Monkey Island 2 Remake

[Laserschwert]

Despite all this nitpicking I'm still sure I'll absolutely love the SE.

[Laserschwert]

Next:

 

 

Interesting choice to move the pillar away from the steps... definitely makes sense.

[Aububuh]

I like it. I never noticed that giant feather pen before, though.

[Fealiks]

Umm keep in mind that the moon is really far away...

 

Also keep in mind that lighting does not have to make sense, it just has to be aesthetically pleasing... look at lighting on faces in films.

 

Monkey Mania's right - the shadows of the rocks indicate that the moon should be further left than it actually is. This doesn't bother me in the least, I'm just defending Monkey Mania's rightness

 

Also, I'm not sure you got what he meant. The lighting in films can't possibly be wrong unless the film is hand-drawn. He was talking about the fact that the shadows don't correspond properly to the light source rather than the aesthetics of the lighting in general.

 

Next:

 

 

Interesting choice to move the pillar away from the steps... definitely makes sense.

This looks awesome! Also, I never noticed that the pillar was directly in front of the steps in the original game... that's interesting. So, so far, MI2:SE has fixed: the weenie hut's door being too small, the weenie hut sign having a weird blob on it instead of actual words and the pillar in the inn being placed illogically. Things are really looking up from MI1:SE! I never expected they'd actually improve on the original art in these ways.

 

The only picture where I can categorically say that I prefer the Special Edition art, though (which is a HUGE compliment), is the swamp scene. The lighting on that scene is fantastic.

 

 

Also, Kroms, you can rejoice in the fully-saturated Alligator & bowl in the latest screenshot

[MusicallyInspired]

Regarding the large moon, I can't remember where I heard this but isn't there some kind of lensing effect that can happen to the sky near a body of water where it makes the moon or sun look larger than it actually is? I'm sure this is scientifically correct...might only apply to being out at sea, though, rather than on land now that I think of it.

[Aububuh]

I just noticed that the chairs look more blocky and angular in the special edition than they do in the original.

[Fealiks]

Regarding the large moon, I can't remember where I heard this but isn't there some kind of lensing effect that can happen to the sky near a body of water where it makes the moon or sun look larger than it actually is? I'm sure this is scientifically correct...might only apply to being out at sea, though, rather than on land now that I think of it.

 

That rings a bell.

[Scapetti]

Monkey Mania's right - the shadows of the rocks indicate that the moon should be further left than it actually is. This doesn't bother me in the least, I'm just defending Monkey Mania's rightness

 

Not really sure how to explain but, knowing that the moon is... really really far away (not on the planet). If the angle was directed more towards the right, the moon would seem to be a lot further to the left. It wouldn't stay in the static position behind the hut.

 

Considering the background as a whole is a static image, as the scene scrolls when Guybrush moves, the moon will always be directly behind the hut, and so the moon will be in the wrong position 99% of the time. Blah blah blah, can't explain... (skip)

 

But anyway, it makes sense as long as the lighting is on the left of the rocks when the moon is on the left. If you look at the rocks in the foreground, directly in front of the moon, you can see that the lighting is more or less on the top of the rocks as opposed to the left or right. And I would presume on the other side of the moon, the lighting would be on the right of rocks etc.

 

Maybe you think it's wrong because of the shape of the rocks in front of the moon? As they are all at an angle which could give the misconception that the light source is further to the left.

 

Also, I'm not sure you got what he meant. The lighting in films can't possibly be wrong unless the film is hand-drawn. He was talking about the fact that the shadows don't correspond properly to the light source rather than the aesthetics of the lighting in general.

 

I know what he meant. I was basically saying, there's no need to complain about whether it makes sense, it's about aesthetics; it looks better that way. Otherwise (presuming it's wrong which I still don't think it is) the rocks would lack shine and therefore also lack definition.

 

And my point about lighting in films... since when have films been accurate to the light source? Have you not heard of studio lighting? Three-point lighting? And you can hand draw films now?

[Snugglecakes]

I just noticed that the chairs look more blocky and angular in the special edition than they do in the original.

 

This is a strange one I've noticed too. It's not "blocky" but there are some sharp angles in the technique they've used to paint these. First SE was the same. The original backgrounds, while blocky due to resolution, had smooth objects everywhere. The new ones do look a bit angular sometimes. This must be really difficult to do, but yes indeed I'd say there is probably more "detail" in the original than in the SE, although this is probably due to the original being so low res that your brain fills in the gaps. Look at the chair on the left for example, the original version looks richer and more detailed somehow, while the SE version is just a sort of blurry blob. There's a sort of deep texture to the original that is missing here. Am I the only one who thinks there's a bit too much light in the SE? The original seems darker, literally, and looking at the new box art, figuratively too.

[KestrelPi]

This is a strange one I've noticed too. It's not "blocky" but there are some sharp angles in the technique they've used to paint these. First SE was the same. The original backgrounds, while blocky due to resolution, had smooth objects everywhere. The new ones do look a bit angular sometimes. This must be really difficult to do, but yes indeed I'd say there is probably more "detail" in the original than in the SE, although this is probably due to the original being so low res that your brain fills in the gaps. Look at the chair on the left for example, the original version looks richer and more detailed somehow, while the SE version is just a sort of blurry blob.

 

Well, first I'd say that the more angular thing is just a stylistic decision that they've gone with. A foible of the artists involved - you see it a lot in Lucidity, for example. I'm not against that - after all they are taking pains to be faithful to the source material where possible, so I can't really fault them for having their own artistic stamp on it somewhere - especially when it's really quite subtle.

 

As for the detail, I think you're right in that part of the implied detail is in the brain filling in details that weren't there - I actually think the character designers have done a pretty good job in capturing the essence of characters who didn't have many pixels in their faces when originally created.

 

As for the environments, I think it's not just the brain filling in details, it's the pixellation itself. Because these were originally painted, then scanned then downscaled to 256 colours and low-res, there's a natural 'grit' in the way it looks. I'd wager that the chair in the original painting of that room looks a lot like in the upscaled version, but because it's got so much fewer pixels and colours, and so the colours differ more from one pixel to the next it lends it a grainy-ness that was never really present before except perhaps a slightly in the texture of the paper. I can sort of understand why they wouldn't bother going back in and simulating grainy-ness that was never really supposed to be there in the first place...

 

Finally, I'm not convinced it was anything to do with grit and grainy-ness that made the art in MI2 pleasing. To me it was always the colour palette used and just the composition of the scenes, and that mainly has been adhered to very closely. I can load up one of those new shots and instantly recognise what I'm seeing even though some of the details, as some have pointed out, have changed quite a lot.

[ThunderPeel2001]

It looks too "smooth" and "clean" to me... (sorry I've not read anyone else's comments, that's just how the images look to me). I'm sure the original artwork looked the same, but being scanned and shrunk probably "dirtied" it up a bit.

[Thrik]

It might be some of the finer details (noise, subtle strokes, etc) aren't very visible in such small, compressed pictures. The art on the official site and in the earlier HD screenshots looked warmer and less smooth.

[Fealiks]

Not really sure how to explain but, knowing that the moon is... really really far away (not on the planet). If the angle was directed more towards the right, the moon would seem to be a lot further to the left. It wouldn't stay in the static position behind the hut.

 

Considering the background as a whole is a static image, as the scene scrolls when Guybrush moves, the moon will always be directly behind the hut, and so the moon will be in the wrong position 99% of the time. Blah blah blah, can't explain... (skip)

 

But anyway, it makes sense as long as the lighting is on the left of the rocks when the moon is on the left. If you look at the rocks in the foreground, directly in front of the moon, you can see that the lighting is more or less on the top of the rocks as opposed to the left or right. And I would presume on the other side of the moon, the lighting would be on the right of rocks etc.

 

Maybe you think it's wrong because of the shape of the rocks in front of the moon? As they are all at an angle which could give the misconception that the light source is further to the left.

 

 

 

I know what he meant. I was basically saying, there's no need to complain about whether it makes sense, it's about aesthetics; it looks better that way. Otherwise (presuming it's wrong which I still don't think it is) the rocks would lack shine and therefore also lack definition.

 

And my point about lighting in films... since when have films been accurate to the light source? Have you not heard of studio lighting? Three-point lighting? And you can hand draw films now?

 

I think you're still misunderstanding what Monkey Mania and I meant (I assume we both mean the same thing ).

 

What I'm saying is that the shadows cast by the rocks are physically incorrect according to the light source. I'll draw a picture in paint to show you what I mean.

 

 

The green lines show the shadow that's been drawn, and the red lines show the direction of the light and the shadow that should have been drawn. It's not a big deal, but the shadows are behaving as if the moon is way further left than it is.

 

Also, it's impossible for shadows to defy a light source in film because the shadows are actually being cast by real, physical lights... how can shadows in real life point in the wrong direction? I think I'm misunderstanding your point some how And I meant hand-drawn films as in animated ones.

 

Anyway, the point is, the most aesthetically pleasing lighting will always be correct. If a shadow or reflection is incongruous with its light source, our brains will pick it up subconsciously and find something off-putting about the image.

[MusicallyInspired]

It looks too "smooth" and "clean" to me... (sorry I've not read anyone else's comments, that's just how the images look to me). I'm sure the original artwork looked the same, but being scanned and shrunk probably "dirtied" it up a bit.

 

Not to mention the palette being lowered to 8-bit 256 colours.

[Sk-F]

Yeah I think exactly the same. Monkey 2 backgrounds had that dirty, grainy filter on them that made the game look dark, pretty and "magical" in a sense; like an old movie, that is. What I'm seeing in the SE, despite making a great revamp, is too clean and luminous (even lifeless I'd say). Most ppl find the hotel background pleasing, but I personally dislike it the most: the overall dim red light is too bright and doesn't give the impression of the old rat-infested hole that was before. It lacks personality; you agree?

 

Picky note of the day: Just realized the carpet isn't on the ground but floating now! A new means of transport apart from barrels and coffins, maybe?

[Kroms]

It lacks personality; you agree?

I think you mean it lacks nostalgia.

 

Picky note of the day: Just realized the carpet isn't on the ground but floating now! A new means of transport apart from barrels and coffins, maybe?

 

Looks close enough to the original.

[Thrik]

Haha, the pickiness level in this thread is getting pretty extreme. Everything else aside, the faithfullness of the background art is extremely tight and goes well beyond any remake of anything I've ever seen.

[Kroms]

Yeah. I try to stop myself from getting into these threads, but can't help it. I get too angry with purist nitpickers to not post. Remi was right: Monkey fans are Trekkies. It's infuriating to deal with.

 

It's not like the classic version is going away, guys, so chill.

[Scapetti]

It's not a big deal, but the shadows are behaving as if the moon is way further left than it is.

 

 

It would appear to me that the rocks are on the beach below the mound of grass. In which case the moonlight could easily shine over the rocks, onto the grass which you state should be shadowed.

 

I haven't drawn every possibility of the moonlight being able to creep through (which it does through reflection and diffraction etc.) but my main indication is that the light can shine over the rocks and is only more shadowed on the right because of the much taller weenie hut.

 

The orange lines are more suggestive of what you think. The green lines however, show how the light can easily go over the top of the rocks as well.

 

Also, it's impossible for shadows to defy a light source in film because the shadows are actually being cast by real, physical lights... how can shadows in real life point in the wrong direction?

 

 

This is all I really mean... lights off camera. If you look up three-point lighting you will understand a little better.

[Giant Graffiti]

I don't understand. How does the light coming from the moon have any bearing on the game at all?

[Sk-F]

Yeah. I try to stop myself from getting into these threads, but can't help it. I get too angry with purist nitpickers to not post. Remi was right: Monkey fans are Trekkies. It's infuriating to deal with.

 

It's not like the classic version is going away, guys, so chill.

 

Ey Kroms no need to get angry! It's a kind of pastime, u know, like "what could we possibly complain about?" Kind of lame, but good to keep ppl posting, nonetheless. After all, we all will be buying it the second it's released!

 

PS: LOL @ Moon discussion.

[Scapetti]

I don't understand. How does the light coming from the moon have any bearing on the game at all?

 

Aww man, that's what I was saying in the first place D: Actually pointless nitpicking, I'll quote myself and not speak of it again...

 

why is everyone complaining about the moon anyway... that's just ridiculous!

[elTee]

I don't particularly like this new moon either (purely for being a weird and unnecessary addition, that actually adds nothing) but some of you have possibly lost your minds here... it's not a big deal ;

[Snugglecakes]

I love this place.

[Aububuh]

I was comparing Purcell's concept art for Wally's house with the SE version, and the SE actually seems a bit darker and grittier. I just thought I'd point that out.

 

*EDIT * Oh, you haven't posted the image here yet. Okay then.