Marvel Super Heroes Unveiled for Disney Infinity (2.0 Edition)

Marvel Super Heroes Unveiled for Disney Infinity (2.0 Edition)

Disney takes the wraps off Infinity 2.0, with the reveal of a certain cast of superheroes from the Marvel universe.

Disney Infinity has been a successful interactive game move for the Mickey Mouse conglomerate. So it stands to reason that they would want to improve on it. Enter the announcement of Disney Infinity 2.0 Edition today, with an appearance by Marvel's Avengers.

Disney revealed the Disney Infinity Marvel Super Heroes, with Thor, Iron Man and Black Widow as a Starter pack that also includes "Tower Defense and Dungeon Crawl experiences," according to a series of tweets by The Escapist's Andrea Rene, who was at the event.

Other details include an increased level cap to 20, new attributes and skill trees and a system that allows players to choose what abilities to upgrade. Disney also has hired toy box creators from the community to create content, Rene said. All figures from the original Disney Infinity, along with the power discs and toy boxes, will work with the newer version.

Disney has sold more than 3 million starter packs and more than $500 million is global sales since the game launched in mid-August of last year, with more than 10 million toy boxes downloaded. Disney had previously included sets from its movies, such as Monsters Inc., The Lone Ranger, Cars and The Incredibles, and the company said it wants to continue to capitalize on it "treasure trove" of IPs and stories. With the popularity of the Marvel universe, especially the Avengers movies, it stands to reason that Disney would want to have its lucrative franchise cross over into the interactive game.

Permalink

"Disney revealed the Disney Infinity Marvel Super Heroes, with Thor, Iron Man and Black Widow as a Starter pack"

No, no, no you include Captain America and Hawkeye with Black Widow in the starter pack and then have Hulk, Thor and Ironman for sale separately. Kids will actually want those 3 while nearly no one is going to want Hawkeye.

I would've loved a less cartoonish look of the Marvel figures but alas the main target is kids... and I'm going to buy them anyway :P

I called this development a couple of months ago, since Phineas and Ferb crossed over with Marvel in general...

Kumagawa Misogi:
Kids will actually want those 3 while nearly no one is going to want Hawkeye.

I want Hawkeye. Well, I want the ex-carnie, regular everyday normal guy Hawkeye from Iowa and not the Generic Shield Agent #9 Fauxhawkeye who uses a bow for no reason. At least he's wearing purple this time.

This looks rather adorable, actually.

deathbydeath:
Fauxhawkeye

Fauxeye!

deathbydeath:

Kumagawa Misogi:
Kids will actually want those 3 while nearly no one is going to want Hawkeye.

I want Hawkeye. Well, I want the ex-carnie, regular everyday normal guy Hawkeye from Iowa and not the Generic Shield Agent #9 Fauxhawkeye who uses a bow for no reason. At least he's wearing purple this time.

He wore purple in Thor and The Avengers. It was really desaturated, dim purple, but it was there.

RealRT:
He wore purple in Thor and The Avengers. It was really desaturated, dim purple, but it was there.

The fact that you had to point that out to me should tell you something. Also, he was still a generic Shield agent. Now that I think about it, it wouldn't hurt to introduce Mockingbird to the MCU, either.

EDIT: Here's a quote from one of the comics that perfectly summarizes the character:

Clint Barton:
I mean, I can't miss... I'm on a team with super-humans. And one god, in case you've forgotten. Even you... well, you climb walls really well... I gave up a lot for this life. I could have been happy with Mockingbir-- Bobbi. We could have had a good, simple life. But I wanted to play with the big boys. And if I miss, it means I'm just another dude with a bow. It means I've been fooling myself this whole time. And that's why I never miss.

Now, try and remember how much of that was in Avengers and you'll see why I'm miffed.

deathbydeath:

RealRT:
He wore purple in Thor and The Avengers. It was really desaturated, dim purple, but it was there.

The fact that you had to point that out to me should tell you something. Also, he was still a generic Shield agent. Now that I think about it, it wouldn't hurt to introduce Mockingbird to the MCU, either.

EDIT: Here's a quote from one of the comics that perfectly summarizes the character:

Clint Barton:
I mean, I can't miss... I'm on a team with super-humans. And one god, in case you've forgotten. Even you... well, you climb walls really well... I gave up a lot for this life. I could have been happy with Mockingbir-- Bobbi. We could have had a good, simple life. But I wanted to play with the big boys. And if I miss, it means I'm just another dude with a bow. It means I've been fooling myself this whole time. And that's why I never miss.

Now, try and remember how much of that was in Avengers and you'll see why I'm miffed.

I hate to play this card, because in most cases it's just bullshit, but I'll go with "The original comic book costume wouldn't work on silver screen".
A generic SHIELD agent who doesn't wear SHIELD uniform and doesn't use standard issue weapons?
Now granted, you are right in that he could use much more characterization in those two. I was never a fan of Hawkeye (never hated him either), but I found the dude kinda interesting and I was disappointed that he spent most of The Avengers under mind control. Then again, it was already stated that Age of Ultron will focus more on Hawkeye and Hulk, so at least there's that. Maybe this newfound focus will make him popular enough to get his own flick.

I see... this is why so many of the games that involved Marvel characters were pulled from the digital shelves a few months back. Good to know I lost my chance to buy Ultimate MVC3 for my Vita so you could put more people in your Skylanders clone.

RealRT:
I hate to play this card, because in most cases it's just bullshit, but I'll go with "The original comic book costume wouldn't work on silver screen".
A generic SHIELD agent who doesn't wear SHIELD uniform and doesn't use standard issue weapons?
Now granted, you are right in that he could use much more characterization in those two. I was never a fan of Hawkeye (never hated him either), but I found the dude kinda interesting and I was disappointed that he spent most of The Avengers under mind control. Then again, it was already stated that Age of Ultron will focus more on Hawkeye and Hulk, so at least there's that. Maybe this newfound focus will make him popular enough to get his own flick.

Why'd he have to be a generic Shield agent in the first place? Hawkeye's first appearance was an a recurring villain to Iron Man; Clint actually tried to become a costumed hero, but his first robbery-foiling went wrong and left him marked as a villain and manipulated by the Black Widow (also a recurring Iron Man villain). They could have easily made the MCU Clint Barton an upstart hero who winds up under Loki's control and joins the Avengers in act 3 to make amends and step up to the next level of superheroics.

Then again, the Avengers didn't want to do much with its writing in general, but that's a different argument for a different thread (we run the risk of a derail with just this). I am hopeful, though, that Whedon uses A1 as a launchpad for Clint's "I'm a hero surrounded by superheroes" mentality in Ultron, although based on shots of the early shooting he still needs more purple.

deathbydeath:

RealRT:
I hate to play this card, because in most cases it's just bullshit, but I'll go with "The original comic book costume wouldn't work on silver screen".
A generic SHIELD agent who doesn't wear SHIELD uniform and doesn't use standard issue weapons?
Now granted, you are right in that he could use much more characterization in those two. I was never a fan of Hawkeye (never hated him either), but I found the dude kinda interesting and I was disappointed that he spent most of The Avengers under mind control. Then again, it was already stated that Age of Ultron will focus more on Hawkeye and Hulk, so at least there's that. Maybe this newfound focus will make him popular enough to get his own flick.

Why'd he have to be a generic Shield agent in the first place? Hawkeye's first appearance was an a recurring villain to Iron Man; Clint actually tried to become a costumed hero, but his first robbery-foiling went wrong and left him marked as a villain and manipulated by the Black Widow (also a recurring Iron Man villain). They could have easily made the MCU Clint Barton an upstart hero who winds up under Loki's control and joins the Avengers in act 3 to make amends and step up to the next level of superheroics.

Then again, the Avengers didn't want to do much with its writing in general, but that's a different argument for a different thread (we run the risk of a derail with just this). I am hopeful, though, that Whedon uses A1 as a launchpad for Clint's "I'm a hero surrounded by superheroes" mentality in Ultron, although based on shots of the early shooting he still needs more purple.

My argument that him not being in a uniform and not using standard weapon already makes him not a generic SHIELD agent.
Now I understand why you are upset and I would be upset too if my favorite character was glanced over in that fashion.

Baresark:
I see... this is why so many of the games that involved Marvel characters were pulled from the digital shelves a few months back. Good to know I lost my chance to buy Ultimate MVC3 for my Vita so you could put more people in your Skylanders clone.

Actually, Lego Marvel Superheroes was on a great Steam sale a while ago (along with all the other Lego games, though). If you're looking for Marvel characters in a video game, that's pretty much all you need.

Also, I now want Black Bolt in an MvC game. They'd save a ton on voice acting for the guy.

So is this a standalone title, or is it an expansion to nfinity, or what? I keep seeing different things. Some people are treating it as a new game, others like a rebranding with some new figures, yet others as an expansion pack.

Baresark:
I see... this is why so many of the games that involved Marvel characters were pulled from the digital shelves a few months back. Good to know I lost my chance to buy Ultimate MVC3 for my Vita so you could put more people in your Skylanders clone.

You act as if the one logically follows the other, when it doesn't.

deathbydeath:
They could have easily made the MCU Clint Barton an upstart hero who winds up under Loki's control and joins the Avengers in act 3 to make amends and step up to the next level of superheroics.

That's....literally exactly what they did in the film. He's taken over in Act I, jarred free in Act 2, and takes up the bow in Act 3 to make amends. You're complaining about bad writing, but your suggested "alternative" is a carbon copy of what the film actually did, which makes me wonder if you actually watched it and tried to enjoy the film, or were watching to find things to pick at.

I get that you're upset that he's not wearing his ridiculous purple tights and all, I do. I appreciate silly costumes as much as the next guy. But beyond that, your complaint makes no sense. He was by no means a poorly written character.

CriticKitten:
That's....literally exactly what they did in the film. He's taken over in Act I, jarred free in Act 2, and takes up the bow in Act 3 to make amends. You're complaining about bad writing, but your suggested "alternative" is a carbon copy of what the film actually did, which makes me wonder if you actually watched it and tried to enjoy the film, or were watching to find things to pick at.

Having a single complaint with something =/= disliking it; there's no need to get preemptively defensive/offensive. Also, his primary interest in the version I proposed was ambition; see the quote I referenced above. The primary interest in TA is because it's (kinda-sorta) his job to handle this shit, and that's about as boring a motivation you can get on its own. Sure, there was that one scene with Johansson where they hint at a backstory, but that was a callback to the original comics that hasn't even paid off yet. If it pays off well enough I'll revise my statement, but a maybe-character trait is not a character trait.

CriticKitten:
But beyond that, your complaint makes no sense. He was by no means a poorly written character.

True, he was a average-written not-character. He was a guy with a not-gun who fought in NY because its what he gets paid to do.

deathbydeath:
Having a single complaint with something =/= disliking it; there's no need to get preemptively defensive/offensive.

Why do people always presume that disagreement means the other person's getting defensive? Avengers made a billion dollars at the box office and a 92% on RT. It's a big boy now and it doesn't need me to defend it from the well-reasoned complaints of a seasoned critic, much less from some guy on an internet forum whose entire complaint centers around him not liking the presentation of his favorite character. >_>

Also, his primary interest in the version I proposed was ambition; see the quote I referenced above. The primary interest in TA is because it's (kinda-sorta) his job to handle this shit, and that's about as boring a motivation you can get on its own.

That's not actually his motivation at all, if you paid attention. His reason for getting into the fight in New York is as stated previously: redemption. He knows he screwed up big time with his action under Loki's influence, and he wants to earn everyone's trust and faith back. So, again, you're complaining that the movie didn't do....exactly what it did.

Sure, there was that one scene with Johansson where they hint at a backstory, but that was a callback to the original comics that hasn't even paid off yet. If it pays off well enough I'll revise my statement, but a maybe-character trait is not a character trait.

Character history isn't a character trait by itself to begin with.

True, he was a average-written not-character. He was a guy with a not-gun who fought in NY because its what he gets paid to do.

As opposed to Widow, who was a girl with actual guns and silly karate who fought in NY because it's what she's paid to do. At least if we follow YOUR logic and ignore what actually happened in the movie.

CriticKitten:
Why do people always presume that disagreement means the other person's getting defensive? Avengers made a billion dollars at the box office and a 92% on RT. It's a big boy now and it doesn't need me to defend it from the well-reasoned complaints of a seasoned critic, much less from some guy on an internet forum whose entire complaint centers around him not liking the presentation of his favorite character. >_>

It was a play on the saying "The best defense is a good offence", because those last two clauses were basically uninformed jabs at me. Also, this is the only complaint I have that you know about. Admittedly, pretty much all of them stem from one trend that really bugs me: Whedon & Co. didn't try nearly as much as they could have with the writing. This doesn't make the movie bad, though. Avengers did exactly what it wanted to do; the problem was just that it didn't want to do much.

CriticKitten:
Character history isn't a character trait by itself to begin with.

True, but the vibe I got form this was that it was a specific event that shaped both of their characters. Let's hear it for corner-cutting!

CriticKitten:
As opposed to Widow, who was a girl with actual guns and silly karate who fought in NY because it's what she's paid to do. At least if we follow YOUR logic and ignore what actually happened in the movie.

Actually, I'm solely making judgments on the plot of the movie (which is literally just what happened in the movie).

CriticKitten:
That's not actually his motivation at all, if you paid attention. His reason for getting into the fight in New York is as stated previously: redemption. He knows he screwed up big time with his action under Loki's influence, and he wants to earn everyone's trust and faith back. So, again, you're complaining that the movie didn't do....exactly what it did.

We're bickering semantics again. Anyways, the edit on this post is basically all I have to say. Clint Barton/Hawkeye is a character defined by his struggle to perform alongside extraordinary humans although he is an ordinary human. I could not find this character in the Avengers film. This is the beginning and the end of all of my non-subjective complaints about Hawkeye (or Fauxhawkeye if you like puns). If you thought the character Jeremy Renner played in TA was well-done, then I'm glad you liked him.

Zachary Amaranth:
So is this a standalone title, or is it an expansion to nfinity, or what? I keep seeing different things. Some people are treating it as a new game, others like a rebranding with some new figures, yet others as an expansion pack.

Baresark:
I see... this is why so many of the games that involved Marvel characters were pulled from the digital shelves a few months back. Good to know I lost my chance to buy Ultimate MVC3 for my Vita so you could put more people in your Skylanders clone.

You act as if the one logically follows the other, when it doesn't.

Well, one does kind of logically follow the other. IIRC, they did say they wanted to shore up their characters in video games. Basically, they wanted everyone to pull their games with Marvel characters so there was no problem later with confusion when they later released games of their own using the same properties. Also, I was tired and extremely cynical last night, so pay no attention to my comment.

Baresark:

Well, one does kind of logically follow the other. IIRC, they did say they wanted to shore up their characters in video games. Basically, they wanted everyone to pull their games with Marvel characters so there was no problem later with confusion when they later released games of their own using the same properties. Also, I was tired and extremely cynical last night, so pay no attention to my comment.

The main problem is that this is indistinguishable from the prior de-listing of games with Activision when the license came up, and they didn't stop dealing with Activision at those points.

I won't say that there was no motivation of "we want to sell them with our Disney line," but I don't think it necessarily follows. I think your issue here stems more from the cost of doing business in a digital age, and even that's only a problem if the industry doesn't adapt to it. There are still people demanding a re-release of UMA 1 and 2, thought that's not going to happen for similar reasons. But I think this is an issue bigger than Marvel. Granted, Marvel's recent de-list was one of the biggest we've seen, but still. It's going to keep happening with ther companies.

What I want to see is the ability to use some other characters in different missions. The biggest failing of the original was that some characters were only available in the toy box. The fun part would have been to use Captain Jack in the Incredibles mission or to use Tonto in Pirates. Crossover missions would have been amusing kind of like how it works in Kingdom Hearts.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here