Leaderboard

So that's where I'm at and no idea how to proceed. Well ... it's got to have a monkey with a pipe of course ...

Just know you’re dead to me.

Right, this is a bit of an issue when talking about criticism. It's difficult to offer 'good' criticism in a context where many people are doing so abusively, even if that's not your intention. If people were saying they hated my work, and some were being extra abusive, I wouldn't sift through it just to find the people who were saying they hated my work but in a 'nice' way because... that's not the kind of environment that constructive critiques are welcome. I'd instead take some comfort in the people who liked it. I'm only human, after all. In that environment, even 'friendly' criticism, even constructive comments are just adding to the general pile on. But especially, in context, Rex is someone who played these games very early on, is a fan of them, and was likely very very nervous about showing his work to the world of other adventure game fans when it's been so carefully controlled for 2 years. You only need a little bit of empathy, I think, to appreciate that the discourse turning into an internet argument about whether the art style is good or not, is probably going to be a huge bummer to both Ron and Rex and everyone else involved. They don't want people to linger on this, and Ron is quite rightly trying to shield Rex from the worst of it. But there is a time and place for it all. The reason that NOW I'm willing to be a bit more direct and less circumspect with my EMI criticisms is that I think even the most sensitive creatives can look back on a 22 year old work and acknowledge its flaws - by that time they probably agree with some of them, and besides they've heard it all before (see ... I think it was Stemmle jokingly saying 'sorry' about Monkey Kombat). That's the reason why now I'm willing to be very direct about some of the things I don't think worked so well in Tales, even though I know at least one forum regular here who was heavily involved with the game - because I know that NOW that criticism will be taken in the right spirit, enough time has past that everyone can look back on Tales with a clear head. That's not to say of course we can never criticise something unless we leave enough time - but I think it's worth acknowledging that the context in which the criticism is happening matters.

The puzzles in this part of the game aren't at sea

The madness is escalating.

Come back in six months with this take, once the game is out and people have had time to digest it a little. Return isn’t out yet, Escape has been out for two decades. When Escape was announced people were tentative because of the look and introduction of 3D, but the prevailing feeling was “wait and see, it’s a new monkey island after all!” (Also: I really like and appreciate your enthusiasm for Escape. It’s not my favorite game by a long shot, but there’s a lot to like in it, and you can tell the team worked hard on it.)

Look, I'm perfectly fine with you enjoying EMI just as much as you like, but I am going to get grumpy if by way of backlash people are going to start accusing us of a double standard (especially when comparing our reaction to EMI, a two decade old game to a game that none* of us have played). You have to understand, that especially the people here desperately wanted to love EMI just as much as the others. So much so that when it first was revealed and came out my overriding instinct was to try to get people to give it a chance. So it's not out of any sort of glee that we criticize parts of it. We don't 'love to hate' it. Many of us (like me) don't even hate it, we just have a lot of problems with it. When I ask people to hold judgement on ReMI I'm doing exactly what I did for EMI, at the time. I'm telling people to give it a chance. No double standard here, no inconsistency, just literally two decades to reflect on what EMI was, and finding that a lot of it doesn't really work for me. My initial response to EMI was rather positive, because I remember enjoying the puzzles and liking the music and art at the time, and being... tolerant of the plot and writing. It took a couple of years for the initial glow to wear off and for me to figure out where I stood on it all. (also I was 18 when EMI came out, I'm 40 now. My tastes have changed and evolved) Now -- I like your reasons for liking EMI. They're good reasons. I'm glad that's how you've come to enjoy the game, and nothing I can possibly say can take that away from you, nor would I want it to. It's just that those reasons don't work for me. I don't really agree with them, the ideas about EMI that you talk about don't really excite me or feel to me like they fit in with how I see the MI universe in the same way they do to you. And my issues with EMI go beyond plot and setting and into the writing and comedy style, too, so even if I vibed with the story choices I still think I wouldn't vibe with the writing. At the moment I don't know what the story or writing of ReMI is like, and so I can't possibly comment on it or compare it to EMI. And we've seen a BIT of art, mostly out of context. So, much like EMI, when I play ReMI I'll see if I enjoy the story, and the writing, and it'll probably be a couple of years before the dust settles and I'll truly be able to see how I feel about it in the context of the rest of it. By all means be disappointed more of us don't see what you see in EMI, but don't tell us it's because we're not being fair. *okay, one

Ah yes, there's more of this walkthrough on my fridge

You can criticise whatever you want, but what happened with ReMI was about outright abuse. And it was towards a tiny team of people whose game wasn't even out yet. Call it "tone police" if you want, but IMO abuse isn't acceptable anywhere at any time. (And yes, of course I've failed at this in my life, but it's doesn't mean I think my behaviour has been acceptable when I've failed.) So I don't see it as a double standard when compared to Escape. Right now everyone's just tired of hearing complaints about the new art style because it's a shallow and subjective observation that doesn't lead to interesting discussion. And also because there's an unfortunate connection to some horrible human beings. So, yes it is kind of frowned upon... because only we're all sick of it, and we don't want to open the flood gates to those horrible human beings thinking we're on the same team. I also agree with Jake that come back here in six months after the game has been released, and we've all time to digest it, and you'll see lots of balanced discussion about the game's perceived merits and flaws. In fact, probably for the next 20 years! I also think it's great that some people have got so much love for Escape. It deserves it! And I'm glad that complaints about it here tend to be considered and thoughtful, just like the discussions about ReMI will be once it's released.

Strong first four paragraphs, @Groggoccino. After that, I do have a few objections. It's true that dissing Escape has kind of become a canonical Monkey Island fan reaction. But it's also true that this community has done its utmost to throw that old paradigm out the window. We're trying to wrestle that negativity to the ground. We're absolutely not losing great, dedicated, contributing and positive community members over this trivial matter. To find analogy to the criticism voiced towards Return to Monkey Island's art style is, in my opinion, valid. But there are of course also glaringly obvious differences. In, for example, the places that criticism is voiced in. Its tone. Its foundation. The course of argumentation. That it's targeted at real people. That it attempts to explain the reasons for the choice by plainly insulting the greatest heroes that the people in this thread have. That's not like criticizing Escape, that is something new and horrible that didn't even exist 20 years ago. The art style 'debate' has quickly degenerated into one of those "Not all fans" defense methods. What filth Ron had to wade through on his own blog was completely unacceptable. Just about five percent of those posts were insult trolls and right wing nutjobs. If I hated the living guts out of ReMI's art style, I would rather have shot myself than putting my own "respectful" criticism right there between abusive a-holes and nazis. I would not have been that desperate to get my "arguments" directly to the creator to participate in the abuse. Voicing respectful art style criticism in respectful, positive minded communities is ... difficult ... though, I readily concede that. I think there's a good reason. Some arguments would easily survive the tone police but still be insinuating quite nasty things ("selling out", "corporate art"). Some claims about the looks of the game are factually wrong ("cheap flash game", "bad animation"). Often times, the more civilized criticism views the whole franchise through coke bottle thick nostalgia glasses and claims fantastic things about the older games. Then there's the "should have been pixel art" crew (impossible). The "just do the graphics of MI2 in HD" crowd (impossible). The "like CMI but in HD" crowd (also, quite impossible). The "could have chosen any art style BUT NOT THIS ONE" folks. You can voice above criticism in a civil tone, but it would still be laughable criticism. At the face of it, it's art criticism. And that is on the one hand fiendishly subjective, on the other hand it's like taking a knife to the artist's soul. Not many people have the knowledge and skill, and even fewer have the empathy for that. If you've ever been on an artist forum, you might even come to the conclusion that even the artists themselves often lack the empathy for constructive art criticism towards their peers. So what I'm asking of the critics might, another concession here, impossible for them to give. But I hope it has become obvious why I can so seldom accept the form of the present criticism.

I've always loved Monkey 4, and I always find it very surprising when it's criticized for getting the delicate balance between whimsical pirate story and anachronisms wrong. For me, that's exactly the point. Besides being an excellent adventure game in its own right (with the caveat of the Monkey Island chapter, which I think is lackluster, design-wise), I think that's one of the reasons why it's such an interesting, fitting addition to the series, thematically speaking. In the original games, anachronisms and fourth-wall breaking seeped in here and there. Especially in Monkey 2, they were used to create a very particular vibe: this weird feeling that, beneath the surface of the Monkey Island world, there's a different world. Our world. Reality. Lurking. Struggling to come up to the surface. Like a game Guybrush can't or doesn't want to stop playing. Maybe. Maybe not. If you decide to analyze the series from this perspective, Escape fits the theme like a glove. The whole vibe of the game seems to be: the world of Monkey Island is unraveling. The balance (the fourth wall) has been broken and reality is taking over. The tale is about to end. "Playtime" is about to be over. Of course the anachronisms are out of control: the "fantasy" is becoming unsustainable and Guybrush himself is becoming the anachronism. Even to this day, I remember the feeling I had while playing the game for the first time, so many years ago. The vague feeling that an indefinable point of no return was about to be reached, and that the world of Monkey Island was going to end in an irrecoverable way. Massively underrated game, in my opinion. Also, I have to say I agree with what @madmardi said about there being a double standard with Escape in the fanbase, which I think has only become more obvious with the announcement of Return. With Return, it seems that, as a counterreaction to the initial backlash, we've quickly reached a point in which criticizing the game (particularly the art style), even when done in a respectful way, is kind of frowned upon. Whereas making snarky, dismissive or outright insulting comments about Escape seems to be totally fair game, as it's always been. I mean, in the Monkey Island subreddit there's a featured post literally asking people not to say anything negative about Return because "those opinions have already been heard". Strangely enough, after 22 years (and counting) of people regularly referring to Escape as if it were an irredeemable steaming pile of crap, almost nobody seems to think that there's enough negativity about that one.

With a teensy Guybrush or even Elaine walking around on it. Oh, I'd be over the moon. I want all those delicious maps now. And you have of course all the facts at hand concerning he 69 joke. 🥸

agreed, I doubt any of the other islands will be so 'jungly' I don't think we've seen much of Terror Island as I have a hunch that might be a 'skull island' style joke, but maybe this? That's a point actually some of the shots of (maybe) Monkey Island look like they take place at day and the monkey head and some other shots look like night. I'd love it if we got to see some of the locations at different times of day. It's possible to do that kind of transition nowadays without repainting the whole scene, so it wouldn't surprise me if they tinkered with this. I'm still not sure if I really want to see a daytime Melee (aside from that fan one someone did) but I'd be interested, at least.

My guess is that they're going to show us the map of an island next. Er, no I don't. The only slightly relevant discussion I can remember is the one about why 69 is a pervy number. Don't think anyone has fully explained why yet🤔

By the way, yes, I click on those fish bones to pick them up. Then I use the corn starch with the vichysoisse. I then use the solidified vichysoisse with the fish bone and mold a tasty raw fish lookalike. This enables Guybrush to win the raw fish eating contest that the Brr Muda monarch usually dominates. I will totally rock at Return to Monkey Island, y'all. 🤘

There is no law barring you from introducing someone to the Monkey Island series with the special editions. There just should be.

I know exactly what it means. I think a lot of people do. Basically what we've seen so far has the faint whiff of a Flash game. I don't see what's gained by trying to claim other people's opinions on something as subjective as aesthetics are "nonsense". It's piling negativity on top of negativity, and is precisely why the GG comment section got so toxic. Ron decided to mention that he doesn't like the DOTT art style. Is he "wrong" for not liking? Should he be worried about hurting Peter Chan's feelings? Opinions are fine... it's how you express them. Can't we just let people do that without trying to incite a mob? I have a feeling it's going to be shit show again... although Ron is deliberately taking his time on this one. Presumably the longer people wait, the more their expectations will go down? Maybe?

I wrong a big long reply to this, but I'll spare everyone and just say... I completely (but respectfully) disagree

There are two separate things being talked about here: the concept of "the secret of Monkey IslandTM " and the layers of reality in the two games. I think, like I said before, that the soMITM as discussed in the first game (and used as its title) was a generic adventure concept that covered the island's magical concealment and the monkey head portal etc. It feels to me like in that first game the post-modern stuff was purely for humour, but that in the second game they decided to roll it into the story. The Voodoo Lady says: "Big Whoop isn't just a treasure. It contains the secret to another world. Find that world and you'll be able to escape LeChuck forever." And then of course there's the fairground ending. Exactly how literally Gilbert et al intended this all to be taken is left fairly ambiguous, but they certainly intertwined it into the fabric of the story to some extent. To me, the fact that they created Big Whoop and connected it to the reality-bending, rather than returning to the location of Monkey Island and tying it all into that, supports the idea that the soMITM isn't that important and the continued questioning about it is a running joke. But you know what? The whole thing is intentionally ambiguous, and while we can all have our own theories about how important any given aspect is or what it means, there's no way to be sure unless Ron & Dave lay it all out for us in ReMI. Personally, I don't think they will - I suspect they'll answer a couple of things and ask five more!

Yes, I don't think everyone has forgotten the context at all. I was there. Sure, I was ten, but I was there, I remember what video games were like and I remember the exact moment I first saw Monkey Island and realised it was different to other things I'd seen. But I actually think that it cheapens things somewhat to assert that just because they started out throwing things in just because they found them funny or weird or for no particular reason at all, that's how they continued thinking about it and that's the context in which we ought to think about it. As someone who has made a couple of games, as I understand it the creative process often goes something like this: you start out by chucking some ideas out. After a while you start to notice how certain ideas within it relate to each other and strengthen each other and those ideas coalesce into larger ideas, which themselves create other ideas, and this process is what makes a piece of work cohere, feel like a piece of work rather than a loose jumble of ideas. Sure, it might be rock and roll, but this happens in rock and roll too. Because for all they were just throwing out ideas, they were also playing by rules. There's an internal logic to the game that only gets broken in specific ways, and even the ways in which it breaks its own rules are kind of its own bit of internal logic. They might not have verbalised it or given it a name or consciously understood every bit of it, but Monkey Island has a specific sort of language it talks, and you can tell when it's it, and when it isn't it - just like you can tell when something is and isn't rock and roll. So I think when people enthusiastically talk about things like the secret, and clues, and deep lore, they're not necessarily talking about stuff that was written in a design doc or carved in stone or whatever. They're just suggesting that by the end of MI2, the creators at least SEEMED to have a notion of what all these nuggets had coalesced into, and speculating on the explanation that best fits what's there.

It was, the girders and music in the Crossroads were both referencing underground tunnels to some degree, that area had a map that was a little bit of a park map. The boat dock is meant to be styled after boarding gates for a ride. It’s hard to hear but there’s also some audio that bleeds through when lechuck is defeated. When designing Guybrush digging out of his grave, my initial desire was for the “dirt and grass” to be cardboard and astroturf, almost like he was buried within a stage set, but we decided to keep it more real. That said, there was a desire with the Crossroads to make it feel like artificial vignettes, and stay ambiguous as to what they are or where you are. I honestly couldn’t tell you what any of it means in a literal symbolic or plot sense but could talk about what it was trying to evoke for me for probably way too long haha Both Monkey Island 1 and 2 have this feeling that if you get too close to the edge of the world, if you dig too deep, it will all start unraveling. It’s a wonderful feeling to have in a world you get to explore so fully, and get to be an active participant in because it’s a video game.

Here you go. 😬