And as we all know, artists deserve to be poor by selling their art under its value to buy food then die young and poor and (maybe) get to enjoy some fame posthumously.
Another thing with that beautiful SCUMM bar is that the mist and lightning effects are very realistic, which will make it fall flat when used in a dynamic, moving context of a game. Unless you add lots of layers for the environment animation to not make it feel as if you are wondering through a world frozen in time. Even on the Return to MI website background, they’ve added some lights blinking- to suggest people moving inside, candles flickering… More stylised art allows to program this cheaper than what you’d need to make it convincing for the more photorealistic styles.
Just look at MI1 Special Edition: looks great in still pictures. Not so much when playing.
What bugs me here is that there are no cobblestones on the street, just one flat blue walk area with a couple of color spots, while the sidewalk has lines to separate the stone tiles.
(Everyone’s a critic )
And why is the church window all boarded up? I don’t recall that in MI1.
To those who reacted to the image of the locksmith shop having a DOTT distorted perspective:
The locksmith wall is tilted as I expect it to be one of the houses you could enter on the low street.
Is Gary involved in RtMI? I haven’t heard about him for a long time. I remember that he actually had co-founded TT. He didn’t even update his website for years. I hope he is fine.
I assume that something has happened in the meantime, but if you are interested in reading about all the little mysteries inside the new images, I have found this interesting article:
Nice. That could work . Though, again, that’s all by night. Night scenes are much easier to look good. I suspect daytime scenes in that style would either suck or be crazy expensive (like an AAA game).
But again, 3d could work. Especially considering the combination “3d world + 2d sprites” works very well, as Heaven’s Vault proved. Monkey Island in Heaven’s Vault style could have been a great choice.
This is a good point and I agree there are a lot of movie examples where the juxtaposition works…
I still can’t really imagine it in an actual game though, like Stan’s area for example.
I think it might be because in a 2D adventure game the backgrounds are usually flat and with very little movement, and realistic images somehow come across a bit grim/depressing, so it’s different from in a movie.
Which may explain why crime/horror games sometimes use that sort of look and FMV.
Would be interesting to see someone try it in a funny game though.
This is how I felt too… it was a funny game with interesting places to explore.
I think because the game introduces so many jokes and humour so quickly I always felt it was a fun, friendly game and never got a sense of danger.
I can understand the disappointment though if that’s one of the main things that drew you into the games, I agree that the new style doesn’t really play into that as much and is kind of more abstract and less realistic.
I wasn’t suggesting any such thing. That’s a strawman argument. You said that it would be prohibitively expensive to produce a Monkey Island game with that level of background art and I disagreed with that notion, whilst providing an example of an independently produced, relatively low budget adventure game which used background art of that standard.
My point was that an artist could have been hired to create backgrounds of that quality and in that style, whilst being paid the same amount as the artists are being paid to create the backgrounds for Return to Monkey Island (which I assume to be a fair and reasonable amount of money). I never said that the artist should be paid pittance and taken advantage of.
Ron Gilbert actually addressed the 3D Cryengine video in his ‘If I Made Another Monkey Island’ blog post…
It doesn’t need 3D. Yes, I’ve seen the video, it’s very cool, but Monkey Island wants to be what it is. I would want the game to be how we all remember Monkey Island.
Whilst Ron has since clarified that certain aspects of that article no longer hold true, he’s also said that the vast majority of his thoughts from back then still apply.
In 2013 Ron wasn’t interested in 3D because one of his goal was to use pixel art.
But, after Thimbleweed Park, he has satiated his pixel art hunger:
And so I think back in 2013, there was that itch to do that pixel art stuff, and I think Thimbleweed Park was really the result of that article, in a way.
So, it seems to me that the “I would want the game to be how we all remember Monkey Island” is one of those wishes that have been discarded for RtMI, because the hitch has been already satisfied.
As a consequence, I think that 3D art could have been one option for the style to adopt for Return to Monkey Island.
I wonder if it’s just a vocal minority that dislikes the art in RTMI, and whether it can damage the commercial success of the game.
I am not even sure it’s a minority: two friends, who are not much into adventure games, contacted me when only the trailer was out, out of the blue. These are not people who follow the adventure game scene. One told me “there’s a lot of skepticism”, another told me “it does look like a flash game”.
OTOH, I believe if the game had been pixel art there would have been at least the same amount of bad publicity (as it was for TWP).
So it seems that, whatever you do, you get bad publicity from a vocal minority. What’s the solution? Maybe Ron should have had gamers choose the art style , organizing a worldwide poll? That would have made sense…
It looks to be about the same number of people who dislikes TWP’s ending, which was quite a lot of people, but not enough to change it’s overall review scores, etc.
And yeah, pixel art would maybe have gotten more older fans on board, but then its more widely viewed as “something for old fans” maybe.
Yeah, I don’t think it’s a minority at all. The overwhelming response as been one of reservations towards the art style. I tend to have a negative view of the term “vocal minority”. It only ever gets trotted out when there’s an overwhelming negative critical response and certain fans want to downplay that criticism and be dismissive of it. It’s a completely illogical fallacy and one rooted in denial.
If the overwhelming response to the art style had been positive, would anyone have described that as a “vocal minority”? No, of course not. Therefore, it’s disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to invoke a double standard, simply because the majority opinion isn’t the one that you want to hear or the one that you personally agree with. If an opinion is so widespread as to be the most commonly vocally expressed and heard, then it’s the majority opinion by definition.
As for the criticisms of the art style potentially damaging sales figures; no, I don’t think so. The people making these criticisms are, by and large, massive fans of the Monkey Island series and will be making day one purchases of this highly anticipated game, regardless of any reservations they have towards the art style. The art style alone does not the game make. There’s the story, the dialogue, the music, the puzzles and so many other aspects which will make this game a must play for any self-respecting fan of the series (not to mention that it’s Ron Gilbert’s first Monkey Island game in 31 years).
Oh, heavens no! I don’t want a game designed by committee and focus testing. I want Ron Gilbert’s vision for a new Monkey Island game. Even if I don’t personally care for the chosen art style, I will 100% defend Ron’s right to make that creative decision.
“If the overwhelming response to the art style had been positive, would anyone have described that as a “vocal minority?”
No, because that’s not what a minority is. It’s a majority, and they would simply say “majority.” The emphasis on the vocal in vocal minority means that the smaller group feels extremely passionate about what they are feeling and will talk about it / shout about it, much more.
It’s like how we hear so much from the Zack Snyder lovers out there and his movies manage to win fan vote awards at the Oscars.
Go to any forum or discussion group relating to the Return to Monkey Island screenshots and the majority opinion being expressed is one of reservations for the art style. Therefore, how is the “vocal minority” descriptor valid? Do you think that all of the fans who love the art style just aren’t commentating upon it or expressing their love for it? Why would the majority of fans not want to discuss this highly anticipated game in a series which they love? Why would only those fans who happen to have reservations about the art style be making comments, by and large?
Fact is, that fans of the series have reacted and that the majority opinion (as in, above 50% of the critical response) upon the art style is one of expressing reservations. You may not like that fact or agree with those views, but it is what it is.
I have not been on any other forums about the topic of RTMI nor have I gotten into the weeds on social media. I was relating that section of your post to your earlier idea that the concept of “the vocal minority” is “a completely illogical fallacy and one rooted in denial.”
It’s simply not true. You see it all the time. To go on social media you would think that the world hates Mark Wahlberg because he committed a hate crime as a teenager. You’d think he would be struggling to get parts. But instead he is headlining movies and his past is a non issue to most people.
But we don’t have any data about how many people haven’t expressed any opinion at all.
Since we don’t have that key information, from a statistical point of view it’s impossible to calculate if those who were vocal are a minority or a majority of all the fans who saw the pictures.
Okay, in that case I will certainly concede that there are likely scenarios whereby the term “vocal minority” is a valid one. However, my main point is that the term certainly doesn’t apply to the reaction upon the Return to Monkey Island screenshots.
)
