I didn't finish though. I was not going to collectible hunt. Got to the start of the final dungeon...
Dark10x recently made a similar comment in another thread, so I'm guessing he would agree:
ReCore has an amazing base game and is quite compelling but some of the design decisions made to extend the length of the game ultimately kind of ruin it. Still an interesting title but they made some bad choices.
For example, the developers made a
design decision to require 45 cores (out of a total of 82) in order for the player to reach the very final area and finish the story, as well as a
design decision to require between 25 and 40 cores (out of a total of 82) for the player to progress within the various sections of the 'Eden Tower' story dungeon. But as Phloxy and SlasherJPC note:
In my review I talked about how [ReCore] feels and it works...
The gating [in ReCore] isn't too dissimilar from Mario 64 or Galaxy or any of these types of games. Seems weird to complain about that. It actually seems like the complaint people have if they are trying to rush through it... It's not like it's fetch quest or repetitive, the challenge dungeons are all pretty different.
Nothing gets worse gameplay wise... Think of it like this, the first half is the story and exposition, the second half is literally exploring, adventuring, and finding cores, the game. This is what your doing the whole game but now there is no more story exposition in this half. People kept telling me they loved it then hated it later. Never happened here. Having as much fun finding new dungeons or exploring as earlier if not more now that I can reach most places...
Now I've discussed elsewhere (
one /
two /
three) why
the widespread perceptions of ReCore's endgame do not quite ring true for me, personally (though I certainly would have loved it if there were more story content in the 2nd half of the game).
But for those who really liked the gameplay in ReCore, and yet were later frustrated by the endgame, I'm wondering: were there actually specific
design choices in ReCore that made the 'gating' much worse than similar games in the genre, like Mario 64 or Galaxy? Were there actually specific
design changes that you think the developers could have made, to mitigate your frustrations?
Or would you agree that it was to some extent the lack of
story exposition in the 2nd half of the game – a feeling that the gameplay was less meaningful, without the ongoing supplement of story exposition – that was responsible for your endgame frustration?
I'm actually quite curious about this, so I would welcome any feedback/insight. One recent post that strikes me as interesting to consider in this context, from another thread:
[Prince of Persia 2008] was a bit weird with the "saving" mechanism. But I also thought that was interesting how people said it made the game "too easy". I wish I could find it, but it was a study at the time between Prince of Persia and Mirror's Edge on perceived difficulty.
Prince of Persia - you miss your jump, you fall, it triggers a canned cutscene that lasts a few seconds of Elika reaching out and saving you, and then placing you at the last platform before you attempted the series of jumps.
Mirror's Edge - you miss your jump, you fall, you die, it spends a few seconds loading your last checkpoint, placing you at the last platform before you attempted the jump.
Structurally, they were identical and even the time penalty was almost the same. But because one had a clear "failure" state, and the other just kept going and kept you in the action, one was perceived at times as being rather hard and at times frustrating, while the other was heavily criticized for being too easy, despite the fact the superficial penalties were nearly identical.
It was an interesting look at how we perceive difficulty in games, and how execution can alter the same penalty as either a positive or negative thing for players.