Composer[edit]

The composer is listed in the Infobox and the Reception section to be Yoshihiro Sakaguchi. Perhaps in the Gameboy platform this is true. But I really thought that David Wise composed the soundtrack in the NES version. I know it doesn't list DuckTales in the Video Game Credits in David Wise's article, but I swear that I heard somewhere that he had at least something to do with the Duck Tales (NES) soundtrack. Maybe he and Sakguchi collaborated on the NES title. Perhaps it used to say that in his Wikipedia article, I don't know...Somebody please set me straight. The method of "setting me straight" can range from anything from, "Sorry, dude. You are mistaken; that is all there is to it," to "Wise played a very minor role in the composition of DuckTales". Thanks! 24.10.181.254 (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly not Wise, who was working for Rare at the time, and has never done the music for any Capcom game. However, it wasn't Yoshihiro Sakaguchi either, who has gone on record as saying that he handled the sound programming, but not the music. The current theory seems to be that Manami Matsumae was the actual composer, but there's no confirmation of that (or anyone else) as yet.--86.129.5.237 (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've talked to Manami Matsumae and she confirmed to me that it is Hiroshige Tonomura. Dissident93 (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially useful sources[edit]

GT did a video on the Moon level on Ducktales for their Level segment, the video covers a lot of basic information about the game as well as some other aspects.

Also, Screwattack rated the moon theme as the 6th best video game theme ever.

AerobicFox (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DuckTales: Remastered[edit]

The game is nearing release, so I've moved it to its own page and removed it from this one. Please help reformat and reword the page over at DuckTales: Remastered. Thanks. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The game does not have enough info on its own to require its own page. It is fine to stay on this page in a subsection. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, reverted. :) 85.196.121.142 (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC) EDIT: Forgot to login. Havok (T/C/e/c) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Dark Souls II is a big enough article to stand on its own. Then this is too. Like I stated in my revert summary: This game might be based on a reboot, but it's still its own game with new content and changes. Havok (T/C/e/c) 18:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a weak argument comparing it to Dark Souls II. It's not a mater of content size, it's the type of content and what the game is. The game you argued is a new game, which is a full fledge sequel. This game, is a remake of an old one, which can be mentioned as it was in a section, on the original game's page. Think of it similarly to New Super Luigi U. Also, I am reverting back to it being a section, until we can reach a consensus. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a better one. This is a reboot. Much like The Girls with the Dragon Tattoo is a reboot/remake of the Swedish movie Män som hatar kvinnor. The Fincher movie is basically a carbon copy of the Swedish movie. So with your reasoning, the Fincher movie should be a sub-section of the Swedish movie. Which it's not, because the movie has new creative talent behind it. Just like DuckTales: Remastered. It's created by a new team, that have put a lot of effort and love into this remake to make it stand on its own two palamte, so yeah, it actually does deserve its own article. Havok (T/c/e) 19:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this section, which is a stub, does not pass this guideline for a game's own article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a guideline, not a rule. And exactly which part of the guideline doesn't DuckTales: Remastered fill as being a separate article? If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the distinct reception of a video game remake, currently the separate article has over 10 references to its notability. Havok (T/c/e) 19:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the statement, with my added emphasis: If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the distinct reception of a video game remake, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or design, then the remake will qualify for its own article. However, having a separate article should not endanger the notability of the parent article. If there is not enough distinct information on the remake for a complete article, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the original game's article.
The game has not had any distinct reception yet, beside reporters at news agencies being excited that the game is being made, bring back fond memories. So at the moment, it fails that. The game does not have any distinct game development or design that is not already mentioned in the section. The gameplay is the same as it was in the original version, and we have one sentence describing the changes that were made. How much more can be expanded from that? That one sentence says it all. As such, all the distinct aspects (it being an HD remake, has most original voice actors, gameplay tweaks that include expanded levels, and the art design) are all mentioned in the section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, by that standard Super Street Fighter II and Super Street Fighter II Turbo should be the same article? Or what about Mortal Kombat (1992 video game) and Mortal Kombat (2011). The game has had several previews since the announcement, and also during E3 2013. And as stated before, it's not even the same developers. Besides, exceptions may apply to any and all rules. Havok (T/c/e) 19:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two Mortal Kombat games you linked are two entirely different games that share the same name, and the Street Fighter Turbo has barely any references so that probably should not even be its own article for other reasons. But anyways, at the time being there is not much (again) distinct information, besides the little that is in the section, to make its own article. Maybe after it is released, when official reviews come in, and any other info about the music or gameplay is available (more in depth), then it would warrant an article. Could we possibly agree on that? Wait two more weeks to see what other info is released, and how many different media outlets write reviews, to consider making it its own article? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't revert it again. But I do want to hear from more people about this. Havok (T/c/e) 19:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I would love for it to be its own article, but by my view of the material we already have, it doesn't seem like it could be its own article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Favre1fan, it is not a separate game it updates the artwork but is still the same game, and does not require a separate article to simply repeat the same content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this will depend on the actual reception. There is just enough development information that if the game has a full-blown reception akin to most AAA titles, a stand-alone article could be possible. However, given that this is simply a graphical + sensory polishing and not a gameplay or story change, to strongly encourage the game to be kept here. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is what I roughly came to say; lets wait until the game is released, and then make a call based on the reception it receives, and/or if it receives any "post-mortem" type reviews on the development process of the game. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think it really matters either way, which it doesn't. The game has no intentions to reinvent the wheel, so the argument that it's a flashy port is sound (for now). Focus on building the article here until there's too much, and then bounce it out summary-style if necessary. There is plenty to quote. czar · · 21:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Havok, I understand your passion, but please remember that it's always better to have one great article, than one great and one not-so-much. There is always time to split the article later. Wikipedia has no deadline. I suggest first improving the section here first, and then taking the next step.--Soetermans. T / C 11:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I am doing this right. Sorry. But here is a link to a panel we did at San Diego Comic Con which might help you guys come to a better consensus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XniR04l3iA Cheers! -Austin 11:48, 5 August 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.165.172 (talk)
Hi Austin. Thanks for the link. However, we can not use that, while the content appears to be valid, it is not uploaded by an official channel related to Disney, Capcom or WayForward. We can not use it per WP:YOUTUBE. In any event, I had already watched the panel, and didn't gain any further info from it, that was not already given in the "Duckumentaries". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I am not a wikipedia editor so I am unaware of the much of the official rules for links and whatnot. I was hoping it would at least inform any decisions you would make about whether this game is its own thing and needs its own page. -Austin 11:39, 7 August 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.250.76.234 (talk)
Thank you for the thought! The sources are there for the game, it's just a matter of how much actual usable material we are able to add to the section. Much of it is the same, or just simply restated. That's why, I believe, we concluded that we will wait until it is released and reviews and any more notability comes up for it, and make the decision then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I as well would support a split now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, and suggest that we make a formal vote. Sirion123 (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remastered Split[edit]

Okay. Let's try to get some support for or against this. As it has been released, I believe that there has been enough media coverage, to warrant its own page (more so than at the time when previously discussed above). I was working extensively to find any relevant info to add, as well as a range of sources for a neutral take on the game. If split, the only thing I believe would need to be worked on, is expanding the Reception section, to include more of the reviews, as I only found scores/ratings to add to the template.

DuckTales (video game)#DuckTales: Remastered -> DuckTales: Remastered

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info on the reviews. Not aware of that, and would not have added as many if known. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and to be clear, that's not the reason I'm opposing the split, as you'd have the same issue in either result. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As no votes have been made for a month, the result should be valid enough as it stands now, that is 4 support vs. 2 oppose. Any volunteers for the job of getting the new page up and running? I would do it, but I still don't know my way around Wikipedia well enough. Sirion123 (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have moved the section to it's own article. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 18:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DuckTales (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad ending and life-restoring cheat -- also on Game Boy or not?[edit]

There's a lot in this article about the bad ending and the life-restoring cheat that must be used to get there. Are these NES-only, or also on the Game Boy version? Article should clarify. Equinox ◑ 16:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories