Epic Mickey

edited August 2010 in General Chat
I almost thought this was a joke for a second. But however it isn't... Epic Mickey is this upcoming wii game that is development, and which the plot focuses on obscure cartoon characters wanting revenge on Mickey mouse. The plot sounds really promising and for those who haven't seen the concept artwork of it its great.

Anyone looking forward to this game? I got a feeling that this could be rated T. :D
«134

Comments

  • edited August 2009
    Any "plot" leaks are speculations from nebulous sources from what I understand, but the concept art itself is neat. The really dark and twisted nature of a lot of it really stands out.

    I can see an interpretation of them screwing it up. For example, one that has in all the right "parts" from the concept art, but giving it a lighter interpretation through things like light and color.

    And of course, this is just art and atmosphere...we have nothing concrete on gameplay, which is somewhat important when considering a game product.

    Personally, I hope the Mickey Revenge plot is true, and they put Oswald as the leader of the revolt. Oswald deserves a kickass comeback.
  • edited August 2009
    Hmm. Could be interesting. Could I get a link?
  • edited August 2009
    It is a concept from Warren Spector(of Deus Ex fame) and it is essentially Disney within a Dystopian Steampunk-esque setting. Thus far only concept art has been unearthed.

    sea_transport.jpg
    thin_wallhires.jpg
    goofy_zombie.jpg bwx01.jpg
    castle_side02.jpg
    castle_dwn_view.jpg
  • edited August 2009
    Oh, this one. Yeah, it definately looks cool, but I'll wait until an aactual announcement before I start getting excited.
  • edited August 2009
    The concept art is fantastic.

    They'd BETTER make the graphics sharp and smooth enough to stay true to it.
  • edited August 2009
    Uhm... we're talking about the Wii here: The Goofy model alone would probably be too demanding. So, these pictures are probably meant to show the general mood, rather than stuff that's actually in the game.

    I loved A.M.'s Alice so I'm all for playing with old franchises... however in case of Disney I'm a bit skeptical. Kingdom Hearts worked out great because Square basically left the Disney parts intact while applying Final-Fantasy like gameplay to it, but EpicMickey really has to work with the characters. Destroy them. Make them truly evil. And I'm not sure Disney will allow that to happen.
  • edited August 2009
    Missed that it was on the Wii. >.>
    Well yeah, that detail could potentially ruin everything we already have...
  • edited August 2009
    Now Disney has bought Marvel Comics... I wonder if that could mean anything for this game. We had Mickey and Cloud before, so why not Mickey and Ghostrider?
  • edited August 2009
    Now Disney has bought Marvel Comics... I wonder if that could mean anything for this game. We had Mickey and Cloud before, so why not Mickey and Ghostrider?
    Mostly because Kingdom Hearts didn't include a crossover with any ABC shows, ESPN, Miramax films, Touchstone, Lifetime, SOAPnet, Automotive Industries magazine...not even Muppets or Pixar.
  • edited August 2009
    You mean as of yet.

    You have to remember that TRON was published by Buena Vista Pictures, now Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, which, among others, now include Miramax, Touchstone and Pixar.
  • edited August 2009
    The concept art itself is fantastic. Even if the game comes out terrible (or if it doesn't come out at all), at least we got some cool art out of the deal. I'll just take a "wait and see" stance on the game itself.
    not even Muppets or Pixar.

    I'd love to see Muppet and Toy Story worlds in KH. Could be very entertaining.
  • edited August 2009
    LuigiHann wrote: »
    I'd love to see Muppet and Toy Story worlds in KH. Could be very entertaining.

    Toy story could work, Muppets would kinda have to be like the kiddish Kindom hearts 1(I am not saying it is bad its the only reason I bought a ps2 for but a little kiddish) while kindom hearts 2 is more epic(still a little kiddish but you can't say the second par tof the final boss not epic)
  • edited August 2009
    What do you mean the Muppets are kiddy? Kermit the frog has busted enough caps to make you scream for yo momma.
  • edited September 2009
    I think for me, the way I'd handle the Muppets, is to have the Muppet Show Theatre be a building within one of the non-Disney "Town" worlds, like Traverse Town or whatever. So there are just some Muppets hanging out in there, perhaps selling some goods or services or sending you off on fetch quests and the like.

    I also find the balancing between Disney, Final Fantasy, and Original characters/elements gets very awkward in KH2... as cool as it is to see them fleshing out their backstory, the emphasis on new characters in KH2 made most of the Disney worlds seem very tacked-on... While the worlds in KH1 had the whole "keyhole" motif going on in each world to tie things together, with mildly clever elements in each world, in KH2 you seemed to visit each world just to blindly re-enact the plot of that movie, and then leave.

    Sorry, weird little rant there. I'm very curious how Epic Micky will handle characters. So far all we've seen are landscapes and machines.
  • edited September 2009
    I hope Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs will be on this game
  • edited September 2009
    I disagree that Disney would want to make it kiddy. If they're after a sunshine and lollipops game, why would they hire Warren Specter?
  • edited September 2009
    I disagree that Disney would want to make it kiddy. If they're after a sunshine and lollipops game, why would they hire Warren Specter?

    I am uncertain whether they hired him. I think it may have been a concept that he pitched to Disney.
  • edited September 2009
    KH was futher proof that Square can turn even the most ridiculously kiddish and corny subject into an epic game- as they demonstrated with Mario on at least 3 seperate occasions. Other than Square though, I'm not sure if the feat can be acheived- clearly there's a set amont of awesomeness neccary to pull it of... still, it can be done. And the Wii's presence does not neccesiate kiddishness- titles like NMH, MadWorld, and RE4 have proven that much, but what it does mean it that, most likely, it will be stylised- not cartoony, but more... Sin City-esque, I suppose might describe it. And the Wii is perfectly capable of that concept art- if the developers know what they're doing, that is.
  • edited September 2009
    Guys, the wii may not have PS3 graphics, but it's still better than the original Xbox. (Proof Here) So don't be acting like it's going have Star Fox SNES graphics or something. And it's going to be sold in a proper retail package, unlike some other game that had to be ultra-super-mega-compressed for a WiiWare release.
  • edited September 2009
    Compy 386 wrote: »
    KH was futher proof that Square can turn even the most ridiculously kiddish and corny subject into an epic game

    Heh, I think I would have to disagree there. If anything, Square are known for making their characters and stories kiddish and corny. Hence every title starring some androgynous character with ridiculous hair and a lot of angst as the main protagonist. Kingdom Hearts is probably the first time one of their major titles has bothered to alter that(and it went a bit Downhill for Sora in KH2). :p

    I trust Warren Specter with maturing concepts/material more than I would Square - by a considerable distance.
  • edited September 2009
    natlinxz wrote: »
    Guys, the wii may not have PS3 graphics, but it's still better than the original Xbox. (Proof Here) So don't be acting like it's going have Star Fox SNES graphics or something. And it's going to be sold in a proper retail package, unlike some other game that had to be ultra-super-mega-compressed for a WiiWare release.

    The fun thing about this stuff is that you can say just about anything. You can hand-pick features where one console excels and "prove" this way that it's superior. The Wii may or may not be current-gen, but since that term alone isn't clearly defined will get nowhere trying to prove/disprove that. For me the most outstanding current-gen features are high resolution rendering and network connectivity, half of which the Wii can pull off. So for me it's probably halfway in between.

    But trying to prove that the Wii can compete with current gen systems in terms of power is a lost cause. The system is slower. It's meant to be slower so that it can be cheaper. If you feel the need to talk up its power than maybe you should consider getting a system with more power :)
  • edited September 2009
    Masquerade wrote: »
    If anything, Square are known for making their characters and stories kiddish and corny. Hence every title starring some androgynous character with ridiculous hair and a lot of angst as the main protagonist. Kingdom Hearts is probably the first time one of their major titles has bothered to alter that(and it went a bit Downhill for Sora in KH2). :p

    Please, leave. Now.
  • edited September 2009
    But trying to prove that the Wii can compete with current gen systems in terms of power is a lost cause. The system is slower. It's meant to be slower so that it can be cheaper. If you feel the need to talk up its power than maybe you should consider getting a system with more power :)

    I disagree there with you, hanssmucker. A good number of games on the Wii have demonstrated it has far more graphical power than people give it credit for, but unfortunately, due to the large number of developers relying on stylised rather than realistic graphics have given the Wii an unfair reputation of being graphicly slow compared to the XBox 360 and PS3, when in reality, the Wii is only marginally slower than either console. Think of it in this way- if the PS3 or XBox 360's best titles generally focused on originality rather than eye candy, frequently had stylish, between realistic and cartoony graphics, and seldom were rated M, you'd probably assume that console was graphically slower, despite the actual difference. The Wii simply does not show it's capabilities, because of people mistaking "different" for "cheap".

    Here's a graphical comparison of the two from CoD (wii is on top, X360 is on bottom):

    Attachment not found.

    Now, drop all preferences for a few minutes. Yes, the Wii is clearly worse, but in what way? A slightly darker color palette, less realisitc textures, and somewhat harsher outlines. But is it the Wii's fault, or the developer's fault? Well, take another look:

    Attachment not found.

    Now, this time pay close attention to the smoke around the fire and the ground around the trenches. The fire and smoke are barely any different, even though the fire is clearly a difficult texture! And look at the ground that curves into the trenches- both versions are blocky in the precise same way! In fact, the Wii's only noticable difference is that it's not using an HD output!!! If you were to plug a PS3 or XBox360 into a standard-def TV, the graphics would probably be nearly equal. Therefore, it isn't the Wii's graphical speed that is bad, but it's graphical output.

    Wow, that was a lot of words, but I really hate it when people diss the Wii based on nothing but reputation.
  • edited September 2009
    Compy 386 wrote: »
    Please, leave. Now.
    Heh. Come on, admit it. You know just as well as I do that Square's main western titles hold about as much maturity and weight as Twilight. The only exception would perhaps be FFXII - yet the story was never completed as intended.
  • edited September 2009
    Squaresoft's titles are always a bit cliché, but I wouldn't describe them as childish. The main character's personality is usually based on a concept of honour that we associate with knight stories. On the other hand the background is often quite serious with a world that's torn apart by some sort of conflict. The gameplay itself is quite primitive, and is usually detached from the actual story (random fight here, little non story-related tasks there).

    All in all, I'd say that Squaresoft games work on different levels: The gameplay is so simple that it shouldn't get in the way for anybody. Squaresoft games aren't difficult, or demand a particular skill: if you have a bit of patience you can always win.
    Then there's the main plot, which is easy to follow and serves mainly to form a coherent sequence of events in the same way a movie does. And finally, there's the background and inner conflict of the protagonist for those that want to immerse themselves in the universe.

    There's something for everybody, that's what I really like about them.
  • edited September 2009
    There's something for everybody, that's what I really like about them.
    There's nothing for me, though. I actually did like Kingdom Hearts a good deal. I liked it a bit less than its usual fans, but it was a great game that tied together Disney films competently and gave me characters that overall didn't annoy me or only were around for tolerable amounts of time.

    Kingdom Hearts 2 kind of brought that into average Final Fantasy territory, which ruined it for me. The gameplay was still better than the average Japanese RPG(practically DEFINED by Square), but the story was ridden with this childish angst and the same tropes that hold together the plot of the modern Final Fantasy games. The high-fantasy older games are also childish, but in a more digestible way. Neither are "good" by my standards, though.

    For RPGs, give me a Fallout 2 or an Arcanum any day.

    The pedigree of Epic Mickey is better than the one for Kingdom Hearts any day for me. And anyone who tells a person with this opinion to "get out" wants really, really dull conversation consisting of:
    Guy 1: "I like Square!",
    Guy 2: "Oh, me too!",
    Guy 3: "Hey guys, did you know Square is awesome?",
    Guys 1&2: "Yeah!"
  • edited September 2009
    Masquerade wrote: »
    Heh. Come on, admit it. You know just as well as I do that Square's main western titles hold about as much maturity and weight as Twilight. The only exception would perhaps be FFXII - yet the story was never completed as intended.

    *continually pushes a red button*

    Grrr... Of all the days I could've forgotten to oil the trapdoor's hinges...
  • edited September 2009
    And anyone who tells a person with this opinion to "get out" wants really, really dull conversation consisting of:
    Guy 1: "I like Square!",
    Guy 2: "Oh, me too!",
    Guy 3: "Hey guys, did you know Square is awesome?",
    Guys 1&2: "Yeah!"

    That's not true. I just like to keep the furnace connected to the trapdoor running continually. Which reminds me... *pushes red button*

    *trapdoor opens a few feet to the left of Rather Dashing*

    *sigh* I really should make that thing a bit wider.
  • edited September 2009
    Seriously, though, anyone who thinks KH is more mature than FF has clearly never played some of the earliar titles. Admittedly, I don't know exactly how mature they are past FFV, but that's no excuse for dissing the series as a whole.
  • edited September 2009
    Compy 386 wrote: »
    Seriously, though, anyone who thinks KH is more mature than FF has clearly never played some of the earliar titles. Admittedly, I don't know exactly how mature they are past FFV, but that's no excuse for dissing the series as a whole.
    Not more mature. Just a more palatable form of childishness.
  • edited September 2009
    Compy just tripple posted!!!I'm Telling MOMMY!!!!!
    Btw,Final Fantasy isn't childish...Its friggin Awsome,I'm pretty sure everyones either played
    ,seen played,or heard about FFVII,and its definitely mature.If you say it isn't you have clearly never played it...
  • edited September 2009
    I suppose it depends upon what you view as mature. Dashing highlighted much of that which I see as being wrong with Square's approach with the majority of their titles. It may not be childish in terms of appealing to the nine below audience, yet I think their titles rarely surpass the surplus teen market.

    I like mature themes that deal with the duality of human nature and I do not mean duality in terms of "My parents died and I can not come to terms with it. I am too upset and racked with guilt to fight, but if I do not fight my friend will die. Oh, woe is me." Riku is a prime example of this in Kingdom Hearts 2 (and Cloud in FFVII) 'I am wandering the Twilit road: look how deep, dark and ambiguous I am.'

    I learned long ago that tales may be dark and mature without having to rely upon emotional teenagers, ridiculous hair, eyeliner or angst. As soon as that thematic is applied to any Square character - they instantly become shallow and childlike, for myself.
  • edited September 2009
    Final Fantasy sucks.




    Yeah I said it. And I've played it, too. All of them up to VII. Never beat them, but played them. My brother beat them, though, and he filled me in on all the story details. So I know what they're all about and why people like them. But I hate them. Also, I hate turn-based combat and RPGs that aren't named "The Legend of Zelda" in general anyway so that might have something to do with it.

    Also, I think Japanese-created games in general come off as childish because the Japanese themselves are childish people in a way. By other countries' standards anyway. And I don't mean that in any kind of derogatory manner, it just seems to be that way from my point of view.
  • edited September 2009
    I refuse to believe this exists. I refuse to believe Disney would ever allow something this awesome.
  • edited September 2009
    Final Fantasy sucks. Also, I think Japanese-created games in general come off as childish because the Japanese themselves are childish people in a way. By other countries' standards anyway. And I don't mean that in any kind of derogatory manner, it just seems to be that way from my point of view.
    In the words of William Blake "To generalize is to be an idiot". For a country that has brought us Ico, Shadows of the Colossus, Killer7, Metal Gear Solid, God Hand, Resident Evil, Okami, Dead Rising, Soul Calibur, Rez, LocoRoco, Patapon, Katamari, Gitaroo Man that certainly seems like a rather ill-informed point of view.

    So perhaps thinking before typing would be a wise move. ;)
  • edited September 2009
    I'm not retracting my opinion based on the number of video games Japan has made.

    Anyway, I'm referring more to the way they live their every day lives. Those guys are WEIRD. And kinda childish. Nothing wrong with it of course, I'm just saying that's seeped into their game development. I don't care how serious their games are.
  • edited September 2009
    Americans always want a happy end. Childish.
    They like a clean separation between good guys and bad guys. Childish.

    Every culture has something that others will look at as childish. What do you think the American culture looks like to an European, eventhough we share much of our cultural heritage? You just don't realize how much of what you perceive as normal is actually very, very naive or wishful thinking.
  • edited September 2009
    Americans always want a happy end. Childish.
    They like a clean separation between good guys and bad guys. Childish.

    That's generalization. And besides, you're confusing Hollywood with the rest of the US.
  • edited September 2009
    That's generalization. And besides, you're confusing Hollywood with the rest of the US.

    That's the point. Taking what you think of Japanese video games and applying it to the Japanese people is just as unfair. I just did what MusicallyInspired did to Japan and applied it to the US.
  • edited September 2009
    That's the point. Taking what you think of Japanese video games and applying it to the Japanese people is just as unfair. I just did what MusicallyInspired did to Japan and applied it to the US.

    Ah. Sorry, I can be a little dense, sometimes. Especially when I'm sick with the Pox of PAX. :o
Sign in to comment in this discussion.