Thimbleweed Park Podcast #61
by Ron Gilbert
Sep 30, 2016
Sep 30, 2016
Finally!!!!!
You can also subscribe to the Thimbleweed Park Podcast RSS feed if that's 'your thing'.
You can also get the podcast directly from iTunes.
- Ron
Finally!!!!!
You can also subscribe to the Thimbleweed Park Podcast RSS feed if that's 'your thing'.
You can also get the podcast directly from iTunes.
- Ron
Thanks Ron! Have a safe stay and trip back.
http://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/285421366-grumpygamer-thimbleweed-park-podcast-61.mp3
What are you going to do there?
(I'm from Buenos Aires myself... though I do not currently live there)
Is this the first time it is used?
Hope I can trust Google Translator so far!!
Grattis Mattias!
Grattis på födelsedagen !
(I confused Finnish for Swedish, sorry :-) )
I know some Finnish because I have friends from Finland so that's okay.
(It's khura'inese)
You say you'd only make MI 3a if you owned the licence. But I am confused since you didn't own the licence when you did MI 1 & 2 - LucasArts did. How is this different to making MI 3a under Disney licence? Are you primarily concerned about creative freedom? (I know LucasArts pretty much had an off-hands approach).
Anyway, As I am waiting for Timbleweed Park, I replayed the original MI 1 & 2. I really hope your next project will be MI 3a with the old school style like Thimbleweed. I hope you can sort it out, even if it means working under Disney licence (like Telltale, although I am not a fan of them due to the 3D approach rather than old-school).
If not, maybe you can come up with something similar to MI, change a few names etc :D
Love you man, keep up the GREAT work!
See here: https://youtu.be/voJvtZ3jnL4?t=12m19s
In my opinion, Ron should construe the idea of a rip-off a bit more extensively: If you ignore the pirates and the monkeys, the most important ingredient of MI is the story about a fortune-favored naif, which takes place in the farther past in a maritime environment. And, of course there also would have to be both a dreadful villain and a seemingly unreachable woman (the cliffhanger).
Oh, I almost forgot about the art style and the bobbing heads! :-)
By the way, the fewer playable characters a game has, the more does the player relate to each one of them.
If Ron doesn't like that idea, there is another possibility: Ron could do a MI3a fan adventure and release it for free. (Disney allows or at least tolerates free fan adventures - think about Zak McKracken 2) Problem: How to finance such a project.
If Ron really owns the IP one day (which seems to be unlikely), he could eventually replace the names officially, elsewise he at least made the third game "in disguise". Better this way than never!
Though, it seems that Ron isn't even interested in such a customizable solution. I therefore still hope that he takes my previous suggestion to heart.
But we have to accept that Ron will never get the IP. Not in this life. Disney won't sell his IPs to one person. And no, wonders won't happen in the real world.
So Ron has to decide: If he *really* want to do a MI3a, he has to go other ways (like the ones we suggested). Otherwise he and we won't see a MI3a. I, for myself, don't believe that we will see a MI3a from Ron. (See the post from Nathan below.)
Beside that, MI is Rons "baby". So it's a matter of heart for him.
Now, the first thing I'm about to type is complete conjecture. I believe it to be sound though. When Ron had initially made MI I & II, he was still new to the industry. At those points in time, Lucas Arts provided a platform for creating and publishing games that was just not possible to do independently. Keep in mind both games were published long prior to high speed internet connections being commonplace.
As is the norm with any business, as an employee, all creative works are the company's property unless you are able to license them to that company. In the case of MI I & II it would appear they were created during the course Ron's work duties, which would have made it impossible for him to claim ownership of the property. This is unlike Sam Purcell's Sam & Max, where he clearly created those characters outside of the context of his employment.
At some point Ron realized that although he had technically created something, he did not own it. It only enriched that company and ultimately he had no control over it.
I'm guessing this is why Ron left Lucas Arts to form Humungous (sp?), but to be honest, I can't recall him discussing that in detail. Next Friday Questions I'll ask him.
From what I can tell, there were opportunities that started to open up to Ron when Lucas Arts was still owned by George, where he would have been open to creating MI 3a under a licensing deal. I'm assuming that was contingent on Ron having full creative control. Unfortunately, due to what I would call complete mismanagement of the Lucas Arts business, things never stayed stable long enough for such a deal to be finalized.
Since then, Disney has now come into the picture. Unlike the quite independent environment George afforded Lucas Arts, Disney is a corporate beast. If done under a Disney license there is absolutely no way Ron would be afforded final say on anything. Disney has a very specific image to hold up and there are many layers of people responsible for maintaing that. Neither you, me, or anyone else wants a MI 3a tinged with that kind of oversight.
In addition, Making a game under Disney would only reward Disney. Clearly, MI was created completely independently of Disney and there is no sound rationale that Ron should put in such effort to have another entity benefit from it. It's a shame Lucas did nit release IPs to their creators prior to selling off his company. This is especially true with the Lucas Arts properties given Disney is not even in the gaming industry. It's sad really that someone can just sit on IPs like that.
I have faith that one day it will all work out. Until then Lets enjoy what Ron can control and create.
* five playable characters and
* multiple endings.
So all other things could be changed ...?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/thimbleweedpark/thimbleweed-park-a-new-classic-point-and-click-adv/description
For instance, the 'dead body found in the river'. Or, descriptions of Delores, Ransome and Franklin.
The announcements are all referring the five characters, including the dead body. :) There are only a very few descriptions of some of the buildings. Ok, and a murder - but changing that would change the whole story. :)
And the team changed the graphics style and only a few backers complained. So why not "cutting" a character if it is necessary?
This heavy change of the art style has been enabled primarily by Mark Ferrari, whose involvement had not been foreseeable back during the kickstarter campaign. He joined the team unexpectedly a few months after the campaign had ended. Moreover, I think that the stylistic changes have been appreciated by the bigger part of the backers. I personally consider them as improvements.
The characters were described in black and white on the kickstarter page. So, there is actually a kind of a commitment to implement all of them somehow. In my opinion, a single character would have sufficed, but, on the other hand, I appreciate that they keep their promises. It's just honest and it suggests that they take the kickstarter campaign (and the backers as well) seriously.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37506501/no-mans-sky-investigated-over-misleading-adverts
Yes, but some of the backers hoped to get a Maniac-Mansion-style game. This is what the graphics (and the descriptions) implied.
"The characters were described in black and white on the kickstarter page. So, there is actually a kind of a commitment to implement all of them somehow."
Excatly. But this is the only thing the team is commited to. So I assume that Ron would like to "cut" one of the characters out of the story. :) All other changes won't even get noticed by the players because we don't know the (full) story. And that's why I would like to know what kind of things Ron would like to change. :)
But even such a big step like removing one of the characters is still possible, if the team explains (in a blog post) why they remove the character. I assume that only a hand full of backers will complain...
I'm not sure if all announcements on Kickstarter are legally binding, but, of course, the team doesn't want to disappoint the backers. For this reason, they probably wouldn't like to change everything. How would it look like, if they released a game which differed at all points from the description on Kickstarter!
By the way, I assume that the development process has already advanced too far to make such a deep cut. It would throw the team back to redesigning the puzzles. Moreover, months of work on the particular character would have been spent in vain.
Just anticipate the greatness and don't sweat all the details so much. The story, gameplay, puzzles, atmosphere... It's all gonna be amazing. It's gonna be the game you remember playing all those years ago, not the game you actually played.
Did it work before? I don't know how this magical connection between those two Safaris work.
Is anything working at all, e.g. the configuration dialog? Are there any error messages in the developers console of the browser?
Is the settings dialog working normally? That's the first thing which is setup.
replace
// @require https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.2/jquery.min.js
with
// @require https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.2/jquery.js
and check the console again, it should now have proper line information and function names.
I replaced jquery.min with jquery. This is the error I get now: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/qnmxn6oeq5xow1q/thimbleweedparkblogfix2.png
You could try the newest jQuery version: https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.js but I don't think it will be different.
Was recently Safari or Tampermonkey updated?
Pick up pen
Look at pen
"I have a pen."
Pick up apple
Look at apple
"I have an apple"
Use apple with pen
"Applepen."
...
... sorry.
[Insanity trend mode OFF]
Another difference is that the individual storylines are optional and you can get to the normal ending without them.
By the way, if I remember correctly, Ron once said during an interview that The Cave was designed for a replay after a longer break, so that the player wouldn't remember every single puzzle.
Personally I really liked the game but it also came to my mind that at little tad of more variety wouldn't be bad (e.g. having random locations of the pipes on the island + an additional set of mine levels which can be alternated/randomised would have been enough).
MM: True, there weren't really a lot differences in playthroughs, also the non-Bernard-ones were pretty much the same. Even Green Tentacle didn't differentiate between the various characters when heeding the call...
But I don't think MM is really a benchmark for today's games.
But I can imagine Thimbleweed Park being the new benchmark one to match with!
As to TWP, I absolutely share your optimism.
Maybe the parts in The Cave are more repetitive than the parts in MM. In MM you can explore the complete house with each character and they react different in some situations. In The Cave you have to repeat the same puzzles in the exactly same order.
The Cave is much more linear. Sounds plausible for being the reason feeling more annoying.
But the puzzle solving itself is not linear though, take a look at the Puzzle Dependency Chart™: http://thewebsiteisdown.com/twidblog/day-of-the-tentacle-dependency-graph/
The chart for The Cave would look like a single chain of puzzles most of the time.
I saw this movie before..... but I did'nt notice what happens at 9.57!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6m1BiRyzbw
Maybe they updated it?
Anyway, great locations. I envy this grown up people who have so much spare time.... :'(
Doing this must have been real fun.
I suggested him to include the first intro of Thimbleweed Park in its Maniac Mansion movie, at the end.
He did the remaining part :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpFMVcZ4o7U
- Matt
And: are you looking forward to the new Trek series as I am?
But who cares, when it's ready, it's ready!
But, most important: what about the new Trek series anyway?
_Your password is expired. Please enter e new password._
rongilbert
_The password must contain upper and lower case characters
RonGilbert
_The password must contain numbers and at least one special character_
RonGilbertTheCreatorOfManiacMansionReleasedIn1987ZLORFIK!IMissedHim!
_Password accepted. Please retype your password_
....... doh!
Well, I chosed: "fammi vedere tutto per favore" (=let me see everything please), including spaces.
It worked, and I never forgotten it! :-)
Perhaps the CD-ROM version would show "LucasArts", because it was released later.
By the way, on the cover of my Special Editions, Disney have perpetuated their company's name, which looks out of place. Fortunately the font size is small!
Note: While MI2 was already with LucasArts logo the VGA Version of MI1 from 1992 still used the Lucasfilm Games logo like the original did.
Are you talking about the Special Edition? It's the only one I know which shows LucasArts at the beginning. The original files still contain the Lucasfilm Games logo though.
Interestingly, even though the reorganisation of Lucas companies happened 1990, the 1991 MI2 box still has a "logo" on front of the box saying "LucasArts™ / Lucasfilm™ Games". The side of the box has the LucasArts' golden guy, but even there, under the logo, it says "Lucasfilm Games".
(Not official.)
Some 8-bit-ish animations would also be nice - maybe something funny.
- "After the great success of Thimbleweed Park" - he said - "the company changed its logo, after a big deal!"
Unbelievable!
I can show you the logo, directly from the future:
http://www.cinemapioxi.it/zak/TerribleToybox2018Logo.gif
By the way, since their corporate logo is independent from the crowd-funding campaign, they are completely unbound in creating their logo.