It's not true. Ron finished Monkey Island 2 and helped in Day of the Tentacle too. The people of CMI didn't know how explain the MI2 ending (although I think that the made a very good job with the explains, it was not easy).
I've read somewhere that he, for some reason, left LucasArts BEFORE MI2 was completed, leaving others wondering what to do with MI2 ending (maybe that's why the red eyes and spell thing came up, so to give a green light for a possible another sequel). Don't know if it's true, though.
It's not.
And it's not that MI3 folks didn't know how to explain the ending, it's more that - since the adventure genre was on life support at that point - they wanted to create a game with as wide appeal as possible. Hence they played it safe - less weirdness, more family friendly saturday morning cartoon plots. They didn't really "explain" the MI2 ending but rather "worked around" it.
Although, one has to be fair and remember that the very final scene of MI2 was Elaine waiting by the Big Whoop excavation site wondering ""What could be keeping Guybrush? I hope LeChuck hasn't put some sort of SPELL over him .... ". SPELL being written in caps. So perhaps Ron's potential continuation wouldn't be THAT different from the one we got to play in MI3 eventually...
And it's not that MI3 folks didn't know how to explain the ending, it's more that - since the adventure genre was on life support at that point - they wanted to create a game with as wide appeal as possible. Hence they played it safe - less weirdness, more family friendly saturday morning cartoon plots. They didn't really "explain" the MI2 ending but rather "worked around" it.
Although, one has to be fair and remember that the very final scene of MI2 was Elaine waiting by the Big Whoop excavation site wondering ""What could be keeping Guybrush? I hope LeChuck hasn't put some sort of SPELL over him .... ". SPELL being written in caps. So perhaps Ron's potential continuation wouldn't be THAT different from the one we got to play in MI3 eventually...
I agree that they most likely would have had it that Guybrush was under a spell, I just reckon they would have made it more meaningfull rather than working around the ending like you said.
Sort of like, instead of Guybrush breaking free and that being it they instead made it so that Guybrush had to relieve some horrible moment in his life such as when Chuckie killed their parents in front of him at a fairground (hey, the MI2 ending did have a strong Star Wars theme after all), leading Guybrush to want to become a pirate in order to get revenge (after all, he does quote Inigo Montoya alot...).
But then, that would have been too hard for new players to get into it, so maybe not...
Although, one has to be fair and remember that the very final scene of MI2 was Elaine waiting by the Big Whoop excavation site wondering ""What could be keeping Guybrush? I hope LeChuck hasn't put some sort of SPELL over him .... ". SPELL being written in caps. So perhaps Ron's potential continuation wouldn't be THAT different from the one we got to play in MI3 eventually...
I often wonder why in the world all these people who claim it really is a child's fantasy world ignore this significant point. Did they never see the final scene. MAYBE if chuckie's eyes never glowed (maybe even if they did glow) and that was IT, you would have a thread to argue it was truely a fantasy. However the very fact that the final scene with elaine exists shuts this theory down as the scene would be nonsensical if the next game was to be about how Guybrush is just a dumb kid with a big imagination.
I think it's because that scene doesn't appear till AFTER the credits finish rolling, and only a true fan sits around that long to see those secrets.
I often wonder why in the world all these people who claim it really is a child's fantasy world ignore this significant point. Did they never see the final scene. MAYBE if chuckie's eyes never glowed (maybe even if they did glow) and that was IT, you would have a thread to argue it was truely a fantasy. However the very fact that the final scene with elaine exists shuts this theory down as the scene would be nonsensical if the next game was to be about how Guybrush is just a dumb kid with a big imagination.
I think it's because that scene doesn't appear till AFTER the credits finish rolling, and only a true fan sits around that long to see those secrets.
It was to leave it open for the possibility of a sequel, or that Elaine just hadn't realised that the others had stopped playing. Or maybe it was to show that the imaginary world had a life of its own, a la The Neverending Story.
Regardless, some people just prefer that ending, whether or not they are 'true fans' in your divine sight oh great monkey master!
However the very fact that the final scene with elaine exists shuts this theory down as the scene would be nonsensical if the next game was to be about how Guybrush is just a dumb kid with a big imagination.
OR it was there so the folks who took the actual ending as a personal insult can still get a good night's sleep. OR to screw with them even further. OR it was there to show that Guybrush still doesn't want to keep daydreaming. OR as a throw-away gag similar to Elaine's "I have a husband" line from MI1.
But I still didn't take the "are you a true fan of Monkey Island test", so I don't know if my opinion is any good...
That or there just isn't one. The Secret is there is no Secret.
I know that actually THERE WAS a Secret, and I thought I recently discovered it on the internet, from a reliable source. I mean there was a plan to reveal The Secret but it was... "cancelled", although the game title was never changed.
However the very fact that the final scene with elaine exists shuts this theory down as the scene would be nonsensical if the next game was to be about how Guybrush is just a dumb kid with a big imagination.
You know, i don't like the "it's all a little boy playing around" explanation either, but this could had been in there just to show that the little boy basically KEEPS dreaming... therefore leaving the opportunity for a sequel, which could have been the little boy starting playing again.
I don't really like this explanation, but i just don't feel like it makes sooooo little sense if that's the right one.
The first time I finished MI2 as a kid I also got disappointed... but now I find it a brilliant ending. There is nothing more beautiful than kids' imaginary adventures ala Calvin and Hobbes. After all, this is pretty much what WE did play back then: an imaginary adventure as pirates.
Its not exactly MI related, but....uh...its about Ron Gilbert..uh...breaking silence...maybe..on monday...for some reason...i guess...maybe Deathspank related..uh..maybe.
And it's not that MI3 folks didn't know how to explain the ending, it's more that - since the adventure genre was on life support at that point - they wanted to create a game with as wide appeal as possible. Hence they played it safe - less weirdness, more family friendly saturday morning cartoon plots. They didn't really "explain" the MI2 ending but rather "worked around" it.
Although, one has to be fair and remember that the very final scene of MI2 was Elaine waiting by the Big Whoop excavation site wondering ""What could be keeping Guybrush? I hope LeChuck hasn't put some sort of SPELL over him .... ". SPELL being written in caps. So perhaps Ron's potential continuation wouldn't be THAT different from the one we got to play in MI3 eventually...
Curse of Monkey Island designers didn't know how to explain it (only Ron knew up until recently). No conspiracy theory of how the publisher wanted the developers to make an adventure game that appealed to the masses here, they set out to make the best game they could possibly make under the circumstances and they did just that.
Curse of Monkey Island designers didn't know how to explain it (only Ron knew up until recently). No conspiracy theory of how the publisher wanted the developers to make an adventure game that appealed to the masses here, they set out to make the best game they could possibly make under the circumstances and they did just that.
Creating a product that will make you the most money doesn't equal conspiracy theory. It's called "doing business".
You see, modern gamers do not want "edgy" or "original" or "new". They want familiar and they want "safe". That's why a masterpiece like "Psychonauts" utterly flopped yet Electronic Arts makes millions on selling the same sports game each year again and again. Hence, MI3 was perhaps made to be the "best they could possibly make", but as long as it catered to general audience - and that audience prefers sitcom plots and cartoons to strange and esoteric continuations of an already pretty weird story.
Creating a product that will make you the most money doesn't equal conspiracy theory. It's called "doing business".
You see, modern gamers do not want "edgy" or "original" or "new". They want familiar and they want "safe". That's why a masterpiece like "Psychonauts" utterly flopped yet Electronic Arts makes millions on selling the same sports game each year again and again. Hence, MI3 was perhaps made to be the "best they could possibly make", but as long as it catered to general audience - and that audience prefers sitcom plots and cartoons to strange and esoteric continuations of an already pretty weird story.
I don't get why ppl think edgey and orignal is bad I meen why would you wana do the same thing over and over its same with movies and tv shows to
I hate fps so I avoid them but I herd halo and metroid have gd storys
I've learned to stop buying games for their story and focus on the actual game. (With the exception of ToMI and other adventure games like Phoenix Wright, because story is kinda the point) In my opinion, books do a better job with stories then most video games and a lot of movies. I still do appreciate good story in my already good video games (like Legend of Zelda), but I've learned to focus my story searching elsewhere.
Funny you mention Metroid, I was thinking of picking up the Trilogy. I already knew it was a great game, I'm glad to hear it has a good story. I hope it's as good as some of the 2D ones I've played.
Hey guys, I know I could have done the third game myself, I didn't really care enough about it though, but now that you've made a third game, I think I'll come out and say how I wouldn't have done it that way and how my super-secret idea is so much better and all the fans will wish I had made the third game when I tell them my awesome idea, which will be approximately never.
I don't get why ppl think edgey and orignal is bad I meen why would you wana do the same thing over and over its same with movies and tv shows to
They usually don't think it's bad, it's simply when they choose from two games in the shop (or two movies at the cash desk in the cinema), they tend to choose the more convenient-looking solution.
Funny you mention Metroid, I was thinking of picking up the Trilogy. I already knew it was a great game, I'm glad to hear it has a good story. I hope it's as good as some of the 2D ones I've played.
I agree, the Metroid Prime series has a great story. Not over-complicated (IMO, that's a good point), but with a great eerie atmosphere, interesting backstory and lots of secrets to uncover.
The problem now is that people expect games to have a story so often games that would be perfectly fine are ruined by poor writing. If you can't construct a good story, don't!
Thankfully Telltale know what they're doing and have great writers!
Comments
It's not.
And it's not that MI3 folks didn't know how to explain the ending, it's more that - since the adventure genre was on life support at that point - they wanted to create a game with as wide appeal as possible. Hence they played it safe - less weirdness, more family friendly saturday morning cartoon plots. They didn't really "explain" the MI2 ending but rather "worked around" it.
Although, one has to be fair and remember that the very final scene of MI2 was Elaine waiting by the Big Whoop excavation site wondering ""What could be keeping Guybrush? I hope LeChuck hasn't put some sort of SPELL over him .... ". SPELL being written in caps. So perhaps Ron's potential continuation wouldn't be THAT different from the one we got to play in MI3 eventually...
I agree that they most likely would have had it that Guybrush was under a spell, I just reckon they would have made it more meaningfull rather than working around the ending like you said.
Sort of like, instead of Guybrush breaking free and that being it they instead made it so that Guybrush had to relieve some horrible moment in his life such as when Chuckie killed their parents in front of him at a fairground (hey, the MI2 ending did have a strong Star Wars theme after all), leading Guybrush to want to become a pirate in order to get revenge (after all, he does quote Inigo Montoya alot...).
But then, that would have been too hard for new players to get into it, so maybe not...
I often wonder why in the world all these people who claim it really is a child's fantasy world ignore this significant point. Did they never see the final scene. MAYBE if chuckie's eyes never glowed (maybe even if they did glow) and that was IT, you would have a thread to argue it was truely a fantasy. However the very fact that the final scene with elaine exists shuts this theory down as the scene would be nonsensical if the next game was to be about how Guybrush is just a dumb kid with a big imagination.
I think it's because that scene doesn't appear till AFTER the credits finish rolling, and only a true fan sits around that long to see those secrets.
Regardless, some people just prefer that ending, whether or not they are 'true fans' in your divine sight oh great monkey master!
OR it was there so the folks who took the actual ending as a personal insult can still get a good night's sleep. OR to screw with them even further. OR it was there to show that Guybrush still doesn't want to keep daydreaming. OR as a throw-away gag similar to Elaine's "I have a husband" line from MI1.
But I still didn't take the "are you a true fan of Monkey Island test", so I don't know if my opinion is any good...
I know that actually THERE WAS a Secret, and I thought I recently discovered it on the internet, from a reliable source. I mean there was a plan to reveal The Secret but it was... "cancelled", although the game title was never changed.
You know, i don't like the "it's all a little boy playing around" explanation either, but this could had been in there just to show that the little boy basically KEEPS dreaming... therefore leaving the opportunity for a sequel, which could have been the little boy starting playing again.
I don't really like this explanation, but i just don't feel like it makes sooooo little sense if that's the right one.
http://grumpygamer.com/7140447
Why would I wait through the credits? I have constructive things I could be doing. Like running for president or teaching basket weaving to clams.
:cool:
Creating a product that will make you the most money doesn't equal conspiracy theory. It's called "doing business".
You see, modern gamers do not want "edgy" or "original" or "new". They want familiar and they want "safe". That's why a masterpiece like "Psychonauts" utterly flopped yet Electronic Arts makes millions on selling the same sports game each year again and again. Hence, MI3 was perhaps made to be the "best they could possibly make", but as long as it catered to general audience - and that audience prefers sitcom plots and cartoons to strange and esoteric continuations of an already pretty weird story.
I don't get why ppl think edgey and orignal is bad I meen why would you wana do the same thing over and over its same with movies and tv shows to
That's human nature for you, sadly.
It's why FPS games are literally half the gaming market thesedays, which is just sad [imho].
Err, as for this thread. I'm a MI newbie [to playing the games mind], so yeah, let's just wait for MI2: SE [you know it's coming]. :cool:
I hate fps so I avoid them but I herd halo and metroid have gd storys
I've learned to stop buying games for their story and focus on the actual game. (With the exception of ToMI and other adventure games like Phoenix Wright, because story is kinda the point) In my opinion, books do a better job with stories then most video games and a lot of movies. I still do appreciate good story in my already good video games (like Legend of Zelda), but I've learned to focus my story searching elsewhere.
Funny you mention Metroid, I was thinking of picking up the Trilogy. I already knew it was a great game, I'm glad to hear it has a good story. I hope it's as good as some of the 2D ones I've played.
They usually don't think it's bad, it's simply when they choose from two games in the shop (or two movies at the cash desk in the cinema), they tend to choose the more convenient-looking solution.
I agree, the Metroid Prime series has a great story. Not over-complicated (IMO, that's a good point), but with a great eerie atmosphere, interesting backstory and lots of secrets to uncover.
Thankfully Telltale know what they're doing and have great writers!