Support NeoGAF

[TDLink]

I would say that Wonderful 101 is a poor fit for most gamers.

Its certainly not just the press that doesn't "have time" to devote months to mastering a single game. I imagine most people will finish a game and retire it to a shelf until its time to resell or stick it in a box to make room for new consoles. Thats not to say anything disparaging about the average gamer, I count myself among them...

I'm all growed up. Between work, family, and all the forced social interactions because of those first two things I don't have the time for games that I use to. I also have a lot more disposable income. The result is a massive backlog that puts constant pressure on me to finish one game and move on to the next. Its the reason I don't enjoy fighting or racing games the way I use to; I'm just not willing to invest any time in them.

I'm an adult too and I beat the game over the course of a week. I spent a few hours the Sunday it came out and then after work on normal mode for a couple of hours a night, beating it Friday. I didn't completely know what I was doing until probably a third of the way through but that didn't stop me. The story and characters were good enough to keep me motivated even when I was getting consolation prizes. And since other than score there is no real penalty for death (boss health stays the same if you continue) it is a pretty easy game to get through. If low scores really bug you then you can also play on Easy or Very Easy mode.

It definitely doesn't take a month to learn how to play the game. A couple sessions/a few hours tops. Mastering it may take longer, but not everyone is required to do that.

I seriously don't know how anyone can play to the end of the game and still be confused about some of the basic mechanics such as how to draw some of the weapons without getting it confused with another. The game basically goes out of its way with colour-coding and over-explaining of shapes, not to mention leniency to draw them. It's even worse with the people who don't realize that the right analog stick can draw in addition to the touch screen, and it's the preferred way at that. I read some reviews who thought it was touch only drawing and it literally boggles my mind. How do people not even see what all the buttons and knobs on the controller do when they first start the game?

I own 101 and I'm sorry but it's about 7 in my books. There's just too much gimmicky shit in most levels, the camera is sometimes lacking and the controls, although very interesting and fun, are often unreliable.

Get over it gaf, it's not a game of bayonettas caliber.

Genre shifts are not "gimmicky shit" and they all work pretty well and with enough explanation to figure it out on the fly. I admit some people don't like when a game suddenly changes playstyles on them but personally I love it. Not everything you can do in any given game's normal play style can be applied to every situation you might want to put the characters in or take the story to. With Kamiya's style in Wonderful 101 no matter what happens you get to play it. I think that only adds to the fun and "awesome" factor.

You're also implying Bayonetta didn't do the exact same thing (but worse), or are you forgetting the lengthy Space Harrier and Motorcycle sections? It's a matter of opinion which game you think is better but I definitely think Wonderful 101 at the very least stands side by side with Bayonetta.

 

[Retro_]

Going forward, I think Platinum Games would be wise to adopt the same strategy. Release their games only in Japan, let importers hype them up and discuss what their games do both right and wrong before reviewers touch them and then release the western versions.

Didn't work for Anarchy. Only deflated the hype.

I own 101 and I'm sorry but it's about 7 in my books. There's just too much gimmicky shit in most levels, the camera is sometimes lacking and the controls, although very interesting and fun, are often unreliable.

Get over it gaf, it's not a game of bayonettas caliber.

Define "gimmicky shit"

 

[ViewtifulJC]

but wait

Spoiler

Anarchy Reigns came out!?

 

[TDLink]

Didn't work for Anarchy. Only deflated the hype.

I would argue though that Anarchy Reigns is actually their weakest game so that is part of it. It's also hard to sell an online-only multiplayer-focused arena brawler as not many people are in to that sort of thing, and Platinum's typical games definitely don't fall in that genre either. With barely anyone buying it and the game being completely reliant on lots of people playing it, it is not a total surprise the hype kind of dried up there.

 

[Einbroch]

But reviewers need to understand their personal likes and dislikes and look past them in order to see when a game is good at what it does. Or get someone who understands the genre to review it because they can review it more properly. If a game has a deep combat system, it simply isn't fair to just ignore or not explore it.

This is incredibly dangerous, and in fact is, in my opinion, the worst thing to do. Do you get people who love Compile Heart jRPGs those kinds of RPGs to review for big sites? Those games a mediocre, but there are fans who think they're amazing because the combat and characters click for them.

You simply cannot have a specific kind of person reviewing a specific kind of game, or else every game would get 9+ out of 10. I did not like Bayonetta or older Devil May Cry and would give those games 6/10. Is my opinion not valid?

 

[freethoughtbubble]

There seems to be a sentiment amongst the gaming press that works to the detriment of games like w101. It goes something like:

"Why would anyone choose to invest time and effort learning X, when they can get the same amount of enjoyment immediately playing Y? Isn't that just a waste of time?"

The assumption being that the enjoyment experienced playing either game is completely interchangeable. This is of course false.

Different types of games have different appeals, whether they be narrative, aesthetic, or mechanics based. No one would ever argue that the fun and exhilaration of playing a good platformer is the same type of experience you'd get playing something like Journey or Amnesia. (It's part of the reason why I hate the reliance on the word "fun" to describe what we actually enjoy about games, but that's a whole other can of worms...)

It's the same with technical, skill-based games which require time and effort to master. Mastery is part of the appeal. There's a sense of satisfaction and bare-knuckle virtuosity that these games can deliver that cinematic, set-piece games simply can't.

It's not a matter of better or worse-- they're just different. And one of the points of the article, I think, is to argue that currently the way games are reviewed makes appreciation of games like w101 nearly impossible. It's like forcing a film critic to review a slapstick comedy at a morgue or something. The conditions just aren't right.

The difference in that scenario is that the reviewer likely wouldn't dock the movie without first considering whether the circumstances surrounding his viewing affected his experience. Few game reviewers seem to indulge in that type of reflection, I think.

TL;DR: skill-based games provide a unique kind of "fun" that require a little time and effort to fully appreciate. Reviewers don't have time, which seems to translate to lower review scores/sales. This sucks.

(Btw long time lurker, first time poster, and happy to finally be in the mix

 

[SporeCrawler]

I saw a statistics that said game reviews contribute like 10% to overall game purchasing decision (in store ads and word of mouth both sitting at 30%)

I dunno how trustworthy that is but it says something to me about trustworthyness of reviews the last few years

 

[SporeCrawler]

I would say that Wonderful 101 is a poor fit for most gamers.

Its certainly not just the press that doesn't "have time" to devote months to mastering a single game. I imagine most people will finish a game and retire it to a shelf until its time to resell or stick it in a box to make room for new consoles. Thats not to say anything disparaging about the average gamer, I count myself among them...

I'm all growed up. Between work, family, and all the forced social interactions because of those first two things I don't have the time for games that I use to. I also have a lot more disposable income. The result is a massive backlog that puts constant pressure on me to finish one game and move on to the next. Its the reason I don't enjoy fighting or racing games the way I use to; I'm just not willing to invest any time in them.

The game is beatable if you can draw a straight line with a stick. Just play with suoer easy. Game is still enjoyable.

 

[Anura]

This is incredibly dangerous, and in fact is, in my opinion, the worst thing to do. Do you get people who love Compile Heart jRPGs those kinds of RPGs to review for big sites? Those games a mediocre, but there are fans who think they're amazing because the combat and characters click for them.

You simply cannot have a specific kind of person reviewing a specific kind of game, or else every game would get 9+ out of 10. I did not like Bayonetta or older Devil May Cry and would give those games 6/10. Is my opinion not valid?

It gets even more tricky when you consider that the opposite is true as well. Give the games to a reviewer who hates the genre and you get worse reviews. I think that is why niche games get lower scores, even though they aren't worse games.

 

[Raysoul]

To be fair, Wonderful 101 is not a perfect game. Some camera issues, some cluttery UI, framerate drops, etc...

But then, this would be my Game of the Year. It gives me a satisfaction that I haven't experienced on other games. It would be hard to top it unless there will be another game with deep and satisfying gameplay and story as epic as this.

 

[Azar]

Most review scores are decided before the game has even started. Or better, the starting point of the review is set before hand. GTA gets to start at a 10 and get whittled down while others start at 7/8 and have a tough climb ahead of them and shortcomings are more glaring.

Do you honestly believe this is true? Because it's not. No one that I know who writes about games goes in with a judgment in their head already. Will different games have different expectations? Sure. That's true for everyone. People with knowledge of the video game industry would expect something different from Grand Theft Auto than Battleship: The Game, the same way a movie critic would expect different things from Martin Scorsese's next film and Jackass 3D.

There's no conspiracy going deeper than that. People write their opinions. Sometimes those opinions aren't as informed as they could be, and sure, Robert's right that high-skill games present pitfalls for reviews done on a tight schedule. But it's also easy to dismiss valid criticisms and blame lack of adequate playtime if an opinion simply doesn't jibe with your own.

 

[Bobs Big Boy]

Real problem is 78 being a problematic score.

 

[Freezie KO]

Disagree.

I downloaded the demo. I have a Wii U that is starving for games. I really wanted to like Wonderful 101. I played it four times and got Platinum rank on Normal mode.

I actually think the core gameplay is great. But each time, I just didn't find the controls fun. I'm not going to argue if they're "broken", but I was frustrated by them.

Then the reviews hit, and most of them mention the poor controls and dock the game as a result. Sounds to me like this time the reviews were in unison about a very real problem that people would have with the game. If the demo didn't exist, reviews could've saved me from buying a game I wouldn't have wanted to purchase.

If anything, Wonderful 101 is a success for reviews.

 

[JDSN]

Yep, I knew TW101 was gonna get lower scores because it was gonna be hard to fit it into a comfortable category and genre.

 

[foxuzamaki]

You stole my avatar.

Didnt know somene was using it, I'll change it.

 

[WrenchNinja]

No, because W101 also demonstrates the problem with demos. I'd say the demo on the eShop is pretty representative of the main part of the game. The problem is it's still a skill based game. You get some abilities to start the demo but you aren't eased into them and even in the main game you need to play a couple hours to really get the basics. So in 15 minute demo, even if it demonstrates the game you probably will walk away never understanding how to play it and will likely not get to your first "ah ha!" moment. This also doesn't mention the constant gameplay shifts which the game throws at you. This is what reviews could have fixed, a lengthy hands on to explore the game would have really help ease some fears that the whole game was frustrating and that there is huge satisfaction in learning for yourself how things work. But they didn't, most were probably in a rush to get that out the door. The game doesn't halt your progress for sucking, it's forgiving and you can continue as much as you want and get to the credits and in most AAA games that's your reward, but here it's not.

It's not reviewers jobs to teach you how to play. If the demo is poor and the main game doesn't teach you very well, that's on the dev and pub.

 

[Clefargle]

The gaming media represents and caters to the predominant shootbang, QTE-loving, dudebro, press-a-to-win demographic. It's no wonder that they hire writers from that group. It's sad, but not revelatory....I love the W101 demo btw, will buy next paycheck. I love to be challenged.

 

[synce]

My only problem with game reviewers is they give high scores to games with huge marketing budgets, even though they're usually half-assed rehashes that will sell no matter what. I'm not sure if it's the shiny graphics or if they're paid off or what.

But when it comes to smaller games that need all the help of good publicity, they're either more critical of them or don't even bother reviewing them. So I rarely visit game review sites anymore

 

[Coxy]

yup, game reviewers simply wont/cant put the time into games, it's not a W101 exclusive problem, I've seen it a thousand times with RPGs, they play an hour in and try to make up the rest

 

[Bundy]

The Wonderful 101 is one of the best games to come out this year & is arguably the first truly killer app for the Wii U (though NSMBU was a lot of fun & Zombi U had some interesting ideas). It is also currently averaging around a 78% on Gamerankings.

First of all... stop mentioning the % rating (average) to prove your point.
Second: And if you are mentioning it..... 78% doesn't really scream "killer app".

 

[zoukka]

Define "gimmicky shit"

Well pretty much everything that does not rely on the normal controls.

Vehicle sections (these are exceptionally bad in Kamiya games).
On rails turret sections.
Gamepad only moments (seriously, these are just slapped in to justify the gamepad).
Weird arbitary gameplay shifts (holding the shield, pressing buttons to navigate a spaceship etc).
QTE's (well these aren't necessarily gimmicks, but they are far too plentiful in combination of the other stuff mentioned).

In most of these you need a few tries before you can even properly play the section without unnecessary mistakes. They get better with each replay because you know they are coming, but I still I think the game would've been MUCH better without them.

 

[DICKS AHOY]

To be fair, while I'm sinking a TON of time into 101 nowadays, it has a way steeper learning curve than I remember any previous Platinum game having. It wasn't really until I reached the mid-way point of the game and had most of the 'major' 101 members unlocked until everything 'clicked' for me.

By comparison I was able to get into Bayonetta from the word go. I'd say while Bayo's only marginally better than 101, it doesn't surprise me reviewers without time to spare and for an unpopular system wouldn't gel with it nor put in the necessary time to master the game's combat system.

 

[Gsnap]

This is incredibly dangerous, and in fact is, in my opinion, the worst thing to do. Do you get people who love Compile Heart jRPGs those kinds of RPGs to review for big sites? Those games a mediocre, but there are fans who think they're amazing because the combat and characters click for them.

You simply cannot have a specific kind of person reviewing a specific kind of game, or else every game would get 9+ out of 10. I did not like Bayonetta or older Devil May Cry and would give those games 6/10. Is my opinion not valid?

Well, why did you not like them? Is it because you feel they don't stack up to other games in the genre? Is it because you feel they have some glaring flaws? OR is it because you simply don't enjoy or understand the genre? Because if it's the last one, then no, your opinion would not be valid.

I didn't say to only get people who "love" the genres. I said to get people who "understand" the genres. Someone who is able to look at different games in the genre and say "this aspect is done well" and "this aspect is not". Some genres are very specific and complex and deserve the attention of people who understand them.

 

[Mistouze]

I own 101 and I'm sorry but it's about 7 in my books. There's just too much gimmicky shit in most levels, the camera is sometimes lacking and the controls, although very interesting and fun, are often unreliable.

Get over it gaf, it's not a game of bayonettas caliber.

Your book is weak. I-can't-draw-with-my-right-stick weak.

 

[Retro_]

Since everyone keeps bringing up Demon's Souls and Dark souls:

Yeah I think this is key

Even if you look at Platinum's/Kamiya's past releases you'll notice this. His games like Bayonetta, Devil May Cry and RE2, while still challenging and mechanically driven, all reviewed and sold (relatively) well because they were in genres that were easy for people to classify and understand. Easy to sell the idea of to people.

While his other games like Viewtiful Joe and Okami, or PG's other games like Vanquish and Anarchy, weren't as well received at launch because they were hard ideas to sell to people.

Even when they reviewed well like VJ and Okami, that didn't translate into massive sales. Because for the most part people still had no idea what the games were supposed to be.

demon's souls and dark souls were well reviewed because reviewers already knew what the game was trying to be. just looking at a short clip or even a few screenshots you could tell that it's an action rpg. the games weren't particularly innovative in that sense.

how do you explain TW101 to people? you have to play it and struggle with it a little to understand what the game is all about.

Yeah exactly.

That's why I tend to roll my eyes when people blame the poor sales of these games solely on the publishers because "they didn't market the games enough".

There's really just not much they can do to convey the ideas of games like this in ads and commercials. Sure more people will know about it but that doesn't necessarily mean that many more sales in proportion to the money spent on advertising. Even if people know about it, they aren't gonna buy it if they have no idea what it is. and games like 101 are pretty much impossible to explain briefly. Same with Anarchy and Okami and VJ etc. The games are either gonna take off on word of mouth or they aren't.

Well pretty much everything that does not rely on the normal controls.

Vehicle sections (these are exceptionally bad in Kamiya games).
On rails turret sections.
Gamepad only moments (seriously, these are just slapped in to justify the gamepad).
Weird arbitary gameplay shifts (holding the shield, pressing buttons to navigate a spaceship etc).
QTE's (well these aren't necessarily gimmicks, but they are far too plentiful in combination of the other stuff mentioned).

That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure before responding to an opinion you didn't really hold.

In most of these you need a few tries before you can even properly play the section without unnecessary mistakes.

That's 101 in a nutshell. Minigames and core combat alike.

and that's ok. I kind of like playing a game that has you learn the hard way before you're able to perform flawlessly. Although it probably hurts the experience of an initial playthrough for some people and I can respect that criticism

They get better with each replay because you know they are coming, but I still I think the game would've been MUCH better without them.

I disagree. Part of what I like about these games is that they have these kind of minigames to break up the core game. Those gimmicks play a huge role in the game's pacing.

I also like that they all have some depth now, as opposed to the Bayonetta ones which were much more straightforward while also being much longer.(and I say this as someone who enjoyed them in that game as well)

I think if they weren't there and these games were nothing but combat, the game would be alot less memorable and interesting to me. Like part of the reason I never really liked Ninja Gaiden is because it's pretty much this. You're just running from arena to arena fighting enemies. I don't remember anything about those games but Ryu and certain enemy types. While in 101 and Viewtiful Joe and Bayonetta I can remember entire stage layouts because they're packed with interesting "gimmicks" and variants on the core mechanics outside of just fighting enemies in a room.

ViewtifulJC put phrased it alot better in the 101 thread, but I'm too lazy to go find his post. One of the few times I've agreed with him 100% on something!!!(fuck Rising)

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I will say that the first Ninja Gaiden had a interesting pacing. Fewer enemies per battle than the sequels(less is more in this case), with a fast-paced precise style but never into the slippery aggro monotony the sequels became. The first couple levels are pretty linear, but places like the Aqueducts, the Ice/Fire Caverns, and the whole town of Vigor had more of a "hub" world like design, that required and encouraged exploration, light puzzle solving, interesting little traversal segments and generally made it seem more like an Action-Adventure than just straight up action. It was Hayashi and his boys who kept getting rid of these elements with every installment. Even in Ninja Gaiden Sigma, he gets rid of most of the puzzles, the keys you have find to locked doors, and just a lot of the non-combat stuff. First thing that comes to mind is this little fire cavern section in ch.12 that's completely gone. You have to time your movement in between the fire and use the camera around corners to see where they are(and there's a golden scarab you can miss that he grabs). It's a small thing you put in right before a min-boss fight, but it's a varied challenge that requires different skills than fighting even MORE enemies.

The sequels become more and more narrow, with more and more enemies thrown in wave after wave after wave after wave after wave of fights. Pacing goes out the window.

 

[fred]

It's all down to the majority of reviewers being crap at playing games, as I've mentioned on these boards a couple of times during the last couple of days. Reviewers in the States even refuse to review a game unless their review copy comes with a walkthrough.

As a result of this in general games require less skill to play. That's why we've got aim-assist and auto regenerating health in every FPS game these days.

I really can't understand how these twats get their jobs tbh.

 

[Bulzeeb]

I'll be buying a wii U next week if everything goes as planned but I already did my part by buying the the game on amazon, I am not a fan of action/beat them up games but this game looks fresh and unique that I wanted to experience it and create my own impression of it

 

[SonyToo!™]

While it's true that reviewers will shit out reviews of niche games if they can get away with it, there is also the fact that game systems can be difficult to understand, where often gamers will defer among themselves until a concensus is reached as to what is good or broken.

I guess that's another reason why competitive online multiplayer games are able to thrive due to the long beta programs as gamers and reviewers have more than enough time to grasp the game.

I haven't checked the US reviews of 101 but I bet they are a damn sight better than the EU ones, atleast in regards to the mechanics and controls.

As someone who loves unique and challenging SP games (especially on home consoles / PC) this thread is all rather depressing even if it's true...

 

[SonyToo!™]

That's why I tend to roll my eyes when people blame the poor sales of these games solely on the publishers because "they didn't market the games enough".

I somewhat agree with you but publishers often do send the wrong marketing messages. For example SEGA selling Vanquish to the west as a Gears clone didn't work when most Gears fans ignored it due to the lack of MP and short play time.

EDIT sorry for the double post.

 

[Lowlander2]

As a critic being discussed in this very piece, I actually mostly agree with Boyd's sentiment, as games like The Wonderful 101 seem like the kind of games not fit to be on a traditional sort of scale. However, I struggle to think of how this can be actively solved.

I'm sure most GAF users would just say to take the time to play the game's guts out without worrying how over the time of release the actual review will be posted, but there's a clear dilemma between waiting to produce a perfect review and reviewing a game as fast as possible when it's actually relevant and people will read it. It's especially daunting in a position like mine, when you're rarely graced with review copies and have to buy the game at launch (or a few days after, given I'm in Australia) like everyone else. Either you play through a game too fast and miss the point or play through it too slowly for anyone to care. Happy mediums? I just about managed it with Resident Evil 6, but that was because I lucked out on getting it early.

I'm going to try and review Pokemon Y next, but try is the operative word here. Even within its familiar structure, Pokemon is still a unique and time-consuming game, sitting alongside W101 as a game not traditionally bred for reviewing.

 

[Dahbomb]

Pretty much yeah.

Look at what happened to Godhand. Skill based games without absurd production values or some sort of history usually do get panned.

 

[Burai]

It's all down to the majority of reviewers being crap at playing games, as I've mentioned on these boards a couple of times during the last couple of days. Reviewers in the States even refuse to review a game unless their review copy comes with a walkthrough.

As a result of this in general games require less skill to play. That's why we've got aim-assist and auto regenerating health in every FPS game these days.

I really can't understand how these twats get their jobs tbh.

Don't blame them. They aren't the ones who set their deadlines or decide when they are going to receive their review code. They need walkthroughs because there's little chance they'll get through a game and write about it before their deadline without one. There's no time to enjoy games when you have to review a lot of them.

And your second paragraph has nothing to do with reviewers and everything to do with games copying the successful formula behind Halo.

 

[plank]

Because they don't like the things that I like?

No but they do like the things that everyone likes, and if everyone doesn't like they don't like it either.

 

[Soul_Pie]

I think there's something in this personally. From the moment you start your typical shooting game you have a fairly good idea of what to expect, what constitutes good gameplay, what things to look out for which will show off its qualities. Same goes for racing games, fighting games, etc.

When it comes to games like The wonderful 101 which are a bit outside of the mainstream, it's difficult to make those same judgements, because the gameplay tropes, comparisons to other games of a similar nature don't exist. When you start a shooter there's a certain intuition that kicks in from that experience that you've had previously, whereas when you start a game that doesn't really fit into a player's previous experience you don't have that same embedded sense of what makes the game good or not. These are the sort of games that the mainstream press don't really seem to appreciate, or if they do it's a kind of delayed response after gamers who've devoted their time to understanding the mechanics convince them of its value.

I don't know if TW101 fits into the category of misunderstood masterpiece as I haven't got round to playing it but I do know that in my experience a lot of the values of games like Mirror's Edge were overlooked by the majority of reviewers who couldn't really come to grips with the gameplay or seemed to not really fully embrace what the game was trying to achieve. I get the feeling at times that a lot of these reviewers only seem to offer real enthusiasm for the very safe games that are easy to decipher and fit neatly into a category that they're comfortable with.

 

[jackal27]

Yup. I totally agree.

I still think that reviews are great and needed, but something about the way many people review game is off.

 

[Oshimai]

This paragraph is fairly important as it distinguishes the reviewer's job and the gamer. Part of problem is that some gamers/reviewers prefer instantaneous gratification and many fantastic games, W101 included I assume, are overlooked because of that reason.

Now if someone buys a game like this and doesn’t immediately get it, what are they going to do? Well, they have an investment in the game (the money they spent and their desire to enjoy the game) so they’re going to put in the effort to try to get something out of the game. They’ll keep at it until the game’s systems click for them, or they’ll look online at gameplay videos, ask questions on forums, check out a FAQ, etc. Some of them will eventually end up deciding that the game is bad or just not for them, but many of them will eventually end up enjoying the game. And if they end up enjoying the game, they may stick with the game and compete on the leaderboards, try to 100% the game, get all the achievements, etc.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

Sounds like just making excuses for poor sales/reception of W101. I was super hyped on the game, until I got the demo. I played it several times to get the mechanics down better, but that didn't make it fun. I've played plenty of games that take plenty of skill/time to master, and even being bad at them, they were fun right away. Compare something like Ninja Gaiden Black or Devil May Cry, I didn't fully understand all the mechanics for quite some time, but they were still a blast in the first 10 minutes. I can't speak definitively on W101 without playing the whole thing, but the demo lost them a sale from me.

 

[d0nd]

i'd play it on the vita

 

[jackal27]

First of all... stop mentioning the % rating (average) to prove your point.
Second: And if you are mentioning it..... 78% doesn't really scream "killer app".

That.......That's the point though?

 

[Freezie KO]

Sounds like just making excuses for poor sales/reception of W101. I was super hyped on the game, until I got the demo. I played it several times to get the mechanics down better, but that didn't make it fun. I've played plenty of games that take plenty of skill/time to master, and even being bad at them, they were fun right away. Compare something like Ninja Gaiden Black or Devil May Cry, I didn't fully understand all the mechanics for quite some time, but they were still a blast in the first 10 minutes. I can't speak definitively on W101 without playing the whole thing, but the demo lost them a sale from me.

There may be a point in this article about how games are reviewed, but W101 is the wrong game to rally behind. The reviewers reached near unanimity about the flaws and successes of the game, which were the same things I felt while playing the demo.

 

[Curufinwe]

I agree with the general point of the article, but the controls in TW101 for switching weapons are more difficult than they need to be.

 

[Coffee Dog]

There may be a point in this article about how games are reviewed, but W101 is the wrong game to rally behind. The reviewers reached near unanimity about the flaws and successes of the game, which were the same things I felt while playing the demo.

Flaws like what?

Spoiler

I will just die if you say the controls are inaccurate.

And there wasn't near unanimity; just from the bigger outlets. A ton of smaller outlets gave the game much higher ratings. As for the bolded, I do find it funny that just because you felt the same as the reviewers automatically means the reviewers were in the right.

 

[vcc]

I don't think the problem with Wonderful 101 was the reviews. a 78 on meta critic put it's squarely above average. It's seems favourable is not enthusiastic.

Wonderful 101 never had a chance at mainstream success. It might have done well in Japan but it's fundemental design rules out anything but cult classic in the west.

Here are some of the reasons I think its self limiting

1. It's on a system most people don't own
2. It's cute in a way that doesn't appeal to girls
3. The idea of non traditional controls alienates some gamers
4. It has Japanese Zaniness but in a way that's not 'cool' like Bayonetta

Given all that, there was no way it would ever move a large number of units. At best it would be a cult classic.

I don't own a Wii U and the quick looks and let's plays and WTF is .. of the game isn't enough to make me want to shell out for the game and console despite the fact I like Vietiful Joe, hard games, and Japanese zaniness. Maybe wen Zelda U comes out I might pick it up cheap.

 

[Freezie KO]

Flaws like what?

Spoiler

I will just die if you say the controls are inaccurate.

And there wasn't near unanimity; just from the bigger outlets. A ton of smaller outlets gave the game much higher ratings. As for the bolded, I do find it funny that just because you felt the same as the reviewers automatically means the reviewers were in the right.

I don't care if reviews are "right". They're not "right" or "wrong." They're just a subjective opinion about a game. And if a lot of reviewers point out that they have the same exact problem with a game, then that type of consensus is worth paying attention to because others are likely to have a similar experience.

 

[FlashbladeGAF]

I agree with the general point of the article, but the controls in TW101 for switching weapons are more difficult than they need to be.

your right,

it's so difficult...

http://youtu.be/sdHbPXNJvVE?t=1m38s


....If you aren't willing to at least try to take an extra moment to learn them when you arent in the heat of battle.

 

[Coffee Dog]

I don't care if reviews are "right". They're not "right" or "wrong." They're just a subjective opinion about a game. And if a lot of reviewers point out that they have the same exact problem with a game, then that type of consensus is worth paying attention to because others are likely to have a similar experience.

You're entirely dodging my question. That type of consensus is not worth listening to when there are objective falsities in them ie "The controls are inaccurate"

That's why discussing those specific complaints are very important, and for that mattter, this entire discussion is about why the majority could be ill-informed while playing a game. Your point doesn't deflate Boyd's argument in any way.

 

[H_Prestige]

Why didn't Dark Souls get terrible review scores?

 

[dark10x]

It's definitely a strange game in the sense that it takes a while to become genuinely fun. I absolutely HATED the game after the first couple of experiences. It was simply not fun but, after keeping at it, I've started to have a good time and unlock the fun. It's a pretty slick game and it definitely demands a lot from the player initially.

However, I don't think we should pretend that it has no issues either. The missions do drag on a bit too much for a game of this type with little to no scenery/music change. Compared to Bayonetta, which constantly mixed things up, it does hurt the pacing here a bit.

More importantly, the framerate is awful. I've run benchmarks on it (just for proofs sake) and I can see while playing it; the framerate dips under 30 fps more often than it should and typically hangs in the 30s and 40s during most battles. This is magnified by the isometric angle and quick scrolling, I feel. The performance is lower than God of War Ascension, which used fixed angles and high quality motion blur to help deal with it. It's really not much better than Bayonetta PS3 when you look at the numbers. Metal Gear Rising dropped the ball here as well but Wonderful 101 is much much worse.

 

[synchronicity]

Most review scores are decided before the game has even started. Or better, the starting point of the review is set before hand. GTA gets to start at a 10 and get whittled down while others start at 7/8 and have a tough climb ahead of them and shortcomings are more glaring.

Of course, people, including those who review games, are lazy and subject to societal inertia.