[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

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.

Hey, all that's how I felt, but I figured it was just because of my lack of proficiency with adventures in general! I was sure that if I were more comfortable with the cliches and conventions of the format, I'd appreciate it more. Hm.

Oh, and let me add to that that compared to the first it's just not very funny.

[Melanie68]

You haven't spoiled anything for me. It's an interesting read to see why certain games really resonate with people and how those choices differ.

Talk away. It's fun to read.

[Squinky]

I actually agree with Jake's assessment of Guybrush and Elaine's characters being weaker in CMI - that's, I think, one thing I did like about MI2, that it wasn't a cliched love story.

I didn't really think the atmosphere of the game was all that great (I liked SMI's a lot better, but maybe I just don't think more stuff going on around you necessarily equals better atmosphere), and I think I just have a bias against unresolved endings that, well, are never allowed to get solved the way they were intended to.

[samIamsad]

Don't forget the mighty iMuse. Oh man, that added so, so much. With each main character having its theme and all, the music changing dynamically as you continue playing. MI2 was sort of like the Star Wars of computer gaming in 1991, and unlike far too many games of that era, it still holds up surprisingly well to this day.

I'm still not over the disk swapping, though. Yes I had an Amiga, and the game came on 11(!!!) floppy disks.

[Spiwak]

Man I remember my first time...very special time for me, one I'll never share again.

[Kingzjester]

Jake kinda expanded upon all that I wanted to say.

Spoiler:

Good thing I just waited for him to get here.

[Jeysie]

Now that's something to chew on, Thanks, Jake.

Although off the top of my head... my problem was that Guybrush just felt too competent and self-assured compared to his SMI self. As for Guybrush and Elaine...

Spoiler:

In SMI they were all happy and mushy with each other... and then in MI2 she's being bitchy and wants nothing to do with him. Yeah, I know, the whole problem happened off-screen... but then, that's just it. It happened off-screen, as did Guybrush's change to being more competent, so it felt like a jarring jump to me. Hence why I said I felt like there should have been a transition game.

And... I have to admit I have never heard the music for MI 1 and 2. When I first got the games, I just couldn't get the music to work at all... and by the time I got my hands on the Redbook versions, I just had too many other games to play to go back and play those two. *sheepish look*

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Kingzjester]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Spoiler:

In SMI they were all happy and mushy with each other... and then in MI2 she's being bitchy and wants nothing to do with him. Yeah, I know, the whole problem happened off-screen... but then, that's just it. It happened off-screen, as did Guybrush's change to being more competent, so it felt like a jarring jump to me. Hence why I said I felt like there should have been a transition game.

C'mon! Those things are very, mind-numbingly irrelevant. If they included a retarded melodramatic growth story in the games they would be making The Longest Journey, not The Monkiest Island.

[ATMachine]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

And... I have to admit I have never heard the music for MI 1 and 2. When I first got the games, I just couldn't get the music to work at all... and by the time I got my hands on the Redbook versions, I just had too many other games to play to go back and play those two. *sheepish look*

Peace & Luv, Liz

Jeysie

Go replay those games now with the music. I command you!

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Kingjester

C'mon! Those things are very, mind-numbingly irrelevant. If they included a retarded melodramatic growth story in the games they would be making The Longest Journey, not The Monkiest Island.

*snorts* Who said anything about being melodramatic? You can have character growth without being melodramatic. And I get kind of tired when people think that comedy doesn't need good writing/characterization or it becomes "melodramatic" and "serious". But then, I'm a character junkie.

*runs away from the ATMachine panning and jots "replay MI1 & 2 with music" on her lengthy "to-do" list*

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Kingzjester]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

*snorts* Who said anything about being melodramatic? You can have character growth without being melodramatic. And I get kind of tired when people think that comedy doesn't need good writing/characterization or it becomes "melodramatic" and "serious". But then, I'm a character junkie.

*runs away from the ATMachine panning and jots "replay MI1 & 2 with music" on her lengthy "to-do" list*

Peace & Luv, Liz

Even if it is simply a retarded growth story I still hold my ground. Monkey Island 2 has so much more than comedy, among those things is amazing characterization and writing. Your implication that it doesn't insults me. I challenge you to a duel.

[Jeysie]

Well, I don't think the MI2 characterization is *bad* at all. I could see Monsieur Guybrush getting there eventually, yes. Just that it felt like it ought to have been MI3 characterization, with a more gradual MI2 in between.

And the beginning and endgame (though not the ending itself) are quite cool and good. I loved the whole LeChuck bits in particular. Just that the aimless middle part got a little too loose for my tastes and started getting sidetracked for me. I started getting kinda bored... "Can I just have the last map bit already so I can get back to some actual plot? Please?" Too Many Sidequests Syndrome.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[JohnGreenArt]

Y'know, it's funny, everyone complains about the monkey wrench puzzle, but when I played MI2, I got that puzzle right away. In fact I think it was one of the easiest puzzles for me in the whole game.

Maybe I just think weird.

[Scoville]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Although off the top of my head... my problem was that Guybrush just felt too competent and self-assured compared to his SMI self.

Guybrush wasn't more competent in the second game. He just thought that he was. He developed a big ego after bragging about his exploits from the first game for so long.

As for him and Elaine...

Spoiler:

The problems they had between the events of the two games should have been fairly easy to predict. Guybrush is an overgrown child (possibly even in the literal sense according to the ending). He may have been able to win Elaine over during the first game, but that was only a temporary attraction. It would be hard to believe that an intelligent woman like Elaine wouldn't beccome infuriated by Guybrush's ignorance and immaturity when she tries to spend a much longer time with him.

[Flyboy]

The title of this thread is misleading. Not that a Monkey Island Virgin is much of a turn on.

[Jazhara7]

Originally Posted by JohnGreenArt

Y'know, it's funny, everyone complains about the monkey wrench puzzle, but when I played MI2, I got that puzzle right away. In fact I think it was one of the easiest puzzles for me in the whole game.

Maybe I just think weird.

I liked that puzzle. But it didn't make any sense in German.


-

[MoriartyL]

Jake, none of the small points you raise make up for MI2 just not being very funny. Yes, the gameworld is deeper, but there's not as much of a hook to keep you going. In MI1, you keep running ahead because you're eager to see the next big gag. In MI2, you sort of wander around aimlessly just to find something you're not too interested in to begin with. The first's story wasn't an epic, but it was comedy so it didn't need to be. When you start getting a little more serious, you need a stronger plot and MI2 came up short. As I recall, you're looking for something or other and that's all there is to it. Yawn. Was there even a personal reason for Guybrush to get involved? I don't remember.

So the story isn't as good- how about the gameplay? While some people might care for such contrived puzzles, I do not. SMI's were quite obtuse enough, and I only put up with them because I was enjoying the story. As for mini-games, spitting contests cannot compete with insult swordfighting. The progression of the game relies a lot on exploration, but there aren't any memorable places to explore. And the game ends on a battle which is more annoying than climactic, and when you get through it you're rewarded with- well, maybe "rewarded" is the wrong word.

So we're left with the graphics. Yay for graphics!

[Kurufinwe]

Well, what really bugged me in MI was the complete lack of structure in Part 2 (i.e. more than half of the game), which really felt like a completely pointless puzzle-fest. I like solving puzzles, but I like to know why I'm doing it, and to get rewarded, neither of which MI2 provided. In MI1, if you start tackling the first task (defeating the Swordmaster) then you, logically enough, have to get a sword, then get trained, etc. It makes sense, you know where to start, and you know why you're doing things. Contrast that with getting Rum Rogers' map piece in MI2.

Spoiler:

The first step actually involves hypnotizing a monkey with a banana.

Even if that puzzle made sense (which it didn't, at least to me), there's no reason why you should even consider trying to solve it, apart from the fact that it looks like a puzzle and has to be there for some reason -- and its relationship with getting the map piece is far from obvious. And what reward do you get for solving this puzzle? Nothing, apart from the right to proceed to the next one. I like puzzles where I know what I'm looking for, what obstacle I have to overcome, manage to plan a solution, put it in action, and get rewarded. In MI2, I often felt that I just solved puzzles because they were there, with no clear idea of what it would achieve in the long run. At the end of the day, I think part 2 is far too long and rich for just four main objectives, and the game just feels like puzzles upon puzzles upon puzzles, with nothing else in-between (that's also mainly the reason why DOTT is the LEC adventure I like least).

A second problem I had with MI2 is that the humour didn't really work for me. I found MI1 & CMI hilarious, I consider SnM to be the funniest game I've played, but MI2 just didn't click. It wasn't painfully unfunny (as was EMI), but it hardly ever got more than a smile or mild chuckle from me. I'm not sure I can explain why; I think it's just not my type of humour, both too low-brow at times (cf. all the spitting and burping), and too complicated at others (with all the parodies and references). I don't know. But it certainly didn't help me enjoy it.

[Karmillo]

Originally Posted by Kurufinwe

Well, what really bugged me in MI was the complete lack of structure in Part 2 (i.e. more than half of the game), which really felt like a completely pointless puzzle-fest. I like solving puzzles, but I like to know why I'm doing it, and to get rewarded, neither of which MI2 provided. In MI1, if you start tackling the first task (defeating the Swordmaster) then you, logically enough, have to get a sword, then get trained, etc. It makes sense, you know where to start, and you know why you're doing things. Contrast that with getting Rum Rogers' map piece in MI2.

Spoiler:

The first step actually involves hypnotizing a monkey with a banana.

Even if that puzzle made sense (which it didn't, at least to me), there's no reason why you should even consider trying to solve it, apart from the fact that it looks like a puzzle and has to be there for some reason -- and its relationship with getting the map piece is far from obvious. And what reward do you get for solving this puzzle? Nothing, apart from the right to proceed to the next one. I like puzzles where I know what I'm looking for, what obstacle I have to overcome, manage to plan a solution, put it in action, and get rewarded. In MI2, I often felt that I just solved puzzles because they were there, with no clear idea of what it would achieve in the long run. At the end of the day, I think part 2 is far too long and rich for just four main objectives, and the game just feels like puzzles upon puzzles upon puzzles, with nothing else in-between (that's also mainly the reason why DOTT is the LEC adventure I like least).

A second problem I had with MI2 is that the humour didn't really work for me. I found MI1 & CMI hilarious, I consider SnM to be the funniest game I've played, but MI2 just didn't click. It wasn't painfully unfunny (as was EMI), but it hardly ever got more than a smile or mild chuckle from me. I'm not sure I can explain why; I think it's just not my type of humour, both too low-brow at times (cf. all the spitting and burping), and too complicated at others (with all the parodies and references). I don't know. But it certainly didn't help me enjoy it.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

The first part of SoMI is the finest and cleverest and most adventurous piece of game design in the whole series, though. It has it all! Treasure hunting and dog poisoning and sword fighting and bad breath and 100 pieces of eight and woods and drinks and girls and excessive trademarking and in-game advertising and WOAH. "That's a lot of mostly very clever stuff", you say? Yeah, that's a LOT of mostly very clever stuff indeed. Sigh.

Competely agreed. The Melee Island part is what makes me put SoMI above MI2 in my "favorite..." lists, as the atmosphere on this island is just the best I've seen in any game, surreal, exotic, absurd, kinda spooky, and still beautiful.

I do think MI2 is the better game, though, because it stays great all along, while SoMI gets down after the first part.