recent updates

help


User login

The Curse of Monkey Island

By mattbarton.exe – Tue, 2005 – 09 – 20 16:37
View more information about this reference.

Ackley, Jonathan, Larry Ahern. The Curse of Monkey Island. [PC (CD-ROM)] Dev. Lucas Arts. San Francisco, CA: Lucas Arts, 1997.

Curse of Monkey Island Cover
At what point does a cartoon become a videogame? I'd said in my review of Monkey Island 2 that I often felt I was directing a cartoon rather than playing a game. I got that same feeling on a much larger scale while playing the third game in the series, Curse of Monkey Island. Indeed, I doubt that someone would realize just by glancing at screenshots that this was a videogame rather than a traditional animated feature. The interface is minimalist and seldom obtrudes onto the screen. Likewise, the puzzles here are weaved carefully into the action and do not involve zooms or "cuts" to another game screen. I dare say that just watching someone navigate through this game would represent decent entertainment, though of course playing is much more so.

Like all LucasArts games, this one is highly self-reflexive. There are countless references to itself as a videogame, other Lucas Arts titles, and pop culture allusions. The player is constantly deliberately reminded that he is playing a videogame, often to humorous effect. For instance, in one scene the player can have the avatar stick his head out of a crack in the ceiling of a tomb. The screen then shifts to a scene from what looks like the original Monkey Island, complete with the lower-resolution graphics.

Another example is from the non-diegetic game options screen. At the bottom is an option to "enable 3-D acceleration." However, clicking it generates a message that there is no 3-D acceleration. Repeated clicks generate "No, really, there is no 3-D" and so on. The dialogue is also full of self-reflexivity. One character tells the avatar that at least his fiction "doesn't require thousands of dollars worth of hardware."

To make matters even more interersting for a new media scholar, the last chapter of the game is set in a theme park. Many new media scholars enjoy theorizing about theme parks. Marie-Laure Ryan uses the theme park to describe a type of interactive setup she calls the "action space," in which "the user is free to take any road, but when she reaches a site, the system takes control of her fate and sends her into a self-contained adventure" (255).

How interesting is this for a new media scholar: In the last chapter, the avatar must travel aboard a roller coaster from set to set with animatronic robots arranged in scenes from the previous Monkey Island games. The ride looks suspiciously like the Disney ride Pirates of the Carribean. The avatar even confronts an animatronic representation of himself. Coming to grips with these deeply layered remediations is enough to warp one's brainpan.

Anyway, I was reading Laure-Ryan's Narrative as Virtual Reality book while playing through Curse, which turned out to be a very enriching juxtaposition. Ryan has a lot to say about the type of reflexivity that's so prominent in the LucasArts games. One particularly interesting passsage is this one:

Ryan wrote:

284. Literary texts can thus be either self-reflexive or immersive, or they can alternate between these two stances through a game of in and out […], but they cannot offer both experiences at the same time because language behaves like holographic pictures: you cannot see the signs and the world at the same time.

This is an intereting argument, particularly in light of the high degree of self-reflexivity in cartoons and the remediated cartoon (which is how I describe games like Curse of Monkey Island). However, I'm not sure I agree with Ryan. Indeed, I think the self-reflexivity of these games makes them more immersive. By frankly acknowledging and poking fun at their medium, these games help us develop new conceptual strategies for making the transition between the immersion of the traditional toon to the remediated one. Here, even the non-diegetic menu options screen becomes just one more gag (whereas in other games it would represent a clear break).

To put it simply, when you're working with a medium that asks as much from the audience as a graphical adventure game, ackowledging the medium is an essential strategy of raising its immersive potential. It's a difficult point I'm trying to make here, but I'm simply offering a counter-claim to Ryan's. Again, here is her perspective:

Ryan wrote:

"By overtly recognizing the constructed, imaginary nature of the textual world, metafiction blocks recentering and reclaims our native reality as ontological center."

What I'm offering instead is that these moments of self-reflexivity do not remind us of the "real world" and thus block immersion. Instead, such moments increase immersion by encouraging a more playful attitude towards the game's ergodicity. In other words, we're able to immerse ourselves more fully because we can pretend that the interface and machinery producing the medium is itself part of the world we're trying to enter.

It's quite possible that the reason why the Lucas Arts games manage to retain their play-value after years of technological innovations is their skillful use of self-reflexivity to assist immersion.

Works Cited:

Really interesting review... I...

Submitted by Mat_Tschirgi – Wed, 2005 – 09 – 21 12:09

Really interesting review... It's interesing to note that our reviews are shifting from humorous to more academic the more we write them. I have a lot more to play through and more writing on the book to do and am working on it, just it's tricky when working closing shifts all week and coming home at midnight. :)

Self-reflexity also has its downsides though... If one jumped into these games as their first GAG, would all the self reflexity be a turn off? The tone could be percieved as too snarky or "in the know." A writer can make a reference to another form of media to be intelligent or they can do it in a "oh, aren't I smart" kind of way that seems pseudo-prentetious.

Keep up the good work!

That's a very good question, ...

Submitted by mattbarton.exe – Wed, 2005 – 09 – 21 12:32

That's a very good question, Mat. To be honest, I'm not sure whether an utter "newb" would appreciate or reject the self-reflexivity. I guess we could point to the sales and abundance of thumb-up reviews for these games to argue that, yes, they do like it.

I suppose we could contrast a LucasArts titles with a more "serious" and less self-reflexive title like Myst, Syberia, or The Longest Journey (though the latter games have plenty of humor). What I think is so appealing about the self-reflexivity of the LucasArts games is the "metagame" there about learning the interface and monkeying about (pun intended) with the modes of storytelling. Instead of treating the interface as something that needs to become invisible, the LucasArts games constantly draw the player's attention to it as a source of irony and amusement.

Self-reflexivity is a good poi...

Submitted by Laurie – Tue, 2005 – 09 – 27 13:13

Self-reflexivity is a good point to make in contextualizing games within other new media artifacts like software. GNU's famous acronym for GNUS Not Unix, which recursively refers to itself is a nice example of self-reflexivity gone mad for a useful and memorable result.