Spector Denies Focus Group Inspired Epic Mickey Removal

[Tom Goldman]

Spector Denies Focus Group Inspired Epic Mickey Removal

Warren Spector totally denies that "Mean Mickey" was removed from Epic Mickey due to focus group results.

Warren Spector wants to set the record straight on how he made recent design decisions for reported [http://www.amazon.com/Disney-Epic-Mickey-Nintendo-Wii/dp/B002I0GEXM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1282436336&sr=8-1] that the "Scrapper/Mean" version of Mickey the player would evolve into after making devilish decisions was cut out of the game due to focus group disapproval. Spector is now saying that this was a total fabrication.

The Junction Point Studios head told 1up clearly: "Let me start by saying, I have never, and I will never, make a design change as a result of a focus test. It has not happened at any point in my 27 years, and it will not happen. I will quit if that happens -- if you ever catch me doing that, that will be last thing I ever do in the games business, okay?"

Instead, Spector says that Junction Point created "over a thousand" versions of Mickey when the conceptual process began for Epic Mickey, and conducted a focus group showing them off back then. The general consensus was: "Don't mess with Mickey."

Spector explains: "So three years ago, I said, 'Alright, that's too radical; we're not going to go that far with Mickey.' And I think I mentioned that at E3, and someone assumed that that happened this past Christmas. And so, 'Warren Spector got rid of the Scrapper because of a focus test!' And it's not true. The idea of the Scrapper Mickey went away because I didn't like it. There was no focus test. If there were any focus tests done last fall, no one ever told me they were happening or gave me any data about it."

He says that Scrapper Mickey was only in the game due to a design decision that would change Mickey's abilities based on different costumes, which was cut, but Scrapper stuck around to show people the impact of the player's decisions on Mickey. A game director came up with the "guardian" system to use instead, and Spector liked that better.

The original story of Junction Point designing Epic Mickey by focus group appears to be a mistake or misunderstanding. All that anger over focus groups destroying everything good in the world was simply wasted energy, in this case.

Source: 1up [http://www.1up.com/news/warren-spector-explains-scrapper-mickey]


Permalink

 

[SeanTheSheep]

Wait, did he just say that he won't ever change something in one of his games because people don't like it?
I thought the point of focus groups was to find out what people did and didn't like and to adjust your product accordingly?

I'm probably completely missing the point here, but it's still slightly confusing that he refuses to change his creations because of what a group of people decide they like and don't like...

EDIT: After thinking on it a little more, he did say "design change" rather than gameplay or anything else change, so I suppose he makes a fair point, but if you won't make design changes, then why bother using a focus group to look at the design?

 

[IceStar100]

Dude has his head so far up is arse he seeing last nights meal.

 

[llafnwod]

Wait, did he just say that he won't ever change something in one of his games because people don't like it?

That seemed to be the gist of it. One imagines focus tests are conducted around solely to waste the studio's money.

 

[Irradiated Tiger]

I'm pretty sure he himself said in an interview that they removed Scrapper Mickey because of negative feedback from playtesters concerning the Mean Mickey form.

 

[ShadowKirby]

Let me get this straight.
People bitched when they thought he decided to remove "mean Mickey" because of a focus group and now people are going to ***** because he said he'd never do that.

Good job guys.

 

[Irridium]

Wait, he said he wouldn't make a decision based on focus groups, then said he made a decision based on a focus group.

I am confused.

 

[samsonguy920]

Wait, did he just say that he won't ever change something in one of his games because people don't like it?
I thought the point of focus groups was to find out what people did and didn't like and to adjust your product accordingly?

In most cases focus groups are rarely a fair choice of people to judge content fairly. Most likely in this case Spector's bosses picked out the group of people that probably had no idea what was going on, and Spector went along with it all the while planning on disregarding any input. Which I say, good for him.
It will be the beta testers whose opinions will matter most to Spector, and I stand by that assertion.
If creators constantly bowed to the whims of the populace, they would never get their work done most of the time, and if it did get done then it would come out such a garbled mess that no one would like it.
The best input a creator takes to what should be put into a game is how their previous content has been received. Warren Spector has been around long enough to have plenty of notes.

 

[Irridium]

Wait, did he just say that he won't ever change something in one of his games because people don't like it?
I thought the point of focus groups was to find out what people did and didn't like and to adjust your product accordingly?

I'm probably completely missing the point here, but it's still slightly confusing that he refuses to change his creations because of what a group of people decide they like and don't like...

Yes, but focus groups are a pretty crappy way to do that. Since you base your entire product which has to appeal to millions based on a small groups likes and dislikes.

 

[RvLeshrac]

Wait, he said he wouldn't make a decision based on focus groups, then said he made a decision based on a focus group.

I am confused.

OK, I was hoping I wasn't the only one to notice that.

"Let me start by saying, I have never, and I will never, make a design change as a result of a focus test. It has not happened at any point in my 27 years, and it will not happen. I will quit if that happens -- if you ever catch me doing that, that will be last thing I ever do in the games business, okay?"

Instead, Spector says that Junction Point (...) conducted a focus group showing them off back then. The general consensus was: "Don't mess with Mickey."

"So (...) I said, 'Alright, that's too radical; we're not going to go that far with Mickey.'(...)"

But he changed it because "(He) didn't like it"? So his desire for Epic Mickey just *HAPPENED* to be exactly the same as that of the focus group...

 

[SeanTheSheep]

Wait, did he just say that he won't ever change something in one of his games because people don't like it?
I thought the point of focus groups was to find out what people did and didn't like and to adjust your product accordingly?

In most cases focus groups are rarely a fair choice of people to judge content fairly. Most likely in this case Spector's bosses picked out the group of people that probably had no idea what was going on, and Spector went along with it all the while planning on disregarding any input. Which I say, good for him.
It will be the beta testers whose opinions will matter most to Spector, and I stand by that assertion.
If creators constantly bowed to the whims of the populace, they would never get their work done most of the time, and if it did get done then it would come out such a garbled mess that no one would like it.
The best input a creator takes to what should be put into a game is how their previous content has been received. Warren Spector has been around long enough to have plenty of notes.

Wait, did he just say that he won't ever change something in one of his games because people don't like it?
I thought the point of focus groups was to find out what people did and didn't like and to adjust your product accordingly?

I'm probably completely missing the point here, but it's still slightly confusing that he refuses to change his creations because of what a group of people decide they like and don't like...

Yes, but focus groups are a pretty crappy way to do that. Since you base your entire product which has to appeal to millions based on a small groups likes and dislikes.

You both make fair points, but never ever? If you won't change a single thing, then why conduct the tests in the first place?
Then again, I suppose he said "design change" rather than gameplay or anything else change, so I suppose he makes a fair point, but if you won't make design changes, then why bother using a focus group to look at the design?

 

[RowdyRodimus]

He is so full of shit. He said himself that Scrapper Mickey was in the game to take Mickey back to his original self, not just to show decisions matter.

Let's face it, he buckled to pressure from Disney but doesn't want to rock the cradle so he acts like interviews in the past about the game never happened.

You know, I was kind of looking forward to this but now I hope it's a bigger bomb than Fat Man and Little Boy combined.

 

[The Random One]

Let me get this straight.
People bitched when they thought he decided to remove "mean Mickey" because of a focus group and now people are going to ***** because he said he'd never do that.

Good job guys.

Welcome to the internet!

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

He is so full of shit. He said himself that Scrapper Mickey was in the game to take Mickey back to his original self, not just to show decisions matter.

Let's face it, he buckled to pressure from Disney but doesn't want to rock the cradle so he acts like interviews in the past about the game never happened.

You know, I was kind of looking forward to this but now I hope it's a bigger bomb than Fat Man and Little Boy combined.

That's what I think as well. We can't have a more distinct game that could possibly alter Disney's clean *crap past the censors* family friendly *crap past the censors* unique image for the worse.

I caught on late for the Epic Mickey news, but when I found out you could have been an evil Mickey and then they took that out, no matter the reason, I lost any semblance of interest. I really do not like Disney as it stands, but the chance to play as an evil Mickey Mouse sounded compelling.

To me, although this is just a "design" change and not gameplay, it is still a big deal considering the design of a game affects how you react to the game. Having a darker Mickey in appearance or even attitude as well as a repercussion to a player's negative actions could have been a very effective aspect of the game.

 

[The Bandit]

Let me get this straight.
People bitched when they thought he decided to remove "mean Mickey" because of a focus group and now people are going to ***** because he said he'd never do that.

Good job guys.

Welcome to the Internet.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Well, they still have that morality system, so in a way, Scrapper Mickey is still with us. Scrapper was never meant to be evil though, he was just meant to be like that jerk hero or Anti-Hero. He just won't look like what he does in that picture. I read somewhere that he'll look smudgy instead.

 

[MikailCaboose]

Hm. Sounds like someone was a might bit too worried about PR responsibility. It's just so freaking difficult to trust what people in charge of things say anymore.

 

[Diligent]

Not that I really have an interest in Disney or a game inspired by its characters (yeah yeah, I haven't played Kingdom Hearts, sue me), but the whole "darker meaner" image didn't work with Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, so it sure as hell wouldn't go over too well with Mickey Mouse. You don't need a focus group to see that.

Dude has his head so far up is arse he seeing last nights meal.

I think after helping to create things like Deus Ex, System Shock, and Thief: The Dark Project you're allowed to put your head wherever you want

 

[MB202]

Well that's good, I'm glad to know that Warren Spector isn't the kind of person to give into popular opinion.