Chris

Welcome, new folks. Thanks for coming over!

Wizard > Wizard

Yeah I'm really going by a weak memory here, but I seem to recall they did in fact record the audio as straight conversations in standard redbook CD audio format, rather than feeding it through a more traditional game sound engine, which meant among other things that they got rid of a lot of the conversational pauses that plague most games, including other LucasArts was. I could be misremembering that though.

Lots of reigning in this post and the description

You are correct. Thanks, I've updated it.

Thread updated for episode 34. As always, remind me if I forgot something.

I played it for about an hour, didn't really enjoy it, and never touched it again. I don't even remember anything about it, other than that I think there was a catapult.

I have a friend who felt the opposite; he thought the film was far superior to the comic, which he found to be poor. I haven't read the comic myself (mainly because of his opinion--we share a lot of opinions about film and books and so on), but I enjoyed the film.

Hopefully in the relatively near future we can start referring to our audience as "readers" with slightly more veracity

I'll add a screenshot to the Idle Thumbs DLC thread.

Haha, well done.

You're right! Updated.

It is discussed on this past week's episode.

See that's exactly what I'm talking about. I love that it's unclear. To me, that is what makes it good. I also interviewed Grossman recently ( http://bit.ly/w0z43 ) and asked him if they did indeed have an actual interpretation of that game's ending. I didn't ask what it was, but I wanted to know if they knew. He said, "Yes, and it was somewhat vague and paradoxical, but there was an internal interpretation thereof." He then mentioned the mentioned-many-times-before hypothetical Ron Gilbert Monkey Island 3. Regarding the possibility of anything like that in Tales, "That just might be slightly off the page for what we've got planned for this season anyway. I mean, there's some weird stuff, but it may stop short of being that weird." I think the fact that he also considers the ending to be so weird just further points to it not having an apparent or clear-cut explanation. I don't remember what this is and I can't be bothered to search back through the thread to find it.

I didn't play Civ III, so this comment could be completely meaningless, but I've always heard that game is by far the weakest in the series.

The actual replies in this thread seem to have absolutely nothing to do with the root post.

Those films don't have cues very, very clearly pointing to other possible interpretations. Monkey Island 2 obviously does. If you don't think the ending of that game is ambiguous, I don't know how to discuss this with you. That's without even considering all the anachronistic objects scattered throughout the world, things that would make little sense in the games' ostensible settings. As for Elaine's statement, that is exactly part of the ambiguity. I fully disagree with your first paragraph in the quoted post. The fact that the characters address the camera makes the situation MORE of a fantasy to me. Those characters are only reliable insofar as their own personal experiences, and if they are a mere fantasy, that is meaningless. Yes, obviously, you could start saying every character in every book or film or game might just be part of a fantasy or dream, but most of those books and films and games don't ever suggest that possibility in the first place. As far as "canon" goes: Jesus Christ, I couldn't possibly care less. I hate that term and what it represents. I don't care much about "universes," I care about individual works. Monkey Island 1 and 2 are great games, and they are directly connected, sharing much in terms of tone, character, and setting. Monkey Island 3 is also a great game, but very different to Monkey Island 1 and 2 in tone, character, and setting. It is a different take on a pirate adventure game--a good one, just a different one. I appreciate Monkey 1 and 2, and Monkey 3 for very different reasons, even though I like all of them. It doesn't matter how the people who made Monkey 3 decided to interpret the end of Monkey 2. And don't get me wrong--I'm not talking about which one "real" or "canon" or whatever bullshit. I don't care. When we're talking about what happens in Monkey Island 2, it's stupid to use in the discussion a game that was made years later by a totally different core staff. Again, that's not an issue of relative quality, it's just logical. In that vein, the Paul Newman character in the film The Color of Money, Martin Scorsese's sequel to Robert Rossen's film The Hustler, need not be used to inform interpretation of the same Paul Newman character from The Hustler. They're both from the same "universe," they're both released by the same studio, the Scorsese film is probably "canon" (God I hate even typing that word), but that really doesn't matter. They are separate works with separate authorial intent. There are a million examples of this in fiction of all forms, from theatre to literature to film and even in music in some cases. And I don't care if Gilbert has a big amazing interpretation or not. That is not at all the issue for me. The reason I like Monkey 2's ending is precisely because it is ambiguous and surreal. Even if you accept your interpretation, Monkey 1 and 2 (2 in particular) are littered with anachronisms and red herrings and unlikely inclusions that make little sense if the world is simply taken at face value. The idea that LeChuck just cast a spell, which is announced by one of the main characters--at the end of a duo of games that starts off in the most completely unexplained and arbitrary way imaginable--makes no sense to me either on a tonal level or simply based on the evidence presented in the game itself. And for that matter, I don't want it all to be explained away. I, basically, want it not to make complete sense. Games (and gamers) are obsessed with plot-driven, super-duper-explained narratives and universes. I love that Monkey Island 2 essentially just ignores that convention. I wish more games would.

God Hand looks NOTHING like Bayonetta. The protagonist in God Hand is...pretty much a dude. The protagonist in Bayonetta is one of the stupidest-looking mish-mash of ill-fitting design ideas I've seen in any game in a long, long time. I can't stand looking at that game, it just looks awful to me. I don't claim adventure games are directly responsible for games like Gears of War's structure. I was discussing an inverse correlation without implying causation. I also would definitely never make any claims that the fundamental gameplay mechanics of those genres are similar in any way. When it comes to story, though, they aren't that dissimilar. They both provide 100% linear stories through which most of the most pivotal and meaningful plot points are conveyed in scripted cutscenes. The relative quality of the stories is certainly another matter.

I can't seem to watch it. Perhaps it's a regional thing.

Interesting! I'll check that out.

I suspect they just applied a special grace period to this particular pack. Most of them time you wouldn't get a game added retroactively like this, but Chains was released in such close proximity to the general Meridian4 deal that they probably felt it would be a cheap move not to tack it on.

Updated for episode 32. Let me know if I missed anything.

Haha, your avatar wins.

I'll probably get the Steam version. I may also get the Live Arcade version, but my concern is that I wouldn't actually end up playing it enough in the long term to justify buying it. I guess I'll wait and see how many people I know get it.

Yeah, developer Frozenbyte has only made PC games in the past.