KestrelPi

I s'pose thinking about this with a design brain on, one of the reasons that side-goals in adventure games aren't so popular might be that they could muddy the rest of the puzzle design. After all if I have to not just think about what items I have and how they will help me complete the goals to progress the story of the game, but also think about what I have that is not related to the main goals of the game but some side stuff, and ALSO possibly be sure if something I'm doing is actually required or optional... well, I guess that could make the whole puzzle structure somewhat messy. Players could spend ages wondering about stuff that is absolutely unnecessary. A good design could work around these things, though. An adventure game I'm starting to design needs to have a sort of quest log of 'goals' because the way the puzzles work kind of demands it, and I could easily see that just being extended to include critical and optional side goals. But it doesn't look like this game is doing anything like that, so I guess they'd want some other way of conveying when a task is important or not.

I get the feeling it's not that important. Even in the clip the pirate leaders say they don't really care. And in interviews Dave seems to imply it's not a big thing: "Technically, I suppose that’s true. Whether that matters or not is sort of up to you. " But that said, I love the notion that you could somehow present them with all the evidence optionally and that changes the ending. Though that said. IS it the first sidequest? I'm trying to think if there are any other optional puzzles at all in any of the games. I guess ... sinking your ship in MI1 could concievably count. And in MI2 you can optionally win various prizes on the wheel of fortune though it's not a different puzzle. As far as EMI goes I can't remember, and I can't think of any for CMI or Tales.

I consider myself a fairly principled person. But if my copy of Return to Monkey Island was locked in a hatch that would only unlock when I pressed a button labelled 'By Pressing This Button I Acknowledge That I Fully Support The British Monarchy. Long Live King Charles!'... ...I would be spamming that button from 2 minutes to midnight on Sunday until whenever it opened.

* Glad that that Monkey Robot thing was finally put to bed. I never believed that was the plan all along. * Glad Craig was involved. For all that we nitpick the special editions, I always felt like he has been a strong driving force in keeping LEC's adventure game history alive. * I wonder how different the endings are. Will it be like MI1 where there are a couple of extra/different bits, or will it make a bigger difference? I'd guess the former. * I'm glad that the biggest spoiler or at least one of them seems to be at the beginning, because it means that almost as soon as we play it on Monday, we'll get at least some of our answers, or at least fresh questions.

There's an implied mention of sushi in MI2, when the Fisherman challenges to catch a bigger fish or eat his catch raw: "You mean, on rice with a little wasabi and soy sauce?"

That puzzle has definitely been a sticking point for let's players I've been watching, but not as much as, say.... that dang seagull

Yes, specifically they've been very evasive when answering questions about where this game appears on the timeline in a way that will be addressed in part by the start of the game.

I think what I'm learning is that I just straight up do not understand a lot of your reads (with no disrespect). I don't see how else we're supposed to intepret the kiss. If it was supposed to be interpreted some other way then that's just another thing the film put across very poorly. Yes, that stuff about the light side happened. But I wasn't asking for it to happen I was asking for it to be explored. After all, it was previously the accepted read that the dark side is seductively powerful but corrupting, and now we have this idea that some people on the dark side might feel a pull towards the light. I would say no, this wasn't explored in ROTJ, all that did was introduce the idea that a character could be swayed back to the light side through persuasion and intense emotional stakes involving the potential death of their child. TFA (as far as films go) introduces the quite intriguing evolution of that idea, by having Kylo confess a pull to the light, and seeing killing his father as a way of severing ties with it. TLJ, I think played with this in a quite lovely way by offering an explanation of why he had performed so badly against an amateur, by having Snoke tear into Kylo about how he couldn't deal with the guilt of what he did. Eventually in RoS Kylo does try to redeem himself but I wish the series as a whole had done more to examine the idea that there's more subtlety to the force than the good and pure light side and the evil and seductive dark sides. I dunno, I don't want it to pull some 'both sides' nonsense, but also I feel like TLJ got really close to saying maybe the Jedi Order isn't the only game in town, maybe there's flaws in an institution so old and set in its ways, and I think I'd have liked to see more of that.

Looks like IGN's coverage has some exclusive footage. For anyone interested, I don't think the look at the scrapbook here is particularly spoilery. It doesn't reveal anything about how MI2 ends, for example, but it does show how the scrapbook will work in practice. I really like the nods to MI2's copy protection in the background of that MI2 page.

For me it just ignores TLJ in a whole different way. TLJ at least had enough subtelty to it that you could legitimately think 'there seems to be some sexual tension here but it's not fully clear at what level it's operating. Are the characters conscious of it themselves or is it just me, the audience member? Is this being set up as a potential future romance or are we supposed to see this as a sort of metaphor for the temptation both characters are feeling of being seduced towards the dark/light?' That interplay between these two characters 'forbidden' temptations added a dangerous sort of layer to their interactions that to me at least was way more interesting than 'They're in love actually, BAM *kiss*' While we're at it... rggh. The whole idea about a character who is tortured by feeling seduced by the light side was so interesting and such a natural evolution of what happens a the end of RotJ, I'm also irritated that they didn't do more with it after TLJ.

I'll merely repeat my statement above: Saying that I think the reaction to TLJ had a lot to do with how Abrams and Disney decided to approach RoS isn't the same as me saying it was entirely responsible for everything bad about that film. And I think you know that. But also I didn't see the Reylo thing in TLJ as a romance. Yes, there was a sort of sexual tension there but for me the kiss at the end of RoS came right out of leftfield, they hadn't done NEARLY enough of the groundwork to establish that there was a romantic attachment there. In the cinema, I nearly said 'Sorry, WHAT?' out loud. Honestly Guybrush and Elaine in MI1 had a more believable romantic arc. And for how bad the prequels were at writing romance, they at LEAST left you under no illusions about how Anakin felt.

You misunderstand me. I'm not blaming fans for RoS, only the people who made it can be blamed for it. But it is absolutely and blatantly obvious that the decisions they made in making RoS were a conscious reaction to the response to TLJ, which WAS driven by fans. It is impossible for me to view RoS as its own set of mistakes completely divorced from the response to TLJ because it so very clearly was a reaction to that. I'm not saying they responded well or logically to that response, but the decisions they made do absolutely reflect their fear in the face of the response to TLJ. Yes, even the Palpatine bit. It screams, 'ahh, okay, gotta right the ship, what's a bone we can throw fans that people like and is familiar... oh, I don't know. Resurrect Palpatine. People like Palpatine. Go with that. Make it work.' And I never said that they planned to use Johnson for the next part (you really, really have a bad habit of putting words into my mouth!) - but given they changed directors for 8, you think they might have again changed for 9 instead of going back to the director for 7 (and in fact this was going to be true, with Colin Trevorrow being the director for 9 initially, then them changing it). This, too, feels like a reaction 'people liked 7, some people rioted about 8... let's just go back to the director for 7 rather than risk another newbie. Safe pair of hands.' I'm sure RoS wasn't COMPLETELY the result of Disney and Abrams being worried about the response of a loud internet mob. But I think you have to ignore a lot to believe it was unrelated. Indeed, despite most people seeming to agree in the clear light of day that RoS was kind of a underwhelming whimper of a conclusion, it received almost none of the instant fury that TLJ got from some quarters. And I'd put that down to it being bad in ways that are merely boring. Why is it boring? Because they were too afraid to do anything bold.

I feel about Curse of Monkey Island similarly to how I feel about TFA. I think it's a very enjoyable game/film that is also markedly unambitious in its story scope. It hits a lot of very similar points to ones that people liked about the previous games/films, but I don't blame it for that. I see it as a trust-building excercise. New game/film, new creators. They have expectations on their shoulders and the first thing they want to prove is that they can make a regular-ass game/film in the series that meets the kind of expectations people have for This Sort Of Thing. After they've proved they can do that, then maybe they can get a bit braver. I think Rian Johnson was rather hoping that since TFA had been well received on the whole he might be able to take some things in a surprising direction, which very much worked for me, but apparently not everyone. While EMI really does get a lot wilder with its plot than CMI ever attempts, and with that one I'm in the camp of people it didn't quite work for. I think this is an extremely revisionist way of looking at what happened there. Most people still liked TLJ. The ones that didn't like it most were a minority of loud, angry nerds who yelled and yelled until Disney chickened out, brought Abrams back (because people liked that first one), and then desperately scrambled to insert the familiar i.e. palpatine into the story in a rather pathetic attempt to appease them. TRoS is what happens when you listen TOO MUCH to nerds. (And besides the bits of TRoS that were pew pew kaboom adventure were the only good things about it)

It's only beautiful for the very small minority of people who care, though. I think as people who are nerds about various things we have to accept that we care a lot more about certain stuff than most other people and sometimes it makes sense for various reasons to make decisions that aren't going to please or be 'beautiful' to us. Not everything has to be for our benefit. Like I say, this is all a mythology anyway, it's even presented a bit like an epic myth - why not accept that like all ancient myths, there are different tellings and different versions of the story, and you can choose which ones you like. Why this need for certainty? (Don't get me wrong, I think I understand the appeal of canon, it's just that I also understand why it is that sometimes creators and writers have a bit of a funny relationship with canon) on your MI bits... The misgivings I had about HT Marley were less about inconsistency with previously established plot (perhaps it bugged me slightly, but not majorly) and more that it didn't seem to serve any good story purpose except to be a surprise twist. It was just a silly plot point put there to be a surprise and nothing else, while also replacing a character, Herman Toothrot, who I think was perfectly enjoyable on his own merits with a different character. Another point is that I am also glad that Ron and Dave say they are not ignoring the games that came after where possible, but I think that's more to do with I feel like this is a much better compromise than Ron's previous position that he'd just make his own 3a and ignore the rest. To me, even with the best possible interpretation that he wanted to just make a MI3 without baggage, that always felt a bit like it would be difficult to do without seeming disrespectful of other's efforts.

Mm, I can't recall anyone questioning whether Lucas should be involved in the prequels when they were first announced. It was understood implicitly to be the right decision, even if he'd already started to show some of his worse tendencies with his tinkering with the Special Editions. He still had so much currency that people trusted that he knew what he was doing with the prequels without question. Episode I killed a lot of that - a little unfairly I think. I don't think it's a great film by any means, but I find it more watchable than the other two, mainly because I don't need to watch Hayden Christensen mumble his way through those godawful lines he was given.

Exactly. They were thinking of the audience.

The problem with canon is that it creates a rod for the back of people working on something, the more of it that there is. It doesn't surprise me that Disney decided to ignore the extended universe, because why would impose lore on a universe that is there to please only a small minority of nerds when you're trying to make TV shows for a wide audience? I'm not making fun of the small minority of nerds, by the way. I've BEEN that nerd for different things and different time, but I just think that it's possible for a universe to get so big that adhering to its canon becomes a practical canon. I know why canon happens, people like to look at a fictional universe and understand 'this is what actually happened' but maybe a healthier approach is to treat them like mythologies. Collections of stories, some of which are consistent with each other, some not, some that completely contradict, and there doesn't have to be a right answer, or you can just choose what feels most 'right' for you. I think that's where we'll have to get to with Monkey Island, after all.

But of course he's also stated that

I will repeat my prediction that he was killed by tripping and falling on The Machine immediately after the lesson, which is why he never answers the door again.

Monkey Island Monday bullet point thoughts * I imagine it occured to many of us that Guybrush was never able to finish his trials, as in the last Monkey Island Monday. I suppose it adds to that theme of unfinished business they've been going on about. * It's a pretty good gag for him to mistake them for the Men of Low Moral Fiber, which makes me wonder if they're showing up at all. Also, how does he know their names? * Come to think of it where did the Pirate Leaders GO after the trials. They were in the bar because they were hiding out from LeChuck and I always assumed they scattered because LeChuck attacked

This video was very well done though I note the same criticism as @BaronGrackle pointed out. But also I'd say this video needs a summary. This is half plot summary half-walkthrough, they probably could have got through the important story information in half the time.

I do agree that Finn's stuff is by far the weakest part of TLJ, but I find the rest of it so strong that it makes up for it. And it's not that I think Finn's stuff is bad, it's just noticeably less interesting than the rest of the stuff going on and he worked far better with the other major characters to bounce off.

Yeah, I think this is an important point and one area where I think SoMI is really good. It has a ton of unconventional adventure puzzles that aren't just simple inventory things *Insult Swordfighting *Follow the storekeeper *Grog-based jailbreak *Getting into the kitchen *Negotiating with Stan *The forest map *The dreaded seagull *Head of the navigator *The rock-slinging/aiming *The directions to monkey island recipe All of these feel to some extent like a set piece that give the game a sense of uniqueness. MI2 is a much bigger game but I feel doesn't have as quite as many of these unusual puzzle moments and a lot of them are similar to stuff done in MI1. Off the top of my head: * The fortress directions * Spitting contest stuff * Famous pirate quotations * The gambler password * Getting into the kitchen mk2 * Elaine's dialogue puzzle * I suppose the underground tunnels could be called unusual because of the time pressure and stuff * Finding the sunken treasure * The parrot That's a tricky one. It depends what you mean by the question. If they were making MI1/2 today, do I think it would be a better game if certain puzzles weren't made harder by pixel hunting or just being weird moon logic moments? Yeah, probably, I suppose. I do think the extent to which adventure game puzzles have a reputation for being illogical is exaggerated - usually that's just the 2 or 3 puzzles in a whole game that stick out, but yeah, if they'd ironed out those things I guess I do think it'd be better. If they were making a faithful as possible remake of the game, as in not just a remaster but a ground up remake? I think I'd want to keep the gameplay as similar as possible but just change the UI and graphics and music and utilise a hint system. If the goal was for a grong up remake in the spirit of the original, and following its story and characters but not a shot-for-shot remake, like the FF7 remakes? In that case, I think I'd want them to write the puzzles with modern audiences in mind. It's a fascinating thought experiment to consider what a modern, high-production value complete remake of MI1 might even be like. I absolutely don't think it's warranted, or remotely likely, but it's fun to think about what that would even be.

Almost all of the time when I used the hint system in Thimbleweed park I thought, "Well, that was silly, I'm glad I didn't spend an hour wandering around until eventually trying that", and only once or twice did I think, "Ahh, I should have got that myself" so I expect I'll use the hints on occasion. I feel like with this game they've put a lot more thought into the interface and puzzle design, so I'm hoping that I won't need to dip into it as often (I really didn't like how much of the middle parts of TWP was correctly guessing the order that the game wanted you to tackle tasks). I'm hoping to be somewhat challenged, but not constantly stuck. I thought Ron or possibly Dave made a very interesting point. A lot of us would have played the games first time when we were 10 years old. I was a pretty smart 10 year old but I'm pretty sure that 40 year old me who has played a lot of adventure games is better at solving puzzles than 10 year old me who hadn't played this sort of game before, so I used a lot of hints to get through them, and remember them as being harder than they probably actually were (also really hard/unfair puzzles are memorable, regular ones less so). So I imagine this game will feel easier than MI1/MI2 but I'm not sure it'll actually be easier. I bet it will be fairer, as in less pixel hunting, less... knowing that you have to walk to a plank you have no reason to need to walk to to dislodge a seagull (I think I've watched about 10 lets plays of SOMI this year and maybe 1 person got this without help), less having to read the designers mind, just because people have got better with designing and QAing puzzles now, and to some people that equates to easier but to me it just removes the kind of difficulty that was never fun. Also, being that 40 year old I maybe don't have the hours in the day I had over a summer to while away being stuck in a video game. In summary, when I played TWP I used hints whenever I stopped having fun, which was quite often in the middle of the game, and I'll have the same policy here. But in ReMI I am hopeful that I won't need to as much.

I really want to clarify I didn't answer your question in order to have another debate about TLJ, it's just that I think TLJ is very relevant to why I find RoS to be a cowardly piece of fiction.