|
|
|
A Nintendo community by the fans!
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|
Disney Epic Mickey (Nintendo Wii) discussion [game]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
09/15/10, 19:00 Edited: 12/03/10, 00:39
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warren Spector responds to Epic Mickey criticism (mainly of the camera):There are a couple of responses to the camera question. First, there has never been a game that I couldn't break if you give it to me for 30 seconds. I mean, I will break a camera in any game ever made. And if I learned one thing on this project, it's an immense amount of respect for people who have been making third person action and platforming games. Third person camera is way harder than I even imagined it could be. It is the hardest problem in video game development. Everybody gets it wrong. It's just a question of how close to right do you get it.
Second, cameras are different in different game styles. So in a platform game you want the camera up higher in a steeper angle because the important thing for the platform player is to be able to see the next jump clearly. In an action adventure game, like 'Zelda' for example, you want the camera down lower so you have more tactical awareness because there are enemies out there. There are traversal problems that require a tactical awareness that a high camera does not provide. So platformers and action adventure games have different camera requirements.
But here's the deal, what I try to be completely clear about is that this is not a platforming game. This is a game that takes platforming elements and adventure game elements and role-playing elements and merges them. So we couldn't tune the camera perfectly for platforming or for action adventure. It’s a very different camera style. What we did is try to find the best compromise in the moment and give the player as much manual control as we could. So we took the hardest problem in third-person gaming and made it harder by trying to accommodate two different playing styles.
The bottom line is that we did the best we could given that we were not trying to make a platform game or an action adventure game, but a game where you get to decide what the game felt like moment to moment.
And I will go to my grave, imperfect as it is, proud as hell of my camera team. If reviewers want to give us a hard time about it because they're misunderstanding the game we made, it's not for me to tell them that they're wrong, absolutely not. But I wish people would get it out of their head that we made a 'Mario' competitor, because we didn't." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Played a couple hours of this.
So far, it's pretty damn good. The camera gives me a slight headache, but it didn't make me want to stop playing. The art style and atmosphere are really good. It's like a cross between Tim Burton and Rayman 3. Great stuff. The contrast between cheerful Disney characters (which I don't know, but still find appealing, btw) and the dark tone of the Wasteland is pulled off extremely well. And who said it's only Disney Land? Less than an hour in I ran into the classic Tea Cup ride!
The choice and consequence is pretty good too. I saved some Goblins for the heck of it, and then they did an entire sub-quest for me! I didn't expect that.
But what really makes me love this game is finally, finally we have a traditional 3D platformer from the early days. None of that 2D-3D mix going on (Except for those side-scrolling segments, but whatever), none of those crazy levels with zero exploration. It's honestly very similar to Rayman 3 in a lot of ways, but it also reminds me of stuff like Banjo Kazooie and Jak & Daxter.
It's not perfect, nowhere near close DKCR, but I'm satisfied with the game so far. Back to Pokemon White now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|