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.
Actually, I would like to see a Monkey Island game made in that style someday. After all. Zelda Twilight Princess was very pleasing in the style shift from exaggerated cartoon to pretty realistic. Nothing wrong with amazing graphics. Nothing wrong with Tales of Monkey Island's either.
Hey I just realized something....."Tales of Monkey Island" was made by "Tell Tale Games". Coincidence?
I have to agree to some extend. Having played the Wallace and Gromit game it looks better than Sam and Max. Monkey Island seems to go more for the Sam and Max graphics approach. It would certainly not be a bad thing if everything would have more textures.. We're not in the year 2000, but in 2009. Even with limited time you can make things look better (Walace and Gromit for example)..
I didn't like Sam and Max much because of a few things:
-Locations were repeated over and over.
-Characters had no real "feeling". They had no real charm
-Not many details.. flat environments
-Not able to combine items to solve puzzles
Curse of Monkey Island is my favourite adventure game. The graphics, story and the way it played was just perfect imo for an adventure. I didn't like when 3d was introduced with games like Grim Fandango (even though that was quite good). Those games however only had a 3d character in a 2d environment. Now it's all 3d and it's much harder to get it right. Lets hope it will be done right with Tales, but I'm still very skeptical. No offence, but I don't like feeling like I'm playing a low budget game.
I sometimes wonder just why some people play computer games, because a lot of them seem to just want to see a piece of software that reassures them that they have a "kick ass" machine.
I sometimes wonder just why some people play computer games, because a lot of them seem to just want to see a piece of software that reassures them that they have a "kick ass" machine.
asking for a good mix of all isn't that strange to ask for nowadays..
asking for a good mix of all isn't that strange to ask for nowadays..
Thing is, nobody ever asked for it back in the day. Everyone just did the best they could for a game and everybody was happy. Now it's all about the latest hardware. Also, games weren't as expensive to make back then. Now they at least seem to have to have high quality soundtracks, voice acting, appealing competitive 3D graphics with at least high quality textures, pixel shaders, bloom/HDR, and high poly models with normal mapping so you don't notice the slight jaggedness of already very appealing models. And all this just to even be considered "up to date."
Games were funner when they didn't have to worry about these things...
Absolutely not.
I grew up with C64 and, believe me, when I saw MI I thought something like "gosh, this looks awesome".
That happened with every LucasFilm/LucasArts game that came out.
The sad thing is that nowadays what I think is "gosh, a new MI game, great! It doesn't look so awesome but must be a wonderful game."
So, probably some of you are not-so-long-time fans or have just FORGOTTEN the impact that even the graphics of those games had on us all back in those days.
Sure, graphic adventures were (are) wonderful for millions of factors like narration, story, humour, puzzles, but EVEN graphics.
It is enough comparing Broken Sword 2 with Monkey Island 3 to see how LucasArts was competitive even with graphics in 1997: CMI looked waaay better than BS2 graphically.
Oh, I forgot to mention something for Mr. MusicallyInspired: when I bought Full Throttle I had a 80486 machine, and it ran crappily on it.
So I bought a Pentium. I've changed my machine to run an adventure game.
It's not that weird to upgrade hardware to the latest because of graphical requirements.
You knew that, right?
Why do you feel that you must continually argue with me? I have a 486 DX2 66 sitting right next to my Pentium 4 and Full Throttle runs just fine on it. As well as The Dig, incidentally. Of course it's not unheard of to have to upgrade for games even back in the 90s. And there's nothing wrong with it either. All games took advantage of the newer hardware capabilities that were coming out. It would be insane not to. But it was never about that for gamers. If their computer could run it, that's all that mattered. Even for FPSs! Nowadays games have multiple levels of video quality settings so that they can be played on older as well as newer systems. See how things changed there? It ceased to be about the game itself and then became all about experiencing a game in the best possible way one could. Games became marketing objects for video hardware. It's a completely different world now then it was in the 90s.
My point is that the attention shifted from the games themselves to how well their rig could run it. No matter what you did to your system back then the best you could make a game run was by speeding it up with a faster processor. You couldn't do any other enhancements.
Actually, I'm partly wrong about that. A lot of the earlier games had multiple drivers for older and newer video devices (Hercules Monochrome, EGA, Amiga, VGA, Grayscale, etc) as well as sound drivers (PC Speaker, Tandy 3-Voice, Adlib, Sound Blaster, MT-32, Sound Canvas, GUS, etc), so it was like that to an extent. But I think my argument still holds because that wasn't the case with LA adventures as time went on. The requirements became more standardized to the point of just needing an SVGA card with a Sound Blaster compatible sound card. But that also shows something: games were created more and more as time went on to be standardized for every player no matter what kind of system they had. All the music went digital-only (FT, The Dig, COMI), all the graphics went VGA/SVGA only (starting from MI2). Now we seemed to have regressed into the multiple support marketing hole again.
Anyway, what was my point again? The focus was indeed much more on the games themselves than the hardware to run it. Therefore, it wasn't about the graphics even though they took advantage of the latest capabilities. It wasn't about that. Now it's all about that. I already stated in the Unconditional Support Thread I started (which seems to have been buried now. What does that say lol) that back then graphics needed to improve and they did healthily without having too much focus. Then everything went overboard and that's all it became about. Nowadays we have great graphics and can choose whatever type of style we want. I think things are different now and graphics are good enough now and we have enough technology to finally say that games don't HAVE to require the latest hardware to look good. TOMI looks more than great now and really doesn't need to improve although it could.
And I used to have (still do actually!) a Tandy Color Computer 3 and loved it. Never hated it at all. The only thing about the old adventures I ever wanted to improve upon was the sound and music. I desperately wanted to get an MT-32 so I could hear the soundtracks in glorious high-fidelity! I never once cared about the graphics at all.
I agree, now it's all about that. It shouldn't be.
But there's no need to make the mistake of being pleased even with a game with crappy graphics (I'm not referring to TMI).
Some people, like me here, are asking for a decent mix, something enjoyable that doesn't look old.
Something AT LEAST as W&G series, which was OK.
There's been a step back, and I can't be happy about that.
Oh, I want to clarify something: I'm not arguing with you by choice or whatever, I'm just pacifically sharing my opinion (that unfortunately crashes against yours).
About Full Throttle, I had a 486 DX2 50 and I assure you, I had to buy a new PC, it didn't run fine. It crashed a lot during the mine part.
Maybe you didn't have enough RAM? Or EMS memory (man I remember those DOS memory management days....what a strain on the brain it was to get games working without a boot disk and such!!)? lol I don't know. I only know it runs satisfactorily on mine. A bit sluggish in loading new rooms or sounds the odd time maybe, but nothing too unplayable. Sorry you had to upgrade, though.
Anyway, I think the reason TMI's graphics don't like the same as W&G's is because TMI is more of a cartoon (think Wind Waker, but not as Japanese) while W&G is like claymotion, which is a cartoon in a sense but it's filmed with real models and such so it can be argued that it's actually realistic. Two different approaches.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't want a much more detailed MI game someday (a Crysis graphics style shift would actually be AWESOME like the Twilight Princess shift was). But for TMI, I'm happy with the result.
Lol, yeah I remember "memmaker"
Seems we have a deal this time, I agree with everything!
Gotta go to sleep now, it's 3.02 AM, good night (morning to you) pal.
You guys also need to understand that a good majority of telltale gamers don't have top of the line computers. Most of us have 10 year old computers that can't handle super-ultra-mega-sparkly bloom crap and other shiny graphics. They would be given a majority of there fan base a big middle finger. Telltale games are the only new games in the past 4 years that i can play on my computer and i KNOW i'm not the only one. To the telltale staff: keep up the good work. i applaud you sirs and madams.
Then why does wallace and gromit look better graphically? It's also by telltale.. It has sharper textures etc.. Sam and max on the other hand sometimes has hoooorrible looking characters.. especially closeups
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.
The graphics look "OK" from the distance, but absolutely ugly up close. Seriously, the models (ship!!!, characters) are HORRID. And the textures... so blurry and dull it isn't funny, they should be more "cartoony" to cover the low poly models.
And what's with the colors? There are shades of brown everywhere, green isn't green, yellow isn't yellow, red is brown. Where are the vibrant colors we all know and love?
I also miss a more "complex" interface - the one from Full Throttle and CMI, it worked so great. Everything's "one click, default action" now.
What I really like are the animations though, very nice job.
I don't know how many times someone needs to point that out before it sinks in that maybe it'd be best to WAIT for the release or at least until some new footage comes out. TTG have always done a lot of polish late on. One clue might be the way that some shots look far better than others in terms of colour balance, etc. Do you really think the final product is going to be so graphically inconsistent? Of course not.
I really do think maybe it could have been better to release a few of the better screenshots and then hold off. We were talking on the mixnmojo podcast about how in the EMI days all we had for ages was one tiny screenshot and that was enough to provide weeks of speculation.
I don't see the issue. The models look fine in a stylised way (and come on, who wants a hyper realistic guybrush? that'd be WRONG and freaky) and the whole cell shaded sort of look is really just a style thing. There's nothing WRONG with the graphics, I actually like telltales graphical style because it's such a refreshing change from all these "OMG we must be hyper realistic/gritty/so dark you can't see anything" and embraces the cartoony.
Now the thing is, playing through Secret of Monkey Island a few days ago.. you know what? The pixily graphics aren't actually an issue. They still look pretty nice, which is a major up from the hideousness that is EMI... I mean.. ew.
I suppose, old 2d will always look better than old 3d. But that's another story.
I like telltale's models, they fit the setting as being cartoony and in the end, cartoony is about the only direction to take the monkey island franchise right? It doesn't lend itself to realism, it'd be... weird.
If I were to travel into a different dimension where Telltale had instead opted for a 2D interface I wonder whether the same group would religiously defend it against those who would prefer an art style much like the one now. It looks as though anyone who dare criticize Telltale's almighty decisions is going to be trolled regardless of the validity of their arguments.
So far anyone I've seen who's come up with these concerns have been accused of either one or more of the following:
Valuing graphics over gameplay
Desiring a completely realistic interface
Desiring a completely unrealistic and cartoony interface, which is clearly unacceptable for a franchise called "Monkey Island".
Being ungrateful for not accepting every minor whim that the great lords of Telltale may have.
If a community is going to blindly follow every single decision Telltale makes without question or evaluation, what's the bloody point of even having a forum up for discussion?
Personally, I think the graphics could use improvement. They're not disastrous, but they're not perfect. That doesn't mean I want Monkey Island on the Crysis engine. That doesn't mean I want to sacrifice gameplay for graphics. That doesn't mean I'm not grateful that a new MI game is being made. It just means that I think the game's graphics aren't as good as they could be.
Ummm...
Small opinion here: The MI games are different. Between them. MI1 is not like MI2 which is not like MI3 which is NOT like MI4. I am speaking from a graphic point of view.
Everybody that worked on the titles brought it's own vision upon the series. This is not Indiana Jones, where you HAVE to have the whip and hat. This is Monkey Island. It's goofy, it's funny, it's cartoony (Dammit, MI3 was almost an interactive cartoon!).
You guys wanted another Monkey Island game. You finally have it... Does the graphic really matter that much to you? You really ignore the essence of Monkey Island for some...pixels? What kind of fans are you?
I am not saying that you are right or wrong. Everybody likes something different that appeals to his or hers personality and individual structures and history. A game is symbolical. A game's character is symbolical. Symbols are not meant to fulfil your own personal eye-pleasures... They're meant to bring something, a message, a story, a beloved character. To bring them closer to you. To bring you back to your childhoods and the time when you really wanted to become pirates from all your heart.
You didn't even know what "pixels" or "graphics" meant at that time. You were too busy laughing your belly off when Guybrush did something silly or stupid.
A problem with the continuous escalation of Hardware requirements is that it basically divides people into those who have a computer adequate to gaming and those who don't, with very little room in between. We are, in effect, alienating a significant portion of the less hardcore gamers for the simple fact that we want games to look good.
Additionally, for several years now there has been the feeling, especially among the old school gamers, that graphics are good enough as they are, thank you very much, and that companies should focus on making better games instead. As you can imagine it can be depressing when then we hear people request, or even demand better graphics.
There is only an handful of games I own which I like more because they're pretty, and most of those, if not several years old, could be made similarly pretty with older technology. In fact, to this day I think Half Life 2 is one of the better looking RTS's I own, and that includes the likes of Bioshock.
Yes, I know you're not requesting that the same is made to ToMI, but it doesn't stop being excessively annoying, especially because: a) how pretty a game looks is extremely subjective, b) We don't really know what the final game will look like, c) these kind of requests show no considerations for hardware limitations - This is especially important since I have the impression that many adventure game fans are not among the gamer elite.
[/Rant]
Ummm...
Small opinion here: The MI games are different. Between them. MI1 is not like MI2 which is not like MI3 which is NOT like MI4. I am speaking from a graphic point of view.
Everybody that worked on the titles brought it's own vision upon the series. This is not Indiana Jones, where you HAVE to have the whip and hat. This is Monkey Island. It's goofy, it's funny, it's cartoony (Dammit, MI3 was almost an interactive cartoon!).
You guys wanted another Monkey Island game. You finally have it... Does the graphic really matter that much to you? You really ignore the essence of Monkey Island for some...pixels? What kind of fans are you?
I am not saying that you are right or wrong. Everybody likes something different that appeals to his or hers personality and individual structures and history. A game is symbolical. A game's character is symbolical. Symbols are not meant to fulfil your own personal eye-pleasures... They're meant to bring something, a message, a story, a beloved character. To bring them closer to you. To bring you back to your childhoods and the time when you really wanted to become pirates from all your heart.
You didn't even know what "pixels" or "graphics" meant at that time. You were too busy laughing your belly off when Guybrush did something silly or stupid.
Where on earth does "I think the graphics could use some polishing" become "I am a terrible fan and I think I am now going to take a steaming shit all over the Monkey Island franchise" in your mind. WHERE?
How does offering personal critique over what we've seen so far equal a war against Monkey Island's "essence"? It doesn't. Pointing out things that we feel could use improvement is not full blown attack on Monkey Island. Nobody here is betraying the franchise when they point out that this:
and this:
doesn't exactly rock our socks.
Honestly, now that I've seen the gameplay video I'm much more convinced that this is going to be as great as ever, but that doesn't mean that the very act of questioning Telltale's graphical input is the work of the devil.
I quite like those screenshots actually. They look absolutely great!
Can we just agree that people have different tastes and that there's no way everyone will be happy and just allow Telltale, with their inner knowing of how the game works, do what they think best?
(Hahahahaha! As if that would ever work in the Internet.)
Well, doodoo! Wanted some room for sexual suggestiveness, TTG duly delivered.
P.S. I was disappointed at first by the style, too. As much as Bill Tiller wtfpwns, This style does actually work very well. Don't forget the MI franchise is in an indeterminable position, and TTG aren't a multi-national corporation with an unlimited budget at the best of times.
As a person not particularly bothered about graphics, within reason (hated MI4 graphics, seemed rushed/lazy) I think the general designs are mint (colloquial for great) and the facial expressions plug all the gaps in my enjoyment of the last MI game.
Where on earth does "I think the graphics could use some polishing" become "I am a terrible fan and I think I am now going to take a steaming shit all over the Monkey Island franchise" in your mind. WHERE?
Hey, easy... it was only a personal opinion. Didn't mean to "jump sharp-teeth at your throat". I was just pointing out some ideeas. My apologies if you found them attacking you personally.
This isn't Monkey Island 5. It's Tales of Monkey Island, a series of 5 episodes each released with a 1 month gap between them and the first one already less than a month a away!
The graphics aren't blockbuster quality because:
1. That's not exactly the sort of money adventure games pull in. Oh, I forgot to mention how fairly priced this series is.
2. The episodic development cycle only allows so much time for art production. To reach the crazy graphics expectations you have in that brief amount of time would require one seriously large production team, and they don't come cheap. See above point number 1.
3. The episodes need to be small to download and can work on lower spec computers. This is very important because it maximises the potential userbase.
You should check out telltales other games. Sure they aren't pushing the bounds of realism but I don't think its really all that lacking, certainly not in style or creativity. These games are going to be lot of fun, you just have to wait and see. These guys really know what they're doing. You'll get your high poly counts, shadow mapping and subsurface scattering when Monkey Island 5 is eventually announced, don't you worry.
Hey, easy... it was only a personal opinion. Didn't mean to "jump sharp-teeth at your throat". I was just pointing out some ideeas. My apologies if you found them attacking you personally.
Ahaha sorry. I tend to just type whatever comes into mind. I didn't take any offense from what you wrote, nor - i hope - did you from what I wrote.
If the issue is 2d v 3d, I actually much prefer 3d. It might not result in the same-quality backdrops as 2d potentially does, but it opens up the possibility of various different camera angles, and more cinematographic storytelling than 2d, where you need new artwork for every different camera angle ...
It is as much MI5 as CMI is MI3 and EMI is MI4, in that it is the fifth Monkey Island game, and the games have not been officially numbered since MI2.
There is a canned boxart for Curse of Monkey Island that has the Monkey Island 3 logo on it. So I guess if you want to get technical. (I shouldn't know this but I do.)
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 have to hand it to you, Guybrush_Threepwood. very well said. exactly what i wanted to say.
To whoever said TMI should look like crysis:
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. we're not asking for realism, but rather beautifully rendered graphics. it can be in a cute sense, vibrant, colourful, detailed, lush. Take 'prince of persia (2008)' for example. it doesnt have realistic graphics, but it's very beautifully rendered.
And Guybrush_Threepwood emphasized another issue which i have brought up earlier: "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". I truly believe that the only buyers TMI will attract is old fans like us and perhaps a minority of ppl who have never played MI before.
I mean, let's put ourselves in their shoes and imagine if we've never played MI before. we're in a store looking for a good adventure game. Would you rather choose Call of Duty: modern warfare 2, assassin's creed 2 or TMI which looks like fake plastics? i mean, who are we kidding. and if u think i'm wrong, let the sales statistics tell the whole story.
having said that, i'm not saying graphic is the most important element in a game. PLEASE STOP ARGUING THAT. but graphic is just as equally important as other gaming aspects like story, music, gameplay, dialogue, etc. all these must work together to make a really really good and kick ass game which offers remarkable gaming experience.
and one last thing, someone was right. i dont think 3 weeks time is enough for telltale games to make any MAJOR improvement on the graphics now. mostly the finished product will look just like the unfinished product from screenshots, since they have released a trailer with that graphics. Trailer usually represents what the end product will look like. So, there really isnt any point discussing this topic any further. let's all just stop and enjoy the final product when it's released.
Again, Telltale Games, THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS!!! WE ALL REALLY REALLY REALLY LOVE MONKEY ISLAND AND YOU GAVE US NEW HOPE!!!
I don't know if you're referring to me, but I never said it should look like Crysis. I did say it'd be nice to see a future Monkey Island game with Crysis-level graphics and realism (much like the Zelda style shift from Wind Waker to Twilight Princess).
Comments
Who cares. The only thing that I am interested in graphics wise is that I can play the game.
either I need new glasses or this looks too blurry.
Seriously this screenshot looks worse then the worst screenshot of ToMI.
OMG the colours. Blese will someone poke out my eyes.
The other screenshots look good except for the effects that make the picture look blurry.
I totally agree on that point.
Actually, I would like to see a Monkey Island game made in that style someday. After all. Zelda Twilight Princess was very pleasing in the style shift from exaggerated cartoon to pretty realistic. Nothing wrong with amazing graphics. Nothing wrong with Tales of Monkey Island's either.
Hey I just realized something....."Tales of Monkey Island" was made by "Tell Tale Games". Coincidence?
The same way comics are called graphic adventures, but they don't have to look like the Mona Lisa.
I didn't like Sam and Max much because of a few things:
-Locations were repeated over and over.
-Characters had no real "feeling". They had no real charm
-Not many details.. flat environments
-Not able to combine items to solve puzzles
Curse of Monkey Island is my favourite adventure game. The graphics, story and the way it played was just perfect imo for an adventure. I didn't like when 3d was introduced with games like Grim Fandango (even though that was quite good). Those games however only had a 3d character in a 2d environment. Now it's all 3d and it's much harder to get it right. Lets hope it will be done right with Tales, but I'm still very skeptical. No offence, but I don't like feeling like I'm playing a low budget game.
asking for a good mix of all isn't that strange to ask for nowadays..
As long as it's funny and nice to play I don't care if it looks like a Commodore 64 game.
Thing is, nobody ever asked for it back in the day. Everyone just did the best they could for a game and everybody was happy. Now it's all about the latest hardware. Also, games weren't as expensive to make back then. Now they at least seem to have to have high quality soundtracks, voice acting, appealing competitive 3D graphics with at least high quality textures, pixel shaders, bloom/HDR, and high poly models with normal mapping so you don't notice the slight jaggedness of already very appealing models. And all this just to even be considered "up to date."
Games were funner when they didn't have to worry about these things...
I grew up with C64 and, believe me, when I saw MI I thought something like "gosh, this looks awesome".
That happened with every LucasFilm/LucasArts game that came out.
The sad thing is that nowadays what I think is "gosh, a new MI game, great! It doesn't look so awesome but must be a wonderful game."
So, probably some of you are not-so-long-time fans or have just FORGOTTEN the impact that even the graphics of those games had on us all back in those days.
Sure, graphic adventures were (are) wonderful for millions of factors like narration, story, humour, puzzles, but EVEN graphics.
It is enough comparing Broken Sword 2 with Monkey Island 3 to see how LucasArts was competitive even with graphics in 1997: CMI looked waaay better than BS2 graphically.
So I bought a Pentium. I've changed my machine to run an adventure game.
It's not that weird to upgrade hardware to the latest because of graphical requirements.
You knew that, right?
My point is that the attention shifted from the games themselves to how well their rig could run it. No matter what you did to your system back then the best you could make a game run was by speeding it up with a faster processor. You couldn't do any other enhancements.
Actually, I'm partly wrong about that. A lot of the earlier games had multiple drivers for older and newer video devices (Hercules Monochrome, EGA, Amiga, VGA, Grayscale, etc) as well as sound drivers (PC Speaker, Tandy 3-Voice, Adlib, Sound Blaster, MT-32, Sound Canvas, GUS, etc), so it was like that to an extent. But I think my argument still holds because that wasn't the case with LA adventures as time went on. The requirements became more standardized to the point of just needing an SVGA card with a Sound Blaster compatible sound card. But that also shows something: games were created more and more as time went on to be standardized for every player no matter what kind of system they had. All the music went digital-only (FT, The Dig, COMI), all the graphics went VGA/SVGA only (starting from MI2). Now we seemed to have regressed into the multiple support marketing hole again.
Anyway, what was my point again? The focus was indeed much more on the games themselves than the hardware to run it. Therefore, it wasn't about the graphics even though they took advantage of the latest capabilities. It wasn't about that. Now it's all about that. I already stated in the Unconditional Support Thread I started (which seems to have been buried now. What does that say lol) that back then graphics needed to improve and they did healthily without having too much focus. Then everything went overboard and that's all it became about. Nowadays we have great graphics and can choose whatever type of style we want. I think things are different now and graphics are good enough now and we have enough technology to finally say that games don't HAVE to require the latest hardware to look good. TOMI looks more than great now and really doesn't need to improve although it could.
And I used to have (still do actually!) a Tandy Color Computer 3 and loved it. Never hated it at all. The only thing about the old adventures I ever wanted to improve upon was the sound and music. I desperately wanted to get an MT-32 so I could hear the soundtracks in glorious high-fidelity! I never once cared about the graphics at all.
But there's no need to make the mistake of being pleased even with a game with crappy graphics (I'm not referring to TMI).
Some people, like me here, are asking for a decent mix, something enjoyable that doesn't look old.
Something AT LEAST as W&G series, which was OK.
There's been a step back, and I can't be happy about that.
Oh, I want to clarify something: I'm not arguing with you by choice or whatever, I'm just pacifically sharing my opinion (that unfortunately crashes against yours).
About Full Throttle, I had a 486 DX2 50 and I assure you, I had to buy a new PC, it didn't run fine. It crashed a lot during the mine part.
Anyway, I think the reason TMI's graphics don't like the same as W&G's is because TMI is more of a cartoon (think Wind Waker, but not as Japanese) while W&G is like claymotion, which is a cartoon in a sense but it's filmed with real models and such so it can be argued that it's actually realistic. Two different approaches.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't want a much more detailed MI game someday (a Crysis graphics style shift would actually be AWESOME like the Twilight Princess shift was). But for TMI, I'm happy with the result.
Seems we have a deal this time, I agree with everything!
Gotta go to sleep now, it's 3.02 AM, good night (morning to you) pal.
I think the graphics look good enough.
The graphics look "OK" from the distance, but absolutely ugly up close. Seriously, the models (ship!!!, characters) are HORRID. And the textures... so blurry and dull it isn't funny, they should be more "cartoony" to cover the low poly models.
And what's with the colors? There are shades of brown everywhere, green isn't green, yellow isn't yellow, red is brown. Where are the vibrant colors we all know and love?
I also miss a more "complex" interface - the one from Full Throttle and CMI, it worked so great. Everything's "one click, default action" now.
What I really like are the animations though, very nice job.
I don't know how many times someone needs to point that out before it sinks in that maybe it'd be best to WAIT for the release or at least until some new footage comes out. TTG have always done a lot of polish late on. One clue might be the way that some shots look far better than others in terms of colour balance, etc. Do you really think the final product is going to be so graphically inconsistent? Of course not.
I really do think maybe it could have been better to release a few of the better screenshots and then hold off. We were talking on the mixnmojo podcast about how in the EMI days all we had for ages was one tiny screenshot and that was enough to provide weeks of speculation.
Now the thing is, playing through Secret of Monkey Island a few days ago.. you know what? The pixily graphics aren't actually an issue. They still look pretty nice, which is a major up from the hideousness that is EMI... I mean.. ew.
I suppose, old 2d will always look better than old 3d. But that's another story.
I like telltale's models, they fit the setting as being cartoony and in the end, cartoony is about the only direction to take the monkey island franchise right? It doesn't lend itself to realism, it'd be... weird.
So far anyone I've seen who's come up with these concerns have been accused of either one or more of the following:
Valuing graphics over gameplay
Desiring a completely realistic interface
Desiring a completely unrealistic and cartoony interface, which is clearly unacceptable for a franchise called "Monkey Island".
Being ungrateful for not accepting every minor whim that the great lords of Telltale may have.
If a community is going to blindly follow every single decision Telltale makes without question or evaluation, what's the bloody point of even having a forum up for discussion?
Personally, I think the graphics could use improvement. They're not disastrous, but they're not perfect. That doesn't mean I want Monkey Island on the Crysis engine. That doesn't mean I want to sacrifice gameplay for graphics. That doesn't mean I'm not grateful that a new MI game is being made. It just means that I think the game's graphics aren't as good as they could be.
Small opinion here: The MI games are different. Between them. MI1 is not like MI2 which is not like MI3 which is NOT like MI4. I am speaking from a graphic point of view.
Everybody that worked on the titles brought it's own vision upon the series. This is not Indiana Jones, where you HAVE to have the whip and hat. This is Monkey Island. It's goofy, it's funny, it's cartoony (Dammit, MI3 was almost an interactive cartoon!).
You guys wanted another Monkey Island game. You finally have it... Does the graphic really matter that much to you? You really ignore the essence of Monkey Island for some...pixels? What kind of fans are you?
I am not saying that you are right or wrong. Everybody likes something different that appeals to his or hers personality and individual structures and history. A game is symbolical. A game's character is symbolical. Symbols are not meant to fulfil your own personal eye-pleasures... They're meant to bring something, a message, a story, a beloved character. To bring them closer to you. To bring you back to your childhoods and the time when you really wanted to become pirates from all your heart.
You didn't even know what "pixels" or "graphics" meant at that time. You were too busy laughing your belly off when Guybrush did something silly or stupid.
In conclusion, I'll leave you with the main ideea of my message:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbTTyacCO5c&feature=related
A problem with the continuous escalation of Hardware requirements is that it basically divides people into those who have a computer adequate to gaming and those who don't, with very little room in between. We are, in effect, alienating a significant portion of the less hardcore gamers for the simple fact that we want games to look good.
Additionally, for several years now there has been the feeling, especially among the old school gamers, that graphics are good enough as they are, thank you very much, and that companies should focus on making better games instead. As you can imagine it can be depressing when then we hear people request, or even demand better graphics.
There is only an handful of games I own which I like more because they're pretty, and most of those, if not several years old, could be made similarly pretty with older technology. In fact, to this day I think Half Life 2 is one of the better looking RTS's I own, and that includes the likes of Bioshock.
Yes, I know you're not requesting that the same is made to ToMI, but it doesn't stop being excessively annoying, especially because: a) how pretty a game looks is extremely subjective, b) We don't really know what the final game will look like, c) these kind of requests show no considerations for hardware limitations - This is especially important since I have the impression that many adventure game fans are not among the gamer elite.
[/Rant]
God buggery shit damn crikey suitcase
Where on earth does "I think the graphics could use some polishing" become "I am a terrible fan and I think I am now going to take a steaming shit all over the Monkey Island franchise" in your mind. WHERE?
How does offering personal critique over what we've seen so far equal a war against Monkey Island's "essence"? It doesn't. Pointing out things that we feel could use improvement is not full blown attack on Monkey Island. Nobody here is betraying the franchise when they point out that this:
and this:
doesn't exactly rock our socks.
Honestly, now that I've seen the gameplay video I'm much more convinced that this is going to be as great as ever, but that doesn't mean that the very act of questioning Telltale's graphical input is the work of the devil.
Can we just agree that people have different tastes and that there's no way everyone will be happy and just allow Telltale, with their inner knowing of how the game works, do what they think best?
Well, doodoo! Wanted some room for sexual suggestiveness, TTG duly delivered.
P.S. I was disappointed at first by the style, too. As much as Bill Tiller wtfpwns, This style does actually work very well. Don't forget the MI franchise is in an indeterminable position, and TTG aren't a multi-national corporation with an unlimited budget at the best of times.
As a person not particularly bothered about graphics, within reason (hated MI4 graphics, seemed rushed/lazy) I think the general designs are mint (colloquial for great) and the facial expressions plug all the gaps in my enjoyment of the last MI game.
Hey, easy... it was only a personal opinion. Didn't mean to "jump sharp-teeth at your throat". I was just pointing out some ideeas. My apologies if you found them attacking you personally.
The graphics aren't blockbuster quality because:
1. That's not exactly the sort of money adventure games pull in. Oh, I forgot to mention how fairly priced this series is.
2. The episodic development cycle only allows so much time for art production. To reach the crazy graphics expectations you have in that brief amount of time would require one seriously large production team, and they don't come cheap. See above point number 1.
3. The episodes need to be small to download and can work on lower spec computers. This is very important because it maximises the potential userbase.
You should check out telltales other games. Sure they aren't pushing the bounds of realism but I don't think its really all that lacking, certainly not in style or creativity. These games are going to be lot of fun, you just have to wait and see. These guys really know what they're doing. You'll get your high poly counts, shadow mapping and subsurface scattering when Monkey Island 5 is eventually announced, don't you worry.
Ahaha sorry. I tend to just type whatever comes into mind. I didn't take any offense from what you wrote, nor - i hope - did you from what I wrote.
Peace.
It is as much MI5 as CMI is MI3 and EMI is MI4, in that it is the fifth Monkey Island game, and the games have not been officially numbered since MI2.
There is a canned boxart for Curse of Monkey Island that has the Monkey Island 3 logo on it. So I guess if you want to get technical. (I shouldn't know this but I do.)
This is NOT Monkey Island 5.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzwiFALr5HU&feature=fvw
I have to hand it to you, Guybrush_Threepwood. very well said. exactly what i wanted to say.
To whoever said TMI should look like crysis:
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. we're not asking for realism, but rather beautifully rendered graphics. it can be in a cute sense, vibrant, colourful, detailed, lush. Take 'prince of persia (2008)' for example. it doesnt have realistic graphics, but it's very beautifully rendered.
And Guybrush_Threepwood emphasized another issue which i have brought up earlier: "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". I truly believe that the only buyers TMI will attract is old fans like us and perhaps a minority of ppl who have never played MI before.
I mean, let's put ourselves in their shoes and imagine if we've never played MI before. we're in a store looking for a good adventure game. Would you rather choose Call of Duty: modern warfare 2, assassin's creed 2 or TMI which looks like fake plastics? i mean, who are we kidding. and if u think i'm wrong, let the sales statistics tell the whole story.
having said that, i'm not saying graphic is the most important element in a game. PLEASE STOP ARGUING THAT. but graphic is just as equally important as other gaming aspects like story, music, gameplay, dialogue, etc. all these must work together to make a really really good and kick ass game which offers remarkable gaming experience.
and one last thing, someone was right. i dont think 3 weeks time is enough for telltale games to make any MAJOR improvement on the graphics now. mostly the finished product will look just like the unfinished product from screenshots, since they have released a trailer with that graphics. Trailer usually represents what the end product will look like. So, there really isnt any point discussing this topic any further. let's all just stop and enjoy the final product when it's released.
Again, Telltale Games, THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS!!! WE ALL REALLY REALLY REALLY LOVE MONKEY ISLAND AND YOU GAVE US NEW HOPE!!!