But that's the thing - in that case there's not that much in the last *18 years* to judge his work by.
To a slightly lesser extent, the same could be said for Dave Grossman -- he only worked on 3 games at LucasArts (while Ron had a hand in 5), and then he did children's games for the next 10 years. Bone was released 12 years after DoTT. And I don't think anyone has ever argued about Dave's adventure game chops.
Edit: Game credit numbers may be off because I don't have completely reliable info -- there seems to be a difference of opinion among web sites as to how many LucasArts games each was actually involved with.
Why is it that some people insist that those who disagree with them are trolling? It's like getting in an argument with someone and saying "why are you pretending I'm wrong?"
Because on the internet, usually someone sharply disagreeing on that person's comfort zone, which in this case is an adventure game forum, is usually trolling. Its a wee bit too common now. I'm sure he was just being cautious.
I don't think trolling is nearly as common as people think it is. It barely even exists. Usually, the only time people will post an opinion that they really disagree with is if they are being rhetorical (that is, they're being sarcastic to try and make their real opinion seem more sensible), and that case, they'll usually be really overtly sarcastic.
Also, when people actually do, for whatever reason, troll, they usually set up a new account just for trolling with so they don't get banned.
I really do hate to break it to you, but trolling is VERY common. The most "skilled" kind of trolls purposely make themselves out to not look like trolls but are able to to cause the most ruckus. This makes it hard to pick out the legitimates from the trolls and its usually easier to just go with trolls because its safer and you don't have much to lose.
I've been shocked by how common trolling is. I'd be arguing with someone on a forum, only to have a member pull me aside and say hey, that guy's known for nothing but his trolling, don't listen to him, as he's just screwing with you for his own fun. If you don't know what to look for, someone will troll you and you'll never know it happened.
Playing Devil's Advocate for arguement's sake or having a legitimate difference of opinion is different from someone just saying "you suck" in more or less words.
Granted, trolling may sometimes be inferred when someone is just being rude.
there's only so many times you can reiterate the same point before it becomes worthless and just annoying.
I called him a troll for that, but he may not have been. It may have just been plain ordinary rudeness.
This is to say that I perceive the difference between the two being the intent. Trolling is designed specifically to enflame the conversation, while simple rudeness occurs when someone just doesn't care enough about being civil.
I suppose that's the difference between a troll and a jerk.
You guys must be browsing the wrong forums then...
To say that trolling only happens in specific forums is somewhat naive. Since this is a smaller community, we've been hit less by it, but it can and will happen from time to time.
It's best to assume that the person disagreeing with you is not trolling, unless it's blindingly obvious that they are. Stating an opinion in a rude way is not trolling, it's just being rude.
I lurk a forum that's prone to trolling. Here's some of the differences between trolling and not trolling based on what I've seen there. I won't name it, but it's pretty obvious where I'm talking about if you've sent some time there.
Person sees something they strongly disagree with, states points rudely and insults the person they're talking to. Not troll. Just rude.
Person posts the most inflammatory thing possible in several topics, and is flippant when people respond. Troll. It helps that I think the person I'm thinking of admitted to it.
Person responds to every insult, no matter how minor and obviously insincere, with rage. Not troll. Just oversensitive. The people who noticed this and continued to insult him because it was funny to see him blow up might be, though.
Person posts ridiculously exaggerated version of a real ideology in every single post. Troll. Clearly a sock puppet.
Person constantly sexually harasses female members. Not troll. Seriously, that has nothing to do with trolling.
This one's kind of specific, but I'm using it here because it's such a good example. There was another forum with a high proportion of members who seemed to hate women for not going out with them. A member of the forum I lurk made an account there, and mentioned that he was transgendered. This is true, but he mentioned it to get a reaction out of them. Troll. Even though he was polite and most of what he said was true, his stated goal was to give the other forum a collective aneurysm, which is trolling. Whatever his intention, the reaction the other forum had was despicable, though.
Person gets in heated debate, ignores every else's points to repeat the same thing over and over Impossible to tell. Could be a troll, could be a bad debater. In fact, all the things I mentioned could be trolls. Anyone could be a troll. I could be a troll. But it's not as common as some people seem to think.
You make it sound as though most people on forums default to calling someone a troll. It may show my infrequency to browse forums in general to ask, but is it really that rampant a problem?
Also, it sounds as though you consider calling random people trolls is as bad as calling random people noobs. However, I would consider calling people noobs for no legitimate reason to be much more childish.
You make it sound as though most people on forums default to calling someone a troll.
If you're talking to me, no I don't.
Also, it sounds as though you consider calling random people trolls is as bad as calling random people noobs. However, I would consider calling people noobs for no legitimate reason to be much more childish.
To say that trolling only happens in specific forums is somewhat naive. Since this is a smaller community, we've been hit less by it, but it can and will happen from time to time.
No, but the frequency is dependant on the forum, like you just stated yourself.
You know, as happened in previous topics, both Hassat Hunter and Chyron have the habit of calling trolls everyone that disagree with them.
And, to stay on topic: I'm not sure if I want this Ron person to work on new Monkey Island games. If he does, I don't want him to disconsider Curse Escape and Tales.
Perhaps we should stop looking for internet boogeymen and just smile, shake hands(metaphorically speaking), and agree to have discussions in the spirit of community debate? =D
You know, as happened in previous topics, both Hassat Hunter and Chyron have the habit of calling trolls everyone that disagree with them..
I do not.
I only called someone a troll once, and that was because whomever it was was being a jerk to someone else... he said something like "if you're going to reiterate the same thing over and over it becomes pointless and annoying" for which I called him a troll (although he could have just been a jerk. take your pick.)
I only did that once, anyway.
edit: I get the feeling that you're singling Hassat and I out because we vehemently disagreed with you about something. My brain wants to recall maybe it was about whether or not EMI sucks, whether or not MI2 is the best MI game, or whether or not CMI=MI3. I'm not sure which.
That doesn't mean we call everyone trolls all the time.
I have to admit I didn't read every post in this thread, but to the person who said they don't understand why Ron has a "cult-like following," I will just say this:
1. He invented the SCUMM engine
2. He revolutionized the way adventure games were played
Ron's games (and the other SCUMM games) focused on story and playability, compared to the other graphic adventures at the time. Play Kings Quest IV and then play Maniac Mansion and see the difference.
That doesn't mean he should come to Telltale, nor does it mean he poos gold, but if you're on this site I think I can say that many of the games you love (even today) would not exist without Ron. BTW Ron did have a hand in the new Monkey Island games and I think this was appropriate (LucasArts didn't ask for his input on their Monkey games), but otherwise I think we should let him do his own thing. I am looking forward to Deathspank!
Ron didn't make TOMI. Monkey Island 2 had a shitty ending. Monkey Island 3 and 5 were funnier than 1 and 2.
I think the series can survive without him, but that being said Ron is pretty awesome. Mi 1 and 2 are great games, and Spy Fox is a freakishly unappreciated game. It's aimed at 6-9 year olds, but it's probably as funny as Monkey Island. So he's got the humour down pat.
I'd rather see Ron employed by Double Fine, because Telltale manages to keep spewing out quality games every 6 months, whereas it took Double Fine forever to make Brutal Legend, and I had single player finished in 5 hours.
Ron didn't make TOMI. Monkey Island 2 had a shitty ending. Monkey Island 3 and 5 were funnier than 1 and 2.
So many wrong things in that sentence...
MI2 didn't have a shitty ending. It was a set up for the third game, that never came. MI3 and 5 were funnier, because they were become more cartoon than the first two. MI1 and 2 were slightly more subtle, even if it's got its cartoonish moments as well. Also, I preferred the direction MI2 took the series. A darker and sadder undertone, while still being a wonderfully cheery game. Tales were pretty good at doing this as well, but that really was just at the end of the series. In MI2 it went from dark to light to dark, simply because it was such a free-roaming adventure game. Which makes it quite a bit above the rest, imo. The Part II in MI2 was the best piece of adventure gaming ever made, geniusly designed.
Anyway, my 4 year old son is pestering me because he wants me to play Super Mario Galaxy while he's watching. Guess I'll have to heed words.
MI2 did too have a shitty ending. it was pure unadulterated "WTF." Other than that, it's was good, but that doesn't lessen the suck that is the carnival and blatant reference to "Luke, I am your father" that is considered by some to be an actual plot twist for the MI2 storyline rather than a stupid joke.
I hear you lurking out there, Rather Dashing. I know what you're going to say. I'll say this: MI2 IS A WONDERFUL GAME. I just hate the ending.
Also, StarEye, there is no physical evidence to prove that Ron really did mean to create his own version of MI3. It's entirely possible that he's just telling people that. Besides that, he left LucasArts before he could make it, so I'd say that goes to show his dedication to the task.
Besides all that, even if Ron created SMI and MI2, he wasn't solely responsible for the whole thing.
Or did I read these wrong:
Why then isn't Dave Grossman, who works here at Telltale, considered just as godlike as Ron Gilbert?
I hear you lurking out there, Rather Dashing. I know what you're going to say. I'll say this: MI2 IS A WONDERFUL GAME. I just hate the ending.
I honestly wasn't planning on getting in on this one again. I also would like to stick to the non-plan, thanks. :cool:
Not an admission that anybody's right or wrong. It's just that I've gone over everything I want to go over, and nothing new is being added by anybody to the conversation, so I'm perfectly fine avoiding it.
Eh. If someone feels like they have something to contribute, that's fine. I just don't think that the same people reiterating the same points ad infinitum just doesn't seem worthwhile.
Personally I think it's a matter of taste.
If someone is really fully satisfied only with clichés "... And they lived happily ever after..." endings, then he would feel disappointed with the ending of MI2. Simple as that.
So, let me rewrite that...
If someone is really fully satisfied only with WTF "... What the hell happened here..." endings, then he would feel most satisfied with the ending of MI2. Simple as that.
I think it has less to do with being satisfied and more to do with "WTF! HOLY CRAP, I WONDER WHAT HAPPENS NEXT!?". Which is basically what I felt the very first time I finished the game all those years ago (summer of '92 I think).
Yes, I expected there to be another game. It was extremely obvious to me that the ending told me there was another one coming. Why people still argue against that puzzles me. That's just completely ignoring obvious hints and pretending they don't exist or explaining them away with a horribly bullshit argument. As if the game suddenly started being nonsensical. Adding stuff like glowing eyes and that Elaine scene isn't creating an open ending. An open ending makes sense and is conclusive. The MI2 ending isn't an open ending. The only way to define the ending in MI2 is a cliffhanger ending. Like Star Wars Episode V (Empire Strikes Back). And the MI2 ending part had a major reference to the ending of that movie as well (I am your brother). Coincidence?
I prefer MI2 to CMI. I'm not saying CMI was bad, it was just that it took the series in the direction of what people have described as a Saturday Morning Cartoon, which I did not like. Now 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: you have LeChuck's arm being ripped off his body and carried off by a dog as a joke, something which would not happen in your typical Saturday Morning cartoon, and death is treated in a horrific way that still manages to take the piss out of it.
When people say they think MI2 was darker, I feel that what they are trying to say is that it wasn't more serious or scary, but that it was twisted, it followed its own logic which actually made sense in a black comedy-way. That's my thought on that anyway.
As to why people want MI3, its not necessarily because they disliked CMI but 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. Its not really because they hate CMI or feel that Ron is god, its just that they wonder what might have been, just like some people wonder if that had George Lucas had done the prequel trilogy back when he did the original trilogy would it still have sucked...
The only way to define the ending in MI2 is a cliffhanger ending. Like Star Wars Episode V (Empire Strikes Back). And the MI2 ending part had a major reference to the ending of that movie as well (I am your brother). Coincidence?
It doesn't make sense to me for that Star Wars reference in MI2 to be an actual plot twist. Maybe back in the day if Ron had actually made MI3, but not now that there are 5 games in the overall storyline. That sort of reference is usually given for comedic effect, not for actual story development.
I mean, even Spaceballs did it just for laughs, and almost that whole movie is nonsensical.
- "I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate."
- "What does that make us?"
- "Absolutely nothing, which is what you are about to become."
If the last part of MI2 is Guybrush getting under the influence of LeChuck's spell, the 'I am your brother' remark can be seen as keeping Guybrush from killing him, at least momentarily, and as planting the thought in Guybrush's head. Since Guybrush is weakened by the spell, he really imagines LeChuck as his brother.
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.
Comments
Edit: Game credit numbers may be off because I don't have completely reliable info -- there seems to be a difference of opinion among web sites as to how many LucasArts games each was actually involved with.
Also, when people actually do, for whatever reason, troll, they usually set up a new account just for trolling with so they don't get banned.
Granted, trolling may sometimes be inferred when someone is just being rude.
For example: I called him a troll for that, but he may not have been. It may have just been plain ordinary rudeness.
This is to say that I perceive the difference between the two being the intent. Trolling is designed specifically to enflame the conversation, while simple rudeness occurs when someone just doesn't care enough about being civil.
I suppose that's the difference between a troll and a jerk.
To say that trolling only happens in specific forums is somewhat naive. Since this is a smaller community, we've been hit less by it, but it can and will happen from time to time.
I lurk a forum that's prone to trolling. Here's some of the differences between trolling and not trolling based on what I've seen there. I won't name it, but it's pretty obvious where I'm talking about if you've sent some time there.
Person sees something they strongly disagree with, states points rudely and insults the person they're talking to.
Not troll. Just rude.
Person posts the most inflammatory thing possible in several topics, and is flippant when people respond.
Troll. It helps that I think the person I'm thinking of admitted to it.
Person responds to every insult, no matter how minor and obviously insincere, with rage.
Not troll. Just oversensitive. The people who noticed this and continued to insult him because it was funny to see him blow up might be, though.
Person posts ridiculously exaggerated version of a real ideology in every single post.
Troll. Clearly a sock puppet.
Person constantly sexually harasses female members.
Not troll. Seriously, that has nothing to do with trolling.
This one's kind of specific, but I'm using it here because it's such a good example. There was another forum with a high proportion of members who seemed to hate women for not going out with them. A member of the forum I lurk made an account there, and mentioned that he was transgendered. This is true, but he mentioned it to get a reaction out of them.
Troll. Even though he was polite and most of what he said was true, his stated goal was to give the other forum a collective aneurysm, which is trolling. Whatever his intention, the reaction the other forum had was despicable, though.
Person gets in heated debate, ignores every else's points to repeat the same thing over and over
Impossible to tell. Could be a troll, could be a bad debater. In fact, all the things I mentioned could be trolls. Anyone could be a troll. I could be a troll. But it's not as common as some people seem to think.
Excellently put (the whole post). I especially agree with the summation.
Also, it sounds as though you consider calling random people trolls is as bad as calling random people noobs. However, I would consider calling people noobs for no legitimate reason to be much more childish.
They're both childish.
I so agree with you. And I'd be REALLY surprised if "Deathspank" is actually released.
And, to stay on topic: I'm not sure if I want this Ron person to work on new Monkey Island games. If he does, I don't want him to disconsider Curse Escape and Tales.
Not to mention in this thread people considered *me* the troll...
EDIT: Besides of course my opinion on Ron.
I do not.
I only called someone a troll once, and that was because whomever it was was being a jerk to someone else... he said something like "if you're going to reiterate the same thing over and over it becomes pointless and annoying" for which I called him a troll (although he could have just been a jerk. take your pick.)
I only did that once, anyway.
edit: I get the feeling that you're singling Hassat and I out because we vehemently disagreed with you about something. My brain wants to recall maybe it was about whether or not EMI sucks, whether or not MI2 is the best MI game, or whether or not CMI=MI3. I'm not sure which.
That doesn't mean we call everyone trolls all the time.
...Oh. Thin, you really are a troll.
1. He invented the SCUMM engine
2. He revolutionized the way adventure games were played
Ron's games (and the other SCUMM games) focused on story and playability, compared to the other graphic adventures at the time. Play Kings Quest IV and then play Maniac Mansion and see the difference.
That doesn't mean he should come to Telltale, nor does it mean he poos gold, but if you're on this site I think I can say that many of the games you love (even today) would not exist without Ron. BTW Ron did have a hand in the new Monkey Island games and I think this was appropriate (LucasArts didn't ask for his input on their Monkey games), but otherwise I think we should let him do his own thing. I am looking forward to Deathspank!
Well, he was a major contributor to it at least.
He and Aric Wilmunder coded the original SCUMM.
I think the series can survive without him, but that being said Ron is pretty awesome. Mi 1 and 2 are great games, and Spy Fox is a freakishly unappreciated game. It's aimed at 6-9 year olds, but it's probably as funny as Monkey Island. So he's got the humour down pat.
I'd rather see Ron employed by Double Fine, because Telltale manages to keep spewing out quality games every 6 months, whereas it took Double Fine forever to make Brutal Legend, and I had single player finished in 5 hours.
So many wrong things in that sentence...
MI2 didn't have a shitty ending. It was a set up for the third game, that never came. MI3 and 5 were funnier, because they were become more cartoon than the first two. MI1 and 2 were slightly more subtle, even if it's got its cartoonish moments as well. Also, I preferred the direction MI2 took the series. A darker and sadder undertone, while still being a wonderfully cheery game. Tales were pretty good at doing this as well, but that really was just at the end of the series. In MI2 it went from dark to light to dark, simply because it was such a free-roaming adventure game. Which makes it quite a bit above the rest, imo. The Part II in MI2 was the best piece of adventure gaming ever made, geniusly designed.
Anyway, my 4 year old son is pestering me because he wants me to play Super Mario Galaxy while he's watching. Guess I'll have to heed words.
MI2 did too have a shitty ending. it was pure unadulterated "WTF." Other than that, it's was good, but that doesn't lessen the suck that is the carnival and blatant reference to "Luke, I am your father" that is considered by some to be an actual plot twist for the MI2 storyline rather than a stupid joke.
I hear you lurking out there, Rather Dashing. I know what you're going to say. I'll say this: MI2 IS A WONDERFUL GAME. I just hate the ending.
Also, StarEye, there is no physical evidence to prove that Ron really did mean to create his own version of MI3. It's entirely possible that he's just telling people that. Besides that, he left LucasArts before he could make it, so I'd say that goes to show his dedication to the task.
Besides all that, even if Ron created SMI and MI2, he wasn't solely responsible for the whole thing.
Or did I read these wrong:
Why then isn't Dave Grossman, who works here at Telltale, considered just as godlike as Ron Gilbert?
Not an admission that anybody's right or wrong. It's just that I've gone over everything I want to go over, and nothing new is being added by anybody to the conversation, so I'm perfectly fine avoiding it.
Also, I still find his lack of faith in Ron and his comments disturbing. No wonder people are so cynical.
If someone is really fully satisfied only with clichés "... And they lived happily ever after..." endings, then he would feel disappointed with the ending of MI2. Simple as that.
So, let me rewrite that...
If someone is really fully satisfied only with WTF "... What the hell happened here..." endings, then he would feel most satisfied with the ending of MI2. Simple as that.
Yes, I expected there to be another game. It was extremely obvious to me that the ending told me there was another one coming. Why people still argue against that puzzles me. That's just completely ignoring obvious hints and pretending they don't exist or explaining them away with a horribly bullshit argument. As if the game suddenly started being nonsensical. Adding stuff like glowing eyes and that Elaine scene isn't creating an open ending. An open ending makes sense and is conclusive. The MI2 ending isn't an open ending. The only way to define the ending in MI2 is a cliffhanger ending. Like Star Wars Episode V (Empire Strikes Back). And the MI2 ending part had a major reference to the ending of that movie as well (I am your brother). Coincidence?
I prefer MI2 to CMI. I'm not saying CMI was bad, it was just that it took the series in the direction of what people have described as a Saturday Morning Cartoon, which I did not like. Now 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: you have LeChuck's arm being ripped off his body and carried off by a dog as a joke, something which would not happen in your typical Saturday Morning cartoon, and death is treated in a horrific way that still manages to take the piss out of it.
When people say they think MI2 was darker, I feel that what they are trying to say is that it wasn't more serious or scary, but that it was twisted, it followed its own logic which actually made sense in a black comedy-way. That's my thought on that anyway.
As to why people want MI3, its not necessarily because they disliked CMI but 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. Its not really because they hate CMI or feel that Ron is god, its just that they wonder what might have been, just like some people wonder if that had George Lucas had done the prequel trilogy back when he did the original trilogy would it still have sucked...
That's exactly what I think it did, and exactly how I felt the first time I played it.
It doesn't make sense to me for that Star Wars reference in MI2 to be an actual plot twist. Maybe back in the day if Ron had actually made MI3, but not now that there are 5 games in the overall storyline. That sort of reference is usually given for comedic effect, not for actual story development.
I mean, even Spaceballs did it just for laughs, and almost that whole movie is nonsensical.
- "I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate."
- "What does that make us?"
- "Absolutely nothing, which is what you are about to become."
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.