ThunderPeel2001 Posted July 8, 2009 Chris said: Those films don't have cues very, very clearly pointing to other possible interpretations. Monkey Island 2 obviously does. If you don't think the ending of that game is ambiguous, I don't know how to discuss this with you. That's without even considering all the anachronistic objects scattered throughout the world, things that would make little sense in the games' ostensible settings.As for Elaine's statement, that is exactly part of the ambiguity. I fully disagree with your first paragraph in the quoted post. The fact that the characters address the camera makes the situation MORE of a fantasy to me. Those characters are only reliable insofar as their own personal experiences, and if they are a mere fantasy, that is meaningless. Yes, obviously, you could start saying every character in every book or film or game might just be part of a fantasy or dream, but most of those books and films and games don't ever suggest that possibility in the first place. As far as "canon" goes: Jesus Christ, I couldn't possibly care less. I hate that term and what it represents. I don't care much about "universes," I care about individual works. Monkey Island 1 and 2 are great games, and they are directly connected, sharing much in terms of tone, character, and setting. Monkey Island 3 is also a great game, but very different to Monkey Island 1 and 2 in tone, character, and setting. It is a different take on a pirate adventure game--a good one, just a different one. I appreciate Monkey 1 and 2, and Monkey 3 for very different reasons, even though I like all of them. It doesn't matter how the people who made Monkey 3 decided to interpret the end of Monkey 2. And don't get me wrong--I'm not talking about which one "real" or "canon" or whatever bullshit. I don't care. When we're talking about what happens in Monkey Island 2, it's stupid to use in the discussion a game that was made years later by a totally different core staff. Again, that's not an issue of relative quality, it's just logical. In that vein, the Paul Newman character in the film The Color of Money, Martin Scorsese's sequel to Robert Rossen's film The Hustler, need not be used to inform interpretation of the same Paul Newman character from The Hustler. They're both from the same "universe," they're both released by the same studio, the Scorsese film is probably "canon" (God I hate even typing that word), but that really doesn't matter. They are separate works with separate authorial intent. There are a million examples of this in fiction of all forms, from theatre to literature to film and even in music in some cases. And I don't care if Gilbert has a big amazing interpretation or not. That is not at all the issue for me. The reason I like Monkey 2's ending is precisely because it is ambiguous and surreal. Even if you accept your interpretation, Monkey 1 and 2 (2 in particular) are littered with anachronisms and red herrings and unlikely inclusions that make little sense if the world is simply taken at face value. The idea that LeChuck just cast a spell, which is announced by one of the main characters--at the end of a duo of games that starts off in the most completely unexplained and arbitrary way imaginable--makes no sense to me either on a tonal level or simply based on the evidence presented in the game itself. And for that matter, I don't want it all to be explained away. I, basically, want it not to make complete sense. Games (and gamers) are obsessed with plot-driven, super-duper-explained narratives and universes. I love that Monkey Island 2 essentially just ignores that convention. I wish more games would. Who said anything about "canon"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
syntheticgerbil Posted July 8, 2009 Hey guys, what's going on in this thread? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toblix Posted July 8, 2009 Chris said: Those films don't have cues very, very clearly pointing to other possible interpretations. Monkey Island 2 obviously does. If you don't think the ending of that game is ambiguous, I don't know how to discuss this with you. That's without even considering all the anachronistic objects scattered throughout the world, things that would make little sense in the games' ostensible settings.As for Elaine's statement, that is exactly part of the ambiguity. I fully disagree with your first paragraph in the quoted post. The fact that the characters address the camera makes the situation MORE of a fantasy to me. Those characters are only reliable insofar as their own personal experiences, and if they are a mere fantasy, that is meaningless. Yes, obviously, you could start saying every character in every book or film or game might just be part of a fantasy or dream, but most of those books and films and games don't ever suggest that possibility in the first place. As far as "canon" goes: Jesus Christ, I couldn't possibly care less. I hate that term and what it represents. I don't care much about "universes," I care about individual works. Monkey Island 1 and 2 are great games, and they are directly connected, sharing much in terms of tone, character, and setting. Monkey Island 3 is also a great game, but very different to Monkey Island 1 and 2 in tone, character, and setting. It is a different take on a pirate adventure game--a good one, just a different one. I appreciate Monkey 1 and 2, and Monkey 3 for very different reasons, even though I like all of them. It doesn't matter how the people who made Monkey 3 decided to interpret the end of Monkey 2. And don't get me wrong--I'm not talking about which one "real" or "canon" or whatever bullshit. I don't care. When we're talking about what happens in Monkey Island 2, it's stupid to use in the discussion a game that was made years later by a totally different core staff. Again, that's not an issue of relative quality, it's just logical. In that vein, the Paul Newman character in the film The Color of Money, Martin Scorsese's sequel to Robert Rossen's film The Hustler, need not be used to inform interpretation of the same Paul Newman character from The Hustler. They're both from the same "universe," they're both released by the same studio, the Scorsese film is probably "canon" (God I hate even typing that word), but that really doesn't matter. They are separate works with separate authorial intent. There are a million examples of this in fiction of all forms, from theatre to literature to film and even in music in some cases. And I don't care if Gilbert has a big amazing interpretation or not. That is not at all the issue for me. The reason I like Monkey 2's ending is precisely because it is ambiguous and surreal. Even if you accept your interpretation, Monkey 1 and 2 (2 in particular) are littered with anachronisms and red herrings and unlikely inclusions that make little sense if the world is simply taken at face value. The idea that LeChuck just cast a spell, which is announced by one of the main characters--at the end of a duo of games that starts off in the most completely unexplained and arbitrary way imaginable--makes no sense to me either on a tonal level or simply based on the evidence presented in the game itself. And for that matter, I don't want it all to be explained away. I, basically, want it not to make complete sense. Games (and gamers) are obsessed with plot-driven, super-duper-explained narratives and universes. I love that Monkey Island 2 essentially just ignores that convention. I wish more games would. edit: Well, it works for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Horticulture Tycoon Posted July 8, 2009 ThunderPeel2001 said: Who said anything about "canon"? Oh, nobody in particular. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patters Posted July 8, 2009 Finished it. It's fantastic, funniest game I have played in a while. One thing I would like to point out is that the original game trailer should be replaced, it makes the game look choppier than it is, and may put off some people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted July 8, 2009 hmm.. the demo didn't give me the "I want more of this"-feeling Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrHoatzin Posted July 8, 2009 I agree with what Chris said. Haven't finished the game yet, but it is some hot shit and I like it more than I don't. Reveal hidden contents On the tup side, I laughed maniacally at the voodoo bookshelf, the story is rad and the tone spot on. On the tdown, I am the most annoyed by Guybrush ignoring the conversation option I clicked on, to deliver a line that somewhat clumsily summarizes the gist of all the lines I could've selected. In the olden games, the npc would just have a stock response no matter what Guybrush said, but at least he said whatever the player told him to say. I really like the way conversation trees allow the player to laugh at multiple possible jokes he/she could deliver, but this way the artifice and the irrelevance of player conversation choice are too obvious for comfort. I guess this method cuts some important corners (production costs and size of overall download) but it messes with immersion. On the tmeh side, with LEC putting an analog-stick-powered simulated mouse control into the rebaked SMI, it is amusing to see a mouse-powered simulated analog stick control in this game. A really weird and hard to get used-to mechanic, fortunately not the only way to power the little duder. The interface in general is a little odd all around and I hope it will be a little more tailored to the platform in the other installments, rather than some sort of one-size-fits-all thing that leans towards more console-friendliness. But in all, not much of an issue. On an unrelated note, it would make for the greatest inside joke ever for Largo to appear in one of the episodes and be voiced by Dom. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tanukitsune Posted July 9, 2009 What? I'm pretty sure Guybrush has done that conversation thing in the old Monkey Island games, the whole "here's what you are THINKING of saying, but you're smart enough to know saying it isn't a good idea, so say something else" isn't something new, I'm fairly positive.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrHoatzin Posted July 9, 2009 Tanukitsune said: What? I'm pretty sure Guybrush has done that conversation thing in the old Monkey Island games, the whole "here's what you are THINKING of saying, but you're smart enough to know saying it isn't a good idea, so say something else" isn't something new, I'm fairly positive.... They used it sparingly before and as the joke. This time around it was kindof different. Start at the one minute mark: 2qpDfkfOvCE Walkthrough dude clicks the third option and the game sortof just says the first one. There is no real narrative or dramatic reason to want to beat around the bush with a conversation as relatively banal as this. Not cool. But aside from that, I really loved the game. It looks the sexiest of all the Telltale games thus far. I loved the animation, I liked the character design, I liked the typography in the dialog tree container, I liked the writing—the broad strokes as well the fine crafty details, really, really rad little game. AA++++ Will TMI again. It is kindof weird to see community people involved (and competently!) with such an important artifact of our childhoods. This kind of realization didn't hit me with Sam & Max three years ago, possibly because I never lamented Purcell's fall from grace in the same way I mourned the slow death of LEC. Sam & Max were always free, whereas Guybrush was mistreated and confined to the back of some vault, and not on any horizon as a potential source of fresh, somewhat sentimental joy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
syntheticgerbil Posted July 9, 2009 Kingzjester said: ...Purcell's fall from grace... Huh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miffy495 Posted July 9, 2009 Dunno. Maybe he was caught injecting underage prostitutes into his veins? If so, congratulations on a successful recovery, Steve! We wish you all the best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted July 9, 2009 Phew! Finished it in one session last night. Piratey goodness! Lemme do a Kingz here: The TUP Reveal hidden contents The opening! What a fantastic piece of interactive storytelling! It manages to introduce three major characters in one scene without clogging things up, it's funny and it's got great drama! I loved the bounciness of the ships, rocking together, LeChuck cursing the heck out of everything in the background... the whole scene spoke of a depth and understanding of the franchise that EMI could only dream of. A truly excellent opening! The big downside here is that it raised enormous expectations for the rest of the game, which it didn't really manage to cash in on. More on that down below. There were some really good puzzles in the game. The lab puzzle was a bit trial and error (as in; one manages to get far just by interacting without knowing what one's doing) but quite fun. The most charming and rewarding puzzle was bouncing the captain off the Screaming Narwhale. When I finally managed to do that, I really felt like it was due to my own craftiness, and not some obvious puzzle I succesfully clicked through. I like it when a game makes me feel smart. The atmosphere on the island was great. In the first scene where you meet the journalist I was afraid the game had gone the way of the 'commercial EMI islands', but it managed to walk the fine line between old and new and came out handsomely in the end. Another pluspoint was the length of the game and the general successful application of humor. It really was quite funny, I laughed out loud more than a few times! Guybrushes zombie hand is hilarious. Also the Voodoo Lady shack. Chock full of Great Things! Absolutely terrific. The TMEH Reveal hidden contents The inventory and controls were a bit cumbersome. That might have also been aggravated by my slow computer, making the cursor lag behind the movement of my mouse. Still, the complaints others put above are quite true: the magnifying glass should not have deselected automatically and combining objects is a bit of a drag. The maze sequences weren't bad overall, they actually paced the game nicely. What I thought was a bit un-Monkey Islandish was the use of the four pedestals for some giant machine. It wasn't a bad puzzle, but I expect something more original from Monkey Island than 'Myst machines', so to speak. Graphically, the game falls just short of having a sufficient amount of polish for MI. Despite it looking pretty good overall (and I suspect it's also the engine that doesn't allow for more (though it's also a design thing as the opening sequence had all the richness of the old MI's)), it's just a bit too rough here and there. Especially shots out in the ocean don't have the richness I associate with the setting. I also didn't like some of the character models, which again might be an engine thing, that seemed a bit too plain or plastic. The TDOWN Reveal hidden contents After a fantastic opening, the rest of the game is hit and miss. When it hits, it's super. But it also misses. Next to fantastic characters like the main cast and newcomers like Marquis de Singe and the journalist guy, there are also throwaway NPC's like the glass blower and Hemlock, and even the original captain of the Screaming Narwhale. They lack zing, they're bland. I can't help but compare the situation to Curse of Monkey Island, where literally every NPC was a delightfully crafted creature. Puzzles are also very erratic. Some are brilliant, others are way too obvious or simple. For instance, I had expected a lot more 'puzzle' from the Club 41 part, where simply giving the membership card gives the complete solution (and a funny wink at the governor's mansion scene from MI1). Another puzzle that didn't work was blasting the cannonball to break the unicorn figurines. It was something that just 'happened', without requiring any thought on my part. Perhaps this was done purely for the introduction and the other episodes will crank it up. Note that I'm not saying that I want things to be more difficult: I want them to be more layered, to have more depth, to link into each other. Overall, it was great to be back in the world of Monkey Island! I look forward to this game being enriched as more episodes are released, because only then can you really appreciate the full picture. Can't wait! When is it, next month? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted July 9, 2009 Horticulture Tycoon said: Oh, nobody in particular. Huh. Well, I'll be. My use of the word canon there doesn't actually make any sense. No idea why I put it there. I meant something along the lines of "as part of the narrative". "Canon"? Pft! What a dolt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) Chris said: Those films don't have cues very, very clearly pointing to other possible interpretations. Monkey Island 2 obviously does. If you don't think the ending of that game is ambiguous, I don't know how to discuss this with you. That's without even considering all the anachronistic objects scattered throughout the world, things that would make little sense in the games' ostensible settings. I can't recall Monkey Island 2 having any cues that "very, very" clearly point to other possible interpretations...? Would you be so kind as to list them, or at least, some of them, because I don't believe you (As you've stated "comedy anachronisms", which have been the staple of period comedy for time immemorial, don't count.) As for reinterpreting standard and frequently seen narrative conventions in order to make them "ambiguous", I don't what to say. Can I ask you: What are your explanations for Chuckie's eyes and Elaine's questions? Are you suggesting that Chuckie was deliberately messing with an audience? Was he pretending to make his eyes glow (somehow)? To my mind, it was a simple breaking the fourth wall moment: Like James Bond saying "this never happened to the other fellas" during the opening of On Her Majesties Secret Service. Or, more recently, Kurt Russell smiling at the camera, just before he go nutso in Death Proof. These aren't "messages" to make you question the reality of what you're seeing... because the actor is still in character. Similarly, Elaine's questions at the very end give you another clear answer over what you've just seen: Like James Woods's "8 hours of static" line at the end of Contact. Even Bill Tiller, who supposedly revealed much about the original intentions, agrees that the two things I've mentioned were placed there to bring the game back to "reality" for sequel's sake... Leaving no room for other interpretation. Plus, there's also one more bit of evidence: Ron Gilbert categorically stating that the "it's all just a dream" answer was NOT "correct", shutting the yet another door on the ambiguity argument. I put it to you that there is simply no other way to interpret MI2's ending without deliberately ignoring what is shown to you. I'd love to hear the list of "very, very" clear cues in MI2. Edited July 9, 2009 by ThunderPeel2001 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thorn Posted July 9, 2009 ThunderPeel2001 said: Plus, there's also one more bit of evidence: Ron Gilbert categorically stating that the "it's all just a dream" answer was NOT "correct", shutting the yet another door on the ambiguity argument.When did he say that? On another note, it almost feels like there should be a seperate thread specifically about playing ToMI, to protect people like me who are avoiding spoilers. EDIT: Which is not to say that everyone hasn't been brilliant with their spoiler tags so far. It's just that when I see those black boxes, I have an irresistable urge to click on them, even when I know I shouldn't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sloane Posted July 9, 2009 ThunderPeel2001 said: Plus, there's also one more bit of evidence: Ron Gilbert categorically stating that the "it's all just a dream" answer was NOT "correct", shutting the yet another door on the ambiguity argument. Or, maybe, he just wanted to leave the ending open for interpretation because, you know, he actually liked the ambiguity? Besides, saying the answer is not "correct" can perfectly mean that there's just more to it than it being a dream. It doesn't mean it was not a dream. Back then, I liked the ambiguity too, but I think it might be nice to find out what his original intention was one day. If the guy ever writes his memoirs, that should be in 'em. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrHoatzin Posted July 9, 2009 syntheticgerbil said: Kingzjester said: Purcell's fall from grace...Huh?Well, there wasn't any. Dude left LEC and took his Sam & Max with him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thorn Posted July 9, 2009 I'm pretty sure Kingzjester just meant that Purcell's IP lost popularity within Lucasarts. As in, he didn't mourn the fact that the various Sam & Max sequels didn't happen because he knew that Purcell still owned the IP and could sell the rights to other companies (not to mention produce more comic stories on his own). As compared to MI, which was owned fully by Lucasarts and thus metaphorically locked in a vault. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrHoatzin Posted July 9, 2009 Sloane said: Or, maybe, he just wanted to leave the ending open for interpretation because, you know, he actually liked the ambiguity? Besides, saying the answer is not "correct" can perfectly mean that there's just more to it than it being a dream. It doesn't mean it was not a dream.Plus, CHARACTER WAKES UP is the most contrived way of wrapping a story up. Besides, that is not how MI2 ends anyway.You could summarize Eraserhead as a weird dream or Reveal hidden contents the story of a man with a deformed child who was left by his baby's moma and then the child got very sick and euthanized , but that would be an uninspired way of looking at the work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
syntheticgerbil Posted July 9, 2009 thorn said: I'm pretty sure Kingzjester just meant that Purcell's IP lost popularity within Lucasarts. As in, he didn't mourn the fact that the various Sam & Max sequels didn't happen because he knew that Purcell still owned the IP and could sell the rights to other companies (not to mention produce more comic stories on his own). As compared to MI, which was owned fully by Lucasarts and thus metaphorically locked in a vault. Ah well, LucasArts never owned Sam and Max in the first place as they were originally comic characters first copywritten and trademarked to Purcell, so it should really be expected. There was nothing to even consider mourning in the first place even though there are some LEC "Sam and Max 2" nutsos out there (That game looked like it was shaping up to be more mediocre than EMI). Anyways, what I'm trying to say here is, Steve Purcell should do a 5 issue miniseries run of Toybox before he dies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted July 9, 2009 The Eurogamer review is spot on: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/tales-of-monkey-island-chapter-1-launch-of-the-screaming-narwhal-review Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BooJaka Posted July 9, 2009 I'm only a little way through so I'll save saying anything too much about it until I'm done but my one point right now is... I wish people would stop snapping their goddamn fingers! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thyroid Posted July 9, 2009 Rodi said: The Eurogamer review is spot on: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/tales-of-monkey-island-chapter-1-launch-of-the-screaming-narwhal-review Christ on toast, no it isn't. I agree that some of the NPCs are pretty bland but EG can 1. fuck off with that score, and 2. fuck off with every other criticism they've thrown out. I usually respect those guys but they've done a harsh one on this one. And let's not forget the 6/10 they gave Chariots of the Dogs. PS: The Marquis may be a stereotype, but bless 'is sticks of science, I loved him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Horticulture Tycoon Posted July 9, 2009 ThunderPeel2001 said: Plus, there's also one more bit of evidence: Ron Gilbert categorically stating that the "it's all just a dream" answer was NOT "correct", shutting the yet another door on the ambiguity argument. thorn said: When did he say that? I believe Gilbert has said in the past that "it's all a dream" is not the Secret. Which isn't necessarily the same thing as saying it's not true. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BooJaka Posted July 9, 2009 Kroms said: Christ on toast, no it isn't. I agree that some of the NPCs are pretty bland but EG can 1. fuck off with that score, and 2. fuck off with every other criticism they've thrown out. I usually respect those guys but they've done a harsh one on this one. And let's not forget the 6/10 they gave Chariots of the Dogs.PS: The Marquis may be a stereotype, but bless 'is sticks of science, I loved him. I literally just finished the chapter and I have to say, I pretty much agree with everything the EG review said. Bit of a harsh score at the end though Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
