Now that you mention it, it is interesting that they made that look more natural. Maybe they'll have the tunnels start out as natural caves, and as you progress further in the battle with LeChuck, they look more and more like maintenance tunnels to show Guybrush slowly getting under LeChuck's spell.
Well, these comparisons still look like maintenance tunnels to me.
Yea, it's true, but
if under the grass you will find rock, it's nothing strange, but if in a pirate island you find concrete just under the grass, it means that ALL the island (and not only Dinky Island) is just a fiction
Now that you mention it, it is interesting that they made that look more natural. Maybe they'll have the tunnels start out as natural caves, and as you progress further in the battle with LeChuck, they look more and more like maintenance tunnels to show Guybrush slowly getting under LeChuck's spell.
Ok, but wait. we don't know if that was the real intention of Ron Gilbert.
By my point of view, that was not a spell, but they were just two kids playng in an amusement park, like pirates of the caribbeans.
The Big Woop is the ticket
During the game we see traffic cones like there is an area under manteinance, the fall is controlled by an idrant... wow :eek:.
Guybrush and Chuck are playng and all the adventure is a work of their immagination.
Ok, but wait. we don't know if that was the real intention of Ron Gilbert.
By my point of view, that was not a spell, but they were just two kids playng in an amusement park, like pirates of the caribbeans.
The Big Woop is the ticket
During the game we see traffic cones like there is an area under manteinance, the fall is controlled by an idrant... wow :eek:.
Guybrush and Chuck are playng and all the adventure is a work of their immagination.
This could explain many things
Yeah, but it would mean huge disappointment to fans, and if Ron had that planned, he'd better make up a new secret to reveal.
I still dont see why people believe it was all in their imagination, am i the only one who thinks that an "it was all in their imagination" ending is a bit of a cheat and what people do when they cant think of how to end it, besides there was going to be Ron Gilberts Monkey Island 3, I dont see how he could make a new game if it was all in there imagination, I know some people here have said the game might be him trying to get back to his imaginary land but i dont think that would work. Plus I cant see why they would add things like Cuckies eyes glowing and Elaine at the end if they had no relevance.
Ok, but wait. we don't know if that was the real intention of Ron Gilbert.
By my point of view, that was not a spell, but they were just two kids playng in an amusement park, like pirates of the caribbeans.
The Big Woop is the ticket
During the game we see traffic cones like there is an area under manteinance, the fall is controlled by an idrant... wow :eek:.
Guybrush and Chuck are playng and all the adventure is a work of their immagination.
This could explain many things
Well, the effect could also be explained as Guybrush slowly snapping out of his fantasy.
I still dont see why people believe it was all in their imagination, am i the only one who thinks that an "it was all in their imagination" ending is a bit of a cheat and what people do when they cant think of how to end it, besides there was going to be Ron Gilberts Monkey Island 3, I dont see how he could make a new game if it was all in there imagination, I know some people here have said the game might be him trying to get back to his imaginary land but i dont think that would work. Plus I cant see why they would add things like Cuckies eyes glowing and Elaine at the end if they had no relevance.
I'm not saying that I have the power of reading inside Ron's mind (not yet...) but mine is just a guess, like your.
I'm saying that if they change a particular like that, changes too much. There are aspect that can be changed (Guybrush hair, boat sailing... who cares), and aspect that can't be changed .
I'm not saying that I have the power of reading inside Ron's mind (not yet...) but mine is hust a guess, like your.
i'm saying that if they change a particular like that, changes too much. There are aspect that can be changed (Guybrush hair, boat sailing... who cares), and aspect that can't be changed .
Ok, but what is wrong with just the entrance (just at the opening of the hole) having some roots and rock, after all it is under the grass, it can still be a maintenance area after that section where he drops to.
Ok, but what is wrong with just the entrance (just at the opening of the hole) having some roots and rock, after all it is under the grass, it can still be a maintenance area after that section where he drops to.
Ok, but what is wrong with just the entrance (just at the opening of the hole) having some roots and rock, after all it is under the grass, it can still be a maintenance area after that section where he drops to.
Yeah, I agree. I think it looks better, to be honest.
I personally don't think this was a retcon or an editorial decision. It was probably just someone misinterpreting the art for the scene. It's a disappointment, but not a game-breaker. Just don't think too much of it.
Still, "it was all a (day)dream" is neither original nor a usually satisfying end to a story. Actually I can't think of a single story (in any medium) that ended this way in a satisfactory manner rather than a "what the hell? So you mean nothing of that actually happened?" feeling.
I do not see what the big deal is.... It makes more sense in a story telling point of view NOT to reveal right away that he is in a concrete tunnel... let the player... find that out later.
I do not see what the big deal is.... It makes more sense in a story telling point of view NOT to reveal right away that he is in a concrete tunnel... let the player... find that out later.
But I can see the mistake, this IS the place from the end of the game, that's the joke that Guybrush tells the story of the game whilst hanging there and then we get the ending. They must have noticed this on comments like Guybrush mentioning that he's hit Cement, and the Use Rope with Steel Rods.
Still, "it was all a (day)dream" is neither original nor a usually satisfying end to a story. Actually I can't think of a single story (in any medium) that ended this way in a satisfactory manner rather than a "what the hell? So you mean nothing of that actually happened?" feeling.
Fight Club. Batman: The Animated Series episode "Perchance to Dream". Mark Twain's The Mysterious Stranger. Memento. The Matrix. Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol in Prose: Being a Ghost Story of Christmas, Brazil, The Nutcracker(original, badly done in many adaptations), The Futurama episode "The Sting" as well as the first Anthology of Interest, The Wizard of Oz, a couple episodes of The Twilight Zone, American McGee's Alice.
Played for laughs or for drama or for both, it can work.
Still, "it was all a (day)dream" is neither original nor a usually satisfying end to a story. Actually I can't think of a single story (in any medium) that ended this way in a satisfactory manner rather than a "what the hell? So you mean nothing of that actually happened?" feeling.
I think that's because "western" (arguably) audience finds endings satisfactory almost only when they are happy-ends.
Still, "it was all a (day)dream" is neither original nor a usually satisfying end to a story. Actually I can't think of a single story (in any medium) that ended this way in a satisfactory manner rather than a "what the hell? So you mean nothing of that actually happened?" feeling.
Well, here's my opinion.
If you're pissed off at the ending to a story, chances are it isn't because they used the "it was all a dream" ending, but rather because the ending didn't offer any resolve. The last part of any good story usually shows the main character in a similar situation to the one she's in at the start but having changed somehow based on the events of the story. If the "it was all a dream" ending can convey that, then it's usually okay - for example, if the character has learnt something from the dream or has had some sort of an epiphany then it will usually be satisfying.
Fight Club. Batman: The Animated Series episode "Perchance to Dream". Mark Twain's The Mysterious Stranger. Memento. The Matrix. Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol in Prose: Being a Ghost Story of Christmas, Brazil, The Nutcracker(original, badly done in many adaptations), The Futurama episode "The Sting" as well as the first Anthology of Interest, The Wizard of Oz, a couple episodes of The Twilight Zone, American McGee's Alice.
Played for laughs or for drama or for both, it can work.
Quite a bit of items in that list don't fit "It was all a dream" ending.
Hell, reality being an illusion (not a dream) is the start point for The Matrix, not the ending.
Still, "it was all a (day)dream" is neither original nor a usually satisfying end to a story. Actually I can't think of a single story (in any medium) that ended this way in a satisfactory manner rather than a "what the hell? So you mean nothing of that actually happened?" feeling.
I remember having a discussion with Rather Dashing, and ponting exactly this out. So, yes, I agree.
Also, I am not sure where he gets from that "The Matrix" has an 'It was all a dream' ending.
If you're pissed off at the ending to a story, chances are it isn't because they used the "it was all a dream" ending, but rather because the ending didn't offer any resolve. The last part of any good story usually shows the main character in a similar situation to the one she's in at the start but having changed somehow based on the events of the story. If the "it was all a dream" ending can convey that, then it's usually okay - for example, if the character has learnt something from the dream or has had some sort of an epiphany then it will usually be satisfying.
This.
For example, in the Futurama episode "The Sting" (to use one of Rather Dashing's examples) the reason that it works is because Leela has a new found respect and love for Fry. Had she simply woken up and still not given a damn about Fry then it would have been a terrible ending. What good would come from Guybrush being in a dream the entire time?
Also, these endings only work when they are self contained, i.e. one game, one episode, one movie. When you decide to end a series with that ending, it just takes the magic out of the entire series. For example, had The Dig ended with Commander Low waking up from a dream it would make complete sense and I wouldn't be too disappointed. However, if Nintendo decided to make a Zelda game that ended in Link, Zelda, and Ganon just being kids and playing in Link's back yard, and therefore ending the series, I'd be outraged. So basically, it's ok to end ONE episode, ONE movie, ONE game, ONE book. But I just think it's a terrible way to end a series.
Quite a bit of items in that list don't fit "It was all a dream" ending.
It fits with the idea of aspects of reality being at the very least questionable, and for the most part they involve the revelation at the end. Matrix is a may have been my weakest example, to be sure, but it involves the vast majority of the film being within an illusion. That we see this fairly close to the beginning doesn't change that the vast majority of the film is spent with the character just sitting in a machine somewhere.
For example, in the Futurama episode "The Sting" (to use one of Rather Dashing's examples) the reason that it works is because Leela has a new found respect and love for Fry. Had she simply woken up and still not given a damn about Fry then it would have been a terrible ending. What good would come from Guybrush being in a dream the entire time?
Also, these endings only work when they are self contained, i.e. one game, one episode, one movie. When you decide to end a series with that ending, it just takes the magic out of the entire series. For example, had The Dig ended with Commander Low waking up from a dream it would make complete sense and I wouldn't be too disappointed. However, if Nintendo decided to make a Zelda game that ended in Link, Zelda, and Ganon just being kids and playing in Link's back yard, and therefore ending the series, I'd be outraged. So basically, it's ok to end ONE episode, ONE movie, ONE game, ONE book. But I just think it's a terrible way to end a series.
As Tim Schafer said back in Adventurer issue 5:
"In Monkey Island 2, a lot of people were hoping for a different ending. Monkey 2 was kind of a self-parodying game, and that's a taste of humor that's not for everybody. It kind of makes fun of itself and all other computer games in many ways, especially in that every time you expected a payoff, it would do something that was kind of a non-payoff. The ending for Monkey 2 was considered kind of a non-payoff, but it was a joke, and some people didn't like that."
The ending is basically just a continuation of the dark irony that runs through and defines the entire game. Every time the narrative dictates a pay-off, the game does something completely different. You've defeated LeChuck, but nobody knows or cares. You've made tons of money, but you lose it on the first screen of the game. You defeat Largo, but ressurect your nemesis in doing so. You charter a ship, but it's a tiny houseboat with a sailor who can hardly navigate. You collect all four pieces of the map to Big Whoop, but the cartographer is kidnapped and your map is gone. You find Big Whoop, but you are left hanging from a rope, unable to save yourself or the treasure. When Big Whoop finally cracks open it only contains a ticket to an amusement park.
Finally, when you stand up to LeChuck and defeat him, it turns out he was just your brother trying to bring you back to your parents in an amusement park.
"In Monkey Island 2, a lot of people were hoping for a different ending. Monkey 2 was kind of a self-parodying game, and that's a taste of humor that's not for everybody. It kind of makes fun of itself and all other computer games in many ways, especially in that every time you expected a payoff, it would do something that was kind of a non-payoff. The ending for Monkey 2 was considered kind of a non-payoff, but it was a joke, and some people didn't like that."
I think you misunderstood my post. I like anti-climactic "non-endings" like the one in Monty Python and the Holy Grail; however, trying to read too much into those endings is foolish. No one tries to figure out why the police show up at the end of Holy Grail or anything like that.
Also, using this interview as evidence, the ending of Monkey 2 was clearly to mess with the player and was not meant to be some huge revelation. It was meant to leave you hanging and confuse you and make you wonder what the hell just happened until the next game came out (which it never did).
I think you misunderstood my post. I like anti-climactic "non-endings" like the one in Monty Python and the Holy Grail; however, trying to read too much into those endings is foolish. No one tries to figure out why the police show up at the end of Holy Grail or anything like that.
Also, using this interview as evidence, the ending of Monkey 2 was clearly to mess with the player and was not meant to be some huge revelation. It was meant to leave you hanging and confuse you and make you wonder what the hell just happened until the next game came out (which it never did).
I like this idea a whole crapload better than the "he was a little boy" idea. I like the idea of MI2 having nothing to do with the actual Secret of MI at all, but being standalone, like Tales.
I like this idea a whole crapload better than the "he was a little boy" idea. I like the idea of MI2 having nothing to do with the actual Secret of MI at all, but being standalone, like Tales.
Yeah, me too. In fact, I have never really understood how people got the idea that 'The Secret' was even connected to Big Whoop at all. They both have nothing to do with each other, they are both different secrets. Now I know I will probably get the 'Or are they?' from a lot of people, but I really don't see the connection.
Also, using this interview as evidence, the ending of Monkey 2 was clearly to mess with the player and was not meant to be some huge revelation.
Or maybe it is a revelation. The joke maybe is the revelation
The player passes most of the time asking himself what is the secret of monkey island, what is the big woop, and the answer is just a joke
Yeah, me too. In fact, I have never really understood how people got the idea that 'The Secret' was even connected to Big Whoop at all. They both have nothing to do with each other, they are both different secrets. Now I know I will probably get the 'Or are they?' from a lot of people, but I really don't see the connection.
Comments
Yea, it's true, but
Ok, but wait. we don't know if that was the real intention of Ron Gilbert.
The Big Woop is the ticket
During the game we see traffic cones like there is an area under manteinance, the fall is controlled by an idrant... wow :eek:.
Guybrush and Chuck are playng and all the adventure is a work of their immagination.
Yeah, but it would mean huge disappointment to fans, and if Ron had that planned, he'd better make up a new secret to reveal.
Why it would mean a disappointment?
I'm not saying that I have the power of reading inside Ron's mind (not yet...) but mine is just a guess, like your.
I'm saying that if they change a particular like that, changes too much. There are aspect that can be changed (Guybrush hair, boat sailing... who cares), and aspect that can't be changed
Ok, but what is wrong with just the entrance (just at the opening of the hole) having some roots and rock, after all it is under the grass, it can still be a maintenance area after that section where he drops to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B77J0JsC970&feature=related
go to 7.07
If Guybrush says that, there must be a reason... or not?
Yeah, I agree. I think it looks better, to be honest.
They did a similar mistake in MI1SE at the voodoo lady where a basket became a chest, despite the hotspot named "basket".
wtf does that mean? what's an "idrant?" do you mean a "hydrant?" how could guybrush's fall into the tunnels be controlled by a fire hydrant?
I'm Italian... sorry :rolleyes:
SOME fans. Others consider it a cheat to toss out details just to keep the characters completely static for 20 years.
But I can see the mistake, this IS the place from the end of the game, that's the joke that Guybrush tells the story of the game whilst hanging there and then we get the ending. They must have noticed this on comments like Guybrush mentioning that he's hit Cement, and the Use Rope with Steel Rods.
Played for laughs or for drama or for both, it can work.
I think that's because "western" (arguably) audience finds endings satisfactory almost only when they are happy-ends.
Well, here's my opinion.
If you're pissed off at the ending to a story, chances are it isn't because they used the "it was all a dream" ending, but rather because the ending didn't offer any resolve. The last part of any good story usually shows the main character in a similar situation to the one she's in at the start but having changed somehow based on the events of the story. If the "it was all a dream" ending can convey that, then it's usually okay - for example, if the character has learnt something from the dream or has had some sort of an epiphany then it will usually be satisfying.
Quite a bit of items in that list don't fit "It was all a dream" ending.
Hell, reality being an illusion (not a dream) is the start point for The Matrix, not the ending.
Also, I am not sure where he gets from that "The Matrix" has an 'It was all a dream' ending.
This.
For example, in the Futurama episode "The Sting" (to use one of Rather Dashing's examples) the reason that it works is because Leela has a new found respect and love for Fry. Had she simply woken up and still not given a damn about Fry then it would have been a terrible ending. What good would come from Guybrush being in a dream the entire time?
Also, these endings only work when they are self contained, i.e. one game, one episode, one movie. When you decide to end a series with that ending, it just takes the magic out of the entire series. For example, had The Dig ended with Commander Low waking up from a dream it would make complete sense and I wouldn't be too disappointed. However, if Nintendo decided to make a Zelda game that ended in Link, Zelda, and Ganon just being kids and playing in Link's back yard, and therefore ending the series, I'd be outraged. So basically, it's ok to end ONE episode, ONE movie, ONE game, ONE book. But I just think it's a terrible way to end a series.
As Tim Schafer said back in Adventurer issue 5:
"In Monkey Island 2, a lot of people were hoping for a different ending. Monkey 2 was kind of a self-parodying game, and that's a taste of humor that's not for everybody. It kind of makes fun of itself and all other computer games in many ways, especially in that every time you expected a payoff, it would do something that was kind of a non-payoff. The ending for Monkey 2 was considered kind of a non-payoff, but it was a joke, and some people didn't like that."
The ending is basically just a continuation of the dark irony that runs through and defines the entire game. Every time the narrative dictates a pay-off, the game does something completely different. You've defeated LeChuck, but nobody knows or cares. You've made tons of money, but you lose it on the first screen of the game. You defeat Largo, but ressurect your nemesis in doing so. You charter a ship, but it's a tiny houseboat with a sailor who can hardly navigate. You collect all four pieces of the map to Big Whoop, but the cartographer is kidnapped and your map is gone. You find Big Whoop, but you are left hanging from a rope, unable to save yourself or the treasure. When Big Whoop finally cracks open it only contains a ticket to an amusement park.
Finally, when you stand up to LeChuck and defeat him, it turns out he was just your brother trying to bring you back to your parents in an amusement park.
It's a very Monyt Python-esque form of dark humor, and the ending scene is not unlike the ending scene in Monty Mython and the Quest for the Holy Grail.
I think you misunderstood my post. I like anti-climactic "non-endings" like the one in Monty Python and the Holy Grail; however, trying to read too much into those endings is foolish. No one tries to figure out why the police show up at the end of Holy Grail or anything like that.
Also, using this interview as evidence, the ending of Monkey 2 was clearly to mess with the player and was not meant to be some huge revelation. It was meant to leave you hanging and confuse you and make you wonder what the hell just happened until the next game came out (which it never did).
No, I understood it completely. The ending of MI2 is a great example of an anticlimatic ending, where the final payoff deliberately never arrives.
I like this idea a whole crapload better than the "he was a little boy" idea. I like the idea of MI2 having nothing to do with the actual Secret of MI at all, but being standalone, like Tales.
Yeah, me too. In fact, I have never really understood how people got the idea that 'The Secret' was even connected to Big Whoop at all. They both have nothing to do with each other, they are both different secrets. Now I know I will probably get the 'Or are they?' from a lot of people, but I really don't see the connection.
Or maybe it is a revelation. The joke maybe is the revelation
The player passes most of the time asking himself what is the secret of monkey island, what is the big woop, and the answer is just a joke
Or are they?
He's the final Doctor, stranded in pirate times with no memory of it.
is LeChuck the master cos he keeps regenorating into new forms in every game