QueZTone Posted December 31, 2001 Share Posted December 31, 2001 LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmatz Posted December 31, 2001 Share Posted December 31, 2001 :Trapazoid sinking deeper and deeper into a pile of sh*t: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapezoid Posted December 31, 2001 Share Posted December 31, 2001 Whoops. I guess I was wrong the first time. I'm sure if they came out with a terrible Monkey Island shooter I'd be pissed. But if they came out with a new MI with MI2 level complexity and humor, people would still find excuses to hate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmatz Posted December 31, 2001 Share Posted December 31, 2001 If they used SCUMM and the old graphics... I wouldn't complain one bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapezoid Posted December 31, 2001 Share Posted December 31, 2001 Originally posted by Schmatz If they used SCUMM and the old graphics... I wouldn't complain one bit. So is that the problem? Sound like hopeless purism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squinkee Posted December 31, 2001 Share Posted December 31, 2001 Originally posted by Squinkee Was there a huge outrage when MI2 came out? No one answered this! Honestly MI2 is quite a bit different than the first one, so there had to be some detractors... Also, Meksilon, chill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remi Posted December 31, 2001 Share Posted December 31, 2001 Originally posted by Squinkee No one answered this! Honestly MI2 is quite a bit different than the first one, so there had to be some detractors... Also, Meksilon, chill. Nah, no huge outcry when MI2 was released. Probably 'cause it came out so close to MI1, with the original team, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmatz Posted December 31, 2001 Share Posted December 31, 2001 Yeah, kinda like the deal with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Next year the next one will be out, by the same creators, so it won't have a different effect on us. Same with MI1 and 2, but, once CMI comes, the team is scattered, and it's not the same (but I'm not complaining... I liked CMI). If, say, the next LoTR movie was made by a different director or a different group of special effects people, we would see differences between the two movies, such as characters may not look the same, etc. It's not the greatest way to compare, but I couldn't think of anything else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meksilon Posted December 31, 2001 Share Posted December 31, 2001 Originally posted by Trapezoid But if they came out with a new MI with MI2 level complexity and humor, people would still find excuses to hate it. Of course they would Trap, for instance it may have terrible graphics, sound, music.... but that being said there are thoes who hate The Secret of Monkey Island, theoes who hate it's sequal... and thoes who hate computer games all together. =mek= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggis Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 I love all MI games. And anyone who doesn't isn't a Monkey Island fan, but a Ron Gilbert fan. And that is totally unfair towards the people who have worked hard to create two wonderful sequels, and they actually succeeded! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JollyRoger Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 heh, i thought i'd be yelled at for never playing mi2! (thanks for not yelling) maybe the reason for mi4 not being as detailed in some areas -ive never really played it before, im just going on what some people say- is because it was originally a 2d game. have you ever seen a good movie that was originally a video game? (or vice versa?) i know thats a horrible example, but im just saying, its hard to take something and use it in a different way and still be true to the original, expecially if you didnt make the original. and for CMI i liked CMI, i thought it looked great, and liked the style of it. but i dont know how it carries on the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meksilon Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 Originally posted by Haggis I love all MI games. And anyone who doesn't isn't a Monkey Island fan, but a Ron Gilbert fan. And that is totally unfair towards the people who have worked hard to create two wonderful sequels, and they actually succeeded! See Trap? This is the problem! I am NOT a "Ron Gilbert fan". Yes I think he was a very creative individual and one of the few great adventure game makers; but I am certainly not a fan of his work. I didn't like Maniac Mansion, I got sick of Loom, and I just happen to love Monkey Island. You beleive to ba a Monkey Island fan you have to love and accept all the games. Well I can confidently say I'm quite a fan of Adam Sandler, but I absolutly hated Little Nicky, I thought it was the worst movie I have ever seen, I did not laugh once during the entire duration of the film, and I found it to be very Satanist. If I had it my way it would be banned in Austalia. =mek= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapezoid Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 Originally posted by Meksilon See Trap? This is the problem! I am NOT a "Ron Gilbert fan". Yes I think he was a very creative individual and one of the few great adventure game makers; but I am certainly not a fan of his work. I didn't like Maniac Mansion, I got sick of Loom, and I just happen to love Monkey Island. I didn't say that though. You're replying to Haggis. Anyway, sure, you're a Monkey Island fan. But you're in the MI1-and-MI2 subdivision of MI fans. I'm in the All-of-Them subdivision. I'm far from alone, so obviously EMI and CMI have appeal that you're blind to. That's not an insult... I'm blind to the appeal of most drama movies. I'm sure I'm missing out on many classics. You beleive to ba a Monkey Island fan you have to love and accept all the games. Well I can confidently say I'm quite a fan of Adam Sandler, but I absolutly hated Little Nicky, I thought it was the worst movie I have ever seen, I did not laugh once during the entire duration of the film, and I found it to be very Satanist. If I had it my way it would be banned in Austalia. Don't equate CMI and EMI with Little Nicky. Now that's just insane. Although I did think a few parts were funny. But it wasn't very Satanist, it was more of a parody of stereotypical Heaven and Hell. Oh well, I don't want to talk about Adam Sandler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flirbnic Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 EMI wasn't that funny really. It's just the same few jokes repeated and stretched out. It tries too hard to be funny. MI1 and MI2 only had really clever humour, and it was only put into places where it was appropriate. They didn't base the plot around the humour. They had a more serious plot, and the humour was outside the plot. At least CMI stayed true to that, mostly. Another thing... MI1 and MI2 were more mysterious. They didn't reveal everything. You didn't know if Guybrush was a kid or not... you didn't know where Guybrush came from... You didn't know the reasons for various things happening. It allowed fans to theorize and have interesting conversations about it. CMI went and explained everything, and I wasn't very satisfied by its explanations of the story up to that point. They just seemed too cliché. I, like many other fans, just see it as another 'theory', so we still talk about the first two games like CMI and EMI didn't happen. EMI contradicted the other games. Beh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffage Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 ..... yeah....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffage Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 why is my nick in the sig starred?!?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilo Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 MI1 and 2 had humour outside the plot because while Ron wrote the story, it was the other writers (Schafer et al) who worked on the jokes. Ron would read the jokes (Which didn't really have anything to do with the story) and stick them in, and it worked. The problem with CMI was that LEC were obliged to resolve the end of MI2 so you could carry on a new story, this obviously hurts the plot. CMI's project leaders were the only ones really writing it, and both were doing the story, so there were no "dedicated" jokewriters. CMI captures the look though Then along came EMI. EMI fails IMO because it doesn't do anything new, especially in terms of writing (jokes and story). Much of the jokewriting is salvaged from the previous games, and overused so it feels "thin". The reasons MI1 and MI2 are as they are, is becuase they didn't have to build on something past, but introduced something new. In EMI I would suppose LEC felt obliged to use the same jokes and running themes etc. Such is the price of a successful franchise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapezoid Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 Originally posted by Twilo MI1 and 2 had humour outside the plot because while Ron wrote the story, it was the other writers (Schafer et al) who worked on the jokes. Ron would read the jokes (Which didn't really have anything to do with the story) and stick them in, and it worked. The problem with CMI was that LEC were obliged to resolve the end of MI2 so you could carry on a new story, this obviously hurts the plot. CMI's project leaders were the only ones really writing it, and both were doing the story, so there were no "dedicated" jokewriters. CMI captures the look though Then along came EMI. EMI fails IMO because it doesn't do anything new, especially in terms of writing (jokes and story). Much of the jokewriting is salvaged from the previous games, and overused so it feels "thin". The reasons MI1 and MI2 are as they are, is becuase they didn't have to build on something past, but introduced something new. In EMI I would suppose LEC felt obliged to use the same jokes and running themes etc. Such is the price of a successful franchise Well, I thought it was a very funny. I really can't see how the humor was "salvaged" from the previous games. CMI reused old jokes a lot more than EMI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilo Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 Well the most obvious example that comes to mind is the "That's the second biggest..." line. Any more you can find youself, I'm not in the mood to compile a list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remi Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 Originally posted by Twilo The problem with CMI was that LEC were obliged to resolve the end of MI2 so you could carry on a new story, this obviously hurts the plot. CMI's project leaders were the only ones really writing it, and both were doing the story, so there were no "dedicated" jokewriters. CMI captures the look though Actually, people like Chris Purvis (and others I can't think of right now) wrote a lot of the jokes for CMI, so if CMI's humour failed, the lack of writers wasn't the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueZTone Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 If they had sooooo much trouble (obviously they did because they started off CMI a bit ridiculous and ignorant) with continueing on the story after MI2...why didnt they do.. A Monkey Island episode that falls BETWEEN the Secret of Monkey Island and LeChuck's Revenge. You see because MI1 and 2 really don't connect to each other like its not possible to have a episode between it. Also some things changed like with Elaine becoming Booty's governor and all. So they could think up something. That way they didn't have to deal with the whole carnival of the damned thing and they wouldve left Ron's ending alone. But then again something else.. I think the ending of MI2 was not the intended ending. Somehow it doesn't fit with the rest of the game. Because its all so sudden. The game was made like; "oh guybrush is hanging there on a rope and everything but he has Big Whoop in his hand in a 'chest'" And then at the end the rope suddenly snaps and he falls. And then he's in that corridor system 'below the themepark'. But where's that whole chest he had? Where is Big Whoop? And I thought Big Whoop was something the four pirates of the map pieces had buried. Something physical. They brought it there and buried it there. And there was a chest. But when Guybrush falls the chest is gone. And suddenly the story wraps itself up quickly. A starwars take-off-my-mask joke and the story's explained. As if the creators were suddenly past a dead line and couldnt finish the game like they would like to, and chose for plan b; a quick ending. At least it seems to me that way... So; they shouldve tried to make a third mi game BETWEEN mi1 and mi2 (looking back on it now i think we can be glad they didnt because the way they ignored history facts of mi they obviously wouldve confused a lot of people playing mi1 then the third mi and then mi2) And the ending of MI2 looks like a 'quick' ending like it wasn't meant to be. That would explain the carneval looking like Booty's port. Because they didn't have much time to do a whole new scene. They had to wrap up quickly.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flirbnic Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 The chest didn't disappear... it was smashed up on the floor in the first room. There was an E ticket inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueZTone Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 there was? hmmm... /me quickly starts up mi2... brb still the ending wasnt very monkey island-ish. It happened and I only want to believe its a spell of LeChuck, cause I want to believe so hard that the whole world Guybrush adventured in was real. Not a themepark. *sniff* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueZTone Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 hmm yes a ticket with an "E" on it.... what does it mean? an Escape ticket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmatz Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 Maybe it stands for EVIL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.