Return To Monkey Island - MI2 sequel from Ron Gilbert

[MRY]

Alan is right. We are seeing the Monkey Island they always wanted to make. The first three represent the achievement of Lucas Arts managerial control, this is what every MI game would’ve been like if Ron et al. had been free from outside influence.

 

[Rincewind]

The first three represent the achievement of Lucas Arts managerial control, this is what every MI game would’ve been like if Ron et al. had been free from outside influence.

How do we know that's the case now, btw?

 

[MRY]

The first three represent the achievement of Lucas Arts managerial control, this is what every MI game would’ve been like if Ron et al. had been free from outside influence.

How do we know that's the case now, btw?

Well, I decided a few years ago, when the Coles explained that the QFG games were full of useless cruft and that Summer Daze is the distillation of a true adventure, that the best policy is to take these developers at their word. If they say that their current project is the product of creative freedom to make the game that's in their heart, we should believe them. If they say that this is the art style that best suits Monkey Island and that MI1 and MI2 only looked the way they do because of limits imposed at the time, we should believe that, too. If they say they are retooling the UI and puzzles to be what they deem best, then we should accept that really is what they deem best. If this game is better than the original games, then that proves the managerial and technological constraints were holding back the team. If it's worse, then that proves the management and tech were holding up the team.

Incidentally, I just learned, like right this moment, that there was a three season long Maniac Mansion TV show with Eugene Levy. How did I never hear of it over all these years...?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Alan is right. We are seeing the Monkey Island they always wanted to make. The first three represent the achievement of Lucas Arts managerial control, this is what every MI game would’ve been like if Ron et al. had been free from outside influence.

yet more evidence that publishers are the only reason gamedevs were ever capable of producing anything of value
as if the kickstarter era wasn't enough proof

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

The first three represent the achievement of Lucas Arts managerial control, this is what every MI game would’ve been like if Ron et al. had been free from outside influence.

How do we know that's the case now, btw?

Well, I decided a few years ago, when the Coles explained that the QFG games were full of useless cruft and that Summer Daze is the distillation of a true adventure, that the best policy is to take these developers at their word. If they say that their current project is the product of creative freedom to make the game that's in their heart, we should believe them. If they say that this is the art style that best suits Monkey Island and that MI1 and MI2 only looked the way they do because of limits imposed at the time, we should believe that, too. If they say they are retooling the UI and puzzles to be what they deem best, then we should accept that really is what they deem best. If this game is better than the original games, then that proves the managerial and technological constraints were holding back the team. If it's worse, then that proves the management and tech were holding up the team.

Incidentally, I just learned, like right this moment, that there was a three season long Maniac Mansion TV show with Eugene Levy. How did I never hear of it over all these years...?

The difference between Ron and Dave and the Coles though is that the Coles self-funded/kickstarted whereas Ron and Dave are working with Devolver, Lucasfilm, and, several degrees removed, Disney.
Not saying you’re wrong necessarily, but it seems like a key distinction.

 

[Sordid MCA/Prosper Hybryd]

I don't like the screenshots.

Let's see what it looks in action. Sometimes a good animation makes a big difference.

Well, I decided a few years ago, when the Coles explained that the QFG games were full of useless cruft and that Summer Daze is the distillation of a true adventure, that the best policy is to take these developers at their word. If they say that their current project is the product of creative freedom to make the game that's in their heart, we should believe them. If they say that this is the art style that best suits Monkey Island and that MI1 and MI2 only looked the way they do because of limits imposed at the time, we should believe that, too. If they say they are retooling the UI and puzzles to be what they deem best, then we should accept that really is what they deem best.

I have a strong sense that this is sarcasm. But MRY is too virtuous to stoop to sarcasm. Isn't he?

 

[Viata]

It's not sarcasm.

 

[MRY]

Depending on which way I look at it, it's sarcasm or dejection. These games meant a lot to me growing up, but I was basically oblivious to the creators behind them because they tended to be modest -- not sticking their names on the box like, say, Sid Meier. When at some stage in my life I realized there were actual people behind the games, I naturally came to admire them quite a bit. But almost all of these creators, when fans or patrons give them money and free rein, seem to make games that bear only superficial resemblance to the games I loved as a kid. And, in fact, the creators themselves generally acknowledge these differences, and then say that the game they're making now -- whether it's Broken Age, Summer Daze, RMI, Queen's Wish, whatever -- is actually the butterfly that was trapped in the surly chrysalis that was the game I grew up loving.

At first, I was disbelieving, because it seemed so obvious that such-and-such game wasn't actually the sincere upwelling of artistic originality, but instead an effort to pander to the fads of the moment. But the more I read the dev diaries, interviews, etc., the more convinced I became of their sincerity. And, in any event, if "so-and-so creator says this is the real game, and all you fans are close-minded jerks" is going to be deployed against those who like the old games more than the new, then probably the best thing to do is just accept the argument and all it implies. The conditions that made the games I grew up loving were not conditions of creative freedom for these developers, but creative constraint; and the constraints made the games what they area.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Praise publishers, may they forever enslave the developer scum and force them to make better games than they are capable of making on their own.

 

[Rincewind]

I think it all makes sense, creative people can get a bit lost in the woods at times when left to their own devices. There's a lot of value in outside perspective; someone who tells the team "hey wait a minute, how are we actually going to sell this shit? is anyone going to be interested in it at all?" etc.

But like everything, it depends. Some 2-3 person dev teams were just fine when left completely alone, but I think those are the minority.

 

[Alex]

Alan is right. We are seeing the Monkey Island they always wanted to make. The first three represent the achievement of Lucas Arts managerial control, this is what every MI game would’ve been like if Ron et al. had been free from outside influence.

Sheesh dude, no need to pre-emptively put all the blame of what is coming on him...

 

[Infinitron]

Incidentally, I just learned, like right this moment, that there was a three season long Maniac Mansion TV show with Eugene Levy. How did I never hear of it over all these years...?

I remember watching a few episodes of that when I lived in the United States as a kid. One of those oddball Canadian shows that was imported to early American cable television, like You Can't Do That On Television.

 

[Maxie]

I've just seen more screenshots of the game and as much as I'd like to simply whinge at it looking like an even uglier version of MI1&2 remakes, they also don't look very interesting at all, and I'm hard pressed to imagine they'd have any good puzzles whatsoever, which was kinda sealed the deal on MI1 and MI2 - they weren't terribly story-driven and that was very nice indeed

 

[Darkozric]

And I wondered, where is this prestigious dude to offer generously his precious paragraphs of advises to the old pops? Hey MRY let the pops make their dream abomination and tell us something more interesting, when are you actually gonna make a gud adventure game?

Spoiler

Never

 

[Alex]

I've just seen more screenshots of the game and as much as I'd like to simply whinge at it looking like an even uglier version of MI1&2 remakes, they also don't look very interesting at all, and I'm hard pressed to imagine they'd have any good puzzles whatsoever, which was kinda sealed the deal on MI1 and MI2 - they weren't terribly story-driven and that was very nice indeed

I dunno, I thought the puzzles in Thinbleweed park were good, so maybe this will excel in this area as well? Then again, the graphics in Thinbleweed park were much better than this, so maybe it is just decline all around...

 

[Viata]

Incidentally, I just learned, like right this moment, that there was a three season long Maniac Mansion TV show with Eugene Levy. How did I never hear of it over all these years...?

The opening song is wholesome as fuck:

 

[El Presidente]

That visual style is just not relatable for me.

Perfect way to put it, and it's been happening to this series since MI3, which is a game I like very much but I'm simply unable to understand the need to change MI1/2's visual style. However I feel this goes beyond being relatable, it's also worse for the series' comedic value. Isn't it much, much funnier when it's a more serious/realistic style in contrast with the absurd situations and lines?. I mean, that's the foundation of british humour, which is one of the best on earth, it's not something they accidentally invented, there's decades worth of content of just that.

It shouldn't be rocket science that the first style works much better to deliver that line.

Well. Yet another case of people unable to understand what makes their creation work.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Limits boost creativity.

 

[Viata]

Limits boost creativity.

Exactly. Just look what amazing games those people were able to do on 8-bits computer/video games.

 

[Alex]

That visual style is just not relatable for me.

Perfect way to put it, and it's been happening to this series since MI3, which is a game I like very much but I'm simply unable to understand the need to change MI1/2's visual style. However I feel this goes beyond being relatable, it's also worse for the series' comedic value. Isn't it much, much funnier when it's a more serious/realistic style in contrast with the absurd situations and lines?. I mean, that's the foundation of british humour, which is one of the best on earth, it's not something they accidentally invented, there's decades worth of content of just that.

It shouldn't be rocket science that the first style works much better to deliver that line.

(snip...)

I get what you are saying, and I think I agree with it...

But I do think that line in particular might work better with the second style.

Or maybe it would work better with the second style if it was $0.99 instead...

 

[SlamDunk]

 

[Sordid MCA/Prosper Hybryd]

Depending on which way I look at it, it's sarcasm or dejection. These games meant a lot to me growing up, but I was basically oblivious to the creators behind them because they tended to be modest -- not sticking their names on the box like, say, Sid Meier. When at some stage in my life I realized there were actual people behind the games, I naturally came to admire them quite a bit. But almost all of these creators, when fans or patrons give them money and free rein, seem to make games that bear only superficial resemblance to the games I loved as a kid. And, in fact, the creators themselves generally acknowledge these differences, and then say that the game they're making now -- whether it's Broken Age, Summer Daze, RMI, Queen's Wish, whatever -- is actually the butterfly that was trapped in the surly chrysalis that was the game I grew up loving.

At first, I was disbelieving, because it seemed so obvious that such-and-such game wasn't actually the sincere upwelling of artistic originality, but instead an effort to pander to the fads of the moment. But the more I read the dev diaries, interviews, etc., the more convinced I became of their sincerity. And, in any event, if "so-and-so creator says this is the real game, and all you fans are close-minded jerks" is going to be deployed against those who like the old games more than the new, then probably the best thing to do is just accept the argument and all it implies. The conditions that made the games I grew up loving were not conditions of creative freedom for these developers, but creative constraint; and the constraints made the games what they area.

People do change. And that's the key to everything. And the funniest weirdest scariest thing is that they then retrospectively form false memories.

For example, my grandfather, in his old age, suddenly became an ardent liberal and an advocate of LGBT rights. And now he is seriously claiming that he has always been that way. Although the rest of the family remembers that he was quite a homophobe about 25 years ago. And this is confirmed by the entries in his diary at the time.

I don't think Ron or Coles are lying when they say "they ALWAYS wanted to make THIS game, but circumstances, publishers, and technical limitations have prevented them before". I think they're just mistaken because they're basing their judgments on retrospective false memories.

 

[agris]

At first, I was disbelieving, because it seemed so obvious that such-and-such game wasn't actually the sincere upwelling of artistic originality, but instead an effort to pander to the fads of the moment. But the more I read the dev diaries, interviews, etc., the more convinced I became of their sincerity. And, in any event, if "so-and-so creator says this is the real game, and all you fans are close-minded jerks" is going to be deployed against those who like the old games more than the new, then probably the best thing to do is just accept the argument and all it implies. The conditions that made the games I grew up loving were not conditions of creative freedom for these developers, but creative constraint; and the constraints made the games what they area.

I think you're quite right, and history has so-far overwhelmingly proved that creative constraints were, at a minimum, vital to the creative output that resulted in cherished classics.

Look no further than the first vanguard of the Kickstarter-era to find games made without those constraints. They certainly had constraints still, yes, but very different in nature. For the developers of RPGs that had a track-record going back to the late 90s or early 2000s, their liberated-from-publisher-constraints output was... not as good. One way to interpret this is an affirmation of the old "necessity is the mother of invention" saying. It just may be that creative and practical constraints that existed several decades ago were more beneficial to the creative output than anyone could have guessed.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

At first, I was disbelieving, because it seemed so obvious that such-and-such game wasn't actually the sincere upwelling of artistic originality, but instead an effort to pander to the fads of the moment. But the more I read the dev diaries, interviews, etc., the more convinced I became of their sincerity. And, in any event, if "so-and-so creator says this is the real game, and all you fans are close-minded jerks" is going to be deployed against those who like the old games more than the new, then probably the best thing to do is just accept the argument and all it implies. The conditions that made the games I grew up loving were not conditions of creative freedom for these developers, but creative constraint; and the constraints made the games what they area.

I think you're quite right, and history has so-far overwhelmingly proved that creative constraints were, at a minimum, vital to the creative output that resulted in cherished classics.

Look no further than the first vanguard of the Kickstarter-era to find games made without those constraints. They certainly had constraints still, yes, but very different in nature. For the developers of RPGs that had a track-record going back to the late 90s or early 2000s, their liberated-from-publisher-constraints output was... not as good. One way to interpret this is an affirmation of the old "necessity is the mother of invention" saying. It just may be that creative and practical constraints that existed several decades ago were more beneficial to the creative output than anyone could have guessed.

I think it’s also just a fact that the vast majority of creatives do their best work before the age of 40; Dostoyevskys (that is, creatives who did their best work near the end of their life) are pretty few and far between when examining western culture.

 

[MRY]

Alas, I’m on the wrong side of 40.