LowLevel

I'm starting to see it myself, actually. In the last few hours I have been leaning more toward the "the two children in the MI2 finale were already Boybrush and his friend" hypothesis. But at the moment I am under the effect of a powerful pendulum syndrome, swinging back and forth between hypotheses. Maybe in a few hours I will decide that the secret is that it is made of people. This is the one thing that prompts me not to look for further logical explanations: not the fact that they cannot exist, but the fact that I have heard developers say more than once "it might not be important", referring to different aspects of the game. Rationality may not be the best tool to use here. Yet ... people have been using it for decades. I don't remember glowing eyes in RtMI. When I heard Chuckie say something along the lines of "let's pretend I have powers" I interpreted it as yet another reenactment of something Guybrush had recounted happening to him in the past. This could also be explained by the fact that they are continuing to follow the "script". As long as they see Big Whoop around them, I think their reenactment is not over. The first element that threatens the end of their fantasy is the man wondering if the parrot is real, and the abrupt conclusion of the reenactment occurs when the man asks them not to be followed. This did not happen in the story told by Guybrush, so the play must end and they stop seeing Big Whoop.

I think that's part of the reason. I can certainly suspect that some puzzle had to be solved in a certain way. For example, just seeing the flags with holes in them suggested to me how those flags would be used eventually. In general, however, I think the puzzles were easier than those in Thimbleweed Park, which in my opinion had very logical and sometimes difficult puzzles. During the development of RtMI, Ron asked the readers of his blog what their favorite puzzle was. To me this was a very suspicious question, and I hoped that the answers to this question would help him for his next game. Several replies pointed out that an original puzzle is something that does not necessarily rely on the usual key/lock metaphor. The melting mugs of grog in MI1 were cited as an example. (by Ron!) I don't think RtMI has many of these out-of-the-box puzzles; I think most of them are based on the key/lock mechanism, both figuratively and practically. That might be a reason why the feel to me a bit on the simpler side, which is good for me, because I was more interested in other aspects of the game. By the way, after the release, the icon of the official website slowly changed from a mug of grog into a melted mug of grog. 😁

The aspect that confused me was that the inscription on the stone tablet says "after four extra years out at sea". I did not immediately interpret the "after four extra years" as "change the year piece four times". The center piece shows... years and I thought that "four" meant that I had to do some calculations with the years. I eventually understood it.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that in this game Elaine plays the role of educator and caretaker of a less mature person. Which is consistent with what their relationship should have been according to Ron. There are so many subtle allusions scattered around... null

You got me thinking about LeChuck's Revenge and how sometimes "depth" can be the result of a collaborative effort. Only some elements of MI2 were intentionally designed to provide allusions to deeper, hidden meanings. The ending, for example, was defined at a very late stage of development and provided no clear explanation of events or elements of the story that in themselves would be considered "deep". Then people dug in for 30 years. I have no doubt that the story and meaning of the old Monkey Island games were augmented and expanded (sometimes excessively) by players and their analytical skills, finding meaning in deep places that the authors did not even imagine existed. RtMI was published less than a week ago. I believe that much of the depth we expect from the story depends very much on how willing we are to accept the role of patient contributor or observer. Readers have very different approaches to storytelling: on one end of the spectrum, some people would prefer to see a fully functioning well, immediately recognizable as a deep structure and able to provide clean water to the thirsty, effortlessly. On the other end of the spectrum, players familiar with MI2's intentional ambiguities might be used to an author who simply gives them a small depression in the ground, a giant "X" painted on it, a shovel, and all the time they want to search for deeper meanings and to make the game their own. Everyone chooses their own position between the two extremes.

If you haven't already done it, I suggest: Asking Toothrot for quotes of "At The End Of The Plank". A beautiful, beautiful novel. Reading Toothrot's philosophical manifest, entirely. Among other things, he presents us with the new version of an old question:

There are other possible explanations, however, if one accepts that the story uses metanarrative a lot. For example, that different couple looks identical to the one seen in the MI2 finale because if it were not, the player would not have made a connection. They had to look identical, before the player interacted with them and realized that they are not the same people.

Nostalgia is definitely a major theme, because the underlying message of the entire game was the passage of time and how things change for everyone (developers and players and, consequently, characters as well). The many comparisons to previous games and stories were the main narrative device used to show how this change occurred. I believe that the references to the past were simply the tool chosen to achieve this goal, not a tool chosen to "bait".

I don't know about actual Easter eggs, but to me the entire place is a strong reference to a chapter of "On Stranger Tides". Spoiler about the book: I am not sure why you say "doomed" as if not liking something is inherently bad. Your personal "reading" preferences are yours, they should not become a reason for others to try to convince you of something. You are not "wrong" or "out of place" in the group of people who did not like the ending. It's just that Ron is well known for leaving the player with more questions than answers (even in recent years, see Thimbleweed Park) and that you decided to play a Gilbertian game expecting to find in it an explanation grounded on the "reality" of the story. But I am afraid that in this case "reality" does not exist and the only way to create a mirage of it is to choose your own. Even mine? Then: "There is no spoon". 😉

I didn't read it that way. To me they are two different events. The ending of MI2 is something that happened to Guybrush (maybe only in his imagination, but still it happened to him) and the beginning of RtMI is a different event that happened years later to his son: a reenactment of his father's stories. As soon as the reenactment ends, the kids stop imagining the place as Big Whoop and it becomes the real place where they are playing. To me, RtMI doesn't starts where or when MI2 ends, but it starts with a scene that simply evokes that event.

In the ending, you can take a photo as a pirate, which was also possible in real life at PAX and Gamescom. 🙂 More generally, the recreation of Melee shown at events was a giant real-life reference to the ending. 😁

I agree. I have looked for something in the ending that would satisfy my desire to find a darker meaning in the story. The authors have designed an ending that makes this interpretation (and many others) possible. That makes me think of two things: months ago, someone wondered if Ron would actually reveal the secret. One of the predictions was: "He went full-Lynchian and he doesn’t know if he did reveal it or not." the authors did it again. After thirty years we're still discussing the meaning of an ending in the same way we would discuss the color of an unheard fallen tree. That's the same vibe that I get from both this game and the first two games of the series. It seems to me that Guybrush is a character involved in a fantasy from which he cannot easily escape. Yes, and this might also explain what Rex said about a "flat" art style being a good choice to support the narrative: the characters are actually pieces of cardboard animated by Guybrush's imagination.

I thought about this and my hypothesis is that they intentionally used it for the sea map because it would not have made sense to associate Woodtick's theme with any "real" place that was not... Woodtick. So a "virtual" place, like a map, was their best choice to reprise that great theme without associating it to a different island. I think that you can use the sponge. But you don't need to. I don't remember in what dialogue it happens, but at one point Guybrush talks about the meaning of the secret and what it might be about. One of the lines is that the secret is about knowledge, for example. But it is true that the game does not focus much on what the secret might be; it focuses mostly on the obsession that LeChuck and Guybrush have for it. It is very reminiscent of Indiana Jones, as someone else has written.

I don't know if it makes sense, but to me Elaine plays a very maternal role, in this game. While Guybrush acts like a kid who makes a mess everywhere, her reaction to his gestures is kind and she tries to put some sense of responsibility in his head, just like a parental figure who wants to educate a child. Part of her behavior can be explained simply by the fact that she is a more mature character than Guybrush, in Ron's original idea of how the characters should have interacted. Among them, she is the one grounded more in reality while Guybrush can't escape from his fantasies or his memories. And who knows how real those memories actually are. It is Elaine who takes care of Guybrush, not vice versa. In the final moments of the game, it's her who goes to get Guybrush from the amusement park, like a mother would do with her kid. And when he tells Guybrush that she has a map to start a new adventure together, it seemed to me that she did it mostly to comfort him and to keep this flooring inspector from sinking back into his fantasies of supposed greatness.

I have finished the game. I haven't seen all the endings and probably haven't catch the abundant details scattered around, but I think I have achieved the main goal of experiencing the game for what it is: a Gilbertian autobiographical journey that reminds us how things evolve, including our memories. The one item that struck me and that I've found deeply symbolic is the chest that contains the "Secret." The story of this game functions as a giant metatext that constantly mixes fiction and reality. The treasure chest, over-embedded with large gems to the point of looking cheesy, is the perfect metaphor for how longtime Monkey Island fans transformed "The Secret", enriching it for decades so that its image far outweighed its substance. Although the story emphasizes this stark difference between appearance and "reality", it is by no means an attempt to mock the way players have fed the myth. On the contrary, it should be seen as a charming way to remind players that this biographical journey does not belong to the authors alone. It is a sea voyage shared with the people who loved the games and nurtured their stories until they were revived by the original creators. In a sense, if you are a longtime fan, you helped make Return to Monkey Island what it is. The distinction between what players see and what the creators feel does not stop at the cheesy image of the chest. Both Guybrush and LeChuck manage to lift it with great difficulty: the box is quite heavy. This is where the duality comes up again. The same heaviness that the players use as a proxy for value or importance, for the authors represents instead the burden they had to carry when they decided to embark on this new adventure. "The Secret", now overgrown in people's minds, was a hot potato to handle. In many interviews, both Ron and Dave recalled the serious thinking they had to do before deciding to make the game. Some of the doubts were related to fan expectations and whether the authors would be able to meet them. I think some players do not easily realize how onerous the task was: no author other than Ron Gilbert would have experienced the pressure of giving the original story a conclusion... ... which brings me to my final thoughts. Was it a good game for me? Well, my expectations were very high, and from a writing point of view, Return to Monkey Island managed to exceed them. I wasn't interested in knowing what exactly "The Secret" would be; I simply wanted it to be told to me by the person who created this fantasy world. I was interested in closing a circle opened 30 years ago, and I have no doubt that my quest for closure has been finally satisfied. In the finale, the story touched my memories and my heart in two key moments: 1) reading the plaque at the exit of the park and in particular the text "The Original Secret" and 2) staring for an unmeasured amount of seconds at the contents of the chest. It didn't matter if it was a bit predictable: it was simple, it was consistent with the original story, and most importantly, its role in closing the loop justified for me the chest's enormous weight. And now that all the rides have been turned off, I just need to buy a new super-spoilery Monkey Island T-shirt!

EDIT: I didn't notice that the screenshot I posted had been already mentioned in the thread. I'll change it with this banana picker:

Yeah. 😛

@BaronGrackle: Wow, Terror Island flora/fauna is just like... you know what! 😲

Exactly. What's the point of having a Pulitzer if you don't use its prestige to become a spokesperson for people's needs?

I have only a minor complaint, so far: why only eight save slots? 😑 In long games I like to save often, both because I like replaying previous chapters and because it comes in handy for getting missed achievements. I would have liked more than eight slots. Like nine, or ten.

I have discovered this absurd thing: that option can omit even characters from a scene! 😯 From the article Return to Monkey Island Writer’s Cut Differences and Changes: Now I am especially happy to play the full-text version; there is no going back for me!

My goodness, Ron has praised Mixnmojo in a seriously irresponsible way: (Source with spoilers) Do you have any idea how brazenly the Mojogang will brag about this for decades? The next thirty years will all be devoted to master's theses written about RtMI and dissertations written by Mojo about themselves. We are screwed. I think we could try to somehow exploit the "new/knew" typo to question what Ron meant, but it is a technicality and I am not optimistic about the outcome.

So, I don't remember reading about a 25% of dialogues, but the "cutting" topic made me think of this Thimbleweed Park post: https://blog.thimbleweedpark.com/cutting.html It turns out that Ron did mention "25", but he was referring to the number of deleted rooms. Is it possible that you were referring to this?

I have turned on the "all dialogues" option and can confirm that it affects the pace of the game. I'm undecided whether to keep it that way to satisfy my completionist syndrome or turn the option off to streamline things a bit. I must admit that I would have liked to finish Chapter 2 a little earlier; Guybrush has only a few locations to explore and it would have been better for me to make this section shorter. Have you turned on the "all dialogues" option?

Yes, I tried to read that thread but my spidey sense started to tingle as if some statements wouldn't have been written if the writer didn't have post-prelude information. It was more of a feeling than anything else, but I'd rather go into that forum section when I finish the game. 🙂