Epic Mickey Catch-All

Running Man wrote:

Spector could have innvented his own amusement park/cartoon characters if he wanted the game to have that anachronistic feel.

I totally agree. The disney characters are just so bleh, even when sticking the head of one on a cool 3 armed mechano-spider, all I can look at is those dumb ears.

Dysplastic wrote:
Running Man wrote:

Spector could have innvented his own amusement park/cartoon characters if he wanted the game to have that anachronistic feel.

I totally agree. The disney characters are just so bleh, even when sticking the head of one on a cool 3 armed mechano-spider, all I can look at is those dumb ears.

Respectfully, I disagree; an invented amusement park and cartoon characters wouldn't be as interesting because they wouldn't have the benefit of instant recognition. There is a history to Disneyland and its characters that can be leveraged to greater effect than could be managed with new characters because no time and effort needs to be spent on establishing that history. This is similar to the ways in which the real world Washington D.C. was used in Fallout 3. You don't need to have Goofy's back story explained to you in-game as it's already something that you know; any new character in a similar situation would have to waste time with exposition or else hew so closely to an established character as to make the new character's name and appearance a mere formality. Any new work hoping to have the same impact as these images would have to be such a flagrant rip-off of Disney that being able to use actual Disney characters is more of a boon than a hindrance.

Switchbreak wrote:

This is crazier than that RPG about Shaq in the dystopian b-ball future.

Icy Hot Back Patch, +5 HP

adam.greenbrier wrote:
Dysplastic wrote:
Running Man wrote:

Spector could have innvented his own amusement park/cartoon characters if he wanted the game to have that anachronistic feel.

I totally agree. The disney characters are just so bleh, even when sticking the head of one on a cool 3 armed mechano-spider, all I can look at is those dumb ears.

Respectfully, I disagree; an invented amusement park and cartoon characters wouldn't be as interesting because they wouldn't have the benefit of instant recognition. There is a history to Disneyland and its characters that can be leveraged to greater effect than could be managed with new characters because no time and effort needs to be spent on establishing that history. This is similar to the ways in which the real world Washington D.C. was used in Fallout 3. You don't need to have Goofy's back story explained to you in-game as it's already something that you know; any new character in a similar situation would have to waste time with exposition or else hew so closely to an established character as to make the new character's name and appearance a mere formality. Any new work hoping to have the same impact as these images would have to be such a flagrant rip-off of Disney that being able to use actual Disney characters is more of a boon than a hindrance.

Agreed. Most of us are turned off by classic Disney characters by our age; seeing them reimagined in this way definitely has an appeal.

4xis.black wrote:
Switchbreak wrote:

This is crazier than that RPG about Shaq in the dystopian b-ball future.

Icy Hot Back Patch, +5 HP

Shaqtacular.

Switchbreak wrote:

This is crazier than that RPG about Shaq in the dystopian b-ball future.

Wasn't that Charles Barkley instead of Shaq?

Crockpot wrote:

Well obviously it already got green lit by Disney if this game has got this far already. Like I said above Warren Spector was surprised that Disney is letting him make this game and he said that a year and a half ago on GFW radio.

Theoretical concept art is one thing. Pushing a product out the door is entirely another. I stand by my statement: There's absolutely no way that a game that looks exactly like that concept art is going to be allowed to see daylight.

A significantly toned-down version is possible. For example, I could see characters exploring a clockwork Goofy, or facing a Disney-fied robot scorpion. A few images, like the first one of a broken-down theme park aboard a ship, could pretty much go in as-is. Fighting the dark forces to restore it to operation would probably delight the IP owners.

cube wrote:

Disney also is committed to the Kingdom Hearts series, which isn't exactly the most family friendly iteration of those properties. And these images(for better or worse) give off a very distinct KH-ish vibe, especially when compared to some of the endgame areas in both games.

There's a huge difference in creating mildly scary imagery based off a general feel of the franchise and actually letting your much-beloved, billion-dollar characters be shown in a way that would terrify some children and offend some parents.

Kotaku is sort-of-kind-of concluding it's just for the Wii, though their reporting leaves an awful lot to be desired.

If the game is a Wii exclusive, I have no interest in it.

Norfair wrote:
Switchbreak wrote:

This is crazier than that RPG about Shaq in the dystopian b-ball future.

Wasn't that Charles Barkley instead of Shaq?

You're right, Charles Barkley was in the dystopian b-ball future RPG, Shaq was in the alternate kung-fu dimension Japanese fighting game. I keep getting those mixed up.

Switchbreak wrote:
Norfair wrote:
Switchbreak wrote:

This is crazier than that RPG about Shaq in the dystopian b-ball future.

Wasn't that Charles Barkley instead of Shaq?

Your right, Charles Barkley was in the dystopian b-ball future RPG, Shaq was in the alternate kung-fu dimension Japanese fighting game. I keep getting those mixed up.

What about Switchbreak's right?

EDIT: Oh no, you can't go back and change it. I've immortalized your error. It will be here forever, mocking you, as a testament to the inferior nature of the writer! (- Soren Kirkegaard)

LobsterMobster wrote:

What about Switchbreak's right?

EDIT: Oh no, you can't go back and change it. I've immortalized your error. It will be here forever, mocking you, as a testament to the inferior nature of the writer! (- Soren Kirkegaard)

LobsterMobster: Keeping America safe from drunk bloggers and forum typos.

Switchbreak wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

What about Switchbreak's right?

EDIT: Oh no, you can't go back and change it. I've immortalized your error. It will be here forever, mocking you, as a testament to the inferior nature of the writer! (- Soren Kirkegaard)

LobsterMobster: Keeping America safe from drunk bloggers and forum typos.

We all have our little missions.

Podunk wrote:

Kotaku is sort-of-kind-of concluding it's just for the Wii, though their reporting leaves an awful lot to be desired.

If the game is a Wii exclusive, I have no interest in it.

It's for the Wii. It's in Disney's financials.

EDIT: I'm not saying it won't be multiplatform but right now, the only news is it's on the Wii.

It makes financial sense to lead on the Wii and the port upward. These emulated 720p screens show that Super Mario Galaxy would look pretty amazing at HD resolutions, and if they can attain a similar level of technological wizardry with great art to go along with it, there would be no reason it couldn't look really great on the Wii and acceptable on the 360, PS3 and PC. If they're doing things this way, it widens the potential market for the game and lowers development costs overall.

Gotta agree with those who say the effect would be lessened if they used a generic, made-up theme park setting. To me, these images have such an impact because Mickey & crew are such cultural icons.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Gotta agree with those who say the effect would be lessened if they used a generic, made-up theme park setting. To me, these images have such an impact because Mickey & crew are such cultural icons.

Yeah, you're probably right. I'm just being cranky because the art looks really cool, but I have zero cultural attachment to Disney characters. For those of you who do, I could see how it would be cool.

Warren Spector + awesome art + on the Wii = I'm excited!

Maybe Disney is recognizing that the people that fell in love with their characters are grown up now and need something new. Reboots are all the rage now, Disney has jumped on.

I think the art is awesome and all that. But why kill something like this, when it is something for the family?
Same with Tim Burton (great director) touching nice kids movies, turning them into something dark and sinister.
Sad.

But that's the theme of many nursery rhymes and tales, they really aren't pretty.

Sparhawk wrote:

I think the art is awesome and all that. But why kill something like this, when it is something for the family?
Same with Tim Burton (great director) touching nice kids movies, turning them into something dark and sinister.
Sad.

I don't know, man. I can see it as something that exists in its own Disney parallel universe, like Kingdom Hearts. It's not killing or replacing anything.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Gotta agree with those who say the effect would be lessened if they used a generic, made-up theme park setting. To me, these images have such an impact because Mickey & crew are such cultural icons.

Exactly. Mickey's not just an American cultural icon, he's arguably THE American cultural icon of the 20th century (it's pretty much a toss-up between him and Superman). For Warren Spector to think he can get away with violating that image is subversive and ballsy as hell, and the fact that he's actually succeeding is awesome.

This just shot to number one on my most anticipated list.

Sparhawk wrote:

I think the art is awesome and all that. But why kill something like this, when it is something for the family?
Same with Tim Burton (great director) touching nice kids movies, turning them into something dark and sinister.
Sad.

What kids' movies did Tim Burton turn dark and sinister? The only one I can think of is Alice in Wonderland, which is a pretty strange story to begin with.

Anyways, I think it's about time that somebody re-interpreted Disney's works in a more sinister light. They've been whitewashing fairy tales for decades, so it seems somewhat fitting that someone else do the reverse to them.

KillerTomato wrote:
cube wrote:

Disney also is committed to the Kingdom Hearts series, which isn't exactly the most family friendly iteration of those properties. And these images(for better or worse) give off a very distinct KH-ish vibe, especially when compared to some of the endgame areas in both games.

There's a huge difference in creating mildly scary imagery based off a general feel of the franchise and actually letting your much-beloved, billion-dollar characters be shown in a way that would terrify some children and offend some parents.

And having a game with your iconic characters made by a Japanese company known for very androgynous and possibly homosexual male characters doesn't fit this description... how?

MaxShrek wrote:

But that's the theme of many nursery rhymes and tales, they really aren't pretty.

As muttonchop so eloquently expressed:

muttonchop wrote:

They've been whitewashing fairy tales for decades...

Disney is all about pretty. They took many of the classics that were nasty and grungy and mean and full of death and misery and turned them into singing animals and pretty princesses. (Dang that was a lot of conjunctions.)

IMAGE(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_u-8jsnr-IjE/SbbkoehtZkI/AAAAAAAACzw/J8UDXGq-yAs/s400/do_want.jpg)

Seriously, this looks amazing. The things I fear are (a) it's concept art, and the game won't look anything like this; (b) it can't look anything like this anyway because it's on the Wii, and nothing short of a modern PC could produce scenes like that; (c) Disney will wind up scrapping the whole thing or pulling the license; and (d) Dysplastic is right and this is a wholly separate game that just got "badged" — I like to call this the "Starfox Adventures" syndrome.

EDIT: anyone else notice that the paint thinner can is labeled "64oz"? That's some seriously small-scale work, there. Intriguing...

EDIT2: as is usually the case, Eurogamer has the best reporting I've seen of this so far.

Sparhawk wrote:

I think the art is awesome and all that. But why kill something like this, when it is something for the family?
Same with Tim Burton (great director) touching nice kids movies, turning them into something dark and sinister.
Sad.

Neil Gaiman quoted someone (though I unfortunately can't recall who) in an interview about Coraline and how scary it was, saying "You're not telling kids that there are dragons and monsters out there - they know there are monsters. You're telling them that the monsters can be defeated."

More info:

Shacknews wrote:

An anonymous source tells CVG that the game is in fact a Wii exclusive. The plot apparently involves "very old and/or forgotten Disney characters who are out to get their revenge on Mickey," a concept corroborated by the leaked art, which features the classic Disney character Oswald the Lucky Rabbit.

The Epic gameplay supposedly involves "[painting] your way through levels using the Wii Remote" by "drawing, etching and erasing whole or parts of levels as you go."

Disney has so far been tight-lipped on details of the game, saying only that it is "very encouraged" by Junction Point's work.

Hope it works better than Okami Wii does.

Wow, the concept art looks really interesting. I'll definitely have to pay more attention to the development of this game

Edit:

Rat Boy wrote:

More info:

Shacknews wrote:

An anonymous source tells CVG that the game is in fact a Wii exclusive. The plot apparently involves "very old and/or forgotten Disney characters who are out to get their revenge on Mickey," a concept corroborated by the leaked art, which features the classic Disney character Oswald the Lucky Rabbit.

The Epic gameplay supposedly involves "[painting] your way through levels using the Wii Remote" by "drawing, etching and erasing whole or parts of levels as you go."

Disney has so far been tight-lipped on details of the game, saying only that it is "very encouraged" by Junction Point's work.

Ok, now I'm not so excited anymore. It sounds kinda boring. Why would they take something this cool looking and turn it into a gimmicky Wii exclusive title? Ugh.

The fact that many Wii games are gimmicky doesn't mean that Wii games are inherently gimmicky.

Cbirdsong wrote:

The fact that many Wii games are gimmicky doesn't mean that Wii games are inherently gimmicky.

Yes they are gimmicky. Very gimmicky. Gimmicky and silly.
(I don't really think this, I just like seeing the word "gimmicky".)
Gimmicky.