Talk:Tales of Monkey Island

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleTales of Monkey Island is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 9, 2010Good article nomineeListed
October 4, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
February 8, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 15, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although Telltale Games was formed after LucasArts abandoned adventure game development in 2004, the two companies are now collaborating to create a new series of adventure games?
Current status: Featured article

Avoid separate episode articles[edit]

Old discussion collapsed for navigation purposes

I strongly recommend we follow the Sam & Max Save the World approach and avoid creating separate articles for each episode. The only two things that will change are plot and reception, and they will no development section. Now, it may be unlike the S&M episodes that each of these gets a lot of coverage as the first one did, but given what has happened with each of the other TTG episodic series (the first gets a lot of attention, the rest dribble out, noted but not heralded by trumpets), its unlikely there will be as much in the future. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Perhaps then, by your own logic, it would be best to wait until Chapter Two before making a decision? Sam & Max: Beyond Time & Space has individual episode guides and looks & reads just fine - Goldenboy (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see waiting to decide what to do when 2 comes out, but there's two other reasons I'd put forward. First, you can't buy these episodes individually (yet), implying that while episodic, TTG is treating it as one completely game. This is compounded by the fact that TTG has stated that there is a 5ep-long story in this game, as opposed to episodes with minimal connections between each other as with their previous games. This implies that the 5 eps should be taken as a whole. I will point out that the S&M Beyond Time & Space article is nowhere near as complete as the first series, which has been processed through quality control, so it's probably not good to use that one as an example. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's one game released episodically. It's the same logic for TV seasons. Not all episodes of a season get their own article unless they are notable. The fact remains that there really isn't enough notability according to Wiki standards for each episode to get their own article. I would also like to remind people that as per wiki standards, reviews are valid sources to cite but are not valid on their own in establishing notability. Plus, using Sam & Max: Beyond Time & Space as your counter-argument is wrong. Same and Max Season One used to be separate articles but were recently merged as per discussion on their talk pages. Want to know why, because every episode article (and this is the same for season two) was nothing more than an extensive plot summary (Wiki is not the place for detailed plot summaries, try a fan sight), and lists of meaningless trivia (again against Wiki standards). There is absolutely no reason for the episodes to have separate articles and I say we decide this now rather than later and have to deal with merging 5 articles instead of just putting all the info in the "Tales" article like we were supposed to do in the first place. If one episode at a later point proves notable in it's own right (say due to a controversy or something) then, and only then, do we create a separate article for it.24.190.34.219 (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree By those arguments, it's actually better to have separate articles. As usual, we have to decide based on reliable sources, not how we think Telltale is treating those episodes and reliable sources (i.e. video game sites) treat them (so far) as separate games. We can decide whether merging is appropriate after all episodes have been bundled and sold together, but at the moment, they are released separately. The current argument put forth for a merge relies on predictions what will happen, which is not a sound reason for any decision. As for the S&M example, please remember that this was only changed after the whole thing was bundled and renamed, not before. I see no rush to do it differently here, at the moment it's quite good to have separate articles because reception to it will be different with each episode but there won't be any RS review for the whole game until they get bundled. Regards SoWhy 13:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I repeat reviews do not establish notability. They are valid sources to cite, but do not establish notability on their own (they only contribute to it). Launch of the Screaming Narwhal has no sources but reviews and 1st party sources, therefore notability has not been established for it. Oh and here's a quote from Wikipedia:FICT:"It is not normally advisable to set out from the start with the intention of creating derivative articles for every fictional character, episode, scene or chapter derived from it." I.E. You start with the base article, not from the mindset to create articles for each episode 24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews (at least, multiple reviews from reliable sources) do assert notability; they are secondary sources required per WP:N. That's not to say that every notable topic needs an article - this is a case where a single article will be better than individual ones. --MASEM (t) 01:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This merge is not because the episodes individually aren't notable, as for all the other TTG games, I'm pretty sure I can justify a reception section for each one. The point is that while the first S&M series was made into a single article after all was said and done, based on the reception the other 3 TTG series (S&M 2, Homestar Runner, and W&G), it is a good example to use for how these series are recieved by the critics - the first episode getting a lot, and maybe the series as a whole getting a lot, but not much in the middle parts. Grants, this is MI, more eyes are on it, and thus ep 2 could get as much attention as #1 and break TTG's previous patterns, in which we can reconsider, but going by history, we shouldn't expect that. I suggest that we keep this merge idea open until we see what type of press ep #2 gives, and work from there. It may be that we need to wait to see how the whole series comes out to consider a merge (if it is easier to present the plot that way, then a merge makes sense). --MASEM (t) 14:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I repeat reviews do not establish notability. They are valid sources to cite, but do not establish notability on their own (they only contribute to it). Launch of the Screaming Narwhal has no sources but reviews and 1st party sources, therefore notability has not been established for it. Oh and here's a quote from Wikipedia:FICT:"It is not normally advisable to set out from the start with the intention of creating derivative articles for every fictional character, episode, scene or chapter derived from it." I.E. You start with the base article, not from the mindset to create articles for each episode. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point, isn't it? We just cannot go from history because it's not the same, so we should decide whether to merge after all episodes have been released, not before. Regards SoWhy 15:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Past precedent is important, as this is the same developer using the same development strategy on this game as with the four previous games. We shouldn't expect much to change and we should work to that; moreso with this one than the past four TTG games, this is literally one game split into five, not five episodes that share a common thread. This shows us exactly what Masem has said: the first gets quite a bit of attention, but the coverage of the others, beyond cursory reviews, is minimal. Development information will be sparse: individual episodes are unlikely to be able to support any significant development info beyond their release dates, and substantial development information is a key component to any spin-off article. Reception info will be interlinked, often relying on preceding reviews by reviewers, and will likely follow similar trends for points of critical praise and criticism: these trends are liable to be enhanced by the fact that these episodes are meant to be directly linked one after the other; as said above, as parts of a whole game, not standalone components. It will be far better to keep all the episodes in one article, building that one into a single comprehensive page covering the season as a whole and all individual episodes, as opposed to splitting it out and ending with six articles, five of which will be fronts for little plot summaries with compulsory reviews that won't offer useful differences or commentary on how they fit into the season as a whole. If this situation changes, then perhaps episodes can be spun off, but until that point, we should err on the side of caution and keep everything tidily together. -- Sabre (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Currently the Launch of the Screaming Narwhal article simply repeats information from the main article. I highly suspect that will be the case for future episodes as well. LaukkuTheGreit (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that rather a reason to remove the article from the main article? SoWhy 20:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly, its still necessary here for a comprehensive article. -- Sabre (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we have many lists of episodes for other things which have comprehensive summaries but still articles for separate episodes with longer summaries and content relevant to the episode only. Regards SoWhy 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree TV episodes get their own articles, why should game episodes be any different? Smurfy 22:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TV show episodes are NOT supposed to get their own articles unless the episode itself is notable. Most Wiki articles on individual TV episodes shouldn't even be there under Wiki guidelines, so you can't use that as an example. Read Wikipedia:Episode.24.190.34.219 (talk)
Disagree, Don't Merge Like all major television series/episodic video games, these articles should be separate as it is a major story in the series. --Victory93 (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TV show episodes are NOT supposed to get their own articles unless the episode itself is notable. Most Wiki articles on individual TV episodes shouldn't even be there under Wiki guidelines, so you can't use that as an example. Read Wikipedia:Episode.24.190.34.219 (talk)
Comment unlike Sam & Max, each episode doesn't stick to the same place and leaves things behind rather than revist the same things in each episode eg the hub world. --Victory93 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats only reason if each episode can produce proper development information for these new areas that isn't relevant to other episodes; so far the only development information refers to the season as a whole. TV episodes are meant to only get their own episodes when they can fully justify their existence with completely unique for both development and reception (see Meet Kevin Johnson, These Are the Voyages..., You Only Move Twice, and for a proper episodic game example, Half-Life 2: Episode One), story reasons don't cut it. Tales is just like all other Monkey Island games in that respect: it is split into neat little chapters of an ongoing narrative, only they've been released one at a time. -- Sabre (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We don't know what each episode is going to be like as an individual story yet. Smurfy 17:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the merge tag for now. There's no consensus to merge the article, but likewise no consensus to keep it either. I suggest we leave it as-is for the moment, but be wary of creating new episode articles later. We will need to re-evaluate this when all chapters are released and we know what direction this article is going in. -- Sabre (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As with TV episodes, I still think should follow Wikipedia:Episode. In which case, it makes no difference if the story is split-up or continuous. All that matters is that the episodes receive notable coverage from outside sources that does not just include reviews. The seasons of TV shows often have one continuous arc, and stand alone episodes. It still doesn't mean we make an article for each and every episode. After all is said and done, maybe an episode or two will warrant its own article, maybe they all will, maybe none will. I agree with S@bre when he/she said ""I suggest we leave it as-is for the moment, but be wary of creating new episode articles later. We will need to re-evaluate this when all chapters are released"" 24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whilst we argue, how about we at least now create an article about The Siege of Spinner Cay? --Victory93 (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment I've been comparing between an episode of Sam & Max and an episode of Tales and there are differences. An episode of Tales has longer gameplay than episode of Sam & Max. A Tales episode has different music tracks than Sam & Max. An episode of Sam & Max has at least 4 to 5 different tracks whilst an episode of Tales at least 6 to 9. Each episode of Tales is written by different writers. In Tales, nearly every character you meet has a deep in-depth backstory which the character tells that including the subject of the episode whilst in Sam & Max, the character just usualay talks about what's the subject of the episode. Also each episode of Tales has been accompined by a what if cartoon. So these are just some reasons to why Tales should have individual articles about each episode. --Victory93 (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very nice piece of original research. -- Sabre (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has gone too long. Now if we made all into one article than seperate articles, the page would be too long. Seperate articles about each episode is sufficient. Now can we end this didcussion and create articles for the rest of the episodes. This argument is going back to before the first episode was even released so now that you can see the episodes now are bigger than what expected before so be safe to say, have seperate articles for each. Plus if you episode 1, dealt with more one entire island exploration. Episode 2, an entire region of islands to sale through. Episode 3, trapped inside a giant creature and exploring underwater. And also, those who disagree, have you even played any of the episodes? --Victory93 (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion finished over two months ago, with no consensus to either create or remove the episode articles at present; thus the idea that the situation be re-evaluated when all episodes are released and we have a full picture of things in regards to sources. That's where everyone else left it at the beginning of August, the only person still arguing is you. -- Sabre (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry didn't know. I guess then it's okay to remove the merge sign.--Victory93 (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game plan for after full release[edit]

Just something of an additional, since we're nearing the end of the game's run now: rather than reigniting this discussion again the instance episode 5 is released, its probably a good idea to hold fire on that for a while, in order to work the article into form: clean up and source the synopsis, expand the reception section to cover the whole season, add any additional development information that's cropped up and generally push for GA status. I've disconnected myself from the article during the game's run, since it's easier than having to clear up all the over-the-top fan stuff every few weeks, but once the last episode is out, I'm throwing myself back into working on the article. Once this article is in a decent and comprehensive shape, we'll be able to tell better whether or not individual episodes are warranted. -- Sabre (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why no seperate episode articles?[edit]

My recent creation of the articles for episode 2-4 has been deleted with the rationale that a consensus had been reached to wait until the series is complete. I can see no such consensus, only 4 people who are for merging, 4 people who are against it with no decision reached. Waiting for the whole series to complete has been mentioned, but was not voted on. As always, since having more articles on Wikipedia does not hurt anyone, I would suggest creating the articles. People who are for merging can work on the main article and ignore the rest, there is no harm in having additional information. Reasons for having separate articles:

  • Most gaming sites featured a long article on each episode, scored each episode separately and ratings differ significantly between episodes. This establishes notability of each individual episode.
  • If you believe, a review of a game does not establish notability, please consider the following: If a game does not cause a scandal or contains a significant technical innovation, it is only ever mentioned in game reviews. Therefore Escape from Monkey Island would not be notable, because the article contains no external mention of the game except for reviews.
  • The synopsis of the main article is even now quite long. The Launch of the Screaming Narwhal article shows that an even longer description of the plot might be desired.
  • The series changes locations and the different episodes have a different theme.
  • The cast and writers of the episodes differ.
  • For many TV series there are articles on each episode. For some there are over one hundred articles all relating to the same show. These articles mostly feature only plot descriptions along with a picture and cast list.
  • Finally information can only accumulate if the corresponding articles exist. People who might be able to add additional information relating to specific episodes will only do so if the article in question already exists.

Should no decision be reached now, please remember for the future that started versions for each article can be found in the history. --Vnci (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't work on voting, or original research. The primary concern voiced is not reception, its development information, or a lack there of for individual episodes—a core requirement for any quality video game article. There is simply no consensus at the moment to either create or merge episode articles at present; re-igniting that discussion now with straight copy-pastes of large amounts of plot from another site (GDFL irrelevant) doesn't help the situation at all. Wait until firstly, all episodes have been released, and secondly, for this article to get back on its feet again post-release, so we'll have an idea how this article is taking form and a full perspective of the sourcing situation for both development and reception. -- Sabre (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well article for Launch of the Screaming Narwhal is still up. Just follow the style and information quality as that for the rest of the episodes. --Victory93 (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The situation[edit]

Alright, I've been bold and redirected the painfully and incurably underdeveloped LotSN article to here: given that all four sources and by extension all relevant real-world information from that page are already in this article, no further merging is required. I'm going to take a few minutes to explain this rationale, based on the situation regarding to sourcing, redundancy and presentation of information. This move is liable to be unpopular with the Monkey Island fans who don't fully understand how Wikipedia is meant to deal with articles on fictional works, which is why I am doing this summary.

  • First up, it is simply the case that there is no coverage out there to create a proper development section for the individual episodes. The development of a work is an major and essential part of any article regarding fiction, and its absence is highly damaging to any attempt to write any meaningful article: the fact that no attempt has been made at all to add any such information in the last few months is very representative of the situation in this regard. I've scoured the web and print sources pretty thoroughly for development information in general for my work with this article, but there simply isn't anything useful for individual episodes: all development information, as is the case with all of Telltale's other games, is entirely centered around development at a season level. The closest I came across was a set of interviews with Armato, but these merely show Armato's own opinions of the episodes, rather than any insight into the development process. With all development information focused on the season as a whole, there's no choice but to consolidate it here.
    • Now, a minority of people have been saying previously that the fact that each episode has a different writer, different themes, etc is enough development information. That is not the case. Most of this information, without any further elaboration, is worthless at the individual episode level, and can (and where sourceable is already) accomodated here. Its all very well to say that "each episode has a different theme", but without any properly sourced elaboration on that, there's nothing more that can be said than literally "each episode has a different theme" in this article.
  • The second major point of real-world information to deal with is a work's reception. Now, the initial glance at the situation seems favourable towards individual episodes: each episode is reviewed individually by the media. There have been some in past discussions that argue that reviews do not establish notability according to our guidelines. I disagree with this, reviews do establish notability, but the issue here is not notability. It is the presentation of information. The point in hand here is how reviews deal with both individual episodes and the season as a whole, and they don't deal with the season. GameRankings lists only one review for the entire of TMI, and though there are a couple from other reliable sources, there simply is not enough to create a fully indepth discussion of the season as a whole as you can see in Sam & Max Save the World. Therefore, the only alternative is to build up the reception section in this article around summarising the reviews of each episode. This creates a major redundancy with spinning out pages for each episode, as all an individual episode article can do is repeat the exact same information already present in this article. Heck, the reception sections between the LotSN and this article were copy-and-pasted with the same three sources until I rewrote and expanded the depth of the reception of chapter 1 earlier today. There's simply no point to having an article which is only capable of regurgitating the exact same information that's already present in the article in the tier above it. Note that the reception section in this article is not complete at present, since I still have to write up the remaining four episodes plus a few other bits, but it easily provides stronger coverage than the copy-and-paste section in the LotSN article that just gave three reviews.
  • Plot has been cited as a reason by some for spinning out to individual episode articles. This is simply not a valid reason for such an action on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for plot repetition, as the focus is meant to be on the real-world aspects of a work. A concise (that bit is key) plot summary is included in articles as it is deemed necessary for a comprehensive article and setting out the basic context for readers to understand when we refer to the plot in development or reception. Yes, there are plenty of other articles out there that only consist of plot, but it is important to remember that Wikipedia isn't fully constructed yet and as such, most of the articles on this site are flawed and for some reason or another do not meet our quality standards at present. We should be wary of knowningly creating more flawed articles on the basis of already existing articles in dire need of cleanup. Anyone coming here looking for a more indepth plot summary is simply in the wrong place: those fans amongst you who want a full blow by blow account of the plot of each episode are better advised to participate with the Monkey Island Wikia instead of here, since there is better suited for those sorts of contributions—a link to that site can be provided in the external links to direct readers who want that sort of content to the correct venue. In addition, the fact that each episode is part of an ongoing story just chopped into five bits rather than five self-contained episodes makes writing individual episode articles in regard to plot very disjointed.
  • As I've covered all other major sections of a video game article, I might as well cover the gameplay as well. Since there's no meaningful change in gameplay between any of the episodes, each episode would be repeating its sister articles and this one in regards to gameplay and thus would be completely redundant. Thankfully short, that one.

So there you have it. I've tried to make that as clear and readable as I can. I would ask that such articles are not restored unless the major issues I've presented here can be resolved and a decent article can actually emerge from it (which, certainly if other TTG games are anything to go by, is simply not possible). The basic jist of that is simply that the sourcing situation simply does not lend itself to the creation of any meaningful episode articles, as key information needed for quality article construction is non-existent even after six months, and any other real-world information is simply redundant to what is already in this article. Plot simply isn't an acceptable reason for spinning out, though Wikipedia can provide a link to the Monkey Island Wikia for those fans who want to read all the indepth plot details of each episode. -- Sabre (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subdividing synopsis[edit]

This morning I subdivided the synopsis into different chapters, and got reverted because the narrative is continuous

I did not split up the synopsis because the game comes in different episodes (note that I used the word "chapter" and not "episode" on purpose), but because the synopsis is already about 40 lines long. Imagine after release of episode 5, is it going to be 100 lines long (one and a half screen for me) ? No one would want to read it 90.39.199.125 (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis needs shortening in its current form into a more concise version, the reason I removed it is because subdividing it like that can encourage people to lengthen it further. Ideally, the final plot section, covering all five episodes after episode 5 is released should be around 500 words with three or four paragraphs, as is recommended in our manual of style for this sort of stuff. -- Sabre (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, agreed 90.39.199.125 (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing: European WiiWare release dates[edit]

I've just shoved up some references for the release dates in the table, for the Windows and American WiiWare dates. However, I'm having trouble finding references for the European WiiWare release dates. Telltale Games' own news doesn't cover the European releases of chapters one and four, and I can't find backup ones elsewhere. If anyone else can provide decent references for these dates, that would be much appreciated. -- Sabre (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of references to Escape From Monkey Island?[edit]

I've finished playing this game, and I couldn't help but notice how this game went out of its way to avoid referencing Escape From Monkey Island. For example, in "The Trial and Execution of Guybrush Threepwood," when Elaine goes to the stand as a witness, she explicitly mentions what happened to her in the first three games - but makes no mention whatsoever of what happened in Escape. In fact, she cuts directly to talking about comparatively trivial matters. There are no references to Herman Toothrot, Elaine's continuity-confused grandfather, Ozzie Mandril, etc. Just about all of the series-related recurring jokes relate to the first three games. The only possible references I heard to Escape was in the last chapter when Guybrush mentions that LeChuck took the form of a giant statue, and one of the earlier chapters where Guybrush said that something look like clothing for a dingo. Did anyone else notice this? Personally, I think this is no accident because of the negative fan reaction to Escape's plot holes. I feel that this observation deserves at least a little more research, if not a brief mention. --WizardOfTheCDrive (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got reliable sources (ie not fansites, but the video game media or published information from designers like Grossman or Stemmle) that comment on it, then perhaps there may be a place for it in the reception or development sections; however, if not, such information has no place in the article. In any case, the argument sort of falls flat on its face immediately given that the Ultimate Insult is referenced within the first puzzle of the first chapter. -- Sabre (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No actually the last episode references Escape. Guybrush mentions that he fought a giant statue of LeChuck and an aussie land developer. --Victory93 (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wait, cancellation, disappointment[edit]

Several years ago, I read that when LucasArts was approached with the question "Will there be a Monkey Island 5?", they laughed and remained silent on the issue. Fans of Monkey Island were hugely disappointed with this, especially since there had been rumor around 2004 or 2005 that the idea had been abandoned entirely. I figured this information is relevant to the article, so I did a bit of research and came up with a bit. I also managed to revive some paragraphs from an old version of the Monkey Island article that seemed pertinent.

I would appreciate if anyone could verify the "rumor" that the game was in fact scheduled for a July 2005 release and then cancelled. If you can verify this, please replace the IGN Boards reference with a more reliable one, possibly a press release or something. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort, but as I said in the talk page message a few minutes ago, that information isn't actually relevant to this project, because the alleged 2004 project was not Tales of Monkey Island but an entirely separate effort that had nothing to do with any of this project's development. As its a separate project, the best place for this information would be the series article, rather than here; feel free to add it over there. -- Sabre (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I've read suggests that Telltale Games actually broke off from LucasArts in the hopes of bringing back the adventure games, so this actually in a sense was the same project (best I can tell), revised and delayed as it may have been. However, without valid sources, I can't say too much here. By the way, thank you for not templating, I'm impressed...it's rare to see an editor revert and take the time to explain their rationale. :) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Telltale certainly did split off from LucasArts to continue adventure game development, but that was over Sam & Max: Freelance Police, which was before this MI5 project. Actually, Freelance Police provides a suitable point of comparison; after Telltale left LucasArts, they resurrected the Sam & Max franchise with a Sam & Max sequel. But this sequel was not Sam & Max: Freelance Police, TTG did all the work from scratch to create Sam & Max Save the World. The same thing has happened here, TTG has resurrected a franchise, a franchise that's last effort resulted in a sequel that was never released, but they did the work from scratch and in a different direction from that previous, unsuccessful project.
The sources we've got for TMI show that TTG created everything for this project in late 2008 and onwards, LucasArts only involvement was to give the rubber stamp for content, rather than giving them whatever was left of the old project and telling them to complete it. But yeah, if we've got information on this earlier MI5 project that's citable, series article is definitely the place for it; for comparison, that's how we dealt with the similiar situation for Plunge Through Space and the SCUMM sequel to Hit the Road in the Sam & Max article. -- Sabre (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"After the series ended"?[edit]

Your article on Tales of Monkey Island stated that "Ports for Mac OS X and the PlayStation Network were released several months after the series ended." But I have heard talk in the Telltale Games forums that Tales may have a second season in about a year or so. Is Tales only the first season in the series? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're slightly misreading the sentence there. By "the series ended", we mean the run of five episodes that make up Tales of Monkey Island ended, not that the Monkey Island franchise ended. There may well be another sequel/season in due course (but neither LEC or TTG has announced no such thing), but there aren't going to be any more episodes added to this run. -- Sabre (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tales of Monkey Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tales of Monkey Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tales of Monkey Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Tales of Monkey Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

207.229.139.154 (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.sfsite.com/10a/mi329.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tales_of_Monkey_Island&oldid=1210123175"