Darn, so close to having video of Warren Spector singing Ducktales!

As much doubt as there is surrounding this game (morality system, action platforming, collectibles), I'm still optimistic about seeing where this one goes.

I love when Warren decided to curb his tongue and say, "Oh, heck there are collectibles!"

Sounds like Specter confirmed some kind of New Game + feature, as he mentioned that you have to play the game at least 3 times to get all the collectables.  Given that he's said there will be no branching paths, I'm really not sure how I feel about that.  I'm not sure from the videos we've seen that there is enough content here to be worthy of 3 playthroughs.  I also haven't seen anything that assures me that the "moral choices" in this game won't be any less arbitrary than those in most video games these days outside of the Mass Effect series and occasionally in the Bioshock series.  The way he ducks the question on how drastically different the game is from the concept art that they released (and then acts like it's our fault that we got such assumptions, when they're the assumptions they wanted us to make) is very Peter Molineux-esque and really bothers me, too.

On the upside, 25 hours is a really healthy runtime for a game like this IF the gameplay and story can sustain that length.

I might have said this before, but I think the marketing/PR for this game kind of hurt it. They keep on only showing early stuff, and from what people like Spector say, there's a whole lot more down the rabbit hole that gets deeper and deeper. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to bite on this game.

There aren't branching paths but there are multiple ways to solve each situation so it can still be very different in subsequent playthroughs.

I really hope this game becomes super popular so that Warren is given the opportunity to handle something like Ducktales or Darkwing Duck.

Every time Mr Spector discusses Epic Mickey, I get the feeling he might have gotten too close to the game. He always sounds so passionate about what he's done with it, but impressions of the game so far don't appear to have shown off all these nice things.

The trouble with giving the player a moral choice is that most of the time, only one of the two options is worth taking. If, in this game, an NPC gives you a quest, and you can either play the quest or harm that NPC in some way, the majority of people will pick the former. Why wouldn't you? If you choose the latter, you miss out on a quest & the reward for doing the quest and the NPC will not talk to you any more. For the whole 'playstyle matters' component of the game, there has to be a good incentive to play as the Scrapper as well as the Hero. What are the benefits to destroying characters and locations with the thinner? If there are none, the whole idea falls apart.

Spector doesn't do moral choice like that. Favoring a brute force approach will likely benefit you in a different way.

I feel exactly the same way.

Same here. All the choice talk and it looks to be just a glorified "do this, get this, do that, get another". I mean, he just mentioned that the story doesn't change at all, that it has the same ending regardless of what you decide to do. I recall people saying that Deus Ex actually HAS consequences based on your actions.

I'll reserve my judgment until the game is released, but so far it might not live up to the expectations Spector has set.

Exactly.  For months if not nearly a year now, he's been hyping his whole "Play Style Matters" thing, yet here he says that the story never branches, never wavers.  How can your choices matter if they don't impact the story in any meaningful way?  This whole game just seems like an awesome concept that was neutered by The Powers that Be at Disney and the inevitable technical and practical limitations that are a part of every game's development, yet they're still pretending like this is the same game.  I don't doubt Specter's enthusiasm and that he truly believes he has something awesome here.  I just have my doubts that his game's what he thinks it is.  That's why I compared Specter to Peter Molineaux, because this whole process sounds exactly like what happened to the original Fable.

Sounds great.

It is how you do it that matters. That is what gameplay is.  In Epic Mickey you have one goal but mutliple ways to solve the problem.  Maybe you can help someone to give you what you need, maybe you can be a dick to them to get it, maybe you can go somewhere else and build a new one, maybe you can talk him into giving it to you, or maybe Mickey can use his abilities to skip it altogehter but you still are trying to do the same thing.  Why should the story change?  There have been too many good/evil games out where people are given good way and bad way instead of the many ways that should be possible.  That was the amazing part of Deux Ex.  In the first level you are given an objective and have a ton of ways to complete it.  I don't remember how I completed this effecting the story in any way.  The storyline was never the amazing part, the amazing part was the freeform way to complete objectives.

To a developer who made games like Wing Commander a branching storyline means that the levels you go to change based on things you did earlier and you'll play through completely different content if you behave differently. It doesn't mean just sticking different text into the cutscenes. Your regular game with moral choice will alter maybe a few cutscenes and give you a different ending, Spector comes from a time when you'd have a whole tree of levels with forking branches almost every mission.

Deus Ex doesn't have a branching story.  It has three endings, but you choose which one you want in the very last level.  There are many smaller events that don't really impact the overall narrative, but change the items you get, which sounds a lot like what he says about Epic Mickey in this interview.

And since Wing Commander would lead you to keep playing even after you'd blown your chance to actually win the game on the third mission, I can't say I miss that kind of branching story much. 

I played a Wing Commander on the SNES. Was pretty fun. Did he work on all of them? I never did beat Deus Ex but what I did play was interesting.

I can see how your actions can affect the game without altering the story much. I recall Fable doing a similar thing where you played through pretty much the same game but either acted evil or good. Seemed like you had the same goal -avenging the death of your family- and you either acted like a Jedi saint or an asshole the whole time. (I never beat Fable but I got really far and that's what it felt like to me)

Once again, I will reserve my judgment until the final game is release. Things may change by that time and it might surprise everyone.


But what I am saying is that Spector is talking GRANDLY about how the decisions affect the world, talking as if this is a great, new thing that will make Epic Mickey one of the best games of the year. But all it seems is that you get bonus content based on what you decide to do.


Here's what I think of when he explains Playstyle Matters...


- If you decide to be evil Mickey and instead of do good cause chaos and mayhem, you save the Wasteland, but rather than bring it back to its former glory and letting Oswald be king again, you screw him over and you plunge the world deeper into darkness.


- If you are in the middle of the road, the world isn't fully restore, but you defeat the bad guy, make peace with Oswald and you begin working towards a better world.


- If you are the hero, the world is restore to its former glory, all the citizens rejoice and Mickey and Oswald rule a very beautiful and splendid Disney universe.


See, stuff like that.


Although, I may have to side with Neal in that they only show the very, very early stuff, which seems pretty tame and boring. It could get better as it progresses.

That's just different endings.