Our favourite grumpy video game creator has written up a post about this possibility right over here.
Update: Chuck Jordan, credited as a script writer and designer of Curse of Monkey Island (the real or fake Monkey Island 3 depending on your point of view), countered with a tweet:
“No disrespect to the talented teams involved, but I’ma spend 15 years talking about how I could’ve done better than them.” #3a #neverforget
And so it goes.
Update 2: Ron responded to the criticism by offering some clarification:
“When I said "but I'd want to pick up where I left off. Free of baggage. In a carnival.", I meant the very literally. My story for Monkey Island 3a takes places 2 minutes after the end of Monkey Island 2. Free of baggage was not meant to imply that I felt Curse of Monkey Island was "baggage", but rather, as I (hypothetically) designed and (hypothetically) wrote Monkey Island 3a, I'd want to be free to take the story where I wanted it to go and not feel compelled to adhere to the games that followed. If I end up being able to make this game at some point, we all might find that it fits nicely in between Monkey Island 2 and Curse of Monkey Island.”
Gov. Phatt
I am trying to understand why Disney would want to hang on to the Monkey Island franchise and what they would do with it. Do they not already have their own comedic pirate franchise? Would they ever try develop a new game or even an animated film out of it? It would be like coming out with a new character named Ricky Rat.
Well, Disney does make/outsource a lot of games based on IPs they own, from Pirates of the Caribbean, to Bolt, so, it makes sense for them to keep an IP like Monkey Island, because it is something they can make money with.
Which I'm willing to bet they will.
But if Ron doesn't want to make money for a large company, he kind of excludes himself from being able to be a part of it.
To me, the post was about something he once created and would love to revisit his own way. As for the easy puzzles, I don't necessarily see a reference to TMI. Let's face it, nowadays adventure games (the few remaining) are SIMPLE, "getting stuck" is almost impossible now. The player's constantly spoon fed or the puzzles are just obvious. This doesn't concern adventure games only, even in FPSs the old health bar is no more and the player magically heals after hiding and avoiding damage for a little while. Today's players don't seem to want to lose time on hard parts of a game, they just want it all unchallenging and fast to complete.
I really don't see any subtle criticism in his words, they sound pure and naive and maybe they got misunderstood.
On the other hand, your point made me realize that his post could be easily misinterpreted by spiky people.
So I guess nobody's right or wrong in this mess.
Rum Rogers
Why Chuck took it personally is really beyond me. Ron never used the word "better", he just said his sequel would be "different".
Which is very polite and doesn't seem to criticize others' work.
I really think Chuck overreacted.
Well, put it another way. Why does Ron want to do this? And why does he feel the need to list out in detail how he would do it? Either he's just being self indulgent, or he thinks that going back to before 3 and having a do-over is something that should happen. And it's difficult to interpret that in any other way than him thinking the others' attempt wasn't quite good enough.
Especially when he says things like ' It would be a hardcore adventure game driven by what made that era so great. No tutorials or hint systems or pansy-assed puzzles or catering to the mass-market or modernizing.' it's difficult to interpret that as anything other than a swipe at Tales, which had a hint system, and had puzzles which were noticeably easier than the first two games.
Or '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.' Like it or not, a lot of people discovered Monkey Island via Escape or Tales, and -that's- how they remember Monkey Island most. By phrasing it that way, he's kinda saying those fans don't count.
Or ' It did things Lua could never dream of. When Lua was in High School, SCUMM beat it up for lunch money. ' when of course Escape was largely scripted in Lua.
Sure, he doesn't outright say he could do it better. But all these little things add up and make is pretty clear that's what he thinks. Maybe he's right. But I can understand why people who worked hard on those games would find the things he says grating.
tisTree25
Nobody would have to license anything. The original games already exists with the entire team's individual contributions. And Lucasarts (or now Disney) own those games, as they should, since they paid for them to be developed. They can distribute those games however they want, everybody already got compensated for them, as you said. Ron's not after the distribution rights to the original games. What I don't think Disney should own is the intellectual property itself- the right to make new works in the world of Monkey Island.
That doesn't work. Because the games have characters, designs, musical themes, and so forth that -would- be re-used in a sequel. It wouldn't be only the name that carries over. So unless 3a was intended to be made with an entirely new cast of characters, a completely different musical score with new tunes, and completely divorced from anything that was designed in the first games, any reuse of anything that counts as intellectual property would, under your rules, have to be licensed from the individuals that made them.
Which is very polite and doesn't seem to criticize others' work.
I really think Chuck overreacted.
I still think Chuck took it very personally, and I don't know why exactly. He's talked before about how thrilled he was to get the LucasArts job, and to be working on a Monkey Island game. We all agree that CMI is excellent in every respect, and without it there would probably have been no more sequels at all. But by the same argument, there would be no CMI without Ron Gilbert, and just because he wasn't solely responsible for the excellence of the first two games doesn't negate that fact. Tim Schafer and Dave Grossman would never have been able to make their games without the trust LucasArts showed in them, and to a lesser extent the trust that Ron gave them, to make the first Monkey Island game. Ron doesn't deserve to be labelled responsible for every LucasArts adventure just because he co-created their first one, but I also don't think it's fair to say he's not allowed to feel he has unfinished business.
I took Ron's post about the hypothetical game to be nothing more than conjecture. I agree with Jason that it's ultimately pointless conjecture, but nevertheless he has a stake in these games and why not? Chuck seemed to be offended that there was an implication that CMI - and by extension, EMI and TMI - were illegitimate. I really think that's a totally different thing, though, because even the people like me who would like to play an alternative third game still think CMI is a great game. It's just that adventure games are so infused with narrative, story is so essential to them, that when one of the best stories ends on a cliffhanger, it's kind of natural to want to know what happened next. In the case of Monkey Island 2, "what happened next" is such a difficult problem that CMI effectively avoided dealing with it. I think this is fine because I know so many people who were introduced to the series by playing the third game, and its accessibility is one of its major strengths. I think my favourite thing about CMI is that it immediately feels like a Monkey Island game, like I'm back in that world of pirates with the excellent music and the funny people. There's no bullshit to contend with at the beginning, it just launches you into a clear and enjoyable narrative.
Ron's hypothetical third game is not a pitch at an alternate sequel at all, maybe. It could just be closure for those people who still want to know what the hell Big Whoop is.
That said, I don't believe that Ron had this all mapped out back in 1989 or anything. Any sequel he made would probably feel as contrived as any of the existing ones. And, to get back to Jason's point, if that's really what Ron wants to do, then here's a way he can do it: stop winding fans up by dangling magic in front of them that they cannot access. Accept that he will never own the IP and will not be able to do a kickstarter to allow him to develop a sequel. Just write a post on the goddamn blog telling us what you wanted to happen next.
Please!
Rum Rogers
So you're basically supposing 3a is not gonna be a game about pirates but a bunch of genres put together?
It's just my idea. Of course there would ALSO be pirates, "pirates" are the genre of the franchise, after all. ;-)
Diduz
My idea is that he would go the DeathSpank/The Cave route with Monkey 3a. I'm not talking about the gameplay, I mean story-wise. A multigenre, "metalinguistical" take to many genres, with little Guybrush and little LeChuck going through different ages and settings in the park.
No joke.
So you're basically supposing 3a is not gonna be a game about pirates but a bunch of genres put together? If it wasn't Monkey Island we're talking about, I'd be enthusiastic. But it is. And this scares the hell out of me. A lot.
Rum Rogers
What's really incredible is Ron's further explaining post. When he says MI3a would fit between 2's ending and Curse's beginning... well, it's puzzling. Is he meaning his MI would entirely take place in the carnival? If so, the secret's pretty much clear.
My idea is that he would go the DeathSpank/The Cave route with Monkey 3a. I'm not talking about the gameplay, I mean story-wise. A multigenre, "metalinguistical" take to many genres, with little Guybrush and little LeChuck going through different ages and settings in the park.
No joke.
tisTree25
Companies don't make games. People make games.
Well, except for the people who made Curse, apparently. This is probably at the heart of what rubs Jordan the wrong way. You can't act like you're a crusader for the human element and then in the same breath dismiss the hard work of a bunch of developers as "fan fiction." How obnoxious is that?
There's a lot to talk about when it comes to IP law and how fucked up it is, but reading your positions I wonder how consistently you would apply them if the context wasn't a license your personally care about.
Let's consider another one: Ron co-founded Humongous Entertainment, which developed a number of successful computer game series for kids - properties that were lucrative enough to inspire an eventual buyout. Did Ron conceive all of these properties, and did he do so alone? If not, when the company was sold (eventually leading to some noticeably more cash-grabby installments of Pajama Sam, etc.) and he collected his share of its valuation, did that make him some kind of villain? Who "ethically" owns those games if not the ones that do by law?
SurplusGamer
There are problems with IP, some big ones, but I think they're mostly between the owners and consumers. The balance has gradually slipped from IP helping owners retain limited exclusivity to sell their stuff, to a system where it's basically just protecting a whole bunch of corporate interests at the expense of everyone else.
But the argument that Ron made it so Ron should get to keep it is facile. And not only facile but unworkable. 2 quick points:
1) Ron might have been the project lead and lead designer. He made Monkey Island but so did Schafer, Grossman, all the other people who poured their soul into it. By your logic, why should Ron automatically be allowed to use characters that Dave Grossman created, or music by Michael Land? If people get to keep ownership of everything they create, then surely the buck stops at the individual person and everything that Ron didn't specifically create himself, he'd have to license the rest from everyone. Which is unworkable. Which leads me to:
2) You don't seem to have fully thought through the implications of a system whereby someone who makes something for a company gets to retain ownership when they leave the company. Can you imagine the logistics of that, applied across the entire spectrum of IP? It would be a simply impossible system to uphold, and unnecessary, because Ron was already compensated for his work on Monkey Island. This isn't some shady corporate thing. He was employed, and paid, to make stuff, for a company. The company gets to keep the stuff and build on it if they want to. It's really that simple, regardless of how 'nice' it would be of them to sell it back.
Nobody would have to license anything. The original games already exists with the entire team's individual contributions. And Lucasarts (or now Disney) own those games, as they should, since they paid for them to be developed. They can distribute those games however they want, everybody already got compensated for them, as you said. Ron's not after the distribution rights to the original games. What I don't think Disney should own is the intellectual property itself- the right to make new works in the world of Monkey Island.
tisTree25
It troubles me to see this argument brought up again and again, because really it's a deeper problem with intellectual property rather than just a problem with the Monkey Island IP. The viewpoints displayed here disturb me. Why do we let companies get away with fucking over creators like this? We live in a world where creators can make terrific IPs for companies and then once that person is no longer with the company they can say "By the way, if you ever create anything in this world that you invented, we're sending our legal team after you." It's clearly screwed up, but it IS a complicated issue. The company did provide resources for this game to be made (Monkey Island definitely isn't the work of one person,) and Ron presumably knew what he was getting into from the outset, though he likely didn't think about the problems it might bring at the time.
Still, what's happened is once Ron left Lucasarts, the company itself became the owner of the Monkey Island IP. (Technically it always was, but they let Ron do whatever he wanted with it while he was employed there.) Now, I dunno about you, but I fall squarely in the "Corporations Aren't People" camp. Can something without an intellect even own Intellectual Property? Now, Lucasarts used their status as the owner of the franchise to basically say "Any game we make with the Monkey Island IP is canon." Under different circumstances this situation would be really hard to swallow for anybody.
Curse is a wonderful game, and Ron obviously thought so too. He's made that clear. But does the fact that Curse is a great game make this situation okay? (People are happy enough to disregard Escape.) Does the end justify the means? Taking the world and story and characters from the original work and writing the next chapter in the story without the original creator. That's called fanfiction, and there's nothing wrong with it. The fact that Curse had a huge budget and some of the original team on board just makes it an awesome piece of fanfiction. The trouble is that Lucasarts claims it's an official part of the Monkey Island series. I'd argue that's something only the original creators could decide. Companies don't make games. People make games.
Ron should be able to continue his story the way he sees fit. He should own the IP and he doesn't owe anything to the teams who worked on Curse, Escape, and Tales. Don't defend the sorry state of Intellectual Property law and throw Ron under the bus all for the sake of elevating fanfiction to canon.
There are problems with IP, some big ones, but I think they're mostly between the owners and consumers. The balance has gradually slipped from IP helping owners retain limited exclusivity to sell their stuff, to a system where it's basically just protecting a whole bunch of corporate interests at the expense of everyone else.
But the argument that Ron made it so Ron should get to keep it is facile. And not only facile but unworkable. 2 quick points:
1) Ron might have been the project lead and lead designer. He made Monkey Island but so did Schafer, Grossman, all the other people who poured their soul into it. By your logic, why should Ron automatically be allowed to use characters that Dave Grossman created, or music by Michael Land? If people get to keep ownership of everything they create, then surely the buck stops at the individual person and everything that Ron didn't specifically create himself, he'd have to license the rest from everyone. Which is unworkable. Which leads me to:
2) You don't seem to have fully thought through the implications of a system whereby someone who makes something for a company gets to retain ownership when they leave the company. Can you imagine the logistics of that, applied across the entire spectrum of IP? It would be a simply impossible system to uphold, and unnecessary, because Ron was already compensated for his work on Monkey Island. This isn't some shady corporate thing. He was employed, and paid, to make stuff, for a company. The company gets to keep the stuff and build on it if they want to. It's really that simple, regardless of how 'nice' it would be of them to sell it back.
Still, what's happened is once Ron left Lucasarts, the company itself became the owner of the Monkey Island IP. (Technically it always was, but they let Ron do whatever he wanted with it while he was employed there.) Now, I dunno about you, but I fall squarely in the "Corporations Aren't People" camp. Can something without an intellect even own Intellectual Property? Now, Lucasarts used their status as the owner of the franchise to basically say "Any game we make with the Monkey Island IP is canon." Under different circumstances this situation would be really hard to swallow for anybody.
Curse is a wonderful game, and Ron obviously thought so too. He's made that clear. But does the fact that Curse is a great game make this situation okay? (People are happy enough to disregard Escape.) Does the end justify the means? Taking the world and story and characters from the original work and writing the next chapter in the story without the original creator. That's called fanfiction, and there's nothing wrong with it. The fact that Curse had a huge budget and some of the original team on board just makes it an awesome piece of fanfiction. The trouble is that Lucasarts claims it's an official part of the Monkey Island series. I'd argue that's something only the original creators could decide. Companies don't make games. People make games.
Ron should be able to continue his story the way he sees fit. He should own the IP and he doesn't owe anything to the teams who worked on Curse, Escape, and Tales. Don't defend the sorry state of Intellectual Property law and throw Ron under the bus all for the sake of elevating fanfiction to canon.
I dunno, I don't know Ron Gilbert personally. I've never sat down and had lunch with the guy. But it doesn't seem to me like hes really being rude about the fact that other people made Monkey Island games without him, I think hes just being honest about how he would like to do it. Like he said at the beginning of his post, this was him day dreaming basically.
I mean, I would imagine, if I was in his shoes, I would feel the same way. If I made, or felt like I made, or helped make, something really great, then I left and wasn't part of it any more, but it continued without me, I would feel left behind. If it was my own doing or or not. You know?
Like, when he says he would continue where 2 left off. I don't think hes saying he has any real problem with any of the ones that came after, but I'm sure in his head, if he was writing MI1, then MI2, he probably had an idea for where he wanted MI3 to go.
And it didn't go there, because it wasn't him doing it any more.
I don't know. I guess I don't really care either, since it wont happen anyways, I just felt like adding my two cents as to why I feel like Ron is just speaking his mind.
He WISHES he owned Monkey Island, which is understandable, since its a great thing, and he was there for its birth. He WISHES he kept working on it, but didn't, because he wanted to go off and be successful doing other things. And he WISHES he had a means to reconcile these things, but cant, since there's not really any way to.
He's done some impressive things since MI, and I think he'll continue to do so. Even if he can't ever go back to Monkey Island, does he ever really need to? He's been there, he's seen it, and he knows the secret.
Quick, look behind you! A three-headed-monkey!
Plus, shouldn't it be 3b? The other sequels happened first. Ronzo's shouldn't automatically be the primary one.
If Ron ever made MI3A, we all would be intrigued and we all would play it; that much is established. Until then, and especially at this date, there really is no respectable thing for him to do on the subject besides shut the fuck up. Every time he brings it up I'm forced to groove closer and closer toward the uncomfortable conclusion that his motivations are impure. The fact that he conditions this project on OWNING the property is revealing simply because such a scenario is impossible, yet he does it anyway and then proceeds to muse at length on how he'd approach the game. That is either the arrogance of genius or contempt for the fans. If there is an Option C, please explain it to me.
"Fairness" has nothing to do with Ron's separation from the MI license. But let's talk about what's actually fair since it seems that no one ever does. The rights to Monkey Island can never "revert" to Ron Gilbert, because they were never Ron's to start with. Now, would I prefer the license belong to the man who conceived it rather than a corporation like Disney (or, for that matter, Lucasfilm)? Any day of the week and twice on Sunday. But it's a bit precious to frame the narrative as if Ron's baby was snatched away. He was employed by a company and under that contract came up with an idea that the company would consequently own, because THAT WAS EXPLICITLY HIS JOB.
Ron created Monkey Island with the not inconsiderable help of a number of talented people, then voluntarily left the company, which eventually exercised its right continue the series - and did so to fantastic results. How is it fair for the people who crafted the later installments - largely longtime fixtures of LucasArts and in a number of cases even veterans of the first two games - to have their work constantly and dismissively contrasted against something that it can't compete with because it only exists in people's heads and never seems any closer to graduating to inconvenient reality where it will endure actual judgment?
The only reason you don't see this kind of petty controversy surrounding Maniac Mansion, whose sequel is way more egregious an offender in the same areas of "consistency" CMI is criticized for, is because Maniac Mansion did not conclude with a deliberately weird/ambiguous ending, did not have a "secret" built into the title, and most of all its creators did not retroactively exacerbate that intrigue for the noble reason of...well, what noble reason?
I love Ron Gilbert and the games he's made but the community of Monkey Island fans needs to be more possessive of the respect they usually have for each other that the series creator doesn't always seem categorically interested in nourishing.
SurplusGamer
OzzieMonkey
While I would love to see Ron's interpretation of MI3, there's a huge part of me that just loves how the series has evolved since then. Curse introduced me to the series as well as point and click games in general, so obviously I have nostalgia for it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Gilbert purists out there (or not even that, just people who can't accept a big change to a series they love). I've always had the school of thought that Monkey Island doesn't have a definitive tone or style, it has always been versatile enough to change it up every time, which is why each installment has (for me personally, except Escape, although I like it more than most) gotten better. Each game is it's own unique tale and the last thing I want to see is a game made just for the sake of pleasing those who say "Curse-Tales weren't Gilbert's so let's forget they happened and replace them with this game"
That's another thing. Ron doesn't mention any of the other people who helped make Monkey Island what it was. Not a one. I don't understand the Ron Gilbert purists - I get he created the idea for the series, but I think they massively underestimate the contribution people like Schafer and Grossman made, not to mention the artists involved and the musicians in creating the unique atmosphere we've come to associate with the game.
I just do not believe that Ron Gilbert, without at least several of these other people, could even create something close to the vague picture think a lot of people have in their heads.
I absolutely agree. I've always felt that Grossman and Schafer have been somewhat shafted and not really given the credit they deserve, and you're right, Ron has not once talked about Peter Chan or Michael Land's work. I would love to see those 4 guys do a new MI or even just a new adventure game together, hell, get Bill Tiller on board too, that guy's backgrounds are sex for the eyes
OzzieMonkey
While I would love to see Ron's interpretation of MI3, there's a huge part of me that just loves how the series has evolved since then. Curse introduced me to the series as well as point and click games in general, so obviously I have nostalgia for it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Gilbert purists out there (or not even that, just people who can't accept a big change to a series they love). I've always had the school of thought that Monkey Island doesn't have a definitive tone or style, it has always been versatile enough to change it up every time, which is why each installment has (for me personally, except Escape, although I like it more than most) gotten better. Each game is it's own unique tale and the last thing I want to see is a game made just for the sake of pleasing those who say "Curse-Tales weren't Gilbert's so let's forget they happened and replace them with this game"
That's another thing. Ron doesn't mention any of the other people who helped make Monkey Island what it was. Not a one. I don't understand the Ron Gilbert purists - I get he created the idea for the series, but I think they massively underestimate the contribution people like Schafer and Grossman made, not to mention the artists involved and the musicians in creating the unique atmosphere we've come to associate with the game.
I just do not believe that Ron Gilbert, without at least several of these other people, could even create something close to the vague picture think a lot of people have in their heads.
Kroms
But Disney would never sell the IP, so this game will never exist.
Which is quite convenient to Ron's career penchant for pulling everyone's dick like this. (I kid. Sort of.)
Would I play it, the way he described it? Of course I would, it would be the most exciting thing ever.
But I don't know that I agree with all the sentiments. Like the picking and choosing about what to keep and what to dump from the old days seems almost arbitrary. Yes to speech but no to hi-res graphics. No to verbs, but yes to etc, etc?
I do understand this dream of his, but for a while now I've felt: look, it didn't happen that way. Other people went to work on Monkey Island sequels, and they were at least partially great. It'd be fun and exciting to satisfy my curiosity about how it might have been different but that's about it.
Nothing about the way he describes his vision for it really resonates with me, with the exception of the bit about dialogue. I think Monkey Island really is the king of dialogue gags, and I'm glad to see him specifically bring it up. Apart from that it sounds a little bit like a compromise that never needs to happen.
But yeah, if somehow it did happen, of course I'd be all over it.