Adventure Forums - View Single Post

Jeysie · 09-17-2006, 09:06 AM

I'll be cautious and avoid garnerning any potential rude implications of the "work of art" sentence.

As for the rest, well, I obviously disagree.

Perhaps some specific reasons *why* you find MI2 mind-blowing instead of simply a superlative that's rather hard to discuss with?

It's been a while since I played the game, but going from what I remember...

1. I found the characterization of Guybrush/Elaine to be too big of a change from the first game. I found myself wanting there to be a transition game in between, somehow. One reason I liked Curse of Monkey Island was because they went back to being closer to their SMI selves, with (IMHO) a more realistic amount of development.

2. I found the middle of the game too open and aimless. I found myself losing track of the plot and devolving into the realm of "Go here. Solve puzzle because it's there. Go to next place. Solve puzzles because they're there. Go to next place. Try to solve puzzle because it's there. Have to backtrack to places one and two because you need stuff to solve puzzle. Etc."

I don't expect or desire an adventure game to be totally linear, but there's a balance between totally linear and "Wait, what was the plot, again?". For me personally, at least, MI2 was on the wrong side of that balance.

3. Has its fair share of "LucasArts" puzzles... as in, puzzles that are obtuse and require lateral thinking to the extent of almost needing a jump to alternate dimensions.

Spoiler:
Yes, I'm looking at you, monkey wrench puzzle, in particular. Everything about that puzzle, method of getting the monkey included, was a giant, unsatisfying stretch.

4. Color me as one of the people who didn't like the ending. That gimmick has been *so* overused to the point it's lame.

And no, the whole, "But if Ron Gilbert made MI3, it would make sense!" argument doesn't wash with me. Unless you're releasing a game as a blatant two-parter, or releasing the game and its sequel at the same time, a game's ending needs to stand on its own. IMHO it doesn't.

Do I hate the game or think it's bad? No. I had fun playing it (although I have no desire to play it again). I just don't agree with some people who think it's totally awesome. Which is fine... in the end, taste in games is subjective.

Peace & Luv, Liz

09-17-2006, 09:06 AM	#14
Jeysie Diva of Death Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Western Massachusetts Posts: 1,402	I'll be cautious and avoid garnerning any potential rude implications of the "work of art" sentence. As for the rest, well, I obviously disagree. Perhaps some specific reasons why you find MI2 mind-blowing instead of simply a superlative that's rather hard to discuss with? It's been a while since I played the game, but going from what I remember... 1. I found the characterization of Guybrush/Elaine to be too big of a change from the first game. I found myself wanting there to be a transition game in between, somehow. One reason I liked Curse of Monkey Island was because they went back to being closer to their SMI selves, with (IMHO) a more realistic amount of development. 2. I found the middle of the game too open and aimless. I found myself losing track of the plot and devolving into the realm of "Go here. Solve puzzle because it's there. Go to next place. Solve puzzles because they're there. Go to next place. Try to solve puzzle because it's there. Have to backtrack to places one and two because you need stuff to solve puzzle. Etc." I don't expect or desire an adventure game to be totally linear, but there's a balance between totally linear and "Wait, what was the plot, again?". For me personally, at least, MI2 was on the wrong side of that balance. 3. Has its fair share of "LucasArts" puzzles... as in, puzzles that are obtuse and require lateral thinking to the extent of almost needing a jump to alternate dimensions. Spoiler: Yes, I'm looking at you, monkey wrench puzzle, in particular. Everything about that puzzle, method of getting the monkey included, was a giant, unsatisfying stretch. 4. Color me as one of the people who didn't like the ending. That gimmick has been so overused to the point it's lame. And no, the whole, "But if Ron Gilbert made MI3, it would make sense!" argument doesn't wash with me. Unless you're releasing a game as a blatant two-parter, or releasing the game and its sequel at the same time, a game's ending needs to stand on its own. IMHO it doesn't. Do I hate the game or think it's bad? No. I had fun playing it (although I have no desire to play it again). I just don't agree with some people who think it's totally awesome. Which is fine... in the end, taste in games is subjective. Peace & Luv, Liz __________________ Adventures in Roleplaying (Nov. 19): "Maybe it's still in the Elemental Plane of Candy." "Is the Elemental Plane of Candy anything like Willy Wonka's factory?" "If it is, would that mean Oompa Loompas are Candy Elementals?" "Actually, I'm thinking more like the Candyland board game. But, I like this idea better." "I like the idea of Oompa Loompa Elementals."