Talk:Day of the Tentacle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDay of the Tentacle has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 10, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Inspiration for the Chron-O-John time machines[edit]

Isn't the idea to use outhouses as time machines from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure where they use phone booths? Could be coincidence, but I hardly think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.97.28 (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctor travels in time in a police box. I don't think that speculated inspiration should take any precedence here. Lordtobi (✉) 07:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled comments[edit]

Illuminati pyramid is the "social thing" DotT references and either I haven't played this game or i'm playing a variation now

TraxPlayer This game was the reason I bought my first soundcard.

I think a german fangame based on this was made...
Last I checked, it was unfinished. Check this URL http://www.dott2.de/ or http://www.dott2.org/

Is the game still sold?

  • I found it in a package with Sam & Max. I can heartily recommend both games, but you might need to download ScummVM to play them on a modern machine. --the wub (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how about a (trivia?) section with background information? for me as non-US guy I just learned today that the woman sewing the flag was real life Betsy Ross, etc. Also I think I remember the intro being a reference to the Psycho movie? (clem 15:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Why does a *comedy* game have a mistakes section? The game itself even jokes about the perils of trying to use it as accurate history (when it provides a clearly false explanation of the size of John Hancock's signature and comments about how using this detail in a school report would merit an A). 208.49.99.3 00:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. I've deleted the section. If anyone can think of a good reason why it should exist, make sure you explain it's value here before you revert it.--195.224.65.100 09:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone put the "Mistakes" section back again. It occurs to me that these aren't mistakes - they're jokes, as well as some creative license. Next thing ya know, someone will point out that since time travel is an impossibility, the entire premise of the game itself is flawed. Wikipedia can sure be amusing sometimes. I'm not going to remove the section myself, because reading it gives me a chuckle. :) --Shodan1138 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As of this time, LucasArts seems to be very unreceptive to the idea of making any more adventure games or allowing others to commercially develop their old licenses."

If at all, this should go to the LucasArts page and not here!


91.89.169.47 10:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs or other oddities section?[edit]

I think we should start a section detailing all the little quirks of the game, including:

  • The doors inconsistencies, such that they appear to be open outward from both sides, or have a door knob that exists on both edges of the door. This is a common theme in LucasArts adventure games.
  • Plot holes (there are a lot)
  • Anything else—I've been playing the games for years and could probably find some if I tried.

P.S. No I will not send you the games. → ɧʒЖχ (ГДĽК • КОИГЯІВ) 04:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • If you're in Dr. Fred's office (as Bernard) when LucasArts calls him, with the door is closed from the inside, when you exit the room, the door will still be closed behind you.

→ ɧʒЖχ (ГДĽК • КОИГЯІВ) 05:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt there are many small problems in games like this, but I don't think this is the place to document them. Perhaps a major plot hole might be worth mentioning. But small problems like door inconsistencies are too obscure, and they either aren't interesting, or don't give a good impression of the game, to people reading the article. See also WP:Listcruft. CountingPine (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voices and Media[edit]

I have the original floppy disk box right next to me now and there are 6 inside, not the 3 that are listed on the info box. In addition, it's not clear on the article about any differences between the floppy and CD versions (IE voices) and there is a noticeable lack of a list of voice actors. --Huw Dawson (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Veteran actor Richard Sanders provided the voice of main character Bernard. --Jim Locke 09:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.22.177 (talk)

Collaboration[edit]

I think I've capped out on review sources, so I'll begin writing the Reception section tomorrow or the next day. Despite plumbing the depths of the Internet, I only found eight reviews that were good enough to include in the article. That's definitely less than I'd like. However, I'll stretch them out and pad the section with awards to make due. Tomorrow, I'll start by dropping User:BOZ a request for expanded coverage of the Dragon review that he so kindly added to the article. I hope everyone else is having decent luck finding material. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt we can find much online, the game is pretty old. One would probably have to go to a national library archive or similar or know someone who works for a PC magazine to access old issues of games magazines with coverage. Unfortunately, while I do know someone who works at a publisher that also publishes a game magazine (Gamestar), that magazine was not published at the time DOTT was released. :-/ Regards SoWhy 10:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that this article will be much shorter than its predecessor's. I'm actually having a hard time finding development info online as well. Outside the GamesTM and CGW articles, I don't have much for the section. So if anybody finds development info, please feel free to add it or email me it. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I doubt we'll be able to take it up to FA, then. But GA is better than Start, in any case. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've e-mailed the review to JimmyBlacking as requested - good luck, all.  :) BOZ (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since all the time I currently have available for research and source-hunting for about the next week is entirely dedicated to researching Cnut (not the article, but for off-wiki purposes), I'll have a go at cleaning up the plot section first. Does anyone else think it could use a section discussing the setting and characters of the game, a'la this? I think it could probably work with or without it though, Sam & Max Hit the Road manages without for instance. -- Sabre (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never actually played the game for more than five minutes, so I don't know how critical it is to discuss its setting and characters. However, the three protagonists seem far more developed than those of MM, so it may be for the best. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And to contradict Jimmy, I think just a plot section will suffice. :-p Though I never played the game either. From what I've read, the story sounds more linear than the first and the list of main characters sounds short, which I think lends itself to summary. But I'll defer to those more familiar with the game. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Neither of you two are too familiar with the game? In that case, I'll write a setting section just see if what results is worth the effort. If not, I won't include it. -- Sabre (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I never even heard of the sequel until like 5 years after it came out.
Since you're familiar with it, please go for it. That'd be a big help. We'll just go over it for grammar and flow. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Great work on Development, GiB. Sorry I'm taking so long with Reception; I'm currently assisting User:PresN with his Flow (video game) FAC, and trying to sneak in time with Flight Unlimited. I'll try to have it done within the next few days. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally amazed at how quickly you guys have taken this up. I'm not going to properly hit the article for a couple more days, and I'm feeling guilty looking at what you two have achieved sofar. Anyway, either of you got any thoughts on what best to use for a gameplay image? The current image isn't really tenable; the cover art already shows Purple Tentacle quite clearly enough and as a cutscene it doesn't really show the game in full operation. I've got the game handy to get a-screenshotting, so if there's a particualar scene referenced in development sources that you'd like me to get, place your orders.-- Sabre (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remember a scene from back when I played the beginning. All three characters are together, I believe, and you're given control of Bernard. I'd imagine that getting the three protagonists in the same shot would be best, since they split up later. I don't know if what I'm remembering is gameplay or a cutscene, however. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, you'll caught me on a good month. It also helps to have really good sources to draw from. I'm normally very slow to edit, but it helps only focusing on a single area. Normally, I'm taking notes on gameplay, development, and reception when I read sources, which apparently slows me down.
In regard to a screen shot, the three protagonists are already on the cover art, so maybe something from the past or future to help illustrate the time travel. But if a bunch of characters is the way to go, I remember seeing screen shots of the three main ones in the chron-o-johns with Dr. Fred. Or maybe wait until Jimmy does the reception section to see what elements get frequent mentions. That'll strengthen the rationale. Just throwing out ideas.
I'll try to work on the legacy section next week. And I'll give the article a copy edit with fresh eyes once you two are done. The article should turn out really great. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Side-note: I don't think we'll be needing a "VG reviews" template this time around. It appears that only one of the sources—Dragon—even gave it a concrete score at the time of its release. I'm pretty tired of seeing that template in every VG article, though, so I consider this a good thing. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this is taking me so long, guys. I'll definitely get back to Reception today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries man, real life trumps wiki life. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
With only two reviews left to incorporate, I'm just about finished with Reception. It'll need a bit of rearranging once I'm done, but it should be more-or-less content complete pretty soon. The Plot section should be taken care of as soon as Sabre can find the time for it. I'd say that we're closing in on completing this article. Nice work, everyone. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With any luck I should be able to start doing something about the plot section over the weekend. -- Sabre (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finished Reception. Maybe a bit more could be taken from the Adventure Gamers review, but it looks okay to me. Reviews mostly highlighted the game's animation and humor; there were almost no complaints about any aspect of the game. The section might need some copyediting and rearranging, but it's done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, better late than never: I've rewritten the plot section. I'll get to referencing it in a bit. Feel free to tweak etc. I'll take a shot at the intro, probably tomorrow. Any thoughts from you gentlemen on what in-game scene you'd like to use as a screenshot yet? -- Sabre (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of something that shows the time travel aspect, but will defer to the everyone else's judgment.
I should have time to work on the legacy section tomorrow.
The article should do well at GAN. Nice work guys. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
(edit conflict)Nice. As for the screenshot, almost every review highlights the game's art direction and animation, and its camera angles were touched on by at least two publications. See if you can get something that highlights some of that, along with the game's basic operation. Also, I regret to inform everyone that I'm going to be very busy for a long while—possibly over a year—and won't have much time for serious Wikipedia editing. I plan to spend what little time I have on my LGS topic. It's been nice improving LucasArts adventure game articles; I hope that you guys will keep up the great work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting the discussion going again. How about a screenshot like this?[1] It shows the interface, the cartoon visuals, one of the new characters, and the time travel aspect. Thoughts?
Once we have the screenshot, the article looks like it'll be ready for GAN. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I give it my approval. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be firing up my copy of DOTT to go get a screenie from that scene then, since that particular one misses a few things (Washington's lack of eyes being quite high in that). -- Sabre (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image is in. The caption I've used is rubbish, so feel free to change it. -- Sabre (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Everything looks good to go now. I'll put the article at GAN sometime today. Great job guys. This was fun. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
And to think I was at the ass end of the fun. Too bad I didn't know sooner - Day of the Tentacle is an important game for me, in the sense that I played it once when I was a little kid and spent maybe five years trying to figure out what it was in my teen years. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Day of the Tentacle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    My only concern with this article is the first paragraph of Gameplay; Maniac Mansion being the first of its kind (which is what I assume it's saying) and Day of the Tentacle being the last SCUMM game to use its menu style doesn't seem immediately evident by playing the game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I added citations per your comment. Let me know if there's anything else. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Nothing that I noticed. Good work. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any information about a sequel?[edit]

thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Day of the Tentacle. 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 22:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potential images relating to the game's design[edit]

From Gamasutra and see the associated links to the writer's blog. This has done a good job to break down the game's puzzle structure to show how the overlap of the puzzles from the three time periods work towards the game's structure. I would think one image from this would be good, so I was thinking of approaching the author to get permission (technically we could recreate ourselves, but this would be their analysis and that could be a copyright issue). Before approaching them I'd like to see if there is agreement about using a picture or two, otherwise approaching him would all be for naught. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it sounds like a great idea, since Ron Gilbert was the first to use the concept, and the puzzles are fundamental to the gameplay in DotT. —Torchiest talkedits 21:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Day of the Tentacle. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Day of the Tentacle. 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) 03:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional Material[edit]

Could do with information on the game's promotion of the following:

Hope this helps improve the article. Deltasim (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

sentence needs editing by someone who understands it[edit]

The following sentence from subsection Remastered desperately needs tweaking. The second clause beginning with "to" derails whatever it is that is that the sentence is trying to get across. I don't understand the subject well enough to fix this.

  • Richard Corbett for Eurogamer found the game "every bit as well crafted now as it was in 1993", but found the processes used to provide high-definition graphics from the original 16-bit graphics to making some of the required shortcuts taken in 1993 for graphics, such as background dithering and low animation framerates, more obvious on modern hardware.

Perhaps "the processes used to provide ... 16-bit graphics" could be more simply stated: "the conversion to high-definition (from the original 16-bit) graphics", but I can't think how to untangle/clarify/simplify the rest.

--Philologia (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

Retun of the Tentacle???[edit]

Why isn't that fan-made game ever mentioned? It seems like they have not completed the project but at least released a playable version of the game based on the original story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMbxOJ-Z52k — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya-42 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilya-42: Hmm...considering it got some coverage upon release, it probably should. I added two short sentences. Regards SoWhy 19:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: Thanks!

The quoted 80,000 sales figures can't be correct[edit]

80,000 units sold for a PC game sold worldwide in 1993 would have been a huge failure. My assumption is that Edge (a UK magazine) was referring to UK sales figures only. As a comparison, the best selling PC games of 1993, MYST, sold 6 million copies worldwide... I would assume that DOTT sold between 200,000 to 300,000 copies worldwide. Not a hit, but not a flop 41.184.155.63 (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Day_of_the_Tentacle&oldid=1206897234"