(Wrote something, posted it, then my browser crashed so everything went lost. I've tried to rewrite it but I didn't get the exact wording right ...)
There's a clear difference between design and content. The artwork, the way things look (the scenery, the use of lightning, the overall grittiness) is what comes to my attention first. No matter whether it is followed immediately by something silly, it's the first impression that counts. When I mention the fortress as an example, I'm talking about the outside shot: certain designs which deliver a certain atmosphere at the right moments.
Content comes afterward, when you look deeper and at the game as a whole. Some dark elements don't necessarily make a dark game. Just as with Tales, there's a very good balance which delivers a kind of storytelling I believe everyone here appreciates and enjoys. To me, Tales starts of as some lighthearted Nickelodeon show (I know that's no fair comparison, but it's the easiest explanation that comes to mind) but then certain things happen and the atmosphere is changed in a heartbeat, only to become lighthearted again in the next moment.
I love these games for that balance. Truly "dark" games can be depressing, and truly "comedic" games can become so annoying and wearying.
Of course everyone's connotation of the word "dark" can be different than what is generally accepted, but I don't think you can blame people for having a personal interpretation - that's how the urban dictionary came into existence: if enough people adopt an interpretation, suddenly it becomes okay to use it that way, no matter whether it's semantically correct or not (an evolution with which I don't necessarily agree).
I think a lot of the so-called darkness and atmosphere of LCR can be accredited to it's strange and unconventional story. We go from the heroic fairy-tale ending of SOMI, where our hero has vanquished the villain and got the girl, to a a situation where the hero is on a vague and mysterious quest.
There's this constant unpredictable, weird feeling that pervades the events of the story.
We don't really know what Big Whoop is supposed to be, or why Elaine is so standoffish. Guybrush himself has no idea that LeChuck is scheming to destroy him. A strange dream sequence only adds to the surreal mood.
Then of course we come to the final act where we think our questions will be answered only to have to engage in a stressful battle in a bizarre, anachronistic environment that ends with an outrageous revelation and cliffhanger.
I think it's because the story of LCR differs from the formula of the other games in the series (and story telling in general, unless we're talking about The Empire Strikes Back) that it leaves so many players feeling somewhat unsettled while, or after, player.
Oh, for Christ's sake. Haven't we already established that there are plenty of comedic moments and not-dark-at-all settings/characters in MI2? Not to mention that the whole ending of MI2 (from the start of the tunnels to the end) starts with an extremely cliche (at least by now) Star Wars reference and end with one big fat "omgwtfgtfo"
I'll say it again. Using a Star Wars reference as a major plot-twist would show SEVERE lack of originality, and if it was not meant as a plot-twist but rather just part of the big WTF that is the carnival, then that (to me) shows that Ron never intended to take the game's overall storyline seriously enough to even consider creating MI3 at the time.
Personally I think it's entirely possible, and indeed likely that Ron keeps up appearances of his own plan for an MI3, just to maintain a certain level of celebrity. After all, if he admitted that he never really planned one, no one would ask him about it again.
That's very disrespectful of you. You're basically calling him an egotestic asshole.
Also, you've not read what some of us posted. We are aware of the comedic elements. But it's not the actual themes that makes it so dark. Why don't you read a few more posts, and then come back with a better response.
I've turned this around and around in my head and I still find this argument a little difficult to follow.
I completely agree that at least as far as plot content goes, 'darkness' has been pretty consistent and TMI is up there.
On the other hand MI2 definitely had a grittier art style and in places a soundtrack that lent it a certain darkness of tone.
On the other other hand, CMI was very cartoony yet blood island to me seemed as atmospheric as anything in MI2.
On the other other other hand I don't -quite- get that feeling from even the darkest of TMI's locations, like the crossroads areas.
In the end, I don't think it's about darkness or adultness at all. They're doing that all fine. What they need to nail, is something more like an undercurrent of mystery that pervaded those atmospheric locations in the old games, like there was more going on there than we could see. It helped that Guybrush was terrified of LeChuck all the way through MI2 - it would be cool if he could become that scary as a villain again. Part of is was that in MI2 LeChuck didn't care as much about Elaine: it was all about revenge.
That's sort of difficult to nail, because it's all in the details. TTG did a great job with the series and some of the people on that team I feel really -understand- the atmosphere that's being aimed for, but it's not like a switch you can turn on or off. It's something you have to work at. I think they're getting it.
There is that person I respect has told me something about Monkey Island series:
"First two games were great. They had the feeling. They weren't trying to be funny or serious in nature, they were just being driven by the story. The other two games that followed the first two were just 'funny pirate games'." He said it before TOMI episode one was even released, so I don't know his thoughts on that one. Well, it's possibly bad, but that's because he doesn't like too long fictional series. You know, simply because he doesn't like following them frim the beginning to the end. It's another story though.
Anyway well, I can do nothing but to agree with him because I can greatly sense that Monkey Island 1 and 2 were done to let some ideas out for everyone to see, but 3 and 4 (and I'm afraid to say that but, TOMI too) were done to continue on the story. The difference between them is that the ideas of the first two games were probably talked about BEFORE the plannings of the game of it being made, whereas the details of the others games are thought and talked about AFTER agreeing on making another Monkey Island sequel. The importance of it is, well, in my opinion, Ron Gilbert or co-creators and the inspiration sources for Ron didn't want to make funny jokes or make a basic storyline so that he can sell it to everyone. It was a mixture of the ideas he and others around him carried on until this time and the final result was -kind on unintentionally- dark. Or how I'd like to say, has details that are more spesific by nature and has no intentions to make players laugh constantly.
3rd and the 4th game DID leave kind of a bad feeling. They were funny. They had better-than-decent writings. But the feeling they've given me wasn't the same as the first two. That's why I would really like too see an alternate-storyline version from the person who created those two games. Not because he's Ron Gilbert, but because of him being the creator of Monkey Island 2: LR, that is what I'm trying to say.
TOMI is great too, but I can't really say I can put that game in the same category with MI2. Maybe it's because it was episodic and was rather easier. When the game is episodic, you're restricted in the area you must play the game in. Not sure, in MI2 I really liked the way I could just go anywhere I previously were.
I can't say the same for the first MI though. That row annoyed the hell out of me.
That's very disrespectful of you. You're basically calling him an egotestic asshole.
I wasn't talking to him, I was annoyed at those, such as yourself, saying MI2 was the best in the series because it's so dark and this and that...
I'm not intending to sound opinionated and rude. Sure, people don't have to hold the same game as a favorite that I do or even for the same reasons. *sigh* I guess I'm just tired of people saying/suggesting that either Ron Gilbert is God over all things MI or that any game that comes after MI2 is a complete and utter load of crap comparatively, and it's been making me quite irritable about the subject.
I was actually really impressed with the atmosphere in TOMI.
The first 2 games (particularly MI2) were dark. CMI and EMI, not as much but they had their serious moments. In TOMI they managed to bring in the cartoony/light-hearted atmosphere we were left with from the later games, while at the same time bring back the darker, more serious atmosphere in the first two games.
I couldn't have done it better myself, that's for sure! I thought they did very well to maintain both the comical and serious atmosphere seen in MI games. If they'd followed the cartoony styles (as seen in CMI and EMI) with a sudden change in mood, I'm not sure if that would have worked as well. I also think it was a good move saving the very dark moments for the second half of the series.
I still don't really see why people find any part of the series to be particularly "dark". I'm not just saying this because its humorous, I'm saying this because there isn't really any "dark" scene in the games that they don't mock. And even if it were "dark" it wouldn't necessarily mean it was for adults. I grew up watching Courage the Cowardly Dog. That show was a really dark show, but it definitely was for kids. Overall, the MI series is pretty light-hearted and I can't really see it any other way. I mean, yeah LeChuck was scary, but so was Marx from Kirby when I was little.
Hahaha. That's not dark, that's just friggin hilarious. I always found that part to be just as hilarious as any other part of Monkey Island. Tearing LeChuck's beard off in the elevator? Giving him a wedgie? Priceless. Sure he was terrifying but on the whole there was a lot of hilarious humor there. The very ending where Guybrush is trapped in Big Whoop for me was what made the game really unnerving. If Tales had ended with Guybrush stranded it would have totally beat LCR out. And what about this. What if Tales had ended with Guybrush stranded and LeChuck's shambling almost destroyed corpse grabbing him, followed by the credits? You want to know dark? Try playing a game in the Mother series.
Hahaha. That's not dark, that's just friggin hilarious. I always found that part to be just as hilarious as any other part of Monkey Island. Tearing LeChuck's beard off in the elevator? Giving him a wedgie? Priceless. Sure he was terrifying but on the whole there was a lot of hilarious humor there. The very ending where Guybrush is trapped in Big Whoop for me was what made the game really unnerving. If Tales had ended with Guybrush stranded it would have totally beat LCR out. And what about this. What if Tales had ended with Guybrush stranded and LeChuck's shambling almost destroyed corpse grabbing him, followed by the credits? You want to know dark? Try playing a game in the Mother series.
Did you read my post in it's entirety and in context? My point was simply that by juxtapositioning two massively contrasting images, you can prove any point. But fine, since we're going through this whole darkness debate yet again:
The fact that MI2 is frequently humorous does not entail it can't at the same time be "dark". Because I feel like I've been repeating these points over and over on this forum, I'm going to be pretentious enough to quote one of my own older posts here about how I define the so-called "darkness" of MI2:
I don't see what makes them "dark" in any way. The backgrounds are bright and colorful (especially in MI2), the characters frequently perform highly cartoony facial expressions, none of the character designs even border on realism. Just the fact that the storyline involves a (cartoony) zombie who enjoys using voodoo somehow makes a game dark? I also have no clue how anyone could ever consider MI "scary" whatsoever.
For starters, I'm not the one who started using the word dark in this debate. I agree it's probably not the best word to describe the underlying differences between the first two MI games and the ones that came after, but for lack of a better term, I'll use it for now.
Dark in this context does not mean that the background art is painted in dark colors or that it needs to be scary (although MI2 has a lot more tension and feeling of threat than the other Monkey Island games - Guybrush can even ask the voodoo lady to kill him because he is so scared of LeChuck). Dark comedy is not the same as tragicomedy or fiction that is both scary and funny at the same time. The "darkness" of the first two Monkey Island games refer to the underlying irony that is a major source of humor - and even a major plot element - in Gilbert, Schafer and Grossmans' Monkey Island universe. Tim Schafer explains this in an article from the Adventurer from 1992 which was recently posted in another thread over at the general board:
"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."
This kind of ironic humor and story twists run through SMI:
Guybrush completes the three trials, but is never able to hand in the final object and get acknowledged as a pirate
As soon as Elaine warms up to him, she is kidnapped
He gathers a crew, but they refuse to follow his orders
When he finally gets the voodoo root that can kill LeChuck, the ghost ship has gone back to Melee
Everyone but Guybrush can seemingly navigate the maze under Monkey Island without the head of the navigator
When he finally catches up with LeChuck and Elaine, it turns out she had the situation under controll the whole time.
In MI2 it's probably even more defining:
Guybrush has defeated LeChuck, but noone believes him - and those who do, either trivialize it or don't care.
He starts out whith a lot of money and treasure, but is robbed at the very beginning of the game.
Guybrush completes the map that will lead him to Big Whoop, but leChuck kidnaps Wally before he can analyze the map.
Though sheer luck he finds Big Whoop, but is left hanging from a rope, unable to save himself or the treasure.
As he is about to be saved by Elaine, his rope snaps.
Big Whoop turns out to just contain an E-ticket, and when Guybrush is finally able to confront LeChuck, he instead finds himself a kid in an amusement park.
This kind of humor has a lot in common with some of Monty Python's semi-dark comedy, especially their full-length movies. The ending of Holy Grail, for instance, is very similar to the ending of Monkey 2 - a dark ironic ending, robbing the viewers from the final payoff.
This dark irony is gone almost completely from CMI and the other games that followed, and the ironic fate that always seems to befall Guybrush is reinterprated as Guybrush being incompetent. CMI is a much simpler, cuter story, where Guybrush gets Elaine into trouble, but saves her and marries her in the end, while also defeating LeChuck.
Did you read my post in it's entirety and in context?
Yep. I agree but I don't see MI2 as being the epitome of darkness such as some do. Tales was far darker in what I consider dark than LCR was. LCR was no darker than your average Indiana Jones movie. Tales was like a Roger Corman movie by the end.
Did you read my post in it's entirety and in context? My point was simply that by juxtapositioning two massively contrasting images, you can prove any point. But fine, since we're going through this whole darkness debate yet again:
The fact that MI2 is frequently humorous does not entail it can't at the same time be "dark". Because I feel like I've been repeating these points over and over on this forum, I'm going to be pretentious enough to quote one of my own older posts here about how I define the so-called "darkness" of MI2:
Hey! I recognize my post in there! I'm not "Someone else"!
Main Entry: black humor
Part of Speech: n
Definition: in literature and drama, combining the morbid and grotesque with humor and farce to give a disturbing effect and convey the absurdity and cruelty of life. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black+humor
That is not the same as ironic humor.
I would say that it sounds plausible for people to suggest MI2 as being "dark" (that is, dark in tone or mood) partly because of the use of color palette in certain places, and partly because LeChuck may or may not have been somewhat of a foreboding presence (to those who claim he is, not to me.)
However, the plethora of comedic elements in MI2 balance out those with the dark elements, such that I personally don't see it as scary or "better than the other games."
Tim Schafer explains this in an article[...]: "The ending for Monkey 2 was considered kind of a non-payoff, but it was a joke, and some people didn't like that."
Some people... including me. The other games didn't do this (except EMI,) so it drops MI2 down on my list as best game because the climax is important. Comparing Monty Python and the Holy Grail to MI2 is ridiculous, though. Monty Python is meant to be random and nonsensical (the party is in danger from a monster but is saved when the lead animator dies.) MI's overall tone is not like that.
This dark irony is gone almost completely from CMI and the other games that followed, and the ironic fate that always seems to befall Guybrush is reinterprated as Guybrush being incompetent. CMI is a much simpler, cuter story, where Guybrush gets Elaine into trouble, but saves her and marries her in the end, while also defeating LeChuck.
I do agree with this. I don't think it either bad or good for CMI or ToMI to have been different, however I wouldn't be at all opposed to any voices who say they want this element back in ToMI2.
...after thinking about it, I believe what this may come down to is whether or not the individual gamer played MI2 as a kid and found it scary back then. If that is the case, then their nostalgia for the game would recall those emotions and bring back those old feelings even today. I didn't play MI2 until I found the Monkey Island Madness CD in the LucasArts Archives Volume 3 set and that was released in 1997, when I was a senior in high school, so I have had a different experience with it than people who may have played it when they were younger than I was, or had more time with it between their first playthrough of MI2 and CMI than I did.
How old are you when you're in senior high school? I played the game originally when I was 14 or 15 years old.
Rather than the age, I think it's more dependant on what technology was like at the time you played it. When I played it, it was brand new. Played it on my reasonably new Amiga 500, and was awestruck at the graphics and the sound and the whole game just felt fresh and exciting. If you play these games for the first time now, you probably won't get excited about that kind of stuff (although I am constantly impressed by old technology and what they managed to do with that old stuff). ToMI didn't really bring that feeling back to me, neither did CMI - although it's still one of the best in the series (probably only surpassed by MI2). And I remember I said to a friend of mine that it's a great game, but something seems to be missing. And that was before I knew Ron Gilbert didn't make it. And yes, I played CoMI when it was released. As I did with EMI and Tales. The only game in the series I didn't play on release is Secret, but that was because I didn't have an Amiga until '91. May '91 in fact, I remember because it was my christening gift.
Don't we normally get these type of threads every few months. Someone who posts some silly notion that the early MI games were these dark and dramatic pirate adventures with a hint of humor tossed in? Mind you, these posters never actually reply to their own threads. Usually someone posts pics proving that the MI games are silly toony piratey type games, and then the thread goes away...Only to be REBORN months later..
Main Entry: black humor
Part of Speech: n
Definition: in literature and drama, combining the morbid and grotesque with humor and farce to give a disturbing effect and convey the absurdity and cruelty of life. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black+humor
That is not the same as ironic humor.
No, and that's why I never called it black humour or dark comedy. The "dark" in "dark irony" refers, in this case, mainly to the protagonist always getting the short end of the stick.
I would say that it sounds plausible for people to suggest MI2 as being "dark" (that is, dark in tone or mood) partly because of the use of color palette in certain places, and partly because LeChuck may or may not have been somewhat of a foreboding presence (to those who claim he is, not to me.)
However, the plethora of comedic elements in MI2 balance out those with the dark elements, such that I personally don't see it as scary or "better than the other games."
It's hard to determine when you're answering me, and when you're just talking about your personal feelings about the game, especially when you are placing statements in quotation marks, which I never said. I never said LeChuck's Revenge was scary, nor did I claim that darker elements is what makes it the best Monkey Island game.
People seem to enter this weird defensive position once people talk about the slightly darker nature of MI2 compared to the two games that followed. Is it really so hard to accept that MI2, compared to CMI and EMI, is a bit less cartoony, a bit more twisted, slightly more mysterious and a lot more (darkly) ironic? It seems some people are building a strawman by arguing against made-up opinions, such as MI2 being primarily a scary game, being a very dark and adult experience or being realistic. There is a tonal difference between MI2 and CMI/EMI, and most people identify that difference by calling MI2 "darker" than it's sequels. This is perhaps not the perfect way of describing the shift in tone, but a lot of people seem to attack this position semanticly, ignoring the real argument, and in stead arguing against MI2 being "dark" through irrelevant and obvious observations such as "MI2 is also funny!", "MI2 is pretty cartoony" or even, as seen in this thread, "MI2 is nothing like the Holocaust!".
ALSO:
Some people... including me. The other games didn't do this (except EMI,) so it drops MI2 down on my list as best game because the climax is important. Comparing Monty Python and the Holy Grail to MI2 is ridiculous, though. Monty Python is meant to be random and nonsensical (the party is in danger from a monster but is saved when the lead animator dies.) MI's overall tone is not like that.
I wasn't refering to the absurdist humor in Holy Grail (although the whole scene behind the wall in Elaine's mansion in MI1 is certainly entering that territory), but rather the underlying ironic tone that is not entirely unlike some of the humor in MI2, and to a lesser extent, MI1.
Is it really so hard to accept that MI2, compared to CMI and EMI, is [...] a bit more twisted, slightly more mysterious and a lot more (darkly) ironic?
I prefer MI2 to CMI. [...] I am not saying that MI2 was dark or serious, on the contrary it was just as cartoony and comical as the rest, the difference is that it is what I would describe as twisted.
[...]
As to why people want MI3, its [...] because the ending of MI2 left so many questions that they felt were not answered, and are curious as to what Ron may have had planned: they want to know what Ron had planned, they want to know if he actually did have anything planned or if he has just been yanking everyone's chain all these years. [...]just like some people wonder that if had George Lucas had done the prequel trilogy back when he did the original trilogy would it still have sucked...
Okay, this all actually does make alot more sense. "Twisted" does sound much more appropriate than "dark" in this context. (Off topic, as far as the George Lucas thing goes, my first impression is that it wouldn't have.)
EDIT: I'm sitting here thinking about it, and the more I think about this, the more I like it.
...Twisted.
That's a good word. A very good word. It makes much more sense to say people like MI2 because it's twisted, rather than because it's dark.
After murdering Guybrush, what else could LeChuck really do?
.
Tell me about it! Tales Season 1 pushed everything to such awesome extremes with LeChuck that I'm really not sure how they can top it. He accomplished his two main missions of killing Guybrush and turning Elaine into a Demon Bride. Not to mention that we also got to see "good" LeChuck as well. Where can they go from there? Hate to say it, but it's time for a new villain.
Tell me about it! Tales Season 1 pushed everything to such awesome extremes with LeChuck that I'm really not sure how they can top it. He accomplished his two main missions of killing Guybrush and turning Elaine into a Demon Bride. Not to mention that we also got to see "good" LeChuck as well. Where can they go from there? Hate to say it, but it's time for a new villain.
This is basically how I feel. All his goals ever were accomplished.
And I am a gigantic, gigantic LeChuck fan.
Honestly I would have preferred him to just stay good. Well no. But his character could've been salvaged that way.
A thing I just thought about as to why I feel ToMI is somewhat less dark/twisted than MI2 is that ToMI takes death a bit too lightly. In Monkey Island 2 (or 1), I was of the assumption that death really meant death, and not some trip to a pirate underworld where you could either stay or try to get back. Had this new element of death not being final already been introduced earlier in the series, the ending of episode 4 would have much less impact. In CMI you faked death. In SMI, you died if you stayed too long underwater - from there you could only load or restart. Things like this made dieing a lot more threatening. Rapp Scallion died, and he had a good reason to go back (well, in his mind), but he wasn't able to. The whole death thing seems from now on so much less serious and final that whenever they play the death card in the future, it won't have any impact whatsoever, unless they make something up (like, Authentic Death TM). So, in my eyes, MI2 is a little more down to earth (still crazy and twisted, of course) than TOMI, because in MI2, death was portrayed as something final (heck, LeChuck had to be made into a zombie to be able to stay "alive"), while TOMI is a bit more fantasy.
I think ToMI was perfectly balanced in light and dark, starts out light and then gets more dark as the story progresses.
If it would get any darker then it would loose its charm and it would not be the Monkey Island we have all come to know. So I think it was dark enough without you doubting it was really Monkey Island you where playing.
Just to clarify, I was not talking about Story at all, I think TMI is the darkest story wise out of all of them.
I was talking about graphic design, for the most part. I LOVE the concept art for TMI, but I think they took the idea of concept art a little to literally and translated it directly onto the game. The concepts, which exaggerate angles and proportions for artistic purpose i think should just be a guide, not an actual translation. I liked that the scumm bar in SMI looked like a real bar, that Wally and the Carpenter both had homes that seemed legit, with a few maps hung up and tools around, WHEREAS in TMI the newspaper building is actually made of newspaper. WTF? It looks like a kids game, even though the themes are dark. Make the dialogue and plot funny, make the graphics dark and piratey. The contrast between the two were a HUGE part of the comedy in the first two games, and the irony was lost later on.
I am happy enough just letting the creators do what they want and come along for the ride.
If they want to make a dark game that makes me think, sure, I'm game.
Slapstick and puns? As long as their punny.
A good game comes from good game makers doing what they do best. What if we could force Telltale to make a super dark, ironic MI game? That would not necessarily make it good. Ron Gilbert contractually obligated to make a Sam and Max? Somehow I don't see it being as good as it could be. Even if its not your taste, a good game is still a good game and a bad game is still bad. Let Telltale be Telltale and do what it does best.
once you killed Guybrush and threw him around like a Ragdoll till he's too weak to even move what can possiably make it darker? XD I was actually kinda hurt to see my favourate hero being thrown around by Le Chuck like that =[ And how Telltale made the scene where he died , even knowing theres a afterlife, it was very touching as his eyes slowly close in Elanes arms I think Telltale did one of the best jobs on Monkey Island ive seen so far, BUT MI1 AND MI2 are still my childhood games so I techincally prefere them. But Keep up the serious tone TellTale, and thanks for making not just Le Chuck the main villian for once
Comments
There's a clear difference between design and content. The artwork, the way things look (the scenery, the use of lightning, the overall grittiness) is what comes to my attention first. No matter whether it is followed immediately by something silly, it's the first impression that counts. When I mention the fortress as an example, I'm talking about the outside shot: certain designs which deliver a certain atmosphere at the right moments.
Content comes afterward, when you look deeper and at the game as a whole. Some dark elements don't necessarily make a dark game. Just as with Tales, there's a very good balance which delivers a kind of storytelling I believe everyone here appreciates and enjoys. To me, Tales starts of as some lighthearted Nickelodeon show (I know that's no fair comparison, but it's the easiest explanation that comes to mind) but then certain things happen and the atmosphere is changed in a heartbeat, only to become lighthearted again in the next moment.
I love these games for that balance. Truly "dark" games can be depressing, and truly "comedic" games can become so annoying and wearying.
Of course everyone's connotation of the word "dark" can be different than what is generally accepted, but I don't think you can blame people for having a personal interpretation - that's how the urban dictionary came into existence: if enough people adopt an interpretation, suddenly it becomes okay to use it that way, no matter whether it's semantically correct or not (an evolution with which I don't necessarily agree).
There's this constant unpredictable, weird feeling that pervades the events of the story.
We don't really know what Big Whoop is supposed to be, or why Elaine is so standoffish. Guybrush himself has no idea that LeChuck is scheming to destroy him. A strange dream sequence only adds to the surreal mood.
Then of course we come to the final act where we think our questions will be answered only to have to engage in a stressful battle in a bizarre, anachronistic environment that ends with an outrageous revelation and cliffhanger.
I think it's because the story of LCR differs from the formula of the other games in the series (and story telling in general, unless we're talking about The Empire Strikes Back) that it leaves so many players feeling somewhat unsettled while, or after, player.
I'll say it again. Using a Star Wars reference as a major plot-twist would show SEVERE lack of originality, and if it was not meant as a plot-twist but rather just part of the big WTF that is the carnival, then that (to me) shows that Ron never intended to take the game's overall storyline seriously enough to even consider creating MI3 at the time.
Personally I think it's entirely possible, and indeed likely that Ron keeps up appearances of his own plan for an MI3, just to maintain a certain level of celebrity. After all, if he admitted that he never really planned one, no one would ask him about it again.
Also, you've not read what some of us posted. We are aware of the comedic elements. But it's not the actual themes that makes it so dark. Why don't you read a few more posts, and then come back with a better response.
I completely agree that at least as far as plot content goes, 'darkness' has been pretty consistent and TMI is up there.
On the other hand MI2 definitely had a grittier art style and in places a soundtrack that lent it a certain darkness of tone.
On the other other hand, CMI was very cartoony yet blood island to me seemed as atmospheric as anything in MI2.
On the other other other hand I don't -quite- get that feeling from even the darkest of TMI's locations, like the crossroads areas.
In the end, I don't think it's about darkness or adultness at all. They're doing that all fine. What they need to nail, is something more like an undercurrent of mystery that pervaded those atmospheric locations in the old games, like there was more going on there than we could see. It helped that Guybrush was terrified of LeChuck all the way through MI2 - it would be cool if he could become that scary as a villain again. Part of is was that in MI2 LeChuck didn't care as much about Elaine: it was all about revenge.
That's sort of difficult to nail, because it's all in the details. TTG did a great job with the series and some of the people on that team I feel really -understand- the atmosphere that's being aimed for, but it's not like a switch you can turn on or off. It's something you have to work at. I think they're getting it.
"First two games were great. They had the feeling. They weren't trying to be funny or serious in nature, they were just being driven by the story. The other two games that followed the first two were just 'funny pirate games'." He said it before TOMI episode one was even released, so I don't know his thoughts on that one. Well, it's possibly bad, but that's because he doesn't like too long fictional series. You know, simply because he doesn't like following them frim the beginning to the end. It's another story though.
Anyway well, I can do nothing but to agree with him because I can greatly sense that Monkey Island 1 and 2 were done to let some ideas out for everyone to see, but 3 and 4 (and I'm afraid to say that but, TOMI too) were done to continue on the story. The difference between them is that the ideas of the first two games were probably talked about BEFORE the plannings of the game of it being made, whereas the details of the others games are thought and talked about AFTER agreeing on making another Monkey Island sequel. The importance of it is, well, in my opinion, Ron Gilbert or co-creators and the inspiration sources for Ron didn't want to make funny jokes or make a basic storyline so that he can sell it to everyone. It was a mixture of the ideas he and others around him carried on until this time and the final result was -kind on unintentionally- dark. Or how I'd like to say, has details that are more spesific by nature and has no intentions to make players laugh constantly.
3rd and the 4th game DID leave kind of a bad feeling. They were funny. They had better-than-decent writings. But the feeling they've given me wasn't the same as the first two. That's why I would really like too see an alternate-storyline version from the person who created those two games. Not because he's Ron Gilbert, but because of him being the creator of Monkey Island 2: LR, that is what I'm trying to say.
TOMI is great too, but I can't really say I can put that game in the same category with MI2. Maybe it's because it was episodic and was rather easier. When the game is episodic, you're restricted in the area you must play the game in. Not sure, in MI2 I really liked the way I could just go anywhere I previously were.
I can't say the same for the first MI though. That row annoyed the hell out of me.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that.
...
I wasn't talking to him, I was annoyed at those, such as yourself, saying MI2 was the best in the series because it's so dark and this and that...
I'm not intending to sound opinionated and rude. Sure, people don't have to hold the same game as a favorite that I do or even for the same reasons. *sigh* I guess I'm just tired of people saying/suggesting that either Ron Gilbert is God over all things MI or that any game that comes after MI2 is a complete and utter load of crap comparatively, and it's been making me quite irritable about the subject.
Monkey Island 2 is not about systematic genocide, so therefore it cannot be dark? Such juxtapositioning proves nothing.
Not dark:
Dark:
See? I can play this game too!
The first 2 games (particularly MI2) were dark. CMI and EMI, not as much but they had their serious moments. In TOMI they managed to bring in the cartoony/light-hearted atmosphere we were left with from the later games, while at the same time bring back the darker, more serious atmosphere in the first two games.
I couldn't have done it better myself, that's for sure! I thought they did very well to maintain both the comical and serious atmosphere seen in MI games. If they'd followed the cartoony styles (as seen in CMI and EMI) with a sudden change in mood, I'm not sure if that would have worked as well. I also think it was a good move saving the very dark moments for the second half of the series.
that WAS dark
You know... Row... In Monkey Island overview...
But you know, whatever floats your boat, I guess.
You mean the rowing boat.
Hahaha. That's not dark, that's just friggin hilarious. I always found that part to be just as hilarious as any other part of Monkey Island. Tearing LeChuck's beard off in the elevator? Giving him a wedgie? Priceless. Sure he was terrifying but on the whole there was a lot of hilarious humor there. The very ending where Guybrush is trapped in Big Whoop for me was what made the game really unnerving. If Tales had ended with Guybrush stranded it would have totally beat LCR out. And what about this. What if Tales had ended with Guybrush stranded and LeChuck's shambling almost destroyed corpse grabbing him, followed by the credits? You want to know dark? Try playing a game in the Mother series.
Oh... right... that... Erm. Blame my translator.
Did you read my post in it's entirety and in context? My point was simply that by juxtapositioning two massively contrasting images, you can prove any point. But fine, since we're going through this whole darkness debate yet again:
The fact that MI2 is frequently humorous does not entail it can't at the same time be "dark". Because I feel like I've been repeating these points over and over on this forum, I'm going to be pretentious enough to quote one of my own older posts here about how I define the so-called "darkness" of MI2:
Yep. I agree but I don't see MI2 as being the epitome of darkness such as some do. Tales was far darker in what I consider dark than LCR was. LCR was no darker than your average Indiana Jones movie. Tales was like a Roger Corman movie by the end.
Hey! I recognize my post in there! I'm not "Someone else"!
(n) a comedy characterized by grim or satiric humor; a comedy having gloomy or disturbing elements
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dark+comedy
Synonym: black humor
Main Entry: black humor
Part of Speech: n
Definition: in literature and drama, combining the morbid and grotesque with humor and farce to give a disturbing effect and convey the absurdity and cruelty of life.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black+humor
That is not the same as ironic humor.
I would say that it sounds plausible for people to suggest MI2 as being "dark" (that is, dark in tone or mood) partly because of the use of color palette in certain places, and partly because LeChuck may or may not have been somewhat of a foreboding presence (to those who claim he is, not to me.)
However, the plethora of comedic elements in MI2 balance out those with the dark elements, such that I personally don't see it as scary or "better than the other games."
ALSO:
Some people... including me. The other games didn't do this (except EMI,) so it drops MI2 down on my list as best game because the climax is important. Comparing Monty Python and the Holy Grail to MI2 is ridiculous, though. Monty Python is meant to be random and nonsensical (the party is in danger from a monster but is saved when the lead animator dies.) MI's overall tone is not like that.
I do agree with this. I don't think it either bad or good for CMI or ToMI to have been different, however I wouldn't be at all opposed to any voices who say they want this element back in ToMI2.
...after thinking about it, I believe what this may come down to is whether or not the individual gamer played MI2 as a kid and found it scary back then. If that is the case, then their nostalgia for the game would recall those emotions and bring back those old feelings even today. I didn't play MI2 until I found the Monkey Island Madness CD in the LucasArts Archives Volume 3 set and that was released in 1997, when I was a senior in high school, so I have had a different experience with it than people who may have played it when they were younger than I was, or had more time with it between their first playthrough of MI2 and CMI than I did.
Rather than the age, I think it's more dependant on what technology was like at the time you played it. When I played it, it was brand new. Played it on my reasonably new Amiga 500, and was awestruck at the graphics and the sound and the whole game just felt fresh and exciting. If you play these games for the first time now, you probably won't get excited about that kind of stuff (although I am constantly impressed by old technology and what they managed to do with that old stuff). ToMI didn't really bring that feeling back to me, neither did CMI - although it's still one of the best in the series (probably only surpassed by MI2). And I remember I said to a friend of mine that it's a great game, but something seems to be missing. And that was before I knew Ron Gilbert didn't make it. And yes, I played CoMI when it was released. As I did with EMI and Tales. The only game in the series I didn't play on release is Secret, but that was because I didn't have an Amiga until '91. May '91 in fact, I remember because it was my christening gift.
It's hard to determine when you're answering me, and when you're just talking about your personal feelings about the game, especially when you are placing statements in quotation marks, which I never said. I never said LeChuck's Revenge was scary, nor did I claim that darker elements is what makes it the best Monkey Island game.
People seem to enter this weird defensive position once people talk about the slightly darker nature of MI2 compared to the two games that followed. Is it really so hard to accept that MI2, compared to CMI and EMI, is a bit less cartoony, a bit more twisted, slightly more mysterious and a lot more (darkly) ironic? It seems some people are building a strawman by arguing against made-up opinions, such as MI2 being primarily a scary game, being a very dark and adult experience or being realistic. There is a tonal difference between MI2 and CMI/EMI, and most people identify that difference by calling MI2 "darker" than it's sequels. This is perhaps not the perfect way of describing the shift in tone, but a lot of people seem to attack this position semanticly, ignoring the real argument, and in stead arguing against MI2 being "dark" through irrelevant and obvious observations such as "MI2 is also funny!", "MI2 is pretty cartoony" or even, as seen in this thread, "MI2 is nothing like the Holocaust!".
I wasn't refering to the absurdist humor in Holy Grail (although the whole scene behind the wall in Elaine's mansion in MI1 is certainly entering that territory), but rather the underlying ironic tone that is not entirely unlike some of the humor in MI2, and to a lesser extent, MI1.
I'll stick with this. I like it.
MI2 was both dark and funny.. Tales was as well.
Rape?
I don't think we want to go there.
And I am a gigantic, gigantic LeChuck fan.
Honestly I would have preferred him to just stay good. Well no. But his character could've been salvaged that way.
If it would get any darker then it would loose its charm and it would not be the Monkey Island we have all come to know. So I think it was dark enough without you doubting it was really Monkey Island you where playing.
I was talking about graphic design, for the most part. I LOVE the concept art for TMI, but I think they took the idea of concept art a little to literally and translated it directly onto the game. The concepts, which exaggerate angles and proportions for artistic purpose i think should just be a guide, not an actual translation. I liked that the scumm bar in SMI looked like a real bar, that Wally and the Carpenter both had homes that seemed legit, with a few maps hung up and tools around, WHEREAS in TMI the newspaper building is actually made of newspaper. WTF? It looks like a kids game, even though the themes are dark. Make the dialogue and plot funny, make the graphics dark and piratey. The contrast between the two were a HUGE part of the comedy in the first two games, and the irony was lost later on.
If they want to make a dark game that makes me think, sure, I'm game.
Slapstick and puns? As long as their punny.
A good game comes from good game makers doing what they do best. What if we could force Telltale to make a super dark, ironic MI game? That would not necessarily make it good. Ron Gilbert contractually obligated to make a Sam and Max? Somehow I don't see it being as good as it could be. Even if its not your taste, a good game is still a good game and a bad game is still bad. Let Telltale be Telltale and do what it does best.
once you killed Guybrush and threw him around like a Ragdoll till he's too weak to even move what can possiably make it darker? XD I was actually kinda hurt to see my favourate hero being thrown around by Le Chuck like that =[ And how Telltale made the scene where he died , even knowing theres a afterlife, it was very touching as his eyes slowly close in Elanes arms