Return to Monkey Island

[Scummbuddy]

Off the top of my head, when you meet up with your old crew from MI1 in EMI and have a discussion with them.

[JacquesSparkyTail]

1 hour ago, Vainamoinen said:

it is a dangerous thing to care for your protagonist so much that you can not abide the integrity of the fictional reality to be scratched or even broken.

 
not going to lie, that sounds like nonsense. On an unrelated note i’ve just noticed bob’s pegleg has moved from his left leg in secret to his right leg in return so i’m going to go start a few small fires and start a cyber bullying campaign. 

[Thrik]

Sea Monkey, right? Mad Monkey is the one in MI2.

[BaronGrackle]

8 minutes ago, Scummbuddy said:

Off the top of my head, when you meet up with your old crew from MI1 in EMI and have a discussion with them.

Oh, the Sea Monkey! I understand now.

I thought there was some weird conspiratorial fanon about Guybrush causing the Mad Monkey to sink, and that's how its last known coordinates were known and recorded, and that's why Guybrush knew it had been recorded in a library book... bwa ha.

 

7 minutes ago, JacquesSparkyTail said:

 
not going to lie, that sounds like nonsense. On an unrelated note i’ve just noticed bob’s pegleg has moved from his left leg in secret to his right leg in return so i’m going to go start a few small fires and start a cyber bullying campaign. 

 

Confirmation that Bob was root beer zapped (either by Guybrush or someone else) and has lived in the Land of the Forgotten for so long that his spiritual form is beginning to break down and manifest inconsistently. If he can't remember which leg was a peg, then his reality of existence can't remember either.

Edited August 17, 2022 by BaronGrackle

[Vainamoinen]

34 minutes ago, BaronGrackle said:

I've never heard of this thing. What's the premise?

 

URgh, wrong ship. How embarrassing. Will amend.

What I meant was of course that it's entirely possible to return to Melee Island in TSoMI with SeMad Monkey, swordmaster, Otis and Meathook, but Escape treats it as canon that Guybrush abandoned them marooned on Monkey Island.

 

32 minutes ago, JacquesSparkyTail said:

 not going to lie, that sounds like nonsense. On an unrelated note i’ve just noticed bob’s pegleg has moved from his left leg in secret to his right leg in return so i’m going to go start a few small fires and start a cyber bullying campaign. 

 

That would be so funny if I didn't see it work that way. 😆 It's the way it worked in above mentioned The Devil's Playhouse:

 

Max dies and immediately before the game ends, an alternate universe Max appears who lacks the mostly unspecified memory of prime universe Max,

but it doesn't really matter because Sam as well as Max are the epitome of throwaway characters anyway. Or that's what we thought at least. Riots on the Telltale forums. THEY CAN NOT DO THIS. THIS IS WRONG. And, I mean, I was amongst those rioters.

 

If the treatment of the fictional universe and its characters that you're invested in emotionally/nostalgically is found to be lacking i.e. runs counter a perceived canon style/genre, creative choice is often even perceived as a targeted personal insult towards the fanbase, and then shitstorms happen.

It's complete and utter nonsense as you say, but it happened already with Return to Monkey Island, and on the face of it, we know jack shit about the game yet. 😔

 

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Vainamoinen

[KestrelPi]

I don't know. I'm a bit suspicious of the idea that modern media is 'infantalising'

 

Like, I do agree and I've talked about before how I think it was neat that old LucasArts games had a bit of a more interesting take on relationships: MI2, Full Throttle, Grim Fandango, even Indy 4 all had relationships on them where, even when they ended well they were messy. You never get the sense in these games that you're dealing with 'meant to be' characters, and I think that's good, and I appreciate that kind of slightly more grown up idea of relationships also bleeds out into the wider story telling.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything amazingly mature these stories are doing in terms of storytelling, but I think it's ... good. Kinda Grown-up stories for what at the time would have been mostly growing-up people. "Young Adult" if you will (and I use that term reluctantly, I think it's usually used as a way to dismiss the value of stories aimed at a younger demographic. *old man voice* In my day there were children's books and books, and that system worked fine)

 

But I've been thinking about this lately. Just what stories have been like lately and... like... the world. And I wonder if I'm not inclined just to cut the human race a little slack on the subject of what stories they want to be told at the moment. Sure, sure, there's value in telling stories that have a lot of emotional nuance, and don't necessarily have perfect fairytale endings. But also I can't really fault someone right now for sitting down in front of their computer/television/whatever and thinking: 'you know what, I'd like to slip into a world where everything turns out fine in a clear and uncomplicated way, just for a bit, please'.

 

It's not a surprise to me that this sort of thing is doing well right now, and I think it has more to do with escapism than it has to do with being infantile. Or, even if it is infantile, I think I'd still say: so what? Being a kid was awesome, I didn't need to worry about interest rates and being able to pay my next gas bill and who was running the country and whatever the geopolitical disaster du jour is (and there have been a lot to pick from lately). If I don't get to be free of that in my life let me have it for a bit in some of my media. I can go for subtler, denser stuff when I choose to.

 

(by the way, none of this is about what I want for ReMI. I've always considered the  MI games at their best to be a somewhat multi-layered experience, and I think we will see that in this version too. I just don't like it when that's pitched in opposition to some encroaching, malicious infantilising force.)

[BaronGrackle]

Unrelated: As a child of the '80s-'90s, I think that (overall) what we consider "kid shows" have grown in lengths and bounds in terms of maturity. If you have Disney+, you can do a binge on products like Gravity Falls, DuckTales 2018, Owl House, and freakin' Amphibia. And as a result, when you walk into other franchise discussions, you have to keep yourself from laughing when you hear things like "[big franchise] was always meant for kids, don't be critical" or "you can't compete with nostalgia" or "you can't go back".

 

I go back routinely. There's a lot of quality in today's world.

 

EDIT: By the way, the intro text to the film Lightyear is incorrect. There is no way Andy watched that movie in 1995. Andy watched that movie in 2022, just like us. It was a reboot film, and he dragged his spouse and kids to it, and he loved it.

Edited August 17, 2022 by BaronGrackle

[neoncolor8]

54 minutes ago, JacquesSparkyTail said:

 
not going to lie, that sounds like nonsense. On an unrelated note i’ve just noticed bob’s pegleg has moved from his left leg in secret to his right leg in return so i’m going to go start a few small fires and start a cyber bullying campaign. 

 

No it hasn't? 

 

Edit:

Still no, but it's the most confusing animation, sometimes it's always on the side facing the player, but when he walks it's clear. 

Edited August 17, 2022 by neoncolor8

[Vainamoinen]

5 minutes ago, KestrelPi said:

I don't know. I'm a bit suspicious of the idea that modern media is 'infantalising'

 

I was talking about a strong trend in modern games (notably neither about books, comics, movies or other narrative media!!). Now, we've seen some great narrative games that counter this trend this last decade. But as soon as games are, as Sean Vanaman would say, "gamey" (WHICH I LIKE), the mechanics of the media dictate that there's a challenge involved, a competition, a puzzle that you would master, win or solve, yielding the feeling of success. It's my personal theory that "gamey" story games tend to communicate to the player that "all is well because you fixed it all" at the end. The designers/authors are afraid that the crucial feeling of success or accomplishment is getting muddied by a less than perfectly good ending is perceived as a failure.

 

7 minutes ago, KestrelPi said:

But I've been thinking about this lately. Just what stories have been like lately and... like... the world. And I wonder if I'm not inclined just to cut the human race a little slack on the subject of what stories they want to be told at the moment. Sure, sure, there's value in telling stories that have a lot of emotional nuance, and don't necessarily have perfect fairytale endings. But also I can't really fault someone right now for sitting down in front of their computer/television/whatever and thinking: 'you know what, I'd like to slip into a world where everything turns out fine in a clear and uncomplicated way, just for a bit, please'.

 

I have absolutely nothing against stories where it's clear from the get go that those two characters will end up together, the kingdom will be saved and the protagonist will be filthy rich. No problem and I of course see what you mean with those hopeless modern times. No one of us will have to subject themselves to a tide of frankly depressing narratives with no hope or color. Which is the other extreme really. Personally, I don't see any worth in a serialized narrative like The Walking Dead, where there are no ifs, but only whens for dying characters.

 

But I also dread the backlash if the supposed and possibly actual "final" instalment of the Monkey Island series gives us a less than super happy ending for Guybrush and Elaine.

[KestrelPi]

11 minutes ago, BaronGrackle said:

Unrelated: As a child of the '80s-'90s, I think that (overall) what we consider "kid shows" have grown in lengths and bounds in terms of maturity. If you have Disney+, you can do a binge on products like Gravity Falls, DuckTales 2018, Owl House, and freakin' Amphibia. And as a result, when you walk into other franchise discussions, you have to keep yourself from laughing when you hear things like "[big franchise] was always meant for kids, don't be critical" or "you can't compete with nostalgia" or "you can't go back".

 

I go back routinely. There's a lot of quality in today's world.

 

EDIT: By the way, the intro text to the film Lightyear is incorrect. There is no way Andy watched that movie in 1995. Andy watched that movie in 2022, just like us. It was a reboot film, and he dragged his spouse and kids to it, and he loved it.

Yeah, I agree with this too. There's a lot of understandable demand for happy endings and uncomplicated relationships now, and if anything you see it more in the stuff aimed at adults. The last thing I'd accuse media aimed at younger people of doing in the last 15 years or so is being overly simplistic. I feel like sometimes I see lessons in today's children's media that it took me years to properly learn as an adult.

You can see it in stuff in Psychonauts vs Psychonauts 2, for example, as well. Psychonauts is great but Psychonauts 2 pays attention to little relationship details, issues of ethics and consent and trauma in ways that Psychonauts never even dreamed of, but manages to do so in a way that still feels completely in keeping with the Psychonauts universe, and would be perfectly accessible to a kid playing the game.

4 minutes ago, Vainamoinen said:

 

I was talking about a strong trend in modern games (notably neither about books, comics, movies or other narrative media!!).

Yeah, this is fair and I agree broadly with what you say here, this topic of infantilising media has just been unusually on my mind for a while so I used the opportunity to soapbox about it for a bit.😉

[JacquesSparkyTail]

10 minutes ago, neoncolor8 said:

 

No it hasn't? 

I’m afraid so.

[KestrelPi]

4 minutes ago, JacquesSparkyTail said:

I’m afraid so.

welll.. actually here's the sprite sheet.

 

It's on the right leg. Except that they only drew one side-walk cycle, so when he's facing left like on the picture you chose, it's flipped.

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by KestrelPi

[BaronGrackle]

With Guybrush and Elaine... I just worry that we'll have "Elaine sees Guybrush as a little brother" play out. It worries me because Ron has said in the past that Elaine sees Guybrush as a little brother... and he's said more recently that Elaine and LeChuck are like older kids while Guybrush is like a younger kid tagalong they can't shake off.

 

And I can't reconcile the idea of "Elaine isn't physically attracted to Guybrush" with what I see in ANY of the Monkey Island games... from the scene of Elaine inviting him to her place in Secret to fool around, to her being ready to take him back in Revenge if he hadn't been distracted by treasure, to the cementing of their relationship in the following three games including the role of their marriage itself as the final puzzle solution in the series to this point.
 

I've said it before, but the whole thing makes me wonder if it was Grossman or Schafer who wrote the scenes at Mêlée's docks and Booty's mansion, rather than Gilbert.

Edited August 17, 2022 by BaronGrackle

[neoncolor8]

2 minutes ago, KestrelPi said:

welll.. actually here's the sprite sheet.

 

It's on the right leg. Except that they only drew one walk cycle, so on the picture you chose, it's flipped.

 

Ahh that's why it's confusing to watch, thanks for the explanation!

[Thrik]

 

[JacquesSparkyTail]

9 minutes ago, KestrelPi said:

welll.. actually here's the sprite sheet.

 

It's on the right leg. Except that they only drew one side-walk cycle, so when he's facing left like on the picture you chose, it's flipped.

 

True but i’d just like to attempt to counter that argument if i may by pointing out that (i believe) this is every instance of bob appearing in the game

[KestrelPi]

2 minutes ago, Thrik said:

 

Hah, if it weren't for the up-down walk animations putting it unambiguously on the right leg I might have argued for it being on the left leg because:

 

* That's where we first see it

* That's where we see it most for the duration of the game (bob is also facing that way when you meet him inside the monkey head)

 

Or possibly argued that there is no correct answer, and that the pegleg is in a constant state of quantum superposition.

 

But alas it's on the right leg, and it's just that for most of the game we're looking at mirror-bob

[BaronGrackle]

1 minute ago, JacquesSparkyTail said:

True but i’d just like to attempt to counter that argument if i may by pointing out that (i believe) this is every instance of bob appearing in the game

It is funny that the inconsistency happens when Bob faces left, and he happens to be facing left the vast majority of his appearances.

[JacquesSparkyTail]

7 minutes ago, Thrik said:

 

Time i gave up 😂

[KestrelPi]

8 minutes ago, JacquesSparkyTail said:

True but i’d just like to attempt to counter that argument if i may by pointing out that (i believe) this is every instance of bob appearing in the game

Fair argument, and as I said above, I might have made a case for that for the same reason, but given the up down walk cycles exist I guess they are probably used somewhere (back in the day they often would have been cut for space if not needed I thiiink?), and they're the only way round where it's unambiguously on the right leg, I'm going to have to give it to the right leg still.

 

The shocking truth that has been revealed to us here is that most of the time, Bob is the wrong way round

 

Well, to me at least that's a far more fun thing to learn, after 30 years.

Edited August 17, 2022 by KestrelPi

[Marius]

Bob's pegleg changed sides when they decided to move the alley.

[BaronGrackle]

31 minutes ago, KestrelPi said:

Fair argument, and as I said above, I might have made a case for that for the same reason, but given the up down walk cycles exist I guess they are probably used somewhere (back in the day they often would have been cut for space if not needed I thiiink?), and they're the only way round where it's unambiguously on the right leg, I'm going to have to give it to the right leg still.

 

The shocking truth that has been revealed to us here is that most of the time, Bob is the wrong way round

 

Well, to me at least that's a far more fun thing to learn, after 30 years.

Something something this was intricate symbolism done on purpose to convey that Bob is on the wrong side, that he is naturally a friendly pirate who has no business being LeChuck's right hand man... or should we say, no business being LeChuck's RIGHT LEG man?

 

He poses and stands as if he has nothing LEFT of himself, as if it were gone, but in actuality it is his side RIGHT BY LeChuck that is false though it pretends to be real. In actuality, it is the part of Bob's soul that is LEFT that is true and has been all along.

 

Through most of MI1, Bob is the wrong way round.

Now he is upside down.

Heh heh heh, I am not laughing out of joy.

Inside a dream, inside a dream, inside a dream.

(recites more Manny poetry lines)

The End.

Edited August 17, 2022 by BaronGrackle

[andygeers]

So what if Ron never really had a very concrete vision for Monkey Island 3... so what if there is no "real" Secret of Monkey Island...

I'll tell you why I am so excited for a final *Ron Gilbert* Monkey Island game... I desperately want to get to the bottom of what is the real relationship between Guybrush and LeChuck.

There are so many clues hidden in MI2: LeChuck's Revenge - the feather in the Booty Island shop, the dream sequence, the library book about the Junior Ultra Soldier Commando Assault Vehicle... and yet for all these decades we've never had a clear answer. I put a video together about it: 

 

 

I can't wait to play the new game... and I desperately hope we'll finally get some insight!

[LowLevel]

3 hours ago, BaronGrackle said:

With Guybrush and Elaine... I just worry that we'll have "Elaine sees Guybrush as a little brother" play out.

 

Ron specified that it was a general framework to define the relationships of the three main characters, but not storywise. In other words, it doesn't necessarily affect the story in a strong way:

 

Quote

Ron Gilbert: [...] the G/E/L triangle was just a framework for thinking about the relationships.  It's not part of the story or had anything to do with the ending of MI2. [Source]

 

And I think that we actually have evidence that the framework didn't translate into strong vetoes for the story.

 

For example, it didn't affect the story of MI1to the point of preventing Elaine and Guybrush from falling in love. Nor it prevented Elaine from considering to take Guybrush back in MI2.

Edited August 17, 2022 by LowLevel

[ThunderPeel2001]

6 hours ago, Vainamoinen said:

"all is well because you fixed it all"

 

Just throwing my hat into the ring of this discussion, because I agree that modern media is infantilising... but not because they have a Hollywood Ending (where everything is tied up neatly in a bow -- although that IS part of it), but because the SOLUTIONS they present to problems are overly simple.

 

That is all.