Tales of Monkey Island - Graphics

This goes out for the developers of Tales of Monkey Island (TMI),

I really love what you guys have done so far. The story, the music, the characters, etc all looks superb and promising, EXCEPT for the graphics.

I'm pretty sure i'm not the only one complaining about the graphics. I have a bunch of friends who are hardcore monkey island fans and when i showed them TMI, they all gave the same response: the graphics of this game looks OBSOLETE! It looks dull, plain and utterly unattractive. If 3d graphics is not your forte, perhaps you guys may want to consider doing it in classic point-and-click 2d style, like 'the curse of monkey island'. that graphic doesnt look outdated, even until today!

Now, I'm telling you this now because this game has not been released yet and there is still time to make MAJOR enhancement to the graphics of this game, before it's too late. I think that if you are successful at enhancing it, not only will TMI rocks, you will gain a lot more consumer market. just a thought.

GOOD LUCK GUYS! Thanks for reading!
«1345

Comments

  • edited June 2009
    I'm so tired of reading this. The graphics are more than fine and the screenshots, IIRC, are of an incomplete version of the game anyway.

    These games aren't about the graphics anyway!
  • edited June 2009
    aleny2k wrote: »
    This goes out for the developers of Tales of Monkey Island (TMI),

    I really love what you guys have done so far. The story, the music, the characters, etc all looks superb and promising, EXCEPT for the graphics.

    I'm pretty sure i'm not the only one complaining about the graphics. I have a bunch of friends who are hardcore monkey island fans and when i showed them TMI, they all gave the same response: the graphics of this game looks OBSOLETE! It looks dull, plain and utterly unattractive. If 3d graphics is not your forte, perhaps you guys may want to consider doing it in classic point-and-click 2d style, like 'the curse of monkey island'. that graphic doesnt look outdated, even until today!

    Now, I'm telling you this now because this game has not been released yet and there is still time to make MAJOR enhancement to the graphics of this game, before it's too late. I think that if you are successful at enhancing it, not only will TMI rocks, you will gain a lot more consumer market. just a thought.

    GOOD LUCK GUYS! Thanks for reading!

    Yeah, five weeks. Plenty of time to redo the entire game, right?
    Who's with me?
    Guys?

    Seriously, the graphics look fine. I mean, all we've seen is the trailer, and I think that was pretty spellbinding. Also, in anygame, graphics are always second chump to gameplay (and, for adventure games, story/puzzles). We haven't even seen the rest of the game.

    Also, yes, 3D is Telltale's forte. It's kinda the only games they make. Maybe you should try Monkey Island Special Addition?
  • edited June 2009
    I wish Telltale would catch up with everybody with the artistic realization of the gaming industry that everything needs to be a muddied brown and grey mixture.
  • edited June 2009
    I think screenshots and the trailer are not a very good representation of the game's graphics. Watch this E3 stage demo video linked below, it shows a lot of gameplay footage and it looks quite good to me. Granted, it's not Crysis 2, but this is an adventure game, you don't need to get all that fancy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-4kr9QP6Mk
  • edited June 2009
    I actually want to play the first episode before I make any judgements.
  • edited June 2009
    I'm not saying they should redo. i'm talking about ENHANCEMENT. they've obviously laid all the foundations. perhaps improving the model and applying a more high detailed texture will do for now.

    and if they are ready to take up the challenge and listen to the cries of fans all over the world to make the game in 2d style, they can always do it in SEASON 2. Again, just a thought. i'm just speaking on behalf of millions of fans out there who wanted their voices to be heard
  • edited June 2009
    I rofl'ed at this thread.
  • edited June 2009
    I'm sure telltale games appreciates your advice. They'll get right on it FUTURE BOY ! Build a Delorean and go back in time to remake the game in point and click 2-D ....Who cares about graphics, this isn't Doom 4 ! Whatever happened to people making adventure games for the right reasons, like Telltale games does . For the stories , and for the customers and fans . Monkey island never looked like Doom, why should it now ? It's not like its simon the sorcereor 3d ! IT's not that bad ! Also, simon the sorceror 1-2 walked all over MiI-one and two visually speaking , details , and all .Monkey island was never a visual fascination. People who think the 4th game looks bad havent played simon the sorceror 3d.
  • edited June 2009
    aleny2k wrote: »
    and if they are ready to take up the challenge and listen to the cries of fans all over the world to make the game in 2d style, they can always do it in SEASON 2. Again, just a thought. i'm just speaking on behalf of millions of fans out there who wanted their voices to be heard

    How kind of you. You're like Gordon Brown kinda... Saving the world, one issue at a time :rolleyes:
  • edited June 2009
    Sometimes I think it may have been a mistake to reveal as much of the game as they did. I think people will be pleasantly surprised with the final product.
  • edited June 2009
    aleny2k wrote: »
    I'm not saying they should redo. i'm talking about ENHANCEMENT. they've obviously laid all the foundations. perhaps improving the model and applying a more high detailed texture will do for now.

    and if they are ready to take up the challenge and listen to the cries of fans all over the world to make the game in 2d style, they can always do it in SEASON 2. Again, just a thought. i'm just speaking on behalf of millions of fans out there who wanted their voices to be heard
    Some fans are just crying for joy that they're making a monkey island game at all.

    Kinda a beggers can't be choosers scenario.
  • edited June 2009
    aleny2k wrote: »
    I have a bunch of friends who are hardcore monkey island fans and when i showed them TMI, they all gave the same response

    If they were really hard core fans, they would've already seen it before you.:cool:
  • edited June 2009
    doodo! wrote: »
    I'm sure telltale games appreciates your advice. They'll get right on it FUTURE BOY! Build a Delorean and go back in time to remake the game in point and click 2-D ....Who cares about graphics, this isn't Doom 4! Whatever happened to people making adventure games for the right reasons, like Telltale games does . For the stories, and for the customers and fans. Monkey island never looked like Doom, why should it now? It's not like its simon the sorcereor 3d!

    I completely agree haha. Best post ever.
  • TimTim
    edited June 2009
    Mataku wrote: »
    If they were really hard core fans, they would've already seen it before you.:cool:

    Teehee! :D

    Monkey Island.. MONKEY ISLAND! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Monkey Island + Gameplay + Story > Graphics. Sorry.
  • edited June 2009
    I think Telltale needs to implement an obligatory curse about the search function before being allowed to post.
  • edited June 2009
    I guess people are sick of hearing this criticism, but it's still just as valid as it was the day the screenshots came out.
  • edited June 2009
    I dunno... It looks pretty good to me...
  • edited June 2009
    Again with this story... When will you people understand that graphics are important in a GRAPHIC adventure? I mean, would you be happy about a Monkey Island TEXT adventure? I think not.
    What I've understood so far by your answers is that you guys consider "fake" fans those who care about graphics.
    That's not true.
    I'm a hardcore fan, I've been playing adventure games for more than 18 years, and I think that adventure games need good graphics to inspire and tell stories.
    You all put graphics and good stories within an exclusive OR, why?
    Why would you CHOOSE between narration, humour and graphics?
    They're ALL very important.
    Furthermore, if we all want graphic adventures to be competitive again within this crazy business and attract more young players, graphics must be very good looking.
    So, open your eyes, the graphics in TMI truly look obsolete.
    I've already bought the game, I don't care, I'm a MI fan and I'm happy anyway.
    But stop saying they're fine, 'cause they're NOT: they look already old, admit it.
    This trend should be stopped before "graphic adventure" becomes synonimous for "crappy graphics".
    Once again, I invite you to think of the name itself: GRAPHIC adventure.
  • edited June 2009
    Again with this story... When will you people understand that graphics are important in a GRAPHIC adventure? I mean, would you be happy about a Monkey Island TEXT adventure? I think not.
    What I've understood so far by your answers is that you guys consider "fake" fans those who care about graphics.
    That's not true.
    I'm a hardcore fan, I've been playing adventure games for more than 18 years, and I think that adventure games need good graphics to inspire and tell stories.
    You all put graphics and good stories within an exclusive OR, why?
    Why would you CHOOSE between narration, humour and graphics?
    They're ALL very important.
    Furthermore, if we all want graphic adventures to be competitive again within this crazy business and attract more young players, graphics must be very good looking.
    So, open your eyes, the graphics in TMI truly look obsolete.
    I've already bought the game, I don't care, I'm a MI fan and I'm happy anyway.
    But stop saying they're fine, 'cause they're NOT: they look already old, admit it.
    This trend should be stopped before "graphic adventure" becomes synonimous for "crappy graphics".
    Once again, I invite you to think of the name itself: GRAPHIC adventure.

    I can't tell if there's sarcasm here but I'm hoping there is..
  • edited June 2009
    If I say stuff in really big letters my point is more valid.
  • edited June 2009
    I can't tell if there's sarcasm here but I'm hoping there is..
    No sarcasm. Graphics are important even to a hardcore AG fan, what's weird or wrong about it?
    inso wrote: »
    If I say stuff in really big letters my point is more valid.
    You ain't funny
  • edited June 2009
    The graphics not only look fine, I actually like the new art direction.

    Graphics are the least important part of any video game, plain and simple. The only purpose amazing graphics really serve is to attract two-year-olds that consider themselves gamers and are easily attracted to shiny objects over gameplay.

    SoMI and MI 2 still look amazing.
  • edited June 2009
    SoMI and MI still look amazing, agreed, I love'em.
    But, as I said before, they had GREAT graphics for those years.

    OVER gameplay? Why do you think great graphics exclude gameplay?
  • edited June 2009
    OVER gameplay? Why do you think great graphics exclude gameplay?

    I didn't say exclude and in fact they aren't mutually exclusive, but in the end - if you have to sacrifice one - gameplay beats graphics. I like amazing 3D graphics as much as the next guy, they're just not really that important in my opinion and I'd rather take a highly stylized looked over realistic graphics as well.

    In the case of Tales... Telltale not only has a smaller budget than LucasArts (2D significantly more expensive), dealing with less disk space due to episodic releases (limits a lot of things), and a limited time fame for their production schedule (in order for monthly releases and they stated not re-using as many assets), they are also trying to have to game run on as many systems as possible to reach a wider audience. Considering this is the first MI in 9 years, I think it's more important that the game be available to the wider audience and thus potentially introduce more people to the franchise in order to help revitalize it, then go for the ultra-graphics look that would work on less PC's (particularly laptops which are usually not high-end graphics wise and the computer of choice for college age students and young adults which are in the prime demographic; just look at the age poll on this forum). Not to mention Adventure games are hardly the best-selling genre anymore, and episodic releases don't have the same turnover as full games (many times people don't purchase all the episodes); having a lower graphics budget and having it work on a lot of computers makes the most business sense, especially if you don't want to sacrifice the quality of other areas of the game.

    Considering all of this, the graphics are more than fine, helped by the stylized look which takes inspiration from MI 2 and CoMI.
  • edited June 2009
    Arodin wrote: »
    I think screenshots and the trailer are not a very good representation of the game's graphics. Watch this E3 stage demo video linked below, it shows a lot of gameplay footage and it looks quite good to me. Granted, it's not Crysis 2, but this is an adventure game, you don't need to get all that fancy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-4kr9QP6Mk
    i cant believe I missed this. looks pretty nice. :)

    I like the art direction, when I look at it I think of Steve Purcell, which is a good thing.
    Although I kinda wish they used bump-mapping like they did with W&G. I would prefer a "clay" look than a "plastic" look.
  • TimTim
    edited June 2009
    I didn't say exclude and in fact they aren't mutually exclusive, but in the end - if you have to sacrifice one - gameplay beats graphics. I like amazing 3D graphics as much as the next guy, they're just not really that important in my opinion and I'd rather take a highly stylized looked over realistic graphics as well.

    In the case of Tales... Telltale not only has a smaller budget than LucasArts (2D significantly more expensive), dealing with less disk space due to episodic releases (limits a lot of things), and a limited time fame for their production schedule (in order for monthly releases and they stated not re-using as many assets), they are also trying to have to game run on as many systems as possible to reach a wider audience. Considering this is the first MI in 9 years, I think it's more important that the game be available to the wider audience and thus potentially introduce more people to the franchise in order to help revitalize it, then go for the ultra-graphics look that would work on less PC's (particularly laptops which are usually not high-end graphics wise and the computer of choice for college age students and young adults which are in the prime demographic; just look at the age poll on this forum).

    Considering all of this, the graphics are more than fine, helped by the stylized look which takes inspiration from MI 2 and CoMI.

    My point exactly, well put.

    Apart from the fact that graphics should not be discarded & thrown into the trash bin as 'unimportant', I personally feel that graphics are not as high on the list for an adventure game. It needs to be attractive. It needs to fit in the Monkey Island setting, so people are willing to spend their time in it! That's about it. It does not need to 'live up to' anything else, it does its own thing. ToMI graphics so far look comical, true & Monkey Island-worthy. Need I say more.
  • edited June 2009
    I'm actually disappointed no-one quoted Guybrush in EMI when he says they should sue the gaming industry by demanding huge hardware requirements even for simple Adventure games.
  • edited June 2009
    Actually, my point's always been "contents first, graphics after".
    Never discussed that.
    I just don't get why people consider graphics and contents mutually exclusive, as turingmachine said, or why people mark graphics as useless and unimportant.
    First of all, when I say "great graphics" I DON'T MEAN realistic.
    Great graphics can be very cartoony and just increase the potential of expressivity and humour. I see some ignorance from the ones (I'm not referring to turingmachine or Tim) who think of great graphics like photorealism for first person shooters like Doom or Far Cry.
  • edited June 2009
    I'm not saying I wouldn't like more detailed graphics, I guess I'm just annoyed at people who are saying 'Tales' is horrible and they're not going to buy it because of how it looks.
  • edited June 2009
    aleny2k wrote: »
    i'm just speaking on behalf of millions of fans out there who wanted their voices to be heard

    Millions. If Monkey Island ever had millions of fans we would not be on the fifth game in twenty years, I assure you.
  • edited June 2009
    Yeah, the art direction is pretty sound. It all looks okay, sometimes even real good to me. That said, I can relate to those who make a bit of a fuzz about this, in a way. Monkey's always been beautiful. Just like Sam&Max before, the lighting just doesn't give the relatively simple models the oomph they could probably need. It all looks a little flat sometimes, even in that video. I know I'm repeating myself from another thread, but the right filters can make visuals look way more complex than they really are, give everything abetter feel and hide edges a plenty.

    See Ceville, for instance.

    http://www.enemyofreality.de/wp-content/gallery/screenshots/ceville_01.jpg
    http://static.computergames.ro/cg/assassin/images3/ceville/ceville062.jpg
    http://www.gamersgate.com/img/screenshots/DD-CEVILLE/12452_Ceville12.jpg

    Still it's worth remembering that this is all work in progress! DUDES.
  • edited June 2009
    I'm not saying I wouldn't like more detailed graphics, I guess I'm just annoyed at people who are saying 'Tales' is horrible and they're not going to buy it because of how it looks.

    Man, I actually bought it the minute after it was announced.
    I don't care if graphics look obsolete and old, I'd buy a MI even if it had the graphics of Maniac Mansion. The point is just I'd like it to look better.
  • edited June 2009
    Hasn't this already been answered, though, Guybrush, if that's your real name?

    The screenshots are not final. It's amazing how a little polish on the lighting and shaders can really improve the over all look of a scene. Trust me. You're commenting on an unfinished product.
  • edited June 2009
    Yeah, the art direction is pretty sound. It all looks okay, sometimes even real good to me. That said, I can relate to those who make a bit of a fuzz about this, in a way. Monkey's always been beautiful. Just like Sam&Max before, the lighting just doesn't give the relatively simple models the oomph they could probably need. It all looks a little flat sometimes, even in that video. I know I'm repeating myself from another thread, but the right filters can make visuals look way more complex than they really are, give everything abetter feel and hide edges a plenty.

    See Ceville, for instance.

    http://www.enemyofreality.de/wp-content/gallery/screenshots/ceville_01.jpg
    http://static.computergames.ro/cg/assassin/images3/ceville/ceville062.jpg
    http://www.gamersgate.com/img/screenshots/DD-CEVILLE/12452_Ceville12.jpg

    Still it's worth remembering that this is all work in progress! DUDES.

    I have to disagree here. Simply adding a bloom effect doesn't automatically make a game look good, a concept too many game devs can't seem to grasp.
  • edited June 2009
    inso wrote: »
    Hasn't this already been answered, though, Guybrush, if that's your real name?

    The screenshots are not final. It's amazing how a little polish on the lighting and shaders can really improve the over all look of a scene. Trust me. You're commenting on an unfinished product.

    First: I hope you're right, but I suspect the game will definitely look like that.
    Second: if it was my real name, probably my parents would have been smoking strong weed before going to the registry office.
  • edited June 2009
    First: I hope you're right, but I suspect the game will definitely look like that.
    Second: if it was my real name, probably my parents would have been smoking strong weed before going to the registry office.

    Well, think that if you like, but maybe you'll be encouraged if I say that I was speaking to someone off-the-record and I got the strong impression the final polished look of the game game will be much more like and possibly better than the best of the screenshots, like the one of the Voodoo lady and the one with Guybrush and the sword.
  • edited June 2009
    The released screenshots are not representative of the final game. Even so, nothing you say will change the graphics. If they bother you enough you don't want to purchase the game, it's your loss. TTG makes their games in such a way that it's possible for them to reach the largest audience with varying types of hardware, and have a quick turn around time on game development because they don't have to focus heavily on graphics and can focus on gameplay. Which I prefer so much and I can't believe people would complain about it.
  • edited June 2009
    I have to disagree here. Simply adding a bloom effect doesn't automatically make a game look good, a concept too many game devs can't seem to grasp.

    Now Ceville isn't a particularly good looking game, it sure is not. I merely used this as an example of a 3d game that appears to have a little depth despite not being any more complex than TOMI.

    I agree: Bloom is overused, and often times used in the wrong ways. It's still a good filter for hiding polygons, particular with less complex modesls. However it's not about bloom effects so much, it's all about lighting in general. I'd argue lighting is the single most important thing in terms of 3d graphics. Luckily moby still has shots of the haphazard Resident Evil 4 PC port up on it's site. Most of the lighting found in the original Cube version was added later via a patch due to massive fan protest.

    The difference is shockingly obvious, despite the game consisting of the same models and 3d art in as in the console version. Sure, it's extreme an example, but it needs to be to prove my point. http://www.mobygames.com/game/resident-evil-4/screenshots
    Direct comparison.
  • edited June 2009
    It still looks way better than EMI. It's the only right step they could take with the art style. Would you like a hyper-realistic looking Monkey Island looking like Crysis?
    I think they did a perfect mix of classic Monkey Island comic-style and "new" 3D graphics.
  • edited June 2009
    Skuld wrote: »
    It still looks way better than EMI.
    There are actually some people that have made off-hand comments that EMI looks BETTER. I still can't wrap my brain around that.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.