WARNING: I'm answering to Rather Dashing's spoilerish post. I will rename some of the things he named in this post, so if you've managed to miss them the first time around, I suggest you skip my post as well.
Not a dream, everything did happen. The other characters
except for one I guess could be argued
did exist, do things, share things etc. A dream ending means that nothing happened, nothing any of the characters did happened, and only the character who dreamed it might, perhaps, remember it, and that's not even sure.
Also, the end of Fight Club
isn't "I wake up, it was all a dream", but "there is part of me that is doing horrible things without my realising it, I have to kill myself so I kill both me and the bad me". Sure, in the movie he survives the shot and only kills the bad part of himself for some reason, but still, it was someone whose actions had an influence on everyone else, and therefore not a dream.
That's NOT the end. That's the beginning. It doesn't negates everything that happened and that we cared for, saying "oh, none of that actually happened, by the way". It negates things that we haven't seen happen and that as a result we don't care about.
Plus people can interact with each other in there. Which you can't do in dreams (that is, when you wake up, you're not going to both remember the interaction, since it was only in one person's mind).
Only the movie, because they thought "people won't take this movie seriously if we don't say it was a dream in the end". For the record, I did dislike this movie immensely.
I hated that movie as much as one can hate a movie. Although to be fair I didn't actually remember the end, I hated the whole thing, so it's not like I hated it because of the end.
Haven't seen/read/experienced the rest of the stuff you named. But I have to point out, if I say I have never liked a story that ends with "it was all a dream!", I fail to see how you can prove me wrong. I'm talking about my tastes. Maybe you like that kind of end, good for you. I only see it like a cheap trick. I remember an episode of Corner Gas that was like that, I'm still disappointed they didn't go with the "dream" as what actually happened. Not only did that ruin the episode for me, but I didn't enjoy any episode that came after that.
The weird thing is, it's my favourite episode if you remove the "nothing actually happened" part.
What I don't get is that you're the one who said you didn't like how in a certain show they decided a whole season was just a dream. So you must understand what I mean about it just being a cheap trick.
For the record, I also dislike other endings that negate everything that happens. Such as "I go back in time before any of it happened" for instance. I always wonder what's the point of showing us part of some people's life only at the end to take it away saying "oh, by the way, it doesn't actually happen, we were just kidding".
Brazil wasn't a dream. It's just a crazy symbolic ride through nonsense. Who's to say the final scene was reality? It reminds me a lot of Monkey Island 2 actually.
Actually, I'm thinking I should have been more specific.
My problem with dreams is that they only affect one person, and for the rest it's like nothing actually happens. I guess if the dream is strong enough to change the person who had them they might have an interest plot-wise, but still I'd rather know it's a dream from the start.
It feels too much like "I had an idea of a story but I don't want any of the consequences so I'm going to write the story as a dream".
When something isn't real but still affects everyone involved, then that's a bit different. If GB is a kid but every single character appearing in the games actually exists and actually interacted with GB and remembers it - either as a crew member from the park or another kid playing along - then that would be better.
Although I would still want a detailled explanation. It would still feel cheap if at any time when replaying the first two games something wasn't explained. For instance, all the crass jokes. Isn't he supposed to be a kid?
And if he's dealing with crew members, why aren't they treating him as a kid? I mean, I guess Stan does, but that's about it.
And what about the gap between the first and the second game? Did he go back to the park a year later and meet everyone again? But then why the hell would Stan be selling coffins?
I can see Secret being all a make-believe game between a bunch of kids (possibly from the orphanage on a "school" trip or something) but MI2 is much harder to believe. There are so many things that I don't see a kid doing, or saying.
Going back to the coffins, either Stan is an adult who works in the park, and then why the hell is he selling freaking coffins? I mean I can see him in the first game managing a boat thing for kids, but coffins?
And if he's a kid, then his sales pitches make more sense: he's imitating adults he's seen. I mean a crew member wouldn't be that enthusiastic about an attraction. But then coffins? That's... weird.
And does that mean GB-kid locked him in the box or whatever they were pretending was a coffin? That's dangerous.
But of course there is much, much more that's unexplained. And I'm not satisfied with a "solution" that just raises more questions. It just feels like "I'm trying to sound all nice or mysterious, but actually I just haven't thought about it at all".
If GB was a kid, there is no reason why knowing that would be terrible. The same kid could go on other adventures, not always as a pirate, with his friends, etc. But I just have trouble thinking about a way that would make sense and not a "I slap this explanation to sound like I've been planning it all along but nothing fits together" kind of thing.
I still firmly believe that if Ron had actually planned on going anywhere with MI that he wouldn't have quit the company before he had a chance to finish this mystical supposed third game of his.
I tend to agree.
It stands to reason that he enjoys being consulted by the game developers and media for ideas on what MI3 might have involved, or the acclaim that emanates from the Gilbert fanboys/girls... It's quite possible that he never considered what MI3 would be about when he finished MI2 (if he even considered making it at all,) or if he did consider it, then it was likely to not have been anything more than a rough idea or two about what might happen.
Think about it. If Ron ever said that he never considered making an MI3, no one would ever ask him what he might have done with the series. Even if he did have an idea or two about what might happen, it's reasonable to assume that he possibly (and IMO probably) came up with a lot of ideas for his version of MI3 quite recently as interest in continuing the series was rekindled by TTG... which would mean that as he was writing the end of MI2, he hadn't planned on where he'd go with it very much or at all.
Some people almost make it sound as though he had completely planned out the whole MI3, including who was involved and what exactly was going to happen. That would almost elevate his celebrity to being the George Lucas of the gaming world... and one reason why Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are better movies than A New Hope is because George Lucas did notdirect them. Also, my parents have novels of the original Star Wars trilogy that were written back in the day, and in those novels, Obi-Wan and Owen Lars were brothers. In the prequels, they weren't, which means Lucas changed his mind. What does that say about Ron Gilbert and MI3?
"there is part of me that is doing horrible things without my realising it, I have to kill myself so I kill both me and the bad me". Sure, in the movie he survives the shot and only kills the bad part of himself for some reason
The way I saw it,
he wasn't trying to kill himself. The "other him" had been hurting him again and again and, while in fact he was hurting himself all these times, in his mind it was another person doing it. So in the end he hurt himself for "real" and so the "other him" "died" because he was unneeded.
he wasn't trying to kill himself. The "other him" had been hurting him again and again and, while in fact he was hurting himself all these times, in his mind it was another person doing it. So in the end he hurt himself for "real" and so the "other him" "died" because he was unneeded.
Interesting.
Well, the way I saw it, he was trying to stop T from doing more harm, since he had been harming people all that time. But since T was part of him, to kill him he needed to kill himself. Your interpretation does make sense with the movie, that he finally managed to express his... masochism? instead of repressing it so his split personality went away, or something.
Well, the way I saw it, he was trying to stop T from doing more harm, since he had been harming people all that time. But since T was part of him, to kill him he needed to kill himself. Your interpretation does make sense with the movie, that he finally managed to express his... masochism? instead of repressing it so his split personality went away, or something.
Rule #1:We do not talk about fight club
Rule #2: WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB!
Murray's a Dalek!
Think about it, "exterminate, exterminate, exterminate!"
And what about their bodies, Murray lost his and finds alternative means to get around, just as the Daleks use a metal casing to preserve their bodies otherwise they wouldn't move without them...
Murray's a Dalek!
Think about it, "exterminate, exterminate, exterminate!"
And what about their bodies, Murray lost his and finds alternative means to get around, just as the Daleks use a metal casing to preserve their bodies otherwise they wouldn't move without them...
This needs to be said.
As a person who disliked the general art style of the first remake(not just the hair, just the general FEEL), I'm so glad they actually nailed this one right.
It's maintained the FEEL. I'm mainly happy because of the official LucasArts Flash site - it blew away most of my fears.
On the Monkey Island Adventures facebook page, LucasArts have said that tomorrow (6th April), they will begin their daily posting of information about the game.
:winslow: :guybrush:
They've said that tomorrow, they'll be showing off images of Scabb Island, and they've just posted a picture of the "How Much Wood" scene from the original game, so I guess they're gonna show us the HD image of that scene tomorrow!
If there's anything you guys want to know about the SE, I think you just have to let them know via the facebook (or twitter) page, and they might just answer...hopefully...
Yeah... it makes me sad that the first SE didn't get as much love.
Agreed. however SOMI:SE got one million times better when i bought it for PC. i originally had it for the Xbox and the pauses in the lines were really annoying, but since i got it for PC i don't think its half bad anymore. sure it still has the uncovered pixels but ehh i don't mind.
Argh, the line is wrong! Isn't it "How much wood WOULD a woochuck chuck..."? The screenshot says "How much wood COULD" instead of would.
I haven't played the game, but i'm sure i read somewhere that they have an arguement about it (starts off with would, then GB questions it, turns into could, or something like that.)
Huh, I was so sure it was WOULD instead of COULD (just checked the game as well). Imo, it flows better. I wonder if the Amiga version is the same. In any case, my bad.
He was designed to be short in the original two games, then when curse came out, he adopted a taller/lankier look which became the canon. (Same with the blond hair/blue eyes thing) So when they went back, they applied those aspects to him.
Although I like it, I'm still not very fond of Guybrush's face. And I'm not sure why they're removing so many of the colors and making it more grim. But hey, it's all good.
He is a bit taller in the special edition, but part of the reason he looks so short in the original game is that the aspect ratio squashed the image of guybrush (and all the characters). He was wider, and therefore looked shorter, than he was meant to be.
I wonder, did LucasArts take into account the aspect ratio correction of the 320x200 graphics when they made the backgrounds for the special editions? 320x200 games back then didn't have perfectly square pixels. They were rectangular and higher than they were wide. Maybe someone can do a comparisson.
He is a bit taller in the special edition, but part of the reason he looks so short in the original game is that the aspect ratio squashed the image of guybrush (and all the characters). He was wider, and therefore looked shorter, than he was meant to be.
Uhm, no I don't think that was the reason. It's not like they made games in 16:9 back then. He's short and "fatter" because they designed him that way. I was always of the opinion that it was part of the reason he didn't get much respect from other pirates.
I just finished saying that pixels weren't supposed to be square back then. So they'd show up on today's displays as squished but back then they were taller. Someone posted a LeChuck comparisson a while back for how he looked natively on modern displays and how he was supposed to look in 1992.
And I never thought he was short or fat. The coat just looked pretty big on him.
Uhm, no I don't think that was the reason. It's not like they made games in 16:9 back then. He's short and "fatter" because they designed him that way. I was always of the opinion that it was part of the reason he didn't get much respect from other pirates.
No, it definitely was. I wasn't just musing, I actually know that
Comments
I think we're on to something here!
Guybrush and LeChuck are Timelords Elane is there true love then logicly Elaine is....K9!
I'm picturing LeChuck with a Goatee and black robes and Guybrush with a Colin Baker multi-coloured jacket.
And for some reason, its a good image........
Though I have no idea what you all are referncing.
Not a dream, everything did happen. The other characters
Also, the end of Fight Club
That's NOT the end. That's the beginning. It doesn't negates everything that happened and that we cared for, saying "oh, none of that actually happened, by the way". It negates things that we haven't seen happen and that as a result we don't care about.
Plus people can interact with each other in there. Which you can't do in dreams (that is, when you wake up, you're not going to both remember the interaction, since it was only in one person's mind).
I always assumed it wasn't a dream but actual visions.
Only the movie, because they thought "people won't take this movie seriously if we don't say it was a dream in the end". For the record, I did dislike this movie immensely.
I hated that movie as much as one can hate a movie. Although to be fair I didn't actually remember the end, I hated the whole thing, so it's not like I hated it because of the end.
Haven't seen/read/experienced the rest of the stuff you named. But I have to point out, if I say I have never liked a story that ends with "it was all a dream!", I fail to see how you can prove me wrong. I'm talking about my tastes. Maybe you like that kind of end, good for you. I only see it like a cheap trick. I remember an episode of Corner Gas that was like that, I'm still disappointed they didn't go with the "dream" as what actually happened. Not only did that ruin the episode for me, but I didn't enjoy any episode that came after that.
The weird thing is, it's my favourite episode if you remove the "nothing actually happened" part.
What I don't get is that you're the one who said you didn't like how in a certain show they decided a whole season was just a dream. So you must understand what I mean about it just being a cheap trick.
For the record, I also dislike other endings that negate everything that happens. Such as "I go back in time before any of it happened" for instance. I always wonder what's the point of showing us part of some people's life only at the end to take it away saying "oh, by the way, it doesn't actually happen, we were just kidding".
My problem with dreams is that they only affect one person, and for the rest it's like nothing actually happens. I guess if the dream is strong enough to change the person who had them they might have an interest plot-wise, but still I'd rather know it's a dream from the start.
It feels too much like "I had an idea of a story but I don't want any of the consequences so I'm going to write the story as a dream".
When something isn't real but still affects everyone involved, then that's a bit different. If GB is a kid but every single character appearing in the games actually exists and actually interacted with GB and remembers it - either as a crew member from the park or another kid playing along - then that would be better.
Although I would still want a detailled explanation. It would still feel cheap if at any time when replaying the first two games something wasn't explained. For instance, all the crass jokes. Isn't he supposed to be a kid?
And if he's dealing with crew members, why aren't they treating him as a kid? I mean, I guess Stan does, but that's about it.
And what about the gap between the first and the second game? Did he go back to the park a year later and meet everyone again? But then why the hell would Stan be selling coffins?
I can see Secret being all a make-believe game between a bunch of kids (possibly from the orphanage on a "school" trip or something) but MI2 is much harder to believe. There are so many things that I don't see a kid doing, or saying.
Going back to the coffins, either Stan is an adult who works in the park, and then why the hell is he selling freaking coffins? I mean I can see him in the first game managing a boat thing for kids, but coffins?
And if he's a kid, then his sales pitches make more sense: he's imitating adults he's seen. I mean a crew member wouldn't be that enthusiastic about an attraction. But then coffins? That's... weird.
And does that mean GB-kid locked him in the box or whatever they were pretending was a coffin? That's dangerous.
But of course there is much, much more that's unexplained. And I'm not satisfied with a "solution" that just raises more questions. It just feels like "I'm trying to sound all nice or mysterious, but actually I just haven't thought about it at all".
If GB was a kid, there is no reason why knowing that would be terrible. The same kid could go on other adventures, not always as a pirate, with his friends, etc. But I just have trouble thinking about a way that would make sense and not a "I slap this explanation to sound like I've been planning it all along but nothing fits together" kind of thing.
Interesting.
Rule #1:We do not talk about fight club
Rule #2: WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB!
sorry, couldn't resist
We were talking about Doctor Who
Rule #2: We do not talk about... no wait, that's wrong...
Rule #2: No smoking.
Murray's a Dalek!
Think about it, "exterminate, exterminate, exterminate!"
And what about their bodies, Murray lost his and finds alternative means to get around, just as the Daleks use a metal casing to preserve their bodies otherwise they wouldn't move without them...
Really? What do they look like underneath?
Most unpleasant.
As a person who disliked the general art style of the first remake(not just the hair, just the general FEEL), I'm so glad they actually nailed this one right.
It's maintained the FEEL. I'm mainly happy because of the official LucasArts Flash site - it blew away most of my fears.
Though yeah, I'm a bit iffy about the cover...
:winslow: :guybrush:
They've said that tomorrow, they'll be showing off images of Scabb Island, and they've just posted a picture of the "How Much Wood" scene from the original game, so I guess they're gonna show us the HD image of that scene tomorrow!
If there's anything you guys want to know about the SE, I think you just have to let them know via the facebook (or twitter) page, and they might just answer...hopefully...
This game looks soooooooo good. Eye candy to the max!
Argh, the line is wrong! Isn't it "How much wood WOULD a woochuck chuck..."? The screenshot says "How much wood COULD" instead of would.
From the same FB page:
Agreed. however SOMI:SE got one million times better when i bought it for PC. i originally had it for the Xbox and the pauses in the lines were really annoying, but since i got it for PC i don't think its half bad anymore. sure it still has the uncovered pixels but ehh i don't mind.
I haven't played the game, but i'm sure i read somewhere that they have an arguement about it (starts off with would, then GB questions it, turns into could, or something like that.)
...
In fact in those shots it looks like it just drops out into water.
Hey, yeah. Strange, isn't it? It's almost as though the jetty/dock/boardwalk isn't even there.
Huh, I was so sure it was WOULD instead of COULD (just checked the game as well). Imo, it flows better. I wonder if the Amiga version is the same. In any case, my bad.
so could could be and should be would because would would be wood and then could should be wood if would could.. ah nevermind
He is a bit taller in the special edition, but part of the reason he looks so short in the original game is that the aspect ratio squashed the image of guybrush (and all the characters). He was wider, and therefore looked shorter, than he was meant to be.
Uhm, no I don't think that was the reason. It's not like they made games in 16:9 back then. He's short and "fatter" because they designed him that way. I was always of the opinion that it was part of the reason he didn't get much respect from other pirates.
And I never thought he was short or fat. The coat just looked pretty big on him.
No, it definitely was. I wasn't just musing, I actually know that