Nate agrees with me.

I agree with some of what you say. Less and less as time goes on.

That crosses the line. Enjoy your infraction.

Why do your posts make shade cringe? Well probably because they're always sour and unhappy and negative. You've become the "I hate oddworld" guy.

Nate : Why don't you agree ? Sure, obviously some things disappeared from the game ; but I'm just saying that this isn't a game changer : those elements doesn't fit into MO or they doesn't add anything. The core of the game is still about Abe and Munch (even if you could change the weather and shoot helicopters). Anyway, MO couldn't have been a "revolutionary title" (I quoted OWI). Furthermore, when you play MO you're aren't under the impression that the game is unfinished. I'm not saying that Lanning is a liar : he believed that MO will be a revolutionary title. But this was before actually making it.

Job : I don't hate Oddworld at all. It's just that I read so many times that "MO should have been a revolutionary-title" that I don't agree with this sentence anymore. I think the fans treat Lanning too well.

That's not neccessarily lying. Lying is telling false information on purpose.

Also, as I look at the videos, I think I agree with vlam: Even if all that cut game content made in the final game, it wouldn't be incredibly better than it is now. It would certainly be better, but it would still be far, far behind AO/AE

Yeah, except a lot more than just what you see in the videos was cut:

http://oddworldlibrary.net/archives/...ideogames.com/

I'm pretty sure the original vision wasn't our current version of Munch with some quirky additions. The entire engine was completely different, as I understand it. The whole action/adventure game came into effect after the move to Microsoft, once they had a firm deadline. They essentially had to streamline everything.

It's like the original version of "Jaws 2". The first idea for the sequel didn't even have a shark. It was a socio-political drama about Amity Island in the wake of the events of the first movie, and the story would have seen the town struggling to survive and mobsters coming to collect the mayor's proliferating debts. The studio didn't like the idea, so they threw a shark in and essentially told a watered-down version of the first movie. Whether it would have been a better movie if there was no shark is, of course, debatable, but it most certainly would have been something entirely different.

I see Munch the same way, although I might be totally wrong. I know what you're saying though vlam, it might not necessarily have been 'fun' in the eyes of the greater public, but I guess we'll never really know.

EDIT: Just read Design Diary 01/18/01 by Paul O'Connor, which pretty much confirms what I said. Thanks, Xavier. Very enlightening stuff.

Just read it. Here's some highlights:

Haha, bet Lorne would change that even without Microsoft's assistance, since any kind of fear in Oddworld games is completely absent since after AE, including NnT.

Also, I call bullshit on everything this guy says about AO/AE not being violent games.

Additionally, it still doesn't make me think 'original' MO wouldn't be much like the final one. It hasn't changed that drastically.

Yeah, I agree. I think the N'n'T style would work best, but the idea of interchanging that style with 3D would be quite interesting. I dunno, I'm just throwing that out there.

As for Spooces, never liked them. I think it makes for poor continuity from AO and AE personally, as well as the final MO cut-scene. I liked the fact you could create chant orbs and have choice over the industrials you could possess, but that could've been done regardless. He didn't need Spooce shrubs in the past, so why in the MO gameplay?

I also didn't like the fact that playing Abe felt like a discount Crash Bandicoot. I was dying to see Abe have the same mobility as AO and AE in 3D.

Lastly, two player option in addition to switching characters would be cool. One player as Munch, the other as Abe. I was disappointed that wasn't a feature in MO.

Meh, thinking out loud here. :)

Oh man, so much of what Vlam is saying reminds me of how I felt a few years ago. When I first found Oddworld I was obsessed with it the way autistic kids are obsessed with Sanic and Lorne was like this weird spritual leader at the head of it all. Then I had him on facebook and he turned out to lean pretty far to the left and I got sick of his vitriol.

Separating the man from his achievements is essential because like the Biblical David, Lorne Lanning's tribulations are difficult to confirm. It's clear the man is incredibly creative and the fact that he's been lugging the vast majority of content around in his head for so long is just impressive dedication. I think that what's essential to understand is Lorne really put his time in with this series and a lot of people wouldn't sack up and be able to do that.

Professionally, four games were released under Lorne's tutelage. Aside from Munch these games have been stellar and Munch is just one of many platformers to emerge out of the awkward years of 3D platformers, and the thing is: I love Munch. I'm planning on buying it for the Vita soon because I'd be content to take it on the go. Not a lot of people feel the way I do, but I think Munch is a really distinctly atmospheric game.

I think a proper release of the game intended would obviously be radically different from what we ended up with, but was Munch really so bad? Yes. It was. But it was unique as well.
It was a massive leap in quality and experience from the Abe games, but despite all of the missing pieces it's still a very interesting game. The weird dissonant soundtrack, the weird use of power ups, vending machines, incomprehensible structures described as 'Windmills', the weird stilted environments...

It's not the best, but I'll bellyflop into my grave acknowledging Munch's Oddysee as an extremely unique game more than anything else. It's tedious and often irritating, but there's nothing quite like it either. It's a special kind of bad and demonstrative that even grazing the content of Oddworld produces something bizarrely engaging, you can't help but ride Munch's Oddysee out just to see where it goes.

Only played a couple hours of munch on ps3 and I liked what I played. Doesnt hold a candle to stranger but for what I played it wasnt bad. Just average.

Munch was bad when compared to all the other OWI titles.

Nate has never been on the internet before, apparently.

Kjjcarpenter : I see what you mean. The best comparison is still with Fable (do you remember all the fuss about it, before his release ?) : even the third one is far from being the "best game ever" (Molyneux promises that "you could do everything you want, and more"). The "original" MO reminds me of Hand of odd's concept (so mix different genre of games isn't a very good idea to begin with). I agree with you in a sense that "original" MO is thought to be a movie and not a game.

To get back on topic : Munch's exoddus should be about Abe and Munch going through fun and well-made levels (then, I'm sure that it will be an excellent game). ME shouldn't try to be the "original" MO because it's a dangerous road.

Fable is, like, completely amazing. This game was so good. I also completed Fable 3, which was shit.

People hate on fable so much and it drives me crazy because it's a great game.

Do they hate Fable, or Peter Molyneux?

I'm not saying that it's a bad game : the "original" Fable was suppose to be a revolutionary-title with million things to day (it was before his release).

Im pretty sure every company advertises their game as revolutionary.

???