I wonder if all your responses to polls show up like that. This is the result of a forum topic poll correct, I can’t find the option in the account settings.
I’m not sure if I have understood what you are referring to, but I think that this editable field in the profile is unrelated to polls. You can put there whatever text you want. It should be in Preferences > Profile.
I see. I thought it was using your answer to the poll at the top of this topic, and I hadn’t been able to find the “Profile” page - but I just did. Thanks for pointing that out.
1 Like
Since my favorite adventure game is The Secret of Monkey Island, I thought it would have been interesting to add that Ron did in Thimbleweed Park the same thing that in my opinion contributed greatly to set the right atmosphere in both MI1 and MI2: the protagonists always start their journey during a moonlit night.
(Yes, I know that technically MI2 starts during daytime and that the events on Scabb are just a flashback. TWP locations also show both a moonlit night and a sunset. But I’m simplifying a bit here.)
Part of this recurring design choice comes from the fact that Disney’s “Pirates of the Caribbean” ride was a dark experience but I also think that part of it is simply related to the fact that a darker and silent environment influences a lot the mood of the player and puts him/her in a more mysterious set.
Sam and Max, MI 1&2, Day of the Tentacle!
No love for Labyrinth?! 
2 Likes
Last time I played Monkey 1 I found the swordfighting to be extremly tedious, because you know what to do but are left to chance to collect all the questions and answers you need but you might not get them for ages, and the pirates tell you much much too soon you´d be ready to fight the swordmaster long before that is accurate.
This might be the overall reason why I prefer part 2. That and Part 2 has the richer story.
My personal standings:
- MI1
- Indy3
- MI2
- DOTT
- MI3
- Indy4
- Grim Fandango
- The Dig
I keep Zak and MM out of this standings, because the two games were too difficult for me… anyway they stand both, like, 5th place…
TWP is out of it too, but I liked it as much as Indy3, for different reasons.
Monkey Island is almost perfect. It has a fantastic story and background, great music, incredible atmospheres, and the right amount of mystery. The only point I never liked, compared to other adventures, is its extreme linearity.
Well, actually I loved this aspect back then, but when (some years later) I managed to finish Indy3 (what an effort!) I realized that feeling so lost, having so many different possibilities gives you really the impression of living your adventure, and not merely solving a fixed series of puzzles linked together by cutscenes.
TWP is a very mature game, I liked very much the fact it’s less linear than MI. But, to my personal view, I’d have preferred it even less linear.
That is the reason why I like Indy3 so much: it’s a quite an old game, and its design reveals it. But -if I recall correctly- there are NO dead-ends.
I mean, you can die, but that’s not such a problem if you know it. But I think that you are never required to reload a past save just because you need something you didn’t pickup.
1 Like
Yeah, I also go on autopilot, in the swordfighting. 
But I think that’s normal, I’ve played that game so many times that I already know every single detail of it and the swordfighting is an experience less rewarding than the first time I did it.
Was DoTT enough non-linear for you? I think that it’s one of those games in which you can proceed on several sub-tasks in parallel.
If you haven’t done it already, have a look at the following post, it contains a link to an article that analyzes the complexity and non-linearity of DoTT puzzles:
1 Like
What do you mean? Is there a feature that chooses the right answer?
It means he got bored.
Not a game feature, but a player feature: my brain. It automatically executes that part without me even noticing.
1 Like
Having three parallel stories is nice… while you’re stuck with one story, you can make progresses with another one…
but one thing that I loved in Indy3 which DOTT lacked is the possibility of multiple solutions for the same puzzles. You can find this I think in every Ron’s game, sometimes just with very small differences.
In Indy3 you can even skip entire parts of the game or have those parts much easier if you solve some puzzles.
you try, and try, and try, and realize… “no, this part is too hard. There must be another solution” so you have to go back and look for another way. It’s a huge effort.
That’s why I loved that game: it has been a unique experience, I don’t think I will be able to put such an effort again in an adventure game.
First time poster here or on the site. I see a lot o’ hatred for CMI and DOTT here and I personally love them to death, particularly DOTT. I know it’s sacrilege to say this here but CMI’s art and particularly the animation and backgrounds were amazing and I loved the voice acting. DOTT will always be one of my all time favorite adventure games. It’s heresy but it’s just the opinion of a kid who loved the games back in the day who is now an old jerk. MI2 all time number one, though. Especially the ending, absolutely amazing.
Okay besides the ending also the very beginning and just the entire scope of the game as it unraveled. I thought Thimbleweed captured this well, too. When you break out into the core of the game it’s just an amazing experience.
3 Likes
OK hate may be a little exaggerated, but I was surprised too how little love they get (here).
I was so happy to see another Monkey Island back then, and although being completely different I though it was great.
MI1 will always be my favourite. MI2 felt like it lacked a lot of the charm of the original for me.
DOTT is of course arguably the best LucasArts adventure, given its near perfect mixture of puzzles and story. Grim Fandango might be a close third, too. But MI1 will always be on top for me.
I recently replayed MM and was utterly charmed by it, but it (and Zak) feel like scrappy versions of what would be first perfected in MI1.
1 Like
Personally I have not seen any form of “hate” on the forum, but I imagine that some people (me included) consider CMI a good game unrelated to the original MI story (even if we have no proof that Ron had in mind the whole story arc of a complete trilogy, when he designed the first two games).
The fact that CMI has been produced by people who had no idea how Ron would have liked the story to continue doesn’t take anything away from the quality of CMI, which is very good. But to some people it still feels very unrelated to Ron’s MI and I think that this feeling makes these people emotionally detached from the game.
That’s my interpretation of this phenomenon, I could be wrong.
For puzzle quality and puzzle structure, Part 2 in MI2 is the best that there ever was and that ever will be. TWP comes close.
DOTT mimics the puzzle structure very well, but not the puzzle quality (it’s good, though). But when it came out, I thought: why did they change the graphics? What’s with this “deformed” style? It really annoyed me. How am I supposed to identify with a deformed world?
1 Like
Oh, I love DOTT (Dave Grossman, please make another new adventure asap!) and I like CMI. The only “problem” I had with CMI was the beginning and the ending. I found those very disappointing because they won’t fit somehow in the MI universe…