Yep, you know what I mean.
If you don't, I'll try to be clearer.
In the first 2 games there were situations that made feel the player in serious danger: I still remember that when I was a kid I was scared of LeChuck finding me during the ending of MI2. Maybe it was because I was a little kid, but I don't find it likely to give the player this kind of feelings with a style like CMI, even for a kid.
Granted he never said "I want it more cartoony." However, if the close-ups were in a realistic style, and he said he thought that style didn't match the rest of the game, what other options are there? If you're not going for realism, what other option is there? Only stylization of one sort or another. Granted, it doesn't have to be as overtly cartoony as CMI. But it's going to have to be, by definition, something with a bit of cartooniness.
I understand your concern is about the visual style destroying what would otherwise be serious moments. You claim the first two games had serious moments, and you don't like that the style of CMI and EMI made serious moments impossible or at least unlikely. Fair enough, you are entitled to your tastes.
For what it's worth, Guybrush having exaggerated cartoon body proportions doesn't, for me, make it impossible for that character to be in serious situations.
But, as WedgeWalker said, it is very unlikely. C'mon, you must admit that in CMI we all played the entire game with a grin in our face. It was a lot of fun, but we never felt the situations "serious" or creepy. Even when Guybrush is nailed into the coffin, it's hilarious and not creepy at all.
Consider, instead, MI2's cemetery during the visit to Rapp Scallion.
That's creepy. For real. See what I mean?
The emotional involvement was higher to me.
Nah, the proportions - especially the head to body proportions - are way off, but that goes for both games. Largo, Mad Marty and the librarian are not fat, but still very cartoony and disporoportioned. And Stan - he has a mouth the size of his own belly. Neither Mick Jagger or Steven Tyler can match the size of his mouth.
I don't understand WHY you're saying this. Really, it's not to be polemic.
I mean, Largo's very short, Mad Marty's got big glasses.
You're right for Stan, it's OK, he opens his mouth unrealistically.
And that was the reason it was fun!
A realistic character spreading the mouth that way!
I think that it's a lot more fun to see a character drawn realistically opening his mouth THAT wide, than a cartoon doing the same thing.
Anyway, I've took a look at those backgrounds... They're awesome Thanks for the info.
They ARE cartoony, and I like them that way. I was just referring to the characters which aren't meant to be too deformed, imo.
I don't understand WHY you're saying this. Really, it's not to be polemic.
I mean, Largo's very short, Mad Marty's got big glasses.
You're right for Stan, it's OK, he opens his mouth unrealistically.
And that was the reason it was fun!
A realistic character spreading the mouth that way!
I think that it's a lot more fun to see a character drawn realistically opening his mouth THAT wide, than a cartoon doing the same thing.
Anyway, I've took a look at those backgrounds... They're awesome Thanks for the info.
They ARE cartoony, and I like them that way. I was just referring to the characters which aren't meant to be too deformed, imo.
I've never talked about how deformed or cartoony they were meant to be. My point was, and is, that the graphical style of Fate of Atlantis is very different from the style of the first two MI games. Want more examples? Here you go:
(thanks, ScummBar.com)
Yep, you know what I mean.
If you don't, I'll try to be clearer.
In the first 2 games there were situations that made feel the player in serious danger: I still remember that when I was a kid I was scared of LeChuck finding me during the ending of MI2. Maybe it was because I was a little kid, but I don't find it likely to give the player this kind of feelings with a style like CMI, even for a kid.
Actually, i'm 20 years old and i just completed the second game a couple of nights ago. I quite literally jumped everytime Lechuck appeared on screen. That game has some serious power.
And I never said they have the same stile, I said they're "more or less" similar.
Looks like we already agree.
Well, I still disagree that they are "more or less" similar, other than that they were made around the same time, using the same tools. FA emulates a realistic style, while MI1 & 2 are obviously not.
I do agree that MI1 and 2 are graphically the least cartoony games in the series, and that the license took a stylistic shift with CMI, though.
Actually, i'm 20 years old and i just completed the second game a couple of nights ago. I quite literally jumped everytime Lechuck appeared on screen. That game has some serious power.
Lol, thanks for saying that. Now I'm even more convinced of my point.
That could never happen in CMI.
Thanks Mark, I've spoke about that scene right in this thread.
I mentioned it saying that imo, if they wanted MI to look exaggeratedly cartoonish as in CMI, they would have drawn Guybrush that way during ALL the game.
Instead, they've chosen to draw him in a realistic way, deformating him during some situations (as the drinking contest).
I think the result is even funnier and crazier, and would have been unreachable with a CMI Guybrush.
It's a cartoon. CMI is more of a cartoon. But they're ALL cartoons. The same way that Kim Possible looks more cartoony and exaggerated than the Police Academy cartoon (or any other cartoon from the 80s/90s of the same style). But they're all cartoons.
Mm. I was never scared. Perhaps it's the wrong word to use. But I was definitely getting a sense of urgency every time LeChuck was about to catch me in the second MI game.
I think the MI1/2 games are based very heavily on being in Guybrush's imagination. It starts off quite dark in both games, as if he's dreaming and it's establishing itself in the dark room. And then it becomes more vivid, finally with the beautiful Monkey Island being replaced by either dark Melee or dark behind-the-scenes corridors. In fact, this darkness follows LeChuck, giving him an aura of power and evil. Look to MI3 and he's in the middle of a theme park in the end. I think the emphasis moves from being Guybrush Threepwood the mighty pirate, with the odd joke from outside, eluding to this all being imagination, to a complete fantasy world where we feel detached from the idea something bad could happen.
Look at Elaine, she's in mortal danger in MI1, then she's dumped Guybrush in MI2 and he needs to win her back. In MI3 she's not even there, and she's accepted his proposal. In MI4 she's married, and a huge part of the game dynamics is gone. Far from MI3 proving Elaine is surplus to requirements (as somebody said in another thread) I think it highlights that she is integral, and that her marriage to Guybrush was a huge mistake. But then, what can we do? A divorce would really take away from the naive charm. I think the naive charm of Guybrush, locked in a very dark comedy which rivals cult classics like Twin Peaks is exactly what made MI great. MI3 damaged this, though being a cracking game in its own right, and MI4 nuked it.
It's not that the games were too cartoony. If anything, its the 3d inflatable feel that's bad, not the story-book-animated-cartoon feel of MI3, which seemed to work nearly as well as MI1/2. I think it would be hard for Telltale to measure up to the story and feel of the first two games given what they've inherited, but the 3d is a mistake.
One major problem I had with Guybrush in MI4 is how happy and gormless he was, in all fecking situations. It really destroyed the game for me. ToMI has solved this, with more facial expressions and an infinitely better designed Guybrush in general. 3d is potentially a game-breaker for me, but it's cheap and easy to use so there's really no option unless a rich old widow patronises Telltale some time in the future :P
Having said that, I think the Wallace and Gromit experience of TT has helped them stylistically so that they can merge MI4-style with some styles they've done already. I'll be interested to see the kind of environments they have in the rest of the game. One island is hard to decide on.
It's a cartoon. CMI is more of a cartoon. But they're ALL cartoons. The same way that Kim Possible looks more cartoony and exaggerated than the Police Academy cartoon (or any other cartoon from the 80s/90s of the same style). But they're all cartoons.
I'll never agree with you. To me it's not a cartoon.
Mm. I was never scared. Perhaps it's the wrong word to use. But I was definitely getting a sense of urgency every time LeChuck was about to catch me in the second MI game.
I think the MI1/2 games are based very heavily on being in Guybrush's imagination. It starts off quite dark in both games, as if he's dreaming and it's establishing itself in the dark room. And then it becomes more vivid, finally with the beautiful Monkey Island being replaced by either dark Melee or dark behind-the-scenes corridors. In fact, this darkness follows LeChuck, giving him an aura of power and evil. Look to MI3 and he's in the middle of a theme park in the end. I think the emphasis moves from being Guybrush Threepwood the mighty pirate, with the odd joke from outside, eluding to this all being imagination, to a complete fantasy world where we feel detached from the idea something bad could happen.
Look at Elaine, she's in mortal danger in MI1, then she's dumped Guybrush in MI2 and he needs to win her back. In MI3 she's not even there, and she's accepted his proposal. In MI4 she's married, and a huge part of the game dynamics is gone. Far from MI3 proving Elaine is surplus to requirements (as somebody said in another thread) I think it highlights that she is integral, and that her marriage to Guybrush was a huge mistake. But then, what can we do? A divorce would really take away from the naive charm. I think the naive charm of Guybrush, locked in a very dark comedy which rivals cult classics like Twin Peaks is exactly what made MI great. MI3 damaged this, though being a cracking game in its own right, and MI4 nuked it.
Amen, someone understands my point. I mean, someone AGREES.
I don't usually weigh in on these debates, but I just thought I'd throw this image on the fire, so to speak:
I have a feeling some people here haven't played the games in awhile and in their minds, the Monkey Island games (Well, the first two at least, since God Gilbert didn't make the following ones) are a series of epic Lord of The Ring-ish games with complex characters and deep storylines with a hint of humor. As opposed to a bunch of silly cartoon pirate games, which they are in..And we need them! They need to make more funny games like the MI series..Everything is either action or horror. Thank Ye Gods for Telltale!
I have a feeling some people here haven't played the games in awhile and in their minds, the Monkey Island games (Well, the first two at least, since God Gilbert didn't make the following ones) are a series of epic Lord of The Ring-ish games with complex characters and deep storylines with a hint of humor. As opposed to a bunch of silly cartoon pirate games, which they are in..And we need them! They need to make more funny games like the MI series..Everything is either action or horror. Thank Ye Gods for Telltale!
As i've written previously, I don't think they ever meant to set up the mood properly for the LeChuck vs Guybrush thing, but it happened. Sure, there was always comedy on it; the spitting-game is the first to spring to mind for cartoon-like features, but that's very different from the structureless laziness that seemed to reign in MI4 by the time we got to Monkey Island; heck the conversations with characters didn't even make sense at times and occurred at the wrong moments. The point is that with the first two games you could get lost in the moment; with the MI4 attempt, that was entirely lacking for me and most of the people I talked to at the time about it.
*edit: and let us not forget the themepark at the end of MI3.
The thing is that the MI games were made to be humorous with people in troll costumes, three headed monkeys,etc
I think the first two games tried to be like a cartoon but because of the tech at the time, they could not have drawn them to look too cartoony because of sprite sizes and pixels. Also, a lot of animated features usually have the main characters look normal and everyone else look goofy
Take the Disney cartoons as an example. The love interest and the protagonist looks less cartoony than someone like Stitch or Belle's dad
I mean other than Guybrush and Elaine, all the characters were a bit cartoony lookin
As a kind of P.S., think about the cover-art for intention:
These above images, for me, demonstrate intent of sorts. The first two boxes weren't Guybrush and LeChuck drawn like a cartoon, which the argument that they weren't cartoony in-game because of tech-constraints would suggest. CMI is very cartoony on the box; they've dropped all pretense of the Guybrush vs LeChuck battles with the seriousness and intensity of the original two games, instead it seems to be much less serious; more like they're making fun of the previous box-arts. MI4 is maybe related to the original two, but I think the difference in box-art highlights the changes well, even if it doesn't prove them.
Gryffalio, box art isn't made by the game designers necessarily. That can be up to the advertising departments and such. Thus, we can't look at boxart as an indicator of the intentions of the game designers.
Moreover, boxart isn't the game itself.
So comparing box art doesn't help when thinking about the games themselves, which is what we're talking about.
And, my take on this whole cartoon issue is that the truth is in the middle.
Clearly CMI and EMI have a more pervasive exaggerated visual style than SMI and LR. Some of that may very well be due to technical limitations of the first two games (i.e. they couldn't be as cartoony as they wanted to be due to limitations in graphic tech). But in the end, there's no way to know for sure unless all the major designers tell us.
Having never played all of SMI and LR, I can't comment fully on the style differences in terms of writing and story. But, from what I have played, I do believe they exist, but I also think some of you are significantly overstating them.
The visual style of the first two games is not realistic. It simply isn't. And the writing style is still humor oriented (insult sword fighting, for just one example). It wasn't a realistic serious game with hints of humor. On the other hand, it wasn't slapstick zany either. But, neither were CMI and EMI.
At most, I think one can argue convincingly that CMI and EMI represent taking the more zany tendencies of the first two games and amplifying them.
The question is, was it too much. Well, that's a matter of personal subjective taste.
I think the amplification was fine. But that's my take.
A perfect example of box cover art not depicting the game's art direction (and proof that it doesn't have to either) is The Dig. I'd say that cover is a pretty realistic one while the game is DEFINITELY a cartoon (though not as exaggerated as DOTT or COMI).
We could have the same argument about, say, King's Quest VI. The cover art is definitely more realistically toned as are a lot of closeups in the game. The sprites are even video captured actors. But the game itself is definitely a cartoon with its talking vegetables, sticks, logs, trees, exaggerated-anatomic featured gnomes, and The Land of Chess.
We could have the same argument about, say, King's Quest VI. The cover art is definitely more realistically toned as are a lot of closeups in the game. The sprites are even video captured actors. But the game itself is definitely a cartoon with its talking vegetables, sticks, logs, trees, exaggerated-anatomic featured gnomes, and The Land of Chess.
fantasy elements =\= cartoon.
is 'the lord of the rings' movies cartoons as well?
I've always wondered if reality is a pixel? Maybe you awesome dudes could try to play MI2 again and shine the pegleg untill you have 5100+ pieces of eight? there's a clip on youtube on how to do it. Sounds meaningful and fullfilling.
A perfect example of box cover art not depicting the game's art direction (and proof that it doesn't have to either) is The Dig. I'd say that cover is a pretty realistic one while the game is DEFINITELY a cartoon (though not as exaggerated as DOTT or COMI).
The Dig uses cartoon graphics, but would fit better a Steven Spielberg movie than a cartoon. I love those kind of graphics 'cause they're self contained, as you say not exaggerated as DOTT or CMI.
I think a Monkey Island 3 with the graphics used during The Dig's cutscenes is my idea of how MI should really look like. Cartoon style and colors, but realistic and well proportioned characters. Boston, Maggie and Brink are cartoons, but don't make you smile or laugh when you look at them. That's MY Guybrush.
I'm not arguing that point. In fact, I agree. I picture the first two Monkey Islands as on the same cartoon level as The Dig is (except actually shaded instead of cel-shaded).
Oh, yeah, then I TOTALLY agree with you. THAT cartoon style would be OK for MI, a bit like Broken Sword, a bit like The Dig, and here's a cartoon style that's cool and not exaggerated at the same time.
For me, it the huour which makes it tongue-in-cheek / cartoony / spoofy.
I wonder if this was lost in translation for some people? They took in as more serious that it actually was.
Ron Gilbert came up with the initial game as a more serious story. It was only once they started making it that they decided to turn it into a comedy. To see the games as pure comedy would be a mistake, just as seeing them as an epic.
Im not saying I see them as pure comedy (like S&M) but its the whacky humour / great writing thats stands them apart from generic adventure games IMO (well, that and some amazing puzzles!)
Im not saying I see them as pure comedy (like S&M) but its the whacky humour / great writing thats stands them apart from generic adventure games IMO (well, that and some amazing puzzles!)
That's true. I think the great thing about MI is that even when more sinister things happened (like LeChuck at the end of MI2) they countered it with some light relief. Yet I think the balance definitely shifted over the 3/4 and i'm not sure that was for the best, though CMI worked very well.
Comments
Yep, you know what I mean.
If you don't, I'll try to be clearer.
In the first 2 games there were situations that made feel the player in serious danger: I still remember that when I was a kid I was scared of LeChuck finding me during the ending of MI2. Maybe it was because I was a little kid, but I don't find it likely to give the player this kind of feelings with a style like CMI, even for a kid.
De gustibus non disputandum est. Fair enough
But, as WedgeWalker said, it is very unlikely. C'mon, you must admit that in CMI we all played the entire game with a grin in our face. It was a lot of fun, but we never felt the situations "serious" or creepy. Even when Guybrush is nailed into the coffin, it's hilarious and not creepy at all.
Consider, instead, MI2's cemetery during the visit to Rapp Scallion.
That's creepy. For real. See what I mean?
The emotional involvement was higher to me.
I don't understand WHY you're saying this. Really, it's not to be polemic.
I mean, Largo's very short, Mad Marty's got big glasses.
You're right for Stan, it's OK, he opens his mouth unrealistically.
And that was the reason it was fun!
A realistic character spreading the mouth that way!
I think that it's a lot more fun to see a character drawn realistically opening his mouth THAT wide, than a cartoon doing the same thing.
Anyway, I've took a look at those backgrounds... They're awesome
They ARE cartoony, and I like them that way. I was just referring to the characters which aren't meant to be too deformed, imo.
I've never talked about how deformed or cartoony they were meant to be. My point was, and is, that the graphical style of Fate of Atlantis is very different from the style of the first two MI games. Want more examples? Here you go:
(thanks, ScummBar.com)
Looks like we already agree.
Actually, i'm 20 years old and i just completed the second game a couple of nights ago. I quite literally jumped everytime Lechuck appeared on screen. That game has some serious power.
Well, I still disagree that they are "more or less" similar, other than that they were made around the same time, using the same tools. FA emulates a realistic style, while MI1 & 2 are obviously not.
I do agree that MI1 and 2 are graphically the least cartoony games in the series, and that the license took a stylistic shift with CMI, though.
Lol, thanks for saying that. Now I'm even more convinced of my point.
That could never happen in CMI.
I respect your opinion, but I totally disagree. To me, it's not that obvious as you say.
Let's agree to disagree.
I mentioned it saying that imo, if they wanted MI to look exaggeratedly cartoonish as in CMI, they would have drawn Guybrush that way during ALL the game.
Instead, they've chosen to draw him in a realistic way, deformating him during some situations (as the drinking contest).
I think the result is even funnier and crazier, and would have been unreachable with a CMI Guybrush.
I think the MI1/2 games are based very heavily on being in Guybrush's imagination. It starts off quite dark in both games, as if he's dreaming and it's establishing itself in the dark room. And then it becomes more vivid, finally with the beautiful Monkey Island being replaced by either dark Melee or dark behind-the-scenes corridors. In fact, this darkness follows LeChuck, giving him an aura of power and evil. Look to MI3 and he's in the middle of a theme park in the end. I think the emphasis moves from being Guybrush Threepwood the mighty pirate, with the odd joke from outside, eluding to this all being imagination, to a complete fantasy world where we feel detached from the idea something bad could happen.
Look at Elaine, she's in mortal danger in MI1, then she's dumped Guybrush in MI2 and he needs to win her back. In MI3 she's not even there, and she's accepted his proposal. In MI4 she's married, and a huge part of the game dynamics is gone. Far from MI3 proving Elaine is surplus to requirements (as somebody said in another thread) I think it highlights that she is integral, and that her marriage to Guybrush was a huge mistake. But then, what can we do? A divorce would really take away from the naive charm. I think the naive charm of Guybrush, locked in a very dark comedy which rivals cult classics like Twin Peaks is exactly what made MI great. MI3 damaged this, though being a cracking game in its own right, and MI4 nuked it.
It's not that the games were too cartoony. If anything, its the 3d inflatable feel that's bad, not the story-book-animated-cartoon feel of MI3, which seemed to work nearly as well as MI1/2. I think it would be hard for Telltale to measure up to the story and feel of the first two games given what they've inherited, but the 3d is a mistake.
One major problem I had with Guybrush in MI4 is how happy and gormless he was, in all fecking situations. It really destroyed the game for me. ToMI has solved this, with more facial expressions and an infinitely better designed Guybrush in general. 3d is potentially a game-breaker for me, but it's cheap and easy to use so there's really no option unless a rich old widow patronises Telltale some time in the future :P
Having said that, I think the Wallace and Gromit experience of TT has helped them stylistically so that they can merge MI4-style with some styles they've done already. I'll be interested to see the kind of environments they have in the rest of the game. One island is hard to decide on.
I'll never agree with you. To me it's not a cartoon.
Amen, someone understands my point. I mean, someone AGREES.
I have a feeling some people here haven't played the games in awhile and in their minds, the Monkey Island games (Well, the first two at least, since God Gilbert didn't make the following ones) are a series of epic Lord of The Ring-ish games with complex characters and deep storylines with a hint of humor. As opposed to a bunch of silly cartoon pirate games, which they are in..And we need them! They need to make more funny games like the MI series..Everything is either action or horror. Thank Ye Gods for Telltale!
As i've written previously, I don't think they ever meant to set up the mood properly for the LeChuck vs Guybrush thing, but it happened. Sure, there was always comedy on it; the spitting-game is the first to spring to mind for cartoon-like features, but that's very different from the structureless laziness that seemed to reign in MI4 by the time we got to Monkey Island; heck the conversations with characters didn't even make sense at times and occurred at the wrong moments. The point is that with the first two games you could get lost in the moment; with the MI4 attempt, that was entirely lacking for me and most of the people I talked to at the time about it.
*edit: and let us not forget the themepark at the end of MI3.
I think the first two games tried to be like a cartoon but because of the tech at the time, they could not have drawn them to look too cartoony because of sprite sizes and pixels. Also, a lot of animated features usually have the main characters look normal and everyone else look goofy
Take the Disney cartoons as an example. The love interest and the protagonist looks less cartoony than someone like Stitch or Belle's dad
I mean other than Guybrush and Elaine, all the characters were a bit cartoony lookin
These above images, for me, demonstrate intent of sorts. The first two boxes weren't Guybrush and LeChuck drawn like a cartoon, which the argument that they weren't cartoony in-game because of tech-constraints would suggest. CMI is very cartoony on the box; they've dropped all pretense of the Guybrush vs LeChuck battles with the seriousness and intensity of the original two games, instead it seems to be much less serious; more like they're making fun of the previous box-arts. MI4 is maybe related to the original two, but I think the difference in box-art highlights the changes well, even if it doesn't prove them.
Moreover, boxart isn't the game itself.
So comparing box art doesn't help when thinking about the games themselves, which is what we're talking about.
And, my take on this whole cartoon issue is that the truth is in the middle.
Clearly CMI and EMI have a more pervasive exaggerated visual style than SMI and LR. Some of that may very well be due to technical limitations of the first two games (i.e. they couldn't be as cartoony as they wanted to be due to limitations in graphic tech). But in the end, there's no way to know for sure unless all the major designers tell us.
Having never played all of SMI and LR, I can't comment fully on the style differences in terms of writing and story. But, from what I have played, I do believe they exist, but I also think some of you are significantly overstating them.
The visual style of the first two games is not realistic. It simply isn't. And the writing style is still humor oriented (insult sword fighting, for just one example). It wasn't a realistic serious game with hints of humor. On the other hand, it wasn't slapstick zany either. But, neither were CMI and EMI.
At most, I think one can argue convincingly that CMI and EMI represent taking the more zany tendencies of the first two games and amplifying them.
The question is, was it too much. Well, that's a matter of personal subjective taste.
I think the amplification was fine. But that's my take.
We could have the same argument about, say, King's Quest VI. The cover art is definitely more realistically toned as are a lot of closeups in the game. The sprites are even video captured actors. But the game itself is definitely a cartoon with its talking vegetables, sticks, logs, trees, exaggerated-anatomic featured gnomes, and The Land of Chess.
fantasy elements =\= cartoon.
is 'the lord of the rings' movies cartoons as well?
No, but in King's Quest's case, yes it is. King's Quest was always a cartoon. Even MOE is a cartoon.
The Dig uses cartoon graphics, but would fit better a Steven Spielberg movie than a cartoon. I love those kind of graphics 'cause they're self contained, as you say not exaggerated as DOTT or CMI.
I think a Monkey Island 3 with the graphics used during The Dig's cutscenes is my idea of how MI should really look like. Cartoon style and colors, but realistic and well proportioned characters. Boston, Maggie and Brink are cartoons, but don't make you smile or laugh when you look at them. That's MY Guybrush.
So what do you think of when someone mentions "Monkey Island?"
Oh wait...
Heh!
The point is that cartoon style isn't necessarily demential, as The Dig proves.
I wonder if this was lost in translation for some people? They took in as more serious that it actually was.
Ron Gilbert came up with the initial game as a more serious story. It was only once they started making it that they decided to turn it into a comedy. To see the games as pure comedy would be a mistake, just as seeing them as an epic.
That's true. I think the great thing about MI is that even when more sinister things happened (like LeChuck at the end of MI2) they countered it with some light relief. Yet I think the balance definitely shifted over the 3/4 and i'm not sure that was for the best, though CMI worked very well.