Jump to content

Home

Return to Monkey Island 🚨GAME-WIDE🚨 Spoiler Chat


Message added by Jake,

This thread is a place to talk about the ENTIRE GAME so if you haven't played it yet, maybe stay away!

 

☠️ YE BE WARNED ☠️

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, NightWalker said:

t's clear to me, reading those interviews, that Ron had a powerful reason for Guybrush and Elaine not getting married.

Yeah. And I also never really was a fan of Guybrush and Elaine as a couple (in MI1 and 2 I found the relationship functional/okay and in the games after that rather tiring/annoying).
But now, especially in light of Ron always being against the couple, I was really impressed (as probably others too) with how good and natural their relationship was in ReMI. Elaine seemed incredibly warm and it seemed like they both had a healthy, honest relationship - so that I would probably even be disappointed now if they were torn apart in the future. (Ah, the game's so great... 🥰)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got the impression that since he never wanted them to get together he just made her pretty much bland and pointless. She adds so little to the game and story it feels like she is there because she has to be. Outside of the Love you line which was actually sweet she feels so incredibly flat in this story. No excitement to her at all which is the opposite of every single version of Elaine in just about every Monkey Island game. It was like she had to be in the game but they had no clue what to do with her. Shadow of her former self.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting these lasts reading keys on the Guybrush-Elaine relationship.

 

I am building my personal canon of how to interpret the entire saga and I would have my say.

 

My belief is that in the real world Elaine may have been a superior of Guybrush, if we want to see the theory of Flooring Inspector and see a hierarchy of employees.

 

Who knows, maybe Guybrush met Elaine simply by working in the amusement park and fantasized a lot about her. Then succeeded years later.

 

Maybe he was an apprentice and this explains why he needs to feel like a hero.  She, however, never needs him, but rather, she is always a step forward to him and she always can get by.

 

That's how I explain why Ron didn't want to write and build a solid relationship for them, but I LOVED that in this game she was both an essential support but also a good motivator.

Edited by AlboAbourt
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BaronGrackle said:

Reddit is filled with multiple similar threads right now.

 

 

Though I’m glad there is a ton of conversation happening in the Monkey Island subreddit, the Reddit threads have made me slightly insane because of the common Reddit pattern: in any given subreddit if you like something (the game or tv show or whatever or, for example, your electronic device works properly) you reply in the comments about your experience, but if you don’t like something (or your thing is broken) you just go and make a new thread about it. I find that though Reddit reads as “honest” to some eyes, because of how surfaced negative reactions are, that’s really because the combination of how humans work and how Reddit works means that gripes end up on the front page of a sub in multiple dupes, and people enjoying a thing end up buried. It gets to the point that you end up with people making posts saying “am I the only person who likes the thing/am I the only person who isn’t having problems?” and moderators often have to start forcibly enacting rules to make the people who all have the same thought (or gripe, or problem) post in the same thread together instead of starting new ones.

 

That’s not to say not liking something is somehow uncommon, but it is to say I think Reddit in particular ends up surfacing negative reactions and people in search of others who feel that way, than it is good at surfacing “I enjoyed it.”

 

The art style of Return had this pattern, where many who had a problem with it decided they needed to make their own unique thread in the subreddit to show people why they in particular didn’t like it. The people who did like it mostly stuck to the game announcement and trailer megathreads. It created the feeling that the number of people who had a negative first reaction to the art vastly outnumbered the people who did, when in reality it was either a more balanced distribution, or they were a minority. We’ll obviously never know the actual split (and fortunately it doesn’t really matter how many people do or don’t like a thing), but it’s a reminder that Reddit isn’t actually a barometer of anything, especially just looking at how many threads of what type hit the front page of a subreddit, or generate the most comments. 
 

 

sorry I just wrote way more than I meant to about Reddit. 
 

 

 

Anyway I liked the ending. I don’t think the game was universally great, but it hit me personally pretty hard and has remained on my mind for months since I first played even an unfinished version. 
 

I usually don’t like “it was all a dream” or “YOU get to figure out what it means” endings either, for what it’s worth. I think there is more going on in Return than that. I am unfortunately a very by-the-seat-of-my-pants thinker who intuits a lot quickly and then am slow to catch up with the actual mechanical backing of those reactions (which can sometimes drive my coworkers crazy) AND I’m a big procrastinator, so I have been slow as hell to contribute meaningfully to this thread other than off topic stuff about Reddit, but I feel like the thematic throughlines across Return are very strong, and to me at least they felt fresh,  within Monkey Island and gaming and the current pop media landscape.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Guybrush / Elaine relationship, my feeling on it is this:

 

  • Monkey 1, the relationship reflects the author's relationships: young guys who are chasing hot women and don't know what to do with them.
  • Monkey 2, the relationship is more distant, more like she has matured, but he hasn't yet
  • Return, both are now older and more mature, Elaine has come to accept Guybrush for who he is, and he no longer chases after her like a overgrown teenager

I guess basically what I'm saying is that I think their relationship is probably also reflective of the author's feelings toward their partners at the time of writing. Their relationships in Monkey 3 and 4 feel more cartoonish (to me at least) because they're just a parody of the "true" feelings of the original authors rather than something which was being sincerely expressed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked that they used Elaine to explore the idea of Guybrush's selfishness in going for his goals. I wish they'd leant into that a little bit MORE but I think it made sense for her to be the character that needled him a little for that, given that she has been on the receiving end of it a couple of times.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jake said:

That’s not to say not liking something is somehow uncommon, but it is to say I think Reddit in particular ends up surfacing negative reactions and people in search of others who feel that way, than it is good at surfacing “I enjoyed it.”

 

Reddit doesn't intrinsically give preference to either side of the dichotomy. Rather the prevailing opinion will reign and contrary viewpoints will be downvoted into oblivion. I've seen subreddits go from castigating the mildest criticism to essentially de facto outlawing the slightest expression of positivity. The "screw the megathread, MY opinion is Sooooo special it needs it's own thread" behaviour is a separate phenomena. (Megathreads do suck on Reddit admittedly, they really only work on these kinds of forums)

 

4 hours ago, KestrelPi said:

I liked that they used Elaine to explore the idea of Guybrush's selfishness in going for his goals. I wish they'd leant into that a little bit MORE but I think it made sense for her to be the character that needled him a little for that, given that she has been on the receiving end of it a couple of times.

 

The cutaways in the leadup actually gave me a lurching sense of foreboding that things were heading into a temporary mini-break of the relationship, it was a little perplexing when it culminated in Elaine essentially going "oh guybrush you're so silly teehee", particularly given Elaine's strong-willed and socially minded characterisation. I presume the intent is that Elaine is the sole "real" person that we encounter throughout the game, and she's not bothered by Guybrush's trail of destruction as everything else is cutouts and imagination. But again that feels iffy to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, roots said:

Reddit doesn't intrinsically give preference to either side of the dichotomy. Rather the prevailing opinion will reign and contrary viewpoints will be downvoted into oblivion.

I think it’s wildly influenced by memes, reactionary acts of snap judgement, and has its own meta that can be pretty disconnected from the world at large. Within that context, what you say is true, but it’s a helluva context. 

31 minutes ago, roots said:

The cutaways in the leadup actually gave me a lurching sense of foreboding that things were heading into a temporary mini-break of the relationship, it was a little perplexing when it culminated in Elaine essentially going "oh guybrush you're so silly teehee",

I didn’t read it as “teehee,” and more like, any of these things individually are less bad than some of the truly bad things we’ve encountered, but you should look at the aggregate effect you’re having because it might not add up to something great. It read to me as Elaine extending Guybrush a line of trust, but also as an increasingly tenuous one. Like, she didn’t need to say he was on outrageously thin ice, and if he couldn’t read the room he would be in trouble. I saw the guybrush in the frame story as one who took that conversation to heart. It’s part of why I don’t really want a Monkey Island 7! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to share how I decided to perceive the game cause I'd really like some feedback on this:

I think the world of monkey island is a special one where stories and dreams can become 'real' and it's here to tell us that. It's a story about stories. That can be seen with surface level stuff like the wishing well materializing actual tangible stuff even in the 'reality level'. Or Guybrush miraculously healing his broken bones to be able to pursue his goal.

 

By changing the story with the control the player has, the whole reality of this future actually changes (can be evidence that the story Oldbrush tells is 'real' and in the same world). As seen by the different endings. Also if you decide to let Guybrush drown three times you forcefully break the story. It cuts back to the future and it gets revealed that YOUR narrative actually changes the reality for real real.

 

Canon and the interpretations were always very fluid with every iteration of monkey island. The creators of these games had control and the freedom of what to make you believe in that world. And so have you of course.

 

There is a greater theme of escapism in here. Yes, you want that story to be real as Bill Tiller stated. RTMI doesn't lie to you tho and even tells you that it is a story but it's okay and even if you "deny what you saw" it ends with what you want to see. It doesn't cut to the future anymore and returns you to the world you know and love from the other games. You can look at it in so many ways. Find one or even several you're happy with. Your reality your rules. Pure subjectivity.

 

You can change so much in your life if you mindfully change your attitude and inner narrative towards something...

 

I feel like I've only scratched the surface.

Edited by Aytiel
  • Like 2
  • Chef's Kiss 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KestrelPi said:

I liked that they used Elaine to explore the idea of Guybrush's selfishness in going for his goals. I wish they'd leant into that a little bit MORE but I think it made sense for her to be the character that needled him a little for that, given that she has been on the receiving end of it a couple of times.

 

I second this. I got the sense they were trying to compare Lechuck and Guybrush and challenge us to the notion that they are not that different, personality wise, as they would have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finished the game a couple of days ago and needed some time to gather my thoughts. Okay...

 

I absolutely loved it.

I was hoping I would love it but I never expected it all getting to me so much as it did. 

For years I was never that much excited for the series to ever be continued by Ron, mostly because of the now infamous article where he said he would ignore everything after 2. I never liked that. I really love every game in the series and the fact that it is one continuous story (despite some small continuity hiccups in Escape) and wasn't looking forward to Zelda-like alternate timeline/version/whatever shenanigans being added to the series. 

 

I also liked Guybrush and Elaine being together. I completely understand that wasn't Ron's original intention, especially after how their relationship is in LeChuck's Revenge, but again, for me the games after that cemented the relationship. Tales was about them having issues and working on them to come out of it better by the end. Undoing all of that would feel weird (and perhaps slightly spiteful?) to me. 

 

So imagine my face when the camera pans to the right, revealing daddy Guybrush sitting on the bench and it all hit me at once. Not only did Ron and Dave respect the relationship, they doubled down on it. And tying it together with Revenge's ending is just genius. By doing this framing device, suddenly every weird thing in the series, every inconsistency, everything can be explained. And it gives it all sooo much heart. Honestly, the tears came hard when everything clicked in my mind, after a simple camera pan to the right. Ugh. 

 

Then the game itself. I don't have much to say next to I loved it all. The structure being somewhat of a mashup of 1 and 2 (but with details and puzzels dialed up to 11; 4 map pieces? 6 keys!) worked really well with the themes of nostalgia and growing up.

 

Like many of you, my first reaction after the ending was "what?!" but after letting it all sink in a bit more, I love it so much, it's perfect. Like @Jake said earlier, there's a very clear theme going on of Guybrush and LeChuck going through the same motions, over and over again. I think there are many ways to interpret the ending but the main thing for me is; Guybrush chooses to let go of his obsession because he sees what it does to others. Not only in LeChuck vs the new Pirate Leaders, but also in his own actions after that talk with Elaine in the Monkey Island jungle. Granted, it's not a realization of Guybrush that is talked about aloud but still, that scene is there for a reason, and it's right before he letting go. 

 

I think the way story ends is foreshadowed throughout the entire game, especially with the whole Chums-story puzzle. Guybrush learns to change his story so it would make a better and exciting story (like mentioned before in this thread, see Pan's Labyrinth and Big Fish). And it worked! Because we'll probably talk about what's real and what isn't for a long time, just like the ending of Revenge before this one.

 

Random thoughts:

 

- It's funny how ideas and themes from both Escape and Tales are also in this game. Escape: classic piracy being outdated and making way for something new and hip. Tales: the theme of going through the motions and Guybrush' getting confronted with him being kind of an asshole, destroying lives in his way. 

 

- Widey Bones is an interesting character because we know almost nothing about her and the fact that a lot of her dialogue at the beginning hints at the ending makes it all the more theory-fueling. 

 

- Was it just me or did Herman Toothrot's ending getting stuck in the cave and Guybrush saying it's another tale a way of linking it to Ron's The Cave?

 

- Loved we got nods to Escape (sorry, I recently played it and still love it a lot) in Carla and Otis' dialogue. Slightly sad we didn't get a more direct nod to the Toothrot-Marley thing. 

 

- The plaque at the end saying "original secret" says it all I think. It's good that stories change as we get older. Nothing has to stay or be exactly the same as it was in the past, that's the whole point of this game. Guybrush loving things like Stan's old place or being on Monkey Island while he hated it before perfectly captures the nostalgia theme. 

 

- Did we ever see Madison die? This was the only part that felt weird/rushed to me, as it builds up both a teamup and a betrayal but then shows very little of it. Madison being the final one going up against LeChuck instead of Lila would have been more logical I think? Unless I'm missing something...

 

- Murray being in the game so much was great. Love the short reprise of his theme from Tales when he appeared.  

 

- Speaking of the music; I want this soundtrack asap. 

 

- Loved LeChuck's crew and the diversity in characters. Also that there was just another demon there like it wasn't anything strange or weird, he's just there. 

 

- @Dmnkly I can't say enough good things about your work in the game (or the entire series). Amazing work as always! Hope we get to enjoy your Guybrush for many more games to hopefully come (but if not, this was a perfect ending) 

 

- Random Ron story from years ago when he visited Amsterdam and he hung out with a bunch of fans. I remember asking him what he thought about the Toothrot twist in Escape and he said he didn't know what I was talking about. I asked him to spoil it to which he said yes so I told him. I still remember his reaction being a very blank stare and then just ".....huh". Best poker face ever. 

 

I probably have more to say but that's it for now.

Edited by Junaid
  • Like 1
  • Chef's Kiss 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Junaid said:

Random Ron story from years ago when he visited Amsterdam and he hung out with a bunch of fans. I remember asking him what he thought about the Toothrot twist in Escape and he said he didn't know what I was talking about. I asked him to spoil it to which he said yes so I told him. I still remember his reaction being a very blank stare and then just ".....huh". Best poker face ever. 

Amazing. I think I’m the one who told him about the giant monkey robot in Escape, sometime in the early-mid ‘00s when interviewing him. Glad that together we spoiled the final act of Monkey Island 4 for Ron!

  • Chef's Kiss 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jake said:

Amazing. I think I’m the one who told him about the giant monkey robot in Escape, sometime in the early-mid ‘00s when interviewing him. Glad that together we spoiled the final act of Monkey Island 4 for Ron!

Hahaha perfect! I think me and Paco were the only ones in that group who liked Escape and the twists

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jake said:

I think it’s wildly influenced by memes, reactionary acts of snap judgement, and has its own meta that can be pretty disconnected from the world at large. Within that context, what you say is true, but it’s a helluva context. 

I didn’t read it as “teehee,” and more like, any of these things individually are less bad than some of the truly bad things we’ve encountered, but you should look at the aggregate effect you’re having because it might not add up to something great. It read to me as Elaine extending Guybrush a line of trust, but also as an increasingly tenuous one. Like, she didn’t need to say he was on outrageously thin ice, and if he couldn’t read the room he would be in trouble. I saw the guybrush in the frame story as one who took that conversation to heart. It’s part of why I don’t really want a Monkey Island 7! 

 

To speak of a meta is very apt. Every forum has one, but Reddit's is particularly toxic and prone to extremes due to the voting system. It's a fascinating topic, particularly if we contrast against a forum such as this, given the smaller and more insular nature, the closer dev relationships at the top etc. But I won't derail further.

 

While describing it as "teehee" was admittedly a little hyperbolic, I personally didn't get the impression that Elaine was especially bothered by what Guybrush had done (contrary to appearances in the cutaways) despite the impact of his actions both individually and as a whole. Guybrush's continuing obsession with the Secret at that point also made him seem insincere. I don't think this is particularly helped by the break in continuity and reality that the ending brings. We see the "destination" with an "enlightened" Guybrush, but the "journey" is missing contrary to the prevailing theme. It just doesn't really add up for me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finished it two days ago and I can't stop thinking about it!  How do you all interpret the ending when Guybrush finds out that he is at the amusement park?
 
Are the adventures that Guybrush tells to his son real or imaginary? And is it all really happening in pirate times or in modern day? What's your take?

 

I think it happens in modern time... The plaque on the wall at the end says that the amusement park was founded in 1989 by R. Gilbert. I think that Guybrush loved playing a pirate in the amusement park when he was a young man. And now he tries to convay the same passion to his son by telling him imaginary pirate stories.

 

What's your take?
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Goury1 said:

I finished it two days ago and I can't stop thinking about it!  How do you all interpret the ending when Guybrush finds out that he is at the amusement park?
 
Are the adventures that Guybrush tells to his son real or imaginary? And is it all really happening in pirate times or in modern day? What's your take?

 

I think it happens in modern time... The plaque on the wall at the end says that the amusement park was founded in 1989 by R. Gilbert. I think that Guybrush loved playing a pirate in the amusement park when he was a young man. And now he tries to convay the same passion to his son by telling him imaginary pirate stories.

 

What's your take?
 

 

 

Honestly, I interpret it as "whatever ending you want, it's yours". 

Unless a new game comes out that specifically says "this is what's happening!" and turns the whole thing upside down again :D, just like with Monkey 2's ending and Return's beginning before this. 

 

 

 

Edited by Junaid
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Junaid said:

Honestly, I interpret it as "whatever ending you want, it's yours".

 

I mean... there are ten (that we know of) different endings that change depending on your actions in Part V, so even within the game itself, this is kind of explicitly so 🙂

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been mostly posting to Reddit, but have been following this thread closely and finally decided to sign up just to add my (worthless) thoughts to the fire.

 

I finished the game last night and since then have gone through a hastened version of the five stages of grief. From denial that it's all over, anger that it's not what I was promised, bargaining by exploring different interpretations, depression that I wasted so much of my life thinking about this, to eventual acceptance that there's nothing much more I can do about it.

 

I think the reason this game didn't hit home with me is the fact that I haven't moved on in the same way Guybrush has. I never found my Elaine, I never went on any worthwhile life adventures, I never had a kid and now I sit on that park bench alone, contemplating my dead end of a life. 

 

In a way, though, it's a cheat. In the story Guybrush tells us, he is just as gung-ho about finding out the secret as I am. He lengthens the search as long as possible and even turns it into a search for five golden keys, and then a Matryoshka doll treasure within a treasure. Boybrush (who we initially control and in some ways represents the player) hangs on his every word.

 

But at the end of the story, Guybrush uncharacteristically bails. In his current state, he's perfectly fine with not explaining the deeper meanings or even revealing the actual "secret" that the entire game was leading up to. He apparently reached this level of enlightenment off-screen, which doesn't necessarily feel earned throughout the gameplay we're given (which is single-mindedly about a dogged search for the truth). 

 

Rather than give us one definitive, satisfying, unifying, cohesive answer, we are allowed to "choose" our own ending and continue to speculate and theorize ad nauseam, just as we have for the 30 years prior to this release. The game doesn't really give us anything new to chew on, other than the fact that we will likely be disappointed by what we actually get (which feels a bit heavy-handed as far as foreshadowing goes).

 

The only thing I really want to know at this point is the author's original intentions. Going back to 1989-1991, what were they initially planning to do? I know Ron has purported that this would be his MI3a, but I suspect he ended up having to compromise a lot of the original vision by accepting the new lore as canon.

 

As others have speculated here, if the original intention was always for Guybrush to be a little kid lost in a theme park, and Guybrush and Elaine were never meant to be together (possibly because he's actually a kid with a crush on an older woman) and the whole thing culminates in a carnival like setting (which was apparently pitched as the original ending to MI1), then it still feels like we are denied an actual climax to MI2. Sure, we got other people's interpretations of what happened afterwards, but we never got all the answers straight from the original creator, and that's why I was so excited for Ron to complete his actual vision. (I'll also admit that I harbored a bias towards Curse onwards, because Ron wasn't involved; he initially seemed to disinherit the rest of the sequels, which always put a damper on my enjoyment.)

 

I know that the "Original Secret" as established in 1989 by R. Gilbert on the plaque is that it's a theme park. That's about as literal an answer as he gives us, other than the stupid T-shirt in the ornamental box (which I suspect was devised by Stan as a cheap marketing gimmick and was probably always "The Secret" we were going to get). That's all fine and well, I guess. We can choose to tell Boybrush that it's literally what happened, or we can go back and bury our heads underground and deny everything. It's clever that we are allowed to keep our own interpretations within the construct of the game, but it's not really what I was tuning in for. I just wanted to know the truth directly from the horse's mouth and we've ultimately been denied that.

 

Sorry for blathering on like this. It was actually therapeutic to get this off my chest, if nothing else.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Goury1 said:

I finished it two days ago and I can't stop thinking about it!  How do you all interpret the ending when Guybrush finds out that he is at the amusement park?
 
Are the adventures that Guybrush tells to his son real or imaginary? And is it all really happening in pirate times or in modern day? What's your take?

 

I think it happens in modern time... The plaque on the wall at the end says that the amusement park was founded in 1989 by R. Gilbert. I think that Guybrush loved playing a pirate in the amusement park when he was a young man. And now he tries to convay the same passion to his son by telling him imaginary pirate stories.

 

What's your take?
 

 

Yeah, I think the year 1989 is not a coincidence. The plaque says the park was founded in 1989 because, in 1990, the flooring inspector Guybrush (one year after the foundation) had his first imaginary adventure there. It's obvious to me that everything happens in the present time. When, back in the day, we played Monkey 1 and 2, there were some details that seem to point to modern times. Yes, we had anachronisms, but the important thing is those anachronisms pointed to the actual era when the games were created.

 

The reference to Elvis is enough to see that the real park was established, at least, after the 1960s. We have references to Nintendo games (when we are hanging whit Wally over the acid pit) and even to the Flinstones (in the costume shop). I think that even the oar we take in Elaine's mansion in Booty Island had the year 1967 on it (at least you could see that if you examine it in the spanish version, I think). So, maybe in Monkey 1 and 2 the real park where Guybrush imagine everything was in the 90s... And maybe the pass of time for us (the players) has been true to the internal world of Monkey Island too... That's why Guybrush has a son and now, the park we see at the ending, maybe is in the 2022 too. Very interesting.

Edited by NightWalker
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NightWalker said:

So, maybe in Monkey 1 and 2 the real park where Guybrush imagine everything was in the 90s... And maybe the pass of time for us (the players) has been true to the interal world of Monkey Island too... That's why Guybrush has a son and now, the park we see at the ending, maybe is in the 2022 too. Very interesting.

 

I agree! That's how I see it too! The amusement park at the end seems very delapidated, so it's probably around 2022!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh boy monkey island has gone full meta now with, all that analysis^^

 

i love the new game and the art stlyle, some characters and backgrounds looked like they could be from a new day of the tentacle game xD

 

i think ron likes to mess with the players alot. so all that controversy of the ending(s) is surely part of his game design. 

the good thing is that because of the framing with buybrush you can always explain away all that meta stuff: the mi2 ending was already the imagination and play of him. and the return ending was guybrushs version of boot wanting to tell boybrush the truth. 

 

still i loooved that meta part and the denial option. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sadbrush said:

I've been mostly posting to Reddit, but have been following this thread closely and finally decided to sign up just to add my (worthless) thoughts to the fire.

 

I finished the game last night and since then have gone through a hastened version of the five stages of grief. From denial that it's all over, anger that it's not what I was promised, bargaining by exploring different interpretations, depression that I wasted so much of my life thinking about this, to eventual acceptance that there's nothing much more I can do about it.

 

I think the reason this game didn't hit home with me is the fact that I haven't moved on in the same way Guybrush has. I never found my Elaine, I never went on any worthwhile life adventures, I never had a kid and now I sit on that park bench alone, contemplating my dead end of a life. 

 

In a way, though, it's a cheat. In the story Guybrush tells us, he is just as gung-ho about finding out the secret as I am. He lengthens the search as long as possible and even turns it into a search for five golden keys, and then a Matryoshka doll treasure within a treasure. Boybrush (who we initially control and in some ways represents the player) hangs on his every word.

 

But at the end of the story, Guybrush uncharacteristically bails. In his current state, he's perfectly fine with not explaining the deeper meanings or even revealing the actual "secret" that the entire game was leading up to. He apparently reached this level of enlightenment off-screen, which doesn't necessarily feel earned throughout the gameplay we're given (which is single-mindedly about a dogged search for the truth). 

 

Rather than give us one definitive, satisfying, unifying, cohesive answer, we are allowed to "choose" our own ending and continue to speculate and theorize ad nauseam, just as we have for the 30 years prior to this release. The game doesn't really give us anything new to chew on, other than the fact that we will likely be disappointed by what we actually get (which feels a bit heavy-handed as far as foreshadowing goes).

 

The only thing I really want to know at this point is the author's original intentions. Going back to 1989-1991, what were they initially planning to do? I know Ron has purported that this would be his MI3a, but I suspect he ended up having to compromise a lot of the original vision by accepting the new lore as canon.

 

As others have speculated here, if the original intention was always for Guybrush to be a little kid lost in a theme park, and Guybrush and Elaine were never meant to be together (possibly because he's actually a kid with a crush on an older woman) and the whole thing culminates in a carnival like setting (which was apparently pitched as the original ending to MI1), then it still feels like we are denied an actual climax to MI2. Sure, we got other people's interpretations of what happened afterwards, but we never got all the answers straight from the original creator, and that's why I was so excited for Ron to complete his actual vision. (I'll also admit that I harbored a bias towards Curse onwards, because Ron wasn't involved; he initially seemed to disinherit the rest of the sequels, which always put a damper on my enjoyment.)

 

I know that the "Original Secret" as established in 1989 by R. Gilbert on the plaque is that it's a theme park. That's about as literal an answer as he gives us, other than the stupid T-shirt in the ornamental box (which I suspect was devised by Stan as a cheap marketing gimmick and was probably always "The Secret" we were going to get). That's all fine and well, I guess. We can choose to tell Boybrush that it's literally what happened, or we can go back and bury our heads underground and deny everything. It's clever that we are allowed to keep our own interpretations within the construct of the game, but it's not really what I was tuning in for. I just wanted to know the truth directly from the horse's mouth and we've ultimately been denied that.

 

Sorry for blathering on like this. It was actually therapeutic to get this off my chest, if nothing else.

I respect your opinion but want to point out a couple of things:

 

Ron has been very clear he didn't have to compromise his 'vision' since that never existed - he didn't have very clear ideas about what the plot of MI3 would be. He did know what the secret was and says that this game gives the player it as originally envisioned, so take that as you will.

 

But there is no such thing as 'If Ron had only got to do what he really wanted I'd have my answers'

 

Also... I have to say I think "The game doesn't really give us anything new to chew on" is a pretty incredible statement. It doesn't?!

 

Finally, I think the most revealing thing about why I liked what this game did and you didn't is that you say "continue to speculate and theorize ad nauseam, just as we have for the 30 years prior to this release."

 

Oh. Ad nauseam? Was it so bad for you? I think what the game argues for was that 30 years speculation wasn't so bad. It was fun. I made friends from it. I developed many creative skills while thinking about it.

 

Again, not trying to negate your opinion, more just trying to explain why I have a different one

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Junaid said:

Was it just me or did Herman Toothrot's ending getting stuck in the cave and Guybrush saying it's another tale a way of linking it to Ron's The Cave?

Well, there _is_ a hillbilly in that game, with a very similar design, who just happens to be burning down a carnival...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KestrelPi said:

I respect your opinion but want to point out a couple of things:

 

Ron has been very clear he didn't have to compromise his 'vision' since that never existed - he didn't have very clear ideas about what the plot of MI3 would be. He did know what the secret was and says that this game gives the player it as originally envisioned, so take that as you will.

 

But there is no such thing as 'If Ron had only got to do what he really wanted I'd have my answers'

 

Also... I have to say I think "The game doesn't really give us anything new to chew on" is a pretty incredible statement. It doesn't?!

 

Finally, I think the most revealing thing about why I liked what this game did and you didn't is that you say "continue to speculate and theorize ad nauseam, just as we have for the 30 years prior to this release."

 

Oh. Ad nauseam? Was it so bad for you? I think what the game argues for was that 30 years speculation wasn't so bad. It was fun. I made friends from it. I developed many creative skills while thinking about it.

 

Again, not trying to negate your opinion, more just trying to explain why I have a different one

 

 

Yeah, fair enough. When I say "ad nauseam," I just mean we've already covered all this ground before. This game doesn't really further the plot or add much more coal to the fire, it's pretty much the same conversation we've exhausted after all this time.

 

I know the difference is that a lot of time has passed and the devs aren't the same people who made the originals, which is why I'm so interested in Ron's ideas for MI3 back in 1992. I think it would have been a much different experience overall, and they probably would have handled the final reveal differently. For one, we know in Ron's vision that Guy and Elaine weren't a couple, so they presumably didn't have kids, which would have altered the framing story considerably. There's just a lot of conjecture for things that could have been. I hope at some point Ron opens up about it and shares his original outline/notes for the game.

Edited by Sadbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sadbrush said:

 

Yeah, fair enough. When I say "ad nauseam," I just mean we've already covered all this ground before. This game doesn't really further the plot or add much more coal to the fire, it's pretty much the same conversation we've been having all this time.

 

I know the difference is that a lot of time has passed and the devs aren't the same people who made the originals, which is why I'm so interested in Ron's ideas for MI3 back in 1992. I think it would have been a much different experience overall, and they probably would have handled the final reveal differently. For one, we know in Ron's vision that Guy and Elaine weren't a couple, so they presumably didn't have kids, which would have altered the framing story considerably. There's just a lot of conjecture for things that could have been. I hope at some point Ron opens up about it and shares his original outline/notes for the game.

I have no hope that he will ever open up about it. How he talked about it also completely changed over the years. In 2005 (https://web.archive.org/web/20051122075149/http://idlethumbs.net/display.php?id=59) he said

Quote

I think the thing is, when I planned those games out — and this is nothing new — but, when we did the first one the whole story just got too big, which is when I broke it up into three different parts. I know what that third one is, right? So it's not that I kind of sit there and think about "oh, what would the third one be?" I kind of know how that story's supposed to end, so I don't really think about it too much.

while in every recent interview it was always just versions of "Guybrush goes to hell and Stan is there is all I ever had".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...