Monkey Island 2 Remake

[irishmile]

now do the one where his hair comes off completely

[Jenni]

Monkey Island 2 had a Saturday morning cartoon animation style. People just forget about it because the story was darker than your standard LucasArts comedy adventure.

 

[Thrik]

And of course let's not forget LeChuck's MI1 ferris wheel punch which sent Guybrush like a mile into the air.

[SyntheticGerbil]

What is actually useless is arguing with each other about this. That's not going to change anything about how this special edition looks. If you want to at least have the illusion of having your opinion heard, contact LucasArts with your concerns. All this bickering amongst each other is achieving nothing at all, other than creating a lot of chagrin here.

 

Right so we must have no contrary opinions here unless we are going to send them directly to LucasArts?

 

Is this the official word on this message board now?

[Kroms]

No, but there's no need to be so ham-fisted with it.

[SyntheticGerbil]

That's not at all what Haggis just said and you know it.

 

And you yourself haven't been ham-fisted, huh Kroms? Never, right? You were not at all classy with your Heavy Rain diatribes at Idlethumbs and I don't care, I loved it. Found it entertaining. What if it were the official view of Idlethumbs to not let you be so negative about any game? You would have been called out and possibly banned. Fortunately, there's a lot of room to breathe there because they understand forums don't exist without arguments.

 

Maybe the problem is, you mods all need to get together and explain more explicitly what it is exactly you want, because I'm rather sick of trying to figure this out. Put some "do as I say, not as I do" and inconsistent modding from multiple parties and the confusion on what's the purpose of this. The FAQ does little to light what is strictly appropriate behavior and it all seems to be on the whim of who's modding at the time.

 

Doesn't help when people like RemiO come swooping in and policing when the dude hardly reads anything on here and posts like twice a year if even.

[Fealiks]

I think the reason RemiO gave us two infractions is because we were both acting like immature dicks. Lucasforums mods have never had a problem with arguing per se, but it's when things start to get uncivil that mods of any forum will start to step in. Lucasforums has a lot of brilliant mods, and they all step in only when necessary (although I vaguely remember one of them sending me a pretty nasty private message about how they were going to ban me for having the KFC colonel as my avatar... I think because someone else was already using it... to be fair, though, I was an annoying 12 year old at that point, and this is neither here nor there, I just remembered it while I was typing out this post. That's the only qualm I've ever had here that I can remember).

 

Back on topic, Monkey Island 2 was a mix of cartoony and non-cartoony, but that's irrelevant in my opinion. It doesn't matter what it was because this isn't just a hi-res version, it's a remake. Their goal isn't to de-pixelize the art, it's to re-do the art completely. Until some people realise that, they are never going to be pleased.

[Monkey Mania]

MI1 and 2 are cartoony, deal with it.

[Snugglecakes]

Guys, for the millionth time, we're not talking about what the characters get up to which is what you all keep falling back on. We're talking about the environment, and I can not believe for one second that anyone thinks it's cartoony. It just isn't. Not by a long way! What are you guys seeing? I've never thought, not in 1990 and not now in 2010 or anywhere in between that Monkey Island 1 and 2 are cartoony because they just aren't.

[Kroms]

What if it were the official view of Idlethumbs to not let you be so negative about any game?

 

It's not that we don't want anyone to be negative. Hell, we live off of negativity. My general uneasiness comes from people disliking everything by default, especially when held up against a false idea like SMI and MI2 somehow being more 'realistic' and 'gritty' than later installments. I'm sorry I've patronized your opinions and you bring up a good point with the Idle Thumbs Heavy Rain thing - on that matter, I hope we can start over.

 

I'm just a little uneasy with people spitting on everything bad and taking the good for granted, which, though never explicit, has been the general vibe I've been getting.

[Aububuh]

Guys, for the millionth time, we're not talking about what the characters get up to which is what you all keep falling back on. We're talking about the environment, and I can not believe for one second that anyone thinks it's cartoony. It just isn't.

 

That's better. Before now you seemed to be saying that the whole game wasn't cartoony. I mostly agree with you that the backgrounds aren't cartoony, but you've got to admit that they're not completely realistic either. There's all sorts of exaggerated angles and curvy lines all over MI1 and 2, and just because they have a sort of gritty, textured look to them doesn't make them realistic. Also, you say that us cartoon style defenders are "falling back" on what the characters are doing to say that it's cartoony. Isn't that what the game, and indeed what almost every game ever made is about? What characters are doing? You can't rule out something important like that just because it disagrees with your idea about what the game is like. I mean sure, the backgrounds have a relative sense of realism to them, but it's still exaggerated realism, and that's fairly cartoonish.

[Thrik]

Now I've taken a second look at the Governor Phatt scene I do think they went a little overboard with some things. While the overall composition of the scene and the lighting are awesome (that's what kind of blew me away before), it really doesn't make sense that the fireplace on the left was randomly made so wacky, and the same for the steps Guybrush stands on.

 

What makes it particularly odd is that this kind of cartoon exaggeration isn't seen in almost all of the previous MI2:SE art that's been shown. I totally think there's an argument for the art being made marginally more exaggerated as MI2 is thematically quite a cartoony game, but it should be consistent if so. Pretty much all the other art is exceedingly faithful to the original beyond lighting adjustments, but this has fundamentally changed the original art quite dramatically.

 

Just a bit weird, really — but I don't think it detracts to any particularly significant degree.

[Snugglecakes]

What makes it particularly odd is that this kind of cartoon exaggeration isn't seen in almost all of the previous MI2:SE art that's been shown.

 

That's a good point.

 

Isn't that what the game, and indeed what almost every game ever made is about? What characters are doing? You can't rule out something important like that just because it disagrees with your idea about what the game is like. I mean sure, the backgrounds have a relative sense of realism to them, but it's still exaggerated realism, and that's fairly cartoonish.

 

I hear you completely, not disagreeing. It's just that CMI introduced, like bakana said, a disney toon style to Monkey Island that certainly wasn't there before. The characters get up to some goofy things yes, it's well timed and hilarious, but think of it as more occasional Jim Carey special effect than Tom & Jerry. That's what I'm trying to say. The buildings are still real buildings. You walk through the forest in MI1 and with those background sound effects... that was a far more serious experience than anything from CMI onwards (although CMI came pretty close in some places). Just walking around the monkey island world in the first two games is miles more "real" than we've seen since.

 

The backgrounds and the locations... I've said before it's whimsical, fantastical and sort of magical yes, it's a dream world and that's what I love about monkey island, but it's not cartoony. If it was cartoony I would've never taken it seriously enough to love it this much.

 

When I play MI1 or MI2, I'm in a completely different place to TMI or these special editions. CMI is pretty good, not quite there but I do love it. EMI is hell, obviously, and TMI is just all cartoon again, as good as it is (and it's superb). But no Monkey Island hasn't been Monkey Island since 1991.

[KestrelPi]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the MI2 backdrops weren't more realistically styled than subsequent games. But I definitely don't think there's anything inherently monkey island about that. If anything, I'd say as evidenced by the more exaggerated angles along with the crazy animations in MI2 they were already starting the process of moving to a more cartoony style for the series. It's just that there was a long gap between 2 and 3.

 

In a way, I've seen the Special Editions as trying to bridge that 6 year gap somewhat. Hence the curly CMI-style clouds seen in MI2:SE, and the hair and sprites being just a little more in line with the CMI/TMI designs, and of course the way that the backgrounds and characters are all just a little more obviously cartoony. I think they are doing a fantastic job of retaining the original intent of the art and keeping it instantly recognisable, while also adding a bit of their own touch to it. There's nothing I've seen in these shots which makes me think they're taking away ANYTHING of what makes Monkey Island Monkey Islandy

[Aububuh]

I hear you completely, not disagreeing. It's just that CMI introduced, like bakana said, a disney toon style to Monkey Island that certainly wasn't there before. The characters get up to some goofy things yes, it's well timed and hilarious, but think of it as more occasional Jim Carey special effect than Tom & Jerry. That's what I'm trying to say. The buildings are still real buildings. You walk through the forest in MI1 and with those background sound effects... that was a far more serious experience than anything from CMI onwards (although CMI came pretty close in some places). Just walking around the monkey island world in the first two games is miles more "real" than we've seen since.

 

All right, I got you. I just thought it was a little weird to say MI1 and 2 aren't cartoony at all, because they are, but I see what you mean now.

[Kroms]

The backgrounds and the locations... I've said before it's whimsical, fantastical and sort of magical yes, it's a dream world and that's what I love about monkey island, but it's not cartoony. If it was cartoony I would've never taken it seriously enough to love it this much.

 

I find that a strange thing to claim. If you look at Woodtick, for example, it's rather angular and strange, the stepping stone between what you think MI is like and CMI is. Honestly, I find Plunder and Blood Island with as much 'realism' and 'non-cartooniness' as the first two games, but what I think you like is the contrast, which, yes, does make those first two seem a bit more realistic. Though that wasn't the intent, and Purcell himself has lauded CMI's look - with a special mention to Bill Tiller.

[Snugglecakes]

I find that a strange thing to claim. If you look at Woodtick, for example, it's rather angular and strange, the stepping stone between what you think MI is like and CMI is. Honestly, I find Plunder and Blood Island with as much 'realism' and 'non-cartooniness' as the first two games, but what I think you like is the contrast, which, yes, does make those first two seem a bit more realistic. Though that wasn't the intent, and Purcell himself has lauded CMI's look - with a special mention to Bill Tiller.

 

If you built Woodtick by yourself out of bits of old ship, it would also look crooked and strange Doesn't make it a cartoon though.

[Fealiks]

If you built Woodtick by yourself out of bits of old ship, it would also look crooked and strange Doesn't make it a cartoon though.

 

 

Unless this room was built by fish (and is about to collapse), MI2 had some cartoony elements to it. Of course, it wasn't all cartoony, but a lot of it definitely was.

 

As I said before, though, none of that really matters. The Special Edition isn't just providing us with sharper images, its aim is to redesign the game. The fact that they aren't just tracing over the original backgrounds pixel-for-pixel but in a higher resolution shows artistic integrity, and it's a good style in my opinion.

[elTee]

Isn't this sort of moot? All of the LucasArts adventures were animated. Doesn't that make them - whatever style they're in - all cartoons by definition?

[Udvarnoky]

I'm betting that if Steve Purcell and Peter Chan had an infinite number of colors and lines of resolution at their disposal back then, the results would have been far more stylized than some people think. MI1 and MI2 are indeed comparatively "grittier" in look than the later games, but I honestly think that has at least as much to do with compression artifacts and the constrained canvas size than it does with the actual art direction, which is in itself in many ways dictated by the tools available.

 

When you look at concept art for MI1 and MI2, or the original character close-ups in MI1, or those semi-closeups in MI2 (Governor Phatt, the Phatt Island dock, Guybrush dropping the match), or any other place where the artists are less encumbered by the detail restrictions that come with working on an adventure game circa 1991, you're probably seeing a more accurate picture of what the artists would have delivered under "ideal" circumstances. It's already been observed that even between MI1 and MI2 there's a subtle shift to a more "cartoony" style, and it stands to reason that the jump CMI made six years later would be more substantial, which it was. I'm not saying the differences in art direction between the first two games and CMI weren't conscious - what I'm saying is that given the huge differences in the technology available to the respective teams, the CMI artists made decisions that the artists on the older games didn't even have the opportunity to make. The large gap in time between the second and third installments made this transition a little jarring, sure, but I think that a lot of times when people lament the loss of the "realism" from the first two games, they're really confusing "realism" with something else entirely.

 

Again, I agree that MI1 and MI2 have a distinct feel and yes, a "grittiness" that makes them pretty special especially given my nostalgic attachment to them, but it's probably important to keep in mind that in some ways those games look like they did because they had to, and the modern take on them shouldn't be faulted specifically for having the freedom to do things that the older games had to make the player leave to their imagination (for better or worse).

 

That's not even considering Steve Purcell's outstanding cover and close-up art for the games, which shows what the graphics would have looked like at higher resolution.

 

I disagree. The cover paintings weren't approached as faithful examples of the game's intended style - I'm pretty sure a quote exists somewhere that confirms this. I'd sooner look to Purcell's concept art for the games to get an idea of what his art would have looked like in higher resolution, and it's way more fanciful than the box art. Does this guy look like he'd be more at home as a CMI sprite, or as a part of the MI2 cover painting? What about this? Does that fall under your definition of photorealistic? And as far as Purcell's close-ups are concerned, I'd say they bolster my point more than anything.

 

Also, by the time Sam and Max and DOTT (which were made simultaneously) came out, there were already some fairly significant advancements made in terms of what the art/animation could look like in a SCUMM game from MI2 (which was made simultaneous to IndyFate). I don't disagree with your assertion that Hit the Road and Day of the Tentacle were consciously approached much more as an all-out cartoon than Monkey Island was, but what I am saying is that you can't presume to know what MI1/MI2 would have looked like if made in 1993, 1997 (here's how Purcell saw the MI universe around that time), or now by the same team.

[Snugglecakes]

Is Pirates of the Caribbean a cartoon?

[Thrik]

Tee. I think Tones just ended this argument. ;

 

Edit: I mean elTee. ¬

[Fealiks]

Tee. I think Tones just ended this argument. ;

 

Edit: I mean elTee. ¬

 

From Wiktionary's definition of cartoon:

 

(animation) An animated piece of film which is often but not exclusively humourous.

 

So yeah, I'd say so

 

It's really about semantics, though. Snugglecakes' defintion of cartoon isn't necessarily the same as elTee's or that of whoever wrote that Wiktionary definition.

 

Is Pirates of the Caribbean a cartoon?

 

I really don't understand what your point is.

 

Edit: That wasn't supposed to sound as snarky as it did.. it's just my idiocy rearing its head

[SyntheticGerbil]

Well as Fealiks said, this is sort of turning into a discussion on semantics, so glaze through this super long block of text (****(horse manure)) I'm about to drop if you don't care.

 

I think it's important to not just lump everything as a cartoon, because you can usually tell specifically when something is a cartoon or drawn to be that way, but while the major cartoon tactics of exaggeration, simplification, and funny situations can be used in any medium, it doesn't necessarily mean that they become a cartoon.

 

I disagree. The cover paintings weren't approached as faithful examples of the game's intended style - I'm pretty sure a quote exists somewhere that confirms this. I'd sooner look to Purcell's concept art for the games to get an idea of what his art would have looked like in higher resolution, and it's way more fanciful than the box art. Does this guy look like he'd be more at home as a CMI sprite, or as a part of the MI2 cover painting? What about this? Does that fall under your definition of photorealistic? And as far as Purcell's close-ups are concerned, I'd say they bolster my point more than anything.

 

But even the pictures you show aren't a Day of the Tentacle type style. There's a difference. Again, I would refer to the Purcell Sam and Max comics done in the 80s. While they were silly, they weren't drawn as a Garfield comic. There's still some major rendering going on with realistic proportions. I would contest the EGA close-ups Purcell did for SMI are still in a more realistic style similar to his cover, but of course not as all out as the redraws, but I guess some would disagree.

 

The roulette dealer, while of course not having a photorealistic look (and is not a Purcell drawing), is not an all out cartoon (he even has five fingers). It's hard to explain if people are only thinking maybe in terms of Tiny Toons versus the Batman animated series. I think the roulette dealer looks even more rendered, solid, and more realistically contructed in that drawing than anything even in the Batman animated series, but again, I guess some would disagree.

 

Even the Waiting Room posted earlier seems to have more in common with a warped type fish eye lens rendering than a background that would be at home in a Ren and Stimpy cartoon. It's definitely more playful, but not out of whack wonkiness done on the scale of the newly drawn Phatt Mansion interior.

 

Until you find the quote where Purcell says he was approaching the covers differently, I'm not going to believe it, because I'm also a big fan of the guy and don't remember reading that. I would say the covers come off more pulp-style than photorealism, especially Secret's cover which lacks almost any kind of photorealism (but LeChuck's Revenge also has Guybrush's eyes closed, which kind of blurs it in my opinion), but they aren't anywhere on the same lines as a typical cartoon style or even that separated from the game.

 

Maybe this is just hard for people who don't draw or aren't asked to change their styles to a subject matter for an employer or client? I don't know, I don't want to be that presumptuous, but I think to lump Monkey Island 1 and 2 as full realism or full cartoons would just be ridiculous either way, because they were obviously somewhere in between to me.

 

Also, by the time Sam and Max and DOTT (which were made simultaneously) came out, there were already some fairly significant advancements made in terms of what the art/animation could look like in a SCUMM game from MI2 (which was made simultaneous to IndyFate). I don't disagree with your assertion that Hit the Road and Day of the Tentacle were consciously approached much more as an all-out cartoon than Monkey Island was, but what I am saying is that you can't presume to know what MI1/MI2 would have looked like if made in 1993, 1997 (here's how Purcell saw the MI universe around that time), or now by the same team.

 

Well, I don't like the assertion you are making at the end about Purcell's style. I'm sure the answer is that the game would look much more similar to the stuff he was doing at in 1988-1992. By the time Hit the Road came around, the Sam and Max comics had already started looking much more rounded and cuter both with the humans and the two main characters (especially noticeable in the On the Road epic). It's not fair to say concept art done for the Monkey Island movie where Purcell wasn't exactly the art lead was going to look like that. The exaggerated characters done by the other major artist I've seen on that concept look just as weird but in a completely different style from Purcell at the same time. I'm sure Steve was trying to riff off more like the Curse style in that case, since that game seems to have been what started the plans for the movie in the first place.

 

So even if you compare the Sam and Max Curse of Monkey Island comic done for the Adventurer, you can see Purcell drew a much more realistic skeleton crew, while around the same time he did concept for the skeleton crew for the CMI team (found in the strategy guide) that is much more "fun" and in line with the game's style.

 

He's obviously not a huge fan of making the first two MIs more playful or flat, as indicated by his "looks like Legos" comment on the new cover, so I wouldn't presume exactly what moves he would make or which styles he would use if he were working on this stuff. The guy has a broad palette to work from and played with different styles many times already.

 

Also to even further complicate things, Steve Purcell's usual style has changed drastically since the earliest pro stuff I can find in the 80s up to the current Sam and Max webcomic pages, art he does on his blog, and the new Telltale covers and concept. He draws much more angular, simplified, and exaggerated now than he used to. Even the newest Sam and Max web comic looks extremely different from one the latest comics in the Surfin' the Highway book (either starting from the Beast of the Cereal Isle to the stuff done for Fox Kids). I would guess a lot of this is the Pixar "house" style rubbing off on him, so I feel like even now if he were to come back and do the art on these first two Monkey Island games, they probably would look much more silly and playful than what he drew 20 years ago.

 

This vs. this and this.

 

To me, it's more important to just keep with the art direction of the games at the time, but since we can't even agree on that apparently without some official word, I don't really know what else to say. Stylization doesn't necessarily mean something is a cartoon and neither does the use of animation by default (The first great animations done by Winsor McCay only used realistic proportions and drawings).

 

Also it would help if we could agree on what a cartoon is. To me, if someone tells me to draw something in a cartoon style, it means they want flat colors, exaggerated characters, and unrealistic proportions.

 

To further illustrate maybe where the Monkey Island games lie, I would reference the original Mask comic, the first two or three series (not the later ones based on the movie or cartoon). The Mask was mafia style ultraviolent comic mixed with tons of Tex Avery antics, situations, and references.

 

This link may help illustrate this: http://greatcaesarspost.blogspot.com/2008/01/friday-night-fights-and-not-single.html

 

To me, The Mask similarly goes for what Sam and Max was going for: putting a bunch of silly situations with a cartoon host in a real or disgusting world. Of course Sam and max is drawn better than The Mask and is not anywhere near as violent or sappy, but I wouldn't say The Mask comic is a cartoon book. If you removed Sam and Max from their own comic, there would be no cartoons in existence. But... if any of you think all comics are cartoons by default, I just can't agree.

[KestrelPi]

Just for fun I made the SE screens into 256 colour and downscaled the resolution. Make of the results what you will.