Anyone who says that Maniac Mansion does not have a story or style must not have actually played the game.
The game was an outright parody of B Horror movies. It was excellent atmospherically. With multiple endings and a variety of ways in which parts of your cast could die while still allowing you to go on, it really just added to the atmosphere. Of the two, yeah, I heavily prefer the original on the quality of the storytelling through a video game.
A horribly harsh and inaccurate list of complaints, especially considering what you're talking about. Why is Day of the Tentacle not a dinosaur? Or do we have to wait the four years in-between the release of Maniac Mansion and Day of the Tentacle before the latter qualifies for "Dinosaur Status"?
"Un-intellectualized"? How? Day of the Tentacle is about a bunch of time traveling kids that have to deal with caricatures of history's icons. How is that not a stupid cartoon? How is that "intellectual"? The puzzle design? Because there are multiple solutions to many puzzles, depending on what character you chose. I don't see how that is "un-intellectual" in terms of puzzle design, and in fact it's something we don't really see in Adventure games since.
"The engine"? Well of course it'll be less technically advanced. It was released earlier. But the fact that Zork doesn't have graphics does not mean that I think you have to be an idiot to play it, especially since Zork takes place in a pretty amazingly unique universe and pretty much created the conventions of the adventure genre.
Simply slamming a "primitive" label on Maniac Mansion reeks of an inability to see the value in things that have come before. In fact, there are a wide variety of ways in which the original game actually is better than the game that comes after it.
Look at the cast of Maniac Mansion.
Then the cast of Day of the Tentacle.
Obviously, the FRANCHISE isn't built around these characters. They're an aspect of the universe and they are very likely to be featured simply for this fact, but them HAVING to be playable seems a bit ridiculous to me.
If the first game did not share the same characters as the second, then it's nowhere near the same thing. That's the problem with a new Maniac Mansion game, everyone would expect it to be Day of the Tentacle 2, nobody even knows there's another game in the series. How can they go forward faithfully with a series when they know that, marketability-wise, they'd be best off ignoring all the conventions of the first game.
All i want is the original trio. That's it. They can take the story anywhere they want but i simply want to play as these characters. I never found any of the original maniac mansion characters interesting. I don't like the original, simple as that.
Just because they could have the dott trio doesnt mean the sequel wouldn't be fresh. The villian could be anybody, the story could go anywhere.
All i'm saying is that i play monkey island for guybrush, i play sam and max for sam and max and i play dott for bernard, hoggie and leurene.
And I couldn't care less about Laverne and Hoagie, with Bernard being the "skeleton key" of the original cast.
The cast of the original game was large and varied. The cast of the second game is largely inconsequential, and their ability to solve puzzles in the one possible outcome is due to the fact that they are when they are, not because they have unique abilities as members of the cast.
And I couldn't care less about Laverne and Hoagie, with Bernard being the "skeleton key" of the original cast.
The cast of the original game was large and varied. The cast of the second game is largely inconsequential, and their ability to solve puzzles in the one possible outcome is due to the fact that they are when they are, not because they have unique abilities as members of the cast.
The cast of the original game was too large, they made the game too bloated. Simplicity is your friend. Your reasons for liking the game are the reasons why i dislike the game. One thing that ticked me off is that you have one character used and collect countless amounts of items but once you get caught you were stuck in jail with all the items. It's a game of trial and error, one of the things that almost ruins the point and click genre for me.
I would much rather have characters that i liked rather than characters who have unique abilities. When i don't solve a puzzle at least the dott characters kept me entertained and want to move on.
I'm sorry dude, but for maniac mansion is just riddled with frustration and i hope that it isn't used too much for influence on a sequel.
The cast of the original game was too large, they made the game too bloated. Simplicity is your friend.
I don't think so, especially with the cast of six characters intended for Day of the Tentacle. There is something to be said for simplicity, but there's also something to be said for the variety of choice. How is being able to select from a large cast of characters a detriment? How is it "complicated"? A better communication of the characters and their abilities is what I'd go for, rather than a smaller cast.
Your reasons for liking the game are the reasons why i dislike the game. One thing that ticked me off is that you have one character used and collect countless amounts of items but once you get caught you were stuck in jail with all the items.
If I was in some sort of magical job that put me in charge of everything without doing any work, my decisions for a new Maniac Mansion wouldn't involve that particular caveat.
It's a game of trial and error, one of the things that almost ruins the point and click genre for me.
I wouldn't say trial and error is required, though. Just characters with unique abilities that are character-based rather than location-based, with each character having a different way to solve the puzzle. Maybe even with "locking" you into the character you choose at the start, without a chance of death. That way, there could be 6 different playthroughs, with different solutions to each puzzle based on who you were playing. A bit ambitious for an episodic title, but that's what I'd like to see.
I would much rather have characters that i liked rather than characters who have unique abilities. When i don't solve a puzzle at least the dott characters kept me entertained and want to move on.
I don't see why you can't like characters who have unique abilities that lead to different solutions to solve puzzles. Does being able to do something because you're good at it make you unlikable?
I'm sorry dude, but for maniac mansion is just riddled with frustration and i hope that it isn't used too much for influence on a sequel.
It is ridiculously frustrating. But it also has aspects that are definitely worth looking at. It has aspects that are different than any other game out there. Day of the Tentacle just has time travel puzzles, and other than that it is like every other adventure game LucasArts made after Loom.
Yes, but sometimes you can have too much choice. For me, i would rather have 3 characters than 6. I also valued the characters far less since there was far more of them and they were more than likely going to get killed off anyway. In a point and click game i don't want choice, if i wanted choice i would play a sandbox game.
I think having each character having a unique ability is cool and all but i'm sure they could give dott trio their own unique ability in a episodic series. Dott has far more to offer than time-travel, but if you dont like the game then your certainly not going to see it. (brilliant writing, charm, great characters, brilliant music, brilliant twists, brilliant art style and atmosphere etc.) Sure other la games have these elements, but dott had it's own brand of it, it stands out from the rest in its own wacky way.
.
Eitherway this is becoming a tiresome argument. Can we just agree to disagree. You want the sequel to take influence from maniac mansion while i want it to take influence from dott. Lets leave at that. :cool:
Yes, but sometimes you can have too much choice. For me, i would rather have 3 characters than 6. I also valued the characters far less since there was far more of them and they were more than likely going to get killed off anyway.
Generally I found that I gravitated towards liking one character more. I didn't like the whole cast, but there was a pretty big net cast so that I could find the one I really liked and play as them. And I'd agree that the next Monkey Island probably shouldn't have death sequences, anyway.
In a point and click game i don't want choice, if i wanted choice i would play a sandbox game.
This seems a bit closed-minded. Like you're defining what mechanics a genre "must" use, keeping everything in a comfortable bubble of "FPS, RPG, RTS", etc that follow strict rules of what the gameplay is. Using a genre as a template for stories, which doesn't particularly settle well with me. Playing Sam and Max should be different from playing Monkey Island which should be different from playing Maniac Mansion, and I think this should be evident in more than just the story and characters.
Eitherway this is becoming a tiresome argument. Can we just agree to disagree.
Wait, this was an argument? I thought of it as a discussion between people that had different opinions. If all discussions that aren't people consistently agreeing with everything the other says are arguments, then I'd prefer to argue with everybody.
You can think what you want, but I'd say a discussion should have people bouncing ideas off one another. On the other hand, we took over the thread, which wasn't exactly my intention.
You want the sequel to take influence from maniac mansion while i want it to take influence from dott. Lets leave at that. :cool:
Actually, I think it should draw heavily from both. But I think that the mechanics of the original Maniac Mansion should be heavily considered. Having, for example, different ways to play through the same episode with different characters could be great. And yeah, I do prefer the first one atmospherically, so I do hope for a bit more than "Day of the Tentacle 2".
The characters in Maniac Mansion weren't given enough development to be interesting; they were interesting in design and nothing more; nor were they meant to be worth more than that. If any of those characters were reused, they would be given the development that would make them as likable and unique as Bernard, Hoagie, and Laverne.
I disagree that Maniac Mansion is an amazing game; I think it was a good game with a lot of potential; and I think the characters had the potential to have a large draw; which is why they are worth going back to. To me the one character with the most draw; which was going to be a playable character in DOTT at one time by the way; was Razor from the band the Scummettes. Here we have a unique looking rocker punk character who doesn't look generic or cliche, but looks like she would bring a great sense of sarcasm and female masculinity. She's someone I would expect to see in something like Brutal Legend.
Maniac Mansion was essentially what I consider a test game for Lucasarts; it was one of their first attempts at adventures and they tried a new mechanic. The best reason DOTT was made was because these characters had enough personality to be visited with more detail and development.
Bernard, Hoagie, and Laverne already had their development and time in the spotlight, however, Bernard is the series "constant" (a friend convinced me of this), and he should be kept in if anybody should. But I would like to see new characters brought in, just like Monkey Island sequels introduced Kate Capsize, Captain Dread, Largo Lagrande, Murray the demonic skull, Haggis McMutton, Captain Blondebeard, etc.
Hey RD. You mentioned earlier some of your favorite games didn't even have graphics. Which ones are those?
I'm thinking of text adventures. Namely the Zork trilogy, Planetfall, and Trinity. In that order. I've played a ton of others, but those are the ones that would have a chance of hitting a "Favorite Games of All Time" list before I hit numbers like top 20.
I'm thinking of text adventures. Namely the Zork trilogy, Planetfall, and Trinity. In that order. I've played a ton of others, but those are the ones that would have a chance of hitting a "Favorite Games of All Time" list before I hit numbers like top 20.
Yeah I was thinking of playing a few of the older text ones - simply because they're apart of adventure game history. The conversation going on reminded me of your older statement.
As for the topic, I tried playing Maniac Mansion a long time ago but I couldn't get into it. I was a lot younger then though so I might be able to try again. If I get frustrated I'll probably YouTube it like I did King's Quest I-IV so I could get the story for my playthrough of V, VI and VII I had planned.
Presidentmax, I find it amusing that you say you love the DOTT trio yet you don't even know their names lol.
Also, you act as if basing a new MM title on traits found in the original Maniac Mansion will automatically cause the new game to be bland and dull and frustrating. Just because it might have aspects based on the original Maniac Mansion (which DOTT has plenty of, I might add, and I don't see you complaining there) doesn't meant that it'll be the EXACT SAME GAME. You can take aspects from Maniac Mansion and put it into a new game without it being a carbon copy (again, DOTT wouldn't be around if it didn't do exactly this).
Maniac Mansion is not linear, either. In fact DOTT is way too linear by your argument. There's only one way to solve each and every puzzle in that game (with maybe the rare exception?). Yet in Maniac Mansion there are multiple paths to take based on what characters you choose to play as. As well as majorly contributing to the replayability aspect, something few games today have outside of a simple "good" or "bad" path nowadays. And if you don't like all the choices just pick one set of characters and play that every single time if you want. There's your linear 3-only characters! Simple solution! You don't HAVE to play all 6.
I think this may just be a simple case of liking the first one you played better. Which I can understand and forgive. I'll even go as far as to say that I also enjoy DOTT more than Maniac Mansion. To this day I've never actually completed the game at all. But just because DOTT is the better game doesn't mean we should discount the first all together. DOTT was a nice addition to the series but in no way replaces the original. Especially since it borrows a LOT of its game mechanics from Maniac Mansion itself.
The thing about Maniac Mansion (as a series) is that there is no set main characters and there never was supposed to be, which is why, incidentally, Dave didn't return in DOTT. In fact, if anyone was a main character that should have returned from the first game it's Dave because it was his girlfriend who was kidnapped, right? But yet he didn't return. Maniac Mansion is about kids going into a strange bizarre mansion inhabited by the increasingly eccentric Edison family & a couple of talking disembodied tentacles and saving their friends from danger. There are no main characters that should be shared between sequels except the Edisons (and maybe one of one of the kids from one of the games), as far as I'm concerned. For instance, a new game I'd be content with seeing would star the Edisons, an Edison mansion (not necessarily the same one, maybe), and maybe Laverne or Hoagie (not both) and two other brand new playable characters. That would be the perfect third Maniac Mansion game title as it does everything that DOTT did to Maniac Mansion. Mark brand new territory, have a new plot, and have brand new characters to play as (save one from a previous title).
DOTT originally had SIX kids, and you were going to get to choose three, just like in Maniac Mansion, with different puzzles and stuff depending on who you chose. We cut it down to three in order to maintain our sanity, mainly from an animation standpoint. Razor, from the original Maniac, did not make the final cut, along with two of the new kids: Chester, a cadaverous poet/artiste, and Moonglow, an earthy girl with sandals. Chester, with a bit of makeup, was eventually recast as Red Edison's twin sons, but poor Moonglow wound up robbing 7-11s in a low-rent action game.
This I find really interesting, a new series could have the characters that didn't make DOTT plus a bunch of recurring characters from both MM and DOTT..
Simply slamming a "primitive" label on Maniac Mansion reeks of an inability to see the value in things that have come before. In fact, there are a wide variety of ways in which the original game actually is better than the game that comes after it.
Obviously they are two very different games first and foremost, which is frankly quite awesome. It's kind of like the first two Alien movies - different takes on the same source material at hand. And: two vastly different concepts to boot. Now Dott is far more of a typical LA adventure game, or what you're refering to as a typical LA adventure game to this day, which basically means it's still the blue print being followed by game developers all over the world. Alas, the plotline spanning three time-zones, three playable characters and a hamster makes it far more than that. Well, on top of the art, the Elfman-alike score and that it's actually funny.
I'd agree with the naysayers on one thing, namely that Maniac Mansion hasn't aged, er, all that well. It's pretty obvious that this was the first foray of a team of people that would soon develop games that all things adventure are being judged against, and rightfully so. I mean, it's not like anybody has tried to expand on that or anything anyway. LA rip-offs are still all the rage.*
Maniac Mansion was the first for me though, and it was an absolutely cracking game not only at its time. In many ways when I take a look at what adventure gaming has become, I start to weep. What with games inhabited by non-player characters never doing anything until you do your clicks, static worlds where nothing ever happens until you hit onto blatantly obvious triggers and 3ds Max exercises filled with junk and crosswords*.
Maniac Mansion actually managed to give you a feeling of being with people that carried their own agenda. A world that doesn't merely consist of a bunch of 2D art only ever starting to move when you do the same. The Edison mansion is a place that gave you a sense of actually being that, a real place. In turn creeping past Nurse Edna was actually creepy! Sneaking through the house was too! Ringing the bell to get to see how this takes the piss out of Ed was fun! But then I remember that I once read an interview with Ron Gilbert where he said that all this pseudo-real-time-environment-stuff wouldn't make it in the game if he were to do it today, and I start to weep again. Where's the contemporary equivalent of Maniac Mansion today? Probably somewhere to be found in between World Of Warcraft, Thief and Mass Effect. Or something.
So yeah, as much of an old clunker as Maniac Mansion is, in some ways it looks like something made 200 years in the future rather than the past. Depending on your point of view, that is.
Presidentmax, I find it amusing that you say you love the DOTT trio yet you don't even know their names lol.
i knew somebody couldn't resist rubbing that in my face. :mad: (sorry that comment kinda ticked me off and i'm getting bit frustrated that i'm the only one who wants to play these characters again.)
Of course i know their names, i just spell them wrong for 3 reasons:
1. i've completed the game 3 times but i always place it with speech only
2. how many people do you know in real life called Bernard? hoagie? etc.
3. i've always been terrible with names but don't associate that with how much i value a character.
Presidentmax, I find it amusing that you say you love the DOTT trio yet you don't even know their names lol.
Also, you act as if basing a new MM title on traits found in the original Maniac Mansion will automatically cause the new game to be bland and dull and frustrating. Just because it might have aspects based on the original Maniac Mansion (which DOTT has plenty of, I might add, and I don't see you complaining there) doesn't meant that it'll be the EXACT SAME GAME. You can take aspects from Maniac Mansion and put it into a new game without it being a carbon copy (again, DOTT wouldn't be around if it didn't do exactly this).
Maniac Mansion is not linear, either. In fact DOTT is way too linear by your argument. There's only one way to solve each and every puzzle in that game (with maybe the rare exception?). Yet in Maniac Mansion there are multiple paths to take based on what characters you choose to play as. As well as majorly contributing to the replayability aspect, something few games today have outside of a simple "good" or "bad" path nowadays. And if you don't like all the choices just pick one set of characters and play that every single time if you want. There's your linear 3-only characters! Simple solution! You don't HAVE to play all 6.
I think this may just be a simple case of liking the first one you played better. Which I can understand and forgive. I'll even go as far as to say that I also enjoy DOTT more than Maniac Mansion. To this day I've never actually completed the game at all. But just because DOTT is the better game doesn't mean we should discount the first all together. DOTT was a nice addition to the series but in no way replaces the original. Especially since it borrows a LOT of its game mechanics from Maniac Mansion itself.
The thing about Maniac Mansion (as a series) is that there is no set main characters and there never was supposed to be, which is why, incidentally, Dave didn't return in DOTT. In fact, if anyone was a main character that should have returned from the first game it's Dave because it was his girlfriend who was kidnapped, right? But yet he didn't return. Maniac Mansion is about kids going into a strange bizarre mansion inhabited by the increasingly eccentric Edison family & a couple of talking disembodied tentacles and saving their friends from danger. There are no main characters that should be shared between sequels except the Edisons (and maybe one of one of the kids from one of the games), as far as I'm concerned. For instance, a new game I'd be content with seeing would star the Edisons, an Edison mansion (not necessarily the same one, maybe), and maybe or Hoagie (not both) and two other brand new playable characters. That would be the perfect third Maniac Mansion game title as it does everything that DOTT did to Maniac Mansion. Mark brand new territory, have a new plot, and have brand new characters to play as (save one from a previous title).
Look i mentioned before that i don't mind where they take the story (they couild do a clone of mm1 for all i care) but all i want is to play as the 3 main characters of dott that i love. Why is that so hard for alot of you to get? surely you know what it is like when you become attached to playable characters?
I like the dott trio more than sam and max and guybrush combined. So surely you can understand why i'd be upset if these characters are pushed aside to background characters at best? If a sequel is made without the original trio then i'll more than likely not play it. It would just lose all appeal to me. Even if there has never been any main characters before, the 3 heroes in dott were the ones that made me want to play the games.
For me it is like taking guybrush out of a monkey island sequel and replacing him with a new character. I know people will say that they are two very different series but surely you can understand what it would be like to have a loveable character like guybrush replaced?
I mean no disrespect to others opinions so i'm sorry if i come across narrow-minded and pushy over my opinion. Is just that these 3 characters mean alot to me.
All the same, looking at the progression of the series, any sequel that saw itself as a continuation of the series rather than just a continuation of Day of the Tentacle would probably have to include new kids. It'd probably only keep one or two of the DoTT kids, unless the kid count was much higher than I think it should be(or they just have those three and three new kids).
I mean, Guybrush was in 1, 2, 3, and 4. Your trio was in the second game, but the first game didn't have two of them. So it's just not really something that can be compared. The Monkey Island series is about Guybrush, the Maniac Mansion series is about kids going into a creepy mansion, and Day of the Tentacle is about that trio specifically. It just seems like a one-game view, rather than a series view.
The way I see Maniac Mansion is that you come in for the world and the puzzles based on "abilities'. Whether it's the individual abilities of 1 or the "I can do this 'cause I'm here" abilities of 2.
I'm just afraid that, with Day of the Tentacle taking SO much attention as getting a sequel, that the ENTIRETY of the first game will be eclipsed. That in such a proposed sequel, it'll just be "Day of the Tentacle 2", and take absolutely NO elements from the first game. And I think that first game has merit, because unlike the second, it has a template all its own rather than being like the other LucasArts adventures(other than Loom, of course).
I actually don't care about the characters too much, other than wanting to see some new kids. But the mechanics, if made to be just like a later LucasArts adventure, would just turn me off completely. It'd be like playing Loom with a point-and-click inventory system.
Oh and I know a guy named Bernard AND a lady named Laverne. No "Hoagie" though.
((Oh, and I'm not trying to change your opinion, really. Just expressing my own, and it happens to be in contrast to yours))
All the same, looking at the progression of the series, any sequel that saw itself as a continuation of the series rather than just a continuation of Day of the Tentacle would probably have to include new kids. It'd probably only keep one or two of the DoTT kids, unless the kid count was much higher than I think it should be(or they just have those three and three new kids).
I mean, Guybrush was in 1, 2, 3, and 4. Your trio was in the second game, but the first game didn't have two of them. So it's just not really something that can be compared. The Monkey Island series is about Guybrush, the Maniac Mansion series is about kids going into a creepy mansion, and Day of the Tentacle is about that trio specifically. It just seems like a one-game view, rather than a series view.
The way I see Maniac Mansion is that you come in for the world and the puzzles based on "abilities'. Whether it's the individual abilities of 1 or the "I can do this 'cause I'm here" abilities of 2.
I'm just afraid that, with Day of the Tentacle taking SO much attention as getting a sequel, that the ENTIRETY of the first game will be eclipsed. That in such a proposed sequel, it'll just be "Day of the Tentacle 2", and take absolutely NO elements from the first game. And I think that first game has merit, because unlike the second, it has a template all its own rather than being like the other LucasArts adventures(other than Loom, of course).
I actually don't care about the characters too much, other than wanting to see some new kids. But the mechanics, if made to be just like a later LucasArts adventure, would just turn me off completely. It'd be like playing Loom with a point-and-click inventory system.
Oh and I know a guy named Bernard AND a lady named Laverne. No "Hoagie" though.
((Oh, and I'm not trying to change your opinion, really. Just expressing my own, and it happens to be in contrast to yours))
You know what... after thinking about it. I think i'd be happy as long as they kept Laverne as a playable character. Then the other two could be new or a character from maniac mansion. Or if there was 6 (doubt it considering telltale restrictions. Heck, i'm doubting if we get to play even 3, telltale might only have us playing one considering the extra work caused by more playable characters.)
I don't mind if hoagie and even if bernard got the boot (doubt bernard will for obvious reasons) but Laverne is one of my favourite characters so i would be satisfied with any changes as long as she makes it into the game.
Really? i was starting the question whether they were made up names. i've never met anybody with those names before.
I know i've kinda been bashing mm1's a little but that's more out of fear of too much change. dott has nostalgia on its side whic i guess kinda effects my view. So apart of me would love it to be more of a day of the tentacle 2. But I respect that there was a game before and it is still the game that inspired dott.
I've got mm1 on my computer and i've been thinking about giving it another go.
I've never been that attached to the main characters in either game. At leas the playable ones. It's not like they aren't any fun. But it's the crazy Edisons I remember the most.
Talking about those differences between the games, an episodic series based on this franchise could lend to interesting concepts all by itself. For instance, let's assume the whole time travelling business was kept and the game actually will be made of course. They could incorporate major contemporary events of the real-world into that and maybe even have it act as the core of the puzzle. That puzzle in turn would be part of a bigger whole spanning the entire series. Think classic LA puzzles a la The Three Trials which spawns three sub quests, only with an episode being the equivalent of the sub-tasks: Defeat the sword master, find a treasure, steal the idol of many hands.
Let's say, the opening episode was released in February, it would be about Bernard trying to get the Texas Avengers win a sports event called the Super Bawl. In turn Dead Cousin Ted or whoever wins the money he placed onto them so that in the future he can afford whatever. Does anybody remember how Ed talks about undergoing a therapy prior to DOTT because of what happened with his former hamster? Say the episode with a twist released in the month celebrating Maniac Mansion's upteenth birthday could be based on Ed going all the way back to 1987 and him trying to avoid the intruders getting to his hamster, Home Alone style. Retro-style graphics and all. This in turn would prevent him from being an inhabitant at Nutcracksville Sanatorium, Santa Barbara, CA by the start of this new game, so that he can do whatever. And so on. And so on.
Wherever they would go, the more I'm thinking about this the more excited I become.
I can clearly picture an episodic DOTT game by Telltale, actually. It'd have different periods of time to travel to each episode, and the Edisons' place would be the 'base location' or the 'Sam and Max neighborhood'.
And about which is better, Maniac Mansion or its sequel, I prefer the sequel. The thing about the sequel is that each character you play has their own personalities. I've played Maniac Mansion, and most of the time, the three characters seemed like duplicates of one character dressed up in different outfits.
And of course, there's the cartoony design of DOTT, which I adore.
I can clearly picture an episodic DOTT game by Telltale, actually.
An episodic Maniac Mansion. Nobody's saying that Tales of Monkey Island is an episodic LeChuck's Revenge. It's an episodic Monkey Island. Because it's in the Monkey Island series.
It'd have different periods of time to travel to each episode
Except time travel isn't a necessary franchise staple. The mansion is. Characters that can do different things is another constant.
and the Edisons' place would be the 'base location' or the 'Sam and Max neighborhood'.
The mansion would make for a great re-use of assets, but I'd hope that the mansion itself would be the focus and that they'd just add more accessible areas onto it as we went on.
And about which is better, Maniac Mansion or its sequel, I prefer the sequel. The thing about the sequel is that each character you play has their own personalities.
I don't get this criticism of the first game. I mean, I suppose they aren't DEVELOPED personalities, but they're there.
Dave is the boyfriend. He organizes the rescue, he he's running for class president, he's the hero.
Bernard is the nerd. He can fix anything, and he gets scared easily. Easily the most talented of the group.
Syd and Razor are identical talent-wise, though one is "New Wave" and the other is a punk rocker. They're musicians, and both help Green Tentacle with his desire for stardom.
Wendy's the artistic member of the group. She's the writer. She can improve the somewhat shoddy manuscript of the evil meteor.
Michael is...he takes pictures. I never actually did see much character put into him, even in the same vein as the others.
Jeff's a surfer dude. He's damn near useless.
Really, this may seem underdeveloped, but it actually works to the game's advantage. Their characters have just enough character that you can see them as different people, while being vague enough for you to identify with them rather than feeling like you're just moving around another person between cutscenes. It was you exploring the Edison mansion, and that mansion and its occupants were the source of character in the game. To look at the setting as anything less than an intense amount of character is flawed, and Day of the Tentacle mostly borrowed from that while fleshing out its kids and a few new side characters.
I've played Maniac Mansion, and most of the time, the three characters seemed like duplicates of one character dressed up in different outfits.
...three? Are you SURE you played Maniac Mansion?
And of course, there's the cartoony design of DOTT, which I adore.
An episodic Maniac Mansion. Nobody's saying that Tales of Monkey Island is an episodic LeChuck's Revenge. It's an episodic Monkey Island. Because it's in the Monkey Island series.
Except time travel isn't a necessary franchise staple. The mansion is. Characters that can do different things is another constant.
The mansion would make for a great re-use of assets, but I'd hope that the mansion itself would be the focus and that they'd just add more accessible areas onto it as we went on.
I don't get this criticism of the first game. I mean, I suppose they aren't DEVELOPED personalities, but they're there.
Dave is the boyfriend. He organizes the rescue, he he's running for class president, he's the hero.
Bernard is the nerd. He can fix anything, and he gets scared easily. Easily the most talented of the group.
Syd and Razor are identical talent-wise, though one is "New Wave" and the other is a punk rocker. They're musicians, and both help Green Tentacle with his desire for stardom.
Wendy's the artistic member of the group. She's the writer. She can improve the somewhat shoddy manuscript of the evil meteor.
Michael is...he takes pictures. I never actually did see much character put into him, even in the same vein as the others.
Jeff's a surfer dude. He's damn near useless.
Really, this may seem underdeveloped, but it actually works to the game's advantage. Their characters have just enough character that you can see them as different people, while being vague enough for you to identify with them rather than feeling like you're just moving around another person between cutscenes. It was you exploring the Edison mansion, and that mansion and its occupants were the source of character in the game. To look at the setting as anything less than an intense amount of character is flawed, and Day of the Tentacle mostly borrowed from that while fleshing out its kids and a few new side characters.
...three? Are you SURE you played Maniac Mansion?
So the first one...isn't a cartoon?
Just thought i give my opinion on some of these.
-Time-travel may not have been in the original game but the second game added it into the universe, why ignore it? besides the only reason it didn't become a staple in the series is because there hasn't been any sequels continuing and expanding the idea. I bet you anything that if there were mm games made straight after dott that they would at least use time-travel in some form or another. Just because it isn't part of the tradition of the games doesn't mean it cant be.
-He means the light-hearted looney toons approach. More goofier and exaggerated like what curse of the monkey island did for the monkey island series.
An episodic Maniac Mansion. Nobody's saying that Tales of Monkey Island is an episodic LeChuck's Revenge. It's an episodic Monkey Island. Because it's in the Monkey Island series.
Well, I was talking about visuals, not writing, and the only cartoony visual aspect of the first game is the oversized heads. Yes the writing is wacky and crazy, but the visuals just doesn't seem as lively as DOTT.
Though if there's one thing to complain about DOTT: I wasn't really happy with the voice-acting. Compared to Hit the Road and Curse of MI, DOTT's voice acting sounded... unmotivated.
Comments
All i want is the original trio. That's it. They can take the story anywhere they want but i simply want to play as these characters. I never found any of the original maniac mansion characters interesting. I don't like the original, simple as that.
Just because they could have the dott trio doesnt mean the sequel wouldn't be fresh. The villian could be anybody, the story could go anywhere.
All i'm saying is that i play monkey island for guybrush, i play sam and max for sam and max and i play dott for bernard, hoggie and leurene.
The cast of the original game was large and varied. The cast of the second game is largely inconsequential, and their ability to solve puzzles in the one possible outcome is due to the fact that they are when they are, not because they have unique abilities as members of the cast.
The cast of the original game was too large, they made the game too bloated. Simplicity is your friend. Your reasons for liking the game are the reasons why i dislike the game. One thing that ticked me off is that you have one character used and collect countless amounts of items but once you get caught you were stuck in jail with all the items. It's a game of trial and error, one of the things that almost ruins the point and click genre for me.
I would much rather have characters that i liked rather than characters who have unique abilities. When i don't solve a puzzle at least the dott characters kept me entertained and want to move on.
I'm sorry dude, but for maniac mansion is just riddled with frustration and i hope that it isn't used too much for influence on a sequel.
If I was in some sort of magical job that put me in charge of everything without doing any work, my decisions for a new Maniac Mansion wouldn't involve that particular caveat.
I wouldn't say trial and error is required, though. Just characters with unique abilities that are character-based rather than location-based, with each character having a different way to solve the puzzle. Maybe even with "locking" you into the character you choose at the start, without a chance of death. That way, there could be 6 different playthroughs, with different solutions to each puzzle based on who you were playing. A bit ambitious for an episodic title, but that's what I'd like to see.
I don't see why you can't like characters who have unique abilities that lead to different solutions to solve puzzles. Does being able to do something because you're good at it make you unlikable?
It is ridiculously frustrating. But it also has aspects that are definitely worth looking at. It has aspects that are different than any other game out there. Day of the Tentacle just has time travel puzzles, and other than that it is like every other adventure game LucasArts made after Loom.
I think having each character having a unique ability is cool and all but i'm sure they could give dott trio their own unique ability in a episodic series. Dott has far more to offer than time-travel, but if you dont like the game then your certainly not going to see it. (brilliant writing, charm, great characters, brilliant music, brilliant twists, brilliant art style and atmosphere etc.) Sure other la games have these elements, but dott had it's own brand of it, it stands out from the rest in its own wacky way.
.
Eitherway this is becoming a tiresome argument. Can we just agree to disagree. You want the sequel to take influence from maniac mansion while i want it to take influence from dott. Lets leave at that. :cool:
This seems a bit closed-minded. Like you're defining what mechanics a genre "must" use, keeping everything in a comfortable bubble of "FPS, RPG, RTS", etc that follow strict rules of what the gameplay is. Using a genre as a template for stories, which doesn't particularly settle well with me. Playing Sam and Max should be different from playing Monkey Island which should be different from playing Maniac Mansion, and I think this should be evident in more than just the story and characters.
Wait, this was an argument? I thought of it as a discussion between people that had different opinions. If all discussions that aren't people consistently agreeing with everything the other says are arguments, then I'd prefer to argue with everybody.
You can think what you want, but I'd say a discussion should have people bouncing ideas off one another. On the other hand, we took over the thread, which wasn't exactly my intention. Actually, I think it should draw heavily from both. But I think that the mechanics of the original Maniac Mansion should be heavily considered. Having, for example, different ways to play through the same episode with different characters could be great. And yeah, I do prefer the first one atmospherically, so I do hope for a bit more than "Day of the Tentacle 2".
I disagree that Maniac Mansion is an amazing game; I think it was a good game with a lot of potential; and I think the characters had the potential to have a large draw; which is why they are worth going back to. To me the one character with the most draw; which was going to be a playable character in DOTT at one time by the way; was Razor from the band the Scummettes. Here we have a unique looking rocker punk character who doesn't look generic or cliche, but looks like she would bring a great sense of sarcasm and female masculinity. She's someone I would expect to see in something like Brutal Legend.
Maniac Mansion was essentially what I consider a test game for Lucasarts; it was one of their first attempts at adventures and they tried a new mechanic. The best reason DOTT was made was because these characters had enough personality to be visited with more detail and development.
Bernard, Hoagie, and Laverne already had their development and time in the spotlight, however, Bernard is the series "constant" (a friend convinced me of this), and he should be kept in if anybody should. But I would like to see new characters brought in, just like Monkey Island sequels introduced Kate Capsize, Captain Dread, Largo Lagrande, Murray the demonic skull, Haggis McMutton, Captain Blondebeard, etc.
As for the topic, I tried playing Maniac Mansion a long time ago but I couldn't get into it. I was a lot younger then though so I might be able to try again. If I get frustrated I'll probably YouTube it like I did King's Quest I-IV so I could get the story for my playthrough of V, VI and VII I had planned.
Also, you act as if basing a new MM title on traits found in the original Maniac Mansion will automatically cause the new game to be bland and dull and frustrating. Just because it might have aspects based on the original Maniac Mansion (which DOTT has plenty of, I might add, and I don't see you complaining there) doesn't meant that it'll be the EXACT SAME GAME. You can take aspects from Maniac Mansion and put it into a new game without it being a carbon copy (again, DOTT wouldn't be around if it didn't do exactly this).
Maniac Mansion is not linear, either. In fact DOTT is way too linear by your argument. There's only one way to solve each and every puzzle in that game (with maybe the rare exception?). Yet in Maniac Mansion there are multiple paths to take based on what characters you choose to play as. As well as majorly contributing to the replayability aspect, something few games today have outside of a simple "good" or "bad" path nowadays. And if you don't like all the choices just pick one set of characters and play that every single time if you want. There's your linear 3-only characters! Simple solution! You don't HAVE to play all 6.
I think this may just be a simple case of liking the first one you played better. Which I can understand and forgive. I'll even go as far as to say that I also enjoy DOTT more than Maniac Mansion. To this day I've never actually completed the game at all. But just because DOTT is the better game doesn't mean we should discount the first all together. DOTT was a nice addition to the series but in no way replaces the original. Especially since it borrows a LOT of its game mechanics from Maniac Mansion itself.
The thing about Maniac Mansion (as a series) is that there is no set main characters and there never was supposed to be, which is why, incidentally, Dave didn't return in DOTT. In fact, if anyone was a main character that should have returned from the first game it's Dave because it was his girlfriend who was kidnapped, right? But yet he didn't return. Maniac Mansion is about kids going into a strange bizarre mansion inhabited by the increasingly eccentric Edison family & a couple of talking disembodied tentacles and saving their friends from danger. There are no main characters that should be shared between sequels except the Edisons (and maybe one of one of the kids from one of the games), as far as I'm concerned. For instance, a new game I'd be content with seeing would star the Edisons, an Edison mansion (not necessarily the same one, maybe), and maybe Laverne or Hoagie (not both) and two other brand new playable characters. That would be the perfect third Maniac Mansion game title as it does everything that DOTT did to Maniac Mansion. Mark brand new territory, have a new plot, and have brand new characters to play as (save one from a previous title).
Heck yes I want to play another Maniac Mansion game!
This I find really interesting, a new series could have the characters that didn't make DOTT plus a bunch of recurring characters from both MM and DOTT..
Obviously they are two very different games first and foremost, which is frankly quite awesome. It's kind of like the first two Alien movies - different takes on the same source material at hand. And: two vastly different concepts to boot. Now Dott is far more of a typical LA adventure game, or what you're refering to as a typical LA adventure game to this day, which basically means it's still the blue print being followed by game developers all over the world. Alas, the plotline spanning three time-zones, three playable characters and a hamster makes it far more than that. Well, on top of the art, the Elfman-alike score and that it's actually funny.
I'd agree with the naysayers on one thing, namely that Maniac Mansion hasn't aged, er, all that well. It's pretty obvious that this was the first foray of a team of people that would soon develop games that all things adventure are being judged against, and rightfully so. I mean, it's not like anybody has tried to expand on that or anything anyway. LA rip-offs are still all the rage.*
Maniac Mansion was the first for me though, and it was an absolutely cracking game not only at its time. In many ways when I take a look at what adventure gaming has become, I start to weep. What with games inhabited by non-player characters never doing anything until you do your clicks, static worlds where nothing ever happens until you hit onto blatantly obvious triggers and 3ds Max exercises filled with junk and crosswords*.
Maniac Mansion actually managed to give you a feeling of being with people that carried their own agenda. A world that doesn't merely consist of a bunch of 2D art only ever starting to move when you do the same. The Edison mansion is a place that gave you a sense of actually being that, a real place. In turn creeping past Nurse Edna was actually creepy! Sneaking through the house was too! Ringing the bell to get to see how this takes the piss out of Ed was fun! But then I remember that I once read an interview with Ron Gilbert where he said that all this pseudo-real-time-environment-stuff wouldn't make it in the game if he were to do it today, and I start to weep again. Where's the contemporary equivalent of Maniac Mansion today? Probably somewhere to be found in between World Of Warcraft, Thief and Mass Effect. Or something.
So yeah, as much of an old clunker as Maniac Mansion is, in some ways it looks like something made 200 years in the future rather than the past. Depending on your point of view, that is.
* blatant generalizations
i knew somebody couldn't resist rubbing that in my face. :mad: (sorry that comment kinda ticked me off and i'm getting bit frustrated that i'm the only one who wants to play these characters again.)
Of course i know their names, i just spell them wrong for 3 reasons:
1. i've completed the game 3 times but i always place it with speech only
2. how many people do you know in real life called Bernard? hoagie? etc.
3. i've always been terrible with names but don't associate that with how much i value a character.
Look i mentioned before that i don't mind where they take the story (they couild do a clone of mm1 for all i care) but all i want is to play as the 3 main characters of dott that i love. Why is that so hard for alot of you to get? surely you know what it is like when you become attached to playable characters?
I like the dott trio more than sam and max and guybrush combined. So surely you can understand why i'd be upset if these characters are pushed aside to background characters at best? If a sequel is made without the original trio then i'll more than likely not play it. It would just lose all appeal to me. Even if there has never been any main characters before, the 3 heroes in dott were the ones that made me want to play the games.
For me it is like taking guybrush out of a monkey island sequel and replacing him with a new character. I know people will say that they are two very different series but surely you can understand what it would be like to have a loveable character like guybrush replaced?
I mean no disrespect to others opinions so i'm sorry if i come across narrow-minded and pushy over my opinion. Is just that these 3 characters mean alot to me.
I mean, Guybrush was in 1, 2, 3, and 4. Your trio was in the second game, but the first game didn't have two of them. So it's just not really something that can be compared. The Monkey Island series is about Guybrush, the Maniac Mansion series is about kids going into a creepy mansion, and Day of the Tentacle is about that trio specifically. It just seems like a one-game view, rather than a series view.
The way I see Maniac Mansion is that you come in for the world and the puzzles based on "abilities'. Whether it's the individual abilities of 1 or the "I can do this 'cause I'm here" abilities of 2.
I'm just afraid that, with Day of the Tentacle taking SO much attention as getting a sequel, that the ENTIRETY of the first game will be eclipsed. That in such a proposed sequel, it'll just be "Day of the Tentacle 2", and take absolutely NO elements from the first game. And I think that first game has merit, because unlike the second, it has a template all its own rather than being like the other LucasArts adventures(other than Loom, of course).
I actually don't care about the characters too much, other than wanting to see some new kids. But the mechanics, if made to be just like a later LucasArts adventure, would just turn me off completely. It'd be like playing Loom with a point-and-click inventory system.
Oh and I know a guy named Bernard AND a lady named Laverne. No "Hoagie" though.
((Oh, and I'm not trying to change your opinion, really. Just expressing my own, and it happens to be in contrast to yours))
You know what... after thinking about it. I think i'd be happy as long as they kept Laverne as a playable character. Then the other two could be new or a character from maniac mansion. Or if there was 6 (doubt it considering telltale restrictions. Heck, i'm doubting if we get to play even 3, telltale might only have us playing one considering the extra work caused by more playable characters.)
I don't mind if hoagie and even if bernard got the boot (doubt bernard will for obvious reasons) but Laverne is one of my favourite characters so i would be satisfied with any changes as long as she makes it into the game.
Really? i was starting the question whether they were made up names.
I know i've kinda been bashing mm1's a little but that's more out of fear of too much change. dott has nostalgia on its side whic i guess kinda effects my view. So apart of me would love it to be more of a day of the tentacle 2. But I respect that there was a game before and it is still the game that inspired dott.
I've got mm1 on my computer and i've been thinking about giving it another go.
Talking about those differences between the games, an episodic series based on this franchise could lend to interesting concepts all by itself. For instance, let's assume the whole time travelling business was kept and the game actually will be made of course.
Let's say, the opening episode was released in February, it would be about Bernard trying to get the Texas Avengers win a sports event called the Super Bawl. In turn Dead Cousin Ted or whoever wins the money he placed onto them so that in the future he can afford whatever. Does anybody remember how Ed talks about undergoing a therapy prior to DOTT because of what happened with his former hamster? Say the episode with a twist released in the month celebrating Maniac Mansion's upteenth birthday could be based on Ed going all the way back to 1987 and him trying to avoid the intruders getting to his hamster, Home Alone style. Retro-style graphics and all. This in turn would prevent him from being an inhabitant at Nutcracksville Sanatorium, Santa Barbara, CA by the start of this new game, so that he can do whatever. And so on. And so on.
Wherever they would go, the more I'm thinking about this the more excited I become.
And about which is better, Maniac Mansion or its sequel, I prefer the sequel. The thing about the sequel is that each character you play has their own personalities. I've played Maniac Mansion, and most of the time, the three characters seemed like duplicates of one character dressed up in different outfits.
And of course, there's the cartoony design of DOTT, which I adore.
Except time travel isn't a necessary franchise staple. The mansion is. Characters that can do different things is another constant.
The mansion would make for a great re-use of assets, but I'd hope that the mansion itself would be the focus and that they'd just add more accessible areas onto it as we went on.
I don't get this criticism of the first game. I mean, I suppose they aren't DEVELOPED personalities, but they're there.
Dave is the boyfriend. He organizes the rescue, he he's running for class president, he's the hero.
Bernard is the nerd. He can fix anything, and he gets scared easily. Easily the most talented of the group.
Syd and Razor are identical talent-wise, though one is "New Wave" and the other is a punk rocker. They're musicians, and both help Green Tentacle with his desire for stardom.
Wendy's the artistic member of the group. She's the writer. She can improve the somewhat shoddy manuscript of the evil meteor.
Michael is...he takes pictures. I never actually did see much character put into him, even in the same vein as the others.
Jeff's a surfer dude. He's damn near useless.
Really, this may seem underdeveloped, but it actually works to the game's advantage. Their characters have just enough character that you can see them as different people, while being vague enough for you to identify with them rather than feeling like you're just moving around another person between cutscenes. It was you exploring the Edison mansion, and that mansion and its occupants were the source of character in the game. To look at the setting as anything less than an intense amount of character is flawed, and Day of the Tentacle mostly borrowed from that while fleshing out its kids and a few new side characters.
...three? Are you SURE you played Maniac Mansion?
So the first one...isn't a cartoon?
That. Would. Be. Awesome.
Just thought i give my opinion on some of these.
-Time-travel may not have been in the original game but the second game added it into the universe, why ignore it? besides the only reason it didn't become a staple in the series is because there hasn't been any sequels continuing and expanding the idea. I bet you anything that if there were mm games made straight after dott that they would at least use time-travel in some form or another. Just because it isn't part of the tradition of the games doesn't mean it cant be.
-He means the light-hearted looney toons approach. More goofier and exaggerated like what curse of the monkey island did for the monkey island series.
Right, I'll admit. My bad.
Yes, that is why I prefer DOTT more than MM.
I meant Dave and the two characters I chose, which are always Bernard and Jeff.
Well, I was talking about visuals, not writing, and the only cartoony visual aspect of the first game is the oversized heads. Yes the writing is wacky and crazy, but the visuals just doesn't seem as lively as DOTT.
Though if there's one thing to complain about DOTT: I wasn't really happy with the voice-acting. Compared to Hit the Road and Curse of MI, DOTT's voice acting sounded... unmotivated.
Also, isn't a hoagie some kind of sandwich?
Sorry mate, i do get quite defensive sometimes. I'm not offended.
I always pictured some type of greasy sandwich when i think the name hoagie.