The Official DISNEY EPIC MICKEY Thread: Gamespot 6.0

Ouch....maybe it could have used some of Nintendo's magic touch. I'll still get this game though, I figured this game would have some dents in its armor going off of other reviews and gameplay videos I've seen.

That's what you get from complaining about those 8.5's.

Yeah well when you go from this:

to this:

You're bound to disappoint some. To be honest, much of the platforming and other gameplay components looked rather dull.

Ouchies.

Wasnt expecting the score to be that low at all.

Still looks like a great gae though.

6.0? Really?
No way in hell this is a 6.0. Are they serious? LOL.

Oh well, will add the review to the OP shortly.

Meanwhile, here's Adam Sessler completely gushing over it in a Soapbox dedicated only to Epic Mickey.

disney epic flop

to this:

SpinoRaptor24

We knew that was coming, it's the Wii.

-

We really just need to stop bull-ing around. I said it at the start of the generation, I'll say it again: the Wii's hardware is a liability. I can set out to make the ultimate, dark Mickey Mouse game on the Wii. What will happen? Serious gamers will ignore it because it doesn't have the graphics. So you start pushing for the family audience, and this audience, and that audience, and in the end you wind up with a product that won't make anyone happy.

-

If you wanted to do this right you'd make a Mickey Mouse version of Fallout on the PC. That's what people were cheering for, that's what they wanted, when they saw the preview art. "Oh man, I'm going to play a mix of Kingdom Hearts, Bioshock and Fallout 3? This is going to be awesome. Three games that have never been on the Wii are suddenly going to come together and make the perfect Wii-baby? Yeah... maybe.... if Nintendo and every Japanese horror came company game together and made it.

-

With the team they had? Never, never in a million years. The platform was wrong, the audience was wrong, the concept was wrong, the marketing was wrong (why show Fallout / Bioshock if that's not the game you're actually making?). Everything that could have been done poorly was, and in the end we got a steaming pile of Steamboat Willy. Fantastic.

Epic Floppy.

LOL wow first GT5 fails, and now Epic Mickey epicly fails.

I was expecting a 7.0-7.5 but wow, 6.0, that's terrible. Well anyways, the first time I saw the gameplay I thought it looked like crap but I guess people just get so wrapped up in the hype.

[QUOTE="SpinoRaptor24"]

to this:

subrosian

We knew that was coming, it's the Wii.

-

We really just need to stop bull-ing around. I said it at the start of the generation, I'll say it again: the Wii's hardware is a liability. I can set out to make the ultimate, dark Mickey Mouse game on the Wii. What will happen? Serious gamers will ignore it because it doesn't have the graphics. So you start pushing for the family audience, and this audience, and that audience, and in the end you wind up with a product that won't make anyone happy.

-

If you wanted to do this right you'd make a Mickey Mouse version of Fallout on the PC. That's what people were cheering for, that's what they wanted, when they saw the preview art. "Oh man, I'm going to play a mix of Kingdom Hearts, Bioshock and Fallout 3? This is going to be awesome. Three games that have never been on the Wii are suddenly going to come together and make the perfect Wii-baby? Yeah... maybe.... if Nintendo and every Japanese horror came company game together and made it.

-

With the team they had? Never, never in a million years. The platform was wrong, the audience was wrong, the concept was wrong, the marketing was wrong (why show Fallout / Bioshock if that's not the game you're actually making?). Everything that could have been done poorly was, and in the end we got a steaming pile of Steamboat Willy. Fantastic.

You never fail to see the wood for the tree's subrosian

[QUOTE="SpinoRaptor24"]

to this:

subrosian

We knew that was coming, it's the Wii.

-

We really just need to stop bull-ing around. I said it at the start of the generation, I'll say it again: the Wii's hardware is a liability. I can set out to make the ultimate, dark Mickey Mouse game on the Wii. What will happen? Serious gamers will ignore it because it doesn't have the graphics. So you start pushing for the family audience, and this audience, and that audience, and in the end you wind up with a product that won't make anyone happy.

-

If you wanted to do this right you'd make a Mickey Mouse version of Fallout on the PC. That's what people were cheering for, that's what they wanted, when they saw the preview art. "Oh man, I'm going to play a mix of Kingdom Hearts, Bioshock and Fallout 3? This is going to be awesome. Three games that have never been on the Wii are suddenly going to come together and make the perfect Wii-baby? Yeah... maybe.... if Nintendo and every Japanese horror came company game together and made it.

-

With the team they had? Never, never in a million years. The platform was wrong, the audience was wrong, the concept was wrong, the marketing was wrong (why show Fallout / Bioshock if that's not the game you're actually making?). Everything that could have been done poorly was, and in the end we got a steaming pile of Steamboat Willy. Fantastic.

I really find your analysis to be overwrought.

The failure of this game has more to do with bad execution than anything.

If the developers had made this game with the same kind of inspired design that Nintendo puts into Mario games and what not, nobody would are about the audience and platform or the original concept or whatever.

Yeah well when you go from this You're bound to disappoint some. To be honest, much of the platforming and other gameplay components looked rather dull.

SpinoRaptor24

You posted a beta screen. It doesnt look like that, at all.

This is what i'm playing

Not saying it's a bad game even if it did flop on GS, since it got pretty positive scores from other gaming sites. But I remember when everyone said ' itz Warren SPECTORZ THE GAME WILL BE AWESOME'.

I really find your analysis to be overwrought.

The failure of this game has more to do with bad execution than anything.

If the developers had made this game with the same kind of inspired design that Nintendo puts into Mario games and what not, nobody would are about the audience and platform or the original concept or whatever.GreySeal9

That's not "analysis", analysis is something you have to pay me for. What I'm giving you are simple facts based on years of experience and education. You want to argue with them? Go out there and make your own Mickey Mouse game aimed at every audience you can shake a bat at on the least viable console for executing an "open world" while simultaneously previewing your game via concept art showing a freaky Bioshock / Fallout / Disney cross-over.

-

Let me know how it goes

. -

Do you know what the expectation is on *anything* remotely approaching that? Do you know where the bar is after Kingdom Hearts? It's not just execution, it's concept, it's marketing, it's expectation, it's product, it's *game*. You build a game and you build your audience. You create expectation and you deliver on it. This isn't rocket science, it's basic salesmanship and product design. Anyone can learn this stuff, it doesn't require finesse, it doesn't require a board of directors and eighteen years of formal education.

-

It takes a basic, grounded understanding of people. - And that's exactly how this garbage gets made, every single time. Every single time. It's a bunch of people who claim to be "experts" sitting in a room with the assumption that they know more about the gaming industry, game, or product that they want to deliver than the audience consuming it. That they absolutely cannot fail. It's why so many "super projects" are doomed from the start.

-

You can't make something for everyone. - And as far as Nintendo is concerned? Nintendo makes things better because they don't do this overwrought (the correct context for this word), marketing-driven garbage factory nonsense. Nintendo keeps a tight lip on what they're working on and focus on getting the *basics* right. Nintendo games are fairly built around the idea of taking core gameplay as the *center* of the game, and (though they don't admit it for PR reasons) focusing on delivering to the primary audiences an extremely solid experience. They then polish that core to the point whee it engulfs a larger audience simply because quality as universal appeal (in much the same way you might not know anything about cars yet be designed to a well-designed luxury vehicle, this is natural).

-

The long point of it is - no, I'm right. I'm generally right, that's not some profession of talent here, nothing I do particularly takes any talent beyond going "man, how is this going to work outside of their dream bubble"? If you start looking at the industry from a common sense and "there are no magic ponies" perspective, you'll start to see it for what it is... and at that point there's no room for this kind of bubblegum factory.

@tomarlyn

Oh I'd love to hit the trees too... I'm loving that we're past NDA time and I can call all this garbage for what it is. Epic Mickey is wonderful proof that if you throw money, big names and "talent" at a stupid project, you still wind up with garbage. There's finally a videogame equivalent to Battlefield Earth out there, it's great, except in 20 years people are going to still think Epic Mickey was a colossal piece of garbage, while there are bound to be some Battlefield Earth midnight showings out there somewhere for the "why is this movie so purple" midnight theater crowd.

-

Seriously, I'll go for hours, this game is garbage. Can we get Sonic in on this too? Can we just start pointing out why this "super franchise gaming" crap NEVER, EVER WORKS? Y'know what's worse? This crap has been done before, every *freaking decade* people who need to stay the hell away from gaming come marching in telling the gaming industry how to make, market and package games. Screw 'em. To the highest degree. Remember 1982? No? Well these people are the reason consoles *went away* until Nintendo showed back up.

-

Gah, get me a lighter we're burning the forest. subrosian

Reviews are all over the place, and objectively, theres no reason to value those who rate it poorly over those who think its actually very good. Personally, i care only about my own opinion and in this case, i'm loving it (so far)

Oh and Disney would never allow a "gritty mature", Fallout-like Mickey game. And i dont think Disney fans like me would want to see those characters go through the teenager boy's dream of throwing fairly innocent IPs into macabre worlds and themes.

This one is already pushing it beyond what i thought Disney allowed.

[QUOTE="SpinoRaptor24"] Yeah well when you go from this You're bound to disappoint some. To be honest, much of the platforming and other gameplay components looked rather dull.

Thunderdrone

You posted a beta screen. It doesnt look like that, at all.

This is what i'm playing

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]I really find your analysis to be overwrought.

The failure of this game has more to do with bad execution than anything.

If the developers had made this game with the same kind of inspired design that Nintendo puts into Mario games and what not, nobody would are about the audience and platform or the original concept or whatever.subrosian

That's not "analysis", analysis is something you have to pay me for. What I'm giving you are simple facts based on years of experience and education. You want to argue with them? Go out there and make your own Mickey Mouse game aimed at every audience you can shake a bat at on the least viable console for executing an "open world" while simultaneously previewing your game via concept art showing a freaky Bioshock / Fallout / Disney cross-over.

-

Let me know how it goes

. -

Do you know what the expectation is on *anything* remotely approaching that? Do you know where the bar is after Kingdom Hearts? It's not just execution, it's concept, it's marketing, it's expectation, it's product, it's *game*. You build a game and you build your audience. You create expectation and you deliver on it. This isn't rocket science, it's basic salesmanship and product design. Anyone can learn this stuff, it doesn't require finesse, it doesn't require a board of directors and eighteen years of formal education.

-

It takes a basic, grounded understanding of people. - And that's exactly how this garbage gets made, every single time. Every single time. It's a bunch of people who claim to be "experts" sitting in a room with the assumption that they know more about the gaming industry, game, or product that they want to deliver than the audience consuming it. That they absolutely cannot fail. It's why so many "super projects" are doomed from the start.

-

You can't make something for everyone. - And as far as Nintendo is concerned? Nintendo makes things better because they don't do this overwrought (the correct context for this word), marketing-driven garbage factory nonsense. Nintendo keeps a tight lip on what they're working on and focus on getting the *basics* right. Nintendo games are fairly built around the idea of taking core gameplay as the *center* of the game, and (though they don't admit it for PR reasons) focusing on delivering to the primary audiences an extremely solid experience. They then polish that core to the point whee it engulfs a larger audience simply because quality as universal appeal (in much the same way you might not know anything about cars yet be designed to a well-designed luxury vehicle, this is natural).

-

The long point of it is - no, I'm right. I'm generally right, that's not some profession of talent here, nothing I do particularly takes any talent beyond going "man, how is this going to work outside of their dream bubble"? If you start looking at the industry from a common sense and "there are no magic ponies" perspective, you'll start to see it for what it is... and at that point there's no room for this kind of bubblegum factory.

Really, while your perspective is interesting and what not, it is analysis and certainly not a series of facts (but then again, fact is probably the most wrongly used word on these boards). Also, I don't care for "years of experience" credibility boosters over the internet of all places. I like a straight forward conversation without all that baggage.

I agree that marketing matters. I never said otherwise. But based on the reviews, it doesn't seem to matter as much as you think it does. The game fails more on a nuts-and-bolts basis more than anything: terrible camera, sloppy controls, uninteresting platforming, simplistic repetitive combat etc. Had these elements been ironed out and given their proper due, we would not even be having this conversation about concept art. Games have altered their concept before. How the developers handle the concept that they end up being able to achieve is what matters.

I would agree with your analysis if the reviews reflected what you are saying. But it simply doesn't seem that way. The elements that went awry seem far more basic than what you are laying out. The expectations fueled by concept art don't seem to be as important as the shoddy gameplay elements.

The review isn't changing anything. Reviews don't stop the fans from running out and buying it . Reviews don't make a bunch of people who weren't going to buy the game suddenly rush out and by it. The reality is, Epic Mickey has to live and die by what is actually on the disc. If the game is genuinely good, it won't matter what reviewers say. Starcraft got 8.0 range reviews and was called "outdated"... it has outlasted every other RTS ever made.subrosian

The review isn't changing anything. Reviews don't stop the fans from running out and buying it . Reviews don't make a bunch of people who weren't going to buy the game suddenly rush out and by it. The reality is, Epic Mickey has to live and die by what is actually on the disc. If the game is genuinely good, it won't matter what reviewers say. subrosian

Indeed, but then, where did your sudden outburst come from? Objectively, we only have reviews to go by if we want to bypass personal opinions in favor of useless laying-*****-on-the-counter arguments. If you value the impressions of those who bought it over those paid to certify that it passes all the requirements of this gen's check list, then look no further. Some posters here have it, and seem to be enjoying quite alot (me included).

Sooooo....

The problem facing Epic Mickey is that it is actually a mediocre game. You can finagle all day about a 7.0 here and a 5.0 there, it's nothing special, and with the games market as flooded as it is these days, there's no reason to care about another mediocre title.subrosian

...where did this unrefutable fact of life come from? I really like the game, as do others in here and other boards, so it cant be "actually mediocre".

You said it yourself, Starcraft earned its praise over the years by pleasing gamers, not reviewers. Epic Mickey came out a couple of weeks ago and you're already being extremely negative about it for no reason whatsoever apparently.

But this is the internet. Where extreme opinions are the law and something is either the best thing ever made or vomit-inducing dog crap.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]The review isn't changing anything. Reviews don't stop the fans from running out and buying it . Reviews don't make a bunch of people who weren't going to buy the game suddenly rush out and by it. The reality is, Epic Mickey has to live and die by what is actually on the disc. If the game is genuinely good, it won't matter what reviewers say. Thunderdrone

Indeed, but then, where did your sudden outburst come from? Objectively, we only have reviews to go by if we want to bypass personal opinions in favor of useless laying-*****-on-the-counter arguments. If you value the impressions of those who bought it over those paid to certify that it passes all the requirements of this gen's check list, then look no further. Some posters here have it, and seem to be enjoying quite alot (me included).

Sooooo....

The problem facing Epic Mickey is that it is actually a mediocre game. You can finagle all day about a 7.0 here and a 5.0 there, it's nothing special, and with the games market as flooded as it is these days, there's no reason to care about another mediocre title.subrosian

...where did this unrefutable fact of life come from? I really like the game, as do others in here and other boards, so it cant be "actually mediocre".

You said it yourself, Starcraft earned its praise over the years by pleasing gamers, not reviewers. Epic Mickey came out a couple of weeks ago and you're already being extremely negative about it for no reason whatsoever apparently.

But this is the internet. Where extreme opinions are the law and something is either the best thing ever made or vomit-inducing dog crap.

I don't think the game looks very good, but you hit the nail on the head with this post.

Why are some people here saying the game is crap based on the GS review when it's almost 2 points below the current average? Talk about nearsighted.T3H_1337_N1NJ4

[QUOTE="T3H_1337_N1NJ4"]Why are some people here saying the game is crap based on the GS review when it's almost 2 points below the current average? Talk about nearsighted.Thunderdrone

[QUOTE="Thunderdrone"][QUOTE="T3H_1337_N1NJ4"]Why are some people here saying the game is crap based on the GS review when it's almost 2 points below the current average? Talk about nearsighted.Nerd_Man

The review isn't changing anything. Reviews don't stop the fans from running out and buying it . Reviews don't make a bunch of people who weren't going to buy the game suddenly rush out and by it. The reality is, Epic Mickey has to live and die by what is actually on the disc. If the game is genuinely good, it won't matter what reviewers say. Starcraft got 8.0 range reviews and was called "outdated"... it has outlasted every other RTS ever made. - The problem facing Epic Mickey is that it is actually a mediocre game. You can finagle all day about a 7.0 here and a 5.0 there, it's nothing special, and with the games market as flooded as it is these days, there's no reason to care about another mediocre title.subrosian

And Starcraft 1 has like a 88% on Metacritic ( barely in the 8.0's ) and a 93% on GameRankings.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]The review isn't changing anything. Reviews don't stop the fans from running out and buying it . Reviews don't make a bunch of people who weren't going to buy the game suddenly rush out and by it. The reality is, Epic Mickey has to live and die by what is actually on the disc. If the game is genuinely good, it won't matter what reviewers say. Starcraft got 8.0 range reviews and was called "outdated"... it has outlasted every other RTS ever made. - The problem facing Epic Mickey is that it is actually a mediocre game. You can finagle all day about a 7.0 here and a 5.0 there, it's nothing special, and with the games market as flooded as it is these days, there's no reason to care about another mediocre title.SkyWard20

Remember when all that concept art was posted around? It looked like it had great potential. I was excited to see what kind of twisted direction they would take Mickey. I wonder why they didn't stick to their guns and go Tim Burton on us. Were they scared of alienating their target audience?

Then the in game screens got realised, and it was a huge disappointment, everyone knew it looked like crap to be fair. It's such a shame, it looked like it could of been something unique.

I'm not surprised it turned out crap.

I would like to say that Epic Mickey's score is considered "Fair" (6.0-6.9 range) by GameSpot's standards, not "Mediocre" (5.0-5.9 range).thom_maytees

Very disappointing score, but I'm still eager to play it somewhat.

Oh, man. I was expecting at the very lowest a 7.5. A little surprising to see it got a 6.

I would like to say that Epic Mickey's score is considered "Fair" (6.0-6.9 range) by GameSpot's standards, not "Mediocre" (5.0-5.9 range).thom_maytees

That score came from nowhere but I can't see it being that bad but it does look pretty dull.

Well I was owned on GT5, but at least I was on with this one. And some people thought I was just trying to hate for no reason. :( I wanted this game to be great too, but knew it was meh as soon as I started playing it.sandbox3d

Yeah, a few of my wii fan friends were always asking me if I was excited to play this game, as I don't have a wii but always tell them I'm looking to buy one because of SMG/Goldeneye/Zelda/etc. I would just respond by telling them that Mickey just looks like a project pulled from the grave, all the way back from the end of the N64s lifecycle. I still don't doubt that to be the case.

[QUOTE="Thunderdrone"][QUOTE="T3H_1337_N1NJ4"]Why are some people here saying the game is crap based on the GS review when it's almost 2 points below the current average? Talk about nearsighted.Nerd_Man

Hyped 9 and scoring 8.5 is a flop but scoring 6.0 being hyped 8 or better is much worse.