Talk:The Secret of Monkey Island

Grog in the news

I know this is old, but wouldn't a small note where an Argentina news channel mistaking the ingredients of Grog found in The secret of Monkey Island be worth a mention on this article? I understand the Grog article mentions it, but since the recipe is obviously lifted from this game, I think it should be mentioned.

I added it to this article with references, but was edited out. Because there is no mentioning of it on the talk page, I believe there's no reason ot remove it. --Doomzaber (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I provided a reason in the edit summary. The problem is, YouTube isn't a reliable source. Also, you made a trivia section only for that small piecce of information. If you find a reliable source, then you can add it in an aproppriate location in the article.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Would any of the following links suffice as a credible news source?

http://kotaku.com/5348907/argentine-tv-warns-world-of-monkey-islands-grog-recipe http://www.lucasnews.net/2009/08/30/epic-fail-argentinian-journalist-fears-for-teens-drinking-grog-xd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_5_Noticias --grog reference in canal 5 wikipedia article was not submitted by me --Doomzaber (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No mention of pirates of the caribbean

See this link for details: http://www.scummbar.com/resources/articles/index.php?newssniffer=readarticle&article=1034 I'd add it myself, but I'm too much of a wiki noob. --213.204.185.209 15:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How can a computer game released in 1990 borrow elements from a Disney Movie released a decade later?69.133.96.28 14:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He was referring to "Pirates of the Caribbean," the ride in Disney World, not the movie. --142.179.135.251

Freeware status?

There are some rumors [1], that Monkey Island 1 & 2 have been released as freeware. I have not been able to find a trustworthy source confirming this and there are sources claiming otherwise [2], BUT Softpedia seems to offer the MAC version of these games for download [3] (which, due to the availability of ScummVM, would mean that the game can legally be played on any platform). Any ideas on how to verify this? -- Heinzi 195.202.171.130 23:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking into account several factors:

• Looking at Softpedia's submission form, it looks to me like anyone can upload software
• The description text looks "fanboyish"
• The release is for a platform that is difficult to come by now, and is of little use to anyone without SCUMMVM, which LucasArts has threatened with legal action in the past
• I haven't heard about this anywhere else, and LucasArts is not well known for generosity with its old intellectual products

... I would be inclined to say that this is not a legal release. But I have no hard evidence either way. Someone should probably e-mail them and either get confirmation of its freeware status or get them to take it down.

In any case, unless we can get official confirmation, I wouldn't put it in the article. CountingPine 01:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If the games were freeware, there'd be a more official announcement, all the fansites would explode with excitement. No such phenomenon...--Wormsie 10:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

CD-ROM version

Requesting more info about the release. Was it bundled with Monkey Island 2? That is the impression I'm getting from the two articles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I own the Monkey Island 1 and 2 double pack. That's both games on a single CD. There is the Kixx XL release of Monkey Island which is just The Secret of Monkey Island on a single disc. I also believe there is a Lucasarts only release but that is pretty rare. (it's usually expensive on ebay). I've never been able to track down a complete source of information on all the release types though. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The CD-ROM version was released in 1992 and contained a simple copy protection that required the disc to be inserted in order to play. It was released in two versions, one contained the Manual, Disc and Disc case (the "quick start" guide is incorporated into the manual) and the other contained a "bix box" also. I believe the "no box" version was often bundled with other software/hardware. It was also released by KIXX, and later (1996 I believe) "Monkey Island Madness" was released containing Monkey 2 as well, with both games playable off the disc. It featured the removal of the copy protection, both games could be copied to the Hard Disk and played without the original Game Disc. --61.69.0.21 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Stump joke

From a recent edit:

If the player tells Guybrush to look into the hole, the screen will briefly display a screenshot of the catacombs from another Lucasarts game, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Is this actually true? I checked on the version I had available (VGA floppy) - but the screen remained in the forest and just the "insert disk" messages appeared. Maybe the CD-ROM version differs? If not, then it's probably been made up and should be removed. (If it is true though, I would be interested to know which bit of the catacombs is shown.) CountingPine (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never found that while playing the game, nor have I ever heard that. I've used a tool that extracts all the backgrounds from the game and I've never seen an Indianna Jones image in it. I don't think it's true. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Out it goes. If anyone has any proof to the contrary, they can add it back in. CountingPine (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The article suggests that the stump joke was removed in the VGA version, but I'm 99% sure this isn't true. I've never played the EGA version but I've seen the stump joke. As far as I know, it was removed with the CDROM version (as the joke obviously would no longer have made sense).147.147.98.179 (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Spielberg

The article mentions that this is Steven Spielberg's and Elijah Wood's favorite game. I've seen Wood mention it in some interview, but does anyone have a source for Spielberg? 213.126.132.70 (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alley joke

What's with that section? It says "The first game in the series also features a joke related to a sinister alley between two houses on Melee Island. In the game, someone calls for Guybrush with a "psst" when he gets near the alley, only to discover that there was no one in the first place. According to the plot, the hissing was being done by LeChuck to drive Guybrush off of Melee Island.", but when you go there you'll get a scene where you have to talk to Fester Shinetop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.172.68 (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fester is a disguise LeChuck uses. 69.179.150.33 (talk) 07:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Some new dev information

In light of the announcement about the Special Edition and the Tales of MI, Gilbert has put out a few pieces of development in his blog [4] about the game. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Spiffy & Audio

Two things wrong in the article. Special edition section claims Spiffy was removed from original. However, he is on the CD version of which Special Edition is a remake. It is also stated the CD Version features superior music. This is incorrect, as all music was removed from the CD version.--86.87.28.191 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The close-ups of Spiffy were removed, not the character entirely. Regarding the music, I own the CD version and its music is different from the Amiga version's. —LOL ^T/_C 01:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

special?

how do u buy the special 4 pc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.237.101 (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Steam. http://store.steampowered.com/app/32360/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.109.251 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Special Edition seperate article?

I think the Special Edition should have its own article, but I dunno. What does everyone else think? Smurfy 12:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. If there was a lot of dev information about the original game as to make the SE part make this article run long, then yes. But really, there's very little (due to age) and thus this article works with the SE stuff added to it. In general ports and remakes do not get new articles. --MASEM (t) 12:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Special Edition Engine?

Is there any info on what engine the Special Edition is using? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In one of the preview videos there's some info on that. They've sort of layered the new game over the top of the original version, using the existing engine. Or something like that. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Special Edition has its own infobox

Seeing that the SE (Special Edition) has a separate infobox (although hidden), I decided to remove SE-related info from the other infobox. The information does not need to be said twice. LaukkuTheGreit (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

SE coming to Mac and PSN

No news stories yet (only announced by LA's twitter), but SE's coming to Mac and PSN. (There's also going to be a MI2: SE, again, only announced via twitter.) --MASEM (t) 02:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Special Edition credits

As one of the developers of the SE edition, I'm honored to have our project discussed on the main MI page. However I feel that the designer credits in the info box are not representative of actual contribution to the project. Adam is really the main guy here - he processed all of the dialog for the voice recording, designed the hints, etc. Craig is responsible for most of the remaining design. I don't want to take away from Joe's and Dom's contribution - but they were only helping out part time.

Another major omission is the sound and art direction (especially given the nature of this project). Dave Collins did absolutely fantastic job with directing the voice recording. The art direction was by Jeff Sangalli - he defined the SE art style and worked super hard to maintain consistency and quality throughout the game (this was particularly challenging due to outsourcing of much of the animation to LucasArts Singapore).

Finally, is there any space for us engineers?

Dushan42 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

Thought I'd start a thread for a centralized discussion. Here's the list of things to do to get the article ready for GA

• Write "Gameplay" section
• Finish "Reception" section
• Finish "Legacy" section
• Evaluate images
• Review sourcing
• Copy edit whole article

Here are some other things that I've noticed.

• I saw in two separate sources (by the same author though) that Guybrush's name was from the file name "Guy.brush". But then we have this forum posting by Grossman about Guybrush name. How should we approach this?
• I'm going to probably remove the stump joke section without proper sourcing. These are the only real sources that I found, but I'm not certain that the OC Weekly blog will qualify as a reliable source.
  • Blog post that mentions the removal and why
  • 1UP.com article that mentions the removal

Other than the above, the article is making good progress. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

I think I can do Gameplay in the next two days. And, Jimmy - I think that stump joke must be omitted. Although it is quite a funny fact, I don't think it is too much notable for being mentioned in the article. Thanks, Electroguv (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Also, I'll try to add a couple more reviews to the Reception section over the next few days. I've got all kinds of material, so the only problem is getting time to edit. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys. Can anyone find a source which details top-down map view used in the game? I've almost finished writing Gameplay section's draft. Thanks, Electroguv (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're not going into a lot of details, you can probably leave it unsourced. Though not ideal, non-contentious material (like basic descriptions) doesn't need sourcing. We'll keep an eye open regardless. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

Ok, here's the Gameplay thing. What do you think? Thanks, Electroguv (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm back. Guv, that looks solid. I don't think it needs to be expanded much beyond that. It could use a gameplay screenshot, I think.

I'm continuing work on the Reception section. Just added Amiga Power; have a few more to go. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the article, I think it's safe to say that we're nearing completion. We still need a bigger lead, a Gameplay screenshot and finalized Reception and Legacy sections. Aside from that and a few prose tweaks, I think we're pretty much done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the Special Edition images? It's hard to justify two cover arts and two screenshots. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

In my opinion, the Plot section should also be rewritten. And, Jim, about the Gameplay screenshot - I have just looked through another LucasArts adventure game GAs and noticed they all have screenshots right in the plot section. Electroguv (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

GIB25 - I think that a .gif or an .ogv file demonstrating on-fly graphical style change in Special Edition should satisfy your criteria. Electroguv (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We can put the image where ever it is most relevant. Given the plot-heavy aspect of graphical adventure games, the "Plot" section is reasonable. But "Gameplay can work just as well.

My question is what is gained from the Special Edition media? Even if we get multiple images in a single file, we still have to worry about the copyright of those individual images. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Can we use Adventure Classic Gaming review for Reception? It was written by Joonas Linkola who once worked for Adventure Gamers, and I think that's an argument for reliability of the source. Electroguv (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What about Gaming Bus review in Reception? It is not listed as reliable source in WP:VG/S. Futhermore, it covers the Special Editions of 1st and 2nd Monkey Island games. Electroguv (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove Gaming Bus. I plan to add a subsection for the Special Edition's reviews, but that site doesn't look very reliable. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Finished with the reviews of the original game. Starting the Special Edition section, which will be much shorter. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The article looks much better. Here the items I think need addressing before GAN.

1. Do something with Special Edition infobox
   • I don't think the image will pass a FUR review
   • Do we even need it there?
2. Review sources
3. Copy edit

GAN should be relatively easy. Good job guys. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

Finally done with Reception. As to your question: I think the Special Edition infobox should be axed. I considered doing it awhile ago, but I thought we should probably discuss it first. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove it then. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC))

What now? Shall we nominate the article for GA status? In my opinion, the Plot section could use some refining. Electroguv (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we should each give the article a once over: copy edit, review sources, and review images. Then it should pass GAN with little trouble. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC))

I've checked the sources - they all fit the RS criteria. The necessary images are there where they need to be and the article has been copy edited numerous times (except for Plot). Our next step? Electroguv (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a sweep too. Let's see if Jimmy wants to give it a sweep. If not, we should be good with just the two of our reviews. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC))

I don't think I'll need to, unless we're planning on taking this to FAC. The prose is in pretty good shape as-is. Definitely GA material. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have to say that I think the choice of the non-free screenshot used is absolutely dreadful. Trying to convey the sort of humour of this game with an image isn't an easy task, and I don't think its a worthwhile task either. The image used is an atypical scene, a one off that lasts for a couple of seconds and hardly representative of the game. The huge notice completely obscures the actual gameplay/interface and art design, making it near useless for analysis from those directions. I'm sure we can come up with an image a bit better than that, a'la similar lines to what we've put in the other adventure game articles we've at some point worked on, TMI, Maniac Mansion, Hit the Road, DoTT.

I'd also argue for an image for the special edition, as its a major step away in art design. Heck, you can probably ditch the other image entirely and have a comparison screenshot, where you can commentate on aspects in both the original and special edition, as the only screenshot in the article. I'd personally recommend getting a comparison of this scene, as you can use the original version to demonstrate the interface and art design of the original, and then you can use the special edition screenshot as an example of how the special edition builds up on the original (LucasArts kept hyping up this scene in pre-release interviews as how they were improving the story through the background art without changing the game, so there's one line of commentary). If you want, I can go sort a comparison image like that out for you. -- Sabre (talk)

Do you have a version of the original that we could compare it against? Being unfamiliar with the game, I think we're not sure what images would offer the most bang for buck. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC))

Here. The commentary is either in the six-minute trailer for the special edition or the live playthrough LucasArts did, or both. Just a note, I wasn't planning on using either of these particular images quickly found on the net to build the comparison, I'd go and take my own screenshots of the same scene and combine them that way. -- Sabre (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems like an okay idea to me. Once that's taken care of, we should be set for GAN. By the way GiB, are you still interested in working on Fate of Atlantis? I'd definitely be up for finishing Prime Blue's work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Images dealt with, feel free to play with the captions. I've uploaded them separately so we can split the caption commentary more effectively than having it all in one overly long caption. I've also repositioned Ron's image to the left. The position of the comparion image is actually quite handy, I put it there originally as it was the best place to fit an image into the article without creating any white spaces, but its worked out well: the original image is lined with the paragraph talking about the technical side of the graphics and verbs and what-not, while the special edition image stretches into the special edition section. -- Sabre (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably give the plot section an overhaul in a day or so too; the current one, still largely the version from before this endeavour got underway, is quite weak for effectively describing the plot, and could probably do with some wetwork. -- Sabre (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Are we ready to send this to GAN? And who's interested in completing Fate of Atlantis next? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I've looked through half the article (been occupied with the Maniac Mansion FAC). I'd feel better going through the whole thing, but we're probably good for GAN.

I'll help with FAte of Atlantis. I may not be free until after the holidays though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC))

Guys, I'm tired of waiting. I've looked through the article and I consider it a decent GA candidate. I'm nominating. Electroguv (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Good work, everyone. Next up: Fate of Atlantis. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I just added it to my watchlist. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC))

Likewise, though that's one of the few LucasArts games I have little experience of, so I doubt I'll even be the modest amount of help I've been on these last few articles. I'll stick around for copyediting, images, the general spit and polish. -- Sabre (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Secret of Monkey Island/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Altava (talk · contribs) 21:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Claiming. I'll review this momentarily. Emmy Altava 21:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• QFC: Nothing awful. Full review impending...

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   There are a few quotes that it might be wise to cite more directly, but no gaping issues as to references. They're all there, and they're all good. Emmy Altava 23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   MobyGames is not considered an RS, but for the purpose it's used for, it's probably okay. Likewise, Kotaku wasn't reliable in 2008, but it provides proof of its claims, so I'll count it as RS for now. No issues. Emmy Altava 23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

   Article is well-sourced. Though ideally there would be citations throughout, citing a plot is difficult and the game would verify it anyway. Pass. Emmy Altava 23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   With video games, I expect solid reception and development sections. This article provides them in spades. Glorious. Emmy Altava 23:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   Definitely. I'm more than satisfied with the amount of information in the article. Emmy Altava 23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Surely there must be a bit more criticism? This could hinder further progression beyond GA. In any case, there's adequate representation from both positive and negative points of view, so this section's alright. Emmy Altava 23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No apparent stability issues. Emmy Altava 23:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Free images when possible, and nonfree have rationales and are used only as necessary. Stellar! Emmy Altava 21:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Captions are suitable, images are sufficient. Emmy Altava 23:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass: I have reviewed several articles now. Some good, and some bad. The quality of this ones puts each and every one of them to shame. This is probably one of the highest-quality and most fascinating articles I've read about video games here, and I encourage all of you who contributed to it to seek higher statuses for this game. You've got something very good going on here, and though I don't know what it is, I can say with complete certainty that this is a good article. Emmy Altava 23:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind review. Electroguv, Guyinblack, Sabre and I put in a fair bit of work on this article. Glad it passed GAN so easily. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Budget

Apparently it was $135,000. https://twitter.com/#!/grumpygamer/status/167464286577377280 --Mika1h (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to add another source in this video at 29:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=re_LWmRJK-g#t=1739s Ron Gilbert says the budget was $130000 91.43.66.85 (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Bargain. Lovingboth (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

IGN top 10 LucasArts adventure games

As they only did fifteen of them, is one list having it in the 'top ten' notable? Especially as they had it at number 7(!) Lovingboth (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Secret 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lucasarts.com/company/about/page4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527144404/http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/990/990254p1.html to http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/990/990254p1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111208163158/http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/100/1003651p1.html to http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/100/1003651p1.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Secret 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527144442/http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/988/988553p1.html to http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/988/988553p1.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Source

• Staff (August 2009). "Master of Unreality". Edge (204). United Kingdom: Future Publishing: 82–87. - [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
• https://archive.org/details/gamelivepc031/page/n139

Proposal to add one external link

I want to propose the addition of the below external link:

• RetroAhoy: The Secret of Monkey Island: A 73-minute documentary with two parts: the history of text adventures and graphic adventures leading to The Secret of Monkey Island, and on The Secret of Monkey Island itself.

The documentary is of high quality and insight, and it feels germane to this article. However, I wanted to first seek the community's consensus on its inclusion. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I have gone ahead with this edit. Thanks. Al83tito (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)