Monkey Island

[Domino]

Just wanted to know who thinks Curse of Monkey Island is better than the so-called 3-D Escape from Monkey Island?
I think Curse is the better game, with way better graphics (in my opinion).

[Trapezoid]

A lot of people think EMI is the weakest game of the series... I think it's very underrated though.
But the whole topic is pretty much dead....

[Domino]

What about KQ7? Seemed to die just as quickly

[Scummbuddy]

No, he means this topic is done to death.  Yeah, everyone will side with CMI over EMI, almost, but then again, if you ask, MI 1 & 2 against MI 3 & 4, you'll get more followers of the first two, cause the designers of the latter games obviously didn't play the first games more than once, nor did they seem to be die hard fans or care about any continuity.

[remixor]

I agree, this topic is sort of dead on arrival.  I can't imagine finding many people who'd prefer MI4.

Just for the sake or argument though, Scummy:
I think that's kind of an unfair situation to tie together MI1+2 against 3+4.  I mean, 1+2 have tons to do with each other, but 3+4 have just about nothing to do with each other.  I'll take the first two games any day for a multitude of reasons, including the ones you mention.  However, I'm sure you could find plenty of people who really love 3 who would hesitate to say they prefer "3+4" just because 4 was such a pile of crap.  I can understand why people who prefer 3 do--graphics, excellent voice acting, more accessible humour, etc.  It's more just a really good adventure than a really good Monkey Island game.  But let's not lump it in with Excrement of Monkey Island.

[Scummbuddy]

As most people would understand, I grouped them based on the fact that I am one of those babies out there who can't get past the fact that good ol' Ronnie Gilbert wasn't on the developement team for the last two games.  Yes, some people did continue to help on the games, but when the main person fueled with the inspiration has left the creative helm (Hi Helm!), then the drive to do it completly right was lost, in my opinion.  I mean the inconsitancies only grew with CMI, and they were three-sheets-to-the-wind on just pumping out a sequel to that.  It really bugged me when they tossed around the past stories of a story that I grew up with.  To me, both CMI and EMI were really poorly planned fan-sequels, but also, both incredibly made stand alone games.  Yes, I consider them all "real" since they are from LucasArts, but it doesn't mean I have to believe all the games storylines for the overall story.

[Jimi]

Ye olde Monkey Island topic... 'tis back after alle this time...

[remixor]

I understand your reasoning, Scummy, but it was still different "not-Ron-Gilberts" who did 3 and 4.  Anyway, I essentially agree with pretty much everything you're saying; my dispute was fairly nitpicky.

[Toefur]

Personally I couldn't give a damn whether Ron Gilbert was involved in the games or not. Possibly I should because it's not like me to want to support a game just because some company wants to squeeze it for every last cent; but adventure games are hard enough to come by as it is.

That being said I thought CMI was an excellent game. It was an excellent Monkey Island game. Yet EMI was not. EMI was a good game, but not a good monkey island game (and many others here have said that).

So this brings us to the important question that I really want some help with because I just can't figure it out.

My girlfriend and I just played all four monkeys from start to finish. At the end of EMI I asked her, "So what did you think of that one?"

Now, she hasn't loved the Monkey Island games since she was 10 years old, like me, but she still said, "It was a good game, but it wasn't really like a Monkey Island game".

A lot of people seem to agree on this, and so the question is: Why does CMI feel, act and look like a Monkey Island game, whilst EMI doesn't?[\b]

What is it that it's lacking? I honestly can't think of what it is, and I don't think it's because EMI is 3D.

[Trapezoid]

EMI went off in a very different direction, stylistically. It just didn't match up with the previous games, which is why you hear a lot of people saying "As a standalone game, it's great, but as a Monkey Island game it sucks."

[remixor]

A lot of people seem to agree on this, and so the question is: Why does CMI feel, act and look like a Monkey Island game, whilst EMI doesn't?[\b]

Well, I don't think everybody DOES feel that CMI feels, looks, and acts like a Monkey Island game.  I don't, for one.  I do think it's an excellent and beautiful adventure, but I don't think the mood is very similar.  There are several reasons for this, in my opinion:
CMI is very cartoony, with greatly exaggerated proportions, but just about everything made sense in the context of the setting of the game.  It was just a goofy setting.  MI1 and 2 are the exact opposite.  Everything is very realistically constructed, in that characters, backgrounds, and items are much proportionally "correct", but we have things like steel tunnels under the ground that in no way fit wih the game's established setting (and, as we all know, there may or not be an explanation for that at the end of MI2).  These little touches occur throughout MI1 and 2, and they create sort of an unsettling feeling despite the game's humor.  CMI does not have this; it is more of an innocent game.  This is not a bad thing, it is just a distinction.  I think that, while all three games can (and should) be enjoyed by all adventure gamers, CMI could probably work better for a younger audience.  Now, I now that many people here, myself included, played MI1 and 2 when they were young 'uns, but I still would maintain that if you gave a younger person the choice of MI1, 2, and 3, 3 would be more acceptable because of its lighter feel and appearance.  This isn't a resolution/technology thing either; I would say the same about DOTT in comparison to MI1/2.

I'm not even going to say anthing about EMI because I haven't played the game all the way through yet, so I  couldn't go into as much detail as I did about the other three games.

[Scummbuddy]

I would like to point out that almost everyone who panned EMI after its release, and complaining that it didnt fit in with the family of the three first games, were also the ones that complained after CMI's release how it did not fit in with the first two games.  Then after a couple years for the game to settle, and people replaying it... people got used to it, and people began to love it.  Then EMI came in with its scurvy-inducing 3D, and again, everyone was against change...again.  I am afraid though, that EMI was well too reckless in some plot[hole] choices they made, which especially became prominent towards the ending.

[remixor]

I've heard that's very much the case, Scummy, but for me I didn't even have the internet when CMI came out, so I was completely unaware of any backlash against it.  In any case, I think those people would STILL argue that CMI doesn't fit with the series.  That's a separate issue from how good of a game it is.

[Temporary]

What is it that it's lacking? I honestly can't think of what it is, and I don't think it's because EMI is 3D.

First thing that springs to mind would be actual playtime. While the first three games kept me playing (and laughing) for quite some time, EMI was all run through in two days (and that's because I had to go to work in between).

Although it would have come in fourth place anyway, it would definitely have been much better if the game didn't end just as I felt I was getting started...  

[Trapezoid]

CMI got plenty of backlash, but most of the people who bashed it just disappeared by the time EMI came out.
Oh, and remixor, I think I read that MI1 and MI2 would've been more cartoony, but it didn't look well in low res. Furthermore, I think the "unsettling" aspects like the tunnels were only really existant in MI2. MI1 and CMI are pretty similar in tone, IMHO.

[remixor]

Trap:  I see what you mean about MI2's atmosphere vs. MI1, and I agree that CMI is more similar to MI1 than it is to MI2, but I still think that CMI has more of a lighter and goofy feel than either of the first two games.  As far as the resolution issue goes, DOTT was low-res (IIRC, or else I'll look dumb) but it certainly managed a very cartoonish and goofy look.

[Nellie]

Plus they made the decision in MI1 to use those occasional close-ups of the characters where they were shown as realistic people.

[remixor]

That's true, Nellie.  That didn't occur to me at first, but that's another example of the mood I was trying to indicate.  I maintain the 1+2 were more realistic-looking by design, not by limitation of technology.

[Trapezoid]

I dunno, there's a big difference in the Disneyish style of CMI and the goofy cartoony look of DOTT. The style that MI1 was in was pretty much the norm at the time.
I still think that CMI was quite in the spirit of MI1...

[remixor]

I know there's a big difference, but you were saying the reason MI1+2 weren't more cartoony was because it wouldn't work in low-res, and I was just pointing out a game that did look cartoony in low res.  Certainly, the specific kind of cartoon style is very different.

Anyway, I don't know if we're going to convince each other of anything, so maybe we should all just say that's that?