The Monkey Island SCUMM Bar: Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

As a follow up to last weeks' exclusive Gabez article, we ask the question Do you think adventure games - and Monkey Island - need to evolve? We're certain LucasArts is sitting around, waiting for your input on this for their Monkey Island 5, so this is your chance to be heard!

(No, not really.)

As for which game had the best music:

CMI 51%
MI2 28%
MI1 14%
EMI 7%

You're all nuts.

Monkey Island evolution is a TERRIBLE idea!
EMI was evolved from the past 3 games, and it was awful ( in comparison )
Do you want MI5 to be like that!?

Posted Jul 07, 2004

EMI didn't evolve anything, nor did CMI or MI2 for that matter. None of the games added anything new to the genre, outside of technical advancements.

Posted Jul 07, 2004

Jeesus Christ, try looking up the word evolution in a dictionary before you call us all mad. >:

I'm asking for progress, not EMI. ~~

Posted Jul 07, 2004

MI5 (Monkey Island 5)humm...Sounds more like MI5 (a Mission Impossible 5). Every time a see MI5, it relates with the utopia word.

Posted Jul 08, 2004

Why would a perfect concept need to change ?

Action/Adventure and RPG games already exists, if I want to play Zelda-like game or RPG, I'll play Zelda or FF, NOT Monkey Island.
Stealth was somewhat already introduced in adventure games : Operation Stealth. It was awful since I got stuck because of these stupid sequences.
There is some fighting in Indy4 but it is far from being the best part of the game.

Conclusion : adventure games are perfect like that. Anything else might add some fun if it's rare and not too long, but is annoying most of the time.

NB: I haven't read (yet) Gabez's article so I might miss some points but I don't think I'll change my mind.

Posted Jul 08, 2004

I'd suggest reading it, as the example you stated had very little to do with Gabez' article.

Posted Jul 08, 2004

"NB: I haven't read (yet) Gabez's article so I might miss some points but I don't think I'll change my mind."

Fuck. Off.

Posted Jul 08, 2004

Hee, there there :~

Posted Jul 08, 2004

I think he's saying - in not so many words - that certain people shouldn't argue against his points when they don't even bother taking the time to read them. And he's of course correct.

Posted Jul 09, 2004

I read the article.
I just think evolution of the genre is a bad idea. Almost invariably, the first few games in a series are the best. Sequels however good and fulfulling, ultimately detract from the experience as a whole if they change too much from the magic that made the early games so great.
For example, Zelda. The 2 games on the N64 were masterful. But in WW, they changed it too much, so a lot of people felt let down.

This is my personal opinion. Evolution of games will ultimately be their downfall because wouldn't you agree that the games of yesteryear are of a higher quality than the games of today?
(This is a general statement. There are, obviously, exceptions)

Posted Jul 09, 2004

I'm confused, Flibble. You say you think evolution is a "bad" (better than "terrible", at least) idea, but you also said that you "do like the concept of a less linear adventure, exploring islands some of which are pointless, but always as a single player and always as Guybrush." Er, I think that IS evolution of the genre.

Also, I disagree that the games of yesteryear are of higher quality than the games of today - and any such notions are msot likely caused by the "good old days" syndromme.

Posted Jul 09, 2004

Both good points.

'Evolution' is the wrong term to use I believe.
CMI was made with most love and attention to the previous 2 adventures, but it took it's own style, and is a truly wonderful adventure. With truly beautiful graphics.
But that annoys me.

You see, I wanted to get my brother to play MI, so he would know how great it is. I said "Start on TSOMI" but he wanted to jump straight to the third game just because (quote) "It looks nicer" (unquote)

Basically, the point of my arguement is, evolution is acceptable, and perhaps even vital to let the genre survive.
But when graphics become more important to player, they become more important to maker, so game-maker type people pay less attention to general quality because they know that the "purdy graphics" will shift the new game from the shelves.

So I was just taking out on evolution, blaming it for cheapening the gaming experience.
I hope you understand. I rewrote this loads of times so you would get what i am trying to say.

Posted Jul 10, 2004

Well i understand where your at Mr Flibble but i started on CMI and i wouldnt have had it any other way im not big on adventure never was but my dad bought CMI that game is bad ass it was so funny i couldfnt stop ive played it 20 times made two cds of the music and murry was a true true straight tripping boo badass then i play MI1,2 and they are not better but EMI was the worst to me it went good, good, excellent, ok. so evolution can change

Posted Sep 06, 2004