KestrelPi

I suppose this last one doesn't quite work if you take the Secret just to be the location. It could be... but then that would be a very odd thing to say. I feel like this has been a discussion since the #monkey-island days. I remember at some point someone saying it was something to do with the anachronisms. At another point I feel like they said there was a secret, but they thought it would be a disappointment to reveal it. It might be a fun excercise at some point to try to track down everything that's ever been said or written about the secret in and out of fiction, because I'm sure there are some old words about this that we're forgetting.

Yeah, I guess that's a tough balance to strike, isn't it? You don't want to do anything that spoils that lovely uncanny area that a lot of MI lives in, but you also don't want to pretend like it's not there. I think CMI's main flaw was that it didn't get close enough, it kept all that stuff way at arm's length and just wanted to tell a pirate adventure while tossing in a few anachronisms. That just about worked for me, and I love the game on its own terms but it felt 'safe'. I think EMI's main flaw is that it mistook that atmosphere for jokes and references, and opportunities for lore expansion, so instead of it being a pirate adventure with this kind of weird undercurrent of Something Else, it turned into a parody - which for me didn't work. Monkey Island isn't parody, it's more... comic pastiche. Tales largely succeeded in walking a line, I think.

Well, the first one definitely refers to LeChuck sailing off in search of the Secret of Monkey Island, at least. But I'm pretty sure the only reason Ron would reveal the Secret of Monkey Island at this point would be if he was sick of people asking about it at the expense of more interesting things.

Yeah I agree with that. If Monkey Island is a mystery box then I'm okay with that, but a good mystery box will provide just enough answers to give some closure/satisfaction, while introducing enough new stuff to keep things mysterious. If we just keep piling mysteries on top of the existing mysteries, they comes a point where people will just lose interest because they stop believing there's an answer to be found. That said, I'm fine with ambiguity and it never being truly explained if what's going on is this or that. I think a lot of Monkey Island plays with ambiguity. I just don't want that to be in the form of 'more weird stuff that does nothing to address the old weird stuff'

The reason I like this one so much, is that it neatly explains a lot of things that have been said and shown already: It explains how the other games can be 'canon' without being particularly beholden to them. It gives them more freedom than anything It makes a lot of sense next to this bit from Ars Technica: The idea just makes the title 'Return to Monkey Island' feel even better Sure it might be that we haven't seen any characters yet because they want to reveal that later... but it COULD be that they don't want to show us that yet because they've visibly aged and they're not ready to reveal that yet.

I think this line of thought is going to be easier to follow once we understand exactly what ReMI is. So far we know: It begins where MI2 left off But the sequels are still 'canon' and Murray is in it It's been hinted that while it's at its core a pirate adventure, they'll be going some weird places with it just like they did in MI2. This could mean a whole lot of things: It could mean that everything in ReMI takes place before CMI and they just kinda backfill an explanation for why Murray is there. (I doubt this idea, but mainly because it doesn't 'feel' right to me) It could mean that it starts at the end of MI2 but then there's a lengthy time skip to after all the other games, and we largely ignore them and tell a new story with a slightly older guybrush (this is my favourite pet theory at the moment) It could mean that the game itself is going to, by the end, play with the idea of what's real and not real in the world of Monkey Island, and our current ideas of what happens in what order become fuzzier as a result It could mean that the game just has time travel in it now It could mean there's some sort of multiverse theory of Monkey Island It could mean something completely different that nobody has thought of But until we know what it means, I think it's very hard to speculate how the story of Tales fits into the overall puzzle.

I don't even think there's any need to go that far or assume that had anything to to with it. In 2020 Tim was extremely busy working on Psychonauts 2, and I just think it's highly unlikely that he could have agreed to take anything else on at that time even if he wanted to. I'd be interested to know if they talked about it - and somewhat surprised if they didn't, but his non-involvement makes perfect sense in the context of what he was doing at the time without having to guess at some conscious decision on Ron's part

Problem with that one is we already had 'LeChuck's Revenge' so revenge is done.

I think everyone just sort of assumed that a game would eventually be called Return to Monkey Island. There's only so many things that can fit into the Something Something Monkey Island format and we've had Secret of, Escape From and Tales of so far. So unless they went for an MI2 style title, there's not much else that fits and it's not surprising that an April Fools joke from years ago guessed the title. Murder on Monkey Island? Peril on Monkey Island? The Sequel of Monkey Island? The Other Secret of Monkey Island? Back to Monkey Island? Adventures on Monkey Island? The Treasure of Monkey Island? ... hmm, no matter how you slice it, Return to Monkey Island was just the most obvious name for a new Monkey Island game. The real problem will be if they make another one, what will they call THAT?

Sure. I think CMI's art style is great and for me feels like a natural progression of some of the things they were already exploring in MI2. I also really enjoy the character designs, but I do think perhaps some of the characters lost a bit of what they had before. I always thought of Elaine as a quite tall, formidable figure but in CMI she tends a bit towards petite and 'cute'. And LeChuck's design suits how he was portrayed and voiced in the game, but I did miss the rather scarier version we saw in MI2, and I worry it has permanently changed how I see him as a villain. I used to feel nervous whenever LeChuck was on screen, but I don't think that's true any more. Small things, really, and not enough to ruin it, but enough to make me think perhaps something was lost along the way.

I think perhaps just to emphasise some boundaries here, I don't think it's wrong to express opinions about aesthetics. I don't even think it's wrong to release mods which 'fix' aesthetic stuff you don't like. Here's some of my own opinions: I think MI1's original backgrounds are merely okay. I think Guybrush's hair and face in the SE is extremely silly looking. I don't think the game has ever really looked good in 3D. I like CMI's art style a lot, but I think a few things were lost in the translation. Where it becomes toxic is when one becomes so convinced of their take that they start second guessing everything anyone has to say to the contrary, ascribing some sort of sinister external motive. Or trying to justify why only their opinion can be the right one with a bunch of art theory mumbo jumbo. I'm completely happy for people to dislike the art they've seen so far (I quite like it, but I'm not yet COMPLETELY sold), all I ask is that they accept that Ron and the team want this look for the game, and all I suggest -for their own happiness more than anything else- is that they wait until they've had a chance to see the whole thing come to life before making sweeping pronouncements about it.

The most likely reason for Tim's lack of involvement is: a) There's probably some contractual weirdness about him working outside of Microsoft, now. b) He was elbow deep in Psychonauts 2 at the time the project came about, so there's no way he could have committed to it, even if he'd been able to solve a) I don't think any speculation beyond that is gonna be particularly fruitful.

I think it's a matter of scale and quality. Monkey Island has occasional 4th wall winks, and the odd reference (I'd argue EMI is much more reference heavy than the previous games too), and every time it's well thought out and cleverly done. But for example... MI1 2 and 3 have ... 3 jokes across the 3 games about how you can't die in LucasArts games. The first time it's the rubber tree in MI1. It's quite well done with the fake game over screen. The second time it's in MI2 where you take too long and fall into the acid and Elaine calls this out as impossible being that we're in a flashback. The third time we get the fake credits sequence in the crypt. 3 different games, 3 different versions of what's basically the same joke, each done quite well. Thimbleweed park does a 'you can't die' joke 4 times in the first 4 hours. And each time it's just a throwaway line in the dialogue with nothing really clever about it. All it achieves is taking me out of the world for a moment. MI's best references and in jokes were either subtle enough that you might not even notice them, or so marvellously overdone that you couldn't help but appreciate the effort, or so odd and out of place that they fall into that uncanny realm of 'all is not as it seems' that MI likes to play in. They were very rarely just 'nudge, nudge, adventure games, eh?' kind of jokes, they were more purposeful than that. Don't get me wrong though, Thimbleweed Park has some really nice writing in it so far, I just wish it would trust its own worldbuilding to stand up a little better not to have to remind me every few seconds that I'm playing something like in the olde days.

I think that would have worried me more than anything. I'm playing through Thimbleweed at the moment, and so far it's fine for what it is, but it's also so self-consciously a throwback that it has trouble being anything else. You can't go five minutes before hitting on some joke or reference which is basically 'See? Remember old adventure games?' and that's... fine, but I would hate for a Monkey Island game to be so backward looking. Remember at the time, especially the first two games were on the cutting edge of what adventure games could be. SoMI revolutionised Adventure puzzle design overnight and set a new standard for comedy in games. MI2 only a year later achieved a similar goal but with the scope expanded massively in all directions. Hand drawn art, dynamic music, enough game that it had to be shipped on Amiga on ELEVEN disks. These were forward looking games, and I think they've correctly realised that the same should be true of the new one. I think it would have been a sort of sad return to Monkey Island if it was just a reflection upon past glories. To me, going with a distinctive new art style is a statement, and it says: 'Yes, we're carrying on where MI2 left off, but we're not pretending that nothing has happened in games since then' and I'm hugely encouraged by this shift in thinking.

Here's what'll happen. (Probably. I dunno, I'm predicting here) You'll see it, and you'll instinctively be weirded out by it because it's going to be in a different style to how Guybrush has ever looked, which is always odd (same with CMI, y'know). Then you'll see more and more of it in motion and you'll realise that it's pretty well done for what it is, and in the end you'll probably either end up liking it or just making peace with it. I think the big take away people will have when they see it all in motion is that this is it's own style, it's not going to be like the previous games, or like the special editions. Some people will vibe with it, others won't, but it'll be really clear they were GOING for something (my main criticism of SoMI SE is that I really wasn't sure WHAT it was going for with the style.)

I'm pretty sure Tim has gone on record saying the next thing it he makes he'd want to be completely new, but it wouldn't shock me if he revisited Brutal Legend in a few years. I think that'd happen before another adventure

On the topic of what I want, I think I'm more part inclined to want something that feels modern than a throwback, mainly because I don't really enjoy the perception of adventure games as a throwback genre. I think they can, and sometimes do, tell great, contemporary feeling stories now. And it was for that reason it's taken me a long time to play Thimbleweed Park. Firstly, the graphical style it's going for wasn't one I'm particularly nostalgic for (I like the look of the backgrounds but those MM style characters don't do much for me) and Secondly I was worried it was going to be so self-consciously a throwback that it would end up getting in its own way. I've played Thimbleweed for 4 hours at time of writing, and while I'm used to the art at this point, and actively enjoy aspects of the look, I do think parts of my second worry are at least partly true. It feels like it can't go five minutes without some sort of self-conscious joke about some aspect of adventure game mechanics, or some reference to the old days, and I... just don't find that sort of humour that engaging when it's overused. Monkey Island arguably had 3 'you can't die' jokes in its first 3 games (the falling off a cliff joke, I guess the falling into the acid pit joke, and the gravedigger's joke in CMI) but I've played this for 4 hours and there have already been 3 or 4 jokes on this theme. It was okay by the first time, but a little tedious by the 3rd time. It's so self-aware that I actually think it wraps back around to being not self aware about just how self aware it's being. And I am enjoying it, more than I thought I would, but with those caveats in place. If Tim or Ron or anyone else wants to make a throwback adventure game, my thought is by all means let 'em, but please, I beg you, constantly winking at the camera and saying, 'see, this is like what those old games were like' doesn't actually make it feel like the old games, it just reminds me of how far we are removed from them now. Personally, I'd rather they avoid the problem altogether and focus on making a great, modern game, with great characters and world building and puzzles, and trust the player to make the connection between this and what they made in the past all by themselves.

Yes, also my read. "He identified the puzzles which could be skipped." It would have taken way more than a couple of days to actually design and implement and write dialogue for whole new puzzles.

I did! Monkey Island 2 was my second ever adventure game, I was probably only 10 or 11 years old, and I'd only been able to finish the first game with the help of a hint book. I didn't have one for MI2, and I was playing both before we had an internet connection and before the internet could be relied upon for walkthroughs... so yep, the first time I played through I picked easy mode to give myself a better chance to get through it

I don't know that it was a particularly troubled development, in comparison with any other game he's made. Certainly the original Psychonauts, and Brutal Legend had a rather troubled development, they had to make lots of cuts from Full Throttle, and so forth. The main difference between Broken Age and those other games is that it was developed under public scrutiny, so things that would have happened in the dark and maybe talked about years later instead happened in the open. Like, let's say there'd never been a Kickstarter, but instead Tim got funding from a publisher to make Broken Age and it was announced at some point during development. Well, at the point where they started to realise they didn't have enough money to realise the whole vision, probably one of 3 things would have happened: 1) They ask the publisher for more money, they get it, and nobody ever hears or cares about that they had some budget issues. 2) They decide to make significant cuts to the game, and maybe people think it's a bit short, but by the time they release the game, whether they had to cut bits out would have been a matter of speculation and nothing more until they talk about what they cut years later (like Full Throttle) 3) Something like what they actually did, they decide to split the game and release it part 1 first, standalone. They're free to act like this was always the plan because they never announced otherwise, and they use the profits from it in order to fund the 'sequel'. I wonder if in any of those scenarios we'd really be thinking of Broken Age as having a 'troubled development' or if we'd just be thinking of it as a game (or two games) like any other that had its development ups and downs and eventually got released in some form. It's a bit like the situation with Psychonauts 2... people overemphasised in press chatter about it how long it was in development, but that development time was artificially inflated by 3 factors: 1) Because of the Fig funding, it was announced WAY before a game of this type would usually be announced, which made the development time feel much longer. 2) The Microsoft buyout bought them time and funds that they took advantage of 3) COVID slowing development for the second half. I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of this stuff has always felt like a bit of a false narrative generated by DF's relative openness compared with other devs. It says more about the stuff we DON'T see about other games, than it does about Broken Age, P2, etc. But... to address your question, I don't know. My sense from following DF closely for a number of years is that Tim isn't overly interested in revisiting the past. He'll dip into it with the remasters, and with Broken Age as an adventure game, and with Psychonauts 2, but all those had as much to do with keeping the company afloat as they did with what Tim wanted to do. I'm not saying they were cynical projects, but at some point it must have occured to the folks at DF that there's decent money in being able to capitalise on Tim's most beloved works, so it's a bit of a no brainer. But when you hear Tim talk about what he wants to do next, it's always something he's never tried before, and I think that's what he'll be drawn to especially now he knows he's not going to have to go round the world knocking on doors for money.

Hmm! I'd like to see character growth. Most of MI1's 'jerk guybrush' moments seem to come from him just being kind of oblivious to things outside of his immediate goals. In MI2, it's a bit different, it seems to come a bit more from an inflated sense of self-importance. I think after the experience of the tunnels and Big Whoop, however they actually get addressed, Guybrush's idea of where he fits in the world might have shifted again. Maybe we're going to see a more thoughtful, philosophical version of Guybrush, or something. Of course, we're talking shades here. It's still going to be the fairly inept but oddly determined character we know, trying his best to live up to the mighty pirate profession.

I got there. 👕 I beat #Mojole and all I got was this stupid t-shirt. 5/6 🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤 🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤 🖤💛💛🖤🖤 🖤💚💛🖤💛 💚💚💚💚💚 https://funzone.mixnmojo.com/Mojole/

I'm trying to think back, because I did first play it on Amiga. It's funny, that line has always stuck out as a bit odd to me, and I think the reason why is because I never had it in the version I played.

Interesting piece... not sure how much of it I agree with. I agree with the bit about Monkey Island's puzzle design being pleasingly varied from regular inventory puzzles, though, and many adventure games being too reliant on 'use x with y' at the exclusion of everything else you can do (and I don't just mean verbs - I don't think having lots of verbs makes an adventure game better in any meaningful way, I mean stuff like the seagull, the grog puzzle, the maze directions, the ship bartering, following the shopkeeper and so forth). But that said, I still feel like the basic gameplay loop of adventure games of exploring, talking to people and collecting items and trying to think of how to use them to proceed basically works for me, and I don't overly feel like that basic idea has had its day and needs to go away. I just think that it needs to be backed up with really solid characters, writing and story to keep it interesting. As for Ron's piece I mentioned, yeah - I like it, and I think it holds up remarkably well. But it's nothing if not blunt.

Yes, I don't doubt that things that Ron has said over the years come from a mixture of the extreme bluntness he's ALWAYS exhibited (we're talking about the person who preceded Monkey Island with an essay called Why Adventure Games Suck), and a genuine desire to talk about the most beloved thing he ever created. If he can be accused of one thing (and I have sometimes been exasperated by his posts, I admit), it's of being a little slow to understand just how much a particular corner of the internet hangs off his words, and as such a little unrestrained in saying things which were just inevitably going to stoke flames. And I kind of get that. We've all been there to SOME extent, I think, deciding to say something on the Internet and then later wondering if we should have just left it alone. If Ron's worst crime is to do that repeatedly, it's not all that bad. Even if whenever I saw Ron and Monkey Island in the same headline my heart would sink, I wonder if I wouldn't also, in the same situation, be unable to bite my tongue. What's important is his behaviour now, and to me there's nothing but good news there. His approach to this announcement has been very collaborative. It was an excellent decision to announce Dave, Dom and the 3 composers straight away and follow up with a string of other team announcements. It was an excellent decision to nod to CMI in the announcement video. It was an excellent decision not to position this as a fan-pleasing throwback, but another game in the series. It's just a shame that, probably in part because of the way he's talked about the idea of a sequel in the past, a small number of fans are choosing to see this as a betrayal before it's even out the door.