Unofficial Tex Murphy

Alright I am aware that I sort of touched on this subject before, but it still bothers me. I have loved Tex since 94 (ish) when I first played UAKM. I have since decided to take a trip down memory lane. I thought it was gonna be a warm and fuzzy trip. Instead I was horrified. It was not like I had remembered at all. Now don't get me wrong I still love the Tex character as well as the supporting cast, but I'm beginning to dislike the world for which they are in. The things that were once comical story events such as the WW3 backstory as well as the mutants are really beginning to bother me. Now I don't hate it, but it detracts from the story itself. I read the novels this summer and I like the fact that mutants were used as a device to point out problems with society today (ie racism.) I just find the whole idea of mutants lame by todays standards. At least lame in the deformed/disfigured variety not to be confused with the "X-men" superhero variety. They are their own special kinda . . . okay I'm gonna drop that part before I go off on a tangent. Tex's mutants, however, scream of an era long past. Just look at Total Recall, it's laughable now (might have always been but I was young then). It just bothers me that this potentially awesome character and his universe, will not appeal to everyone because of things that the creators found humourous at the time. Over the years I have gotten many people interested in Tex, but when it came to the mutants, people were turned off and didn't even want to play anymore. Some were downright angered by them. It always confused me. Now that I'm older, the more that my tastes have changed and I too am weary of the mutant angle. I am more accepting as it is a part of Tex-lore, but I don't think it needs to be. Not one of the characters truly benefits from being a mutant . . . that I know of anyway. Their character would remain the same had they been a regular human being. I dunno, this is just one of those late night rants. Stupid insomnia. I just hope that I don't ever find myself NOT liking Tex.

Whilst it's probably true that the fact that they're mutants is sort of downplayed with some characters, I think that's more original. Was it really stated to be purposefully humorous overall by Aaron? There's nothing really to say that they have to be governed by their differences (as you say, they're not to be confused with all the usual mutants in fiction that suddenly completely change and are governed by that e.g. having super powers from radiation and other such things). With some characters, appearance obviously plays a big role in their lives (just like all the beauty magazines show that appearance plays a big role in peoples lives today), like that Beek character in Under A Killing Moon and perhaps others. But for the others.... The devide between humans and mutants in Tex's world is because people there view the mutants as different. Yet for the mutants that are just who they are inside and aren't noticably affected personality wise, as you say, they might aswell be no different to humans. Yet the humans of that world would probably think otherwise. Not trying to get into a political or moral debate or anything, I just think its an interesting point and perhaps there's just as much reason to leave it in as there might be to take it out. As for the reaction, I don't know. I can identify with even animal characters as long as they are given proper characetr development. Me and my friend played it and for both of us the mutant thing never really came across as a problem. I quite like futuristic stories showing an alternate reality in the way that the Tex world kind of does so it was always an interesting plus for me and I don't think it's dated because of it (well perhaps the dates might eventually get close to becomign reality but you could think of it as an alternate dimension). Since dystopian books and films still are popular. It won't be everyones cup of tea naturally but can't please everyone.

Well, it's a little late for that now, but you do raise some valid concerns. However, I would like to point out a couple of things:

1. AC and CJ should be applauded for their original thinking and exceptional creativity. In NO WAY were the books or the games downplaying and/or downgrading mutants! It was a serious issue in view of the times Tex lives in. If they simply took an existing form of racial inequality, now THAT would have been....how shall I say it?...BORING! (Not that racism, et al is boring for I am personally concerned with the amount of bigotry in the world today...it's disgusting.) Instead, a new box to be checked on the census form was really quite stimulating.

2. While mutants are included in the games and the games do have humorous sides to them, the mutants are in NO WAY made to look as lesser people. But, the world they lived in had numerous radicals and Arayan-type degenerates who forced the racial issue; it just took a detour from 20th century black/white hatred to 21st century nowm/mutant malficience.

3. There's an old saying - "Different strokes for different folks." As Sai stated, some people will enjoy the games despite any apparent bigotry while some others will take it in stride while some others will be offended or upset. "Different strokes for different folks." People are fickle at best and true adventure game lovers will see the advantages of playing Tex Murphy games, regardless of mutations.

4. One last point: WWIII was a germacidal/nuclear holocaust that apparently didn't fulfill its purpose. You see, world wars supposedly benefit mankind, helping them to see the disastorous consequences of inward thinking, i.e. my race is superior to your race, and then we should make the necessary adjustments. Well! What do you know? WWIII turned out to be just another reason for one government to vent their anger (as well as to justify the stockpile of trillions of $$ of armanments) upon another government. AND, no lessen learned in the process. After such a devasting conflagration you would think they - govenments and individuals - would have learned this valuable lesson: no one is superior to anyone and no govenment has the right to force its tenents upon another country. Sorry, it was not to be. As an added thought, our society today is heading for the very thing AC wrote about. It's just a matter of time.

I think that Aaron wanted to develop an aspect of Tex's character as someone that has a bond or fellowship with the downtrodden in society. His bond, however, is by choice, not genetics. So that tells us something about Tex's character. Because of this, Tex's world necessarily requires a down-trodden race with which Tex can voluntarily Bond.

As Jim said, "If they simply took an existing form of racial inequality, now THAT would have been....how shall I say it?...BORING!" I would add, not only boring, but it would also single out some real segment of society in an unflattering way and be potentially offensive.

The mutant-thing offers a symbolic race, so to speak, of people that fill the requirement of a down-trodden group of people, without having to actually pick some race or ethnic group that actually exists and potentially offend or stereotype them. The idea of the mutant population gives the authors much more flexibility and artistic freedom. Also, by making the discriminated group symbolic rather than real, it says more because there are many, many different groups, classes or casts of people that are discriminated against all around the world.

Plus, I think the mutants add a ceertain amount of color or variety to the characters.

I have to agree. The way the mutants were portrayed by their actor/actress counterparts, were uncanny as well.

Louie will forever be one of my favorite characters, because of his mutant background. There is something wholly enjoyable about a character who's appearance is really awfully mutated, and yet he's the nicest guy you would ever meet, willing to damn near bend over backwards for a stranger. It's been my belief that those kinds of people are the ones who make the most changes in the way things are viewed, not by radically displaying their views, but showing love and kindness.(I.E. Dr. Martin Luther King)

When I first played The Pandora Directive, I showed it to a friend, and we both enjoyed it for many months. Not once did the mention of mutants, or any kind of similar talk was raised. We just accepted them for their part in the storyline. I, honestly think the whole angle was great to have.

from what "electron stu" said i understood that he has a problem with the way the mutants are showed in the tex murphy games. some of u talk about x-men but let me remind u that the x-men apart from their powers, they are all ordinary looking people, handsome as shown in movies, but in tex murphy the mutants are shown as ugly, deformed, weird looking with weird voices. i think that this way of showing mutants might, for some people who have similar problems of deformity or are sensitive, be disturbing. i personally never thought about it this way but i can see that "electron stu" does have a point there!

Well I think it's a variety really, unless I'm mistaken. In comics you get superheroes that feel the need to disguise themselves to mask scars etc. and use their "mutant" inner powers. And characters like The Hulk and so on. Then you get other characters that are as you described. I think it may also depend on exactly each character's/person's history (e.g. If they had radioactive waste poured on them as a baby it's natural that their physical appearance would be affected and shouldn't simply be blanked out for the sake of looking prettier).

billotos wrote:but in tex murphy the mutants are shown as ugly, deformed, weird looking with weird voices.

What about Chelsea?

It's always been my belief that Tex would find out just how much of a mutant Chelsea was when he finally got her into the proverbial sack. Then, only then, would be truly find out the love he had for this woman. Which might explain the reason she was even intrested in a lowly P.I. such as him. Might've been a confidence problem. Could you imagine ... just what exactly it could be that is wrong with her? ::violent shudder ...::

Tex: Oh. Well. Okay, this we can work with. Umm. How do you ... where is the ...How do I put the ... umm ... wow. Hmm. I'm confused here. If only I had a manual.

Let me bring another aspect of the "mutant angle", if I may...


I get another feeling from the original post than what most of you replyers got, judging by the responses. To me, it feels like Electron Stu's concern was more about the silliness of the mutants. That the outrageousness of the mutants comes across as silly and juvenile, not sophisticated like the rest of the games. If I'm wrong, disregard the rest of my post. If I'm closer to the truth, let me put the "mutant phenomena" into its proper perspective.


We have to go back to Mean Streets. Aaron Conners wasn't part of the Tex Murphy team back then, but Chris Jones was. Mean Streets dates back to the late 80s or early 90s (I just can't remember the exact date...) Back then, video games were different... way different. They weren't the sophisticated artform they are now. Back then, silly, zany, wacky and other forms of "funny-weird" were the order of the day. They could only enhance the game since lots of it was left to the player's imagination (in other words, graphics were far from being realistic.) Implementing crazy-looking mutants in the world of Tex Murphy only seems natural for a game of that time. Martian Memorandum came out just as the LucasArts classics were starting to dominate the market. Monkey Island, Maniac Mansion, Zak McKraken, etc... were succesful games who relied on their silly humor and their "out-thereness". Mutants in Martian Memorandum went really wild at times.

Then came Aaron Conners with Under a Killing Moon. In 1994, we were still in "crazy territory" as far as computer games went. Day of the Tentacle, Sam and Max Hit the Road, King's Quests, Space Quests, Legend of Kyrandias... The Huge draw of adventure games back then was the outrageous humor these games had. UAKM provided some weird mutants like its predecessors (Louie, Clint and Rook make their first appearances here), none of them weirder than Beek Nariz. The TM Team wanted to remain consistent with the established world, it's true. Also, the whole main plot revolved around the eradication of mutants, so the "freaks" had to stay. But, really, it was just a symptom of how PC games were made back then. There's lots more than just the weird mutants in UAKM that supports this fact. Just look at all the silly physical comedy. That's what used to sell those games back then. And they were selling!!!

When you compare UAKM with The Pandora Directive, you can see the shift immediately. The silly comedy takes a step back (there's still some of it there but in much more dilluted doses.) The humor is still rampant but the overall tone is more serious, more sophisticated than its predecessors. And the mutants? Of all the PD-specific characters, only Gus Leach is a mutant (or am I forgetting someone?) and the appearance of his mutation is less... shall we say... eccentric than what we might have expected. Same goes for Overseer-specific mutants Jorge Valdez and Larry Hammond. Not exactly silly. It was a conscious move by the Tex Murphy Team to shy away from the juvenile and go for a more mature, sophisticated tone. I don't know if Pandora initiated that movement or if it was going along a new trend; anyway, it's not that important.

In the end, you have to keep these considerations in mind when you look at these "first half of the 90s" video games. Sure it was silly, but that was what was made back then. Look at it as an historical portrait of early computer games, the same way lots of silent movies were silly physical comedies back in the old days...


(Note here, please, that I use terms like silly without any derogatory meanings. I'm not talking silliness down. I believe silliness has its place in our entertainment.)

the mutants that were in both UKM and Pandora were toned down as well.

Louie was much more mutated looking face wise and especially teeth wise in UKM than Pandora...big difference. Same with Rook. Rook's hands seemed rather disgusting in UKM along with his face being a lil' more out there, but in Pandora I didn't see that at all.


--Bill

All this talk of mutants reminds me of the Fallout games. For those who don't know, in those games WW3 happened, the game world is a wasteland where mutated creatures roam with human survivors here and there. Now, the mutated beasts are not anywhere near realistic, but in the vein of alligator-sized giant scorpions. The creators of those games have repeatedly said that they were drawing upon the conceptions of post-apocalyptic world as they were in the 50's.

Now, let's take a look at Tex Murphy. These games blend a rough future setting with film noir, which traditionally takes place around 1930s through 1960s. While the mutants may not be realistic, they flow very well with the overall atmosphere.