Famous Adventure Game Errors

[HillBilly]

Spoiler

Me + Boredom + Internet = teh end of teh world as we know it

[close]

Alright, I've been playing a few old lucasarts classics, and I've discovered a few errors. Roll Tape!


In Day of the Tentacle, when you try to explain to Edna that she must have confused you with someone else...

... Bernard turns into Saddam Hussein.


Monkey Island is fun, but if you walk towards the storekeeper...

... Guybrush turns into a trout shooting death machine!!


Sam and Max are two happy friends. But if you walk out of the screen...

... Sam lights into a fire!!!


If you try to walk towards the stone pedestal in Indiana Jones...

... THE WORLD EXPLODES!!!!



Thank you.

[Babar]

hmmm...aside from having a little too much time on your hands you seem to have a streak of creatively psychotic behaviour. Who else could think of Guybrush spitting trout? those are some crazt shots...but I think they would have looked better if you did them in the same resolution as the games

[HillBilly]

Just so you know it: That's the point! If it didn't look utterly ridiculous, it wouldn't be funny. It's supposed to look pathetic.

[Privateer Puddin']

:/

[Tarison]

Just so you know it: That's the point! If it didn't look utterly ridiculous, it wouldn't be funny. It's supposed to look pathetic.

I don't like to be rude, but you weren't completely successful. It's not funny. Your other goals have been achieved with ease.

[HillBilly]

I'm a bad person.

[Minimi]

The only one I found funny was the Indiana Jones OOPS explosion...  

[Ishmael]

I lauhged at all of them... and I'm still laughing at the sam&max one...

[Scummbuddy]

I thought they were funny. I'd like to see more, but yeah, I'd rather see them in the correct res.

[bspeers-is-a-jerk]

Just a little Comedy theory here, but I think while I understand what you mean about absurdity poorly worked-in, you've made the classic mistake of negating your own joke.

It is funny, by the way, but--

You always need an air of credibility for these things.  Steven Wright, for example, delivers his absurdity in an absolute deadpan--there's no reason to mistrust him.  But if he did everything in a high-pitched, silly voice, we'd laugh at him, not at our own gullability.  If you're doing something absurd that no one would believe, and you don't have credibility, you want it to be as believable as possible (without becoming morose, obviously).  That way people are tied right into the fantasy and laugh despite themselves.  So that if you were say, Chris Jones, and posted these exact same pictures with a very serious title and introduction, it would be funnier than a  clown-convict whom we don't necessarily believe intrinsically.  Since your not Chris jones, fitting these ludicrously unbelievable ideas into almost believable sprites would take the other step of being credible.  You could then be as incredible as you wanted in your presentation.  It's like Monty Python's quest for the Holy Grail.  The absolute realism of the setting accentuates the comedy.  The serious music does the same (it originally had silly music, and got a low audience response, but they brought back the serious music for the second screening).  

Also a few things like continuity--have Sam and Max actually attempting to leave the screen, for example.  Gives a sense of continuity.

I think what you've done is funny, of course, and this isn't criticism.  It's more like my chance to espouse something I've done some research into.  The "theory" of comedy.

Which, by the way, is exceptionally egotistical and in itself parodyable and absurd--so take what I say with as much salt as you like.