It probably says something about the game that I've never been able to bring myself to finish it. But at the same time, I gave it a four because a bad Monkey Island game is still better than most videogames I've ever played in my whole life.
On it's own, it was a good game. But compared to the rest of the series, it was bleh.
No way, the opposite is true imo. If EMI hadn't been a MI game, nobody would have looked twice at it.
The whole game is horrible. They got almost everything wrong. I'm not going to start listing things like puzzles, controls etc because I've already done that in another thread, but it's fair to say that all they got right was the humour. The writing was excellent.
Anyone who thinks EMI was a good game either knows jack about games or they are such a blindly devoted MI fanboy that they just refuse to see it.
Anyone who thinks EMI was a good game either knows jack about games or they are such a blindly devoted MI fanboy that they just refuse to see it.
I suppose average 83% based on 45 reviews (btw, not ALL reviews on the net, I can find a ton reviews on russian sites that have EfMI pretty high, sometimes not so high I admit, scores, so can everybody else on other languages) makes all reviewers blindly devoted MI fanboys or someone who doesn't know a thing about games? Yeah, right.
Face it, it's your case that's fanboyism (let's not forget that, for example, Star Wars fanboys HAVE to hate something of Star Wars and argue about that a lot, otherwise they're just not fanboys Same applies to everyone else ). We get it that you don't like the game. Okay. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. No need to yell shit if it's not the same as yours.
I'm a game designer (and also a translator and text writer, but that's not the main point), and though I do admit that I didn't make any commercial games yet (and that the last two projects of mine failed) why I have to take insults from you and other EfMI-haters out here that I don't know a shit for, well, LIKING EfMI (and overall enjoyingly replaying it before ToMI's release)? I pefectly see it's pros and cons, doesn't mean I can't like it, because objectively it's not as bad as many MI fans make it to be. Some of you guys have just to chill out. We get the point, we know your opinion, just stop yelling, that doesn't make you justice.
I suppose average 83% based on 45 reviews (btw, not ALL reviews on the net, I can find a ton reviews on russian sites that have EfMI pretty high, sometimes not so high I admit, scores, so can everybody else on other languages) makes all reviewers blindly devoted MI fanboys or someone who doesn't know a thing about games? Yeah, right.
Reviews mean nothing. Look at all the 10's GTA IV got. In fact, the site you linked claims it to be the second best game ever made, justified by far more than 45 reviews. And that's the PS3 version lol.
Face it, it's your case that's fanboyism (let's not forget that, for example, Star Wars fanboys HAVE to hate something of Star Wars and argue about that a lot, otherwise they're just not fanboys
I think it's safe to say we are all MI fanboys here. I am & a Star Wars one too as it happens. I'm not a blindly devoted one though & even as a fan, even I can tell the newer Star Wars films & EMI were shit.
You are an up & coming games developer, your last two projects failed, you thought EMI was a good game. I'll leave you with that to think over.
It was an ok game. Funny, excellent soundtrack, some very nice puzzles, and I didn't mind the story too much. What drags it down for me is the overwhelming amount of dialogue with too many unimportant characters (how many shopkeepers are there in this game?) which is often neither hilarious nor otherwise interesting (an area where Tales excels at). But worse than that, it's easily the most ugly part of the series. I don't mind the technology so much, but the art style is just horrible for me. Characters are ok (though Murray is super-weird), but the backgrounds... ugh. Lucre town looks like it's inhabited by smurfs, and Jambalaya is just so... bland. Zero athmosphere points. The outdated technology doesn't excuse it either, there were lots of games back then with really pretty prerendered backgrounds.
Reviews mean nothing. Look at all the 10's GTA IV got. In fact, the site you linked claims it to be the second best game ever made, justified by far more than 45 reviews. And that's the PS3 version lol.
I'm not a fan of the GTA series, and don't really like it. Never checked GTAIV though, but I do realize that the series is immensely popular, and that the games are of quality. I still don't like them.
You are an up & coming games developer, your last two projects failed, you thought EMI was a good game. I'll leave you with that to think over.
Uh-huh. I also like Planescape: Torment, TIE Fighter, Mafia, and do not like StarCraft, Fallout, and I could go on. Doesn't change the fact that all these are good games.
You do understand that "failing" doesn't always means "bad reception"? The fact is, not all projects based on pure enthusiasm get to the finish, because there's such thing as real life problems. People don't have to put enthusiastic hobby infront of the rest.
But, that doesn't change the fact that you ARE biased, and still can't face the fact that others' opinion is not the wrong one. It's just an other one. And I'm not going to argument about this any further, because there is no point in that.
PS. I could write a detailed examination of EfMI4 and why it's not a bad game (because it's a MI-fan hatred thing only, really; I talked with enough people concerning that to say this), but as long as people I would write it for will not simply change their attitude (I'm not thinking about changing their opinion), I don't see any point in that. And people who liked EfMI really don't need to read anything about why it's not a bad game, because they liked it.
PSS. By the way, I don't know your opinion about ToMI, but I did meet people who hate it and think of as the worst possible continuation of the series, though I don't agree with them about this also. So? They can have their opinion as long as they want.
PSSS. And since I said I will not continue arguing, a period is in order. Period.
People who think its a bad game on its own haven't learned the meaning of a bad game this goes for graphics, sound, game play, story and all contributing factors. Their have been far far far worse games that exceed meaning of crap games and I've played some of them.
You guys haven't played enough games if you think EMI is a horrible game based on its own merits, I'd say based on a lot of its own merits it strives away from a Monkey Island game but as previously mentioned it's still worth playing because in moderation it is a Monkey Island game and reminds us of all the good things about the game and says fare well to all of the pure-monkey things about the game. The game does have some purity and it was nice to go full circle with it regardless that the game was so ambitious and enthusiastic and took it in new directions away from cannon.
Wha?! I've never known a Planescape fan to not also love Fallout 2. That's just weird.
I don't find this THAT surprising. Different settings (though both are quite dark, I find planescape's dark fantasy setting more appealing than Fallout's modern post-apocalyptic setting), different roleplay systems, different stories (I love the deepness in Planescape story, which Fallout series doesn't really have - it's really generic, though you do have a lot of freedom), different dialouge styles, and, well, they're pretty much different games. The music is similiar, though. The same composer, figures.
People who think its a bad game on its own haven't learned the meaning of a bad game this goes for graphics, sound, game play, story and all contributing factors. Their have been far far far worse games that exceed meaning of crap games and I've played some of them.
You guys haven't played enough games if you think EMI is a horrible game based on its own merits, I'd say based on a lot of its own merits it strives away from a Monkey Island game but as previously mentioned it's still worth playing because in moderation it is a Monkey Island game and reminds us of all the good things about the game and says fare well to all of the pure-monkey things about the game. The game does have some purity and it was nice to go full circle with it regardless that the game was so ambitious and enthusiastic and took it in new directions away from cannon.
????????????????????????????????
So you consider a game good if there are worse games on the market???
what kind of logic is that???
A product is always based on it's own values, not on those of others.
So you consider a game good if there are worse games on the market???
what kind of logic is that???
A product is always based on it's own values, not on those of others.
I think you need some frame of reference to judge something else. It's still a good game in my opinion, most people probably judge it to other monkey island games but to be fair if you are to judge it to all other games, as a basis for some sort of quality then their are much much worse games out there. "video game" looses encompasses ALOT.
It is of course personal opinion that I don't think this game is that bad when viewed off on it's lonesome self, it's impossible for human beings to comprehend something without a frame of reference, our brains can't do that. Most people probably relate it to other Monkey Island games.:) Though when considered as a game it's not the worse one out there. I never said I loved it.
it's impossible for human beings to comprehend something without a frame of reference, our brains can't do that. Most people probably relate it to other Monkey Island games.:)
did you see the movie "the Island"... I used no reference and still I found the movie great... why.... I.M.O. it has a great story and is told in a vivid way....
my brain didn't melt or shut-down when I watched it and I'm still here...
so yes a brain can comprehend something without reference.... it's called an objective opinion... the abilty to look at a product or entity without being influenced by previous external influences.
same goes for learning... we do it every day starting from birth and yet with absolutly no frame of reference.
same goes for learning... we do it every day starting from birth and yet with absolutly no frame of reference.
Uhm... actually, we use parents and other people as reference. After getting older - textbooks and just books, and after that - scientific works and encyclopedias and whatnot. That's concerning learning. We use a lot of references, instictively. Heck, human mind (and not only human) is BASED on using references, and the only way not to - is to kick out a new-born child in some forest (with absolutely no wild life to learn from, by the way). Then he'll grow up without using any references, yeah. And also will be fully incapable of living in a human society.
Well, I don't want to be a pretentious know it all, seems I'm already appearing to try to justify myself if I go on. Though I must say your wit is sharp, I don't doubt your intelligence.
The Island was a great movie but it's not outside of all frames of reference. I'm not going to argue the usage of words though. What I objectify as the meaning of certain words I use is perhaps not the same meaning you receive yourself. Norr may we use words the same or comprehend words to the same ideas.
By frame of reference I meant something that you simply relate one idea or philosophy, object to another. That is possible in most things and impossible to do without, the mind is learning constantly but only because it's been taught how to learn from other experiences. Learning is actually a methodology of sorts. Mental exercises are not born out of the abstract but rather the expected, how you perceive things, know how to perceive things and how you choose to perceive things.You're you and it's been a whole life time of you, I could read the same sentences as you and they could be factual and we could both perceive them differently.
Rarely if EVER is what you see simply what you get, there's usually some sort of appeal or subtext in mind, writers can't mindlessly write hoping to relate to you in some obscure way. Creativity yes but creativity is on a basic psychological level that is programmed to most humans, appeals to most humans. Whether you have a bias for it or against it you have some sort of frame of reference to feel that way, it's why you can love or hate a painting because you've learned to be comprehensive to certain details and perceive certain details in the way that's most functional and acceptable to you.
The Island can be related to several other movies.
Now, these are just words, you could read them entirely differently than me because their not your words, words don't typically belong to anyone, rather a freedom of expression but words can not always be used to express the same ideas and concepts as they will be perceived by others.
We use words in a way that's functional and expected and comprehensible to us, same with our ideas, it's about function-ability. If you hate me for all these words on the screen and the struggle to find meaning in all if then you're not a lone I'm not crazy about this part of me either.
Uhm... actually, we use parents and other people as reference. After getting older - textbooks and just books, and after that - scientific works and encyclopedias and whatnot. That's concerning learning. We use a lot of references, instictively. Heck, human mind (and not only human) is BASED on using references, and the only way not to - is to kick out a new-born child in some forest (with absolutely no wild life to learn from, by the way). Then he'll grow up without using any references, yeah. And also will be fully incapable of living in a human society.
indeed... but still grow up and be autodidactic about things... when you know nothing and you learn your first infant lessons, you create your own references.... to have a reference you first need to learn about something to refer to.
without learning there can be no reference and vice versa...
but we're getting way to philosophic an even more off topic... :D
The Island was a great movie but it's not outside of all frames of reference. I'm not going to argue the usage of words though. What I objectify as the meaning of certain words I use is perhaps not the same meaning you receive yourself. Norr may we use words the same or comprehend words to the same ideas.
I was only using "the island" as a reference...LOL
to have a reference you first need to learn about something to refer to.
I personally think it's the other way round. Need something to refer to - learn - create your own opinion (not necessarily, not all people do that) mostly based on something you already know (in a way, people either are getting closer to their idea of reference, or father) - and at some point small childred will need to refer to you to learn to create opinion, etc. etc. etc. etc.
But, hey, that's not math with strict formulas, is it? (and even mathematic formulas have a tendency to be disclaimed) All of it is vague, actually. Not as vague as the reason of appearing of something out of nowhere, but still vague.
And yeah, now that you mention it, we do get off-topic.
I first played monkey island ( secret of and le chucks revenge) on my sons amiga.
Several years later I played efmi on his playstation(having missed out on comi as didn't have pc at the time)
My initial reaction was to be horrified at the 3d graphics and the horrible controls.
I quickly got used to the controls though and went on to thoroughly enjoy the game.
I recently downloaded a demo on the pc though and found the controls virtually unmanageable.
After having true point and click easy controls on a pc(or amiga) it takes some adjusting to accept any inferior way of control.
Thats just this old timers opinion anyway.
I quite like the tomi controls though(eventually after I got them under control ha!)
I enjoyed it a lot, and I still don't get why people complain so much about it. The game had an excellent soundtrack (best in the series in my opinion), and it was an adventure game produced by an experienced adventure gaming company.
What I do remember is that it felt like something that was being done by people other than those who did the previous games and they didn't quite get it.
This is exactly how I feel about EfMI.
More than this, though, I've always suspected that the team made the game because their bosses demanded a sequel rather than because they had any interest in or enthusiasm for making a Monkey Island game.
I thought it was bad, mostly because 3d was so plastic back in the days. The puzzles were nice tho, but the plot was not so. And for reference: I rate MI 1 as 4, MI 2 as 5, MI 3 as 4 and ToMI as 4.
I think it's a great game, apart from the odd little graphical glitch at the very start of the game (the cake box thing already being there before it's put there for those who don't know) - which was more of a mild irratation than anything else.
And the game's enjoyment factor dropped when we hit the shores of Monkey Island. But to be perfectly honest, that was my least favourite part of SMI.
Overall, I really, really liked EMI. A lot. They did a great job!
I never used to mind Escape from Monkey Island, and have always been rather fond of the whole "tourists threaten the Caribbean" idea (Planet Threepwood!). I liked walking around Jambalaya and Knuttin, and thought the Pegnose Pete/Guybrush gets arrested subplot was solid.
But replaying it recently, I haven't even been able to get off Melee. It is just so unbelievably, painstakingly dull. It looks awful, the backgrounds are lifeless, the writing is bland and unmemorable, and it does absolutely NOTHING to suck you in. I simply can't understand how Melee, one of my favourite islands, could have become so bland. The worst thing is how completely and utterly un-piratey the whole game is.
Let's just compare the openings of the five games:
The Secret of Monkey Island draws the player in immediately with the to-the-point "I wanna be a pirate!" line, and then takes us to the Scumm Bar, with its pirates swinging around and spinning you legends about ghost pirates and governers. Exploring further reveals a sherrif with a grudge threatening you in a back alley, a town full of swindlers and Voodoo Ladies, a dense forest, a troll bridge, an unreachable island, all of which Guybrush needs to visit in his quest to become a pirate. I defy anyone to say this isn't a good opening.
LeChuck's Revenge introduces us to a world that has grown more cynical and tired of Guybrush's tales, has an intimidating figure steal all of his money and leaves him to walk around a town made of old ships and filled with ex-pirates who live in fear of this man with ties to LeChuck, giving Guybrush an immediate quest to topple this man by getting as close to him as possible. This town is surrounded by eerie graveyards, jetties and swamps.
The Curse of Monkey Island drops us right into the middle of the action, plunging Guybrush into a sea battle and giving him the task to escape his archnemesis's hold. After this, we are given Plunder Island, which is inhabited by some of the series's most memorable characters, all retired pirates who yearn for the old way of life, including a barbershop "quartet" who Guybrush has to win to his side. The island has legends of a demonic creature who seeks revenge, and is covered with jungles full of perilous traps and coves full of smugglers.
Tales of Monkey Island gives us an epic sea battle, with a swinging camera and brilliant dialogue, bringing the old Monkey Island spirit back, before dishing out a brilliant plot twist and throwing Guybrush onto an island inhabited by an insane scientist and a population of pirates frustrated by their inability to leave. Admittedly Flotsam isn't nearly as strong as Melee, Scabb or Plunder, but it's certainly better than...
Escape from Monkey Island, which starts with a dull sea-battle against some nobodies, before bringing us to a now boring Melee Island (minus forests, minus pirates, minus troll bridges) and tasking Guybrush with... doing errands for his wife! Where is the excitement? Where is the drama? Where is the island just BEGGING to be explored?
Lucre Island has a similar problem, from what I can remember of it: it's just a town of shopkeepers and little else. This is why Jambalaya is, unlike most people, my favourite part of the game: it knows it's supposed to be a send-up of tourist resorts, and so is actually in its element for once (and there's always the looming Knuttin Atoll crying out to be rowed to).
That's the thing. I can forgive the stupidity of the later parts of the story, and even the ugly graphics. But a lot of Escape is just so damn boring.
I posted this in another thread, but I've just had a thought of what Escape should have been like:
I'm no fan of Escape, but I actually loved the middle section of the game set on Jambalaya Island and Knuttin Atoll. For most of the game it tried to be a satire on tourism and commercialism but because they half-arsed it it just came off as an unpiratey pirate game.
On Jambalaya, however, the team was able to go all out and actually make what the rest of the game should have been like. It knew it was supposed to be a satire, and so they actually went to town on it. Few moments in the series are as funny as the initial arrival, expecting to find a piratey town but instead being greeted with Planet Threepwood and Starbuccaneers. There's just this wonderfully phoney, superficial atmosphere, with tourists wandering around little knowing that only a few miles away is an island patrolled by a fascist admiral, where pirates are forced to take lessons in how not to be a pirate and aren't even allowed to talk in groups of more than two for fear of being blown up.
If only the rest of the game was this good, instead of opting for dulled-up rehashes of previous environments, running errands for the missus, stupid plot twists and robots. I can just imagine a game where, say, Guybrush washes up on Jambalaya, explores it and realises how commercialised it is, all the while hearing about how a mysterious Ozzie Mandrill "reformed" it. Then, halfway through, he'd find a boat and sail to the mysterious Knuttin Atoll on a quest (which would be a full island), only to find (OMG PLOT TWIST) that this is where the pirates had actually been sent to. They could have fleshed out Knuttin into a really awesome place rather than a few already awesome screens.
That's what I find so frustrating about Escape: the concept at the heart of it is so good, but they go down all the wrong paths. Come to think of it, what exactly was the point of the Melee/Lucre section at the beggining and the hours spent on Monkey Island doing nothing towards the end? Jambalaya was the only section where it actually felt like its own game rather than a pointless sequel, and what a game it was.
Comments
No way, the opposite is true imo. If EMI hadn't been a MI game, nobody would have looked twice at it.
The whole game is horrible. They got almost everything wrong. I'm not going to start listing things like puzzles, controls etc because I've already done that in another thread, but it's fair to say that all they got right was the humour. The writing was excellent.
Anyone who thinks EMI was a good game either knows jack about games or they are such a blindly devoted MI fanboy that they just refuse to see it.
Terrible game!
Some of the puzzles were ok, but I admit the sands of time one was stupid.
I mostly judge MI by it's humour, and EMI was pretty funny. That was enough to put it past most games for me, but yeah, a lot of it was crap.
Still, it was better than a lot of other adventure games I've played. It was way better than the cruddy Broken Sword series. Urgh.
I suppose average 83% based on 45 reviews (btw, not ALL reviews on the net, I can find a ton reviews on russian sites that have EfMI pretty high, sometimes not so high I admit, scores, so can everybody else on other languages) makes all reviewers blindly devoted MI fanboys or someone who doesn't know a thing about games? Yeah, right.
Face it, it's your case that's fanboyism (let's not forget that, for example, Star Wars fanboys HAVE to hate something of Star Wars and argue about that a lot, otherwise they're just not fanboys
I'm a game designer (and also a translator and text writer, but that's not the main point), and though I do admit that I didn't make any commercial games yet (and that the last two projects of mine failed) why I have to take insults from you and other EfMI-haters out here that I don't know a shit for, well, LIKING EfMI (and overall enjoyingly replaying it before ToMI's release)? I pefectly see it's pros and cons, doesn't mean I can't like it, because objectively it's not as bad as many MI fans make it to be. Some of you guys have just to chill out. We get the point, we know your opinion, just stop yelling, that doesn't make you justice.
Reviews mean nothing. Look at all the 10's GTA IV got. In fact, the site you linked claims it to be the second best game ever made, justified by far more than 45 reviews. And that's the PS3 version lol.
I think it's safe to say we are all MI fanboys here. I am & a Star Wars one too as it happens. I'm not a blindly devoted one though & even as a fan, even I can tell the newer Star Wars films & EMI were shit.
You are an up & coming games developer, your last two projects failed, you thought EMI was a good game. I'll leave you with that to think over.
I'm not a fan of the GTA series, and don't really like it. Never checked GTAIV though, but I do realize that the series is immensely popular, and that the games are of quality. I still don't like them.
Uh-huh. I also like Planescape: Torment, TIE Fighter, Mafia, and do not like StarCraft, Fallout, and I could go on. Doesn't change the fact that all these are good games.
You do understand that "failing" doesn't always means "bad reception"? The fact is, not all projects based on pure enthusiasm get to the finish, because there's such thing as real life problems. People don't have to put enthusiastic hobby infront of the rest.
But, that doesn't change the fact that you ARE biased, and still can't face the fact that others' opinion is not the wrong one. It's just an other one. And I'm not going to argument about this any further, because there is no point in that.
PS. I could write a detailed examination of EfMI4 and why it's not a bad game (because it's a MI-fan hatred thing only, really; I talked with enough people concerning that to say this), but as long as people I would write it for will not simply change their attitude (I'm not thinking about changing their opinion), I don't see any point in that. And people who liked EfMI really don't need to read anything about why it's not a bad game, because they liked it.
PSS. By the way, I don't know your opinion about ToMI, but I did meet people who hate it and think of as the worst possible continuation of the series, though I don't agree with them about this also. So? They can have their opinion as long as they want.
PSSS. And since I said I will not continue arguing, a period is in order. Period.
You guys haven't played enough games if you think EMI is a horrible game based on its own merits, I'd say based on a lot of its own merits it strives away from a Monkey Island game but as previously mentioned it's still worth playing because in moderation it is a Monkey Island game and reminds us of all the good things about the game and says fare well to all of the pure-monkey things about the game. The game does have some purity and it was nice to go full circle with it regardless that the game was so ambitious and enthusiastic and took it in new directions away from cannon.
I don't find this THAT surprising. Different settings (though both are quite dark, I find planescape's dark fantasy setting more appealing than Fallout's modern post-apocalyptic setting), different roleplay systems, different stories (I love the deepness in Planescape story, which Fallout series doesn't really have - it's really generic, though you do have a lot of freedom), different dialouge styles, and, well, they're pretty much different games. The music is similiar, though. The same composer, figures.
????????????????????????????????
So you consider a game good if there are worse games on the market???
what kind of logic is that???
A product is always based on it's own values, not on those of others.
I think you need some frame of reference to judge something else. It's still a good game in my opinion, most people probably judge it to other monkey island games but to be fair if you are to judge it to all other games, as a basis for some sort of quality then their are much much worse games out there. "video game" looses encompasses ALOT.
It is of course personal opinion that I don't think this game is that bad when viewed off on it's lonesome self, it's impossible for human beings to comprehend something without a frame of reference, our brains can't do that. Most people probably relate it to other Monkey Island games.:) Though when considered as a game it's not the worse one out there. I never said I loved it.
did you see the movie "the Island"... I used no reference and still I found the movie great... why.... I.M.O. it has a great story and is told in a vivid way....
my brain didn't melt or shut-down when I watched it and I'm still here...
so yes a brain can comprehend something without reference.... it's called an objective opinion... the abilty to look at a product or entity without being influenced by previous external influences.
same goes for learning... we do it every day starting from birth and yet with absolutly no frame of reference.
Uhm... actually, we use parents and other people as reference. After getting older - textbooks and just books, and after that - scientific works and encyclopedias and whatnot. That's concerning learning. We use a lot of references, instictively. Heck, human mind (and not only human) is BASED on using references, and the only way not to - is to kick out a new-born child in some forest (with absolutely no wild life to learn from, by the way). Then he'll grow up without using any references, yeah. And also will be fully incapable of living in a human society.
The Island was a great movie but it's not outside of all frames of reference. I'm not going to argue the usage of words though. What I objectify as the meaning of certain words I use is perhaps not the same meaning you receive yourself. Norr may we use words the same or comprehend words to the same ideas.
By frame of reference I meant something that you simply relate one idea or philosophy, object to another. That is possible in most things and impossible to do without, the mind is learning constantly but only because it's been taught how to learn from other experiences. Learning is actually a methodology of sorts. Mental exercises are not born out of the abstract but rather the expected, how you perceive things, know how to perceive things and how you choose to perceive things.You're you and it's been a whole life time of you, I could read the same sentences as you and they could be factual and we could both perceive them differently.
Rarely if EVER is what you see simply what you get, there's usually some sort of appeal or subtext in mind, writers can't mindlessly write hoping to relate to you in some obscure way. Creativity yes but creativity is on a basic psychological level that is programmed to most humans, appeals to most humans. Whether you have a bias for it or against it you have some sort of frame of reference to feel that way, it's why you can love or hate a painting because you've learned to be comprehensive to certain details and perceive certain details in the way that's most functional and acceptable to you.
The Island can be related to several other movies.
Now, these are just words, you could read them entirely differently than me because their not your words, words don't typically belong to anyone, rather a freedom of expression but words can not always be used to express the same ideas and concepts as they will be perceived by others.
We use words in a way that's functional and expected and comprehensible to us, same with our ideas, it's about function-ability. If you hate me for all these words on the screen and the struggle to find meaning in all if then you're not a lone I'm not crazy about this part of me either.
without learning there can be no reference and vice versa...
but we're getting way to philosophic an even more off topic...
I was only using "the island" as a reference...LOL
I personally think it's the other way round. Need something to refer to - learn - create your own opinion (not necessarily, not all people do that) mostly based on something you already know (in a way, people either are getting closer to their idea of reference, or father) - and at some point small childred will need to refer to you to learn to create opinion, etc. etc. etc. etc.
But, hey, that's not math with strict formulas, is it? (and even mathematic formulas have a tendency to be disclaimed) All of it is vague, actually. Not as vague as the reason of appearing of something out of nowhere, but still vague.
And yeah, now that you mention it, we do get off-topic.
Several years later I played efmi on his playstation(having missed out on comi as didn't have pc at the time)
My initial reaction was to be horrified at the 3d graphics and the horrible controls.
I quickly got used to the controls though and went on to thoroughly enjoy the game.
I recently downloaded a demo on the pc though and found the controls virtually unmanageable.
After having true point and click easy controls on a pc(or amiga) it takes some adjusting to accept any inferior way of control.
Thats just this old timers opinion anyway.
I quite like the tomi controls though(eventually after I got them under control ha!)
MI 4 was a rush job, cant you tell lol.:cool:
5 stars.
This is exactly how I feel about EfMI.
More than this, though, I've always suspected that the team made the game because their bosses demanded a sequel rather than because they had any interest in or enthusiasm for making a Monkey Island game.
And the game's enjoyment factor dropped when we hit the shores of Monkey Island. But to be perfectly honest, that was my least favourite part of SMI.
Overall, I really, really liked EMI. A lot. They did a great job!
Worst of the series but by no means a bad game. A very good game - extremely good. But not a very good Monkey Island game.
But replaying it recently, I haven't even been able to get off Melee. It is just so unbelievably, painstakingly dull. It looks awful, the backgrounds are lifeless, the writing is bland and unmemorable, and it does absolutely NOTHING to suck you in. I simply can't understand how Melee, one of my favourite islands, could have become so bland. The worst thing is how completely and utterly un-piratey the whole game is.
Let's just compare the openings of the five games:
The Secret of Monkey Island draws the player in immediately with the to-the-point "I wanna be a pirate!" line, and then takes us to the Scumm Bar, with its pirates swinging around and spinning you legends about ghost pirates and governers. Exploring further reveals a sherrif with a grudge threatening you in a back alley, a town full of swindlers and Voodoo Ladies, a dense forest, a troll bridge, an unreachable island, all of which Guybrush needs to visit in his quest to become a pirate. I defy anyone to say this isn't a good opening.
LeChuck's Revenge introduces us to a world that has grown more cynical and tired of Guybrush's tales, has an intimidating figure steal all of his money and leaves him to walk around a town made of old ships and filled with ex-pirates who live in fear of this man with ties to LeChuck, giving Guybrush an immediate quest to topple this man by getting as close to him as possible. This town is surrounded by eerie graveyards, jetties and swamps.
The Curse of Monkey Island drops us right into the middle of the action, plunging Guybrush into a sea battle and giving him the task to escape his archnemesis's hold. After this, we are given Plunder Island, which is inhabited by some of the series's most memorable characters, all retired pirates who yearn for the old way of life, including a barbershop "quartet" who Guybrush has to win to his side. The island has legends of a demonic creature who seeks revenge, and is covered with jungles full of perilous traps and coves full of smugglers.
Tales of Monkey Island gives us an epic sea battle, with a swinging camera and brilliant dialogue, bringing the old Monkey Island spirit back, before dishing out a brilliant plot twist and throwing Guybrush onto an island inhabited by an insane scientist and a population of pirates frustrated by their inability to leave. Admittedly Flotsam isn't nearly as strong as Melee, Scabb or Plunder, but it's certainly better than...
Escape from Monkey Island, which starts with a dull sea-battle against some nobodies, before bringing us to a now boring Melee Island (minus forests, minus pirates, minus troll bridges) and tasking Guybrush with... doing errands for his wife! Where is the excitement? Where is the drama? Where is the island just BEGGING to be explored?
Lucre Island has a similar problem, from what I can remember of it: it's just a town of shopkeepers and little else. This is why Jambalaya is, unlike most people, my favourite part of the game: it knows it's supposed to be a send-up of tourist resorts, and so is actually in its element for once (and there's always the looming Knuttin Atoll crying out to be rowed to).
That's the thing. I can forgive the stupidity of the later parts of the story, and even the ugly graphics. But a lot of Escape is just so damn boring.
I never thought it was that bad either.
101 surely? 3 stars is the middle option, there's no 0 stars.
That part is so much fun to kill Guybrush though. A hard part of the game is navigating through that swamp.