The Tone of Monkey Island - My Review and Suggestions for Future Episodes

[SurplusGamer]

I enjoyed those quotes because it suggests a subtelty that has not been seen so far in TMI, as it's early days. Some of the potential problem with 'tone' is not necessarily that it may not be 'dark' or 'dangerous' enough, but rather that it may not be subtle enough. MI has always had its share of archetypal goodies and baddies, but there was still a feeling that not everything was laid out in primary colours - there were shades in there.

If that quote is anything to go by, that's what they are going for again.

[Astro Gnocci]

Oh well, i guess this goes to prove that being a bit smarter allows one to be lazier
Thanks for posting the actual quite

[Darylman]

I'm not sure that quote actually SAYS anything. In fact, what it suggests to me is a backwards evolution. Consider that he says they are going in a new direction and looking for those "single moment" scenes. Single moment puzzles can be great (Doctor's chair) or really really bad (those map quests). I think a part of the greatness of MI2 was that it really did feel like an epic adventure. Having to change entire islands to solve puzzles felt like something Guybrush might ACTUALLY have to do.

[SurplusGamer]

Originally Posted by Darylman

I'm not sure that quote actually SAYS anything. In fact, what it suggests to me is a backwards evolution. Consider that he says they are going in a new direction and looking for those "single moment" scenes. Single moment puzzles can be great (Doctor's chair) or really really bad (those map quests). I think a part of the greatness of MI2 was that it really did feel like an epic adventure. Having to change entire islands to solve puzzles felt like something Guybrush might ACTUALLY have to do.

And yet MI2 is the only game in which he has had to do a significant amount of that. As great as that island hopping stuff in MI2 IS, it was part of ONE monkey island game and not as integral to the series as people like to think. In fact, it's more accurate to say that a typical MI game features a series of chapters each taking place in one major location/island at a time - exactly what TMI seems to be doing.

[TookiGuy]

I was too lazy to read all the posts, but here's the only things I didn't like -
The island. I think you guys know what I mean (The jungle concept was a nice idea, but having one or two more locations would have been great).
The difficulty. Too easy, in my opinion... I think that SMI and CMI had the difficulty at absolutely the right level, even EMI to some extent, was hard enough. And MI2 had one two difficulty settings - 1 being VERY hard, and the other being just a little below normal.
Other than that, just fine.
EDIT - I meant one or two more locations OUTSIDE the jungle.

[sladerlmc77]

The differences between the translated quote and the actual quote are important, I think.

In the translated quote, it would be easy to believe that each of the main characters gets infected and ultimately cured.

In the actual quote, what he actually says is that everybody has a different take on the cause and cure of the pox.

This doesn't guaruntee a cure (except for, supposedly, the sponge)...only that lots of folks have theories.

This is likely what leads to the trial and execution of Guybrush - infected pirates believe that he is the source. Who would whip up such speculation? Why...the Marquis De Singe, of course. He's the local medical expert, and foremost authority on unusual diseases (and obviously, their cures.)



Lorn

[Astro Gnocci]

Hmm true.
I went and re read the french translation and they clearly said "dose" there (same word in french, which doesn't leave any doubt concerning the sense), but as i said, the overall translation felt a bit off.

I actually don't really know if "Everybody's got a take on this Pox and the cure" could mean the same thing, i assumed it would when i saw it without really thinking much about it. Now that you mention it, it does have a different meaning... Does it clearly invalidates the other interpetation, tho ? Just asking, as i said, i don't really know, so feel free to correct me
But you're right, it doesn't make the above theories invalid after all. Which makes it all the more interesting actually

Tradutorre Traditorre, never trust a translation !

[somagh]

Originally Posted by TookiGuy

I was too lazy to read all the posts, but here's the only things I didn't like -
The island. I think you guys know what I mean (The jungle concept was a nice idea, but having one or two more locations would have been great).
The difficulty. Too easy, in my opinion... I think that SMI and CMI had the difficulty at absolutely the right level, even EMI to some extent, was hard enough. And MI2 had one two difficulty settings - 1 being VERY hard, and the other being just a little below normal.
Other than that, just fine.

Hopefully it is only a strategy to bring new players into the concept of puzzle solving games...that i can understand..im all for supporting the expansion of adventuregames. I did however hear in the discussion that they no longer wish to defeat the player and for the life of me i cannot understand why they would change their attitude about that? If the previous games were such big hits because of 2 things: humor and puzzles....then why cut down on one of them? I guess the next episode will hopefully answer this question but id really like to hear more peoples opinion on this point..

[SurplusGamer]

Originally Posted by somagh

Hopefully it is only a strategy to bring new players into the concept of puzzle solving games...that i can understand..im all for supporting the expansion of adventuregames. I did however hear in the discussion that they no longer wish to defeat the player and for the life of me i cannot understand why they would change their attitude about that? If the previous games were such big hits because of 2 things: humor and puzzles....then why cut down on one of them? I guess the next episode will hopefully answer this question but id really like to hear more peoples opinion on this point..

Why do you think not wanting to defeat the player equals cutting down puzzles? All it means is not making them unfair. Let me give you an example...

In Monkey Island 2, at one point Largo gets a bucket on his head and takes his shirt to the laundry, and there's a small cutscene. After that, with no guidance whatsoever you are supposed to realise that the laundry claim ticket is on the back of his door. You have to close the door to see it (which you have no reason to do, since there's no reason to suspect there is even a laundry claim ticket in his room, let alone there).

A player might spend hours wandering around clicking on things before stumbling accidentally onto what they want to do, in that case. Does it make it a hard puzzle? No, in fact it's barely even a puzzle at all, it's just a player-defeating stumbling block which artificially lengthens the game.

That's exactly the sort of thing that Telltale are trying to cut down on - puzzles that you can't solve because there's no reason to think that's what you should be doing. Therefore they are trying to make all the puzzles make sense, given a little logical thought on the part of the player.

[onemanandhisdroid]

Originally Posted by Inso

Why do you think not wanting to defeat the player equals cutting down puzzles? All it means is not making them unfair. Let me give you an example...

In Monkey Island 2, at one point Largo gets a bucket on his head and takes his shirt to the laundry, and there's a small cutscene. After that, with no guidance whatsoever you are supposed to realise that the laundry claim ticket is on the back of his door. You have to close the door to see it (which you have no reason to do, since there's no reason to suspect there is even a laundry claim ticket in his room, let alone there).

A player might spend hours wandering around clicking on things before stumbling accidentally onto what they want to do, in that case. Does it make it a hard puzzle? No, in fact it's barely even a puzzle at all, it's just a player-defeating stumbling block which artificially lengthens the game.

That's exactly the sort of thing that Telltale are trying to cut down on - puzzles that you can't solve because there's no reason to think that's what you should be doing. Therefore they are trying to make all the puzzles make sense, given a little logical thought on the part of the player.

Let's not forget you need to bloody click on the 2x2 pixels wide piece of string at the Voodoo Lady's beforehand. I came late to the first Gabriel Knight game. Now I like this one. But hell, this game's full of crap like that.

That said, great post. If you think about it, adventure game design is a very egoistic kind of thing: you're asked to find this one solution for a problem the designer deems workable. Therefore those puzzles were and still are at their best if you feel the designer teasing you, steering you into the right direction without giving it all away at once. It's a tricky thing, but it can be immensely satisfying when done right. Of course, it isn't often. Not everything was Golden even in the LucasArts classics of old. See above - I think the piece of string is an even worse example of this than the ticket. After all, Largo has got to keep it in his room SOMEWHERE. Safe for the beginning you never get to meet him anywhere, so it's got to be there. But yeah, it's a devilish one.

Overall, I think the whole voodoo puppet business is a great example of LA puzzling at its best though. Your goal is clear from the get-go: There is barely a single character that doesn't remind you of it at any step you make: "OH if I could only make that one thing this island needs to get rid of Largo LaGrande..." And second, the hints given are enough to make you think about it without giving it all way. Something of the dead? Well, there's this cemetary... Something of the body? Oh, didn't Largo spit on that wall fifteen minutes before? I wonder... Something from the head and thread? Let's take a look around at his shack!And so on. I thought Dead Cousin Ted was a brilliant character in Dott: if you think he merely acts as a mute supporting character, go ahead, fire up the game again and "talk" to him. You'll see what I mean.

At its worst its all guesswork though. Your goal is never really clear, the hinting and teasing is absent and only after you're finished doing what you were supposed to be doing you get the picture. There are games in which you're basically backtracking through a dozen of screens, exhausting all the dialogue options in the vague hope of hitting onto something new. And every once in a while such a dialogue option actually triggers another one someplace else or makes an item suddenly become interactive for no apparent reason. That's no joke - these games exist.

Puzzle complexity is cool, and I think a lot of people would agree that there's a place for more complex tasks in Monkey Island, but: it's tricky business.

[Darylman]

Originally Posted by Inso

Why do you think not wanting to defeat the player equals cutting down puzzles? All it means is not making them unfair. Let me give you an example...

In Monkey Island 2, at one point Largo gets a bucket on his head and takes his shirt to the laundry, and there's a small cutscene. After that, with no guidance whatsoever you are supposed to realise that the laundry claim ticket is on the back of his door. You have to close the door to see it (which you have no reason to do, since there's no reason to suspect there is even a laundry claim ticket in his room, let alone there).

A player might spend hours wandering around clicking on things before stumbling accidentally onto what they want to do, in that case. Does it make it a hard puzzle? No, in fact it's barely even a puzzle at all, it's just a player-defeating stumbling block which artificially lengthens the game.

That's exactly the sort of thing that Telltale are trying to cut down on - puzzles that you can't solve because there's no reason to think that's what you should be doing. Therefore they are trying to make all the puzzles make sense, given a little logical thought on the part of the player.

WRONG. Why would Largo NOT have a laundry ticket in his room after he JUST took his clothes to be cleaned? Of course it was in his room. This is by far not the hardest puzzle in MI2, nor the most illogical.

And by the way, why do the puzzles all have to be 'logical'?

[somagh]

Originally Posted by Darylman

WRONG. Why would Largo NOT have a laundry ticket in his room after he JUST took his clothes to be cleaned? Of course it was in his room. This is by far not the hardest puzzle in MI2, nor the most illogical.

And by the way, why do the puzzles all have to be 'logical'?

Agreed!

The whole point of monkey island as i see it.. is that your not following any other logic but monkey logic.
Regarding the difficulty level i can only say that i never got stuck at any point during the game and that has never happened before in any of the previous MI's, the reason can only be that the puzzles have a more quickfix approach and an overall decrease in level of difficulty. Which was for me a bit dissapointing. Do you really not think that COMI had puzzles that were more clever, hard and fun?

[ArtaMania]

Originally Posted by Inso

Please stop attributing fairer puzzle design to 'dumbing down.' It's boring.

Fair puzzle design? Really? Define fair, if you will.. and while you're at it, define "dumbing down"..

I guess it's safe to say you're suggesting 'fairer puzzle' equals 'easier puzzle' and I'm guessing its even safer to say that you don't want to brand it 'easy' because that would belittle the point you're not able to make, but you see, if the puzzle is designed in a way so you'll solve it quicker, or hell, EASIER, then it is indeed 'dumbed down' for YOUR pleasure.

[onemanandhisdroid]

Originally Posted by Darylman

And by the way, why do the puzzles all have to be 'logical'?

The whole point of monkey island as i see it.. is that your not following any other logic but monkey logic.

Somebody please frame these.


It's only if you've suffered through one endless stream of adventure game design mediocrity too much that you're starting to talk like this. The idea of being "stuck" is fine, as long as you're given something to "work" with. Figuring out a puzzle is fun! Pondering about some clues is awesome. Trying to read a designer's mind is not. It's like combining the cat syrup moustache with a piece from the longest ball of twine in order to get a makeshift rubber chicken with a pulley in the middle which will get you by the bridge over the chasm rather than letting your character die a hundred of Roberta Williams-approved deaths and then realizing that is what the heck you were trying to do all along. As is the case with point&click interfaces, VGA graphics and text parsers, a lot of self-proclaimed hardcore adventure gamers have brainwashed themselves into believing that the latter isn't merely a worthwile past time, but the friggin' main course. Who can blame them, being on a healthy diet of games like this?

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by ArtaMania

Fair puzzle design? Really? Define fair, if you will.. and while you're at it, define "dumbing down"..

I guess it's safe to say you're suggesting 'fairer puzzle' equals 'easier puzzle' and I'm guessing its even safer to say that you don't want to brand it 'easy' because that would belittle the point you're not able to make, but you see, if the puzzle is designed in a way so you'll solve it quicker, or hell, EASIER, then it is indeed 'dumbed down' for YOUR pleasure.

I wouldn't say so. For example, what if there was a puzzle where you had to find a key, and the solution was to open a nearby orange?

Sure, it would be HARD. But that's because it's nonsensical, why would there be a key in an orange? Why would you have to open the orange in the first place?

A puzzle should be designed logically. An illogical puzzle is difficult, but only in the "goddammit, now I have to try every verb on everything" way and not the "Wow, I have to really watch what's going on and think through this." way.

[Marzhin]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

I wouldn't say so. For example, what if there was a puzzle where you had to find a key, and the solution was to open a nearby orange?

Sure, it would be HARD. But that's because it's nonsensical, why would there be a key in an orange? Why would you have to open the orange in the first place?

A puzzle should be designed logically. An illogical puzzle is difficult, but only in the "goddammit, now I have to try every verb on everything" way and not the "Wow, I have to really watch what's going on and think through this." way.

That reminds me of a puzzle in the first Discworld game : you had to open a mouse (sic) to get an imp. I'm a huge Pratchett fan, but still puzzled by this one ^^

[somagh]

Originally Posted by onemanandhisdroid

Somebody please frame these.


It's only if you've suffered through one endless stream of adventure game design mediocrity too much that you're starting to talk like this. The idea of being "stuck" is fine, as long as you're given something to "work" with. Figuring out a puzzle is fun! Pondering about some clues is awesome. Trying to read a designer's mind is not. It's like combining the cat syrup moustache with a piece from the longest ball of twine in order to get a makeshift rubber chicken with a pulley in the middle which will get you by the bridge over the chasm rather than letting your character die a hundred of Roberta Williams-approved deaths and then realizing that is what the heck you were trying to do all along. As is the case with point&click interfaces, VGA graphics and text parsers, a lot of self-proclaimed hardcore adventure gamers have brainwashed themselves into believing that the latter isn't merely a worthwile past time, but the friggin' main course. Who can blame them, being on a healthy diet of games like this?

I am rubber you are glue....but whats your point?

In any case the secrets of MI is out...and its time to play it oldschool...you know back in the days when the makers didnt give a monkeyball about you being able to solve the puzzle or not! aah yes, the good ol glorious days of thinking for yourself instead of having it spelled out for you!

[ArtaMania]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

I wouldn't say so. For example, what if there was a puzzle where you had to find a key, and the solution was to open a nearby orange?

Sure, it would be HARD. But that's because it's nonsensical, why would there be a key in an orange? Why would you have to open the orange in the first place?

A puzzle should be designed logically. An illogical puzzle is difficult, but only in the "goddammit, now I have to try every verb on everything" way and not the "Wow, I have to really watch what's going on and think through this." way.

Any other day, what you're saying would be valid... However, we're talking Monkey Island here. One puzzle from this first episode played out like this;

-Mild spoiler-
In order to get the horn that breaks unbreakable glass, you had to get on the Screaming Narhwal, fire the cannon for no reason at all, and have the wind steer that canonnball to hit the glassblowers unicorns, so that he'd leave the glassbreaker and go into his house to make new unicorns... so you could go and get the horn.

In no way was that a difficult puzzle, but you'd have to agree that it falls in the category "unfair" by Insos terms... or even 'read the game-designers' mind...Now i'm not saying its unfair, i say that's the way the MI-cookie crumbles... Now for instance, i'd rather they up:ed the difficulty in simple ways like... Perhaps you could get one of three vowels from the glassblower.. An 'I', an 'O' and a 'U'... so by the time you get to the Marque De Singe
-SPOILER-
...and you have the O, guybrush would say "now's not a good time for that.." or something, then if you tried the I, you'd still get shot to hell, and then you figure "Hey, the U would blow him away".........right? That too, isn't difficult REALLY, but it's still better than having a wind-rifle pointed at you, and you having a U-shaped glass in your inventory that hasn't had a function up to that point.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love MI, and i enjoyed this episode, but I agree with somagh. I wish they'd make it more puzzling, and widen the options and ways to error.

[sladerlmc77]

It's interesting that the puzzle discussion has progressed this way.

I'm an old-school adventure gamer. My first adventure game was Space Quest III, after which I played all of the Space Quest games (out of order), the Monkey Island games, and every other game that Lucasarts ever put out.

I LOVE the deviousness of some of the puzzles, particularly in LeChucks Revenge.

As someone directly above noted, youre using "Monkey" logic - it may not be logical in the strictest sense, but it certainly does fit cartoon logic.

That said, we seem to have divided into two camps here:

1. Those who don't mind hard puzzles, so long as they serve the story and fit a warped logic that works in hindsight.

2. Those who don't care so much for the story side of it, but get their fix from the solving of extremely difficult (and possibly poorly designed) puzzles.

What's interesting to me about this is that the stimulus for the positive emotion comes from two entirely different centers.

The first is satisfaction at a well-crafted whole - puzzle AND story.

The other seems to be the feeling of cleverness the player feels for solving something very difficult.

somagh> Because you are advocating for much more difficult puzzles, can I ask whether the story matters to you in relation to the solving of that puzzle? I guess what I'm asking is, would you say that you get the lions share of your entertainment from the solving of the puzzles, or the experience of the story?

Likewise, for those who focus on plot before puzzles> Would you be satisified with extremely difficult puzzles (regardless of whether they were logical or not) so long as there was a good story purpose for their inclusion?

For my own part - I agree with somagh that the puzzles do need to be ramped up in difficulty a bit. I thought the "Dark Ninja Dave" puzzle and "Cheese Wheel" puzzles were very clever...and would like to see more of that type. However, they didn't even approach the "Monkey Wrench" puzzle in terms of difficulty, and many people in Europe would label that puzzle blatantly unfair.

On another note - I replayed COMI after the first episode of TOMI came out. I wanted to replay it because I had only completed it once before, many years ago, and I wanted to re-experience it.

When I first played COMI, I completed it relatively easily. I still remembered most of the puzzles and solutions, but got absolutely stumped in two places while replaying the game:

The first was in trying to remove the cork from the Capn' Nicks Shaving Soap bottle. I recalleed that I needed the cork to make the compass, but for the life of me couldn't figure out how to get it out. I kept looking for a corkscrew, or anything that I could MAKE into a corkscrew to pull the cork out.

The second place I got stuck was at the very end, on the roller coaster of the damned. While trying to construct the makeshift bomb, I couldn't get the flame blown out of the lantern. I kept looking for something to douse the flame.

In BOTH cases, you needed to use the "mouth" verb icon off of the coin. Because in all other areas of the game, this had been used to "talk", it hadn't occurred to me that I could use my teeth to pull the cork out of the bottle, or to blow the lantern out.

I had to use a walkthrough to figure this out both times, and I had *not* needed to do so when I originally played the game.

I suppose you could chalk this up to being rusty - it's not like these kinds of games are common anymore. On the other hand, you could also argue that changing the nature of the action that you had come to associate with the verb were poor puzzle design in both cases.

What do you guys think? Were these puzzles well-designed, or needlessly frustrating? After all, I knew the effect that needed to take place - I simply wasn't putting together that one of the actions on the coin could be dual-use.


Lorn

[Astro Gnocci]

I think this thread is going a bit off topic...
I don't mind discussions about the puzzles themselves, but it seems like it suddenly switched to something completely unrelated to the cool stuff that was said on here before...

That being said,

In any case the secrets of MI is out...and its time to play it oldschool...you know back in the days when the makers didnt give a monkeyball about you being able to solve the puzzle or not! aah yes, the good ol glorious days of thinking for yourself instead of having it spelled out for you!

That's kinda funny, because when you read what R. Gilbert has to say about adventure games in general, it seems like he DOES care about the player being able to figure out his puzzles solutions indeed
From what i read, he and a bunch of other old school adventure developpers, while not saying the player should be taken by the hand and gently guided through the game, seem to be in favor of "more logical, and LESS FRUSTRATING puzzles".
Add to this two facts : The need (which you'll agree on or not, that's up to you) to attract other people if one wants to see the genre get some success again (and don't forget that more success for the genre equals more developpers willing to get back on it), AND the episodic nature of Telltales' games (which, again, you can argue for or against if you want, but it ain't the point here) : Due to that, there's obviously less contents (locations, objects to pick up, etc), which means less interaction possible, which means "easier puzzles".
I do think that overall the balance is well done (remember, it's the first chapter here. Sam and Max HAS increased in difficulty along the way), and i do think the overall APPROACH to puzzles is the way to go.

I'm more interested in the story and writing than the actual puzzles myself anyway.