Talk:Epic Mickey 2: The Power of Two

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Coming to PC[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

pc version delay to january 2013[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Really, folks?[edit]

I decided that the Plot subhead had gotten completely out of hand. The plot alone accounted for nearly 50% of the article content, which is way too much per WP:UNDUE. A very short plot summary would be acceptable, per WP:GAMECRUFT, but what was here wasn't even close. I've added a modified plot summary to the Gameplay subhead that should be more appropriate for this article. --McDoobAU93 06:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to see why this article should not include a section retelling the plot in detail. If I may point you in the direction of the Professor Layton game articles, which feature elaborate plot sections, all of which have gone unchecked. I vote we just shorten the Plot section a bit and bring it back. (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I recognize the problems with the Professor Layton articles, but see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Also, if you notice on the Professor Layton articles, the proportions of Plot to the rest of the article is much more balanced. More emphasis is generally placed on the real-world aspects of the subject matter, such as the development, gameplay, and reception. In the context of a video game, the plot itself is actually one of the least important parts to emphasize (gameplay is the most important, after all), unless it's a game where the story is the driver of gameplay, like adventure (Professor Layton), RPGs (Chrono Trigger), text adventures, or visual novels (Clannad). Also, see WP:PLOT, which actually discourages reciting the Plot in excess detail, and Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. The plot needs to be summarized to the point where it's short but a reader who is not familiar with the game can obtain a significant understanding. In this case, the Professor Layton plots have enough detail to establish context. There are areas that can be shortened, but as a whole it isn't overwhelming. The Plots that have been added in this article have way too much detail, and the reader will end up not understanding what's going on at all. A summary of around three paragraphs would be better. Not every character and situation needs to be re-iterated, and the actions/emotions of the characters don't need to be described unless it's integral to the plot. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the last revert of the Plot section is a bit questionable; I personally thought it was the proper length, a lot better than it was before. It may take up 50% of the article, but reverting it for that only reason implies that the rest of the article is not going to grow, that it's reached its limit. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that any significant plot listing for this game, good as it may be for Disney fans, is really bordering on WP:GAMECRUFT when compared against more notable video game titles. However, I will yield to consensus and won't contest an undo or restore of the content. --McDoobAU93 03:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
So, what exactly is the consensus at the moment? Should we put the Plot on hiatus or bring the most recent version back? Personally, since the game has a rather intricate story, I feel it probably needs a section covering the main areas, as per Wikipedia:Fancruft. But I won't get into a battle over this if the general opinion is that the section shouldn't be there. (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe the general consensus is this game doesn't merit a lengthy plot description since it's basically a platformer, no different from Super Mario 64 or Crash Bandicoot. Don't get me wrong; I personally love the franchise, but at the same time I don't let my interest in the game blind me to the best interest of the project. The game just isn't that story-driven. If, however, there is enough third-party reporting on the story of the game (for example, reviewers specifically calling out the story for some accolade), then it might be notable enough to include a brief plot summary. --McDoobAU93 19:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
McDoob is correct. If we were talking about Final Fantasy or Mass Effect, it would be different, as they are much more story-focused games, but this, however, is not. The same thing always comes up at Sonic the Hedgehog (series) articles. There should be a brief overview, not a play-by-play description or a novelization of the game. It is an WP:UNDUE issue for half the article to be about the plot. Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

PC version on 22/02/2013[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It's March on Bestbuy Is it confirmed already?--Krystaleen 03:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

the correct european title is disney epic mickey 2 the power of two[edit]

i read that directly from the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the correct title is Disney Epic Mickey 2: The Power of 2: Cover art. And that is also the title that is displayed, when you make a backup of the game and open it in a tool like Wii Game Manager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

PC version cancelled and studio getting close[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Epic Mickey 2: The Power of Two. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)