Epic Mickey details and screenshots

[Zeus]

This game really has me intrigued. I'm interested to see how it turns out

http://wii.ign.com/articles/104/1040693p1.html

[M'k'n'zy]

I would tend to agree, that is why I posted about it like...two weeks ago when GameInformer first showed screenshots of it 8^P

It does look like its going to be an incredibly fun game, and if you read the actual magazine article of some of the stuff Disney has done for this game it shows they are really on board as well. For example Universal Pictures owned the rights to Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, who is a major player in this game. In order to get that character back, they traded a real life sportscaster (the magazine lists his name I dont remember it) in exchange for the rights to the character.

[Zeus]

I read the article last week at my buds EB.

Disney released the Oswald collection last year and it's a completely dead character to Universal, sure it wasn't too hard.

What's really intriguing is the direction they're allowing Spector to go with, the openness (Mickey can be evil if you want him to be) and the general dark nature of the game starring their mascot. Seems like they really, really want to reimagine Mickey and this is a big step for them in doing that. Also, if it fails, it can just be forgotten unlike, say, a movie or TV show where most of their audience resides

[Mental]

Oswald has been dead to Universal forever, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was easy, I would guess anyway. Oswald is an original Disney character and one who's rather connected to the Mickey Mouse era. I'm sure it involved some negotiations.

[Zeus]

Oswald has been dead to Universal forever, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was easy, I would guess anyway. Oswald is an original Disney character and one who's rather connected to the Mickey Mouse era. I'm sure it involved some negotiations.

A sportscaster......yeah, that's such a rare commodity.

[Chris]

Oswald has been dead to Universal forever, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was easy, I would guess anyway. Oswald is an original Disney character and one who's rather connected to the Mickey Mouse era. I'm sure it involved some negotiations.

A sportscaster......yeah, that's such a rare commodity.

if it's a good one....yes, yes they are.

I want to burn Eddie O in a fucking fire. fucking clown ass fucking retarded fuckstic douchefuck

[SineSwiper]

What's really intriguing is the direction they're allowing Spector to go with, the openness (Mickey can be evil if you want him to be) and the general dark nature of the game starring their mascot. Seems like they really, really want to reimagine Mickey and this is a big step for them in doing that. Also, if it fails, it can just be forgotten unlike, say, a movie or TV show where most of their audience resides

They are desperate. Besides Kingdom Hearts (which is more Square than anything), nothing new has come out of the Disney cartoon characters. Their biggest sellers are Miley Cyrus and some Fuckheimer film about pirates.

[Julius Seeker]

Disney desperate? They profit between 5 and 10 billion dollars a year on 30-40 billion in total revenue. They just bought Marvel for 4 billion.

I am guessing this game came about because Warren Spector was working on a new idea, pitches it to Disney, and he got a job.

[M'k'n'zy]

Actually acording to the magazine article, they came to him and asked him if he wanted to make a game based on Mickey Mouse. He said no, because he didn't make games for kids and Disney had done a wonderful job making Mickey irrelivent to anyone over the age of 7. They came back about a month later and said that they agreed with him and that they wanted him to use the game to reinvent the character. He said something along the lines of, "This is probally impossbile, we are probally going to fail. I'm in."

So you would be wrong on that guess Seek 8^P

[Julius Seeker]

Well, your story is much cooler anyway =)

Of all people available considering Disney's name, I wonder why they pitched it to Spector? I am interested in what pushed them in that direction.

It is an intriguing title. I have read that the art for this title backed by Pixar.

[M'k'n'zy]

I am not sure either, neither is he, cause they had NO IDEA after they agreed just who they gave their character to. He is defidently the best possible choice.

http://gameinformer.com/b/features/arch ... ction.aspx

[Flip]

The actual screen shots right now look way awful compared to the artwork that was posted a while ago.

[Zeus]

What's really intriguing is the direction they're allowing Spector to go with, the openness (Mickey can be evil if you want him to be) and the general dark nature of the game starring their mascot. Seems like they really, really want to reimagine Mickey and this is a big step for them in doing that. Also, if it fails, it can just be forgotten unlike, say, a movie or TV show where most of their audience resides

They are desperate. Besides Kingdom Hearts (which is more Square than anything), nothing new has come out of the Disney cartoon characters. Their biggest sellers are Miley Cyrus and some Fuckheimer film about pirates.

Disney, desperate? Wow, I'm not even going there if you think like that.

Simple fact of the matter is Mickey has become stale and they've done nothing with him for years. They wanted to spice him up, maybe making more relevant for the current times and this is a good, relatively risk-free way of trying it. If they like it, they can run with it. If not, they can bury it and people would hardly notice

[Zeus]

The actual screen shots right now look way awful compared to the artwork that was posted a while ago.

That's currently one of the big "what the?" questions, how can you have a steampunk-like concept art and have that completely disappear when the screenshots come out. I'm going to wait 'til a full-on preview comes to see what we're really looking at in terms of gameplay mechanics. I'm just intrigued by the idea right now.

[M'k'n'zy]

The actual screen shots right now look way awful compared to the artwork that was posted a while ago.

That's currently one of the big "what the?" questions, how can you have a steampunk-like concept art and have that completely disappear when the screenshots come out. I'm going to wait 'til a full-on preview comes to see what we're really looking at in terms of gameplay mechanics. I'm just intrigued by the idea right now.

Keep in mind also some of the steampunk shots may have been fake a game like this that had so little info available when it was first hinted at leaves openings for that kind of thing.

[Zeus]

The actual screen shots right now look way awful compared to the artwork that was posted a while ago.

That's currently one of the big "what the?" questions, how can you have a steampunk-like concept art and have that completely disappear when the screenshots come out. I'm going to wait 'til a full-on preview comes to see what we're really looking at in terms of gameplay mechanics. I'm just intrigued by the idea right now.

Keep in mind also some of the steampunk shots may have been fake a game like this that had so little info available when it was first hinted at leaves openings for that kind of thing.

Didn't Spector actually address the steampunk pics and the pic on the cover of Game Informer in the article? It could have been online as well but basically, he's saying that there's some elements of that in there still but the whole bleeding-ink and completely post-apocalyptic world portrayed in the initial artwork isn't necessarily indicative of the final product.

[SineSwiper]

Disney, desperate? Wow, I'm not even going there if you think like that.

Simple fact of the matter is Mickey has become stale and they've done nothing with him for years.

Desperate, stale. What the hell is the difference?

Actually acording to the magazine article, they came to him and asked him if he wanted to make a game based on Mickey Mouse. He said no, because he didn't make games for kids and Disney had done a wonderful job making Mickey irrelivent to anyone over the age of 7. They came back about a month later and said that they agreed with him and that they wanted him to use the game to reinvent the character. He said something along the lines of, "This is probally impossbile, we are probally going to fail. I'm in."

My point exactly.

[Zeus]

Disney, desperate? Wow, I'm not even going there if you think like that.

Simple fact of the matter is Mickey has become stale and they've done nothing with him for years.

Desperate, stale. What the hell is the difference?

Actually acording to the magazine article, they came to him and asked him if he wanted to make a game based on Mickey Mouse. He said no, because he didn't make games for kids and Disney had done a wonderful job making Mickey irrelivent to anyone over the age of 7. They came back about a month later and said that they agreed with him and that they wanted him to use the game to reinvent the character. He said something along the lines of, "This is probally impossbile, we are probally going to fail. I'm in."

My point exactly.

Well, you implied that Disney was struggling and was desperate to do what they need to in order to survive. If not as a company as a whole (that was the implication) then with the Mickey character. It's not like Mickey is a dead character, he's still very important to them and they use him quite a bit and you see him a lot, particularly in children's stuff. We all agree that he's stale to an older crowd but in no way, shape, or form does that make them desperate.

In the quote with Mac, the point is they're trying something new and slightly crazy according to Spector. So much so it's likely to fail. But Disney is willing to try it to hopefully expand on the character's appeal (as opposed to a desperate attempt at resurrecting a dead character). It doesn't support your "desperate" argument at all

[M'k'n'zy]

Disney, desperate? Wow, I'm not even going there if you think like that.

Simple fact of the matter is Mickey has become stale and they've done nothing with him for years.

Desperate, stale. What the hell is the difference?

Actually acording to the magazine article, they came to him and asked him if he wanted to make a game based on Mickey Mouse. He said no, because he didn't make games for kids and Disney had done a wonderful job making Mickey irrelivent to anyone over the age of 7. They came back about a month later and said that they agreed with him and that they wanted him to use the game to reinvent the character. He said something along the lines of, "This is probally impossbile, we are probally going to fail. I'm in."

My point exactly.

Well, you implied that Disney was struggling and was desperate to do what they need to in order to survive. If not as a company as a whole (that was the implication) then with the Mickey character. It's not like Mickey is a dead character, he's still very important to them and they use him quite a bit and you see him a lot, particularly in children's stuff. We all agree that he's stale to an older crowd but in no way, shape, or form does that make them desperate.

In the quote with Mac, the point is they're trying something new and slightly crazy according to Spector. So much so it's likely to fail. But Disney is willing to try it to hopefully expand on the character's appeal (as opposed to a desperate attempt at resurrecting a dead character). It doesn't support your "desperate" argument at all

Yeah, Zeus pretty much summed it up for me. The man loves the character. Disney wants to reinvent the character, and they picked the best man for the job to do it, even if they didn't realize it at the time. Spector is one of the biggest Disney fans out there, and a HUGE collector, he knows the history of character, and the whole game is based around real things that happened. How Disney trying to recreate a character and increase his appeal again is a sign of desperation, and not just good buisness, I dont understand. They saw that a lot of people LOVED what Square did with Mickey in Kingdom Hearts, so the idea of a more serious setting for the character is something they have to be interested in.