roots

The Guardian of Forever reference is definitely very apt for where MI2 seemed to be taking the series. In fact the Voodoo Lady is rather direct about it: Nothing particularly revealing, but it becomes a little more curious when we factor in the cut Largo/LeChuck dialogue: My current theory is the Tunnels provide unrestricted travel between worlds (and times potentially) to the bearer of the E-ticket. This has the benefit of providing the "narrative grease" if you will to allow RTMI to do as it will without stepping on the toes of Curse and beyond, or minimally to explain away potential future plot holes without hardline de-canonisation. Whether RTMI ends up meaningfully exploring this aspect of 2 is a different question, but I'm fairly convinced it'll be at least minimally leveraged to enable whatever story Ron wishes to tell.

I always think of the phrase "Jack of all Trades, Master of None". Games that seek to be as broadly appealing as possible generally aren't as engaging to their audiences compared to more "specialised" titles focused more on a specific niche/demographic. But that concept aside, it really does seem a tad off. Frankly it reads to me like a insincere cope constructed to deal with the fallout. It's one thing to not concern oneself with appealing to everyone, but to try and intentionally irritate people seems pointless and counter-productive.

Of all the things I would expect to find out about discourse back then, people being aggressively passionate about Herman Toothrot is not one I ever would've ever expected. Cringing at your past self many years later is a intrinsic and essential part of the internet experience in my opinion.

I can't say for certain as I wasn't online back in those days, but my perception was that the longing for "retro" and pixel art didn't really start significantly cropping up till the mid 00s when a lot of franchises stumbled on transitioning to 3D and/or Consoles. Regarding Gilbert & Grossman, I agree that (especially now) there is no interest in parity with the SEs (Parity was purely a hope/pipedream), but I'm unsure of where exactly RMI sits. Ostensibly the birth concept of the game is a more direct continuation of MI2 and Gilbert's take therein, so in some sense it is the conclusion to the "Gilbert Trilogy". I think ultimately the confusion stems from RMI explicitly trying to not step on any toes, but as discussed before I have personal theories as to how this could be achieved in the Watsonian sense.

The most disappointing part of this controversy is it has tainted any chance for a "retro mode" as an addendum (even post-release) to the base game. Not out of any commentary on the art, but rather from the perspective of parity between RMI and the Special Editions and forming a neat cohesive trilogy. Putting that aside, I'd love it if RMI ties the stump joke into the Underground Tunnels providing that the plot does end up continuing down that line. It's such a perfect way to throwback to "the infamous stump" IMO.

I think we've tipped past the peak with the art issue and descended into being a reactionary counter-jerk. It seems now to be vastly more people complaining about other people complaining which really isn't any more helpful that the latter. People are going to have negative and positive responses to the art regardless. Better to just drop it and move on.

I would heartily recommend anyone who enjoys speculation surrounding Big Whoop to take a look at the cut LeChuck/Largo dialogue that while cut, is still present in the game files. If you have a copy of MI2 in ScummVM to hand, open the console via Ctrl+Alt+D and run "script 102 start" to see it for yourself.

That's fair. My issue was really just the terminology being used, namely the "Child's Fantasy ending" vs a neutral "MI2 ending" so as not to reinforce the perception some have that it was definitively the former. Interesting point on the Amiga bug, I wasn't aware of that. It actually makes me wonder if Elaine's comment was something that was added later in development to try and reinforce the scene with LeChuck's eyes explicitly to try and avoid people interpreting the game as such. I think there is a lot of potential with the Underground Tunnels and their implications on the game's reality to enable Ron to tell the story he wants to tell in RMI while also staying compatible with the other games in the franchise, without necessarily having to fully endorse Curse's explanation either. Either that, or Ron will just take artistic liberties. Lastly, thank you for engaging me in good faith. It's nice to have a productive discussion rather than being gainsaid on every point.

No, I asked people to stop referring to the ending in a way that "Child's fantasy" is the definitive explanation, with the ancillary reasons that the source material strongly contradicts this notion, and that the misconception that it is the definitive ending has been harmful to how people perceive the game. Personally, I don't think MI2's ending is open ended to that degree. The way I see it, you can either go with the fantasy explanation, which to be frank - is very much the superficial reading of the events depicted (Which admittedly was how my younger self took it) , or the myriad other non-fantasy explanations such as a portal to hell, multiple dimensions, MI3's voodoo curse, or even a variation on TWP's ending, etc. But that aside, my concern is less with people having their own interpretations as much as people portraying the "Child's Fantasy" as the definitive reading especially when as I keep stating, is not only strongly contradicted in the very same ending, but actively harmful to many people's enjoyment of the game.

That reasoning is backwards. As the article says, what people disliked was it seemingly undermined their investment in the world by handwaving everything as "just a kid's fantasy". Which is a common reception to the trope in question. And please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not proposing "broad policies" or anything of the sort, nor am I saying people must interpret the game X way. I'm simply saying that we shouldn't portray the game as if that definitively *is* the ending, and be aware that the game itself strongly indicates otherwise.

There are a number of contemporary articles that refer to MI2's ending as being "controversial". For example this article from CBR, another from SVG and this one from Gamerant. To quote CBR: I don't think it's unreasonable to say that there is a non-trivial demographic of people that strongly disliked the ending due to that interpretation, and therefore will have a more negative view of MI2 as a result. Given that RMI presumably continues on in spirit from that ending, to my mind it makes sense to lay it to rest, at least in terms of making it clear it's in no way definitive, and is arguably contradicted by MI2 itself on deeper reflection.

I disagree, there are absolutely people even within the demographic of "fans of the franchise" who hold a more negative view of MI2 for the aforementioned reasons. I know because I used to feel the same way once myself. I certainly remember being glad when Curse was announced and explicitly contradicted it.

That sounds like a massive reach to me, nor does it address the latter 4th wall break. But that aside. Don't get me wrong, I've not got an issue with differing interpretations nor am I trying to "cut them off", it's just that in this specific circumstance it's a (arguably mis-, albeit popular) interpretation that is one of if not the root cause of the more negative reception that MI2 has. Nor is it definitive, which I why I think simply calling it the "MI2 ending", rather than "the X ending" is preferable. Heck, I'm actually rather partial to the "Monkey Island is a deep psychosis from childhood trauma i.e. death of parents" theory myself, even if I do think the interdimensional nexus theory is a lot more plausible.

The ending of MI2 specifically being unplanned at that point in time is not a statement on the role of the anachronistic elements in either game. While Ron does not have a plan for specific plot points ahead of time, the likelihood is he does have a vague notion of the direction of the plot and the elements he wishes to explore. Looking at TWP, he evidently has a passion for questioning the nature of reality in his games. As an addendum, can we please not call it the "child's fantasy ending". MI2 rather explicitly lampshades the notion through both Elaine's "SPELL" comment and LeChuck's 4th wall break. It's a common misconception that MI2's ending is just a fantasy, and it has arguably harmed people's enjoyment of the game over the years.

I think it's reasonable/plausible to have a degree of doubt that the intention behind the anachronistic elements in MI1 was the same as it is in MI2, but I would also argue that there is enough contextualisation in both the Watsonian and Doylist perspectives around MI1 to say that there was definitely greater intent behind their inclusion than mere humour. Given an original inspiration for the franchise was Disney's PotC ride, and considering the two games as a cohesive whole to my mind certainly suggests that there was minimally some high-level idea to weave these elements into the plot from the start, even if the "fine details" were to be filled in on the fly.

My one hope for RtMI is that the game continues to explore the thinning skin of reality that MI2 brought to the fore. MI2 makes it abundantly clear that the anachronisms present throughout both are very much an intentional plot device, thus continuation of said plot thread is essential in my opinion for this game to be a true "3a" rather than just "Ron makes a new MI game". (That isn't to say the latter is bad thing mind you) Of particular interest is combining the Voodoo Lady's comments on Big Whoop with the cut dialogue between Largo and LeChuck. The tunnels being some sort of interdimensional nexus between multiple worlds/realities is also a great in-universe way to explore the above while avoiding stepping on the toes of the other games.