Support NeoGAF

[Freezie KO]

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.

I mentioned earlier I didn't like the controls. Not my fault if you don't want to read the whole four-page thread.

Here's my problems with the game:

Major:

Controls. I'm not going to argue if they're "inaccurate" or broken. But they're cumbersome. The UI in the GamePad is just dumb because there are two touch "buttons" that bring up menus, so you have to look down when drawing to make sure you don't pull up the menus.

And as someone that doesn't like dual analog aiming in FPS, drawing with the right stick, especially in the middle of combos lacks the precision of buttons. And a YouTube person who liked the controls and spent forty hours mastering them isn't going to convince me otherwise.


Medium:

Identification Problems: The camera is not perfect. And small enemies frequently get lost in your group or behind a tree or something. I've thought I cleared areas and had to wander around until I found the one tiny stunned enemy hiding near a fountain.

Small:

In the demo, I felt all the different systems in the menu were poorly explained. But I'll give this a pass because it's possible the full game does a better job.


So those are my problems and, lo and behold, those are the same problems that reviewers mentioned. If you like the controls, wonderful. I didn't, and I'm glad reviewers aren't too afraid to get eaten alive by angry gamers to speak their minds about what some people might object to in a given game.

 

[NotLiquid]

If TW101 proved anything to me it's sort of how games in general, due to their audience, aren't really as prone to take risks as far as conventional genres go, and I'm already seeing shades of that in this thread. Move too far away from the status quo or attempt at establishing a certain unique premise or form of pacing and it'll be called a gimmick.

TW101 might not be the most flawless game out there but it is easily one of the most interesting and unique that's come out this year and deserves to be played on that premise alone. I have a feeling that, much like God Hand, it'll be looked back upon as something of a cult classic. At the very least I look forward to reading some LTTP threads in the future.

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.

I really don't see how. The entirety of the game's combat is structured around the morphs. You're not going to get your mileage out of your typical dial-a-combo strategy, the combat is structured by how well you can perform your shapes and there are a bunch of tools built around those such as Speed and Attack Liner. As far as a combo list goes, each weapon has only a select number of attacks to use, with most of them just being a stinger, launcher and a cyclone variation.

The Liner determines the size of your weapon which in turn determines the reach as well as attack damage, as well as the requirement to circulating your opponents in order to lift them up. I'm not sure how you'd be able to simplify the controllers further without crippling the general foundation.

 

[Skilletor]

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.

How do you run benchmarks on console games?

 

[Enosh]

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.

I prefer the opinion of your average dudebro over that of a snob who thinks he is so much better than other people just because he plays some game (or doesn't plays others)

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I certainly agree that this may be the case, however, we must also understand that it's quite unfair for a game to ask you to master it before having any fun. I'm speaking in generalities here, as I haven't played W101 myself.

That was the premise of most early arcade games. Dig-Dug is quite slow for the first few levels, its only when the game starts getting hard and you have to juggle things to complete the level that the game really starts getting enjoyable. W101 kind of works in the same way. You can absolutely have fun with it by playing it in the simplest of ways, but finding more efficient ways to complete the levels is where the game really shines.

 

[Mman235]

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?

This is only a problem if the critic can't explain their likes or contextualise them (and being able to do that should be mandatory to being a "critic". Too bad it isn't in gaming). Regardless of if the consensus is that Compile Heart RPG's are mediocre, if someone can provide proper explanations of why they think they're great then there's no problem (and there's plenty of games where I think the "consensus" is bullshit). Of course, that goes for negative views as well.

 

[zenosparadox]

Based on all the reviews/comments I have read, it sounds like The Wonderful 101 is being received about as well as Citizen Kane was for film (i.e. semi-popular developer makes game that many swear by but is ignored by the masses and more-or-less panned by critics, but the comparison is slightly flawed because W101 was released on the Wii U which is a small slice of the gaming pie and it was not sabotaged due to politics involving William Randolph Hearst). I have not yet played the game, but my impression is that it is too "hard" for most gamers or they just could not get hooked. It's not the end of the world. It happens.

 

[shadowstar]

Pretty much sums up why the gaming press hates fighting games.

Well except Neatherrealms since they add extensive SP content.

 

[marc^o^]

The more you play the game, the better you become. At Mission 006 I'm in total control.
This learning curve could be seen as an hindrance, wouldn't this game be that rewarding. How could you not want to keep practicing/progressing in the game with so much awesomess at every corner?

 

[FlashbladeGAF]

I mentioned earlier I didn't like the controls. Not my fault if you don't want to read the whole four-page thread.

Here's my problems with the game:

Major:

Controls. I'm not going to argue if they're "inaccurate" or broken. But they're cumbersome. The UI in the GamePad is just dumb because there are two touch "buttons" that bring up menus, so you have to look down when drawing to make sure you don't pull up the menus.

And as someone that doesn't like dual analog aiming in FPS, drawing with the right stick, especially in the middle of combos lacks the precision of buttons. And a YouTube person who liked the controls and spent forty hours mastering them isn't going to convince me otherwise.




Medium:

Identification Problems: The camera is not perfect. And small enemies frequently get lost in your group or behind a tree or something. I've thought I cleared areas and had to wander around until I found the one tiny stunned enemy hiding near a fountain.

Small:

In the demo, I felt all the different systems in the menu were poorly explained. But I'll give this a pass because it's possible the full game does a better job.


So those are my problems and, lo and behold, those are the same problems that reviewers mentioned. If you like the controls, wonderful. I didn't, and I'm glad reviewers aren't too afraid to get eaten alive by angry gamers to speak their minds about what some people might object to in a given game.

You mean here's your problem with the demo


Because playing the game and putting in 40 seconds of actually learnign the game especially from a pro youtuber would have had you switching weapons with little to no problems


Doing it in an actual battle on the other hand depends on your own personal skill level

EDIT: I'm also not a dual analog pro, but I can learn to move the stick. The actions don't require the precision of a FPS
And the youtuber went out of his way to show you how simple the mechanics can be so you could jump into the game without any problems.

but your comfortable disliking a game because it doesn't play the way you want it to instead of taking the time to learn how/why the game plays the way it does.

 

[Freezie KO]

You mean here's your problem with the demo

Because playing the game and putting in 40 seconds of actually learnign the game especially from a pro youtuber would have had you switching weapons with little to no problems

Doing it in an actual battle on the other hand depends on your own personal skill level

No, I mean that's my problem with the game. Unless of course the controls are magically different in the main game than the demo. I played through the demo four times and got Platinum rank on Normal. Even when getting good combos, I still found the controls imprecise and unwieldy.

You liked the controls? Good for you! But a lot of people didn't, and the reviews reflected that. This is a win for reviews.

 

[IvorB]

Yes, game reviews are useless in their current format. It's just a same that people put so much faith in them. Even people who bemoan how useless they are will be there on release day pouring over what the reviewers have to say about such-and-such a game. It's a sh*t situation.

Reviews should just be more clinical/descriptive and less opinion-based.

 

[marc^o^]

No, I mean that's my problem with the game. Unless of course the controls are magically different in the main game than the demo. I played through the demo four times and got Platinum rank. Even when getting good combos, I still found the controls imprecise and unwieldy.

What's magical is that playing the game makes things click. Darwinism in action.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

Why didn't Dark Souls get terrible review scores?

Because it's in a well-established genre that reviewers are experienced in.

It's also worth keeping in mind that although people hold Dark Souls as being incredible hard (even harder than it actually is), it's actually much more accessible than its spiritual predecessor, King's Field. And look, the last King's Field game got a lot of negative reviews: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/kings-field-the-ancient-city

 

[Lowlander2]

Based on all the reviews/comments I have read, it sounds like The Wonderful 101 is being received about as well as Citizen Kane was for film (i.e. semi-popular developer makes game that many swear by but is ignored by the masses and more-or-less panned by critics, but the comparison is slightly flawed because W101 was released on the Wii U which is a small slice of the gaming pie and it was not sabotaged due to politics involving William Randolph Hearst). I have not yet played the game, but my impression is that it is too "hard" for most gamers or they just could not get hooked. It's not the end of the world. It happens.

Noooooooo

 

[FlashbladeGAF]

No, I mean that's my problem with the game. Unless of course the controls are magically different in the main game than the demo. I played through the demo four times and got Platinum rank on Normal. Even when getting good combos, I still found the controls imprecise and unwieldy.

You liked the controls? Good for you! But a lot of people didn't, and the reviews reflected that. This is a win for reviews.

Yes I like new experiences and I don't judge games based off their rushed/early/out of context/limited demos.

If I did, I never would have played Uncharted and I would have missed out on the entire trilogy including TLoU.

I get the game controls felt awkward. It's a new game. It's like your parents not able to keep up with todays gaming because the controller evolved into shoulder pads and triggers. It doesnt mean the games bad, just because you couldn't adjust to what the game or demo demanded of you. It just means some people need more time than others to get over the learning curve. And it especially doesn't help when your rushing through a game to make a review deadline. And then turn around and complain that there isn't anything new anymore.

And how can you say it's a win for for reviews when you havent even played the main game.
Play it, then comment.
It's a review of the game... not the demo.

EDIT: But being turned off from the game by it's demo is fine. Just rubs me the wrong way when people comment as if the demo showed everything the game has to offer and that they agree 100 percent with the reviewers but are unwilling to take into account actual gamers who comment and have playing habits and aren't paid to finish several games a week.

 

[mantidor]

This is a problem on both ends, reviewers haven't really matured enough to be objective about games, and the audience is still largely uneducated, some only look at high scores unfortunately.


Ok uneducated sounds bad, I'm not saying everyone is an idiot, more like they are just ignorant and can end up missing on games they might like if they only stick to the metacritic average.

 

[MiniBossBattle]

I still remember hearing about a bug report reply "press couldn't get past X area, eight year olds able to pass through no problem. not a bug."

 

[zenosparadox]

Noooooooo

Good, healthy discussion. Thanks!

 

[Retro_]

People need to really stop with this Saur dickriding.

Posting a video of a really talented player is not a counter argument to every issue people have with the game. Least of all the controls.

 

[Harlock]

If Polygon had any humility they could use your dynamic score system to go back and change Wonderful 101 review. "Hey, guys, I played more and now I get!" 6--->8.5

 

[zashga]

demon's souls and dark souls were well reviewed because reviewers already knew what the game was trying to be.

The Souls games review well because reviewers know they're supposed to like them. It's kind of like modern art: no one wants to be the guy who doesn't get it.

For the record, I love both of those games. ; )

 

[Freezie KO]

Yes I like new experiences and I don't judge games based off their rushed/early/out of context/limited demos.

If I did, I never would have played Uncharted and I would have missed out on the entire trilogy including TLoU.

I get the game controls felt awkward. It's a new game. It's like your parents not able to keep up with todays gaming because the controller evolved into shoulder pads and triggers. It doesnt mean the games bad, just because you couldn't adjust to what the game or demo demanded of you. It just means some people need more time than others to get over the learning curve. And it especially doesn't help when your rushing through a game to make a review deadline. And then turn around and complain that there isn't anything new anymore.

And how can you say it's a win for for reviews when you havent even played the main game.
Play it, then comment.
It's a review of the game... not the demo.

EDIT: But being turned off from the game by it's demo is fine. Just rubs me the wrong way when people comment as if the demo showed everything the game has to offer and that they agree 100 percent with the reviewers but are unwilling to take into account actual gamers who comment and have playing habits and aren't paid to finish several games a week.

I like new experiences too. That's my biggest complaint with Wii U right now. But just because something is new doesn't mean I'm going to like it.

I tried to like W101. But I couldn't get past the controls. I played the first level four times! You don't do that unless you really want to like the game. And I sure didn't rush through it for any deadline.

You seem to be seeking some sort of objective review, but that will never happen. Reviews are subjective experiences with a game. So you say that a game isn't "bad" if a player can't adjust to the controls. On the other hand, if the controls are unwieldy and cumbersome to a given player, that will likely make the game worse for them. I expect them to be honest with their experiences.

--

reviewers haven't really matured enough to be objective about games

Unless you're talking about something quantifiable like framerate or resolution, there is not much to be objective about. This search for "objectivity" is just coded language for "I want them to like what I like."

 

[FlashbladeGAF]

People need to really stop with this Saur dickriding.

Posting a video of a really talented player is not a counter argument to every issue people have with the game. Least of all the controls.

It is when that talented person is showing you an easier way of learning the controls that some are having issues with because of time/skill/laziness etc...

And I only posted it because he specifically called out the control issues he was having with the demo.
I'm not saying he has to like the controls and I'm not saying the controls in themselves are perfect.

They are what you put into them.


You act like I posted a W101 combo video or something.

 

[noobasuar]

People need to really stop with this Saur dickriding.

Posting a video of a really talented player is not a counter argument to every issue people have with the game. Least of all the controls.

The controls really arent a problem. It's more that most gamers are lazy dumb motherfuckers that aren't willing to spend any time mastering anything and instead of just saying they're awful at videogames they'd rather not admit that but blame the game.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

The controls really arent a problem. It's more that most gamers are lazy dumb motherfuckers that aren't willing to spend any time mastering anything and instead of just saying they're awful at videogames they'd rather not admit that but blame the game.

what a great Comment, very conductive to discussion and welcoming to opposing vieepoints

 

[Htown]

Because it's in a well-established genre that reviewers are experienced in.

It's also worth keeping in mind that although people hold Dark Souls as being incredible hard (even harder than it actually is), it's actually much more accessible than its spiritual predecessor, King's Field. And look, the last King's Field game got a lot of negative reviews: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/kings-field-the-ancient-city

Huh.

Reviews that literally run from "If this game is played for 15 minutes and then discarded due to the slow speed and pace of the game, you aren’t giving it the patience it deserves," down to "too hard, too slow, too ugly."

 

[Lowlander2]

Good, healthy discussion. Thanks!

What is there to say? I thought it was universally agreed that throwing around Citizen Kane comparisons was disingenuous. I know you're only talking of the background in which it came to be, but anyone will tell you there is a lot more to Kane than that. There are very few comparisons within the field of film itself to Citizen Kane, let alone other mediums.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

People need to really stop with this Saur dickriding.

Posting a video of a really talented player is not a counter argument to every issue people have with the game. Least of all the controls.

Disagree.

If the game had a fundamentally problematic scheme, you wouldn't be able to pull off what he does as often as he does.

And it's not just him.

The controls are about as good as they could be with the unique system but rarely I will draw something and it will show the color of my desired weapon and it won't register but for the most part, it just takes practice.

I'm glad they didn't go with button presses, this game reminds me somewhat of fighting games and if it was just button presses for each weapon, it wouldn't feel as cool.

 

[Warm Machine]

I never feel like I'm playing a Platinum game properly. I always feel as though I'm missing a lot of the game, but the game does a piss poor job teaching me what I *should* be doing. However you can finish a Platinum game knowing what you know, and because of that, maybe you have been playing it right the whole time?

 

[mantidor]

Unless you're talking about something quantifiable like framerate or resolution, there is not much to be objective about. This search for "objectivity" is just coded language for "I want them to like what I like."

Objectivity is impossible, I agree, I'm talking about judging a game on its own, not compared to "what I like", something as simple as having a story score already means games aren't judged "objectively" (for lack of a better word).

 

[NotLiquid]

People need to really stop with this Saur dickriding.

Posting a video of a really talented player is not a counter argument to every issue people have with the game. Least of all the controls.

I'd say it's a good counter argument to controls. There's nothing objectively wrong with having to learn on your own, or at least to adapt to it's functions. I mean, I'm embarrassed to admit this myself, but part of the reason I can't get into games like Dark Souls is because the controls just feel too clunky to me, and everyone else seems to think they're alright.

But as for generally posting the videos, I'm not so sure it's necessarily a "counter argument" as much as it is proving that it's a game that rewards being creative and learning things on your own. It wants you to find your own style, and his videos are a good example over how deep the game gets.

 

[dark10x]

I never feel like I'm playing a Platinum game properly. I always feel as though I'm missing a lot of the game, but the game does a piss poor job teaching me what I *should* be doing. However you can finish a Platinum game knowing what you know, and because of that, maybe you have been playing it right the whole time?

I do find W101 to be much more difficult to come to grips with than some of their previous games. Vanquish and Bayo were actually not all that difficult to understand, rather, required work to master. Rising was a bit more challenging on that front, I thought, but W101 takes the cake. I had to literally WORK to find enjoyment in the game.

I'm having fun now, but man, the road to reach this point was met with frustration. If I hadn't been trying to force myself to enjoy it I would have given up before I reached that point.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

I really feel that TW101 is one of those games you have to be really invested in to love, and that investment kinda blinds you to its flaws.


No matter how good the game is, it wasnt communicated well. That is its problem and that why id imagine many wont put it on the same level as Vanquish and Bayo. Its the same problem Rising had.

 

[Nymphae]

Good points. Stopped reading and caring about reviews a long long time ago, games journalism is a sad fucking joke anymore.

 

[aeolist]

reminds me a lot of the kid icarus reception

i did end up loving that one

 

[dropbear]

I mean if he was right, it'd translate into amazing sales.

Impressive leap in logic.

 

[Akainu]

I am shocked they even review games honestly. That's not where their traffic comes from so what's the point? They had a caption for the Gravity Rush 2 trailer that said ", but really who cares?" Well if no one presumably cares especially at Giant Bomb then why cover it?

Are you sure they weren't saying who cares if it's was called rush 2?

 

[Kai Dracon]

One problem present in seemingly most of the negative press reviews of TW101 is that the reviewers didn't seem aware there was a better way to play the game or there was a skill to be learned. There are legitimate criticisms to level against the game, such as not explaining some things well or in the best order of operation.

The negativity was more along the lines of the Jim Sterling Kid Icarus review: WTF this game is broken and unplayable, etc

This is what most people are taking exception to. It made some press outlets look clueless.

I do think the Street Fighter analogy someone made was likely right. If SF2 had appeared out of the blue today without established expectations of learning certain skills in order to play the press reaction might be like "I tried to throw the "fire ball" ten times and only saw it happen once. This game's entire control scheme is broken and unplayable."

 

[WrenchNinja]

The negativity was more along the lines of the Jim Sterling Kid Icarus review: WTF this game is broken and unplayable, etc

This is what most people are taking exception to. It made some press outlets look clueless.

How are they clueless there?

Kid Icarus was pretty broken and barely playable for some people. Maybe it wasn't to you, but just because you like the controls it doesnt mean it worked for everyone, and as a reviewer, he judged the game from his own experience. And before you bring up "Oh Sakurai shipped it with all kinds of custom controls so people cant complain", well no, ABXY aiming isn't good, some people were getting cramps trying to play with the touch screen, some lefties required the frankenstick and some how he neglected to add dual stick controls. When your games ships with a stand of all things because of these issues, it does bring to question why the controls need to be like this.

And No, no amount of "oh you need the precision of the stylus" handwringing explains why all of the other control schemes are bad and why it was allowed to ship like this. Because the controls are bad, they included the stand, which also forces Nintendo not to add the game to the e-shop because they made it look like it was necessary for the game.

 

[JoeFenix]

The feeling of discovery in this game is so satisfying, the pieces of the gameplay puzzle falling neatly into place when you make a new breakthrough. It's almost an NES era type of mentality, you WILL get frustrated but then you start experimenting and exploring the possibilities and the game just constantly rewards you for it. I've had so many "holy shit" gameplay mechanics revelations, you can only get this type of satisfying feeling from a game that doesn't tell you how to do things. I don't know if there's a middle ground here honestly. This game just trusts you to stick with it and figure it out. It's not going to be for everyone but it definitely would have gone down easier 10 years ago. Times have changed, people have forgotten that these experiences can be extremely fun in their own way.

Certain things could have been communicated better from a strict visual standpoint, some of the platforming segments are really frustrating until you break them down and practice them a bunch. The game also constantly throws new scenarios at you so it's hard to get keep up at first, it's very overwhelming, everything happens so fast. Not one scenario so far though has been "cheap" in the sense that you can't master it. There's always a correct way to get through even the toughest sections without taking any damage. It's pure trial and error video gaming, like I said before, it feels very NES era in that sense.

They did make a concession to new players in the form of the continue system. Sure it penalizes you in terms of your overall ranking at the end of a level but you can just retry as many times as you want. You will never run out of lives or get a game over screen. Absolutely anyone can finish this game but I wonder how many people never truly end up having fun because the game doesn't really force them to learn. They can just brute force their way through and never get those moments where they figure out a strategy that works and it clicks for them. Someone just plowing through might get to the end of the game and be left feeling confused, frustrated and unsatisfied, having never experienced the joy of breaking down the encounters and feeling in control. But if they give players a limited amount of continues then they might just outright quit, it's a tough problem to solve for the developers.

In the end though as someone who is incredibly passionate about this kind of game it does frustrate me to see something with this level of quality not get the recognition it deserves but that's just the way things are at this point. I'm just glad this kind of game even exists honestly, this is a big production with ALOT of content, something that indie studios could never pull off. It has a really unique blend of insane spectacle with very little in terms of gameplay compromises, you'll see and play through things here that you will never experience anywhere else, in any medium. I hope there's a way these games can keep being made in the future, PlatinumGames is literally the only studio left that does this kind of stuff well. Bayonetta 2 looks incredible but I'm a bit worried about what comes next for them, at this point though I've decided I'll follow them anywhere. This is the kind of game that reminds me why I love videogames so damn much and why I got into them in the first place. This is one of the first games my nephew will be exposed to, gotta pass on the torch to the next generation of cool kids!

 

[Messofanego]

There are some games that find the perfect balance of being system-heavy and experiential.

Look at Papers, Please.

Its mechanics don't have much corollaries except for pointing and clicking so it could be compared to adventure games. It's quite hard to master, but there's a branching narrative with 20 endings based on your actions so whatever your skill level you'll get something out of it. From videos, it could look boring as shit without any commentary of what is happening. But the aesthetic and the unique appeal of an immigration officer simulator set in a Cold War era fictional Soviet country did wonders for word of mouth. The political implications, chance for empathy of a thankless job, and moral choices done right give for much pondering.

And yet that game was celebrated by Giant Bomb.

There are system-heavy games that can give an experience worth writing about, so those kind of games might be the best of both worlds. I believe in a middle ground. How many reviews are there of Dwarf Fortress? And yet how many inspired roguelike-likes have gotten recognition? There is a case for how important aesthetics can be. That's my slightly ad hominem 2 cents.

 

[JoeFenix]

There are some games that find the perfect balance of being system-heavy and experiential.

Look at Papers, Please.


Its mechanics don't have much corollaries except for pointing and clicking so it could be compared to adventure games. It's quite hard to master, but there's a branching narrative with 20 endings based on your actions so whatever your skill level you'll get something out of it. From videos, it could look boring as shit without any commentary of what is happening. But the aesthetic and the unique appeal of an immigration officer simulator set in a Cold War era fictional Soviet country did wonders for word of mouth. The political implications, chance for empathy of a thankless job, and moral choices done right give for much pondering.

And yet that game was celebrated by Giant Bomb.


There are system-heavy games that can give an experience worth writing about, so those kind of games might be the best of both worlds. I believe in a middle ground. How many reviews are there of Dwarf Fortress? And yet how many inspired roguelike-likes have gotten recognition? There is a case for how important aesthetics can be. That's my slightly ad hominem 2 cents.

I haven't played Papers, Please. but it's clearly a slower paced and less immediately demanding affair. You can't compare that to the problems that a high octane action game has to deal with in terms of communicating its gameplay to players.

 

[weevles]

I dunno, first off, 78 is not a bad score at all. To me, it implies a game that is good overall, but may have a few issues here and there that prevent it from being a more popular game. Maybe the game is more obtuse than it needs to be, maybe there are some elements of the game design or gameplay mechanics that prevent it from appealing to a wide audience. Maybe it really requires more of an investment in the user than many will be willing to take at first to truly enjoy. Is this sounding like W101?

I don't necessarily think the game reviews are right or wrong about this kind of game, just as I don't believe not having a high score makes this game any less fun to whoever is going to play it. And you can't say that having a 78 score is going to hurt this game or hurt Wii U system sales. We all know what the status of Wii U is, and we all know there is enough of a dearth in Wii U software that people are still going to buy this game just because, regardless of reviews.

 

[SeventhSon]

I do think the Street Fighter analogy someone made was likely right. If SF2 had appeared out of the blue today without established expectations of learning certain skills in order to play the press reaction might be like "I tried to throw the "fire ball" ten times and only saw it happen once. This game's entire control scheme is broken and unplayable."

"The opponent AI is cheap and unbalanced, it kept throwing me while I was blocking."

"The game got off to a very poor start, with the celebration of a graphic hate crime."

 

[Messofanego]

I haven't played Papers, Please. but it's clearly a slower paced and less immediately demanding affair. You can't compare that to the problems that a high octane action game has to deal with in terms of communicating its gameplay to players.

Actually, each day you're on a timer from 12 to 6pm. However much people you process, you get 5 credits, and this tallies at the end of the day. This is very short when you consider that you need to check upwards of 10 items of information for each citizen/immigrant. With all that information, you need to quickly accept or refuse a person. That feeds into what you're going to allocate money for with your family: pay the rent, maintain heating, food, or medicine. You need enough money to pay rent, and more if you want to keep your family alive.

It can be quite the twitch-based affair, even if it's not an action game.

 

[Raysoul]

So basically people are hating the controls in W101 because they can't execute complex combos like a pro?

The controls are as easy as drawing a line and smashing through the enemies. You are not required to change morphs in-between combos to finish this game.

Also, don't push yourselves playing this on normal. If you think your skill level cannot handle it, there are easy and very fucking easy modes.

 

[JoeFenix]

Actually, each day you're on a timer from 12 to 6pm. However much people you process, you get 5 credits, and this tallies at the end of the day. This is very short when you consider that you need to check upwards of 10 items of information for each citizen/immigrant. With all that information, you need to quickly accept or refuse a person. That feeds into what you're going to allocate money for with your family: pay the rent, maintain heating, food, or medicine. You need enough money to pay rent, and more if you want to keep your family alive.

It can be quite the twitch-based affair, even if it's not an action game.

That's interesting, I don't know much about it. But on a mechanical level it seems a whole lot more approachable, I mean it's point and click like you've said.

Drawing shapes with a right analog stick while in the middle of combat isn't exactly something that most people are used to doing.

 

[Retro_]

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.

I don't disagree.

but I just find the finger pointing mentality here on gaf to be really naive. Especially in Platinum threads there seems to be a group of people who like blaming everyone but the game or Platinum, even when people at Platinum acknowledge their share of the blame and accept it in certain situations.(like the Bayonetta PS3 port)

It is when that talented person is showing you an easier way of learning the controls that some are having issues with because of time/skill/laziness etc...

And I only posted it because he specifically called out the control issues he was having with the demo.
I'm not saying he has to like the controls and I'm not saying the controls in themselves are perfect.

They are what you put into them.


You act like I posted a W101 combo video or something.

I just think it's lame how people are so belligerent and antagonistic towards people who criticize anything about these games. I felt the same way about all the "you weren't playing it right" in the Vanquish threads. That's not a counter argument or good discussion.

What makes it worse here to me is that in response to opinions they don't agree with they don't even use their own words. The use the merits and prestige of someone else's work and findings in place of their own arguments. THE CONTROLS ARE NOT BAD LOOK AT SAUR QUIT SPREADING FALSITIES PLEBIAN

Not trying to single you out, but I'm just sick of seeing it in every thread. I mean you'd think with all the different people saying the same thing these people would stop and think about it for themselves and why people are having these problems. but nah it's either to just tell people to pull themselves up by their boot straps to play a video game and post youtube tutorials.

Disagree.

If the game had a fundamentally problematic scheme, you wouldn't be able to pull off what he does as often as he does.

Wrong. This is absolutely not true.

And it's not just him.

Apparently this works as proof that there isn't an issue, but not as proof that there is one.

The controls are about as good as they could be with the unique system but rarely I will draw something and it will show the color of my desired weapon and it won't register but for the most part, it just takes practice.

It happens pretty frequently for me. Alot of times with sword even. I'll draw it and it'll be blue but when I try and buffer a jump it'll go grey and I'll drop a combo.

and I'm someone able to get at least Platinum rank on any stage effortlessly on normal.

So I can understand the frustration of people who are even less consistent than I am.

I'm glad they didn't go with button presses, this game reminds me somewhat of fighting games and if it was just button presses for each weapon, it wouldn't feel as cool.

Same here!

Unlike fighitng games though you aren't doing motions designed to be efficient. You're doing symbols designed to be easy and intuitive to remember, and fun to draw.

I don't think the system was designed for players to be struggling as much as they are. I think Kamiya and PG wanted the system to be easy to use casually, but have alot of depth. They didn't want it to be some huge barrier of entry.

and realizing that is why I think the criticism of the controls is valid. The design philosophy of PG seems to be to design games that feel good to play instantly. I think that's something they strive for in every title they make. So if so many people are saying the system doesn't feel good to them, they probably want to listen.

I'd say it's a good counter argument to controls. There's nothing objectively wrong with having to learn on your own, or at least to adapt to it's functions. I mean, I'm embarrassed to admit this myself, but part of the reason I can't get into games like Dark Souls is because the controls just feel too clunky to me, and everyone else seems to think they're alright.

Right but I'm not sure that was the intent behind the design of the system. I figured half the reason they went with drawing shapes and added gamepad functionality to assist that is because they wanted it to be as easy as possible for all ranges of players.

So the fact that it hasn't worked out like that is possibly a failure in design on PGs part.

I mean I'm glad I'm the kind of player who can work passed that and enjoy the game, because once you do is really fun, but I don't think PG intended it to be as hard as it is to pick up and I don't think it's right to dismiss any negative criticism of that aspect as irrelevant.

I really feel that TW101 is one of those games you have to be really invested in to love, and that investment kinda blinds you to its flaws.

No matter how good the game is, it wasnt communicated well. That is its problem and that why id imagine many wont put it on the same level as Vanquish and Bayo. Its the same problem Rising had.

It doesn't matter to me, because I'm the kind of player who can work passed that. So I have no problem putting 101 on the same level as Bayo from my perspective.

but that doesn't stop me from acknowledging the flaws of the game and how they impact the experience of someone else who has a completely different gaming background than I do.

I don't understand why so many people on here feel the need to fight that instead of just understanding and accepting it. Not everyone can be Saur(including probably most of them) so I don't understand why his personal experience is being used to invalidate all others. I mean what kind of moron judges games based on potential enjoyment they may never have over their own personal experience?

 

[LuchaShaq]

The quote has a bullshit premise unless he expands it to

"poor fit for the majority of gamers."

A game has to be an all time great for me to basically EVER consider it replaying it, especially immediately.

Vanquish is a perfect example, I enjoyed by 4-5 hours in that game, but replay it for high scores? No chance in hell. The environments weren't that varied to begin with so replaying it would be boring as hell.

Pacman CE DX and geometry wars are the only games this entire generation that made me give the slightest fuck about scores.