to the audio studio to begin voice recording with none other than Dr. Emmett L. Brown himself, Christopher Lloyd! Joining Mr. Lloyd at the studio was Bob Gale, producer and screenwriter of the Back to the Future film series. Mr. Gale and Mr. Lloyd kindly took some time to ham it up with us - with or without the trappings of everyday time keeping devices! Mr. Lloyd was fantastic and got right back into character - and this is just the first of many recording sessions for the game! It's truly uncanny to hear Doc Brown come to life again and I can't wait for you guys to hear the finished product!"
So are you going to say that doesn't that they just started work? Cause it looks to me like it does. Are you suggesting that they are late on covering their own news? When somebody posts a story about an event that happened the day before and say it took place the day before. Then it took place the day on that day and not any other time. Sarujo (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Er, this is a starting article, adding information even in sections that you believe is 'weighing' this down (when we're well below size) but may be useful later is not a good way to build an article. If the info is not verified, that's one thing, but this is all verified details. You say its stated earlier, but no, the same details are not. There's nothing about timing of the announcement and of PAX, of the Delorean at PAX, and the tie in with the blu-rays. All that can be sourced, and there is zero reason to remove it.
And you're missing the point on the voice acting stuff. It is not that whether Sept 20 really is the first day or not, it's the fact that there's no relevance of Sept 20, beyond that it is in September. That establishes about the time voice acting started, which is an indication of how far along the game is along. I've written *plenty* of development sections for GA/FA and you're arguing on a format that doesn't work in the long term from my experience. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Not when creating a section on a possibility that it might improve. Just because you can verafy crufty tidbit of the DeLorean photo-op doesn't make it useful. Plenty of expos feature props for photography every year. What makes this bit so important that it has to be singled out in a section in the article? The fact they were at PAX should be enough talking about the development game. "adding information even in sections that you believe is 'weighing' this down (when we're well below size) but may be useful later is not a good way to build an article." That's what I'm saying why create a section on stunts that may-or-may not happen? If you're making a GA or FA article, then stub sections with uncertain futures is something you should stay away from. We should be more focused on what's going into the game instead. Hey, can't an article reach either status if such promotions were in reception? I've seen some article where this was done, I don't know how that helps.
My complaint in regards to your statement that you made regarding Lloyd recording first session started on the day in question as an example for to back your MOS argument. If you're going use examples be sure to know for certain what the details are. I will agree that it let the reader know how far they have come. Sarujo (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
It's understanding that the details of the game's promotion and marketing to date are not ones I've had to cherry pick but instead several sources have reported these details. That makes those elements significant to this article. A game's promotion - outside of standard practices, of course - is important to document. If all a game dev did was have a booth at a major convention and offered a small sale of the game on release, that's nothing and trivial - possibly not even reported. We are talking two major elements that are unique and exceptional: one, the bringing of a rather expensive car mocked out like the movie's version to a large game convention shortly after the full announcement of the game, and secondly the tie-in of the game with the actual movie anniversary set. Neither of these points are addressed in any way in the development section as written; the PAX appearance makes it sound like they just swung by to drop an interview. This is the problem with proseline - it's not the how or when the information has been given (at least, usually), but the who, what and the why that we need to write towards; their PAX showing and the movie tie-ins are both the types of information that prompts for answering "why".
And I would possibly agree that maybe after this series is out and completed, there may be no need for a promotion section, if there's a lot more development or other aspects where the information can be incorporated into. Right now we don't have a complete picture so this consideration is impossible to act on. Using sections now will help other editor figure where to drop their own tidbits that they have found to help build the article better. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
After looking over all of the comments the past few days, I'd have to agree with Masem. The situation surrounding the game's promotion is hardly trivial, and these things need to be addressed to better understand the marketing strategy for the series. Given the scale of their promotion I wouldn't consider it WP:UNDUE. I'd also agree that this can be readdressed postmortem to the series release, moving things around and adjusting them as necessary. --Teancum (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Addressed, not singled out in a stubbed section. Sarujo (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a a stubbed section. Sections are used to help organize information for the reader, and when information becomes disparate, it helps to create a new section. I appreciate that you added in the delorean at pax statement here, but you should be able to see that the proseline writing style now makes this paragraph read funny, because you're talking about the thought process behind development, and then, suddenly, they were at PAX, and then back to development again. I'm saying this as having done several dozens of development sections that while there isn't one right way to write these, there are ways that are much easier to expand on and make it easy for the reader, and that's why making a short promo section on its own would help .(Heck I would even move the early history, the june licensing announcement and the july survey there too). --MASEM (t) 16:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Once again I'd have to agree with Masem here. In the end the reader is the most important issue, and the fact that it's currently a stub means it'll be expanded. If this were an established article with "stubbed sections" I might be somewhat inclined to agree, but the most important thing right now is readability and organization of the information. --Teancum (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
That's what I'm trying to avoid, having it become established with a bunch of stubs and know what do with the information. Then there's the factor of creating an certain or uncertain section and it get tagged really early with an expand or an expand section template. We can't be caught with our hands tied when moving trying forward.
As for the vouchers, they could do better with the mention of the release and sales in the reception. I shutter to thing how that discussion will go. Sarujo (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really following your logic to be honest. Expand tags are good things so long as the article gets expanded, which this one will - it seems a bit contradictory to not want expansion tags in a stub. Stubs aren't meant to be pretty, but if the information is neat and organized then it's easily added upon as new info comes out and such tags can be removed. It would be different if there were subsections so precise as to have a "PAX 2010" section under "Promotion" or "Marketing", I agree, but level 2 headings certainly aren't looked down upon when it presents the reader with organized, properly flowing information. --Teancum (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And now another data point for a promotion section: with the announcement of cost and date and platforms, TTG is donating $1 to the MJF Parkinson's Foundation. That's pretty significant to mention. This type of news is rare for a video game, much less a movie-tie in, and thus I see very little reason not to have a section about how they are promoting the game. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't come off as promotion as it does an act of goodwill. I pretty much knew that that was going to happen anyway. They would have been jerks if they didn't. If I were making this game I would feel it was my obligation to share a profit to the foundation. Would you call giving money and supplies to a third world country a promotion? Liking it to that of Monopoly days at McDonalds. Calling it a promotion, would be like calling them glory hogs. Sarujo (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not even sure the point you're trying to make. For one, donating $1.00 for every copy pre-ordered is for the sake of promotion. It is incentive to purchase the game - ie, promotion for it. For another, are you trying to imply that the McDonald's Monopoly deal is not a promotion? It is, in effect, a promotion - especially because they call it a promotion. It is done for the sole purpose of increasing revenue, and as such, is a promotion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, another promotion is that the first episode of Back to the Future: The Game is being released for free for a period of time. [1] - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Uh no, I never said that Monopoly at McDonalds was not a promotion. Don't put words in my mouth. I said acts humanitarianism isn't promotion. Calling it a proceeds donation a promotion like calling the developers attention whores. So everytime somebody donates money to Jerry's Kids, St Judes, the United Way, or any other research/humanitarian organization it's a promotion? Sarujo (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Phrase your statements more succinctly. People are having trouble understanding your points.
Regardless, why is a donation made to charity as part of selling your game not an act of promotion? I have no idea where you get the idea that providing a $1.00 donation to charity as incentive for purchasing the game is the exact same thing as you personally donating a dollar. You are not doing it for the furthering of your product. Telltale is. At what point are they not attempting to promote their product by offering this as incentive? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that this some scheme to sell the game by sending the message to consumers and most fanboys/girls, that "if I buy this game, then I'll be contributing to finding a cure to help heal one of Hollywood's most beloved actors"? Sarujo (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Because that is not a valid question, and because your question does not in any way address the question I posed to you, I will not respond to it. Effectively, in order for your argument to be sound, it would have to establish that the act of donating money to charity cannot be used as part of a promotion, even if the promoter explicitly establishes that the purpose of the donation is to promote a product or service. Do you argue this? If not, why is it not acceptable to call their act of offering to donate one dollar for every purchase a promotional act? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
My question is very valid, I'm trying to understand the consensus that was just rule on. I wasn't trying to address your question right away.
For one thing they have not called it as such. Or has some outside source. If not, then labeling it as such fall under OR. Sarujo (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
To call it OR is effectively attempting to drag out this discussion as long as it can go. The only way for them to donate one dollar to the foundation is if their game is purchased. That constitutes promotional material - bonuses included for the sake of selling more games. Any such pre-order bonus is promotional. If they were doing it solely out of the kindness of their hearts, they would donate $100,000 on principle. And no, your question was not valid. I do not take seriously any questions that clearly seek to exaggerate an opposing viewpoint. The word "scheme" implies deviousness; using fanboys/fangirls implies people who are easy to trick; and the whole false quote you wrote is an emotional response, what with the outporing of emotion over the donation. Make note that we are not here to present our personal views on the act. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No, my OR response was not as you put it, "effectively attempting to drag out this discussion as long as it can go". You asked a question and I answered it. It not my fault that you cannot accept the response I gave.
My question was valid; I wanted to know how the concept is considered a promotion. It would be a lot different If I trying to be malicious - but I wasn't. I asked a simple question to understand the opposition on a subject who point is now moving way off base. If the discussion is finished, then it’s finished. I did use terms scheme, but it doesn't necessarily imply deviousness. I can also imply a positive act. Also, the term fanboy or fangirl does not imply a moron. It implies just what it says, a gender specific fan of something or someone. When I stated that, I was referring to fans interest not intelligence. You seem to have this idea of my intentions being an act of bad faith, despite the fact that you don't really know what they are. That's an act of bad faith on your part. Especially when you don't take an honest question into consideration. I've taken all of your questions seriously and tried to answer them to the best of my ability. Yet you want nitpick statements just to void a discussion with a full court press after you went and re-added the section on three to one consensus. But have you noticed that when you re-added the section I did not remove it, but edited it a little? Even though I feel that some of the stuff is better suited some place else. See, I do want to create a good article regarding this game. So I am going to tiptoe over a lot of stuff that is presented.
Also, I don't know how you find any emotion in my question when my emotions, when I wrote, were conducted in a neutral fashion. "Make note that we are not here to present our personal views on the act" This statement doesn’t imply me; as my statement on the donation were not from a personal viewpoint. Sarujo (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I advise that in the future, if you want to gather information, use as little hyperbole as possible. Is there a reason you did an elaborate post instead of asking "why is this a promotion?". You made an exaggerated depiction of what I was saying. And no one says scheme to mean plan or plot. If they mean plan or plot, they will say plan or plot. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay my comments are not the center of this discussion, nor is the manor in how I write them. I did ask a question regarding it being a promotion a few comments back, and you took it upon yourself not to answer and draw unnecessary criticism on my comment. "And no one says scheme to mean plan or plot". No one? Apparently somebody does. "If they mean plan or plot, they will say plan or plot" I could say the same thing regarding your comment regarding fanboys/girls. Fortunately, I did get the response I needed to help understand - no thanks from you.

What amazes me is that you accuse me keeping a discussion alive when you're the one that took it upon yourself to re-add the section due to consensus, and came back insisting I give you a response you deemed valid. When you re-added the section, that should have been the end of the discussion. I had no real interest in pushing my except understanding why it is deemed what it's deemed by consensus. I'm working with the consensus, I edited a little bit of the section and let it remain on the article. So there's no point turned this into a stick discussion just because you can't accept response given to you. I told you why, so that should be good enough. The consensus was against me and the section was re-added. So as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is long since over and there nothing more to say to you. So just going to be the bigger editor and walkaway from this discussion with you. Also, I would advise that you refrain from anymore responses, otherwise you will only confirm that you are trying to keep this discussion alive. Sarujo (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for ceasing this unnecessary extension of the discussion. In the future, please refrain from asking questions chock full of hyperbole and instead, ask legitimate questions that people will actually be able to give legitimate answers to. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, what part of it's over are you not understanding? There is no point in anymore your personal attacks on somebody. I'll say it again, it's over, move on. Otherwise I will hold you in contempt. Good day. Sarujo (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because we're calling it "promotion" doesn't mean every aspect under it has to be a strict promotion: it is a means to gather how the game is advertized, marketed, incentivized, etc. to players. Encouraging players to preorder so that a $1 of their sale goes to MJF's charity is just one means that would be under this. I think we all want this to be a good article, no one is trying to stymie that. All I'm trying to say, myself, is that I've got more than a dozen of these under my belt and I know what reviewers are going to look for and criticize. With the type of information we have already, they would likely be critical if we didn't have a Promotion section and all that info was inserted elsewhere around the article. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think see now. This has a lot to do with the real world impact that the game is making as a whole. The fact that they are connecting the game with a noble cause to sell copies of a game that everybody will get.
As for the development, It had been my understanding that chronology was acceptable after previous written this way, were called good articles but were never tagged as GA. Some comments on improvements were more sources and tweaking. Yet, nobody would go into any detail as to what kind of tweaking they were implying. Yet those articles had information that didn't real do any step by step discussion into the nuts and bolts of those games. Where here we have the developer singing like canaries on what being put into the game. This kind of information divulging is still perplexing to me, you're stuck trying to write this stuff all the while trying not to plagiarize info. You're suggestion is that we arrange everything in the development section into paragraphs focusing on a specific in the game's development? Like planing, design of characters, story writing, and so on? Sarujo (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Can the information provided on the order page be of any use here? Sarujo (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Episode table

This is standard for any episode content - not just TTG games but for TV shows or manga or the like. We can now ID episodes and expected release dates, and fill in the rest as they come. This is absolutely needed. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a TV series or a comic, so such examples don't apply here. This is a video game. Little things like writers and titles and dates can go into the infobox and development. Plus, this is simply one story broken into five parts. So this table is unnecessary. Sarujo (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It is episodic. That's why we've used the same approach on Tales of Monkey Island, Sam & Max: The Devil's PlayhouseSam & Max: The Devil's Playhouse, and other TTG series. There are different writers and producers for each, and so this format is much more conducive for listing these out than space in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Nobody's saying it's not. I'm saying that these episodes are five parts of one story. Article vanity should never be the driving force behind and article's development. Besides, only two writers have been verified. That isn't a bloated infobox. Tales of Monkey Island had two designers and three and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls had nine, many of which have multiple credits. Still, that's not really a bloat. If these episodes were self contained then there would be real reason for this table. Sarujo (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
They are 5 self-contained episodes; while you likely can only "buy" the whole series, you can play through any episode without having to play the others. They will make up a complete story, but they are each self-contained and thus we treat them as 5 separate games of a "season", and hence the use of the table. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, lets wait and see how this turns out. Was all this information that the IP are rushing to the plate with from last night's Spike trailer? Sarujo (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, all that was source-able, the names of the episodes and the planned dates for the PC/Mac version. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. This is still sketchy at this point. I never advise and kind of list with little information as there is here. There nothing really out there that states how these episode will relate to the other. All we know is what was provided for It's About Time and the ruff release time for the other four episodes.

A little off topic, if this information was source-able, then why wasn't the sources added the moment the info was added? Wait, somebody went in and tried to add the exact day of release, when the trailer only provides month and year. Still, I've taken the liberty and dug up the some souring.

  • "GameTrailers TV - Chapter 1 - Back to the Future: The Game". GameTrailers TV. Season 3. December 2, 2010. Spike. {{cite episode}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
  • "Back to the Future Video Game, Exclusive Debut Trailer" (Flash). GameTrailers. December 3, 2010. Retrieved December 4, 2010.

The trailer will help with plot and the episode will go with development. Sarujo (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The episode table gives "May 2011" as a release date for the final episode, citing the trailer. However, the trailer does not appear to give any date for that installment, listing it only as "FINALE". Is there any source which actually gives a release date for the "OUTATIME" episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.16.150 (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The car

Anyone can respond why in the hell the car is the same of old movies, if they was distroyed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.54.230.195 (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you asked so nicely, there currently is no explanation right now.
In the future please refrain from asking questions about the game and please refrain from the coarse language. Thank you. Sarujo (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Doc actually explains this during Episode One for "nicely spoken gentlemen" such as the man at the top.

And the word is "Destroyed". - 211.27.222.254 (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Free first episode registration means wait until February.

I received an email today:


And to my knowledge, no other source says this. --Addict 2006 00:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: Here are a few links. Which are considered reliable? [2] [3] --Addict 2006 00:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I got that email too, kinda bummed out, much. If you need to know about reliable sources related to video game, then you can either go here and look it up, or go here and start a discussion asking about their status. Sarujo (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No Gameplay section?

I've only done a few trivial edits on this article as it's not a main focus, but I just realized it has no gameplay section. --Teancum (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We can create a gameplay section if third-party reliable sources (i.e. IGN, etc.) can be found. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Ask and ye shall receive: IGN review. These are great too since they double as something to explain gameplay and provide reception content at the same time. Other reviews are out there, but this isn't an article I focus on, so I'm just pointing it out. --Teancum (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations in plot

Plot sections are generally allowed not to have citations - the implication that the work itself is the source - particularly at the level of detail we have here. If the plot point in question is not obvious or defined in subtext, by all means, references are needed, but in these games, with story tied to gameplay so much, there's very little that is non-obvious.

As a comparison, I point to the recently FA-promoted Tales of Monkey Island where there are only a few citations, and those are to the overall episodes themselves, without selective quote pulling. So I don't think we need to be as heavy here as the part 1 plot was made out. --MASEM (t) 07:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if Artie being an accountant would be an obvious thing. Sure a better citation is needed, probably with Doc Brown's speech at the jail window. I know for sure that the DeLorean explanation is an optional path though, easily missed. And then we gotta find out why there is a flying DeLorean. --Addict 2006 07:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
If it is actually stated by characters - even if just once - it is considered obvious; so Artie being an accountant is obvious. Even if the text is optional, as long as it is not behind some easter egg or the like, it's still something that the user can go back and play to verify. Again, Tales is written in a similar manner, and it gets away with minimal sourcing. --MASEM (t) 07:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Just saying: The Delorean reason is buried in a conversation tree. It's not in the possible conversation choices at first unless Marty asks, "Where've you been?" and then about Doc's family. That could be how it's easily missed. --Addict 2006 17:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with this case (as to a causal reader that might never play the game, this is a "how the hell did they bring back the Delorean" question and backing that up helps). Or, for example, were we to include where Clara and the boys are at, that would be a deep convo-tree answer and should be quoted. Anything else that clearly happens as one plays the game, however, needs no citation, which is pretty much the rest of the plot section right now. Also consider that we may have better answers as the episodes play out (eg, Artie being an accountant is not very obvious in Ep 1, but clearly obvious in Ep 2). --MASEM (t) 18:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, Arthur being Tannen's accountant is only stated in that one Story So Far bit I was skeptical about. --Addict 2006 05:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Other casting

We seem to have made no other mention on casting and re-casting of the other characters. It would be prudent to mention about Biff's recasting. On Tom Wilson's YouTube page he stated before the game's release that he had not been contacted to reprise his roll as Biff. Sarujo (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Added a statement at the end of the voicing para in Dev to catchall for in-house actors for returning characters. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
In House? James Arnold Taylor isn't in house, he's third party. Sarujo (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Twitter feed as a reliable source?

Telltale's official Twitter feed reports a confirmation that episode 4 is coming out on the 29th. Would the link count as a reliable source? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Episode three PSN relese date

Can we really say that PSN release date for that episode was one the 3rd seeing as the store is down due to hackers? Sarujo (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Episode 5 Citation

I found on Telltale's website this page that claims the 5th episode will not be out until June. However, other sites, like this one claim the release date is May 30, 2011. According to their forum, it is still TBA. They are supposed to be released monthly, so somewhere between May 30 and June 1-2 would make the most sense. Isaac thegamer (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

DVD release

Like many of TellTales games, this will have DVD release. Sarujo (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Back_to_the_Future:_The_Game/Archive_1&oldid=1077396222"