First Day Of The Tentacle Remastered Screenshots Appear – Compare And Contrast

Polygon has just posted the first screenshots of Double Fine’s remake of Day Of The Tentacle, a project announced almost a year ago, and now apparently playable at Indiecade. The shots show the remastering is clearly going to be very faithful to the original game – fears of attempts at 3D or similar can be put aside – although give no indication at this point if the verb interface is to be maintained. Indiecade visitors will be able to tell us soon.

However, to my eye, something doesn’t look quite right.

I’m going to be precious about DOTT. It’s one of my favourite games, one I love to revisit, and one I’ve long argued stands up to the passing of time thanks to its utterly wonderful cartoon pixel graphics. Really, the only thing I think DOTT desperately needs is to actually be on sale anywhere at all.

However, making a new version doesn’t make the old version exist any less, so those who complain about such things as if they’re acts of aggression against a loved one are silly. Let’s not be silly. But I’m perhaps a little perturbed by the artistic decisions being made for a new version here, in having DOTT look like a Flash cartoon. It’s too flat, too smooth… Oh, I don’t know, maybe I’m being silly, fussy, precious. Some 2560×1440 beautiful pixel art is probably what I’d most wanted to see. But it’s impossible to argue that the new shots aren’t incredibly faithful to the originals.

You can see the full-size shots over at Polygon. Meanwhile, you can compare and contrast some of the new shots with the originals below. I expect you have an opinion.

95 Comments

  1. LionsPhil says:

    Honestly, it looks like they just turned on one of ScummVM/DOSBOX’s fancypants “intelligent” upscaling filters.

    And since—no matter how sophisticated—they can’t do as good a job as ~imagination~ at filling in the gaps, yes, it looks worse. What was a limitation of pixel density potentially concealing fine detail is now explicitly a vast, flat expanse of solid colour.

    • Big Murray says:

      So they can’t win. If they change it, people say it looks worse. If they stay faithful to the original, people say it looks worse.

      They must be thinking “Oh COMMON” …

      • LionsPhil says:

        They could win if the spent the same kind of talent and effort budget as they did on the original on new art, which basically isn’t going to happen and—honestly—would be better spent on making something new rather than reheating the past.

        This is my huge problem with classic adventure game remakes, and it’s hit every one of them so far: you can’t replace hard graft and talent with technology, no matter how much tooling may have moved on, and how much more capable the canvas now is. (Gabriel Knight was the biggest offender that comes to mind.)

        • ansionnach says:

          Agreed. As far as I’m concerned the original is perfect and perfectly playable so there really is no need for it to be remade. I’ve played it a bajillion times and would really appreciate something new in the same vein, that isn’t afraid to be hard and isn’t click-to-win.

          I think John’s bang on in what he says about the art style being too flat and smooth. My biggest question is about the interface – it had the best one of any Lucasarts game. After that they tried to hide the verbs and inventory. Doing this added extra clicks for you to do something – a misstep in interface design. It also simplified and streamlined gameplay. If this game drops the nine verb interface then it’s unforgivable.

        • MattMk1 says:

          I was basically going to say the same thing. The original had great art direction which was then translated into in-game graphics about as well as the tools of the time allowed.

          The remake? It looks fine, but in terms of relative quality it’s not even close.

          It’s a bit like comparing Terminator 2 to the latest POS sequel. T2 is 25 years old, but was made with more care by much more skilled people, and is (IMO)far superior aesthetically. (although that’s not a perfect analogy, because I think the people remaking DOTT are trying harder than that)

          • girard says:

            At least these graphics have a kind of inoffensively bland fidelity about them (other comments about them looking like the old game played through the EAGLE filter in an emulator are not off the mark), which, while not great, is certainly better than the disrespectful, cheap, ugly, phoned-in horrorshow that was the Monkey Island “Special” Edition.

    • subedii says:

      Actually no.

      I mean I thought so at first, but if you go to the Polygon link and use the sliding before/after screenshot thing, you can clearly see that say, the professor has actually been redrawn whilst keeping his dimensions and aesthetic the same.

      It’s subtle, but if you look at things like his sleeves and his eyebrows, it’s clear they redrew him. It’s not something a simple filter could do.

      That said, as with all these re-releases, I suspect there’ll be a button to switch between the two, and that I would likely stick with the original.

      • LionsPhil says:

        I dunno, they might be manually tweaking it, but it certainly looks like automatic vectorization or upscaling of some kind was a starting point. Look at the flag pattern next to Hoagie scratching, or the face-up playing card in the jail cell. What was an impressionistic abstraction in low-res is now a clearly defined misshapen blob. :/

        Look at the walls around the tentacle in the cell screenshot, too. Where the original blends from highlights to shadows, especially on the curved section above the lightswitch, the new one has quantized. The upper (most lit) surface of the lightswitch itself has retained a great big aliasing staircase, which now sticks out more because the rest of its angled lines have been straightened out.

        • MrBehemoth says:

          The Monkey Island remakes were the same. You could see the original graphics, resampled and filtered, in places behind the newly painted ones, as if they’d started with them as a template. Which was fine. You’d only see it if you were looking for it and I suspect the reason for it was to make sure everything was lined up to facilitate the in-game switching between old and new graphics.

          Really, if it has both, no-one has cause to complain.

      • Premium User Badge

        DelrueOfDetroit says:

        If it hasn’t been smoothed out using an algorithm it still looks like they took the original sprites and traced over them using vectors.

      • JamesTheNumberless says:

        A lot of it does appear to be redrawn, I guess it’s too early to tell, what will matter more is how it looks when animated. If we’re assuming they took the same approach here as they did with the Monkey Island special editions then the new graphics will have been hand drawn from the original designs.

    • klops says:

      Yeah, feels like Monkey Island remakes with bland graphics and weird emptiness. Just sharpening the old graphics don’t work.

      • JamesTheNumberless says:

        Suit yourself, I like the graphics in the MI special editions, I don’t like how the original PC versions look anyway. The original experience for a lot of people wasn’t the sharply pixellated PC version, but rather the Atari ST or Amiga versions that were played on CRT TV sets with with all the anti-aliasing side-effects that entails.

      • girard says:

        Bust ‘just sharpening the old graphics’ is certainly better than the strategy taken in the Monkey Island remake, which was ‘hire bargain-basement artists with significantly less talent than the original team to come up with all new, awful graphics.’

        I’m okay with this. It’s, as expected, sub-par when compared to the original, but is as decent as an HD upscaling job could be, and doesn’t fundamentally change the art direction of the game (again, I’m looking at you, Monkey Island).

    • daknine.^ says:

      “Day of the Tentacle Remastered will allow you to toggle between the new and old artwork at the touch of a button.” Source: eurogamer.net

    • Press X to Gary Busey says:

      Looks good to me. But last time I played it I used one of said filters so I probably don’t have good taste. :P
      It’s great that they will include the option to switch between new and old, including UI.
      Now I wonder what they’ve done with the sound and the easter-egg Maniac Mansion. It’s included according to Eurogamer but I’m guessing no enhancements since it’s supposed to be an olden computer game.

    • Jinoru says:

      Wait, so if the imagination is the best, they should have remade it into a text adventure.

      Alright.

    • Ben says:

      Just to clarify, Spaff the community manager at DF said on their forums:

      “All of the artwork has been redrawn from scratch in high resolution, and tries to be as faithful to the original as possible.”

  2. Premium User Badge

    N'Al says:

    From what I understand – much like Monkey Island before – this will have an option to toggle between old and new graphics anyway, so if you don’t like the fancy pants version you can just turn it off.

    • Legion23 says:

      Excellent that is what I wanted to know, thank you. By having that option they will cover all the bases.

    • KesMonkey says:

      If that’s true, I’m relieved. I do not like these super-sharp visuals at all. However, they may grow on me, and the choice to switch is welcome.

  3. RedViv says:

    These visuals are far closer than either of the MI HD versions were. Nice job, DF, nice job.

    • Yachmenev says:

      I think it’s pretty much the best case scenario happening here. I don’t honestly know how much better you can actually do this, when you’re trying to remaster pixel graphics made for 320×200 back in 1993.

      Some scenes do look better then others.
      1. Hoagie outside look best.
      2. Then the title screen.
      3. Bernard at the washing machines looks slightly worse.
      4. And the Edisons in the future look a bit weird.

      But overall, I’m a happy camper of this. There were never a scenario in this project that would please everyone. That can’t happen. DF has done a very fine job with this.

      It’s easy for us used to those pixel graphics to say that they shouldn’t be touched at all, but I very much doubt that Sony, who made the re-release of Grim and this possible, would have had that much interest in it then.

      The old graphics will be playable through a switch, that has Double Fine said from the beginning they started the project, so any purists will have the option to play with those graphics.

      • klops says:

        There is an option to please everyone. And they are already doing it. Which is nice.

        Like stated many times here, you can switch between the old and the new graphics.

  4. Text_Fish says:

    You can’t be a purist about these things, and that’s the mistake DF seem to have made. What works well in pixel art will often look lazy or amateurish in a more modern form, so they really needed to do some redesigning. A bit of texture or some new details would break up the large flat areas, and the characters could do with some more highlights (possibly even dynamic highlights/shadows) because at the moment their “flatness” really makes them pop out of the often very “bulbous” environment art.

    • Text_Fish says:

      Contradicting myself completely, I do really like the pixellated poster in the laundry room (Polygon). It’s an amusing acknowledgement of what they’re doing.

    • Eery Petrol says:

      Interesting point, and looking back I agree that the new pictures contrast the ‘flatness’ with the ‘bulbous’. Then again, so do the original pictures. And so do many cartoons. I think the backgrounds can be bulbous because they have a fixed light source and require only one hand drawn image, while the characters’ movement means shifting light sources and many frames to draw, making it a whole different story to make them bulbous too. I do agree with you that it breaks continuity, but I would not say it’s strikingly more present in the remake.

      • Text_Fish says:

        True, I’ve probably developed a bit of a bias that stops me noticing the same problem in pixel art.

  5. Person of Interest says:

    I’m saving the bulk of my bluster and preordained distain for the inevitable injustice that will be done to the soundtrack. Nothing short or long of a high fidelity recording of a golden sample MT-32 performing the original MIDI will be acceptable.

    • LionsPhil says:

      They’d have to find a way to do IMUSE blending with digital audio.

      • JamesTheNumberless says:

        It’s not too challenging in the adventure games because most of the places where the music is dynamic occur during set pieces and you can tie the transitions to specific events that will always happen in sequence. So I expect a fully digital soundtrack to be able to cover ever iMUSE permutation and will be disappointed if it doesn’t.

      • DrMcCoy says:

        iMUSE blending with digital audio? You mean like iMUSE Digital? Like they had in Full Throttle? :D

        I.e. yes, this already exists. It’s not an issue. :)

        • JamesTheNumberless says:

          Yeah, but, iMUSE is quite a bit less iMUSE-y in Full Throttle and The Dig. I think the only time they really butchered it though was the CD version of Tie Fighter. Fate of Atlantis is, for me, the pinnacle of MIDI iMUSE.

    • DrMcCoy says:

      Still won’t be the awesomeness of the AdLib rendition. OPL2 for life!

  6. PearlChoco says:

    I think any new player who has never played the original DOTT will prefer the HD graphics, I see no reason why not. For everyone else the original low res art will trigger some nostalgic chord I guess.

    I think they are remaking all the wrong games: the pixel art classics are just fine, why can’t they remake some early 3D abominations (like GK3) or update more FMV games with hires movies (GK2)? Tesla Effect did that very good imo.

    • Yachmenev says:

      The simple answer is probably: demand.

      These LucasArts are happening because Double Fine started looking into the possibility of getting to work with the LucasArts classics Tim Schafer was involved with, at the same time Sony was already pursuing those titles.

      So that they happen, and that they getting these kind of polish instead being just re-released, is a combination of the will of Sony and Double Fine.

      For a remake of GK3 to happen, I think the GK1 remake would have had to sell much better, and Jane Jensens latest Moebius game to have done better in both reviews and sales. I think she took a step back from games after them, and no other party is likely to be interested in that the GK series.

    • alms says:

      I think it’s more a matter of whether one likes Pixel art or not (some types display an irrational hate against it regardless), rather than having played the original version.

    • Bugamn says:

      As someone who had never played Monkey Island I preferred the original graphics, but stuck with the new ones because of the sound. The new graphics had a weird feel, a bit like plastic, and Guybrush looked weird (I had played a demo for MI3, so that might have influenced). Seeing the compared graphics here I still prefer the original graphics, it feels like the shapes were modified, as if they became smoother than the original.

  7. MeestaNob says:

    Looks exactly the way I ‘remember’ DotT looking back when it was new. Like it a lot.

    I just wish they’d gone the extra yard with the Grim Fandango restoration and made it widescreen.

  8. Turkey says:

    The backgrounds look great, but the characters look a little blobby now. They could use a few sharp angles to contrast all the curves.

    • Premium User Badge

      Thulsa Hex says:

      Yeah, I think I agree with you there. They could do with looking a little more rough around the edges… or something.

  9. Neurotic says:

    Nope, no problem at all here. Looks great, and I’ll happily add it to my collection of SCUMMers old and new.

  10. Premium User Badge

    Thulsa Hex says:

    I think they did a decent job. I mean, it’s pretty faithful. Agree with John about it looking perhaps a little too smooth. Seeing it in motion will be the real test. I’ve read some nonsense comments about filters and things but those assets have clearly been re-drawn. The old art certainly holds up and they know it.

    Re: the verb interface: Eurogamer mentions a “verb wheel” of some kind, so I’m assuming it’s still there and that’s their solution for controllers/consoles.

    • Yachmenev says:

      I would be suprised if the verb system with the UI in the bottom stays in the HD mode, considering that they’re trying to adapt the graphics to wide screen resolutions, and in the original, that UI takes almost a fourth of a screen.

  11. Danda says:

    This looks amazing. I can’t believe people are complaining about it.

  12. Risingson says:

    Yeah, it looks good. They will just screw up the interface any way.

  13. Eery Petrol says:

    Very happy with this! Nice divide in opinions here in the comments section. Is there more consensus for the claim that this at least looks better than the remake of the original Monkey Island (which I play in original mode because I find the art more enjoyable, even at the expense of losing the voice acting)?

    • Klydefrog says:

      I definitely agree it looks better than the MI remakes.

      Also if you’re willing to go to a little effort and use ScummVM you can actually play with the original graphics AND the voice acting:

      link to gratissaugen.de

  14. Premium User Badge

    Hodge says:

    As far as upgrading/enhancing goes they’ve done as good a job as you could reasonably expect (much better to my eye than the Monkey Island remakes which completely hosed the original art design), but why ‘enhance’ it in the first place?

    It’s funny, we videogame folk are so insecure about our medium that we’re constantly looking for the Citizen Kane of videogames, but a thing about Citizen Kane is that it’s never been upgraded. Go out and buy it tomorrow and it will have the same grainy black-and-white visuals, mono soundtrack and antiquated 4:3 aspect ratio that it had in 1941, to say nothing of the dated special effects in the movie itself. And that’s fine.

    In fact it’s more than fine, it’s insisted upon. Look at all the ire George Lucas gets for not making the original cuts of the Star Wars films available, or the tut-tutting that gets directed towards ‘colourized’ editions of classic titles.

    But with videogames it’s all ‘OMG LOOK AT THE PS3 ERA GRAPHICS SO DATED LOL I’M NEVER PLAYING THAT’ and it kind of makes me wince.

    (sorry for the rant, this is one of those ‘things’ for me)

    • Geebs says:

      I completely agree with you, with the possible exception of 3D games from that early era when everything dated horribly within a couple of years.

      I wonder whether some of the desire to upgrade comes from the early, shitty LCD screens which handled scaling particularly poorly. In these days of very high DPI monitors, a chunky art style scales much more acceptably.

      I think that “upgraded” versions optimised to run better on low-powered, portable hardware, taking the opportunity to port to new platforms, and tweaks to resolution and aspect ratio to better fit modern devices are often worth another purchase.

      • LionsPhil says:

        Agreed on the last paragaph, but in this (and many classic adventure cases), ScummVM has you covered, and will hopefully continue to have you covered after the Technovoxulacity of 2037 means we’re all gaming under BeOS 7 on Motorola processors.

        So what adventure games it supports need, as John pointed out, are ways for people to legally aquire the data files.

        (And, yes, early flatscreen upscaling. Ugh.)

    • HuvaaKoodia says:

      The key difference is that movies have always been about people. Sure it’s black and white with mono sound, but the depiction of people is still believable both from an aesthetic and behavioral standpoint. They were filming real people after all.

      Digital media has not had that kind of luxury. People, especially in older 3D and FMV titles, look terrible and behave very unnaturally.

      Both of these problems can be aided with modern rendering and AI technology (although when it comes to AI we haven’t come that far and it is rarely the focus of remakes anyways). Personally I don’t have a problem with HD remakes. I’m more concerned about reboots.

    • SirBryghtside says:

      Yep, this is one of those ‘things’ for me too. I’d much rather developers focused their efforts on new games rather than soulless imitations of old ones.

    • JamesTheNumberless says:

      Also, the reason why Citizen Kane is the Citizen Kane of movies is its cinematography. Not its script, or its acting, or its visuals, or its score. In short, nothing that could be accomplished in literature, or theatre, or in an art gallery, or at an opera. The Citizen Kane of games will not be the game with the best narrative, or the most photorealistic graphics, but the game that establishes gameplay as an art form… We’ve probably had it already, it’ll just take a while for the generation of art critics that ignores videogames to all die off before there will be any proper debate about which one it is, nevermind a concensus.

      • mukuste says:

        The “cinematography” essentially refers to a film’s “visuals”, as you call it, so this is an odd comment.

  15. orient says:

    “Some 2560×1440 beautiful pixel art is probably what I’d most wanted to see.”

    The original game would be 320×200…the highest you could hope to redraw the pixel art would be 640×360, which is pretty much the max resolution for most pixel art games (then they x2 or x3 the picture)…all that work, just so the game can still look “old” and pixelated at 1080p? Not worth it at all. Offering the original graphics and this, an extremely faithful redrawn version, is the way to go. Solid decision, Double Fine.

    • Risingson says:

      This, again, is not pixel art. These were drawings, scanned, scaled and retouched.

      • Michael Anson says:

        Your comment betrays a startling lack of awareness as to current computer art techniques. If these graphics are hand drawn, as opposed to being vector-based, then they were most likely drawn directly into a computer using a tablet, not drawn on paper and then scanned in.

        • Risingson says:

          Crap! Maybe you are right.

          The thing is that I have always considered “pixel art” things like the Pixel Painters games, or that amiga drawing program.

          If I can get over this hangover I will try to look for info about how dott was done.

        • Geebs says:

          Nope. Most of the background art for the original Lucasarts games was painted and then scanned. I guess it would be infeasible to dig up the old pictures and scan them at higher resolution.

          • Ben says:

            The scanning technique was introduced for MI2 but I’m not sure it was ever re-used. I’m pretty sure the original DOTT art was not from scans. (And yeah, it’s very unlikely the remastered stuff is from scans.)

          • Ben says:

            That’s concept art. They didn’t scan that in and use it as final art.

          • Ben says:

            Well, I need to eat my words, because I asked on the DF forums and Tucker at DF said: “we talked with Peter Chan for a bit while doing this project and got some background on how he arrived at the look for the original. The backgrounds were done traditionally before being scanned and cleaned up for the game (not unlike MI2).”

    • orient says:

      That’s just one part of the game art, though. Everything else – the character animation, items, UI etc. is pixel art. But you make a point about the backgrounds, which makes John asking for some form of high-res pixel art even more bizarre. I guess it’s hard to know these things until you work on an adventure game yourself.

  16. JFS says:

    The original pixels are sharp and edgy, so to say. In consequence, everything looks a little jagged, which contributes to overall style. Now, everything is round. Doesn’t fit the 90s cartoon backdrop look well.

    • Juppstein says:

      The jaggies only come from the fact that we have bigger monitors nowadays. People tend to forget that back in the day our Amigas were usually connected to sub-15″ monitors. And on those there were not as many jagged lines as people tend to think.

      • JamesTheNumberless says:

        Exactly! This is what people who are into modern “pixel art” so often fail to get. Old games were quite often played on monitors that were anything but sharp, and most people played Amiga and Atari ST games on their television sets, on which pixels weren’t even square and it was often a challenge to read text because of the inherent blurriness of everything. This same blurriness also had the pleasant side-effect of making pixel graphics look less blocky than it was. A crude approximation of a curved line in 320×200 pixel art on your 14” colour TV looked much more like a smooth curve than it does on a modern monitor. Same goes for old arcade machines too. This is the great fallacy people commit when they think of sharp jagged pixel-art as being a retro style, nobody ever used pixel-by-pixel drawing techniques with the aim of making something look pixellated.

        • gwathdring says:

          I know you want to be a purist that the kids these days don’t understand, but you can see blockiness and pixelation in games that don’t even use “pixel art” and you can see it even on smaller, older, blurrier screens.

          In any case, that some of the kids these days like the blockiness for one reason or another isn’t some great misunderstanding. It’s a friggin’ aesthetic preference. Get over yourself.

          • JamesTheNumberless says:

            Oh I’m so far over myself I can barely see me down there. You’re right it’s an aesthetic, it’s a nice one too – much nicer than looking at a blurry CRT TV. However the point is that it isn’t being true to the original game to try to preserve the pixellation. DOTT’s original art direction is to be like a cartoon, not to be pixellated. So a remake which loses any kind of visible pixellation isn’t being unfaithful to the original.

        • Ben says:

          DOTT wasn’t released on Amiga.

  17. PancakeWizard says:

    Honestly, I think they’ve done it perfectly. It was always a cartoon, and now it’s still a cartoon without obviously being made of pixels. Hopefully the voice acting has been redone, as I seem to remember it got drowned out by the music half the time. Laverne was super quiet.

    • PancakeWizard says:

      To clarify, they’ve kept the existing art essentially, which is much more preferred than suddenly making them 3D or something.

    • Ben says:

      They have the uncompressed original audio recordings for the VO, which is great. The default volume settings on Lucasarts adventures always drowned out the VO for some reason – my first action before replaying any of them is to go into the settings menu and knock the music volume down a bit!

  18. LetSam says:

    The updated graphics look exactly what the old graphics have turned into in my mind. It’s been nearly 20 years since I last played DOTT, so to me this is mission accomplished.

    Let’s hope they’ll add an option to switch between the old and new graphics, that should placate just about anyone.

    • Risingson says:

      I just hope that switching to the original does not mean “listening to the fm synthesis music” as they did in the Monkey Island remakes.

      • tomimt says:

        They’ve stated at DF forums, that they’re aiming to give a good deal of freedom for people to decide how they want to experience the game: you can freely choose between the art (pixels or HR), the music (original or remastered) and UI to get the feel you want. Only remastered part they’re forcing for everyone is the remastred dialogue.

  19. xuenay says:

    It’s too flat, too smooth…

    Nonsense. It makes it look great. Sharper, more aggressive, like it could take on the world.

  20. somnolentsurfer says:

    Absolutely. This looks like how I remember DOTT looking anyway. It never had a pixel art style. It had a cartoon art style. The pixels mostly disappeared on a CRT screen anyway. I can kind of see what people are saying about it looking a bit overly polished, but it’s certainly not unfaithful

    The Monkey Island remakes on the other hand, where unfaithful. They were redrawn in a totally different art style. Guybrush and Elaine looked like different people. There were occasions when the dialog in game described the world, and what was said didn’t match the new art. What I would have loved would be for them to have gone back to the original Steve Purcell paintings and rescan them, but presumably they don’t have them any more.

    • JamesTheNumberless says:

      Although I liked the MI remakes I get where you’re coming from. It was was of the things I disliked most about MI 3 (which I think they used as inspiration for the special edition art direction) that the series switched from doing the most realistic (yet with fantastical elements) graphics the technology would allow, to a deliberately cartoony style. A true sequel to MI II would have had an art direction similar to Full Throttle.

  21. tehfish says:

    That looks pretty damn decent i must say. As much as you can tell from screenshots anyhow.

    Seems far superior than the HD monkey island release (i did enjoy it a great deal though, bar the horrible redesign of Threepwood) They seem to have not messed with the character designs here, so i approve :)

  22. Freud says:

    Great puzzles, wickedly funny and so so clever. A graphical upgrade might be nice, but as long as the heart of the game maintains intact it’s a 10/10.

  23. Scrape Wander says:

    I adore the old pixelness of it all, yet I don’t think DOTT ever intended to wear its charming pixelness on its sleeve. It was clearly a game that would’ve been smoothly, flashly animated if the tech was kicking around at the time.

    Luckily, I literally see NO NEED whatsoever for an update, so I don’t care what they do to it.

  24. kalzekdor says:

    The screenshots look pretty good to me. I’m more worried about the animation, particularly dynamic lighting. It’s far too easy to get that wrong, and the whole thing will just be “off”.

    I really hope they know enough not to mess with the verb interface. They might be able to rig it so that the puzzles are still solvable with a simplified verb interface, but you’ll miss all the little jokes from trying to use weird verbs in places.

  25. Scrofa says:

    This is, actually, absolutely perfect! I hated the new graphics of Monkey Island remake, they were not faithful to the original and just spoiled the original design for me. Guybrush doesn’t look like that. Here it does look a bit like a pixel filter, but no, it clearly is not. It’s a perfect pixel translation to hi-res cartoony sprites.

  26. Venomlemon says:

    I was super excited when they announced this, after all it was DoTT that inspired me to make Bunker – The Underground Game.

    I for one like the look a lot. Quite often they go around changing the art style alongside the HD-remake and I think something is lost in the translation. Something I am genuinely worried about however is the animation. You should really see the remake in movement to see if quality of animation is sufficient.

  27. skilljam says:

    i was always curious…. is that metal fatty Dino Cazares from Fear Factory? :D http://www.metalinsider.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Dino-cazares-300×212.jpg

  28. Premium User Badge

    syllopsium says:

    It’s looking good, but I want to see the animation. If you do an A/B comparison with MI2/MI2:SE, then in general the special edition is better, but there’s some fine detail lost in some of the models (they missed off LeChuck’s glowing eyes and some spittle in some animations), and other animation is noticeably layered – check out the flying bats in the graveyard and it looks like they’re on a different plane, whilst in the original that isn’t so.

    Still, I’m all for this. I’ve taken the effort to get a retro gaming box with an MT32 and the original DOTT, but that’s way too much hassle for most people. Not to mention it isn’t commercially available.

    Next up, Indy, please. Fate of Atlantis was the best Lucasarts adventure, and another Indy game would be amazing.

  29. namad says:

    It’s intellectually lazy to say that this remake doesn’t cause the old game to stop existing, especially when the old version isn’t for sale anywhere. Why do you think that is? because they want to sell the new version. If the new version gets made the original might never be for sale ever again for all time, if the new version wasn’t made, they’d be greedy enough to let new copies of the original get out there.

  30. NatalieShark says:

    Oh my glob. I am really excited for this. I absolutely loved this game as a kid. I recently replayed it and it was just as good as I remember. For me though, while I was playing, I kept thinking how nice it would be to update the graphics, so I am all about a remaster. Super interested! In fact, this game would make an awesome app for the iPhone!